Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Utah; Regional Haze 5-Year Progress Report State Implementation Plan
| Citation | 85 FR 36359 |
| Published date | 16 June 2020 |
| Record Number | 2020-12075 |
| Court | Environmental Protection Agency |
Federal Register, Volume 85 Issue 116 (Tuesday, June 16, 2020)
[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 116 (Tuesday, June 16, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 36359-36368]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-12075]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R08-OAR-2019-0621; FRL-10008-52-Region 8]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Utah; Regional
Haze 5-Year Progress Report State Implementation Plan
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve a regional haze progress report State Implementation Plan (SIP)
revision submitted by the State of Utah on March 7, 2016. The revision
addresses the requirements for states to submit periodic reports
describing progress toward reasonable progress goals established for
regional haze and a determination of adequacy of the State's regional
haze SIP. The EPA is taking this action pursuant to section 110 of the
Clean Air Act (CAA).
DATES: Written comments must be received on or before July 16, 2020.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R08-
OAR-2019-0621, to the Federal Rulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from
www.regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any comment received to its
public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you
consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written
comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and
should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment
policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general
guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in www.regulations.gov. To reduce the risk of COVID-19 transmission,
for this action we do not plan to offer hard copy review of the docket.
Please email or call the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section if you need to make alternative arrangements for access
to the docket.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jaslyn Dobrahner, Air and Radiation
Division, EPA, Region 8, Mailcode 8ARD-IO, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver,
Colorado, 80202-1129, (303) 312-6252, [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document wherever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean the EPA.
I. What action is the EPA proposing?
On March 7, 2016, Utah submitted a Progress Report SIP revision
(Progress Report) which: (1) Detailed the progress made toward
achieving progress for improving visibility at Class I areas,\1\ and
(2) declared a determination of adequacy of the State's regional haze
plan to meet reasonable progress goals. The State provided a public
hearing for comment on the Progress Report on December 1, 2014 and
provided Federal Land Managers (FLMs) an opportunity to comment on the
Progress Report. The EPA is proposing to approve Utah's March 7, 2016
regional haze Progress Report SIP submittal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 42 U.S.C. 7491(a). Areas designated as mandatory Class I
Federal areas consist of national parks exceeding 6,000 acres,
wilderness areas and national memorial parks exceeding 5,000 acres,
and all international parks that were in existence on August 7,
1977. 42 U.S.C. 7472(a). In accordance with section 169A of the CAA,
EPA, in consultation with the Department of Interior, promulgated a
list of 156 areas where visibility is identified as an important
value. 44 FR 69122 (Nov. 30, 1979). The extent of a mandatory Class
I area includes subsequent changes in boundaries, such as park
expansions. 42 U.S.C. 7472(a). Although states and tribes may
designate as Class I additional areas whose visibility they consider
to be an important value, the requirements of the visibility program
set forth in section 169A of the CAA apply only to ``mandatory Class
I Federal areas.'' Each mandatory Class I Federal area is the
responsibility of a ``Federal Land Manager.'' 42 U.S.C. 7602(i).
When we use the term ``Class I area'' in this section, we mean a
``mandatory Class I Federal area.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Background
A. Requirements of the Clean Air Act and the EPA's Regional Haze Rule
In section 169A of the 1977 Amendments to the CAA, Congress created
a program for protecting visibility in the nation's national parks and
wilderness areas. This section of the CAA establishes ``as a national
goal the prevention of any future, and the remedying of any existing,
impairment of visibility in mandatory Class I Federal areas which
impairment results from manmade air pollution.''
The EPA promulgated a rule to address regional haze on July 1,
1999.\2\ The Regional Haze Rule revised the existing visibility
regulations \3\ to integrate provisions addressing regional haze and
established a comprehensive visibility protection program for Class I
areas. The requirements for regional haze, found at 40 CFR 51.308 and
40 CFR 51.309, are included in the EPA's visibility protection
regulations at 40 CFR 51.300 through 40 CFR 51.309. The EPA revised the
Regional Haze Rule on January 10, 2017.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ 64 FR 35714, 35714 (July 1, 1999) (codified at 40 CFR part
51, subpart P).
\3\ The EPA had previously promulgated regulations to address
visibility impairment in Class I areas that is ``reasonably
attributable'' to a single source or small group of sources, i.e.,
reasonably attributable visibility impairment (RAVI). 45 FR 80084,
80084 (Dec. 2, 1980).
\4\ 82 FR 3078 (Jan. 10, 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The CAA requires each state to develop a SIP to meet various air
quality requirements, including protection of visibility.\5\ Regional
haze SIPs must assure reasonable progress toward the national goal of
achieving natural visibility conditions in Class I areas. A state must
submit its SIP and SIP revisions to the EPA for approval. Once
approved, a SIP is enforceable by the EPA and citizens under the CAA.
If a state elects not to make a required SIP submittal, fails to make a
required SIP submittal, or if we find that a state's required submittal
is incomplete or not approvable, then we must promulgate a federal
implementation plant (FIP) to fill this regulatory gap.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ 42 U.S.C. 7410(a), 7491, and 7492(a); CAA sections 110(a),
169A, and 169B.
\6\ 42 U.S.C. 7410(c)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Requirements for Regional Haze SIPs Submitted Under 40 CFR 51.309
The EPA's Regional Haze Rule provides two paths to address regional
haze. One is 40 CFR 51.308, which requires states to perform individual
[[Page 36360]]
point source best available retrofit technology (BART) determinations
and evaluate the need for other control strategies. The other method
for addressing regional haze is through 40 CFR 51.309, and is an option
for states termed the ``Transport Region States,'' including Utah.
Transport Region States can adopt regional haze strategies based on
recommendations from the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission
(GCVTC) for protecting the 16 Class I areas on the Colorado Plateau.\7\
The GCVTC submitted an annex to the EPA, known as the Backstop Trading
Program, containing annual sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions
reduction milestones and detailed provisions of a backstop trading
program to be implemented automatically if measures failed to achieve
the SO2 milestones. Utah submitted a regional haze SIP under
40 CFR 51.309 to address stationary source SO2 emissions
reductions and submitted a regional haze SIP under 40 CFR
51.309(d)(4)(vii) to address stationary source nitrogen oxide
(NOX) and particulate matter (PM) emissions reductions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ The Colorado Plateau is a high, semi-arid tableland in
southeast Utah, northern Arizona, northwest New Mexico, and western
Colorado. The 16 mandatory Class I areas are: Grand Canyon National
Park, Mount Baldy Wilderness, Petrified Forest National Park,
Sycamore Canyon Wilderness, Black Canyon of the Gunnison National
Park Wilderness, Flat Tops Wilderness, Maroon Bells Wilderness, Mesa
Verde National Park, Weminuche Wilderness, West Elk Wilderness, San
Pedro Park Wilderness, Arches National Park, Bryce Canyon National
Park, Canyonlands National Park, Capital Reef National Park and Zion
National Park.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Requirements for the Five-Year Regional Haze Progress Report SIP
Under both 40 CFR 51.308 and 40 CFR 51.309, states are required to
submit progress reports that evaluate progress towards the reasonable
progress goals for each mandatory federal Class I area within the state
and in each Class I area outside the state that may be affected by
emissions from within the state. In addition, the provisions also
require states to submit, at the same time as the progress report, a
determination of adequacy of the state's existing regional haze SIP.
The first progress report must be in the form of a SIP revision and is
due 5 years after submittal of the initial regional haze SIP.
As a Transport Region State, Utah submitted its Progress Report SIP
under 40 CFR 51.309, and exercised the option to meet the requirements
contained in 40 CFR 51.309 for regional haze implementation plans.\8\
The requirements for Transport Region State progress reports are
similar to those for other states, but the requirements for the reports
are codified at 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Utah Department of Environmental Quality, Progress Report
for Utah's State Implementation Plan for Regional Haze (Utah
Progress Report), page F-8 (Feb. 16, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. Regulatory and Legal History of the Utah Regional Haze SIP and FIP
On May 26, 2011, Utah submitted regional haze SIP revisions
addressing the requirements of 40 CFR 51.309 that, for the most part,
superseded and replaced regional haze SIP revisions submitted on
December 12, 2003, August 8, 2004, and September 9, 2008.\9\ On
December 14, 2012, the EPA approved the SIP revisions as meeting the
requirements of the Regional Haze Rule except for the requirements
under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4)(vii) pertaining to NOX and PM
BART.\10\ On June 4, 2015, the State of Utah submitted to the EPA a
revision to its Regional Haze SIP to address the requirements under 40
CFR 51.309(d)(4)(vii) pertaining to NOX and PM BART, which
included an alternative to BART.\11\ On July 5, 2016, we partially
approved and partially disapproved the June 4, 2015 SIP revision.\12\
Specifically, the EPA approved the State's PM BART determination, but
disapproved Utah's BART alternative for NOX. The EPA
promulgated a FIP for those portions of the SIP that were
disapproved.\13\ Several parties challenged the NOX BART
FIP.\14\ As a result of the litigation, on September 11, 2017, the
EPA's July 5, 2016 final rule was stayed by the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Tenth Circuit.\15\ On July 3, 2019, Utah submitted a subsequent
SIP revision intended to replace the NOX BART FIP for
PacifiCorp's Hunter and Huntington power plants.\16\ The SIP revision
provides an alternative to BART for Hunter and Huntington that would
provide greater reasonable progress toward natural visibility
conditions than BART. On January 22, 2020, the EPA proposed to approve
the July 3, 2019 SIP revision.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ We only acted on the state rules associated with the
Backstop Trading Program and emissions inventories in the 2008
submittal because the 2011 submittal superseded and replaced all
other sections. We took no action on the December 12, 2003, and
August 8, 2004, submittals because these were superseded entirely by
the 2011 submittal. 77 FR 74355, 74356 (Dec.14, 2012).
\10\ 77 FR at 74357.
\11\ A State must demonstrate that a BART alternative achieves
greater reasonable progress than source-specific BART. 40 CFR
51.308(e)(2), (e)(3).
\12\ 81 FR 43894 (July 5, 2016).
\13\ 81 FR at 43896, 43907.
\14\ Utah v. EPA, No. 16-9541 (10th Cir.); PacifiCorp v. EPA,
No. 16-9542 (10th Cir.); Utah Associated Municipal Power Systems v.
EPA, No. 16-9543 (10th Cir.); Deseret Generation Transmission
Cooperative v. EPA, No. 16-9545 (10th Cir.).
\15\ Utah v. EPA, No. 16-9541 (10th Cir.), ECF No. 10496767.
\16\ On December 3, 2019, Utah submitted a supplement to the
July 2019 SIP submission that includes an amendment to the
monitoring, record keeping, and reporting requirements.
\17\ 85 FR 3558 (Jan. 22, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. The EPA's Evaluation of Utah's Progress Report and Adequacy
Determination
A. Regional Haze Progress Report
In this action, the EPA is proposing to approve Utah's Progress
Report and the State's determination that the existing regional haze
implementation plan requires no further substantive revision. Utah's
Progress Report must meet the requirements set forth in 40 CFR
51.309(d)(10)(i). The State must also provide a determination of the
adequacy of the existing implementation plan to ensure reasonable
progress. 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(ii). If the State determines that the
existing implementation plan requires no further revision, then the
State must provide a negative declaration that further revision of the
existing implementation plan is not needed at this time. Id.
As previously noted, on January 22, 2020, the EPA proposed to
approve a SIP revision that provides a BART alternative for the Hunter
and Huntington power plants.\18\ The EPA has not yet taken final action
to approve the proposed SIP revision, and the EPA is not prejudging the
outcome of that rulemaking process. We note that in the event the
proposed SIP revision is not finalized, there is already a FIP in place
which addresses the previously identified SIP deficiencies. Thus,
regardless of whether the EPA finalizes the proposed approval of the
Utah SIP revision for the Hunter and Huntington power plants, Utah will
have an implementation plan in place that fully addresses the regional
haze requirements for the first implementation period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Status of Implementation of Control Measures
Utah's Progress Report must include a description of the status of
implementation of all control measures included in the regional haze
SIP for achieving reasonable progress goals for Class I areas both
within and outside of the State. 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(A).
In its Progress Report, Utah summarized the regional haze measures
that were relied upon in the regional
[[Page 36361]]
haze SIP, as well as the SO2 emissions reduction strategies
implemented by sources in New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming under the
SO2 Backstop Trading Program. The State referenced the
SO2 emissions for sources associated with the SO2
Backstop Trading Program \19\ found within the 2013 Regional
SO2 Emissions and Milestones Report \20\ (Table 1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ Utah Progress Report, page F-12.
\20\ Western Regional Air Partnership, 2013 Regional SO2
Emissions and Milestone Report (March 18, 2015).
\21\ In 2013, three states participated in the SO2
Backstop Trading Program. SO2 emissions from all three
participating states are recorded and collectively compared to the
milestone.
Table 1--Reported Emissions for Sources Associated With the Backstop
Trading Program \21\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reported 2013
SO2 emissions
State Plant name (tons)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NM........................ Agave Energy Co./Agave 14
Dagger Draw Gas Plant.
NM........................ Frontier Field Services/ 478
Empire Abo Plant.
NM........................ DCP Midstream/Artesia Gas 284
Plant.
NM........................ DCP Midstream/Eunice Gas 3,044
Plant.
NM........................ DCP Midstream/Linam Ranch 648
Gas Plant.
NM........................ Duke--Magnum/Pan Energy-- 0
Burton Flats.
NM........................ Duke Energy/Dagger Draw Gas 0
Plant.
NM........................ Versado Gas Processors, LP/ 184
Eunice Gas Plant.
NM........................ Frontier Field Services/ 2,244
Maljamar Gas Plant.
NM........................ Western Refining Southwest 34
Inc-Gallup Refinery.
NM........................ Davis Gas Processing/Denton 972
Plant.
NM........................ OXY USA WTP Limited 44
Partnership--Indian Basin
Gas Plant.
NM........................ Navajo Refining Co/Artesia 39
Refinery.
NM........................ Public Service Co of New 6,076
Mexico/San Juan Generating
Station.
NM........................ Raton Pub. Service/Raton 0
Power Plant.
NM........................ Regency Field Services/Jal 1,002
#3.
NM........................ Versado Gas Processors, LP/ 0
Eunice South Gas Plant.
NM........................ Versado Gas Processors, LLC/ 723
Monument Plant.
NM........................ Versado Gas Processors, LLC/ 369
Saunders Plant.
NM........................ Tri-State Gen & Transmission/ 951
Escalante Station.
NM........................ Western Gas Resources/San 58
Juan River Gas Plant.
NM........................ Western Refining Southwest 0
Inc./Bloomfield Products
Terminal.
NM........................ ConocoPhillips-Midland 195
Office/MCA Tank Battery No.
2.
NM........................ ConocoPhillips-Midland 156
Office/East Vacuum Liquid
Recovery and CO2 Plant.
UT........................ Brigham Young University-- 120
Main Campus.
UT........................ Chevron Products Co--Salt 26
Lake Refinery.
UT........................ Big West Oil Company--Flying 45
J Refinery.
UT........................ Graymont Western US Inc-- 52
Cricket Mountain Plant.
UT........................ Holcim--Devil's Slide Plant. 172
UT........................ Holly Refining and Marketing 101
Co--Phillips Refinery.
UT........................ Intermountain Power Service 4,724
Corporation--Intermountain
Generating Station.
UT........................ Kennecott Utah Copper Corp-- 1,810
Power Plant/Lab/Tailings
Impoundment.
UT........................ Kennecott Utah Copper Corp-- 727
Smelter and Refinery.
UT........................ Materion Natural Resources-- 0
Delta Mill.
UT........................ PacifiCorp--Carbon Power 7,702
Plant.
UT........................ PacifiCorp--Hunter Power 5,055
Plant.
UT........................ PacifiCorp--Huntington Power 2,409
Plant.
UT........................ Patara Midstream LLC Lisbon 5
Natural Gas Processing
Plant.
UT........................ Sunnyside Cogeneration 917
Associates--Sunnyside
Cogeneration Facility.
UT........................ Tesoro West Coast--Salt Lake 664
City Refinery.
UT........................ Utelite Corporation--Shale 80
Processing.
WY........................ American Colloid Mineral Co-- 96
East Colony.
WY........................ American Colloid Mineral Co-- 0
West Colony.
WY........................ Basin Electric--Dry Fork 830
Station.
WY........................ Basin Electric--Laramie 9,286
River Station.
WY........................ Big Horn Gas Processing--Big 0
Horn/Byron Gas Plant.
WY........................ Black Hills Corporation-- 879
Neil Simpson I.
WY........................ Black Hills Corporation-- 511
Neil Simpson II.
WY........................ Black Hills Corporation-- 0
Osage Plant.
WY........................ Black Hills Corporation-- 566
Wygen I.
WY........................ Cheyenne Light Fuel and 172
Power Company--Wygen II.
WY........................ Black Hills Corporation-- 315
Wygen III.
WY........................ Burlington Resources-- 0
Bighorn Wells.
WY........................ Burlington Resources--Lost 1,998
Cabin Gas Plant.
WY........................ Chevron USA--Carter Creek 596
Gas Plant.
WY........................ Chevron USA--Table Rock 0
Field.
WY........................ Chevron USA--Table Rock Gas 22
Plant.
WY........................ Chevron USA--Whitney Canyon/ 3
Carter Creek Wellfield.
WY........................ Devon Energy Production Co., 2
L.P.--Beaver Creek Gas
Field.
WY........................ Devon Gas Services, L.P.-- 49
Beaver Creek Gas Plant.
[[Page 36362]]
WY........................ Encore Operating LP--Elk 824
Basin Gas Plant.
WY........................ Exxon Mobil Corporation-- 139
Labarge Black Canyon
Facility.
WY........................ Exxon Mobil Corporation-- 885
Shute Creek.
WY........................ FMC Corp--Green River Sodium 2,942
Products.
WY........................ FMC Wyoming Corporation 344
Granger Soda Ash Plant.
WY........................ Frontier Oil & Refining 267
Company--Cheyenne Refinery.
WY........................ Worland Plant............... 25
WY........................ Marathon Oil Co--Oregon 182
Basin Gas Plant.
WY........................ Marathon Oil Co--Oregon 40
Basin Wellfield.
WY........................ Merit Energy Company--Brady 316
Gas Plant.
WY........................ Merit Energy Company-- 1
Whitney Facility.
WY........................ Merit Energy Company-- 0
Whitney Canyon Wellfield.
WY........................ Mountain Cement Company-- 273
Laramie Plant.
WY........................ P4 Production, L.L.C.--Rock 754
Springs Coal Calcining
Plant.
WY........................ PacifiCorp--Dave Johnston 8,648
Plant.
WY........................ PacifiCorp--Jim Bridger 11,397
Plant.
WY........................ PacifiCorp--Naughton Plant.. 6,741
WY........................ PacifiCorp--Wyodak Plant.... 2,236
WY........................ Simplot Phosphates LLC--Rock 1,222
Springs Plant.
WY........................ Sinclair Oil Company-- 154
Sinclair Refinery.
WY........................ Sinclair Wyoming Refining 225
Company--Casper Refinery.
WY........................ Solvay Chemicals--Soda Ash 42
Plant (Green River
Facility).
WY........................ TATA Chemicals (Soda Ash 4,662
Partners)--Green River
Plant.
WY........................ The Western Sugar 203
Cooperative--Torrington
Plant.
WY........................ University of Wyoming--Heat 160
Plant.
WY........................ Wyoming Refining--Newcastle 263
Refinery.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Utah's Progress Report identified four stationary sources subject
to BART: PacifiCorp Hunter Units 1 and 2 and PacifiCorp Huntington
Units 1 and 2. The status of control measures associated with PM and
NOX emissions for these four units in addition to the three
other units included in the June 2015 and July 2019 BART alternatives
are provided in Table 2. As explained above, the EPA has proposed but
not yet taken final action with respect to Utah's BART alternative for
the Hunter and Huntington Units.
Table 2--Control Measures and Updates for Sources Subject to BART and the BART Alternative in Utah \22\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PM emission limit NOX control type NOX emission limit
Unit PM control type \1\ \2\ \3\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hunter Unit 1................... Fabric Filter 0.015 lb/MMBtu Low-NOX burners 0.26 lb/MMBtu (30-
(completed in (three-run test (LNB) + separated day rolling).
2014). average). overfire air
(SOFA) (completed
in 2014).
Hunter Unit 2................... Fabric Filter 0.015 lb/MMBtu LNB + SOFA 0.26 lb/MMBtu (30-
(completed in (three-run test (completed in day rolling).
2011). average). 2011).
Hunter Unit 3................... NA................ NA................ LNB + SOFA 0.34 lb/MMBtu (30-
(completed in day rolling).
2008)\4\.
Huntington Unit 1............... Fabric Filter 0.015 lb/MMBtu LNB + SOFA 0.26 lb/MMBtu (30-
(completed in (three-run test (completed in day rolling).
2010). average). 2010).
Huntington Unit 2............... Fabric Filter 0.015 lb/MMBtu LNB + SOFA 0.26 lb/MMBtu (30-
(completed in (three-run test (completed in day rolling).
2006). average). 2006).
Carbon Unit 1................... NA................ Shutdown by August NA................ Shutdown by August
15, 2015. 15, 2015.
Carbon Unit 2................... NA................ Shutdown by August NA................ Shutdown by August
15, 2015. 15, 2015.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Based on annual stack testing.
\2\ The BART PM emissions limits were previously approved in our July 2016 final rule. 81 FR at 43907.
\3\ Based on continuous emission monitoring system (CEMS) measurement.
\4\ 81 FR 2004, 2018 (Jan. 14, 2016).
In addition to summarizing the status of the SO2
Backstop Trading Program and PM and NOX BART controls, Utah
provides an update on the State's Smoke Management Plan (SMP) which
provides operating procedures for federal and state agencies that use
prescribed fire, wildfire, and wildland
[[Page 36363]]
fire on federal, state and private wildlands in Utah.\23\ Federal and
state land managers and the Utah Department of Air Quality formed the
Utah Airshed Oversight Group to manage, oversee, and evaluate the SMP.
After being certified by the EPA in 1999, the SMP, in accordance with
evaluations conducted by the Utah Airshed Oversight Group, was revised
in 2006 and 2014 and included the transition to a web-based burn
permitting program. In its Progress Report, the State provides the
status of Utah's alternative treatments to fire and agricultural
burning in addition to the 2011 prescribed fire emissions (Table
3).\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ Obtained from the July 2019 Utah regional haze SIP
submittal, Section IX.H.22. The measures in the NOX BART
alternative of the July 2019 SIP submittal are identical to those in
the alternative in the June 2015 SIP submittal (i.e. Utah submitted
the same NOX BART alternative in the June 2015 and July
2019 SIPs). As explained above, the EPA proposed to approve the July
2019 SIP on January 22, 2020. 85 FR at 3558. By including these SIP
measures here, the EPA is not prejudging the outcome of its ongoing
rulemaking process regarding the 2019 SIP.
\23\ Utah Progress Report, page F-14-F-16.
\24\ Utah Progress Report, page F-15.
Table 3--Prescribed Fire Emissions in 2011
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Projects
Agency implemented Black acres Tons consumed Tons of PM10 Percent %
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bureau of Indian Affairs........ 2 3,900 56,550 707 2
Bureau of Land Management....... 21 1,621 11,722 134 19
Forest Service.................. 44 10,484 194,837 2,385 40
Fish and Wildlife Service....... 4 2,505 7,453 39 4
National Park Service........... 9 429 5,024 67 8
Utah Division of Forestry, Fire, 29 3,074 28,570 333 27
and State Lands................
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Totals...................... 109 22,013 304,156 3,665 100
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, Utah also provides status updates in the Progress Report
for the Clean Air Corridor,\25\ Pollution Prevention and Renewable
Energy,\26\ mobile sources, comprehensive emissions tracking system,
New Source Performance Standards, Prevention of Significant
Deterioration, New Source Review, Maximum Achievable Control
Technology, and other Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission
recommendations.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ The Clean Air Corridor is an area covering major portions
of Nevada, southern Utah, eastern Oregon and southwestern Idaho
intended to represent a region from which clean air transport
influences many of the clean air days at Grand Canyon National Park.
Utah Progress Report, page F-16.
\26\ The Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission set a goal
of achieving 10 percent of generation from renewable resources in
2005 and 20 percent in 2015. Utah reports that significant progress
has been made towards these goals. Utah Progress Report, page F-17.
\27\ Utah Progress Report, pages F-18-F-20.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA proposes to find that Utah has adequately addressed the
applicable provisions under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(A) regarding the
implementation status of control measures because the State's Progress
Report provides documentation of the implementation of control measures
within Utah, including the BART-eligible sources.
2. Summary of Emissions Reductions Achieved
Utah's Progress Report must include a summary of the emissions
reductions achieved throughout the State through implementation of
control measures mentioned in 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(A). 40 CFR
51.309(d)(10)(i)(B)
In its Progress Report, Utah presents information on emissions
reductions achieved from the pollution control strategies discussed
above. The State provides regional SO2 emissions from 2003
through 2013 (Table 4) as well as statewide SO2,
NOX, ammonia, volatile organic compounds, primary organic
aerosol, elemental carbon, fine soil, and coarse mass emissions in 2002
and 2008. (Table 5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ See Utah Progress Report, page F-20; see also Western
Regional Air Partnership, 309 Committee: Documents, https://www.wrapair.org//forums/309/docs.html (last visited April 3, 2020).
This Table represents the adjusted SO2 emissions/
milestone for New Mexico, Utah, Wyoming, and Albuquerque-Bernalillo
County. Adjustments to reported emissions are required to allow the
basis of current emissions estimates to account for changes in
monitoring and calculation methods.
Table 4--Regional SO2 Emissions and Milestones \28\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adjusted reported SO2
Year emissions (tons) Adjusted regional
milestone (tons)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2003.......................................................... * 330,679 * 447,383
2004.......................................................... * 337,970 * 448,259
2005.......................................................... * 304,591 * 446,903
2006.......................................................... ** 279,134 ** 20,194
2007.......................................................... ** 273,663 ** 420,637
2008.......................................................... ** 244,189 378,398
2009.......................................................... 143,704 234,903
2010.......................................................... 131,124 200,722
2011.......................................................... 117,976 200,722
2012.......................................................... 96,246 200,722
2013.......................................................... 101,381 185,795
2014.......................................................... 92,533 170,868
2015.......................................................... 81,454 155,940
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Represents the adjusted SO2 emissions/milestone for Arizona, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Wyoming, and
Albuquerque-Bernalillo County.
** Represents the adjusted SO2 emissions/milestone for Arizona, New Mexico, Utah, Wyoming, and Albuquerque-
Bernalillo County. Figures with no asterisk represent the adjusted SO2 emissions/milestone for New Mexico,
Utah, Wyoming, and Albuquerque-Bernalillo County.
[[Page 36364]]
Table 5--SO2, NOX, Ammonia, Volatile Organic Compounds, Primary Organic Aerosol, Elemental Carbon, Fine Soil,
and Coarse Mass Emissions \29\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Difference between
2002 Emissions [dagger] 2008 Emissions [Dagger] 2002 and 2008
Pollutant (tons/year) (tons/year) emissions (tons/year)/
percent change
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sulfur Dioxide....................... 54,083 31,190 -22,892/-42
Nitrogen Oxides...................... 239,969 193,322 -38,262/-19
Ammonia.............................. 29,999 39,744 9,745/32
Volatile Organic Compounds........... 827,515 396,449 -431,066/-52
Primary Organic Aerosol.............. 29,407 7,547 -21,860/-74
Elemental Carbon..................... 8,769 4,098 -4,671/-53
Fine Soil............................ 14,877 28,536 13,659/92
Coarse Mass.......................... 97,500 214,745 117,245/>100
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[dagger] Plan02d.
[Dagger] WestJump2008.
The emissions data show that there were decreases in emissions of
SO2, NOX, volatile organic compounds, primary
organic aerosol, and elemental carbon. Furthermore, regional
SO2 emissions have been below the milestone every year.
According to the State, increases in emissions of coarse and fine
particulate between 2002 and 2008 (>100 percent and 92 percent,
respectively) may be due to enhancements in dust inventory methodology
rather than changes in actual emissions.\30\ Similarly, ammonia
emissions increased by 32 percent between 2002 and 2008. According to
the State, increases in ammonia emissions, which are predominantly from
area sources and on-road mobile sources, may be due to a combination of
population changes and differences in methodologies used to estimate
these emissions.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ Utah Progress Report, pages F-50-F-57.
\30\ Utah Progress Report, page F-49.
\31\ Utah Progress Report, page F-48.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA proposes to conclude that Utah has adequately summarized
the emissions reductions achieved throughout the State in its Progress
Report as required under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(B). In meeting this
requirement, the EPA does not expect states to quantify emissions
reductions for measures which had not yet been implemented or for which
the compliance date had not yet been reached at the time progress
reports are finalized.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ The Utah Progress Report is dated May 18, 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Visibility Conditions and Changes
Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(C) for each mandatory Class I
area within the State, Utah must assess the following visibility
conditions and changes, with values for most impaired and least
impaired days \33\ expressed in terms of five-year averages of these
annual values:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ The ``most impaired days'' and ``least impaired days'' in
the regional haze rule refers to the average visibility impairment
(measured in deciviews) for the 20% of monitored days in a calendar
year with the highest and lowest amount of visibility impairment,
respectively, averaged over a five-year period. See 40 CFR 51.301.
In the context of 40 CFR 51.309 and this document, ``most impaired''
and ``worst'' have the same meaning and ``least impaired'' and
``best'' have the same meaning.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
i. Assess the current visibility conditions for the most impaired
and least impaired days.
ii. Analyze the difference between current visibility conditions
for the most impaired and least impaired days and baseline visibility
conditions.
iii. Evaluate the change in visibility impairment for the most
impaired and least impaired days over the past five years.
In its Progress Report, Utah provides information on visibility
conditions for the Class I areas within its borders. There are five
Class I areas located in Utah: Arches National Park, Bryce Canyon
National Park, Canyonlands National Park, Capitol Reef National Park,
and Zion National Park. Monitoring and data representing visibility
conditions in Utah's five Class I areas is based on the four
Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE)
monitoring sites located across the State (Table 6).
Table 6--Utah's Class I Areas and IMPROVE Sites
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Class I area IMPROVE site
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arches National Park.................... CANY1
Bryce Canyon National Park.............. BRCA1
Canyonlands National Park............... CANY1
Capitol Reef National Park.............. CAPI1
Zion National Park...................... ZICA1 *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The ZICA1 monitoring site replaced the ZION1 monitoring site in 2003.
The Progress Report addressed current visibility conditions and the
difference between the baseline period visibility conditions, progress
period visibility conditions, and current period visibility conditions
with values for the most impaired (20 percent worst days) and least
impaired and/or clearest days (20 percent best days). Table 7:
Visibility Progress in Utah's Class I Areas, shows the difference
between the current period (represented by 2009-2013 data) and the
baseline visibility data (represented by 2000-2004 data) \34\ in
addition to the Preliminary Reasonable Progress (PRP) projection.\35\
The PRP was developed by the WRAP as the projected visibility
improvement for 2018, and reflects growth plus all controls ``on the
books'' as of a certain date.\36\ Table 8: Visibility Rolling 5-Year
Averages in Utah's Class I Areas, shows the rolling 5-year average
visibility from 2000-2013 as well as the change from the first 5-year
rolling average period (2000-2004) to the last 5-year rolling average
period (2009-2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ Utah Progress Report, pages F-31-F-32.
\35\ 77 FR at 74361-62.
\36\ PRPa predicts improvement as of March 2007, while PRPb
predicts improvement as of March 2009.
[[Page 36365]]
Table 7--Visibility Progress in Utah's Class I Areas
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2018
Baseline Progress Current Difference Difference preliminary
Class I area IMPROVE site period period period (progress-- (current-- reasonable
2000-04 2005-09 2009-13 baseline) baseline) progress
PRP18a/PRP18b
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Deciview
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
20% Worst Days
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arches National Park..................... CANY1....................... 11.2 11.0 10.8 -0.2 -0.4 10.9/10.7
Bryce Canyon National Park............... BRCA1....................... 11.6 11.9 10.6 0.3 -1.0 11.2/11.1
Canyonlands National Park................ CANY1....................... 11.2 11.0 10.8 -0.2 -0.4 10.9/10.7
Capitol Reef National Park............... CAPI1....................... 10.9 11.3 10.2 0.4 -0.7 10.5/10.4
Zion National Park....................... ZICA1....................... 12.5 12.3 10.8 -0.2 -1.7 \**\ NA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
20% Best Days
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arches National Park..................... CANY1....................... 3.7 2.8 3.1 -0.9 -0.6 3.5
Bryce Canyon National Park............... BRCA1....................... 2.8 2.1 1.8 -0.7 -1.0 2.6
Canyonlands National Park................ CANY1....................... 3.7 2.8 3.1 -0.9 -0.6 3.5
Capitol Reef National Park............... CAPI1....................... 4.1 2.7 2.6 -1.4 -1.5 3.9
Zion National Park....................... ZICA1....................... 5.0 4.3 4.3 -0.7 -0.7 \**\ NA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
** There are no PRPs established for the ZICA1 monitor. The PRP18a was originally established for the original ZION1 IMPROVE monitor, which was
discontinued on July 29, 2004.
Table 8--Visibility Rolling 5-Year Averages in Utah's Class I Areas
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Change from
Class I area IMPROVE site 2000-04 2005-09 2006-10 2007-11 2008-12 2009-13 baseline
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Deciview
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
20% Worst Days
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arches National Park.......................... CANY1........................... 11.2 11.0 11.0 10.9 11.0 10.8 -0.4
Bryce Canyon National Park.................... BRCA1........................... 11.6 11.9 11.4 11.4 11.0 10.6 -1.0
Canyonlands National Park..................... CANY1........................... 11.2 11.0 11.0 10.9 11.0 10.8 -0.4
Capitol Reef National Park.................... CAPI1........................... 10.9 11.3 10.8 10.4 10.5 10.2 -0.7
Zion National Park............................ ZICA1........................... 12.5 12.3 12.5 12.2 11.5 10.8 -1.7
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
20% Best Days
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arches National Park.......................... CANY1........................... 3.7 2.8 2.9 2.9 2.9 3.1 -0.6
Bryce Canyon National Park.................... BRCA1........................... 2.8 2.1 2.0 2.0 1.8 1.8 -1.0
Canyonlands National Park..................... CANY1........................... 3.7 2.8 2.9 2.9 2.9 3.1 -0.6
Capitol Reef National Park.................... CAPI1........................... 4.1 2.7 2.6 2.7 2.5 2.6 -1.5
Zion National Park............................ ZICA1........................... 5.0 4.3 4.5 4.4 4.2 4.2 -0.8
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As shown in Table 7, all the IMPROVE monitoring sites within the
State show improvement in visibility conditions between the baseline
(2000-2004) and current (2009-2013) periods on both the 20 percent
worst visibility and 20 percent best visibility days. In addition, all
of Utah's Class I areas met the PRP18a on both the 20 percent worst and
20 percent best visibility days over the current (2009-2013) period
(Table 7). Furthermore, deciview improvement was consistent over the
2000-2013 time period, using 5-year rolling averages (Table 8).\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ Refer to the Utah Progress Report for pollutant
contributions at each Class I area and 5-year rolling averages. Utah
Progress Report, pages F-39-F-46.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In its Progress Report, Utah demonstrates that particulate organic
matter was the largest contributor to light extinction on the 20
percent worst days with the largest difference between the 5-year
average baseline and progress periods at the Bryce Canyon National Park
(BRCA1) site.\38\ According to the State, the difference between the 5-
year average baseline and progress periods at the BRCA1 site was
influenced by large wildfire events in July and August of 2009.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ Utah Progress Report, pages F-34, F-37.
\39\ Utah Progress Report, pages F-10, F-37.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA proposes to conclude that Utah has adequately addressed the
requirements under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(C) to include summaries of
monitored visibility data as required by the Regional Haze Rule.
4. Emissions Tracking Analysis
Utah's Progress Report must include an analysis tracking the change
over the past five years in emissions of pollutants contributing to
visibility impairment from all sources and activities within the State.
40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(D).
In its Progress Report, Utah presents data from a 2008 emissions
inventory, which leverages inventory development work performed by the
Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP) for the West-wide Jumpstart Air
Quality
[[Page 36366]]
Modeling Study (WestJumpAQMS) \40\ and the Deterministic & Empirical
Assessment of Smoke's Contribution to Ozone (DEASCO3)
modeling projects, termed WestJump2008 and compares it to the baseline
emissions inventory for 2002 (Plan02d).\41\ The pollutants inventoried
include the following source classifications: SO2,
NOX, ammonia, volatile organic compounds, primary organic
aerosol, elemental carbon, fine soil, and coarse mass from both
anthropogenic and natural sources (Table 9).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ WRAP Regional Technical Center and West Jump AQMS, https://www.wrapair2.org/WestJumpAQMS.aspx (last visited March 19, 2020).
Additional information on the WestJump study available in the docket
for this action, ``WestJump Fact Sheet.''
\41\ Utah Progress Report, pages F-46, F-48.
Table 9--Emissions Progress in Utah
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2018 preliminary
Pollutant (anthropogenic, natural, and total 2002 emissions 2008 emissions Difference (percent reasonable progress
sources) (Plan02d) (WestJump2008) change) (PRP18a)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
tons/year
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SO2:
Anthropogenic................................... 51,665 31,410 -20,256 (-39) 42,096
Natural......................................... 2,418 92 -2,326 (-96) 2,418
Total....................................... 54,083 31,190 -22,892 (-42) 44,513
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOX:
Anthropogenic................................... 218,499 194,913 -23,586 (-11) 150,593
Natural......................................... 21,470 6,793 -14,676 (-68) 21,470
Total....................................... 239,969 193,322 -38,262 (-19) 172,063
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ammonia:
Anthropogenic................................... 28,107 39,295 11,188 (40) 29,947
Natural......................................... 1,893 449 -1,444 (-76) 1,893
Total....................................... 29,999 39,744 9,745 (32) 31,840
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Volatile Organic Compounds:
Anthropogenic................................... 166,550 228,985 62,434 (37) 213,767
Natural......................................... 660,965 238,518 -422,447 (-64) 660,966
Total....................................... 827,515 396,449 -431,066 (-52) 874,732
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Primary Organic Aerosol:
Anthropogenic................................... 3,220 6,379 3,159 (98) 3,064
Natural......................................... 26,187 1,167 -25,020 (-96) 26,188
Total....................................... 29,407 7,547 -21,860 (-74) 29,252
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Elemental Carbon:
Anthropogenic................................... 3,364 3,889 524 (16) 1,327
Natural......................................... 5,405 209 -5,196 (-96) 5,405
Total....................................... 8,769 4,098 -4,671 (-53) 6,732
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fine Soil:
Anthropogenic................................... 5,585 17,297 11,712 (>100) 7,953
Natural......................................... 9,292 11,239 1,947 (21) 9,292
Total....................................... 14,877 28,536 13,659 (92) 17,245
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coarse Mass:
Anthropogenic................................... 23,676 117,232 93,556 (>100) 36,357
Natural......................................... 73,824 97,513 23,689 (32) 73,824
Total....................................... 97,500 214,745 117,245 (>100) 110,181
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Overall, Utah's emissions that affect visibility were reduced in
all sectors for all pollutants (total) except for ammonia and coarse
and fine particulate matter categories. Similar to other Western
states,\42\ Utah cites large variability in changes in windblown dust
observed for contiguous Western states, which was likely due in large
part to enhancements in dust inventory methodology rather than changes
in actual emissions.\43\ The largest decrease in point source
inventories was in SO2 emissions which can be attributed to
the implementation of the SO2 Backstop Trading Program in
December 2003.\44\ The largest increase in point source inventories was
in NOX emissions going from 84,218 tons per year in 2002 to
87,623 tons per year in 2008.\45\ According to the State, the
differences in NOX emissions inventories result from normal
fluctuations in plant operations and do not indicate a trend of
increasing emissions. Indeed, a triennial inventory for 2011 shows
point source NOX emissions of 69,913 tons per year which is
17 percent lower than recorded in the base year inventory.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ 84 FR 32682, 32687 (July 9, 2019), 85 FR 21341 (April 17,
2020).
\43\ Utah Progress Report, page F-49.
\44\ Utah Progress Report, page F-50.
\45\ Utah Progress Report, page F-51.
\46\ Utah Progress Report, page F-48.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA proposes to conclude that Utah has adequately addressed the
requirements under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(D) to track changes in
emissions of pollutants contributing to visibility impairment from all
sources and activities within the State.
[[Page 36367]]
5. Assessment of Changes Impeding Visibility Progress
Utah's Progress Report must include an assessment of any
significant changes in anthropogenic emissions within or outside the
State that have occurred over the past five years that have limited or
impeded progress in reducing pollutant emissions and improving
visibility in Class I areas impacted by the State's sources. 40 CFR
51.309(d)(10)(i)(E).
In its Progress Report, Utah provided an assessment of significant
changes in anthropogenic emissions within or outside the State. On the
20% worst days over the 5-year period from 2005-2009, particulate
organic matter and ammonium sulfate were the two highest contributors
to haze in Class I areas in Utah. According to the State, the primary
sources of anthropogenic particulate organic matter in Utah include
prescribed forest and agricultural burning, vehicle exhaust, vehicle
refueling, solvent evaporation (e.g., paints), food cooking, and
various commercial and industrial sources. The State asserts that
increases in anthropogenic primary organic aerosols may be due to
changes in methodology between 2002 and 2008 and do not necessarily
reflect an actual change in emissions. According to the State, the
primary anthropogenic sources of SO2 include coal-burning
power plants and other industrial sources, with stationary point
sources accounting for approximately 90 percent of SO2
emissions in Utah. The State asserts that SO2 emissions
declined by 42 percent between 2002 and 2008. Because anthropogenic
emissions within Utah have decreased overall, Utah concludes that
anthropogenic SO2 emissions or other anthropogenic emissions
have not limited or impeded progress in reducing pollutant emissions or
reducing visibility.\47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\47\ Utah Progress Report, page F-59.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although not cited in Utah's Progress Report, at the time of the
analysis done by the State for the Progress Report (March 2015), not
all BART alternative controls had been realized because compliance
dates had not yet occurred for Carbon Units 1 and 2 (Table 2). Thus,
the impacts of the emissions reductions from BART alternative controls
had not been fully realized and are therefore not evident or accounted
for in the State's Progress Report. These additional anthropogenic
emissions reductions have further improved visibility in Utah's Class I
areas.
The EPA proposes to find that Utah has adequately addressed the
requirements under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(E) and proposes to agree
with Utah that there have been no significant changes in anthropogenic
emissions that have limited or impeded progress in reducing pollutant
emissions and improving visibility.
6. Assessment of Current Implementation Plan Elements and Strategies
Utah's Progress Report must include an assessment of whether the
current implementation plan elements and strategies are sufficient to
enable the State, or other states with mandatory Class I areas affected
by emissions from the State, to meet all established reasonable
progress goals. 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(F).
In its Progress Report, Utah provided an assessment of whether the
current implementation plan elements and strategies in the regional
haze SIP are sufficient to enable the State, or other states with Class
I areas affected by emissions from the State, to meet all established
reasonable progress goals. In particular, Utah compared visibility
conditions and emissions reductions to the WRAP PRP projections.\48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\48\ Utah Progress Report, pages F-59-F-63.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under the Regional Haze Rule, states adopting the requirements of
40 CFR 51.309 are deemed to have met the reasonable progress
requirements for the Class I areas located on the Colorado Plateau. 40
CFR 51.309(a). Since all the Class I areas in Utah are on the Colorado
Plateau, the State met all reasonable progress requirements for the
Class I areas in Utah. Additionally, Utah previously determined, and
the EPA agreed, that emissions from the State do not significantly
impact or will not significantly impact other states' Class I areas.
Thus, Utah was not required to establish reasonable progress goals.\49\
Accordingly, for the purpose of evaluating this section of the progress
report requirements, we propose to assess progress toward the PRPs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\49\ 77 FR at 74367-68.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Utah asserts that visibility continues to improve at the State's
Class I areas from 2000 through 2013. Indeed, key visibility metrics
described previously, show: (1) A decrease in total SO2 and
NOX emissions, which are associated with anthropogenic
sources; (2) improvement in visibility conditions between the baseline
(2000-2004) and current (2009-2013) periods on both the 20 percent
worst visibility and 20 percent best visibility days at all IMPROVE
monitoring sites; (3) achievement of the PRP18a at all of Utah's Class
I areas on both the 20 percent worst and 20 percent best visibility
days over the current (2009-2013) period; \50\ and (4) consistent
deciview improvement over the 2000-2013 time period, using 5-year
rolling averages. Thus, Utah is confident that the current
implementation plan elements and strategies are sufficient to make
progress towards visibility goals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\50\ PRP18b modeling results show additional projected
visibility improvement using all known and expected controls as of
March 2009. All of Utah's Class I areas achieve PRP18b except for
Arches National Park and Canyonlands National Park which, at 10.8
deciviews during the current period (2009-2013), are above the
PRP18b of 10.7 deciviews. See supra Table 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA proposes to conclude that Utah has adequately addressed the
requirements under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(F) and proposes to agree
with the State's determination that implementation plan elements are
sufficient to enable the State to make reasonable progress towards the
WRAP's PRPs.
7. Review of Current Monitoring Strategy
Utah's Progress Report must include a review of the State's
visibility monitoring strategy and any modifications to the strategy as
necessary. 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(G).
The monitoring strategy for regional haze in Utah relies upon
participation in the IMPROVE network, which is the primary monitoring
network for regional haze nationwide.
In its Progress Report, Utah summarizes the existing monitoring
network, which includes four IMPROVE monitors, used to monitor
visibility at the five Class I areas in the State. The State relies
solely on the IMPROVE monitoring network to track long-term visibility
improvement and degradation and will continue to rely on the IMPROVE
monitoring network, without modifications to the existing network, for
complying with the regional haze monitoring requirements.
The EPA proposes to find that Utah adequately addressed the
requirements of 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(G) because the State reviewed
its visibility monitoring strategy and determined that no further
modifications to the strategy are necessary.
B. Determination of Adequacy of the Existing Regional Haze Plan
The provisions under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(ii) require states to
determine the adequacy of their existing implementation plan to meet
existing reasonable progress goals and take one of the following
actions:
(1) Submit a negative declaration to the EPA that no further
substantive
[[Page 36368]]
revision to the state's existing regional haze implementation plan is
needed at this time;
(2) If the state determines that the implementation plan is or may
be inadequate to ensure reasonable progress due to emissions from
sources in another state(s) which participated in a regional planning
process, the state must provide notification to the EPA and to the
other state(s) which participated in the regional planning process with
the state. The state must also collaborate with the other state(s)
through the regional planning process for developing additional
strategies to address the plan's deficiencies;
(3) Where the state determines that the implementation plan is or
may be inadequate to ensure reasonable progress due to emissions from
sources in another country, the state shall provide notification, along
with available information, to the Administrator; or
(4) If the state determines that the implementation plan is or may
be inadequate to ensure reasonable progress due to emissions from
sources within the state, then the state shall revise its
implementation plan to address the plan's deficiencies within one year.
According to Utah, the IMPROVE data demonstrate that Utah is on
track to meet the WRAP's PRPs. Thus, Utah's Progress Report provides a
negative declaration to the EPA that no further substantive revisions
to the regional haze SIP are needed to improve visibility in Class I
areas beyond those controls already in place and scheduled to be in
place at the time Utah prepared the Progress Report.\51\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\51\ Utah Progress Report, page F-65.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA proposes to conclude that Utah has adequately addressed 40
CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(G) because key visibility metrics described
previously show improvement in visibility conditions between the
baseline (2000-2004) and current (2009-2013) periods on both the 20
percent worst visibility and 20 percent best visibility days at all
IMPROVE monitoring sites and consistent deciview improvement is shown
over the 2000-2013 time period. Additionally, further visibility
improvement has likely resulted from the 2015 shutdown of Carbon 1 and
2, which was required after Utah's Progress Report was finalized. The
EPA also expects further visibility improvement to result from
subsequent regional haze actions.
IV. Proposed Action
The EPA is proposing to approve Utah's March 7, 2016, Regional Haze
Progress Report as meeting the applicable regional haze requirements
set forth in 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10).
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866;
Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the proposed rule does not have tribal implications and will
not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt
tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November
9, 2000).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Greenhouse gases, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental
relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic
compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: May 29, 2020.
Gregory Sopkin,
Regional Administrator, EPA Region 8.
[FR Doc. 2020-12075 Filed 6-15-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
