[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 176 (Wednesday, September 11, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 47893-47895]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-19540]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R08-OAR-2019-0180; FRL-9999-15--Region 8]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Utah;
Interstate Transport Requirements for Nitrogen Dioxide, Sulfur Dioxide,
and Fine Particulate Matter
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving five
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. The EPA is taking this
action pursuant to section 110 of the Clean Air Act (CAA).
DATES: This rule is effective on October 11, 2019.
ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID No. EPA-R08-OAR-2019-0180. All documents in the docket are
listed on the http://www.regulations.gov website. 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, is not placed on the
internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are available through http://www.regulations.gov, or please contact the person identified in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section for additional availability
information.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Adam Clark, Air and Radiation
Division, EPA, Region 8, Mailcode 8ARD-IO, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver,
Colorado, 80202-1129, (303) 312-7104, [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document ``we,'' ``us,'' and
``our'' means the EPA.
I. Background
The background for this action is discussed in detail in our June
20, 2019 proposed rulemaking (84 FR 28776). In that document we
proposed to approve the CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) portion of
Utah's January 31, 2013, June 2, 2013, December 22, 2015 and two May 8,
2018 infrastructure submissions based on our determination 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.
We received one anonymous comment letter on our proposal. Our
responses to this comment letter are provided below.
II. Response to Comments
Comment: The commenter stated that the EPA should review all
sources of SO2 in Utah located within 50 km of another
state's border, rather than focus our analysis on sources in this area
emitting greater than 100 tons per year (tpy) of SO2. The
commenter stated that ``the EPA does not appear to support the
[[Page 47894]]
100 tons per year cutoff and has no basis to support this arbitrary
cutoff.''
Response: The EPA disagrees with the commenter that we did not
provide support for our decision to focus our analysis on sources
emitting greater than 100 tpy of SO2. In the proposal, we
noted that Utah limited its analysis to sources emitting greater than
100 tpy of SO2, and stated that ``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.'' \1\ The EPA continues to find this
statement accurate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ n. 16, 84 FR 28779.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We also note that the commenter has not provided any additional
information regarding Utah sources emitting below 100 tpy, such as the
special factors identified in our proposal. While the EPA may at its
discretion develop additional information to assess transport issues,
the commenter's unsupported speculation does not require us to do so.
For these reasons, the EPA finds that our analysis of the Utah sources
in the proposal, considered alongside other weight of evidence factors
described in that document, support the EPA's conclusion that Utah has
satisfied CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS.
Comment: The commenter stated that a footnote under Table 5 (84 FR
28780, June 20, 2019) in the proposed rulemaking is confusing. The
commenter noted that the footnote states Table 5 does not include
sources that are duplicative of those in Table 3, and that this does
not make sense because Table 3 lists monitoring locations rather than
sources. The commenter asserts that the EPA ``needs to re-propose with
the correct information so the public can review and make educated
comments.''
Response: The EPA acknowledges that the footnote under Table 5 was
meant to indicate that this table did not include sources duplicative
of those in Table 4, and that the reference to Table 3 was a
typographical error. However, the EPA disagrees that this error might
reasonably create any confusion, let alone a level of confusion that
justifies re-proposal. In the paragraph preceding Table 5, the proposed
rulemaking states ``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.'' 84 FR 28780. This statement appears
after Table 4 and before Table 5 in the proposal, in a portion of the
document where the discussion focuses on sources of SO2
above 100 tpy within 50 km of the Utah border, all of which are covered
in either Table 4 or 5. Table 4 of the proposal is titled ``Utah
SO2 Sources Near Neighboring States,'' and Table 5, which
appears on the same page, is titled ``Neighboring State SO2
Sources Near Utah,'' indicating that any duplicative sources would be
duplicative amongst the two tables rather than amongst the sources in
Table 5 and the monitoring data presented in Table 3. For all these
reasons, the EPA disagrees with the commenter that the typographical
error in the footnote following Table 5 requires the Agency to re-
propose action or prevented those in the public from making educated
comments.
III. Final Action
As discussed in our June 20, 2019 proposed rulemaking (84 FR
28776), and after considering public comment, we have determined 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. We
are therefore approving the January 31, 2013, June 2, 2013, December
22, 2015, and two May 8, 2018 Utah SIP submissions as satisfying the
requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for these NAAQS. This
completes the EPA's obligations under CAA section 110(k)(2) to act on
the May 8, 2018 submissions. The EPA has already taken final action on
most of the other infrastructure elements addressed in the January 31,
2013, June 2, 2013, and December 22, 2015 submissions (81 FR 50626,
August 2, 2016).
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 approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, this action:
Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866;
Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, 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 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 EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. The EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
[[Page 47895]]
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by November 12, 2019. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides.
Dated: September 4, 2019.
Gregory Sopkin,
Regional Administrator, Region 8.
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart TT--Utah
0
2. Section 52.2354 is amended by adding paragraph (d) to reads as
follows:
Sec. 52.2354 Interstate transport.
* * * * *
(d) Addition to the Utah State Implementation Plan regarding the
2010 NO2, 2010 SO2, and 2012 PM2.5
Standards for Clean Air Act section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) prongs 1 and 2,
submitted to EPA on January 31, 2013, June 2, 2013, December 22, 2015,
and May 8, 2018.
[FR Doc. 2019-19540 Filed 9-10-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P