Rule2024-27941
Air Plan Partial Approval and Partial Disapproval; Utah; Regional Haze State Implementation Plan for the Second Implementation Period; Air Plan Disapproval; Utah; Prong 4 (Visibility) for the 2015 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
December 2, 2024
Effective
January 2, 2025
Issuing agencies
Environmental Protection Agency
Abstract
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is partially approving and partially disapproving a regional haze state implementation plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of Utah on August 2, 2022 (Utah's regional haze SIP submission), to address applicable requirements under the Clean Air Act (CAA) and the EPA's Regional Haze Rule (RHR) for the regional haze program's second implementation period. Additionally, the EPA is disapproving the visibility transport "Prong 4" portion of Utah's infrastructure SIP submission submitted on January 9, 2020, for the 2015 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). The EPA is taking these actions pursuant to the CAA.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 89 Issue 231 (Monday, December 2, 2024)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 231 (Monday, December 2, 2024)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 95117-95121]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2024-27941]
[[Page 95117]]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R08-OAR-2024-0389; FRL-12173-02-R8]
Air Plan Partial Approval and Partial Disapproval; Utah; Regional
Haze State Implementation Plan for the Second Implementation Period;
Air Plan Disapproval; Utah; Prong 4 (Visibility) for the 2015 8-Hour
Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is partially
approving and partially disapproving a regional haze state
implementation plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of Utah on
August 2, 2022 (Utah's regional haze SIP submission), to address
applicable requirements under the Clean Air Act (CAA) and the EPA's
Regional Haze Rule (RHR) for the regional haze program's second
implementation period. Additionally, the EPA is disapproving the
visibility transport ``Prong 4'' portion of Utah's infrastructure SIP
submission submitted on January 9, 2020, for the 2015 Ozone National
Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). The EPA is taking these actions
pursuant to the CAA.
DATES: This rule is effective on January 2, 2025.
ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID No. EPA-R08-OAR-2024-0389. All documents in the docket are
listed on the <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> website. Although listed in
the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g.,
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, is not placed on the internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available through <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>, or please
contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section for additional availability information.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Clayton Bean, Air and Radiation
Division, EPA, Region 8, Mailcode 8ARD-IO, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver,
Colorado 80202-1129, telephone number: (303) 312-6143, email address:
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#accec9cdc282cfc0cdd5d8c3c2ecc9dccd82cbc3da"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="771512161959141b160e0318193712071659101801">[email protected]</span></a>.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document ``we,'' ``us,'' and
``our'' means the EPA.
Table of Contents
I. What is being addressed in this document?
II. Summary of the Proposed Action, Public Comments, and the EPA's
Rationale for Final Action
A. Regional Haze Plan for the Second Implementation Period
B. Prong 4 (Visibility) of the 2015 Ozone NAAQS Infrastructure
SIP
III. Final Action
IV. Incorporation by Reference
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. What is being addressed in this document?
The EPA is partially approving and partially disapproving Utah's
regional haze plan for the second implementation period. As required by
section 169A of the CAA, the RHR calls for State and Federal agencies
to work together to improve visibility in 156 national parks and
wilderness areas, known as mandatory Class I Federal areas.\1\ The rule
requires the States, in coordination with the EPA, the National Park
Service, the Fish and Wildlife Service, the Forest Service, and other
interested parties, to develop and implement air quality protection
plans to reduce the pollution that causes visibility impairment in
mandatory Class I Federal areas. Visibility impairing pollutants
include fine and coarse particulate matter (PM) (e.g., sulfates,
nitrates, organic carbon, elemental carbon, and soil dust) and their
precursors (e.g., sulfur dioxide (SO<INF>2</INF>), oxides of nitrogen
(NO<INF>X</INF>), and, in some cases, volatile organic compounds (VOC)
and ammonia (NH<INF>3</INF>)). As discussed in further detail in our
proposed rule, this document, and the accompanying Response to Comments
(RTC) document, the EPA finds that Utah submitted a regional haze SIP
that does not meet all of the statutory and regulatory requirements for
the regional haze second implementation period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See 40 CFR part 81, subpart D.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, the EPA is disapproving a portion of Utah's January
9, 2020, infrastructure SIP submission for the 2015 ozone NAAQS that
addresses interstate transport of visibility impairing pollutants. Utah
submitted this SIP submission to address the applicable requirements of
CAA section 110(a)(2) for the 2015 ozone NAAQS. We are disapproving the
portion of the infrastructure SIP submission addressing interstate
transport of visibility impairing pollutants for not meeting the
requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) (``Prong 4''). The
State's submissions, the proposed rule, and the RTC document can be
found in the docket for this action.
II. Summary of the Proposed Action, Public Comments, and the EPA's
Rationale for Final Action
Our notice of proposed rulemaking was published on August 19, 2024.
89 FR 67208. Our public comment period closed on September 18, 2024.
During the public notice and comment period, we received more than
5,600 comments on our proposal. The full text of comments received is
included in the publicly posted docket associated with this action at
<a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>. Our RTC document, which is also included
in the docket, provides full, detailed responses to all significant
comments received and further explains the basis for our final action.
A. Regional Haze Plan for the Second Implementation Period
On August 2, 2022, Utah submitted a revision to its SIP to address
regional haze for the second implementation period, in accordance with
the requirements of the CAA's regional haze program established by CAA
sections 169A and 169B and 40 CFR 51.308.
On August 19, 2024, the EPA proposed to disapprove certain
provisions of Utah's regional haze SIP submission.\2\ Specifically, we
proposed to disapprove the portions of Utah's regional haze SIP
submission relating to 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2): long-term strategy; 40 CFR
51.308(f)(3): reasonable progress goals; and 40 CFR 51.308(i): Federal
Land Manager (FLM) consultation. We also proposed to approve the
portions of Utah's regional haze SIP submission relating to 40 CFR
51.308(f)(1): calculations of baseline, current, and natural visibility
conditions, progress to date, and the uniform rate of progress; 40 CFR
51.308(f)(4): reasonably attributable visibility impairment; 40 CFR
51.308(f)(5) and 40 CFR 51.308(g): progress report requirements; and 40
CFR 51.308(f)(6): monitoring strategy and other implementation plan
requirements. Consistent with section 110(k)(3) of the CAA, the EPA may
partially approve portions of a submittal if those elements meet all
applicable requirements and may disapprove the remainder so long as the
elements are fully separable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ 89 FR 67208 (August 19, 2024).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our August 19, 2024, proposed rule provided background on the
requirements of the CAA and RHR, a summary of Utah's regional haze SIP
submittals and related EPA actions, and
[[Page 95118]]
the EPA's rationale for its proposed action. That background and
rationale will not be restated in full here, although we briefly
summarize the reasons for our partial disapproval of Utah's regional
haze SIP submission in the paragraphs that follow.
In CAA section 169A(a)(1), Congress established the national goal
of preventing any future and remedying any existing impairment of
visibility in mandatory Class I Federal areas that results from manmade
(anthropogenic) air pollution. The core component of a regional haze
SIP submission for the second implementation period is a long-term
strategy for making reasonable progress toward meeting that national
goal. CAA section 169A(b)(2)(B), 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2). A state's long-
term strategy must address regional haze in each Class I area within
the state's borders and each Class I area outside the state that may be
affected by emissions originating from within the state. It ``must
include the enforceable emissions limitations, compliance schedules,
and other measures that are necessary to make reasonable progress, as
determined pursuant to (f)(2)(i) through (iv).'' 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2).
The amount of progress that is ``reasonable progress'' is based on
consideration of the four statutory factors in CAA section 169A(g)(1)--
the costs of compliance, the time necessary for compliance, the energy
and non-air quality environmental impacts of compliance, and the
remaining useful life of any potentially affected sources \3\--in an
evaluation of potential control measures for sources of visibility
impairing pollutants, which is referred to as a ``four-factor''
analysis. In developing its long-term strategy, the state must document
the technical basis, including modeling, monitoring, cost, engineering,
and emissions information, on which it is relying to determine the
measures that are necessary to make reasonable progress. 40 CFR
51.308(f)(2)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ CAA section 169A(g)(1); 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As detailed in section 3.A. of the RTC document, the CAA authorizes
the EPA to substantively review states' SIP submissions for compliance
with the statute and EPA's regulations to ensure progress towards the
national visibility goal for Class I areas. Congress charged the EPA
with exercising ``federal oversight'' over SIP submissions and
``review[ing] all SIPs to ensure that the plans comply with the
statute.'' Oklahoma v. EPA, 723 F.3d 1201, 1204 (10th Cir. 2013). The
``EPA is left with more than the ministerial task of routinely
approving SIP submissions.'' North Dakota v. EPA, 730 F.3d 750, 761
(8th Cir. 2013). Instead, the Agency's ``review of a SIP extends not
only to whether the state considered the necessary factors in its
determination, but also to whether the determination is one that is
reasonably moored to the CAA's provisions'' and is ``based on `reasoned
analysis.' '' Id. at 761, 766 (citing Alaska Dep't of Envt.
Conservation v. EPA, 540 U.S. 461 (2004)); see also Wyoming v. EPA, 78
F.4th 1171, 1180-81 (10th Cir. 2023) (noting that ``the Act provides
for substantive and careful EPA review'' of SIP submissions and that
``the EPA does not have to accept unreasonable analyses''). For the
reasons stated in the proposed rule, this document, and in the RTC
document, the EPA concludes that Utah's regional haze SIP submission
does not meet all of the requirements of the CAA and RHR.
As detailed at length in our proposed rule and in the RTC document,
we conclude that Utah's long-term strategy does not meet the
requirements of CAA section 169A(b)(2) and 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2) on three
independent grounds. Our first basis for disapproval of Utah's long-
term strategy is the State's unreasonable rejection of NO<INF>X</INF>
emission reduction measures at the Hunter and Huntington power plants.
Based on its evaluation of the four statutory factors, Utah concluded
that installation of selective catalytic reduction (SCR) or other
physical NO<INF>X</INF> pollution controls is not necessary to achieve
reasonable progress toward Congress's national visibility goal.
Instead, Utah established plantwide mass-based NO<INF>X</INF> emission
limits, which cap the total amount of NO<INF>X</INF> the Hunter and
Huntington power plants can emit during a 12-month rolling period at
levels that are similar to the status quo.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ 89 FR at 67234-37. Table 13 and figures 2-3 in the proposed
rule show that both power plants' recent actual (2014-2021)
NO<INF>X</INF> emissions were, in many years, lower than the initial
(2022), interim (2025), and/or final (2028) mass-based emission
limits. Table 12 shows that the final (2028) mass-based emission
limits, which are the most stringent, will result in a net increase
in NO<INF>X</INF> emissions of 8 tons per year from Hunter and
Huntington combined, compared to the emissions projections based on
an ``on the books'' (no additional controls) scenario for 2028 that
Utah relied on in its SIP development.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Utah's determination that the plantwide mass-based NO<INF>X</INF>
emission limits for Hunter and Huntington are all that is necessary to
make reasonable progress is not grounded in a reasoned evaluation of
the four statutory factors or a defensible technical analysis. Utah's
assessment of the costs of compliance, one of the four statutory
factors, hinged on its finding that physical controls that cost more
than $5,750/ton are not cost-effective for the plants; a determination
that likely reductions in the future utilization of Hunter and
Huntington would reduce the cost-effectiveness of SCR; and concern
about various affordability considerations associated with the
installation of SCR, including an unsubstantiated conclusion that a
requirement to install SCR may cause the plants to close early. As
detailed in the proposed rule and in the RTC document,\5\ Utah did not
provide adequate support for its analysis of and conclusions regarding
the costs of compliance. Therefore, we find that Utah did not justify
its conclusion that the costs of compliance favored mass-based emission
limits over SCR for the Hunter and Huntington power plants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ 89 FR at 67240-43; RTC document, section 5.C.iv.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We also find that Utah's evaluation of the other three statutory
factors (the time necessary for compliance, the energy and non-air
quality environmental impacts of compliance, and the remaining useful
life of any potentially affected anthropogenic source of visibility
impairment) was unreasonable. Utah did not take into consideration the
factual information supplied by the operator of the plants or the
regulation governing how time necessary for compliance may be
considered when concluding that the time necessary for compliance
favored mass-based emission limits over SCR.\6\ For the energy and non-
air quality impacts of SCR, Utah provided no analysis or documentation
to support its assertion that because Hunter and Huntington are
projected to assist in a transition toward intermittent renewable
energy generation (e.g., wind and solar), a requirement to install SCR
could lead to early plant closures and thereby negatively affect
renewable energy deployment. In considering the plants' remaining
useful lives, Utah did not adequately substantiate its concerns about
early plant closures or its assessment that Hunter and Huntington would
retire before the 30-year amortization period for SCR, further reducing
SCR's cost-effectiveness. Utah also relied on the plants' projected
retirement dates from the owner's resource plans, which frequently
change and are not federally enforceable. For the reasons detailed in
the proposed
[[Page 95119]]
rule and in the RTC document,\7\ we find that Utah unreasonably
concluded that the remaining three statutory factors support its
determination that plantwide mass-based emission limits for the Hunter
and Huntington power plants, instead of SCR, are all that is necessary
to make reasonable progress toward the national visibility goal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i) provides that if a state concludes
that a control measure cannot reasonably be installed and become
operational until after the end of the implementation period, the
state may not consider this fact in determining whether the measure
is necessary to make reasonable progress.
\7\ 89 FR at 67244; RTC document, sections 5.C.iv-v.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Furthermore, the specific parameters of the mass-based emission
limits that Utah established do not reflect reasoned analysis. In
rejecting SCR, Utah relied on its unsupported conclusion that future
utilization of Hunter and Huntington was likely to decrease, thereby
eroding the cost-effectiveness of SCR.\8\ However, Utah then set the
mass-based emission limits at levels premised on increased plant
utilization, without acknowledging or reconciling the conflict in its
treatment of plant utilization within its SIP submission.\9\ Nor did
Utah adequately support its determination that mass-based emission
limits that apply over the course of a 12-month rolling period, as
opposed to a shorter time period such as monthly or seasonally, are
sufficient to make reasonable progress.\10\ For all of these reasons,
and as further detailed in our proposed rule and RTC document,\11\ we
are disapproving Utah's long-term strategy because the State did not
reasonably evaluate the NO<INF>X</INF> emission reduction measures for
Hunter and Huntington that are necessary to make reasonable progress
toward Congress's national visibility goal. See CAA section 169A(g)(1);
40 CFR 51.308(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ All else equal, lower plant utilization results in physical
controls such as SCR becoming relatively less cost-effective,
because the cost per ton of emissions reduced increases as plant
utilization decreases.
\9\ 89 FR at 67241-43; RTC document, section 5.C.iv.b.
\10\ 89 FR at 67244; RTC document, section 5.C.vi.
\11\ 89 FR at 67240-44; RTC document, section 5.C.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our second basis for disapproval of Utah's long-term strategy is
the State's unjustified decision not to evaluate whether emission
reduction measures at CCI Paradox Lisbon Natural Gas Plant are
necessary for reasonable progress. Utah relied on inaccurately
calculated 2020 emissions data and an incorrect determination that
anomalously high SO<INF>2</INF> emissions in 2014 and 2015 had caused
the facility to exceed Utah's Q/d threshold \12\ for requiring four-
factor analysis. In its comments on the proposed rule, Utah conceded
that it had erroneously calculated the facility's Q/d value based on
incorrect 2020 emissions data and noted its intention to submit a SIP
revision or SIP supplement to address this issue. Because this
deficiency has not been rectified, and as further detailed in our
proposed rule and in the RTC document,\13\ we are disapproving Utah's
long-term strategy because the State did not consider the emission
reduction measures at CCI Paradox Lisbon Natural Gas Plant that are
necessary to make reasonable progress toward the national visibility
goal, as required by CAA section 169A(g)(1) and 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Q/d values represent the ratio of an individual source's
annual emissions of visibility-impairing emission precursors
(NO<INF>X</INF>, SO<INF>2</INF>, and PM<INF>10</INF>) in combined
tons (``Q'') divided by the distance in kilometers (``d'') between
the source and a Class I area. The larger the Q/d value, the greater
the source's expected effect on visibility impairment in that Class
I area.
\13\ 89 FR at 67245-48; RTC document, sections 4.B., 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our third basis for disapproval of Utah's long-term strategy is the
State's unreasonable rejection of SO<INF>2</INF> emission reduction
measures at Sunnyside Cogeneration and its incorporation of unsupported
emission limits for that facility into its SIP. As explained in our
proposed rule and in the RTC document, Utah unreasonably rejected dry
scrubbing (also known as dry sorbent injection), a technically feasible
SO<INF>2</INF> control, without providing adequate technical
documentation.\14\ After rejecting dry scrubbing, Utah determined that
the facility's existing emission limits are necessary to achieve
reasonable progress and incorporated those emission limits into its
SIP.\15\ However, the SIP incorporates two separate emission limits for
both NO<INF>X</INF> and SO<INF>2</INF>: one that applies during normal
boiler operation and a higher limit that applies during startup,
shutdown, and malfunction (SSM) events. Utah did not include a
definition of the term ``normal boiler operations'' and did not provide
any documentation of the frequency of normal boiler operations versus
SSM events. Utah also did not explain how often the facility operates
at the higher SSM emission limits and did not provide adequate
technical documentation addressing how those higher limits relate to
the State's obligation to make reasonable progress. In sum, due to
Utah's unreasonable rejection of SO<INF>2</INF> emission reduction
measures and its inclusion of unsupported emission limits for Sunnyside
Cogeneration into its SIP, we cannot conclude that the State's long-
term strategy includes all the measures necessary to make reasonable
progress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ 89 FR at 67249-50; RTC document, section 5.D.i.
\15\ 89 FR at 67250; RTC document, section 5.D.iii.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our proposed rule identified a fourth basis for disapproval of
Utah's long-term strategy: Utah's improper inclusion of automatic
exemptions for SSM events in the emission restrictions for
Intermountain power plant.\16\ After careful consideration of comments,
we are not relying on this issue as a basis for our disapproval of
Utah's long-term strategy in our final rule. Section 5.F.i. of the RTC
document sets forth our rationale and contains our full responses to
the comments we received regarding the SSM provisions for Intermountain
power plant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ 89 FR at 67248-49.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, in addition to disapproving the State's long-term
strategy, we are disapproving Utah's reasonable progress goals under 40
CFR 51.308(f)(3) and its consultation with FLMs under 40 CFR 51.308(i).
As detailed in our proposed rule and in the RTC document,\17\
compliance with these requirements is dependent on compliance with the
long-term strategy provisions in 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ 89 FR at 67251; RTC document, sections 3.B., 6 (reasonable
progress goals). 89 FR at 67253; RTC document, sections 3.C., 7 (FLM
consultation).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Prong 4 (Visibility) of the 2015 Ozone NAAQS Infrastructure SIP
On January 9, 2020, Utah submitted its infrastructure SIP for the
2015 ozone NAAQS to address the applicable requirements of CAA section
110(a)(2). Subsequently, on August 19, 2024, the EPA proposed to
disapprove the portion of Utah's January 9, 2020, infrastructure SIP
submission for the 2015 ozone NAAQS that addressed interference with
visibility protection (``Prong 4'').\18\ Our public comment period
closed on September 18, 2024.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ 89 FR 67208 (August 19, 2024).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our August 19, 2024, proposed rule provided background on the
requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2) for the 2015 ozone NAAQS, a
summary of the portion of Utah's infrastructure SIP submittal being
acted on and related EPA actions, and the EPA's rationale for its
proposed action. That background and rationale will not be restated
here. For the reasons stated in the proposed rule \19\ and in section
12 of the accompanying RTC document, the EPA concludes that the Prong 4
portion of Utah's January 9, 2020, infrastructure SIP submission does
not meet the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ 89 FR at 67253-54.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Final Action
For the reasons stated in the proposed rule, in the RTC document,
and in this document, we are partially approving
[[Page 95120]]
and partially disapproving Utah's regional haze SIP submission.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ Based on Utah's specific titles in the regional haze SIP
submission, we are disapproving: (1) Section IX.H.21: General
Requirements: Control measures for Area and Point Sources, Emission
Limits and Operating Practices, Regional Haze Requirements; (2)
Section IX.H.23. Source Specific Emission Limitations Regional Haze
Requirements, Reasonable Progress Controls; and (3) R307-110-17.
General Requirements: State Implementation Plan, Section IX, Control
Measures for Area and Point Sources, Part H, Emission Limits.
Additionally, based on Utah's specific titles in the regional haze
SIP submission, and identified by the bullet list below, we are
partially approving and partially disapproving: (1) Section XX.A:
Regional Haze Second Implementation Period; and (2) R307-110-28.
General Requirements: State Implementation Plan, Regional Haze.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We are disapproving the following components of Utah's regional
haze SIP submission relating to CAA section 169A:
<bullet> Long-term strategy (40 CFR 51.308(f)(2));
<bullet> Reasonable progress goals (40 CFR 51.308(f)(3)); and
<bullet> FLM consultation (40 CFR 51.308(i)).
We are approving the following components of Utah's regional haze
SIP submission relating to CAA section 169A:
<bullet> Calculations of baseline, current, and natural visibility
conditions, progress to date, and uniform rate of progress (40 CFR
51.308(f)(1));
<bullet> Reasonably attributable visibility impairment (40 CFR
51.308(f)(4));
<bullet> Progress report requirements (40 CFR 51.308(f)(5) and 40
CFR 51.308(g)); and
<bullet> Monitoring strategy and other implementation plan
requirements (40 CFR 51.308(f)(6)).
Additionally, as a consequence of our partial disapproval of Utah's
regional haze SIP submission for the second implementation period, the
EPA is disapproving the Prong 4 portion of Utah's January 9, 2020,
infrastructure SIP for the 2015 ozone NAAQS, pursuant to CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II).
IV. Incorporation by Reference
In this document, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that
includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of
1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of
R307-110-28, excluding long-term strategy, reasonable progress goals,
and FLM consultation. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, this
material generally available through <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> and at
the EPA Region 8 Office (please contact the person identified in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more
information). Therefore, this material has been approved by the EPA for
inclusion in Utah's SIP, has been incorporated by reference by the EPA
into that plan, is fully federally enforceable under sections 110 and
113 of the CAA as of the effective date of the final rulemaking of the
EPA's approval, and will be incorporated by reference in the next
update to the SIP compilation.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ 62 FR 27968 (May 22, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 CAA and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action partially approves and partially disapproves state law as
meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional
requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this
action:
<bullet> 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 14094 (88 FR 21879, April 11, 2023);
<bullet> Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
<bullet> 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.);
<bullet> 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);
<bullet> Does not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
<bullet> Is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885,
April 23, 1997) because it approves a state program;
<bullet> Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); and
<bullet> 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.
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 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).
Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, 59 FR 7629,
Feb. 16, 1994) directs Federal agencies to identify and address
``disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects'' of their actions on communities with environmental justice
(EJ) concerns to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law.
Executive Order 14096 (Revitalizing Our Nation's Commitment to
Environmental Justice for All, 88 FR 25251, April 26, 2023) builds on
and supplements E.O. 12898 and defines EJ as, among other things, the
just treatment and meaningful involvement of all people, regardless of
income, race, color, national origin, or Tribal affiliation, or
disability in agency decision-making and other Federal activities that
affect human health and the environment.
Utah evaluated EJ considerations as part of its SIP submittal even
though the CAA and applicable implementing regulations neither prohibit
nor require an evaluation. A summary of Utah's EJ considerations is
contained in section VIII. of the proposed rule. The EPA also performed
an EJ analysis, as described in the proposed rule. Both Utah's and the
EPA's analyses were done for the purpose of providing additional
context and information about this rulemaking to the public, not as a
basis of the action. The EPA is taking action under the CAA on bases
independent of Utah's evaluation of EJ. In addition, there is no
information in the record upon which this decision is based that is
inconsistent with the stated goal of E.O. 12898 of achieving EJ for
people of color, low-income populations, and Indigenous peoples.
This action is subject to the Congressional Review Act, and EPA
will submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to the
Comptroller General of the United States. This action is not a ``major
rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by January 31, 2025. Filing a
[[Page 95121]]
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements (see section 307(b)(2)).
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.
Dated: November 22, 2024.
KC Becker,
Regional Administrator, Region 8.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 40 CFR part 52 is
amended as follows:
PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart TT--Utah
0
2. Amend Sec. 52.2320 by
0
a. In the table in paragraph (c) revising the entry ``R307-110-28'';
and
0
b. In the table in paragraph (e) revising the entry ``Section XX.A.
Executive Summary''.
The revisions read as follows:
Sec. 52.2320 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Final rule
Rule No. Rule title effective date citation, date Comments
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
R307-110. General Requirements: State Implementation Plan
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
R307-110-28...................... Regional Haze...... 1/6/2022 [insert Federal Except for long-
Register term strategy,
citation], 12/2/ reasonable
2024. progress goals,
and FLM
consultation.
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
(e) * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State
Rule title effective date Final rule citation, date Comments
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
XX. Regional Haze
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section XX.A. Regional Haze Second 1/6/2022 [insert Federal Register Except for long-term
Implementation Plan. citation], 12/2/2024. strategy, reasonable
progress goals, and FLM
consultation.
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 2024-27941 Filed 11-29-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on December 2, 2024.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.