Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Utah; Regional Haze 5-Year Progress Report State Implementation Plan, 36359-36368 [2020-12075]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 116 / Tuesday, June 16, 2020 / Proposed Rules * * * * * Issued in Washington, DC, on June 10, 2020. Scott M. Rosenbloom, Acting Manager, Rules and Regulations Group. [FR Doc. 2020–12856 Filed 6–15–20; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910–13–P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA–R08–OAR–2019–0621; FRL–10008– 52–Region 8] Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Utah; Regional Haze 5-Year Progress Report State Implementation Plan Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. AGENCY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a regional haze progress report State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of Utah on March 7, 2016. The revision addresses the requirements for states to submit periodic reports describing progress toward reasonable progress goals established for regional haze and a determination of adequacy of the State’s regional haze SIP. The EPA is taking this action pursuant to section 110 of the Clean Air Act (CAA). DATES: Written comments must be received on or before July 16, 2020. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R08– OAR–2019–0621, 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 lotter on DSK30NT082PROD with PROPOSALS SUMMARY: VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:29 Jun 15, 2020 Jkt 250001 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. To reduce the risk of COVID–19 transmission, for this action we do not plan to offer hard copy review of the docket. Please email or call the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section if you need to make alternative arrangements for access to the docket. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jaslyn Dobrahner, Air and Radiation Division, EPA, Region 8, Mailcode 8ARD–IO, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado, 80202–1129, (303) 312–6252, dobrahner.jaslyn@epa.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document wherever ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean the EPA. I. What action is the EPA proposing? On March 7, 2016, Utah submitted a Progress Report SIP revision (Progress Report) which: (1) Detailed the progress made toward achieving progress for improving visibility at Class I areas,1 and (2) declared a determination of adequacy of the State’s regional haze plan to meet reasonable progress goals. The State provided a public hearing for comment on the Progress Report on December 1, 2014 and provided Federal Land Managers (FLMs) an opportunity to comment on the Progress Report. The 1 42 U.S.C. 7491(a). Areas designated as mandatory Class I Federal areas consist of national parks exceeding 6,000 acres, wilderness areas and national memorial parks exceeding 5,000 acres, and all international parks that were in existence on August 7, 1977. 42 U.S.C. 7472(a). In accordance with section 169A of the CAA, EPA, in consultation with the Department of Interior, promulgated a list of 156 areas where visibility is identified as an important value. 44 FR 69122 (Nov. 30, 1979). The extent of a mandatory Class I area includes subsequent changes in boundaries, such as park expansions. 42 U.S.C. 7472(a). Although states and tribes may designate as Class I additional areas whose visibility they consider to be an important value, the requirements of the visibility program set forth in section 169A of the CAA apply only to ‘‘mandatory Class I Federal areas.’’ Each mandatory Class I Federal area is the responsibility of a ‘‘Federal Land Manager.’’ 42 U.S.C. 7602(i). When we use the term ‘‘Class I area’’ in this section, we mean a ‘‘mandatory Class I Federal area.’’ PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 36359 EPA is proposing to approve Utah’s March 7, 2016 regional haze Progress Report SIP submittal. II. Background A. Requirements of the Clean Air Act and the EPA’s Regional Haze Rule In section 169A of the 1977 Amendments to the CAA, Congress created a program for protecting visibility in the nation’s national parks and wilderness areas. This section of the CAA establishes ‘‘as a national goal the prevention of any future, and the remedying of any existing, impairment of visibility in mandatory Class I Federal areas which impairment results from manmade air pollution.’’ The EPA promulgated a rule to address regional haze on July 1, 1999.2 The Regional Haze Rule revised the existing visibility regulations 3 to integrate provisions addressing regional haze and established a comprehensive visibility protection program for Class I areas. The requirements for regional haze, found at 40 CFR 51.308 and 40 CFR 51.309, are included in the EPA’s visibility protection regulations at 40 CFR 51.300 through 40 CFR 51.309. The EPA revised the Regional Haze Rule on January 10, 2017.4 The CAA requires each state to develop a SIP to meet various air quality requirements, including protection of visibility.5 Regional haze SIPs must assure reasonable progress toward the national goal of achieving natural visibility conditions in Class I areas. A state must submit its SIP and SIP revisions to the EPA for approval. Once approved, a SIP is enforceable by the EPA and citizens under the CAA. If a state elects not to make a required SIP submittal, fails to make a required SIP submittal, or if we find that a state’s required submittal is incomplete or not approvable, then we must promulgate a federal implementation plant (FIP) to fill this regulatory gap.6 B. Requirements for Regional Haze SIPs Submitted Under 40 CFR 51.309 The EPA’s Regional Haze Rule provides two paths to address regional haze. One is 40 CFR 51.308, which requires states to perform individual 2 64 FR 35714, 35714 (July 1, 1999) (codified at 40 CFR part 51, subpart P). 3 The EPA had previously promulgated regulations to address visibility impairment in Class I areas that is ‘‘reasonably attributable’’ to a single source or small group of sources, i.e., reasonably attributable visibility impairment (RAVI). 45 FR 80084, 80084 (Dec. 2, 1980). 4 82 FR 3078 (Jan. 10, 2017). 5 42 U.S.C. 7410(a), 7491, and 7492(a); CAA sections 110(a), 169A, and 169B. 6 42 U.S.C. 7410(c)(1). E:\FR\FM\16JNP1.SGM 16JNP1 36360 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 116 / Tuesday, June 16, 2020 / Proposed Rules point source best available retrofit technology (BART) determinations and evaluate the need for other control strategies. The other method for addressing regional haze is through 40 CFR 51.309, and is an option for states termed the ‘‘Transport Region States,’’ including Utah. Transport Region States can adopt regional haze strategies based on recommendations from the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission (GCVTC) for protecting the 16 Class I areas on the Colorado Plateau.7 The GCVTC submitted an annex to the EPA, known as the Backstop Trading Program, containing annual sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions reduction milestones and detailed provisions of a backstop trading program to be implemented automatically if measures failed to achieve the SO2 milestones. Utah submitted a regional haze SIP under 40 CFR 51.309 to address stationary source SO2 emissions reductions and submitted a regional haze SIP under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4)(vii) to address stationary source nitrogen oxide (NOX) and particulate matter (PM) emissions reductions. lotter on DSK30NT082PROD with PROPOSALS C. Requirements for the Five-Year Regional Haze Progress Report SIP Under both 40 CFR 51.308 and 40 CFR 51.309, states are required to submit progress reports that evaluate progress towards the reasonable progress goals for each mandatory federal Class I area within the state and in each Class I area outside the state that may be affected by emissions from within the state. In addition, the provisions also require states to submit, at the same time as the progress report, a determination of adequacy of the state’s existing regional haze SIP. The first progress report must be in the form of a SIP revision and is due 5 years after submittal of the initial regional haze SIP. As a Transport Region State, Utah submitted its Progress Report SIP under 40 CFR 51.309, and exercised the option to meet the requirements contained in 40 CFR 51.309 for regional haze implementation plans.8 The 7 The Colorado Plateau is a high, semi-arid tableland in southeast Utah, northern Arizona, northwest New Mexico, and western Colorado. The 16 mandatory Class I areas are: Grand Canyon National Park, Mount Baldy Wilderness, Petrified Forest National Park, Sycamore Canyon Wilderness, Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Park Wilderness, Flat Tops Wilderness, Maroon Bells Wilderness, Mesa Verde National Park, Weminuche Wilderness, West Elk Wilderness, San Pedro Park Wilderness, Arches National Park, Bryce Canyon National Park, Canyonlands National Park, Capital Reef National Park and Zion National Park. 8 Utah Department of Environmental Quality, Progress Report for Utah’s State Implementation VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:29 Jun 15, 2020 Jkt 250001 requirements for Transport Region State progress reports are similar to those for other states, but the requirements for the reports are codified at 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10). D. Regulatory and Legal History of the Utah Regional Haze SIP and FIP On May 26, 2011, Utah submitted regional haze SIP revisions addressing the requirements of 40 CFR 51.309 that, for the most part, superseded and replaced regional haze SIP revisions submitted on December 12, 2003, August 8, 2004, and September 9, 2008.9 On December 14, 2012, the EPA approved the SIP revisions as meeting the requirements of the Regional Haze Rule except for the requirements under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4)(vii) pertaining to NOX and PM BART.10 On June 4, 2015, the State of Utah submitted to the EPA a revision to its Regional Haze SIP to address the requirements under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4)(vii) pertaining to NOX and PM BART, which included an alternative to BART.11 On July 5, 2016, we partially approved and partially disapproved the June 4, 2015 SIP revision.12 Specifically, the EPA approved the State’s PM BART determination, but disapproved Utah’s BART alternative for NOX. The EPA promulgated a FIP for those portions of the SIP that were disapproved.13 Several parties challenged the NOX BART FIP.14 As a result of the litigation, on September 11, 2017, the EPA’s July 5, 2016 final rule was stayed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.15 On July 3, 2019, Utah submitted a subsequent SIP revision intended to replace the NOX BART FIP for PacifiCorp’s Hunter and Huntington power plants.16 The SIP revision Plan for Regional Haze (Utah Progress Report), page F–8 (Feb. 16, 2016). 9 We only acted on the state rules associated with the Backstop Trading Program and emissions inventories in the 2008 submittal because the 2011 submittal superseded and replaced all other sections. We took no action on the December 12, 2003, and August 8, 2004, submittals because these were superseded entirely by the 2011 submittal. 77 FR 74355, 74356 (Dec.14, 2012). 10 77 FR at 74357. 11 A State must demonstrate that a BART alternative achieves greater reasonable progress than source-specific BART. 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2), (e)(3). 12 81 FR 43894 (July 5, 2016). 13 81 FR at 43896, 43907. 14 Utah v. EPA, No. 16–9541 (10th Cir.); PacifiCorp v. EPA, No. 16–9542 (10th Cir.); Utah Associated Municipal Power Systems v. EPA, No. 16–9543 (10th Cir.); Deseret Generation Transmission Cooperative v. EPA, No. 16–9545 (10th Cir.). 15 Utah v. EPA, No. 16–9541 (10th Cir.), ECF No. 10496767. 16 On December 3, 2019, Utah submitted a supplement to the July 2019 SIP submission that PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 provides an alternative to BART for Hunter and Huntington that would provide greater reasonable progress toward natural visibility conditions than BART. On January 22, 2020, the EPA proposed to approve the July 3, 2019 SIP revision.17 III. The EPA’s Evaluation of Utah’s Progress Report and Adequacy Determination A. Regional Haze Progress Report In this action, the EPA is proposing to approve Utah’s Progress Report and the State’s determination that the existing regional haze implementation plan requires no further substantive revision. Utah’s Progress Report must meet the requirements set forth in 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i). The State must also provide a determination of the adequacy of the existing implementation plan to ensure reasonable progress. 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(ii). If the State determines that the existing implementation plan requires no further revision, then the State must provide a negative declaration that further revision of the existing implementation plan is not needed at this time. Id. As previously noted, on January 22, 2020, the EPA proposed to approve a SIP revision that provides a BART alternative for the Hunter and Huntington power plants.18 The EPA has not yet taken final action to approve the proposed SIP revision, and the EPA is not prejudging the outcome of that rulemaking process. We note that in the event the proposed SIP revision is not finalized, there is already a FIP in place which addresses the previously identified SIP deficiencies. Thus, regardless of whether the EPA finalizes the proposed approval of the Utah SIP revision for the Hunter and Huntington power plants, Utah will have an implementation plan in place that fully addresses the regional haze requirements for the first implementation period. 1. Status of Implementation of Control Measures Utah’s Progress Report must include a description of the status of implementation of all control measures included in the regional haze SIP for achieving reasonable progress goals for Class I areas both within and outside of the State. 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(A). In its Progress Report, Utah summarized the regional haze measures that were relied upon in the regional includes an amendment to the monitoring, record keeping, and reporting requirements. 17 85 FR 3558 (Jan. 22, 2020). 18 Id. E:\FR\FM\16JNP1.SGM 16JNP1 36361 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 116 / Tuesday, June 16, 2020 / Proposed Rules haze SIP, as well as the SO2 emissions reduction strategies implemented by sources in New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming under the SO2 Backstop Trading Program. The State referenced the SO2 emissions for sources associated with the SO2 Backstop Trading Program 19 found within the 2013 Regional SO2 Emissions and Milestones Report 20 (Table 1). lotter on DSK30NT082PROD with PROPOSALS TABLE 1—REPORTED EMISSIONS FOR SOURCES ASSOCIATED WITH THE BACKSTOP TRADING PROGRAM 21 Reported 2013 SO2 emissions (tons) State Plant name NM ................. NM ................. NM ................. NM ................. NM ................. NM ................. NM ................. NM ................. NM ................. NM ................. NM ................. NM ................. NM ................. NM ................. NM ................. NM ................. NM ................. NM ................. NM ................. NM ................. NM ................. NM ................. NM ................. NM ................. UT .................. UT .................. UT .................. UT .................. UT .................. UT .................. UT .................. UT .................. UT .................. UT .................. UT .................. UT .................. UT .................. UT .................. UT .................. UT .................. UT .................. WY ................. WY ................. WY ................. WY ................. WY ................. WY ................. WY ................. WY ................. WY ................. WY ................. WY ................. WY ................. WY ................. WY ................. WY ................. WY ................. WY ................. WY ................. WY ................. Agave Energy Co./Agave Dagger Draw Gas Plant ................................................................................................ Frontier Field Services/Empire Abo Plant ............................................................................................................... DCP Midstream/Artesia Gas Plant .......................................................................................................................... DCP Midstream/Eunice Gas Plant .......................................................................................................................... DCP Midstream/Linam Ranch Gas Plant ............................................................................................................... Duke—Magnum/Pan Energy—Burton Flats ........................................................................................................... Duke Energy/Dagger Draw Gas Plant .................................................................................................................... Versado Gas Processors, LP/Eunice Gas Plant .................................................................................................... Frontier Field Services/Maljamar Gas Plant ........................................................................................................... Western Refining Southwest Inc-Gallup Refinery ................................................................................................... Davis Gas Processing/Denton Plant ....................................................................................................................... OXY USA WTP Limited Partnership—Indian Basin Gas Plant .............................................................................. Navajo Refining Co/Artesia Refinery ...................................................................................................................... Public Service Co of New Mexico/San Juan Generating Station ........................................................................... Raton Pub. Service/Raton Power Plant .................................................................................................................. Regency Field Services/Jal #3 ................................................................................................................................ Versado Gas Processors, LP/Eunice South Gas Plant .......................................................................................... Versado Gas Processors, LLC/Monument Plant .................................................................................................... Versado Gas Processors, LLC/Saunders Plant ...................................................................................................... Tri-State Gen & Transmission/Escalante Station ................................................................................................... Western Gas Resources/San Juan River Gas Plant .............................................................................................. Western Refining Southwest Inc./Bloomfield Products Terminal ........................................................................... ConocoPhillips-Midland Office/MCA Tank Battery No. 2 ........................................................................................ ConocoPhillips-Midland Office/East Vacuum Liquid Recovery and CO2 Plant ...................................................... Brigham Young University—Main Campus ............................................................................................................. Chevron Products Co—Salt Lake Refinery ............................................................................................................ Big West Oil Company—Flying J Refinery ............................................................................................................. Graymont Western US Inc—Cricket Mountain Plant .............................................................................................. Holcim—Devil’s Slide Plant ..................................................................................................................................... Holly Refining and Marketing Co—Phillips Refinery ............................................................................................... Intermountain Power Service Corporation—Intermountain Generating Station ..................................................... Kennecott Utah Copper Corp—Power Plant/Lab/Tailings Impoundment ............................................................... Kennecott Utah Copper Corp—Smelter and Refinery ............................................................................................ Materion Natural Resources—Delta Mill ................................................................................................................. PacifiCorp—Carbon Power Plant ............................................................................................................................ PacifiCorp—Hunter Power Plant ............................................................................................................................. PacifiCorp—Huntington Power Plant ...................................................................................................................... Patara Midstream LLC Lisbon Natural Gas Processing Plant ............................................................................... Sunnyside Cogeneration Associates—Sunnyside Cogeneration Facility ............................................................... Tesoro West Coast—Salt Lake City Refinery ......................................................................................................... Utelite Corporation—Shale Processing ................................................................................................................... American Colloid Mineral Co—East Colony ........................................................................................................... American Colloid Mineral Co—West Colony .......................................................................................................... Basin Electric—Dry Fork Station ............................................................................................................................. Basin Electric—Laramie River Station .................................................................................................................... Big Horn Gas Processing—Big Horn/Byron Gas Plant .......................................................................................... Black Hills Corporation—Neil Simpson I ................................................................................................................. Black Hills Corporation—Neil Simpson II ................................................................................................................ Black Hills Corporation—Osage Plant .................................................................................................................... Black Hills Corporation—Wygen I ........................................................................................................................... Cheyenne Light Fuel and Power Company—Wygen II .......................................................................................... Black Hills Corporation—Wygen III ......................................................................................................................... Burlington Resources—Bighorn Wells .................................................................................................................... Burlington Resources—Lost Cabin Gas Plant ........................................................................................................ Chevron USA—Carter Creek Gas Plant ................................................................................................................. Chevron USA—Table Rock Field ........................................................................................................................... Chevron USA—Table Rock Gas Plant ................................................................................................................... Chevron USA—Whitney Canyon/Carter Creek Wellfield ........................................................................................ Devon Energy Production Co., L.P.—Beaver Creek Gas Field ............................................................................. Devon Gas Services, L.P.—Beaver Creek Gas Plant ............................................................................................ 19 Utah Progress Report, page F–12. VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:29 Jun 15, 2020 Jkt 250001 20 Western Regional Air Partnership, 2013 Regional SO2 Emissions and Milestone Report (March 18, 2015). PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 14 478 284 3,044 648 0 0 184 2,244 34 972 44 39 6,076 0 1,002 0 723 369 951 58 0 195 156 120 26 45 52 172 101 4,724 1,810 727 0 7,702 5,055 2,409 5 917 664 80 96 0 830 9,286 0 879 511 0 566 172 315 0 1,998 596 0 22 3 2 49 21 In 2013, three states participated in the SO 2 Backstop Trading Program. SO2 emissions from all three participating states are recorded and collectively compared to the milestone. E:\FR\FM\16JNP1.SGM 16JNP1 36362 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 116 / Tuesday, June 16, 2020 / Proposed Rules TABLE 1—REPORTED EMISSIONS FOR SOURCES ASSOCIATED WITH THE BACKSTOP TRADING PROGRAM 21—Continued State WY WY WY WY WY WY WY WY WY WY WY WY WY WY WY WY WY WY WY WY WY WY WY WY WY WY Reported 2013 SO2 emissions (tons) Plant name ................. ................. ................. ................. ................. ................. ................. ................. ................. ................. ................. ................. ................. ................. ................. ................. ................. ................. ................. ................. ................. ................. ................. ................. ................. ................. Encore Operating LP—Elk Basin Gas Plant ........................................................................................................... Exxon Mobil Corporation—Labarge Black Canyon Facility .................................................................................... Exxon Mobil Corporation—Shute Creek ................................................................................................................. FMC Corp—Green River Sodium Products ............................................................................................................ FMC Wyoming Corporation Granger Soda Ash Plant ............................................................................................ Frontier Oil & Refining Company—Cheyenne Refinery ......................................................................................... Worland Plant .......................................................................................................................................................... Marathon Oil Co—Oregon Basin Gas Plant ........................................................................................................... Marathon Oil Co—Oregon Basin Wellfield ............................................................................................................. Merit Energy Company—Brady Gas Plant ............................................................................................................. Merit Energy Company—Whitney Facility .............................................................................................................. Merit Energy Company—Whitney Canyon Wellfield .............................................................................................. Mountain Cement Company—Laramie Plant ......................................................................................................... P4 Production, L.L.C.—Rock Springs Coal Calcining Plant ................................................................................... PacifiCorp—Dave Johnston Plant ........................................................................................................................... PacifiCorp—Jim Bridger Plant ................................................................................................................................. PacifiCorp—Naughton Plant ................................................................................................................................... PacifiCorp—Wyodak Plant ...................................................................................................................................... Simplot Phosphates LLC—Rock Springs Plant ...................................................................................................... Sinclair Oil Company—Sinclair Refinery ................................................................................................................. Sinclair Wyoming Refining Company—Casper Refinery ........................................................................................ Solvay Chemicals—Soda Ash Plant (Green River Facility) ................................................................................... TATA Chemicals (Soda Ash Partners)—Green River Plant ................................................................................... The Western Sugar Cooperative—Torrington Plant ............................................................................................... University of Wyoming—Heat Plant ........................................................................................................................ Wyoming Refining—Newcastle Refinery ................................................................................................................ Utah’s Progress Report identified four stationary sources subject to BART: PacifiCorp Hunter Units 1 and 2 and PacifiCorp Huntington Units 1 and 2. The status of control measures associated with PM and NOX emissions for these four units in addition to the three other units included in the June 2015 and July 2019 BART alternatives are provided in Table 2. As explained 824 139 885 2,942 344 267 25 182 40 316 1 0 273 754 8,648 11,397 6,741 2,236 1,222 154 225 42 4,662 203 160 263 above, the EPA has proposed but not yet taken final action with respect to Utah’s BART alternative for the Hunter and Huntington Units. TABLE 2—CONTROL MEASURES AND UPDATES FOR SOURCES SUBJECT TO BART AND THE BART ALTERNATIVE IN UTAH 22 Unit PM control type PM emission limit 1 2 NOX control type Hunter Unit 1 ..................... Fabric Filter (completed in 2014). 0.015 lb/MMBtu (three-run test average). Hunter Unit 2 ..................... Fabric Filter (completed in 2011). NA ..................................... 0.015 lb/MMBtu (three-run test average). NA ..................................... Carbon Unit 1 .................... Fabric Filter (completed in 2010). Fabric Filter (completed in 2006). NA ..................................... Carbon Unit 2 .................... NA ..................................... 0.015 lb/MMBtu (three-run test average). 0.015 lb/MMBtu (three-run test average). Shutdown by August 15, 2015. Shutdown by August 15, 2015. Low-NOX burners (LNB) + separated overfire air (SOFA) (completed in 2014). LNB + SOFA (completed in 2011). LNB + SOFA (completed in 2008)4. LNB + SOFA (completed in 2010). LNB + SOFA (completed in 2006). NA ..................................... Hunter Unit 3 ..................... Huntington Unit 1 .............. Huntington Unit 2 .............. NA ..................................... NOX emission limit 3 0.26 lb/MMBtu (30-day rolling). 0.26 lb/MMBtu (30-day rolling). 0.34 lb/MMBtu (30-day rolling). 0.26 lb/MMBtu (30-day rolling). 0.26 lb/MMBtu (30-day rolling). Shutdown by August 15, 2015. Shutdown by August 15, 2015. 1 Based on annual stack testing. BART PM emissions limits were previously approved in our July 2016 final rule. 81 FR at 43907. on continuous emission monitoring system (CEMS) measurement. 4 81 FR 2004, 2018 (Jan. 14, 2016). 2 The lotter on DSK30NT082PROD with PROPOSALS 3 Based In addition to summarizing the status of the SO2 Backstop Trading Program 22 Obtained from the July 2019 Utah regional haze SIP submittal, Section IX.H.22. The measures in the NOX BART alternative of the July 2019 SIP submittal are identical to those in the alternative in VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:29 Jun 15, 2020 Jkt 250001 the June 2015 SIP submittal (i.e. Utah submitted the same NOX BART alternative in the June 2015 and July 2019 SIPs). As explained above, the EPA proposed to approve the July 2019 SIP on January 22, 2020. 85 FR at 3558. By including these SIP measures here, the EPA is not prejudging the outcome of its ongoing rulemaking process regarding the 2019 SIP. PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 and PM and NOX BART controls, Utah provides an update on the State’s Smoke Management Plan (SMP) which provides operating procedures for federal and state agencies that use prescribed fire, wildfire, and wildland E:\FR\FM\16JNP1.SGM 16JNP1 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 116 / Tuesday, June 16, 2020 / Proposed Rules fire on federal, state and private wildlands in Utah.23 Federal and state land managers and the Utah Department of Air Quality formed the Utah Airshed Oversight Group to manage, oversee, and evaluate the SMP. After being certified by the EPA in 1999, the SMP, in accordance with evaluations conducted by the Utah Airshed Oversight Group, was revised in 2006 and 2014 and included the transition to a web-based burn permitting program. In its Progress Report, the State provides the status of Utah’s alternative 36363 treatments to fire and agricultural burning in addition to the 2011 prescribed fire emissions (Table 3).24 TABLE 3—PRESCRIBED FIRE EMISSIONS IN 2011 Projects implemented Agency Black acres Tons consumed Tons of PM10 Percent % Bureau of Indian Affairs ....................................................... Bureau of Land Management .............................................. Forest Service ...................................................................... Fish and Wildlife Service ..................................................... National Park Service .......................................................... Utah Division of Forestry, Fire, and State Lands ................ 2 21 44 4 9 29 3,900 1,621 10,484 2,505 429 3,074 56,550 11,722 194,837 7,453 5,024 28,570 707 134 2,385 39 67 333 2 19 40 4 8 27 Totals ............................................................................ 109 22,013 304,156 3,665 100 Finally, Utah also provides status updates in the Progress Report for the Clean Air Corridor,25 Pollution Prevention and Renewable Energy,26 mobile sources, comprehensive emissions tracking system, New Source Performance Standards, Prevention of Significant Deterioration, New Source Review, Maximum Achievable Control Technology, and other Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission recommendations.27 The EPA proposes to find that Utah has adequately addressed the applicable provisions under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(A) regarding the implementation status of control measures because the State’s Progress Report provides documentation of the implementation of control measures within Utah, including the BARTeligible sources. 2. Summary of Emissions Reductions Achieved Utah’s Progress Report must include a summary of the emissions reductions achieved throughout the State through implementation of control measures mentioned in 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(A). 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(B) In its Progress Report, Utah presents information on emissions reductions achieved from the pollution control strategies discussed above. The State provides regional SO2 emissions from 2003 through 2013 (Table 4) as well as statewide SO2, NOX, ammonia, volatile organic compounds, primary organic aerosol, elemental carbon, fine soil, and coarse mass emissions in 2002 and 2008. (Table 5). TABLE 4—REGIONAL SO2 EMISSIONS AND MILESTONES 28 Adjusted reported SO2 emissions (tons) Year 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 ......................................................................................................................................... ......................................................................................................................................... ......................................................................................................................................... ......................................................................................................................................... ......................................................................................................................................... ......................................................................................................................................... ......................................................................................................................................... ......................................................................................................................................... ......................................................................................................................................... ......................................................................................................................................... ......................................................................................................................................... ......................................................................................................................................... ......................................................................................................................................... * 330,679 * 337,970 * 304,591 ** 279,134 ** 273,663 ** 244,189 143,704 131,124 117,976 96,246 101,381 92,533 81,454 Adjusted regional milestone (tons) * 447,383 * 448,259 * 446,903 ** 20,194 ** 420,637 378,398 234,903 200,722 200,722 200,722 185,795 170,868 155,940 lotter on DSK30NT082PROD with PROPOSALS * Represents the adjusted SO2 emissions/milestone for Arizona, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Wyoming, and Albuquerque-Bernalillo County. ** Represents the adjusted SO2 emissions/milestone for Arizona, New Mexico, Utah, Wyoming, and Albuquerque-Bernalillo County. Figures with no asterisk represent the adjusted SO2 emissions/milestone for New Mexico, Utah, Wyoming, and Albuquerque-Bernalillo County. 23 Utah Progress Report, page F–14–F–16. Progress Report, page F–15. 25 The Clean Air Corridor is an area covering major portions of Nevada, southern Utah, eastern Oregon and southwestern Idaho intended to represent a region from which clean air transport influences many of the clean air days at Grand Canyon National Park. Utah Progress Report, page F–16. 24 Utah VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:29 Jun 15, 2020 Jkt 250001 26 The Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission set a goal of achieving 10 percent of generation from renewable resources in 2005 and 20 percent in 2015. Utah reports that significant progress has been made towards these goals. Utah Progress Report, page F–17. 27 Utah Progress Report, pages F–18–F–20. 28 See Utah Progress Report, page F–20; see also Western Regional Air Partnership, 309 Committee: PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 Documents, https://www.wrapair.org//forums/309/ docs.html (last visited April 3, 2020). This Table represents the adjusted SO2 emissions/milestone for New Mexico, Utah, Wyoming, and AlbuquerqueBernalillo County. Adjustments to reported emissions are required to allow the basis of current emissions estimates to account for changes in monitoring and calculation methods. E:\FR\FM\16JNP1.SGM 16JNP1 36364 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 116 / Tuesday, June 16, 2020 / Proposed Rules TABLE 5—SO2, NOX, AMMONIA, VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS, PRIMARY ORGANIC AEROSOL, ELEMENTAL CARBON, FINE SOIL, AND COARSE MASS EMISSIONS 29 2002 Emissions † (tons/year) Pollutant Sulfur Dioxide .............................................................................. Nitrogen Oxides ........................................................................... Ammonia ...................................................................................... Volatile Organic Compounds ....................................................... Primary Organic Aerosol ............................................................. Elemental Carbon ........................................................................ Fine Soil ....................................................................................... Coarse Mass ................................................................................ 2008 Emissions ‡ (tons/year) 54,083 239,969 29,999 827,515 29,407 8,769 14,877 97,500 Difference between 2002 and 2008 emissions (tons/year)/ percent change 31,190 193,322 39,744 396,449 7,547 4,098 28,536 214,745 ¥22,892/¥42 ¥38,262/¥19 9,745/32 ¥431,066/¥52 ¥21,860/¥74 ¥4,671/¥53 13,659/92 117,245/>100 † Plan02d. ‡ WestJump2008. lotter on DSK30NT082PROD with PROPOSALS The emissions data show that there were decreases in emissions of SO2, NOX, volatile organic compounds, primary organic aerosol, and elemental carbon. Furthermore, regional SO2 emissions have been below the milestone every year. According to the State, increases in emissions of coarse and fine particulate between 2002 and 2008 (>100 percent and 92 percent, respectively) may be due to enhancements in dust inventory methodology rather than changes in actual emissions.30 Similarly, ammonia emissions increased by 32 percent between 2002 and 2008. According to the State, increases in ammonia emissions, which are predominantly from area sources and on-road mobile sources, may be due to a combination of population changes and differences in methodologies used to estimate these emissions.31 The EPA proposes to conclude that Utah has adequately summarized the emissions reductions achieved throughout the State in its Progress Report as required under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(B). In meeting this requirement, the EPA does not expect states to quantify emissions reductions for measures which had not yet been implemented or for which the compliance date had not yet been reached at the time progress reports are finalized.32 29 Utah Progress Report, pages F–50–F–57. Progress Report, page F–49. 31 Utah Progress Report, page F–48. 32 The Utah Progress Report is dated May 18, 2015. 33 The ‘‘most impaired days’’ and ‘‘least impaired days’’ in the regional haze rule refers to the average 30 Utah VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:29 Jun 15, 2020 Jkt 250001 3. Visibility Conditions and Changes Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(C) for each mandatory Class I area within the State, Utah must assess the following visibility conditions and changes, with values for most impaired and least impaired days 33 expressed in terms of five-year averages of these annual values: i. Assess the current visibility conditions for the most impaired and least impaired days. ii. Analyze the difference between current visibility conditions for the most impaired and least impaired days and baseline visibility conditions. iii. Evaluate the change in visibility impairment for the most impaired and least impaired days over the past five years. In its Progress Report, Utah provides information on visibility conditions for the Class I areas within its borders. There are five Class I areas located in Utah: Arches National Park, Bryce Canyon National Park, Canyonlands National Park, Capitol Reef National Park, and Zion National Park. Monitoring and data representing visibility conditions in Utah’s five Class I areas is based on the four Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE) monitoring sites located across the State (Table 6). visibility impairment (measured in deciviews) for the 20% of monitored days in a calendar year with the highest and lowest amount of visibility impairment, respectively, averaged over a five-year period. See 40 CFR 51.301. In the context of 40 CFR 51.309 and this document, ‘‘most impaired’’ and PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 TABLE 6—UTAH’S CLASS I AREAS AND IMPROVE SITES Class I area Arches National Park ................... Bryce Canyon National Park ....... Canyonlands National Park ......... Capitol Reef National Park .......... Zion National Park ....................... IMPROVE site CANY1 BRCA1 CANY1 CAPI1 ZICA1 * * The ZICA1 monitoring site replaced the ZION1 monitoring site in 2003. The Progress Report addressed current visibility conditions and the difference between the baseline period visibility conditions, progress period visibility conditions, and current period visibility conditions with values for the most impaired (20 percent worst days) and least impaired and/or clearest days (20 percent best days). Table 7: Visibility Progress in Utah’s Class I Areas, shows the difference between the current period (represented by 2009– 2013 data) and the baseline visibility data (represented by 2000–2004 data) 34 in addition to the Preliminary Reasonable Progress (PRP) projection.35 The PRP was developed by the WRAP as the projected visibility improvement for 2018, and reflects growth plus all controls ‘‘on the books’’ as of a certain date.36 Table 8: Visibility Rolling 5-Year Averages in Utah’s Class I Areas, shows the rolling 5-year average visibility from 2000–2013 as well as the change from the first 5-year rolling average period (2000–2004) to the last 5-year rolling average period (2009–2013). ‘‘worst’’ have the same meaning and ‘‘least impaired’’ and ‘‘best’’ have the same meaning. 34 Utah Progress Report, pages F–31–F–32. 35 77 FR at 74361–62. 36 PRPa predicts improvement as of March 2007, while PRPb predicts improvement as of March 2009. E:\FR\FM\16JNP1.SGM 16JNP1 36365 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 116 / Tuesday, June 16, 2020 / Proposed Rules TABLE 7—VISIBILITY PROGRESS IN UTAH’S CLASS I AREAS Baseline period 2000–04 IMPROVE site Class I area Progress period 2005–09 Current period 2009–13 Difference (progress— baseline) 2018 preliminary reasonable progress PRP18a/ PRP18b Difference (current— baseline) Deciview 20% Worst Days Arches National Park ................... Bryce Canyon National Park ....... Canyonlands National Park ......... Capitol Reef National Park .......... Zion National Park ....................... CANY1 ............... BRCA1 ............... CANY1 ............... CAPI1 ................ ZICA1 ................. 11.2 11.6 11.2 10.9 12.5 11.0 11.9 11.0 11.3 12.3 10.8 10.6 10.8 10.2 10.8 ¥0.2 0.3 ¥0.2 0.4 ¥0.2 ¥0.4 ¥1.0 ¥0.4 ¥0.7 ¥1.7 10.9/10.7 11.2/11.1 10.9/10.7 10.5/10.4 ** NA 3.1 1.8 3.1 2.6 4.3 ¥0.9 ¥0.7 ¥0.9 ¥1.4 ¥0.7 ¥0.6 ¥1.0 ¥0.6 ¥1.5 ¥0.7 3.5 2.6 3.5 3.9 ** NA 20% Best Days Arches National Park ................... Bryce Canyon National Park ....... Canyonlands National Park ......... Capitol Reef National Park .......... Zion National Park ....................... CANY1 ............... BRCA1 ............... CANY1 ............... CAPI1 ................ ZICA1 ................. 3.7 2.8 3.7 4.1 5.0 2.8 2.1 2.8 2.7 4.3 ** There are no PRPs established for the ZICA1 monitor. The PRP18a was originally established for the original ZION1 IMPROVE monitor, which was discontinued on July 29, 2004. TABLE 8—VISIBILITY ROLLING 5-YEAR AVERAGES IN UTAH’S CLASS I AREAS Class I area IMPROVE site 2000–04 2005–09 2006–10 2007–11 2008–12 Change from baseline 2009–13 Deciview 20% Worst Days Arches National Park .......... Bryce Canyon National Park. Canyonlands National Park Capitol Reef National Park Zion National Park .............. CANY1 ......... BRCA1 ......... 11.2 11.6 11.0 11.9 11.0 11.4 10.9 11.4 11.0 11.0 10.8 10.6 ¥0.4 ¥1.0 CANY1 ......... CAPI1 ........... ZICA1 ........... 11.2 10.9 12.5 11.0 11.3 12.3 11.0 10.8 12.5 10.9 10.4 12.2 11.0 10.5 11.5 10.8 10.2 10.8 ¥0.4 ¥0.7 ¥1.7 20% Best Days lotter on DSK30NT082PROD with PROPOSALS Arches National Park .......... Bryce Canyon National Park. Canyonlands National Park Capitol Reef National Park Zion National Park .............. CANY1 ......... BRCA1 ......... 3.7 2.8 2.8 2.1 2.9 2.0 2.9 2.0 2.9 1.8 3.1 1.8 ¥0.6 ¥1.0 CANY1 ......... CAPI1 ........... ZICA1 ........... 3.7 4.1 5.0 2.8 2.7 4.3 2.9 2.6 4.5 2.9 2.7 4.4 2.9 2.5 4.2 3.1 2.6 4.2 ¥0.6 ¥1.5 ¥0.8 As shown in Table 7, all the IMPROVE monitoring sites within the State show improvement in visibility conditions between the baseline (2000– 2004) and current (2009–2013) periods on both the 20 percent worst visibility and 20 percent best visibility days. In addition, all of Utah’s Class I areas met the PRP18a on both the 20 percent worst and 20 percent best visibility days over the current (2009–2013) period (Table 7). Furthermore, deciview improvement was consistent over the 2000–2013 time period, using 5-year rolling averages (Table 8).37 37 Refer to the Utah Progress Report for pollutant contributions at each Class I area and 5-year rolling averages. Utah Progress Report, pages F–39–F–46. VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:29 Jun 15, 2020 Jkt 250001 In its Progress Report, Utah demonstrates that particulate organic matter was the largest contributor to light extinction on the 20 percent worst days with the largest difference between the 5-year average baseline and progress periods at the Bryce Canyon National Park (BRCA1) site.38 According to the State, the difference between the 5-year average baseline and progress periods at the BRCA1 site was influenced by large wildfire events in July and August of 2009.39 The EPA proposes to conclude that Utah has adequately addressed the requirements under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(C) to include summaries 38 Utah 39 Utah PO 00000 of monitored visibility data as required by the Regional Haze Rule. 4. Emissions Tracking Analysis Utah’s Progress Report must include an analysis tracking the change over the past five years in emissions of pollutants contributing to visibility impairment from all sources and activities within the State. 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(D). In its Progress Report, Utah presents data from a 2008 emissions inventory, which leverages inventory development work performed by the Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP) for the West-wide Jumpstart Air Quality Progress Report, pages F–34, F–37. Progress Report, pages F–10, F–37. Frm 00015 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\16JNP1.SGM 16JNP1 36366 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 116 / Tuesday, June 16, 2020 / Proposed Rules Modeling Study (WestJumpAQMS) 40 and the Deterministic & Empirical Assessment of Smoke’s Contribution to Ozone (DEASCO3) modeling projects, termed WestJump2008 and compares it to the baseline emissions inventory for 2002 (Plan02d).41 The pollutants inventoried include the following source classifications: SO2, NOX, ammonia, volatile organic compounds, primary organic aerosol, elemental carbon, fine soil, and coarse mass from both anthropogenic and natural sources (Table 9). TABLE 9—EMISSIONS PROGRESS IN UTAH Pollutant (anthropogenic, natural, and total sources) 2002 emissions (Plan02d) 2008 emissions (WestJump2008) Difference (percent change) 2018 preliminary reasonable progress (PRP18a) lotter on DSK30NT082PROD with PROPOSALS tons/year SO2: Anthropogenic ........................... Natural ...................................... Total ................................... 51,665 2,418 54,083 31,410 92 31,190 ¥20,256 (¥39) ¥2,326 (¥96) ¥22,892 (¥42) 42,096 2,418 44,513 NOX: Anthropogenic ........................... Natural ...................................... Total ................................... 218,499 21,470 239,969 194,913 6,793 193,322 ¥23,586 (¥11) ¥14,676 (¥68) ¥38,262 (¥19) 150,593 21,470 172,063 Ammonia: Anthropogenic ........................... Natural ...................................... Total ................................... 28,107 1,893 29,999 39,295 449 39,744 11,188 (40) ¥1,444 (¥76) 9,745 (32) 29,947 1,893 31,840 Volatile Organic Compounds: Anthropogenic ........................... Natural ...................................... Total ................................... 166,550 660,965 827,515 228,985 238,518 396,449 62,434 (37) ¥422,447 (¥64) ¥431,066 (¥52) 213,767 660,966 874,732 Primary Organic Aerosol: Anthropogenic ........................... Natural ...................................... Total ................................... 3,220 26,187 29,407 6,379 1,167 7,547 3,159 (98) ¥25,020 (¥96) ¥21,860 (¥74) 3,064 26,188 29,252 Elemental Carbon: Anthropogenic ........................... Natural ...................................... Total ................................... 3,364 5,405 8,769 3,889 209 4,098 524 (16) ¥5,196 (¥96) ¥4,671 (¥53) 1,327 5,405 6,732 Fine Soil: Anthropogenic ........................... Natural ...................................... Total ................................... 5,585 9,292 14,877 17,297 11,239 28,536 11,712 (>100) 1,947 (21) 13,659 (92) 7,953 9,292 17,245 Coarse Mass: Anthropogenic ........................... Natural ...................................... Total ................................... 23,676 73,824 97,500 117,232 97,513 214,745 93,556 (>100) 23,689 (32) 117,245 (>100) 36,357 73,824 110,181 Overall, Utah’s emissions that affect visibility were reduced in all sectors for all pollutants (total) except for ammonia and coarse and fine particulate matter categories. Similar to other Western states,42 Utah cites large variability in changes in windblown dust observed for contiguous Western states, which was likely due in large part to enhancements in dust inventory methodology rather than changes in actual emissions.43 The largest decrease in point source inventories was in SO2 emissions which can be attributed to the implementation of the SO2 Backstop Trading Program in December 2003.44 The largest increase in point source inventories was in NOX emissions going from 84,218 tons per year in 2002 to 87,623 tons per year in 2008.45 According to the State, the differences in NOX emissions inventories result from normal fluctuations in plant operations and do not indicate a trend of increasing 40 WRAP Regional Technical Center and West Jump AQMS, https://www.wrapair2.org/ WestJumpAQMS.aspx (last visited March 19, 2020). Additional information on the WestJump study available in the docket for this action, ‘‘WestJump Fact Sheet.’’ 41 Utah Progress Report, pages F–46, F–48. 42 84 FR 32682, 32687 (July 9, 2019), 85 FR 21341 (April 17, 2020). VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:29 Jun 15, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 emissions. Indeed, a triennial inventory for 2011 shows point source NOX emissions of 69,913 tons per year which is 17 percent lower than recorded in the base year inventory.46 The EPA proposes to conclude that Utah has adequately addressed the requirements under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(D) to track changes in emissions of pollutants contributing to visibility impairment from all sources and activities within the State. 43 Utah Progress Report, page F–49. Progress Report, page F–50. 45 Utah Progress Report, page F–51. 46 Utah Progress Report, page F–48. 44 Utah E:\FR\FM\16JNP1.SGM 16JNP1 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 116 / Tuesday, June 16, 2020 / Proposed Rules lotter on DSK30NT082PROD with PROPOSALS 5. Assessment of Changes Impeding Visibility Progress Utah’s Progress Report must include an assessment of any significant changes in anthropogenic emissions within or outside the State that have occurred over the past five years that have limited or impeded progress in reducing pollutant emissions and improving visibility in Class I areas impacted by the State’s sources. 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(E). In its Progress Report, Utah provided an assessment of significant changes in anthropogenic emissions within or outside the State. On the 20% worst days over the 5-year period from 2005– 2009, particulate organic matter and ammonium sulfate were the two highest contributors to haze in Class I areas in Utah. According to the State, the primary sources of anthropogenic particulate organic matter in Utah include prescribed forest and agricultural burning, vehicle exhaust, vehicle refueling, solvent evaporation (e.g., paints), food cooking, and various commercial and industrial sources. The State asserts that increases in anthropogenic primary organic aerosols may be due to changes in methodology between 2002 and 2008 and do not necessarily reflect an actual change in emissions. According to the State, the primary anthropogenic sources of SO2 include coal-burning power plants and other industrial sources, with stationary point sources accounting for approximately 90 percent of SO2 emissions in Utah. The State asserts that SO2 emissions declined by 42 percent between 2002 and 2008. Because anthropogenic emissions within Utah have decreased overall, Utah concludes that anthropogenic SO2 emissions or other anthropogenic emissions have not limited or impeded progress in reducing pollutant emissions or reducing visibility.47 Although not cited in Utah’s Progress Report, at the time of the analysis done by the State for the Progress Report (March 2015), not all BART alternative controls had been realized because compliance dates had not yet occurred for Carbon Units 1 and 2 (Table 2). Thus, the impacts of the emissions reductions from BART alternative controls had not been fully realized and are therefore not evident or accounted for in the State’s Progress Report. These additional anthropogenic emissions reductions have further improved visibility in Utah’s Class I areas. The EPA proposes to find that Utah has adequately addressed the requirements under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(E) and proposes to agree with Utah that there have been no significant changes in anthropogenic emissions that have limited or impeded progress in reducing pollutant emissions and improving visibility. 6. Assessment of Current Implementation Plan Elements and Strategies Utah’s Progress Report must include an assessment of whether the current implementation plan elements and strategies are sufficient to enable the State, or other states with mandatory Class I areas affected by emissions from the State, to meet all established reasonable progress goals. 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(F). In its Progress Report, Utah provided an assessment of whether the current implementation plan elements and strategies in the regional haze SIP are sufficient to enable the State, or other states with Class I areas affected by emissions from the State, to meet all established reasonable progress goals. In particular, Utah compared visibility conditions and emissions reductions to the WRAP PRP projections.48 Under the Regional Haze Rule, states adopting the requirements of 40 CFR 51.309 are deemed to have met the reasonable progress requirements for the Class I areas located on the Colorado Plateau. 40 CFR 51.309(a). Since all the Class I areas in Utah are on the Colorado Plateau, the State met all reasonable progress requirements for the Class I areas in Utah. Additionally, Utah previously determined, and the EPA agreed, that emissions from the State do not significantly impact or will not significantly impact other states’ Class I areas. Thus, Utah was not required to establish reasonable progress goals.49 Accordingly, for the purpose of evaluating this section of the progress report requirements, we propose to assess progress toward the PRPs. Utah asserts that visibility continues to improve at the State’s Class I areas from 2000 through 2013. Indeed, key visibility metrics described previously, show: (1) A decrease in total SO2 and NOX emissions, which are associated with anthropogenic sources; (2) improvement in visibility conditions between the baseline (2000–2004) and current (2009–2013) periods on both the 20 percent worst visibility and 20 percent best visibility days at all IMPROVE monitoring sites; (3) achievement of the PRP18a at all of Utah’s Class I areas on both the 20 48 Utah 47 Utah Progress Report, page F–59. VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:29 Jun 15, 2020 Jkt 250001 49 77 PO 00000 Progress Report, pages F–59–F–63. FR at 74367–68. Frm 00017 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 36367 percent worst and 20 percent best visibility days over the current (2009– 2013) period; 50 and (4) consistent deciview improvement over the 2000– 2013 time period, using 5-year rolling averages. Thus, Utah is confident that the current implementation plan elements and strategies are sufficient to make progress towards visibility goals. The EPA proposes to conclude that Utah has adequately addressed the requirements under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(F) and proposes to agree with the State’s determination that implementation plan elements are sufficient to enable the State to make reasonable progress towards the WRAP’s PRPs. 7. Review of Current Monitoring Strategy Utah’s Progress Report must include a review of the State’s visibility monitoring strategy and any modifications to the strategy as necessary. 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(G). The monitoring strategy for regional haze in Utah relies upon participation in the IMPROVE network, which is the primary monitoring network for regional haze nationwide. In its Progress Report, Utah summarizes the existing monitoring network, which includes four IMPROVE monitors, used to monitor visibility at the five Class I areas in the State. The State relies solely on the IMPROVE monitoring network to track long-term visibility improvement and degradation and will continue to rely on the IMPROVE monitoring network, without modifications to the existing network, for complying with the regional haze monitoring requirements. The EPA proposes to find that Utah adequately addressed the requirements of 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(G) because the State reviewed its visibility monitoring strategy and determined that no further modifications to the strategy are necessary. B. Determination of Adequacy of the Existing Regional Haze Plan The provisions under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(ii) require states to determine the adequacy of their existing implementation plan to meet existing reasonable progress goals and take one of the following actions: (1) Submit a negative declaration to the EPA that no further substantive 50 PRP18b modeling results show additional projected visibility improvement using all known and expected controls as of March 2009. All of Utah’s Class I areas achieve PRP18b except for Arches National Park and Canyonlands National Park which, at 10.8 deciviews during the current period (2009–2013), are above the PRP18b of 10.7 deciviews. See supra Table 7. E:\FR\FM\16JNP1.SGM 16JNP1 lotter on DSK30NT082PROD with PROPOSALS 36368 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 116 / Tuesday, June 16, 2020 / Proposed Rules revision to the state’s existing regional haze implementation plan is needed at this time; (2) If the state determines that the implementation plan is or may be inadequate to ensure reasonable progress due to emissions from sources in another state(s) which participated in a regional planning process, the state must provide notification to the EPA and to the other state(s) which participated in the regional planning process with the state. The state must also collaborate with the other state(s) through the regional planning process for developing additional strategies to address the plan’s deficiencies; (3) Where the state determines that the implementation plan is or may be inadequate to ensure reasonable progress due to emissions from sources in another country, the state shall provide notification, along with available information, to the Administrator; or (4) If the state determines that the implementation plan is or may be inadequate to ensure reasonable progress due to emissions from sources within the state, then the state shall revise its implementation plan to address the plan’s deficiencies within one year. According to Utah, the IMPROVE data demonstrate that Utah is on track to meet the WRAP’s PRPs. Thus, Utah’s Progress Report provides a negative declaration to the EPA that no further substantive revisions to the regional haze SIP are needed to improve visibility in Class I areas beyond those controls already in place and scheduled to be in place at the time Utah prepared the Progress Report.51 The EPA proposes to conclude that Utah has adequately addressed 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(G) because key visibility metrics described previously show improvement in visibility conditions between the baseline (2000–2004) and current (2009–2013) periods on both the 20 percent worst visibility and 20 percent best visibility days at all IMPROVE monitoring sites and consistent deciview improvement is shown over the 2000–2013 time period. Additionally, further visibility improvement has likely resulted from the 2015 shutdown of Carbon 1 and 2, which was required after Utah’s Progress Report was finalized. The EPA also expects further visibility improvement to result from subsequent regional haze actions. 51 Utah Progress Report, page F–65. VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:29 Jun 15, 2020 Jkt 250001 IV. Proposed Action The EPA is proposing to approve Utah’s March 7, 2016, Regional Haze Progress Report as meeting the applicable regional haze requirements set forth in 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10). V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA’s role is to approve state 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 EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 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 EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the proposed rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Greenhouse gases, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds. Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. Dated: May 29, 2020. Gregory Sopkin, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 8. [FR Doc. 2020–12075 Filed 6–15–20; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560–50–P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 300 [EPA–HQ–SFUND–2012–0063; FRL–10009– 34–Region 4] National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan; National Priorities List: Deletion of the Fairfax St. Wood Treaters Superfund Site Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule; Notice of Intent. AGENCY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 4 is issuing a Notice of Intent to Delete Fairfax St. Wood Treaters Superfund Site (Site) located in Jacksonville, Florida, from the National Priorities List (NPL) and requests public comments on this proposed action. The NPL, promulgated pursuant to section 105 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended, is an appendix of the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP). The EPA and the State of Florida, through the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP), have determined that all appropriate response actions under SUMMARY: E:\FR\FM\16JNP1.SGM 16JNP1

Agencies

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 116 (Tuesday, June 16, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 36359-36368]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-12075]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R08-OAR-2019-0621; FRL-10008-52-Region 8]


Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Utah; Regional 
Haze 5-Year Progress Report State Implementation Plan

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to 
approve a regional haze progress report State Implementation Plan (SIP) 
revision submitted by the State of Utah on March 7, 2016. The revision 
addresses the requirements for states to submit periodic reports 
describing progress toward reasonable progress goals established for 
regional haze and a determination of adequacy of the State's regional 
haze SIP. The EPA is taking this action pursuant to section 110 of the 
Clean Air Act (CAA).

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before July 16, 2020.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R08-
OAR-2019-0621, 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. To reduce the risk of COVID-19 transmission, 
for this action we do not plan to offer hard copy review of the docket. 
Please email or call the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 
CONTACT section if you need to make alternative arrangements for access 
to the docket.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jaslyn Dobrahner, Air and Radiation 
Division, EPA, Region 8, Mailcode 8ARD-IO, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, 
Colorado, 80202-1129, (303) 312-6252, [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document wherever ``we,'' 
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean the EPA.

I. What action is the EPA proposing?

    On March 7, 2016, Utah submitted a Progress Report SIP revision 
(Progress Report) which: (1) Detailed the progress made toward 
achieving progress for improving visibility at Class I areas,\1\ and 
(2) declared a determination of adequacy of the State's regional haze 
plan to meet reasonable progress goals. The State provided a public 
hearing for comment on the Progress Report on December 1, 2014 and 
provided Federal Land Managers (FLMs) an opportunity to comment on the 
Progress Report. The EPA is proposing to approve Utah's March 7, 2016 
regional haze Progress Report SIP submittal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 42 U.S.C. 7491(a). Areas designated as mandatory Class I 
Federal areas consist of national parks exceeding 6,000 acres, 
wilderness areas and national memorial parks exceeding 5,000 acres, 
and all international parks that were in existence on August 7, 
1977. 42 U.S.C. 7472(a). In accordance with section 169A of the CAA, 
EPA, in consultation with the Department of Interior, promulgated a 
list of 156 areas where visibility is identified as an important 
value. 44 FR 69122 (Nov. 30, 1979). The extent of a mandatory Class 
I area includes subsequent changes in boundaries, such as park 
expansions. 42 U.S.C. 7472(a). Although states and tribes may 
designate as Class I additional areas whose visibility they consider 
to be an important value, the requirements of the visibility program 
set forth in section 169A of the CAA apply only to ``mandatory Class 
I Federal areas.'' Each mandatory Class I Federal area is the 
responsibility of a ``Federal Land Manager.'' 42 U.S.C. 7602(i). 
When we use the term ``Class I area'' in this section, we mean a 
``mandatory Class I Federal area.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Background

A. Requirements of the Clean Air Act and the EPA's Regional Haze Rule

    In section 169A of the 1977 Amendments to the CAA, Congress created 
a program for protecting visibility in the nation's national parks and 
wilderness areas. This section of the CAA establishes ``as a national 
goal the prevention of any future, and the remedying of any existing, 
impairment of visibility in mandatory Class I Federal areas which 
impairment results from manmade air pollution.''
    The EPA promulgated a rule to address regional haze on July 1, 
1999.\2\ The Regional Haze Rule revised the existing visibility 
regulations \3\ to integrate provisions addressing regional haze and 
established a comprehensive visibility protection program for Class I 
areas. The requirements for regional haze, found at 40 CFR 51.308 and 
40 CFR 51.309, are included in the EPA's visibility protection 
regulations at 40 CFR 51.300 through 40 CFR 51.309. The EPA revised the 
Regional Haze Rule on January 10, 2017.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 64 FR 35714, 35714 (July 1, 1999) (codified at 40 CFR part 
51, subpart P).
    \3\ The EPA had previously promulgated regulations to address 
visibility impairment in Class I areas that is ``reasonably 
attributable'' to a single source or small group of sources, i.e., 
reasonably attributable visibility impairment (RAVI). 45 FR 80084, 
80084 (Dec. 2, 1980).
    \4\ 82 FR 3078 (Jan. 10, 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The CAA requires each state to develop a SIP to meet various air 
quality requirements, including protection of visibility.\5\ Regional 
haze SIPs must assure reasonable progress toward the national goal of 
achieving natural visibility conditions in Class I areas. A state must 
submit its SIP and SIP revisions to the EPA for approval. Once 
approved, a SIP is enforceable by the EPA and citizens under the CAA. 
If a state elects not to make a required SIP submittal, fails to make a 
required SIP submittal, or if we find that a state's required submittal 
is incomplete or not approvable, then we must promulgate a federal 
implementation plant (FIP) to fill this regulatory gap.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 42 U.S.C. 7410(a), 7491, and 7492(a); CAA sections 110(a), 
169A, and 169B.
    \6\ 42 U.S.C. 7410(c)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Requirements for Regional Haze SIPs Submitted Under 40 CFR 51.309

    The EPA's Regional Haze Rule provides two paths to address regional 
haze. One is 40 CFR 51.308, which requires states to perform individual

[[Page 36360]]

point source best available retrofit technology (BART) determinations 
and evaluate the need for other control strategies. The other method 
for addressing regional haze is through 40 CFR 51.309, and is an option 
for states termed the ``Transport Region States,'' including Utah. 
Transport Region States can adopt regional haze strategies based on 
recommendations from the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission 
(GCVTC) for protecting the 16 Class I areas on the Colorado Plateau.\7\ 
The GCVTC submitted an annex to the EPA, known as the Backstop Trading 
Program, containing annual sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions 
reduction milestones and detailed provisions of a backstop trading 
program to be implemented automatically if measures failed to achieve 
the SO2 milestones. Utah submitted a regional haze SIP under 
40 CFR 51.309 to address stationary source SO2 emissions 
reductions and submitted a regional haze SIP under 40 CFR 
51.309(d)(4)(vii) to address stationary source nitrogen oxide 
(NOX) and particulate matter (PM) emissions reductions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The Colorado Plateau is a high, semi-arid tableland in 
southeast Utah, northern Arizona, northwest New Mexico, and western 
Colorado. The 16 mandatory Class I areas are: Grand Canyon National 
Park, Mount Baldy Wilderness, Petrified Forest National Park, 
Sycamore Canyon Wilderness, Black Canyon of the Gunnison National 
Park Wilderness, Flat Tops Wilderness, Maroon Bells Wilderness, Mesa 
Verde National Park, Weminuche Wilderness, West Elk Wilderness, San 
Pedro Park Wilderness, Arches National Park, Bryce Canyon National 
Park, Canyonlands National Park, Capital Reef National Park and Zion 
National Park.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Requirements for the Five-Year Regional Haze Progress Report SIP

    Under both 40 CFR 51.308 and 40 CFR 51.309, states are required to 
submit progress reports that evaluate progress towards the reasonable 
progress goals for each mandatory federal Class I area within the state 
and in each Class I area outside the state that may be affected by 
emissions from within the state. In addition, the provisions also 
require states to submit, at the same time as the progress report, a 
determination of adequacy of the state's existing regional haze SIP. 
The first progress report must be in the form of a SIP revision and is 
due 5 years after submittal of the initial regional haze SIP.
    As a Transport Region State, Utah submitted its Progress Report SIP 
under 40 CFR 51.309, and exercised the option to meet the requirements 
contained in 40 CFR 51.309 for regional haze implementation plans.\8\ 
The requirements for Transport Region State progress reports are 
similar to those for other states, but the requirements for the reports 
are codified at 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Utah Department of Environmental Quality, Progress Report 
for Utah's State Implementation Plan for Regional Haze (Utah 
Progress Report), page F-8 (Feb. 16, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Regulatory and Legal History of the Utah Regional Haze SIP and FIP

    On May 26, 2011, Utah submitted regional haze SIP revisions 
addressing the requirements of 40 CFR 51.309 that, for the most part, 
superseded and replaced regional haze SIP revisions submitted on 
December 12, 2003, August 8, 2004, and September 9, 2008.\9\ On 
December 14, 2012, the EPA approved the SIP revisions as meeting the 
requirements of the Regional Haze Rule except for the requirements 
under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4)(vii) pertaining to NOX and PM 
BART.\10\ On June 4, 2015, the State of Utah submitted to the EPA a 
revision to its Regional Haze SIP to address the requirements under 40 
CFR 51.309(d)(4)(vii) pertaining to NOX and PM BART, which 
included an alternative to BART.\11\ On July 5, 2016, we partially 
approved and partially disapproved the June 4, 2015 SIP revision.\12\ 
Specifically, the EPA approved the State's PM BART determination, but 
disapproved Utah's BART alternative for NOX. The EPA 
promulgated a FIP for those portions of the SIP that were 
disapproved.\13\ Several parties challenged the NOX BART 
FIP.\14\ As a result of the litigation, on September 11, 2017, the 
EPA's July 5, 2016 final rule was stayed by the U.S. Court of Appeals 
for the Tenth Circuit.\15\ On July 3, 2019, Utah submitted a subsequent 
SIP revision intended to replace the NOX BART FIP for 
PacifiCorp's Hunter and Huntington power plants.\16\ The SIP revision 
provides an alternative to BART for Hunter and Huntington that would 
provide greater reasonable progress toward natural visibility 
conditions than BART. On January 22, 2020, the EPA proposed to approve 
the July 3, 2019 SIP revision.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ We only acted on the state rules associated with the 
Backstop Trading Program and emissions inventories in the 2008 
submittal because the 2011 submittal superseded and replaced all 
other sections. We took no action on the December 12, 2003, and 
August 8, 2004, submittals because these were superseded entirely by 
the 2011 submittal. 77 FR 74355, 74356 (Dec.14, 2012).
    \10\ 77 FR at 74357.
    \11\ A State must demonstrate that a BART alternative achieves 
greater reasonable progress than source-specific BART. 40 CFR 
51.308(e)(2), (e)(3).
    \12\ 81 FR 43894 (July 5, 2016).
    \13\ 81 FR at 43896, 43907.
    \14\ Utah v. EPA, No. 16-9541 (10th Cir.); PacifiCorp v. EPA, 
No. 16-9542 (10th Cir.); Utah Associated Municipal Power Systems v. 
EPA, No. 16-9543 (10th Cir.); Deseret Generation Transmission 
Cooperative v. EPA, No. 16-9545 (10th Cir.).
    \15\ Utah v. EPA, No. 16-9541 (10th Cir.), ECF No. 10496767.
    \16\ On December 3, 2019, Utah submitted a supplement to the 
July 2019 SIP submission that includes an amendment to the 
monitoring, record keeping, and reporting requirements.
    \17\ 85 FR 3558 (Jan. 22, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. The EPA's Evaluation of Utah's Progress Report and Adequacy 
Determination

A. Regional Haze Progress Report

    In this action, the EPA is proposing to approve Utah's Progress 
Report and the State's determination that the existing regional haze 
implementation plan requires no further substantive revision. Utah's 
Progress Report must meet the requirements set forth in 40 CFR 
51.309(d)(10)(i). The State must also provide a determination of the 
adequacy of the existing implementation plan to ensure reasonable 
progress. 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(ii). If the State determines that the 
existing implementation plan requires no further revision, then the 
State must provide a negative declaration that further revision of the 
existing implementation plan is not needed at this time. Id.
    As previously noted, on January 22, 2020, the EPA proposed to 
approve a SIP revision that provides a BART alternative for the Hunter 
and Huntington power plants.\18\ The EPA has not yet taken final action 
to approve the proposed SIP revision, and the EPA is not prejudging the 
outcome of that rulemaking process. We note that in the event the 
proposed SIP revision is not finalized, there is already a FIP in place 
which addresses the previously identified SIP deficiencies. Thus, 
regardless of whether the EPA finalizes the proposed approval of the 
Utah SIP revision for the Hunter and Huntington power plants, Utah will 
have an implementation plan in place that fully addresses the regional 
haze requirements for the first implementation period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Status of Implementation of Control Measures
    Utah's Progress Report must include a description of the status of 
implementation of all control measures included in the regional haze 
SIP for achieving reasonable progress goals for Class I areas both 
within and outside of the State. 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(A).
    In its Progress Report, Utah summarized the regional haze measures 
that were relied upon in the regional

[[Page 36361]]

haze SIP, as well as the SO2 emissions reduction strategies 
implemented by sources in New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming under the 
SO2 Backstop Trading Program. The State referenced the 
SO2 emissions for sources associated with the SO2 
Backstop Trading Program \19\ found within the 2013 Regional 
SO2 Emissions and Milestones Report \20\ (Table 1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Utah Progress Report, page F-12.
    \20\ Western Regional Air Partnership, 2013 Regional SO2 
Emissions and Milestone Report (March 18, 2015).
    \21\ In 2013, three states participated in the SO2 
Backstop Trading Program. SO2 emissions from all three 
participating states are recorded and collectively compared to the 
milestone.

  Table 1--Reported Emissions for Sources Associated With the Backstop
                          Trading Program \21\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Reported 2013
                                                           SO2 emissions
           State                     Plant name               (tons)
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NM........................  Agave Energy Co./Agave                    14
                             Dagger Draw Gas Plant.
NM........................  Frontier Field Services/                 478
                             Empire Abo Plant.
NM........................  DCP Midstream/Artesia Gas                284
                             Plant.
NM........................  DCP Midstream/Eunice Gas               3,044
                             Plant.
NM........................  DCP Midstream/Linam Ranch                648
                             Gas Plant.
NM........................  Duke--Magnum/Pan Energy--                  0
                             Burton Flats.
NM........................  Duke Energy/Dagger Draw Gas                0
                             Plant.
NM........................  Versado Gas Processors, LP/              184
                             Eunice Gas Plant.
NM........................  Frontier Field Services/               2,244
                             Maljamar Gas Plant.
NM........................  Western Refining Southwest                34
                             Inc-Gallup Refinery.
NM........................  Davis Gas Processing/Denton              972
                             Plant.
NM........................  OXY USA WTP Limited                       44
                             Partnership--Indian Basin
                             Gas Plant.
NM........................  Navajo Refining Co/Artesia                39
                             Refinery.
NM........................  Public Service Co of New               6,076
                             Mexico/San Juan Generating
                             Station.
NM........................  Raton Pub. Service/Raton                   0
                             Power Plant.
NM........................  Regency Field Services/Jal             1,002
                             #3.
NM........................  Versado Gas Processors, LP/                0
                             Eunice South Gas Plant.
NM........................  Versado Gas Processors, LLC/             723
                             Monument Plant.
NM........................  Versado Gas Processors, LLC/             369
                             Saunders Plant.
NM........................  Tri-State Gen & Transmission/            951
                             Escalante Station.
NM........................  Western Gas Resources/San                 58
                             Juan River Gas Plant.
NM........................  Western Refining Southwest                 0
                             Inc./Bloomfield Products
                             Terminal.
NM........................  ConocoPhillips-Midland                   195
                             Office/MCA Tank Battery No.
                             2.
NM........................  ConocoPhillips-Midland                   156
                             Office/East Vacuum Liquid
                             Recovery and CO2 Plant.
UT........................  Brigham Young University--               120
                             Main Campus.
UT........................  Chevron Products Co--Salt                 26
                             Lake Refinery.
UT........................  Big West Oil Company--Flying              45
                             J Refinery.
UT........................  Graymont Western US Inc--                 52
                             Cricket Mountain Plant.
UT........................  Holcim--Devil's Slide Plant.             172
UT........................  Holly Refining and Marketing             101
                             Co--Phillips Refinery.
UT........................  Intermountain Power Service            4,724
                             Corporation--Intermountain
                             Generating Station.
UT........................  Kennecott Utah Copper Corp--           1,810
                             Power Plant/Lab/Tailings
                             Impoundment.
UT........................  Kennecott Utah Copper Corp--             727
                             Smelter and Refinery.
UT........................  Materion Natural Resources--               0
                             Delta Mill.
UT........................  PacifiCorp--Carbon Power               7,702
                             Plant.
UT........................  PacifiCorp--Hunter Power               5,055
                             Plant.
UT........................  PacifiCorp--Huntington Power           2,409
                             Plant.
UT........................  Patara Midstream LLC Lisbon                5
                             Natural Gas Processing
                             Plant.
UT........................  Sunnyside Cogeneration                   917
                             Associates--Sunnyside
                             Cogeneration Facility.
UT........................  Tesoro West Coast--Salt Lake             664
                             City Refinery.
UT........................  Utelite Corporation--Shale                80
                             Processing.
WY........................  American Colloid Mineral Co--             96
                             East Colony.
WY........................  American Colloid Mineral Co--              0
                             West Colony.
WY........................  Basin Electric--Dry Fork                 830
                             Station.
WY........................  Basin Electric--Laramie                9,286
                             River Station.
WY........................  Big Horn Gas Processing--Big               0
                             Horn/Byron Gas Plant.
WY........................  Black Hills Corporation--                879
                             Neil Simpson I.
WY........................  Black Hills Corporation--                511
                             Neil Simpson II.
WY........................  Black Hills Corporation--                  0
                             Osage Plant.
WY........................  Black Hills Corporation--                566
                             Wygen I.
WY........................  Cheyenne Light Fuel and                  172
                             Power Company--Wygen II.
WY........................  Black Hills Corporation--                315
                             Wygen III.
WY........................  Burlington Resources--                     0
                             Bighorn Wells.
WY........................  Burlington Resources--Lost             1,998
                             Cabin Gas Plant.
WY........................  Chevron USA--Carter Creek                596
                             Gas Plant.
WY........................  Chevron USA--Table Rock                    0
                             Field.
WY........................  Chevron USA--Table Rock Gas               22
                             Plant.
WY........................  Chevron USA--Whitney Canyon/               3
                             Carter Creek Wellfield.
WY........................  Devon Energy Production Co.,               2
                             L.P.--Beaver Creek Gas
                             Field.
WY........................  Devon Gas Services, L.P.--                49
                             Beaver Creek Gas Plant.

[[Page 36362]]

 
WY........................  Encore Operating LP--Elk                 824
                             Basin Gas Plant.
WY........................  Exxon Mobil Corporation--                139
                             Labarge Black Canyon
                             Facility.
WY........................  Exxon Mobil Corporation--                885
                             Shute Creek.
WY........................  FMC Corp--Green River Sodium           2,942
                             Products.
WY........................  FMC Wyoming Corporation                  344
                             Granger Soda Ash Plant.
WY........................  Frontier Oil & Refining                  267
                             Company--Cheyenne Refinery.
WY........................  Worland Plant...............              25
WY........................  Marathon Oil Co--Oregon                  182
                             Basin Gas Plant.
WY........................  Marathon Oil Co--Oregon                   40
                             Basin Wellfield.
WY........................  Merit Energy Company--Brady              316
                             Gas Plant.
WY........................  Merit Energy Company--                     1
                             Whitney Facility.
WY........................  Merit Energy Company--                     0
                             Whitney Canyon Wellfield.
WY........................  Mountain Cement Company--                273
                             Laramie Plant.
WY........................  P4 Production, L.L.C.--Rock              754
                             Springs Coal Calcining
                             Plant.
WY........................  PacifiCorp--Dave Johnston              8,648
                             Plant.
WY........................  PacifiCorp--Jim Bridger               11,397
                             Plant.
WY........................  PacifiCorp--Naughton Plant..           6,741
WY........................  PacifiCorp--Wyodak Plant....           2,236
WY........................  Simplot Phosphates LLC--Rock           1,222
                             Springs Plant.
WY........................  Sinclair Oil Company--                   154
                             Sinclair Refinery.
WY........................  Sinclair Wyoming Refining                225
                             Company--Casper Refinery.
WY........................  Solvay Chemicals--Soda Ash                42
                             Plant (Green River
                             Facility).
WY........................  TATA Chemicals (Soda Ash               4,662
                             Partners)--Green River
                             Plant.
WY........................  The Western Sugar                        203
                             Cooperative--Torrington
                             Plant.
WY........................  University of Wyoming--Heat              160
                             Plant.
WY........................  Wyoming Refining--Newcastle              263
                             Refinery.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Utah's Progress Report identified four stationary sources subject 
to BART: PacifiCorp Hunter Units 1 and 2 and PacifiCorp Huntington 
Units 1 and 2. The status of control measures associated with PM and 
NOX emissions for these four units in addition to the three 
other units included in the June 2015 and July 2019 BART alternatives 
are provided in Table 2. As explained above, the EPA has proposed but 
not yet taken final action with respect to Utah's BART alternative for 
the Hunter and Huntington Units.

     Table 2--Control Measures and Updates for Sources Subject to BART and the BART Alternative in Utah \22\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       PM emission limit   NOX control type   NOX emission limit
              Unit                  PM control type         \1\ \2\                                   \3\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hunter Unit 1...................  Fabric Filter       0.015 lb/MMBtu      Low-NOX burners     0.26 lb/MMBtu (30-
                                   (completed in       (three-run test     (LNB) + separated   day rolling).
                                   2014).              average).           overfire air
                                                                           (SOFA) (completed
                                                                           in 2014).
Hunter Unit 2...................  Fabric Filter       0.015 lb/MMBtu      LNB + SOFA          0.26 lb/MMBtu (30-
                                   (completed in       (three-run test     (completed in       day rolling).
                                   2011).              average).           2011).
Hunter Unit 3...................  NA................  NA................  LNB + SOFA          0.34 lb/MMBtu (30-
                                                                           (completed in       day rolling).
                                                                           2008)\4\.
Huntington Unit 1...............  Fabric Filter       0.015 lb/MMBtu      LNB + SOFA          0.26 lb/MMBtu (30-
                                   (completed in       (three-run test     (completed in       day rolling).
                                   2010).              average).           2010).
Huntington Unit 2...............  Fabric Filter       0.015 lb/MMBtu      LNB + SOFA          0.26 lb/MMBtu (30-
                                   (completed in       (three-run test     (completed in       day rolling).
                                   2006).              average).           2006).
Carbon Unit 1...................  NA................  Shutdown by August  NA................  Shutdown by August
                                                       15, 2015.                               15, 2015.
Carbon Unit 2...................  NA................  Shutdown by August  NA................  Shutdown by August
                                                       15, 2015.                               15, 2015.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Based on annual stack testing.
\2\ The BART PM emissions limits were previously approved in our July 2016 final rule. 81 FR at 43907.
\3\ Based on continuous emission monitoring system (CEMS) measurement.
\4\ 81 FR 2004, 2018 (Jan. 14, 2016).

    In addition to summarizing the status of the SO2 
Backstop Trading Program and PM and NOX BART controls, Utah 
provides an update on the State's Smoke Management Plan (SMP) which 
provides operating procedures for federal and state agencies that use 
prescribed fire, wildfire, and wildland

[[Page 36363]]

fire on federal, state and private wildlands in Utah.\23\ Federal and 
state land managers and the Utah Department of Air Quality formed the 
Utah Airshed Oversight Group to manage, oversee, and evaluate the SMP. 
After being certified by the EPA in 1999, the SMP, in accordance with 
evaluations conducted by the Utah Airshed Oversight Group, was revised 
in 2006 and 2014 and included the transition to a web-based burn 
permitting program. In its Progress Report, the State provides the 
status of Utah's alternative treatments to fire and agricultural 
burning in addition to the 2011 prescribed fire emissions (Table 
3).\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ Obtained from the July 2019 Utah regional haze SIP 
submittal, Section IX.H.22. The measures in the NOX BART 
alternative of the July 2019 SIP submittal are identical to those in 
the alternative in the June 2015 SIP submittal (i.e. Utah submitted 
the same NOX BART alternative in the June 2015 and July 
2019 SIPs). As explained above, the EPA proposed to approve the July 
2019 SIP on January 22, 2020. 85 FR at 3558. By including these SIP 
measures here, the EPA is not prejudging the outcome of its ongoing 
rulemaking process regarding the 2019 SIP.
    \23\ Utah Progress Report, page F-14-F-16.
    \24\ Utah Progress Report, page F-15.

                                   Table 3--Prescribed Fire Emissions in 2011
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Projects
             Agency                 implemented     Black acres   Tons  consumed   Tons of PM10      Percent %
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bureau of Indian Affairs........               2           3,900          56,550             707               2
Bureau of Land Management.......              21           1,621          11,722             134              19
Forest Service..................              44          10,484         194,837           2,385              40
Fish and Wildlife Service.......               4           2,505           7,453              39               4
National Park Service...........               9             429           5,024              67               8
Utah Division of Forestry, Fire,              29           3,074          28,570             333              27
 and State Lands................
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Totals......................             109          22,013         304,156           3,665             100
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, Utah also provides status updates in the Progress Report 
for the Clean Air Corridor,\25\ Pollution Prevention and Renewable 
Energy,\26\ mobile sources, comprehensive emissions tracking system, 
New Source Performance Standards, Prevention of Significant 
Deterioration, New Source Review, Maximum Achievable Control 
Technology, and other Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission 
recommendations.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ The Clean Air Corridor is an area covering major portions 
of Nevada, southern Utah, eastern Oregon and southwestern Idaho 
intended to represent a region from which clean air transport 
influences many of the clean air days at Grand Canyon National Park. 
Utah Progress Report, page F-16.
    \26\ The Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission set a goal 
of achieving 10 percent of generation from renewable resources in 
2005 and 20 percent in 2015. Utah reports that significant progress 
has been made towards these goals. Utah Progress Report, page F-17.
    \27\ Utah Progress Report, pages F-18-F-20.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA proposes to find that Utah has adequately addressed the 
applicable provisions under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(A) regarding the 
implementation status of control measures because the State's Progress 
Report provides documentation of the implementation of control measures 
within Utah, including the BART-eligible sources.
2. Summary of Emissions Reductions Achieved
    Utah's Progress Report must include a summary of the emissions 
reductions achieved throughout the State through implementation of 
control measures mentioned in 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(A). 40 CFR 
51.309(d)(10)(i)(B)
    In its Progress Report, Utah presents information on emissions 
reductions achieved from the pollution control strategies discussed 
above. The State provides regional SO2 emissions from 2003 
through 2013 (Table 4) as well as statewide SO2, 
NOX, ammonia, volatile organic compounds, primary organic 
aerosol, elemental carbon, fine soil, and coarse mass emissions in 2002 
and 2008. (Table 5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ See Utah Progress Report, page F-20; see also Western 
Regional Air Partnership, 309 Committee: Documents, https://www.wrapair.org//forums/309/docs.html (last visited April 3, 2020). 
This Table represents the adjusted SO2 emissions/
milestone for New Mexico, Utah, Wyoming, and Albuquerque-Bernalillo 
County. Adjustments to reported emissions are required to allow the 
basis of current emissions estimates to account for changes in 
monitoring and calculation methods.

                               Table 4--Regional SO2 Emissions and Milestones \28\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Adjusted  reported  SO2
                             Year                                   emissions  (tons)       Adjusted  regional
                                                                                            milestone  (tons)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2003..........................................................                * 330,679                * 447,383
2004..........................................................                * 337,970                * 448,259
2005..........................................................                * 304,591                * 446,903
2006..........................................................               ** 279,134                ** 20,194
2007..........................................................               ** 273,663               ** 420,637
2008..........................................................               ** 244,189                  378,398
2009..........................................................                  143,704                  234,903
2010..........................................................                  131,124                  200,722
2011..........................................................                  117,976                  200,722
2012..........................................................                   96,246                  200,722
2013..........................................................                  101,381                  185,795
2014..........................................................                   92,533                  170,868
2015..........................................................                   81,454                  155,940
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Represents the adjusted SO2 emissions/milestone for Arizona, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Wyoming, and
  Albuquerque-Bernalillo County.
** Represents the adjusted SO2 emissions/milestone for Arizona, New Mexico, Utah, Wyoming, and Albuquerque-
  Bernalillo County. Figures with no asterisk represent the adjusted SO2 emissions/milestone for New Mexico,
  Utah, Wyoming, and Albuquerque-Bernalillo County.


[[Page 36364]]


  Table 5--SO2, NOX, Ammonia, Volatile Organic Compounds, Primary Organic Aerosol, Elemental Carbon, Fine Soil,
                                         and Coarse Mass Emissions \29\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                            Difference between
                                       2002 Emissions [dagger]  2008 Emissions [Dagger]       2002 and 2008
              Pollutant                       (tons/year)              (tons/year)       emissions  (tons/year)/
                                                                                              percent change
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sulfur Dioxide.......................                   54,083                   31,190              -22,892/-42
Nitrogen Oxides......................                  239,969                  193,322              -38,262/-19
Ammonia..............................                   29,999                   39,744                 9,745/32
Volatile Organic Compounds...........                  827,515                  396,449             -431,066/-52
Primary Organic Aerosol..............                   29,407                    7,547              -21,860/-74
Elemental Carbon.....................                    8,769                    4,098               -4,671/-53
Fine Soil............................                   14,877                   28,536                13,659/92
Coarse Mass..........................                   97,500                  214,745             117,245/>100
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[dagger] Plan02d.
[Dagger] WestJump2008.

    The emissions data show that there were decreases in emissions of 
SO2, NOX, volatile organic compounds, primary 
organic aerosol, and elemental carbon. Furthermore, regional 
SO2 emissions have been below the milestone every year. 
According to the State, increases in emissions of coarse and fine 
particulate between 2002 and 2008 (>100 percent and 92 percent, 
respectively) may be due to enhancements in dust inventory methodology 
rather than changes in actual emissions.\30\ Similarly, ammonia 
emissions increased by 32 percent between 2002 and 2008. According to 
the State, increases in ammonia emissions, which are predominantly from 
area sources and on-road mobile sources, may be due to a combination of 
population changes and differences in methodologies used to estimate 
these emissions.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ Utah Progress Report, pages F-50-F-57.
    \30\ Utah Progress Report, page F-49.
    \31\ Utah Progress Report, page F-48.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA proposes to conclude that Utah has adequately summarized 
the emissions reductions achieved throughout the State in its Progress 
Report as required under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(B). In meeting this 
requirement, the EPA does not expect states to quantify emissions 
reductions for measures which had not yet been implemented or for which 
the compliance date had not yet been reached at the time progress 
reports are finalized.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ The Utah Progress Report is dated May 18, 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Visibility Conditions and Changes
    Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(C) for each mandatory Class I 
area within the State, Utah must assess the following visibility 
conditions and changes, with values for most impaired and least 
impaired days \33\ expressed in terms of five-year averages of these 
annual values:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ The ``most impaired days'' and ``least impaired days'' in 
the regional haze rule refers to the average visibility impairment 
(measured in deciviews) for the 20% of monitored days in a calendar 
year with the highest and lowest amount of visibility impairment, 
respectively, averaged over a five-year period. See 40 CFR 51.301. 
In the context of 40 CFR 51.309 and this document, ``most impaired'' 
and ``worst'' have the same meaning and ``least impaired'' and 
``best'' have the same meaning.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    i. Assess the current visibility conditions for the most impaired 
and least impaired days.
    ii. Analyze the difference between current visibility conditions 
for the most impaired and least impaired days and baseline visibility 
conditions.
    iii. Evaluate the change in visibility impairment for the most 
impaired and least impaired days over the past five years.
    In its Progress Report, Utah provides information on visibility 
conditions for the Class I areas within its borders. There are five 
Class I areas located in Utah: Arches National Park, Bryce Canyon 
National Park, Canyonlands National Park, Capitol Reef National Park, 
and Zion National Park. Monitoring and data representing visibility 
conditions in Utah's five Class I areas is based on the four 
Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE) 
monitoring sites located across the State (Table 6).

             Table 6--Utah's Class I Areas and IMPROVE Sites
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Class I area                         IMPROVE site
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arches National Park....................  CANY1
Bryce Canyon National Park..............  BRCA1
Canyonlands National Park...............  CANY1
Capitol Reef National Park..............  CAPI1
Zion National Park......................  ZICA1 *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The ZICA1 monitoring site replaced the ZION1 monitoring site in 2003.

    The Progress Report addressed current visibility conditions and the 
difference between the baseline period visibility conditions, progress 
period visibility conditions, and current period visibility conditions 
with values for the most impaired (20 percent worst days) and least 
impaired and/or clearest days (20 percent best days). Table 7: 
Visibility Progress in Utah's Class I Areas, shows the difference 
between the current period (represented by 2009-2013 data) and the 
baseline visibility data (represented by 2000-2004 data) \34\ in 
addition to the Preliminary Reasonable Progress (PRP) projection.\35\ 
The PRP was developed by the WRAP as the projected visibility 
improvement for 2018, and reflects growth plus all controls ``on the 
books'' as of a certain date.\36\ Table 8: Visibility Rolling 5-Year 
Averages in Utah's Class I Areas, shows the rolling 5-year average 
visibility from 2000-2013 as well as the change from the first 5-year 
rolling average period (2000-2004) to the last 5-year rolling average 
period (2009-2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ Utah Progress Report, pages F-31-F-32.
    \35\ 77 FR at 74361-62.
    \36\ PRPa predicts improvement as of March 2007, while PRPb 
predicts improvement as of March 2009.

[[Page 36365]]



                                                  Table 7--Visibility Progress in Utah's Class I Areas
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                               2018
                                                                           Baseline     Progress     Current     Difference   Difference    preliminary
               Class I area                        IMPROVE  site            period       period       period    (progress--   (current--    reasonable
                                                                           2000-04      2005-09      2009-13     baseline)    baseline)      progress
                                                                                                                                           PRP18a/PRP18b
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                             Deciview
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     20% Worst Days
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arches National Park.....................  CANY1.......................         11.2         11.0         10.8         -0.2         -0.4       10.9/10.7
Bryce Canyon National Park...............  BRCA1.......................         11.6         11.9         10.6          0.3         -1.0       11.2/11.1
Canyonlands National Park................  CANY1.......................         11.2         11.0         10.8         -0.2         -0.4       10.9/10.7
Capitol Reef National Park...............  CAPI1.......................         10.9         11.3         10.2          0.4         -0.7       10.5/10.4
Zion National Park.......................  ZICA1.......................         12.5         12.3         10.8         -0.2         -1.7         \**\ NA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      20% Best Days
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arches National Park.....................  CANY1.......................          3.7          2.8          3.1         -0.9         -0.6             3.5
Bryce Canyon National Park...............  BRCA1.......................          2.8          2.1          1.8         -0.7         -1.0             2.6
Canyonlands National Park................  CANY1.......................          3.7          2.8          3.1         -0.9         -0.6             3.5
Capitol Reef National Park...............  CAPI1.......................          4.1          2.7          2.6         -1.4         -1.5             3.9
Zion National Park.......................  ZICA1.......................          5.0          4.3          4.3         -0.7         -0.7         \**\ NA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
** There are no PRPs established for the ZICA1 monitor. The PRP18a was originally established for the original ZION1 IMPROVE monitor, which was
  discontinued on July 29, 2004.


                                                               Table 8--Visibility Rolling 5-Year Averages in Utah's Class I Areas
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                                                                   Change  from
                 Class I area                             IMPROVE  site               2000-04         2005-09         2006-10         2007-11         2008-12         2009-13        baseline
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                     Deciview
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                 20% Worst Days
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arches National Park..........................  CANY1...........................            11.2            11.0            11.0            10.9            11.0            10.8            -0.4
Bryce Canyon National Park....................  BRCA1...........................            11.6            11.9            11.4            11.4            11.0            10.6            -1.0
Canyonlands National Park.....................  CANY1...........................            11.2            11.0            11.0            10.9            11.0            10.8            -0.4
Capitol Reef National Park....................  CAPI1...........................            10.9            11.3            10.8            10.4            10.5            10.2            -0.7
Zion National Park............................  ZICA1...........................            12.5            12.3            12.5            12.2            11.5            10.8            -1.7
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                  20% Best Days
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arches National Park..........................  CANY1...........................             3.7             2.8             2.9             2.9             2.9             3.1            -0.6
Bryce Canyon National Park....................  BRCA1...........................             2.8             2.1             2.0             2.0             1.8             1.8            -1.0
Canyonlands National Park.....................  CANY1...........................             3.7             2.8             2.9             2.9             2.9             3.1            -0.6
Capitol Reef National Park....................  CAPI1...........................             4.1             2.7             2.6             2.7             2.5             2.6            -1.5
Zion National Park............................  ZICA1...........................             5.0             4.3             4.5             4.4             4.2             4.2            -0.8
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As shown in Table 7, all the IMPROVE monitoring sites within the 
State show improvement in visibility conditions between the baseline 
(2000-2004) and current (2009-2013) periods on both the 20 percent 
worst visibility and 20 percent best visibility days. In addition, all 
of Utah's Class I areas met the PRP18a on both the 20 percent worst and 
20 percent best visibility days over the current (2009-2013) period 
(Table 7). Furthermore, deciview improvement was consistent over the 
2000-2013 time period, using 5-year rolling averages (Table 8).\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ Refer to the Utah Progress Report for pollutant 
contributions at each Class I area and 5-year rolling averages. Utah 
Progress Report, pages F-39-F-46.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its Progress Report, Utah demonstrates that particulate organic 
matter was the largest contributor to light extinction on the 20 
percent worst days with the largest difference between the 5-year 
average baseline and progress periods at the Bryce Canyon National Park 
(BRCA1) site.\38\ According to the State, the difference between the 5-
year average baseline and progress periods at the BRCA1 site was 
influenced by large wildfire events in July and August of 2009.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ Utah Progress Report, pages F-34, F-37.
    \39\ Utah Progress Report, pages F-10, F-37.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA proposes to conclude that Utah has adequately addressed the 
requirements under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(C) to include summaries of 
monitored visibility data as required by the Regional Haze Rule.
4. Emissions Tracking Analysis
    Utah's Progress Report must include an analysis tracking the change 
over the past five years in emissions of pollutants contributing to 
visibility impairment from all sources and activities within the State. 
40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(D).
    In its Progress Report, Utah presents data from a 2008 emissions 
inventory, which leverages inventory development work performed by the 
Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP) for the West-wide Jumpstart Air 
Quality

[[Page 36366]]

Modeling Study (WestJumpAQMS) \40\ and the Deterministic & Empirical 
Assessment of Smoke's Contribution to Ozone (DEASCO3) 
modeling projects, termed WestJump2008 and compares it to the baseline 
emissions inventory for 2002 (Plan02d).\41\ The pollutants inventoried 
include the following source classifications: SO2, 
NOX, ammonia, volatile organic compounds, primary organic 
aerosol, elemental carbon, fine soil, and coarse mass from both 
anthropogenic and natural sources (Table 9).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ WRAP Regional Technical Center and West Jump AQMS, https://www.wrapair2.org/WestJumpAQMS.aspx (last visited March 19, 2020). 
Additional information on the WestJump study available in the docket 
for this action, ``WestJump Fact Sheet.''
    \41\ Utah Progress Report, pages F-46, F-48.

                                                           Table 9--Emissions Progress in Utah
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                     2018 preliminary
   Pollutant (anthropogenic,  natural,  and total          2002 emissions           2008 emissions        Difference  (percent     reasonable progress
                      sources)                               (Plan02d)              (WestJump2008)              change)                  (PRP18a)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                   tons/year
                                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SO2:
    Anthropogenic...................................                   51,665                   31,410            -20,256 (-39)                   42,096
    Natural.........................................                    2,418                       92             -2,326 (-96)                    2,418
        Total.......................................                   54,083                   31,190            -22,892 (-42)                   44,513
                                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOX:
    Anthropogenic...................................                  218,499                  194,913            -23,586 (-11)                  150,593
    Natural.........................................                   21,470                    6,793            -14,676 (-68)                   21,470
        Total.......................................                  239,969                  193,322            -38,262 (-19)                  172,063
                                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ammonia:
    Anthropogenic...................................                   28,107                   39,295              11,188 (40)                   29,947
    Natural.........................................                    1,893                      449             -1,444 (-76)                    1,893
        Total.......................................                   29,999                   39,744               9,745 (32)                   31,840
                                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Volatile Organic Compounds:
    Anthropogenic...................................                  166,550                  228,985              62,434 (37)                  213,767
    Natural.........................................                  660,965                  238,518           -422,447 (-64)                  660,966
        Total.......................................                  827,515                  396,449           -431,066 (-52)                  874,732
                                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Primary Organic Aerosol:
    Anthropogenic...................................                    3,220                    6,379               3,159 (98)                    3,064
    Natural.........................................                   26,187                    1,167            -25,020 (-96)                   26,188
        Total.......................................                   29,407                    7,547            -21,860 (-74)                   29,252
                                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Elemental Carbon:
    Anthropogenic...................................                    3,364                    3,889                 524 (16)                    1,327
    Natural.........................................                    5,405                      209             -5,196 (-96)                    5,405
        Total.......................................                    8,769                    4,098             -4,671 (-53)                    6,732
                                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fine Soil:
    Anthropogenic...................................                    5,585                   17,297            11,712 (>100)                    7,953
    Natural.........................................                    9,292                   11,239               1,947 (21)                    9,292
        Total.......................................                   14,877                   28,536              13,659 (92)                   17,245
                                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coarse Mass:
    Anthropogenic...................................                   23,676                  117,232            93,556 (>100)                   36,357
    Natural.........................................                   73,824                   97,513              23,689 (32)                   73,824
        Total.......................................                   97,500                  214,745           117,245 (>100)                  110,181
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Overall, Utah's emissions that affect visibility were reduced in 
all sectors for all pollutants (total) except for ammonia and coarse 
and fine particulate matter categories. Similar to other Western 
states,\42\ Utah cites large variability in changes in windblown dust 
observed for contiguous Western states, which was likely due in large 
part to enhancements in dust inventory methodology rather than changes 
in actual emissions.\43\ The largest decrease in point source 
inventories was in SO2 emissions which can be attributed to 
the implementation of the SO2 Backstop Trading Program in 
December 2003.\44\ The largest increase in point source inventories was 
in NOX emissions going from 84,218 tons per year in 2002 to 
87,623 tons per year in 2008.\45\ According to the State, the 
differences in NOX emissions inventories result from normal 
fluctuations in plant operations and do not indicate a trend of 
increasing emissions. Indeed, a triennial inventory for 2011 shows 
point source NOX emissions of 69,913 tons per year which is 
17 percent lower than recorded in the base year inventory.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ 84 FR 32682, 32687 (July 9, 2019), 85 FR 21341 (April 17, 
2020).
    \43\ Utah Progress Report, page F-49.
    \44\ Utah Progress Report, page F-50.
    \45\ Utah Progress Report, page F-51.
    \46\ Utah Progress Report, page F-48.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA proposes to conclude that Utah has adequately addressed the 
requirements under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(D) to track changes in 
emissions of pollutants contributing to visibility impairment from all 
sources and activities within the State.

[[Page 36367]]

5. Assessment of Changes Impeding Visibility Progress
    Utah's Progress Report must include an assessment of any 
significant changes in anthropogenic emissions within or outside the 
State that have occurred over the past five years that have limited or 
impeded progress in reducing pollutant emissions and improving 
visibility in Class I areas impacted by the State's sources. 40 CFR 
51.309(d)(10)(i)(E).
    In its Progress Report, Utah provided an assessment of significant 
changes in anthropogenic emissions within or outside the State. On the 
20% worst days over the 5-year period from 2005-2009, particulate 
organic matter and ammonium sulfate were the two highest contributors 
to haze in Class I areas in Utah. According to the State, the primary 
sources of anthropogenic particulate organic matter in Utah include 
prescribed forest and agricultural burning, vehicle exhaust, vehicle 
refueling, solvent evaporation (e.g., paints), food cooking, and 
various commercial and industrial sources. The State asserts that 
increases in anthropogenic primary organic aerosols may be due to 
changes in methodology between 2002 and 2008 and do not necessarily 
reflect an actual change in emissions. According to the State, the 
primary anthropogenic sources of SO2 include coal-burning 
power plants and other industrial sources, with stationary point 
sources accounting for approximately 90 percent of SO2 
emissions in Utah. The State asserts that SO2 emissions 
declined by 42 percent between 2002 and 2008. Because anthropogenic 
emissions within Utah have decreased overall, Utah concludes that 
anthropogenic SO2 emissions or other anthropogenic emissions 
have not limited or impeded progress in reducing pollutant emissions or 
reducing visibility.\47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ Utah Progress Report, page F-59.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although not cited in Utah's Progress Report, at the time of the 
analysis done by the State for the Progress Report (March 2015), not 
all BART alternative controls had been realized because compliance 
dates had not yet occurred for Carbon Units 1 and 2 (Table 2). Thus, 
the impacts of the emissions reductions from BART alternative controls 
had not been fully realized and are therefore not evident or accounted 
for in the State's Progress Report. These additional anthropogenic 
emissions reductions have further improved visibility in Utah's Class I 
areas.
    The EPA proposes to find that Utah has adequately addressed the 
requirements under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(E) and proposes to agree 
with Utah that there have been no significant changes in anthropogenic 
emissions that have limited or impeded progress in reducing pollutant 
emissions and improving visibility.
6. Assessment of Current Implementation Plan Elements and Strategies
    Utah's Progress Report must include an assessment of whether the 
current implementation plan elements and strategies are sufficient to 
enable the State, or other states with mandatory Class I areas affected 
by emissions from the State, to meet all established reasonable 
progress goals. 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(F).
    In its Progress Report, Utah provided an assessment of whether the 
current implementation plan elements and strategies in the regional 
haze SIP are sufficient to enable the State, or other states with Class 
I areas affected by emissions from the State, to meet all established 
reasonable progress goals. In particular, Utah compared visibility 
conditions and emissions reductions to the WRAP PRP projections.\48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ Utah Progress Report, pages F-59-F-63.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the Regional Haze Rule, states adopting the requirements of 
40 CFR 51.309 are deemed to have met the reasonable progress 
requirements for the Class I areas located on the Colorado Plateau. 40 
CFR 51.309(a). Since all the Class I areas in Utah are on the Colorado 
Plateau, the State met all reasonable progress requirements for the 
Class I areas in Utah. Additionally, Utah previously determined, and 
the EPA agreed, that emissions from the State do not significantly 
impact or will not significantly impact other states' Class I areas. 
Thus, Utah was not required to establish reasonable progress goals.\49\ 
Accordingly, for the purpose of evaluating this section of the progress 
report requirements, we propose to assess progress toward the PRPs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ 77 FR at 74367-68.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Utah asserts that visibility continues to improve at the State's 
Class I areas from 2000 through 2013. Indeed, key visibility metrics 
described previously, show: (1) A decrease in total SO2 and 
NOX emissions, which are associated with anthropogenic 
sources; (2) improvement in visibility conditions between the baseline 
(2000-2004) and current (2009-2013) periods on both the 20 percent 
worst visibility and 20 percent best visibility days at all IMPROVE 
monitoring sites; (3) achievement of the PRP18a at all of Utah's Class 
I areas on both the 20 percent worst and 20 percent best visibility 
days over the current (2009-2013) period; \50\ and (4) consistent 
deciview improvement over the 2000-2013 time period, using 5-year 
rolling averages. Thus, Utah is confident that the current 
implementation plan elements and strategies are sufficient to make 
progress towards visibility goals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ PRP18b modeling results show additional projected 
visibility improvement using all known and expected controls as of 
March 2009. All of Utah's Class I areas achieve PRP18b except for 
Arches National Park and Canyonlands National Park which, at 10.8 
deciviews during the current period (2009-2013), are above the 
PRP18b of 10.7 deciviews. See supra Table 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA proposes to conclude that Utah has adequately addressed the 
requirements under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(F) and proposes to agree 
with the State's determination that implementation plan elements are 
sufficient to enable the State to make reasonable progress towards the 
WRAP's PRPs.
7. Review of Current Monitoring Strategy
    Utah's Progress Report must include a review of the State's 
visibility monitoring strategy and any modifications to the strategy as 
necessary. 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(G).
    The monitoring strategy for regional haze in Utah relies upon 
participation in the IMPROVE network, which is the primary monitoring 
network for regional haze nationwide.
    In its Progress Report, Utah summarizes the existing monitoring 
network, which includes four IMPROVE monitors, used to monitor 
visibility at the five Class I areas in the State. The State relies 
solely on the IMPROVE monitoring network to track long-term visibility 
improvement and degradation and will continue to rely on the IMPROVE 
monitoring network, without modifications to the existing network, for 
complying with the regional haze monitoring requirements.
    The EPA proposes to find that Utah adequately addressed the 
requirements of 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(G) because the State reviewed 
its visibility monitoring strategy and determined that no further 
modifications to the strategy are necessary.

B. Determination of Adequacy of the Existing Regional Haze Plan

    The provisions under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(ii) require states to 
determine the adequacy of their existing implementation plan to meet 
existing reasonable progress goals and take one of the following 
actions:
    (1) Submit a negative declaration to the EPA that no further 
substantive

[[Page 36368]]

revision to the state's existing regional haze implementation plan is 
needed at this time;
    (2) If the state determines that the implementation plan is or may 
be inadequate to ensure reasonable progress due to emissions from 
sources in another state(s) which participated in a regional planning 
process, the state must provide notification to the EPA and to the 
other state(s) which participated in the regional planning process with 
the state. The state must also collaborate with the other state(s) 
through the regional planning process for developing additional 
strategies to address the plan's deficiencies;
    (3) Where the state determines that the implementation plan is or 
may be inadequate to ensure reasonable progress due to emissions from 
sources in another country, the state shall provide notification, along 
with available information, to the Administrator; or
    (4) If the state determines that the implementation plan is or may 
be inadequate to ensure reasonable progress due to emissions from 
sources within the state, then the state shall revise its 
implementation plan to address the plan's deficiencies within one year.
    According to Utah, the IMPROVE data demonstrate that Utah is on 
track to meet the WRAP's PRPs. Thus, Utah's Progress Report provides a 
negative declaration to the EPA that no further substantive revisions 
to the regional haze SIP are needed to improve visibility in Class I 
areas beyond those controls already in place and scheduled to be in 
place at the time Utah prepared the Progress Report.\51\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\ Utah Progress Report, page F-65.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA proposes to conclude that Utah has adequately addressed 40 
CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(G) because key visibility metrics described 
previously show improvement in visibility conditions between the 
baseline (2000-2004) and current (2009-2013) periods on both the 20 
percent worst visibility and 20 percent best visibility days at all 
IMPROVE monitoring sites and consistent deciview improvement is shown 
over the 2000-2013 time period. Additionally, further visibility 
improvement has likely resulted from the 2015 shutdown of Carbon 1 and 
2, which was required after Utah's Progress Report was finalized. The 
EPA also expects further visibility improvement to result from 
subsequent regional haze actions.

IV. Proposed Action

    The EPA is proposing to approve Utah's March 7, 2016, Regional Haze 
Progress Report as meeting the applicable regional haze requirements 
set forth in 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10).

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP 
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable 
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in 
reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state 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 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 EPA or an Indian tribe has 
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian 
country, the proposed rule does not have tribal implications and will 
not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt 
tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 
9, 2000).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 
Greenhouse gases, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental 
relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting 
and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic 
compounds.

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: May 29, 2020.
Gregory Sopkin,
Regional Administrator, EPA Region 8.
[FR Doc. 2020-12075 Filed 6-15-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.