81 FR 71991 - Approval and Disapproval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Interstate Transport for Utah
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 202 (October 19, 2016)
Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 202 (October 19, 2016)
| Page Range | 71991-71997 | |
| FR Document | 2016-25145 |
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 202 (Wednesday, October 19, 2016)] [Rules and Regulations] [Pages 71991-71997] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [FR Doc No: 2016-25145] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R08-OAR-2016-0107; FRL-9954-13-Region 8] Approval and Disapproval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Interstate Transport for Utah AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Final rule. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final 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 lead (Pb) NAAQS, 2010 sulfur dioxide (SO2 ) NAAQS and 2010 nitrogen dioxide (NO2 ) NAAQS. The interstate transport requirements under the CAA consist of four elements: Significant contribution to nonattainment (prong 1) and interference with maintenance (prong 2) of the NAAQS in other states; and interference with measures required to be included in the plan for other states to prevent significant deterioration of air quality (prong 3) or to protect visibility (prong 4). Specifically, the EPA is approving interstate transport prongs 1, 2 and 4 for the 2008 Pb NAAQS, approving prong 4 for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS, disapproving prong 4 for the 2006 PM2.5 , 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2 and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS, and disapproving prong 2 for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. DATES: This final rule is effective on November 18, 2016. ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket Identification Number EPA-R08-OAR-2016-0107. All documents in the docket are listed on the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some information may not be publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business Information or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically through http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air Program, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129. The EPA requests that you contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to view the hard copy of the docket. You may view the hard copy of the docket Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., excluding federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Adam Clark, Air Program, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129, (303) 312-7104, [email protected]. I. Background On May 10, 2016, the EPA proposed action on two submittals from Utah for the interstate transport requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2008 Pb and 2008 ozone NAAQS. 81 FR 28807. An explanation of the CAA requirements, a detailed analysis of the state's submittals, and the EPA's rationale for approval of a portion of the 2008 Pb submittal and disapproval of a portion of the 2008 ozone submittal were all provided in the notice of proposed rulemaking, and will not be restated here. The public comment period for this proposed rule ended on June 9, 2016. The EPA received four comments on the proposal, which will be addressed in the ``Response to Comments'' section, below. In the May 10, 2016 proposed action, the EPA proposed to disapprove the Utah SIP for prongs 1 and 2 of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. In that document, the EPA cited to air quality modeling conducted to support the promulgation of an update to the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule to address interstate transport with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS (CSAPR Update). 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 nonattainment and maintenance receptors in 2017. The document also [[Page 71992]] proposed to apply an air quality threshold of one percent of the NAAQS, equivalent to 0.75 ppb with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS, to determine whether a state was ``linked'' to an identified downwind air quality problem in another state such that the upwind state may significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS in the downwind state. The proposal modeling data showed that emissions from Utah contribute above the one percent threshold to two identified maintenance receptors and one nonattainment receptor in the Denver, Colorado area. Accordingly, as the Utah Department of Environmental Quality (UDEQ) did not provide technical analysis to support the State's conclusion that emissions originating in Utah do not significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS in any other state, the EPA proposed to disapprove the Utah SIP as to prongs 1 and 2 of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). On September 7, 2016, the EPA promulgated a final CSAPR Update, which included updated modeling data that reflected responses to comments received in the context of the CSAPR Update rulemaking.\1\ The updated modeling projects three maintenance receptors in the Denver, Colorado area, but it does not project any nonattainment receptors in that area. Table 1 summarizes the air quality modeling results from the updated modeling conducted to support the final CSAPR Update relative to Utah. The modeling continues to indicate that Utah contributes emissions above the one percent threshold of 0.75 ppb with respect to 3 maintenance receptors in the Denver, Colorado area, confirming the data cited at proposal. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ A pre-publication version of the final CSAPR Update rulemaking can be found in the docket for this action, and is available at https://www3.epa.gov/airmarkets/CSAPRU/Cross-State%20Air%20Pollution%20Rule%20Update%20for%20the%202008%20Ozone%20NAAQS%202060%20AS05%20FRM.pdf (Federal Register publication pending). Table 1--Maintenance Receptors With Utah Contribution Modeled Above 1% ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Utah modeled Monitor I.D. State County contribution (ppb) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 80590006................................ Colorado.................. Jefferson................. 1.03 80590011................................ Colorado.................. Jefferson................. 1.17 80350004................................ Colorado.................. Douglas................... 1.63 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Since the updated modeling continues to indicate that the contributions from Utah are above the one percent threshold of 0.75 ppb with respect to maintenance receptors in the Denver, Colorado area, and because the State has not otherwise provided a technical analysis which demonstrates that its SIP contains adequate provisions prohibiting emissions that will interfere with maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS in any other state, the EPA is finalizing a disapproval of the Utah SIP with respect to the prong 2 requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) as to the 2008 ozone NAAQS. Based on this new technical information showing that there are no longer any projected 2017 nonattainment receptors in the Denver, Colorado area or any other state to which Utah contributes at or above the one percent threshold, the EPA is not finalizing the proposed disapproval with respect to prong 1 of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) as to the 2008 ozone NAAQS, as the proposed disapproval was based on in part on the EPA's August 4, 2015 Notice of Data Availability (NODA) modeling of a projected nonattainment receptor in Denver, Colorado. 80 FR 46271. The EPA will address the prong 1 requirements in a separate, subsequent rulemaking. On August 1, 2016, the EPA proposed action on six submittals from Utah for the visibility-related interstate transport requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) prong 4. 81 FR 50430. An explanation of the CAA requirements, a detailed analysis of the state's submittals, and the EPA's rationale for approval of portions of the 2008 Pb and 2010 SO2 submittals and disapproval of portions of the 2006 and 2012 PM2.5 , 2008 ozone and 2010 NO2 submittals were all provided in the notice of proposed rulemaking, and will not be restated here. The public comment period for this proposed rule ended on August 31, 2016. The EPA did not receive any comments on this proposed action. II. Response to Comments Comment: Commenters UDEQ and the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality (WDEQ) asserted that the CSAPR Update rulemaking was developed and promulgated for eastern states, and should not apply to western states. UDEQ stated that the EPA acknowledged in the CSAPR Update proposal that it will address contribution levels of western states like Utah on a case-by-case basis. 80 FR 75706, 75708 through 75709, December 3, 2015. The commenters contend that the EPA should consider other factors beyond those considered in developing the CSAPR Update. UDEQ asserted that there are higher naturally occurring levels of background ozone in the west,\2\ specifically citing the EPA's draft Regulatory Impact Analysis for the proposed 2015 ozone NAAQS rulemaking, contending that ``background ozone is a relatively large percentage (e.g. 70-80%) of the total seasonal mean ozone in locations in the intermountain western United States.'' \3\ The commenter contends that background ozone levels in Utah and Colorado must be taken into consideration when evaluating nonattainment areas within the state borders and the impact that they have on intermountain downwind states. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \2\ See National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone, 79 FR 75234, 75382 (December 17, 2014) (proposed rule). \3\ EPA's draft Regulatory Impact Analysis of the Proposed Revisions to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone p. 2-16. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Commenter WDEQ stated that the CSAPR modeling does not adequately account for important regional differences between the east and the west, including the unique topography, altitude, weather and wildfire prevalence (including intensity and duration) in the western U.S. The commenter asserted that the EPA did not provide a technical explanation for how the model accounts for the differences between the eastern and western U.S. with regard to these factors, and that such an analysis should be conducted before the CSAPR modeling is applied to evaluate [[Page 71993]] interstate transport with respect to western states. The commenter recommended that the EPA work with western states to ``make regional adjustments and remove erroneous data from the CSAPR model.'' Response: The commenter does not provide any evidence or technical basis for their claim about the inadequacies of the CSAPR Update modeling for the western U.S. As described in the CSAPR Update Air Quality Modeling Technical Support Document (AQM TSD), the CSAPR modeling was performed for a nationwide domain that accounted for the differences in emissions (including actual wild fires), meteorology, and topography in various regions across the U.S. The AQM TSD includes an evaluation of 2011 base year model performance for 8-hour daily maximum concentrations on a regional and statewide basis as well as for individual monitoring sites. For example, the performance evaluation results for the region that includes Utah and Colorado indicate a mean bias of less than 10 percent for 8-hour daily maximum predicted ozone concentrations compared to the corresponding measured data. As described more fully in the AQM TSD, the EPA's use of the CAMx source apportionment modeling for the CSAPR Update is appropriate and the Agency finds its use sufficient for the purposes of assessing and identifying downwind air quality problems and contributions from upwind states in both the eastern and the western U.S. \4\ The emissions modeling TSD for the CSAPR Update final rule ``Preparation of Emission Inventories for the version 6.3, 2011 Emissions Modeling Platform'' describes how fire emissions were developed and modeled using a consistent approach for the contiguous U.S. As described earlier, the most updated modeling continues to indicate that emissions from Utah will interfere with maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS at three receptors in the Denver, Colorado area. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \4\ ``The EPA used CAMx photochemical source apportionment modeling to quantify the impact of emissions in specific upwind states on downwind nonattainment and maintenance receptors for 8- hour ozone. CAMx employs enhanced source apportionment techniques that track the formation and transport of ozone from specific emissions sources and calculates the contribution of sources and precursors to ozone for individual receptor locations. The strength of the photochemical model source apportionment technique is that all modeled ozone at a given receptor location in the modeling domain is tracked back to specific sources of emissions and boundary conditions to fully characterize culpable sources.'' 80 FR 75726, December 3, 2015. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The EPA does not find the information provided by the commenters to indicate flaws in the modeling conducted by the EPA. Rather, the commenters point to factors which the CSAPR Update modeling specifically took into account. For these reasons, the EPA disagrees with these comments and finds the use of the CSAPR Update modeling to evaluate Utah's contributions to interstate transport is reasonable and supported. The EPA did acknowledge in the proposed CSAPR Update that ``there may be additional criteria to evaluate regarding collective contribution of transported air pollution in the West,'' and that ``timeframe constrains the opportunity to conduct evaluations of additional criteria'' in the context of that rulemaking. 80 FR 75709, December 3, 2015. The commenters do not explain how the EPA's modeling has allegedly failed to consider the other factors that they contend should be taken into account. With respect to background concentrations, UDEQ has not explained how it believes the EPA must consider background ozone levels in evaluating interstate transport in the west, nor has UDEQ cited any specific provision of the statute that specifically requires such consideration. While the EPA does not view the obligation under the good neighbor provision as a requirement for upwind states to bear all of the burden for resolving downwind air quality problems, both upwind and downwind states can take reasonable steps to control emissions impacting downwind air quality even in areas affected by high levels of background concentrations of ozone. Were the EPA to absolve upwind states of the responsibility to make such reasonable reductions, the area's citizens would suffer the health and environmental consequences of such inaction. Notably, in its comment letter, UDEQ agreed that a further technical analysis was necessary to demonstrate that the state had satisfied prongs 1 and 2 of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), and the State is in the process of developing such an analysis. The EPA will review that additional analysis when it is submitted to the EPA in a subsequent SIP submission. Comment: Commenter Utility Air Regulatory Group (UARG) cites to EPA's action to approve Arizona's SIP in spite of the CSAPR Update modeling indicating that the state significantly contributed to nonattainment at two California receptors. The commenter contends that the EPA's differing actions on the Utah and Arizona SIPs amount to developing policy about what transport criteria apply in western states. The commenter asserted that the EPA's actions on these two SIPs establish regulatory policy in a piecemeal fashion through separate, case-by-case rulemakings, and that this practice leads to confusion and uncertainty among state officials, the public, and the regulated community. The commenter stated that the EPA should describe the western transport criteria in a comprehensive rulemaking which includes a rationale for selecting these criteria. The commenter asserted that the EPA's failure to do so would deprived interested parties of an opportunity to provide meaningful and comprehensive comments on this issue. Response: As described in the proposal for this action and in the CSAPR Update, the EPA is assessing each of the western states transport obligations on a case-by-case basis using the information available, which includes information from the CSAPR Update modeling. The rulemaking addressing the Arizona SIP explains, as the commenter notes, why additional factors are relevant to evaluating Arizona's contribution to other states, factors that are not similarly applicable to Utah's contribution to the Denver receptors. Nothing in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requires the EPA to establish criteria for evaluating individual SIPs through a national rulemaking. See EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, L.P., 134 S.Ct. 1584, 1601 (2014) (``nothing in the statute places EPA under an obligation to provide specific metrics to States before they undertake to fulfill their good neighbor obligation''). As required by the CAA and Administrative Procedures Act, the EPA clearly described its bases for disapproving the Utah SIP in its proposal. Similarly, the EPA also described its bases for approving the Arizona SIP in its proposal for that action. The public, including the commenter, had an opportunity to provide meaningful and comprehensive comments both on the Utah and Arizona actions, and therefore the EPA disagrees that interested parties are deprived of an opportunity to comment on issues relating to the EPA's analysis of western transport. Comment: Commenter WDEQ stated that the EPA did not provide an explanation as to what technical analysis from the State of Utah would have been sufficient. Another commenter (UARG), quoting language from the CSAPR Update proposal (80 FR 75715, December 3, 2015), stated that EPA should identify and explain the additional criteria that may be relevant to the western states and whether it is necessary and appropriate to also evaluate the same criteria with respect to eastern states. The commenter [[Page 71994]] asserted that the EPA's failure to address this issue denied the public a meaningful opportunity to comment on it. Response: The Supreme Court has made clear that ``nothing in the statute places EPA under an obligation to provide specific metrics to States before they undertake to fulfill their good neighbor obligation.'' EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, 134 S.Ct. at 1601. Thus, the EPA does not agree that it is required to identify all relevant criteria for evaluating SIPs before taking formal action on the submissions. The Court explained that ``[t]he statute speaks without reservation: Once a NAAQS has issued, a state `shall' propose a SIP within three years, [40 U.S.C.] 7410(a)(1), and that SIP `shall' include, among other components, provisions adequate to satisfy the Good Neighbor Provision, [40 U.S.C.] 7410(a)(2).'' Id. It is therefore the responsibility of the state to demonstrate that its SIP contains provisions sufficient to meet the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). A state can and should submit all of the technical information it considers relevant to evaluate its contribution to downwind air quality, including anticipated changes in the emissions from sources within the state and any additional factors specific to the state that influence its emissions and air pollution which may transport to other states. As we noted at proposal and in this final action, Utah has not submitted technical information or analysis which leads the EPA to conclude that the state is not interfering with maintenance of the NAAQS in other states, particularly in light of air quality modeling demonstrating that emissions from Utah impact air quality in Denver, Colorado. The basis for this conclusion was clearly explained at proposal, and the EPA therefore does not agree that the public did not have a meaningful opportunity to comment on the factors relevant to the proposed disapproval of the Utah SIP submission. Comments regarding the factors relevant to evaluation of interstate transport with respect to eastern states are out of the scope of this rulemaking and do not require a response. Comment: Commenter UDEQ stated that Utah's contributions to Denver are modest and other factors weigh against the conclusion of significant contribution or interference with maintenance. UDEQ argued that the one percent threshold should be a screening threshold that can be overcome by empirical evidence. The commenter cited a proposed EPA action on Idaho's SIP in which EPA Region 10 did not rely solely on Idaho's contribution being below one percent in its action on that SIP, but also considered Idaho's modeling data and analysis that reinforced the EPA modeling results. 80 FR 66862, October 30, 2015. UDEQ argued that the EPA should follow this and ``consider additional factors when evaluating Utah's ozone infrastructure SIP.'' Commenter WDEQ claimed that it is appropriate for western states to use a ``weight of evidence'' approach, as was used in EPA Region 9's proposed action on Arizona's 2008 ozone transport SIP. 81 FR 15200, March 22, 2016. Response: The EPA encourages states to submit any relevant information, such as that submitted by Idaho, to assist us in evaluating a state's impact on downwind state's air quality and the control requirements in order to determine whether a state's SIP is approvable. The EPA agrees that it is appropriate to analyze all information for western states and make a conclusion based on a weight of the evidence, but the EPA has not received any such evidence from UDEQ that is sufficient to alter our determination that Utah interferes with maintenance at Denver area receptors. The EPA notes that the one percent threshold as used in the CSAPR rulemakings is in fact a screening threshold. States are not determined to significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance downwind merely because emissions from the state exceed the one percent threshold. Rather, the threshold is used to identify those states that are subject to further analysis to determine whether cost- effective reductions are achievable from sources within the states. The levels of such reductions quantify the amounts of emissions that significantly contribute to nonattainment and interfere with maintenance in other states. CSAPR Update, Final Rule, pre-publication draft at 77-80. If UDEQ believes that the EPA should consider additional factors with respect to its linkage to the Denver receptors, it should identify those factors in its SIP submission. But as noted, UDEQ did not provide any technical analysis in its SIP submission, and to the extent additional factors have been identified in UDEQ's comments, it did not explain how those factors should affect the EPA's conclusion in this action. Without explaining how such factors should impact EPA's analysis, the EPA does not agree that Utah's impacts on the Denver receptors are modest, particularly considering emissions from the State contribute as much as twice the one percent air quality threshold, nor has the State offered any analysis to support this conclusory statement. The EPA also analyzed the State's submission and in the proposal described deficiencies such as a lack of quantification of the included emission reduction measures or evaluation of how such measures are sufficient to address the State's contribution to nonattainment and maintenance receptors in Denver, Colorado. The commenters here again provide no information as to why the EPA's case-specific analysis of Utah's SIP is incorrect. Comment: Commenter UDEQ asserted that the one percent screening threshold is arbitrary, stating that EPA only explains why it rejected five percent and anything below one percent, but does not justify one percent as opposed to two percent, which Utah meets. UDEQ argued that this threshold has not been subject to sufficient scrutiny and comment when applied to western states, and that the EPA has only determined that the one percent threshold is appropriate for eastern states. 80 FR 66862-66863, October 30, 2015. Response: As stated in the May 10, 2016 proposal for this final action, 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. The EPA's analysis has shown that the one percent threshold captures a high percentage of the total pollution transport affecting downwind states. 81 FR 28810, May 10, 2016. This threshold has been used by the EPA in past transport actions including the original CSAPR (76 FR 48208, August 8, 2011), and the EPA determined this threshold was appropriate following the public comment process in those previous rulemakings. In the final CSAPR Update rulemaking, the EPA compiled the contribution modeling results from the air quality modeling in order to analyze the impact of different possible thresholds, and concluded that the one percent threshold continues to be a reasonable means of accounting for the combined impact of relatively small contributions from many upwind states. See CSAPR Update, Final Rule, pre-publication draft at 81-82; AQM TSD. For each of the ozone receptors identified in the final CSAPR Update rule analysis, the EPA identified: (1) The total upwind state contributions, and (2) the amount of the total upwind [[Page 71995]] state contribution that is captured at one percent, five percent, and half (0.5) percent of the NAAQS. The EPA continues to find that the total collective contribution from upwind states' sources represent a significant portion of the ozone concentrations at downwind nonattainment and maintenance receptor locations. This analysis shows that the one percent threshold generally captures a substantial percentage of the total pollution transport affecting downwind states without also implicating states that contribute insignificant amounts. Analysis of the data for the Denver receptors at issue in this rulemaking results in the same conclusion. Use of a higher threshold would result in a relatively large reduction in the overall percentage of ozone pollution transport captured relative to the amounts captured at the one percent level at the receptors. For example, none of the transport from upwind states would be captured with a five percent threshold. Although UDEQ proposes that the EPA should instead use a two percent threshold with respect to the Denver receptors, it has not submitted additional information or analysis to assist the EPA in determining whether there is an appropriate alternative contribution threshold for Utah or western states generally. Rather, UDEQ's proposal to use a two percent threshold appears to only be justified by the conclusion that Utah would not have been linked to Denver receptors at this level (the updated modeling indicates contribution to a maintenance receptor above two percent: See Table 1 of this preamble). Given the lack of relevant information or analysis submitted by the State, and based on an analysis of EPA's own CAMx air quality modeling data, the EPA continues to find that the one percent threshold is appropriate to apply to identify upwind states linked to the Denver receptors. Comment: Commenter UDEQ asserted that the IPM model used to project emissions for electric generating units is not precise. The commenter supported this assertion by citing a comment from Louisiana Chemical Association (LCA) on the NODA which stated the IPM model ``is simply not accurate enough and is dependent upon too many uncertain assumptions and imprecise inputs to make binding decisions of `significant contribution' or `interference with maintenance' when dealing with projections of ozone at part per billion level.'' UDEQ argued that this model is imprecise and should therefore be subject to ``opportunity for rebuttal based on empirical evidence.'' Response: The EPA has addressed LCA's comment in the response to comments document on the CSAPR Update proposal. In that document, we noted that the D.C. Circuit Court has recognized the usefulness of models despite the inherent uncertainty. In upholding the EPA's approach to evaluating interstate transport in CSAPR, the D.C. Circuit held that they would not ``invalidate EPA's predictions solely because there might be discrepancies between those predictions and the real world. That possibility is inherent in the enterprise of prediction.'' EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 795 F.3d 118, 135 (2015). The court continued to note that ``the fact that a `model does not fit every application perfectly is no criticism; a model is meant to simplify reality in order to make it tractable.' '' Id. at 135-36 (quoting Chemical Manufacturers Association v. EPA, 28 F.3d 1259, 1264 (D.C. Cir. 1994). The EPA has also provided thorough explanation as to how the modeling conducted for the CSAPR Update was appropriate. As stated in the final CSAPR Update, ``the EPA projected future 2017 baseline EGU emissions using version 5.15 of the Integrated Planning Model (IPM) (www.epa.gov/airmarkets/power-sector-modeling). IPM, developed by ICF Consulting, is a state-of-the-art, peer-reviewed, multiregional, dynamic, deterministic linear programming model of the contiguous U.S. electric power sector. . . The model is designed to reflect electricity markets as accurately as possible. The EPA uses the best available information from utilities, industry experts, gas and coal market experts, financial institutions, and government statistics as the basis for the detailed power sector modeling in IPM.'' \5\ CSAPR Update, Final Rule, pre-publication draft at 131. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \5\ Detailed information and documentation of the EPA's Base Case, including all the underlying assumptions, data sources, and architecture parameters can be found on the EPA's Web site at: www.epa.gov/airmarkets/power-sector-modeling. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- We have not received empirical evidence from the State to rebut our conclusions as stated in the proposal for this final rulemaking. Comment: Commenter UDEQ argued that the EPA's reliance on IPM modeling is incorrect in Utah's case because this modeling used a 2011 emissions inventory that excluded certain enforceable reductions and included Carbon plant emissions, though the facility is no longer in operation. Response: The EPA disagrees that the IPM modeling excluded certain enforceable reductions and included Carbon plant emissions. The shutdown of the Carbon power plant was accounted for in the CSAPR Update modeling, and no emissions were modeled from the facility in the 2017 scenario. (See documents and EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0500-0205 and EPA-HQ- OAR-2015-0500-0014 in the docket for the CSAPR Update, or in the docket for this rulemaking. These documents, respectively, are the NEEDS database which defines the starting fleet in IPM and a unit level comparison of emissions from point sources between the 2011 and 2017 inventories). As for the other enforceable reductions referenced by the commenter, we cannot respond because the commenter has not provided specific detail as to the reductions that were unaccounted for. The EPA has encouraged and given the opportunity for states to submit information with regard to any inconsistencies between ``on the books'' upcoming reductions and the emissions modeled for the CSAPR Update in both that proposed rulemaking and in the August 4, 2015 NODA. 80 FR 46271, August 4, 2015. Comment: Commenter UDEQ asserted that western states do not have confidence in the way in which they can submit data for consideration under the Exceptional Events Rule, which has not yet been finalized. UDEQ stated that ``it will be difficult for the EPA to get an accurate assessment of the responsibility that Utah and other western states have to downwind states with regard to the 2008 ozone NAAQS as used in CSAPR until the EPA releases a final rule on these revisions.'' Commenter insisted that finalization of this rulemaking will allow the EPA to address data influenced by wildfires, stratospheric intrusions, and abnormally high background ozone. Response: The EPA agrees that the final Exceptional Events Rule will assist states and the EPA in preparing and processing exceptional events demonstrations for events, including wildfires, which contribute to monitored ozone NAAQS exceedances or violations, if those events meet the applicable criteria in the Exceptional Events Rule, including (1) the event affected air quality; (2) the event was not reasonably controllable or preventable; and (3) the event was caused by human activity that is unlikely to recur at a particular location or was a natural event. Exceptional Events Final Rule, pre-publication draft.\6\ Although the rule is intended to [[Page 71996]] streamline the exceptional events demonstration process, there is an exceptional events rule and process currently in place. See 40 CFR 50.14. We have not received and failed to act on exceptional events demonstrations from states that would impact the determination that Utah interferes with maintenance at receptors in the Denver area. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \6\ See ``Treatment of Data Influenced by Exceptional Events,'' final rule, pre-publication draft as signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on September 16, 2016. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The EPA disagrees with the comment's note that abnormally high background ozone itself may qualify as an exceptional event. An exceptional event must be defined by the source of its emissions. If the underlying source is a natural event (e.g., wildfire) and the emissions influence a regulatory monitor, then it can be considered for exclusion under the Exceptional Events Rule. If the underlying source is anthropogenic then the explicit text of CAA section 319 requires that it can only be considered under the Exceptional Events Rule if the activity causing emissions is unlikely to recur at a particular location. The meteorological processes that result in pollutant transport and the formation of background ozone are ongoing and thus not an event, even though their influence on ambient concentrations at a particular time and location may be observed only occasionally and thus seem ``event-like.'' Regardless of where the activity or event that caused emissions occurred, and regardless of whether the emissions travel internationally or interstate, all exceptional event criteria applicable to that activity or event must be met in order for the emissions to be excluded. Comment: Commenter WDEQ stated that the EPA's application of CSAPR to the western U.S. will place an undue burden on all western states. WDEQ noted that its department lacks staff experienced in running Comprehensive Air Quality Model with Extensions (CAMx version 6.11) modeling, and asserted that the EPA has acknowledged that this modeling is quite costly and resource intensive. Response: States are not required to conduct modeling to address their interstate transport requirements under CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). However, where the EPA has conducted modeling that indicates emissions from a state may impact air quality in another state, both the EPA and the state must address how that modeling impacts any conclusion regarding the upwind state's compliance with the statutory interstate transport requirements. The EPA understands that air quality modeling can be both complex and resource intensive, and remains committed to assisting the states in conducting or reviewing air quality modeling and other relevant technical information for the purposes of determining compliance with CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). III. Final Action In this action, the EPA is approving the Utah SIP with regard to certain interstate transport requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 2008 Pb and 2010 SO2 NAAQS from the State's certifications as shown in Table 2 of this preamble. The EPA is disapproving the Utah SIP with regard to certain interstate transport requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 2006 PM2.5 , 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2 and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS as shown in Table 3 of this preamble. As noted in our August 1, 2016 proposed action, the EPA is not required to take further action with regard to the prong 4 disapprovals, because a FIP is already in place for Utah that corrects all regional haze, and thus visibility transport, SIP deficiencies. 81 FR 43894. This action is being taken under section 110 of the CAA. Table 2--List of Utah Interstate Transport Prongs That EPA Is Approving ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Final approval ------------------------------------------------------------------------- January 19, 2012 submittal--2008 Pb NAAQS: (D)(i)(I) prongs 1 and 2, (D)(i)(II) prong 4. June 2, 2013 submittal--2010 SO2 NAAQS: (D)(i)(II) prong 4. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Table 3--List of Utah Interstate Transport Prongs That EPA Is Disapproving ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Final disapproval ------------------------------------------------------------------------- February 21, 2010 submittal--2006 PM2.5 NAAQS: (D)(i)(II) prong 4. January 31, 2013 submittal--2008 Ozone NAAQS: (D)(i)(I) prong 2, (D)(i)(II) prong 4. January 31, 2013 submittal--2010 NO2 NAAQS: (D)(i)(II) prong 4. December 22, 2015 submittal--2012 PM2.5 NAAQS: (D)(i)(II) prong 4. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ IV. 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 CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves some state law provisions as meeting federal requirements and disapproves other state law because it does not meet federal requirements; this action does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011); Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.); Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4); Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999); Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the 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 [[Page 71997]] jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the 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). The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by December 19, 2016. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See CAA section 307(b)(2).) List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds. Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. Dated: September 29, 2016. Shaun L. McGrath, Regional Administrator, Region 8. 40 CFR part 52 is amended to read as follows: PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 0 1. The authority citation for Part 52 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 0 2. Section 52.2354 is amended by redesignating the introductory text as paragraph (a) and adding paragraph (b). The addition reads as follows: Subpart TT--Utah Sec. 52.2354 Interstate transport. * * * * * (b) Addition to the Utah State Implementation Plan regarding the 2008 Pb Standard for CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) prongs 1, 2 and 4, submitted to EPA on January 19, 2012, and addition to the Utah SIP regarding the 2010 SO 2 Standard for CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) prong 4, submitted to EPA on June 2, 2013. [FR Doc. 2016-25145 Filed 10-18-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
![Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 71991
State
Rule No. Rule title effective Final rule citation, date Comments
date
R307–302–06 .... Prohibition ..................................... 1/1/2013 [Insert Federal Register citation], Conditionally approved through
10/19/2016. 10/19/2017.
* * * * * * *
R307–312. Aggregate Processing Operations for PM2.5; Nonattainment Areas
R307–312 .......... Aggregate Processing Operations 2/4/2016 [Insert Federal Register citation],
for PM2.5 Nonattainment Areas. 10/19/2016.
* * * * * * *
R307–328. Ozone Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas and Utah and Weber Counties: Gasoline Transfer and Storage
R307–328 .......... Ozone Nonattainment and Mainte- 2/4/2016 [Insert Federal Register citation],
nance Areas and Utah and 10/19/2016.
Weber Counties: Gasoline
Transfer and Storage.
* * * * * * *
* * * * * to protect visibility (prong 4). 1129, (303) 312–7104, clark.adam@
[FR Doc. 2016–25148 Filed 10–18–16; 8:45 am] Specifically, the EPA is approving epa.gov.
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P interstate transport prongs 1, 2 and 4 for
I. Background
the 2008 Pb NAAQS, approving prong 4
for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS, disapproving On May 10, 2016, the EPA proposed
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION prong 4 for the 2006 PM2.5, 2008 ozone, action on two submittals from Utah for
AGENCY 2010 NO2 and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS, and the interstate transport requirements of
disapproving prong 2 for the 2008 ozone CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the
40 CFR Part 52 NAAQS. 2008 Pb and 2008 ozone NAAQS. 81 FR
28807. An explanation of the CAA
[EPA–R08–OAR–2016–0107; FRL–9954–13- This final rule is effective on
DATES: requirements, a detailed analysis of the
Region 8] November 18, 2016. state’s submittals, and the EPA’s
Approval and Disapproval and ADDRESSES: EPA has established a rationale for approval of a portion of the
Promulgation of Air Quality docket for this action under Docket 2008 Pb submittal and disapproval of a
Implementation Plans; Interstate Identification Number EPA–R08–OAR– portion of the 2008 ozone submittal
Transport for Utah 2016–0107. All documents in the docket were all provided in the notice of
are listed on the http:// proposed rulemaking, and will not be
AGENCY: Environmental Protection www.regulations.gov index. Although restated here. The public comment
Agency (EPA). listed in the index, some information period for this proposed rule ended on
ACTION: Final rule. may not be publicly available, e.g., June 9, 2016. The EPA received four
Confidential Business Information or comments on the proposal, which will
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection be addressed in the ‘‘Response to
other information whose disclosure is
Agency (EPA) is taking final action on Comments’’ section, below.
restricted by statute. Certain other
portions of six submissions from the In the May 10, 2016 proposed action,
material, such as copyrighted material,
State of Utah that are intended to the EPA proposed to disapprove the
will be publicly available only in hard
demonstrate that the State Utah SIP for prongs 1 and 2 of CAA
copy. Publicly available docket
Implementation Plan (SIP) meets certain section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2008
materials are available either
interstate transport requirements of the ozone NAAQS. In that document, the
electronically through http://
Clean Air Act (Act or CAA). These EPA cited to air quality modeling
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at
submissions address the 2006 and 2012 conducted to support the promulgation
the Air Program, Environmental
fine particulate matter (PM2.5) National of an update to the Cross-State Air
Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8,
Ambient Air Quality Standards Pollution Rule to address interstate
1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado
(NAAQS), 2008 ozone NAAQS, 2008 transport with respect to the 2008 ozone
80202–1129. The EPA requests that you
lead (Pb) NAAQS, 2010 sulfur dioxide NAAQS (CSAPR Update). The air
contact the individual listed in the FOR
(SO2) NAAQS and 2010 nitrogen quality modeling (1) identified locations
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to
dioxide (NO2) NAAQS. The interstate in the U.S. where the EPA anticipates
view the hard copy of the docket. You
transport requirements under the CAA nonattainment or maintenance issues in
may view the hard copy of the docket
consist of four elements: Significant 2017 for the 2008 ozone NAAQS (these
Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to
jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with RULES
contribution to nonattainment (prong 1) are identified as nonattainment and
4:00 p.m., excluding federal holidays.
and interference with maintenance maintenance receptors), and (2)
(prong 2) of the NAAQS in other states; FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: quantified the projected contributions
and interference with measures required Adam Clark, Air Program, U.S. from emissions from upwind states to
to be included in the plan for other Environmental Protection Agency, downwind ozone concentrations at the
states to prevent significant Region 8, Mailcode 8P–AR, 1595 nonattainment and maintenance
deterioration of air quality (prong 3) or Wynkoop, Denver, Colorado 80202– receptors in 2017. The document also
VerDate Sep<11>2014 13:39 Oct 18, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19OCR1.SGM 19OCR1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_72193/page/1.svg)
![71994 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
asserted that the EPA’s failure to rely solely on Idaho’s contribution being offered any analysis to support this
address this issue denied the public a below one percent in its action on that conclusory statement.
meaningful opportunity to comment on SIP, but also considered Idaho’s The EPA also analyzed the State’s
it. modeling data and analysis that submission and in the proposal
Response: The Supreme Court has reinforced the EPA modeling results. 80 described deficiencies such as a lack of
made clear that ‘‘nothing in the statute FR 66862, October 30, 2015. UDEQ quantification of the included emission
places EPA under an obligation to argued that the EPA should follow this reduction measures or evaluation of
provide specific metrics to States before and ‘‘consider additional factors when how such measures are sufficient to
they undertake to fulfill their good evaluating Utah’s ozone infrastructure address the State’s contribution to
neighbor obligation.’’ EPA v. EME SIP.’’ Commenter WDEQ claimed that it nonattainment and maintenance
Homer City Generation, 134 S.Ct. at is appropriate for western states to use receptors in Denver, Colorado. The
1601. Thus, the EPA does not agree that a ‘‘weight of evidence’’ approach, as was commenters here again provide no
it is required to identify all relevant used in EPA Region 9’s proposed action information as to why the EPA’s case-
criteria for evaluating SIPs before taking on Arizona’s 2008 ozone transport SIP. specific analysis of Utah’s SIP is
formal action on the submissions. The 81 FR 15200, March 22, 2016. incorrect.
Court explained that ‘‘[t]he statute Response: The EPA encourages states Comment: Commenter UDEQ asserted
speaks without reservation: Once a to submit any relevant information, that the one percent screening threshold
NAAQS has issued, a state ‘shall’ such as that submitted by Idaho, to is arbitrary, stating that EPA only
propose a SIP within three years, [40 assist us in evaluating a state’s impact explains why it rejected five percent
U.S.C.] 7410(a)(1), and that SIP ‘shall’ on downwind state’s air quality and the and anything below one percent, but
include, among other components, control requirements in order to does not justify one percent as opposed
provisions adequate to satisfy the Good determine whether a state’s SIP is to two percent, which Utah meets.
Neighbor Provision, [40 U.S.C.] approvable. The EPA agrees that it is UDEQ argued that this threshold has not
7410(a)(2).’’ Id. It is therefore the appropriate to analyze all information been subject to sufficient scrutiny and
responsibility of the state to for western states and make a comment when applied to western
demonstrate that its SIP contains conclusion based on a weight of the states, and that the EPA has only
provisions sufficient to meet the evidence, but the EPA has not received determined that the one percent
requirements of CAA section any such evidence from UDEQ that is threshold is appropriate for eastern
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). A state can and should sufficient to alter our determination that states. 80 FR 66862–66863, October 30,
submit all of the technical information Utah interferes with maintenance at 2015.
it considers relevant to evaluate its Denver area receptors. Response: As stated in the May 10,
contribution to downwind air quality, The EPA notes that the one percent 2016 proposal for this final action, the
including anticipated changes in the threshold as used in the CSAPR EPA believes contribution from an
emissions from sources within the state rulemakings is in fact a screening individual state equal to or above one
and any additional factors specific to threshold. States are not determined to percent of the NAAQS could be
the state that influence its emissions significantly contribute to considered significant where the
and air pollution which may transport nonattainment or interfere with collective contribution of emissions
to other states. As we noted at proposal maintenance downwind merely because from one or more upwind states is
and in this final action, Utah has not emissions from the state exceed the one responsible for a considerable portion of
submitted technical information or percent threshold. Rather, the threshold the downwind air quality problem. The
analysis which leads the EPA to is used to identify those states that are EPA’s analysis has shown that the one
conclude that the state is not interfering subject to further analysis to determine percent threshold captures a high
with maintenance of the NAAQS in whether cost-effective reductions are percentage of the total pollution
other states, particularly in light of air achievable from sources within the transport affecting downwind states. 81
quality modeling demonstrating that states. The levels of such reductions FR 28810, May 10, 2016. This threshold
emissions from Utah impact air quality quantify the amounts of emissions that has been used by the EPA in past
in Denver, Colorado. The basis for this significantly contribute to transport actions including the original
conclusion was clearly explained at nonattainment and interfere with CSAPR (76 FR 48208, August 8, 2011),
proposal, and the EPA therefore does maintenance in other states. CSAPR and the EPA determined this threshold
not agree that the public did not have Update, Final Rule, pre-publication was appropriate following the public
a meaningful opportunity to comment draft at 77–80. If UDEQ believes that the comment process in those previous
on the factors relevant to the proposed EPA should consider additional factors rulemakings.
disapproval of the Utah SIP submission. with respect to its linkage to the Denver In the final CSAPR Update
Comments regarding the factors receptors, it should identify those rulemaking, the EPA compiled the
relevant to evaluation of interstate factors in its SIP submission. But as contribution modeling results from the
transport with respect to eastern states noted, UDEQ did not provide any air quality modeling in order to analyze
are out of the scope of this rulemaking technical analysis in its SIP submission, the impact of different possible
and do not require a response. and to the extent additional factors have thresholds, and concluded that the one
Comment: Commenter UDEQ stated been identified in UDEQ’s comments, it percent threshold continues to be a
that Utah’s contributions to Denver are did not explain how those factors reasonable means of accounting for the
modest and other factors weigh against should affect the EPA’s conclusion in combined impact of relatively small
the conclusion of significant this action. Without explaining how contributions from many upwind states.
jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with RULES
contribution or interference with such factors should impact EPA’s See CSAPR Update, Final Rule, pre-
maintenance. UDEQ argued that the one analysis, the EPA does not agree that publication draft at 81–82; AQM TSD.
percent threshold should be a screening Utah’s impacts on the Denver receptors For each of the ozone receptors
threshold that can be overcome by are modest, particularly considering identified in the final CSAPR Update
empirical evidence. The commenter emissions from the State contribute as rule analysis, the EPA identified: (1)
cited a proposed EPA action on Idaho’s much as twice the one percent air The total upwind state contributions,
SIP in which EPA Region 10 did not quality threshold, nor has the State and (2) the amount of the total upwind
VerDate Sep<11>2014 13:39 Oct 18, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19OCR1.SGM 19OCR1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_72193/page/4.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 71997
jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian ■ 2. Section 52.2354 is amended by www.regulations.gov, or via email to
country, the rule does not have tribal redesignating the introductory text as Nancy Levin, Air Planning Office at
implications and will not impose paragraph (a) and adding paragraph (b). levin.nancy@epa.gov. For comments
substantial direct costs on tribal The addition reads as follows: submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the
governments or preempt tribal law as online instructions for submitting
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 Subpart TT—Utah comments. Once submitted, comments
FR 67249, November 9, 2000). § 52.2354 Interstate transport. cannot be removed or edited from
The Congressional Review Act, 5 Regulations.gov. For either manner of
* * * * * submission, the EPA may publish any
U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small (b) Addition to the Utah State
Business Regulatory Enforcement comment received to its public docket.
Implementation Plan regarding the 2008
Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides Do not submit electronically any
Pb Standard for CAA section
that before a rule may take effect, the information you consider to be
110(a)(2)(D)(i) prongs 1, 2 and 4,
agency promulgating the rule must Confidential Business Information (CBI)
submitted to EPA on January 19, 2012,
submit a rule report, which includes a or other information whose disclosure is
and addition to the Utah SIP regarding
copy of the rule, to each House of the restricted by statute. Multimedia
the 2010 SO2 Standard for CAA section
Congress and to the Comptroller General submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be
110(a)(2)(D)(i) prong 4, submitted to
of the United States. EPA will submit a accompanied by a written comment.
EPA on June 2, 2013.
report containing this action and other The written comment is considered the
[FR Doc. 2016–25145 Filed 10–18–16; 8:45 am]
required information to the U.S. Senate, official comment and should include
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P discussion of all points you wish to
the U.S. House of Representatives, and
the Comptroller General of the United make. The EPA will generally not
States prior to publication of the rule in consider comments or comment
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION contents located outside of the primary
the Federal Register. A major rule AGENCY
cannot take effect until 60 days after it submission (i.e. on the web, cloud or
is published in the Federal Register. 40 CFR Part 52 other file sharing system). For
This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as additional submission methods, please
[EPA–R09–OAR–2016–0499; FRL–9954–20– contact the person identified in the FOR
defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). Region 9] FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, For the full EPA public comment policy,
petitions for judicial review of this Approval and Promulgation of
information about CBI or multimedia
action must be filed in the United States Implementation Plan; California;
submissions, and general guidance on
Court of Appeals for the appropriate Calaveras County, Chico (Butte
making effective comments, please visit
circuit by December 19, 2016. Filing a County), San Francisco Bay Area and
http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/
petition for reconsideration by the San Luis Obispo County (Eastern San
commenting-epa-dockets.
Administrator of this final rule does not Luis Obispo) Base Year Emission
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
affect the finality of this action for the Inventories for the 2008 Ozone
Standards Nancy Levin, EPA Region IX, (415) 972–
purposes of judicial review nor does it
3848, levin.nancy@epa.gov.
extend the time within which a petition AGENCY: Environmental Protection SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
for judicial review may be filed, and Agency (EPA).
shall not postpone the effectiveness of Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us’’
ACTION: Direct final rule. and ‘‘our’’ refer to the EPA.
such rule or action. This action may not
be challenged later in proceedings to SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Table of Contents
enforce its requirements. (See CAA Agency (EPA) is taking direct final I. Background
section 307(b)(2).) action to approve revisions to the II. Summary and Analysis of the State’s
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 California State Implementation Plan Submittal
(SIP) concerning the base year emission A. Statutory and Regulatory Requirements
Environmental protection, Air inventories (EIs) for four areas 1. Procedural Requirements for Adoption
pollution control, Incorporation by and Submittal of SIP Revisions
designated as nonattainment areas
2. Requirements for Base Year Inventories
reference, Intergovernmental relations, (NAAs) for the 2008 ozone National B. Summary of the State’s Submittal
Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Ambient Air Quality Standards (2008 1. Stationary Source Emissions
Particulate matter, Reporting and ozone NAAQS). The subject areas 2. Area-wide Source Emissions
recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur include Calaveras County, Chico (Butte 3. Off-Road Mobile Source Emissions
oxides, Volatile organic compounds. County), San Francisco Bay Area and 4. Onroad Mobile Source Emissions
San Luis Obispo (Eastern San Luis C. The EPA’s Evaluation of the State’s
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Obispo). We are approving these Submittal
Dated: September 29, 2016. 1. Evaluation of Procedural Requirements
revisions under the Clean Air Act (CAA 2. Evaluation of Base Year Inventory
Shaun L. McGrath, or ‘‘the Act’’). Requirements
Regional Administrator, Region 8.
DATES: This rule is effective on D. Public Comment and Final Action
40 CFR part 52 is amended to read as December 19, 2016 without further III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
follows: notice, unless the EPA receives adverse I. Background
comments by November 18, 2016. If we
On March 12, 2008, the EPA
jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with RULES
PART 52—APPROVAL AND receive such comments, we will publish
PROMULGATION OF a timely withdrawal in the Federal strengthened the primary and secondary
IMPLEMENTATION PLANS Register to notify the public that this eight-hour ozone NAAQS to 0.075 parts
direct final rule will not take effect. per million (ppm) (73 FR 16436).1 In
■ 1. The authority citation for Part 52 ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 1 Since the 2008 primary and secondary NAAQS
continues to read as follows: identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R09– for ozone are identical, for convenience, we refer to
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. OAR–2016–0499 at http:// Continued
VerDate Sep<11>2014 13:39 Oct 18, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19OCR1.SGM 19OCR1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_72193/page/7.svg)
Document Created: 2016-10-19 02:11:37
Document Modified: 2016-10-19 02:11:37
| 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 | Rules and Regulations | |
| Action | Final rule. | |
| Dates | This final rule is effective on November 18, 2016. | |
| Contact | Adam Clark, Air Program, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129, (303) 312-7104, [email protected] | |
| FR Citation | 81 FR 71991 | |
| CFR Associated | Environmental Protection; Air Pollution Control; 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