[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 138 (Wednesday, July 18, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 33886-33892]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-15343]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R08-OAR-2018-0309 and EPA-R10-OAR-2018-0316: FRL-9980-88--Region 
8]


Determination of Attainment by the Attainment Date and Clean Data 
Determination for the Logan, UT-ID 2006 24-Hour PM2.5 Nonattainment 
Area

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing a 
determination of attainment by the attainment date and a clean data 
determination (CDD) for the 2006 24-hour fine particulate matter 
(PM<INF>2.5</INF>) Logan, Utah (UT)-Idaho (ID) nonattainment area. The 
determination is based upon quality-assured, quality-controlled and 
certified ambient air monitoring data showing that the area has 
attained the 2006 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> National Ambient Air Quality 
Standards (NAAQS) based on 2015-2017 data available in the EPA's Air 
Quality System (AQS) database. Based on the proposed determination that 
the Logan, UT-ID nonattainment area is currently attaining the 24-hour 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS, the EPA is also proposing to determine that the 
obligation for Utah and Idaho to make submissions to meet certain Clean 
Air Act (CAA or the Act) requirements related to attainment of the 
NAAQS for this area is not applicable for as long as the area continues 
to attain the NAAQS.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 17, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R08-
OAR-2018-0309 and/or Docket ID No. EPA-R10-OAR-2018-0316 at 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 the disclosure of which is restricted by statute. 
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a 
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment 
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA 
will generally not consider comments or comment contents located 
outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other 
file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA 
public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, 
and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Crystal Ostigaard, Air Program, EPA, 
Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-
1129, (303) 312-6602, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#046b77706d63656576602a67767d77706568446174652a636b72"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="68071b1c010f09091a0c460b1a111b1c0904280d1809460f071e">[email protected]</span></a>, or Matthew Jentgen, 
Air Planning Unit, Office of Air and Waste (OAW-150), EPA, Region 10, 
1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900, Seattle, Washington 98101; (206) 553-
0340; <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#2b414e455f4c4e4505464a5f5f434e5c6b4e5b4a054c445d"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="244e414a5043414a0a494550504c4153644154450a434b52">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, wherever ``we'', 
``us'' or ``our'' is used, it is intended to refer to the EPA.

I. Background

A. Designation and Classification of PM2.5 Nonattainment Areas

    On October 17, 2006 (71 FR 61144), the EPA revised the level of the 
24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS, lowering the primary and secondary 
standards from the 1997 standard of 65 micrograms per cubic meter 
([micro]g/m\3\) to 35 [micro]g/m\3\. The EPA

[[Page 33887]]

retained the form of the 1997 24-hour standard, that is, the 98th 
percentile of the annual 24-hour concentrations at each population-
oriented monitor within an area, averaged over 3 years. 71 FR 61164-5 
(October 17, 2006).
    On November 13, 2009 (74 FR 58688), the EPA designated a number of 
areas as nonattainment for the 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS of 35 
[micro]g/m\3\, including the Logan, UT-ID nonattainment area. The EPA 
originally designated these areas under the general provisions of CAA 
title I, part D, subpart 1 (``subpart 1''), under which attainment 
plans must provide for the attainment of a specific NAAQS (in this 
case, the 2006 PM<INF>2.5</INF> standards) as expeditiously as 
practicable, but no later than 5 years from the date the areas were 
designated nonattainment.
    Subsequently, on January 4, 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 
District of Columbia Circuit held in NRDC v. EPA \1\ that the EPA 
should have implemented the 2006 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> standard 
based on both the general nonattainment area requirements in subpart 1 
and the PM-specific requirements of CAA title I, part D, subpart 4 
(``subpart 4''). In response to the Court's decision in NRDC v. EPA, on 
June 2, 2014 (79 FR 31566), the EPA finalized the ``Identification of 
Nonattainment Classification and Deadlines for Submission of State 
Implementation Plan (SIP) Provisions for the 1997 Fine Particulate 
(PM<INF>2.5</INF>) NAAQS and 2006 PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS.'' This rule 
classified the areas that were designated in 2009 as nonattainment to 
Moderate, and set the attainment SIP submittal due date for those areas 
at December 31, 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 706 F.3d 428 (D.C. Cir. 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After the court's decision, on December 16, 2014, the Utah 
Department of Air Quality (UDAQ) withdrew all prior Logan, UT-ID 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> SIP submissions and submitted a new SIP to address 
both the general requirements of subpart 1 and the PM-specific 
requirements of subpart 4 for Moderate areas. Additionally, on December 
24, 2014, the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality (IDEQ) 
submitted a supplement to the 2012 SIP submission (``2014 amendment'') 
that included additional analyses intended to meet CAA subpart 4 
requirements.
    On August 24, 2016, the EPA finalized the Fine Particulate Matter 
National Ambient Air Quality Standards: State Implementation Plan 
Requirements (``PM<INF>2.5</INF> SIP Requirements Rule''), 81 FR 58010, 
which addressed the January 4, 2013 court ruling. The final 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> SIP Requirements Rule provides the EPA's 
interpretation of the requirements applicable to PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
nonattainment areas and explains how air agencies can meet the 
statutory SIP requirements that apply under subparts 1 and 4 to areas 
designated nonattainment for any PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS.

B. Two, 1-Year Extensions for the Logan, UT-ID Nonattainment Area

    Under CAA section 188(d) and 40 CFR 51.1005, the EPA may grant a 
state's request to extend the attainment date for a Moderate area for a 
24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> standard if: ``(1) the State has complied with 
all requirements and commitments pertaining to the area in the 
applicable implementation plan; and (2) the 98th percentile 24-hour 
concentration at each monitor in the area for the calendar year that 
includes the applicable attainment date is less than or equal to the 
level of the applicable 24-hour standard.'' The EPA cannot issue more 
than two, 1-year extensions for a single Moderate area.
    Both the State of Utah and the State of Idaho submitted requests to 
extend the attainment date to December 31, 2016, and then to December 
31, 2017.\2\ The EPA granted those requests on September 8, 2017 (82 FR 
42447). As a result, the EPA must examine monitor data values from 
2015-2017 to determine whether the Logan, UT-ID area attained the NAAQS 
by the extended attainment date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Each of the extension requests from Idaho and Utah can be 
found in the Region 8 and Region 10 dockets for the Logan, UT-ID 
nonattainment area proposed extension request actions. See EPA-R08-
OAR-2017-0216 and EPA-R10-OAR-2017-0193.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Prior Actions on the Utah Portion of the Logan, UT-ID Nonattainment 
Area

    The EPA previously acted on the area source rules and reasonably 
available control measure (RACM) analyses of the Utah Moderate 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> nonattainment area plan on September 9, 2015 (80 FR 
54237), February 25, 2016 (81 FR 9343), October 19, 2016 (81 FR 71988) 
and September 14, 2017 (82 FR 43205). We have not acted on, approved or 
disapproved, any other portion of the Logan, UT-ID PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
attainment plan submitted by UDAQ. Since the EPA has not disapproved 
any portion of the plan, the clocks for sanctions under 179(a) and for 
a FIP under 110(c) are not in effect for the Utah portion of the Logan, 
UT-ID nonattainment area. Additionally, we proposed to approve the 
attainment demonstration and motor vehicle emission budgets (MVEB) for 
the Utah portion on December 4, 2017 (82 FR 57183).

D. Prior Action on the Idaho Portion of the Logan, UT-ID Nonattainment 
Area

    Initially, the EPA approved Idaho's baseline emissions inventory on 
July 18, 2014 (79 FR 41904), and also approved certain control 
measures, including local ordinances and road sanding agreements, 
submitted in Idaho's attainment plan on March 24, 2014 (79 FR 16201). 
Subsequently, on January 4, 2017 (82 FR 729), the EPA published a 
partial approval and partial disapproval of the attainment plan for the 
Idaho portion of the Logan, UT-ID PM<INF>2.5</INF> nonattainment area. 
Specifically, the EPA approved Idaho's determination of which 
pollutants must be evaluated for control in the Idaho portion of the 
nonattainment and Idaho's RACM and reasonably available control 
technology (RACT) provisions. The EPA deferred action on the attainment 
demonstration, reasonable further progress (RFP), quantitative 
milestone, and MVEB requirements. Additionally, we disapproved the 
contingency measure element of Idaho's attainment plan.\3\ Since the 
EPA has disapproved this portion of the plan, the clocks for sanctions 
under 179(a) and for a FIP under 110(c) are in effect for the Idaho 
portion of the Logan, UT-ID nonattainment area. As discussed below, if 
the EPA finalizes this action, the clocks for sanctions and for a FIP 
will be deferred.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The EPA extended the effective date of this partial approval 
and partial disapproval to April 20, 2017. See 82 FR 14463.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On August 8, 2017 (82 FR 37025), based on newly available air 
quality monitoring data, the EPA approved Idaho's attainment 
demonstration and approved Idaho's 2014 MVEB as early progress budgets. 
Additionally, the EPA conditionally approved the RFP, quantitative 
milestone and revised MVEB requirements. Idaho committed to submit 
revisions for the conditionally approved elements by August 1, 2018.

II. Determination of Attainment by the Attainment Date

    Under CAA section 188(b)(2), the EPA is required to determine 
within 6 months of the applicable attainment date whether a 
nonattainment area attained the standard by that date. As discussed 
above, on September 8, 2017, the EPA extended the attainment date for 
the Logan, UT-ID area to December 31, 2017. Under the EPA regulations 
at 40 CFR 50.13 and part 50, appendix N, section 4.2, the 2006 primary 
and secondary 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS are met when the 24-hour 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS design value at each eligible monitoring site is 
less than or equal to 35 [micro]g/m\3\.

[[Page 33888]]

For the 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> standards, appendix N defines eligible 
monitoring sites as those that meet the technical requirements in 40 
CFR 58.11 and 58.30. Three years of valid annual PM<INF>2.5</INF> 98th 
percentile mass concentrations are required to produce a valid 24-hour 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS design value. A year meets data completeness 
requirements when quarterly data capture rates for all four quarters 
are at least 75%. Nonetheless, where the 75% data capture requirement 
is not met, the 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS design value shall still 
be considered valid if it passes the maximum quarterly value data 
substitution test.
    In accordance with the EPA regulations at 40 CFR part 50, appendix 
N, a finding of attainment of the 2006 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS 
must be based upon complete, quality-assured data gathered at 
established state and local air monitoring stations (SLAMS) and 
national air monitoring stations (NAMS) in the nonattainment area and 
entered in the EPA Air Quality System (AQS). Data from air monitors 
operated by state/local/tribal agencies in compliance with the EPA 
monitoring requirements must be submitted to AQS. Monitoring agencies 
annually certify that these data are accurate to the best of their 
knowledge. Accordingly, the EPA relies primarily on data in AQS when 
determining the attainment status of areas. See 40 CFR 50.13; 40 CFR 
part 50, appendix L; 40 CFR part 53; 40 CFR part 58, and 40 CFR part 
58, appendices A, C, D, and E. All data are reviewed to determine the 
area's air quality status in accordance with 40 CFR 50, appendix N.
    Additionally, a determination of attainment is not equivalent to a 
redesignation, and the state must still meet the statutory requirements 
for redesignation in order to be redesignated to attainment.

A. Monitoring Network and Data Considerations

    Determining whether an area has attained the NAAQS pursuant to CAA 
section 188(b)(2) is based on monitored air quality data. Thus, the 
validity of a determination of attainment depends in part on whether 
the monitoring network adequately measures ambient PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
levels in the nonattainment area. The UDAQ and the IDEQ are the 
governmental agencies with the authority and responsibilities under 
each state's laws for collecting ambient air quality data for the 
Logan, UT-ID nonattainment area. Annually, UDAQ and IDEQ submit 
monitoring network plans to the EPA. These plans document the 
establishment and maintenance of the air monitoring network, as 
required under 40 CFR part 58. With respect to PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
monitoring in the Logan, UT-ID nonattainment area, the EPA Regional 
offices for Region 8 and Region 10 have found that UDAQ's and IDEQ's 
annual network plans, respectively, met the applicable requirements 
under 40 CFR part 58 for the relevant period, 2015-2017, with the 
exception (discussed below) of UDAQ's 2015 network plan. Also, UDAQ and 
IDEQ annually certify that the data they submit to AQS are quality 
assured.
    The UDAQ and IDEQ each operated PM<INF>2.5</INF> SLAMS monitors 
during the 2015-2017 period within the Logan, UT-ID PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
nonattainment area. In 2015, UDAQ operated two PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
monitoring sites, at Logan and Smithfield, and in 2016 and 2017, UDAQ 
operated only the Smithfield monitoring site. The IDEQ monitoring site 
for 2015, 2016 and 2017 was located in Franklin, Idaho.

B. Logan/Smithfield, Utah Monitoring

    The 2015 Annual Monitoring Network Plan (AMNP) and Five-Year 
Network Assessment was submitted by UDAQ in June 2015. This plan and 
assessment was not reviewed and acted on by Region 8 due to Region 8's 
Technical Support Audit (TSA), which was completed in August 2015, and 
found major and minor/observation issues with the network. The 
objective of a TSA is to review a quality assurance (QA) system in 
order to evaluate the system's ability to ensure quality, in this case, 
the reporting of valid data to the EPA's AQS database. The QA 
requirements of 40 CFR part 58, appendices A through E pertain to 
regulatory air monitoring at SLAMS. A major finding may indicate that 
invalid data have been loaded in AQS or, if not corrected, future 
operations may result in collection of invalid data, and a minor/
observation finding will not necessarily lead to data loss or 
invalidation, but warrant investigation, appropriate follow-up and 
audit response. Additional details pertaining to the major and minor 
findings can be found in the 2015 TSA in the Region 8 docket (EPA-R08-
OAR-2018-0309).
    Due to these monitoring issues, the EPA was not able to approve 
UDAQ's 2015 AMNP and a large number of samples from the filter-based 
Federal Reference Method (FRM) monitor in Logan and Smithfield were 
invalidated.\4\ The EPA worked with UDAQ to correct these deficiencies 
found in the August 2015 TSA and after their review of the 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> data for 2015, UDAQ removed the invalid samples for 
the Logan FRM monitor and left the valid samples in the AQS database. 
Additionally, some continuous sampler data from the Logan co-located 
Federal Equivalent Method (FEM) monitor were determined to have 
sufficient QA to meet NAAQS comparison requirements. Data from this co-
located monitor were used to fill in some of the missing days in 2015, 
adding to the total number of samples that can be used to determine a 
98th percentile value for that year and providing for a complete 2015 
monitoring year. Utah used the methodology found in 40 CFR part 50, 
appendix N sections 3.0(d)(2) and 3.0(e) to substitute FEM data for the 
days without FRM data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ May 8, 2017 EPA Region 8 Memorandum; Logan, Utah 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> 2015 Design Value.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA has reviewed the Logan site and, using the criteria found 
in 40 CFR part 58, appendix A, has determined that the QA for the 
continuous FEM monitor is acceptable. We therefore agree that the data 
from the FEM monitor can be substituted for the days for which the FRM 
monitor data was invalid, which would provide for a complete year in 
2015 to be used in showing attainment. Pursuant to 40 CFR 50, appendix 
N, the standard must be met at each ``eligible monitoring site,'' where 
an ``eligible [monitoring] site'' is defined in appendix N as a site 
that meets the requirements of 40 CFR 58.11 and 58.30. Thus, appendix N 
does not require AMNP approval, only that the monitoring site meets the 
substantive requirements. Upon reviewing the Logan and Smithfield 
sites, despite the EPA not formally approving the 2015 AMNP, the EPA 
finds that the Logan and Smithfield sites met the requirements of 40 
CFR 58.11 during 2015. On November 29, 2016, UDAQ submitted a letter 
that contained the AMP 430, AMP 450, AMP 256 and AMP 450NC reports 
required to certify the 2015 air quality data in Utah. UDAQ completed 
the data certification process in AQS and with the November 29, 2016 
letter, certified that the 2015 air quality data is accurate. 
Additional information related to these monitors can be found in the 
November 23, 2016 memoranda found in the Region 8 docket (EPA-R08-OAR-
2018-0309).
    On March 14, 2017, the EPA approved Utah's 2016 AMNP. As part of 
the approval, we approved the closing of the Logan monitoring station 
on December 31, 2015 (AQS ID #49-005-0004) and the establishment of the 
Smithfield monitoring station (AQS ID #49-005-0007) as a maximum 
concentration site. Additionally, on April 20, 2017, UDAQ submitted a 
letter that contained the AMP 600 and AMP

[[Page 33889]]

450NC reports required to certify the 2016 air quality data in Utah. 
UDAQ completed the data certification process in AQS and with the April 
20, 2017 letter, certified that the 2016 air quality data is accurate.
    On October 27, 2017, the EPA approved Utah's 2017 AMNP, and on 
April 10, 2018, the UDAQ submitted a letter that contained the AMP 600 
and AMP 450NC reports required to certify the 2017 air quality data in 
Utah. With the April 10, 2018 letter, UDAQ completed the data 
certification process in AQS and certified that the 2017 air quality 
data is accurate.
    The Smithfield monitoring site data was incomplete for 2015 because 
the station, including the co-located continuous monitor, was not 
operating in January of that year. Thus, in order to establish 3 years 
of valid data at the Smithfield monitoring site, the EPA proposes to 
combine the January 2015 Logan data with Smithfield's February through 
December 2015 data. In doing so, we are considering not only our 
approval of the replacement of the Logan monitor with the Smithfield 
monitor in the monitoring network, but also the consistency of the data 
from the two monitors. During 2015, data from the two monitors on days 
above 10 [mu]g/m\3\ was well correlated. For details, please see the 
June 13, 2018 memorandum to the docket entitled ``Logan, Utah 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> Monitoring Data Set Determination Memo.''

C. Franklin, ID Monitoring

    Idaho submitted its 2015 AMNP on August 12, 2015. Until June 30, 
2015, Idaho had two regulatory air quality monitors running at the 
Franklin, ID site. As part of the network plan, Idaho proposed to 
replace the very sharp cut cyclone (VSCC) on its FEM continuous monitor 
with a sharp cut cyclone (SCC), making it a special purpose monitor for 
Air Quality Index (AQI) reporting. This change resulted in the FEM 
continuous monitor becoming non-regulatory, as of June 30, 2015. The 
EPA approved Idaho's 2015 AMNP on October 28, 2015.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ In the approval letter, the EPA noted that since the 
alteration of the FEM continuous monitor did not change the SLAMS 
network, the EPA approval is not needed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Idaho submitted its 2016 AMNP on July 28, 2016. The EPA approved 
Idaho's network plan on December 13, 2016. The regulatory FRM monitor 
at the Franklin, ID site did not meet the completeness requirements in 
Quarter 2 of 2016. Per 40 CFR part 50, appendix N, 4.2(c), when a 
monitor has less than 75% capture in a quarter (but greater than 50%), 
a substitution test can be performed to determine the validity of the 
data. The Franklin monitor had 70% completeness in Quarter 2 of 2016. 
Per the substitution test, the highest Quarter 2 value for the 3-year 
period under consideration is substituted for all missing data in the 
deficient quarter. The 2015-2017 design value is the 3-year period 
under consideration in this case. The highest value is 10.3 [mu]g/m\3\ 
within the 3-year period during that quarter of the year. Applying the 
maximum 10.3 [mu]g/m\3\ PM<INF>2.5</INF> value to the missing data for 
the deficient quarter (Quarter 2, 2016) does not affect the 2015-2017 
design value at the Franklin monitor.
    Idaho submitted its initial 2017 AMNP on June 29, 2017, and 
submitted an addendum on October 31, 2017. The addendum requested 
changing the run schedule of the regulatory FRM monitor at the 
Franklin, ID site from every third day to daily. The EPA approved the 
2017 AMNP, including the run schedule change, on November 8, 2017.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The November 8, 2017 AMNP approval letter noted monitoring 
network deficiencies related to ozone monitoring and deficiencies in 
Idaho's network monitoring plan, but these were not deficiencies 
specific to PM<INF>2.5</INF> air quality monitoring in the Logan, 
UT-ID Metropolitan Statistical Area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Evaluation of Current Attainment

    As discussed above, the EPA's evaluation of whether the Logan, UT-
ID PM<INF>2.5</INF> nonattainment area has attained the 2006 24-hour 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS is based on our review of the monitoring data, 
and takes into account the adequacy of the PM<INF>2.5</INF> monitoring 
network in the nonattainment area and the reliability of the data 
collected by the network as discussed in the previous section of this 
document.
    Based on our review, the PM<INF>2.5</INF> monitoring network for 
the Logan, UT-ID nonattainment area meets the requirements stated above 
and is therefore adequate for use in determining whether the area 
attained the 2006 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS. Additionally, the EPA 
has reviewed the data for the most recent 3-year period (2015-2017) for 
completeness and has determined that the data collected by UDAQ and 
IDEQ meets the completeness criterion for all 12 quarters at the 
Smithfield, Utah and Franklin, Idaho monitors.
    The EPA reviewed the PM<INF>2.5</INF> ambient air monitoring data 
from the Smithfield, Utah (AQS site 49-005-0007) and Franklin, Idaho 
(AQS site 16-041-0001) monitoring sites consistent with the 
requirements contained in 40 CFR part 50, as recorded in the EPA AQS 
database for the Logan, UT-ID nonattainment area. For purposes of 
determining attainment by the December 31, 2017 extended attainment 
date, the EPA determined that the data recorded in the AQS database was 
certified and complete.
    Additionally, UDAQ submitted exceptional events demonstrations for 
the year 2017. The PM<INF>2.5</INF> SIP Requirements Rule (81 FR 58010, 
August 24, 2016) states:
    Air quality monitoring data that the EPA determines to have been 
influenced by an exceptional event under the procedural steps, 
substantive criteria, and schedule specified in the Exceptional Events 
Rule may be excluded from regulatory decisions such as initial area 
designations decisions and decisions associated with implementing the 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS such as clean data determinations (CDD), 
evaluation of attainment demonstrations, and discretionary or mandatory 
reclassifications of nonattainment areas from Moderate to Serious. 
While the EPA may agree with the state's request to exclude event-
influenced air quality monitoring data from regulatory decisions, these 
regulatory actions require the EPA to provide an opportunity for public 
comment on the claimed exceptional event and all supporting data prior 
to the EPA taking final agency action.
    The EPA concurred on these exceptional events on June 15, 2018, and 
the concurrence is included in the Region 8 docket for this action 
(EPA-R08-OAR-2018-0309). This proposed determination of attainment and 
CDD provides the public with an opportunity to comment on the claimed 
exceptional events, all supporting documents and the EPA's concurrence 
with the State of Utah's requests.
    The design value for the 2006 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS for 
the years 2015-2017 at the Smithfield, Utah site was 33 [mu]g/m\3\ and 
30 [mu]g/m\3\ at the Franklin, Idaho site, which is less than the 
standard of 35 [mu]g/m\3\. See Table 1 below for the annual 98th 
percentiles and 3-year design value for the 2015-2017 monitoring 
period. On the basis of this review, we are proposing to determine that 
the Logan, UT-ID nonattainment area attained the 2006 24-hour 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS by the attainment date.

[[Page 33890]]



                     Table 1--2015-2017 Logan UT-ID Nonattainment Area PM2.5 Monitoring Data
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           98th percentile ([mu]g/m\3\)            2015-2017 24-
                                                 ------------------------------------------------   hour design
          Monitor name              AQS site ID                                                    value ([mu]g/
                                                       2015            2016            2017            m\3\)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Smithfield, UT..................     49-005-0007        \a\ 28.9            34.4            36.0          \a\ 33
Franklin, ID....................     16-041-0001            18.8            33.3        \b\ 38.3          \b\ 30
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ This value combines monitor data from the Logan, UT and Smithfield, UT monitors. The EPA concurred
  exceptional events are excluded.
\b\ This value includes 1 in 3 monitoring frequency from January 1-August 9, 2017, and daily monitoring
  frequency from August 10-December 31, 2017.

III. Clean Data Determination

    Over the past 2 decades, the EPA has consistently applied its 
``Clean Data Policy'' interpretation to attainment related provisions 
of subparts 1, 2, and 4 of the CAA. The EPA codified the approach in 
the Clean Data Policy in the PM<INF>2.5</INF> SIP Requirements Rule (40 
CFR 51.1015(a)) for the implementation of current and future 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS. See 81 FR 58010, 58161 (August 24, 2016). For a 
complete discussion of the Clean Data Policy's history and the EPA's 
longstanding interpretation under the CAA, please refer to the August 
24, 2016 PM<INF>2.5</INF> SIP Requirements Rule (81 FR 58010).
    The general requirements of subpart 1 apply in conjunction with the 
more specific requirements of subpart 4, to the extent they are not 
superseded or subsumed by the subpart 4 requirements. Subpart 1 
contains general air quality planning requirements for areas designated 
nonattainment. See section 172(c). Subpart 4 itself contains specific 
planning and scheduling requirements for particulate matter 
nonattainment areas, See section188. The final PM<INF>2.5</INF> SIP 
Requirements Rule interprets the CAA specific to PM<INF>2.5</INF> and 
provides information on the statutory requirements for SIPs for 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> nonattainment areas. See 81 FR 58010 (August 24, 
2016).
    As provided in 40 CFR 51.1015, so long as an area continues to meet 
the standard, finalization of a CDD suspends the requirements for a 
nonattainment area to submit an attainment demonstration, associated 
RACM, RFP plan, contingency measures and any other planning SIP 
requirements related to the attainment of the 2006 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
NAAQS. For purposes of this NAAQS, the requirement to submit a 
projected attainment inventory as part of an attainment demonstration 
or RFP is also suspended by this determination. As discussed in the 
2016 PM<INF>2.5</INF> SIP Requirements Rule, the nonattainment base 
emissions inventory required by section 172(c)(3) is not suspended by 
this determination because the base inventory is a requirement 
independent of planning for an area's attainment. See 81 FR 58009 at 
58028 and 58127-8 and 80 FR 15340 at 15441-2. Additionally, 
nonattainment New Source Review (NNSR) requirements are discussed in 
the PM<INF>2.5</INF> SIP Requirements Rule, and required by CAA 
sections 110(a)(2)(C); 172(c)(5); 173; 189(a); and 189(e), as not being 
suspended by a CDD because this requirement is independent of the 
area's attainment planning. See 81 FR 58010 at 58107 and 58127.
    By extension, the requirement to submit a MVEB for the attainment 
year for the purposes of transportation conformity is also suspended. A 
MVEB is that portion of the total allowable emissions defined in the 
submitted or approved control strategy implementation plan revision or 
maintenance plan for a certain date for the purpose of meeting RFP 
milestones or demonstrating attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS, for 
any criteria pollutant or its precursors, allocated to highway and 
transit vehicle use and emissions.\7\ For the purposes of the 
transportation conformity regulations, the control strategy 
implementation plan revision is the implementation plan which contains 
specific strategies for controlling the emissions of and reducing 
ambient levels of pollutants in order to satisfy CAA requirements for 
demonstrations of RFP and attainment.\8\ Given that MVEBs are required 
to support the RFP and attainment demonstration requirements in the 
attainment plan, suspension of the RFP and attainment demonstration 
requirements through a CDD, also suspends the requirement to submit 
MVEBs for the attainment and RFP years. The suspension of planning 
requirements pursuant to 40 CFR 51.1015, does not preclude the state 
from submitting suspended elements of its moderate area attainment plan 
for EPA approval for the purposes of strengthening the state's SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 40 CFR 93.101.
    \8\ 40 CFR 93.101.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The suspension of the obligation to submit such requirements 
applies regardless of when the plan submissions are due. The CDD does 
not suspend CAA requirements that are independent of helping the area 
achieve attainment, such as the requirements to submit an emissions 
inventory and NNSR requirements. A clean data determination is not 
equivalent to a redesignation, and the state must still meet the 
statutory requirements for redesignation in order to be redesignated to 
attainment.
    In accordance with 40 CFR 51.1015(a)(1) and (2), the CDD suspends 
the aforementioned SIP obligations until such time as the area is 
redesignated to attainment, after which such requirements are 
permanently discharged; or the EPA determines that the area has re-
violated the PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS, at which time the state shall 
submit such attainment plan elements for the Moderate nonattainment 
area by a future date to be determined by the EPA and announced through 
publication in the Federal Register at the time the EPA determines the 
area is violating the PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS.

A. Clean Data Determination for the Logan, UT-ID Nonattainment Area

    Based on the same monitoring data for the period 2015-2017, the EPA 
is also proposing to determine that the area has clean data for 
demonstrating attainment of the 2006 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS. In 
accordance with 40 CFR 51.1015, a CDD can be made upon a determination 
by the EPA that a Moderate PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAA is attaining the 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS. As provided in 40 CFR 51.1015, so long as the 
EPA does not determine that the area has re-violated the standard, 
finalization of this determination suspends the requirements for this 
area to submit an attainment demonstration, associated RACM, RFP plan, 
contingency measures, and any other SIP planning requirements related 
to the attainment of the 2006 PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS. For purposes of 
this NAAQS, the requirement to submit an attainment year projected 
inventory for the nonattainment area as part of an

[[Page 33891]]

attainment demonstration or RFP as well as MVEB are also suspended by 
this determination. As discussed in the PM<INF>2.5</INF> SIP 
Requirements Rule, the base year inventory for the nonattainment area 
required by section 172(c)(3) is not suspended by this determination 
because the base year inventory is a requirement independent of 
planning for an area's attainment. See 81 FR 58009 at 58028 and 58127-8 
and 80 FR 15340 at 15441-2. Additionally, NNSR requirements are 
discussed in the PM<INF>2.5</INF> SIP Requirements Rule, and required 
by CAA sections 110(a)(2)(C); 172(c)(5); 173; 189(a); and 189(e), as 
not being suspended by this determination because this requirement is 
independent of the area's attainment planning. See 81 FR 58010 at 58107 
and 58127.
    Under a CDD, the planning requirements noted above shall be 
suspended until such time as the area is redesignated to attainment, 
after which such requirements are permanently discharged. Specific to 
Idaho, we are proposing to suspend the requirements to submit RFP, 
quantitative milestones, attainment year MVEB \9\ and contingency 
measures.\10\ If we finalize today's proposed CDD, any sanctions clocks 
under CAA section 179(a) or requirements that we promulgate a Federal 
Implementation Plan (FIP) under CAA section 110(c) for these SIP 
requirements will be suspended for the pendency of the CDD. If the EPA 
subsequently determines that the area is in violation of the 2006 24-
hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS, the EPA would rescind the CDD, the states 
would again be required to submit the suspended attainment plan 
elements to the EPA, and the FIP and sanctions clocks would resume. See 
40 CFR 51.1015(a)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ In accordance with 40 CFR 93.109(c)(5), Idaho will rely on 
the 2014 early progress MVEB approved on August 8, 2017, for the 
purposes of transportation conformity. 82 FR 37025.
    \10\ Pursuant to CAA section 110(k)(4), the EPA conditionally 
approved the RFP, quantitative milestones, and attainment year MVEB 
elements based on an April 25, 2017, commitment from the IDEQ to 
submit the elements by August 1, 2018. 82 FR 37028. If finalized, 
the CDD would suspend the state's obligation to meet this 
commitment. However, the CDD does not preclude the state from 
submitting the suspended elements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Neither the proposed finding of attainment by the attainment date 
nor the proposed CDD is equivalent to the redesignation of the area to 
attainment. This proposed action, if finalized, will not constitute a 
redesignation to attainment under CAA section 107(d)(3)(E), because the 
states must have an approved maintenance plan for the area as required 
under section 175A of the CAA, and the EPA must determine that the area 
has met the other requirements for redesignation in order to be 
redesignated to attainment. The designation status of the area will 
remain nonattainment for the 2006 PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS until such 
time as the EPA determines that the area meets the CAA requirements for 
redesignation to attainment in CAA section 107(d)(3)(E).
    It is possible, although not expected, that the Logan, UT-ID area 
could violate the 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS before a maintenance 
plan is adopted, submitted and approved, and the area is redesignated 
to attainment. Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.1015(a)(2), if the EPA determines 
that the area has re-violated the 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS, the 
states shall be required to submit the suspended attainment plan 
elements. Even so, submission of the suspended elements may be 
insufficient to eliminate future violations.\11\ Therefore, the 
issuance of a SIP call under section 110(k)(5) could be an appropriate 
response. This SIP call could require the states to submit, by a 
reasonable deadline not to exceed 18 months, a revised plan 
demonstrating expeditious attainment and complying with other 
requirements applicable to the area at the time of such finding. Under 
CAA section 172(d), the EPA may reasonably adjust the dates applicable 
to these requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ As discussed in sections I.C. and I.D. of this Federal 
Register action, both Utah and Idaho have implemented RACM. In 
addition, Idaho has not adopted contingency measures as part of its 
Moderate area SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Proposed Action

    Pursuant to CAA section 188(b)(2), the EPA is proposing to 
determine, based on the most recent 3 years (2015-2017) of valid 
data,\12\ that the Logan, UT-ID nonattainment area has attained the 
2006 primary and secondary 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS by the 
December 31, 2017, attainment date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Meeting the requirements of 40 CFR part 50, appendix N, and 
part 58.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, pursuant to the Clean Data Policy codified at 40 CFR 
51.1015(a), and based upon our proposed determination that the Logan, 
UT-ID nonattainment area has attained the standard, the EPA proposes to 
determine that the obligation to submit any remaining attainment-
related SIP revisions arising from classification of the Logan, UT-ID 
area as a Moderate nonattainment area under subpart 4 of part D (of 
title I of the Act) for the 2006 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS is not 
applicable for so long as the area continues to attain the 2006 24-hour 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS. If today's action is finalized as proposed, the 
sanctions and FIP clocks triggered by the partial disapproval of the 
contingency measure element of the Idaho portion of the Logan, UT-ID 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> SIP will be suspended. This proposed action, if 
finalized, would not constitute a redesignation to attainment under CAA 
section 107(d)(3).

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This action proposes to make a determination of attainment based on 
air quality and to suspend certain federal requirements, and thus would 
not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. 
For this reason, this proposed action:
    <bullet> 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);
    <bullet> is not expected to be an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 
9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory action because this action is not 
significant under Executive Order 12866;
    <bullet> does not impose an information collection burden under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
    <bullet> 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.);
    <bullet> 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);
    <bullet> does not have federalism implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
    <bullet> is not an economically significant regulatory action based 
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997);
    <bullet> is not a significant regulatory action subject to 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
    <bullet> 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
    <bullet> 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, this proposed action does not have tribal implications 
as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), 
because the SIP

[[Page 33892]]

obligations discussed herein do not apply to Indian tribes and thus 
this proposed action will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal 
governments or preempt tribal law.

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, 
Volatile organic compounds.

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

    Dated: June 25, 2018.
Debra H. Thomas,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 8.
    Dated: June 26, 2018.
Chris Hladick,
Regional Administrator, Region 10.
[FR Doc. 2018-15343 Filed 7-17-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>