Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; State of Utah; Salt Lake City and Provo, Utah PM2.5, 71023-71046 [2020-24444]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 216 / Friday, November 6, 2020 / Proposed Rules
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is reopening the comment
period for a proposed revision to the
Michigan State Implementation Plan
(SIP) published September 18, 2020.
Sierra Club requested additional time to
provide comments; therefore, EPA is
reopening the comment period for 28
days from the close of the previous
comment period.
DATES: The comment period for the
proposed rule published on September
18, 2020 (85 FR 58315), is reopened.
Comments must be received on or
before November 16, 2020.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05–
OAR–2016–0321 at https://
www.regulations.gov, or via email to
Aburano.Douglas@epa.gov. For
comments submitted at Regulations.gov,
follow the online instructions for
submitting comments. Once submitted,
comments cannot be edited or removed
from Regulations.gov. For either manner
of submission, 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. 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, please contact the person
identified in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section. For 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.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Sarah Arra, Environmental Scientist,
Attainment Planning and Maintenance
Section, Air Programs Branch (AR–18J),
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886–9401,
Arra.Sarah@epa.gov. The EPA Region 5
office is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding
Federal holidays and facility closures
due to COVID 19.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On
September 18, 2020 (85 FR 58315), EPA
proposed to partially approve and
partially disapprove a revision to the
Michigan SIP for attaining the 2010 1-
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:31 Nov 05, 2020
Jkt 253001
hour primary sulfur dioxide (SO2)
national ambient air quality standard
(NAAQS) for the Detroit SO2
nonattainment area. This SIP revision
includes Michigan’s attainment
demonstration and other elements
required under the Clean Air Act (CAA).
EPA proposed to approve the base year
emissions inventory, and to affirm that
the nonattainment new source review
requirements for the area have been met.
EPA proposed to disapprove the
attainment demonstration, as well as the
requirements for meeting reasonable
further progress toward attainment of
the NAAQS, reasonably available
control measures and reasonably
available control technology, and
contingency measures. Finally, EPA
proposed to disapprove the plan’s
control measures for two facilities as not
demonstrating attainment, and proposed
to approve the enforceable control
measures for two facilities as SIP
strengthening. The comment period
closed on October 19, 2020. On October
9, 2020, EPA received a request from the
Sierra Club to extend the comment
period for four weeks from the end of
the comment period.
Dated: November 2, 2020.
Kurt Thiede,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. 2020–24759 Filed 11–5–20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 52 and 81
[EPA–R08–OAR–2020–0098; FRL–10016–
53–Region 8]
Approval and Promulgation of
Implementation Plans; State of Utah;
Salt Lake City and Provo, Utah PM2.5
Redesignations to Attainment and
Utah State Implementation Plan
Revisions
Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is proposing the
redesignation of the Salt Lake City, Utah
and Provo, Utah nonattainment areas
(NAAs) to attainment for the 2006 24hour fine particulate matter with an
aerodynamic diameter less than or equal
to a nominal 2.5 microns (PM2.5)
National Ambient Air Quality Standard
(NAAQS), and also acting on multiple
related State Implementation Plan (SIP)
submissions. We are proposing to
approve SIP revisions submitted by the
State of Utah on January 19, 2017; April
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
71023
19, 2018; February 4 and 15, 2019; and
January 13, May 21, and July 21, 2020.
These SIP submissions include
revisions to Utah Administrative Code
(UAC) Sections R307–110, R307–200,
and R307–300 Series; revisions to Utah
SIP Sections X.B and E; revisions to
Utah SIP Sections IX.H.11, 12, and 13;
best available control measures/best
available control technologies (BACM/
BACT) PM2.5 determinations for Salt
Lake City and Provo; maintenance plans
for the Salt Lake City and Provo areas
for PM2.5; and the request for
redesignation under the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 standard. Additionally, the EPA is
proposing to approve, through parallel
processing, a request to remove startup
and shutdown emission limits for
Kennecott’s Power Plant in the Utah SIP
and the accompanying R307–110–17
revisions (draft dated October 9, 2020).
The EPA is taking this action pursuant
to the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act).
DATES: Written comments must be
received on or before December 7, 2020.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R08–
OAR–2020–0098, 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
E:\FR\FM\06NOP1.SGM
06NOP1
71024
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 216 / Friday, November 6, 2020 / Proposed Rules
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:
Crystal Ostigaard, Air and Radiation
Division, Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode
8ARD–QP, 1595 Wynkoop Street,
Denver, Colorado, 80202–1129, (303)
312–6602, ostigaard.crystal@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document wherever
‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean
the EPA.
I. Background
A. Statutory and Regulatory Background
for EPA’s Regulation of PM2.5
Under section 109 of the Act, the EPA
has promulgated NAAQS for certain
pollutants, including PM2.5 (40 CFR
50.2(b)). Once the EPA promulgates a
NAAQS, section 107 of the Act specifies
a process for the designation of each
area within a state, generally as either
an attainment area (an area attaining the
NAAQS) or as a NAA (an area not
attaining the NAAQS, or that
contributes to nonattainment of the
NAAQS in a nearby area). For PM2.5,
certain areas have also been designated
‘‘unclassifiable.’’ These various
designations, in turn, trigger certain
state planning requirements.
For all areas, regardless of
designation, section 110 of the Act
requires that each state adopt and
submit for EPA approval a plan to
provide for implementation,
maintenance, and enforcement of the
NAAQS. This plan is commonly
referred to as a SIP. Section 110
contains requirements that a SIP must
meet to gain EPA approval.1 For NAAs,
SIPs must meet additional requirements
in part D of Title I of the Act. Usually,
SIPs include measures to control
emissions of air pollutants from various
sources, including stationary, mobile,
and area sources. For example, a SIP
1 EPA’s
approval of a SIP has several
consequences. For example, after the EPA approves
a SIP, the EPA and citizens may enforce the SIP’s
requirements in federal court under section 113 and
section 304 of the Act; in other words, the EPA’s
approval of a SIP makes the SIP ‘‘federally
enforceable.’’ Also, once the EPA has approved a
SIP, a state cannot unilaterally change the federally
enforceable version of the SIP. Instead, the state
must first submit a SIP revision to the EPA and gain
EPA’s approval of that revision.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:31 Nov 05, 2020
Jkt 253001
may specify emission limits at power
plants or other industrial sources.
Under section 109 of the Act, the EPA
has promulgated NAAQS for certain
pollutants, including PM2.5 (40 CFR
50.2(b)). Once the EPA promulgates a
NAAQS, section 107 of the Act specifies
a process for the designation of each
area within a state, generally as either
an attainment area (an area attaining the
NAAQS) or as a NAA (an area not
attaining the NAAQS, or that
contributes to nonattainment of the
NAAQS in a nearby area). For PM2.5,
certain areas have also been designated
‘‘unclassifiable.’’ These various
designations, in turn, trigger certain
state planning requirements.
For all areas, regardless of
designation, section 110 of the Act
requires that each state adopt and
submit for EPA approval a plan to
provide for implementation,
maintenance, and enforcement of the
NAAQS. This plan is commonly
referred to as a SIP. Section 110
contains requirements that a SIP must
meet to gain EPA approval.2 For NAAs,
SIPs must meet additional requirements
in part D of Title I of the Act. Usually,
SIPs include measures to control
emissions of air pollutants from various
sources, including stationary, mobile,
and area sources. For example, a SIP
may specify emission limits at power
plants or other industrial sources.
On October 17, 2006 (71 FR 61144),
the EPA revised the level of the 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS, lowering the primary
and secondary standards from the 1997
standard of 65 micrograms per cubic
meter (mg/m3) to 35 mg/m3. On
November 13, 2009 (74 FR 58688), the
EPA designated three NAAs in Utah for
the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS of 35
mg/m3. These are the Salt Lake City;
Provo; and Logan, Utah-Idaho NAAs.
The EPA originally issued a rule in
2007 3 regarding implementation of the
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS for the
NAA requirements specified in CAA
title I, part D, subpart 1. Under subpart
1, Utah was required to submit an
attainment plan for each area no later
than three years from the date of
nonattainment designation. These plans
needed to provide for the attainment of
the PM2.5 standards as expeditiously as
2 EPA’s approval of a SIP has several
consequences. For example, after the EPA approves
a SIP, the EPA and citizens may enforce the SIP’s
requirements in federal court under section 113 and
section 304 of the Act; in other words, the EPA’s
approval of a SIP makes the SIP ‘‘federally
enforceable.’’ Also, once the EPA has approved a
SIP, a state cannot unilaterally change the federally
enforceable version of the SIP. Instead, the state
must first submit a SIP revision to the EPA and gain
EPA’s approval of that revision.
3 72 FR 20586 (Apr. 25, 2007).
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
practicable, but no later than five years
from the date the areas were designated
nonattainment.
In 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the District of Columbia held that the
EPA should have implemented the 2006
PM2.5 24-hour standards, as well as the
other PM2.5 NAAQS, based on both
subpart 1 and subpart 4 of CAA title I,
part D.4 Under subpart 4, all NAAs are
initially classified as Moderate, and
Moderate area attainment plans must
address the requirements of subpart 4 as
well as subpart 1. Additionally, subpart
4 sets a different SIP submittal due date
and attainment year. For a Moderate
area, the attainment SIP is due 18
months after designation and the
attainment year is as expeditiously as
practicable, but no later than the end of
the sixth calendar year after designation.
On June 2, 2014 (79 FR 31566), the
EPA finalized the Identification of
Nonattainment Classification and
Deadlines for Submission of State
Implementation Plan (SIP) Provisions
for the 1997 Fine Particulate (PM2.5)
National Ambient Air Quality Standard
(NAAQS) and 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS. This rule classified as
Moderate the areas that were designated
in 2009 as nonattainment and set the
attainment SIP submittal due date for
those areas at December 31, 2014.
Additionally, this rule established the
Moderate area attainment date of
December 31, 2015.
When an area is designated as a
Moderate NAA under subpart 1 and
subpart 4, the CAA requires the State to
submit the following Moderate area SIP
elements:
1. A comprehensive, accurate, current
inventory of actual emissions from all
sources of PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors in
the area (CAA section 172(c)(3)).
2. Provisions to assure that reasonably
available control measures (RACM),
including reasonably available control
technologies (RACT), for the control of
direct PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors shall
be implemented no later than four years
after the area is designated (CAA
sections 172(c)(1) and 189(a)(1)(C)).
3. A demonstration (including air
quality modeling) that the plan provides
for attainment as expeditiously as
practicable but no later than the
Moderate area attainment date (CAA
section 188(c)(1).
4. Plan provisions that require
reasonable further progress (RFP) (CAA
section 172(c)(2)).
5. Quantitative milestones, which are
to be achieved every three years until
the area is redesignated to attainment,
4 Nat. Res. Def. Council v. EPA, 706 F.3d 428, 437
(D.C. Cir. 2013) (NRDC).
E:\FR\FM\06NOP1.SGM
06NOP1
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 216 / Friday, November 6, 2020 / Proposed Rules
and which demonstrate RFP toward
attainment by the applicable date. The
State is required to submit, not later
than 90 days after the date on which a
milestone applicable to the area occurs,
a demonstration that all measures in the
approved SIP have been implemented
and the milestone has been met. These
submissions are referred to as
‘‘quantitative milestone reports.’’ (CAA
section 189(c)).
6. Provisions to assure that control
requirements applicable to major
stationary sources of PM2.5 also apply to
major stationary sources of PM2.5
precursors, except where the State
demonstrates to the EPA’s satisfaction
that such sources do not contribute
significantly to PM2.5 levels that exceed
the standard in the area (CAA section
189(e)).
7. Contingency measures to be
implemented if the area fails to meet
RFP or fails to attain by the applicable
attainment date (CAA section 172(c)(9)).
8. A revision to the Nonattainment
New Source Review (NNSR) program to
set the applicable ‘‘major stationary
source’’ thresholds to 100 tons per year
(tpy) (CAA section 302(j)).
Moderate area 2006 24-hour PM2.5
plans must also satisfy the general
requirements applicable to all SIP
submissions under section 110 of the
CAA, including the requirement to
provide necessary assurances that the
implementing agencies have adequate
personnel, funding, and authority under
CAA section 110(a)(2)(E), and the
requirements concerning enforcement in
CAA section 110(a)(2)(C).
On August 24, 2016 (81 FR 58010),
the EPA finalized the Fine Particulate
Matter National Ambient Air Quality
Standards: State Implementation Plan
Requirements (‘‘PM2.5 Requirements
Rule’’), which partially addressed the
2013 NRDC decision. The final PM2.5
Requirements Rule details how air
agencies can meet the SIP requirements
under subparts 1 and 4 that apply to
areas designated nonattainment for any
PM2.5 NAAQS, such as: General
requirements for attainment plan due
dates and attainment demonstrations;
provisions for demonstrating RFP;
quantitative milestones; contingency
measures; NNSR permitting programs;
and RACM (including RACT). The
statutory attainment planning
requirements of subparts 1 and 4 were
established to ensure that the following
goals of the CAA are met: (i) That states
implement measures that provide for
attainment of the PM2.5 NAAQS as
expeditiously as practicable; and (ii)
that states adopt emissions reduction
strategies that will be the most effective
at reducing PM2.5 levels in NAAs.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:31 Nov 05, 2020
Jkt 253001
If an area is reclassified from
Moderate to Serious, the area will then
be subject to Serious PM2.5 CAA
requirements. Serious area PM2.5
requirements are the same as those
listed above for Moderate areas, except
that BACM and BACT are required
instead of RACM and RACT, the NNSR
permit threshold drops to 70 tons, and
the relevant attainment date is the
Serious area attainment date (CAA
section 188(c)(2). Serious area PM2.5
plans must also satisfy the Moderate
PM2.5 requirements discussed above,
and the general requirements applicable
to all SIP submissions under section 110
of the CAA, including the requirement
to provide necessary assurances that the
implementing agencies have adequate
personnel, funding and authority under
CAA section 110(a)(2)(E) and the
requirements concerning enforcement in
CAA section 110(a)(2)(C).
B. Utah’s PM2.5 Attainment Status and
SIP Development
After the November 13, 2009
designation of nonattainment for the
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, Utah
developed draft PM2.5 attainment plans
intended to meet the requirements of
subpart 1. The EPA submitted written
comments dated November 1, 2012, to
UDAQ on the draft PM2.5 SIP, technical
support document (TSD), area source
rules, and point source rules in Section
IX, Part H.5 Utah submitted revised
2006 24-hour PM2.5 attainment plans for
the Salt Lake City and Provo NAAs on
December 14, 2012.
After the court’s 2013 decision, Utah
amended its attainment plans to address
the requirements of subpart 4. On
December 2, 2013, and October 30,
2014, the EPA provided comments on
Utah’s revised draft 2006 24-hour PM2.5
SIPs, including the TSD and emissions
limits in Section IX, Part H. On
December 16, 2014, UDAQ withdrew all
prior Salt Lake City and Provo 2006 24hour PM2.5 Moderate SIP attainment
plan submissions and submitted a
subpart 1 and subpart 4 Salt Lake City
and Provo 2006 24-hour PM2.5 Moderate
SIP. Additionally, the State of Utah
submitted various revisions to the UAC
Title R307 (Environmental Quality) area
source rules in multiple submissions:
February 2, 2012; May 9, 2013; June 8,
2013; February 18, 2014; April 17, 2014;
5 An ‘‘area source’’ is ‘‘any small residential,
governmental, institutional, commercial, or
industrial fuel combustion operation; onsite solid
waste disposal facility; motor vehicle], aircraft
vessel or other transportation facilit[y] or other
miscellaneous source identified’’ through specified
inventory techniques. 40 CFR 51.100(l). A ‘‘point
source’’ is any stationary source emitting above
certain thresholds. 40 CFR 51.100(k).
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
71025
May 20, 2014; July 10, 2014; and August
6, 2014. These area source rules were
either new or revised to meet RACM/
RACT for the Salt Lake City and Provo
2006 24-hour PM2.5 SIPs. The EPA acted
on these submittals, along with the area
source rule revisions in the December
16, 2014 submission, on February 25,
2016 (81 FR 9343), October 19, 2016 (81
FR 71988), October 2, 2019 (84 FR
52368), and February 26, 2020 (85 FR
10989).
On January 19, 2017, the State of Utah
submitted revisions to their Part H.11,
12, and 13 emission limits section of the
Utah 2006 24-hour PM2.5 SIP and revises
R307–110–17. R307–110–17
incorporates by reference (IBR) Section
IX, Control Measures for Area and Point
Sources, Part H, Emission Limits; which
formally incorporates the Salt Lake City
and Provo 2006 24-hour PM2.5 Part H.11,
12, and 13 emission limits into Utah’s
state regulations. This was undertaken
by UDAQ to correlate any overlapping
limits between the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
Part H.11, 12, and 13, to the coarse
particulate matter (PM10) Part H.1, 2, 3,
and 4.
On May 10, 2017 (82 FR 21711), the
EPA published a final rule reclassifying
the Salt Lake City and Provo areas to
‘‘Serious’’ nonattainment status, based
on the EPA’s determination that the
areas could not practicably attain the
2006 24-hour PM2.5 standards by the
December 31, 2015 attainment date.
This reclassification became effective on
June 9, 2017. The reclassification was
based on the EPA’s evaluation of
ambient air quality data from the 2013–
2015 period, indicating that it was not
practicable for some of the monitoring
sites in the Salt Lake City and Provo
areas to show PM2.5 design values at or
below the level of the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS by December 31, 2015.
On March 23, 2018, the State of Utah
submitted quantitative milestone reports
for the Salt Lake City and Provo 2006
24-hour PM2.5 NAAs, meeting its due
date of no later than 90 days after the
December 31, 2017 milestone date. On
October 24, 2018, the EPA determined
that the 2017 quantitative milestone
reports for the Salt Lake City and Provo
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAs were
adequate.6
After the Serious reclassification,
UDAQ revised certain area source rules
in UAC Section R307–200 and R307–
300 Series and submitted these
revisions on April 19, 2018, May 21,
2020, and July 21, 2020. On February 4,
6 The state’s quantitative milestone reports and
the adequacy determination letter from the EPA
Administrator to the Governor of Utah are in the
docket for this action.
E:\FR\FM\06NOP1.SGM
06NOP1
71026
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 216 / Friday, November 6, 2020 / Proposed Rules
2019, the State of Utah submitted the
BACM/BACT analysis for the Provo
Serious 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAA, which
is based on the emission limits
submitted on January 19, 2017 for only
Part H.13. On February 15, 2019, Utah
submitted the Serious 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 SIP for the Salt Lake City NAA,
which included revisions to Utah SIP
Part H.11 and 12, and the accompanying
BACM/BACT analysis. The February 4,
2019 and February 15, 2019
submissions included BACM/BACT
analyses for on-road, off-road, and area
source rules; some of these area source
rules were revised and others were
deemed BACM/BACT without revising.
Our detailed discussion on the
intricacies of these submissions can be
found in Section II.B below of this
document.
Applying the Clean Data Policy,7 on
April 10, 2019 (84 FR 14267) and
September 27, 2019 (84 FR 51055), the
EPA finalized determinations that the
obligation to submit any remaining
attainment-related SIP revisions arising
from classification of the Provo and Salt
Lake City areas, respectively, as
Moderate NAAs and their subsequent
reclassification as Serious NAAs for the
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS does not
apply for so long as the area continues
to attain the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS.8 The attainment-related SIP
revisions that were suspended include
the requirements for the State to submit:
An attainment demonstration (Moderate
and Serious), provisions demonstrating
timely implementation of RACM/RACT
(Moderate), an RFP plan (Moderate and
Serious), quantitative milestones and
quantitative milestone reports
(Moderate and Serious), and
contingency measures (Moderate and
Serious). The only remaining SIP
elements for EPA action include
baseline emission inventories, NNSR,
and BACM/BACT. Our review of these
remaining elements is in Section II.B
below of this document and in our TSD
found in the docket.
On October 9, 2020, the State of Utah
submitted draft revisions to Kennecott’s
Power Plant startup/shutdown emission
limits in Subsection IX.H.12.i.i.C. in
Utah’s SIP and revisions to R307–110–
17, for the EPA to act on as a parallel
process. UDAQ’s BACM/BACT analysis
submitted on February 15, 2019 for this
source did not support these limits;
therefore, UDAQ proposed with the
October 9, 2020 draft revision to remove
7 The EPA codified the Clean Data Policy in the
PM2.5 SIP Requirements Rule for the
implementation of current and future PM2.5
NAAQS. See 81 FR at 58161; 40 CFR 51.1015(a).
8 40 CFR 51.1015(a) and (b).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:31 Nov 05, 2020
Jkt 253001
these limits. The parallel process is
generally described in more detail in
Section I.E below.
C. Redesignation Requests and Related
Requirements
For a NAA to be redesignated to
attainment, the following conditions in
section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA must be
met:
1. We must determine that the area
has attained the NAAQS;
2. The applicable implementation
plan for the area must be fully approved
under section 110(k) of the Act;
3. We must determine that the
improvement in air quality is due to
permanent and enforceable reductions
in emissions resulting from
implementation of the applicable
implementation plan and applicable
Federal air pollutant control regulations
and other permanent and enforceable
reductions;
4. We must fully approve a
maintenance plan for the area as
meeting the requirements of CAA
section 175A; and
5. The state containing the area must
meet all requirements applicable to the
area under section 110 and part D of the
CAA.
Our September 4, 1992 guidance
entitled ‘‘Procedures for Processing
Requests to Redesignate Areas to
Attainment’’ (referred to in this action
as the Calcagni Memorandum) outlines
how to assess the adequacy of
redesignation requests against the
conditions listed above.
On January 13, 2020, the Governor of
Utah submitted revisions to the SIP for
R307–110–10, maintenance plans for
the Salt Lake City (Utah SIP Section
IX.A.36) and Provo (Utah SIP Section
IX.A.27) areas, and a request that the
EPA redesignate the areas to attainment
for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.
R307–110–10 IBRs Section IX, Control
Measures for Area and Point Sources,
Part A, Fine Particulate Matter; which
formally incorporates the Salt Lake City
and Provo 2006 24-hour PM2.5
Maintenance Plans (located within the
Utah SIP at Sections IX.A.36 and 27,
respectively) into Utah’s state
regulations. In Section II.C below, we
discuss our review of UDAQs
maintenance plans and redesignation
requests for the Salt Lake City and Provo
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAs.
D. SIP Submissions Supporting the
Redesignation Request
Vehicle I/M programs help improve
air quality by identifying cars and trucks
with high emissions and that may need
repairs. Owners or operators of vehicles
with high emissions are notified to
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
make any repairs so that emissions are
within legal limits. On July 17, 1997 (62
FR 38213), and September 14, 2005 (70
FR 54267), the EPA finalized approval
of revisions to Utah’s SIP Section X,
Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance
Program for Part B, Davis County, and
Part E, Weber County, respectively. In
these actions the EPA also approved
into the SIP revisions to Utah’s
regulations at R307–110–32 and R307–
110–35. These rules IBR the Utah SIP
into state regulations: Rule R307–110–
32 IBRs Utah SIP Section X, Vehicle
Inspection and Maintenance Program,
Part B, Davis County; and Rule R307–
110–35 IBRs Utah SIP Section X,
Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance
Program, Part E, Weber County.9
E. What is parallel processing?
Parallel processing refers to a process
that utilizes concurrent state and
Federal proposed rulemaking actions.
Generally, the state submits a copy of
the proposed regulation or other
revisions to the EPA before conducting
its public hearing and completing its
public comment process under state
law. The EPA reviews this proposed
state action and prepares a notice of
proposed rulemaking under Federal
Law. In some cases, the EPA’s notice of
proposed rulemaking is published in the
Federal Register during the same time
frame that the state is holding its public
hearing and conducting its public
comment process. The state and the
EPA then provide for concurrent public
comment periods on both the state
action and Federal action. If, after
completing its public comment process
and after the EPA’s public comment
process has run, the state changes its
final submittal from the proposed
submittal, the EPA evaluates those
changes and decides on whether to
publish another notice of proposed
rulemaking in light of those changes or
to proceed to taking the final action on
its proposed action and describe the
state’s changes in its final rulemaking
action. Any final rulemaking action by
the EPA will occur only after the final
submittal has been adopted by the state
and formally provided to the EPA.
In this case, however, the EPA’s and
Utah’s processes have not been perfectly
concurrent. The State submitted the
draft SIP revisions on October 9, 2020,
with a public comment period starting
October 1 and going through November
3, 2020, with a public hearing held
online at 10am on November 3, 2020.
9 Since promulgating R307–110–32, Utah has
renumbered its SIP. On February 14, 2006 (71 FR
7679), the EPA renumbered the Weber County I/M
Program to R307–110–32. R307–110–35 was last
approved on September 14, 2005.70 FR 54267.
E:\FR\FM\06NOP1.SGM
06NOP1
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 216 / Friday, November 6, 2020 / Proposed Rules
Utah requested that the EPA parallel
process these proposed revisions while
the State finishes the comment period
and public hearing, so as not to delay
the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 redesignation of
the Salt Lake City NAA. The State’s
intention is to submit its final SIP
revisions in early January 2021. After
Utah submits these formal SIP revisions,
the EPA will evaluate the submittal. If
the State changes the formal submittal
from the proposed submittal, the EPA
will evaluate those changes for
significance. If the EPA finds any such
changes to be significant, then the
Agency intends to determine whether to
re-propose the actions based on the
revised submission or to proceed to take
final action on the submittal as changed
by the State. Although the EPA was
unable to have a concurrent public
comment process with the State, Utah’s
request for parallel processing allows
the EPA to begin to take action on the
State’s proposed submittal in advance of
a formal and final submission.
II. The EPA’s Evaluation
A. Utah’s SIP Revisions
When certain sections of the Utah SIP
are amended by the Utah Air Quality
Board (UAQB), those sections must be
incorporated into the Utah Air Quality
Rules. Utah incorporates SIP sections
within the state’s rule R307–110. These
rules are amended as needed to change
the effective dates to match the UAQB
approval date of various amendments to
the Utah SIP. For the Salt Lake City and
Provo 2006 24-hour PM2.5 proposed
action, we are acting on R307–110–10,
which IBRs Section IX, Control
Measures for Area and Point Sources,
Part A, Fine Particulate Matter, and thus
incorporates the Salt Lake City and
Provo 2006 24-hour PM2.5 maintenance
plans into state regulations (located
within the Utah SIP at Sections IX.A.36
and 27, respectively). We are also
proposing to approve into the SIP R307–
110–17, which IBRs Section IX, Control
Measures for Area and Point Sources,
Part H, Emission Limits, and thus
incorporates all the emission limits in
Utah SIP Section IX.H.11, 12, and 13,
into state regulations. The state’s R307–
110–32 and R307–110–35 IBR Section
X, Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance
Program, Part B, Davis County, and
Section X, Vehicle Inspection and
Maintenance Program, Part E, Weber
County, respectively. These two rules
incorporate the I/M Programs of Davis
and Weber Counties into the state
regulations.
Utah Code 41–6a-1642 gives authority
to each county in the State to design and
manage a vehicle I/M program when
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:31 Nov 05, 2020
Jkt 253001
necessary to attain or maintain any
NAAQS. Section X of the Utah SIP
incorporates these county programs.
Section X, Part A summarizes I/M
requirements that are common among
all I/M programs, while Section X, Parts
B through F contain the requirements
for each county’s unique I/M program.
Below we discuss the revisions to Utah
SIP Section X, Parts B and E, and to the
related Rules R307–110–10, R307–110–
32, and R307–110–35, along with our
evaluation. We discuss the revisions
done to Utah SIP Section X, Parts B and
E, in greater detail within the TSD. Utah
Rule R307–110–17 will be going
through the parallel process based on
the informal October 9, 2020 UDAQ
submission revising Utah SIP Section
IX.H.12.i.i.C, which requires a revision
to R307–110–17 to incorporate the
revisions into the Utah SIP. In Section
I.E above, we discuss the process of this
type of action.
1. R307–110–10
Section R307–110–10 incorporates
amendments to Utah SIP Section IX.A
into State regulations, thereby making
them effective as a matter of State law.
This is a ministerial provision, which
only revises the effective date within the
rule to December 4, 2019 and does not
by itself include any SIP measures.
2. R307–110–17
Section R307–110–17 incorporates the
amendments to Utah SIP Section IX,
Control Measures for Area and Point
Sources, Part H, Emission Limits into
State regulations, thereby making them
effective as a matter of State law. This
is a ministerial provision, which only
revises the effective date within the rule
to December 2, 2020, and does not by
itself include any SIP control measures;
however, this revision is being acted on
as a parallel process due to revisions to
Utah SIP Section IX.H.12.i.i.C. In
Section I.E above, we discuss the
process of this type of action.
3. R307–110–32
Section R307–110–32 incorporates the
amendments to Utah SIP Section X,
Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance
Program, Part B, Davis County into State
rules, thereby making them effective as
a matter of State law. This is a
ministerial provision, which only
revises the effective date within the rule
to March 4, 2020 and does not by itself
include any control measures.
4. R307–110–35
Section R307–110–35 incorporates the
amendments to Utah SIP Section X,
Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance
Program, Part E, Weber County into
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
71027
State regulations, thereby making them
effective as a matter of State law. This
is a ministerial provision, which only
revises the effective date within the rule
to March 4, 2020 and does not by itself
include any control measures.
5. SIP Section X, Vehicle Inspection and
Maintenance Program, Part B, Davis
County
The Davis County motor vehicle I/M
program was last approved by the EPA
on July 17, 1997 (62 FR 38213). The
County has since made numerous
improvements, updates and revisions to
the I/M program ordinance, while
removing unnecessary and obsolete
provisions and sections. The version of
the Davis County I/M program that we
are now proposing to approve
supersedes and replaces the July 17,
1997 version. The Davis County I/M
Ordinance was enacted and adopted by
the Davis County Commission on
October 1, 2019 and became effective
October 18, 2019, and the Ordinance
was adopted into the SIP by the UAQB
on March 4, 2020, at Section X, part B.
This is the version that was submitted
to the EPA and is discussed below.
Section X, Part B of the SIP contains
two main components for the Davis
County I/M program: (a) Language
addressing applicability, a general
description of the Davis County I/M
program, and the time frame for
implementation of the I/M program; and
(b) the Davis County Emission
Inspection/Maintenance Program, as
enacted in Davis County Ordinance
10.12.
a. State Language Addressing the
Davis County I/M Program:
Under the heading ‘‘1. Applicability’’
is a description of the 2019 revised
Davis County I/M program, and a
history of the Salt Lake and Davis
county federal ozone NAAQS
attainment status and the development
of the Davis County I/M program. The
section also notes that the Davis County
I/M program was included as a control
measure in the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS.
Under ‘‘2. Summary of Davis County
I/M Program,’’ the state describes
various aspects of the revised Davis
County I/M program: Network Type,
Test Convenience, Subject Fleet, Test
Frequency, Station Inspector Audits,
Waivers, Test Equipment, and Test
Procedures.
Under the heading ‘‘3. I/M SIP
Implementation,’’ the State notes that
the Davis I/M program will continue to
apply until a maintenance plan without
an I/M program is approved by the EPA
in accordance with Section 175 of the
CAA.
E:\FR\FM\06NOP1.SGM
06NOP1
71028
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 216 / Friday, November 6, 2020 / Proposed Rules
b. Revisions to Davis County’s ‘‘Davis
County Vehicle Emissions Inspection/
Maintenance Program Ordinance’’
amend the Ordinance’s sections
10.12.020 Definitions, 10.12.030
Purpose, 10.12.040 Jurisdiction of the
Division, 10.12.050 Powers and Duties,
10.12.060 Scope, 10.12.070 General
Provisions, 10.12.080 Standards and
Specifications for Emissions Inspection
Analyzers and Span Gases for
Equipment, 10.12.090 Requirements of
the Vehicle Emissions Inspection/
Maintenance Program Stations,
10.12.100 Requirements of the Certified
Emissions Testers and/or Repair
Technicians, 10.12.110 Official
Inspection Procedures, 10.12.130
Emissions Standards for Motor Vehicles,
10.12.140 Certificates of Compliance
and Waivers, 10.12.150 Engine
Switching, 10.12.160 Right to Appeal,
10.12.170 Recall, 10.12.180 Penalty,
10.12.200 Quality Assurance, 10.12.210
Severability, 10.12.240 Fee Schedule,
10.12.250 Emissions Standards,
10.12.260 Waiver Cut Points, 10.12.270
Passing Versus Waiver Cut Point
Comparison, 10.12.280 Penalty
Schedule, and 10.12.290 Conflicts.
In addition, the State has submitted
revisions to: Appendix A, involving the
provisions and requirements for
emission inspection analyzer
specifications; Appendix B, involving
the Two Speed Idle (TSI) emissions
inspection procedures; Appendix C,
involving the OBDII (On-Board
Diagnostics Generation II) inspection
procedures; Appendix D, involving the
Davis County Diesel I/M Program,
which the EPA notes that we are not
proposing to act on: and Appendix E,
involving compressed natural gas
vehicle emissions inspection
procedures.
We have evaluated the Governor’s
May 21, 2020 submittal of the above
revisions to the Utah SIP Section X Part
B and the revised Davis County
Ordinance, with respect to the
applicable provisions and requirements
in 40 CFR part 51, subpart S
‘‘Inspection/Maintenance Program
Requirements,’’ and are proposing
approval. Additional information and
the EPA’s more detailed evaluation of
the above materials are found in the
accompanying TSD. The entire Davis
County Ordinance is in the Docket for
this action.
6. SIP Section X, Vehicle Inspection and
Maintenance Program, Part E, Weber
County
The Weber County motor vehicle I/M
program was last approved by the EPA
on September 14, 2005 (70 FR 54267).
The County has since made numerous
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:31 Nov 05, 2020
Jkt 253001
improvements, updates and revisions to
the I/M program ordinance, while
removing unnecessary and obsolete
provisions and sections. The version of
the Weber County I/M program that we
are now proposing to approve
supersedes and replaces the prior
September 14, 2005 EPA-approved
version. The Weber County I/M
Regulation was enacted and adopted by
the Weber-Morgan Board of Health on
September 23, 2019, and the WeberMorgan Health Department (WMHD)
implements the I/M program on behalf
of Weber County. The Regulation was
adopted into the SIP by the UAQB on
March 4, 2020. This is the version that
was submitted to the EPA and is
discussed below.
Section X, Part E of the Utah SIP
addresses the provisions and
requirements for the implementation of
the motor vehicle I/M program in Weber
County, Utah. Section X, Part E of the
SIP contains two main components for
the Weber County I/M program: (a)
Language for Section X Part E that
addresses applicability, a general
description of the Weber County I/M
program, and the time frame for
implementation of the I/M program; and
(b) the WMHD Motor Vehicle I/M
Program Regulation.
a. State Language Addressing the
Weber County I/M Program:
Under the heading ‘‘1. Applicability’’
is a description of the 2019 revised
Weber County I/M program, a history of
the Weber county federal ozone NAAQS
attainment status and the development
of the Weber County I/M program. The
section also notes that the Weber
County I/M program was included as a
control measure in the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS.
Under the heading ‘‘2. Summary of
Weber County I/M Program,’’ the State
describes certain aspects of the revised
Weber County I/M program involving:
Network Type, Test Convenience,
Subject Fleet, Test Frequency, Station
Inspector Audits, Waivers, Test
Equipment, and Test Procedures.
Under the heading ‘‘3. I/M SIP
Implementation’’ the State notes that the
Weber I/M program will continue to
apply until a maintenance plan without
an I/M program is approved by the EPA
in accordance with Section 175 of the
CAA.
b. Revisions to Weber County’s
‘‘Weber-Morgan Health Department
Regulation for Motor Vehicle Inspection
and Maintenance Program’’ amend the
regulation’s: Section 1 Title and
Definitions, Section 2 Purpose, Section
4 Powers and Duties, Section 6 General
Provisions, Section 7 Standards and
Specifications for Analyzers and
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Calibration Gases, Section 8 Permit
Requirements of the Vehicle Emissions
Station, Section 9 Inspection Procedure,
Section 10 Certificate of Waiver, Section
12 Certified Emissions Inspection and
Repair Technician/Certified Emissions
Inspection Only Technician Permit,
Section 14 Certificate of Compliance,
Certificate of Compliance Numbers, and
Certificate of Waiver, Section 15
Adjudicative Proceedings, and Section
18 Effective Date.
In addition, the State has submitted
revisions to Appendix A-Analyzer
Specifications, Appendix B- Fee
Schedule, Appendix C-Motor Vehicle
Emissions Inspection and Maintenance
Program, Appendix D-Penalty Schedule,
Appendix E–OBD IM Test Procedures,
Appendix F entitled ‘‘Diesel Fueled
Vehicle Test Procedure,’’ which the EPA
notes that we are not taking any action
on this Appendix, and a new Appendix
G entitled ‘‘Adjustment Procedures.’’
We have evaluated the Governor’s
May 21, 2020 submittal of the above
revisions to the Utah SIP Section X Part
E and the revised Weber County
Regulation, with respect to the
applicable provisions and requirements
in 40 CFR part 51, subpart S
‘‘Inspection/Maintenance Program
Requirements,’’ and are proposing
approval. Additional information and
the EPA’s more detailed evaluation of
the above materials are found in the
accompanying TSD. The entire Weber
County Regulation is in the Docket for
this action.
B. PM2.5 SIP Plan
On August 24, 2016 the EPA finalized
the PM2.5 SIP Requirements Rule,10
which established regulatory
requirements related to the statutory SIP
requirements for areas designated
nonattainment for the PM2.5 standards.
As discussed in the PM2.5 SIP
Requirements Rule, sections 189(a), (c),
and (e) of the CAA require that
Moderate area attainment plans contain
the following: (i) An approved permit
program for construction of new and
modified major stationary sources (CAA
section 189(a)(1)(A)); (ii) a
demonstration that the plan provides for
attainment by no later than the
applicable Moderate area attainment
date or a demonstration that attainment
by that date is impracticable (CAA
section 189(a)(1)(B)); (iii) provisions for
the implementation of RACM/RACT no
later than 4 years after designation (CAA
section 189(a)(1)(C)); (iv) quantitative
milestones that will be used to evaluate
compliance with the requirements to
demonstrate RFP (CAA section 189(c));
10 81
E:\FR\FM\06NOP1.SGM
FR 58010.
06NOP1
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 216 / Friday, November 6, 2020 / Proposed Rules
and (v) evaluation and regulation of
PM2.5 precursors (in general to meet
RACM/RACT and other attainment
planning requirements, and also as
specifically provided for major
stationary sources under CAA section
189(e)).
Sections 189(b) and (c) of the CAA
include the following requirements for
Serious area attainment plan
submissions: (i) An attainment
demonstration (CAA section
189(b)(1)(A)); (ii) provisions for the
implementation of BACM/BACT no
later than 4 years after reclassification of
the area to Serious (CAA section
189(b)(1)(B)); (iii) quantitative
milestones that will be used to evaluate
compliance with the requirement to
demonstrate RFP (CAA section 189(c));
and (iv) regulation of PM2.5 precursors
(in general to meet attainment and
control strategy requirements, and as
specifically required for major
stationary sources by CAA section
189(e)).
Other subpart 1 requirements for
attainment plans not otherwise
superseded under subpart 4 also apply
to Moderate and Serious areas for the
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, including
(i) a description of the expected annual
incremental reductions in emission that
will demonstrate RFP (CAA section
172(c)(2)); (ii) emissions inventories
(CAA section 172(c)(3)); (iii) other
control measures (besides RACM/RACT
for Moderate areas and BACM/BACT for
Serious areas) needed for attainment
(CAA section 172(c)(6)); and (iv)
contingency measures (CAA section
172(c)(9)).
In connection with the Moderate area
SIP for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS,
the EPA has previously acted on a
number of Utah SIP revisions related to
area sources. In particular, on February
2, 2012; May 9, 2013; June 8, 2013;
February 18, 2014; April 17, 2014; May
20, 2014; July 10, 2014; and August 6,
2014, UDAQ submitted either new area
source rules or revisions to rules found
in UAC Title R307 (Environmental
Quality). We acted on these rule
revisions on February 25, 2016 (81 FR
9343), October 19, 2016 (81 FR 71988),
October 2, 2019 (84 FR 52368) and
February 26, 2020 (85 FR 10989).
On December 16, 2014, UDAQ
submitted additional Moderate 2006 24hour PM2.5 SIP revisions for the Provo
and Salt Lake City NAAs. CAA section
110(k)(1)(B) requires the EPA to
determine whether a SIP submission is
complete within 60 days of receipt. This
section also provides that any plan that
the EPA has not affirmatively
determined to be complete or
incomplete will become complete by
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:31 Nov 05, 2020
Jkt 253001
operation of law six months after the
date of submission. The EPA’s SIP
completeness criteria are in 40 CFR part
51, appendix V. The 2014 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 plan became complete by
operation of law on June 22, 2014.
Additionally, UDAQ submitted
revisions to the Utah SIP Part H.11, 12
and 13 of the Moderate 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 SIPs for the Provo and Salt Lake
City NAAs on January 19, 2017, which
became complete by operation of law on
July 20, 2017.
On May 10, 2017 (82 FR 21711), the
EPA determined that the Provo and Salt
Lake City NAAs failed to attain the 2006
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS by the Moderate
attainment date of December 31, 2015.
With this determination, the Provo and
Salt Lake City NAAs were reclassified as
a ‘‘Serious’’ area for the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS, with a new attainment
date of December 31, 2019. This
reclassification triggered an obligation
for Utah to submit a new, Serious area
attainment plan including the CAA
elements listed above. Additionally,
CAA section 189(b)(1) requires that ‘‘in
addition’’ to the attainment plan
requirements specific to Serious areas,
states must also meet all Moderate area
attainment plan requirements. The EPA
interprets the statutory language of CAA
section 189(b)(1) to require states with
areas that are reclassified to Serious to
meet Moderate area attainment plan
requirements, including all areas that
the EPA reclassifies through rulemaking
under its discretionary authority, even if
that occurs before the area has met all
of its Moderate area attainment plan
requirements. The following section
describes the EPA’s final actions in this
rule regarding Serious area attainment
plan requirements in greater detail.
On April 10, 2019 (84 FR 14267) and
September 27, 2019 (84 FR 51055), the
EPA finalized clean data determinations
(CDD) for the Provo and Salt Lake City
NAAs, respectively. As provided at 40
CFR 51.1015(a) in the PM2.5 SIP
Requirements Rule, this determination
by the EPA that the Provo and Salt Lake
City Moderate 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAs suspended the requirements for
the State to submit an attainment
demonstration, provisions
demonstrating timely implementation of
RACM/RACT, a RFP plan, quantitative
milestones and quantitative milestone
reports, and contingency measures.
However, based on the EPA’s
longstanding policy, the BACM/BACT
requirement of CAA section 189(b)(1)(B)
is independent of attainment. Thus, the
CDD did not suspend the obligation for
UDAQ to submit any applicable
outstanding BACM/BACT requirements
or other requirements that are
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
71029
independent of attainment (NNSR and
base-year emissions inventories).
On February 15, 2019, UDAQ
submitted the Serious 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 SIP for the Salt Lake City NAA.
Under CAA section 110(k)(1)(B), the
Salt Lake City Serious 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 SIP became complete by operation
of law on August 15, 2019.
Additionally, UDAQ submitted BACM/
BACT analyses on February 4, 2019 for
the Provo NAA. The revisions to area
source rules for the NAAs were
submitted on April 19, 2018, May 21,
2020 and July 21, 2020, and revisions to
the Utah SIP Section IX.H.11, 12 and 13
for the NAAs were submitted on
December 16, 2014, January 19, 2017
and February 15, 2019. The revisions
submitted on January 19, 2017 and
February 15, 2019, for Utah SIP Section
IX.H.11, 12 and 13, supersede the
December 16, 2014 submission;
therefore, we are not acting on the
December 16, 2014 revisions, but are
fully acting on Utah SIP Section IX.H.13
from the January 19, 2017 submission
and Utah SIP Section IX.H.11 and 12
from the February 15, 2019 submission.
Any reference to the December 16, 2014
submission for Utah SIP Sections
IX.H.11, 12 and 13, and any reference to
the January 19, 2017 submittal for Utah
SIP Section IX.H.11 and 12, are for
informational purposes only.
Additionally, on October 9, 2020,
UDAQ submitted draft revisions to
Kennecott’s Power Plant in Utah SIP
Section IX.H.12.i.i.C and the
accompanying R307–110–17 revisions
for the EPA to parallel process.
We are acting on these remaining
Serious 2006 24-hour PM2.5 SIP
elements for the Salt Lake City and
Provo NAAs, that were not suspended
with the CDDs, to allow for our action
on the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 redesignation
requests discussed in Section II.C below
of this document.
1. Base-Year Emissions Inventories
CAA section 172(c)(3) requires that
each SIP include a comprehensive,
accurate, current inventory of actual
emissions from all sources of the
relevant pollutant or pollutants in the
NAAs. This base-year emissions
inventory should provide a state’s best
estimate of actual emissions from all
sources of the relevant pollutants in the
area, including all emissions that
contribute to the formation of a
particular NAAQS pollutant. For the
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, the baseyear inventory must include direct
PM2.5 emissions, separately reported
filterable and condensable PM2.5
emissions, and emissions of all
chemical precursors to the formation of
E:\FR\FM\06NOP1.SGM
06NOP1
71030
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 216 / Friday, November 6, 2020 / Proposed Rules
secondary PM2.5: Nitrogen oxides (NOX),
sulfur dioxide (SO2), volatile organic
compounds (VOC), and ammonia
(NH3).11
The most current base year for
emissions inventories for the Provo and
Salt Lake City NAAs was for 2017,
which was made available to the public
for comment (and a public hearing if
requested) in the January 13, 2020 PM2.5
maintenance plans/redesignation
requests submittal. The base-year
inventories are based on the most
current and accurate information
available to UDAQ at the time of the
submittal. The 2017 base-year
inventories comprehensively address all
source categories in the Provo and Salt
Lake City NAAs and were developed
consistent with the EPA’s inventory
guidance.
In Section II.C.4.a below, the EPA
provides a detailed analysis of the 2017
base-year emissions inventories for the
Provo and Salt Lake City NAAs, which
were submitted for the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 maintenance plans. Direct PM2.5
and all PM2.5 precursors are included in
the 2017 base-year emissions
inventories, and filterable and
condensible direct PM2.5 emissions are
identified separately. For these reasons,
and with the EPA’s detailed analysis in
Section II.C.4.a below, the EPA is
proposing to approve the 2017 base-year
emissions inventories for the Provo and
Salt Lake City NAAs as meeting the
requirements of CAA section 172(c)(3),
40 CFR 51.1008(a)(1) and 40 CFR
51.1008(b)(1).
2. NNSR
CAA section 172(c)(5) requires
preconstruction and operating permits
for new major stationary sources and
major modifications locating in NAAs.
Section 173 of the CAA outlines the
minimum statutory requirements for a
state’s NNSR permit program and serves
as the basis for the EPA’s NNSR
regulations for PM2.5 as promulgated in
the 2008 PM2.5 NSR Rule published at
73 FR 28321, May 16, 2008.12 The 2016
PM2.5 Regulatory Rule amended the
definitions of (1) regulated NSR
pollutant with regard to PM2.5
precursors, (2) major stationary source
with regard to major sources locating in
PM2.5 NAAs classified as Moderate and
Serious, and (3) significant with regard
to emissions of PM2.5 precursors. For
Moderate 2006 24-hour PM2.5 SIPs, CAA
section 189(a)(1)(A) of subpart 4 applies,
which requires states to include in their
implementation plan a permit program
addressing major stationary sources of
11 40
12 81
CFR 51.1008.
FR at 58107.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:31 Nov 05, 2020
the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS that
meets the requirements under CAA
section 173 of subpart 1. For a Serious
2006 24-hour PM2.5 SIP, CAA section
189(b)(3) of subpart 4 applies, which
requires that for any Serious Area the
terms ‘‘major source’’ and ‘‘major
stationary source’’ include any
stationary source or group of stationary
sources located within a contiguous area
and under common control that emits,
or has the potential to emit, at least 70
tpy of PM2.5.
An approvable NNSR program in a
state’s implementation plan must, at a
minimum, meet the applicable program
requirements set forth in the federal
NNSR provisions at 40 CFR 51.165,
which for PM2.5 have been based on
changes to the section made by the 2008
PM2.5 NSR Rule.13 States with
designated NAAs for a particular
pollutant are required to adopt
regulations consistent with those
applicable plan requirements, including
any subsequent rule changes that the
EPA may make, and submit them to the
EPA for approval as part of their SIP.
The Provo and Salt Lake City NAAs
were classified as a Moderate NAA for
the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS on
November 13, 2009 (74 FR 58688). On
May 10, 2017 (82 FR 21711), the Provo
and Salt Lake City areas were
reclassified from Moderate to Serious
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAs. The major
source permitting threshold for a
Moderate 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAA is
100 tpy of direct PM2.5 or any PM2.5
precursor, and 70 tpy for a Serious 2006
24-hour PM2.5 NAA.
On July 25, 2019 (84 FR 35831), the
EPA approved revisions to UAC R307–
403 (Permits: New and Modified
Sources in Nonattainment Areas and
Maintenance Areas), which satisfies the
outstanding NNSR requirement for the
Provo and Salt Lake City Moderate and
Serious 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAs.
3. BACM/BACT
a. Requirements for BACM/BACT
For any Serious 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAA, section 189(b)(1)(B) of the Act
requires that a state submit provisions to
assure that BACM/BACT for the control
of PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors shall be
implemented no later than four years
after the date the area is reclassified as
a Serious area. The EPA defines BACM
(including BACT) as, among other
things, the maximum degree of
emissions reduction achievable for a
source or source category, which is
determined on a case-by-case basis
considering energy, economic and
13 Id.
Jkt 253001
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
environmental impacts, and other
costs.14 We generally consider BACM a
control level that goes beyond existing
RACM-level controls, for example by
expanding the use of RACM controls or
by requiring preventative measures
instead of remediation.15 Indeed, as
implementation of BACM and BACT is
required when a Moderate NAA is
reclassified as Serious due to its
inability to attain the NAAQS through
implementation of ‘‘reasonable’’
measures, it is logical that ‘‘best’’
control measures should represent a
more stringent and potentially more
costly level of control.16 The level of
stringency generally refers to the overall
level of emissions reductions of a
control measure or technology, or of
such measures and technologies
combined.
The PM2.5 SIP Requirements Rule
explains that BACM/BACT are generally
independent requirements, to be
determined without regard to the
specific attainment analysis (i.e.,
attainment demonstration) for the
area.17 The EPA found it reasonable to
interpret the statute as requiring a
different analysis for determining
BACM/BACT, i.e., that while RACM
emphasizes the attainment needs of the
area, BACM has a greater emphasis on
identifying measures that are feasible to
implement. The Addendum noted that
the test for BACM puts a ‘‘greater
emphasis on the merits of the measure
or technology alone,’’ rather than on
‘‘flexibility in considering other
factors,’’ in contrast to the approach for
RACM/RACT.18
Section 189(b)(1)(B) of the Act allows
states, in appropriate circumstances, to
delay implementation of BACM until
four years after reclassification. Because
the EPA reclassified the Provo and Salt
Lake City areas as Serious NAAs for the
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS effective
June 9, 2017 (82 FR 21711; May 10,
2017), the date four years after
reclassification is June 9, 2021. In this
case, however, all BACM for direct
PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors in the Provo
and Salt Lake City areas must be
implemented no later than December
14 State Implementation Plans for Serious PM
10
Nonattainment Areas, and Attainment Date Waivers
for PM10 Nonattainment Areas Generally;
Addendum to the General Preamble for the
Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1990 (‘‘Addendum’’), August 16,
1994; 59 FR 41998, 42010, 42013 (Aug. 16, 1994).
The General Preamble for the Implementation of
Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990
(‘‘General Preamble’’) was published at 57 FR 13498
(Apr. 16, 1992).
15 Id. at 42011, 42013.
16 Id. at 42009–42010.
17 81 FR at 58081.
18 59 FR at 42011.
E:\FR\FM\06NOP1.SGM
06NOP1
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 216 / Friday, November 6, 2020 / Proposed Rules
31, 2019, which is the outermost
statutory attainment date for the Provo
and Salt Lake City areas under section
188(c)(2).19
Under the PM2.5 SIP Requirements
Rule, control measures that can be
implemented in whole or in part by the
end of the fourth year after an area’s
reclassification to Serious are
considered BACM, and control
measures that can only be implemented
after this period but before the
attainment date are considered
‘‘additional feasible measures.’’ 20 The
EPA has defined ‘‘additional feasible
measures’’ as ‘‘those measures and
technologies that otherwise meet the
criteria for BACM/BACT but that can
only be implemented in whole or in part
beginning 4 years after reclassification
of an area, but no later than the statutory
attainment date of the area.’’ 21 Given
that the statutory attainment date is less
than three years from the effective date
of the reclassification of the Provo and
Salt Lake City areas, additional feasible
measures are not required in this case.
The Addendum and the PM2.5 SIP
Requirements Rule explain that the
BACM/BACT selection process for
implementation of the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS is designed to take into
account the local facts and
circumstances and the nature of the air
pollution problem in a given NAA. The
following steps are used in determining
BACM/BACT: (1) Develop a
comprehensive emission inventory of
the sources of directly emitted PM2.5
and PM2.5 precursors; (2) Identify
existing and potential control measures
for the sources in the inventory; (3)
Evaluate the technological feasibility of
potential control measures; (4) Evaluate
the economic feasibility of potential
control measures; and (5) Determine the
earliest date by which a control measure
or technology can be implemented in
whole or in part.22
Additionally, the EPA believes that
BACT or lowest achievable emission
rate (LAER) provisions for new sources
(as distinct from BACT for existing
sources), or best available retrofit
technology (BART) for existing sources,
could potentially quality as BACM or
BACT for purposes of meeting the
Serious area attainment plan
requirements.23 However, as discussed
further in the PM2.5 SIP Requirements
Rule, the EPA does not believe it is
appropriate for a state to assume that
just because a certain control technology
was determined to meet BACT, LAER or
BART criteria for a new source
sometime in the past, that such a control
will also automatically meet the criteria
for BACM or BACT or additional
feasible measures for attainment
planning purposes, because the
regulated pollutant or source
applicability may differ and the
analyses may be conducted years apart.
Thus, a state may not simply rely on
prior BACT, LAER or BART analyses for
the purposes of showing that a source
has also met BACT for the relevant 2006
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. Rather, the EPA
expects that in Step 2 (discussed above)
of the BACM/BACT determination
process, the state would identify such
measures as ‘‘existing measures’’ that
should be further evaluated as potential
BACM or BACT, or additional feasible
measures. At the same time, the EPA
notes that the presence of previously
installed control technology, and the
technical and economic considerations
that would be associated with upgrading
to a measure that achieves greater
reductions, is something that should be
considered in the assessments of
technological and economic feasibility
of the newer measure.24
Once these analyses are complete, a
state must use this information to
develop enforceable control measures
and submit them to the EPA for
evaluation under CAA section 110. We
use these steps as guidelines in our
evaluation of the BACM measures and
related analyses in the Provo and Salt
Lake City 2006 24-hour PM2.5 Serious
SIP.
19 CAA section 189(b)(1)(B) establishes an
outermost deadline (‘‘no later than four years after
the date the area is reclassified’’) and does not
preclude an earlier implementation deadline for
BACM where necessary to satisfy the attainment
requirements of the Act.
20 40 CFR 51.1010(a)(4)(ii). ‘‘Additional feasible
measures’’ may be necessary in certain
circumstances to implement the requirements of
CAA section 172(c)(6), which states that NAA plans
shall include enforceable emission limitations and
such other control measures, means or techniques,
as well as schedules and timetables for compliance,
as may be necessary or appropriate to provide for
attainment of the NAAQS by the applicable
attainment date.
21 40 CFR 51.1000.
22 Addendum at 42012–42014; 81 FR at 58084–
58085.
b. Requirements for the Control of PM2.5
Precursors
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:31 Nov 05, 2020
Jkt 253001
The composition of PM2.5 is complex
and highly variable due in part to the
large contribution of secondary PM2.5 to
total fine particle mass in most
locations, and to the complexity of
secondary particle formation processes.
A large number of possible chemical
reactions, often non-linear in nature,
can convert gaseous SO2, NOX, VOC,
and NH3 to PM2.5, making them
23 See
81 FR at 58086.
24 Id.
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
71031
precursors to PM2.5.25 Formation of
secondary PM2.5 may also depend on
atmospheric conditions, including solar
radiation, temperature, and relative
humidity, and the interactions of
precursors with preexisting particles
and with cloud or fog droplets.26
As explained in the PM2.5 SIP
Requirements Rule, the Act requires that
the state evaluate all PM2.5 precursors
for regulation unless, for any given
PM2.5 precursor, it demonstrates to the
Administrator’s satisfaction that the
precursor does not contribute
significantly to 2006 24-hour PM2.5
levels that exceed the NAAQS in the
NAA.27 The CAA does not define the
term ‘‘precursor’’ for purposes of PM.
The statutory definition of ‘‘air
pollutant,’’ however, provides that the
term ‘‘includes any precursors to the
formation of any air pollutant, to the
extent the Administrator has identified
such precursor or precursors for the
particular purpose for which the term
‘air pollutant’ is used.’’ 28 The EPA has
identified SO2, NOX, VOC, and NH3 as
precursors to the formation of PM2.5.
Accordingly, the BACM/BACT
requirements of subpart 4 apply to
emissions of all four precursor
pollutants and direct PM2.5 from all
types of stationary, area, and mobile
sources, except as otherwise provided in
the Act (e.g., CAA section 189(e)).
Section 189(e) 29 of the Act requires
that the control requirements for major
stationary sources of PM2.5 also apply to
major stationary sources of PM2.5
precursors, except where the
Administrator determines that such
sources do not contribute significantly
to PM2.5 levels that exceed the standard
in the area. Although section 189(e)
explicitly addresses only major
stationary sources, the EPA interprets
the Act as authorizing it also to
determine, under appropriate
circumstances, that regulation of
specific PM2.5 precursors from other
25 Air Quality Criteria for Particulate Matter (EPA/
600/P–99/002aF, Oct. 2004), Chapter 3.
26 Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Final
Revisions to the National Ambient Air Quality
Standards for Particulate Matter (EPA/452/R–12–
005, December 2012), at 2–1.
27 See 81 FR at 51018–58019.
28 See CAA section 302(g).
29 On Jan. 4, 2013, in NRDC v. EPA, the D.C.
Circuit held that the EPA erred in implementing the
1997 PM2.5 NAAQS pursuant only to the general
implementation requirements of subpart 1, rather
than also to the implementation requirements
specific to particulate matter (PM10) in subpart 4,
part D of title I of the CAA. The court reasoned that
the plain meaning of the CAA requires
implementation of the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS under
subpart 4 because PM2.5 particles fall within the
statutory definition of PM10 and thus
implementation of the PM2.5 NAAQS is subject to
the same statutory requirements as the PM10
NAAQS. See 81 FR at 58013.
E:\FR\FM\06NOP1.SGM
06NOP1
71032
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 216 / Friday, November 6, 2020 / Proposed Rules
source categories in a given NAA is not
necessary.30
The PM2.5 SIP Requirements Rule
recognizes that the treatment of PM2.5
precursors is important in developing a
PM2.5 plan.31 The rule provides
flexibility for areas where a particular
PM2.5 precursor or precursors may not
contribute significantly to PM2.5 levels
that exceed the NAAQS. The rule
provides for optional precursor
demonstrations that a state may submit
to the EPA to establish that sources of
particular precursors need not be
regulated for purposes of attainment
planning or in an NNSR permitting
program for a specific NAA.
The February 4, 2019 and February
15, 2019, submissions for the Provo and
Salt Lake City discusses the five primary
pollutants that contribute to the
emissions in the NAAs (i.e., NOX, SO2,
VOC, NH3, and directly emitted PM2.5).
The majority of ambient PM2.5 collected
during a typical cold-pool episode of
elevated concentration is secondary
particulate matter, generated from
gaseous precursor emissions. The
results of speciation studies led UDAQ
to the conclusion that the exceedances
of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS were
a result of the increased portion of the
secondary PM2.5, mainly ammonium
nitrate, that was chemically formed in
the air and not primary PM2.5 emitted
directly into the troposphere.32 Because
of the major role that precursors play
within the Provo and Salt Lake City
NAAs, UDAQ did not include any
precursor demonstration. Thus, the
requirement to ensure the
implementation of BACM/BACT applies
to direct PM2.5 and each of the four
PM2.5 precursors listed above.
Based on the information provided in
the Provo and Salt Lake City
submissions and other information
available to the EPA, we agree with
UDAQ’s conclusion that all four
chemical precursors, including direct
PM2.5, must be regulated for purposes of
attaining and maintaining the 2006 24hour PM2.5 NAAQS in the Provo and
Salt Lake City NAAs.
c. BACM/BACT Analysis in the Serious
PM2.5 SIP
(1) Identifying the Sources of PM2.5 and
PM2.5 Precursors
The first step in determining BACM is
to develop a detailed emissions
30 Courts
have upheld this approach to the
requirements of subpart 4 for PM10. See, e.g., Assoc.
of Irritated Residents v. EPA, et al., 423 F.3d 989
(9th Cir. 2005).
31 See, e.g., 81 FR at 58017.
32 The study results can be found in the TSD for
the state’s February 15, 2019 action (available in the
docket for this action).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:31 Nov 05, 2020
Jkt 253001
inventory of the sources of direct PM2.5
and PM2.5 precursors that can be used
with modeling to determine the effects
of these sources on ambient PM2.5
levels. As discussed above in Section
II.B.1 of this proposed rule, Chapter 4
(Emission Inventory Data) of the Salt
Lake City February 15, 2019 submission
and the General Inventory section of the
Provo, February 4, 2019 submission,
contain the planning inventories for
directly emitted PM2.5 and for all PM2.5
precursors (NOX, SO2, VOC, and NH3)
for the Salt Lake City and Provo NAAs,
along with supporting documentation to
support these inventories. Based on
these inventories, four general
categories were established: Industrial
point sources, on-road mobile sources,
off-road mobile sources, and area
sources. Area sources represent smaller,
more numerous point sources,
residential activities such as home
heating, and some biogenic emissions.
Based on this identification of
stationary, area, and mobile sources of
direct PM2.5, NOX, VOC, SO2, and NH3
in the Provo and Salt Lake City areas,
we conclude that the February 4, 2019
and February 15, 2019 submissions,
respectively, appropriately identify all
emission sources and source categories
that must be subject to evaluation for
potential control measures consistent
with the requirements of subpart 4.
(2) Identification and Implementation of
BACM/BACT
As part of its process for identifying
candidate BACM/BACT and considering
the technical and economic feasibility of
additional control measures, UDAQ
reviewed the EPA’s guidance
documents on BACM, guidance
documents on control measures for
direct PM2.5, NOX, VOC, NH3, and SO2
emissions sources,33 and control
measures implemented in other PM2.5
NAAs in other states. UDAQ’s
evaluations of potential BACM/BACT
for each source category identified
above are found in ‘‘Section 8. Control
Strategies’’ in the February 4, 2019
Provo submission and in the TSD
supporting the February 15, 2019 Salt
Lake City submission. In the following
sections, we review key components of
UDAQ’s demonstrations concerning
BACM/BACT for the identified sources
of direct PM2.5, NOX, VOC, SO2, and
33 This is not an exhaustive list. Please refer to
UDAQ’s submittal for detailed references: Control
Techniques Guidelines (CTG); Alternative Control
Techniques (ACT); New Source Performance
Standards (NSPS); Ozone Transport Commission’s
(OTC) model rules; PM2.5 Requirements Rule, 81 FR
58010; US EPA Fugitive Dust Background
Document and Technical Information Document for
BACM (September 1992); General Preamble, 57 FR
13498; and Addendum, 59 FR 41998.
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
NH3 emissions in the Provo and Salt
Lake City NAAs. We provide a more
detailed evaluation of our review of
UDAQ’s regulations in our TSD, which
is in the docket.
The UDAQ’s BACM/BACT process
and control measure evaluations are
described in detail in the February 4,
2019 submission, ‘‘Section 8. Control
Strategies’’ for the Provo NAA and in
the State’s February 15, 2019 TSD for
the Salt Lake City NAA. For each
identified source category, UDAQ
identified its adopted control measures
and potential additional control
measures based on measures
implemented in other areas, measures
identified in EPA regulations or
guidance (e.g., in control technique
guidelines (CTGs), alternative control
technique documents (ACTs), new
sources performance standards (NSPSs),
or in the EPA’s ‘‘Cost Analysis Models/
Tools for Air Pollution Regulations’’), or
measures identified in prior EPA
rulemaking documents (e.g.,
recommendations in SIP actions).34
UDAQ evaluated these potential
additional control measures to
determine whether implementation of
the measures would be technologically
and economically feasible in the Provo
and Salt Lake City areas.
On April 19, 2018, May 21, 2020 and
July 21, 2020, UDAQ submitted
revisions and new rules to its area
source rules R307–208, Outdoor Wood
Boilers; R307–230, NOX Emission
Limits for Natural Gas-Fired Water
Heaters; R307–304, Solvent Cleaning;
R307–335, Degreasing; R307–343,
Emissions Standards for Wood
Furniture Manufacturing Operations;
R307–344, Paper, Film, & Foil Coating;
R307–345, Fabric & Vinyl Coating;
R307–346, Metal Furniture Surface
Coating; R307–347, Large Appliance
Surface Coating; R307–348, Magnet
Wire Coating; R307–349, Flat Wood
Panel Coating; R307–350, Miscellaneous
Metal Parts & Products Coating; R307–
351, Graphic Arts; R307–352, Metal
Containers, Closure & Coating; R307–
353, Plastic Parts Coating; R307–354,
Auto Body Refinishing; and R307–355,
Control of Emissions from Aerospace
Manufacture & Rework Facilities.
Additionally, UDAQ provided BACM
analysis for area source rules that were
not revised, which include: R307–302,
Solid Fuel Burning Devices; R307–303,
Commercial Cooking; R307–307, Road
Salting & Sanding; R307–309,
Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas
34 The Cost Analysis Models/Tools for Air
Pollution Regulations can be found at https://
www.epa.gov/economic-and-cost-analysis-airpollution-regulations/cost-analysis-modelstools-airpollution.
E:\FR\FM\06NOP1.SGM
06NOP1
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 216 / Friday, November 6, 2020 / Proposed Rules
for PM10 and PM2.5: Fugitive Emissions
and Fugitive Dust; R307–312, Aggregate
Processing Operations; R307–328,
Gasoline Transfer and Storage; R307–
341, Cutback Asphalt; R307–342,
Adhesive and Sealants; R307–356,
Appliance Pilot Light; R307–357,
Consumer Products; and R307–361,
Architectural Coatings. Our detailed
analysis of these area source rule
revisions submitted on April 19, 2018,
May 21, 2020, and July 21, 2020, and
the BACM analyses for these area
sources submitted on February 4, 2019
and February 15, 2019 for the Provo and
Salt Lake City Serious 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAs can be found in our TSD in
the docket.
On February 15, 2019, Utah submitted
revisions to SIP Section IX.H.11
(General Requirements: Control
Measures for Area and Point Sources,
Emission Limits and Operating
Practices, PM2.5). This section of Utah’s
SIP applies to all sources addressed in
Utah SIP sections IX.H.12 and 13,
except as otherwise outlined in
individual conditions in Sections
IX.H.12 and 13. Our detailed analysis of
the revisions submitted on February 15,
2019, for the Utah SIP Section IX.H.11,
along with our analysis of UDAQs
BACM/BACT analyses specific to Utah
SIP Section IX.H.11, submitted on
February 4, 2019 and February 15, 2019
can be found in our TSD in the docket.
On February 15, 2019, Utah submitted
revisions to SIP Section IX.H.12
(Source-Specific Emission Limitations
in Salt Lake City—UT PM2.5
Nonattainment Area), which sets
emission limits and control measures
for major stationary sources in the Salt
Lake City 2006 24-hour PM2.5 Serious
NAA. These sources, which fall above
the 70 tpy threshold for Serious 2006
24-hour PM2.5 major sources 35 defined
in Utah R307–403 (Permits: New and
Modified Sources in Nonattainment
Areas and Maintenance Areas), include:
(1) ATK Launch Systems Inc.
Promontory; (2) Big West Oil Refinery;
(3) Chemical Lime Company (Lhoist
North America); (4) Chevron Products
Company—Salt Lake Refinery; (5)
Compass Minerals Ogden Inc.; (6) Hexel
Corporation: Salt Lake Operations; (7)
Holly Corporation: Holly Refining &
Marketing Company (Holly Refinery);
(8) Kennecott Utah Copper (KUC): Mine;
(9) Kennecott Utah Copper (KUC):
Power Plant; (10) Kennecott Utah
Copper (KUC): Smelter and Refinery;
(11) Nucor Steel Mills; (12) PacifiCorp
Energy: Gadsby Power Plant; (13) Tesoro
Refining and Marketing Company: Salt
Lake City Refinery; (14) The Proctor &
35 81
FR at 58152.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:31 Nov 05, 2020
Gamble Paper Products Company; (15)
Utah Municipal Power Association:
West Valley Power Plant; (16)
University of Utah: University of Utah
Facilities; and (17) Hill Air Force Base.
On February 15, 2019, UDAQ submitted
the BACM/BACT analyses for each of
these 17 sources. All other sources fall
below the 70 tpy threshold and are
covered in the multiple area source
rules discussed above. Our detailed
analysis of the revisions submitted on
February 15, 2019, for the Utah SIP
Section IX.H.12, along with our analysis
of UDAQs BACM/BACT analyses
submitted on February 15, 2019,
specific to Utah SIP Section IX.H.12,
can be found in our TSD in the docket.
Additionally, UDAQ submitted draft
revisions on October 9, 2020, specific to
Utah SIP Section IX.H.12.i.i.C
(Kennecott Power Plant), which the
state has asked the EPA to act on
through parallel processing. This draft
revision removes the startup/shutdown
limits for the Kennecott Power Plant
that was not supported within the
BACM/BACT analysis submitted on
February 15, 2019. The detailed analysis
of our parallel process on the October 9,
2020, submission of draft revisions to
Utah SIP Section IX.H.12.i.i.C
(Kennecott Power Plant), can be found
in our TSD in the docket, and our
detailed discussion of how parallel
processing works can be found in
Section I.E above.
On January 19, 2017, Utah submitted
revisions to SIP Section IX.H.13
(Source-Specific Emission Limitations
in Provo—UT PM2.5 Nonattainment
Area), which sets emission limits and
control measures for major stationary
sources in the Provo 2006 24-hour PM2.5
Serious NAA. The sources in Section
IX.H.13 include: (1) Brigham Young
University: Main Campus; (2) Geneva
Nitrogen Inc.: Geneva Nitrogen Plant; (3)
McWane Ductile—Utah; (4) PacifiCorp
Energy: Lake Side Power Plant; (5)
Payson City Corporation: Payson City
Power; (6) Provo City Power: Power
Plant; and (7) Springville City
Corporation: Whitehead Power Plant.
UDAQ submitted BACM/BACT analyses
for only two of these sources, McWane
Ductile—Utah and PacifiCorp Energy:
Lake Side Power Plant. The other five
sources listed above fall below the 70
tpy threshold for Serious 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 major stationary sources,36 which
is defined in Utah R307–403 (Permits:
New and Modified Sources in
Nonattainment Areas and Maintenance
Areas) rule. These remaining five
sources (Brigham Young University,
Geneva Nitrogen Plant, Payson City
36 Id.
Jkt 253001
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
71033
Power, Provo City Power, and
Whitehead Power Plant) were either
shut down (Geneva Nitrogen Plant) or
have reduced their emissions to be
minor sources (Brigham Young
University, Payson City Power, Provo
City Power, and Whitehead Power
Plant). UDAQ uses Utah SIP Section
IX.H. only for major stationary source
emission limits or control measures;
therefore, UDAQ has requested that EPA
not act on the Utah SIP Section IX.H.13
portions for these facilities because the
limits/measures are out of date and will
be removed in future rulemakings. Since
we have never approved these limits or
sources into Utah SIP Section IX.H.13,
and this section was only created in the
December 16, 2014 submittal, UDAQ
does not need to complete a 110(l)
demonstration. We will only be acting
on the McWane Ductile—Utah and
PacifiCorp Energy: Lake Side Power
Plant sections of Utah SIP Section
IX.H.13, and on these sources’ BACM/
BACT determinations submitted by
UDAQ on February 4, 2019. Our
detailed analysis of the revisions
submitted on January 19, 2017, along
with our analysis of UDAQ’s BACM/
BACT analyses submitted on February
4, 2019, can be found in our TSD in the
docket.
As to the other facilities originally
submitted within Utah SIP Section
IX.H.13, no additional discussion or
action is necessary for the Geneva
Nitrogen Plant due to its shutdown. The
BACM/BACT analyses for the other
facilities (Brigham Young University,
Payson City Power, Provo City Power,
and the Whitehead Power Plant) are
now included in the individual BACM/
BACT analyses for each area source
rule. No additional discussion is needed
as to these limits in Utah SIP Section
IX.H.13, which as noted above are
outdated, or on these facilities as
individual sources. Our detailed
analysis of the area source rules, along
with our analysis of UDAQ’s BACM/
BACT analyses submitted on February
4, 2019 and February 15, 2019, can be
found in our TSD in the docket.
Additionally, on February 4, 2019 and
February 15, 2019, UDAQ submitted
BACM/BACT analyses for on-road and
non-road mobile sources for the Provo
and Salt Lake City Serious 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAs, respectively. Our detailed
analysis of these analyses can be found
in our TSD in the docket.
(3) The EPA’s Evaluation and
Conclusion
We have reviewed UDAQ’s
determination in the February 4, 2019
and February 15, 2019 submissions that
the major stationary and area source
E:\FR\FM\06NOP1.SGM
06NOP1
71034
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 216 / Friday, November 6, 2020 / Proposed Rules
control measures represent BACM/
BACT for direct PM2.5 and PM2.5
precursors within the Provo and Salt
Lake City NAAs, respectively. In our
review, we also considered our previous
evaluations of UDAQ’s rules in
connection with our approval of
revisions for Utah’s R307 area source
rules and RACM demonstration for the
Provo and Salt Lake City Moderate 2006
24-hour PM2.5 SIPs that were acted on.37
Based on this review, we believe that
UDAQ’s area source rules and the Utah
SIP Part H emission limits provide for
the implementation of BACM/BACT for
major stationary sources and area
sources of direct PM2.5 and PM2.5
precursors.
With respect to mobile sources, we
believe that the programs developed and
administered by UDAQ, along with the
identified Federal requirements, provide
for the implementation of BACM/BACT
for direct PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors in
the Provo and Salt Lake City NAAs.
For these reasons we propose to
approve the revisions submitted on
January 19, 2017, April 19, 2018,
February 4, 2019, February 15, 2019,
May 21, 2020 and July 21, 2020. We also
propose to find that these submissions
provide for the implementation of
BACM/BACT for all sources of direct
PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors as
expeditiously as practicable, for
purposes of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS in the Provo and Salt Lake City
areas, in accordance with the
requirements of CAA section
189(b)(1)(B) and 40 CFR 51.1010. We are
also proposing to approve, through
parallel processing, the October 9, 2020
draft submission of revisions to Utah
SIP Section IX.H.12.i.i.C to remove the
startup/shutdown limits that were not
supported in the BACM/BACT
determination of the Kennecott Power
Plant. Additionally, we are proposing to
approve the area source rule revisions
submitted on April 19, 2018, May 21,
2020 and July 21, 2020, and to approve
the BACM/BACT analyses submitted on
February 4, 2019 and February 15, 2019.
We are also proposing to approve the
revisions to Utah SIP Sections IX.H.11
and 12, submitted on February 15, 2019;
revisions to Utah SIP Section IX.H.13,
submitted on January 19, 2017; and
draft revisions submitted on October 9,
37 See 81 FR 9343 (Feb. 25, 2016); 81 FR 71988
(Oct. 19, 2016); 84 FR 52368 (Oct. 2, 2019); and 85
FR 10989 (Feb. 26, 2020).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:31 Nov 05, 2020
Jkt 253001
2020, for the Provo and Salt Lake City
Serious 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAs. Our
detailed analyses can be found in the
EPA TSD in the docket.
C. Do the redesignation requests and
maintenance plans meet CAA
requirements?
For a NAA to be redesignated to
attainment, the following conditions in
section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA must be
met: (1) We must determine that the
area has attained the NAAQS; (2) The
applicable implementation plan for the
area must be fully approved under
section 110(k) of the Act; (3) We must
determine that the improvement in air
quality is due to permanent and
enforceable reductions in emissions
resulting from implementation of the
applicable implementation plan and
applicable Federal air pollutant control
regulations and other permanent and
enforceable reductions; (4) We must
fully approve a maintenance plan for
the area as meeting the requirements of
CAA section 175A; and (5) The state
containing such area must meet all
requirements applicable to the area
under section 110 and part D of the
CAA.
The September 4, 1992 Calcagni
Memorandum outlines how to assess
the adequacy of redesignation requests
against the conditions listed above. On
January 13, 2020, the Governor of Utah
submitted revisions to the SIP for R307–
110–10, submitted maintenance plans
for the Salt Lake City and Provo areas
(located within Utah SIP Sections
IX.A.36 and 27, respectively), and
requested that the EPA redesignate the
area to attainment for 2006 24-hour
PM2.5.
The sections below discuss how
Utah’s redesignation requests and
maintenance plans meet the
requirements of the Act for
redesignation of the Provo and Salt Lake
City areas to attainment for the 2006 24hour PM2.5 NAAQS.
1. Attainment of the 2006 24-Hour PM2.5
NAAQS
To redesignate an area from
nonattainment to attainment, the EPA
must determine that the area has
attained the applicable NAAQS. See
CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(i). A state
must demonstrate that an area has
attained the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS
through submittal of ambient air quality
data from an ambient air monitoring
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
network representing maximum PM2.5
concentrations. The data, which must be
quality assured, quality-controlled, and
certified in the EPA’s Air Quality
System (AQS), must show that the most
recent three years (2017–2019) of valid
PM2.5 98th percentile mass
concentrations are below the 2006 PM2.5
24-hour NAAQS (35 mg/m3), pursuant to
40 CFR 50.13. In making this showing,
three consecutive years of complete air
quality data must be used.
Between 2017 and 2019, Utah
operated two and five PM2.5 monitors in
the Provo and Salt Lake City NAAs,
respectively. The EPA reviewed the
PM2.5 ambient air monitoring data from
the Provo monitors, Lindon (AQS site
49–049–4001) and Spanish Fork (AQS
site 49–049–5010),38 and from the Salt
Lake City monitors, Bountiful (AQS site
49–011–0004), Rose Park (AQS site 49–
035–3010), Hawthorn (AQS site 49–
035–3006), Herriman #3 (AQS site 49–
035–3013), and Erda (AQS site 49–045–
0004).39
As part of the redesignation requests
for the Provo and Salt Lake City NAAs,
UDAQ submitted ambient air quality
data from the monitoring sites, which
had been quality-assured and placed in
AQS on a quarterly basis. The 98th
percentile 2017–2019 design values for
the monitors in the Provo and Salt Lake
City NAAs are found in Table 1 below,
and support the conclusion that the
areas have attained the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS.
38 The Provo NAA had one monitor (North Provo,
49–049–0002) shut down near the end of 2018 due
to safety issues at the site, and UDAQ is working
to reestablish the monitor at a new site.
39 The Salt Lake City NAA had two monitors shut
down due to the loss of each site, and UDAQ is
working to reestablish the monitors at new sites.
These monitors are Brigham City (49–003–0003),
which shutdown in June 2019, and Ogden 2 (49–
057–0002), which shut down in May 2019. A new
site for Ogden 2 was established in Weber County
(Harrisville, 49–057–1003) in September 2019.
UDAQ is still working with Box Elder County on
new potential sites.
40 The Salt Lake City near-road PM
2.5 monitoring
site (AQS ID 49–035–4002) was established and
began recording data on January 1, 2019. The 98th
percentile daily average concentration for 2019 at
this PM2.5 near-road monitor was 31.0 mg/m3;
however, the one year of available data is not
sufficient for calculating a design value. Additional
discussion of the EPA’s position as to Salt Lake
City’s PM2.5 near-road monitor can be found in the
final rule signed by the Region 8 Regional
Administrator on October 29, 2020, determining
that the Salt Lake City Serious 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAA attained by the Serious attainment date.
E:\FR\FM\06NOP1.SGM
06NOP1
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 216 / Friday, November 6, 2020 / Proposed Rules
71035
TABLE 1—PROVO AND SALT LAKE CITY 2006 24-HOUR PM2.5 NAAS 2017–2019 98TH PERCENTILES AND DESIGN
VALUES (μg/m3) 40
98th percentiles (μg/m3)
NAA
Monitoring site
2017
Provo ...................................
Salt Lake City ......................
Lindon .................................
Spanish Fork ......................
Bountiful .............................
Rose Park ..........................
Hawthorn ............................
Herriman #3 .......................
Erda ....................................
As explained above, quality-assured,
quality-controlled, and certified air
quality monitoring data were collected
for each year from 2017 through 2019 in
accordance with an approved annual
monitoring network plan (AMNP) for
each year. The EPA has reviewed this
data and concluded that it shows that
the areas attained by the Serious
attainment date of December 31, 2019.41
Further information on PM2.5
monitoring is in Subsections
IX.A.27.b(1) and IX.A.36.b(1) of the
Provo and Salt Lake City maintenance
plans, respectively. Additionally, on
October 29, 2020, the Region 8 Regional
Administrator signed the final rule,
which finalized a determination that the
Provo and Salt Lake City NAAs attained
by the Serious attainment date of
December 31, 2019. We have evaluated
the ambient air quality data and believe
that Utah has adequately demonstrated
that the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS has
been attained in the Provo and Salt Lake
City areas and that the two areas
attained by their Serious 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 attainment date.
2. State Implementation Plan Approval
Section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii) of the CAA
states that for an area to be redesignated
to attainment, it must be determined
that the Administrator has fully
approved the applicable
implementation plan for the area under
section 110(k).
Those states containing Moderate
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAs were required
to submit a SIP by December 31, 2014,
demonstrating attainment of the 2006
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS by December 31,
2015. UDAQ submitted the Moderate
2006 24-hour PM2.5 SIPs for the Provo
and Salt Lake City NAAs on December
16, 2014, with additional revisions
submitted on January 19, 2017. On May
10, 2017 (82 FR 21711), the EPA
published a final rule reclassifying the
41 The final determination of attainment by the
Serious 2006 24-hour PM2.5 attainment date was
signed by the Region 8 Regional Administrator on
October 29, 2020.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:31 Nov 05, 2020
Jkt 253001
49–049–4001
49–049–5010
49–011–0004
49–035–3010
49–035–3006
49–035–3013
49–045–0004
2018
28.9
27.6
35.2
32.4
35.7
28.2
20.9
Salt Lake City and Provo areas as
‘‘Serious’’ nonattainment under subpart
4, based on the EPA’s determination
that the area could not practicably attain
the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 standards by the
December 31, 2015 attainment date.
This reclassification became effective on
June 9, 2017. The reclassification was
based on the EPA’s evaluation of
ambient air quality data from the 2013–
2015 period, indicating that it was not
practicable for certain monitoring sites
within the Salt Lake City and Provo
areas to show PM2.5 design values at or
below the level of the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS by December 31, 2015.
Section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii) of the CAA
states that for NAAs to be redesignated
to attainment, it must be determined
that the Administrator has fully
approved the applicable
implementation plan for the areas under
section 110(k). On February 25, 2016 (81
FR 9343), October 19, 2016 (81 FR
71988), October 2, 2019 (84 FR 52368)
and February 26, 2020 (85 FR 10989) the
EPA approved revisions to several area
source rules, and approved new rules
for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAs into
the Utah SIP. Additionally, we
completed a CDD for the Provo and Salt
Lake City 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAs on
April 10, 2019 (84 FR 14267) and on
September 27, 2019 (84 FR 51055),
respectively. With these final rules, the
EPA suspended the obligation for Utah
to make submissions to meet certain
CAA requirements related to attainment
of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS for
Moderate and Serious NAAs. These
suspended CAA requirements are: (1)
Attainment demonstration (Moderate
and Serious); (2) projected emissions
inventory (Moderate and Serious); (3)
RACM/RACT (Moderate); (4) RFP
(Moderate and Serious); (5) motor
vehicle emission budgets (MVEB)
(Moderate and Serious); (6) contingency
measures (Moderate and Serious); and
(7) quantitative milestones (Moderate
and Serious).
The CDD did not suspend Utah’s
obligation to submit CAA requirements
PO 00000
2017–2019
Design value
(μg/m3)
AQS ID
Frm 00034
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
2019
28.4
49.6
25.7
29.2
26.2
29.0
30.6
21.2
17.5
19.3
27.9
27.3
18.8
22.9
26
32
27
30
30
25
25
not related to demonstrating attainment,
which includes the base-year emission
inventory, NNSR revisions, and BACM/
BACT for the Provo and Salt Lake City
NAAs. The base-year emission
inventory requirement for the Moderate
and Serious Provo and Salt Lake City
NAAs, will be based on our approval of
the base-year inventory submitted in the
January 13, 2020 submittal of the
maintenance plans. Our analysis of the
base-year inventory is discussed in
Section II.C.4.a below and in Section
II.B.1 above.
On July 25, 2019 (84 FR 35831), the
EPA approved revisions to UAC R307–
403 (Permits: New and Modified
Sources in Nonattainment Areas and
Maintenance Areas), which satisfies the
outstanding NNSR requirement for the
Provo and Salt Lake City Moderate and
Serious 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAs and
is discussed above in Section II.B.2.
above.
The remaining CAA requirement that
was not suspended with the April 10,
2019 (84 FR 14267) and the September
27, 2019 (84 FR 51055), CDD for the
Provo and Salt Lake City 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAs, respectively, is BACM/
BACT for the Serious 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 SIPs. Our analysis that completes
this remaining requirement is discussed
in our TSD, with a brief discussion in
Section II.B.3. above.
We have evaluated the actions above
and have determined that through these
actions, the State of Utah has a fully
approved Provo and Salt Lake City 2006
24-hour PM2.5 SIP under section 110(k).
3. Improvement in Air Quality Due to
Permanent and Enforceable Measures
Section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii) of the CAA
provides that for an area to be
redesignated to attainment, the
Administrator must determine that the
improvement in air quality is due to
permanent and enforceable reductions
in emissions resulting from
implementation of the applicable
implementation plan, implementation
of applicable Federal air pollutant
E:\FR\FM\06NOP1.SGM
06NOP1
71036
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 216 / Friday, November 6, 2020 / Proposed Rules
control regulations, and other
permanent and enforceable reductions.
As briefly discussed above in Section
II.B.3 and in further detail in our TSD,
Utah has implemented multiple area
source rules, I/M Programs, and
emission limits for stationary sources in
the Provo and Salt Lake City NAAs.
Additionally, within Section
IX.A.27.b.1.c. and IX.A.36.b.3.a. of the
Provo and Salt Lake City 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 maintenance plan, respectively,
UDAQ provides an assessment of the
ambient air quality data collected at the
monitors in these two NAAs from the
year monitoring began (2000) to 2018
(the last year of valid data before the
maintenance plan was submitted),
which shows an observable decrease in
the monitored PM2.5. UDAQ observed
the 98th percentile average of the 24hour data in the Provo and Salt Lake
City 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAs, as well
as the annual arithmetic mean, which
assisted in understanding the trends.
The Provo and Salt Lake City 2006 24hour PM2.5 NAAs were only designated
nonattainment for the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS, however, the annual
arithmetic mean is useful information in
showing the decrease in emissions. The
cold-pool temperature inversions during
winter, which drive and trap secondary
PM2.5, vary in strength and duration
from year to year, and the PM2.5
concentrations measured during these
periods reflect this variability more than
they reflect the gradual changes in
emissions of direct PM2.5 and the PM2.5
precursors. This variability is evident in
UDAQ’s assessment, but the 24-hour
data trend is downward, indicating
improvement of a little less than 1 mg/
m3 per year for both the Provo and Salt
Lake City 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAs.
Episodic variability is reduced when
reviewing the annual mean values of
PM2.5 concentrations from 2000–2018.
Graphing the annual mean PM2.5
concentration data reveals a decreasing
trend, which indicates an improvement
of 3 mg/m3 and 4.3 mg/m3 over this 18year span for the Provo and Salt Lake
City NAAs, respectively.
We have evaluated the various state
and federal control measures, historical
emissions inventories, and the emission
trends of the PM2.5 98th percentiles and
annual PM2.5 mean concentrations
presented by UDAQ from 2000 to 2018,
and believe that the improvement in air
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:31 Nov 05, 2020
Jkt 253001
quality in the Provo and Salt Lake City
NAAs has resulted from emission
reductions that are permanent and
enforceable.
4. Fully Approved Maintenance Plan
Under Section 175A of the Act
Section 107(d)(3)(E) of the Act
requires that, for a NAA to be
redesignated to attainment, we must
fully approve a maintenance plan which
meets the requirements of section 175A
of the Act. The plan must demonstrate
continued attainment of the relevant
NAAQS in the area for at least 10 years
after our approval of the redesignation.
Eight years after our approval of a
redesignation, a state must submit a
revised maintenance plan
demonstrating attainment for the 10
years following the initial 10-year
period. The maintenance plan must also
contain a contingency plan to ensure
prompt correction of any violation of
the NAAQS.42 The EPA’s
interpretations of the CAA section 175A
maintenance plan requirements are
generally provided in the General
Preamble 43 and the Calcagni
Memorandum referenced above. The
Calcagni Memorandum outlines five
core elements necessary to ensure
maintenance of the relevant NAAQS in
an area seeking redesignation from
nonattainment to attainment. Those
elements, as well as guidelines for
subsequent maintenance plan revisions,
are explained in detail below.
a. Attainment Inventory
PM2.5 maintenance plans should
include an attainment emission
inventory to identify the level of
emissions in the area that is sufficient
to maintain the NAAQS. An emissions
inventory was developed and submitted
with the Provo and Salt Lake City 2006
24-hour PM2.5 maintenance plans for the
two NAAs on January 13, 2020. This
submittal contains a base year inventory
for 2017, interim-year projection
inventory for 2026, and a projected
maintenance inventory of 2035. The
emissions in the inventories include
sources of direct PM2.5 and PM2.5
precursor emissions located within a
regional area called a modeling domain.
UDAQ modeled two different domain
42 Sections
43 57
PO 00000
175A(b) and (d).
FR 13498, at 13563.
Frm 00035
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
sizes and grid resolutions: A 4 kilometer
(km) coarse grid and a 1.33 km fine
grid.44 The 4 km coarse domain covered
the entire State of Utah, a significant
portion of Eastern Nevada (including
Las Vegas), and smaller portions of
Idaho, Wyoming, Colorado and Arizona,
and was used to show movement of
pollutants at the boundaries of the
nested fine grid domain.
Since the coarse domain was so large,
the 1.33 km fine domain or a ‘‘core
area’’ within this domain was identified,
within which a greater degree of
accuracy was applied. Within this core
area (which includes Weber, Davis, Salt
Lake, Utah, Box Elder, Tooele, Cache
and Franklin, ID counties), SIP-specific
inventories were prepared to include
seasonal adjustments and forecasting to
represent each of the projection years. In
the bordering region, outside the core
area, the 2014 National Emissions
Inventory (NEI) was used in the
analysis. There were four general
categories of sources included in these
inventories: Point sources, area sources,
on-road mobile sources and non-road
mobile sources.
For each of these source categories,
the pollutants that were inventoried
were PM2.5, SO2, NOX, VOC and NH3.
More detailed descriptions of the 2017
base-year inventory and the 2026 and
2035 projection inventories can be
found in Sections IX.A.27.c and
IX.A.36.c. Maintenance Plan,
Subsection (2) Attainment Inventory, for
the Provo and Salt Lake City NAAs,
respectively, and in the State of Utah’s
TSD. Utah’s submittal contains detailed
emission inventory information that was
prepared in accordance with the EPA’s
emission inventory guidance.45
Summary of emission figures from the
2017 base year and emission projections
for 2026 and 2035 are provided in Table
2 and Table 3, below, for the Provo and
Salt Lake City, respectively.
44 See January 13, 2020 State of Utah submittal for
Provo and Salt Lake City 2006 24-hour PM2.5
Maintenance Plans; Figures IX.A.27.4. and
IX.A.36.4, respectively, titled ‘‘CAMx
Photochemical Modeling Domain in Two-Way
Nested Configuration.’’
45 Emissions Inventory Guidance for
Implementation of Ozone and Particulate Matter
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)
and Regional Haze Regulations (EPA–454/B–17–
002, May 2017) (available at https://www.epa.gov/
sites/production/files/2017-07/documents/ei_
guidance_may_2017_final_rev.pdf).
E:\FR\FM\06NOP1.SGM
06NOP1
71037
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 216 / Friday, November 6, 2020 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 2—PROVO NAA; ACTUAL EMISSIONS FROM 2017 AND EMISSION PROJECTIONS FOR 2026 AND 2035
[tons per day (tpd)]
Year
Source category
PM2.5
filterable
PM2.5
condensible
2017 Baseline .........................
Area Sources ..........................
Mobile Sources .......................
Non-Road ...............................
Point Sources .........................
1.75
......................
......................
0.18
0.29
......................
......................
0.12
2.04
0.83
0.21
0.3
5.01
15.4
3.07
1.12
13.32
9.07
1.66
0.18
6.54
0.43
0
0.42
0.06
0.09
0.01
0.05
2017 Total .......................
......................
......................
3.38
24.6
24.23
7.39
0.22
Area Sources ..........................
Mobile Sources .......................
Non-Road ...............................
Point Sources .........................
1.89
......................
......................
0.19
0.32
......................
......................
0.12
2.21
0.42
0.14
0.31
3.56
5.79
2.14
0.97
14.2
4.58
1.65
0.17
6.38
0.36
0.01
0.44
0.05
0.05
0.01
0.06
2026 Total .......................
......................
......................
3.08
12.46
20.6
7.19
0.17
Area Sources ..........................
Mobile Sources .......................
Non-Road ...............................
Point Sources .........................
2.06
......................
......................
0.19
0.35
......................
......................
0.12
2.41
1.41
0.13
0.31
3.67
5.74
1.84
0.97
16.32
6.49
1.8
0.17
6.24
0.44
0.01
0.44
0.05
0.05
0.01
0.06
2035 Total .......................
......................
......................
4.26
12.22
24.78
7.13
0.17
2026 ........................................
2035 ........................................
PM2.5
total
NOX
VOC
NH3
SO2
TABLE 3—SALT LAKE CITY NAA; ACTUAL EMISSIONS FROM 2017 AND EMISSION PROJECTIONS FOR 2026 AND 2035
[tons per day (tpd)]
Year
Source category
PM2.5
filterable
PM2.5
condensible
2017 Baseline .........................
Area Sources ..........................
Mobile Sources .......................
Non-Road ...............................
Point Sources .........................
5.02
......................
......................
2.97
1.11
......................
......................
0.97
2017 Total .......................
......................
Area Sources ..........................
Mobile Sources .......................
Non-Road ...............................
Point Sources .........................
2026 ........................................
2035 ........................................
NOX
VOC
NH3
6.13
2.28
0.96
3.94
13.55
44.21
18.12
17.01
45.98
30.12
8.89
6.52
14.21
1.28
0.02
0.34
0.21
0.31
0.35
3.78
......................
13.31
92.89
91.51
15.85
4.65
5.19
......................
......................
4.19
1.15
......................
......................
1.38
6.34
1.34
0.72
5.57
8.54
19.63
14.64
22.61
43.99
15.96
8.85
7.26
14.19
1.09
0.02
0.48
0.2
0.16
0.44
3.5
2026 Total .......................
......................
......................
13.97
65.42
76.06
15.78
4.3
Area Sources ..........................
Mobile Sources .......................
Non-Road ...............................
Point Sources .........................
5.37
......................
......................
4.19
1.19
......................
......................
1.38
6.56
1.39
0.67
5.57
8.69
18.91
13.32
22.62
47.17
18.93
9.7
7.26
14.21
1.19
0.03
0.48
0.2
0.15
0.51
3.5
2035 Total .......................
......................
......................
14.19
63.54
83.06
15.91
4.36
Based on our review, we have
determined that Utah prepared an
adequate attainment inventory for the
Provo and Salt Lake City 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAs. Additionally, the 2017
base-year inventory satisfies the
outstanding requirement for the Serious
Provo and Serious Salt Lake City NAAs
that were not suspended with the CDDs
finalized on April 10, 2019 (84 FR
14267) and September 27, 2019 (84 FR
51055), respectively.
b. Maintenance Demonstration
The Calcagni Memorandum explains
that where modeling was relied on to
demonstrate maintenance, the plan
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:31 Nov 05, 2020
PM2.5
total
Jkt 253001
must contain a summary of the air
quality concentrations expected to
result from the application of the
control strategies. Also, the plan should
identify and describe the dispersion
model or other air quality model used
to project ambient concentrations. The
maintenance demonstration for the
Provo and Salt Lake City areas used a
regional photochemical model.
Before the development of the Provo
and Salt Lake City 2006 24-hour PM2.5
maintenance plans, UDAQ conducted a
technical analysis to support the
development of the Serious SIP for the
Salt Lake City 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAA.
The analysis included preparation of
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
SO2
emissions inventories and
meteorological data, and the evaluation
and application of a regional
photochemical model. Part of this
process included episode selection to
determine the episode that most
accurately replicates the photochemical
formation of ambient PM2.5 during a
persistent cold air pool episode in the
airshed. For the Provo and Salt Lake
City maintenance plans, UDAQ used the
same episode that was used for the
Serious SIP modeling.
The Comprehensive Air Quality
Model with Extensions (CAMx) version
6.30 for air quality modeling was used
for the Provo and Salt Lake City
E:\FR\FM\06NOP1.SGM
06NOP1
71038
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 216 / Friday, November 6, 2020 / Proposed Rules
maintenance plans, with enhancements
that included snow chemistry and
topographical and surface albedo
refinements. The emissions processing
model that UDAQ used in conjunction
with CAMx was the Sparse Matrix
Operator Kernel Emissions Modeling
System (SMOKE) version 3.6.5,46 which
prepares the annual emissions inventory
for use in the air quality model.
Activity profiles and their associated
cross reference files from the EPA’s
2011v6 47 modeling platform were used
by UDAQ. For stationary non-point and
mobile sources, UDAQ used spatial
surrogates from the EPA Clearinghouse
for Inventories and Emissions Factors
(CHIEF),48 which were used to
distribute emissions in space across the
modeling domain. Emissions from point
sources were placed at the specific
location of the sources. Additionally, if
reliable local information was available,
UDAQ modified or developed the
profiles and surrogates to reflect this
information.
Meteorological inputs were derived
using the Weather Research and
Forecasting 49 (WRF) Advanced
Research WRF (WRF–ARW) model to
prepare meteorological datasets for
UDAQ to use with the photochemical
model. WRF–ARW had reasonable
ability to replicate the vertical
temperature structure of the boundary
layer (i.e., the temperature inversion);
however, UDAQ found that WRF–ARW
had difficulty reproducing the inversion
when the inversion was shallow and
strong (i.e., an 8-degree temperature
increase over 100 vertical meters).
UDAQ provides additional information
on these models in their TSD.
Part of the modeling exercise that
UDAQ completed for the Provo and Salt
Lake City maintenance plans was to test
whether the model could successfully
replicate the PM2.5 mass and
composition observed during prior
episodes of elevated PM2.5
concentrations. The selection of an
appropriate episode(s) should determine
the meteorological episode that helps
produce the best air quality modeling
performance.
Based on EPA guidance,50 UDAQ
selected three episodes: (1) January 1–
10, 2011; (2) December 7–19, 2013; and
(3) February 1–16, 2016. UDAQ
46 https://www.cmascenter.org/smoke/.
47 https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-modeling/
2011-version-6-air-emissions-modeling-platforms.
48 https://www.epa.gov/chief.
49 https://www.mmm.ucar.edu/weather-researchand-forecasting-model.
50 Guidance on the Use of Models and Other
Analyses for Demonstrating Attainment of Air
Quality Goals for Ozone, PM2.5, and Regional Haze
(EPA, Apr. 2007).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:31 Nov 05, 2020
Jkt 253001
examined the PM2.5 model performance
for these three episodes and concluded
that CAMx performed the best when
using the January 2011 WRF–ARW
output. UDAQ further confirmed this
determination by using a linear
regression analysis showing that
modeled and measured PM2.5 at the
Provo monitoring station (Lindon) was
strongly correlated during the January
2011 episode (R2 = 0.89) compared to
the other episodes (R2 = 0.81 for the
December 2013 episode; and R2 = 0.05
for the February 2016 episode). The Salt
Lake City monitoring station
(Hawthorne) linear regression analysis
showed similar results to the Provo
monitoring site, in that the performance
of the January 2011 episode was
strongly correlated (R2 = 0.80) compared
to the other episodes (R2 = 0.54 for the
December 2013 episode and R2 = 0.69
for the February 2016 episode).
Therefore, UDAQ selected the January
2011 episode to conduct the modeled
maintenance demonstration work for
the Provo and Salt Lake City areas. A
comprehensive discussion of the
meteorological model performance for
all three of these episodes can be found
in the TSD submitted by UDAQ.
UDAQ completed a comparison of the
24-hour average modeled and observed
PM2.5 during the January 1–10, 2011
episode at the Provo monitoring station
(Lindon) and at the Salt Lake City
monitoring station (Hawthorne), and the
results showed that the model overall
captured the daily 24 hour average
temporal variation in PM2.5 well. A
more detailed analysis of this episode
for both the Provo and Salt Lake City
monitoring sites (Lindon and
Hawthorne, respectively) can be found
in the TSD submitted by UDAQ.
Overall, UDAQ concluded that the
model performed well in replicating the
buildup and dispersal of PM2.5 in the
Provo and Salt Lake City NAAs, and
thus the model could be used for air
quality planning purposes. UDAQ then
developed a 2017 baseline model
simulation using 2017 emissions data,
but using the WRF–ARW meteorological
data for the 2011 episode. The 2017
baseline modeling and the 2017 baseline
monitoring data design values are used
to simulate possible future PM2.5 levels
by projecting from the 2017 emissions to
future year emissions. The results of the
future year modeling are described
below.
With acceptable model performance,
the model can be used to make futureyear attainment projections. For each
future year, an attainment projection is
made by calculating a concentration
termed the Future Design Value (FDV).
This calculation is made for each
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
monitor included in the analysis, and
then compared to the NAAQS (35 mg/
m3). When the FDV is smaller than the
NAAQS at every monitor in the NAA,
this would demonstrate attainment for
the area in that specific future year. A
maintenance plan must demonstrate
continued attainment of the NAAQS for
a span of ten years. Since this ten-year
span is measured from the time that the
EPA finalizes action of the plan, the tenyear end date is uncertain. To be
conservative, UDAQ projected an
attainment date of 2035, which is fifteen
years after Utah submitted the Provo
and Salt Lake City maintenance plans.
Additionally, UDAQ modeled a ‘‘spotcheck’’ assessment of 2026.
For any monitor, the FDV is greatly
influenced by the existing air quality at
the specific location. This can be
quantified and expressed as a Baseline
Design Value (BDV). The BDV is
consistent with the form of the 2006 24hour PM2.5 NAAQS, which is the 98th
percentile value averaged over a threeyear period. The quantification of the
BDV for each monitor in Provo and Salt
Lake City, is included in the TSD
submitted by UDAQ.
Several values were excluded when
UDAQ calculated the BDVs in the Provo
NAA. UDAQ utilized the EPA’s
‘‘Exceptional Events Rule,’’ 51 which
allows states to exclude certain air
quality data due to exceptional events
(e.g., wildfires, dust storms, etc.). Two
large local wildfires were observed
during the summer of 2018 that affected
the PM2.5 values at the Spanish Fork
monitor in the Provo NAA, but even
when the atypical wildfire data is
included in the baseline design value
the level is still below the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS, at 35.4 mg/m3. Since the
design value complies with the NAAQS,
the wildfire events are not considered
regulatorily significant exceptional
events under the Exceptional Events
Rule because they did not cause an
exceedance or a violation of the
NAAQS.52
Although the wildfires did not cause
exceptional events, which would have
needed the EPA’s concurrence under
the Exceptional Events Rule, Utah
excluded the values from those days
from its modeling, so as to produce
more representative projections of
future air quality. This exclusion was
consistent with EPA guidance on
addressing instances where air quality
data is influenced by atypical, extreme,
or unrepresentative.53 This Additional
51 81
FR 68216 (Oct 3, 2016).
CFR 50.14.
53 See Additional Methods, Determinations, and
Analyses to Modify Air Quality Data Beyond
52 40
E:\FR\FM\06NOP1.SGM
06NOP1
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 216 / Friday, November 6, 2020 / Proposed Rules
Methods Guidance identifies the most
common determinations and analyses
not covered by the Exceptional Events
Rule, and clarifies for each of them
whether there is a separate, existing
mechanism under which the exclusion,
selection, or adjustment of air quality
monitoring data may be appropriate.
One example is certain modeling
analyses under EPA’s Guideline on Air
Quality Models 54 including modeling
analyses used for estimating base and
future year design values for ozone and
PM2.5 attainment demonstrations.
71039
Table 4 below details the atypical,
potentially wildfire-influenced values
recorded at the Spanish Fork monitor,
with the specific date the monitor was
impacted and what the potential source
could be.
TABLE 4—2018 ATYPICAL EVENT VALUES EXCLUDED FROM THE BASELINE DESIGN VALUE AT THE SPANISH FORK
MONITOR
Value, μg/m3
Date
8/7/2018 .........................
8/9/2020 .........................
8/10/2018 .......................
8/11/2018 .......................
8/13/2018 .......................
9/14/2018 .......................
9/15/2018 .......................
9/17/2018 .......................
9/18/2018 .......................
9/19/2020 .......................
9/21/2018 .......................
37.8
50.8
68.8
49.6
58.1
71.5
42.6
74.5
57.7
76.3
39.3
Potential wildfire sources
Coal Hollow.
Coal Hollow and other western state(s)
Coal Hollow and other western state(s)
Coal Hollow and other western state(s)
Coal Hollow and other western state(s)
Pole Creek and Bald Mountain.
Pole Creek and Bald Mountain.
Pole Creek and Bald Mountain.
Pole Creek and Bald Mountain.
Pole Creek and Bald Mountain.
Pole Creek and Bald Mountain.
fire(s).
fire(s).
fire(s).
fire(s).
UDAQ worked with the EPA to
determine whether these atypical values
could be excluded under the approach
described in the Additional Methods
Guidance, and based on the specific
modeling analysis conducted in
accordance with EPA’s Air Quality
Models Guideline. We have reviewed
historical data for the area and the
HYSPLIT ‘‘back trajectory analysis’’ 55
in which the State presented an analysis
of the direction and sources of air
pollution at the receptor site.56 Based on
our review, and considering the
provisions of Utah SIP Section
IX.A.27.c.1.d., the EPA agrees with
UDAQ’s assessment that the atypical
baseline design value of 35.4 mg/m3 was
exacerbated by local wildfire emissions,
and the atypical monitoring data listing
in Table 4 above should be removed,
which would set the BDV for modeling
projected design values at 28.4 mg/m3.
This determination is only for the
Spanish Fork monitor in the Provo 2006
24-hour PM2.5 NAA; no other monitor in
the Provo PM2.5 NAA or the Salt Lake
City PM2.5 NAA was affected by the
local wildfires. Additionally, this
determination is not an official EPA
concurrence based on the Exceptional
Events Rule. The atypical data
discussed in Table 4 were fully
considered in evaluating whether the
area had attained the NAAQS, and were
only excluded to provide a more
accurate modeled projected design
value—that is, the FDV—for the Spanish
Fork monitor.
The modeled FDV is used as a part of
the maintenance plan demonstration to
show that the NAAs will maintain the
NAAQS at a future date. In making
future-year projections of PM2.5
concentrations and attainment status for
this purpose, the output from the CAMx
model for the future years is not
considered the final answer. That is, the
model future year results are not used
in an absolute sense, but in a relative
sense to correct for model errors and
bias. UDAQ performed model
simulations for the 2017 baseline
emissions and for the projected future
year emissions, and the fractional
change was calculated in the future year
model relative to the baseline year
model for the concentrations of each
PM2.5 species.57 These fractional
changes are called the model Relative
Response Factor (RRF). The RRF
approach is based on the assumption
that, while the model may have errors
in predicting absolute concentrations,
the model is reliable for predicting the
relative changes in PM2.5 concentration
as emissions change in the future. An
RRF greater than one indicates that the
model predicted PM2.5 is greater in the
future year than in the 2017 base year,
and typically is a result of increased
emissions in the future year associated
with projected population growth.
(Additional discussion of the RRF can
be found in EPA guidance 58 and in the
maintenance plans and TSD submitted
by UDAQ.) The model RRF for each
PM2.5 species is multiplied by the 2017
BDV species concentrations to estimate
the FDV for each species. The FDVs are
compared to the NAAQs to determine
whether attainment is predicted at each
monitoring location. Table 5 below
provides FDV results for the Provo and
Salt Lake City monitoring sites,
projection years and shows that no FDV
exceeds the NAAQS. Therefore,
continued attainment is demonstrated
in the Provo and Salt Lake City NAAs.
Exceptional Events (EPA, Apr. 4, 2019) (the
‘‘Additional Methods Guidance,’’ available at
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/201904/documents/clarification_memo_on_data_
modification_methods.pdf).
54 40 CFR part 51, appendix W.
55 The HYSPLIT model is a complete system for
computing simple air parcel trajectories, as well as
complex transport, dispersion, chemical
transformation, and deposition simulations. A
common application of this model is a back
trajectory analysis to determine the origin of air
masses and establish source-receptor relationships.
Detailed information on the HYSPLIT model can be
found at: https://www.arl.noaa.gov/hysplit/hysplit/.
56 See ‘‘2018 Wildfire Atypical Event Report’’
within the Utah TSD (presenting HYSPLIT back
trajectory analysis); the AQS report containing the
historical data can be found in our docket.
57 PM
2.5 species includes nitrate (NO3), sulfate
(SO4), ammonium (NH4), organic carbon (OC),
elemental carbon (EC), chloride (Cl), sodium (Na),
crustal material (CM), and other species (other
mass). Additional detail can be found at figures
IX.A.27.13 and IX.A.36.13 for the Provo and Salt
Lake City NAAs, respectively.
58 Modeling Guidance for Demonstrating Air
Quality Goals for Ozone, PM2.5, and Regional Haze
(EPA, Nov. 2018).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:31 Nov 05, 2020
Jkt 253001
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\06NOP1.SGM
06NOP1
71040
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 216 / Friday, November 6, 2020 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 5—BASELINE DESIGN VALUE, RELATIVE RESPONSE FACTORS, AND FUTURE DESIGN VALUES FOR ALL MONITORS
AND FUTURE PROJECTION YEARS
[Units of design values are μg/m3, while RRFs are dimensionless]
NAA
Monitor
Provo .....................
Lindon ...................
Spanish Fork ........
Brigham City .........
Bountiful ................
Hawthorne ............
Rose Park .............
Ogden 2 ................
Erda **** ................
Salt Lake City ........
AQS site
49–049–4001
49–049–5010
49–003–0003
49–011–0004
49–035–3006
49–035–3010
49–057–0002
49–045–0004
2016–2018
BDV
2026 RRF
31.1
** 28.4
32.4
28.5
33.4
34.9
30.2
25.5
2026 FDV
0.94
1
0.85
0.99
0.95
0.96
0.95
0.90
2035 RRF
29.3
28.4
27.5
28.1
31.8
33.5
28.8
23.0
0.95
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2035 FDV
* 29.5
* 28.4
*** 27.5
*** 28.2
*** 32.1
*** 33.6
*** 28.9
*** 23.1
* This value includes additional emissions added to the MAG MVEB from the safety margin. The safety margin is discussed further in Section
II.D.2 below.
** This value excludes data from atypical events discussed above.
*** These values include additional emissions added to the WFRC MVEB from the safety margin. The safety margin is discussed further in
Section II.D.2 below.
**** Erda site uses 2016 speciation data instead of 2011 like the other Salt Lake City NAA monitors because Erda was a new site starting in
2016.
As explained in the Calcagni
memorandum, any assumptions
concerning emission rates must reflect
permanent, enforceable measures. A
state cannot take credit in the
maintenance demonstration for
reductions, unless there are regulations
in place requiring those reductions or
the reductions are otherwise shown to
be permanent. States are expected to
maintain implemented control strategies
despite redesignation to attainment,
unless equivalent reduction measures
are adopted. Emission reductions from
source shutdowns can be considered
permanent and enforceable, to the
extent that those shutdowns have been
reflected in the SIP and all applicable
permits have been modified
accordingly.
For a maintenance demonstration,
permanent and enforceable measures
must be implemented and acted on
before the EPA may act on the
maintenance plan or redesignation
request.59 Therefore, the EPA is taking
concurrent action on these remaining
attainment-related portions of the
Moderate and Serious 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 SIPs for the Provo and Salt Lake
City NAAs. Our proposed approval of
these remaining attainment-related
portions of the Moderate and Serious
2006 24-hour PM2.5 Salt Lake City and
Provo SIPs for area sources rules, mobile
source controls, and stationary source
emission limits in Utah’s Part H section
in their SIP to control direct PM2.5 and
PM2.5 precursors is discussed in Section
II.B.3 above. Additionally, the BACM/
BACT analysis for area source rules, onroad mobile sources, off-road mobile
sources, and stationary sources is
59 See
Calcagni Memorandum at 4.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:31 Nov 05, 2020
Jkt 253001
discussed in Section II.B.3 above and in
our TSD.
Based on the information described
above and in our TSD, the EPA proposes
to find that Utah has adequately
demonstrated that the Provo and Salt
Lake City areas will maintain the 2006
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS for the next
fifteen years.
c. Monitoring Network
Once a NAA has been redesignated to
attainment, a state must continue to
operate an appropriate air quality
monitoring network, in accordance with
40 CFR part 58, to verify the attainment
status of the area. For verification, the
maintenance plans should contain
provisions for continued operation of air
quality monitors. We approve these sites
annually, and any future change would
require discussion and approval from
the EPA. In its January 13, 2020
submittal, Utah commits to continuing
to maintain an ambient monitoring
network for PM2.5 in the Provo and Salt
Lake City areas, in accordance with 40
CFR part 58 and the Utah SIP.
d. Verification of Continued Attainment
Utah’s maintenance plan submittal for
the Provo and Salt Lake City areas must
indicate how the State will track the
progress of the maintenance plans. This
is necessary because the emissions
projections made for the maintenance
demonstrations depend on assumptions
of point and area source growth. In
Section IX.A.27.c.(7) and Section
IX.A.36.c.(7) of the Provo and Salt Lake
City maintenance plans, respectively,
Utah commits to track and document
measured mobile source parameters
(e.g., vehicle miles traveled, congestion,
fleet mix) and changes in new and
modified stationary source permits. If
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
these and the resulting emissions
change significantly over time, the State
will perform appropriate studies to
determine whether additional and/or resited monitors are necessary, and
whether mobile and stationary source
emission projections are on target.
e. Contingency Plan
Section 175A(d) of the Act requires
that a maintenance plan include
contingency provisions, as necessary, to
promptly correct any violation of the
NAAQS that occurs after redesignation
of the area. For the maintenance plans
to be approved under section 175A, a
state is not required to have fully
adopted contingency measures that will
take effect without further action by the
state. However, the contingency plan is
an enforceable part of the SIP and
should ensure that contingency
measures are adopted expeditiously
once they are triggered. The plan should
discuss the measures to be adopted and
a schedule and procedure for adoption
and implementation. The contingency
plan must require that the state will
implement all measures in the Part D
nonattainment plan for the area prior to
redesignation. The state should also
identify the specific indicators, or
triggers, that will be used to determine
when the contingency plan will be
implemented.
As stated in Section IX.A.27.c.(8) and
Section IX.A.36.c.(8), of the Provo and
Salt Lake City maintenance plans,
respectively, triggering the contingency
plan does not automatically require a
revision to the SIP, nor does it
necessarily mean the area will be
redesignated once again to
nonattainment. Instead, a state will
normally have an appropriate timeframe
to correct the potential violation with
E:\FR\FM\06NOP1.SGM
06NOP1
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 216 / Friday, November 6, 2020 / Proposed Rules
implementing one or more adopted
contingency measures. If violations
continue to occur, additional
contingency measures will be adopted
until the violations are corrected.
Upon monitoring a potential violation
of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS,
including exceedances flagged as
exceptional events but not concurred
with by the EPA, a state will identify a
means of corrective action within six
months after a potential violation. The
state will require implementation of the
corrective action no later than one year
after the violation is confirmed, and any
contingency measures adopted and
implemented will become part of the
next revised maintenance plan
submitted for EPA approval.
The Provo maintenance plan list of
contingency measures consists of:
(1) Measures to address emissions
from residential wood combustion (i.e.,
emissions from fireplaces under the
existing R307–302 rule), including reevaluating the thresholds at which red
or yellow burn days are triggered.
Residential wood combustion represents
a large emissions inventory source
category at 43.6% of direct PM2.5
emissions in the 2017 county-wide
inventory;
(2) Measures to address fugitive dust
from area sources. Fugitive dust
represents 28.1% of direct PM2.5
emissions in the 2017 county-wide
inventory; and
(3) Additional measures to address
other PM2.5 sources identified in the
emissions inventory, such as on-road
vehicles, non-road vehicles and engines,
and industrial sources.
The Salt Lake City maintenance plan
list of contingency measures consists of:
(1) Measures to address emissions
from residential wood combustion (i.e.,
emissions from fireplaces under the
existing R307–302 rule), including reevaluating the thresholds at which red
or yellow burn days are triggered.
Residential wood combustion represents
a large emissions inventory source
category at 35.4% of direct PM2.5
emissions in the 2017 county-wide
inventory;
(2) Measures to address fugitive dust
from area sources. Fugitive dust
represents 31.2% of direct PM2.5
emissions in the 2017 county-wide
inventory; and
(3) Additional measures to address
other PM2.5 sources identified in the
emissions inventory, such as on-road
vehicles, non-road vehicles and engines,
and industrial sources.
Based on the above, we propose to
find that the contingency measures
provided in the Provo and Salt Lake
City 2006 24-hour PM2.5 maintenance
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:31 Nov 05, 2020
Jkt 253001
plans are sufficient and meet the
requirements of section 175A(d) of the
CAA.
f. Subsequent Maintenance Plan
Revisions
In accordance with section 175A(b) of
the Act, Utah is required to submit a
revision to the maintenance plans eight
years after the redesignation of the
Provo and Salt Lake City areas to
attainment for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS. This revision is to provide for
maintenance of the NAAQS for an
additional ten years following the first
ten-year period. In the Provo and Salt
Lake City maintenance plans, Utah
committed to submit a revised
maintenance plan eight years after the
approval of the redesignation request
and maintenance plan.
5. Meeting Applicable Requirements of
Section 110 and Part D of the Act
In order for an area to be redesignated
to attainment, section 107(d)(3)(E)
requires that it must have met all
applicable requirements of section 110
and part D of the Act. We interpret this
to mean that, for a redesignation request
to be approved, the state must have met
all requirements that applied to the
subject area prior to, or at the time of,
submitting a complete redesignation
request. In our evaluation of a
redesignation request, we do not need to
consider other requirements of the CAA
that became due after the date of the
submission of a complete redesignation
request.
a. Section 110 Requirements
Section 110(a)(2) contains general
requirements for nonattainment plans.
For purposes of redesignation, the Utah
SIP was reviewed to ensure that all
applicable requirements under the
amended Act were satisfied. On
September 21, 2010, Utah submitted an
Infrastructure SIP to the EPA
demonstrating compliance with the
requirements of section 110 applicable
to the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. We
approved this submittal on November
25, 2013 (78 FR 63883), for all section
110 requirements applicable to
redesignation.
b. Part D Requirements
Before a PM2.5 NAA may be
redesignated to attainment, Utah must
have fulfilled the applicable
requirements of part D. Subpart 1 of part
D establishes the general requirements
applicable to all NAAs, while subpart 4
of part D establishes specific
requirements applicable to PM10/PM2.5
NAAs. The PM2.5 SIP Requirements
Rule provides that the applicable
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
71041
requirements of CAA section 172 are
subsections 172(c)(3) (emissions
inventory), 172(c)(5) (NSR permitting
program), 172(c)(7) (the section
110(a)(2) air quality monitoring
requirements), and 172(c)(9)
(contingency measures). We have
interpreted the requirements of section
172(c)(2) (RFP) and 172(c)(6) (other
measures) as being irrelevant to a
redesignation request because they only
have meaning for an area that is not
attaining the standard. Finally, Utah has
not sought to exercise the options that
would trigger sections 172(c)(8)
(equivalent techniques). Thus, these
provisions are also not relevant to this
redesignation request.
The requirements of section 172(c),
189(a), and 189(b) regarding attainment
of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, have
been satisfied through our February 25,
2016 (81 FR 9343), October 19, 2016 (81
FR 71988), October 2, 2019 (84 FR
52368), and February 26, 2020 (85 FR
10989) actions approving portions of the
Moderate 2006 24-hour PM2.5 Provo and
Salt Lake City SIPs. On April 10, 2019
(84 FR 14267) and September 27, 2019
(84 FR 51055), the EPA approved CDDs
for the Provo and Salt Lake City NAAs,
respectively. As specified at 40 CFR
51.1015(a) in the PM2.5 SIP
Requirements Rule, upon this
determination by the EPA that the
Moderate PM2.5 NAAs have attained the
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, the
requirements for Utah to submit an
attainment demonstration, provisions
demonstrating timely implementation of
RACM/RACT, a RFP plan, quantitative
milestones and quantitative milestone
reports, and contingency measures were
suspended. Additionally, under 40 CFR
51.1015(b), upon this determination
from the EPA that the Serious PM2.5
NAAs have attained the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS, the requirements for the
State to submit an attainment
demonstration, RFP plan, quantitative
milestones and quantitative milestone
reports, and contingency measures for
the areas were suspended. However, the
CDDs for the Provo and Salt Lake City
NAAs did not suspend requirements
that were independent of attainment:
BACM/BACT, NNSR, and base-year
emissions inventories. The BACM/
BACT analysis, including any
accompanying rule or limit revision, is
discussed in Section II.B.3 above and
completes this element.
We approved the requirements of the
part D NSR permit program for Utah on
July 25, 2019 (84 FR 35831), which is
briefly discussed above in Section II.B.2.
Once the Provo and Salt Lake City areas
are redesignated to attainment, the
prevention of significant deterioration
E:\FR\FM\06NOP1.SGM
06NOP1
71042
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 216 / Friday, November 6, 2020 / Proposed Rules
(PSD) requirements of part C of the Act
will apply. We must ensure that the
State has made any needed
modifications to its PSD regulations so
that they will apply in the Provo and
Salt Lake City areas after redesignation.
Utah’s PSD regulations, R307–405
(Permits: Major Sources in Attainment
or Unclassified Areas (PSD)), which we
approved as meeting all applicable
Federal requirements on July 15, 2011
(76 FR 41712) and January 29, 2016 (81
FR 4957), apply to any area designated
unclassifiable or attainment, and thus
will become fully effective in the Provo
and Salt Lake City areas upon
redesignation of the areas to attainment.
Additionally, the remaining element
that is independent of attainment is the
base-year emissions inventories for the
Provo and Salt Lake City, which is being
acted on in Section II.C.4.a above and is
briefly discussed in Section II.B.1 above.
D. Have transportation conformity
requirements been met?
1. Requirements for Transportation
Conformity and Motor Vehicle
Emissions Budgets (MVEBs)
Transportation conformity is required
by section 176(c) of the CAA. The EPA’s
conformity rule at 40 CFR part 93,
subpart A requires that transportation
plans, programs, and projects conform
to SIPs, and establishes the criteria and
procedures for determining whether or
not they conform. Conformity to a SIP
means that transportation activities will
not produce new air quality violations,
worsen existing violations, or delay
timely attainment of the NAAQS. To
effectuate its purpose, the EPA’s
conformity rule requires a
demonstration that emissions from a
Metropolitan Planning Organization’s
(MPO) Regional Transportation Plan
(RTP) and Transportation Improvement
Program (TIP), involving Federal
Highway Administration (FHWA) or
Federal Transit Administration (FTA)
funding or approval, are consistent with
the MVEB(s) contained in a control
strategy SIP revision or maintenance
plan (40 CFR 93.101, 93.118, and
93.124). An MVEB is defined as the
level of mobile source emissions of a
pollutant relied on in the attainment or
maintenance demonstration to attain or
maintain compliance with the NAAQS
in the nonattainment or maintenance
area. Further information concerning
the EPA’s interpretations regarding
MVEBs can be found in the preamble to
the EPA’s November 24, 1993,
transportation conformity rule.60
60 See
58 FR 62193–62196.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:31 Nov 05, 2020
Jkt 253001
A 2006 24-hour PM2.5 maintenance
plan should identify MVEBs for direct
PM2.5, NOX, and all other PM2.5
precursors whose on-road mobile source
emissions are determined to
significantly contribute to PM2.5 levels
in the area. For both the Provo and Salt
Lake City 2006 24-hour PM2.5
maintenance plan SIP revisions, the
UDAQ also identified VOCs as a
precursor to the formation of PM2.5 in
both areas. For direct PM2.5 SIP MVEBs,
the MVEB should include direct PM2.5
motor vehicle emissions from tailpipes,
brake wear, and tire wear. In addition,
a state must also consider whether reentrained road dust is a significant
contributor and should be included in
the direct PM2.5 MVEB.61 With respect
to this requirement, the EPA reviewed
information, data, and an analysis from
the UDAQ that sufficiently documented
that re-entrained road dust emissions
were negligible and meet the criteria of
40 CFR 93.102(b)(3) for not needing to
be included in the direct PM2.5 MVEB.
The EPA has concurred with the State’s
analysis as to re-entrained road dust.62
For maintenance plans that do not
identify MVEBs for any other year than
the last year of the maintenance plan,
the demonstration of consistency with
the MVEBs by the applicable MPO must
be accompanied by a qualitative finding
that there are no factors that would
cause or contribute to a new violation or
exacerbate an existing violation in the
years before the last year of the
maintenance plan.63
2. MVEBs Identified in the Provo
Maintenance Plan SIP
Utah’s Provo 2006 24-hour PM2.5
maintenance plan SIP revision specified
the maximum mobile source emissions
of PM2.5, NOX and VOC allowed in
2035, the final maintenance year. These
mobile source emissions were then
initially identified by the State as the
maintenance plan’s MVEBs. However,
through sensitivity dispersion modeling,
the state was able to demonstrate that
for 2035, additional mobile source
emissions could be included such that
the Provo area could continue to
demonstrate maintenance. These
additional direct PM2.5, NOX, and VOC
mobile source emissions were then
identified as a ‘‘safety margin’’ 64 and
61 40 CFR 93.102(b) and 93.122(f); see also
conformity rule preamble at 69 FR 40004, 40031–
40036 (July 1, 2004).
62 Email from Tim Russ, EPA, to Bill Reiss,
UDAQ, subject ‘‘PM2.5 Re-entrained Road Dust—
Utah Request for Deletion from PM2.5 Motor Vehicle
Emissions Budget (MVEB): EPA Concurrence’’ (July
20, 2011).
63 40 CFR 93.118(b)(2)(i).
64 40 CFR 93.101.
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
were added to the initial MVEBs to
arrive at the final MVEBs. This process
of identifying an additional ‘‘safety
margin’’ was correctly followed by the
UDAQ and is allowed by 40 CFR
93.124(a). The derivation of the MVEBs,
with ‘‘safety margin,’’ is described in
Section 4 (Mobile Source Budget for
Purposes of Conformity) of the
maintenance plan, and Section 3.e. (Onroad Mobile Baseline and Projection
Inventories), ii. (On-Road MVEB
Derivation) of the TSD submitted by
UDAQ. As presented in Table
IX.A.27.11 of the maintenance plan, the
final 2035 MVEBs were 1.5 tpd direct
PM2.5, 6.5 tpd NOX, and 7.0 tpd VOCs.
3. MVEB Trading for Demonstrating
Transportation Conformity in the Provo
2006 24-Hour PM2.5 Maintenance Area
The EPA’s transportation conformity
regulations allow trading between the
direct PM2.5 and NOX and VOC
precursor MVEBs where the SIP
establishes an appropriate
mechanism.65 The State of Utah has
established an MVEB trading
mechanism to allow future increases in
on-road mobile sources direct PM2.5
emissions to be offset by future
decreases in NOX precursor emissions
or future decreases in VOC precursor
emissions from on-road mobile sources.
The basis for the trading mechanism is
each maintenance plan’s dispersion
modeling demonstration for the year
2035, which established the relative
contribution of the NOX and VOC
precursor pollutants. These ratios were
developed using data from the air
quality maintenance plan’s dispersion
modeling. Section 4(a)(ii) of the
maintenance plan and Section 6.a.
(Trading Ratio) of the maintenance
plan’s TSD provide the following
modeling-derived trading ratios: Future
increases in on-road mobile sources’
direct PM2.5 emissions may be offset
with future decreases in NOX emissions
from on-road mobile sources at a NOX
to PM2.5 ratio of 5.8 to 1, and future
increases in on-road mobile sources’
direct PM2.5 emissions may be offset
with future decreases in VOC emissions
from on-road mobile sources at a VOC
to PM2.5 ratio of 27.9 to 1.
The maintenance plan also notes that
this trading mechanism will only be
used by the Mountainland Association
of Governments (MAG), the MPO for
Utah County, for transportation
conformity determination analyses for
years after 2035. The maintenance plan
further notes that to ensure that the
trading mechanism does not impact the
ability to meet the NOX budget and VOC
65 40
E:\FR\FM\06NOP1.SGM
CFR 93.124(b).
06NOP1
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 216 / Friday, November 6, 2020 / Proposed Rules
budgets, the NOX and VOC emission
reductions available to supplement the
direct PM2.5 MVEB will only be those
remaining after the 2035 NOX and VOC
MVEBs have been met. The
maintenance plan further articulates
that clear documentation of the
calculations used in the MVEB trading
is to be included in the conformity
determination analysis as prepared by
the MAG MPO.
4. MVEBs Identified in the Salt Lake
City Maintenance Plan SIP
Utah’s Salt Lake City 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 maintenance plan SIP revision
specified the maximum mobile source
emissions of PM2.5, NOX and VOC
allowed in the final maintenance year
which is 2035. These mobile source
emissions were then initially identified
by the State as the maintenance plan’s
MVEBs. However, as with the Provo
NAA, through sensitivity dispersion
modeling the State was able to
demonstrate that for 2035, additional
mobile sources emissions could be
included such that the Salt Lake City
area could continue to demonstrate
maintenance. These additional direct
PM2.5, NOX, and VOC mobile source
emissions were then identified as a
‘‘safety margin’’ 66 and were then added
to the initial MVEBs to arrive at the final
MVEBs. This process of identifying an
additional ‘‘safety margin’’ was correctly
followed by the UDAQ and is as
allowed by 40 CFR 93.124(a). The
derivation of the MVEBs, with ‘‘safety
margin,’’ is described in Section 4
(Mobile Source Budget for Purposes of
Conformity) of the maintenance plan,
and Section 3.e. (On-road Mobile
Baseline and Projection Inventories), ii.
(On-Road MVEB Derivation) of the TSD
submitted by UDAQ. As presented in
Table IX.A.36.11 of the maintenance
plan, the final 2035 MVEBs were 1.38
tpd direct PM2.5, 21.63 tpd NOX, and
20.57 tpd VOCs.
5. MVEB Trading for of Demonstrating
Transportation Conformity, in the Salt
Lake City 2006 24-Hour PM2.5
Maintenance Area
As discussed above, the EPA
transportation conformity regulations
allow trading between direct PM2.5 and
NOX and VOC precursor MVEBs, if the
SIP establishes an appropriate
mechanism.67
The State has established an MVEB
trading mechanism to allow for future
increases in on-road mobile sources
direct PM2.5 emissions to be offset by
future decreases in NOX precursor
66 40
67 40
CFR 93.101.
CFR 93.124(b).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:31 Nov 05, 2020
Jkt 253001
emissions or future decreases in VOC
precursor emissions from on-road
mobile sources. The basis for the trading
mechanism is the maintenance plan’s
dispersion modeling demonstration for
the year 2035, which established the
relative contribution of the NOX and
VOC precursor pollutants. These ratios
were developed from data from the air
quality maintenance plan’s dispersion
modeling. Section 4(a)(ii) of the
maintenance plan and Section 6.a.
(Trading Ratio) of the maintenance
plan’s TSD provide the following
modeling-derived trading ratios: Future
increases in on-road mobile sources’
direct PM2.5 emissions may be offset
with future decreases in NOX emissions
from on-road mobile sources at a NOX
to PM2.5 ratio of 6.3 to 1, and future
increases in on-road mobile sources’
direct PM2.5 emissions may be offset
with future decreases in VOC emissions
from on-road mobile sources at a VOC
to PM2.5 ratio of 20.9 to 1.
The maintenance plan also notes that
this trading mechanism will only be
used by the Wasatch Front Regional
Council (WFRC), the MPO for Salt Lake
City 2006 24-hour PM2.5 maintenance
area counties, for transportation
conformity determination analyses for
years after 2035. The maintenance plan
further notes that to ensure that the
trading mechanism does not impact the
ability to meet the NOX budget and VOC
budgets, the NOX and VOC emission
reductions available to supplement the
direct PM2.5 MVEB shall only be those
remaining after the 2035 NOX and VOC
MVEBs have been met. The
maintenance plan further articulates
that clear documentation of the
calculations used in the MVEB trading
are to be included in the conformity
determination analysis as prepared by
the WFRC MPO.
6. EPA’s Evaluation of Mobile Source
Emissions and MVEBs
The EPA has evaluated the Provo and
Salt Lake City 2006 24-hour PM2.5
maintenance plan’s emission
inventories and maintenance
demonstration modeling as described
above, and have determined that the
direct PM2.5, NOX, and VOC MVEBs
have been appropriately derived for
each maintenance plan and are
acceptable. We have also evaluated the
description and derivation of the MVEB
NOX and VOC trading mechanisms, the
supporting modeling data maintenance
demonstration, and the TSDs submitted
by UDAQ. We find the trading
mechanisms acceptable. Therefore, we
are proposing to approve the Provo 2006
24-hour PM2.5 maintenance plan’s 2035
MVEBs of direct PM2.5 of 1.5 tpd, NOX
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
71043
of 6.5 tpd, and VOC of 7.0 tpd. We are
also proposing to approve the Salt Lake
City 2006 24-hour PM2.5 maintenance
plan’s 2035 MVEBs of direct PM2.5 of
1.38 tpd, NOX of 21.63 tpd, and VOC of
20.57 tpd. In addition, we are also
proposing to approve the NOX/VOC-todirect PM2.5 MVEB trading mechanisms
as described above and documented in
Section 4(a)(ii) of each respective
maintenance plan.
E. Did Utah follow the proper
procedures for adopting this Action?
Section 110(k) of the CAA addresses
our actions on submissions of revisions
to a SIP. The Act also requires states to
observe procedural requirements in
developing implementation plans and
plan revisions for submission. Section
110(a)(2) of the Act provides that each
implementation plan submitted by a
state must be adopted after reasonable
notice and public hearing. Section
110(l) of the Act similarly provides that
each revision to an implementation plan
submitted by a state under the Act must
be adopted by the state after reasonable
notice and public hearing.
We also must determine whether a
submittal is complete and therefore
warrants further review and action.68
Our completeness criteria for SIP
submittals are set out at 40 CFR part 51,
appendix V. We attempt to make
completeness determinations within 60
days of receiving a submission.
However, a submittal is deemed
complete by operation of law under
section 110(k)(1)(B) of the Act if a
completeness determination is not made
within six months after receipt of the
submission.
On July 11, 2012, the UAQB approved
for public comment a new Rule R307–
208 (Outdoor Wood Boiler Prohibition),
with a comment period from August 1
to August 31, 2012, and a public hearing
on August 15, 2012. UDAQ received
comments from industry, environmental
groups, and citizens, and based on these
comments, UDAQ made significant
changes to the rule, and on November
7, 2012, requested the UAQB proposed
the revised rule for a second comment
period. This comment period was held
from December 1 through 31, 2012, and
no public hearing was requested.
Comments were submitted by industry
during this second comment period and
UDAQ made significant changes to the
rule where another comment period was
required. On February 6, 2013, the
UAQB approved these revisions for a
third comment period from March 1
through April 1, 2013. The UAQB
approved, and the rule became effective
68 CAA
E:\FR\FM\06NOP1.SGM
section 110(k)(1); 57 FR 13565.
06NOP1
71044
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 216 / Friday, November 6, 2020 / Proposed Rules
on April 10, 2013 and UDAQ submitted
this new rule to the EPA on July 21,
2020.
On September 3, 2014, the UAQB
approved the Salt Lake City and Provo
Moderate 2006 24-hour PM2.5 SIP
revisions for public comment, which
took place from October 1 through
October 31, 2014, with a public hearing
on October 20, 2014. Comments were
submitted by industry, environmental
groups, and the EPA. UDAQ responded
to all comments and made insignificant
changes that did not warrant a second
comment period. The UAQB approved
the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 Moderate SIP for
submission to the EPA on December 3,
2014, and the SIP became effective on
December 4, 2014. UDAQ submitted the
Moderate 2006 24-hour PM2.5 SIPs on
December 16, 2014.
On May 3, 2017, the UAQB approved
the new rule R307–230 (NOX Emission
Limits for Natural Gas-Fired Water
Heaters) for public comment from June
1, 2017 to July 3, 2017; no public
hearing was requested. No comments
were received, and the rule was
approved by the UAQB on August 2,
2017, and it became effective on August
3, 2017. UDAQ submitted the rule to the
EPA on July 21, 2020.
On September 7, 2016, the UAQB
approved Utah SIP Section IX.H.13
(Source-Specific Emission Limitations
in Provo—UT PM2.5 Nonattainment
Area) for the PM2.5 SIPs for public
comment, which was accepted from
October 1 through October 31, 2016,
with a public hearing on October 26,
2016. Comments were submitted by
industry and environmental groups.
UDAQ responded to all comments and
made insignificant changes that did not
warrant a second comment period. The
UAQB approved Utah SIP Section
IX.H.13 for submission to the EPA on
December 7, 2016, and the rule became
effective on December 8, 2016. UDAQ
submitted the revisions on January 19,
2017.
On June 7, 2017, the UAQB approved
a new rule, R307–304 (Solvent
Cleaning) for the PM2.5 SIPs for public
comment, which extended from July 1
through August 15, 2017, with a public
hearing on July 27, 2017. Comments
were submitted by industry and
environmental groups. UDAQ
responded to all comments and made
insignificant changes that did not
warrant a second comment period. The
UAQB approved the new rule, R307–
304 (Solvent Cleaning)] for submission
to the EPA on December 6, 2017, and
the rule became effective on December
6, 2017. UDAQ submitted the new rule
on May 21, 2020.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:31 Nov 05, 2020
Jkt 253001
On June 7, 2017, the UAQB approved
revisions to the following area source
rules: R307–335 (Degreasing); R307–343
(Wood Furniture Manufacturing
Operations); R307–344 (Paper, Film,
and Foil Coatings); R307–345 (Fabric
and Vinyl Coatings); R307–346 (Metal
Furniture Surface Coatings); R307–347
(Large Appliance Surface Coatings);
R307–348 (Magnet Wire Coatings);
R307–349 (Flat Wood Panel Coatings);
R307–350 (Miscellaneous Metal Parts
and Products Coatings); R307–351
(Graphic Arts); R307–352 (Metal
Container, Closure, and Coil Coatings);
R307–353 (Plastic Parts Coatings); and
R307–354 (Automotive Refinishing
Coatings). Public comment was
accepted from July 1 through August 15,
2017, with a public hearing on July 27,
2017. Comments were submitted by
industry and environmental groups.
UDAQ responded to all comments and
made insignificant changes that did not
warrant a second comment period. The
UAQB approved these rules, except
R307–350, R307–353, and R307–355, to
be submitted to the EPA on October 4,
2017. Additionally, on October 4, 2017,
the UAQB requested revisions to R307–
350, R307–353, and R307–355. UDAQ
presented these revisions to the UAQB
on December 6, 2017, which required a
second comment period, from January 1
through January 31, 2018. Industry
submitted comments and UDAQ
provided responses within the submittal
and made insignificant changes to these
rules during the second comment
period. R307–335 became effective on
October 29, 2017, and R307–343, R307–
344, R307–345, R307–346, R307–347,
R307–348, R307–349, R307–350, R307–
351, R307–352, R307–353, R307–354,
and R307–355 became effective on
December 6, 2017. UDAQ submitted
these rules to the EPA on April 19,
2018.
On June 6, 2018, the UAQB approved
the revisions to Utah SIP Sections
IX.H.11 and 12, with the accompanying
BACM/BACT analysis. Additionally, the
BACM/BACT analyses for on-road
mobile, off-road mobile, and area source
rules were approved for public
comment. The comment period was
held from July 1 to August 15, 2018, and
no public hearing was requested.
Comments were received by industry,
environmental groups and the EPA.
UDAQ responded to these comments
and held two follow-up comment
periods. The first was held from October
1 through October 31, 2018. This
comment period was for the Salt Lake
City Serious 2006 24-hour PM2.5 SIP,
including the potential for UDAQ to
complete a major stationary source
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
precursor demonstration for the SIP.
The second follow-up comment period
was held from November 1 through
November 30, 2018. This comment
period was for significant revisions to
Utah SIP Sections IX.H.11, 12, and
BACM/BACT demonstration. Comments
were submitted by industry,
environmental groups, and the EPA in
these second-round comment periods.
UDAQ responded to all the comments
and took the final SIP package to the
January 2, 2019 UAQB meeting which
approved the SIP elements to be
submitted to the EPA. The SIP became
effective on January 3, 2019 and was
submitted to the EPA on February 15,
2019.
On May 15, 2018, UDAQ published a
Notice of Public Comment Period for the
Provo Serious 2006 24-hour PM2.5 SIP
elements that were not suspended with
the April 10, 2019 CDD (84 FR 14267).
These elements included: Base-year
emissions inventory and provisions to
ensure BACM/BACT for area sources,
major stationary sources, on-road
mobile sources, and off-road mobile
sources. These documents did not need
to go through the UAQB, because no
portion of the Utah SIP was revised;
UDAQ completed a detailed analysis
and supporting inventory for what is
currently within the Utah SIP for the
Provo 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAA. The
comment period was held from May 16,
2018 to June 16, 2018, and a public
hearing was not requested. UDAQ
received comments from industry,
environmental groups, and the EPA.
UDAQ responded to all submitted
comments and made only insignificant
revisions that did not warrant a second
comment period; therefore, UDAQ
submitted these remaining Provo
Serious 2006 24-hour PM2.5 SIP
elements to the EPA on February 4,
2019.
On September 4, 2019, the UAQB
proposed for public comment the Provo
and Salt Lake City maintenance plans
and redesignation request and revisions
to R307–110–10. The public comment
period was held from October 1 to
October 31, 2019. UDAQ received
comments from industry and citizens,
and no public hearing was requested.
The comments were minimal and did
not prompt UDAQ to substantively
revise any documents. UDAQ made
minor revisions to the plan once the
data and modeling were verified. On
December 4, 2019, the UAQB adopted
R307–110–10 and the Provo and Salt
Lake City maintenance plans/
redesignation requests, effective
December 5, 2019. UDAQ submitted
these revisions and the TSD to the EPA
on January 13, 2020.
E:\FR\FM\06NOP1.SGM
06NOP1
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 216 / Friday, November 6, 2020 / Proposed Rules
On November 20, 2019, the UAQB
proposed amendments to Utah SIP
Section X, Vehicle Inspection and
Maintenance Program, Parts B and E;
R307–110–32; and R307–110–35. The
comment period was held from January
1 to 31, 2020. A public hearing was held
on Monday February 3, 2020; however,
due to severe weather, a second public
hearing was held on Wednesday
February 5, 2020. No comments were
received, and no one attended either
public hearing. On March 4, 2020, the
UAQB adopted revisions to R307–110–
32; R307–110–35 and to Utah SIP
Section X, Vehicle Inspection and
Maintenance Program, Parts B and E.
These revisions became effective on
March 5, 2020, and UDAQ submitted
these revisions to the EPA on May 21,
2020.
On October 9, 2020, UDAQ submitted
a draft SIP revision to the Utah SIP
Section IX.H.12.i.i.C (Kennecott Power
Plant), which will remove the startup/
shutdown emission limits from this
Utah SIP section, to the EPA for parallel
processing. The comment period at the
State level began October 1 and will end
November 3, 2020, with a public
hearing being held on November 3,
2020. UDAQ requested this parallel
processing so as not to delay action on
the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 redesignations
for the Salt Lake City and Provo NAAs.
UDAQ is planning on submitting this
SIP revision early in January 2021. After
the State formally submits these
revisions, the EPA will evaluate the
submittal for any changes between the
proposed and final versions. As
discussed above in Section I.E, the EPA
will determine if any changes to the
draft submission would warrant another
proposed rule, or if on the other hand
the agency may proceed with a final
action. This formal submission from the
State of Utah will accompany either the
final rule or the new proposed rule
under this docket number.
III. Proposed Action
We are proposing to redesignate the
Salt Lake City and Provo 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAs, and to approve multiple
related SIP submissions. We are
proposing to approve the Governor of
Utah’s submittal of January 13, 2020,
containing revisions to R307–110–10,
and the Provo and Salt Lake City 2006
24-hour PM2.5 maintenance plans and
redesignation requests. We are also
proposing to approve the Governor of
Utah’s submittal of May 21, 2020, with
revisions to R307–110–32, R307–110–
35, Utah SIP Section X.B., and Utah SIP
Section X.E, which are the I/M programs
for Davis and Weber Counties. We are
proposing to approve both maintenance
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:31 Nov 05, 2020
Jkt 253001
plans’ 2035 MVEBs. In addition, we are
proposing to approve the NOX and VOC
to direct PM2.5 MVEB trading
mechanisms in each maintenance plan.
We are proposing approval of these
submissions because UDAQ has
adequately addressed all of the
requirements of the Act for the SIP
revisions and the redesignation to
attainment applicable to the Provo and
Salt Lake City 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAs. We are using 2017–2019 ambient
air quality data from the Provo and Salt
Lake City NAAs as the basis for our
decision. Upon the effective date of a
subsequent final action, the designation
status of the Provo and Salt Lake City
areas under 40 CFR part 81 will be
revised to attainment.
Additionally, we are proposing to
approve SIP revisions submitted on
January 19, 2017 (Utah SIP Section
IX.H.13), and February 15, 2019 (Utah
SIP Section IX.H.11 and 12).
Additionally, we are proposing to
approve, through parallel processing,
Utah’s draft October 9, 2020 submission
removing the startup/shutdown
emission limits for the Kennecott Power
Plant found in Utah SIP Section
IX.H.12.i.i.C, and the accompanying
R307–110–17.
The EPA is proposing to approve the
Utah UAC section R307–200 and R307–
300 Series revisions and new rules
submitted by UDAQ on April 19, 2018,
May 21, 2020 and July 21, 2020, which
are intended to strengthen the SIP and
to serve as BACM for certain area
sources for the Utah PM2.5 SIP. These
rules are R307–208, R307–230, R307–
304, R307–335, R307–343, R307–344,
R307–345, R307–346, R307–347, R307–
348, R307–349, R307–350, R307–351,
R307–352, R307–353, R307–354 and
R307–355. Additionally, the EPA is
proposing to approve the area sources,
major stationary sources, on-road
mobile sources, and non-road mobile
sources BACM/BACT analyses for the
Provo and Salt Lake City 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAs that were submitted on
February 4, 2019 and February 15, 2019.
71045
SIP Section X.E.; Utah SIP Section
IX.H.11, 12, and 13; Utah SIP Section
IX.A.27 (Provo 2006 24-hour PM2.5
Maintenance Plan); Utah SIP Section
IX.A.36 (Salt Lake City 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 Maintenance Plan); and the
redesignation requests for the Provo and
Salt Lake City 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAs
to attainment. The EPA has made, and
will continue to make, these materials
generally available through
www.regulations.gov and at the EPA
Region 8 Office (please contact the
person identified in the FOR FUTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this
preamble for more information).
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
IV. Incorporation by Reference
mandate or significantly or uniquely
affect small governments, as described
In this document, the EPA is
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
proposing to include regulatory text in
of 1995 (Pub. L, 104–4);
an EPA final rule that includes
• Does not have Federalism
incorporation by reference. In
implications as specified in Executive
accordance with requirements of 1 CFR
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10,
51.5, the EPA is proposing to
1999);
incorporate by reference revisions to:
• Is not an economically significant
R307–110–10; R307–110–17; R307–110–
32; R307–110–35; R307–208; R307–230; regulatory action based on health or
R307–304; R307–335; R307–343; R307– safety risks subject to Executive Order
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
344; R307–345; R307–346; R307–347;
• Is not a significant regulatory action
R307–348; R307–349; R307–350; R307–
subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR
351; R307–352; R307–353; R307–354;
28355, May 22, 2001);
R307–355; Utah SIP Section X.B.; Utah
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\06NOP1.SGM
06NOP1
71046
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 216 / Friday, November 6, 2020 / Proposed Rules
• 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
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:31 Nov 05, 2020
Jkt 253001
recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur
oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
40 CFR Part 81
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, National parks, and
Wilderness areas.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: October 29, 2020.
Gregory Sopkin,
Regional Administrator, EPA Region 8.
[FR Doc. 2020–24444 Filed 11–5–20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES
public hearing to receive information
and views on the notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM) entitled ‘‘National
Vaccine Injury Compensation Program:
Revisions to the Vaccine Injury Table.’’
The deadline to give oral notice of
participation when there may be
insufficient time to submit the required
information in writing has changed from
October 26, 2020, to November 5, 2020.
DATES:
November 6, 2020.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Tamara Overby, Acting Director, DICP,
Healthcare Systems Bureau (HSB),
HRSA, 5600 Fishers Lane, 08N–142,
Rockville, Maryland 20857; 855–266–
2427 or by email TOverby@hrsa.gov.
42 CFR Part 100
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
RIN 0906–AB24
Correction
National Vaccine Injury Compensation
Program: Revisions to the Vaccine
Injury Table; Correction
In the Federal Register of October 29,
2020, in FR Doc. 2020–23340, on page
68540, in the third column, in the fourth
paragraph, correct the date October 26,
2020, to November 5, 2020.
Health Resources and Services
Administration (HRSA), U.S.
Department of Health and Human
Services (HHS).
ACTION: Notification; correction.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: HHS published a document
on October 29, 2020, announcing a
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 9990
Wilma M. Robinson,
Deputy Executive Secretary, Department of
Health and Human Services.
[FR Doc. 2020–24774 Filed 11–4–20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4165–15–P
E:\FR\FM\06NOP1.SGM
06NOP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 216 (Friday, November 6, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 71023-71046]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-24444]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 52 and 81
[EPA-R08-OAR-2020-0098; FRL-10016-53-Region 8]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; State of Utah;
Salt Lake City and Provo, Utah PM2.5 Redesignations to Attainment and
Utah State Implementation Plan Revisions
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing the
redesignation of the Salt Lake City, Utah and Provo, Utah nonattainment
areas (NAAs) to attainment for the 2006 24-hour fine particulate matter
with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to a nominal 2.5
microns (PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality Standard
(NAAQS), and also acting on multiple related State Implementation Plan
(SIP) submissions. We are proposing to approve SIP revisions submitted
by the State of Utah on January 19, 2017; April 19, 2018; February 4
and 15, 2019; and January 13, May 21, and July 21, 2020. These SIP
submissions include revisions to Utah Administrative Code (UAC)
Sections R307-110, R307-200, and R307-300 Series; revisions to Utah SIP
Sections X.B and E; revisions to Utah SIP Sections IX.H.11, 12, and 13;
best available control measures/best available control technologies
(BACM/BACT) PM2.5 determinations for Salt Lake City and
Provo; maintenance plans for the Salt Lake City and Provo areas for
PM2.5; and the request for redesignation under the 2006 24-
hour PM2.5 standard. Additionally, the EPA is proposing to
approve, through parallel processing, a request to remove startup and
shutdown emission limits for Kennecott's Power Plant in the Utah SIP
and the accompanying R307-110-17 revisions (draft dated October 9,
2020). The EPA is taking this action pursuant to the Clean Air Act (CAA
or the Act).
DATES: Written comments must be received on or before December 7, 2020.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R08-
OAR-2020-0098, 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
[[Page 71024]]
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: Crystal Ostigaard, Air and Radiation
Division, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode
8ARD-QP, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado, 80202-1129, (303) 312-
6602, [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document wherever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean the EPA.
I. Background
A. Statutory and Regulatory Background for EPA's Regulation of PM2.5
Under section 109 of the Act, the EPA has promulgated NAAQS for
certain pollutants, including PM2.5 (40 CFR 50.2(b)). Once
the EPA promulgates a NAAQS, section 107 of the Act specifies a process
for the designation of each area within a state, generally as either an
attainment area (an area attaining the NAAQS) or as a NAA (an area not
attaining the NAAQS, or that contributes to nonattainment of the NAAQS
in a nearby area). For PM2.5, certain areas have also been
designated ``unclassifiable.'' These various designations, in turn,
trigger certain state planning requirements.
For all areas, regardless of designation, section 110 of the Act
requires that each state adopt and submit for EPA approval a plan to
provide for implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of the NAAQS.
This plan is commonly referred to as a SIP. Section 110 contains
requirements that a SIP must meet to gain EPA approval.\1\ For NAAs,
SIPs must meet additional requirements in part D of Title I of the Act.
Usually, SIPs include measures to control emissions of air pollutants
from various sources, including stationary, mobile, and area sources.
For example, a SIP may specify emission limits at power plants or other
industrial sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ EPA's approval of a SIP has several consequences. For
example, after the EPA approves a SIP, the EPA and citizens may
enforce the SIP's requirements in federal court under section 113
and section 304 of the Act; in other words, the EPA's approval of a
SIP makes the SIP ``federally enforceable.'' Also, once the EPA has
approved a SIP, a state cannot unilaterally change the federally
enforceable version of the SIP. Instead, the state must first submit
a SIP revision to the EPA and gain EPA's approval of that revision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under section 109 of the Act, the EPA has promulgated NAAQS for
certain pollutants, including PM2.5 (40 CFR 50.2(b)). Once
the EPA promulgates a NAAQS, section 107 of the Act specifies a process
for the designation of each area within a state, generally as either an
attainment area (an area attaining the NAAQS) or as a NAA (an area not
attaining the NAAQS, or that contributes to nonattainment of the NAAQS
in a nearby area). For PM2.5, certain areas have also been
designated ``unclassifiable.'' These various designations, in turn,
trigger certain state planning requirements.
For all areas, regardless of designation, section 110 of the Act
requires that each state adopt and submit for EPA approval a plan to
provide for implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of the NAAQS.
This plan is commonly referred to as a SIP. Section 110 contains
requirements that a SIP must meet to gain EPA approval.\2\ For NAAs,
SIPs must meet additional requirements in part D of Title I of the Act.
Usually, SIPs include measures to control emissions of air pollutants
from various sources, including stationary, mobile, and area sources.
For example, a SIP may specify emission limits at power plants or other
industrial sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ EPA's approval of a SIP has several consequences. For
example, after the EPA approves a SIP, the EPA and citizens may
enforce the SIP's requirements in federal court under section 113
and section 304 of the Act; in other words, the EPA's approval of a
SIP makes the SIP ``federally enforceable.'' Also, once the EPA has
approved a SIP, a state cannot unilaterally change the federally
enforceable version of the SIP. Instead, the state must first submit
a SIP revision to the EPA and gain EPA's approval of that revision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On October 17, 2006 (71 FR 61144), the EPA revised the level of the
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, lowering the primary and secondary
standards from the 1997 standard of 65 micrograms per cubic meter
([micro]g/m\3\) to 35 [micro]g/m\3\. On November 13, 2009 (74 FR
58688), the EPA designated three NAAs in Utah for the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS of 35 [micro]g/m\3\. These are the Salt Lake
City; Provo; and Logan, Utah-Idaho NAAs.
The EPA originally issued a rule in 2007 \3\ regarding
implementation of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS for the NAA
requirements specified in CAA title I, part D, subpart 1. Under subpart
1, Utah was required to submit an attainment plan for each area no
later than three years from the date of nonattainment designation.
These plans needed to provide for the attainment of the
PM2.5 standards as expeditiously as practicable, but no
later than five years from the date the areas were designated
nonattainment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ 72 FR 20586 (Apr. 25, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
held that the EPA should have implemented the 2006 PM2.5 24-
hour standards, as well as the other PM2.5 NAAQS, based on
both subpart 1 and subpart 4 of CAA title I, part D.\4\ Under subpart
4, all NAAs are initially classified as Moderate, and Moderate area
attainment plans must address the requirements of subpart 4 as well as
subpart 1. Additionally, subpart 4 sets a different SIP submittal due
date and attainment year. For a Moderate area, the attainment SIP is
due 18 months after designation and the attainment year is as
expeditiously as practicable, but no later than the end of the sixth
calendar year after designation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Nat. Res. Def. Council v. EPA, 706 F.3d 428, 437 (D.C. Cir.
2013) (NRDC).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On June 2, 2014 (79 FR 31566), the EPA finalized the Identification
of Nonattainment Classification and Deadlines for Submission of State
Implementation Plan (SIP) Provisions for the 1997 Fine Particulate
(PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) and
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. This rule classified as Moderate
the areas that were designated in 2009 as nonattainment and set the
attainment SIP submittal due date for those areas at December 31, 2014.
Additionally, this rule established the Moderate area attainment date
of December 31, 2015.
When an area is designated as a Moderate NAA under subpart 1 and
subpart 4, the CAA requires the State to submit the following Moderate
area SIP elements:
1. A comprehensive, accurate, current inventory of actual emissions
from all sources of PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors in
the area (CAA section 172(c)(3)).
2. Provisions to assure that reasonably available control measures
(RACM), including reasonably available control technologies (RACT), for
the control of direct PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors
shall be implemented no later than four years after the area is
designated (CAA sections 172(c)(1) and 189(a)(1)(C)).
3. A demonstration (including air quality modeling) that the plan
provides for attainment as expeditiously as practicable but no later
than the Moderate area attainment date (CAA section 188(c)(1).
4. Plan provisions that require reasonable further progress (RFP)
(CAA section 172(c)(2)).
5. Quantitative milestones, which are to be achieved every three
years until the area is redesignated to attainment,
[[Page 71025]]
and which demonstrate RFP toward attainment by the applicable date. The
State is required to submit, not later than 90 days after the date on
which a milestone applicable to the area occurs, a demonstration that
all measures in the approved SIP have been implemented and the
milestone has been met. These submissions are referred to as
``quantitative milestone reports.'' (CAA section 189(c)).
6. Provisions to assure that control requirements applicable to
major stationary sources of PM2.5 also apply to major
stationary sources of PM2.5 precursors, except where the
State demonstrates to the EPA's satisfaction that such sources do not
contribute significantly to PM2.5 levels that exceed the
standard in the area (CAA section 189(e)).
7. Contingency measures to be implemented if the area fails to meet
RFP or fails to attain by the applicable attainment date (CAA section
172(c)(9)).
8. A revision to the Nonattainment New Source Review (NNSR) program
to set the applicable ``major stationary source'' thresholds to 100
tons per year (tpy) (CAA section 302(j)).
Moderate area 2006 24-hour PM2.5 plans must also satisfy
the general requirements applicable to all SIP submissions under
section 110 of the CAA, including the requirement to provide necessary
assurances that the implementing agencies have adequate personnel,
funding, and authority under CAA section 110(a)(2)(E), and the
requirements concerning enforcement in CAA section 110(a)(2)(C).
On August 24, 2016 (81 FR 58010), the EPA finalized the Fine
Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards: State
Implementation Plan Requirements (``PM2.5 Requirements
Rule''), which partially addressed the 2013 NRDC decision. The final
PM2.5 Requirements Rule details how air agencies can meet
the SIP requirements under subparts 1 and 4 that apply to areas
designated nonattainment for any PM2.5 NAAQS, such as:
General requirements for attainment plan due dates and attainment
demonstrations; provisions for demonstrating RFP; quantitative
milestones; contingency measures; NNSR permitting programs; and RACM
(including RACT). The statutory attainment planning requirements of
subparts 1 and 4 were established to ensure that the following goals of
the CAA are met: (i) That states implement measures that provide for
attainment of the PM2.5 NAAQS as expeditiously as
practicable; and (ii) that states adopt emissions reduction strategies
that will be the most effective at reducing PM2.5 levels in
NAAs.
If an area is reclassified from Moderate to Serious, the area will
then be subject to Serious PM2.5 CAA requirements. Serious
area PM2.5 requirements are the same as those listed above
for Moderate areas, except that BACM and BACT are required instead of
RACM and RACT, the NNSR permit threshold drops to 70 tons, and the
relevant attainment date is the Serious area attainment date (CAA
section 188(c)(2). Serious area PM2.5 plans must also
satisfy the Moderate PM2.5 requirements discussed above, and
the general requirements applicable to all SIP submissions under
section 110 of the CAA, including the requirement to provide necessary
assurances that the implementing agencies have adequate personnel,
funding and authority under CAA section 110(a)(2)(E) and the
requirements concerning enforcement in CAA section 110(a)(2)(C).
B. Utah's PM2.5 Attainment Status and SIP Development
After the November 13, 2009 designation of nonattainment for the
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, Utah developed draft
PM2.5 attainment plans intended to meet the requirements of
subpart 1. The EPA submitted written comments dated November 1, 2012,
to UDAQ on the draft PM2.5 SIP, technical support document
(TSD), area source rules, and point source rules in Section IX, Part
H.\5\ Utah submitted revised 2006 24-hour PM2.5 attainment
plans for the Salt Lake City and Provo NAAs on December 14, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ An ``area source'' is ``any small residential, governmental,
institutional, commercial, or industrial fuel combustion operation;
onsite solid waste disposal facility; motor vehicle], aircraft
vessel or other transportation facilit[y] or other miscellaneous
source identified'' through specified inventory techniques. 40 CFR
51.100(l). A ``point source'' is any stationary source emitting
above certain thresholds. 40 CFR 51.100(k).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
After the court's 2013 decision, Utah amended its attainment plans
to address the requirements of subpart 4. On December 2, 2013, and
October 30, 2014, the EPA provided comments on Utah's revised draft
2006 24-hour PM2.5 SIPs, including the TSD and emissions
limits in Section IX, Part H. On December 16, 2014, UDAQ withdrew all
prior Salt Lake City and Provo 2006 24-hour PM2.5 Moderate
SIP attainment plan submissions and submitted a subpart 1 and subpart 4
Salt Lake City and Provo 2006 24-hour PM2.5 Moderate SIP.
Additionally, the State of Utah submitted various revisions to the UAC
Title R307 (Environmental Quality) area source rules in multiple
submissions: February 2, 2012; May 9, 2013; June 8, 2013; February 18,
2014; April 17, 2014; May 20, 2014; July 10, 2014; and August 6, 2014.
These area source rules were either new or revised to meet RACM/RACT
for the Salt Lake City and Provo 2006 24-hour PM2.5 SIPs.
The EPA acted on these submittals, along with the area source rule
revisions in the December 16, 2014 submission, on February 25, 2016 (81
FR 9343), October 19, 2016 (81 FR 71988), October 2, 2019 (84 FR
52368), and February 26, 2020 (85 FR 10989).
On January 19, 2017, the State of Utah submitted revisions to their
Part H.11, 12, and 13 emission limits section of the Utah 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 SIP and revises R307-110-17. R307-110-17 incorporates
by reference (IBR) Section IX, Control Measures for Area and Point
Sources, Part H, Emission Limits; which formally incorporates the Salt
Lake City and Provo 2006 24-hour PM2.5 Part H.11, 12, and 13
emission limits into Utah's state regulations. This was undertaken by
UDAQ to correlate any overlapping limits between the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 Part H.11, 12, and 13, to the coarse particulate
matter (PM10) Part H.1, 2, 3, and 4.
On May 10, 2017 (82 FR 21711), the EPA published a final rule
reclassifying the Salt Lake City and Provo areas to ``Serious''
nonattainment status, based on the EPA's determination that the areas
could not practicably attain the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
standards by the December 31, 2015 attainment date. This
reclassification became effective on June 9, 2017. The reclassification
was based on the EPA's evaluation of ambient air quality data from the
2013-2015 period, indicating that it was not practicable for some of
the monitoring sites in the Salt Lake City and Provo areas to show
PM2.5 design values at or below the level of the 2006 24-
hour PM2.5 NAAQS by December 31, 2015.
On March 23, 2018, the State of Utah submitted quantitative
milestone reports for the Salt Lake City and Provo 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAs, meeting its due date of no later than 90 days
after the December 31, 2017 milestone date. On October 24, 2018, the
EPA determined that the 2017 quantitative milestone reports for the
Salt Lake City and Provo 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAs were
adequate.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ The state's quantitative milestone reports and the adequacy
determination letter from the EPA Administrator to the Governor of
Utah are in the docket for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
After the Serious reclassification, UDAQ revised certain area
source rules in UAC Section R307-200 and R307-300 Series and submitted
these revisions on April 19, 2018, May 21, 2020, and July 21, 2020. On
February 4,
[[Page 71026]]
2019, the State of Utah submitted the BACM/BACT analysis for the Provo
Serious 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAA, which is based on the
emission limits submitted on January 19, 2017 for only Part H.13. On
February 15, 2019, Utah submitted the Serious 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 SIP for the Salt Lake City NAA, which included
revisions to Utah SIP Part H.11 and 12, and the accompanying BACM/BACT
analysis. The February 4, 2019 and February 15, 2019 submissions
included BACM/BACT analyses for on-road, off-road, and area source
rules; some of these area source rules were revised and others were
deemed BACM/BACT without revising. Our detailed discussion on the
intricacies of these submissions can be found in Section II.B below of
this document.
Applying the Clean Data Policy,\7\ on April 10, 2019 (84 FR 14267)
and September 27, 2019 (84 FR 51055), the EPA finalized determinations
that the obligation to submit any remaining attainment-related SIP
revisions arising from classification of the Provo and Salt Lake City
areas, respectively, as Moderate NAAs and their subsequent
reclassification as Serious NAAs for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS does not apply for so long as the area continues to attain the
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.\8\ The attainment-related SIP
revisions that were suspended include the requirements for the State to
submit: An attainment demonstration (Moderate and Serious), provisions
demonstrating timely implementation of RACM/RACT (Moderate), an RFP
plan (Moderate and Serious), quantitative milestones and quantitative
milestone reports (Moderate and Serious), and contingency measures
(Moderate and Serious). The only remaining SIP elements for EPA action
include baseline emission inventories, NNSR, and BACM/BACT. Our review
of these remaining elements is in Section II.B below of this document
and in our TSD found in the docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ The EPA codified the Clean Data Policy in the
PM2.5 SIP Requirements Rule for the implementation of
current and future PM2.5 NAAQS. See 81 FR at 58161; 40
CFR 51.1015(a).
\8\ 40 CFR 51.1015(a) and (b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On October 9, 2020, the State of Utah submitted draft revisions to
Kennecott's Power Plant startup/shutdown emission limits in Subsection
IX.H.12.i.i.C. in Utah's SIP and revisions to R307-110-17, for the EPA
to act on as a parallel process. UDAQ's BACM/BACT analysis submitted on
February 15, 2019 for this source did not support these limits;
therefore, UDAQ proposed with the October 9, 2020 draft revision to
remove these limits. The parallel process is generally described in
more detail in Section I.E below.
C. Redesignation Requests and Related Requirements
For a NAA to be redesignated to attainment, the following
conditions in section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA must be met:
1. We must determine that the area has attained the NAAQS;
2. The applicable implementation plan for the area must be fully
approved under section 110(k) of the Act;
3. We must determine that the improvement in air quality is due to
permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions resulting from
implementation of the applicable implementation plan and applicable
Federal air pollutant control regulations and other permanent and
enforceable reductions;
4. We must fully approve a maintenance plan for the area as meeting
the requirements of CAA section 175A; and
5. The state containing the area must meet all requirements
applicable to the area under section 110 and part D of the CAA.
Our September 4, 1992 guidance entitled ``Procedures for Processing
Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment'' (referred to in this
action as the Calcagni Memorandum) outlines how to assess the adequacy
of redesignation requests against the conditions listed above.
On January 13, 2020, the Governor of Utah submitted revisions to
the SIP for R307-110-10, maintenance plans for the Salt Lake City (Utah
SIP Section IX.A.36) and Provo (Utah SIP Section IX.A.27) areas, and a
request that the EPA redesignate the areas to attainment for the 2006
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. R307-110-10 IBRs Section IX, Control
Measures for Area and Point Sources, Part A, Fine Particulate Matter;
which formally incorporates the Salt Lake City and Provo 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 Maintenance Plans (located within the Utah SIP at
Sections IX.A.36 and 27, respectively) into Utah's state regulations.
In Section II.C below, we discuss our review of UDAQs maintenance plans
and redesignation requests for the Salt Lake City and Provo 2006 24-
hour PM2.5 NAAs.
D. SIP Submissions Supporting the Redesignation Request
Vehicle I/M programs help improve air quality by identifying cars
and trucks with high emissions and that may need repairs. Owners or
operators of vehicles with high emissions are notified to make any
repairs so that emissions are within legal limits. On July 17, 1997 (62
FR 38213), and September 14, 2005 (70 FR 54267), the EPA finalized
approval of revisions to Utah's SIP Section X, Vehicle Inspection and
Maintenance Program for Part B, Davis County, and Part E, Weber County,
respectively. In these actions the EPA also approved into the SIP
revisions to Utah's regulations at R307-110-32 and R307-110-35. These
rules IBR the Utah SIP into state regulations: Rule R307-110-32 IBRs
Utah SIP Section X, Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Program, Part B,
Davis County; and Rule R307-110-35 IBRs Utah SIP Section X, Vehicle
Inspection and Maintenance Program, Part E, Weber County.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Since promulgating R307-110-32, Utah has renumbered its SIP.
On February 14, 2006 (71 FR 7679), the EPA renumbered the Weber
County I/M Program to R307-110-32. R307-110-35 was last approved on
September 14, 2005.70 FR 54267.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
E. What is parallel processing?
Parallel processing refers to a process that utilizes concurrent
state and Federal proposed rulemaking actions. Generally, the state
submits a copy of the proposed regulation or other revisions to the EPA
before conducting its public hearing and completing its public comment
process under state law. The EPA reviews this proposed state action and
prepares a notice of proposed rulemaking under Federal Law. In some
cases, the EPA's notice of proposed rulemaking is published in the
Federal Register during the same time frame that the state is holding
its public hearing and conducting its public comment process. The state
and the EPA then provide for concurrent public comment periods on both
the state action and Federal action. If, after completing its public
comment process and after the EPA's public comment process has run, the
state changes its final submittal from the proposed submittal, the EPA
evaluates those changes and decides on whether to publish another
notice of proposed rulemaking in light of those changes or to proceed
to taking the final action on its proposed action and describe the
state's changes in its final rulemaking action. Any final rulemaking
action by the EPA will occur only after the final submittal has been
adopted by the state and formally provided to the EPA.
In this case, however, the EPA's and Utah's processes have not been
perfectly concurrent. The State submitted the draft SIP revisions on
October 9, 2020, with a public comment period starting October 1 and
going through November 3, 2020, with a public hearing held online at
10am on November 3, 2020.
[[Page 71027]]
Utah requested that the EPA parallel process these proposed revisions
while the State finishes the comment period and public hearing, so as
not to delay the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 redesignation of the
Salt Lake City NAA. The State's intention is to submit its final SIP
revisions in early January 2021. After Utah submits these formal SIP
revisions, the EPA will evaluate the submittal. If the State changes
the formal submittal from the proposed submittal, the EPA will evaluate
those changes for significance. If the EPA finds any such changes to be
significant, then the Agency intends to determine whether to re-propose
the actions based on the revised submission or to proceed to take final
action on the submittal as changed by the State. Although the EPA was
unable to have a concurrent public comment process with the State,
Utah's request for parallel processing allows the EPA to begin to take
action on the State's proposed submittal in advance of a formal and
final submission.
II. The EPA's Evaluation
A. Utah's SIP Revisions
When certain sections of the Utah SIP are amended by the Utah Air
Quality Board (UAQB), those sections must be incorporated into the Utah
Air Quality Rules. Utah incorporates SIP sections within the state's
rule R307-110. These rules are amended as needed to change the
effective dates to match the UAQB approval date of various amendments
to the Utah SIP. For the Salt Lake City and Provo 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 proposed action, we are acting on R307-110-10, which
IBRs Section IX, Control Measures for Area and Point Sources, Part A,
Fine Particulate Matter, and thus incorporates the Salt Lake City and
Provo 2006 24-hour PM2.5 maintenance plans into state
regulations (located within the Utah SIP at Sections IX.A.36 and 27,
respectively). We are also proposing to approve into the SIP R307-110-
17, which IBRs Section IX, Control Measures for Area and Point Sources,
Part H, Emission Limits, and thus incorporates all the emission limits
in Utah SIP Section IX.H.11, 12, and 13, into state regulations. The
state's R307-110-32 and R307-110-35 IBR Section X, Vehicle Inspection
and Maintenance Program, Part B, Davis County, and Section X, Vehicle
Inspection and Maintenance Program, Part E, Weber County, respectively.
These two rules incorporate the I/M Programs of Davis and Weber
Counties into the state regulations.
Utah Code 41-6a-1642 gives authority to each county in the State to
design and manage a vehicle I/M program when necessary to attain or
maintain any NAAQS. Section X of the Utah SIP incorporates these county
programs. Section X, Part A summarizes I/M requirements that are common
among all I/M programs, while Section X, Parts B through F contain the
requirements for each county's unique I/M program. Below we discuss the
revisions to Utah SIP Section X, Parts B and E, and to the related
Rules R307-110-10, R307-110-32, and R307-110-35, along with our
evaluation. We discuss the revisions done to Utah SIP Section X, Parts
B and E, in greater detail within the TSD. Utah Rule R307-110-17 will
be going through the parallel process based on the informal October 9,
2020 UDAQ submission revising Utah SIP Section IX.H.12.i.i.C, which
requires a revision to R307-110-17 to incorporate the revisions into
the Utah SIP. In Section I.E above, we discuss the process of this type
of action.
1. R307-110-10
Section R307-110-10 incorporates amendments to Utah SIP Section
IX.A into State regulations, thereby making them effective as a matter
of State law. This is a ministerial provision, which only revises the
effective date within the rule to December 4, 2019 and does not by
itself include any SIP measures.
2. R307-110-17
Section R307-110-17 incorporates the amendments to Utah SIP Section
IX, Control Measures for Area and Point Sources, Part H, Emission
Limits into State regulations, thereby making them effective as a
matter of State law. This is a ministerial provision, which only
revises the effective date within the rule to December 2, 2020, and
does not by itself include any SIP control measures; however, this
revision is being acted on as a parallel process due to revisions to
Utah SIP Section IX.H.12.i.i.C. In Section I.E above, we discuss the
process of this type of action.
3. R307-110-32
Section R307-110-32 incorporates the amendments to Utah SIP Section
X, Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Program, Part B, Davis County
into State rules, thereby making them effective as a matter of State
law. This is a ministerial provision, which only revises the effective
date within the rule to March 4, 2020 and does not by itself include
any control measures.
4. R307-110-35
Section R307-110-35 incorporates the amendments to Utah SIP Section
X, Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Program, Part E, Weber County
into State regulations, thereby making them effective as a matter of
State law. This is a ministerial provision, which only revises the
effective date within the rule to March 4, 2020 and does not by itself
include any control measures.
5. SIP Section X, Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Program, Part B,
Davis County
The Davis County motor vehicle I/M program was last approved by the
EPA on July 17, 1997 (62 FR 38213). The County has since made numerous
improvements, updates and revisions to the I/M program ordinance, while
removing unnecessary and obsolete provisions and sections. The version
of the Davis County I/M program that we are now proposing to approve
supersedes and replaces the July 17, 1997 version. The Davis County I/M
Ordinance was enacted and adopted by the Davis County Commission on
October 1, 2019 and became effective October 18, 2019, and the
Ordinance was adopted into the SIP by the UAQB on March 4, 2020, at
Section X, part B. This is the version that was submitted to the EPA
and is discussed below.
Section X, Part B of the SIP contains two main components for the
Davis County I/M program: (a) Language addressing applicability, a
general description of the Davis County I/M program, and the time frame
for implementation of the I/M program; and (b) the Davis County
Emission Inspection/Maintenance Program, as enacted in Davis County
Ordinance 10.12.
a. State Language Addressing the Davis County I/M Program:
Under the heading ``1. Applicability'' is a description of the 2019
revised Davis County I/M program, and a history of the Salt Lake and
Davis county federal ozone NAAQS attainment status and the development
of the Davis County I/M program. The section also notes that the Davis
County I/M program was included as a control measure in the 2006 24-
hour PM2.5 NAAQS.
Under ``2. Summary of Davis County I/M Program,'' the state
describes various aspects of the revised Davis County I/M program:
Network Type, Test Convenience, Subject Fleet, Test Frequency, Station
Inspector Audits, Waivers, Test Equipment, and Test Procedures.
Under the heading ``3. I/M SIP Implementation,'' the State notes
that the Davis I/M program will continue to apply until a maintenance
plan without an I/M program is approved by the EPA in accordance with
Section 175 of the CAA.
[[Page 71028]]
b. Revisions to Davis County's ``Davis County Vehicle Emissions
Inspection/Maintenance Program Ordinance'' amend the Ordinance's
sections 10.12.020 Definitions, 10.12.030 Purpose, 10.12.040
Jurisdiction of the Division, 10.12.050 Powers and Duties, 10.12.060
Scope, 10.12.070 General Provisions, 10.12.080 Standards and
Specifications for Emissions Inspection Analyzers and Span Gases for
Equipment, 10.12.090 Requirements of the Vehicle Emissions Inspection/
Maintenance Program Stations, 10.12.100 Requirements of the Certified
Emissions Testers and/or Repair Technicians, 10.12.110 Official
Inspection Procedures, 10.12.130 Emissions Standards for Motor
Vehicles, 10.12.140 Certificates of Compliance and Waivers, 10.12.150
Engine Switching, 10.12.160 Right to Appeal, 10.12.170 Recall,
10.12.180 Penalty, 10.12.200 Quality Assurance, 10.12.210 Severability,
10.12.240 Fee Schedule, 10.12.250 Emissions Standards, 10.12.260 Waiver
Cut Points, 10.12.270 Passing Versus Waiver Cut Point Comparison,
10.12.280 Penalty Schedule, and 10.12.290 Conflicts.
In addition, the State has submitted revisions to: Appendix A,
involving the provisions and requirements for emission inspection
analyzer specifications; Appendix B, involving the Two Speed Idle (TSI)
emissions inspection procedures; Appendix C, involving the OBDII (On-
Board Diagnostics Generation II) inspection procedures; Appendix D,
involving the Davis County Diesel I/M Program, which the EPA notes that
we are not proposing to act on: and Appendix E, involving compressed
natural gas vehicle emissions inspection procedures.
We have evaluated the Governor's May 21, 2020 submittal of the
above revisions to the Utah SIP Section X Part B and the revised Davis
County Ordinance, with respect to the applicable provisions and
requirements in 40 CFR part 51, subpart S ``Inspection/Maintenance
Program Requirements,'' and are proposing approval. Additional
information and the EPA's more detailed evaluation of the above
materials are found in the accompanying TSD. The entire Davis County
Ordinance is in the Docket for this action.
6. SIP Section X, Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Program, Part E,
Weber County
The Weber County motor vehicle I/M program was last approved by the
EPA on September 14, 2005 (70 FR 54267). The County has since made
numerous improvements, updates and revisions to the I/M program
ordinance, while removing unnecessary and obsolete provisions and
sections. The version of the Weber County I/M program that we are now
proposing to approve supersedes and replaces the prior September 14,
2005 EPA-approved version. The Weber County I/M Regulation was enacted
and adopted by the Weber-Morgan Board of Health on September 23, 2019,
and the Weber-Morgan Health Department (WMHD) implements the I/M
program on behalf of Weber County. The Regulation was adopted into the
SIP by the UAQB on March 4, 2020. This is the version that was
submitted to the EPA and is discussed below.
Section X, Part E of the Utah SIP addresses the provisions and
requirements for the implementation of the motor vehicle I/M program in
Weber County, Utah. Section X, Part E of the SIP contains two main
components for the Weber County I/M program: (a) Language for Section X
Part E that addresses applicability, a general description of the Weber
County I/M program, and the time frame for implementation of the I/M
program; and (b) the WMHD Motor Vehicle I/M Program Regulation.
a. State Language Addressing the Weber County I/M Program:
Under the heading ``1. Applicability'' is a description of the 2019
revised Weber County I/M program, a history of the Weber county federal
ozone NAAQS attainment status and the development of the Weber County
I/M program. The section also notes that the Weber County I/M program
was included as a control measure in the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS.
Under the heading ``2. Summary of Weber County I/M Program,'' the
State describes certain aspects of the revised Weber County I/M program
involving: Network Type, Test Convenience, Subject Fleet, Test
Frequency, Station Inspector Audits, Waivers, Test Equipment, and Test
Procedures.
Under the heading ``3. I/M SIP Implementation'' the State notes
that the Weber I/M program will continue to apply until a maintenance
plan without an I/M program is approved by the EPA in accordance with
Section 175 of the CAA.
b. Revisions to Weber County's ``Weber-Morgan Health Department
Regulation for Motor Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Program'' amend
the regulation's: Section 1 Title and Definitions, Section 2 Purpose,
Section 4 Powers and Duties, Section 6 General Provisions, Section 7
Standards and Specifications for Analyzers and Calibration Gases,
Section 8 Permit Requirements of the Vehicle Emissions Station, Section
9 Inspection Procedure, Section 10 Certificate of Waiver, Section 12
Certified Emissions Inspection and Repair Technician/Certified
Emissions Inspection Only Technician Permit, Section 14 Certificate of
Compliance, Certificate of Compliance Numbers, and Certificate of
Waiver, Section 15 Adjudicative Proceedings, and Section 18 Effective
Date.
In addition, the State has submitted revisions to Appendix A-
Analyzer Specifications, Appendix B- Fee Schedule, Appendix C-Motor
Vehicle Emissions Inspection and Maintenance Program, Appendix D-
Penalty Schedule, Appendix E-OBD IM Test Procedures, Appendix F
entitled ``Diesel Fueled Vehicle Test Procedure,'' which the EPA notes
that we are not taking any action on this Appendix, and a new Appendix
G entitled ``Adjustment Procedures.''
We have evaluated the Governor's May 21, 2020 submittal of the
above revisions to the Utah SIP Section X Part E and the revised Weber
County Regulation, with respect to the applicable provisions and
requirements in 40 CFR part 51, subpart S ``Inspection/Maintenance
Program Requirements,'' and are proposing approval. Additional
information and the EPA's more detailed evaluation of the above
materials are found in the accompanying TSD. The entire Weber County
Regulation is in the Docket for this action.
B. PM2.5 SIP Plan
On August 24, 2016 the EPA finalized the PM2.5 SIP
Requirements Rule,\10\ which established regulatory requirements
related to the statutory SIP requirements for areas designated
nonattainment for the PM2.5 standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ 81 FR 58010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As discussed in the PM2.5 SIP Requirements Rule,
sections 189(a), (c), and (e) of the CAA require that Moderate area
attainment plans contain the following: (i) An approved permit program
for construction of new and modified major stationary sources (CAA
section 189(a)(1)(A)); (ii) a demonstration that the plan provides for
attainment by no later than the applicable Moderate area attainment
date or a demonstration that attainment by that date is impracticable
(CAA section 189(a)(1)(B)); (iii) provisions for the implementation of
RACM/RACT no later than 4 years after designation (CAA section
189(a)(1)(C)); (iv) quantitative milestones that will be used to
evaluate compliance with the requirements to demonstrate RFP (CAA
section 189(c));
[[Page 71029]]
and (v) evaluation and regulation of PM2.5 precursors (in
general to meet RACM/RACT and other attainment planning requirements,
and also as specifically provided for major stationary sources under
CAA section 189(e)).
Sections 189(b) and (c) of the CAA include the following
requirements for Serious area attainment plan submissions: (i) An
attainment demonstration (CAA section 189(b)(1)(A)); (ii) provisions
for the implementation of BACM/BACT no later than 4 years after
reclassification of the area to Serious (CAA section 189(b)(1)(B));
(iii) quantitative milestones that will be used to evaluate compliance
with the requirement to demonstrate RFP (CAA section 189(c)); and (iv)
regulation of PM2.5 precursors (in general to meet
attainment and control strategy requirements, and as specifically
required for major stationary sources by CAA section 189(e)).
Other subpart 1 requirements for attainment plans not otherwise
superseded under subpart 4 also apply to Moderate and Serious areas for
the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, including (i) a description of
the expected annual incremental reductions in emission that will
demonstrate RFP (CAA section 172(c)(2)); (ii) emissions inventories
(CAA section 172(c)(3)); (iii) other control measures (besides RACM/
RACT for Moderate areas and BACM/BACT for Serious areas) needed for
attainment (CAA section 172(c)(6)); and (iv) contingency measures (CAA
section 172(c)(9)).
In connection with the Moderate area SIP for the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS, the EPA has previously acted on a number of
Utah SIP revisions related to area sources. In particular, on February
2, 2012; May 9, 2013; June 8, 2013; February 18, 2014; April 17, 2014;
May 20, 2014; July 10, 2014; and August 6, 2014, UDAQ submitted either
new area source rules or revisions to rules found in UAC Title R307
(Environmental Quality). We acted on these rule revisions on February
25, 2016 (81 FR 9343), October 19, 2016 (81 FR 71988), October 2, 2019
(84 FR 52368) and February 26, 2020 (85 FR 10989).
On December 16, 2014, UDAQ submitted additional Moderate 2006 24-
hour PM2.5 SIP revisions for the Provo and Salt Lake City
NAAs. CAA section 110(k)(1)(B) requires the EPA to determine whether a
SIP submission is complete within 60 days of receipt. This section also
provides that any plan that the EPA has not affirmatively determined to
be complete or incomplete will become complete by operation of law six
months after the date of submission. The EPA's SIP completeness
criteria are in 40 CFR part 51, appendix V. The 2014 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 plan became complete by operation of law on June 22,
2014. Additionally, UDAQ submitted revisions to the Utah SIP Part H.11,
12 and 13 of the Moderate 2006 24-hour PM2.5 SIPs for the
Provo and Salt Lake City NAAs on January 19, 2017, which became
complete by operation of law on July 20, 2017.
On May 10, 2017 (82 FR 21711), the EPA determined that the Provo
and Salt Lake City NAAs failed to attain the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS by the Moderate attainment date of December 31,
2015. With this determination, the Provo and Salt Lake City NAAs were
reclassified as a ``Serious'' area for the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS, with a new attainment date of December 31,
2019. This reclassification triggered an obligation for Utah to submit
a new, Serious area attainment plan including the CAA elements listed
above. Additionally, CAA section 189(b)(1) requires that ``in
addition'' to the attainment plan requirements specific to Serious
areas, states must also meet all Moderate area attainment plan
requirements. The EPA interprets the statutory language of CAA section
189(b)(1) to require states with areas that are reclassified to Serious
to meet Moderate area attainment plan requirements, including all areas
that the EPA reclassifies through rulemaking under its discretionary
authority, even if that occurs before the area has met all of its
Moderate area attainment plan requirements. The following section
describes the EPA's final actions in this rule regarding Serious area
attainment plan requirements in greater detail.
On April 10, 2019 (84 FR 14267) and September 27, 2019 (84 FR
51055), the EPA finalized clean data determinations (CDD) for the Provo
and Salt Lake City NAAs, respectively. As provided at 40 CFR 51.1015(a)
in the PM2.5 SIP Requirements Rule, this determination by
the EPA that the Provo and Salt Lake City Moderate 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAs suspended the requirements for the State to
submit an attainment demonstration, provisions demonstrating timely
implementation of RACM/RACT, a RFP plan, quantitative milestones and
quantitative milestone reports, and contingency measures. However,
based on the EPA's longstanding policy, the BACM/BACT requirement of
CAA section 189(b)(1)(B) is independent of attainment. Thus, the CDD
did not suspend the obligation for UDAQ to submit any applicable
outstanding BACM/BACT requirements or other requirements that are
independent of attainment (NNSR and base-year emissions inventories).
On February 15, 2019, UDAQ submitted the Serious 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 SIP for the Salt Lake City NAA. Under CAA section
110(k)(1)(B), the Salt Lake City Serious 2006 24-hour PM2.5
SIP became complete by operation of law on August 15, 2019.
Additionally, UDAQ submitted BACM/BACT analyses on February 4, 2019 for
the Provo NAA. The revisions to area source rules for the NAAs were
submitted on April 19, 2018, May 21, 2020 and July 21, 2020, and
revisions to the Utah SIP Section IX.H.11, 12 and 13 for the NAAs were
submitted on December 16, 2014, January 19, 2017 and February 15, 2019.
The revisions submitted on January 19, 2017 and February 15, 2019, for
Utah SIP Section IX.H.11, 12 and 13, supersede the December 16, 2014
submission; therefore, we are not acting on the December 16, 2014
revisions, but are fully acting on Utah SIP Section IX.H.13 from the
January 19, 2017 submission and Utah SIP Section IX.H.11 and 12 from
the February 15, 2019 submission. Any reference to the December 16,
2014 submission for Utah SIP Sections IX.H.11, 12 and 13, and any
reference to the January 19, 2017 submittal for Utah SIP Section
IX.H.11 and 12, are for informational purposes only. Additionally, on
October 9, 2020, UDAQ submitted draft revisions to Kennecott's Power
Plant in Utah SIP Section IX.H.12.i.i.C and the accompanying R307-110-
17 revisions for the EPA to parallel process.
We are acting on these remaining Serious 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 SIP elements for the Salt Lake City and Provo NAAs,
that were not suspended with the CDDs, to allow for our action on the
2006 24-hour PM2.5 redesignation requests discussed in
Section II.C below of this document.
1. Base-Year Emissions Inventories
CAA section 172(c)(3) requires that each SIP include a
comprehensive, accurate, current inventory of actual emissions from all
sources of the relevant pollutant or pollutants in the NAAs. This base-
year emissions inventory should provide a state's best estimate of
actual emissions from all sources of the relevant pollutants in the
area, including all emissions that contribute to the formation of a
particular NAAQS pollutant. For the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS, the base-year inventory must include direct PM2.5
emissions, separately reported filterable and condensable
PM2.5 emissions, and emissions of all chemical precursors to
the formation of
[[Page 71030]]
secondary PM2.5: Nitrogen oxides (NOX), sulfur
dioxide (SO2), volatile organic compounds (VOC), and ammonia
(NH3).\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ 40 CFR 51.1008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The most current base year for emissions inventories for the Provo
and Salt Lake City NAAs was for 2017, which was made available to the
public for comment (and a public hearing if requested) in the January
13, 2020 PM2.5 maintenance plans/redesignation requests
submittal. The base-year inventories are based on the most current and
accurate information available to UDAQ at the time of the submittal.
The 2017 base-year inventories comprehensively address all source
categories in the Provo and Salt Lake City NAAs and were developed
consistent with the EPA's inventory guidance.
In Section II.C.4.a below, the EPA provides a detailed analysis of
the 2017 base-year emissions inventories for the Provo and Salt Lake
City NAAs, which were submitted for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
maintenance plans. Direct PM2.5 and all PM2.5
precursors are included in the 2017 base-year emissions inventories,
and filterable and condensible direct PM2.5 emissions are
identified separately. For these reasons, and with the EPA's detailed
analysis in Section II.C.4.a below, the EPA is proposing to approve the
2017 base-year emissions inventories for the Provo and Salt Lake City
NAAs as meeting the requirements of CAA section 172(c)(3), 40 CFR
51.1008(a)(1) and 40 CFR 51.1008(b)(1).
2. NNSR
CAA section 172(c)(5) requires preconstruction and operating
permits for new major stationary sources and major modifications
locating in NAAs. Section 173 of the CAA outlines the minimum statutory
requirements for a state's NNSR permit program and serves as the basis
for the EPA's NNSR regulations for PM2.5 as promulgated in
the 2008 PM2.5 NSR Rule published at 73 FR 28321, May 16,
2008.\12\ The 2016 PM2.5 Regulatory Rule amended the
definitions of (1) regulated NSR pollutant with regard to
PM2.5 precursors, (2) major stationary source with regard to
major sources locating in PM2.5 NAAs classified as Moderate
and Serious, and (3) significant with regard to emissions of
PM2.5 precursors. For Moderate 2006 24-hour PM2.5
SIPs, CAA section 189(a)(1)(A) of subpart 4 applies, which requires
states to include in their implementation plan a permit program
addressing major stationary sources of the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS that meets the requirements under CAA section
173 of subpart 1. For a Serious 2006 24-hour PM2.5 SIP, CAA
section 189(b)(3) of subpart 4 applies, which requires that for any
Serious Area the terms ``major source'' and ``major stationary source''
include any stationary source or group of stationary sources located
within a contiguous area and under common control that emits, or has
the potential to emit, at least 70 tpy of PM2.5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ 81 FR at 58107.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
An approvable NNSR program in a state's implementation plan must,
at a minimum, meet the applicable program requirements set forth in the
federal NNSR provisions at 40 CFR 51.165, which for PM2.5
have been based on changes to the section made by the 2008
PM2.5 NSR Rule.\13\ States with designated NAAs for a
particular pollutant are required to adopt regulations consistent with
those applicable plan requirements, including any subsequent rule
changes that the EPA may make, and submit them to the EPA for approval
as part of their SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Provo and Salt Lake City NAAs were classified as a Moderate NAA
for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS on November 13, 2009 (74 FR
58688). On May 10, 2017 (82 FR 21711), the Provo and Salt Lake City
areas were reclassified from Moderate to Serious 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAs. The major source permitting threshold for a
Moderate 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAA is 100 tpy of direct
PM2.5 or any PM2.5 precursor, and 70 tpy for a
Serious 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAA.
On July 25, 2019 (84 FR 35831), the EPA approved revisions to UAC
R307-403 (Permits: New and Modified Sources in Nonattainment Areas and
Maintenance Areas), which satisfies the outstanding NNSR requirement
for the Provo and Salt Lake City Moderate and Serious 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAs.
3. BACM/BACT
a. Requirements for BACM/BACT
For any Serious 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAA, section
189(b)(1)(B) of the Act requires that a state submit provisions to
assure that BACM/BACT for the control of PM2.5 and
PM2.5 precursors shall be implemented no later than four
years after the date the area is reclassified as a Serious area. The
EPA defines BACM (including BACT) as, among other things, the maximum
degree of emissions reduction achievable for a source or source
category, which is determined on a case-by-case basis considering
energy, economic and environmental impacts, and other costs.\14\ We
generally consider BACM a control level that goes beyond existing RACM-
level controls, for example by expanding the use of RACM controls or by
requiring preventative measures instead of remediation.\15\ Indeed, as
implementation of BACM and BACT is required when a Moderate NAA is
reclassified as Serious due to its inability to attain the NAAQS
through implementation of ``reasonable'' measures, it is logical that
``best'' control measures should represent a more stringent and
potentially more costly level of control.\16\ The level of stringency
generally refers to the overall level of emissions reductions of a
control measure or technology, or of such measures and technologies
combined.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ State Implementation Plans for Serious PM10
Nonattainment Areas, and Attainment Date Waivers for PM10
Nonattainment Areas Generally; Addendum to the General Preamble for
the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of
1990 (``Addendum''), August 16, 1994; 59 FR 41998, 42010, 42013
(Aug. 16, 1994). The General Preamble for the Implementation of
Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (``General
Preamble'') was published at 57 FR 13498 (Apr. 16, 1992).
\15\ Id. at 42011, 42013.
\16\ Id. at 42009-42010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The PM2.5 SIP Requirements Rule explains that BACM/BACT
are generally independent requirements, to be determined without regard
to the specific attainment analysis (i.e., attainment demonstration)
for the area.\17\ The EPA found it reasonable to interpret the statute
as requiring a different analysis for determining BACM/BACT, i.e., that
while RACM emphasizes the attainment needs of the area, BACM has a
greater emphasis on identifying measures that are feasible to
implement. The Addendum noted that the test for BACM puts a ``greater
emphasis on the merits of the measure or technology alone,'' rather
than on ``flexibility in considering other factors,'' in contrast to
the approach for RACM/RACT.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ 81 FR at 58081.
\18\ 59 FR at 42011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 189(b)(1)(B) of the Act allows states, in appropriate
circumstances, to delay implementation of BACM until four years after
reclassification. Because the EPA reclassified the Provo and Salt Lake
City areas as Serious NAAs for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS
effective June 9, 2017 (82 FR 21711; May 10, 2017), the date four years
after reclassification is June 9, 2021. In this case, however, all BACM
for direct PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors in the
Provo and Salt Lake City areas must be implemented no later than
December
[[Page 71031]]
31, 2019, which is the outermost statutory attainment date for the
Provo and Salt Lake City areas under section 188(c)(2).\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ CAA section 189(b)(1)(B) establishes an outermost deadline
(``no later than four years after the date the area is
reclassified'') and does not preclude an earlier implementation
deadline for BACM where necessary to satisfy the attainment
requirements of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under the PM2.5 SIP Requirements Rule, control measures
that can be implemented in whole or in part by the end of the fourth
year after an area's reclassification to Serious are considered BACM,
and control measures that can only be implemented after this period but
before the attainment date are considered ``additional feasible
measures.'' \20\ The EPA has defined ``additional feasible measures''
as ``those measures and technologies that otherwise meet the criteria
for BACM/BACT but that can only be implemented in whole or in part
beginning 4 years after reclassification of an area, but no later than
the statutory attainment date of the area.'' \21\ Given that the
statutory attainment date is less than three years from the effective
date of the reclassification of the Provo and Salt Lake City areas,
additional feasible measures are not required in this case.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ 40 CFR 51.1010(a)(4)(ii). ``Additional feasible measures''
may be necessary in certain circumstances to implement the
requirements of CAA section 172(c)(6), which states that NAA plans
shall include enforceable emission limitations and such other
control measures, means or techniques, as well as schedules and
timetables for compliance, as may be necessary or appropriate to
provide for attainment of the NAAQS by the applicable attainment
date.
\21\ 40 CFR 51.1000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Addendum and the PM2.5 SIP Requirements Rule explain
that the BACM/BACT selection process for implementation of the 2006 24-
hour PM2.5 NAAQS is designed to take into account the local
facts and circumstances and the nature of the air pollution problem in
a given NAA. The following steps are used in determining BACM/BACT: (1)
Develop a comprehensive emission inventory of the sources of directly
emitted PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors; (2) Identify
existing and potential control measures for the sources in the
inventory; (3) Evaluate the technological feasibility of potential
control measures; (4) Evaluate the economic feasibility of potential
control measures; and (5) Determine the earliest date by which a
control measure or technology can be implemented in whole or in
part.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ Addendum at 42012-42014; 81 FR at 58084-58085.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, the EPA believes that BACT or lowest achievable
emission rate (LAER) provisions for new sources (as distinct from BACT
for existing sources), or best available retrofit technology (BART) for
existing sources, could potentially quality as BACM or BACT for
purposes of meeting the Serious area attainment plan requirements.\23\
However, as discussed further in the PM2.5 SIP Requirements
Rule, the EPA does not believe it is appropriate for a state to assume
that just because a certain control technology was determined to meet
BACT, LAER or BART criteria for a new source sometime in the past, that
such a control will also automatically meet the criteria for BACM or
BACT or additional feasible measures for attainment planning purposes,
because the regulated pollutant or source applicability may differ and
the analyses may be conducted years apart. Thus, a state may not simply
rely on prior BACT, LAER or BART analyses for the purposes of showing
that a source has also met BACT for the relevant 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS. Rather, the EPA expects that in Step 2
(discussed above) of the BACM/BACT determination process, the state
would identify such measures as ``existing measures'' that should be
further evaluated as potential BACM or BACT, or additional feasible
measures. At the same time, the EPA notes that the presence of
previously installed control technology, and the technical and economic
considerations that would be associated with upgrading to a measure
that achieves greater reductions, is something that should be
considered in the assessments of technological and economic feasibility
of the newer measure.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ See 81 FR at 58086.
\24\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Once these analyses are complete, a state must use this information
to develop enforceable control measures and submit them to the EPA for
evaluation under CAA section 110. We use these steps as guidelines in
our evaluation of the BACM measures and related analyses in the Provo
and Salt Lake City 2006 24-hour PM2.5 Serious SIP.
b. Requirements for the Control of PM2.5 Precursors
The composition of PM2.5 is complex and highly variable
due in part to the large contribution of secondary PM2.5 to
total fine particle mass in most locations, and to the complexity of
secondary particle formation processes. A large number of possible
chemical reactions, often non-linear in nature, can convert gaseous
SO2, NOX, VOC, and NH3 to
PM2.5, making them precursors to PM2.5.\25\
Formation of secondary PM2.5 may also depend on atmospheric
conditions, including solar radiation, temperature, and relative
humidity, and the interactions of precursors with preexisting particles
and with cloud or fog droplets.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ Air Quality Criteria for Particulate Matter (EPA/600/P-99/
002aF, Oct. 2004), Chapter 3.
\26\ Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Final Revisions to the
National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter (EPA/
452/R-12-005, December 2012), at 2-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As explained in the PM2.5 SIP Requirements Rule, the Act
requires that the state evaluate all PM2.5 precursors for
regulation unless, for any given PM2.5 precursor, it
demonstrates to the Administrator's satisfaction that the precursor
does not contribute significantly to 2006 24-hour PM2.5
levels that exceed the NAAQS in the NAA.\27\ The CAA does not define
the term ``precursor'' for purposes of PM. The statutory definition of
``air pollutant,'' however, provides that the term ``includes any
precursors to the formation of any air pollutant, to the extent the
Administrator has identified such precursor or precursors for the
particular purpose for which the term `air pollutant' is used.'' \28\
The EPA has identified SO2, NOX, VOC, and
NH3 as precursors to the formation of PM2.5.
Accordingly, the BACM/BACT requirements of subpart 4 apply to emissions
of all four precursor pollutants and direct PM2.5 from all
types of stationary, area, and mobile sources, except as otherwise
provided in the Act (e.g., CAA section 189(e)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ See 81 FR at 51018-58019.
\28\ See CAA section 302(g).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 189(e) \29\ of the Act requires that the control
requirements for major stationary sources of PM2.5 also
apply to major stationary sources of PM2.5 precursors,
except where the Administrator determines that such sources do not
contribute significantly to PM2.5 levels that exceed the
standard in the area. Although section 189(e) explicitly addresses only
major stationary sources, the EPA interprets the Act as authorizing it
also to determine, under appropriate circumstances, that regulation of
specific PM2.5 precursors from other
[[Page 71032]]
source categories in a given NAA is not necessary.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ On Jan. 4, 2013, in NRDC v. EPA, the D.C. Circuit held that
the EPA erred in implementing the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS
pursuant only to the general implementation requirements of subpart
1, rather than also to the implementation requirements specific to
particulate matter (PM10) in subpart 4, part D of title I
of the CAA. The court reasoned that the plain meaning of the CAA
requires implementation of the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS under
subpart 4 because PM2.5 particles fall within the
statutory definition of PM10 and thus implementation of
the PM2.5 NAAQS is subject to the same statutory
requirements as the PM10 NAAQS. See 81 FR at 58013.
\30\ Courts have upheld this approach to the requirements of
subpart 4 for PM10. See, e.g., Assoc. of Irritated
Residents v. EPA, et al., 423 F.3d 989 (9th Cir. 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The PM2.5 SIP Requirements Rule recognizes that the
treatment of PM2.5 precursors is important in developing a
PM2.5 plan.\31\ The rule provides flexibility for areas
where a particular PM2.5 precursor or precursors may not
contribute significantly to PM2.5 levels that exceed the
NAAQS. The rule provides for optional precursor demonstrations that a
state may submit to the EPA to establish that sources of particular
precursors need not be regulated for purposes of attainment planning or
in an NNSR permitting program for a specific NAA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ See, e.g., 81 FR at 58017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The February 4, 2019 and February 15, 2019, submissions for the
Provo and Salt Lake City discusses the five primary pollutants that
contribute to the emissions in the NAAs (i.e., NOX,
SO2, VOC, NH3, and directly emitted
PM2.5). The majority of ambient PM2.5 collected
during a typical cold-pool episode of elevated concentration is
secondary particulate matter, generated from gaseous precursor
emissions. The results of speciation studies led UDAQ to the conclusion
that the exceedances of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS were a
result of the increased portion of the secondary PM2.5,
mainly ammonium nitrate, that was chemically formed in the air and not
primary PM2.5 emitted directly into the troposphere.\32\
Because of the major role that precursors play within the Provo and
Salt Lake City NAAs, UDAQ did not include any precursor demonstration.
Thus, the requirement to ensure the implementation of BACM/BACT applies
to direct PM2.5 and each of the four PM2.5
precursors listed above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ The study results can be found in the TSD for the state's
February 15, 2019 action (available in the docket for this action).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on the information provided in the Provo and Salt Lake City
submissions and other information available to the EPA, we agree with
UDAQ's conclusion that all four chemical precursors, including direct
PM2.5, must be regulated for purposes of attaining and
maintaining the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in the Provo and
Salt Lake City NAAs.
c. BACM/BACT Analysis in the Serious PM2.5 SIP
(1) Identifying the Sources of PM2.5 and PM2.5
Precursors
The first step in determining BACM is to develop a detailed
emissions inventory of the sources of direct PM2.5 and
PM2.5 precursors that can be used with modeling to determine
the effects of these sources on ambient PM2.5 levels. As
discussed above in Section II.B.1 of this proposed rule, Chapter 4
(Emission Inventory Data) of the Salt Lake City February 15, 2019
submission and the General Inventory section of the Provo, February 4,
2019 submission, contain the planning inventories for directly emitted
PM2.5 and for all PM2.5 precursors
(NOX, SO2, VOC, and NH3) for the Salt
Lake City and Provo NAAs, along with supporting documentation to
support these inventories. Based on these inventories, four general
categories were established: Industrial point sources, on-road mobile
sources, off-road mobile sources, and area sources. Area sources
represent smaller, more numerous point sources, residential activities
such as home heating, and some biogenic emissions.
Based on this identification of stationary, area, and mobile
sources of direct PM2.5, NOX, VOC,
SO2, and NH3 in the Provo and Salt Lake City
areas, we conclude that the February 4, 2019 and February 15, 2019
submissions, respectively, appropriately identify all emission sources
and source categories that must be subject to evaluation for potential
control measures consistent with the requirements of subpart 4.
(2) Identification and Implementation of BACM/BACT
As part of its process for identifying candidate BACM/BACT and
considering the technical and economic feasibility of additional
control measures, UDAQ reviewed the EPA's guidance documents on BACM,
guidance documents on control measures for direct PM2.5,
NOX, VOC, NH3, and SO2 emissions
sources,\33\ and control measures implemented in other PM2.5
NAAs in other states. UDAQ's evaluations of potential BACM/BACT for
each source category identified above are found in ``Section 8. Control
Strategies'' in the February 4, 2019 Provo submission and in the TSD
supporting the February 15, 2019 Salt Lake City submission. In the
following sections, we review key components of UDAQ's demonstrations
concerning BACM/BACT for the identified sources of direct
PM2.5, NOX, VOC, SO2, and
NH3 emissions in the Provo and Salt Lake City NAAs. We
provide a more detailed evaluation of our review of UDAQ's regulations
in our TSD, which is in the docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ This is not an exhaustive list. Please refer to UDAQ's
submittal for detailed references: Control Techniques Guidelines
(CTG); Alternative Control Techniques (ACT); New Source Performance
Standards (NSPS); Ozone Transport Commission's (OTC) model rules;
PM2.5 Requirements Rule, 81 FR 58010; US EPA Fugitive
Dust Background Document and Technical Information Document for BACM
(September 1992); General Preamble, 57 FR 13498; and Addendum, 59 FR
41998.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The UDAQ's BACM/BACT process and control measure evaluations are
described in detail in the February 4, 2019 submission, ``Section 8.
Control Strategies'' for the Provo NAA and in the State's February 15,
2019 TSD for the Salt Lake City NAA. For each identified source
category, UDAQ identified its adopted control measures and potential
additional control measures based on measures implemented in other
areas, measures identified in EPA regulations or guidance (e.g., in
control technique guidelines (CTGs), alternative control technique
documents (ACTs), new sources performance standards (NSPSs), or in the
EPA's ``Cost Analysis Models/Tools for Air Pollution Regulations''), or
measures identified in prior EPA rulemaking documents (e.g.,
recommendations in SIP actions).\34\ UDAQ evaluated these potential
additional control measures to determine whether implementation of the
measures would be technologically and economically feasible in the
Provo and Salt Lake City areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ The Cost Analysis Models/Tools for Air Pollution
Regulations can be found at https://www.epa.gov/economic-and-cost-analysis-air-pollution-regulations/cost-analysis-modelstools-air-pollution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On April 19, 2018, May 21, 2020 and July 21, 2020, UDAQ submitted
revisions and new rules to its area source rules R307-208, Outdoor Wood
Boilers; R307-230, NOX Emission Limits for Natural Gas-Fired
Water Heaters; R307-304, Solvent Cleaning; R307-335, Degreasing; R307-
343, Emissions Standards for Wood Furniture Manufacturing Operations;
R307-344, Paper, Film, & Foil Coating; R307-345, Fabric & Vinyl
Coating; R307-346, Metal Furniture Surface Coating; R307-347, Large
Appliance Surface Coating; R307-348, Magnet Wire Coating; R307-349,
Flat Wood Panel Coating; R307-350, Miscellaneous Metal Parts & Products
Coating; R307-351, Graphic Arts; R307-352, Metal Containers, Closure &
Coating; R307-353, Plastic Parts Coating; R307-354, Auto Body
Refinishing; and R307-355, Control of Emissions from Aerospace
Manufacture & Rework Facilities. Additionally, UDAQ provided BACM
analysis for area source rules that were not revised, which include:
R307-302, Solid Fuel Burning Devices; R307-303, Commercial Cooking;
R307-307, Road Salting & Sanding; R307-309, Nonattainment and
Maintenance Areas
[[Page 71033]]
for PM10 and PM2.5: Fugitive Emissions and
Fugitive Dust; R307-312, Aggregate Processing Operations; R307-328,
Gasoline Transfer and Storage; R307-341, Cutback Asphalt; R307-342,
Adhesive and Sealants; R307-356, Appliance Pilot Light; R307-357,
Consumer Products; and R307-361, Architectural Coatings. Our detailed
analysis of these area source rule revisions submitted on April 19,
2018, May 21, 2020, and July 21, 2020, and the BACM analyses for these
area sources submitted on February 4, 2019 and February 15, 2019 for
the Provo and Salt Lake City Serious 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAs
can be found in our TSD in the docket.
On February 15, 2019, Utah submitted revisions to SIP Section
IX.H.11 (General Requirements: Control Measures for Area and Point
Sources, Emission Limits and Operating Practices, PM2.5).
This section of Utah's SIP applies to all sources addressed in Utah SIP
sections IX.H.12 and 13, except as otherwise outlined in individual
conditions in Sections IX.H.12 and 13. Our detailed analysis of the
revisions submitted on February 15, 2019, for the Utah SIP Section
IX.H.11, along with our analysis of UDAQs BACM/BACT analyses specific
to Utah SIP Section IX.H.11, submitted on February 4, 2019 and February
15, 2019 can be found in our TSD in the docket.
On February 15, 2019, Utah submitted revisions to SIP Section
IX.H.12 (Source-Specific Emission Limitations in Salt Lake City--UT
PM2.5 Nonattainment Area), which sets emission limits and
control measures for major stationary sources in the Salt Lake City
2006 24-hour PM2.5 Serious NAA. These sources, which fall
above the 70 tpy threshold for Serious 2006 24-hour PM2.5
major sources \35\ defined in Utah R307-403 (Permits: New and Modified
Sources in Nonattainment Areas and Maintenance Areas), include: (1) ATK
Launch Systems Inc. Promontory; (2) Big West Oil Refinery; (3) Chemical
Lime Company (Lhoist North America); (4) Chevron Products Company--Salt
Lake Refinery; (5) Compass Minerals Ogden Inc.; (6) Hexel Corporation:
Salt Lake Operations; (7) Holly Corporation: Holly Refining & Marketing
Company (Holly Refinery); (8) Kennecott Utah Copper (KUC): Mine; (9)
Kennecott Utah Copper (KUC): Power Plant; (10) Kennecott Utah Copper
(KUC): Smelter and Refinery; (11) Nucor Steel Mills; (12) PacifiCorp
Energy: Gadsby Power Plant; (13) Tesoro Refining and Marketing Company:
Salt Lake City Refinery; (14) The Proctor & Gamble Paper Products
Company; (15) Utah Municipal Power Association: West Valley Power
Plant; (16) University of Utah: University of Utah Facilities; and (17)
Hill Air Force Base. On February 15, 2019, UDAQ submitted the BACM/BACT
analyses for each of these 17 sources. All other sources fall below the
70 tpy threshold and are covered in the multiple area source rules
discussed above. Our detailed analysis of the revisions submitted on
February 15, 2019, for the Utah SIP Section IX.H.12, along with our
analysis of UDAQs BACM/BACT analyses submitted on February 15, 2019,
specific to Utah SIP Section IX.H.12, can be found in our TSD in the
docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ 81 FR at 58152.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, UDAQ submitted draft revisions on October 9, 2020,
specific to Utah SIP Section IX.H.12.i.i.C (Kennecott Power Plant),
which the state has asked the EPA to act on through parallel
processing. This draft revision removes the startup/shutdown limits for
the Kennecott Power Plant that was not supported within the BACM/BACT
analysis submitted on February 15, 2019. The detailed analysis of our
parallel process on the October 9, 2020, submission of draft revisions
to Utah SIP Section IX.H.12.i.i.C (Kennecott Power Plant), can be found
in our TSD in the docket, and our detailed discussion of how parallel
processing works can be found in Section I.E above.
On January 19, 2017, Utah submitted revisions to SIP Section
IX.H.13 (Source-Specific Emission Limitations in Provo--UT
PM2.5 Nonattainment Area), which sets emission limits and
control measures for major stationary sources in the Provo 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 Serious NAA. The sources in Section IX.H.13 include:
(1) Brigham Young University: Main Campus; (2) Geneva Nitrogen Inc.:
Geneva Nitrogen Plant; (3) McWane Ductile--Utah; (4) PacifiCorp Energy:
Lake Side Power Plant; (5) Payson City Corporation: Payson City Power;
(6) Provo City Power: Power Plant; and (7) Springville City
Corporation: Whitehead Power Plant. UDAQ submitted BACM/BACT analyses
for only two of these sources, McWane Ductile--Utah and PacifiCorp
Energy: Lake Side Power Plant. The other five sources listed above fall
below the 70 tpy threshold for Serious 2006 24-hour PM2.5
major stationary sources,\36\ which is defined in Utah R307-403
(Permits: New and Modified Sources in Nonattainment Areas and
Maintenance Areas) rule. These remaining five sources (Brigham Young
University, Geneva Nitrogen Plant, Payson City Power, Provo City Power,
and Whitehead Power Plant) were either shut down (Geneva Nitrogen
Plant) or have reduced their emissions to be minor sources (Brigham
Young University, Payson City Power, Provo City Power, and Whitehead
Power Plant). UDAQ uses Utah SIP Section IX.H. only for major
stationary source emission limits or control measures; therefore, UDAQ
has requested that EPA not act on the Utah SIP Section IX.H.13 portions
for these facilities because the limits/measures are out of date and
will be removed in future rulemakings. Since we have never approved
these limits or sources into Utah SIP Section IX.H.13, and this section
was only created in the December 16, 2014 submittal, UDAQ does not need
to complete a 110(l) demonstration. We will only be acting on the
McWane Ductile--Utah and PacifiCorp Energy: Lake Side Power Plant
sections of Utah SIP Section IX.H.13, and on these sources' BACM/BACT
determinations submitted by UDAQ on February 4, 2019. Our detailed
analysis of the revisions submitted on January 19, 2017, along with our
analysis of UDAQ's BACM/BACT analyses submitted on February 4, 2019,
can be found in our TSD in the docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As to the other facilities originally submitted within Utah SIP
Section IX.H.13, no additional discussion or action is necessary for
the Geneva Nitrogen Plant due to its shutdown. The BACM/BACT analyses
for the other facilities (Brigham Young University, Payson City Power,
Provo City Power, and the Whitehead Power Plant) are now included in
the individual BACM/BACT analyses for each area source rule. No
additional discussion is needed as to these limits in Utah SIP Section
IX.H.13, which as noted above are outdated, or on these facilities as
individual sources. Our detailed analysis of the area source rules,
along with our analysis of UDAQ's BACM/BACT analyses submitted on
February 4, 2019 and February 15, 2019, can be found in our TSD in the
docket.
Additionally, on February 4, 2019 and February 15, 2019, UDAQ
submitted BACM/BACT analyses for on-road and non-road mobile sources
for the Provo and Salt Lake City Serious 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAs, respectively. Our detailed analysis of these analyses can be
found in our TSD in the docket.
(3) The EPA's Evaluation and Conclusion
We have reviewed UDAQ's determination in the February 4, 2019 and
February 15, 2019 submissions that the major stationary and area source
[[Page 71034]]
control measures represent BACM/BACT for direct PM2.5 and
PM2.5 precursors within the Provo and Salt Lake City NAAs,
respectively. In our review, we also considered our previous
evaluations of UDAQ's rules in connection with our approval of
revisions for Utah's R307 area source rules and RACM demonstration for
the Provo and Salt Lake City Moderate 2006 24-hour PM2.5
SIPs that were acted on.\37\ Based on this review, we believe that
UDAQ's area source rules and the Utah SIP Part H emission limits
provide for the implementation of BACM/BACT for major stationary
sources and area sources of direct PM2.5 and
PM2.5 precursors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ See 81 FR 9343 (Feb. 25, 2016); 81 FR 71988 (Oct. 19,
2016); 84 FR 52368 (Oct. 2, 2019); and 85 FR 10989 (Feb. 26, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to mobile sources, we believe that the programs
developed and administered by UDAQ, along with the identified Federal
requirements, provide for the implementation of BACM/BACT for direct
PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors in the Provo and Salt
Lake City NAAs.
For these reasons we propose to approve the revisions submitted on
January 19, 2017, April 19, 2018, February 4, 2019, February 15, 2019,
May 21, 2020 and July 21, 2020. We also propose to find that these
submissions provide for the implementation of BACM/BACT for all sources
of direct PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors as
expeditiously as practicable, for purposes of the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS in the Provo and Salt Lake City areas, in
accordance with the requirements of CAA section 189(b)(1)(B) and 40 CFR
51.1010. We are also proposing to approve, through parallel processing,
the October 9, 2020 draft submission of revisions to Utah SIP Section
IX.H.12.i.i.C to remove the startup/shutdown limits that were not
supported in the BACM/BACT determination of the Kennecott Power Plant.
Additionally, we are proposing to approve the area source rule
revisions submitted on April 19, 2018, May 21, 2020 and July 21, 2020,
and to approve the BACM/BACT analyses submitted on February 4, 2019 and
February 15, 2019. We are also proposing to approve the revisions to
Utah SIP Sections IX.H.11 and 12, submitted on February 15, 2019;
revisions to Utah SIP Section IX.H.13, submitted on January 19, 2017;
and draft revisions submitted on October 9, 2020, for the Provo and
Salt Lake City Serious 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAs. Our detailed
analyses can be found in the EPA TSD in the docket.
C. Do the redesignation requests and maintenance plans meet CAA
requirements?
For a NAA to be redesignated to attainment, the following
conditions in section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA must be met: (1) We must
determine that the area has attained the NAAQS; (2) The applicable
implementation plan for the area must be fully approved under section
110(k) of the Act; (3) We must determine that the improvement in air
quality is due to permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions
resulting from implementation of the applicable implementation plan and
applicable Federal air pollutant control regulations and other
permanent and enforceable reductions; (4) We must fully approve a
maintenance plan for the area as meeting the requirements of CAA
section 175A; and (5) The state containing such area must meet all
requirements applicable to the area under section 110 and part D of the
CAA.
The September 4, 1992 Calcagni Memorandum outlines how to assess
the adequacy of redesignation requests against the conditions listed
above. On January 13, 2020, the Governor of Utah submitted revisions to
the SIP for R307-110-10, submitted maintenance plans for the Salt Lake
City and Provo areas (located within Utah SIP Sections IX.A.36 and 27,
respectively), and requested that the EPA redesignate the area to
attainment for 2006 24-hour PM2.5.
The sections below discuss how Utah's redesignation requests and
maintenance plans meet the requirements of the Act for redesignation of
the Provo and Salt Lake City areas to attainment for the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS.
1. Attainment of the 2006 24-Hour PM2.5 NAAQS
To redesignate an area from nonattainment to attainment, the EPA
must determine that the area has attained the applicable NAAQS. See CAA
section 107(d)(3)(E)(i). A state must demonstrate that an area has
attained the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS through submittal of
ambient air quality data from an ambient air monitoring network
representing maximum PM2.5 concentrations. The data, which
must be quality assured, quality-controlled, and certified in the EPA's
Air Quality System (AQS), must show that the most recent three years
(2017-2019) of valid PM2.5 98th percentile mass
concentrations are below the 2006 PM2.5 24-hour NAAQS (35
[micro]g/m\3\), pursuant to 40 CFR 50.13. In making this showing, three
consecutive years of complete air quality data must be used.
Between 2017 and 2019, Utah operated two and five PM2.5
monitors in the Provo and Salt Lake City NAAs, respectively. The EPA
reviewed the PM2.5 ambient air monitoring data from the
Provo monitors, Lindon (AQS site 49-049-4001) and Spanish Fork (AQS
site 49-049-5010),\38\ and from the Salt Lake City monitors, Bountiful
(AQS site 49-011-0004), Rose Park (AQS site 49-035-3010), Hawthorn (AQS
site 49-035-3006), Herriman #3 (AQS site 49-035-3013), and Erda (AQS
site 49-045-0004).\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ The Provo NAA had one monitor (North Provo, 49-049-0002)
shut down near the end of 2018 due to safety issues at the site, and
UDAQ is working to reestablish the monitor at a new site.
\39\ The Salt Lake City NAA had two monitors shut down due to
the loss of each site, and UDAQ is working to reestablish the
monitors at new sites. These monitors are Brigham City (49-003-
0003), which shutdown in June 2019, and Ogden 2 (49-057-0002), which
shut down in May 2019. A new site for Ogden 2 was established in
Weber County (Harrisville, 49-057-1003) in September 2019. UDAQ is
still working with Box Elder County on new potential sites.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As part of the redesignation requests for the Provo and Salt Lake
City NAAs, UDAQ submitted ambient air quality data from the monitoring
sites, which had been quality-assured and placed in AQS on a quarterly
basis. The 98th percentile 2017-2019 design values for the monitors in
the Provo and Salt Lake City NAAs are found in Table 1 below, and
support the conclusion that the areas have attained the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ The Salt Lake City near-road PM2.5 monitoring
site (AQS ID 49-035-4002) was established and began recording data
on January 1, 2019. The 98th percentile daily average concentration
for 2019 at this PM2.5 near-road monitor was 31.0
[micro]g/m\3\; however, the one year of available data is not
sufficient for calculating a design value. Additional discussion of
the EPA's position as to Salt Lake City's PM2.5 near-road
monitor can be found in the final rule signed by the Region 8
Regional Administrator on October 29, 2020, determining that the
Salt Lake City Serious 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAA attained by
the Serious attainment date.
[[Page 71035]]
Table 1--Provo and Salt Lake City 2006 24-Hour PM2.5 NAAs 2017-2019 98th Percentiles and Design Values ([micro]g/m\3\) \40\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
98th percentiles ([micro]g/m\3\) 2017-2019
------------------------------------------------ Design value
NAA Monitoring site AQS ID ([micro]g/
2017 2018 2019 m\3\)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Provo..................................... Lindon...................... 49-049-4001 28.9 28.4 21.2 26
Spanish Fork................ 49-049-5010 27.6 49.6 17.5 32
Salt Lake City............................ Bountiful................... 49-011-0004 35.2 25.7 19.3 27
Rose Park................... 49-035-3010 32.4 29.2 27.9 30
Hawthorn.................... 49-035-3006 35.7 26.2 27.3 30
Herriman #3................. 49-035-3013 28.2 29.0 18.8 25
Erda........................ 49-045-0004 20.9 30.6 22.9 25
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As explained above, quality-assured, quality-controlled, and
certified air quality monitoring data were collected for each year from
2017 through 2019 in accordance with an approved annual monitoring
network plan (AMNP) for each year. The EPA has reviewed this data and
concluded that it shows that the areas attained by the Serious
attainment date of December 31, 2019.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ The final determination of attainment by the Serious 2006
24-hour PM2.5 attainment date was signed by the Region 8
Regional Administrator on October 29, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further information on PM2.5 monitoring is in
Subsections IX.A.27.b(1) and IX.A.36.b(1) of the Provo and Salt Lake
City maintenance plans, respectively. Additionally, on October 29,
2020, the Region 8 Regional Administrator signed the final rule, which
finalized a determination that the Provo and Salt Lake City NAAs
attained by the Serious attainment date of December 31, 2019. We have
evaluated the ambient air quality data and believe that Utah has
adequately demonstrated that the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS
has been attained in the Provo and Salt Lake City areas and that the
two areas attained by their Serious 2006 24-hour PM2.5
attainment date.
2. State Implementation Plan Approval
Section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii) of the CAA states that for an area to be
redesignated to attainment, it must be determined that the
Administrator has fully approved the applicable implementation plan for
the area under section 110(k).
Those states containing Moderate 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAs
were required to submit a SIP by December 31, 2014, demonstrating
attainment of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS by December 31,
2015. UDAQ submitted the Moderate 2006 24-hour PM2.5 SIPs
for the Provo and Salt Lake City NAAs on December 16, 2014, with
additional revisions submitted on January 19, 2017. On May 10, 2017 (82
FR 21711), the EPA published a final rule reclassifying the Salt Lake
City and Provo areas as ``Serious'' nonattainment under subpart 4,
based on the EPA's determination that the area could not practicably
attain the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 standards by the December 31,
2015 attainment date. This reclassification became effective on June 9,
2017. The reclassification was based on the EPA's evaluation of ambient
air quality data from the 2013-2015 period, indicating that it was not
practicable for certain monitoring sites within the Salt Lake City and
Provo areas to show PM2.5 design values at or below the
level of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS by December 31, 2015.
Section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii) of the CAA states that for NAAs to be
redesignated to attainment, it must be determined that the
Administrator has fully approved the applicable implementation plan for
the areas under section 110(k). On February 25, 2016 (81 FR 9343),
October 19, 2016 (81 FR 71988), October 2, 2019 (84 FR 52368) and
February 26, 2020 (85 FR 10989) the EPA approved revisions to several
area source rules, and approved new rules for the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAs into the Utah SIP. Additionally, we completed a
CDD for the Provo and Salt Lake City 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAs
on April 10, 2019 (84 FR 14267) and on September 27, 2019 (84 FR
51055), respectively. With these final rules, the EPA suspended the
obligation for Utah to make submissions to meet certain CAA
requirements related to attainment of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS for Moderate and Serious NAAs. These suspended CAA requirements
are: (1) Attainment demonstration (Moderate and Serious); (2) projected
emissions inventory (Moderate and Serious); (3) RACM/RACT (Moderate);
(4) RFP (Moderate and Serious); (5) motor vehicle emission budgets
(MVEB) (Moderate and Serious); (6) contingency measures (Moderate and
Serious); and (7) quantitative milestones (Moderate and Serious).
The CDD did not suspend Utah's obligation to submit CAA
requirements not related to demonstrating attainment, which includes
the base-year emission inventory, NNSR revisions, and BACM/BACT for the
Provo and Salt Lake City NAAs. The base-year emission inventory
requirement for the Moderate and Serious Provo and Salt Lake City NAAs,
will be based on our approval of the base-year inventory submitted in
the January 13, 2020 submittal of the maintenance plans. Our analysis
of the base-year inventory is discussed in Section II.C.4.a below and
in Section II.B.1 above.
On July 25, 2019 (84 FR 35831), the EPA approved revisions to UAC
R307-403 (Permits: New and Modified Sources in Nonattainment Areas and
Maintenance Areas), which satisfies the outstanding NNSR requirement
for the Provo and Salt Lake City Moderate and Serious 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAs and is discussed above in Section II.B.2. above.
The remaining CAA requirement that was not suspended with the April
10, 2019 (84 FR 14267) and the September 27, 2019 (84 FR 51055), CDD
for the Provo and Salt Lake City 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAs,
respectively, is BACM/BACT for the Serious 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 SIPs. Our analysis that completes this remaining
requirement is discussed in our TSD, with a brief discussion in Section
II.B.3. above.
We have evaluated the actions above and have determined that
through these actions, the State of Utah has a fully approved Provo and
Salt Lake City 2006 24-hour PM2.5 SIP under section 110(k).
3. Improvement in Air Quality Due to Permanent and Enforceable Measures
Section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii) of the CAA provides that for an area to
be redesignated to attainment, the Administrator must determine that
the improvement in air quality is due to permanent and enforceable
reductions in emissions resulting from implementation of the applicable
implementation plan, implementation of applicable Federal air pollutant
[[Page 71036]]
control regulations, and other permanent and enforceable reductions.
As briefly discussed above in Section II.B.3 and in further detail
in our TSD, Utah has implemented multiple area source rules, I/M
Programs, and emission limits for stationary sources in the Provo and
Salt Lake City NAAs.
Additionally, within Section IX.A.27.b.1.c. and IX.A.36.b.3.a. of
the Provo and Salt Lake City 2006 24-hour PM2.5 maintenance
plan, respectively, UDAQ provides an assessment of the ambient air
quality data collected at the monitors in these two NAAs from the year
monitoring began (2000) to 2018 (the last year of valid data before the
maintenance plan was submitted), which shows an observable decrease in
the monitored PM2.5. UDAQ observed the 98th percentile
average of the 24-hour data in the Provo and Salt Lake City 2006 24-
hour PM2.5 NAAs, as well as the annual arithmetic mean,
which assisted in understanding the trends. The Provo and Salt Lake
City 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAs were only designated
nonattainment for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, however, the
annual arithmetic mean is useful information in showing the decrease in
emissions. The cold-pool temperature inversions during winter, which
drive and trap secondary PM2.5, vary in strength and
duration from year to year, and the PM2.5 concentrations
measured during these periods reflect this variability more than they
reflect the gradual changes in emissions of direct PM2.5 and
the PM2.5 precursors. This variability is evident in UDAQ's
assessment, but the 24-hour data trend is downward, indicating
improvement of a little less than 1 [micro]g/m\3\ per year for both the
Provo and Salt Lake City 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAs. Episodic
variability is reduced when reviewing the annual mean values of
PM2.5 concentrations from 2000-2018. Graphing the annual
mean PM2.5 concentration data reveals a decreasing trend,
which indicates an improvement of 3 [micro]g/m\3\ and 4.3 [micro]g/m\3\
over this 18-year span for the Provo and Salt Lake City NAAs,
respectively.
We have evaluated the various state and federal control measures,
historical emissions inventories, and the emission trends of the
PM2.5 98th percentiles and annual PM2.5 mean
concentrations presented by UDAQ from 2000 to 2018, and believe that
the improvement in air quality in the Provo and Salt Lake City NAAs has
resulted from emission reductions that are permanent and enforceable.
4. Fully Approved Maintenance Plan Under Section 175A of the Act
Section 107(d)(3)(E) of the Act requires that, for a NAA to be
redesignated to attainment, we must fully approve a maintenance plan
which meets the requirements of section 175A of the Act. The plan must
demonstrate continued attainment of the relevant NAAQS in the area for
at least 10 years after our approval of the redesignation. Eight years
after our approval of a redesignation, a state must submit a revised
maintenance plan demonstrating attainment for the 10 years following
the initial 10-year period. The maintenance plan must also contain a
contingency plan to ensure prompt correction of any violation of the
NAAQS.\42\ The EPA's interpretations of the CAA section 175A
maintenance plan requirements are generally provided in the General
Preamble \43\ and the Calcagni Memorandum referenced above. The
Calcagni Memorandum outlines five core elements necessary to ensure
maintenance of the relevant NAAQS in an area seeking redesignation from
nonattainment to attainment. Those elements, as well as guidelines for
subsequent maintenance plan revisions, are explained in detail below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ Sections 175A(b) and (d).
\43\ 57 FR 13498, at 13563.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
a. Attainment Inventory
PM2.5 maintenance plans should include an attainment
emission inventory to identify the level of emissions in the area that
is sufficient to maintain the NAAQS. An emissions inventory was
developed and submitted with the Provo and Salt Lake City 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 maintenance plans for the two NAAs on January 13,
2020. This submittal contains a base year inventory for 2017, interim-
year projection inventory for 2026, and a projected maintenance
inventory of 2035. The emissions in the inventories include sources of
direct PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursor emissions
located within a regional area called a modeling domain. UDAQ modeled
two different domain sizes and grid resolutions: A 4 kilometer (km)
coarse grid and a 1.33 km fine grid.\44\ The 4 km coarse domain covered
the entire State of Utah, a significant portion of Eastern Nevada
(including Las Vegas), and smaller portions of Idaho, Wyoming, Colorado
and Arizona, and was used to show movement of pollutants at the
boundaries of the nested fine grid domain.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\ See January 13, 2020 State of Utah submittal for Provo and
Salt Lake City 2006 24-hour PM2.5 Maintenance Plans;
Figures IX.A.27.4. and IX.A.36.4, respectively, titled ``CAMx
Photochemical Modeling Domain in Two-Way Nested Configuration.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since the coarse domain was so large, the 1.33 km fine domain or a
``core area'' within this domain was identified, within which a greater
degree of accuracy was applied. Within this core area (which includes
Weber, Davis, Salt Lake, Utah, Box Elder, Tooele, Cache and Franklin,
ID counties), SIP-specific inventories were prepared to include
seasonal adjustments and forecasting to represent each of the
projection years. In the bordering region, outside the core area, the
2014 National Emissions Inventory (NEI) was used in the analysis. There
were four general categories of sources included in these inventories:
Point sources, area sources, on-road mobile sources and non-road mobile
sources.
For each of these source categories, the pollutants that were
inventoried were PM2.5, SO2, NOX, VOC
and NH3. More detailed descriptions of the 2017 base-year
inventory and the 2026 and 2035 projection inventories can be found in
Sections IX.A.27.c and IX.A.36.c. Maintenance Plan, Subsection (2)
Attainment Inventory, for the Provo and Salt Lake City NAAs,
respectively, and in the State of Utah's TSD. Utah's submittal contains
detailed emission inventory information that was prepared in accordance
with the EPA's emission inventory guidance.\45\ Summary of emission
figures from the 2017 base year and emission projections for 2026 and
2035 are provided in Table 2 and Table 3, below, for the Provo and Salt
Lake City, respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\45\ Emissions Inventory Guidance for Implementation of Ozone
and Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS) and Regional Haze Regulations (EPA-454/B-17-002, May 2017)
(available at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-07/documents/ei_guidance_may_2017_final_rev.pdf).
[[Page 71037]]
Table 2--Provo NAA; Actual Emissions From 2017 and Emission Projections for 2026 and 2035
[tons per day (tpd)]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PM2.5 PM2.5 PM2.5
Year Source category filterable condensible total NOX VOC NH3 SO2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2017 Baseline............................... Area Sources................... 1.75 0.29 2.04 5.01 13.32 6.54 0.06
Mobile Sources................. ............ ............ 0.83 15.4 9.07 0.43 0.09
Non-Road....................... ............ ............ 0.21 3.07 1.66 0 0.01
Point Sources.................. 0.18 0.12 0.3 1.12 0.18 0.42 0.05
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
2017 Total.................. ............ ............ 3.38 24.6 24.23 7.39 0.22
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2026........................................ Area Sources................... 1.89 0.32 2.21 3.56 14.2 6.38 0.05
Mobile Sources................. ............ ............ 0.42 5.79 4.58 0.36 0.05
Non-Road....................... ............ ............ 0.14 2.14 1.65 0.01 0.01
Point Sources.................. 0.19 0.12 0.31 0.97 0.17 0.44 0.06
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
2026 Total.................. ............ ............ 3.08 12.46 20.6 7.19 0.17
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2035........................................ Area Sources................... 2.06 0.35 2.41 3.67 16.32 6.24 0.05
Mobile Sources................. ............ ............ 1.41 5.74 6.49 0.44 0.05
Non-Road....................... ............ ............ 0.13 1.84 1.8 0.01 0.01
Point Sources.................. 0.19 0.12 0.31 0.97 0.17 0.44 0.06
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
2035 Total.................. ............ ............ 4.26 12.22 24.78 7.13 0.17
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 3--Salt Lake City NAA; Actual Emissions From 2017 and Emission Projections for 2026 and 2035
[tons per day (tpd)]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PM2.5 PM2.5 PM2.5
Year Source category filterable condensible total NOX VOC NH3 SO2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2017 Baseline............................... Area Sources................... 5.02 1.11 6.13 13.55 45.98 14.21 0.21
Mobile Sources................. ............ ............ 2.28 44.21 30.12 1.28 0.31
Non-Road....................... ............ ............ 0.96 18.12 8.89 0.02 0.35
Point Sources.................. 2.97 0.97 3.94 17.01 6.52 0.34 3.78
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
2017 Total.................. ............ ............ 13.31 92.89 91.51 15.85 4.65
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2026........................................ Area Sources................... 5.19 1.15 6.34 8.54 43.99 14.19 0.2
Mobile Sources................. ............ ............ 1.34 19.63 15.96 1.09 0.16
Non-Road....................... ............ ............ 0.72 14.64 8.85 0.02 0.44
Point Sources.................. 4.19 1.38 5.57 22.61 7.26 0.48 3.5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
2026 Total.................. ............ ............ 13.97 65.42 76.06 15.78 4.3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2035........................................ Area Sources................... 5.37 1.19 6.56 8.69 47.17 14.21 0.2
Mobile Sources................. ............ ............ 1.39 18.91 18.93 1.19 0.15
Non-Road....................... ............ ............ 0.67 13.32 9.7 0.03 0.51
Point Sources.................. 4.19 1.38 5.57 22.62 7.26 0.48 3.5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
2035 Total.................. ............ ............ 14.19 63.54 83.06 15.91 4.36
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on our review, we have determined that Utah prepared an
adequate attainment inventory for the Provo and Salt Lake City 2006 24-
hour PM2.5 NAAs. Additionally, the 2017 base-year inventory
satisfies the outstanding requirement for the Serious Provo and Serious
Salt Lake City NAAs that were not suspended with the CDDs finalized on
April 10, 2019 (84 FR 14267) and September 27, 2019 (84 FR 51055),
respectively.
b. Maintenance Demonstration
The Calcagni Memorandum explains that where modeling was relied on
to demonstrate maintenance, the plan must contain a summary of the air
quality concentrations expected to result from the application of the
control strategies. Also, the plan should identify and describe the
dispersion model or other air quality model used to project ambient
concentrations. The maintenance demonstration for the Provo and Salt
Lake City areas used a regional photochemical model.
Before the development of the Provo and Salt Lake City 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 maintenance plans, UDAQ conducted a technical analysis
to support the development of the Serious SIP for the Salt Lake City
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAA. The analysis included preparation of
emissions inventories and meteorological data, and the evaluation and
application of a regional photochemical model. Part of this process
included episode selection to determine the episode that most
accurately replicates the photochemical formation of ambient
PM2.5 during a persistent cold air pool episode in the
airshed. For the Provo and Salt Lake City maintenance plans, UDAQ used
the same episode that was used for the Serious SIP modeling.
The Comprehensive Air Quality Model with Extensions (CAMx) version
6.30 for air quality modeling was used for the Provo and Salt Lake City
[[Page 71038]]
maintenance plans, with enhancements that included snow chemistry and
topographical and surface albedo refinements. The emissions processing
model that UDAQ used in conjunction with CAMx was the Sparse Matrix
Operator Kernel Emissions Modeling System (SMOKE) version 3.6.5,\46\
which prepares the annual emissions inventory for use in the air
quality model.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\46\ https://www.cmascenter.org/smoke/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Activity profiles and their associated cross reference files from
the EPA's 2011v6 \47\ modeling platform were used by UDAQ. For
stationary non-point and mobile sources, UDAQ used spatial surrogates
from the EPA Clearinghouse for Inventories and Emissions Factors
(CHIEF),\48\ which were used to distribute emissions in space across
the modeling domain. Emissions from point sources were placed at the
specific location of the sources. Additionally, if reliable local
information was available, UDAQ modified or developed the profiles and
surrogates to reflect this information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\47\ https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-modeling/2011-version-6-air-emissions-modeling-platforms.
\48\ https://www.epa.gov/chief.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Meteorological inputs were derived using the Weather Research and
Forecasting \49\ (WRF) Advanced Research WRF (WRF-ARW) model to prepare
meteorological datasets for UDAQ to use with the photochemical model.
WRF-ARW had reasonable ability to replicate the vertical temperature
structure of the boundary layer (i.e., the temperature inversion);
however, UDAQ found that WRF-ARW had difficulty reproducing the
inversion when the inversion was shallow and strong (i.e., an 8-degree
temperature increase over 100 vertical meters). UDAQ provides
additional information on these models in their TSD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\49\ https://www.mmm.ucar.edu/weather-research-and-forecasting-model.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Part of the modeling exercise that UDAQ completed for the Provo and
Salt Lake City maintenance plans was to test whether the model could
successfully replicate the PM2.5 mass and composition
observed during prior episodes of elevated PM2.5
concentrations. The selection of an appropriate episode(s) should
determine the meteorological episode that helps produce the best air
quality modeling performance.
Based on EPA guidance,\50\ UDAQ selected three episodes: (1)
January 1-10, 2011; (2) December 7-19, 2013; and (3) February 1-16,
2016. UDAQ examined the PM2.5 model performance for these
three episodes and concluded that CAMx performed the best when using
the January 2011 WRF-ARW output. UDAQ further confirmed this
determination by using a linear regression analysis showing that
modeled and measured PM2.5 at the Provo monitoring station
(Lindon) was strongly correlated during the January 2011 episode (R\2\
= 0.89) compared to the other episodes (R\2\ = 0.81 for the December
2013 episode; and R\2\ = 0.05 for the February 2016 episode). The Salt
Lake City monitoring station (Hawthorne) linear regression analysis
showed similar results to the Provo monitoring site, in that the
performance of the January 2011 episode was strongly correlated (R\2\ =
0.80) compared to the other episodes (R\2\ = 0.54 for the December 2013
episode and R\2\ = 0.69 for the February 2016 episode). Therefore, UDAQ
selected the January 2011 episode to conduct the modeled maintenance
demonstration work for the Provo and Salt Lake City areas. A
comprehensive discussion of the meteorological model performance for
all three of these episodes can be found in the TSD submitted by UDAQ.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\50\ Guidance on the Use of Models and Other Analyses for
Demonstrating Attainment of Air Quality Goals for Ozone,
PM2.5, and Regional Haze (EPA, Apr. 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
UDAQ completed a comparison of the 24-hour average modeled and
observed PM2.5 during the January 1-10, 2011 episode at the
Provo monitoring station (Lindon) and at the Salt Lake City monitoring
station (Hawthorne), and the results showed that the model overall
captured the daily 24 hour average temporal variation in
PM2.5 well. A more detailed analysis of this episode for
both the Provo and Salt Lake City monitoring sites (Lindon and
Hawthorne, respectively) can be found in the TSD submitted by UDAQ.
Overall, UDAQ concluded that the model performed well in
replicating the buildup and dispersal of PM2.5 in the Provo
and Salt Lake City NAAs, and thus the model could be used for air
quality planning purposes. UDAQ then developed a 2017 baseline model
simulation using 2017 emissions data, but using the WRF-ARW
meteorological data for the 2011 episode. The 2017 baseline modeling
and the 2017 baseline monitoring data design values are used to
simulate possible future PM2.5 levels by projecting from the
2017 emissions to future year emissions. The results of the future year
modeling are described below.
With acceptable model performance, the model can be used to make
future-year attainment projections. For each future year, an attainment
projection is made by calculating a concentration termed the Future
Design Value (FDV). This calculation is made for each monitor included
in the analysis, and then compared to the NAAQS (35 [micro]g/m\3\).
When the FDV is smaller than the NAAQS at every monitor in the NAA,
this would demonstrate attainment for the area in that specific future
year. A maintenance plan must demonstrate continued attainment of the
NAAQS for a span of ten years. Since this ten-year span is measured
from the time that the EPA finalizes action of the plan, the ten-year
end date is uncertain. To be conservative, UDAQ projected an attainment
date of 2035, which is fifteen years after Utah submitted the Provo and
Salt Lake City maintenance plans. Additionally, UDAQ modeled a ``spot-
check'' assessment of 2026.
For any monitor, the FDV is greatly influenced by the existing air
quality at the specific location. This can be quantified and expressed
as a Baseline Design Value (BDV). The BDV is consistent with the form
of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, which is the 98th
percentile value averaged over a three-year period. The quantification
of the BDV for each monitor in Provo and Salt Lake City, is included in
the TSD submitted by UDAQ.
Several values were excluded when UDAQ calculated the BDVs in the
Provo NAA. UDAQ utilized the EPA's ``Exceptional Events Rule,'' \51\
which allows states to exclude certain air quality data due to
exceptional events (e.g., wildfires, dust storms, etc.). Two large
local wildfires were observed during the summer of 2018 that affected
the PM2.5 values at the Spanish Fork monitor in the Provo
NAA, but even when the atypical wildfire data is included in the
baseline design value the level is still below the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS, at 35.4 [micro]g/m\3\. Since the design value
complies with the NAAQS, the wildfire events are not considered
regulatorily significant exceptional events under the Exceptional
Events Rule because they did not cause an exceedance or a violation of
the NAAQS.\52\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\51\ 81 FR 68216 (Oct 3, 2016).
\52\ 40 CFR 50.14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although the wildfires did not cause exceptional events, which
would have needed the EPA's concurrence under the Exceptional Events
Rule, Utah excluded the values from those days from its modeling, so as
to produce more representative projections of future air quality. This
exclusion was consistent with EPA guidance on addressing instances
where air quality data is influenced by atypical, extreme, or
unrepresentative.\53\ This Additional
[[Page 71039]]
Methods Guidance identifies the most common determinations and analyses
not covered by the Exceptional Events Rule, and clarifies for each of
them whether there is a separate, existing mechanism under which the
exclusion, selection, or adjustment of air quality monitoring data may
be appropriate. One example is certain modeling analyses under EPA's
Guideline on Air Quality Models \54\ including modeling analyses used
for estimating base and future year design values for ozone and
PM2.5 attainment demonstrations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\53\ See Additional Methods, Determinations, and Analyses to
Modify Air Quality Data Beyond Exceptional Events (EPA, Apr. 4,
2019) (the ``Additional Methods Guidance,'' available at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2019-04/documents/clarification_memo_on_data_modification_methods.pdf).
\54\ 40 CFR part 51, appendix W.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 4 below details the atypical, potentially wildfire-influenced
values recorded at the Spanish Fork monitor, with the specific date the
monitor was impacted and what the potential source could be.
Table 4--2018 Atypical Event Values Excluded From the Baseline Design
Value at the Spanish Fork Monitor
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Value, Potential wildfire
Date [micro]g/m\3\ sources
------------------------------------------------------------------------
8/7/2018....................... 37.8 Coal Hollow.
8/9/2020....................... 50.8 Coal Hollow and other
western state(s)
fire(s).
8/10/2018...................... 68.8 Coal Hollow and other
western state(s)
fire(s).
8/11/2018...................... 49.6 Coal Hollow and other
western state(s)
fire(s).
8/13/2018...................... 58.1 Coal Hollow and other
western state(s)
fire(s).
9/14/2018...................... 71.5 Pole Creek and Bald
Mountain.
9/15/2018...................... 42.6 Pole Creek and Bald
Mountain.
9/17/2018...................... 74.5 Pole Creek and Bald
Mountain.
9/18/2018...................... 57.7 Pole Creek and Bald
Mountain.
9/19/2020...................... 76.3 Pole Creek and Bald
Mountain.
9/21/2018...................... 39.3 Pole Creek and Bald
Mountain.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
UDAQ worked with the EPA to determine whether these atypical values
could be excluded under the approach described in the Additional
Methods Guidance, and based on the specific modeling analysis conducted
in accordance with EPA's Air Quality Models Guideline. We have reviewed
historical data for the area and the HYSPLIT ``back trajectory
analysis'' \55\ in which the State presented an analysis of the
direction and sources of air pollution at the receptor site.\56\ Based
on our review, and considering the provisions of Utah SIP Section
IX.A.27.c.1.d., the EPA agrees with UDAQ's assessment that the atypical
baseline design value of 35.4 [micro]g/m\3\ was exacerbated by local
wildfire emissions, and the atypical monitoring data listing in Table 4
above should be removed, which would set the BDV for modeling projected
design values at 28.4 [micro]g/m\3\. This determination is only for the
Spanish Fork monitor in the Provo 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAA; no
other monitor in the Provo PM2.5 NAA or the Salt Lake City
PM2.5 NAA was affected by the local wildfires. Additionally,
this determination is not an official EPA concurrence based on the
Exceptional Events Rule. The atypical data discussed in Table 4 were
fully considered in evaluating whether the area had attained the NAAQS,
and were only excluded to provide a more accurate modeled projected
design value--that is, the FDV--for the Spanish Fork monitor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\55\ The HYSPLIT model is a complete system for computing simple
air parcel trajectories, as well as complex transport, dispersion,
chemical transformation, and deposition simulations. A common
application of this model is a back trajectory analysis to determine
the origin of air masses and establish source-receptor
relationships. Detailed information on the HYSPLIT model can be
found at: https://www.arl.noaa.gov/hysplit/hysplit/.
\56\ See ``2018 Wildfire Atypical Event Report'' within the Utah
TSD (presenting HYSPLIT back trajectory analysis); the AQS report
containing the historical data can be found in our docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The modeled FDV is used as a part of the maintenance plan
demonstration to show that the NAAs will maintain the NAAQS at a future
date. In making future-year projections of PM2.5
concentrations and attainment status for this purpose, the output from
the CAMx model for the future years is not considered the final answer.
That is, the model future year results are not used in an absolute
sense, but in a relative sense to correct for model errors and bias.
UDAQ performed model simulations for the 2017 baseline emissions and
for the projected future year emissions, and the fractional change was
calculated in the future year model relative to the baseline year model
for the concentrations of each PM2.5 species.\57\ These
fractional changes are called the model Relative Response Factor (RRF).
The RRF approach is based on the assumption that, while the model may
have errors in predicting absolute concentrations, the model is
reliable for predicting the relative changes in PM2.5
concentration as emissions change in the future. An RRF greater than
one indicates that the model predicted PM2.5 is greater in
the future year than in the 2017 base year, and typically is a result
of increased emissions in the future year associated with projected
population growth. (Additional discussion of the RRF can be found in
EPA guidance \58\ and in the maintenance plans and TSD submitted by
UDAQ.) The model RRF for each PM2.5 species is multiplied by
the 2017 BDV species concentrations to estimate the FDV for each
species. The FDVs are compared to the NAAQs to determine whether
attainment is predicted at each monitoring location. Table 5 below
provides FDV results for the Provo and Salt Lake City monitoring sites,
projection years and shows that no FDV exceeds the NAAQS. Therefore,
continued attainment is demonstrated in the Provo and Salt Lake City
NAAs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\57\ PM2.5 species includes nitrate (NO3), sulfate
(SO4), ammonium (NH4), organic carbon (OC), elemental carbon (EC),
chloride (Cl), sodium (Na), crustal material (CM), and other species
(other mass). Additional detail can be found at figures IX.A.27.13
and IX.A.36.13 for the Provo and Salt Lake City NAAs, respectively.
\58\ Modeling Guidance for Demonstrating Air Quality Goals for
Ozone, PM2.5, and Regional Haze (EPA, Nov. 2018).
[[Page 71040]]
Table 5--Baseline Design Value, Relative Response Factors, and Future Design Values for all Monitors and Future Projection Years
[Units of design values are [micro]g/m\3\, while RRFs are dimensionless]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NAA Monitor AQS site 2016-2018 BDV 2026 RRF 2026 FDV 2035 RRF 2035 FDV
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Provo............................. Lindon.............. 49-049-4001 31.1 0.94 29.3 0.95 * 29.5
Spanish Fork........ 49-049-5010 ** 28.4 1 28.4 1 * 28.4
Salt Lake City.................... Brigham City........ 49-003-0003 32.4 0.85 27.5 1 *** 27.5
Bountiful........... 49-011-0004 28.5 0.99 28.1 1 *** 28.2
Hawthorne........... 49-035-3006 33.4 0.95 31.8 1 *** 32.1
Rose Park........... 49-035-3010 34.9 0.96 33.5 1 *** 33.6
Ogden 2............. 49-057-0002 30.2 0.95 28.8 1 *** 28.9
Erda ****........... 49-045-0004 25.5 0.90 23.0 1 *** 23.1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* This value includes additional emissions added to the MAG MVEB from the safety margin. The safety margin is discussed further in Section II.D.2 below.
** This value excludes data from atypical events discussed above.
*** These values include additional emissions added to the WFRC MVEB from the safety margin. The safety margin is discussed further in Section II.D.2
below.
**** Erda site uses 2016 speciation data instead of 2011 like the other Salt Lake City NAA monitors because Erda was a new site starting in 2016.
As explained in the Calcagni memorandum, any assumptions concerning
emission rates must reflect permanent, enforceable measures. A state
cannot take credit in the maintenance demonstration for reductions,
unless there are regulations in place requiring those reductions or the
reductions are otherwise shown to be permanent. States are expected to
maintain implemented control strategies despite redesignation to
attainment, unless equivalent reduction measures are adopted. Emission
reductions from source shutdowns can be considered permanent and
enforceable, to the extent that those shutdowns have been reflected in
the SIP and all applicable permits have been modified accordingly.
For a maintenance demonstration, permanent and enforceable measures
must be implemented and acted on before the EPA may act on the
maintenance plan or redesignation request.\59\ Therefore, the EPA is
taking concurrent action on these remaining attainment-related portions
of the Moderate and Serious 2006 24-hour PM2.5 SIPs for the
Provo and Salt Lake City NAAs. Our proposed approval of these remaining
attainment-related portions of the Moderate and Serious 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 Salt Lake City and Provo SIPs for area sources rules,
mobile source controls, and stationary source emission limits in Utah's
Part H section in their SIP to control direct PM2.5 and
PM2.5 precursors is discussed in Section II.B.3 above.
Additionally, the BACM/BACT analysis for area source rules, on-road
mobile sources, off-road mobile sources, and stationary sources is
discussed in Section II.B.3 above and in our TSD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\59\ See Calcagni Memorandum at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on the information described above and in our TSD, the EPA
proposes to find that Utah has adequately demonstrated that the Provo
and Salt Lake City areas will maintain the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS for the next fifteen years.
c. Monitoring Network
Once a NAA has been redesignated to attainment, a state must
continue to operate an appropriate air quality monitoring network, in
accordance with 40 CFR part 58, to verify the attainment status of the
area. For verification, the maintenance plans should contain provisions
for continued operation of air quality monitors. We approve these sites
annually, and any future change would require discussion and approval
from the EPA. In its January 13, 2020 submittal, Utah commits to
continuing to maintain an ambient monitoring network for
PM2.5 in the Provo and Salt Lake City areas, in accordance
with 40 CFR part 58 and the Utah SIP.
d. Verification of Continued Attainment
Utah's maintenance plan submittal for the Provo and Salt Lake City
areas must indicate how the State will track the progress of the
maintenance plans. This is necessary because the emissions projections
made for the maintenance demonstrations depend on assumptions of point
and area source growth. In Section IX.A.27.c.(7) and Section
IX.A.36.c.(7) of the Provo and Salt Lake City maintenance plans,
respectively, Utah commits to track and document measured mobile source
parameters (e.g., vehicle miles traveled, congestion, fleet mix) and
changes in new and modified stationary source permits. If these and the
resulting emissions change significantly over time, the State will
perform appropriate studies to determine whether additional and/or re-
sited monitors are necessary, and whether mobile and stationary source
emission projections are on target.
e. Contingency Plan
Section 175A(d) of the Act requires that a maintenance plan include
contingency provisions, as necessary, to promptly correct any violation
of the NAAQS that occurs after redesignation of the area. For the
maintenance plans to be approved under section 175A, a state is not
required to have fully adopted contingency measures that will take
effect without further action by the state. However, the contingency
plan is an enforceable part of the SIP and should ensure that
contingency measures are adopted expeditiously once they are triggered.
The plan should discuss the measures to be adopted and a schedule and
procedure for adoption and implementation. The contingency plan must
require that the state will implement all measures in the Part D
nonattainment plan for the area prior to redesignation. The state
should also identify the specific indicators, or triggers, that will be
used to determine when the contingency plan will be implemented.
As stated in Section IX.A.27.c.(8) and Section IX.A.36.c.(8), of
the Provo and Salt Lake City maintenance plans, respectively,
triggering the contingency plan does not automatically require a
revision to the SIP, nor does it necessarily mean the area will be
redesignated once again to nonattainment. Instead, a state will
normally have an appropriate timeframe to correct the potential
violation with
[[Page 71041]]
implementing one or more adopted contingency measures. If violations
continue to occur, additional contingency measures will be adopted
until the violations are corrected.
Upon monitoring a potential violation of the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS, including exceedances flagged as exceptional
events but not concurred with by the EPA, a state will identify a means
of corrective action within six months after a potential violation. The
state will require implementation of the corrective action no later
than one year after the violation is confirmed, and any contingency
measures adopted and implemented will become part of the next revised
maintenance plan submitted for EPA approval.
The Provo maintenance plan list of contingency measures consists
of:
(1) Measures to address emissions from residential wood combustion
(i.e., emissions from fireplaces under the existing R307-302 rule),
including re-evaluating the thresholds at which red or yellow burn days
are triggered. Residential wood combustion represents a large emissions
inventory source category at 43.6% of direct PM2.5 emissions
in the 2017 county-wide inventory;
(2) Measures to address fugitive dust from area sources. Fugitive
dust represents 28.1% of direct PM2.5 emissions in the 2017
county-wide inventory; and
(3) Additional measures to address other PM2.5 sources
identified in the emissions inventory, such as on-road vehicles, non-
road vehicles and engines, and industrial sources.
The Salt Lake City maintenance plan list of contingency measures
consists of:
(1) Measures to address emissions from residential wood combustion
(i.e., emissions from fireplaces under the existing R307-302 rule),
including re-evaluating the thresholds at which red or yellow burn days
are triggered. Residential wood combustion represents a large emissions
inventory source category at 35.4% of direct PM2.5 emissions
in the 2017 county-wide inventory;
(2) Measures to address fugitive dust from area sources. Fugitive
dust represents 31.2% of direct PM2.5 emissions in the 2017
county-wide inventory; and
(3) Additional measures to address other PM2.5 sources
identified in the emissions inventory, such as on-road vehicles, non-
road vehicles and engines, and industrial sources.
Based on the above, we propose to find that the contingency
measures provided in the Provo and Salt Lake City 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 maintenance plans are sufficient and meet the
requirements of section 175A(d) of the CAA.
f. Subsequent Maintenance Plan Revisions
In accordance with section 175A(b) of the Act, Utah is required to
submit a revision to the maintenance plans eight years after the
redesignation of the Provo and Salt Lake City areas to attainment for
the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. This revision is to provide
for maintenance of the NAAQS for an additional ten years following the
first ten-year period. In the Provo and Salt Lake City maintenance
plans, Utah committed to submit a revised maintenance plan eight years
after the approval of the redesignation request and maintenance plan.
5. Meeting Applicable Requirements of Section 110 and Part D of the Act
In order for an area to be redesignated to attainment, section
107(d)(3)(E) requires that it must have met all applicable requirements
of section 110 and part D of the Act. We interpret this to mean that,
for a redesignation request to be approved, the state must have met all
requirements that applied to the subject area prior to, or at the time
of, submitting a complete redesignation request. In our evaluation of a
redesignation request, we do not need to consider other requirements of
the CAA that became due after the date of the submission of a complete
redesignation request.
a. Section 110 Requirements
Section 110(a)(2) contains general requirements for nonattainment
plans. For purposes of redesignation, the Utah SIP was reviewed to
ensure that all applicable requirements under the amended Act were
satisfied. On September 21, 2010, Utah submitted an Infrastructure SIP
to the EPA demonstrating compliance with the requirements of section
110 applicable to the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. We approved
this submittal on November 25, 2013 (78 FR 63883), for all section 110
requirements applicable to redesignation.
b. Part D Requirements
Before a PM2.5 NAA may be redesignated to attainment,
Utah must have fulfilled the applicable requirements of part D. Subpart
1 of part D establishes the general requirements applicable to all
NAAs, while subpart 4 of part D establishes specific requirements
applicable to PM10/PM2.5 NAAs. The
PM2.5 SIP Requirements Rule provides that the applicable
requirements of CAA section 172 are subsections 172(c)(3) (emissions
inventory), 172(c)(5) (NSR permitting program), 172(c)(7) (the section
110(a)(2) air quality monitoring requirements), and 172(c)(9)
(contingency measures). We have interpreted the requirements of section
172(c)(2) (RFP) and 172(c)(6) (other measures) as being irrelevant to a
redesignation request because they only have meaning for an area that
is not attaining the standard. Finally, Utah has not sought to exercise
the options that would trigger sections 172(c)(8) (equivalent
techniques). Thus, these provisions are also not relevant to this
redesignation request.
The requirements of section 172(c), 189(a), and 189(b) regarding
attainment of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, have been
satisfied through our February 25, 2016 (81 FR 9343), October 19, 2016
(81 FR 71988), October 2, 2019 (84 FR 52368), and February 26, 2020 (85
FR 10989) actions approving portions of the Moderate 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 Provo and Salt Lake City SIPs. On April 10, 2019 (84
FR 14267) and September 27, 2019 (84 FR 51055), the EPA approved CDDs
for the Provo and Salt Lake City NAAs, respectively. As specified at 40
CFR 51.1015(a) in the PM2.5 SIP Requirements Rule, upon this
determination by the EPA that the Moderate PM2.5 NAAs have
attained the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, the requirements for
Utah to submit an attainment demonstration, provisions demonstrating
timely implementation of RACM/RACT, a RFP plan, quantitative milestones
and quantitative milestone reports, and contingency measures were
suspended. Additionally, under 40 CFR 51.1015(b), upon this
determination from the EPA that the Serious PM2.5 NAAs have
attained the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, the requirements for
the State to submit an attainment demonstration, RFP plan, quantitative
milestones and quantitative milestone reports, and contingency measures
for the areas were suspended. However, the CDDs for the Provo and Salt
Lake City NAAs did not suspend requirements that were independent of
attainment: BACM/BACT, NNSR, and base-year emissions inventories. The
BACM/BACT analysis, including any accompanying rule or limit revision,
is discussed in Section II.B.3 above and completes this element.
We approved the requirements of the part D NSR permit program for
Utah on July 25, 2019 (84 FR 35831), which is briefly discussed above
in Section II.B.2. Once the Provo and Salt Lake City areas are
redesignated to attainment, the prevention of significant deterioration
[[Page 71042]]
(PSD) requirements of part C of the Act will apply. We must ensure that
the State has made any needed modifications to its PSD regulations so
that they will apply in the Provo and Salt Lake City areas after
redesignation. Utah's PSD regulations, R307-405 (Permits: Major Sources
in Attainment or Unclassified Areas (PSD)), which we approved as
meeting all applicable Federal requirements on July 15, 2011 (76 FR
41712) and January 29, 2016 (81 FR 4957), apply to any area designated
unclassifiable or attainment, and thus will become fully effective in
the Provo and Salt Lake City areas upon redesignation of the areas to
attainment.
Additionally, the remaining element that is independent of
attainment is the base-year emissions inventories for the Provo and
Salt Lake City, which is being acted on in Section II.C.4.a above and
is briefly discussed in Section II.B.1 above.
D. Have transportation conformity requirements been met?
1. Requirements for Transportation Conformity and Motor Vehicle
Emissions Budgets (MVEBs)
Transportation conformity is required by section 176(c) of the CAA.
The EPA's conformity rule at 40 CFR part 93, subpart A requires that
transportation plans, programs, and projects conform to SIPs, and
establishes the criteria and procedures for determining whether or not
they conform. Conformity to a SIP means that transportation activities
will not produce new air quality violations, worsen existing
violations, or delay timely attainment of the NAAQS. To effectuate its
purpose, the EPA's conformity rule requires a demonstration that
emissions from a Metropolitan Planning Organization's (MPO) Regional
Transportation Plan (RTP) and Transportation Improvement Program (TIP),
involving Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) or Federal Transit
Administration (FTA) funding or approval, are consistent with the
MVEB(s) contained in a control strategy SIP revision or maintenance
plan (40 CFR 93.101, 93.118, and 93.124). An MVEB is defined as the
level of mobile source emissions of a pollutant relied on in the
attainment or maintenance demonstration to attain or maintain
compliance with the NAAQS in the nonattainment or maintenance area.
Further information concerning the EPA's interpretations regarding
MVEBs can be found in the preamble to the EPA's November 24, 1993,
transportation conformity rule.\60\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\60\ See 58 FR 62193-62196.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A 2006 24-hour PM2.5 maintenance plan should identify
MVEBs for direct PM2.5, NOX, and all other
PM2.5 precursors whose on-road mobile source emissions are
determined to significantly contribute to PM2.5 levels in
the area. For both the Provo and Salt Lake City 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 maintenance plan SIP revisions, the UDAQ also
identified VOCs as a precursor to the formation of PM2.5 in
both areas. For direct PM2.5 SIP MVEBs, the MVEB should
include direct PM2.5 motor vehicle emissions from tailpipes,
brake wear, and tire wear. In addition, a state must also consider
whether re-entrained road dust is a significant contributor and should
be included in the direct PM2.5 MVEB.\61\ With respect to
this requirement, the EPA reviewed information, data, and an analysis
from the UDAQ that sufficiently documented that re-entrained road dust
emissions were negligible and meet the criteria of 40 CFR 93.102(b)(3)
for not needing to be included in the direct PM2.5 MVEB. The
EPA has concurred with the State's analysis as to re-entrained road
dust.\62\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\61\ 40 CFR 93.102(b) and 93.122(f); see also conformity rule
preamble at 69 FR 40004, 40031-40036 (July 1, 2004).
\62\ Email from Tim Russ, EPA, to Bill Reiss, UDAQ, subject
``PM2.5 Re-entrained Road Dust--Utah Request for Deletion
from PM2.5 Motor Vehicle Emissions Budget (MVEB): EPA
Concurrence'' (July 20, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For maintenance plans that do not identify MVEBs for any other year
than the last year of the maintenance plan, the demonstration of
consistency with the MVEBs by the applicable MPO must be accompanied by
a qualitative finding that there are no factors that would cause or
contribute to a new violation or exacerbate an existing violation in
the years before the last year of the maintenance plan.\63\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\63\ 40 CFR 93.118(b)(2)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. MVEBs Identified in the Provo Maintenance Plan SIP
Utah's Provo 2006 24-hour PM2.5 maintenance plan SIP
revision specified the maximum mobile source emissions of
PM2.5, NOX and VOC allowed in 2035, the final
maintenance year. These mobile source emissions were then initially
identified by the State as the maintenance plan's MVEBs. However,
through sensitivity dispersion modeling, the state was able to
demonstrate that for 2035, additional mobile source emissions could be
included such that the Provo area could continue to demonstrate
maintenance. These additional direct PM2.5, NOX,
and VOC mobile source emissions were then identified as a ``safety
margin'' \64\ and were added to the initial MVEBs to arrive at the
final MVEBs. This process of identifying an additional ``safety
margin'' was correctly followed by the UDAQ and is allowed by 40 CFR
93.124(a). The derivation of the MVEBs, with ``safety margin,'' is
described in Section 4 (Mobile Source Budget for Purposes of
Conformity) of the maintenance plan, and Section 3.e. (On-road Mobile
Baseline and Projection Inventories), ii. (On-Road MVEB Derivation) of
the TSD submitted by UDAQ. As presented in Table IX.A.27.11 of the
maintenance plan, the final 2035 MVEBs were 1.5 tpd direct
PM2.5, 6.5 tpd NOX, and 7.0 tpd VOCs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\64\ 40 CFR 93.101.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. MVEB Trading for Demonstrating Transportation Conformity in the
Provo 2006 24-Hour PM2.5 Maintenance Area
The EPA's transportation conformity regulations allow trading
between the direct PM2.5 and NOX and VOC
precursor MVEBs where the SIP establishes an appropriate mechanism.\65\
The State of Utah has established an MVEB trading mechanism to allow
future increases in on-road mobile sources direct PM2.5
emissions to be offset by future decreases in NOX precursor
emissions or future decreases in VOC precursor emissions from on-road
mobile sources. The basis for the trading mechanism is each maintenance
plan's dispersion modeling demonstration for the year 2035, which
established the relative contribution of the NOX and VOC
precursor pollutants. These ratios were developed using data from the
air quality maintenance plan's dispersion modeling. Section 4(a)(ii) of
the maintenance plan and Section 6.a. (Trading Ratio) of the
maintenance plan's TSD provide the following modeling-derived trading
ratios: Future increases in on-road mobile sources' direct
PM2.5 emissions may be offset with future decreases in
NOX emissions from on-road mobile sources at a
NOX to PM2.5 ratio of 5.8 to 1, and future
increases in on-road mobile sources' direct PM2.5 emissions
may be offset with future decreases in VOC emissions from on-road
mobile sources at a VOC to PM2.5 ratio of 27.9 to 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\65\ 40 CFR 93.124(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The maintenance plan also notes that this trading mechanism will
only be used by the Mountainland Association of Governments (MAG), the
MPO for Utah County, for transportation conformity determination
analyses for years after 2035. The maintenance plan further notes that
to ensure that the trading mechanism does not impact the ability to
meet the NOX budget and VOC
[[Page 71043]]
budgets, the NOX and VOC emission reductions available to
supplement the direct PM2.5 MVEB will only be those
remaining after the 2035 NOX and VOC MVEBs have been met.
The maintenance plan further articulates that clear documentation of
the calculations used in the MVEB trading is to be included in the
conformity determination analysis as prepared by the MAG MPO.
4. MVEBs Identified in the Salt Lake City Maintenance Plan SIP
Utah's Salt Lake City 2006 24-hour PM2.5 maintenance
plan SIP revision specified the maximum mobile source emissions of
PM2.5, NOX and VOC allowed in the final
maintenance year which is 2035. These mobile source emissions were then
initially identified by the State as the maintenance plan's MVEBs.
However, as with the Provo NAA, through sensitivity dispersion modeling
the State was able to demonstrate that for 2035, additional mobile
sources emissions could be included such that the Salt Lake City area
could continue to demonstrate maintenance. These additional direct
PM2.5, NOX, and VOC mobile source emissions were
then identified as a ``safety margin'' \66\ and were then added to the
initial MVEBs to arrive at the final MVEBs. This process of identifying
an additional ``safety margin'' was correctly followed by the UDAQ and
is as allowed by 40 CFR 93.124(a). The derivation of the MVEBs, with
``safety margin,'' is described in Section 4 (Mobile Source Budget for
Purposes of Conformity) of the maintenance plan, and Section 3.e. (On-
road Mobile Baseline and Projection Inventories), ii. (On-Road MVEB
Derivation) of the TSD submitted by UDAQ. As presented in Table
IX.A.36.11 of the maintenance plan, the final 2035 MVEBs were 1.38 tpd
direct PM2.5, 21.63 tpd NOX, and 20.57 tpd VOCs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\66\ 40 CFR 93.101.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. MVEB Trading for of Demonstrating Transportation Conformity, in the
Salt Lake City 2006 24-Hour PM2.5 Maintenance Area
As discussed above, the EPA transportation conformity regulations
allow trading between direct PM2.5 and NOX and
VOC precursor MVEBs, if the SIP establishes an appropriate
mechanism.\67\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\67\ 40 CFR 93.124(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The State has established an MVEB trading mechanism to allow for
future increases in on-road mobile sources direct PM2.5
emissions to be offset by future decreases in NOX precursor
emissions or future decreases in VOC precursor emissions from on-road
mobile sources. The basis for the trading mechanism is the maintenance
plan's dispersion modeling demonstration for the year 2035, which
established the relative contribution of the NOX and VOC
precursor pollutants. These ratios were developed from data from the
air quality maintenance plan's dispersion modeling. Section 4(a)(ii) of
the maintenance plan and Section 6.a. (Trading Ratio) of the
maintenance plan's TSD provide the following modeling-derived trading
ratios: Future increases in on-road mobile sources' direct
PM2.5 emissions may be offset with future decreases in
NOX emissions from on-road mobile sources at a
NOX to PM2.5 ratio of 6.3 to 1, and future
increases in on-road mobile sources' direct PM2.5 emissions
may be offset with future decreases in VOC emissions from on-road
mobile sources at a VOC to PM2.5 ratio of 20.9 to 1.
The maintenance plan also notes that this trading mechanism will
only be used by the Wasatch Front Regional Council (WFRC), the MPO for
Salt Lake City 2006 24-hour PM2.5 maintenance area counties,
for transportation conformity determination analyses for years after
2035. The maintenance plan further notes that to ensure that the
trading mechanism does not impact the ability to meet the
NOX budget and VOC budgets, the NOX and VOC
emission reductions available to supplement the direct PM2.5
MVEB shall only be those remaining after the 2035 NOX and
VOC MVEBs have been met. The maintenance plan further articulates that
clear documentation of the calculations used in the MVEB trading are to
be included in the conformity determination analysis as prepared by the
WFRC MPO.
6. EPA's Evaluation of Mobile Source Emissions and MVEBs
The EPA has evaluated the Provo and Salt Lake City 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 maintenance plan's emission inventories and
maintenance demonstration modeling as described above, and have
determined that the direct PM2.5, NOX, and VOC
MVEBs have been appropriately derived for each maintenance plan and are
acceptable. We have also evaluated the description and derivation of
the MVEB NOX and VOC trading mechanisms, the supporting
modeling data maintenance demonstration, and the TSDs submitted by
UDAQ. We find the trading mechanisms acceptable. Therefore, we are
proposing to approve the Provo 2006 24-hour PM2.5
maintenance plan's 2035 MVEBs of direct PM2.5 of 1.5 tpd,
NOX of 6.5 tpd, and VOC of 7.0 tpd. We are also proposing to
approve the Salt Lake City 2006 24-hour PM2.5 maintenance
plan's 2035 MVEBs of direct PM2.5 of 1.38 tpd,
NOX of 21.63 tpd, and VOC of 20.57 tpd. In addition, we are
also proposing to approve the NOX/VOC-to-direct
PM2.5 MVEB trading mechanisms as described above and
documented in Section 4(a)(ii) of each respective maintenance plan.
E. Did Utah follow the proper procedures for adopting this Action?
Section 110(k) of the CAA addresses our actions on submissions of
revisions to a SIP. The Act also requires states to observe procedural
requirements in developing implementation plans and plan revisions for
submission. Section 110(a)(2) of the Act provides that each
implementation plan submitted by a state must be adopted after
reasonable notice and public hearing. Section 110(l) of the Act
similarly provides that each revision to an implementation plan
submitted by a state under the Act must be adopted by the state after
reasonable notice and public hearing.
We also must determine whether a submittal is complete and
therefore warrants further review and action.\68\ Our completeness
criteria for SIP submittals are set out at 40 CFR part 51, appendix V.
We attempt to make completeness determinations within 60 days of
receiving a submission. However, a submittal is deemed complete by
operation of law under section 110(k)(1)(B) of the Act if a
completeness determination is not made within six months after receipt
of the submission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\68\ CAA section 110(k)(1); 57 FR 13565.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On July 11, 2012, the UAQB approved for public comment a new Rule
R307-208 (Outdoor Wood Boiler Prohibition), with a comment period from
August 1 to August 31, 2012, and a public hearing on August 15, 2012.
UDAQ received comments from industry, environmental groups, and
citizens, and based on these comments, UDAQ made significant changes to
the rule, and on November 7, 2012, requested the UAQB proposed the
revised rule for a second comment period. This comment period was held
from December 1 through 31, 2012, and no public hearing was requested.
Comments were submitted by industry during this second comment period
and UDAQ made significant changes to the rule where another comment
period was required. On February 6, 2013, the UAQB approved these
revisions for a third comment period from March 1 through April 1,
2013. The UAQB approved, and the rule became effective
[[Page 71044]]
on April 10, 2013 and UDAQ submitted this new rule to the EPA on July
21, 2020.
On September 3, 2014, the UAQB approved the Salt Lake City and
Provo Moderate 2006 24-hour PM2.5 SIP revisions for public
comment, which took place from October 1 through October 31, 2014, with
a public hearing on October 20, 2014. Comments were submitted by
industry, environmental groups, and the EPA. UDAQ responded to all
comments and made insignificant changes that did not warrant a second
comment period. The UAQB approved the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
Moderate SIP for submission to the EPA on December 3, 2014, and the SIP
became effective on December 4, 2014. UDAQ submitted the Moderate 2006
24-hour PM2.5 SIPs on December 16, 2014.
On May 3, 2017, the UAQB approved the new rule R307-230
(NOX Emission Limits for Natural Gas-Fired Water Heaters)
for public comment from June 1, 2017 to July 3, 2017; no public hearing
was requested. No comments were received, and the rule was approved by
the UAQB on August 2, 2017, and it became effective on August 3, 2017.
UDAQ submitted the rule to the EPA on July 21, 2020.
On September 7, 2016, the UAQB approved Utah SIP Section IX.H.13
(Source-Specific Emission Limitations in Provo--UT PM2.5
Nonattainment Area) for the PM2.5 SIPs for public comment,
which was accepted from October 1 through October 31, 2016, with a
public hearing on October 26, 2016. Comments were submitted by industry
and environmental groups. UDAQ responded to all comments and made
insignificant changes that did not warrant a second comment period. The
UAQB approved Utah SIP Section IX.H.13 for submission to the EPA on
December 7, 2016, and the rule became effective on December 8, 2016.
UDAQ submitted the revisions on January 19, 2017.
On June 7, 2017, the UAQB approved a new rule, R307-304 (Solvent
Cleaning) for the PM2.5 SIPs for public comment, which
extended from July 1 through August 15, 2017, with a public hearing on
July 27, 2017. Comments were submitted by industry and environmental
groups. UDAQ responded to all comments and made insignificant changes
that did not warrant a second comment period. The UAQB approved the new
rule, R307-304 (Solvent Cleaning)] for submission to the EPA on
December 6, 2017, and the rule became effective on December 6, 2017.
UDAQ submitted the new rule on May 21, 2020.
On June 7, 2017, the UAQB approved revisions to the following area
source rules: R307-335 (Degreasing); R307-343 (Wood Furniture
Manufacturing Operations); R307-344 (Paper, Film, and Foil Coatings);
R307-345 (Fabric and Vinyl Coatings); R307-346 (Metal Furniture Surface
Coatings); R307-347 (Large Appliance Surface Coatings); R307-348
(Magnet Wire Coatings); R307-349 (Flat Wood Panel Coatings); R307-350
(Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products Coatings); R307-351 (Graphic
Arts); R307-352 (Metal Container, Closure, and Coil Coatings); R307-353
(Plastic Parts Coatings); and R307-354 (Automotive Refinishing
Coatings). Public comment was accepted from July 1 through August 15,
2017, with a public hearing on July 27, 2017. Comments were submitted
by industry and environmental groups. UDAQ responded to all comments
and made insignificant changes that did not warrant a second comment
period. The UAQB approved these rules, except R307-350, R307-353, and
R307-355, to be submitted to the EPA on October 4, 2017. Additionally,
on October 4, 2017, the UAQB requested revisions to R307-350, R307-353,
and R307-355. UDAQ presented these revisions to the UAQB on December 6,
2017, which required a second comment period, from January 1 through
January 31, 2018. Industry submitted comments and UDAQ provided
responses within the submittal and made insignificant changes to these
rules during the second comment period. R307-335 became effective on
October 29, 2017, and R307-343, R307-344, R307-345, R307-346, R307-347,
R307-348, R307-349, R307-350, R307-351, R307-352, R307-353, R307-354,
and R307-355 became effective on December 6, 2017. UDAQ submitted these
rules to the EPA on April 19, 2018.
On June 6, 2018, the UAQB approved the revisions to Utah SIP
Sections IX.H.11 and 12, with the accompanying BACM/BACT analysis.
Additionally, the BACM/BACT analyses for on-road mobile, off-road
mobile, and area source rules were approved for public comment. The
comment period was held from July 1 to August 15, 2018, and no public
hearing was requested. Comments were received by industry,
environmental groups and the EPA. UDAQ responded to these comments and
held two follow-up comment periods. The first was held from October 1
through October 31, 2018. This comment period was for the Salt Lake
City Serious 2006 24-hour PM2.5 SIP, including the potential
for UDAQ to complete a major stationary source precursor demonstration
for the SIP. The second follow-up comment period was held from November
1 through November 30, 2018. This comment period was for significant
revisions to Utah SIP Sections IX.H.11, 12, and BACM/BACT
demonstration. Comments were submitted by industry, environmental
groups, and the EPA in these second-round comment periods. UDAQ
responded to all the comments and took the final SIP package to the
January 2, 2019 UAQB meeting which approved the SIP elements to be
submitted to the EPA. The SIP became effective on January 3, 2019 and
was submitted to the EPA on February 15, 2019.
On May 15, 2018, UDAQ published a Notice of Public Comment Period
for the Provo Serious 2006 24-hour PM2.5 SIP elements that
were not suspended with the April 10, 2019 CDD (84 FR 14267). These
elements included: Base-year emissions inventory and provisions to
ensure BACM/BACT for area sources, major stationary sources, on-road
mobile sources, and off-road mobile sources. These documents did not
need to go through the UAQB, because no portion of the Utah SIP was
revised; UDAQ completed a detailed analysis and supporting inventory
for what is currently within the Utah SIP for the Provo 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAA. The comment period was held from May 16, 2018 to
June 16, 2018, and a public hearing was not requested. UDAQ received
comments from industry, environmental groups, and the EPA. UDAQ
responded to all submitted comments and made only insignificant
revisions that did not warrant a second comment period; therefore, UDAQ
submitted these remaining Provo Serious 2006 24-hour PM2.5
SIP elements to the EPA on February 4, 2019.
On September 4, 2019, the UAQB proposed for public comment the
Provo and Salt Lake City maintenance plans and redesignation request
and revisions to R307-110-10. The public comment period was held from
October 1 to October 31, 2019. UDAQ received comments from industry and
citizens, and no public hearing was requested. The comments were
minimal and did not prompt UDAQ to substantively revise any documents.
UDAQ made minor revisions to the plan once the data and modeling were
verified. On December 4, 2019, the UAQB adopted R307-110-10 and the
Provo and Salt Lake City maintenance plans/redesignation requests,
effective December 5, 2019. UDAQ submitted these revisions and the TSD
to the EPA on January 13, 2020.
[[Page 71045]]
On November 20, 2019, the UAQB proposed amendments to Utah SIP
Section X, Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Program, Parts B and E;
R307-110-32; and R307-110-35. The comment period was held from January
1 to 31, 2020. A public hearing was held on Monday February 3, 2020;
however, due to severe weather, a second public hearing was held on
Wednesday February 5, 2020. No comments were received, and no one
attended either public hearing. On March 4, 2020, the UAQB adopted
revisions to R307-110-32; R307-110-35 and to Utah SIP Section X,
Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Program, Parts B and E. These
revisions became effective on March 5, 2020, and UDAQ submitted these
revisions to the EPA on May 21, 2020.
On October 9, 2020, UDAQ submitted a draft SIP revision to the Utah
SIP Section IX.H.12.i.i.C (Kennecott Power Plant), which will remove
the startup/shutdown emission limits from this Utah SIP section, to the
EPA for parallel processing. The comment period at the State level
began October 1 and will end November 3, 2020, with a public hearing
being held on November 3, 2020. UDAQ requested this parallel processing
so as not to delay action on the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
redesignations for the Salt Lake City and Provo NAAs. UDAQ is planning
on submitting this SIP revision early in January 2021. After the State
formally submits these revisions, the EPA will evaluate the submittal
for any changes between the proposed and final versions. As discussed
above in Section I.E, the EPA will determine if any changes to the
draft submission would warrant another proposed rule, or if on the
other hand the agency may proceed with a final action. This formal
submission from the State of Utah will accompany either the final rule
or the new proposed rule under this docket number.
III. Proposed Action
We are proposing to redesignate the Salt Lake City and Provo 2006
24-hour PM2.5 NAAs, and to approve multiple related SIP
submissions. We are proposing to approve the Governor of Utah's
submittal of January 13, 2020, containing revisions to R307-110-10, and
the Provo and Salt Lake City 2006 24-hour PM2.5 maintenance
plans and redesignation requests. We are also proposing to approve the
Governor of Utah's submittal of May 21, 2020, with revisions to R307-
110-32, R307-110-35, Utah SIP Section X.B., and Utah SIP Section X.E,
which are the I/M programs for Davis and Weber Counties. We are
proposing to approve both maintenance plans' 2035 MVEBs. In addition,
we are proposing to approve the NOX and VOC to direct
PM2.5 MVEB trading mechanisms in each maintenance plan. We
are proposing approval of these submissions because UDAQ has adequately
addressed all of the requirements of the Act for the SIP revisions and
the redesignation to attainment applicable to the Provo and Salt Lake
City 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAs. We are using 2017-2019 ambient
air quality data from the Provo and Salt Lake City NAAs as the basis
for our decision. Upon the effective date of a subsequent final action,
the designation status of the Provo and Salt Lake City areas under 40
CFR part 81 will be revised to attainment.
Additionally, we are proposing to approve SIP revisions submitted
on January 19, 2017 (Utah SIP Section IX.H.13), and February 15, 2019
(Utah SIP Section IX.H.11 and 12). Additionally, we are proposing to
approve, through parallel processing, Utah's draft October 9, 2020
submission removing the startup/shutdown emission limits for the
Kennecott Power Plant found in Utah SIP Section IX.H.12.i.i.C, and the
accompanying R307-110-17.
The EPA is proposing to approve the Utah UAC section R307-200 and
R307-300 Series revisions and new rules submitted by UDAQ on April 19,
2018, May 21, 2020 and July 21, 2020, which are intended to strengthen
the SIP and to serve as BACM for certain area sources for the Utah
PM2.5 SIP. These rules are R307-208, R307-230, R307-304,
R307-335, R307-343, R307-344, R307-345, R307-346, R307-347, R307-348,
R307-349, R307-350, R307-351, R307-352, R307-353, R307-354 and R307-
355. Additionally, the EPA is proposing to approve the area sources,
major stationary sources, on-road mobile sources, and non-road mobile
sources BACM/BACT analyses for the Provo and Salt Lake City 2006 24-
hour PM2.5 NAAs that were submitted on February 4, 2019 and
February 15, 2019.
IV. Incorporation by Reference
In this document, the EPA is proposing to include regulatory text
in an EPA final rule that includes incorporation by reference. In
accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to
incorporate by reference revisions to: R307-110-10; R307-110-17; R307-
110-32; R307-110-35; R307-208; R307-230; R307-304; R307-335; R307-343;
R307-344; R307-345; R307-346; R307-347; R307-348; R307-349; R307-350;
R307-351; R307-352; R307-353; R307-354; R307-355; Utah SIP Section
X.B.; Utah SIP Section X.E.; Utah SIP Section IX.H.11, 12, and 13; Utah
SIP Section IX.A.27 (Provo 2006 24-hour PM2.5 Maintenance
Plan); Utah SIP Section IX.A.36 (Salt Lake City 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 Maintenance Plan); and the redesignation requests for
the Provo and Salt Lake City 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAs to
attainment. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these
materials generally available through www.regulations.gov and at the
EPA Region 8 Office (please contact the person identified in the FOR
FUTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more
information).
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);
[[Page 71046]]
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
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.
40 CFR Part 81
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, National parks,
and Wilderness areas.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: October 29, 2020.
Gregory Sopkin,
Regional Administrator, EPA Region 8.
[FR Doc. 2020-24444 Filed 11-5-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
