81 FR 50430 - Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Interstate Transport for Utah
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 147 (August 1, 2016)
Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 147 (August 1, 2016)
| Page Range | 50430-50434 | |
| FR Document | 2016-18153 |
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 147 (Monday, August 1, 2016)] [Proposed Rules] [Pages 50430-50434] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [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, [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 September 21, 2006, the EPA revised the primary 24-hour NAAQS for PM 2.5 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
![50430 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 147 / Monday, August 1, 2016 / Proposed Rules
consistent with the NAAQS requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is • is not a significant regulatory action
promulgated by EPA in 2006.4 proposing to incorporate by reference subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR
Jefferson County Regulation 1.02— 28355, May 22, 2001);
iii. O3 • is not subject to requirements of
Definitions (except for the definitions of
On July 18, 1997, EPA revoked the 1- ‘‘Acute noncancer effect,’’ ‘‘Cancer,’’ Section 12(d) of the National
hour primary NAAQS for O3. See 62 FR ‘‘Carcinogen,’’ and ‘‘Chronic noncancer Technology Transfer and Advancement
38856. On March 27, 2008, EPA effect’’) and Regulation 3.01—Ambient Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because
promulgated a new 8-hour primary and Air Quality Standards. EPA has made, application of those requirements would
secondary NAAQS for O3 at a level of and will continue to make, these be inconsistent with the CAA; and
0.075 parts per million (ppm), based on documents generally available • does not provide EPA with the
an annual fourth-highest daily electronically through discretionary authority to address, as
maximum 8-hr concentration averaged www.regulations.gov and/or in hard appropriate, disproportionate human
over three years. See 73 FR 16483. copy at the Region 4 office (see the health or environmental effects, using
Accordingly, in the May 3, 2012, SIP ADDRESSES section of this preamble for practicable and legally permissible
submission, Jefferson County revised more information). methods, under Executive Order 12898
Regulation 3.01 to update its air quality (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
standards for O3 to be consistent with IV. Proposed Action The SIP is not approved to apply on
the NAAQS promulgated by EPA in EPA is proposing to approve the any Indian reservation land or in any
2008. portions of the Commonwealth of other area where EPA or an Indian tribe
iv. NO2 Kentucky’s March 22, 2011, and May 3, has demonstrated that a tribe has
2012, SIP revisions identified in section jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
On February 9, 2010, EPA country, the rule does not have tribal
II, above, because they are consistent
promulgated a new 1-hour primary implications as specified by Executive
with the CAA.
NAAQS for NO2 at a level of 100 parts Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9,
per billion (ppb), based on a 3-year V. Statutory and Executive Order 2000), nor will it impose substantial
average of the 98th percentile of the Reviews direct costs on tribal governments or
yearly distribution of 1-hour daily preempt tribal law.
Under the CAA, the Administrator is
maximum concentrations. See 75 FR
required to approve a SIP submission List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
6474. Accordingly, in the May 3, 2012,
that complies with the provisions of the
SIP submission, Jefferson County Environmental protection, Air
Act and applicable Federal regulations.
revised Regulation 3.01 to update its pollution control, Incorporation by
See 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
primary air quality standard for NO2 to reference, Intergovernmental relations,
be consistent with the NAAQS Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions,
EPA’s role is to approve state choices, Nitrogen dioxide, Sulfur dioxide,
promulgated by EPA in 2010. Reporting and recordkeeping
provided that they meet the criteria of
v. SO2 the CAA. Accordingly, this action requirements.
On June 22, 2010, EPA promulgated a merely proposes to approve state law as Dated: July 20, 2016.
revised primary SO2 NAAQS to an meeting Federal requirements and does Heather McTeer Toney,
hourly standard of 75 ppb, based on a not impose additional requirements Regional Administrator, Region 4.
3-year average of the annual 99th beyond those imposed by state law. For [FR Doc. 2016–18011 Filed 7–29–16; 8:45 am]
percentile of 1-hour daily maximum that reason, this action: BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
concentrations, and revoked the 24-hour • Is not a significant regulatory action
SO2 NAAQS. See 75 FR 35520. subject to review by the Office of
Accordingly, in the May 3, 2012, SIP Management and Budget under ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
submission, Jefferson County revised Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, AGENCY
Regulation 3.01 to update its primary air October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821,
quality standards for SO2 to be January 21, 2011); 40 CFR Part 52
consistent with the NAAQS • does not impose an information [EPA–R08–OAR–2016–0107; FRL–9949–98–
promulgated by EPA in 2010. collection burden under the provisions Region 8]
EPA has reviewed the revisions to of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
Regulation 3.01 in the May 3, 2012, SIP U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); Approval and Promulgation of Air
submission, including the NAAQS • is certified as not having a Quality Implementation Plans;
updates for Pb, particulate matter, O3, significant economic impact on a Interstate Transport for Utah
NO2, and SO2, and has made the substantial number of small entities
preliminary determination that these AGENCY: Environmental Protection
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 Agency (EPA).
changes are consistent with the CAA. U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
ACTION: Proposed rule.
III. Incorporation by Reference • does not contain any unfunded
mandate or significantly or uniquely SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection
In this rule, EPA is proposing to affect small governments, as described Agency (EPA) is proposing to take
include in a final EPA rule regulatory in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act action on portions of six submissions
text that includes incorporation by of 1995 (Public Law 104–4); from the State of Utah that are intended
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
reference. In accordance with
• does not have Federalism to demonstrate that the State
4 On January 15, 2013, EPA revised the primary
implications as specified in Executive Implementation Plan (SIP) meets certain
annual PM2.5 NAAQS to 12 mg/m3, based on annual Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, interstate transport requirements of the
mean PM2.5 concentrations averaged over three 1999); Clean Air Act (Act or CAA). These
years. See 78 FR 3086. Since Jefferson County’s May • is not an economically significant submissions address the 2006 and 2012
3, 2012, submission preceded EPA’s promulgation
of the new annual standard, an update reflecting the
regulatory action based on health or fine particulate matter (PM2.5) National
new NAAQS was not included as part of SIP safety risks subject to Executive Order Ambient Air Quality Standards
revision. 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); (NAAQS), 2008 ozone NAAQS, 2008
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:44 Jul 29, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\01AUP1.SGM 01AUP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_50577/page/1.svg)
![50432 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 147 / Monday, August 1, 2016 / Proposed Rules
ozone NAAQS and 2010 NO2 NAAQS (‘‘2013 Guidance’’), ‘‘[o]ne way in which The EPA interprets prong 4 to be
on January 31, 2013; a certification of prong 4 may be satisfied for any relevant pollutant-specific, such that the
Utah’s infrastructure SIP for the 2010 NAAQS is through an air agency’s infrastructure SIP submission need only
SO2 NAAQS on June 2, 2013; and a confirmation in its infrastructure SIP address the potential for interference
certification of Utah’s infrastructure SIP submission that it has an approved with protection of visibility caused by
for the 2012 PM2.5 on December 22, regional haze SIP that fully meets the the pollutant (including precursors) to
2015. requirements of 40 CFR 51.308 or which the new or revised NAAQS
Each of these infrastructure 51.309. 40 CFR 51.308 and 51.309 applies.6
certifications addressed all of the specifically require that a state The 2013 Guidance lays out two ways
required infrastructure elements under participating in a regional planning in which a state’s infrastructure SIP
section 110(a)(2).1 As noted above, the process include all measures needed to submittal may satisfy prong 4. As
EPA is only addressing the achieve its apportionment of emission explained above, one way is through a
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), prong 4 (visibility) reduction obligations agreed upon state’s confirmation in its infrastructure
element of each of these submissions through that process.’’ 4 SIP submittal that it has an EPA
here; all other infrastructure elements On May 26, 2011, Utah submitted to approved regional haze SIP in place. In
from these certifications are being the EPA a SIP revision to address the the absence of a fully approved regional
addressed in separate actions. requirements of the regional haze haze SIP, a state can make a
In Utah’s 2006 PM2.5 infrastructure program. The EPA partially approved demonstration in its infrastructure SIP
certification, UDEQ pointed to SIP and partially disapproved Utah’s SIP submittal that emissions within its
language verifying that no Utah sources revision on December 14, 2012 (77 FR jurisdiction do not interfere with other
of emissions interfere with 74355). In that action, the EPA states’ plans to protect visibility. Such a
implementation of reasonably disapproved Utah’s NOX and PM10 Best submittal should point to measures in
attributable visibility impairment Available Retrofit Technology (BART) the state’s SIP that limit visibility-
(RAVI) SIPs in other states, in determinations (77 FR 74357), and impairing pollutants and ensure that the
accordance with EPA guidance.2 approved Utah’s BART alternative for resulting reductions conform with any
In Utah’s 2006 PM2.5, 2008 ozone, SO2, which relied on the State’s mutually agreed emission reductions
2010 SO2, 2010 NO2 and 2012 PM2.5 participation in the backstop SO2 under the relevant regional haze
NAAQS infrastructure certifications, the trading program.5 regional planning organization (RPO)
Department pointed to its Regional Haze In response to the EPA’s December 14, process.7
SIP (Utah SIP Section XX) to certify that 2012 partial disapproval, UDEQ UDEQ worked through its RPO, the
the State meets the visibility submitted further SIP revisions on June WRAP, to develop strategies to address
requirements of section 4, 2015, and October 20, 2015, to meet regional haze. To help states in
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II). Utah specifically the regional haze requirements for NOX establishing reasonable progress goals
noted in each of these submittals (aside and PM10 BART. Instead of establishing for improving visibility in Class I areas,
from the 2006 PM2.5 submittal) that the BART controls for NOX, Utah’s SIP the WRAP modeled future visibility
State had consulted with other states in revisions contained an alternative to conditions based on the mutually agreed
the Western Regional Air Partnership BART. The revisions also included emissions reductions from each state.
(WRAP), and that reductions in BART controls for PM10. The WRAP states then relied on this
emissions from Utah were included in On July 5, 2016, the EPA finalized modeling in setting their respective
the WRAP regional visibility modeling. action on Utah’s June 4, 2015 Regional reasonable progress goals. As a result,
As explained below, this information is Haze SIP, approving the PM10 BART we consider emissions reductions from
relevant in determining whether Utah’s determinations for both the affected measures in Utah’s SIP that conform
SIP will achieve the emission sources, the Hunter and Huntington with the level of emission reductions
reductions that the WRAP states power plants, and disapproving the the State agreed to include in the WRAP
mutually agreed are necessary to avoid State’s NOX BART alternative for these
interstate visibility impacts in Class I modeling to meet the visibility
two facilities. The EPA also requirement of CAA section
areas.3 promulgated a final federal
UDEQ addressed visibility for the 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II).
implementation plan (FIP) to address With regard to the 2010 SO2 NAAQS,
2008 Pb NAAQS by pointing to the the deficiencies in Utah’s NOX BART
short distance travelled by Pb the EPA proposes to find that the State’s
determinations and the associated implementation of the Western
emissions, and by noting that there was monitoring, recordkeeping and
not a significant source of Pb in Utah Backstop Sulfur Dioxide Trading
reporting requirements for both the Program and the agreed upon SO2
within 100 miles of a Class I area. Hunter and Huntington power plants reductions achieved through that
IV. Utah’s Regional Haze SIP (81 FR 43894, July 5, 2016). program sufficient to meet the
As stated in the EPA’s September 13, V. EPA’s Assessment requirements of prong 4.8 Under 40 CFR
2013 Infrastructure SIP Guidance Memo The 2013 Guidance states that section 6 See ‘‘Guidance on Infrastructure State
1 For
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)’s prong 4 requirements Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements under Clean
discussion of other infrastructure elements,
see EPA’s ‘‘Guidance on Infrastructure State can be satisfied by approved SIP Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and (2)’’ at 33.
Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements under Clean provisions that the EPA has found to 7 See ‘‘Guidance on Infrastructure State
Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and (2),’’ September 13, adequately address a state’s contribution Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements under Clean
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
2013. Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and (2)’’ at 34, and also
2 See EPA’s ‘‘Guidance on SIP Elements Required
to visibility impairment in other states. 76 FR 22036 (April 20, 2011) containing EPA’s
Under Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2006 24- approval of the visibility requirement of
4 See ‘‘Guidance on Infrastructure State 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) based on a demonstration by
Hour Fine Particle (PM2.5) National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS),’’ September 25, 2009, Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements under Clean Colorado that did not rely on the Colorado Regional
at 6. Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and (2),’’ September 13, Haze SIP.
3 See ‘‘Guidance on Infrastructure State 2013, at 33. 8 Specifically, the State is required to reach its
Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements under Clean 5 EPA’s final approval of the ‘‘Western Backstop ‘‘emissions milestone’’ for this program by keeping
Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and (2),’’ September 13, Sulfur Dioxide Trading Program’’ into the Utah SIP its SO2 emissions below 141,849 tons/SO2 in 2018
2013, at 34. is codified at 40 CFR 52.2320(c)(71)(C) and (D). and each year thereafter.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:44 Jul 29, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\01AUP1.SGM 01AUP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_50577/page/3.svg)
![50434 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 147 / Monday, August 1, 2016 / Proposed Rules
tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has DATES: The session will be held on will be accepted at the session. The
jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian September 14, 2016. Comments must be listening session will be held on
country, the proposed rule does not received on or before September 23, September 14, 2016 at 10 a.m. at the
have tribal implications and will not 2016. Environmental Protection Agency
impose substantial direct costs on tribal ADDRESSES: The public listening session Region 5 Office (Lake Erie Room, Floor
governments or preempt tribal law as will be held at the Environmental 12), 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 Protection Agency Region 5 Office (Lake Chicago, IL 60604–3507. The listening
FR 67249, November 9, 2000). Erie Room, Floor 12), 77 West Jackson session will continue until all speakers
Boulevard, Chicago, IL 60604–3507. in attendance have had a chance to
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 provide comments or 3 p.m., whichever
Submit your comments, identified by
Environmental protection, Air Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OW–2016– comes first. If time allows after all
pollution control, Carbon monoxide, comments have been heard, a broader
0378, to the Federal eRulemaking
Incorporation by reference, discussion may take place regarding
Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Intergovernmental relations, Lead, topics identified under Section III, Input
Follow the online instructions for
Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate on Public Notice Considerations.
submitting comments. Once submitted,
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping comments cannot be edited or B. Additional Information and Public
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile withdrawn. EPA may publish any Meeting Registration
organic compounds. comment received to its public docket. Prior to the public meeting date, EPA
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. Do not submit electronically any will post any relevant materials to the
Dated: July 19, 2016. information you consider to be following Web site: https://
Shaun L. McGrath, Confidential Business Information (CBI) www.epa.gov/npdes/combined-sewer-
Regional Administrator, Region 8. or other information whose disclosure is overflows-great-lakes-basin. Information
restricted by statute. Multimedia posted to the Web site will include any
[FR Doc. 2016–18153 Filed 7–29–16; 8:45 am]
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be handouts that may be provided at the
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
accompanied by a written comment. meeting as well as a web link that
The written comment is considered the participants may use to register for the
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION official comment and should include public meeting in advance. Advanced
AGENCY discussion of all points you wish to registration is not required but is
make. EPA will generally not consider requested so that EPA can ensure there
40 CFR Part 122 comments or comment contents located is sufficient space and time allotted for
outside of the primary submission (i.e., those who wish to participate.
[EPA–HQ–OW–2016–0376; FRL–9950–07– on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
OW] II. Background
system). For additional submission
Public Notification for Combined methods, the full EPA public comment The Environmental Protection Agency
Sewer Overflows in the Great Lakes; policy, information about CBI or (EPA) will be proposing a rule to
Public Listening Session; Request for multimedia submissions, and general establish public notification
Stakeholder Input guidance on making effective requirements for combined sewer
comments, please visit http:// overflows (CSOs) to the Great Lakes, as
AGENCY: Environmental Protection www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting- required by Section 425 of the
Agency (EPA). epa-dockets. For details on the public Consolidated Appropriations Act of
ACTION: Request for stakeholder input. listening session see SUPPLEMENTAL 2016 (Pub. L. 114–113) (hereafter,
INFORMATION. referred to as ‘‘Section 425’’). Section
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 425 requires EPA to work with the Great
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lisa
Agency (EPA) is announcing plans to Lakes states to create these public notice
Biddle, Water Permits Division, Office
hold a public ‘‘listening session’’ on requirements, and EPA is also seeking
of Water (4203M), Environmental
September 14, 2016 in Chicago, Illinois public input in the development of
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
to obtain information from the public to these requirements.
Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460;
help inform development of a new
telephone number: 202–566–0350; fax Combined Sewer Overflows From
regulation establishing public
number: 202–564–6392; email address: Municipal Wastewater Collection
notification requirements for combined
biddle.lisa@epa.gov. Also see the Systems
sewer overflow discharges in the Great
following Web site for additional
Lakes. This rulemaking is in response to Municipal wastewater collection
information regarding the rulemaking:
new requirements included with the systems collect domestic sewage and
https://www.epa.gov/npdes/combined-
2016 appropriations. EPA is requesting other wastewater from homes and other
sewer-overflows-great-lakes-basin.
input from the public regarding buildings and convey it to wastewater
potential approaches for these new SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: treatment plants for proper treatment
public notification requirements for I. General Information and disposal. The collection and
combined sewer overflow discharges in treatment of municipal sewage and
the Great Lakes through participation in A. Public Listening Session wastewater is vital to the public health
the public listening session and by EPA will hold an informal public in our cities and towns. In the United
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
submitting information in writing at the listening session to afford an States, municipalities historically have
listening sessions or to the agency opportunity for the public to provide used two major types of sewer systems.
directly through email, fax, or mail. The input on a regulatory action that EPA is Many municipalities collect domestic
agency is undertaking this outreach to considering to establish public sewage in a sanitary sewer system and
help it shape a future regulatory notification requirements for combined convey the sewage to a publicly owned
proposal intended to provide the sewer overflow discharges in the Great treatment works (POTW) for treatment.
affected public with information that Lakes. Brief oral comments (three These municipalities also have separate
will help better protect public health. minutes or less) and written statements sewer systems to collect surface
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:44 Jul 29, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\01AUP1.SGM 01AUP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_50577/page/5.svg)
Document Created: 2016-07-30 06:25:53
Document Modified: 2016-07-30 06:25:53
| 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 August 31, 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 50430 | |
| 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