81 FR 28807 - Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Interstate Transport for Utah
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 90 (May 10, 2016)
Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 90 (May 10, 2016)
| Page Range | 28807-28812 | |
| FR Document | 2016-10893 |
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 90 (Tuesday, May 10, 2016)] [Proposed Rules] [Pages 28807-28812] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [FR Doc No: 2016-10893] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 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, [[Page 28808]] 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129. (303) 312-7104, [email protected]. 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 [mu]g/m\3\ (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\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ The 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) 2008 ozone supplement was submitted as part of Utah's infrastructure SIP certification for the 2012 PM 2.5 NAAQS. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \2\ 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. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \3\ Memo 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). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 [[Page 28809]] (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. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \4\ Notice 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). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \5\ For 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. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 [[Page 28810]] 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\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \6\ CSAPR proposal, 75 FR 45210, 45237 (August 2, 2010). \7\ See also Air Quality Modeling Final Rule Technical Support Document, Appendix F, Analysis of Contribution Thresholds, Docket ID # EPA-hq-oar-2009-0491. \8\ CSAPR, 76 FR 48208, 48236-37 (August 8, 2011). \9\ Id. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \10\ Id. \11\ Id. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \12\ The 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. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \13\ The 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. Table 1--Maintenance Receptors With Utah Contribution Modeled Above 1% ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Utah modeled Monitor I.D. State County contribution (ppb) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 80050002................................ Colorado.................. Arapahoe.................. 1.66 80590011................................ Colorado.................. Jefferson................. 1.34 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Table 2--Nonattainment Receptors With Utah Contribution Modeled Above 1% ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Utah modeled Monitor I.D. State County contribution (ppb) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 80350004................................ Colorado.................. Douglas................... 1.59 [[Page 28811]] 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 SIP-approved 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. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \14\ For 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. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 [[Page 28812]] 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
![Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 90 / Tuesday, May 10, 2016 / Proposed Rules 28807
of paragraphs 15A NCAC 02D .0530(e), October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
(q), and (v) that pertain to PM2.5 January 21, 2011); AGENCY
increments. EPA’s proposed disapproval • does not impose an information
of North Carolina’s September 5, 2013, collection burden under the provisions 40 CFR Part 52
SIP submittal as it relates to the of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 [EPA–R08–OAR–2016–0107; FRL–9946–18–
requirements to comply with EPA’s U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); Region 8]
2010 PSD PM2.5 Rule, if finalized, will • is certified as not having a
trigger the requirement under section significant economic impact on a Approval and Promulgation of Air
110(c) for EPA to promulgate a FIP no substantial number of small entities Quality Implementation Plans;
later than two years from the date of the under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 Interstate Transport for Utah
disapproval unless the State corrects the U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
deficiency through a SIP revision and AGENCY: Environmental Protection
• does not contain any unfunded Agency.
EPA approves the SIP revision before
mandate or significantly or uniquely
EPA promulgates such a FIP. ACTION: Proposed rule.
As a result of the proposed affect small governments, as described
disapproval of a portion of the State’s in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection
NSR requirements, EPA is proposing to of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); Agency (EPA) is proposing action on the
disapprove the PSD elements of the • does not have federalism portions of two submissions from the
North Carolina’s infrastructure SIP implications as specified in Executive State of Utah that are intended to
submittals for the 2008 lead, 2008 8- Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, demonstrate that the State
hour ozone, 2010 SO2, 2010 NO2 and 1999); Implementation Plan (SIP) meets certain
the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS; and is • is not an economically significant interstate transport requirements of the
proposing to convert the Agency’s regulatory action based on health or Clean Air Act (Act or CAA). These
previous conditional approvals of the safety risks subject to Executive Order submissions address the 2008 ozone
PSD elements of North Carolina’s 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); National Ambient Air Quality Standards
infrastructure SIP submittals for the • is not a significant regulatory action (NAAQS) and 2008 lead (Pb) NAAQS.
1997 Annual PM2.5 and 2006 24-hour subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR Specifically, the EPA is proposing to
PM2.5 NAAQS to disapprovals. North 28355, May 22, 2001); approve interstate transport prongs 1
Carolina did not submit these • is not subject to requirements of and 2 for the 2008 Pb NAAQS, and
infrastructure SIPs to meet requirements Section 12(d) of the National proposing to disapprove prongs 1 and 2
for Part D of the CAA or a SIP call; Technology Transfer and Advancement for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
therefore, if EPA takes final action to Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because DATES: Comments must be received on
disapprove the PSD portions of these application of those requirements would or before June 9, 2016.
submittals, no sanctions will be be inconsistent with the CAA; and ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
triggered. However, if EPA finalizes this • does not provide EPA with the identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R08–
proposed disapproval action, that final OAR–2016–0107 at http://
discretionary authority to address, as
action will trigger the requirement www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
appropriate, disproportionate human
under section 110(c) for EPA to instructions for submitting comments.
health or environmental effects, using
promulgate a FIP no later than two years Once submitted, comments cannot be
practicable and legally permissible
from the date of the disapproval unless
methods, under Executive Order 12898 edited or removed from regulations.gov.
the State corrects the deficiency through
(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). The EPA may publish any comment
a SIP revision and EPA approves the SIP
The SIP is not approved to apply on received to its public docket. Do not
revision before EPA promulgates such a
any Indian reservation land or in any submit electronically any information
FIP.
other area where EPA or an Indian tribe you consider to be Confidential
VII. Statutory and Executive Order has demonstrated that a tribe has Business Information (CBI) or other
Reviews jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian information whose disclosure is
Under the CAA, the Administrator is country, the rule does not have tribal restricted by statute. Multimedia
required to approve a SIP submittal that implications as specified by Executive submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be
complies with the provisions of the Act Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, accompanied by a written comment.
and applicable federal regulations. See 2000), nor will it impose substantial The written comment is considered the
42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). direct costs on tribal governments or official comment and should include
Thus, in reviewing SIP submittals, preempt tribal law. discussion of all points you wish to
EPA’s role is to approve state choices, make. The EPA will generally not
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 consider comments or comment
provided that they meet the criteria of
the CAA. This action approves, in part, Environmental protection, Air contents located outside of the primary
and disapproves, in part, state law as pollution control, Incorporation by submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or
meeting federal requirements and does reference, Intergovernmental relations, other file sharing system). For
not impose additional requirements Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, additional submission methods, the full
beyond those imposed by state law. EPA Particulate matter, Reporting and EPA public comment policy,
is proposing to determine that the PSD recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur information about CBI or multimedia
oxides. submissions, and general guidance on
ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
portion of some of the aforementioned
SIP submittals do not meet federal making effective comments, please visit
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
requirements. For that reason, this http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/
Dated: April 29, 2016. commenting-epa-dockets.
action:
• Is not a significant regulatory action Heather McTeer Toney, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
subject to review by the Office of Regional Administrator, Region 4. Adam Clark, Air Program, U.S.
Management and Budget under [FR Doc. 2016–10894 Filed 5–9–16; 8:45 am] Environmental Protection Agency
Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, BILLING CODE 6560–50–P (EPA), Region 8, Mail Code 8P–AR,
VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:20 May 09, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00072 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10MYP1.SGM 10MYP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_28897/page/1.svg)
![28812 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 90 / Tuesday, May 10, 2016 / Proposed Rules
not occur. We are proposing to approve • Is not subject to requirements of Year 2016 that addresses rights in
UDEQ’s submittal with regard to the Section 12(d) of the National technical data relating to major weapon
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) Technology Transfer and Advancement systems, expanding application of the
prongs 1 and 2 for the 2008 Pb NAAQS. Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because presumption that a commercial item has
application of those requirements would been developed entirely at private
IV. Proposed Action
be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; expense.
The EPA is proposing to approve CAA and DATES: Comments on the proposed rule
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) prongs 1 and 2 • Does not provide the EPA with the should be submitted in writing to the
for the 2008 Pb NAAQS, and proposing discretionary authority to address, as address shown below on or before July
to disapprove prongs 1 and 2 for the appropriate, disproportionate human 11, 2016, to be considered in the
2008 ozone NAAQS based on health or environmental effects, using formation of a final rule.
consideration of modeling results in practicable and legally permissible ADDRESSES: Submit comments
EPA’s August 4, 2015 NODA. The EPA methods, under Executive Order 12898
is soliciting public comments on this identified by DFARS Case 2016–D008,
(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). using any of the following methods:
proposed action and will consider In addition, the SIP does not apply on Æ Regulations.gov: http://
public comments received during the any Indian reservation land or in any www.regulations.gov. Submit comments
comment period. other area where the EPA or an Indian via the Federal eRulemaking portal by
V. Statutory and Executive Order tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has entering ‘‘DFARS Case 2016–D008’’
Reviews jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian under the heading ‘‘Enter keyword or
country, the proposed rule does not ID’’ and selecting ‘‘Search.’’ Select the
Under the CAA, the Administrator is have tribal implications and will not
required to approve a SIP submission link ‘‘Submit a Comment’’ that
impose substantial direct costs on tribal corresponds with ‘‘DFARS Case 2016–
that complies with the provisions of the governments or preempt tribal law as
Act and applicable federal regulations. D008.’’ Follow the instructions provided
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 at the ‘‘Submit a Comment’’ screen.
42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the Please include your name, company
EPA’s role is to approve state actions, List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 name (if any), and ‘‘DFARS Case 2016–
provided that they meet the criteria of D008’’ on your attached document.
Environmental protection, Air Æ Email: osd.dfars@mail.mil. Include
the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
proposed action merely proposes DFARS Case 2016–D008 in the subject
Incorporation by reference, line of the message.
approval of some state law as meeting Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Æ Fax: 571–372–6094.
federal requirements and proposes Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate Æ Mail: Defense Acquisition
disapproval of other state law because it matter, Reporting and recordkeeping Regulations System, Attn: Ms. Amy G.
does not meet federal requirements; this requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile Williams, OUSD(AT&L)DPAP/DARS,
proposed action does not propose organic compounds. Room 3B941, 3060 Defense Pentagon,
additional requirements beyond those
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. Washington, DC 20301–3060.
imposed by state law. For that reason, Comments received generally will be
this proposed action: Dated: April 26, 2016.
posted without change to http://
• Is not a significant regulatory action Shaun L. McGrath,
www.regulations.gov, including any
subject to review by the Office of Regional Administrator, Region 8. personal information provided. To
Management and Budget under [FR Doc. 2016–10893 Filed 5–9–16; 8:45 am] confirm receipt of your comment(s),
Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, BILLING CODE 6560–50–P please check www.regulations.gov,
October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, approximately two to three days after
January 21, 2011); submission to verify posting (except
• Does not impose an information
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE allow 30 days for posting of comments
collection burden under the provisions
submitted by mail).
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 Defense Acquisition Regulations
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.
System Amy G. Williams, telephone 571–372–
• Is certified as not having a
significant economic impact on a 6106.
48 CFR Parts 227 and 252
substantial number of small entities SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 [Docket DARS–2016–0010]
I. Background
U.S.C. 601 et seq.); RIN 0750–AI91
• Does not contain any unfunded DoD is proposing to revise the DFARS
mandate or significantly or uniquely Defense Federal Acquisition to implement section 813(a) of the
affect small governments, as described Regulation Supplement: Rights in National Defense Authorization Act
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Technical Data (DFARS Case 2016– (NDAA) for Fiscal Year (FY) 2016 (Pub.
of 1995 (Pub. L.104–4); D008) L. 114–92) that modifies 10 U.S.C.
• Does not have Federalism 2321(f) to address rights in technical
implications as specified in Executive AGENCY: Defense Acquisition data relating to major weapon systems.
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, Regulations System, Department of The validation of asserted restrictions
on technical data is based on statutory
ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
1999); Defense (DoD).
• Is not an economically significant ACTION: Proposed rule. requirements, codified primarily at 10
regulatory action based on health or U.S.C. 2321, which are implemented in
safety risks subject to Executive Order SUMMARY: DoD is proposing to amend the DFARS at 227.7102–3 for
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); the Defense Federal Acquisition commercial technical data and at
• Is not a significant regulatory action Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to 227.7103–13 for noncommercial
subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR implement a section of the National technical data, and incorporated into
28355, May 22, 2001); Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal individual contracts via the clause
VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:20 May 09, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00077 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10MYP1.SGM 10MYP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_28897/page/6.svg)
Document Created: 2016-05-10 05:19:29
Document Modified: 2016-05-10 05:19:29
| Category | Regulatory Information | |
| Collection | Federal Register | |
| sudoc Class | AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106: | |
| Publisher | Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration | |
| Section | Proposed Rules | |
| Action | Proposed rule. | |
| Dates | Comments must be received on or before June 9, 2016. | |
| 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, [email protected] | |
| FR Citation | 81 FR 28807 | |
| CFR Associated | Environmental Protection; Air Pollution Control; Carbon Monoxide; Incorporation by Reference; Intergovernmental Relations; Lead; Nitrogen Dioxide; Ozone; Particulate Matter; Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements; Sulfur Oxides and Volatile Organic Compounds |
2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR