[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 119 (Thursday, June 20, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 28776-28784]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-12948]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R08-OAR-2019-0180; FRL-9995-10-Region 8]
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality State Implementation
Plans; Utah; Interstate Transport Requirements for Nitrogen Dioxide,
Sulfur Dioxide, and Fine Particulate Matter
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve State Implementation Plan (SIP) submissions from the State of
Utah regarding certain interstate transport requirements of the Clean
Air Act (CAA or ``Act''). These submissions respond to the EPA's
promulgation of the 2010 nitrogen dioxide (NO2) national
ambient air quality standards (NAAQS), the 2010 sulfur dioxide
(SO2) NAAQS, and the 2012 fine particulate matter
(PM2.5) NAAQS. The submissions address the requirement that
each SIP contain adequate provisions prohibiting air emissions that
will significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with
maintenance of these NAAQS in any other state.
DATES: Written comments must be received on or before July 22, 2019.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R08-
OAR-2019-0180, to the Federal Rulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from
www.regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any comment received to its
public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you
consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure 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 http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air and Radiation
Division, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop
Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129. The EPA requests that if at all
possible, you contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to view the hard copy of the docket. You
may view the hard copy of the docket Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m.
to 4:00 p.m., excluding federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Adam Clark, Air Quality Planning
Branch, EPA, Region 8, Mailcode 8ARD-QP, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver,
Colorado 80202-1129, (303) 312-7104, [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document wherever ``we,''
``us'' or ``our'' is used, we mean the EPA.
Table of Contents
I. Background
A. Interstate Transport
B. Utah's Submissions
II. Interstate Transport Evaluation
A. Evaluation for the 2010 1-Hour NO2 NAAQS
1. EPA's General Approach to Evaluating the 2010 NO2
NAAQS
2. State's Submission
3. EPA's Analysis
B. Evaluation for the 2010 1-Hour SO2 NAAQS
1. EPA's General Approach to Evaluating the 2010 SO2
NAAQS
2. State's Submission
3. EPA's Analysis
C. Evaluation for the 2012 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS
1. EPA's General Approach to Evaluating the 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS
2. State's Submission
3. EPA's Analysis
III. Proposed Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background
Section 110(a)(1) of the CAA requires states to submit SIPs meeting
the applicable requirements of section 110(a)(2) within 3 years after
promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS or within such shorter period as
the EPA may prescribe. Section 110(a)(2) requires states to address
[[Page 28777]]
structural SIP elements such as requirements for monitoring, basic
program requirements, and legal authority that are designed to provide
for implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of the NAAQS. The EPA
refers to the SIP submissions required by these provisions as
``infrastructure SIPs.'' Section 110(a) imposes the obligation upon
states to make an infrastructure SIP submission to the EPA for a new or
revised NAAQS, but the contents of individual state submissions may
vary depending upon the facts and circumstances. This proposed rule
pertains to the infrastructure SIP requirements for interstate
transport of air pollution.
A. Interstate Transport
Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) of the CAA requires SIPs to include
provisions prohibiting any source or other type of emissions activity
in one state from emitting any air pollutant in amounts that will
contribute significantly to nonattainment, or interfere with
maintenance, of the NAAQS, or interfere with measures required to
prevent significant deterioration of air quality or to protect
visibility in any other state. This proposed rule addresses the two
requirements under section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), which we refer to as
prong 1 (significant contribution to nonattainment of the NAAQS in any
other state) and prong 2 (interference with maintenance of the NAAQS in
any other state).\1\ The EPA often refers to SIP revisions addressing
the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) as ``interstate
transport SIPs.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The remaining interstate transport requirements of CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 2010 NO2, 2010
SO2 and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS for Utah have been
addressed in prior State submissions and EPA rulemakings. 81 FR
71991 (October 19, 2016); 81 FR 50626 (August 2, 2016).
Specifically, this includes the section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)
requirements relating to interference with measures required to be
included in the applicable implementation plan for any other state
under part C to prevent significant deterioration of air quality
(prong 3) or to protect visibility (prong 4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA evaluates each state's interstate transport SIP to see how
the state evaluates the transport of air pollution to other states for
a given air pollutant; what types of information the state used in its
analysis; how that analysis compares with prior EPA rulemakings,
modeling, monitoring, and guidance; and what conclusions were drawn by
the state. If the EPA concludes that the SIP contains adequate
provisions to prohibit sources from emitting air pollutants that
significantly contribute to nonattainment, or interfere with
maintenance, of a given NAAQS in any other state, we will approve the
state's submission with regard to prongs 1 and 2 of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).
Each of the following NAAQS revisions triggered the requirement for
states to submit infrastructure SIPs, including provisions to address
interstate transport prongs 1 and 2. On January 22, 2010, the EPA
promulgated a new 1-hour primary NAAQS for NO2 at a level of
100 parts per billion (ppb) while retaining the annual standard of 53
ppb.\2\ On June 2, 2010, the EPA promulgated a new primary 1-hour
SO2 standard of 75 ppb and retained the secondary 3-hour
standard of 0.5 parts per million (ppm).\3\ Finally, on December 14,
2012, the EPA revised the primary annual PM2.5 standard by
lowering the level to 12.0 micrograms per cubic meter ([mu]g/m\3\) and
retained the secondary annual PM2.5 standard of 15.0
[micro]g/m\3\ and the primary and secondary 24-hour PM2.5
standards of 35 [mu]g/m\3\.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ 75 FR 6474 (February 9, 2010).
\3\ 75 FR 35520 (June 22, 2010).
\4\ 78 FR 3086 (January 15, 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As discussed further in this notice, the EPA proposes to determine
that Utah's SIP contains adequate provisions to prohibit sources from
emitting air pollutants in amounts that significantly contribute to
nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2010 NO2,
2010 SO2 and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.
B. Utah's Submissions
The State of Utah submitted infrastructure SIPs for the 2010
NO2 NAAQS on January 31, 2013, and for the 2010
SO2 NAAQS on June 2, 2013. In both of these submissions, the
State addressed interstate transport prongs 1 and 2 by referencing the
EPA's November 19, 2012 Memorandum \5\ which outlined the EPA's
intention to abide by the August 21, 2012 decision of the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, holding that a SIP cannot be deemed
deficient for failing to meet the prong 1 and 2 requirements in Section
110(a)(2)(D)(i) before the EPA quantifies the state's obligation. EME
Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 696 F.3d 7 (D.C. Cir. 2012). Utah
stated that the EPA had not yet quantified Utah's interstate transport
obligation under the 2010 NO2 or 2010 SO2 NAAQS
and therefore Utah's infrastructure SIPs were adequate for section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See ``Next Steps for Pending Redesignation Requests and
State Implementation Plan Actions Affected by the Recent Court
Decision Vacating the 2011 Cross-State Air Pollution Rule,'' signed
by EPA Assistant Administrator Gina McCarthy November 19, 2012. This
memorandum is in the docket for this action.
\6\ These submissions are available in the docket for this
action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On April 29, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed and remanded the
D.C. Circuit's EME Homer City ruling and upheld the EPA's approach in
the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule. EPA v. EME Homer City Generation,
L.P., 572 U.S. 489 (2014). As a result of the Supreme Court reversal,
each state was again required to address the interstate transport
requirements of 110(a)(2)(D)(i) regardless of whether the EPA had
quantified the state's obligation. In accordance with the Supreme
Court's decision, on May 8, 2018 Utah submitted to the EPA 2010
NO2 and 2010 SO2 infrastructure SIPs, both of
which contained new analyses addressing interstate transport prongs 1
and 2 of Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the respective NAAQS. These
submissions supplement the State's prior 2013 interstate transport SIP
submissions for both NAAQS. Utah submitted an infrastructure SIP for
the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS, including an interstate transport SIP,
on December 22, 2015. The EPA will discuss these submissions in further
detail later in this proposed action.
II. Interstate Transport Evaluation
A. Evaluation for the 2010 1-Hour NO2 NAAQS
1. EPA's General Approach To Evaluating the 2010 NO2 NAAQS
Unlike certain other NAAQS like ozone and PM2.5, the EPA
has not developed a recommended approach for states to use when
addressing prongs 1 and 2 for the 2010 NO2 NAAQS. Following
promulgation of the 2010 NO2 NAAQS, the EPA designated all
areas of the United States as ``unclassifiable/attainment'' for this
NAAQS because monitors throughout the country had indicated no
violations of the NAAQS from 2008-2010.\7\ 77 FR 9532, February 17,
2012. Additionally, no violations occurred at any monitor in the
country in the most recent available design value period of 2015-
2017.\8\ For these reasons, 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) demonstrations for
states have been relatively straightforward because the EPA has not
identified areas in any state to which emissions from another state
would likely contribute significantly to nonattainment or interfere
with maintenance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ For comparison with the 2010 NO2 1-hour NAAQS, a
three-year design value is used. 40 CFR 50.11(f).
\8\ See https://www.epa.gov/air-trends/air-quality-design-values#report. As this report indicates, no regulatory monitor in
the U.S. recorded a design value above 78 ppb for the 2015-2017
design value period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 28778]]
2. State's Submission
Utah conducted a weight of evidence analysis to examine whether
NO2 emissions from Utah adversely affect attainment or
maintenance of the 2010 NO2 NAAQS in downwind states. In
this analysis, the State reviewed ambient monitoring data in Utah and
neighboring states, which all indicated that no monitor values in Utah
or neighboring states approach the level of the 2010 NO2
NAAQS. Based on this monitoring data, Utah concluded that the emissions
from the State will not contribute significantly to nonattainment or
interfere with maintenance of the 2010 NO2 NAAQS in any
other state, and therefore the SIP meets the requirements of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) prongs 1 and 2 for this NAAQS.
3. EPA's Analysis
In addition to the information provided in the SIP, the EPA notes
that the highest monitored valid NO2 design values in each
state bordering Utah are well below the NAAQS (see Table 1, below), as
are the maximum single year 98th percentile values from each
neighboring state between 2015-2017 (see Table 2, below). These facts
further support the State's assertion that significant contribution to
nonattainment or interference with maintenance of the NO2
NAAQS from Utah is very unlikely. With respect to prong 2 (interference
with maintenance), specifically, in addition to the lack of areas
violating the NO2 NAAQS, there are also no areas in
neighboring states approaching a violation of the 2010 NO2
NAAQS (i.e., 100 ppb) which might therefore be expected to have
difficulty maintaining the standard. With respect to both prongs, we
also note that there are no areas elsewhere in the United States
approaching a violation of the 2010 NO2 NAAQS.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Id.
Table 1--1-Hour NO2 Design Values in Utah and Neighboring States
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2015-2017 1-hr
State NO2 design
value (ppb)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Utah.................................................... 42
Arizona................................................. 60
Colorado................................................ 71
Nevada.................................................. 55
New Mexico.............................................. 45
Wyoming................................................. 40
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 2--Max 98th Percentile NO2 Concentration in Utah and Neighboring
States
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Highest single
year 98th
percentile
State Year value from
2015-2017
(ppb)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Utah......................................... 2016 61
Arizona...................................... 2017 67
Colorado..................................... 2016 75
Idaho........................................ 2017 50
Nevada....................................... 2017 61
New Mexico................................... 2016 46
Wyoming...................................... 2017 60
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on all of these factors, the EPA proposes to concur with the
State's conclusion in its January 31, 2013 and supplemental May 8, 2018
submissions that emissions from Utah will not contribute significantly
to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2010
NO2 NAAQS in other states. The EPA is therefore proposing to
approve Utah's January 31, 2013 and supplemental May 8, 2018
NO2 submissions.
B. Evaluation for the 2010 1-Hour SO2 NAAQS
1. EPA's General Approach To Evaluating the 2010 SO2 NAAQS
Although SO2 is emitted from a similar universe of point
and nonpoint sources as is directly emitted PM2.5 and the
precursors to ozone and PM2.5, interstate transport of
SO2 is unlike the transport of PM2.5 or ozone
because SO2 emissions sources usually do not have long range
SO2 impacts. The transport of SO2 relative to the
1-hour NAAQS is more analogous to the transport of Pb relative to the
Pb NAAQS in that emissions of SO2 typically result in 1-hour
pollutant impacts of possible concern only near the emissions source.
However, ambient 1-hour concentrations of SO2 do not
decrease as quickly with distance from the source as do 3-month average
concentrations of Pb, because SO2 gas is not removed by
deposition as rapidly as are Pb particles and because SO2
typically has a higher emissions release height than Pb. Moreover,
while emitted SO2 has wider ranging impacts than emitted Pb,
it does not have such wide-ranging impacts that treatment in a manner
similar to ozone or PM2.5 would be appropriate. The
approaches that the EPA has adopted for ozone or PM2.5
transport are too regionally focused and the approach for Pb transport
is too tightly circumscribed to the source. SO2 transport is
therefore a unique case and requires a different approach.
In SO2 transport analyses, we focus 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--as that scale has been an
appropriate range both for monitoring SO2 concentrations and
for modeling SO2 impacts from such sources.\10\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ 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 82 FR 21351, 21352, 21354 (May 8,
2017) (proposed approval of Connecticut's SO2 transport
SIP); 82 FR 37013 (Aug. 8, 2017) (final approval).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. State's Submission
Utah conducted a weight of evidence analysis to examine whether
SO2 emissions from Utah contribute significantly to
nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2010 SO2
NAAQS in downwind states. Utah's analysis first reviewed monitoring
data in neighboring states to determine whether there were cross-state
areas to which Utah could potentially contribute significantly to
nonattainment. Utah concluded that the only monitors in neighboring
states near or above the NAAQS were violating monitors located in the
Miami, Arizona and Hayden, Arizona SO2 nonattainment
areas.\11\ Utah then analyzed the SO2 source within the
State with the closest proximity to the Arizona nonattainment areas.
The State determined the distance (531 km) between this source (Cci
Paradox Midstream, Llc: Lisbon Natural Gas Processing Plant) and the
nearest nonattainment area (Miami, Arizona) showed that Utah will not
contribute significantly to nonattainment in Arizona. For its analysis
of interference with maintenance, Utah reviewed the sources with over
100 ton per year (tpy) SO2 emissions in the State within 50
km of a state border, the distance from the nearest cross-state
SO2 monitors to Utah sources, and its proximity to the
nearest former 2010 SO2 nonattainment area in Billings,
Montana. Utah also pointed to the significant decrease in
SO2 emissions from sources in the State over time, and its
current low levels of monitored SO2, as further evidence
that Utah will not significantly contribute to
[[Page 28779]]
nonattainment of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS in any other state.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ https://www3.epa.gov/airquality/greenbook/tbtc.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. EPA's Analysis
Prong 1: Significant Contribution to Nonattainment
The EPA proposes to approve Utah's June 2, 2013 and supplemental
May 8, 2018 submittals with respect to the interstate transport
requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), prong 1 for the 2010
SO2 NAAQS, as discussed below. We have analyzed the air
quality, emission sources and emission trends in Utah and neighboring
states, i.e., Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, New Mexico, Nevada and Wyoming.
Based on that analysis, we propose to find that Utah will not
significantly contribute to nonattainment of the 2010 SO2
NAAQS in any other state.
We first reviewed 2015-2017 1-hour SO2 design value
concentrations for Utah and neighboring states.\12\ In Table 3, below,
we have included monitoring data from four scenarios: (1) All of the
monitor data from Utah; \13\ (2) the monitor with the highest
SO2 level in each neighboring state; (3) the monitor in each
neighboring state located closest to the Utah border; and (4) all
monitors in each neighboring state within 50 km of the Utah border.\14\
For monitors without a valid 2015-2017 design value, we have instead
elected to present the highest annual 99th percentile daily maximum 1-
hour SO2 concentration between 2015 and 2017. These values
are shown in the far-right column of Table 3, below. As the table
indicates, all of these concentrations are below the level of the 2010
SO2 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Data retrieved from EPA's https://www.epa.gov/air-trends/air-quality-design-values#report.
\13\ There are currently three SO2 monitors operating
in Utah. However, two of these (AQS Site IDs 490352005 and
490353010) began operation in 2018, and therefore do not have data
sufficient to assist the EPA in this technical analysis. We note
that the highest 1-hr SO2 concentration from either of
the monitors in 2018 was 7 ppb, or roughly 9% of the NAAQS.
\14\ There are no states within 50 km of the Utah border that
are not also neighboring states.
Table 3--SO2 Monitor Values in Utah and Neighboring States
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual 99th
percentile 1-
Approx. 2015-2017 hour daily
State/area Scenario Site ID distance to design value maximum SO2
Utah border (ppb) Concentration,
(km) 2015-2017 \15\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arizona/Phoenix................. 3 040139997 388 6
Arizona/Hayden.................. 2 040071001 443 295
Colorado/Denver................. 3 080310026 346 15
Colorado/Colorado Springs....... 2 080410015 366 40
Idaho/Pocatello................. 2 160050004 102 38
Idaho/Soda Springs.............. 3 160290031 76 30
Nevada/Las Vegas................ 2, 3 320030540 134 6
New Mexico/Farmington........... 2, 3 350451005 57 NA * 16 (2017)
Utah/Salt Lake City............. 1 490353006 76 NA * 13 (2016)
Wyoming/Rock Springs............ 3 560370300 105 21
Wyoming/Riverton................ 2 560130003 315 NA * 65 (2017)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The DV for this site is invalid due to incomplete data and/or quality assurance issues for this period and is
not for use in comparison to the NAAQS.
The EPA reviewed these data to see whether there were any
regulatory monitoring sites, particularly near the Utah border, with
elevated SO2 concentrations that might warrant further
investigation with respect to interstate transport of SO2
from emission sources near any given monitor. As shown, at the monitors
with valid design values, there are no violating design values in Utah
or neighboring states apart from Arizona, and the nearest monitor with
the violating design value in Arizona is 443 km from the Utah border.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ These values are only presented for monitors without a
valid 2015-2017 design value.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The data presented in Table 3, above, show that Utah's network of
SO2 monitors, while limited, indicates that monitored 1-hour
SO2 levels in Utah were 9% of the 75 ppb level of the NAAQS.
As shown, there are no Utah monitors located within 50 km of a
neighboring state's border, nor are there any monitors in neighboring
states located within 50 km of the Utah border. Thus, these air quality
data do not, by themselves, indicate any particular location that would
warrant further investigation with respect to SO2 emission
sources that might significantly contribute to nonattainment in the
neighboring states. However, because the monitoring network is not
necessarily designed to find all locations of high SO2
concentrations, we have also conducted a source-oriented analysis.
As noted, the EPA finds that it is appropriate to examine the
impacts of emissions from stationary sources in Utah in distances
ranging from 0 km to 50 km from the facility. Utah assessed point
sources up to 50 km from state borders to evaluate SO2
transport. The list of sources emitting 100 tpy \16\ or more of
SO2 in 2017 within 50 km from Utah state borders is shown in
Table 4 below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Utah limited its analysis to Utah sources of SO2
emitting at least 100 tpy. We agree with Utah's choice to limit its
analysis in this way, because in the absence of special factors, for
example the presence of a nearby larger source or unusual physical
factors, Utah sources emitting less than 100 tpy can appropriately
be presumed to not be adversely impacting SO2
concentrations in downwind states.
[[Page 28780]]
Table 4--Utah SO2 Sources Near Neighboring States \17\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Neighboring
2017 SO2 Distance to Approx. distance to state source
Utah source emissions Utah border nearest neighboring 2017 SO2
(tons) * (km) state SO2 source (km) emissions
(tons)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CCI Paradox Midstream LLC: Lisbon 499 (2016) 20 68 (Nucla Generating 153
Natural Gas Processing Plant--San Station--Montrose
Juan County, Utah. County, Colorado).
Holcim Inc.: Devils Slide Plant-- 196 41 109 (Naughton Power 4,047
Morgan County, Utah. Plant--Lincoln County,
Wyoming).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Emissions data throughout this document were obtained using EPA's Emissions Inventory System (EIS) Gateway.
Table 4 also shows the distance from Utah sources located near a
neighboring state to the nearest out-of-state SO2 source
emitting above 100 tpy of SO2, because elevated levels of
SO2, to which SO2 emitted in Utah may have a
downwind impact, are most likely to be found near such sources. As
shown, both Utah sources within 50 km of a neighboring state are beyond
50 km from the nearest major out-of-state source, with the shortest
distance between such cross-state SO2 sources at 68 km.\18\
Given the localized range of potential 1-hour SO2 impacts
and the distance between sources, Table 4 suggests that emissions from
these Utah sources are unlikely to contribute significantly to
nonattainment of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS in neighboring states.
Additionally, the largest neighboring-state source in Table 4, Naughton
Power Plant, was modeled and showed attainment with the 2010
SO2 NAAQS.\19\ Based on this modeling, the EPA designated
Lincoln County, Wyoming as attainment/unclassifiable for this NAAQS.
See 83 FR 1170, January 9, 2018. This provides additional support for
our proposed conclusion that emissions from the Utah sources in Table 4
do not significantly contribute to nonattainment of the 2010
SO2 NAAQS in neighboring states.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ The EPA did not include information about sources located
on tribal lands within the outer boundary of the state of Utah, as
the State is not the regulatory authority for these sources.
\18\ The EPA notes that the Nucla Generating Station is required
by the Colorado regional haze SIP to shut down before December 31,
2022. See 83 FR 31332 (July 5, 2018).
\19\ See ``Chapter 45: Intended Round 3 Area Designations for
the 2010 1-Hour SO2 Primary National Ambient Air Quality
Standard for Wyoming,'' in the docket for this action and in the
docket for the EPA's Round 3 2010 SO2 Designations at
EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0003-0608.
\20\ While designations may provide useful information for
purposes of analyzing transport, particularly for a more source-
specific pollutant such as SO2, EPA notes that
designations themselves are not dispositive of whether or not upwind
emissions are impacting areas in downwind states. EPA has
consistently taken the position that as to impacts, CAA section
110(a)(2)(D) refers only to prevention of `nonattainment' in other
states, not to prevention of nonattainment in designated
nonattainment areas or 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
(Aug. 8, 2011); Final Response to Petition from New Jersey Regarding
SO2 Emissions From the Portland Generating Station, 76 FR
69052 (Nov. 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA also reviewed the location of sources in neighboring states
emitting more than 100 tpy of SO2 and located within 50 km
of the Utah border (see Table 5) that were not already addressed in
Table 4. As shown in Table 5, there is only one such source, and the
shortest distance between it and any Utah source that emits 100 tpy or
more of SO2 is 233 km. The distance shown in Table 5
indicates that there are no locations in neighboring states that would
warrant further investigation with respect to Utah SO2
emission sources that might contribute significantly to nonattainment
of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. The Hayden and Miami, Arizona 2010
SO2 nonattainment areas, which Utah reviewed as part of its
analysis, are over 380 km from the nearest Utah border and so were not
included in Table 5. Utah asserted that the significant distance
between its border and these nonattainment areas indicates that it is
highly unlikely that SO2 emissions generated in Utah are
contributing significantly to either nonattainment area in Arizona, and
the EPA proposes to agree with this conclusion.
Table 5--Neighboring State SO2 Sources Near Utah *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Utah source
2016 SO2 Distance to Approx. distance to 2016
Source emissions Utah border nearest Utah SO2 source emissions
(tons) (km) (km) (tons)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Navajo Generating Station--Navajo 3,585 11 233 (Lisbon Natural Gas 499
Nation. Processing Plant).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* We have not included sources that are duplicative of those in Table 3.
In conclusion, for interstate transport prong 1, we reviewed
ambient SO2 monitoring data and SO2 emission
sources both within Utah and in neighboring states. Based on this
analysis, we propose to determine that emissions from Utah will not
significantly contribute to nonattainment of the 2010 SO2
NAAQS in any other state and therefore propose to approve the June 2,
2013 and supplemental May 8, 2018 SO2 submissions with
respect to this requirement.
Prong 2: Interference With Maintenance
The EPA also proposes to approve the June 2, 2013 and supplemental
May 8, 2018 submissions with respect to the prong 2 requirement. In its
prong 2 analysis, Utah reviewed ambient SO2 monitoring data,
emissions trends within Utah, and potential SO2 impacts on
the Billings, Montana area, which is currently in ``maintenance''
status for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS, noting the large distance
between the nearest Utah border and the Billings area (457 km).
However, in previous actions the EPA has analyzed prong 2 by evaluating
the
[[Page 28781]]
potential impact of a state's emissions on areas that are currently
measuring data below the NAAQS, but that may have issues maintaining
that air quality, rather than only former nonattainment areas which are
in maintenance status.\21\ Therefore, we focused our review on
SO2 monitoring data and emission trends to evaluate the
State's conclusion that Utah will not interfere with maintenance of the
2010 SO2 NAAQS in downwind states. This evaluation builds on
the analysis regarding significant contribution to nonattainment (prong
1). Specifically, the low monitored ambient concentrations of
SO2 in Utah and neighboring states shown in Table 3, and the
large distances between cross-state SO2 sources shown in
Tables 4 and 5, do not indicate any potential inability to maintain the
SO2 NAAQS that could be attributed in part to sources in
Utah.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ The maintenance plan requirements for areas redesignated
from nonattainment to attainment for a NAAQS can be found in CAA
section 175A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 6, below, shows emission trends for Utah and neighboring
states.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ This emissions trends information was derived from the
EPA's web page https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-inventories/air-pollutant-emissions-trends-data.
Table 6--SO2 Emission Trends
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SO2 reduction,
2000-2016
State 2000 2005 2010 2016 (percent)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arizona......................... 118,528 90,577 73,075 38,089 68
Colorado........................ 115,122 80,468 60,459 20,626 82
Idaho........................... 34,525 35,451 14,774 10,051 70
Nevada.......................... 58,849 68,790 17,043 8,028 86
New Mexico...................... 164,631 47,671 23,651 15,529 90
Utah............................ 58,040 52,998 29,776 15,226 73
Wyoming......................... 141,439 122,453 91,022 57,313 59
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As shown in Table 6, the statewide SO2 emissions from
Utah and neighboring states have decreased substantially over time, per
our review of the EPA's emissions trends data. This trend of decreasing
SO2 emissions does not by itself demonstrate that areas in
Utah and neighboring states will maintain the 2010 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 and large distances between
SO2 emissions sources) that maintenance issues are unlikely.
The geographic scope and large relative size of these reductions
strongly suggest that they are not transient effects from reversible
causes, and thus there is low likelihood that a strong upward trend in
emissions will occur that might cause areas presently in attainment to
violate the NAAQS in the future.
In conclusion, for interstate transport prong 2, we reviewed
additional information about emission trends, as well as the technical
information considered for interstate transport prong 1. We propose to
find that the combination of low ambient concentrations of
SO2 in Utah and neighboring states, the large distances
between cross-state SO2 sources, and the downward trend in
SO2 emissions from Utah and neighboring states, show no
interference with maintenance of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS from
Utah. Accordingly, we propose to approve Utah's June 2, 2013 and
supplemental May 8, 2018 SO2 submissions with respect to the
prong 2 requirement.
C. Evaluation for the 2012 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS
1. EPA's General Approach To Evaluating the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS
The EPA has developed a consistent framework for addressing
interstate transport with respect to the PM2.5 NAAQS. This
framework includes the following four steps: (1) Identify downwind
areas that are expected to have problems attaining or maintaining the
NAAQS; (2) Identify which upwind states contribute to these air quality
problems in amounts sufficient to warrant further review and analysis;
(3) Identify any emissions reductions necessary to prevent an
identified upwind state from significantly contributing to downwind
nonattainment or interfering with downwind maintenance of the NAAQS;
and (4) Adopt permanent and enforceable measures needed to achieve
those emissions reductions.
To help states identify the receptors expected to have problems
attaining or maintaining the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS, the
EPA released a memorandum titled, ``Information on the Interstate
Transport `Good Neighbor' Provision for the 2012 Fine Particulate
Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards under Clean Air Act
Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)'' on March 17, 2016 (hereon ``2016
Memo'').\23\ The 2016 Memo provides projected future year annual
PM2.5 design values for monitors throughout the country
based on quality-assured and certified ambient monitoring data and
recent air quality modeling and explains the methodology used to
develop these projected design values. The 2016 Memo also provides
recommendations on how states can use the projected values to determine
which monitors should be further evaluated as potential receptors under
step 1 of the interstate transport framework described above, so that
states can determine whether their emissions significantly contribute
to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2012 annual
PM2.5 NAAQS at these monitoring sites.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ This memorandum is available in the docket for this action
and at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-08/documents/good-neighbor-memo_implementation.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To develop the projected values presented in the 2016 Memo, the EPA
used the results of nationwide photochemical air quality modeling that
it recently performed to support two ozone NAAQS-related rulemakings.
We performed base year modeling for 2011 and future year modeling for
2017 to support the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) Update for
the 2008 Ozone NAAQS. See 81 FR 74504 (October 26, 2016). We also
performed future year modeling for 2025 to support the Regulatory
Impact Assessment of the final 2015 Ozone NAAQS.\24\ The outputs from
these model runs included hourly concentrations of PM2.5
that the EPA used in conjunction with measured data to project annual
average PM2.5 design values for 2017 and 2025.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ See 2015 ozone NAAQS RIA at: http://www3.epa.gov/ozonepollution/pdfs/20151001ria.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 28782]]
Areas that were designated as Moderate PM2.5
nonattainment areas for the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS in 2014
must attain the NAAQS by December 31, 2021, or as expeditiously as
practicable. Since modeling results are only available for 2017 and
2025, the 2016 Memo explains that one way to assess potential receptors
for 2021 \25\ is to assume that receptors projected to have average
and/or maximum design values above the NAAQS in both 2017 and 2025 are
also likely to be either nonattainment or maintenance receptors in
2021. Similarly, the EPA stated that it may be reasonable to assume
that receptors that are projected to attain the NAAQS in both 2017 and
2025 are also likely to be attainment receptors in 2021. Where a
potential receptor is projected to be nonattainment or maintenance in
2017, but projected to be attainment in 2025, further analysis of the
emissions and modeling may be needed to make a further judgement
regarding the receptor status in 2021.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ Assessing downwind PM2.5 air quality problems
based on estimates of air quality concentrations in a future year
aligned with the relevant attainment deadline is consistent with the
instructions from the United States Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit) in North Carolina v.
EPA, 531 F.3d 896, 911-12 (D.C. Cir. 2008), that upwind emission
reductions should be harmonized, to the extent possible, with the
attainment deadlines for downwind areas.
\26\ The EPA notes that the modeling used to inform the 2016
Memo did not project any potential nonattainment or maintenance
receptors in 2025 that were not also projected as potential
nonattainment or maintenance receptors in 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on this approach, the EPA identified nineteen potential
nonattainment and/or maintenance receptors.\27\ Seventeen of these are
located in California. One of the potential maintenance-only receptors
is located in Shoshone County, Idaho, and the other potential
maintenance-only receptor is located in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ As the EPA explained in the proposed action, titled ``Air
Plan Approval; AL, FL, GA, KY, MS, NC, SC, TN; Interstate Transport
for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS,'' 83 FR 39387 (Aug. 9, 2018),
the 2016 Memo noted that because of data quality problems,
nonattainment and maintenance projections were not conducted for
monitors in all or portions of Florida, Illinois, Idaho (outside of
Shoshone County), Tennessee and Kentucky. The EPA noted, however,
that data quality problems have subsequently been resolved for all
of the aforementioned areas. These areas have current design values
below the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS and are expected to continue
to maintain the NAAQS (See EPA Region 4 Annual PM2.5
Trends Analysis TSD, in the docket for this action) due to downward
emission trends for nitrogen oxides (NOx) and SO2 and
therefore were not considered potential receptors for the purpose of
interstate transport for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. The EPA
finalized approved of the action on September 25, 2018 (83 FR
48387).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
After identifying potential receptors, the next step is to identify
whether upwind states contribute to air pollution at each of the
identified receptors in other states. In the 2016 Memo, the EPA did not
calculate the portion of any downwind state's predicted
PM2.5 concentrations that would result from emissions from
individual states. Accordingly, the EPA will evaluate Utah's prong 1
and 2 submissions using a weight of evidence analysis. This analysis is
based on a review of the State's submission and other available
information, including air quality trends; topographical, geographical,
and meteorological information; local emissions in downwind states and
emissions from the upwind state; and contribution modeling from prior
interstate transport analyses. While none of these factors is by itself
dispositive, together they may be used in weight of evidence analyses
to determine whether the emissions from Utah will significantly
contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2012
annual PM2.5 NAAQS at the 19 potential nonattainment and/or
maintenance receptors identified in the 2016 Memo.
2. State's Submission
Utah conducted a weight of evidence analysis to examine whether
PM2.5 emissions from Utah adversely affect attainment or
maintenance of the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS in downwind states. The
State's analysis primarily focused on potential contribution to the
West Silver Valley, Idaho 2012 PM2.5 nonattainment area,\28\
which is also the location of the Shoshone County, Idaho potential
maintenance-only receptor identified in the 2016 Memo and the only area
in a state bordering Utah that contained a nonattainment or maintenance
receptor. Utah considered the distance from the State to West Silver
Valley, as well as meteorological information and PM2.5
speciation data, and on this basis concluded that the State will not
contribute significantly to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance
of the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS in Idaho or any other state.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ https://www3.epa.gov/airquality/greenbook/kbca.html#PM-2.5.2012.West_Silver_Valley.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA notes that, because Utah's analysis focused on designated
nonattainment areas, it does not independently address whether the SIP
contains adequate provisions prohibiting emissions that will interfere
with maintenance of the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS in any other state.
In remanding the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) to the EPA in North
Carolina v. EPA, the D.C. Circuit explained that the regulating
authority must give the ``interfere with maintenance'' clause of
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) ``independent significance'' by evaluating
the impact of upwind state emissions on downwind areas that, while
currently in attainment, are at risk of future nonattainment,
considering historic variability.\29\ While Utah's submittal pre-dates
the 2016 Memo, which provided the states with information about
potential maintenance-only receptors, Utah was still required to
evaluate the potential impact of its emissions on areas that are
currently measuring data below the NAAQS, but that may have issues
maintaining that air quality, and the State did not do so. The EPA also
notes that while Utah elected to address areas in neighboring states
designated as nonattainment for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS, the
State did not also address such areas in non-neighboring states, such
as California, and should have done so because directly emitted
PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors can have long-ranging
impacts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ 531 F.3d 896, 910-11 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (holding that the EPA
must give ``independent significance'' to each prong of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
When, as here, the EPA determines that a state's SIP has not
addressed all of the statutory requirements or provided a technical
analysis to justify its conclusion regarding the state's impact on
downwind air quality problems, the EPA identifies those deficiencies in
acting upon the state's SIP submission. However, if the EPA has
supplemental analysis available that nonetheless supported a state's
conclusion despite these deficiencies in the state's SIP submission,
the EPA can nonetheless propose to approve the state's SIP submission.
See 82 FR 9142, 9149 (Feb. 3, 2017).
3. EPA's Analysis
The EPA reviewed the information in Utah's submittal, as well as
the 2016 Memo and additional information for our evaluation, and we
propose to come to the same conclusion as the State, including (based
on our supplemental information) Utah's conclusion that emissions from
the State will not interfere with maintenance in downwind states. The
EPA therefore proposes to approve the December 22, 2015 submission with
respect to both the prong 1 and 2 requirements for the 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS. In our evaluation, we identified potential
downwind nonattainment and maintenance receptors using the modeling
results presented in the 2016 Memo. We then
[[Page 28783]]
evaluated these receptors to determine whether Utah emissions could
significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance
at them. Below, we provide an overview of our analysis. A more detailed
evaluation of how the SIP revision meets the requirements of CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) may be found in our 2012 PM2.5
technical support document (TSD) in the docket for this action.
Our prong 1 analysis focused on the 17 California receptors, which
include the only nonattainment receptors modeled in the 2016 Memo. As
shown in Table 1 of the 2016 Memo, 12 of the 17 California receptors
are projected as nonattainment in both 2017 and 2025, while the
remaining 5 receptors are projected as maintenance in either 2017 or
2025. Because all of the 17 California receptors are located in either
the San Joaquin Valley or South Coast 2012 PM2.5
nonattainment area, we have elected to analyze all of the California
receptors together rather than separate the California nonattainment
and maintenance receptor analyses. Our analysis of these receptors
showed that elevated PM2.5 levels in California are driven
primarily by local emissions.\30\ Additionally, Utah's southwestern
border is more than 290 miles to the east and downwind of the
California receptors, with intervening mountainous topography which
tends to impede interstate pollution transport. Finally, as shown in
Table 7, below, monitoring data from Interagency Monitoring of
Protected Visual Environment (IMPROVE) monitors tend to show that the
air in remote areas between Utah and the California nonattainment and
maintenance receptors is well below the level of the 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS.\31\ All of these factors indicate that
emissions from Utah are not likely to reach California in amounts that
could impact the air quality at the California nonattainment and
maintenance receptors. Thus, the EPA is proposing to find that Utah
emissions will not significantly contribute to nonattainment or
interfere with maintenance of the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS at any
California projected receptor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ See ``California: Imperial County, Los Angeles-South Coast
Air Basin, Plumas County, San Joaquin Valley Area Designations for
the 2012 Primary Annual PM2.5 National Ambient Air
Quality Standard Technical Support Document'' in the docket for this
action.
\31\ The IMPROVE program includes a long-term monitoring program
to establish the current visibility conditions, track changes in
visibility and determine causal mechanism for the visibility
impairment in the National Parks and Wilderness Areas (http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/improve/). These monitors are not required
to meet the same standards as regulatory monitors used by the EPA
and states to determine compliance with the NAAQS.
Table 7--PM2.5 Average Annual Concentrations at Remote IMPROVE Monitors
\32\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2015-2017
PM2.5 average
annual
Site No. State concentrations
([micro]g/
m\3\)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
040159000.................... Arizona.................. 2.75
060270002.................... California............... 3.63
060199000.................... California............... 4.06
060519000.................... California............... 2.82
060719002.................... California............... 3.63
160230101.................... Idaho.................... 3.23
160370002.................... Idaho.................... 3.99
320079000.................... Nevada................... 2.98
320330101.................... Nevada................... 2.25
490530130.................... Utah..................... 2.74
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the EPA's prong 2 analysis, we reviewed potential impacts from
Utah emissions at the two projected maintenance-only receptors outside
of California identified in the 2016 Memo. With regard to the Shoshone
County, Idaho receptor, our analysis showed that elevated
PM2.5 levels in the area are driven primarily by local
emissions from wood burning in the wintertime, specifically when the
West Silver Valley experiences the combination of cold surface
temperatures, low wind speeds, and constrained vertical mixing.\33\ The
deep, narrow mountain valley magnifies this effect relative to other
nearby areas. The combination of these meteorological effects and the
mountainous terrain confine the geographical area that could contribute
emissions to elevated wintertime PM2.5 concentrations at the
Shoshone County receptor.\34\ Utah's prong 1 analysis noted that
speciation data in the Utah 2006 PM2.5 nonattainment areas
\35\ indicate that ammonium nitrate drives high PM2.5 levels
in north-central Utah, which contrasts with carbon-driven speciation
data at the Shoshone County receptor during the winter and indicates
emissions originating in Utah are not contributing to elevated
PM2.5 at the Shoshone County receptor. Additionally, Utah's
nearest border is approximately 400 miles to the southeast and
generally downwind of this receptor. Finally, the IMPROVE monitoring
data in Table 7 tend to show that the air in remote areas in Idaho
between Utah and the Shoshone County receptor is well below the level
of the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. This provides further indication
that elevated PM2.5 at the Shoshone County receptor is
primarily driven by local emissions. All of these factors indicate that
emissions from Utah will not interfere with maintenance of the 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS at the projected Shoshone County maintenance
receptor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ Id.
\33\ See ``Idaho: West Silver Valley Nonattainment Area--2012
Primary Annual PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality
Standard Technical Support Document'' in the docket for this action.
\34\ Id.at 39.
\35\ https://www3.epa.gov/airquality/greenbook/rbtc.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With regard to the Allegheny County, Pennsylvania potential
maintenance receptor, our analysis included review of previous modeling
data conducted for the EPA's 2011 CSAPR, which addressed the 1997 and
2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.\36\ For the 2011 CSAPR, the EPA modeled
contribution from states in the eastern U.S. to air quality monitors
also located in the eastern
[[Page 28784]]
U.S.\37\ Therefore, the 2011 CSAPR modeling did not project downwind
contribution of emissions from Utah, but projected contributions from
states east of Utah, including Kansas and Nebraska. The CSAPR modeling
indicated that Kansas and Nebraska, states located much closer to the
Allegheny County receptor and with higher PM2.5 precursor
emissions than Utah,\38\ were modeled to be below 1% (the contribution
level at which eastern states were considered ``linked'' to downwind
receptors in the CSAPR and CSAPR Update rulemakings) of the 1997 annual
and 2006 24-hr PM2.5 NAAQS at the Allegheny County receptor.
These factors, in addition to the very large distance (1,525 miles)
from the Allegheny County receptor to the Utah border, indicate that
emissions from Utah will not interfere with maintenance of the 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS at the projected Allegheny County receptor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ See Table V.D-1 in the EPA's CSAPR (August 8, 2011), at 76
FR 48240.
\37\ In these rules, ``Eastern'' states refer to all contiguous
states east of the Rocky Mountains, specifically not including:
Montana, Wyoming, Colorado and New Mexico.
\38\ See Tables 7-1 and 7-2 in ``Emissions Inventory Final Rule
Technical Support Document (TSD)'' for CSAPR, June 28, 2011,
Document number EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-4522 in www.regulations.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on these analyses, the EPA is proposing to determine that
Utah emissions will not contribute significantly to nonattainment or
interfere with maintenance of the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS in any
other state, and we therefore propose to approve the December 22, 2015
submittal.
III. Proposed Action
Based on our review of Utah's January 31, 2013, June 2, 2013,
December 22, 2015 and May 8, 2018 infrastructure submissions, and our
analysis of additional relevant information, we propose to determine
that emissions from Utah will not significantly contribute to
nonattainment, or interfere with maintenance, of the 2010
NO2, 2010 SO2, and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS in
any other state. Accordingly, we propose to approve the January 31,
2013, June 2, 2013, December 22, 2015 and May 8, 2018 Utah SIP
submissions as satisfying the requirements of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for these NAAQS. The EPA is soliciting public
comments on this proposed action and will consider public comments
received during the comment period.
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866;
Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
Does not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; 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).
In addition, the SIP is not 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, Ozone,
Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur
dioxide, Volatile organic compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: June 10, 2019.
Debra Thomas,
Acting Regional Administrator, EPA Region 8.
[FR Doc. 2019-12948 Filed 6-19-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P