[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 162 (Wednesday, August 21, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 43648-43650]
[FR Doc No: 2019-18031]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket No. FRA-2019-0004-N-12]

Proposed Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment
Request

AGENCY: Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of information collection; request for comment.

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

SUMMARY: Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) and its
implementing regulations, this notice announces that FRA is forwarding
the Information Collection Requests (ICRs) abstracted below to the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comment. The ICRs
describe the information collections and their expected burden. On June
14, 2019, FRA published a notice providing a 60-day period for public
comment on the ICRs.

DATES: Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before
September 20, 2019.

ADDRESSES: Submit written comments on the ICRs to the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget,
725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20503, Attention: FRA Desk Officer.
Comments may also be sent via email to OMB at the following address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Robert Brogan, Information
Collection Clearance Officer, Office of Railroad Safety, Regulatory
Analysis Division, Federal Railroad Administration, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE, Room W33-497, Washington, DC 20590 (telephone: (202) 493-
6292); or Ms. Kim Toone, Information Collection Clearance Officer,
Office of Information Technology, Federal Railroad Administration, 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W34-212, Washington, DC 20590 (telephone:
(202) 493-6132).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520, and its
implementing regulations, 5 CFR part 1320, require Federal agencies to
issue two notices seeking public comment on information collection
activities before OMB may approve paperwork packages. See 44 U.S.C.
3506, 3507; 5 CFR 1320.8 through 1320.12. On June 14, 2019, FRA
published a 60-day notice in the Federal Register soliciting comment on
the ICRs for which it is now seeking OMB approval. See 84 FR 27833. FRA
received and reviewed the comments submitted in response to this
notice.
    On August 7, 2019, Ms. Sarah Yurasko, of the Association of
American Railroads (AAR) sent a comment on behalf of its member
railroads regarding FRA's Crossing Inventory renewal information
collection (Part 234; OMB No. 2130-0017). Ms. Yurasko noted that AAR
and its member railroads ``have worked diligently with FRA since the
2015 publication of the Highway-Rail Crossing Inventory Final Rule to
ensure that the information reported via the U.S. Crossing Inventory
forms is accurate.'' She noted that ``both railroads and State entities
access the site to report information under their respective purviews,
and unfortunately, there have been several instances in which a state
has over-written railroad-provided information in one of the railroad
fields.'' She observed that such errors lead to confusion,
administrative burden to remediate, and ``potential FRA enforcement
activity.'' AAR and its member railroads are urging FRA to amend its
system to lock-off designated sections of the U.S. DOT Crossing
Inventory Form to the railroad, and other designated sections to the
state entity. Ms. Yurasko advocated that there are several sections of
the Inventory Form which both the railroad and the state entity should
be able to modify and that, in these instances, ``the form should allow
all parties to see who made the most recent update to the information
in the form.'' Ms. Yurasko included a color-coded copy of the Inventory
Form (FRA F 6180.71) to illustrate the categorization of fields that
railroads and the state entity would each complete.
    The accuracy and reliability of the data that railroads and state
entities provide on the FRA Inventory Form is vital to FRA and to its
mission of promoting and enhancing national rail safety, particularly
at grade crossings. Before FRA issued the Crossing Inventory final rule
in 2015, FRA solicited comment and feedback on sections of the
Inventory Form that the railroads and state entities would complete.
Accordingly, in its March 29, 2013, comments on the proposed Crossing
Inventory rule, AAR recommended FRA limit access to certain specified
data fields to either the railroad or state entity to prevent
submission of erroneous information by the other entity. The Crossing
Inventory system is designed to allow users to view previously
submitted Inventory Forms, which can then be used to determine when
revised Inventory Forms were submitted and whether the railroad or
state entity submitted them. However, FRA will consider Ms. Yurasko's
recommendations on behalf of the AAR and its member railroads to lock
certain sections of the Inventory Form to prevent over-writing by
another entity.
    Before OMB decides whether to approve these proposed collections of
information, it must provide 30 days for public comment. Federal law
requires OMB to approve or disapprove paperwork packages between 30 and
60 days after the 30-day notice is published. 44 U.S.C. 3507(b)-(c); 5
CFR 1320.12(d); see also 60 FR 44978, 44983, Aug. 29, 1995. OMB
believes the 30-day notice informs the regulated community to file
relevant comments and affords the agency adequate time to digest public
comments before it renders a decision. 60 FR 44983, Aug. 29, 1995.

Therefore, respondents should submit their respective comments to OMB
within 30 days of publication to best ensure having their full effect.
    Comments are invited on the following ICRs regarding: (1) Whether
the information collection activities are necessary for FRA to properly
execute its functions, including whether the information will have
practical utility; (2) the accuracy of FRA's estimates of the burden of
the information collection activities, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used to determine the estimates; (3) ways
for FRA to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information
being collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of information
collection activities on the public, including the use of automated
collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
    The summaries below describe the ICRs that FRA will submit for OMB
clearance as the PRA requires:
    Title: U.S. DOT Crossing Inventory.
    OMB Control Number: 2130-0017.
    Abstract: On January 6, 2015, FRA published in the Federal Register
a final rule that requires railroads that operate one or more trains
through highway-rail or pathway crossings to submit information to the
U.S. DOT National Highway-Rail Crossing Inventory about the crossings
through which they operate.\1\ See 80 FR 746. These amendments,
mandated by section 204 of the Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008,
require railroads to submit information about previously unreported and
new highway-rail and pathway crossings to the U.S. DOT National
Highway-Rail Crossing Inventory and to periodically update existing
crossing data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ This final rule was subsequently amended on June 10, 2016,
in response to a petition for reconsideration submitted by the
Association of American Railroads. See 81 FR 37521.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Type of Request: Extension with change (revised estimates) of a
current information collection.
    Affected Public: Businesses (railroads), States, and the District
of Columbia (DC).
    Form(s): FRA F 6180.71.
    Respondent Universe: 692 railroads, 50 States and DC.
    Frequency of Submission: On occasion/monthly.
    Reporting Burden: \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ After an internal agency review, FRA updated the PRA
estimates.
    \3\ Based on Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) data, FRA is using
an average hourly wage rate of $74 per hour for State employees to
determine the dollar equivalent cost of estimated burden hours.
Based on the 2017 American Association publication, Railroad Facts,
FRA is using an average hourly wage rate of $77 per hour for
professional/administrative to determine the same dollar equivalent
costs. All hourly wage rates included 75 percent overhead costs.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Total annual
                                                                                Average time per     Total annual     burden hour
          CFR section                  Respondent universe             Total annual responses             response         burden hours     dollar cost
                                                                                equivalent \3\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
234.403(a), (b), (c), (e)(3)--  51 States/DC & 692 railroads....  1,495 forms.....................  30 minutes..........             748         $55,352
 Submission of data to the
 U.S. DOT Highway-Rail
 Crossing Inventory:
 Completion of inventory form.
--Mass update lists of          51 States/DC & 692 railroads....  67 lists (1,081 records)........  30 minutes..........              34           2,516
 designated data submitted by
 railroads/states.
--Excel lists of submitted      51 States/DC & 692 railroads....  750 lists (110,238 records).....  15 minutes..........             188          13,912
 data.
--Changes/corrections to        51 States/DC & 692 railroads....  134,719 records.................  3 minutes...........           6,736         498,464
 Crossing Inventory data
 submitted via API computer
 program.
--Written requests by states/   51 States/DC & 692 railroads....  5 requests......................  15 minutes..........               1              74
 railroads for FRA Crossing
 Inventory Guide.
(d)--Reporting Crossing         51 States/DC & 692 railroads....  15 notices......................  30 minutes..........               8             592
 Inventory data by state
 agencies on behalf of
 railroads: Written notices to
 FRA.
(e)(1)--Consolidated reporting  692 railroads...................  250 notices.....................  30 minutes..........             125           9,625
 by parent corporation on
 behalf of its subsidiary
 railroads: Written notice to
 FRA.
(e)(2)--Immediate notification  692 railroads...................  75 notices......................  30 minutes..........              38           2,926
 to FRA by parent corporation
 of any changes in the list of
 subsidiary railroads for
 which it reports.
234.405(a)(1)--Initial          692 railroads...................  300 provided assigned inventory   5 minutes...........              25           1,925
 submission of previously                                          numbers.
 unreported highway-rail and
 pathway crossings through
 which they operate by primary
 operating railroads:
 Providing assigned crossing
 inventory number to each
 railroad that operates one or
 more trains through crossing.
--Primary operating railroad    692 railroads...................  200 assigned numbers............  5 minutes...........              17           1,309
 providing assigned inventory
 number to other (2) railroads
 operating through crossing.
(c)--Duty of all operating      692 railroads...................  200 assigned numbers............  20 minutes..........              67           5,159
 railroads: Notification to
 FRA of previously unreported
 crossing through which it
 operates.
(d)--Primary operating          692 railroads...................  70 written requests.............  2 minutes...........               2             154
 railroad copy to FRA of its
 written request to State
 agency for State-maintained
 crossing data.
--Copies of primary operating   692 railroads...................  75 written requests.............  2 minutes...........               3             231
 railroad written request to
 other operating railroads.
234.407(a)--Submission of       692 railroads...................  50 assigned inventory numbers...  5 minutes...........               4             308
 initial data to the Crossing
 Inventory for new Crossings:
 Primary operating railroad
 assignment of Inventory
 number to each new highway-
 rail or pathway crossing
 through which it operates.
--Providing assigned inventory  692 railroads...................  50 assigned inventory numbers...  5 minutes...........               4             308
 numbers for new highway-rail
 and pathway crossings through
 which they operate by primary
 operating railroads to each
 railroad that operates one or
 more trains through the
 crossing.

234.411(a)(ii)--Notification/   692 railroads...................  400 notices/reports.............  15 minutes..........             100           7,700
 report by railroad to primary
 operating railroad of sale of
 all or part of a highway-rail
 or pathway on or after June
 10, 2016.
234.413(a & b)--Recordkeeping-- 692 railroads...................  350 duplicate copies............  1 minute............               6             462
 RR Duplicate copy of each
 inventory form submitted in
 hard copy to the Crossing
 Inventory.
--Copy of electronic            692 railroads...................  134,719 copies..................  5 seconds...........             187          14,399
 confirmation received from
 FRA after electronic
 submission of crossing data
 to Crossing Inventory.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Total Estimated Annual Responses: 384,292.
    Total Estimated Annual Burden: 8,293 hours.
    Total Estimated Annual Burden Hour Dollar Cost Equivalent:
$615,416.
    Title: Special Notice for Repairs.
    OMB Control Number: 2130-0504.
    Abstract: Under 49 CFR part 216, FRA and State inspectors may issue
a Special Notice for Repairs to notify a railroad in writing of an
unsafe condition involving a locomotive, car, or track. The railroad
must notify FRA in writing when the equipment is returned to service or
the track is restored to a condition permitting operations at speeds
authorized for a higher class, specifying the repairs completed. FRA
and State inspectors use this information to remove from service
freight cars, passenger cars, and locomotives until they can be
restored to a serviceable condition. They also use this information to
reduce the maximum authorized speed on a section of track until repairs
can be made.
    Type of Request: Extension with change (revised estimates) of a
current information collection.
    Affected Public: Businesses (railroads).
    Form(s): FRA F 6180.8; FRA F 6180.8A.
    Respondent Universe: 741 railroads.
    Frequency of Submission: On occasion.
    Total Estimated Annual Responses: 57.
    Total Estimated Annual Burden: 16 hours.
    Total Estimated Annual Burden Hour Dollar Cost Equivalent: $1,232.
    Title: Bridge Safety Standards.
    OMB Control Number: 2130-0586.
    Abstract: The Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act (FAST
Act) (Pub. L. 114-94, Dec. 4, 2015), Section 11405, ``Bridge Inspection
Reports,'' provides a means for a State or a political subdivision of a
State to obtain a public version of a bridge inspection report
generated by a railroad for a bridge located within its respective
jurisdiction. While the FAST Act specifies that requests for such
reports are to be filed with the Secretary of Transportation, the
responsibility for fulfilling these requests is delegated to FRA. See
49 CFR 1.89.
    FRA's currently approved information collection accounts for the
burden that will be incurred by States and political subdivisions of
States requesting a public version of a bridge inspection report
generated by a railroad for a bridge located within their respective
jurisdiction. FRA developed a Form titled ``Bridge Inspection Report
Public Version Request Form'' to facilitate such requests by States and
their political subdivisions. FRA accounts for the burden that will be
incurred by railroads to provide the public version of a bridge
inspection report upon agency request to FRA.
    As background, FRA's final rule on bridge safety standards, 49 CFR
part 237, normalized and established federal requirements for railroad
bridges. See 75 FR 41281 (July 15, 2010). The final rule established
minimum requirements to assure the structural integrity of railroad
bridges and to protect the safe operation of trains over those bridges.
The information collected is used by FRA to ensure that railroads/track
owners meet Federal standards for bridge safety and comply with all the
requirements of this regulation. In particular, the collection of
information is used by FRA to confirm that railroads/track owners adopt
and implement bridge management programs to properly inspect, maintain,
modify, and repair all bridges that carry trains for which they are
responsible. Railroads/track owners must conduct annual inspections of
railroad bridges as well as special inspections, which must be carried
out if natural or accidental events cause conditions that warrant such
inspections. Further, railroads/track owners must incorporate
provisions for internal audit into their bridge management programs and
must conduct internal audits of bridge inspection reports. The internal
audit information is used by railroads/track owners to verify that the
inspection provisions of the bridge management program are being
followed and to continually evaluate the effectiveness of their bridge
management program and bridge inspection activities. FRA uses this
information to ensure that railroads/track owners implement safe and
effective bridge management and inspection programs.
    Type of Request: Extension with change (revised estimates) of a
current information collection.
    Affected Public: Businesses (railroads) and States, DC, and
political subdivisions).
    Form(s): FRA F 6180.167.
    Respondent Universe: 741 railroads/50 States and DC/200 political
subdivisions.
    Frequency of Submission: On occasion/monthly.
    Total Estimated Annual Responses: 16,037.
    Total Estimated Annual Burden: 4,857 hours.
    Total Estimated Annual Burden Hour Dollar Cost Equivalent:
$334,299.
    Under 44 U.S.C. 3507(a) and 5 CFR 1320.5(b) and 1320.8(b)(3)(vi),
FRA informs all interested parties that it may not conduct or sponsor,
and a respondent is not required to respond to, a collection of
information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

    Authority:  44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.

Brett A. Jortland,
Acting Chief Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2019-18031 Filed 8-20-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 38 (Monday, March 1, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11997-11998]
[FR Doc No: 2021-04255]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0707; FRL-10020-44-OAR]

Proposed Information Collection Request; Comment Request; Data
Reporting Requirements for State and Local Vehicle Emission Inspection
and Maintenance (I/M) Programs

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency is planning to submit an
information collection request (ICR), ``Data Reporting Requirements for
State and Local Vehicle Emission Inspection and Maintenance (I/M)
Programs'' (EPA ICR No.1613.07, OMB Control No. 2060-0252) to the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in
accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. Before doing so, EPA is
soliciting public comments on specific aspects of the proposed
information collection as described below. This is a proposed extension
of the ICR, which is currently approved through October 31, 2021. An
Agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to
respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently
valid OMB control number.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before April 30, 2021.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2008-0707, to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov/ (our preferred method). Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket ID
No. for this rulemaking. Comments received may be posted without change
to https://www.regulations.gov/, including any personal information
provided. Do not submit any information you consider to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Out of an abundance of caution for members of
the public and our staff, the EPA Docket Center and Reading Room was
closed to public visitors on March 31, 2020, to reduce the risk of
transmitting COVID-19. Our Docket Center staff will continue to provide
remote customer service via email, phone, and webform. We encourage the
public to submit comments via https://www.regulations.gov, as there is
a temporary suspension of mail delivery to EPA, and no hand deliveries
are currently accepted. For further information on EPA Docket Center
services and the current status, please visit us online at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joe Winkelmann, Office of
Transportation and Air Quality, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
2000 Traverwood, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105; telephone number: 734-214-
4255; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supporting documents which explain in detail
the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in the
public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
www.regulations.gov. The EPA is temporarily suspending its Docket
Center and Reading Room for public visitors to reduce the risk of

transmitting COVID-19. Our Docket Center staff will continue to provide
remote customer service via email, phone, and webform. For further
information and updates on EPA Docket Center services, please visit us
online at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act
(PRA), EPA is soliciting comments and information to enable it to: (i)
Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary
for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including
whether the information will have practical utility; (ii) evaluate the
accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed
collection of information, including the validity of the methodology
and assumptions used; (iii) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity
of the information to be collected; and (iv) minimize the burden of the
collection of information on those who are to respond, including
through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or
other technological collection techniques or other forms of information
technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. EPA
will consider the comments received and amend the ICR as appropriate.
The final ICR package will then be submitted to OMB for review and
approval. At that time, EPA will issue another Federal Register notice
to announce the submission of the ICR to OMB and the opportunity to
submit additional comments to OMB.
    Abstract: Clean Air Act section 182 and EPA's regulations (40 CFR
part 51, subpart S) establish the requirements for state and local
inspection and maintenance (I/M) programs that are included in state
implementation plans (SIPs). To provide general oversight and support
to these programs, EPA requires that state agencies with basic and
enhanced I/M programs collect two varieties of reports for submission
to the Agency:
     An annual report providing general program operating data
and summary statistics, addressing the program's current design and
coverage, a summary of testing data, enforcement program efforts,
quality assurance and quality control efforts, and other miscellaneous
information allowing for an assessment of the program's relative
effectiveness; and
     A biennial report on any changes to the program over the
two-year period and the impact of such changes, including any
deficiencies discovered and corrections made or planned.
    General program effectiveness is determined by the degree to which
a program misses, meets, or exceeds the emission reductions committed
to in the state's approved SIP, which, in turn, must meet or exceed the
minimum emission reductions expected from the relevant performance
standard, as promulgated under 40 CFR part 51, subpart S, in response
to requirements established in section 182 of the Clean Air Act. This
information is used by EPA to determine a program's progress toward
meeting requirements under 40 CFR part 51, subpart S, and to provide
background information in support of program evaluations. Additional
information regarding the current renewal of this ICR as well as
previous renewals can be found in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0707.
    The following statistics and responses apply to the ICR proposed
for renewal.
    Form Numbers: None.
    Respondents/affected entities: State I/M program managers.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR 51.366).
    Estimated number of respondents: 26 (total).
    Frequency of response: Annual and biennial.
    Total estimated burden: 2,236 hours (per year). Burden is defined
at 5 CFR 1320.03(b).
    Total estimated cost: $148,824 (per year), includes $0 annualized
capital or operation and maintenance costs.
    Changes in Estimates: There is a decrease of 172 hours in the total
estimated respondent burden compared with the ICR currently approved by
OMB due to a reduction in the number of respondents covered by the
collection.

    Dated: February 24, 2021.
Michael Moltzen,
Deputy Director, Transportation and Climate Division, Office of
Transportation and Air Quality.
[FR Doc. 2021-04255 Filed 2-26-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 21 (Thursday, January 31, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 6732]
[FR Doc No: 2013-02081]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Parts 173, 174, 181, and 187

[Docket No. USCG-2003-14963]
RIN 1625-AB45

Changes to Standard Numbering System, Vessel Identification
System, and Boating Accident Report Database

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Rule; information collection approval.

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

SUMMARY: On March 28, 2012, the Coast Guard amended its regulations
related to numbering undocumented vessels and reporting boating
accidents. The amendment affects three collections of information and
adds to the recordkeeping and reporting requirements of vessel owners
and agencies involved in issuing vessel registration and reporting
boating accidents. This notice announces that the Office of Management
and Budget approved changes to the collections of information with
control numbers 1625-0003, 1625-0070, and 1625-0108, which will now be
enforced.

DATES: The collection of information requirements under 33 CFR
173.57(c), 174.16(b), 174.17(c), and 174.19(c) will be enforced
beginning January 31, 2013.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions about this
document, contact Mr. Jeff Ludwig, Office of Auxiliary and Boating
Safety; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, or email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If
you have questions about viewing the docket (USCG-2003-14963), call Ms.
Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 202-366-
9826.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: With the exception of the revised collection
of information provisions, the Changes to Standard Numbering System,
Vessel Identification System, and Boating Accident Report Database rule
became effective on April 27, 2012. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), an agency may not conduct or sponsor a
collection of information until the collection is approved by the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Accordingly, the preamble to the
final rule stated that the Coast Guard would not enforce the collection
of information requirements in 33 CFR 173.57(c), 174.16(b), 174.17(c),
and 174.19(c) until the collection of information requests were
approved by OMB. The preamble also stated that the Coast Guard would
publish a notice in the Federal Register informing the public of OMB's
decision to approve, modify, or disapprove the collections.
    The Coast Guard submitted the information collection requests to
OMB for approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995. OMB approved the collections of information on December 2, 2012,
for 1625-0003, on December 16, 2012, for 1625-0108, and on December 27,
2012, for 1625-0070. The approvals for these collections of information
expire on December 31, 2015. Copies of the OMB notices of action are
available in our online docket (USCG-2003-14963) at http://www.regulations.gov.

    Dated: January 16, 2013.
Paul F. Thomas,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Director of Inspections & Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2013-02081 Filed 1-30-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 95 (Friday, May 15, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 29369-29377]
[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

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kristin Hall at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
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.

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

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

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

    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-

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

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,

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

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


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 18 (Tuesday, January 28, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Page 4977]
[FR Doc No: 2020-01445]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER20-851-000]

Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing
Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization: Bulb Energy
Incorporated

January 22, 2020.
    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
Bulb Energy Incorporated's application for market-based rate authority,
with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes
a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future
issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is February 11, 2020.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in
the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the
Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an
eSubscription link on the website that enables subscribers to receive
email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s).
For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-01445 Filed 1-27-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P