Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Utah; Interstate Transport Requirements for Nitrogen Dioxide, Sulfur Dioxide, and Fine Particulate Matter, 28776-28784 [2019-12948]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
28776
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 119 / Thursday, June 20, 2019 / Proposed Rules
‘‘Begin Web-based ADAMS Search.’’ For
problems with ADAMS, please contact
the NRC’s Public Document Room (PDR)
reference staff at 1–800–397–4209, 301–
415–4737, or by email to pdr.resource@
nrc.gov. The ADAMS accession number
for each document referenced (if it is
available in ADAMS) is provided the
first time that it is mentioned in this
document.
• NRC’s PDR: You may examine and
purchase copies of public documents at
the NRC’s PDR, Room O1–F21, One
White Flint North, 11555 Rockville
Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Tekia V. Govan, Office of Nuclear
Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, Washington,
DC 20555–0001; telephone: 301–415–
6197; email: Tekia.Govan@nrc.gov.
jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
The NRC issued RIS 2005–29,
‘‘Anticipated Transients that Could
Develop into More Serious Events,’’
(ADAMS Accession No. ML051890212)
to notify licensees of the concern
identified during reviews of power
uprate license amendment requests
related to licensing bases of certain
licensees failing to demonstrate that
anticipated transients will not progress
to more serious events. The draft
Revision 1 of RIS 2005–29 expanded on
this concern and offered staff positions
that provided technical guidance for the
implementation of NRC regulation
(ADAMS Accession No. ML15014A469).
The NRC is withdrawing RIS 2005–29,
and its draft Revision 1, because the
staff identified several regulatory and
technical positions within the
documents that either required
clarification, were no longer supported,
or were identified as a new agency
position. By memorandum, dated May
15, 2019, the NRC staff provides a
summary of the basis for withdrawing
RIS 2005–29, and its draft Revision 1
(ADAMS Accession No. ML19121A534).
The NRC’s generic communication
website (https://www.nrc.gov/readingrm/doc-collections/gen-comm/regissues/2005/) will be updated to reflect
RIS 2005–29 as withdrawn.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 12th day
of June 2019.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Tekia V. Govan,
Project Manager, ROP Support and Generic
Communication Branch, Division of
Inspection and Regional Support, Office of
Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:41 Jun 19, 2019
Jkt 247001
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R08–OAR–2019–0180; FRL–9995–10–
Region 8]
Approval and Promulgation of Air
Quality State Implementation Plans;
Utah; Interstate Transport
Requirements for Nitrogen Dioxide,
Sulfur Dioxide, and Fine Particulate
Matter
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve
State Implementation Plan (SIP)
submissions from the State of Utah
regarding certain interstate transport
requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA
or ‘‘Act’’). These submissions respond to
the EPA’s promulgation of the 2010
nitrogen dioxide (NO2) national ambient
air quality standards (NAAQS), the 2010
sulfur dioxide (SO2) NAAQS, and the
2012 fine particulate matter (PM2.5)
NAAQS. The submissions address the
requirement that each SIP contain
adequate provisions prohibiting air
emissions that will significantly
contribute to nonattainment or interfere
with maintenance of these NAAQS in
any other state.
DATES: Written comments must be
received on or before July 22, 2019.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R08–
OAR–2019–0180, to the Federal
Rulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
Once submitted, comments cannot be
edited or removed from
www.regulations.gov. The EPA may
publish any comment received to its
public docket. Do not submit
electronically any information you
consider to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video,
etc.) must be accompanied by a written
comment. The written comment is
considered the official comment and
should include discussion of all points
you wish to make. The EPA will
generally not consider comments or
comment contents located outside of the
primary submission (i.e., on the web,
cloud, or other file sharing system). For
additional submission methods, the full
EPA public comment policy,
information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on
making effective comments, please visit
SUMMARY:
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
[FR Doc. 2019–12725 Filed 6–19–19; 8:45 am]
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/
commenting-epa-dockets.
Docket: All documents in the docket
are listed in the www.regulations.gov
index. Although listed in the index,
some information is not publicly
available, e.g., CBI 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 in
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at
the Air and Radiation Division,
Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA), Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop Street,
Denver, Colorado 80202–1129. The EPA
requests that if at all possible, 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 Quality Planning
Branch, EPA, Region 8, Mailcode
8ARD–QP, 1595 Wynkoop Street,
Denver, Colorado 80202–1129, (303)
312–7104, clark.adam@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document wherever
‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean
the EPA.
Table of Contents
I. Background
A. Interstate Transport
B. Utah’s Submissions
II. Interstate Transport Evaluation
A. Evaluation for the 2010 1-Hour NO2
NAAQS
1. EPA’s General Approach to Evaluating
the 2010 NO2 NAAQS
2. State’s Submission
3. EPA’s Analysis
B. Evaluation for the 2010 1-Hour SO2
NAAQS
1. EPA’s General Approach to Evaluating
the 2010 SO2 NAAQS
2. State’s Submission
3. EPA’s Analysis
C. Evaluation for the 2012 Annual PM2.5
NAAQS
1. EPA’s General Approach to Evaluating
the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS
2. State’s Submission
3. EPA’s Analysis
III. Proposed Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background
Section 110(a)(1) of the CAA requires
states to submit SIPs meeting the
applicable requirements of section
110(a)(2) within 3 years after
promulgation of a new or revised
NAAQS or within such shorter period
as the EPA may prescribe. Section
110(a)(2) requires states to address
E:\FR\FM\20JNP1.SGM
20JNP1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 119 / Thursday, June 20, 2019 / Proposed Rules
structural SIP elements such as
requirements for monitoring, basic
program requirements, and legal
authority that are designed to provide
for implementation, maintenance, and
enforcement of the NAAQS. The EPA
refers to the SIP submissions required
by these provisions as ‘‘infrastructure
SIPs.’’ Section 110(a) imposes the
obligation upon states to make an
infrastructure SIP submission to the
EPA for a new or revised NAAQS, but
the contents of individual state
submissions may vary depending upon
the facts and circumstances. This
proposed rule pertains to the
infrastructure SIP requirements for
interstate transport of air pollution.
jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
A. Interstate Transport
Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) of the CAA
requires SIPs to include provisions
prohibiting any source or other type of
emissions activity in one state from
emitting any air pollutant in amounts
that will contribute significantly to
nonattainment, or interfere with
maintenance, of the NAAQS, or
interfere with measures required to
prevent significant deterioration of air
quality or to protect visibility in any
other state. This proposed rule
addresses the two requirements under
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), which we refer
to as prong 1 (significant contribution to
nonattainment of the NAAQS in any
other state) and prong 2 (interference
with maintenance of the NAAQS in any
other state).1 The EPA often refers to SIP
revisions addressing the requirements of
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) as ‘‘interstate
transport SIPs.’’
The EPA evaluates each state’s
interstate transport SIP to see how the
state evaluates the transport of air
pollution to other states for a given air
pollutant; what types of information the
state used in its analysis; how that
analysis compares with prior EPA
rulemakings, modeling, monitoring, and
guidance; and what conclusions were
drawn by the state. If the EPA concludes
that the SIP contains adequate
provisions to prohibit sources from
emitting air pollutants that significantly
contribute to nonattainment, or interfere
with maintenance, of a given NAAQS in
any other state, we will approve the
1 The remaining interstate transport requirements
of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 2010 NO2,
2010 SO2 and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS for Utah have
been addressed in prior State submissions and EPA
rulemakings. 81 FR 71991 (October 19, 2016); 81 FR
50626 (August 2, 2016). Specifically, this includes
the section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) requirements relating
to interference with measures required to be
included in the applicable implementation plan for
any other state under part C to prevent significant
deterioration of air quality (prong 3) or to protect
visibility (prong 4).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:41 Jun 19, 2019
Jkt 247001
state’s submission with regard to prongs
1 and 2 of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).
Each of the following NAAQS
revisions triggered the requirement for
states to submit infrastructure SIPs,
including provisions to address
interstate transport prongs 1 and 2. On
January 22, 2010, the EPA promulgated
a new 1-hour primary NAAQS for NO2
at a level of 100 parts per billion (ppb)
while retaining the annual standard of
53 ppb.2 On June 2, 2010, the EPA
promulgated a new primary 1-hour SO2
standard of 75 ppb and retained the
secondary 3-hour standard of 0.5 parts
per million (ppm).3 Finally, on
December 14, 2012, the EPA revised the
primary annual PM2.5 standard by
lowering the level to 12.0 micrograms
per cubic meter (mg/m3) and retained the
secondary annual PM2.5 standard of 15.0
mg/m3 and the primary and secondary
24-hour PM2.5 standards of 35 mg/m3.4
As discussed further in this notice,
the EPA proposes to determine that
Utah’s SIP contains adequate provisions
to prohibit sources from emitting air
pollutants in amounts that significantly
contribute to nonattainment or interfere
with maintenance of the 2010 NO2, 2010
SO2 and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.
B. Utah’s Submissions
The State of Utah submitted
infrastructure SIPs for the 2010 NO2
NAAQS on January 31, 2013, and for the
2010 SO2 NAAQS on June 2, 2013. In
both of these submissions, the State
addressed interstate transport prongs 1
and 2 by referencing the EPA’s
November 19, 2012 Memorandum 5
which outlined the EPA’s intention to
abide by the August 21, 2012 decision
of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C.
Circuit, holding that a SIP cannot be
deemed deficient for failing to meet the
prong 1 and 2 requirements in Section
110(a)(2)(D)(i) before the EPA quantifies
the state’s obligation. EME Homer City
Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 696 F.3d 7 (D.C.
Cir. 2012). Utah stated that the EPA had
not yet quantified Utah’s interstate
transport obligation under the 2010 NO2
or 2010 SO2 NAAQS and therefore
Utah’s infrastructure SIPs were adequate
for section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).6
On April 29, 2014, the U.S. Supreme
Court reversed and remanded the D.C.
2 75
FR 6474 (February 9, 2010).
FR 35520 (June 22, 2010).
4 78 FR 3086 (January 15, 2013).
5 See ‘‘Next Steps for Pending Redesignation
Requests and State Implementation Plan Actions
Affected by the Recent Court Decision Vacating the
2011 Cross-State Air Pollution Rule,’’ signed by
EPA Assistant Administrator Gina McCarthy
November 19, 2012. This memorandum is in the
docket for this action.
6 These submissions are available in the docket
for this action.
3 75
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
28777
Circuit’s EME Homer City ruling and
upheld the EPA’s approach in the CrossState Air Pollution Rule. EPA v. EME
Homer City Generation, L.P., 572 U.S.
489 (2014). As a result of the Supreme
Court reversal, each state was again
required to address the interstate
transport requirements of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)
regardless of whether the EPA had
quantified the state’s obligation. In
accordance with the Supreme Court’s
decision, on May 8, 2018 Utah
submitted to the EPA 2010 NO2 and
2010 SO2 infrastructure SIPs, both of
which contained new analyses
addressing interstate transport prongs 1
and 2 of Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the
respective NAAQS. These submissions
supplement the State’s prior 2013
interstate transport SIP submissions for
both NAAQS. Utah submitted an
infrastructure SIP for the 2012 PM2.5
NAAQS, including an interstate
transport SIP, on December 22, 2015.
The EPA will discuss these submissions
in further detail later in this proposed
action.
II. Interstate Transport Evaluation
A. Evaluation for the 2010 1-Hour NO2
NAAQS
1. EPA’s General Approach To
Evaluating the 2010 NO2 NAAQS
Unlike certain other NAAQS like
ozone and PM2.5, the EPA has not
developed a recommended approach for
states to use when addressing prongs 1
and 2 for the 2010 NO2 NAAQS.
Following promulgation of the 2010
NO2 NAAQS, the EPA designated all
areas of the United States as
‘‘unclassifiable/attainment’’ for this
NAAQS because monitors throughout
the country had indicated no violations
of the NAAQS from 2008–2010.7 77 FR
9532, February 17, 2012. Additionally,
no violations occurred at any monitor in
the country in the most recent available
design value period of 2015–2017.8 For
these reasons, 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
demonstrations for states have been
relatively straightforward because the
EPA has not identified areas in any state
to which emissions from another state
would likely contribute significantly to
nonattainment or interfere with
maintenance.
7 For comparison with the 2010 NO 1-hour
2
NAAQS, a three-year design value is used. 40 CFR
50.11(f).
8 See https://www.epa.gov/air-trends/air-qualitydesign-values#report. As this report indicates, no
regulatory monitor in the U.S. recorded a design
value above 78 ppb for the 2015–2017 design value
period.
E:\FR\FM\20JNP1.SGM
20JNP1
28778
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 119 / Thursday, June 20, 2019 / Proposed Rules
2. State’s Submission
Utah conducted a weight of evidence
analysis to examine whether NO2
emissions from Utah adversely affect
attainment or maintenance of the 2010
NO2 NAAQS in downwind states. In
this analysis, the State reviewed
ambient monitoring data in Utah and
neighboring states, which all indicated
that no monitor values in Utah or
neighboring states approach the level of
the 2010 NO2 NAAQS. Based on this
monitoring data, Utah concluded that
the emissions from the State will not
contribute significantly to
nonattainment or interfere with
maintenance of the 2010 NO2 NAAQS
in any other state, and therefore the SIP
meets the requirements of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) prongs 1 and 2 for this
NAAQS.
3. EPA’s Analysis
In addition to the information
provided in the SIP, the EPA notes that
the highest monitored valid NO2 design
values in each state bordering Utah are
well below the NAAQS (see Table 1,
below), as are the maximum single year
98th percentile values from each
neighboring state between 2015–2017
(see Table 2, below). These facts further
support the State’s assertion that
significant contribution to
nonattainment or interference with
maintenance of the NO2 NAAQS from
Utah is very unlikely. With respect to
prong 2 (interference with
maintenance), specifically, in addition
to the lack of areas violating the NO2
NAAQS, there are also no areas in
neighboring states approaching a
violation of the 2010 NO2 NAAQS (i.e.,
100 ppb) which might therefore be
expected to have difficulty maintaining
the standard. With respect to both
prongs, we also note that there are no
areas elsewhere in the United States
approaching a violation of the 2010 NO2
NAAQS.9
TABLE 1—1-HOUR NO2 DESIGN VALUES IN UTAH AND NEIGHBORING
STATES
jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
State
2015–2017
1-hr NO2
design value
(ppb)
Utah ......................................
Arizona ..................................
Colorado ...............................
Nevada .................................
New Mexico ..........................
Wyoming ...............................
42
60
71
55
45
40
9 Id.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:41 Jun 19, 2019
Jkt 247001
In SO2 transport analyses, we focus on
TABLE 2—MAX 98TH PERCENTILE NO2
CONCENTRATION IN UTAH AND a 50 km-wide zone because the physical
properties of SO2 result in relatively
NEIGHBORING STATES
State
Year
Utah ..................
Arizona ..............
Colorado ...........
Idaho .................
Nevada .............
New Mexico ......
Wyoming ...........
Highest
single year
98th percentile
value from
2015–2017
(ppb)
2016
2017
2016
2017
2017
2016
2017
61
67
75
50
61
46
60
Based on all of these factors, the EPA
proposes to concur with the State’s
conclusion in its January 31, 2013 and
supplemental May 8, 2018 submissions
that emissions from Utah will not
contribute significantly to
nonattainment or interfere with
maintenance of the 2010 NO2 NAAQS
in other states. The EPA is therefore
proposing to approve Utah’s January 31,
2013 and supplemental May 8, 2018
NO2 submissions.
B. Evaluation for the 2010 1-Hour SO2
NAAQS
1. EPA’s General Approach To
Evaluating the 2010 SO2 NAAQS
Although SO2 is emitted from a
similar universe of point and nonpoint
sources as is directly emitted PM2.5 and
the precursors to ozone and PM2.5,
interstate transport of SO2 is unlike the
transport of PM2.5 or ozone because SO2
emissions sources usually do not have
long range SO2 impacts. The transport of
SO2 relative to the 1-hour NAAQS is
more analogous to the transport of Pb
relative to the Pb NAAQS in that
emissions of SO2 typically result in 1hour pollutant impacts of possible
concern only near the emissions source.
However, ambient 1-hour
concentrations of SO2 do not decrease as
quickly with distance from the source as
do 3-month average concentrations of
Pb, because SO2 gas is not removed by
deposition as rapidly as are Pb particles
and because SO2 typically has a higher
emissions release height than Pb.
Moreover, while emitted SO2 has wider
ranging impacts than emitted Pb, it does
not have such wide-ranging impacts that
treatment in a manner similar to ozone
or PM2.5 would be appropriate. The
approaches that the EPA has adopted for
ozone or PM2.5 transport are too
regionally focused and the approach for
Pb transport is too tightly circumscribed
to the source. SO2 transport is therefore
a unique case and requires a different
approach.
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
localized pollutant impacts near an
emissions source that drop off with
distance. Given the physical properties
of SO2, the EPA selected the ‘‘urban
scale’’—a spatial scale with dimensions
from 4 to 50 kilometers (km) from point
sources—as that scale has been an
appropriate range both for monitoring
SO2 concentrations and for modeling
SO2 impacts from such sources.10 As
such, the EPA utilized an assessment up
to 50 km from point sources in order to
assess trends in area-wide air quality
that might impact downwind states.
2. State’s Submission
Utah conducted a weight of evidence
analysis to examine whether SO2
emissions from Utah contribute
significantly to nonattainment or
interfere with maintenance of the 2010
SO2 NAAQS in downwind states. Utah’s
analysis first reviewed monitoring data
in neighboring states to determine
whether there were cross-state areas to
which Utah could potentially contribute
significantly to nonattainment. Utah
concluded that the only monitors in
neighboring states near or above the
NAAQS were violating monitors located
in the Miami, Arizona and Hayden,
Arizona SO2 nonattainment areas.11
Utah then analyzed the SO2 source
within the State with the closest
proximity to the Arizona nonattainment
areas. The State determined the distance
(531 km) between this source (Cci
Paradox Midstream, Llc: Lisbon Natural
Gas Processing Plant) and the nearest
nonattainment area (Miami, Arizona)
showed that Utah will not contribute
significantly to nonattainment in
Arizona. For its analysis of interference
with maintenance, Utah reviewed the
sources with over 100 ton per year (tpy)
SO2 emissions in the State within 50 km
of a state border, the distance from the
nearest cross-state SO2 monitors to Utah
sources, and its proximity to the nearest
former 2010 SO2 nonattainment area in
Billings, Montana. Utah also pointed to
the significant decrease in SO2
emissions from sources in the State over
time, and its current low levels of
monitored SO2, as further evidence that
Utah will not significantly contribute to
10 For the definition of spatial scales for SO ,
2
please see 40 CFR part 58, Appendix D, section 4.4
(‘‘Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) Design Criteria’’). For further
discussion on how the EPA is applying these
definitions with respect to interstate transport of
SO2, see 82 FR 21351, 21352, 21354 (May 8, 2017)
(proposed approval of Connecticut’s SO2 transport
SIP); 82 FR 37013 (Aug. 8, 2017) (final approval).
11 https://www3.epa.gov/airquality/greenbook/
tbtc.html.
E:\FR\FM\20JNP1.SGM
20JNP1
28779
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 119 / Thursday, June 20, 2019 / Proposed Rules
nonattainment of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS
in any other state.
3. EPA’s Analysis
Prong 1: Significant Contribution to
Nonattainment
The EPA proposes to approve Utah’s
June 2, 2013 and supplemental May 8,
2018 submittals with respect to the
interstate transport requirements of
CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), prong 1
for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS, as discussed
below. We have analyzed the air quality,
emission sources and emission trends in
Utah and neighboring states, i.e.,
Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, New Mexico,
Nevada and Wyoming. Based on that
analysis, we propose to find that Utah
will not significantly contribute to
nonattainment of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS
in any other state.
We first reviewed 2015–2017 1-hour
SO2 design value concentrations for
Utah and neighboring states.12 In Table
3, below, we have included monitoring
data from four scenarios: (1) All of the
monitor data from Utah; 13 (2) the
monitor with the highest SO2 level in
each neighboring state; (3) the monitor
in each neighboring state located closest
to the Utah border; and (4) all monitors
in each neighboring state within 50 km
of the Utah border.14 For monitors
without a valid 2015–2017 design value,
we have instead elected to present the
highest annual 99th percentile daily
maximum 1-hour SO2 concentration
between 2015 and 2017. These values
are shown in the far-right column of
Table 3, below. As the table indicates,
all of these concentrations are below the
level of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS.
TABLE 3—SO2 MONITOR VALUES IN UTAH AND NEIGHBORING STATES
State/area
Scenario
Arizona/Phoenix ...................................................................
Arizona/Hayden ....................................................................
Colorado/Denver ..................................................................
Colorado/Colorado Springs ..................................................
Idaho/Pocatello ....................................................................
Idaho/Soda Springs .............................................................
Nevada/Las Vegas ...............................................................
New Mexico/Farmington ......................................................
Utah/Salt Lake City ..............................................................
Wyoming/Rock Springs ........................................................
Wyoming/Riverton ................................................................
Site ID
3
2
3
2
2
3
2, 3
2, 3
1
3
2
Approx.
distance to
Utah border
(km)
040139997
040071001
080310026
080410015
160050004
160290031
320030540
350451005
490353006
560370300
560130003
388
443
346
366
102
76
134
57
76
105
315
2015–2017
design value
(ppb)
6
295
15
40
38
30
6
NA *
NA *
21
NA *
Annual 99th
percentile
1-hour daily
maximum SO2
Concentration,
2015–2017 15
16 (2017)
13 (2016)
65 (2017)
jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
* The DV for this site is invalid due to incomplete data and/or quality assurance issues for this period and is not for use in comparison to the
NAAQS.
The EPA reviewed these data to see
whether there were any regulatory
monitoring sites, particularly near the
Utah border, with elevated SO2
concentrations that might warrant
further investigation with respect to
interstate transport of SO2 from
emission sources near any given
monitor. As shown, at the monitors with
valid design values, there are no
violating design values in Utah or
neighboring states apart from Arizona,
and the nearest monitor with the
violating design value in Arizona is 443
km from the Utah border.
The data presented in Table 3, above,
show that Utah’s network of SO2
monitors, while limited, indicates that
monitored 1-hour SO2 levels in Utah
were 9% of the 75 ppb level of the
NAAQS. As shown, there are no Utah
monitors located within 50 km of a
neighboring state’s border, nor are there
any monitors in neighboring states
located within 50 km of the Utah
border. Thus, these air quality data do
not, by themselves, indicate any
particular location that would warrant
further investigation with respect to SO2
emission sources that might
significantly contribute to
nonattainment in the neighboring states.
However, because the monitoring
network is not necessarily designed to
find all locations of high SO2
concentrations, we have also conducted
a source-oriented analysis.
As noted, the EPA finds that it is
appropriate to examine the impacts of
emissions from stationary sources in
Utah in distances ranging from 0 km to
50 km from the facility. Utah assessed
point sources up to 50 km from state
borders to evaluate SO2 transport. The
list of sources emitting 100 tpy 16 or
more of SO2 in 2017 within 50 km from
Utah state borders is shown in Table 4
below.
12 Data retrieved from EPA’s https://
www.epa.gov/air-trends/air-quality-designvalues#report.
13 There are currently three SO monitors
2
operating in Utah. However, two of these (AQS Site
IDs 490352005 and 490353010) began operation in
2018, and therefore do not have data sufficient to
assist the EPA in this technical analysis. We note
that the highest 1-hr SO2 concentration from either
of the monitors in 2018 was 7 ppb, or roughly 9%
of the NAAQS.
14 There are no states within 50 km of the Utah
border that are not also neighboring states.
15 These values are only presented for monitors
without a valid 2015–2017 design value.
16 Utah limited its analysis to Utah sources of SO
2
emitting at least 100 tpy. We agree with Utah’s
choice to limit its analysis in this way, because in
the absence of special factors, for example the
presence of a nearby larger source or unusual
physical factors, Utah sources emitting less than
100 tpy can appropriately be presumed to not be
adversely impacting SO2 concentrations in
downwind states.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:41 Jun 19, 2019
Jkt 247001
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\20JNP1.SGM
20JNP1
28780
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 119 / Thursday, June 20, 2019 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 4—UTAH SO2 SOURCES NEAR NEIGHBORING STATES 17
2017 SO2
emissions
(tons) *
Utah source
CCI Paradox Midstream LLC: Lisbon Natural
Gas Processing Plant—San Juan County,
Utah.
Holcim Inc.: Devils Slide Plant—Morgan
County, Utah.
Distance to
Utah border
(km)
Approx. distance to nearest neighboring
state SO2 source
(km)
Neighboring
state source
2017 SO2
emissions
(tons)
499 (2016)
20
68 (Nucla Generating
County, Colorado).
Station—Montrose
153
196
41
109 (Naughton Power Plant—Lincoln County, Wyoming).
4,047
* Emissions data throughout this document were obtained using EPA’s Emissions Inventory System (EIS) Gateway.
Table 4 also shows the distance from
Utah sources located near a neighboring
state to the nearest out-of-state SO2
source emitting above 100 tpy of SO2,
because elevated levels of SO2, to which
SO2 emitted in Utah may have a
downwind impact, are most likely to be
found near such sources. As shown,
both Utah sources within 50 km of a
neighboring state are beyond 50 km
from the nearest major out-of-state
source, with the shortest distance
between such cross-state SO2 sources at
68 km.18 Given the localized range of
potential 1-hour SO2 impacts and the
distance between sources, Table 4
suggests that emissions from these Utah
sources are unlikely to contribute
significantly to nonattainment of the
2010 SO2 NAAQS in neighboring states.
Additionally, the largest neighboring-
state source in Table 4, Naughton Power
Plant, was modeled and showed
attainment with the 2010 SO2
NAAQS.19 Based on this modeling, the
EPA designated Lincoln County,
Wyoming as attainment/unclassifiable
for this NAAQS. See 83 FR 1170,
January 9, 2018. This provides
additional support for our proposed
conclusion that emissions from the Utah
sources in Table 4 do not significantly
contribute to nonattainment of the 2010
SO2 NAAQS in neighboring states.20
The EPA also reviewed the location of
sources in neighboring states emitting
more than 100 tpy of SO2 and located
within 50 km of the Utah border (see
Table 5) that were not already addressed
in Table 4. As shown in Table 5, there
is only one such source, and the shortest
distance between it and any Utah source
that emits 100 tpy or more of SO2 is 233
km. The distance shown in Table 5
indicates that there are no locations in
neighboring states that would warrant
further investigation with respect to
Utah SO2 emission sources that might
contribute significantly to
nonattainment of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS.
The Hayden and Miami, Arizona 2010
SO2 nonattainment areas, which Utah
reviewed as part of its analysis, are over
380 km from the nearest Utah border
and so were not included in Table 5.
Utah asserted that the significant
distance between its border and these
nonattainment areas indicates that it is
highly unlikely that SO2 emissions
generated in Utah are contributing
significantly to either nonattainment
area in Arizona, and the EPA proposes
to agree with this conclusion.
TABLE 5—NEIGHBORING STATE SO2 SOURCES NEAR UTAH *
2016 SO2
emissions
(tons)
Source
Navajo Generating Station—Navajo Nation ...
Distance to
Utah border
(km)
3,585
11
Approx. distance to nearest Utah SO2
source
(km)
233 (Lisbon Natural Gas Processing Plant) ..
Utah source
2016
emissions
(tons)
499
jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
* We have not included sources that are duplicative of those in Table 3.
In conclusion, for interstate transport
prong 1, we reviewed ambient SO2
monitoring data and SO2 emission
sources both within Utah and in
neighboring states. Based on this
analysis, we propose to determine that
emissions from Utah will not
significantly contribute to
nonattainment of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS
in any other state and therefore propose
to approve the June 2, 2013 and
supplemental May 8, 2018 SO2
submissions with respect to this
requirement.
The EPA also proposes to approve the
June 2, 2013 and supplemental May 8,
2018 submissions with respect to the
prong 2 requirement. In its prong 2
analysis, Utah reviewed ambient SO2
monitoring data, emissions trends
within Utah, and potential SO2 impacts
on the Billings, Montana area, which is
currently in ‘‘maintenance’’ status for
the 2010 SO2 NAAQS, noting the large
distance between the nearest Utah
border and the Billings area (457 km).
However, in previous actions the EPA
has analyzed prong 2 by evaluating the
17 The EPA did not include information about
sources located on tribal lands within the outer
boundary of the state of Utah, as the State is not
the regulatory authority for these sources.
18 The EPA notes that the Nucla Generating
Station is required by the Colorado regional haze
SIP to shut down before December 31, 2022. See 83
FR 31332 (July 5, 2018).
19 See ‘‘Chapter 45: Intended Round 3 Area
Designations for the 2010 1-Hour SO2 Primary
National Ambient Air Quality Standard for
Wyoming,’’ in the docket for this action and in the
docket for the EPA’s Round 3 2010 SO2
Designations at EPA–HQ–OAR–2017–0003–0608.
20 While designations may provide useful
information for purposes of analyzing transport,
particularly for a more source-specific pollutant
such as SO2, EPA notes that designations
themselves are not dispositive of whether or not
upwind emissions are impacting areas in
downwind states. EPA has consistently taken the
position that as to impacts, CAA section
110(a)(2)(D) refers only to prevention of
‘nonattainment’ in other states, not to prevention of
nonattainment in designated nonattainment areas or
any similar formulation requiring that designations
for downwind nonattainment areas must first have
occurred. See e.g., Clean Air Interstate Rule, 70 FR
25162, 25265 (May 12, 2005); Cross-State Air
Pollution Rule, 76 FR 48208, 48211 (Aug. 8, 2011);
Final Response to Petition from New Jersey
Regarding SO2 Emissions From the Portland
Generating Station, 76 FR 69052 (Nov. 7, 2011)
(finding facility in violation of the prohibitions of
CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the
2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS prior to issuance of
designations for that standard).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:41 Jun 19, 2019
Jkt 247001
Prong 2: Interference With Maintenance
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\20JNP1.SGM
20JNP1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 119 / Thursday, June 20, 2019 / Proposed Rules
potential impact of a state’s emissions
on areas that are currently measuring
data below the NAAQS, but that may
have issues maintaining that air quality,
rather than only former nonattainment
areas which are in maintenance status.21
Therefore, we focused our review on
SO2 monitoring data and emission
trends to evaluate the State’s conclusion
that Utah will not interfere with
maintenance of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS in
downwind states. This evaluation
builds on the analysis regarding
significant contribution to
nonattainment (prong 1). Specifically,
the low monitored ambient
concentrations of SO2 in Utah and
neighboring states shown in Table 3,
28781
and the large distances between crossstate SO2 sources shown in Tables 4 and
5, do not indicate any potential inability
to maintain the SO2 NAAQS that could
be attributed in part to sources in Utah.
Table 6, below, shows emission
trends for Utah and neighboring states.22
TABLE 6—SO2 EMISSION TRENDS
State
2000
jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Arizona .................................................................................
Colorado ...............................................................................
Idaho ....................................................................................
Nevada .................................................................................
New Mexico .........................................................................
Utah ......................................................................................
Wyoming ..............................................................................
As shown in Table 6, the statewide
SO2 emissions from Utah and
neighboring states have decreased
substantially over time, per our review
of the EPA’s emissions trends data. This
trend of decreasing SO2 emissions does
not by itself demonstrate that areas in
Utah and neighboring states will
maintain the 2010 SO2 NAAQS.
However, as a piece of this weight of
evidence analysis for prong 2, it
provides further indication (when
considered alongside low monitor
values in neighboring states and large
distances between SO2 emissions
sources) that maintenance issues are
unlikely. The geographic scope and
large relative size of these reductions
strongly suggest that they are not
transient effects from reversible causes,
and thus there is low likelihood that a
strong upward trend in emissions will
occur that might cause areas presently
in attainment to violate the NAAQS in
the future.
In conclusion, for interstate transport
prong 2, we reviewed additional
information about emission trends, as
well as the technical information
considered for interstate transport prong
1. We propose to find that the
combination of low ambient
concentrations of SO2 in Utah and
neighboring states, the large distances
between cross-state SO2 sources, and the
downward trend in SO2 emissions from
Utah and neighboring states, show no
interference with maintenance of the
2010 SO2 NAAQS from Utah.
21 The maintenance plan requirements for areas
redesignated from nonattainment to attainment for
a NAAQS can be found in CAA section 175A.
22 This emissions trends information was derived
from the EPA’s web page https://www.epa.gov/air-
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:41 Jun 19, 2019
Jkt 247001
2005
118,528
115,122
34,525
58,849
164,631
58,040
141,439
90,577
80,468
35,451
68,790
47,671
52,998
122,453
Accordingly, we propose to approve
Utah’s June 2, 2013 and supplemental
May 8, 2018 SO2 submissions with
respect to the prong 2 requirement.
C. Evaluation for the 2012 Annual PM2.5
NAAQS
1. EPA’s General Approach To
Evaluating the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS
The EPA has developed a consistent
framework for addressing interstate
transport with respect to the PM2.5
NAAQS. This framework includes the
following four steps: (1) Identify
downwind areas that are expected to
have problems attaining or maintaining
the NAAQS; (2) Identify which upwind
states contribute to these air quality
problems in amounts sufficient to
warrant further review and analysis; (3)
Identify any emissions reductions
necessary to prevent an identified
upwind state from significantly
contributing to downwind
nonattainment or interfering with
downwind maintenance of the NAAQS;
and (4) Adopt permanent and
enforceable measures needed to achieve
those emissions reductions.
To help states identify the receptors
expected to have problems attaining or
maintaining the 2012 annual PM2.5
NAAQS, the EPA released a
memorandum titled, ‘‘Information on
the Interstate Transport ‘Good Neighbor’
Provision for the 2012 Fine Particulate
Matter National Ambient Air Quality
Standards under Clean Air Act Section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)’’ on March 17, 2016
emissions-inventories/air-pollutant-emissionstrends-data.
23 This memorandum is available in the docket
for this action and at https://www.epa.gov/sites/
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
2010
73,075
60,459
14,774
17,043
23,651
29,776
91,022
2016
SO2 reduction,
2000–2016
(percent)
38,089
20,626
10,051
8,028
15,529
15,226
57,313
68
82
70
86
90
73
59
(hereon ‘‘2016 Memo’’).23 The 2016
Memo provides projected future year
annual PM2.5 design values for monitors
throughout the country based on
quality-assured and certified ambient
monitoring data and recent air quality
modeling and explains the methodology
used to develop these projected design
values. The 2016 Memo also provides
recommendations on how states can use
the projected values to determine which
monitors should be further evaluated as
potential receptors under step 1 of the
interstate transport framework described
above, so that states can determine
whether their emissions significantly
contribute to nonattainment or interfere
with maintenance of the 2012 annual
PM2.5 NAAQS at these monitoring sites.
To develop the projected values
presented in the 2016 Memo, the EPA
used the results of nationwide
photochemical air quality modeling that
it recently performed to support two
ozone NAAQS-related rulemakings. We
performed base year modeling for 2011
and future year modeling for 2017 to
support the Cross-State Air Pollution
Rule (CSAPR) Update for the 2008
Ozone NAAQS. See 81 FR 74504
(October 26, 2016). We also performed
future year modeling for 2025 to support
the Regulatory Impact Assessment of the
final 2015 Ozone NAAQS.24 The
outputs from these model runs included
hourly concentrations of PM2.5 that the
EPA used in conjunction with measured
data to project annual average PM2.5
design values for 2017 and 2025.
production/files/2016–08/documents/goodneighbor-memo_implementation.pdf.
24 See 2015 ozone NAAQS RIA at: https://
www3.epa.gov/ozonepollution/pdfs/
20151001ria.pdf.
E:\FR\FM\20JNP1.SGM
20JNP1
28782
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 119 / Thursday, June 20, 2019 / Proposed Rules
jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Areas that were designated as
Moderate PM2.5 nonattainment areas for
the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS in 2014
must attain the NAAQS by December
31, 2021, or as expeditiously as
practicable. Since modeling results are
only available for 2017 and 2025, the
2016 Memo explains that one way to
assess potential receptors for 2021 25 is
to assume that receptors projected to
have average and/or maximum design
values above the NAAQS in both 2017
and 2025 are also likely to be either
nonattainment or maintenance receptors
in 2021. Similarly, the EPA stated that
it may be reasonable to assume that
receptors that are projected to attain the
NAAQS in both 2017 and 2025 are also
likely to be attainment receptors in
2021. Where a potential receptor is
projected to be nonattainment or
maintenance in 2017, but projected to
be attainment in 2025, further analysis
of the emissions and modeling may be
needed to make a further judgement
regarding the receptor status in 2021.26
Based on this approach, the EPA
identified nineteen potential
nonattainment and/or maintenance
receptors.27 Seventeen of these are
located in California. One of the
potential maintenance-only receptors is
located in Shoshone County, Idaho, and
the other potential maintenance-only
receptor is located in Allegheny County,
Pennsylvania.
25 Assessing downwind PM
2.5 air quality
problems based on estimates of air quality
concentrations in a future year aligned with the
relevant attainment deadline is consistent with the
instructions from the United States Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C.
Circuit) in North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896,
911–12 (D.C. Cir. 2008), that upwind emission
reductions should be harmonized, to the extent
possible, with the attainment deadlines for
downwind areas.
26 The EPA notes that the modeling used to
inform the 2016 Memo did not project any potential
nonattainment or maintenance receptors in 2025
that were not also projected as potential
nonattainment or maintenance receptors in 2017.
27 As the EPA explained in the proposed action,
titled ‘‘Air Plan Approval; AL, FL, GA, KY, MS, NC,
SC, TN; Interstate Transport for the 2012 PM2.5
NAAQS,’’ 83 FR 39387 (Aug. 9, 2018), the 2016
Memo noted that because of data quality problems,
nonattainment and maintenance projections were
not conducted for monitors in all or portions of
Florida, Illinois, Idaho (outside of Shoshone
County), Tennessee and Kentucky. The EPA noted,
however, that data quality problems have
subsequently been resolved for all of the
aforementioned areas. These areas have current
design values below the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS and are
expected to continue to maintain the NAAQS (See
EPA Region 4 Annual PM2.5 Trends Analysis TSD,
in the docket for this action) due to downward
emission trends for nitrogen oxides (NOx) and SO2
and therefore were not considered potential
receptors for the purpose of interstate transport for
the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. The EPA finalized
approved of the action on September 25, 2018 (83
FR 48387).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:41 Jun 19, 2019
Jkt 247001
After identifying potential receptors,
the next step is to identify whether
upwind states contribute to air pollution
at each of the identified receptors in
other states. In the 2016 Memo, the EPA
did not calculate the portion of any
downwind state’s predicted PM2.5
concentrations that would result from
emissions from individual states.
Accordingly, the EPA will evaluate
Utah’s prong 1 and 2 submissions using
a weight of evidence analysis. This
analysis is based on a review of the
State’s submission and other available
information, including air quality
trends; topographical, geographical, and
meteorological information; local
emissions in downwind states and
emissions from the upwind state; and
contribution modeling from prior
interstate transport analyses. While
none of these factors is by itself
dispositive, together they may be used
in weight of evidence analyses to
determine whether the emissions from
Utah will significantly contribute to
nonattainment or interfere with
maintenance of the 2012 annual PM2.5
NAAQS at the 19 potential
nonattainment and/or maintenance
receptors identified in the 2016 Memo.
2. State’s Submission
Utah conducted a weight of evidence
analysis to examine whether PM2.5
emissions from Utah adversely affect
attainment or maintenance of the 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS in downwind states. The
State’s analysis primarily focused on
potential contribution to the West Silver
Valley, Idaho 2012 PM2.5 nonattainment
area,28 which is also the location of the
Shoshone County, Idaho potential
maintenance-only receptor identified in
the 2016 Memo and the only area in a
state bordering Utah that contained a
nonattainment or maintenance receptor.
Utah considered the distance from the
State to West Silver Valley, as well as
meteorological information and PM2.5
speciation data, and on this basis
concluded that the State will not
contribute significantly to
nonattainment or interfere with
maintenance of the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS
in Idaho or any other state.
The EPA notes that, because Utah’s
analysis focused on designated
nonattainment areas, it does not
independently address whether the SIP
contains adequate provisions
prohibiting emissions that will interfere
with maintenance of the 2012 PM2.5
NAAQS in any other state. In remanding
the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) to
the EPA in North Carolina v. EPA, the
28 https://www3.epa.gov/airquality/greenbook/
kbca.html#PM-2.5.2012.West_Silver_Valley.
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
D.C. Circuit explained that the
regulating authority must give the
‘‘interfere with maintenance’’ clause of
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) ‘‘independent
significance’’ by evaluating the impact
of upwind state emissions on
downwind areas that, while currently in
attainment, are at risk of future
nonattainment, considering historic
variability.29 While Utah’s submittal
pre-dates the 2016 Memo, which
provided the states with information
about potential maintenance-only
receptors, Utah was still required to
evaluate the potential impact of its
emissions on areas that are currently
measuring data below the NAAQS, but
that may have issues maintaining that
air quality, and the State did not do so.
The EPA also notes that while Utah
elected to address areas in neighboring
states designated as nonattainment for
the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS, the State did
not also address such areas in nonneighboring states, such as California,
and should have done so because
directly emitted PM2.5 and PM2.5
precursors can have long-ranging
impacts.
When, as here, the EPA determines
that a state’s SIP has not addressed all
of the statutory requirements or
provided a technical analysis to justify
its conclusion regarding the state’s
impact on downwind air quality
problems, the EPA identifies those
deficiencies in acting upon the state’s
SIP submission. However, if the EPA
has supplemental analysis available that
nonetheless supported a state’s
conclusion despite these deficiencies in
the state’s SIP submission, the EPA can
nonetheless propose to approve the
state’s SIP submission. See 82 FR 9142,
9149 (Feb. 3, 2017).
3. EPA’s Analysis
The EPA reviewed the information in
Utah’s submittal, as well as the 2016
Memo and additional information for
our evaluation, and we propose to come
to the same conclusion as the State,
including (based on our supplemental
information) Utah’s conclusion that
emissions from the State will not
interfere with maintenance in
downwind states. The EPA therefore
proposes to approve the December 22,
2015 submission with respect to both
the prong 1 and 2 requirements for the
2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. In our evaluation,
we identified potential downwind
nonattainment and maintenance
receptors using the modeling results
presented in the 2016 Memo. We then
29 531 F.3d 896, 910–11 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (holding
that the EPA must give ‘‘independent significance’’
to each prong of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)).
E:\FR\FM\20JNP1.SGM
20JNP1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 119 / Thursday, June 20, 2019 / Proposed Rules
evaluated these receptors to determine
whether Utah emissions could
significantly contribute to
nonattainment or interfere with
maintenance at them. Below, we
provide an overview of our analysis. A
more detailed evaluation of how the SIP
revision meets the requirements of CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) may be found
in our 2012 PM2.5 technical support
document (TSD) in the docket for this
action.
Our prong 1 analysis focused on the
17 California receptors, which include
the only nonattainment receptors
modeled in the 2016 Memo. As shown
in Table 1 of the 2016 Memo, 12 of the
17 California receptors are projected as
nonattainment in both 2017 and 2025,
while the remaining 5 receptors are
projected as maintenance in either 2017
or 2025. Because all of the 17 California
receptors are located in either the San
Joaquin Valley or South Coast 2012
PM2.5 nonattainment area, we have
elected to analyze all of the California
receptors together rather than separate
the California nonattainment and
maintenance receptor analyses. Our
analysis of these receptors showed that
elevated PM2.5 levels in California are
driven primarily by local emissions.30
Additionally, Utah’s southwestern
border is more than 290 miles to the east
and downwind of the California
receptors, with intervening
mountainous topography which tends to
impede interstate pollution transport.
Finally, as shown in Table 7, below,
28783
monitoring data from Interagency
Monitoring of Protected Visual
Environment (IMPROVE) monitors tend
to show that the air in remote areas
between Utah and the California
nonattainment and maintenance
receptors is well below the level of the
2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.31 All of these
factors indicate that emissions from
Utah are not likely to reach California in
amounts that could impact the air
quality at the California nonattainment
and maintenance receptors. Thus, the
EPA is proposing to find that Utah
emissions will not significantly
contribute to nonattainment or interfere
with maintenance of the 2012 PM2.5
NAAQS at any California projected
receptor.
TABLE 7—PM2.5 AVERAGE ANNUAL CONCENTRATIONS AT REMOTE IMPROVE MONITORS 32
Site No.
jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
040159000
060270002
060199000
060519000
060719002
160230101
160370002
320079000
320330101
490530130
2015–2017
PM2.5 average
annual
concentrations
(μg/m3)
State
.....
.....
.....
.....
.....
.....
.....
.....
.....
.....
Arizona ....................................................................................................................................................................
California .................................................................................................................................................................
California .................................................................................................................................................................
California .................................................................................................................................................................
California .................................................................................................................................................................
Idaho ........................................................................................................................................................................
Idaho ........................................................................................................................................................................
Nevada ....................................................................................................................................................................
Nevada ....................................................................................................................................................................
Utah .........................................................................................................................................................................
2.75
3.63
4.06
2.82
3.63
3.23
3.99
2.98
2.25
2.74
For the EPA’s prong 2 analysis, we
reviewed potential impacts from Utah
emissions at the two projected
maintenance-only receptors outside of
California identified in the 2016 Memo.
With regard to the Shoshone County,
Idaho receptor, our analysis showed that
elevated PM2.5 levels in the area are
driven primarily by local emissions
from wood burning in the wintertime,
specifically when the West Silver Valley
experiences the combination of cold
surface temperatures, low wind speeds,
and constrained vertical mixing.33 The
deep, narrow mountain valley magnifies
this effect relative to other nearby areas.
The combination of these
meteorological effects and the
mountainous terrain confine the
geographical area that could contribute
emissions to elevated wintertime PM2.5
concentrations at the Shoshone County
receptor.34 Utah’s prong 1 analysis
noted that speciation data in the Utah
2006 PM2.5 nonattainment areas 35
indicate that ammonium nitrate drives
high PM2.5 levels in north-central Utah,
which contrasts with carbon-driven
speciation data at the Shoshone County
receptor during the winter and indicates
emissions originating in Utah are not
contributing to elevated PM2.5 at the
Shoshone County receptor.
Additionally, Utah’s nearest border is
approximately 400 miles to the
southeast and generally downwind of
this receptor. Finally, the IMPROVE
monitoring data in Table 7 tend to show
that the air in remote areas in Idaho
between Utah and the Shoshone County
receptor is well below the level of the
2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. This provides
further indication that elevated PM2.5 at
the Shoshone County receptor is
primarily driven by local emissions. All
of these factors indicate that emissions
from Utah will not interfere with
maintenance of the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS
at the projected Shoshone County
maintenance receptor.
With regard to the Allegheny County,
Pennsylvania potential maintenance
receptor, our analysis included review
of previous modeling data conducted for
the EPA’s 2011 CSAPR, which
addressed the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS.36 For the 2011 CSAPR, the
EPA modeled contribution from states
in the eastern U.S. to air quality
monitors also located in the eastern
30 See ‘‘California: Imperial County, Los AngelesSouth Coast Air Basin, Plumas County, San Joaquin
Valley Area Designations for the 2012 Primary
Annual PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality
Standard Technical Support Document’’ in the
docket for this action.
31 The IMPROVE program includes a long-term
monitoring program to establish the current
visibility conditions, track changes in visibility and
determine causal mechanism for the visibility
impairment in the National Parks and Wilderness
Areas (https://vista.cira.colostate.edu/improve/).
These monitors are not required to meet the same
standards as regulatory monitors used by the EPA
and states to determine compliance with the
NAAQS.
32 Id.
33 See ‘‘Idaho: West Silver Valley Nonattainment
Area—2012 Primary Annual PM2.5 National
Ambient Air Quality Standard Technical Support
Document’’ in the docket for this action.
34 Id.at 39.
35 https://www3.epa.gov/airquality/greenbook/
rbtc.html.
36 See Table V.D–1 in the EPA’s CSAPR (August
8, 2011), at 76 FR 48240.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:41 Jun 19, 2019
Jkt 247001
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\20JNP1.SGM
20JNP1
28784
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 119 / Thursday, June 20, 2019 / Proposed Rules
U.S.37 Therefore, the 2011 CSAPR
modeling did not project downwind
contribution of emissions from Utah,
but projected contributions from states
east of Utah, including Kansas and
Nebraska. The CSAPR modeling
indicated that Kansas and Nebraska,
states located much closer to the
Allegheny County receptor and with
higher PM2.5 precursor emissions than
Utah,38 were modeled to be below 1%
(the contribution level at which eastern
states were considered ‘‘linked’’ to
downwind receptors in the CSAPR and
CSAPR Update rulemakings) of the 1997
annual and 2006 24-hr PM2.5 NAAQS at
the Allegheny County receptor. These
factors, in addition to the very large
distance (1,525 miles) from the
Allegheny County receptor to the Utah
border, indicate that emissions from
Utah will not interfere with
maintenance of the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS
at the projected Allegheny County
receptor.
Based on these analyses, the EPA is
proposing to determine that Utah
emissions will not contribute
significantly to nonattainment or
interfere with maintenance of the 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS in any other state, and we
therefore propose to approve the
December 22, 2015 submittal.
III. Proposed Action
Based on our review of Utah’s January
31, 2013, June 2, 2013, December 22,
2015 and May 8, 2018 infrastructure
submissions, and our analysis of
additional relevant information, we
propose to determine that emissions
from Utah will not significantly
contribute to nonattainment, or interfere
with maintenance, of the 2010 NO2,
2010 SO2, and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS in
any other state. Accordingly, we
propose to approve the January 31,
2013, June 2, 2013, December 22, 2015
and May 8, 2018 Utah SIP submissions
as satisfying the requirements of CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for these
NAAQS. The EPA is soliciting public
comments on this proposed action and
will consider public comments received
during the comment period.
IV. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Under the CAA, the Administrator is
required to approve a SIP submission
37 In these rules, ‘‘Eastern’’ states refer to all
contiguous states east of the Rocky Mountains,
specifically not including: Montana, Wyoming,
Colorado and New Mexico.
38 See Tables 7–1 and 7–2 in ‘‘Emissions
Inventory Final Rule Technical Support Document
(TSD)’’ for CSAPR, June 28, 2011, Document
number EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0491–4522 in
www.regulations.gov.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:41 Jun 19, 2019
Jkt 247001
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 choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of
the CAA. Accordingly, this action
merely proposes to approve state law as
meeting federal requirements and 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);
• Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82
FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory
action because SIP approvals are
exempted under Executive Order 12866;
• 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 CAA; 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 is not approved
to apply on any Indian reservation land
or in any other area where the EPA or
an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of
Indian country, the proposed rule does
not have tribal implications and will not
impose substantial direct costs on tribal
governments or preempt tribal law as
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations,
Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur dioxide, Volatile
organic compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: June 10, 2019.
Debra Thomas,
Acting Regional Administrator, EPA Region
8.
[FR Doc. 2019–12948 Filed 6–19–19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 76
[MB Docket Nos. 07–42 and 17–105; FCC
19–52]
Leased Commercial Access;
Modernization of Media Regulation
Initiative
Federal Communications
Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
In this document, which is
part of the Commission’s Modernization
of Media Regulation Initiative, the
Commission proposes to modify the
leased access rate formula so that rates
will be specific to the tier on which the
programming is carried. The
Commission also seeks comment on
whether it should make additional
adjustments to the formula. Finally, it
also seeks comment on whether leased
access requirements can withstand First
Amendment scrutiny in light of video
programming market changes.
DATES: Comments are due on or before
July 22, 2019; reply comments are due
on or before August 5, 2019.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments,
identified by MB Docket Nos. 07–42 and
17–105, by any of the following
methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
• Federal Communications
Commission’s Web site: https://
fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
• Mail: Filings can be sent by hand or
messenger delivery, by commercial
overnight courier, or by first-class or
overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All
filings must be addressed to the
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\20JNP1.SGM
20JNP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 119 (Thursday, June 20, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 28776-28784]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-12948]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R08-OAR-2019-0180; FRL-9995-10-Region 8]
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality State Implementation
Plans; Utah; Interstate Transport Requirements for Nitrogen Dioxide,
Sulfur Dioxide, and Fine Particulate Matter
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve State Implementation Plan (SIP) submissions from the State of
Utah regarding certain interstate transport requirements of the Clean
Air Act (CAA or ``Act''). These submissions respond to the EPA's
promulgation of the 2010 nitrogen dioxide (NO2) national
ambient air quality standards (NAAQS), the 2010 sulfur dioxide
(SO2) NAAQS, and the 2012 fine particulate matter
(PM2.5) NAAQS. The submissions address the requirement that
each SIP contain adequate provisions prohibiting air emissions that
will significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with
maintenance of these NAAQS in any other state.
DATES: Written comments must be received on or before July 22, 2019.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R08-
OAR-2019-0180, to the Federal Rulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from
www.regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any comment received to its
public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you
consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written
comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and
should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment
policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general
guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI 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
in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air and Radiation
Division, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop
Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129. The EPA requests that if at all
possible, 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 Quality Planning
Branch, EPA, Region 8, Mailcode 8ARD-QP, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver,
Colorado 80202-1129, (303) 312-7104, [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document wherever ``we,''
``us'' or ``our'' is used, we mean the EPA.
Table of Contents
I. Background
A. Interstate Transport
B. Utah's Submissions
II. Interstate Transport Evaluation
A. Evaluation for the 2010 1-Hour NO2 NAAQS
1. EPA's General Approach to Evaluating the 2010 NO2
NAAQS
2. State's Submission
3. EPA's Analysis
B. Evaluation for the 2010 1-Hour SO2 NAAQS
1. EPA's General Approach to Evaluating the 2010 SO2
NAAQS
2. State's Submission
3. EPA's Analysis
C. Evaluation for the 2012 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS
1. EPA's General Approach to Evaluating the 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS
2. State's Submission
3. EPA's Analysis
III. Proposed Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background
Section 110(a)(1) of the CAA requires states to submit SIPs meeting
the applicable requirements of section 110(a)(2) within 3 years after
promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS or within such shorter period as
the EPA may prescribe. Section 110(a)(2) requires states to address
[[Page 28777]]
structural SIP elements such as requirements for monitoring, basic
program requirements, and legal authority that are designed to provide
for implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of the NAAQS. The EPA
refers to the SIP submissions required by these provisions as
``infrastructure SIPs.'' Section 110(a) imposes the obligation upon
states to make an infrastructure SIP submission to the EPA for a new or
revised NAAQS, but the contents of individual state submissions may
vary depending upon the facts and circumstances. This proposed rule
pertains to the infrastructure SIP requirements for interstate
transport of air pollution.
A. Interstate Transport
Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) of the CAA requires SIPs to include
provisions prohibiting any source or other type of emissions activity
in one state from emitting any air pollutant in amounts that will
contribute significantly to nonattainment, or interfere with
maintenance, of the NAAQS, or interfere with measures required to
prevent significant deterioration of air quality or to protect
visibility in any other state. This proposed rule addresses the two
requirements under section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), which we refer to as
prong 1 (significant contribution to nonattainment of the NAAQS in any
other state) and prong 2 (interference with maintenance of the NAAQS in
any other state).\1\ The EPA often refers to SIP revisions addressing
the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) as ``interstate
transport SIPs.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The remaining interstate transport requirements of CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 2010 NO2, 2010
SO2 and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS for Utah have been
addressed in prior State submissions and EPA rulemakings. 81 FR
71991 (October 19, 2016); 81 FR 50626 (August 2, 2016).
Specifically, this includes the section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)
requirements relating to interference with measures required to be
included in the applicable implementation plan for any other state
under part C to prevent significant deterioration of air quality
(prong 3) or to protect visibility (prong 4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA evaluates each state's interstate transport SIP to see how
the state evaluates the transport of air pollution to other states for
a given air pollutant; what types of information the state used in its
analysis; how that analysis compares with prior EPA rulemakings,
modeling, monitoring, and guidance; and what conclusions were drawn by
the state. If the EPA concludes that the SIP contains adequate
provisions to prohibit sources from emitting air pollutants that
significantly contribute to nonattainment, or interfere with
maintenance, of a given NAAQS in any other state, we will approve the
state's submission with regard to prongs 1 and 2 of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).
Each of the following NAAQS revisions triggered the requirement for
states to submit infrastructure SIPs, including provisions to address
interstate transport prongs 1 and 2. On January 22, 2010, the EPA
promulgated a new 1-hour primary NAAQS for NO2 at a level of
100 parts per billion (ppb) while retaining the annual standard of 53
ppb.\2\ On June 2, 2010, the EPA promulgated a new primary 1-hour
SO2 standard of 75 ppb and retained the secondary 3-hour
standard of 0.5 parts per million (ppm).\3\ Finally, on December 14,
2012, the EPA revised the primary annual PM2.5 standard by
lowering the level to 12.0 micrograms per cubic meter ([mu]g/m\3\) and
retained the secondary annual PM2.5 standard of 15.0
[micro]g/m\3\ and the primary and secondary 24-hour PM2.5
standards of 35 [mu]g/m\3\.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ 75 FR 6474 (February 9, 2010).
\3\ 75 FR 35520 (June 22, 2010).
\4\ 78 FR 3086 (January 15, 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As discussed further in this notice, the EPA proposes to determine
that Utah's SIP contains adequate provisions to prohibit sources from
emitting air pollutants in amounts that significantly contribute to
nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2010 NO2,
2010 SO2 and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.
B. Utah's Submissions
The State of Utah submitted infrastructure SIPs for the 2010
NO2 NAAQS on January 31, 2013, and for the 2010
SO2 NAAQS on June 2, 2013. In both of these submissions, the
State addressed interstate transport prongs 1 and 2 by referencing the
EPA's November 19, 2012 Memorandum \5\ which outlined the EPA's
intention to abide by the August 21, 2012 decision of the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, holding that a SIP cannot be deemed
deficient for failing to meet the prong 1 and 2 requirements in Section
110(a)(2)(D)(i) before the EPA quantifies the state's obligation. EME
Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 696 F.3d 7 (D.C. Cir. 2012). Utah
stated that the EPA had not yet quantified Utah's interstate transport
obligation under the 2010 NO2 or 2010 SO2 NAAQS
and therefore Utah's infrastructure SIPs were adequate for section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See ``Next Steps for Pending Redesignation Requests and
State Implementation Plan Actions Affected by the Recent Court
Decision Vacating the 2011 Cross-State Air Pollution Rule,'' signed
by EPA Assistant Administrator Gina McCarthy November 19, 2012. This
memorandum is in the docket for this action.
\6\ These submissions are available in the docket for this
action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On April 29, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed and remanded the
D.C. Circuit's EME Homer City ruling and upheld the EPA's approach in
the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule. EPA v. EME Homer City Generation,
L.P., 572 U.S. 489 (2014). As a result of the Supreme Court reversal,
each state was again required to address the interstate transport
requirements of 110(a)(2)(D)(i) regardless of whether the EPA had
quantified the state's obligation. In accordance with the Supreme
Court's decision, on May 8, 2018 Utah submitted to the EPA 2010
NO2 and 2010 SO2 infrastructure SIPs, both of
which contained new analyses addressing interstate transport prongs 1
and 2 of Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the respective NAAQS. These
submissions supplement the State's prior 2013 interstate transport SIP
submissions for both NAAQS. Utah submitted an infrastructure SIP for
the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS, including an interstate transport SIP,
on December 22, 2015. The EPA will discuss these submissions in further
detail later in this proposed action.
II. Interstate Transport Evaluation
A. Evaluation for the 2010 1-Hour NO2 NAAQS
1. EPA's General Approach To Evaluating the 2010 NO2 NAAQS
Unlike certain other NAAQS like ozone and PM2.5, the EPA
has not developed a recommended approach for states to use when
addressing prongs 1 and 2 for the 2010 NO2 NAAQS. Following
promulgation of the 2010 NO2 NAAQS, the EPA designated all
areas of the United States as ``unclassifiable/attainment'' for this
NAAQS because monitors throughout the country had indicated no
violations of the NAAQS from 2008-2010.\7\ 77 FR 9532, February 17,
2012. Additionally, no violations occurred at any monitor in the
country in the most recent available design value period of 2015-
2017.\8\ For these reasons, 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) demonstrations for
states have been relatively straightforward because the EPA has not
identified areas in any state to which emissions from another state
would likely contribute significantly to nonattainment or interfere
with maintenance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ For comparison with the 2010 NO2 1-hour NAAQS, a
three-year design value is used. 40 CFR 50.11(f).
\8\ See https://www.epa.gov/air-trends/air-quality-design-values#report. As this report indicates, no regulatory monitor in
the U.S. recorded a design value above 78 ppb for the 2015-2017
design value period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 28778]]
2. State's Submission
Utah conducted a weight of evidence analysis to examine whether
NO2 emissions from Utah adversely affect attainment or
maintenance of the 2010 NO2 NAAQS in downwind states. In
this analysis, the State reviewed ambient monitoring data in Utah and
neighboring states, which all indicated that no monitor values in Utah
or neighboring states approach the level of the 2010 NO2
NAAQS. Based on this monitoring data, Utah concluded that the emissions
from the State will not contribute significantly to nonattainment or
interfere with maintenance of the 2010 NO2 NAAQS in any
other state, and therefore the SIP meets the requirements of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) prongs 1 and 2 for this NAAQS.
3. EPA's Analysis
In addition to the information provided in the SIP, the EPA notes
that the highest monitored valid NO2 design values in each
state bordering Utah are well below the NAAQS (see Table 1, below), as
are the maximum single year 98th percentile values from each
neighboring state between 2015-2017 (see Table 2, below). These facts
further support the State's assertion that significant contribution to
nonattainment or interference with maintenance of the NO2
NAAQS from Utah is very unlikely. With respect to prong 2 (interference
with maintenance), specifically, in addition to the lack of areas
violating the NO2 NAAQS, there are also no areas in
neighboring states approaching a violation of the 2010 NO2
NAAQS (i.e., 100 ppb) which might therefore be expected to have
difficulty maintaining the standard. With respect to both prongs, we
also note that there are no areas elsewhere in the United States
approaching a violation of the 2010 NO2 NAAQS.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Id.
Table 1--1-Hour NO2 Design Values in Utah and Neighboring States
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2015-2017 1-hr
State NO2 design
value (ppb)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Utah.................................................... 42
Arizona................................................. 60
Colorado................................................ 71
Nevada.................................................. 55
New Mexico.............................................. 45
Wyoming................................................. 40
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 2--Max 98th Percentile NO2 Concentration in Utah and Neighboring
States
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Highest single
year 98th
percentile
State Year value from
2015-2017
(ppb)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Utah......................................... 2016 61
Arizona...................................... 2017 67
Colorado..................................... 2016 75
Idaho........................................ 2017 50
Nevada....................................... 2017 61
New Mexico................................... 2016 46
Wyoming...................................... 2017 60
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on all of these factors, the EPA proposes to concur with the
State's conclusion in its January 31, 2013 and supplemental May 8, 2018
submissions that emissions from Utah will not contribute significantly
to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2010
NO2 NAAQS in other states. The EPA is therefore proposing to
approve Utah's January 31, 2013 and supplemental May 8, 2018
NO2 submissions.
B. Evaluation for the 2010 1-Hour SO2 NAAQS
1. EPA's General Approach To Evaluating the 2010 SO2 NAAQS
Although SO2 is emitted from a similar universe of point
and nonpoint sources as is directly emitted PM2.5 and the
precursors to ozone and PM2.5, interstate transport of
SO2 is unlike the transport of PM2.5 or ozone
because SO2 emissions sources usually do not have long range
SO2 impacts. The transport of SO2 relative to the
1-hour NAAQS is more analogous to the transport of Pb relative to the
Pb NAAQS in that emissions of SO2 typically result in 1-hour
pollutant impacts of possible concern only near the emissions source.
However, ambient 1-hour concentrations of SO2 do not
decrease as quickly with distance from the source as do 3-month average
concentrations of Pb, because SO2 gas is not removed by
deposition as rapidly as are Pb particles and because SO2
typically has a higher emissions release height than Pb. Moreover,
while emitted SO2 has wider ranging impacts than emitted Pb,
it does not have such wide-ranging impacts that treatment in a manner
similar to ozone or PM2.5 would be appropriate. The
approaches that the EPA has adopted for ozone or PM2.5
transport are too regionally focused and the approach for Pb transport
is too tightly circumscribed to the source. SO2 transport is
therefore a unique case and requires a different approach.
In SO2 transport analyses, we focus on a 50 km-wide zone
because the physical properties of SO2 result in relatively
localized pollutant impacts near an emissions source that drop off with
distance. Given the physical properties of SO2, the EPA
selected the ``urban scale''--a spatial scale with dimensions from 4 to
50 kilometers (km) from point sources--as that scale has been an
appropriate range both for monitoring SO2 concentrations and
for modeling SO2 impacts from such sources.\10\ As such, the
EPA utilized an assessment up to 50 km from point sources in order to
assess trends in area-wide air quality that might impact downwind
states.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ For the definition of spatial scales for SO2,
please see 40 CFR part 58, Appendix D, section 4.4 (``Sulfur Dioxide
(SO2) Design Criteria''). For further discussion on how
the EPA is applying these definitions with respect to interstate
transport of SO2, see 82 FR 21351, 21352, 21354 (May 8,
2017) (proposed approval of Connecticut's SO2 transport
SIP); 82 FR 37013 (Aug. 8, 2017) (final approval).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. State's Submission
Utah conducted a weight of evidence analysis to examine whether
SO2 emissions from Utah contribute significantly to
nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2010 SO2
NAAQS in downwind states. Utah's analysis first reviewed monitoring
data in neighboring states to determine whether there were cross-state
areas to which Utah could potentially contribute significantly to
nonattainment. Utah concluded that the only monitors in neighboring
states near or above the NAAQS were violating monitors located in the
Miami, Arizona and Hayden, Arizona SO2 nonattainment
areas.\11\ Utah then analyzed the SO2 source within the
State with the closest proximity to the Arizona nonattainment areas.
The State determined the distance (531 km) between this source (Cci
Paradox Midstream, Llc: Lisbon Natural Gas Processing Plant) and the
nearest nonattainment area (Miami, Arizona) showed that Utah will not
contribute significantly to nonattainment in Arizona. For its analysis
of interference with maintenance, Utah reviewed the sources with over
100 ton per year (tpy) SO2 emissions in the State within 50
km of a state border, the distance from the nearest cross-state
SO2 monitors to Utah sources, and its proximity to the
nearest former 2010 SO2 nonattainment area in Billings,
Montana. Utah also pointed to the significant decrease in
SO2 emissions from sources in the State over time, and its
current low levels of monitored SO2, as further evidence
that Utah will not significantly contribute to
[[Page 28779]]
nonattainment of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS in any other state.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ https://www3.epa.gov/airquality/greenbook/tbtc.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. EPA's Analysis
Prong 1: Significant Contribution to Nonattainment
The EPA proposes to approve Utah's June 2, 2013 and supplemental
May 8, 2018 submittals with respect to the interstate transport
requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), prong 1 for the 2010
SO2 NAAQS, as discussed below. We have analyzed the air
quality, emission sources and emission trends in Utah and neighboring
states, i.e., Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, New Mexico, Nevada and Wyoming.
Based on that analysis, we propose to find that Utah will not
significantly contribute to nonattainment of the 2010 SO2
NAAQS in any other state.
We first reviewed 2015-2017 1-hour SO2 design value
concentrations for Utah and neighboring states.\12\ In Table 3, below,
we have included monitoring data from four scenarios: (1) All of the
monitor data from Utah; \13\ (2) the monitor with the highest
SO2 level in each neighboring state; (3) the monitor in each
neighboring state located closest to the Utah border; and (4) all
monitors in each neighboring state within 50 km of the Utah border.\14\
For monitors without a valid 2015-2017 design value, we have instead
elected to present the highest annual 99th percentile daily maximum 1-
hour SO2 concentration between 2015 and 2017. These values
are shown in the far-right column of Table 3, below. As the table
indicates, all of these concentrations are below the level of the 2010
SO2 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Data retrieved from EPA's https://www.epa.gov/air-trends/air-quality-design-values#report.
\13\ There are currently three SO2 monitors operating
in Utah. However, two of these (AQS Site IDs 490352005 and
490353010) began operation in 2018, and therefore do not have data
sufficient to assist the EPA in this technical analysis. We note
that the highest 1-hr SO2 concentration from either of
the monitors in 2018 was 7 ppb, or roughly 9% of the NAAQS.
\14\ There are no states within 50 km of the Utah border that
are not also neighboring states.
Table 3--SO2 Monitor Values in Utah and Neighboring States
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual 99th
percentile 1-
Approx. 2015-2017 hour daily
State/area Scenario Site ID distance to design value maximum SO2
Utah border (ppb) Concentration,
(km) 2015-2017 \15\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arizona/Phoenix................. 3 040139997 388 6
Arizona/Hayden.................. 2 040071001 443 295
Colorado/Denver................. 3 080310026 346 15
Colorado/Colorado Springs....... 2 080410015 366 40
Idaho/Pocatello................. 2 160050004 102 38
Idaho/Soda Springs.............. 3 160290031 76 30
Nevada/Las Vegas................ 2, 3 320030540 134 6
New Mexico/Farmington........... 2, 3 350451005 57 NA * 16 (2017)
Utah/Salt Lake City............. 1 490353006 76 NA * 13 (2016)
Wyoming/Rock Springs............ 3 560370300 105 21
Wyoming/Riverton................ 2 560130003 315 NA * 65 (2017)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The DV for this site is invalid due to incomplete data and/or quality assurance issues for this period and is
not for use in comparison to the NAAQS.
The EPA reviewed these data to see whether there were any
regulatory monitoring sites, particularly near the Utah border, with
elevated SO2 concentrations that might warrant further
investigation with respect to interstate transport of SO2
from emission sources near any given monitor. As shown, at the monitors
with valid design values, there are no violating design values in Utah
or neighboring states apart from Arizona, and the nearest monitor with
the violating design value in Arizona is 443 km from the Utah border.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ These values are only presented for monitors without a
valid 2015-2017 design value.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The data presented in Table 3, above, show that Utah's network of
SO2 monitors, while limited, indicates that monitored 1-hour
SO2 levels in Utah were 9% of the 75 ppb level of the NAAQS.
As shown, there are no Utah monitors located within 50 km of a
neighboring state's border, nor are there any monitors in neighboring
states located within 50 km of the Utah border. Thus, these air quality
data do not, by themselves, indicate any particular location that would
warrant further investigation with respect to SO2 emission
sources that might significantly contribute to nonattainment in the
neighboring states. However, because the monitoring network is not
necessarily designed to find all locations of high SO2
concentrations, we have also conducted a source-oriented analysis.
As noted, the EPA finds that it is appropriate to examine the
impacts of emissions from stationary sources in Utah in distances
ranging from 0 km to 50 km from the facility. Utah assessed point
sources up to 50 km from state borders to evaluate SO2
transport. The list of sources emitting 100 tpy \16\ or more of
SO2 in 2017 within 50 km from Utah state borders is shown in
Table 4 below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Utah limited its analysis to Utah sources of SO2
emitting at least 100 tpy. We agree with Utah's choice to limit its
analysis in this way, because in the absence of special factors, for
example the presence of a nearby larger source or unusual physical
factors, Utah sources emitting less than 100 tpy can appropriately
be presumed to not be adversely impacting SO2
concentrations in downwind states.
[[Page 28780]]
Table 4--Utah SO2 Sources Near Neighboring States \17\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Neighboring
2017 SO2 Distance to Approx. distance to state source
Utah source emissions Utah border nearest neighboring 2017 SO2
(tons) * (km) state SO2 source (km) emissions
(tons)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CCI Paradox Midstream LLC: Lisbon 499 (2016) 20 68 (Nucla Generating 153
Natural Gas Processing Plant--San Station--Montrose
Juan County, Utah. County, Colorado).
Holcim Inc.: Devils Slide Plant-- 196 41 109 (Naughton Power 4,047
Morgan County, Utah. Plant--Lincoln County,
Wyoming).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Emissions data throughout this document were obtained using EPA's Emissions Inventory System (EIS) Gateway.
Table 4 also shows the distance from Utah sources located near a
neighboring state to the nearest out-of-state SO2 source
emitting above 100 tpy of SO2, because elevated levels of
SO2, to which SO2 emitted in Utah may have a
downwind impact, are most likely to be found near such sources. As
shown, both Utah sources within 50 km of a neighboring state are beyond
50 km from the nearest major out-of-state source, with the shortest
distance between such cross-state SO2 sources at 68 km.\18\
Given the localized range of potential 1-hour SO2 impacts
and the distance between sources, Table 4 suggests that emissions from
these Utah sources are unlikely to contribute significantly to
nonattainment of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS in neighboring states.
Additionally, the largest neighboring-state source in Table 4, Naughton
Power Plant, was modeled and showed attainment with the 2010
SO2 NAAQS.\19\ Based on this modeling, the EPA designated
Lincoln County, Wyoming as attainment/unclassifiable for this NAAQS.
See 83 FR 1170, January 9, 2018. This provides additional support for
our proposed conclusion that emissions from the Utah sources in Table 4
do not significantly contribute to nonattainment of the 2010
SO2 NAAQS in neighboring states.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ The EPA did not include information about sources located
on tribal lands within the outer boundary of the state of Utah, as
the State is not the regulatory authority for these sources.
\18\ The EPA notes that the Nucla Generating Station is required
by the Colorado regional haze SIP to shut down before December 31,
2022. See 83 FR 31332 (July 5, 2018).
\19\ See ``Chapter 45: Intended Round 3 Area Designations for
the 2010 1-Hour SO2 Primary National Ambient Air Quality
Standard for Wyoming,'' in the docket for this action and in the
docket for the EPA's Round 3 2010 SO2 Designations at
EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0003-0608.
\20\ While designations may provide useful information for
purposes of analyzing transport, particularly for a more source-
specific pollutant such as SO2, EPA notes that
designations themselves are not dispositive of whether or not upwind
emissions are impacting areas in downwind states. EPA has
consistently taken the position that as to impacts, CAA section
110(a)(2)(D) refers only to prevention of `nonattainment' in other
states, not to prevention of nonattainment in designated
nonattainment areas or any similar formulation requiring that
designations for downwind nonattainment areas must first have
occurred. See e.g., Clean Air Interstate Rule, 70 FR 25162, 25265
(May 12, 2005); Cross-State Air Pollution Rule, 76 FR 48208, 48211
(Aug. 8, 2011); Final Response to Petition from New Jersey Regarding
SO2 Emissions From the Portland Generating Station, 76 FR
69052 (Nov. 7, 2011) (finding facility in violation of the
prohibitions of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the
2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS prior to issuance of designations
for that standard).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA also reviewed the location of sources in neighboring states
emitting more than 100 tpy of SO2 and located within 50 km
of the Utah border (see Table 5) that were not already addressed in
Table 4. As shown in Table 5, there is only one such source, and the
shortest distance between it and any Utah source that emits 100 tpy or
more of SO2 is 233 km. The distance shown in Table 5
indicates that there are no locations in neighboring states that would
warrant further investigation with respect to Utah SO2
emission sources that might contribute significantly to nonattainment
of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. The Hayden and Miami, Arizona 2010
SO2 nonattainment areas, which Utah reviewed as part of its
analysis, are over 380 km from the nearest Utah border and so were not
included in Table 5. Utah asserted that the significant distance
between its border and these nonattainment areas indicates that it is
highly unlikely that SO2 emissions generated in Utah are
contributing significantly to either nonattainment area in Arizona, and
the EPA proposes to agree with this conclusion.
Table 5--Neighboring State SO2 Sources Near Utah *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Utah source
2016 SO2 Distance to Approx. distance to 2016
Source emissions Utah border nearest Utah SO2 source emissions
(tons) (km) (km) (tons)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Navajo Generating Station--Navajo 3,585 11 233 (Lisbon Natural Gas 499
Nation. Processing Plant).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* We have not included sources that are duplicative of those in Table 3.
In conclusion, for interstate transport prong 1, we reviewed
ambient SO2 monitoring data and SO2 emission
sources both within Utah and in neighboring states. Based on this
analysis, we propose to determine that emissions from Utah will not
significantly contribute to nonattainment of the 2010 SO2
NAAQS in any other state and therefore propose to approve the June 2,
2013 and supplemental May 8, 2018 SO2 submissions with
respect to this requirement.
Prong 2: Interference With Maintenance
The EPA also proposes to approve the June 2, 2013 and supplemental
May 8, 2018 submissions with respect to the prong 2 requirement. In its
prong 2 analysis, Utah reviewed ambient SO2 monitoring data,
emissions trends within Utah, and potential SO2 impacts on
the Billings, Montana area, which is currently in ``maintenance''
status for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS, noting the large distance
between the nearest Utah border and the Billings area (457 km).
However, in previous actions the EPA has analyzed prong 2 by evaluating
the
[[Page 28781]]
potential impact of a state's emissions on areas that are currently
measuring data below the NAAQS, but that may have issues maintaining
that air quality, rather than only former nonattainment areas which are
in maintenance status.\21\ Therefore, we focused our review on
SO2 monitoring data and emission trends to evaluate the
State's conclusion that Utah will not interfere with maintenance of the
2010 SO2 NAAQS in downwind states. This evaluation builds on
the analysis regarding significant contribution to nonattainment (prong
1). Specifically, the low monitored ambient concentrations of
SO2 in Utah and neighboring states shown in Table 3, and the
large distances between cross-state SO2 sources shown in
Tables 4 and 5, do not indicate any potential inability to maintain the
SO2 NAAQS that could be attributed in part to sources in
Utah.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ The maintenance plan requirements for areas redesignated
from nonattainment to attainment for a NAAQS can be found in CAA
section 175A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 6, below, shows emission trends for Utah and neighboring
states.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ This emissions trends information was derived from the
EPA's web page https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-inventories/air-pollutant-emissions-trends-data.
Table 6--SO2 Emission Trends
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SO2 reduction,
2000-2016
State 2000 2005 2010 2016 (percent)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arizona......................... 118,528 90,577 73,075 38,089 68
Colorado........................ 115,122 80,468 60,459 20,626 82
Idaho........................... 34,525 35,451 14,774 10,051 70
Nevada.......................... 58,849 68,790 17,043 8,028 86
New Mexico...................... 164,631 47,671 23,651 15,529 90
Utah............................ 58,040 52,998 29,776 15,226 73
Wyoming......................... 141,439 122,453 91,022 57,313 59
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As shown in Table 6, the statewide SO2 emissions from
Utah and neighboring states have decreased substantially over time, per
our review of the EPA's emissions trends data. This trend of decreasing
SO2 emissions does not by itself demonstrate that areas in
Utah and neighboring states will maintain the 2010 SO2
NAAQS. However, as a piece of this weight of evidence analysis for
prong 2, it provides further indication (when considered alongside low
monitor values in neighboring states and large distances between
SO2 emissions sources) that maintenance issues are unlikely.
The geographic scope and large relative size of these reductions
strongly suggest that they are not transient effects from reversible
causes, and thus there is low likelihood that a strong upward trend in
emissions will occur that might cause areas presently in attainment to
violate the NAAQS in the future.
In conclusion, for interstate transport prong 2, we reviewed
additional information about emission trends, as well as the technical
information considered for interstate transport prong 1. We propose to
find that the combination of low ambient concentrations of
SO2 in Utah and neighboring states, the large distances
between cross-state SO2 sources, and the downward trend in
SO2 emissions from Utah and neighboring states, show no
interference with maintenance of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS from
Utah. Accordingly, we propose to approve Utah's June 2, 2013 and
supplemental May 8, 2018 SO2 submissions with respect to the
prong 2 requirement.
C. Evaluation for the 2012 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS
1. EPA's General Approach To Evaluating the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS
The EPA has developed a consistent framework for addressing
interstate transport with respect to the PM2.5 NAAQS. This
framework includes the following four steps: (1) Identify downwind
areas that are expected to have problems attaining or maintaining the
NAAQS; (2) Identify which upwind states contribute to these air quality
problems in amounts sufficient to warrant further review and analysis;
(3) Identify any emissions reductions necessary to prevent an
identified upwind state from significantly contributing to downwind
nonattainment or interfering with downwind maintenance of the NAAQS;
and (4) Adopt permanent and enforceable measures needed to achieve
those emissions reductions.
To help states identify the receptors expected to have problems
attaining or maintaining the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS, the
EPA released a memorandum titled, ``Information on the Interstate
Transport `Good Neighbor' Provision for the 2012 Fine Particulate
Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards under Clean Air Act
Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)'' on March 17, 2016 (hereon ``2016
Memo'').\23\ The 2016 Memo provides projected future year annual
PM2.5 design values for monitors throughout the country
based on quality-assured and certified ambient monitoring data and
recent air quality modeling and explains the methodology used to
develop these projected design values. The 2016 Memo also provides
recommendations on how states can use the projected values to determine
which monitors should be further evaluated as potential receptors under
step 1 of the interstate transport framework described above, so that
states can determine whether their emissions significantly contribute
to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2012 annual
PM2.5 NAAQS at these monitoring sites.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ This memorandum is available in the docket for this action
and at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-08/documents/good-neighbor-memo_implementation.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To develop the projected values presented in the 2016 Memo, the EPA
used the results of nationwide photochemical air quality modeling that
it recently performed to support two ozone NAAQS-related rulemakings.
We performed base year modeling for 2011 and future year modeling for
2017 to support the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) Update for
the 2008 Ozone NAAQS. See 81 FR 74504 (October 26, 2016). We also
performed future year modeling for 2025 to support the Regulatory
Impact Assessment of the final 2015 Ozone NAAQS.\24\ The outputs from
these model runs included hourly concentrations of PM2.5
that the EPA used in conjunction with measured data to project annual
average PM2.5 design values for 2017 and 2025.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ See 2015 ozone NAAQS RIA at: https://www3.epa.gov/ozonepollution/pdfs/20151001ria.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 28782]]
Areas that were designated as Moderate PM2.5
nonattainment areas for the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS in 2014
must attain the NAAQS by December 31, 2021, or as expeditiously as
practicable. Since modeling results are only available for 2017 and
2025, the 2016 Memo explains that one way to assess potential receptors
for 2021 \25\ is to assume that receptors projected to have average
and/or maximum design values above the NAAQS in both 2017 and 2025 are
also likely to be either nonattainment or maintenance receptors in
2021. Similarly, the EPA stated that it may be reasonable to assume
that receptors that are projected to attain the NAAQS in both 2017 and
2025 are also likely to be attainment receptors in 2021. Where a
potential receptor is projected to be nonattainment or maintenance in
2017, but projected to be attainment in 2025, further analysis of the
emissions and modeling may be needed to make a further judgement
regarding the receptor status in 2021.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ Assessing downwind PM2.5 air quality problems
based on estimates of air quality concentrations in a future year
aligned with the relevant attainment deadline is consistent with the
instructions from the United States Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit) in North Carolina v.
EPA, 531 F.3d 896, 911-12 (D.C. Cir. 2008), that upwind emission
reductions should be harmonized, to the extent possible, with the
attainment deadlines for downwind areas.
\26\ The EPA notes that the modeling used to inform the 2016
Memo did not project any potential nonattainment or maintenance
receptors in 2025 that were not also projected as potential
nonattainment or maintenance receptors in 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on this approach, the EPA identified nineteen potential
nonattainment and/or maintenance receptors.\27\ Seventeen of these are
located in California. One of the potential maintenance-only receptors
is located in Shoshone County, Idaho, and the other potential
maintenance-only receptor is located in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ As the EPA explained in the proposed action, titled ``Air
Plan Approval; AL, FL, GA, KY, MS, NC, SC, TN; Interstate Transport
for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS,'' 83 FR 39387 (Aug. 9, 2018),
the 2016 Memo noted that because of data quality problems,
nonattainment and maintenance projections were not conducted for
monitors in all or portions of Florida, Illinois, Idaho (outside of
Shoshone County), Tennessee and Kentucky. The EPA noted, however,
that data quality problems have subsequently been resolved for all
of the aforementioned areas. These areas have current design values
below the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS and are expected to continue
to maintain the NAAQS (See EPA Region 4 Annual PM2.5
Trends Analysis TSD, in the docket for this action) due to downward
emission trends for nitrogen oxides (NOx) and SO2 and
therefore were not considered potential receptors for the purpose of
interstate transport for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. The EPA
finalized approved of the action on September 25, 2018 (83 FR
48387).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
After identifying potential receptors, the next step is to identify
whether upwind states contribute to air pollution at each of the
identified receptors in other states. In the 2016 Memo, the EPA did not
calculate the portion of any downwind state's predicted
PM2.5 concentrations that would result from emissions from
individual states. Accordingly, the EPA will evaluate Utah's prong 1
and 2 submissions using a weight of evidence analysis. This analysis is
based on a review of the State's submission and other available
information, including air quality trends; topographical, geographical,
and meteorological information; local emissions in downwind states and
emissions from the upwind state; and contribution modeling from prior
interstate transport analyses. While none of these factors is by itself
dispositive, together they may be used in weight of evidence analyses
to determine whether the emissions from Utah will significantly
contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2012
annual PM2.5 NAAQS at the 19 potential nonattainment and/or
maintenance receptors identified in the 2016 Memo.
2. State's Submission
Utah conducted a weight of evidence analysis to examine whether
PM2.5 emissions from Utah adversely affect attainment or
maintenance of the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS in downwind states. The
State's analysis primarily focused on potential contribution to the
West Silver Valley, Idaho 2012 PM2.5 nonattainment area,\28\
which is also the location of the Shoshone County, Idaho potential
maintenance-only receptor identified in the 2016 Memo and the only area
in a state bordering Utah that contained a nonattainment or maintenance
receptor. Utah considered the distance from the State to West Silver
Valley, as well as meteorological information and PM2.5
speciation data, and on this basis concluded that the State will not
contribute significantly to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance
of the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS in Idaho or any other state.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ https://www3.epa.gov/airquality/greenbook/kbca.html#PM-2.5.2012.West_Silver_Valley.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA notes that, because Utah's analysis focused on designated
nonattainment areas, it does not independently address whether the SIP
contains adequate provisions prohibiting emissions that will interfere
with maintenance of the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS in any other state.
In remanding the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) to the EPA in North
Carolina v. EPA, the D.C. Circuit explained that the regulating
authority must give the ``interfere with maintenance'' clause of
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) ``independent significance'' by evaluating
the impact of upwind state emissions on downwind areas that, while
currently in attainment, are at risk of future nonattainment,
considering historic variability.\29\ While Utah's submittal pre-dates
the 2016 Memo, which provided the states with information about
potential maintenance-only receptors, Utah was still required to
evaluate the potential impact of its emissions on areas that are
currently measuring data below the NAAQS, but that may have issues
maintaining that air quality, and the State did not do so. The EPA also
notes that while Utah elected to address areas in neighboring states
designated as nonattainment for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS, the
State did not also address such areas in non-neighboring states, such
as California, and should have done so because directly emitted
PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors can have long-ranging
impacts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ 531 F.3d 896, 910-11 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (holding that the EPA
must give ``independent significance'' to each prong of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
When, as here, the EPA determines that a state's SIP has not
addressed all of the statutory requirements or provided a technical
analysis to justify its conclusion regarding the state's impact on
downwind air quality problems, the EPA identifies those deficiencies in
acting upon the state's SIP submission. However, if the EPA has
supplemental analysis available that nonetheless supported a state's
conclusion despite these deficiencies in the state's SIP submission,
the EPA can nonetheless propose to approve the state's SIP submission.
See 82 FR 9142, 9149 (Feb. 3, 2017).
3. EPA's Analysis
The EPA reviewed the information in Utah's submittal, as well as
the 2016 Memo and additional information for our evaluation, and we
propose to come to the same conclusion as the State, including (based
on our supplemental information) Utah's conclusion that emissions from
the State will not interfere with maintenance in downwind states. The
EPA therefore proposes to approve the December 22, 2015 submission with
respect to both the prong 1 and 2 requirements for the 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS. In our evaluation, we identified potential
downwind nonattainment and maintenance receptors using the modeling
results presented in the 2016 Memo. We then
[[Page 28783]]
evaluated these receptors to determine whether Utah emissions could
significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance
at them. Below, we provide an overview of our analysis. A more detailed
evaluation of how the SIP revision meets the requirements of CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) may be found in our 2012 PM2.5
technical support document (TSD) in the docket for this action.
Our prong 1 analysis focused on the 17 California receptors, which
include the only nonattainment receptors modeled in the 2016 Memo. As
shown in Table 1 of the 2016 Memo, 12 of the 17 California receptors
are projected as nonattainment in both 2017 and 2025, while the
remaining 5 receptors are projected as maintenance in either 2017 or
2025. Because all of the 17 California receptors are located in either
the San Joaquin Valley or South Coast 2012 PM2.5
nonattainment area, we have elected to analyze all of the California
receptors together rather than separate the California nonattainment
and maintenance receptor analyses. Our analysis of these receptors
showed that elevated PM2.5 levels in California are driven
primarily by local emissions.\30\ Additionally, Utah's southwestern
border is more than 290 miles to the east and downwind of the
California receptors, with intervening mountainous topography which
tends to impede interstate pollution transport. Finally, as shown in
Table 7, below, monitoring data from Interagency Monitoring of
Protected Visual Environment (IMPROVE) monitors tend to show that the
air in remote areas between Utah and the California nonattainment and
maintenance receptors is well below the level of the 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS.\31\ All of these factors indicate that
emissions from Utah are not likely to reach California in amounts that
could impact the air quality at the California nonattainment and
maintenance receptors. Thus, the EPA is proposing to find that Utah
emissions will not significantly contribute to nonattainment or
interfere with maintenance of the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS at any
California projected receptor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ See ``California: Imperial County, Los Angeles-South Coast
Air Basin, Plumas County, San Joaquin Valley Area Designations for
the 2012 Primary Annual PM2.5 National Ambient Air
Quality Standard Technical Support Document'' in the docket for this
action.
\31\ The IMPROVE program includes a long-term monitoring program
to establish the current visibility conditions, track changes in
visibility and determine causal mechanism for the visibility
impairment in the National Parks and Wilderness Areas (https://vista.cira.colostate.edu/improve/). These monitors are not required
to meet the same standards as regulatory monitors used by the EPA
and states to determine compliance with the NAAQS.
Table 7--PM2.5 Average Annual Concentrations at Remote IMPROVE Monitors
\32\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2015-2017
PM2.5 average
annual
Site No. State concentrations
([micro]g/
m\3\)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
040159000.................... Arizona.................. 2.75
060270002.................... California............... 3.63
060199000.................... California............... 4.06
060519000.................... California............... 2.82
060719002.................... California............... 3.63
160230101.................... Idaho.................... 3.23
160370002.................... Idaho.................... 3.99
320079000.................... Nevada................... 2.98
320330101.................... Nevada................... 2.25
490530130.................... Utah..................... 2.74
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the EPA's prong 2 analysis, we reviewed potential impacts from
Utah emissions at the two projected maintenance-only receptors outside
of California identified in the 2016 Memo. With regard to the Shoshone
County, Idaho receptor, our analysis showed that elevated
PM2.5 levels in the area are driven primarily by local
emissions from wood burning in the wintertime, specifically when the
West Silver Valley experiences the combination of cold surface
temperatures, low wind speeds, and constrained vertical mixing.\33\ The
deep, narrow mountain valley magnifies this effect relative to other
nearby areas. The combination of these meteorological effects and the
mountainous terrain confine the geographical area that could contribute
emissions to elevated wintertime PM2.5 concentrations at the
Shoshone County receptor.\34\ Utah's prong 1 analysis noted that
speciation data in the Utah 2006 PM2.5 nonattainment areas
\35\ indicate that ammonium nitrate drives high PM2.5 levels
in north-central Utah, which contrasts with carbon-driven speciation
data at the Shoshone County receptor during the winter and indicates
emissions originating in Utah are not contributing to elevated
PM2.5 at the Shoshone County receptor. Additionally, Utah's
nearest border is approximately 400 miles to the southeast and
generally downwind of this receptor. Finally, the IMPROVE monitoring
data in Table 7 tend to show that the air in remote areas in Idaho
between Utah and the Shoshone County receptor is well below the level
of the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. This provides further indication
that elevated PM2.5 at the Shoshone County receptor is
primarily driven by local emissions. All of these factors indicate that
emissions from Utah will not interfere with maintenance of the 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS at the projected Shoshone County maintenance
receptor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ Id.
\33\ See ``Idaho: West Silver Valley Nonattainment Area--2012
Primary Annual PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality
Standard Technical Support Document'' in the docket for this action.
\34\ Id.at 39.
\35\ https://www3.epa.gov/airquality/greenbook/rbtc.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With regard to the Allegheny County, Pennsylvania potential
maintenance receptor, our analysis included review of previous modeling
data conducted for the EPA's 2011 CSAPR, which addressed the 1997 and
2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.\36\ For the 2011 CSAPR, the EPA modeled
contribution from states in the eastern U.S. to air quality monitors
also located in the eastern
[[Page 28784]]
U.S.\37\ Therefore, the 2011 CSAPR modeling did not project downwind
contribution of emissions from Utah, but projected contributions from
states east of Utah, including Kansas and Nebraska. The CSAPR modeling
indicated that Kansas and Nebraska, states located much closer to the
Allegheny County receptor and with higher PM2.5 precursor
emissions than Utah,\38\ were modeled to be below 1% (the contribution
level at which eastern states were considered ``linked'' to downwind
receptors in the CSAPR and CSAPR Update rulemakings) of the 1997 annual
and 2006 24-hr PM2.5 NAAQS at the Allegheny County receptor.
These factors, in addition to the very large distance (1,525 miles)
from the Allegheny County receptor to the Utah border, indicate that
emissions from Utah will not interfere with maintenance of the 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS at the projected Allegheny County receptor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ See Table V.D-1 in the EPA's CSAPR (August 8, 2011), at 76
FR 48240.
\37\ In these rules, ``Eastern'' states refer to all contiguous
states east of the Rocky Mountains, specifically not including:
Montana, Wyoming, Colorado and New Mexico.
\38\ See Tables 7-1 and 7-2 in ``Emissions Inventory Final Rule
Technical Support Document (TSD)'' for CSAPR, June 28, 2011,
Document number EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-4522 in www.regulations.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on these analyses, the EPA is proposing to determine that
Utah emissions will not contribute significantly to nonattainment or
interfere with maintenance of the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS in any
other state, and we therefore propose to approve the December 22, 2015
submittal.
III. Proposed Action
Based on our review of Utah's January 31, 2013, June 2, 2013,
December 22, 2015 and May 8, 2018 infrastructure submissions, and our
analysis of additional relevant information, we propose to determine
that emissions from Utah will not significantly contribute to
nonattainment, or interfere with maintenance, of the 2010
NO2, 2010 SO2, and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS in
any other state. Accordingly, we propose to approve the January 31,
2013, June 2, 2013, December 22, 2015 and May 8, 2018 Utah SIP
submissions as satisfying the requirements of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for these NAAQS. The EPA is soliciting public
comments on this proposed action and will consider public comments
received during the comment period.
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 choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting federal
requirements and 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);
Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866;
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 CAA; 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 is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe
has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of
Indian country, the proposed rule does not have tribal implications and
will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or
preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249,
November 9, 2000).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur
dioxide, Volatile organic compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: June 10, 2019.
Debra Thomas,
Acting Regional Administrator, EPA Region 8.
[FR Doc. 2019-12948 Filed 6-19-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
