Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 90 / Tuesday, May 10, 2016 / Proposed Rules 28807 

of paragraphs 15A NCAC 02D .0530(e), 

(q), and (v) that pertain to PM2.5

increments. EPA’s proposed disapproval 

of North Carolina’s September 5, 2013, 

SIP submittal as it relates to the 

requirements to comply with EPA’s 

2010 PSD PM2.5 Rule, if finalized, will 

trigger the requirement under section 

110(c) for EPA to promulgate a FIP no 

later than two years from the date of the 

disapproval unless the State corrects the 

deficiency through a SIP revision and 

EPA approves the SIP revision before 

EPA promulgates such a FIP. 

As a result of the proposed 

disapproval of a portion of the State’s 

NSR requirements, EPA is proposing to 

disapprove the PSD elements of the 

North Carolina’s infrastructure SIP 

submittals for the 2008 lead, 2008 8- 

hour ozone, 2010 SO2, 2010 NO2 and 

the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS; and is 

proposing to convert the Agency’s 

previous conditional approvals of the 

PSD elements of North Carolina’s 

infrastructure SIP submittals for the 

1997 Annual PM2.5 and 2006 24-hour 

PM2.5 NAAQS to disapprovals. North 

Carolina did not submit these 

infrastructure SIPs to meet requirements 

for Part D of the CAA or a SIP call; 

therefore, if EPA takes final action to 

disapprove the PSD portions of these 

submittals, no sanctions will be 

triggered. However, if EPA finalizes this 

proposed disapproval action, that final 

action will trigger the requirement 

under section 110(c) for EPA to 

promulgate a FIP no later than two years 

from the date of the disapproval unless 

the State corrects the deficiency through 

a SIP revision and EPA approves the SIP 

revision before EPA promulgates such a 

FIP. 

VII. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submittal that 

complies with the provisions of the Act 

and applicable federal regulations. See 

42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 

Thus, in reviewing SIP submittals, 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. This action approves, in part, 

and disapproves, in part, state law as 

meeting federal requirements and does 

not impose additional requirements 

beyond those imposed by state law. EPA 

is proposing to determine that the PSD 

portion of some of the aforementioned 

SIP submittals do not meet federal 

requirements. 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 CAA; and 

• does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

The SIP is not approved to apply on 

any Indian reservation land or in any 

other area where EPA or an Indian tribe 

has demonstrated that a tribe has 

jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian 

country, the rule does not have tribal 

implications as specified by Executive 

Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 

2000), nor will it 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, 

Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, 

Particulate matter, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur 

oxides. 

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

Dated: April 29, 2016. 

Heather McTeer Toney, 

Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

[FR Doc. 2016–10894 Filed 5–9–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R08–OAR–2016–0107; FRL–9946–18– 

Region 8] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; 

Interstate Transport for Utah 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing action on the 

portions of two 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 2008 ozone 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS) and 2008 lead (Pb) NAAQS. 

Specifically, the EPA is proposing to 

approve interstate transport prongs 1 

and 2 for the 2008 Pb NAAQS, and 

proposing to disapprove prongs 1 and 2 

for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before June 9, 2016. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R08– 

OAR–2016–0107 at http://

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Once submitted, comments cannot be 

edited or removed from regulations.gov. 

The EPA may publish any comment 

received to its public docket. Do not 

submit electronically any information 

you consider to be Confidential 

Business Information (CBI) or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Multimedia 

submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be 

accompanied by a written comment. 

The written comment is considered the 

official comment and should include 

discussion of all points you wish to 

make. The EPA will generally not 

consider comments or comment 

contents located outside of the primary 

submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or 

other file sharing system). For 

additional submission methods, the full 

EPA public comment policy, 

information about CBI or multimedia 

submissions, and general guidance on 

making effective comments, please visit 

http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/

commenting-epa-dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Adam Clark, Air Program, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA), Region 8, Mail Code 8P–AR, 


ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
28808 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 90 / Tuesday, May 10, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

1The 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) 2008 ozone supplement 

was submitted as part of Utah’s infrastructure SIP 

certification for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

2For discussion of other infrastructure elements, 

see EPA’s ‘‘Guidance on Infrastructure State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements under Clean 

Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and (2),’’ September 13, 

2013. 

3Memo from Gina McCarthy to Air Division 

Directors, Regions 1–10 re: Next Steps for Pending 

Redesignation Requests and State Implementation 

Plan Actions Affected by the Recent Court Decision 

Vacating the 2011 Cross-State Air Pollution Rule 

(Nov. 19, 2012). 

1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 

80202–1129. (303) 312–7104, 

clark.adam@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. General Information 

What should I consider as I prepare my 

comments for EPA? 

1. Submitting Confidential Business 

Information (CBI). Do not submit CBI to 

EPA through http://www.regulations.gov 

or email. Clearly mark the part or all of 

the information that you claim to be 

CBI. For CBI information on a disk or 

CD ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the 

outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI 

and then identify electronically within 

the disk or CD ROM the specific 

information that is claimed as CBI. In 

addition to one complete version of the 

comment that includes information 

claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment 

that does not contain the information 

claimed as CBI must be submitted for 

inclusion in the public docket. 

Information so marked will not be 

disclosed except in accordance with 

procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. 

2. Tips for preparing your comments. 

When submitting comments, remember 

to: 

• Identify the rulemaking by docket 

number and other identifying 

information (subject heading, Federal 

Register volume, date, and page 

number); 

• Follow directions and organize your 

comments; 

• Explain why you agree or disagree; 

• Suggest alternatives and substitute 

language for your requested changes; 

• Describe any assumptions and 

provide any technical information and/ 

or data that you used; 

• If you estimate potential costs or 

burdens, explain how you arrived at 

your estimate in sufficient detail to 

allow for it to be reproduced; 

• Provide specific examples to 

illustrate your concerns, and suggest 

alternatives; 

• Explain your views as clearly as 

possible, avoiding the use of profanity 

or personal threats; and 

• Make sure to submit your 

comments by the comment period 

deadline identified. 

II. Background 

On March 12, 2008, EPA revised the 

levels of the primary and secondary 8- 

hour ozone standards to 0.075 parts per 

million (ppm) (73 FR 16436, March 27, 

2008). On October 15, 2008, EPA 

revised the level of the primary and 

secondary Pb NAAQS to 0.15 mg/m3 (73 

FR 66964, Nov. 12, 2008). 

Pursuant to section 110(a)(1) of the 

CAA, states are required to submit SIPs 

meeting the applicable requirements of 

section 110(a)(2) within three years after 

promulgation of a new or revised 

NAAQS or within such shorter period 

as EPA may prescribe. Section 110(a)(2) 

requires states to address structural SIP 

elements such as requirements for 

monitoring, basic program 

requirements, and legal authority that 

are designed to provide for 

implementation, maintenance, and 

enforcement of the NAAQS. The SIP 

submission required by these provisions 

is referred to as the ‘‘infrastructure’’ SIP. 

Section 110(a) imposes the obligation 

upon states to make a SIP submission to 

the EPA for a new or revised NAAQS, 

but the contents of individual state 

submissions may vary depending upon 

the facts and circumstances. 

CAA Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requires 

SIPs to include provisions prohibiting 

any source or other type of emissions 

activity in one state from emitting any 

air pollutant in amounts that will 

contribute significantly to 

nonattainment, or interfere with 

maintenance, of the NAAQS in another 

state (known as the ‘‘good neighbor’’ 

provision). The two provisions of this 

section are referred to as prong 1 

(significant contribution to 

nonattainment) and prong 2 (interfere 

with maintenance). Section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) requires SIPs to 

contain adequate provisions to prohibit 

emissions that will interfere with 

measures required to be included in the 

applicable implementation plan for any 

other state under part C to prevent 

significant deterioration of air quality 

(prong 3) or to protect visibility (prong 

4). 

In this action, the EPA is only 

addressing prongs 1 and 2 of CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) with regard to the 

2008 ozone and 2008 Pb NAAQS. 

III. State Submissions and EPA’s 

Assessment 

The Utah Department of 

Environmental Quality (Department or 

UDEQ) submitted a certification of 

Utah’s infrastructure SIP for the 2008 Pb 

NAAQS on January 19, 2012, a 

certification of Utah’s infrastructure SIP 

for the 2008 ozone NAAQS on January 

31, 2013, and a supplement regarding 

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

respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS on 

December 22, 2015.1

Each of these infrastructure 

certifications addressed all of the 

infrastructure elements including 

element (D).2 In this action, we are only 

addressing element (D) prongs 1 and 2 

from the 2008 Pb certification, 2008 

ozone certification, and the December 

22, 2015 supplement which addressed 

prongs 1 and 2 for the 2008 ozone 

NAAQS. All other infrastructure 

elements from these certifications are 

being addressed in separate actions. 

2008 Ozone NAAQS 

In its January 31, 2013 2008 ozone 

infrastructure submittal, UDEQ 

addressed 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) prongs 1 and 

2 by citing EPA Administrator Gina 

McCarthy’s November 19, 2012 memo 3

which outlined the EPA’s intention to 

abide by the decision of the United 

States Court of Appeals for the District 

of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit) in 

EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. 

E.P.A., 696 F.3d 7 (D.C. Cir. 2012)). The 

EME Homer City decision addressed the 

Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) 

promulgated by the EPA to address the 

interstate transport requirements under 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to 

the 1997 ozone NAAQS, the 1997 fine 

particulate matter (PM2.5) NAAQS, and 

the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. Among other 

things, the D.C. Circuit held that states 

did not have an obligation to submit 

SIPs addressing section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) 

interstate transport requirements as to 

any NAAQS until the EPA first 

quantified each state’s emissions 

reduction obligation. Id. at 30–31. In its 

submittal, the Department noted that the 

EPA had not quantified Utah’s transport 

obligation as to the 2008 ozone NAAQS 

and that Utah’s infrastructure SIP was 

therefore adequate with regard to prongs 

1 and 2 of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). 

Subsequent to the UDEQ submission, 

on April 29, 2014, the U.S. Supreme 

Court reversed and remanded the D.C. 

Circuit’s EME Homer City decision on 

CSAPR and held, among other things, 

that under the plain language of the 

CAA, states must submit SIPs 

addressing interstate transport 

requirements of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) within three years of 

the promulgation of a new or revised 

NAAQS, regardless of whether EPA first 

provides guidance, technical data or 

rulemaking to quantify the state’s 

obligation. EPA v. EME Homer City 

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


ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 90 / Tuesday, May 10, 2016 / Proposed Rules 28809 

4Notice of Availability of the Environmental 

Protection Agency’s Updated Ozone Transport 

Modeling Data for the 2008 Ozone National 

Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS), 80 FR 

46271 (August 4, 2015). 

5For purposes of the proposed CSAPR Update 

Rule, ‘‘eastern’’ states refer to all contiguous states 

east of the Rocky Mountains, specifically not 

including: Montana, Wyoming, Colorado and New 

Mexico. 

6CSAPR proposal, 75 FR 45210, 45237 (August 

2, 2010). 

(2014). UDEQ therefore additionally 

addressed 110(a)(2)(D)(i) prongs 1 and 2 

for the 2008 ozone NAAQS as part of its 

December 22, 2015 infrastructure 

submittal that otherwise addressed the 

2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. As stated, the EPA 

is proposing action on both the January 

31, 2013 and December 22, 2015 

certifications with regard to prongs 1 

and 2 for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. 

In its subsequent December 22, 2015 

infrastructure submittal, UDEQ 

acknowledged the changed legal 

landscape, and asserted that emissions 

from the State did not significantly 

contribute to nonattainment or interfere 

with maintenance of the 2008 ozone 

NAAQS in any other state. The 

Department cited air quality modeling 

assessing interstate transport of ozone 

that was released by the EPA on August 

4, 2015, and explained that it did not 

consider the modeled contribution 

levels to nonattainment and 

maintenance receptors in the Denver, 

Colorado area and in southern 

California to be significant. 

As noted by UDEQ, the EPA shared 

technical information with states to 

assist them with meeting section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirements for the 

2008 ozone NAAQS. The EPA 

developed this technical information 

following the same approach used to 

evaluate interstate contribution in 

CSAPR in order to support the recently 

proposed Cross-State Air Pollution Rule 

Update for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS, 80 

FR 75706 (Dec. 3, 2015) (‘‘CSAPR 

Update Rule’’). In CSAPR, the EPA used 

detailed air quality analyses to 

determine whether an eastern state’s 

contribution to downwind air quality 

problems was at or above specific 

thresholds. If a state’s contribution did 

not exceed the specified air quality 

threshold, the state was not considered 

‘‘linked’’ to identified downwind 

nonattainment and maintenance 

receptors and was therefore not 

considered to significantly contribute or 

interfere with maintenance of the 

standard in those downwind areas. If a 

state exceeded that threshold, the state’s 

emissions were further evaluated, taking 

into account both air quality and cost 

considerations, to determine what, if 

any, emissions reductions might be 

necessary. For the reasons stated below, 

we believe it is appropriate to use the 

same approach the EPA used in CSAPR 

to establish an air quality threshold for 

the evaluation of interstate transport 

requirements for the 2008 ozone 

standard. 

On August 4, 2015, the EPA issued a 

Notice of Data Availability (NODA) 

containing air quality modeling data 

that projects interstate transport 

contributions for the year 2017 for the 

2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS.4 The 

modeling data released in the NODA 

was also used to support the proposed 

CSAPR Update Rule and is also cited by 

UDEQ in its updated 2008 ozone 

submittal. Since the moderate area 

attainment date for the 2008 ozone 

standard is July 11, 2018, states will use 

2015 through 2017 ambient ozone data 

in order to demonstrate attainment by 

this attainment deadline—meaning the 

2017 ozone season will be the last full 

season from which data can be used to 

determine attainment of the NAAQS. 

The D.C. Circuit’s decision in North 

Carolina v. EPA requires that the EPA 

coordinate interstate transport 

compliance deadlines with downwind 

nonattainment deadlines. As noted in 

EPA’s proposed CSAPR Update Rule, 

the Agency interprets the North 

Carolina decision to compel EPA to 

identify upwind reductions and 

implementation programs to achieve 

these reductions, to the extent possible, 

for the 2017 ozone season. Therefore, 

the EPA determined that 2017 is an 

appropriate future year to model for the 

purpose of examining interstate 

transport for the 2008 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS. The Agency used 

photochemical air quality modeling to 

project ozone concentrations at air 

quality monitoring sites to 2017 and 

estimated state-by-state ozone 

contributions to those 2017 

concentrations. This modeling used the 

Comprehensive Air Quality Model with 

Extensions (CAMx version 6.11) to 

model the 2011 base year, and the 2017 

future base case emissions scenarios to 

identify projected nonattainment and 

maintenance sites with respect to the 

2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS in 2017. The 

EPA used nationwide state-level ozone 

source apportionment modeling (CAMx 

Ozone Source Apportionment 

Technology/Anthropogenic Precursor 

Culpability Analysis technique) to 

quantify the contribution of 2017 base 

case nitrogen oxides (NOX) and volatile 

organic compounds (VOC) emissions 

from all sources in each state to the 

2017 projected receptors. The air quality 

model runs were performed for a 

modeling domain that covers the 48 

contiguous United States and adjacent 

portions of Canada and Mexico. 

The EPA used the modeling released 

in the NODA to support its proposed 

CSAPR Update rulemaking (80 FR 

75706, Dec. 3, 2015). As discussed in 

our CSAPR Update Rule proposal for 

the 2008 ozone NAAQS, 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 

receptors in 2017. Id. at 75720–30. 

Consistent with the framework 

established in CSAPR, the EPA 

proposed to use a threshold of one 

percent of the 2008 ozone NAAQS of 75 

ppb (0.75 ppb) to identify linkages 

between upwind states and the 

downwind nonattainment and 

maintenance receptors. In the proposed 

CSAPR Update Rule, the EPA 

considered eastern states 5 whose 

contributions to a specific receptor meet 

or exceed the threshold ‘‘linked’’ to that 

receptor and we analyzed these states 

further to determine if emissions 

reductions might be required from each 

state to address the downwind air 

quality problem. Id. at 75728. 

As to western states, the EPA noted 

that the 2017 implementation timeframe 

constrained the opportunity to evaluate 

the applicability of these criteria to such 

states and whether additional criteria 

should be considered in certain 

circumstances as to western states. 

Therefore, the EPA proposed to focus 

the rulemaking on the eastern states 

while requesting comment on whether 

to include western states. Id. at 75709. 

Consistent with our statements in the 

proposed CSAPR Update Rule, the EPA 

intends to address western states, like 

Utah, on a case-by-case basis. The 

modeling data released in the NODA on 

August 4, 2015, are the most up-to-date 

information the EPA has developed to 

inform our analysis of upwind state 

linkages to downwind air quality 

problems. We intend to use these data 

to help evaluate the state’s submittals 

and any potential emission reduction 

obligations as to the 2008 ozone 

standard under section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). 

As noted earlier, in CSAPR the EPA 

proposed an air quality threshold of one 

percent of the applicable NAAQS and 

requested comment on whether one 

percent was appropriate.6 The EPA 

evaluated the comments received and 

ultimately determined that one percent 

was an appropriately low threshold 


ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
28810 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 90 / Tuesday, May 10, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

7See also Air Quality Modeling Final Rule 

Technical Support Document, Appendix F, 

Analysis of Contribution Thresholds, Docket ID # 

EPA–hq–oar–2009–0491. 

8CSAPR, 76 FR 48208, 48236–37 (August 8, 

2011). 

9 Id. 

10 Id. 11 Id. 12The stated 11% is based on the highest upwind 

contributions to nonattainment or maintenance 

receptors in each area. All nonattainment and 

maintenance receptors had upwind contributions at 

9% or more. 

13The NODA modeling had taken into account 

the shutdown of the Carbon Power Plant, which 

was shut down in April 2015. See Carbon Permit 

Revocation Letter, in the docket for this action. 

because there were important, even if 

relatively small, contributions to 

identified nonattainment and 

maintenance receptors from multiple 

upwind states. In response to 

commenters who advocated a higher or 

lower threshold than one percent, the 

EPA compiled the contribution 

modeling results for CSAPR to analyze 

the impact of different possible 

thresholds for the eastern United States. 

The EPA’s analysis showed that the one 

percent threshold captures a high 

percentage of the total pollution 

transport affecting downwind states, 

while the use of higher thresholds 

would exclude increasingly larger 

percentages of total transport. For 

example, at a five percent threshold, the 

majority of interstate pollution transport 

affecting downwind receptors would be 

excluded.7 In addition, the EPA 

determined that it was important to use 

a relatively lower one percent threshold 

because there are adverse health 

impacts associated with ambient ozone 

even at low levels.8 The EPA also 

determined that a lower threshold such 

as 0.5 percent would result in relatively 

modest increases in the overall 

percentages of fine particulate matter 

and ozone pollution transport captured 

relative to the amounts captured at the 

one percent level. The EPA determined 

that a ‘‘0.5 percent threshold could lead 

to emission reduction responsibilities in 

additional states that individually have 

a very small impact on those receptors 

— an indicator that emission controls in 

those states are likely to have a smaller 

air quality impact at the downwind 

receptor. We are not convinced that 

selecting a threshold below one percent 

is necessary or desirable.’’ 9

In the final CSAPR, the EPA 

determined that one percent was a 

reasonable choice considering the 

combined downwind impact of multiple 

upwind states in the eastern United 

States, the health effects of low levels of 

fine particulate matter and ozone 

pollution, and the EPA’s previous use of 

a one percent threshold in CAIR. The 

EPA used a single ‘‘bright line’’ air 

quality threshold equal to one percent of 

the 1997 8-hour ozone standard, or 0.08 

ppm.10 The projected contribution from 

each state was averaged over multiple 

days with projected high modeled 

ozone, and then compared to the one 

percent threshold. We concluded that 

this approach for setting and applying 

the air quality threshold for ozone was 

appropriate because it provided a robust 

metric, was consistent with the 

approach for fine particulate matter 

used in CSAPR, and because it took into 

account, and would be applicable to, 

any future ozone standards below 0.08 

ppm.11 The EPA has subsequently 

proposed to use the same threshold for 

purposes of evaluating interstate 

transport with respect to the 2008 ozone 

standard in eastern states in the CSAPR 

Update Rule. 

The EPA’s recent air quality modeling 

shows that multiple upwind states 

collectively contributed to projected 

downwind nonattainment or 

maintenance receptors in Colorado. In 

particular, the EPA found that the total 

upwind states’ contribution to ozone 

concentrations (from linked and 

unlinked states) to identified downwind 

air quality problems in Colorado is 

about 11 percent.12 Thus, the EPA has 

found that the collective contribution of 

emissions from upwind states represent 

a large portion of the ozone 

concentrations at projected 

nonattainment and maintenance 

receptors in Colorado. As noted, the 

Agency has consistently found that the 

one percent threshold is appropriate for 

identifying interstate transport linkages 

for states collectively contributing to 

downwind ozone nonattainment or 

maintenance problems because that 

threshold captures a high percentage of 

the total pollution transport affecting 

downwind receptors. 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 regardless of where the 

receptor is geographically located. In 

this case, five of the states contributing 

to those identified receptors, including 

Utah, contribute emissions greater than 

or equal to one percent of the 2008 

ozone NAAQS. Given this data, the EPA 

is proposing to find that the NODA 

modeling and its use of the one percent 

threshold are also appropriate to 

determine linkages from Utah to 

downwind nonattainment and 

maintenance receptors in Colorado with 

respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS. 

Tables 1 and 2 summarize the air 

quality modeling results from the 

August 4, 2015 NODA modeling. The 

modeling indicates that Utah 

contributes emissions above the one 

percent threshold of 0.75 ppb with 

respect to four receptors in the Denver, 

Colorado area. These tables show the 

monitors in the Denver area to which 

Utah emissions are modeled to 

contribute above one percent of the 

2008 ozone NAAQS.13

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

Monitor I.D. State County 

Utah modeled 

contribution 

(ppb) 

80050002 ................................................. Colorado .................................................. Arapahoe ................................................. 1.66 

80590011 ................................................. Colorado .................................................. Jefferson .................................................. 1.34 

TABLE 2—NONATTAINMENT RECEPTORS WITH UTAH CONTRIBUTION MODELED ABOVE 1% 

Monitor I.D. State County 

Utah modeled 

contribution 

(ppb) 

80350004 ................................................. Colorado .................................................. Douglas ................................................... 1.59 


ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 90 / Tuesday, May 10, 2016 / Proposed Rules 28811 

14For more detail, see EPA’s final action on these 

area source rules at 81 FR 9343, February 25, 2016, 

and the associated docket at EPA–R08–OAR–2014– 

0369. 

TABLE 2—NONATTAINMENT RECEPTORS WITH UTAH CONTRIBUTION MODELED ABOVE 1%—Continued 

Monitor I.D. State County 

Utah modeled 

contribution 

(ppb) 

80590006 ................................................. Colorado .................................................. Jefferson .................................................. 0.87 

Utah’s largest contribution to any 

projected downwind nonattainment site 

is 1.59 ppb, and its largest contribution 

to any projected downwind 

maintenance-only site is 1.66 ppb. Since 

the NODA modeling indicates that the 

contributions from Utah are above the 

one percent threshold of 0.75 ppb with 

respect to nonattainment and 

maintenance receptors in the Denver, 

Colorado area, the EPA is proposing to 

determine that Utah significantly 

contributes to nonattainment and 

interferences with maintenance of the 

2008 ozone NAAQS for the Denver, 

Colorado area. 

UDEQ states that, despite the 

modeling results, emissions from the 

State do not significantly contribute to 

nonattainment in the Denver area, but 

the State does not provide any technical 

analysis to explain why it believes the 

modeling results are inaccurate or why, 

if the results are accurate, the State’s 

level of contribution to Denver-area 

receptors should be deemed 

insignificant. Moreover, UDEQ does not 

address the State’s modeled 

contributions to projected downwind 

maintenance receptors identified by the 

EPA. Rather, UDEQ cites various SIPapproved area source rules which it 

asserts will result in additional 

reductions in ozone precursor emissions 

as further evidence that emissions from 

the State do not contribute significantly 

to nonattainment of the 2008 ozone 

NAAQS in any other state. The 

Department listed several VOC 

emissions limitations on various 

industries submitted as part of the 

State’s greater PM2.5 control strategy 

which were recently approved by 

EPA.14 UDEQ also pointed to a rule 

prohibiting the sale of water heaters that 

do not comply with low NOX emission 

rates which will go into effect on 

November 1, 2017. UDEQ argued that 

because NOX and VOC are precursors to 

ozone, these emission limitations would 

further reduce ozone transport to 

nonattainment and maintenance 

receptors in both Colorado and 

California, but failed to quantify or 

explain how these limitations would 

significantly reduce Utah ozone 

emissions. UDEQ did not discuss 

emissions limits or reductions from any 

other source categories, such as large 

electric generating units (EGUs) within 

the State. 

Though the EPA considers the 

measures UDEQ described to be 

beneficial in reducing ozone transport, 

UDEQ has not provided any analysis to 

demonstrate that the reductions will be 

sufficient to significantly reduce Utah 

ozone emissions. The Department did 

not quantify the total anticipated 

reductions in NOX and VOC emissions 

from its listed regulations or evaluate 

the impact of those reductions in 

downwind air quality at the Denver area 

receptors. As explained above, the 

NODA modeling indicates that in spite 

of the measures Utah describes, 

emissions from sources in Utah 

contribute well above the one percent 

threshold of 0.75 ppb with respect to 

nonattainment and maintenance 

receptors in the Denver, Colorado area. 

UDEQ has not provided any technical 

analysis to contradict that information. 

UDEQ also states in the 2015 

submission that the State does not 

believe it significantly contributes or 

interferes with maintenance of the 2008 

ozone NAAQS in southern California, 

citing the State’s VOC and NOX

emission limitations. UDEQ also cites 

the general west to east wind direction 

in the western U.S. as further evidence 

that Utah emissions are unlikely to 

significantly impact ozone pollution in 

southern California. Although the State 

did not provide a particular technical 

analysis to support this conclusion, 

EPA’s modeling released in the August 

4, 2015 NODA confirms UDEQ’s 

assertion that the State does not 

significantly contribute to 

nonattainment or interfere with 

maintenance in California. 

As explained earlier, UDEQ’s SIP 

submissions do not provide an adequate 

technical analysis demonstrating that 

the SIP contains adequate provisions 

prohibiting emissions that will 

significantly contribute to 

nonattainment or interfere with the 

2008 ozone NAAQS in any other state. 

Moreover, EPA’s most recent modeling 

indicates that emissions from Utah are 

projected to contribute to downwind 

nonattainment and maintenance 

receptors in the Denver, Colorado area. 

Accordingly, EPA proposes to 

disapprove the portion of the January 

31, 2013 SIP submittal and the 

December 22, 2015 submittal addressing 

CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) prongs 1 

and 2 with respect to the 2008 ozone 

NAAQS. EPA is soliciting public 

comments on this proposed action and 

will consider public comments received 

during the comment period. 

2008 Pb NAAQS 

UDEQ’s analysis of potential 

interstate transport for the 2008 Pb 

NAAQS discussed the lack of sources 

with significant Pb emissions near the 

State’s borders. The Department also 

noted that there are no Pb 

nonattainment areas in states 

neighboring Utah. 

As noted in our October 14, 2011 

Infrastructure Guidance Memo, there is 

a sharp decrease in Pb concentrations, at 

least in the coarse fraction, as the 

distance from a Pb source increases. See 

‘‘Guidance on Infrastructure SIP 

Elements Required Under Sections 

110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2008 Lead (Pb) 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS).’’ October 14, 2011 at 8. For 

this reason, the EPA found that the 

requirements of subsection 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) (prongs 1 and 2) could 

be satisfied through a state’s assessment 

as to whether or not emissions from Pb 

sources located in close proximity to 

their state borders have emissions that 

impact the neighboring state such that 

they contribute significantly to 

nonattainment or interfere with 

maintenance in that state. Id. at 8. In 

that guidance document, the EPA 

further specified that any source 

appeared unlikely to contribute 

significantly to nonattainment unless it 

was located less than two miles from a 

state border and emitted at least 0.5 tons 

per year of Pb. UDEQ’s 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) 

analysis specifically noted that there are 

no sources in the State that meet both 

of these criteria. EPA concurs with the 

State’s analysis and conclusion that no 

Utah sources have the combination of 

Pb emission levels and proximity to 

nearby nonattainment or maintenance 

areas to contribute significantly to 

nonattainment in or interfere with 

maintenance by other states for this 

NAAQS. Utah’s SIP is therefore 

adequate to ensure that such impacts do 


ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
28812 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 90 / Tuesday, May 10, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

not occur. We are proposing to approve 

UDEQ’s submittal with regard to the 

requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) 

prongs 1 and 2 for the 2008 Pb NAAQS. 

IV. Proposed Action 

The EPA is proposing to approve CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) prongs 1 and 2 

for the 2008 Pb NAAQS, and proposing 

to disapprove prongs 1 and 2 for the 

2008 ozone NAAQS based on 

consideration of modeling results in 

EPA’s August 4, 2015 NODA. The EPA 

is soliciting public comments on this 

proposed action and will consider 

public comments received during the 

comment period. 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

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 Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this 

proposed action merely proposes 

approval of some state law as meeting 

federal requirements and proposes 

disapproval of other state law because it 

does not meet federal requirements; this 

proposed action does not propose 

additional requirements beyond those 

imposed by state law. For that reason, 

this proposed action: 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to review by the Office of 

Management and Budget under 

Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, 

January 21, 2011); 

• 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 

jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian 

country, the proposed rule does not 

have tribal implications and will not 

impose substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law as 

specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 

FR 67249, November 9, 2000). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 

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: April 26, 2016. 

Shaun L. McGrath, 

Regional Administrator, Region 8. 

[FR Doc. 2016–10893 Filed 5–9–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Defense Acquisition Regulations 

System 

48 CFR Parts 227 and 252 

[Docket DARS–2016–0010] 

RIN 0750–AI91 

Defense Federal Acquisition 

Regulation Supplement: Rights in 

Technical Data (DFARS Case 2016– 

D008) 

AGENCY: Defense Acquisition 

Regulations System, Department of 

Defense (DoD). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: DoD is proposing to amend 

the Defense Federal Acquisition 

Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to 

implement a section of the National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2016 that addresses rights in 

technical data relating to major weapon 

systems, expanding application of the 

presumption that a commercial item has 

been developed entirely at private 

expense. 

DATES: Comments on the proposed rule 

should be submitted in writing to the 

address shown below on or before July 

11, 2016, to be considered in the 

formation of a final rule. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments 

identified by DFARS Case 2016–D008, 

using any of the following methods: 

Æ Regulations.gov: http://

www.regulations.gov. Submit comments 

via the Federal eRulemaking portal by 

entering ‘‘DFARS Case 2016–D008’’ 

under the heading ‘‘Enter keyword or 

ID’’ and selecting ‘‘Search.’’ Select the 

link ‘‘Submit a Comment’’ that 

corresponds with ‘‘DFARS Case 2016– 

D008.’’ Follow the instructions provided 

at the ‘‘Submit a Comment’’ screen. 

Please include your name, company 

name (if any), and ‘‘DFARS Case 2016– 

D008’’ on your attached document. 

Æ Email: osd.dfars@mail.mil. Include 

DFARS Case 2016–D008 in the subject 

line of the message. 

Æ Fax: 571–372–6094. 

Æ Mail: Defense Acquisition 

Regulations System, Attn: Ms. Amy G. 

Williams, OUSD(AT&L)DPAP/DARS, 

Room 3B941, 3060 Defense Pentagon, 

Washington, DC 20301–3060. 

Comments received generally will be 

posted without change to http://

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided. To 

confirm receipt of your comment(s), 

please check www.regulations.gov, 

approximately two to three days after 

submission to verify posting (except 

allow 30 days for posting of comments 

submitted by mail). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Amy G. Williams, telephone 571–372– 

6106. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

DoD is proposing to revise the DFARS 

to implement section 813(a) of the 

National Defense Authorization Act 

(NDAA) for Fiscal Year (FY) 2016 (Pub. 

L. 114–92) that modifies 10 U.S.C. 

2321(f) to address rights in technical 

data relating to major weapon systems. 

The validation of asserted restrictions 

on technical data is based on statutory 

requirements, codified primarily at 10 

U.S.C. 2321, which are implemented in 

the DFARS at 227.7102–3 for 

commercial technical data and at 

227.7103–13 for noncommercial 

technical data, and incorporated into 

individual contracts via the clause 


ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS