Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plans; Interstate Transport for Utah, 9155-9158 [2017-02187]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
9155
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 22 / Friday, February 3, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
Rule No.
Rule title
*
(27) XXVII .........
*
*
Interstate
transport
SIP
for
Section
110(a)(2)(D)(i) prong 1–2008 Ozone
NAAQS; prongs 1, 2 and 4–2008 Pb
NAAQS; prong 1 and 2–2010 NO2
NAAQS; prong 4–2010 SO2 NAAQS.
*
2/6/2014; 10/12/2011;
1/24/2014; 3/6/2015.
[FR Doc. 2017–02197 Filed 2–2–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R08–OAR–2016–0588; FRL–9959–18–
Region 8]
Approval and Promulgation of State
Implementation Plans; Interstate
Transport for Utah
Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is taking final action on
a portion of a January 31, 2013
submission and a December 22, 2015
supplemental submission from the State
of Utah that are intended to demonstrate
that the Utah State Implementation Plan
(SIP) meets certain interstate transport
requirements of the Clean Air Act (Act
or CAA) for the 2008 ozone National
Ambient Air Quality Standards
(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 prong 1
for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
DATES: This final rule is effective on
March 6, 2017.
ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a
docket for this action under Docket
Identification Number EPA–R08–OAR–
2016–0588. All documents in the docket
SUMMARY:
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
EPA
effective
date
State effective date
*
are listed on the https://
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 https://
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, Mail Code 8P–AR, 1595
Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado
80202–1129, (303) 312–7104,
clark.adam@epa.gov.
I. Background
On December 20, 2016, the EPA
proposed to approve portions of Utah’s
January 31, 2013 submission and
December 22, 2015 supplemental
submission as meeting the prong 1
requirements of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 2008 ozone
NAAQS. 81 FR 92755, December 20,
2016. An explanation of the CAA
requirements, a detailed analysis of the
State’s submittals, and the EPA’s
rationale for this proposed action were
provided in the notice of proposed
rulemaking, and will not be restated
here. The public comment period for
this proposed rule ended on January 10,
3/6/2017
Final rule citation/
date
*
[Insert Federal
Register citation] 2/3/2017.
21:08 Feb 02, 2017
Jkt 241001
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
*
2017. The EPA received four comments
on the proposal, which will be
addressed in the ‘‘Response to
Comments’’ section, below.
II. Response to Comments
Comment: Commenter Sierra Club
stated that the EPA should disapprove
Utah’s prong 1 submission for the 2008
ozone NAAQS. The commenter asserted
that all three of the Denver area
maintenance receptors to which Utah’s
projected contribution exceeded one
percent of the NAAQS 1 should instead
be nonattainment receptors, but are not
because the CSAPR Update modeling
under-predicts the receptors’ 2017
ozone design values. The commenter
based this assertion on a weight of
evidence approach using ambient air
monitoring data collected at these
receptors. The commenter stated that
such a weight of evidence approach was
appropriate to determine this receptor
should be nonattainment, and noted
that the EPA had used a weight of
evidence approach in its action on
Arizona’s transport SIP. The CSAPR
Update modeling projected that the
Douglas County, Colorado receptor
(monitor site ID 80350004) would have
a 2017 average design value of 75.5 ppb,
with a maximum design value of 77.6
ppb, and that one Jefferson County,
Colorado receptor (monitor site ID
80590006) would have a 2017 average
design value of 75.7 ppb, with a
maximum design value of 78.2 ppb.2
The commenter first asserted that both
average design values should indicate
nonattainment rather than maintenance,
referring to the EPA’s basis for the
maintenance categorizations as ‘‘bad
math.’’ The commenter then stated that
all three maintenance receptors will
indeed be nonattainment for the 2015–
2017 period. The commenter included
the 4th highest daily maximum values,
on which the 2008 ozone NAAQS is
1 For details about these receptors, see EPA’s final
rulemaking disapproving prong 2 of Utah’s 2008
ozone submittals, at 81 FR 71992, October 19, 2016.
2 See document EPA–R08–OAR–2016–0588–
0002, ‘‘Final CSAPR Update_Ozone Design Values
& Contributions_All Sites,’’ in the docket for this
action.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Comments
E:\FR\FM\03FER1.SGM
03FER1
9156
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 22 / Friday, February 3, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
based, for the years 2010 through 2016,
which the EPA has replicated (with
edits) in Table 1, below.
which the EPA has replicated (with
edits) in Table 1, below.
TABLE 1—4TH HIGHEST DAILY MAX AT DENVER AREA RECEPTORS
4th Max (ppb)
Year
2017
2016
2015
2014
2013
2012
2011
2010
Monitor ID
80350004
.............................................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................................................
* 66
78
81
74
83
79
81
78
Monitor ID
80590011
* 61
83
81
76
82
77
83
74
Monitor ID
80590006
* 69
79
77
77
81
79
81
76
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
* Indicates a ‘‘critical value’’ required to attain NAAQS for 2015–2017.
The commenter stated that the 2015–
2017 monitored design values at the
Denver receptors could only attain the
NAAQS if the receptors recorded the
4th daily maximum values (‘‘critical
values’’) listed in the 2017 row of Table
1, and notes that each of these values is
below the smallest value since 2010.
The commenter asserted that the
previous seven years of monitoring data
provide a weight of evidence analysis
demonstrating that these receptors will
be nonattainment for the 2015–2017
design value period. The commenter
also stated that Colorado’s drill rig
count for oil and gas extract had
increased to 28 by the end of 2016, the
highest level since November 2015. The
commenter also stated that 2017 was
likely to see increased oil and gas
extraction and transportation activity in
Colorado due to reduced oil production
in other countries, and that this would
increase NOX and VOC emissions.
Finally, the commenter asserted that it
is unsurprising that the CSAPR Update
modeling analysis under-predicts the
2017 design values because it included
2009 monitoring data which was
impacted by the Great Recession, during
which time ozone levels decreased. The
commenter therefore recommended that
the EPA disapprove Utah’s prong 1
submittals for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
Response: First, the EPA does not
agree that because the two Denver
receptors (80350004 and 80590006) are
projected to have average design values
exceeding the NAAQS, that the EPA
should label those receptors as
nonattainment receptors. As explained
in the EPA’s 2016 CSAPR Update Final
Air Quality Modeling Technical
Support Document (2016 AQM TSD),
‘‘In determining compliance with the
NAAQS, ozone design values are
truncated to integer values. For
example, a design value of 75.9 ppb is
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:08 Feb 02, 2017
Jkt 241001
truncated to 75 ppb which is
attainment. In this manner, design
values at or above 76.0 ppb are
considered to be violations of the
NAAQS.’’ 3 This method is consistent
with the method to demonstrate
compliance with the 2008 ozone
NAAQS. Therefore, design values of
75.5 or 75.7 are not considered a
violation of the standard.
The EPA agrees that recent
monitoring data at these three sites
suggest that these sites face a risk of not
attaining the NAAQS in 2017. However,
that risk is uncertain as the future
monitored 2017 design value is
unknown at this time. In light of this
uncertainty and the statute’s silence on
how nonattainment and maintenance
should be identified under the good
neighbor provision, the EPA has
developed a reasonable approach to
identify downwind nonattainment and
maintenance receptors. When
evaluating air quality modeling for
purposes of interstate transport, the EPA
has routinely identified nonattainment
receptors as those with monitors that are
both projected to be unable to attain in
an appropriate future year and that are
measuring nonattainment based on
current data—i.e., if the projected
average design value in the future year
does not exceed the standard, the EPA
does not identify that receptor as a
nonattainment receptor. See 81 FR
74517 (CSAPR Update); 80 FR 75723
through 75724 (Proposed CSAPR
Update); 76 FR 48227–28 (CSAPR); 70
FR 25243–33 (CAIR); see also North
Carolina, 531 F.3d at 913 through 914
(affirming as reasonable the EPA’s
approach to defining nonattainment in
CAIR). Given the EPA’s modeling does
3 ‘‘Air Quality Modeling Technical Support
Document for the Final Cross State Air Pollution
Rule Update.’’ August 2016. This document was
included in the docket for the proposed action.
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
not project that the receptors will be in
nonattainment in 2017, even though it
may currently be measuring
nonattainment, it would be inconsistent
with the EPA’s past practice to identify
that receptor as a nonattainment
receptor.
Moreover, the EPA does not agree that
it should identify nonattainment
receptors based on the formula
proposed by the commenter because the
data cited by the commenter does not
conclusively prove that these monitors
will be in nonattainment based on 2017
data.4 First, the commenter notes that it
would be possible for the 2017 design
values to be sufficiently low such that
the 3-year averages are attaining the
NAAQS. Second, the CAA provides that
should 2017 data yield a fourth highest
8-hour concentration of 75.9 ppb or
below, the state can petition EPA for
additional time to demonstrate
attainment of the NAAQS. See CAA
section 181(a)(5).
That said, the EPA agrees that the
receptors may have problems
maintaining the standard in 2017 and
has therefore identified these sites as
maintenance receptors. On October 19,
2016, the EPA finalized disapproval of
Utah’s SIP submission to address the
maintenance prong for the 2008 ozone
NAAQS. 81 FR 71991. As a result of this
disapproval, the EPA and the State of
Utah will need to evaluate what further
emissions reductions may be required to
ensure that the State’s impact on
downwind air quality is mitigated such
that the State will not interfere with
maintenance of the standard at these
receptors.
4 Although the commenter is correct that the EPA
evaluated the weight of the evidence in the Arizona
SIP submission, the EPA did not use the approach
proposed by the commenter to average projections
and monitored data in identifying potential
receptors.
E:\FR\FM\03FER1.SGM
03FER1
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 22 / Friday, February 3, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
The weight of evidence analysis in
our action on the Arizona SIP
determined the nature of the projected
receptor’s interstate transport problem
as to the magnitude of ozone
attributable to interstate transport from
all upwind states collectively
contributing to the air quality problem,
not to the identification of that receptor.
In the EPA action on the Arizona SIP,
Arizona was the only state that
contributed greater than the one percent
threshold to the projected 2017 levels of
the 2008 ozone NAAQS at the El Centro
receptor. The EPA’s assessment
concluded that emissions reductions
from Arizona are not necessary to
address interstate transport because the
total collective upwind state ozone
contribution to these receptors is
relatively low compared to the air
quality problems typically addressed by
the good neighbor provision. As
discussed previously, the EPA similarly
evaluated collective contribution to the
Douglas County, Colorado monitor and
finds the collective contribution of
transported pollution to be substantial.
Furthermore, in our action on the
Arizona SIP we did not deviate from our
past practice in identifying
nonattainment and maintenance
receptors in the way that commenter
suggests we should do here.
The EPA does not agree that its
projections are unreliable because the
2009 data are affected by the ‘‘Great
Recession.’’ In determining our 2009–
2013 base period average design values,
the data from 2009 are only weighted
once, whereas, data in 2011 which has
higher ozone is weighted 3 times in the
calculations. In addition, our emissions
data are projected from 2011 to 2017
and, thus, the effects of the recession on
2009 emissions have very little
influence on our 2017 projected
emissions. In this respect, the air quality
and emissions in 2009 have only a very
limited influence on the projected
design values. As described in the EPA’s
air quality modeling guidance for ozone
attainment demonstrations, the use of
5-year weighted average design values,
as applied here, is intended to focus the
base period air quality on the year of
base case emissions, 2011 for this
analysis, and to smooth out, to some
extent, the effects of inter-annual
variability in ozone concentrations.5
Thus, the EPA continues to believe that
including ambient data from 2009 is
appropriate for projecting future year
5 Modeling Guidance for Demonstrating
Attainment of Air Quality Goals for Ozone, PM2.5,
and Regional Haze available in the docket and at:
https://www.epa.gov/ttn/scram/guidance/guide/
Draft_O3-PM-RH_Modeling_Guidance-2014.pdf.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:08 Feb 02, 2017
Jkt 241001
ozone concentrations as part of the final
rule.
Finally, the EPA does not find that the
commenter’s assumptions about an
increase in oil and gas extraction and
transportation activities in Colorado
sufficient to project an increase in such
emissions. For instance, the number of
drill rigs noted by the commenter (28)
at the end of 2016 is actually much
lower than the level at the end of 2014
(69).6 The EPA is not here making
assertions about oil and gas production
activities in Colorado, but rather
explaining why we find the
commenter’s assumptions about a likely
increase in such activity based on a drill
rig count to be insufficient. Further, the
commenter does not provide a source
for the assumption regarding increased
Colorado oil and gas production based
on changes to the worldwide oil market.
For these reasons, the EPA does not find
that oil and gas activities will
necessarily increase in Colorado in 2017
based on the comments received.
Comment: Commenter Sierra Club
asserted that the EPA’s analysis of
Utah’s 2008 ozone submittals ignores
wintertime ozone levels. The
commenter asserted that the EPA relies
on the CSAPR Update analysis for its
Utah ozone transport analysis, and that
the CSAPR Update analysis throws out
wintertime ozone data.7 The commenter
stated that it is inappropriate for EPA to
exclude the wintertime ozone data
because the EPA has elsewhere
acknowledged that wintertime ozone is
an important issue in Utah and
neighboring states. To support this
point, the commenter cited the EPA’s
revision to the 2008 ozone NAAQS,
which states that ‘‘Elevated levels of
winter-time O3 have also been
measured in some western states where
precursor emissions can interact with
sunlight off the snow cover under very
shallow, stable boundary layer
conditions.’’ 80 FR 65416, October 26,
2015. The commenter also cited the
ozone NAAQS revision to show that the
ozone seasons for both Colorado and
Utah are year-round, and that EPA must
therefore include an evaluation of
wintertime ozone before it can approve
any ozone transport provisions for Utah.
80 FR 65419 through 65420, October 26,
2015.
6 https://insights.energentgroup.com/weekly-rigcounts-in-colorado.
7 Id. The commenter specifically cited the
following language from the document: ‘‘In
addition, there are 7 sites in 3 counties in the West
that were excluded from this file because the
ambient design values at these sites were
dominated by wintertime ozone episodes and not
summer season conditions that are the focus of this
transport assessment.’’
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
9157
Response: As stated in the CSAPR
Update Final, ‘‘Ozone levels are
generally higher during the summer
months.’’ 81 FR 74513, October 26,
2016. The 2016 AQM TSD states that
‘‘High winter ozone concentrations that
have been observed in certain parts of
the Western U.S. are believed to result
from the combination of strong
wintertime inversions, large NOX and
VOC emissions from nearby oil and gas
operations, increased UV intensity due
to reflection off of snow surfaces and
potentially still uncharacterized sources
of free radicals.’’ 2016 AQM TSD at 14.
Thus, high winter-time ozone episodes
are due to a build-up of local emissions
combined with local stagnation
meteorological conditions rather than
interstate transport. The EPA therefore
disagrees that it must evaluate
wintertime ozone before approving
Utah’s SIP as to the prong 1
requirements of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).
Comment: Several citizen commenters
expressed frustration about the air
quality in the Salt Lake City and greater
Wasatch Front area of Utah. These
commenters offered various solutions to
improving air quality in the region.
Response: The EPA appreciates the
recommendations provided by the
commenters. The EPA will not address
the recommendations specifically, as
they are not directly connected to the
impact of Utah emissions in other states,
which this rulemaking (and CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)) address.
III. Final Action
The EPA is approving the section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) prong 1 portion of
Utah’s January 31, 2013 submittal and
the December 22, 2015 submittal with
respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
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; 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,
E:\FR\FM\03FER1.SGM
03FER1
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
9158
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 22 / Friday, February 3, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821,
January 21, 2011);
• Does not impose an information
collection burden under the provisions
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
• Is certified as not having a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
• Does not contain any unfunded
mandate or significantly or uniquely
affect small governments, as described
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4);
• Does not have Federalism
implications as specified in Executive
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999);
• Is not an economically significant
regulatory action based on health or
safety risks subject to Executive Order
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action
subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of
Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because
application of those requirements would
be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act;
and
• Does not provide the EPA with the
discretionary authority to address, as
appropriate, disproportionate human
health or environmental effects, using
practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898
(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, the SIP does not apply on
any Indian reservation land or in any
other area where the EPA or an Indian
tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has
jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:08 Feb 02, 2017
Jkt 241001
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 April 4, 2017. 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,
Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Volatile
organic compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: January 17, 2017.
Debra H. Thomas,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 8.
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
PART 52—APPROVAL AND
PROMULGATION OF
IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
1. The authority citation for part 52
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart TT—Utah
2. In § 52.2354, add paragraph (c) to
read as follows:
■
§ 52.2354
Interstate transport.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) Addition to the Utah State
Implementation Plan regarding the 2008
ozone Standard for CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) prong 1 submitted to
EPA on January 31, 2013 and
supplemented on December 22, 2015.
[FR Doc. 2017–02187 Filed 2–2–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR PART 52
[EPA–HQ–OAR–2016–0646; FRL–9958–70–
OAR]
Findings of Failure To Submit State
Implementation Plan Submittals for the
2008 Ozone National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS)
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is finding that 15 states
and the District of Columbia have failed
to submit State Implementation Plan
(SIP) revisions in a timely manner to
satisfy certain requirements for the 2008
ozone National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS) that apply to
nonattainment areas and/or states in the
Ozone Transport Region (OTR). As
explained in this action, consistent with
the Clean Air Act (CAA) and EPA
regulations, these findings of failure to
submit establish certain deadlines for
the imposition of sanctions, if a state
does not submit a timely SIP revision
addressing the requirements for which
the finding is being made, and for the
EPA to promulgate a Federal
Implementation Plan (FIP) to address
any outstanding SIP requirements.
DATE: The effective date of this action is
March 6, 2017.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
General questions concerning this
notice should be addressed to Mr.
Stephen Senter, Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards, Air Quality
Policy Division, Mail Code: C504–2, 109
TW Alexander Drive, Research Triangle
Park, NC 27709; by telephone (919)
541–3042; or by email at
senter.stephen@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
SUMMARY:
I. General Information
A. Notice and Comment Under the
Administrative Procedure Act (APA)
Section 553 of the APA, 5 U.S.C.
553(b)(3)(B), provides that, when an
agency for good cause finds that notice
and public procedures are
impracticable, unnecessary or contrary
to the public interest, the agency may
issue a rule without providing notice
and an opportunity for public comment.
The EPA has determined that there is
good cause for making this final agency
action without prior proposal and
opportunity for comment because no
significant EPA judgment is involved in
making a finding of failure to submit
E:\FR\FM\03FER1.SGM
03FER1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 22 (Friday, February 3, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 9155-9158]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-02187]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R08-OAR-2016-0588; FRL-9959-18-Region 8]
Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plans;
Interstate Transport for Utah
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final
action on a portion of a January 31, 2013 submission and a December 22,
2015 supplemental submission from the State of Utah that are intended
to demonstrate that the Utah State Implementation Plan (SIP) meets
certain interstate transport requirements of the Clean Air Act (Act or
CAA) for the 2008 ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (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 prong 1 for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
DATES: This final rule is effective on March 6, 2017.
ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket Identification Number EPA-R08-OAR-2016-0588. All documents in
the docket are listed on the https://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 https://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, Mail Code 8P-AR, 1595
Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129, (303) 312-7104,
clark.adam@epa.gov.
I. Background
On December 20, 2016, the EPA proposed to approve portions of
Utah's January 31, 2013 submission and December 22, 2015 supplemental
submission as meeting the prong 1 requirements of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. 81 FR 92755, December 20,
2016. An explanation of the CAA requirements, a detailed analysis of
the State's submittals, and the EPA's rationale for this proposed
action were provided in the notice of proposed rulemaking, and will not
be restated here. The public comment period for this proposed rule
ended on January 10, 2017. The EPA received four comments on the
proposal, which will be addressed in the ``Response to Comments''
section, below.
II. Response to Comments
Comment: Commenter Sierra Club stated that the EPA should
disapprove Utah's prong 1 submission for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. The
commenter asserted that all three of the Denver area maintenance
receptors to which Utah's projected contribution exceeded one percent
of the NAAQS \1\ should instead be nonattainment receptors, but are not
because the CSAPR Update modeling under-predicts the receptors' 2017
ozone design values. The commenter based this assertion on a weight of
evidence approach using ambient air monitoring data collected at these
receptors. The commenter stated that such a weight of evidence approach
was appropriate to determine this receptor should be nonattainment, and
noted that the EPA had used a weight of evidence approach in its action
on Arizona's transport SIP. The CSAPR Update modeling projected that
the Douglas County, Colorado receptor (monitor site ID 80350004) would
have a 2017 average design value of 75.5 ppb, with a maximum design
value of 77.6 ppb, and that one Jefferson County, Colorado receptor
(monitor site ID 80590006) would have a 2017 average design value of
75.7 ppb, with a maximum design value of 78.2 ppb.\2\ The commenter
first asserted that both average design values should indicate
nonattainment rather than maintenance, referring to the EPA's basis for
the maintenance categorizations as ``bad math.'' The commenter then
stated that all three maintenance receptors will indeed be
nonattainment for the 2015-2017 period. The commenter included the 4th
highest daily maximum values, on which the 2008 ozone NAAQS is
[[Page 9156]]
based, for the years 2010 through 2016, which the EPA has replicated
(with edits) in Table 1, below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ For details about these receptors, see EPA's final
rulemaking disapproving prong 2 of Utah's 2008 ozone submittals, at
81 FR 71992, October 19, 2016.
\2\ See document EPA-R08-OAR-2016-0588-0002, ``Final CSAPR
Update_Ozone Design Values & Contributions_All Sites,'' in the
docket for this action.
Table 1--4th Highest Daily Max at Denver Area Receptors
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4th Max (ppb)
-----------------------------------------------
Year Monitor ID Monitor ID Monitor ID
80350004 80590011 80590006
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2017............................................................ * 66 * 61 * 69
2016............................................................ 78 83 79
2015............................................................ 81 81 77
2014............................................................ 74 76 77
2013............................................................ 83 82 81
2012............................................................ 79 77 79
2011............................................................ 81 83 81
2010............................................................ 78 74 76
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Indicates a ``critical value'' required to attain NAAQS for 2015-2017.
The commenter stated that the 2015-2017 monitored design values at
the Denver receptors could only attain the NAAQS if the receptors
recorded the 4th daily maximum values (``critical values'') listed in
the 2017 row of Table 1, and notes that each of these values is below
the smallest value since 2010. The commenter asserted that the previous
seven years of monitoring data provide a weight of evidence analysis
demonstrating that these receptors will be nonattainment for the 2015-
2017 design value period. The commenter also stated that Colorado's
drill rig count for oil and gas extract had increased to 28 by the end
of 2016, the highest level since November 2015. The commenter also
stated that 2017 was likely to see increased oil and gas extraction and
transportation activity in Colorado due to reduced oil production in
other countries, and that this would increase NOX and VOC
emissions. Finally, the commenter asserted that it is unsurprising that
the CSAPR Update modeling analysis under-predicts the 2017 design
values because it included 2009 monitoring data which was impacted by
the Great Recession, during which time ozone levels decreased. The
commenter therefore recommended that the EPA disapprove Utah's prong 1
submittals for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
Response: First, the EPA does not agree that because the two Denver
receptors (80350004 and 80590006) are projected to have average design
values exceeding the NAAQS, that the EPA should label those receptors
as nonattainment receptors. As explained in the EPA's 2016 CSAPR Update
Final Air Quality Modeling Technical Support Document (2016 AQM TSD),
``In determining compliance with the NAAQS, ozone design values are
truncated to integer values. For example, a design value of 75.9 ppb is
truncated to 75 ppb which is attainment. In this manner, design values
at or above 76.0 ppb are considered to be violations of the NAAQS.''
\3\ This method is consistent with the method to demonstrate compliance
with the 2008 ozone NAAQS. Therefore, design values of 75.5 or 75.7 are
not considered a violation of the standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ ``Air Quality Modeling Technical Support Document for the
Final Cross State Air Pollution Rule Update.'' August 2016. This
document was included in the docket for the proposed action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA agrees that recent monitoring data at these three sites
suggest that these sites face a risk of not attaining the NAAQS in
2017. However, that risk is uncertain as the future monitored 2017
design value is unknown at this time. In light of this uncertainty and
the statute's silence on how nonattainment and maintenance should be
identified under the good neighbor provision, the EPA has developed a
reasonable approach to identify downwind nonattainment and maintenance
receptors. When evaluating air quality modeling for purposes of
interstate transport, the EPA has routinely identified nonattainment
receptors as those with monitors that are both projected to be unable
to attain in an appropriate future year and that are measuring
nonattainment based on current data--i.e., if the projected average
design value in the future year does not exceed the standard, the EPA
does not identify that receptor as a nonattainment receptor. See 81 FR
74517 (CSAPR Update); 80 FR 75723 through 75724 (Proposed CSAPR
Update); 76 FR 48227-28 (CSAPR); 70 FR 25243-33 (CAIR); see also North
Carolina, 531 F.3d at 913 through 914 (affirming as reasonable the
EPA's approach to defining nonattainment in CAIR). Given the EPA's
modeling does not project that the receptors will be in nonattainment
in 2017, even though it may currently be measuring nonattainment, it
would be inconsistent with the EPA's past practice to identify that
receptor as a nonattainment receptor.
Moreover, the EPA does not agree that it should identify
nonattainment receptors based on the formula proposed by the commenter
because the data cited by the commenter does not conclusively prove
that these monitors will be in nonattainment based on 2017 data.\4\
First, the commenter notes that it would be possible for the 2017
design values to be sufficiently low such that the 3-year averages are
attaining the NAAQS. Second, the CAA provides that should 2017 data
yield a fourth highest 8-hour concentration of 75.9 ppb or below, the
state can petition EPA for additional time to demonstrate attainment of
the NAAQS. See CAA section 181(a)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Although the commenter is correct that the EPA evaluated the
weight of the evidence in the Arizona SIP submission, the EPA did
not use the approach proposed by the commenter to average
projections and monitored data in identifying potential receptors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
That said, the EPA agrees that the receptors may have problems
maintaining the standard in 2017 and has therefore identified these
sites as maintenance receptors. On October 19, 2016, the EPA finalized
disapproval of Utah's SIP submission to address the maintenance prong
for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. 81 FR 71991. As a result of this disapproval,
the EPA and the State of Utah will need to evaluate what further
emissions reductions may be required to ensure that the State's impact
on downwind air quality is mitigated such that the State will not
interfere with maintenance of the standard at these receptors.
[[Page 9157]]
The weight of evidence analysis in our action on the Arizona SIP
determined the nature of the projected receptor's interstate transport
problem as to the magnitude of ozone attributable to interstate
transport from all upwind states collectively contributing to the air
quality problem, not to the identification of that receptor. In the EPA
action on the Arizona SIP, Arizona was the only state that contributed
greater than the one percent threshold to the projected 2017 levels of
the 2008 ozone NAAQS at the El Centro receptor. The EPA's assessment
concluded that emissions reductions from Arizona are not necessary to
address interstate transport because the total collective upwind state
ozone contribution to these receptors is relatively low compared to the
air quality problems typically addressed by the good neighbor
provision. As discussed previously, the EPA similarly evaluated
collective contribution to the Douglas County, Colorado monitor and
finds the collective contribution of transported pollution to be
substantial. Furthermore, in our action on the Arizona SIP we did not
deviate from our past practice in identifying nonattainment and
maintenance receptors in the way that commenter suggests we should do
here.
The EPA does not agree that its projections are unreliable because
the 2009 data are affected by the ``Great Recession.'' In determining
our 2009-2013 base period average design values, the data from 2009 are
only weighted once, whereas, data in 2011 which has higher ozone is
weighted 3 times in the calculations. In addition, our emissions data
are projected from 2011 to 2017 and, thus, the effects of the recession
on 2009 emissions have very little influence on our 2017 projected
emissions. In this respect, the air quality and emissions in 2009 have
only a very limited influence on the projected design values. As
described in the EPA's air quality modeling guidance for ozone
attainment demonstrations, the use of 5[hyphen]year weighted average
design values, as applied here, is intended to focus the base period
air quality on the year of base case emissions, 2011 for this analysis,
and to smooth out, to some extent, the effects of inter[hyphen]annual
variability in ozone concentrations.\5\ Thus, the EPA continues to
believe that including ambient data from 2009 is appropriate for
projecting future year ozone concentrations as part of the final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Modeling Guidance for Demonstrating Attainment of Air
Quality Goals for Ozone, PM2.5, and Regional Haze
available in the docket and at: https://www.epa.gov/ttn/scram/guidance/guide/Draft_O3-PM-RH_Modeling_Guidance-2014.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, the EPA does not find that the commenter's assumptions
about an increase in oil and gas extraction and transportation
activities in Colorado sufficient to project an increase in such
emissions. For instance, the number of drill rigs noted by the
commenter (28) at the end of 2016 is actually much lower than the level
at the end of 2014 (69).\6\ The EPA is not here making assertions about
oil and gas production activities in Colorado, but rather explaining
why we find the commenter's assumptions about a likely increase in such
activity based on a drill rig count to be insufficient. Further, the
commenter does not provide a source for the assumption regarding
increased Colorado oil and gas production based on changes to the
worldwide oil market. For these reasons, the EPA does not find that oil
and gas activities will necessarily increase in Colorado in 2017 based
on the comments received.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ https://insights.energentgroup.com/weekly-rig-counts-in-colorado.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment: Commenter Sierra Club asserted that the EPA's analysis of
Utah's 2008 ozone submittals ignores wintertime ozone levels. The
commenter asserted that the EPA relies on the CSAPR Update analysis for
its Utah ozone transport analysis, and that the CSAPR Update analysis
throws out wintertime ozone data.\7\ The commenter stated that it is
inappropriate for EPA to exclude the wintertime ozone data because the
EPA has elsewhere acknowledged that wintertime ozone is an important
issue in Utah and neighboring states. To support this point, the
commenter cited the EPA's revision to the 2008 ozone NAAQS, which
states that ``Elevated levels of winter-time O3 have also been measured
in some western states where precursor emissions can interact with
sunlight off the snow cover under very shallow, stable boundary layer
conditions.'' 80 FR 65416, October 26, 2015. The commenter also cited
the ozone NAAQS revision to show that the ozone seasons for both
Colorado and Utah are year-round, and that EPA must therefore include
an evaluation of wintertime ozone before it can approve any ozone
transport provisions for Utah. 80 FR 65419 through 65420, October 26,
2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Id. The commenter specifically cited the following language
from the document: ``In addition, there are 7 sites in 3 counties in
the West that were excluded from this file because the ambient
design values at these sites were dominated by wintertime ozone
episodes and not summer season conditions that are the focus of this
transport assessment.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Response: As stated in the CSAPR Update Final, ``Ozone levels are
generally higher during the summer months.'' 81 FR 74513, October 26,
2016. The 2016 AQM TSD states that ``High winter ozone concentrations
that have been observed in certain parts of the Western U.S. are
believed to result from the combination of strong wintertime
inversions, large NOX and VOC emissions from nearby oil and
gas operations, increased UV intensity due to reflection off of snow
surfaces and potentially still uncharacterized sources of free
radicals.'' 2016 AQM TSD at 14. Thus, high winter-time ozone episodes
are due to a build-up of local emissions combined with local stagnation
meteorological conditions rather than interstate transport. The EPA
therefore disagrees that it must evaluate wintertime ozone before
approving Utah's SIP as to the prong 1 requirements of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).
Comment: Several citizen commenters expressed frustration about the
air quality in the Salt Lake City and greater Wasatch Front area of
Utah. These commenters offered various solutions to improving air
quality in the region.
Response: The EPA appreciates the recommendations provided by the
commenters. The EPA will not address the recommendations specifically,
as they are not directly connected to the impact of Utah emissions in
other states, which this rulemaking (and CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i))
address.
III. Final Action
The EPA is approving the section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) prong 1 portion
of Utah's January 31, 2013 submittal and the December 22, 2015
submittal with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
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; 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,
[[Page 9158]]
October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
Does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority
to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or
environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, the SIP does not apply on any Indian reservation land
or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated
that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the
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 April 4, 2017. 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, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: January 17, 2017.
Debra H. Thomas,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 8.
40 CFR part 52 is amended 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.
Subpart TT--Utah
0
2. In Sec. 52.2354, add paragraph (c) to read as follows:
Sec. 52.2354 Interstate transport.
* * * * *
(c) Addition to the Utah State Implementation Plan regarding the
2008 ozone Standard for CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) prong 1
submitted to EPA on January 31, 2013 and supplemented on December 22,
2015.
[FR Doc. 2017-02187 Filed 2-2-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
