Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 71991 

Rule No. Rule title 

State 

effective 

date 

Final rule citation, date Comments 

R307–302–06 .... Prohibition ..................................... 1/1/2013 [Insert Federal Register citation], 

10/19/2016.

Conditionally approved through 

10/19/2017. 

*******

R307–312. Aggregate Processing Operations for PM2.5; Nonattainment Areas 

R307–312 .......... Aggregate Processing Operations 

for PM2.5 Nonattainment Areas.

2/4/2016 [Insert Federal Register citation], 

10/19/2016.

* * * * * * * 

R307–328. Ozone Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas and Utah and Weber Counties: Gasoline Transfer and Storage 

R307–328 .......... Ozone Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas and Utah and 

Weber Counties: Gasoline 

Transfer and Storage.

2/4/2016 [Insert Federal Register citation], 

10/19/2016.

* * * * * * * 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2016–25148 Filed 10–18–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R08–OAR–2016–0107; FRL–9954–13- 

Region 8] 

Approval and Disapproval and 

Promulgation of Air Quality 

Implementation Plans; Interstate 

Transport for Utah 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is taking final action on 

portions of six submissions from the 

State of Utah that are intended to 

demonstrate that the State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) meets certain 

interstate transport requirements of the 

Clean Air Act (Act or CAA). These 

submissions address the 2006 and 2012 

fine particulate matter (PM2.5) National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS), 2008 ozone NAAQS, 2008 

lead (Pb) NAAQS, 2010 sulfur dioxide 

(SO2) NAAQS and 2010 nitrogen 

dioxide (NO2) NAAQS. The interstate 

transport requirements under the CAA 

consist of four elements: Significant 

contribution to nonattainment (prong 1) 

and interference with maintenance 

(prong 2) of the NAAQS in other states; 

and interference with measures required 

to be included in the plan for other 

states to prevent significant 

deterioration of air quality (prong 3) or 

to protect visibility (prong 4). 

Specifically, the EPA is approving 

interstate transport prongs 1, 2 and 4 for 

the 2008 Pb NAAQS, approving prong 4 

for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS, disapproving 

prong 4 for the 2006 PM2.5, 2008 ozone, 

2010 NO2 and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS, and 

disapproving prong 2 for the 2008 ozone 

NAAQS. 

DATES: This final rule is effective on 

November 18, 2016. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket 

Identification Number EPA–R08–OAR– 

2016–0107. All documents in the docket 

are listed on the http://

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information 

may not be publicly available, e.g., 

Confidential Business Information 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 through http://

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Air Program, Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, 

1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 

80202–1129. The EPA requests that 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 Program, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 8, Mailcode 8P–AR, 1595 

Wynkoop, Denver, Colorado 80202– 

1129, (303) 312–7104, clark.adam@

epa.gov. 

I. Background 

On May 10, 2016, the EPA proposed 

action on two submittals from Utah for 

the interstate transport requirements of 

CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 

2008 Pb and 2008 ozone NAAQS. 81 FR 

28807. An explanation of the CAA 

requirements, a detailed analysis of the 

state’s submittals, and the EPA’s 

rationale for approval of a portion of the 

2008 Pb submittal and disapproval of a 

portion of the 2008 ozone submittal 

were all provided in the notice of 

proposed rulemaking, and will not be 

restated here. The public comment 

period for this proposed rule ended on 

June 9, 2016. The EPA received four 

comments on the proposal, which will 

be addressed in the ‘‘Response to 

Comments’’ section, below. 

In the May 10, 2016 proposed action, 

the EPA proposed to disapprove the 

Utah SIP for prongs 1 and 2 of CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2008 

ozone NAAQS. In that document, the 

EPA cited to air quality modeling 

conducted to support the promulgation 

of an update to the Cross-State Air 

Pollution Rule to address interstate 

transport with respect to the 2008 ozone 

NAAQS (CSAPR Update). The air 

quality modeling (1) identified locations 

in the U.S. where the EPA anticipates 

nonattainment or maintenance issues in 

2017 for the 2008 ozone NAAQS (these 

are identified as nonattainment and 

maintenance receptors), and (2) 

quantified the projected contributions 

from emissions from upwind states to 

downwind ozone concentrations at the 

nonattainment and maintenance 

receptors in 2017. The document also 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with RULES
71992 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

1A pre-publication version of the final CSAPR 

Update rulemaking can be found in the docket for 

this action, and is available at https://

www3.epa.gov/airmarkets/CSAPRU/CrossState%20Air%20Pollution

%20Rule%20Update%20for%20

the%202008%20Ozone%20NAAQS

%202060%20AS05%20FRM.pdf (Federal Register 

publication pending). 

2See National Ambient Air Quality Standards for 

Ozone, 79 FR 75234, 75382 (December 17, 2014) 

(proposed rule). 

3EPA’s draft Regulatory Impact Analysis of the 

Proposed Revisions to the National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards for Ozone p. 2–16. 

proposed to apply an air quality 

threshold of one percent of the NAAQS, 

equivalent to 0.75 ppb with respect to 

the 2008 ozone NAAQS, to determine 

whether a state was ‘‘linked’’ to an 

identified downwind air quality 

problem in another state such that the 

upwind state may significantly 

contribute to nonattainment or interfere 

with maintenance of the NAAQS in the 

downwind state. The proposal modeling 

data showed that emissions from Utah 

contribute above the one percent 

threshold to two identified maintenance 

receptors and one nonattainment 

receptor in the Denver, Colorado area. 

Accordingly, as the Utah Department of 

Environmental Quality (UDEQ) did not 

provide technical analysis to support 

the State’s conclusion that emissions 

originating in Utah do not significantly 

contribute to nonattainment or interfere 

with maintenance of the 2008 ozone 

NAAQS in any other state, the EPA 

proposed to disapprove the Utah SIP as 

to prongs 1 and 2 of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). 

On September 7, 2016, the EPA 

promulgated a final CSAPR Update, 

which included updated modeling data 

that reflected responses to comments 

received in the context of the CSAPR 

Update rulemaking.1 The updated 

modeling projects three maintenance 

receptors in the Denver, Colorado area, 

but it does not project any 

nonattainment receptors in that area. 

Table 1 summarizes the air quality 

modeling results from the updated 

modeling conducted to support the final 

CSAPR Update relative to Utah. The 

modeling continues to indicate that 

Utah contributes emissions above the 

one percent threshold of 0.75 ppb with 

respect to 3 maintenance receptors in 

the Denver, Colorado area, confirming 

the data cited at proposal. 

TABLE 1—MAINTENANCE RECEPTORS WITH UTAH CONTRIBUTION MODELED ABOVE 1% 

Monitor I.D. State County 

Utah modeled 

contribution 

(ppb) 

80590006 ................................................. Colorado .................................................. Jefferson .................................................. 1.03 

80590011 ................................................. Colorado .................................................. Jefferson .................................................. 1.17 

80350004 ................................................. Colorado .................................................. Douglas ................................................... 1.63 

Since the updated modeling 

continues to indicate that the 

contributions from Utah are above the 

one percent threshold of 0.75 ppb with 

respect to maintenance receptors in the 

Denver, Colorado area, and because the 

State has not otherwise provided a 

technical analysis which demonstrates 

that its SIP contains adequate provisions 

prohibiting emissions that will interfere 

with maintenance of the 2008 ozone 

NAAQS in any other state, the EPA is 

finalizing a disapproval of the Utah SIP 

with respect to the prong 2 requirements 

of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) as to 

the 2008 ozone NAAQS. 

Based on this new technical 

information showing that there are no 

longer any projected 2017 

nonattainment receptors in the Denver, 

Colorado area or any other state to 

which Utah contributes at or above the 

one percent threshold, the EPA is not 

finalizing the proposed disapproval 

with respect to prong 1 of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) as to the 2008 ozone 

NAAQS, as the proposed disapproval 

was based on in part on the EPA’s 

August 4, 2015 Notice of Data 

Availability (NODA) modeling of a 

projected nonattainment receptor in 

Denver, Colorado. 80 FR 46271. The 

EPA will address the prong 1 

requirements in a separate, subsequent 

rulemaking. 

On August 1, 2016, the EPA proposed 

action on six submittals from Utah for 

the visibility-related interstate transport 

requirements of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) prong 4. 81 FR 50430. 

An explanation of the CAA 

requirements, a detailed analysis of the 

state’s submittals, and the EPA’s 

rationale for approval of portions of the 

2008 Pb and 2010 SO2 submittals and 

disapproval of portions of the 2006 and 

2012 PM2.5, 2008 ozone and 2010 NO2

submittals were all provided in the 

notice of proposed rulemaking, and will 

not be restated here. The public 

comment period for this proposed rule 

ended on August 31, 2016. The EPA did 

not receive any comments on this 

proposed action. 

II. Response to Comments 

Comment: Commenters UDEQ and the 

Wyoming Department of Environmental 

Quality (WDEQ) asserted that the 

CSAPR Update rulemaking was 

developed and promulgated for eastern 

states, and should not apply to western 

states. UDEQ stated that the EPA 

acknowledged in the CSAPR Update 

proposal that it will address 

contribution levels of western states like 

Utah on a case-by-case basis. 80 FR 

75706, 75708 through 75709, December 

3, 2015. The commenters contend that 

the EPA should consider other factors 

beyond those considered in developing 

the CSAPR Update. 

UDEQ asserted that there are higher 

naturally occurring levels of background 

ozone in the west,2 specifically citing 

the EPA’s draft Regulatory Impact 

Analysis for the proposed 2015 ozone 

NAAQS rulemaking, contending that 

‘‘background ozone is a relatively large 

percentage (e.g. 70–80%) of the total 

seasonal mean ozone in locations in the 

intermountain western United States.’’ 3

The commenter contends that 

background ozone levels in Utah and 

Colorado must be taken into 

consideration when evaluating 

nonattainment areas within the state 

borders and the impact that they have 

on intermountain downwind states. 

Commenter WDEQ stated that the 

CSAPR modeling does not adequately 

account for important regional 

differences between the east and the 

west, including the unique topography, 

altitude, weather and wildfire 

prevalence (including intensity and 

duration) in the western U.S. The 

commenter asserted that the EPA did 

not provide a technical explanation for 

how the model accounts for the 

differences between the eastern and 

western U.S. with regard to these 

factors, and that such an analysis should 

be conducted before the CSAPR 

modeling is applied to evaluate 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 71993 

4 ‘‘The EPA used CAMx photochemical source 

apportionment modeling to quantify the impact of 

emissions in specific upwind states on downwind 

nonattainment and maintenance receptors for 8- 

hour ozone. CAMx employs enhanced source 

apportionment techniques that track the formation 

and transport of ozone from specific emissions 

sources and calculates the contribution of sources 

and precursors to ozone for individual receptor 

locations. The strength of the photochemical model 

source apportionment technique is that all modeled 

ozone at a given receptor location in the modeling 

domain is tracked back to specific sources of 

emissions and boundary conditions to fully 

characterize culpable sources.’’ 80 FR 75726, 

December 3, 2015. 

interstate transport with respect to 

western states. The commenter 

recommended that the EPA work with 

western states to ‘‘make regional 

adjustments and remove erroneous data 

from the CSAPR model.’’ 

Response: The commenter does not 

provide any evidence or technical basis 

for their claim about the inadequacies of 

the CSAPR Update modeling for the 

western U.S. As described in the CSAPR 

Update Air Quality Modeling Technical 

Support Document (AQM TSD), the 

CSAPR modeling was performed for a 

nationwide domain that accounted for 

the differences in emissions (including 

actual wild fires), meteorology, and 

topography in various regions across the 

U.S. The AQM TSD includes an 

evaluation of 2011 base year model 

performance for 8-hour daily maximum 

concentrations on a regional and 

statewide basis as well as for individual 

monitoring sites. For example, the 

performance evaluation results for the 

region that includes Utah and Colorado 

indicate a mean bias of less than 10 

percent for 8-hour daily maximum 

predicted ozone concentrations 

compared to the corresponding 

measured data. As described more fully 

in the AQM TSD, the EPA’s use of the 

CAMx source apportionment modeling 

for the CSAPR Update is appropriate 

and the Agency finds its use sufficient 

for the purposes of assessing and 

identifying downwind air quality 

problems and contributions from 

upwind states in both the eastern and 

the western U.S. 4 The emissions 

modeling TSD for the CSAPR Update 

final rule ‘‘Preparation of Emission 

Inventories for the version 6.3, 2011 

Emissions Modeling Platform’’ describes 

how fire emissions were developed and 

modeled using a consistent approach for 

the contiguous U.S. As described 

earlier, the most updated modeling 

continues to indicate that emissions 

from Utah will interfere with 

maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS 

at three receptors in the Denver, 

Colorado area. 

The EPA does not find the 

information provided by the 

commenters to indicate flaws in the 

modeling conducted by the EPA. Rather, 

the commenters point to factors which 

the CSAPR Update modeling 

specifically took into account. For these 

reasons, the EPA disagrees with these 

comments and finds the use of the 

CSAPR Update modeling to evaluate 

Utah’s contributions to interstate 

transport is reasonable and supported. 

The EPA did acknowledge in the 

proposed CSAPR Update that ‘‘there 

may be additional criteria to evaluate 

regarding collective contribution of 

transported air pollution in the West,’’ 

and that ‘‘timeframe constrains the 

opportunity to conduct evaluations of 

additional criteria’’ in the context of that 

rulemaking. 80 FR 75709, December 3, 

2015. The commenters do not explain 

how the EPA’s modeling has allegedly 

failed to consider the other factors that 

they contend should be taken into 

account. With respect to background 

concentrations, UDEQ has not explained 

how it believes the EPA must consider 

background ozone levels in evaluating 

interstate transport in the west, nor has 

UDEQ cited any specific provision of 

the statute that specifically requires 

such consideration. While the EPA does 

not view the obligation under the good 

neighbor provision as a requirement for 

upwind states to bear all of the burden 

for resolving downwind air quality 

problems, both upwind and downwind 

states can take reasonable steps to 

control emissions impacting downwind 

air quality even in areas affected by high 

levels of background concentrations of 

ozone. Were the EPA to absolve upwind 

states of the responsibility to make such 

reasonable reductions, the area’s 

citizens would suffer the health and 

environmental consequences of such 

inaction. 

Notably, in its comment letter, UDEQ 

agreed that a further technical analysis 

was necessary to demonstrate that the 

state had satisfied prongs 1 and 2 of 

CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), and the 

State is in the process of developing 

such an analysis. The EPA will review 

that additional analysis when it is 

submitted to the EPA in a subsequent 

SIP submission. 

Comment: Commenter Utility Air 

Regulatory Group (UARG) cites to EPA’s 

action to approve Arizona’s SIP in spite 

of the CSAPR Update modeling 

indicating that the state significantly 

contributed to nonattainment at two 

California receptors. The commenter 

contends that the EPA’s differing 

actions on the Utah and Arizona SIPs 

amount to developing policy about what 

transport criteria apply in western 

states. The commenter asserted that the 

EPA’s actions on these two SIPs 

establish regulatory policy in a 

piecemeal fashion through separate, 

case-by-case rulemakings, and that this 

practice leads to confusion and 

uncertainty among state officials, the 

public, and the regulated community. 

The commenter stated that the EPA 

should describe the western transport 

criteria in a comprehensive rulemaking 

which includes a rationale for selecting 

these criteria. The commenter asserted 

that the EPA’s failure to do so would 

deprived interested parties of an 

opportunity to provide meaningful and 

comprehensive comments on this issue. 

Response: As described in the 

proposal for this action and in the 

CSAPR Update, the EPA is assessing 

each of the western states transport 

obligations on a case-by-case basis using 

the information available, which 

includes information from the CSAPR 

Update modeling. The rulemaking 

addressing the Arizona SIP explains, as 

the commenter notes, why additional 

factors are relevant to evaluating 

Arizona’s contribution to other states, 

factors that are not similarly applicable 

to Utah’s contribution to the Denver 

receptors. Nothing in section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requires the EPA to 

establish criteria for evaluating 

individual SIPs through a national 

rulemaking. See EPA v. EME Homer City 

Generation, L.P., 134 S.Ct. 1584, 1601 

(2014) (‘‘nothing in the statute places 

EPA under an obligation to provide 

specific metrics to States before they 

undertake to fulfill their good neighbor 

obligation’’). As required by the CAA 

and Administrative Procedures Act, the 

EPA clearly described its bases for 

disapproving the Utah SIP in its 

proposal. Similarly, the EPA also 

described its bases for approving the 

Arizona SIP in its proposal for that 

action. The public, including the 

commenter, had an opportunity to 

provide meaningful and comprehensive 

comments both on the Utah and Arizona 

actions, and therefore the EPA disagrees 

that interested parties are deprived of an 

opportunity to comment on issues 

relating to the EPA’s analysis of western 

transport. 

Comment: Commenter WDEQ stated 

that the EPA did not provide an 

explanation as to what technical 

analysis from the State of Utah would 

have been sufficient. Another 

commenter (UARG), quoting language 

from the CSAPR Update proposal (80 FR 

75715, December 3, 2015), stated that 

EPA should identify and explain the 

additional criteria that may be relevant 

to the western states and whether it is 

necessary and appropriate to also 

evaluate the same criteria with respect 

to eastern states. The commenter 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with RULES
71994 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

asserted that the EPA’s failure to 

address this issue denied the public a 

meaningful opportunity to comment on 

it. 

Response: The Supreme Court has 

made clear that ‘‘nothing in the statute 

places EPA under an obligation to 

provide specific metrics to States before 

they undertake to fulfill their good 

neighbor obligation.’’ EPA v. EME 

Homer City Generation, 134 S.Ct. at 

1601. Thus, the EPA does not agree that 

it is required to identify all relevant 

criteria for evaluating SIPs before taking 

formal action on the submissions. The 

Court explained that ‘‘[t]he statute 

speaks without reservation: Once a 

NAAQS has issued, a state ‘shall’ 

propose a SIP within three years, [40 

U.S.C.] 7410(a)(1), and that SIP ‘shall’ 

include, among other components, 

provisions adequate to satisfy the Good 

Neighbor Provision, [40 U.S.C.] 

7410(a)(2).’’ Id. It is therefore the 

responsibility of the state to 

demonstrate that its SIP contains 

provisions sufficient to meet the 

requirements of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). A state can and should 

submit all of the technical information 

it considers relevant to evaluate its 

contribution to downwind air quality, 

including anticipated changes in the 

emissions from sources within the state 

and any additional factors specific to 

the state that influence its emissions 

and air pollution which may transport 

to other states. As we noted at proposal 

and in this final action, Utah has not 

submitted technical information or 

analysis which leads the EPA to 

conclude that the state is not interfering 

with maintenance of the NAAQS in 

other states, particularly in light of air 

quality modeling demonstrating that 

emissions from Utah impact air quality 

in Denver, Colorado. The basis for this 

conclusion was clearly explained at 

proposal, and the EPA therefore does 

not agree that the public did not have 

a meaningful opportunity to comment 

on the factors relevant to the proposed 

disapproval of the Utah SIP submission. 

Comments regarding the factors 

relevant to evaluation of interstate 

transport with respect to eastern states 

are out of the scope of this rulemaking 

and do not require a response. 

Comment: Commenter UDEQ stated 

that Utah’s contributions to Denver are 

modest and other factors weigh against 

the conclusion of significant 

contribution or interference with 

maintenance. UDEQ argued that the one 

percent threshold should be a screening 

threshold that can be overcome by 

empirical evidence. The commenter 

cited a proposed EPA action on Idaho’s 

SIP in which EPA Region 10 did not 

rely solely on Idaho’s contribution being 

below one percent in its action on that 

SIP, but also considered Idaho’s 

modeling data and analysis that 

reinforced the EPA modeling results. 80 

FR 66862, October 30, 2015. UDEQ 

argued that the EPA should follow this 

and ‘‘consider additional factors when 

evaluating Utah’s ozone infrastructure 

SIP.’’ Commenter WDEQ claimed that it 

is appropriate for western states to use 

a ‘‘weight of evidence’’ approach, as was 

used in EPA Region 9’s proposed action 

on Arizona’s 2008 ozone transport SIP. 

81 FR 15200, March 22, 2016. 

Response: The EPA encourages states 

to submit any relevant information, 

such as that submitted by Idaho, to 

assist us in evaluating a state’s impact 

on downwind state’s air quality and the 

control requirements in order to 

determine whether a state’s SIP is 

approvable. The EPA agrees that it is 

appropriate to analyze all information 

for western states and make a 

conclusion based on a weight of the 

evidence, but the EPA has not received 

any such evidence from UDEQ that is 

sufficient to alter our determination that 

Utah interferes with maintenance at 

Denver area receptors. 

The EPA notes that the one percent 

threshold as used in the CSAPR 

rulemakings is in fact a screening 

threshold. States are not determined to 

significantly contribute to 

nonattainment or interfere with 

maintenance downwind merely because 

emissions from the state exceed the one 

percent threshold. Rather, the threshold 

is used to identify those states that are 

subject to further analysis to determine 

whether cost-effective reductions are 

achievable from sources within the 

states. The levels of such reductions 

quantify the amounts of emissions that 

significantly contribute to 

nonattainment and interfere with 

maintenance in other states. CSAPR 

Update, Final Rule, pre-publication 

draft at 77–80. If UDEQ believes that the 

EPA should consider additional factors 

with respect to its linkage to the Denver 

receptors, it should identify those 

factors in its SIP submission. But as 

noted, UDEQ did not provide any 

technical analysis in its SIP submission, 

and to the extent additional factors have 

been identified in UDEQ’s comments, it 

did not explain how those factors 

should affect the EPA’s conclusion in 

this action. Without explaining how 

such factors should impact EPA’s 

analysis, the EPA does not agree that 

Utah’s impacts on the Denver receptors 

are modest, particularly considering 

emissions from the State contribute as 

much as twice the one percent air 

quality threshold, nor has the State 

offered any analysis to support this 

conclusory statement. 

The EPA also analyzed the State’s 

submission and in the proposal 

described deficiencies such as a lack of 

quantification of the included emission 

reduction measures or evaluation of 

how such measures are sufficient to 

address the State’s contribution to 

nonattainment and maintenance 

receptors in Denver, Colorado. The 

commenters here again provide no 

information as to why the EPA’s casespecific analysis of Utah’s SIP is 

incorrect. 

Comment: Commenter UDEQ asserted 

that the one percent screening threshold 

is arbitrary, stating that EPA only 

explains why it rejected five percent 

and anything below one percent, but 

does not justify one percent as opposed 

to two percent, which Utah meets. 

UDEQ argued that this threshold has not 

been subject to sufficient scrutiny and 

comment when applied to western 

states, and that the EPA has only 

determined that the one percent 

threshold is appropriate for eastern 

states. 80 FR 66862–66863, October 30, 

2015. 

Response: As stated in the May 10, 

2016 proposal for this final action, the 

EPA believes contribution from an 

individual state equal to or above one 

percent of the NAAQS could be 

considered significant where the 

collective contribution of emissions 

from one or more upwind states is 

responsible for a considerable portion of 

the downwind air quality problem. The 

EPA’s analysis has shown that the one 

percent threshold captures a high 

percentage of the total pollution 

transport affecting downwind states. 81 

FR 28810, May 10, 2016. This threshold 

has been used by the EPA in past 

transport actions including the original 

CSAPR (76 FR 48208, August 8, 2011), 

and the EPA determined this threshold 

was appropriate following the public 

comment process in those previous 

rulemakings. 

In the final CSAPR Update 

rulemaking, the EPA compiled the 

contribution modeling results from the 

air quality modeling in order to analyze 

the impact of different possible 

thresholds, and concluded that the one 

percent threshold continues to be a 

reasonable means of accounting for the 

combined impact of relatively small 

contributions from many upwind states. 

See CSAPR Update, Final Rule, prepublication draft at 81–82; AQM TSD. 

For each of the ozone receptors 

identified in the final CSAPR Update 

rule analysis, the EPA identified: (1) 

The total upwind state contributions, 

and (2) the amount of the total upwind 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 71995 

5 Detailed information and documentation of the 

EPA’s Base Case, including all the underlying 

assumptions, data sources, and architecture 

parameters can be found on the EPA’s Web site at: 

www.epa.gov/airmarkets/power-sector-modeling. 

6See ‘‘Treatment of Data Influenced by 

Exceptional Events,’’ final rule, pre-publication 

Continued 

state contribution that is captured at one 

percent, five percent, and half (0.5) 

percent of the NAAQS. The EPA 

continues to find that the total collective 

contribution from upwind states’ 

sources represent a significant portion 

of the ozone concentrations at 

downwind nonattainment and 

maintenance receptor locations. This 

analysis shows that the one percent 

threshold generally captures a 

substantial percentage of the total 

pollution transport affecting downwind 

states without also implicating states 

that contribute insignificant amounts. 

Analysis of the data for the Denver 

receptors at issue in this rulemaking 

results in the same conclusion. Use of 

a higher threshold would result in a 

relatively large reduction in the overall 

percentage of ozone pollution transport 

captured relative to the amounts 

captured at the one percent level at the 

receptors. For example, none of the 

transport from upwind states would be 

captured with a five percent threshold. 

Although UDEQ proposes that the 

EPA should instead use a two percent 

threshold with respect to the Denver 

receptors, it has not submitted 

additional information or analysis to 

assist the EPA in determining whether 

there is an appropriate alternative 

contribution threshold for Utah or 

western states generally. Rather, UDEQ’s 

proposal to use a two percent threshold 

appears to only be justified by the 

conclusion that Utah would not have 

been linked to Denver receptors at this 

level (the updated modeling indicates 

contribution to a maintenance receptor 

above two percent: See Table 1 of this 

preamble). Given the lack of relevant 

information or analysis submitted by the 

State, and based on an analysis of EPA’s 

own CAMx air quality modeling data, 

the EPA continues to find that the one 

percent threshold is appropriate to 

apply to identify upwind states linked 

to the Denver receptors. 

Comment: Commenter UDEQ asserted 

that the IPM model used to project 

emissions for electric generating units is 

not precise. The commenter supported 

this assertion by citing a comment from 

Louisiana Chemical Association (LCA) 

on the NODA which stated the IPM 

model ‘‘is simply not accurate enough 

and is dependent upon too many 

uncertain assumptions and imprecise 

inputs to make binding decisions of 

‘significant contribution’ or ‘interference 

with maintenance’ when dealing with 

projections of ozone at part per billion 

level.’’ UDEQ argued that this model is 

imprecise and should therefore be 

subject to ‘‘opportunity for rebuttal 

based on empirical evidence.’’ 

Response: The EPA has addressed 

LCA’s comment in the response to 

comments document on the CSAPR 

Update proposal. In that document, we 

noted that the D.C. Circuit Court has 

recognized the usefulness of models 

despite the inherent uncertainty. In 

upholding the EPA’s approach to 

evaluating interstate transport in 

CSAPR, the D.C. Circuit held that they 

would not ‘‘invalidate EPA’s predictions 

solely because there might be 

discrepancies between those predictions 

and the real world. That possibility is 

inherent in the enterprise of 

prediction.’’ EME Homer City 

Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 795 F.3d 118, 

135 (2015). The court continued to note 

that ‘‘the fact that a ‘model does not fit 

every application perfectly is no 

criticism; a model is meant to simplify 

reality in order to make it tractable.’ ’’ 

Id. at 135–36 (quoting Chemical 

Manufacturers Association v. EPA, 28 

F.3d 1259, 1264 (D.C. Cir. 1994). 

The EPA has also provided thorough 

explanation as to how the modeling 

conducted for the CSAPR Update was 

appropriate. As stated in the final 

CSAPR Update, ‘‘the EPA projected 

future 2017 baseline EGU emissions 

using version 5.15 of the Integrated 

Planning Model (IPM) (www.epa.gov/ 

airmarkets/power-sector-modeling). 

IPM, developed by ICF Consulting, is a 

state-of-the-art, peer-reviewed, 

multiregional, dynamic, deterministic 

linear programming model of the 

contiguous U.S. electric power 

sector. . . The model is designed to 

reflect electricity markets as accurately 

as possible. The EPA uses the best 

available information from utilities, 

industry experts, gas and coal market 

experts, financial institutions, and 

government statistics as the basis for the 

detailed power sector modeling in 

IPM.’’ 5 CSAPR Update, Final Rule, prepublication draft at 131. 

We have not received empirical 

evidence from the State to rebut our 

conclusions as stated in the proposal for 

this final rulemaking. 

Comment: Commenter UDEQ argued 

that the EPA’s reliance on IPM modeling 

is incorrect in Utah’s case because this 

modeling used a 2011 emissions 

inventory that excluded certain 

enforceable reductions and included 

Carbon plant emissions, though the 

facility is no longer in operation. 

Response: The EPA disagrees that the 

IPM modeling excluded certain 

enforceable reductions and included 

Carbon plant emissions. The shutdown 

of the Carbon power plant was 

accounted for in the CSAPR Update 

modeling, and no emissions were 

modeled from the facility in the 2017 

scenario. (See documents and EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2015–0500–0205 and EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2015–0500–0014 in the docket for 

the CSAPR Update, or in the docket for 

this rulemaking. These documents, 

respectively, are the NEEDS database 

which defines the starting fleet in IPM 

and a unit level comparison of 

emissions from point sources between 

the 2011 and 2017 inventories). As for 

the other enforceable reductions 

referenced by the commenter, we cannot 

respond because the commenter has not 

provided specific detail as to the 

reductions that were unaccounted for. 

The EPA has encouraged and given the 

opportunity for states to submit 

information with regard to any 

inconsistencies between ‘‘on the books’’ 

upcoming reductions and the emissions 

modeled for the CSAPR Update in both 

that proposed rulemaking and in the 

August 4, 2015 NODA. 80 FR 46271, 

August 4, 2015. 

Comment: Commenter UDEQ asserted 

that western states do not have 

confidence in the way in which they 

can submit data for consideration under 

the Exceptional Events Rule, which has 

not yet been finalized. UDEQ stated that 

‘‘it will be difficult for the EPA to get 

an accurate assessment of the 

responsibility that Utah and other 

western states have to downwind states 

with regard to the 2008 ozone NAAQS 

as used in CSAPR until the EPA releases 

a final rule on these revisions.’’ 

Commenter insisted that finalization of 

this rulemaking will allow the EPA to 

address data influenced by wildfires, 

stratospheric intrusions, and abnormally 

high background ozone. 

Response: The EPA agrees that the 

final Exceptional Events Rule will assist 

states and the EPA in preparing and 

processing exceptional events 

demonstrations for events, including 

wildfires, which contribute to 

monitored ozone NAAQS exceedances 

or violations, if those events meet the 

applicable criteria in the Exceptional 

Events Rule, including (1) the event 

affected air quality; (2) the event was 

not reasonably controllable or 

preventable; and (3) the event was 

caused by human activity that is 

unlikely to recur at a particular location 

or was a natural event. Exceptional 

Events Final Rule, pre-publication 

draft.6 Although the rule is intended to 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with RULES
71996 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

draft as signed by EPA Administrator Gina 

McCarthy on September 16, 2016. 

streamline the exceptional events 

demonstration process, there is an 

exceptional events rule and process 

currently in place. See 40 CFR 50.14. 

We have not received and failed to act 

on exceptional events demonstrations 

from states that would impact the 

determination that Utah interferes with 

maintenance at receptors in the Denver 

area. 

The EPA disagrees with the 

comment’s note that abnormally high 

background ozone itself may qualify as 

an exceptional event. An exceptional 

event must be defined by the source of 

its emissions. If the underlying source is 

a natural event (e.g., wildfire) and the 

emissions influence a regulatory 

monitor, then it can be considered for 

exclusion under the Exceptional Events 

Rule. If the underlying source is 

anthropogenic then the explicit text of 

CAA section 319 requires that it can 

only be considered under the 

Exceptional Events Rule if the activity 

causing emissions is unlikely to recur at 

a particular location. The meteorological 

processes that result in pollutant 

transport and the formation of 

background ozone are ongoing and thus 

not an event, even though their 

influence on ambient concentrations at 

a particular time and location may be 

observed only occasionally and thus 

seem ‘‘event-like.’’ Regardless of where 

the activity or event that caused 

emissions occurred, and regardless of 

whether the emissions travel 

internationally or interstate, all 

exceptional event criteria applicable to 

that activity or event must be met in 

order for the emissions to be excluded. 

Comment: Commenter WDEQ stated 

that the EPA’s application of CSAPR to 

the western U.S. will place an undue 

burden on all western states. WDEQ 

noted that its department lacks staff 

experienced in running Comprehensive 

Air Quality Model with Extensions 

(CAMx version 6.11) modeling, and 

asserted that the EPA has acknowledged 

that this modeling is quite costly and 

resource intensive. 

Response: States are not required to 

conduct modeling to address their 

interstate transport requirements under 

CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). However, 

where the EPA has conducted modeling 

that indicates emissions from a state 

may impact air quality in another state, 

both the EPA and the state must address 

how that modeling impacts any 

conclusion regarding the upwind state’s 

compliance with the statutory interstate 

transport requirements. The EPA 

understands that air quality modeling 

can be both complex and resource 

intensive, and remains committed to 

assisting the states in conducting or 

reviewing air quality modeling and 

other relevant technical information for 

the purposes of determining compliance 

with CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). 

III. Final Action 

In this action, the EPA is approving 

the Utah SIP with regard to certain 

interstate transport requirements of 

CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 2008 

Pb and 2010 SO2 NAAQS from the 

State’s certifications as shown in Table 

2 of this preamble. The EPA is 

disapproving the Utah SIP with regard 

to certain interstate transport 

requirements of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 2006 PM2.5, 2008 

ozone, 2010 NO2 and 2012 PM2.5

NAAQS as shown in Table 3 of this 

preamble. As noted in our August 1, 

2016 proposed action, the EPA is not 

required to take further action with 

regard to the prong 4 disapprovals, 

because a FIP is already in place for 

Utah that corrects all regional haze, and 

thus visibility transport, SIP 

deficiencies. 81 FR 43894. This action is 

being taken under section 110 of the 

CAA. 

TABLE 2—LIST OF UTAH INTERSTATE

TRANSPORT PRONGS THAT EPA IS

APPROVING

Final approval 

January 19, 2012 submittal—2008 Pb 

NAAQS: 

(D)(i)(I) prongs 1 and 2, (D)(i)(II) prong 

4. 

June 2, 2013 submittal—2010 SO2 NAAQS: 

(D)(i)(II) prong 4. 

TABLE 3—LIST OF UTAH INTERSTATE

TRANSPORT PRONGS THAT EPA IS

DISAPPROVING

Final disapproval 

February 21, 2010 submittal—2006 PM2.5

NAAQS: 

(D)(i)(II) prong 4. 

January 31, 2013 submittal—2008 Ozone 

NAAQS: 

(D)(i)(I) prong 2, (D)(i)(II) prong 4. 

January 31, 2013 submittal—2010 NO2

NAAQS: 

(D)(i)(II) prong 4. 

December 22, 2015 submittal—2012 PM2.5

NAAQS: 

(D)(i)(II) prong 4. 

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 actions, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this action 

merely approves some state law 

provisions as meeting federal 

requirements and disapproves other 

state law because it does not meet 

federal requirements; this action 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); 

• 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 Clean Air Act; 

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 does not apply on any 

Indian reservation land or in any other 

area where the EPA or an Indian tribe 

has demonstrated that a tribe has 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 71997 

1Since the 2008 primary and secondary NAAQS 

for ozone are identical, for convenience, we refer to 

Continued 

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. EPA will submit a 

report containing this action and other 

required information to the U.S. Senate, 

the U.S. House of 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 December 19, 2016. 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 CAA 

section 307(b)(2).) 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, 

Particulate matter, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur 

oxides, Volatile organic compounds. 

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

Dated: September 29, 2016. 

Shaun L. McGrath, 

Regional Administrator, Region 8. 

40 CFR part 52 is amended to read as 

follows: 

PART 52—APPROVAL AND 

PROMULGATION OF 

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 

■ 1. The authority citation for Part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

■ 2. Section 52.2354 is amended by 

redesignating the introductory text as 

paragraph (a) and adding paragraph (b). 

The addition reads as follows: 

Subpart TT—Utah 

§ 52.2354 Interstate transport. 

* * * * * 

(b) Addition to the Utah State 

Implementation Plan regarding the 2008 

Pb Standard for CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) prongs 1, 2 and 4, 

submitted to EPA on January 19, 2012, 

and addition to the Utah SIP regarding 

the 2010 SO2 Standard for CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) prong 4, submitted to 

EPA on June 2, 2013. 

[FR Doc. 2016–25145 Filed 10–18–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2016–0499; FRL–9954–20– 

Region 9] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plan; California; 

Calaveras County, Chico (Butte 

County), San Francisco Bay Area and 

San Luis Obispo County (Eastern San 

Luis Obispo) Base Year Emission 

Inventories for the 2008 Ozone 

Standards 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is taking direct final 

action to approve revisions to the 

California State Implementation Plan 

(SIP) concerning the base year emission 

inventories (EIs) for four areas 

designated as nonattainment areas 

(NAAs) for the 2008 ozone National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards (2008 

ozone NAAQS). The subject areas 

include Calaveras County, Chico (Butte 

County), San Francisco Bay Area and 

San Luis Obispo (Eastern San Luis 

Obispo). We are approving these 

revisions under the Clean Air Act (CAA 

or ‘‘the Act’’). 

DATES: This rule is effective on 

December 19, 2016 without further 

notice, unless the EPA receives adverse 

comments by November 18, 2016. If we 

receive such comments, we will publish 

a timely withdrawal in the Federal 

Register to notify the public that this 

direct final rule will not take effect. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R09– 

OAR–2016–0499 at http://

www.regulations.gov, or via email to 

Nancy Levin, Air Planning Office at 

levin.nancy@epa.gov. For comments 

submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the 

online instructions for submitting 

comments. Once submitted, comments 

cannot be removed or edited from 

Regulations.gov. For either manner of 

submission, 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, please 

contact the person identified in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

For 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. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Nancy Levin, EPA Region IX, (415) 972– 

3848, levin.nancy@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us’’ 

and ‘‘our’’ refer to the EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

II. Summary and Analysis of the State’s 

Submittal 

A. Statutory and Regulatory Requirements 

1. Procedural Requirements for Adoption 

and Submittal of SIP Revisions 

2. Requirements for Base Year Inventories 

B. Summary of the State’s Submittal 

1. Stationary Source Emissions 

2. Area-wide Source Emissions 

3. Off-Road Mobile Source Emissions 

4. Onroad Mobile Source Emissions 

C. The EPA’s Evaluation of the State’s 

Submittal 

1. Evaluation of Procedural Requirements 

2. Evaluation of Base Year Inventory 

Requirements 

D. Public Comment and Final Action 

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background 

On March 12, 2008, the EPA 

strengthened the primary and secondary 

eight-hour ozone NAAQS to 0.075 parts 

per million (ppm) (73 FR 16436).1 In 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with RULES