Document ID: EPA-R08-OAR-2016-0107-0015
Agency: epa
Document Type: Proposed Rule
Title: Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: Utah: Interstate Transport
Posted Date: 2016-08-01T04:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 147 (Monday, August 1, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 50430-50434]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-18153]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R08-OAR-2016-0107; FRL-9949-98-Region 8]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; 
Interstate Transport for Utah

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to take 
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

[[Page 50431]]

lead (Pb) NAAQS, 2010 sulfur dioxide (SO2) NAAQS and 2010 
nitrogen dioxide (NO2) NAAQS. Specifically, the EPA is 
proposing to approve interstate transport prong 4 for the 2008 Pb and 
2010 SO2 NAAQS, and proposing to disapprove prong 4 for the 
2006 PM2.5, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2 and 2012 
PM2.5 NAAQS.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 31, 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, 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 September 21, 2006, the EPA revised the primary 24-hour NAAQS 
for PM2.5 to 35 micrograms per cubic meter ([mu]g/m\3\) (71 
FR 61144, Oct. 17, 2006). On March 12, 2008, the EPA revised the levels 
of the primary and secondary 8-hour ozone standards to 0.075 parts per 
million (ppm) (73 FR 16436, Mar. 27, 2008). On October 15, 2008, the 
EPA revised the level of the primary and secondary Pb NAAQS to 0.15 
[mu]g/m\3\ (73 FR 66964, Nov. 12, 2008). On January 22, 2010, the EPA 
promulgated a new 1-hour primary NAAQS for NO2 at a level of 
100 parts per billion (ppb) while retaining the annual standard of 53 
ppb (75 FR 6474, Feb. 9, 2010). The secondary NO2 NAAQS 
remains unchanged at 53 ppb. On June 2, 2010, the EPA promulgated a 
revised primary 1-hour SO2 standard at 75 ppb (75 FR 35520, 
June 22, 2010). Finally, on December 14, 2012, the EPA promulgated a 
revised annual PM2.5 standard by lowering the level to 12.0 
[mu]g/m\3\ and retaining the 24-hour PM2.5 standard at a 
level of 35 [mu]g/m\3\ (78 FR 3086, Jan. 15, 2013).
    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 the EPA may prescribe. Section 110(a)(2) 
requires states to address structural SIP elements such as 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 addressing prong 4 with regard to the 
2006 and 2012 PM2.5, 2008 ozone, 2008 Pb, 2010 
SO2 and 2010 NO2 NAAQS. The EPA addressed prongs 
1 and 2 for the 2008 ozone and 2008 Pb NAAQS in a proposed action 
published May 10, 2016 (81 FR 28807), and intends to finalize that 
action in conjunction with the actions in this proposed rule in one 
joint, final rulemaking. The EPA is addressing prong 3 for the 
applicable NAAQS in a separate action proposed April 26, 2016 (81 FR 
24525), which can be found in regulations.gov under the docket EPA-R08-
OAR-2013-0561.

III. State Submissions

    The Utah Department of Environmental Quality (Department or UDEQ) 
submitted the following: A certification of Utah's infrastructure SIP 
for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS on September 21, 2010; a 
certification of Utah's infrastructure SIP for the 2008 Pb SIP on 
January 19, 2012; a certification of Utah's infrastructure SIP for the 
2008

[[Page 50432]]

ozone NAAQS and 2010 NO2 NAAQS on January 31, 2013; a 
certification of Utah's infrastructure SIP for the 2010 SO2 
NAAQS on June 2, 2013; and a certification of Utah's infrastructure SIP 
for the 2012 PM2.5 on December 22, 2015.
    Each of these infrastructure certifications addressed all of the 
required infrastructure elements under section 110(a)(2).\1\ As noted 
above, the EPA is only addressing the 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), prong 4 
(visibility) element of each of these submissions here; all other 
infrastructure elements from these certifications are being addressed 
in separate actions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ For 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In Utah's 2006 PM2.5 infrastructure certification, UDEQ 
pointed to SIP language verifying that no Utah sources of emissions 
interfere with implementation of reasonably attributable visibility 
impairment (RAVI) SIPs in other states, in accordance with EPA 
guidance.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See EPA's ``Guidance on SIP Elements Required Under Sections 
110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2006 24-Hour Fine Particle 
(PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS),'' 
September 25, 2009, at 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In Utah's 2006 PM2.5, 2008 ozone, 2010 SO2, 
2010 NO2 and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS infrastructure 
certifications, the Department pointed to its Regional Haze SIP (Utah 
SIP Section XX) to certify that the State meets the visibility 
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II). Utah specifically noted in 
each of these submittals (aside from the 2006 PM2.5 
submittal) that the State had consulted with other states in the 
Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP), and that reductions in 
emissions from Utah were included in the WRAP regional visibility 
modeling. As explained below, this information is relevant in 
determining whether Utah's SIP will achieve the emission reductions 
that the WRAP states mutually agreed are necessary to avoid interstate 
visibility impacts in Class I areas.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See ``Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation Plan 
(SIP) Elements under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and (2),'' 
September 13, 2013, at 34.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    UDEQ addressed visibility for the 2008 Pb NAAQS by pointing to the 
short distance travelled by Pb emissions, and by noting that there was 
not a significant source of Pb in Utah within 100 miles of a Class I 
area.

IV. Utah's Regional Haze SIP

    As stated in the EPA's September 13, 2013 Infrastructure SIP 
Guidance Memo (``2013 Guidance''), ``[o]ne way in which prong 4 may be 
satisfied for any relevant NAAQS is through an air agency's 
confirmation in its infrastructure SIP submission that it has an 
approved regional haze SIP that fully meets the requirements of 40 CFR 
51.308 or 51.309. 40 CFR 51.308 and 51.309 specifically require that a 
state participating in a regional planning process include all measures 
needed to achieve its apportionment of emission reduction obligations 
agreed upon through that process.'' \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See ``Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation Plan 
(SIP) Elements under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and (2),'' 
September 13, 2013, at 33.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On May 26, 2011, Utah submitted to the EPA a SIP revision to 
address the requirements of the regional haze program. The EPA 
partially approved and partially disapproved Utah's SIP revision on 
December 14, 2012 (77 FR 74355). In that action, the EPA disapproved 
Utah's NOX and PM10 Best Available Retrofit 
Technology (BART) determinations (77 FR 74357), and approved Utah's 
BART alternative for SO2, which relied on the State's 
participation in the backstop SO2 trading program.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ EPA's final approval of the ``Western Backstop Sulfur 
Dioxide Trading Program'' into the Utah SIP is codified at 40 CFR 
52.2320(c)(71)(C) and (D).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to the EPA's December 14, 2012 partial disapproval, 
UDEQ submitted further SIP revisions on June 4, 2015, and October 20, 
2015, to meet the regional haze requirements for NOX and 
PM10 BART. Instead of establishing BART controls for 
NOX, Utah's SIP revisions contained an alternative to BART. 
The revisions also included BART controls for PM10.
    On July 5, 2016, the EPA finalized action on Utah's June 4, 2015 
Regional Haze SIP, approving the PM10 BART determinations 
for both the affected sources, the Hunter and Huntington power plants, 
and disapproving the State's NOX BART alternative for these 
two facilities. The EPA also promulgated a final federal implementation 
plan (FIP) to address the deficiencies in Utah's NOX BART 
determinations and the associated monitoring, recordkeeping and 
reporting requirements for both the Hunter and Huntington power plants 
(81 FR 43894, July 5, 2016).

V. EPA's Assessment

    The 2013 Guidance states that section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)'s prong 4 
requirements can be satisfied by approved SIP provisions that the EPA 
has found to adequately address a state's contribution to visibility 
impairment in other states. The EPA interprets prong 4 to be pollutant-
specific, such that the infrastructure SIP submission need only address 
the potential for interference with protection of visibility caused by 
the pollutant (including precursors) to which the new or revised NAAQS 
applies.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See ``Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation Plan 
(SIP) Elements under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and (2)'' at 
33.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The 2013 Guidance lays out two ways in which a state's 
infrastructure SIP submittal may satisfy prong 4. As explained above, 
one way is through a state's confirmation in its infrastructure SIP 
submittal that it has an EPA approved regional haze SIP in place. In 
the absence of a fully approved regional haze SIP, a state can make a 
demonstration in its infrastructure SIP submittal that emissions within 
its jurisdiction do not interfere with other states' plans to protect 
visibility. Such a submittal should point to measures in the state's 
SIP that limit visibility-impairing pollutants and ensure that the 
resulting reductions conform with any mutually agreed emission 
reductions under the relevant regional haze regional planning 
organization (RPO) process.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See ``Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation Plan 
(SIP) Elements under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and (2)'' at 
34, and also 76 FR 22036 (April 20, 2011) containing EPA's approval 
of the visibility requirement of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) based on a 
demonstration by Colorado that did not rely on the Colorado Regional 
Haze SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    UDEQ worked through its RPO, the WRAP, to develop strategies to 
address regional haze. To help states in establishing reasonable 
progress goals for improving visibility in Class I areas, the WRAP 
modeled future visibility conditions based on the mutually agreed 
emissions reductions from each state. The WRAP states then relied on 
this modeling in setting their respective reasonable progress goals. As 
a result, we consider emissions reductions from measures in Utah's SIP 
that conform with the level of emission reductions the State agreed to 
include in the WRAP modeling to meet the visibility requirement of CAA 
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II).
    With regard to the 2010 SO2 NAAQS, the EPA proposes to 
find that the State's implementation of the Western Backstop Sulfur 
Dioxide Trading Program and the agreed upon SO2 reductions 
achieved through that program sufficient to meet the requirements of 
prong 4.\8\ Under 40 CFR

[[Page 50433]]

51.309, certain states, including Utah, can satisfy their 
SO2 BART requirements by adopting an alternative program 
consisting of SO2 emission milestones and a backstop trading 
program.\9\ Utah Administrative Rules (UAR) R307-250 and R307-150 
implement the backstop trading program provisions and the EPA has 
approved the State's rules, including the SO2 reduction 
milestones, as satisfying its regional haze SO2 
obligations.\10\ Utah's SIP thus contains measures requiring reductions 
of SO2 consistent with what the State agreed to achieve 
under the WRAP process in order to protect visibility. As a result, EPA 
is proposing to approve 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) prong 4 for the 2010 
SO2 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Specifically, the State is required to reach its ``emissions 
milestone'' for this program by keeping its SO2 emissions 
below 141,849 tons/SO2 in 2018 and each year thereafter.
    \9\ 40 CFR 51.309.
    \10\ 77 FR 74355 (Dec. 14, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA is also proposing to approve Utah's prong 4 SIP submittal 
for the 2008 Pb NAAQS. The EPA agrees with UDEQ's submission, which 
states that significant impacts from Pb emissions from stationary 
sources are expected to be limited to short distances from the source. 
The State also noted that it does not have any major sources of Pb 
located within 100 miles of a neighboring state's Class I area. 
Further, when evaluating the extent to which Pb could impact 
visibility, the EPA has found Pb-related visibility impacts 
insignificant (e.g., less than 0.10 percent).\11\ The EPA proposes to 
approve prong 4 for the 2008 Pb NAAQS based on Utah's conclusion that 
it does not have any significant sources of lead emissions near another 
state's Class I area and that it, therefore, does not have emissions of 
Pb that would interfere with the requirements of section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) with respect to visibility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ EPA's September 13, 2013 Infrastructure SIP Guidance, at 
33.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA is proposing to disapprove Utah's prong 4 infrastructure 
SIP submittals for the 2006 PM2.5, 2008 ozone, 2010 
NO2, and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. The EPA's disapproval 
of Utah's NOX BART determination in our July 5, 2016 final 
rulemaking included the specific disapproval of the NOX 
control measures the State submitted for the Hunter and Huntington 
facilities (81 FR 43894, 43902).
    As noted, Utah relied on its Regional Haze SIP (Utah SIP Section 
XX), and specifically its participation in the WRAP, as justification 
for the approvability of prong 4 for 2006 PM2.5, 2008 ozone, 
2010 NO2 and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. Because the 
Department did not provide an alternative demonstration that its SIP 
contains measures to limit NOX emissions in accordance with 
the emission reductions it agreed to under the WRAP,\12\ the EPA's 
disapproval of Utah's NOX BART alternative makes Utah's 
justification insufficient for the NAAQS pollutants impacted by the 
control of NOX. Specifically, NOX is a precursor 
of PM2.5 and ozone, and is also a term which refers to both 
NO (nitrogen oxide) and NO2. The EPA is therefore proposing 
to disapprove prong 4 of Utah's infrastructure certifications with 
regard to the 2006 PM2.5, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2 
and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ With the exception of the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, 
which referenced the State's lack of interference with RAVI.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If the EPA disapproves an infrastructure SIP submission for prong 
4, as we are proposing for the 2006 PM2.5, 2008 Ozone, 2010 
NO2 and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS, a FIP obligation will 
be created. However, since the EPA recently promulgated a FIP for Utah 
that corrects all regional haze SIP deficiencies (81 FR 43894), there 
will be no additional practical consequences from the disapproval for 
UDEQ, the sources within its jurisdiction, or the EPA.\13\ The EPA will 
not be required to take further action with respect to these prong 4 
disapprovals, if finalized, because the FIP already in place would 
satisfy the requirements with respect to prong 4.\14\ Additionally, 
since the infrastructure SIP submission is not required in response to 
a SIP call under CAA section 110(k)(5), mandatory sanctions under CAA 
section 179 would not apply because the deficiencies are not with 
respect to a submission that is required under CAA title I part D.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ EPA's September 13, 2013 Infrastructure SIP Guidance, at 
34.
    \14\ Id. at 35.
    \15\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VI. Proposed Action

    The EPA is proposing to approve portions of Utah's infrastructure 
certifications which address the interstate transport requirements of 
CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), and to disapprove portions of other 
certifications addressing this CAA requirement. The EPA is proposing to 
approve 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) prong 4 for the 2008 Pb and 2010 
SO2 NAAQS. The EPA is also proposing to disapprove 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) prong 4 for the 2006 PM2.5, 2008 ozone, 
2010 NO2 and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. The EPA is 
soliciting public comments on this proposed action and will consider 
public comments received during the comment period.

VII. 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 (Public Law 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

[[Page 50434]]

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: July 19, 2016.
Shaun L. McGrath,
Regional Administrator, Region 8.
[FR Doc. 2016-18153 Filed 7-29-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P