Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; State of Utah; Utah County--Trading of Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets for PM10 Transportation Conformity |
|---|
|
Shaun L. McGrath
Environmental Protection Agency
May 18, 2015
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 95 (Monday, May 18, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 28193-28201]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-11784]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R08-OAR-2015-0227; FRL-9927-68-Region 8]
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
State of Utah; Utah County--Trading of Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets
for PM10 Transportation Conformity
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.
ACTION: Direct final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking direct
final action to approve a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision
submitted by the State of Utah. On March 9, 2015, the Governor of Utah
submitted a revision to the Utah SIP, adding a new rule regarding
trading of motor vehicle emission budgets (MVEB) for Utah County. The
rule allows trading from the motor vehicle emissions budget for primary
particulate matter of 10 microns or less in diameter (PM10)
to the motor vehicle emissions budget for nitrogen oxides
(NOX), which is a PM10 precursor. The resulting
motor vehicle emissions budgets for NOX and PM10
may then be used to demonstrate transportation conformity with the SIP.
The EPA is taking this action under section 110 of the Clean Air Act
(CAA).
DATES: This rule is effective on July 17, 2015 without further notice,
unless EPA receives adverse comment by June 17, 2015. If adverse
comment is received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct
final rule in the Federal Register informing the public that the rule
will not take effect.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R08-
OAR-2015-0227, by one of the following methods:
http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line
instructions for submitting comments.
Email: russ.tim@epa.gov
Fax: (303) 312-6064 (please alert the individual listed in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT if you are faxing comments).
Mail: Carl Daly, Director, Air Program, EPA, Region 8,
Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129.
Hand Delivery: Carl Daly, Director, Air Program, EPA,
Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-
1129. Such deliveries are only accepted Monday through Friday, 8:00
a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding federal holidays. Special arrangements
should be made for deliveries of boxed information.
Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R08-OAR-
2015-0227. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or email. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site
is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an email comment directly to EPA, without
going through http://www.regulations.gov, your email address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses. For additional instructions on submitting
comments, go to Section I, General Information of the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section of this document.
Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://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 http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air Program, EPA,
Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-
1129. EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact the individual
listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to view the hard
copy of the docket. You may view the hard copy of the docket
[[Page 28194]]
Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., excluding Federal
holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tim Russ, Air Program, EPA, Region 8,
Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129, (303)
312-6479, russ.tim@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. General Information
II. Background
III. What was the State's process?
IV. EPA's Evaluation of Utah Rule R307-311
V. EPA's Evaluation of the Technical Support Document for R307-311
VI. Consideration of Section 110(l) of the Clean Air Act
VII. Final Action
VIII. Incorporation by Reference
IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. General Information
1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit CBI to EPA through http://www.regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or
CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as
CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
a. Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
b. Follow directions--The agency may ask you to respond to specific
questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
c. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and
substitute language for your requested changes.
d. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information
and/or data that you used.
e. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
f. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and
suggest alternatives.
g. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of
profanity or personal threats.
h. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline
identified.
II. Background
In this action, we are approving and soliciting public comment
regarding the Governor's March 9, 2015, submittal of Utah's new Rule
R307-311 for adoption into the Utah SIP. The rule will allow certain
trading of MVEBs for the purposes of transportation conformity for
PM10 for Utah County. Once approved by EPA, the Mountainland
Association of Governments (MAG) will then be able to use the
provisions of Rule R307-311 when MAG performs a transportation
conformity determination for its Regional Transportation Plan (RTP)
and/or Transportation Improvement Program (TIP).
The above SIP action that was adopted by the Utah Air Quality Board
(UAQB), and subsequently submitted to EPA by the Governor of Utah for
approval, is discussed in greater detail in sections III, IV, and V
below. We also discuss the state's associated technical support
document (TSD), which gives technical information to support new Rule
R307-311.
III. What was the State's process?
Sections 110(a)(2) and 110(l) of the CAA requires that a state
provide reasonable notice and public hearing before adopting a SIP
revision and submitting it to us. More detailed requirements for notice
and public hearing are set out in 40 CFR 51.102.
On December 4, 2014 the UAQB proposed for public comment amendments
to the Utah SIP for Utah Air Quality Rule R307-311; ``Utah County:
Trading of Emission Budgets for Transportation Conformity.'' In
addition on January 12, 2015, the Utah Division of Air Quality (UDAQ)
made the proposed TSD available for public comment and extended the
Rule R307-311 public comment period to February 12, 2015. EPA notes
that included with the state's administrative documentation for this
SIP and Rule revision was a letter memorandum, DAQ-010-15 dated
February 19, 2015, from Bryce Bird, Director, UDAQ to the UAQB. This
letter memorandum indicated that a public comment period was held from
January 1, 2015 through February 12, 2015 regarding the proposed Rule
R307-311 SIP revisions. The UDAQ February 19, 2015 letter memorandum
noted that no public comments were received on the proposed rule R307-
311, but that EPA did comment on the TSD. UDAQ summarized and responded
to EPA's comments in its February 19, 2015 letter memorandum to the
UAQB. In addition, UDAQ noted that no public hearings were requested.
In consideration of the February 19, 2015 UDAQ letter memorandum, the
UAQB subsequently adopted the proposed Rule R307-311, and a revised
TSD, on March 4, 2015. The SIP Rule revision became state effective on
March 5, 2015 and was submitted by the Governor to EPA by a letter
dated March 9, 2015. By a subsequent letter dated March 11, 2015, Bryce
Bird, Director, UDAQ submitted the necessary administrative
documentation that supported the Governor's submittal.
We have evaluated Utah's March 9, 2015 SIP submittal and the March
11, 2015 submitted administrative documentation and have determined
that the state met the requirements for reasonable notice and public
hearing under section 110(a)(2) of the CAA. By a letter dated March 24,
2015, we advised the state that the SIP submittal was complete under
section 110(k)(1)(B) of the Act, because the submittal met the minimum
``completeness'' criteria found in 40 CFR part 51, Appendix V.
IV. EPA's Evaluation of Utah Rule R307-311
(a) Background and Purpose
Transportation conformity is required by section 176 of the CAA to
ensure that federally supported highway and transit project activities
are consistent with (``conform to'') the purpose of a SIP. Conformity
to the purpose of the SIP means that transportation activities will not
cause new air quality violations, worsen existing violations, or delay
timely attainment of the national ambient air quality standards
(NAAQS). EPA's transportation conformity rule establishes the criteria
and procedures for determining whether transportation activities
conform to the state air quality plan.
One key provision of EPA's transportation conformity rule (see 40
CFR part 93, subpart A) requires a demonstration that emissions from
the RTP and TIP are consistent with the MVEB in the applicable SIP (40
CFR 93.118 and 93.124). The transportation conformity MVEB is defined
as the level of on-road mobile source emissions relied upon in the SIP
to attain or maintain compliance with the NAAQS in the nonattainment or
maintenance area.
In this particular instance, the NAAQS involved is PM10,
the nonattainment area is Utah County, the
[[Page 28195]]
MVEBs involve direct emissions of PM10 and NOX,
the latter as a precursor to the formation of PM10, and the
applicable SIP is the EPA-approved Utah PM10 attainment
plan, as updated on December 23, 2002 (67 FR 78181). The approved
PM10 attainment plan contains (among other things) an
attainment demonstration for Utah County that sets PM10 and
NOX MVEBs.
Transportation conformity is demonstrated when future year's
projected on-road mobile source's emissions, for a particular pollutant
or precursor, are estimated to be at or below the on-road motor
vehicle's emissions budget for that pollutant or precursor in the
applicable SIP. For the PM10 NAAQS for Utah County,
conformity must be demonstrated separately for the PM10 and
NOX MVEBs established in the Utah County PM10
attainment demonstration. However, emissions can be traded between the
PM10 and NOX budgets if there is an approved rule
in the SIP that establishes appropriate mechanisms for such trades. See
40 CFR 93.124(b).
Currently, the Utah SIP does not contain an approved rule that
establishes an appropriate mechanism for trading of emissions between
the PM10 and NOX MVEBs for Utah County. The EPA
notes, however, that we previously approved a Utah Rule (R307-310) that
allows trading of emissions between the PM10 and
NOX MVEBs for another PM10 nonattainment area in
Utah, Salt Lake County. 67 FR 44065 (July 1, 2002). For Utah County,
the state has developed a new Rule R307-311, very similar to that for
Salt Lake County, which establishes an on-road mobile source emissions
trading mechanism that; (1) involves only PM10 and
NOX MVEBs from the PM10 attainment demonstration
SIP, (2) allows trading in only one direction from the PM10
budget to the NOX budget on a one-to-one basis, (3) applies
only to transportation conformity determinations in Utah County in
conjunction with the PM10 attainment demonstration SIP, and
(4) is pursuant to 40 CFR part 93, subpart A.
(b) Utah Rule R307-311 Description
An overview of all portions of the state's new Rule R307-311 is
provided below:
1. R307-311 is entitled ``Utah County: Trading of Emission Budgets
for Transportation Conformity.''
2. R307-311-1 ``Purpose.'' The stated purpose of this new rule is:
This rule establishes the procedures that may be used to trade a
portion of the primary PM10 budget when demonstrating that a
transportation plan, transportation improvement program, or project
conforms with the motor vehicle emissions budgets in the Utah County
portion of Section IX, Part A of the State Implementation Plan, ``Fine
Particulate Matter (PM10).
3. R307-311-2. ``Definitions.'' This section provides applicable
definitions:
The definitions contained in 40 CFR 93.101, effective as of the
date referenced in R307-101-3,\1\ are incorporated into this rule by
reference. The following additional definitions apply to this rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ R307-101-3 is approved into the Utah SIP and reflects a date
of July 1, 2013 for incorporation by reference of federal rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
``Budget'' means the motor vehicle emission projections used in the
attainment demonstration in the Utah County portion of Section IX, Part
A of the State Implementation Plan, ``Fine Particulate Matter
(PM10).
``NOX'' means oxides of nitrogen.
``Primary PM10'' means PM10 that is emitted
directly by a source. Primary PM10 does not include
particulate matter that is formed when gaseous emissions undergo
chemical reactions in the ambient air.
``Transportation Conformity'' means a demonstration that a
transportation plan, transportation improvement program, or project
conforms with the emissions budgets in a state implementation plan, as
outlined in 40 CFR, Chapter 1, Part 93; \2\ Determining Conformity of
Federal Actions to State or Federal Implementation Plans.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ EPA notes this is applicable to projects not from a
conforming RTP and TIP which must conform with the MVEBs. This
clarification is only for those projects, and not projects from a
conforming RTP and TIP. See 40 CFR 93.109(b) and 40 CFR 93.115(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. R307-311-3. ``Applicability''. This portion of the rule defines
its applicability. EPA notes that this rule may only be applied to Utah
County and only for PM10:
(A) This rule applies to agencies responsible for demonstrating
transportation conformity with the Utah County portion of Section IX,
Part A of the State Implementation Plan, ``Fine Particulate Matter
(PM10).
(B) This rule does not apply to emission budgets from Section IX,
Part C.6 of the State Implementation Plan, ``Carbon Monoxide
Maintenance Provisions.
5. R307-311-4. ``Trading Between Emission Budgets.'' This portion
of the rule specifies the trading mechanism and provides the trading
ratio of NOX and PM10. In our section V below,
EPA evaluates the technical justification provided in the TSD for the
trading ratio. In this section, we find that the rule language
establishes an appropriate trading mechanism for the Utah County
NOX and PM10 motor vehicle emission budgets:
The agencies responsible for demonstrating transportation
conformity are authorized to supplement the budget for NOX
with a portion of the budget for primary PM10 for the
purpose of demonstrating transportation conformity for NOX.
The NOX budget shall be supplemented using the following
procedures.
(a) The metropolitan planning organization shall include the
following information in the transportation conformity demonstration:
(i) The budget for primary PM10 and NOX for
each required year of the conformity demonstration, before trading
allowed by this rule has been applied;
(ii) The portion of the primary PM10 budget that will be
used to supplement the NOX budget, specified in tons per day
using a 1:1 ratio of primary PM10 to NOX, for
each required year of the conformity demonstration;
(iii) The remainder of the primary PM10 budget that will
be used in the conformity demonstration for primary PM10,
specified in tons per day for each required year of the conformity
demonstration; and
(iv) The budget for primary PM10 and NOX for
each required year of the conformity demonstration after the trading
allowed by this rule has been applied.
(b) Transportation conformity for NOX shall be
demonstrated using the NOX budget supplemented by a portion
of the primary PM10 budget as described in (a)(ii).
Transportation conformity for primary PM10 shall be
demonstrated using the remainder of the primary PM10 budget
described in (a)(iii).
(c) The primary PM10 budget shall not be supplemented by
using a portion of the NOX budget.
V. EPA's Evaluation of the Technical Support Document for R307-311
The Governor's SIP revision submittal provided a TSD to support the
new Rule R307-311 and address MVEB trading, as contemplated by 40 CFR
93.124(b), for PM10 and NOX in Utah County.
a. Description
PM10 is particulate matter with diameters smaller than
10 micrometers. PM10 consists of solid and/or liquid
particles of; (1) primary particles that are directly emitted
particulate matter (PM) or PM that quickly condenses upon release, and
(2) secondary particles which are PM that is formed in the atmosphere
from gaseous
[[Page 28196]]
precursors. Important gaseous precursors to PM include sulfur dioxide
(SO2) which converts to sulfate (SO4) particles,
NOX which converts to nitrate (NO3) particles,
volatile organic compounds (VOCs) some of which convert to secondary
organic aerosols, and ammonia (NH3) which adds to the mass
of sulfate PM and allows nitric acid to convert to PM10 in
the form of ammonium nitrate.
Currently in Utah County, the RTP and TIP must demonstrate
conformity to the MVEBs for PM10 and NOX that
were derived from the 2002 EPA-approved PM10 attainment
demonstration SIP (see 67 FR 78181, December 23, 2002). Since the
regulatory goal is to achieve and maintain attainment of the NAAQS and
conformity related to total PM10, not individual components,
it should not matter in the conformity analysis whether PM10
consists of directly emitted (primary) PM10 or secondary
nitrate PM10 formed in the atmosphere from precursor
NOX gas emissions, provided the MVEBs for PM10
and NOX are consistent with the SIP's demonstration of
attainment. The state's TSD outlines the scientific rationale for why
excess NOX motor vehicle emissions (above the NOX
MVEB level) can be offset, on a 1 to 1 basis, with available motor
vehicle PM10 emissions (below the PM10 MVEB
level). The State's TSD explains why the provisions of Rule R307-311
are considered conservative (i.e., protective of the environment) in
that the Rule only allows a one-way direction trading of the MVEBs and
a trading ratio of only 1 to 1.
b. What fraction of the NOX emissions in Utah County convert
to PM10?
The state's TSD describes how each ton of gaseous NOX
that gets converted to PM10 creates more than a ton of
PM10 because the molecular weight of ammonium nitrate
PM10 is greater than the molecular weight of NOX
gaseous emissions. Considering the ratio of the molecular weights of
the NOX precursor gas and the resulting ammonium nitrate
aerosol (PM10), the state notes that a ton of NOX
that is converted from a gas to a particle can form as much as 1.74
tons of PM10.
However, not all NOX emissions are converted because it
takes time to convert NOX to nitric acid (HNO3),
which is the necessary gaseous precursor to ammonium nitrate
PM10. These reactions generally occur at rates of 1 to 10
percent per hour. It would take approximately at least 10 hours to
fully convert to nitric acid. After this initial conversion, only a
fraction of the gaseous nitric acid will condense as ammonium nitrate
PM10, depending on equilibrium considerations. Finally,
during the gas-to-particle conversion process, deposition will remove a
significant amount of material. Throughout this process of
NOX conversion to nitric acid, and then to PM10
and deposition, an equivalent amount of directly emitted
PM10 is having a much larger effect on the PM10
concentration. Directly emitted PM10 has an effect on the
ambient concentration immediately upon its release, while
NOX emissions require hours to have an effect.
From a historical perspective, the conversion of NOX to
PM10 has been discussed at EPA since at least 1996. In our
1996 proposed rule to revise the regulations for the Prevention of
Significant Deterioration (PSD) and nonattainment New Source Review
(NSR) programs, we discussed a proposed approach for interpollutant
trading for PM10 offsets in the nonattainment NSR program:
The conversion process may depend on several variables,
including the availability of chemical reactants in the atmosphere
for the conversion process, and the difference in mass between the
PM10 precursor molecule and the PM10 particle
that the precursor reacts to become. Another concern is that the
rate of conversion of the precursor to PM10 may be so
long that the precursor may not entirely convert to PM10
within the same nonattainment area. Thus, there would be less
counteracting effect and no net improvement to air quality in the
area. Under the EPA's proposal, a source of a PM10
precursor may offset its increased emissions with the same precursor
type or PM10 (or a combination of the two). In this
situation, a net improvement in air quality would be assured. At
this point, however, the EPA is not proposing to allow offsetting
among different types of PM10 precursors, or offsetting
PM10 increases with reduction in PM10
precursors, because the Agency does not now have a scientific basis
to propose conversion factors. (61 FR 38305, July 23, 1996).
These statements were cited in our 2002 proposed approval of the
MVEB trading rule (R307-310) for Salt Lake County. 67 FR 21609 (May 1,
2002).
However, EPA has more recently issued guidance on interpollutant
trading provisions for fine particulate matter (PM2.5) for
offsets under the nonattainment NSR program. The guidance memorandum is
entitled ``Revised Policy to Address Reconsideration of Interpollutant
Trading Provisions for Fine Particles (PM2.5)'' and is dated
July 21, 2011 (hereafter referred to as ``Revised 2011 Trading
Policy''). The Revised 2011 Trading Policy states in part (page 3,
fourth paragraph) that ``. . . states will be expected to develop
separate PM2.5 precursor offset ratios that are demonstrated
to be suitable for addressing the particular precursor's relationship
with ambient PM2.5 concentrations for 24-hour averaging
periods that are causing violations in that nonattainment area.'' And
on page 4, first paragraph; ``. . . each ratio will need to be
supported by modeling or other technical demonstration to show that
such ratio is suitable for the particular PM2.5
nonattainment area of concern . . .''
Our Revised 2011 Trading Policy provides a general framework for
such efforts, involving the following steps:
1. Definition of the appropriate geographical area.
2. Sensitivity runs with appropriate air quality models.
3. Calculation of interpollutant ratios.
4. Quality assurance of the results.
To support Utah's rule R307-311, the UDAQ applied the above
methodology to the Utah County 24-hour PM10 NAAQS
nonattainment area. Although the Revised 2011 Trading Policy is
specific to PM2.5 and nonattainment NSR offsets, and is
nonbinding guidance, in this action we consider that the
recommendations in the Revised 2011 Trading Policy provide a suitable
approach for a technical demonstration that the trading ratio for Utah
County for the PM10 and NOX MVEBs is appropriate
under 40 CFR 93.124(b).
The UDAQ states in the TSD that exceedances of the PM10
24-hour NAAQS in Utah County are characterized by spikes in secondary
aerosol formation under conditions of wintertime temperature inversions
which prevent good atmospheric mixing and facilitate conversion of
secondary PM10. The UDAQ also states that a high percentage
of the PM10 monitored in Utah County, during winter episodes
of elevated concentration, lies also within the PM2.5
fraction. EPA also notes that the 2002 Utah County PM10 SIP
revision identified both NOX and SO2 as
precursors to the formation of PM10.
The TSD for Rule R307-311 identifies that parts of Utah County (the
valley regions, western area of the County) are also designated as
nonattainment for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS (74 FR 58688,
November 13, 2009). To meet the requirements set out in subparts 1 and
4 of Part D, title I of the CAA, the UDAQ developed a moderate area
attainment plan for Utah County that (among other things) contained a
demonstration that attainment of the 24-hour PM2.5 standards
by the applicable attainment date for moderate areas, December 31,
2015, is impracticable (hereafter ``PM2.5 Impracticability
Demonstration''). This
[[Page 28197]]
attainment plan was submitted by the Governor to EPA on December 16,
2014. The air quality modeling for the PM2.5
Impracticability Demonstration was conducted by UDAQ using the
Community Multi-Scale Air Quality model (CMAQ). CMAQ is also capable of
determining the relative importance of NOX and
PM10 in contributing to PM10 nonattainment.
The emission inventories that were developed by UDAQ for the Utah
County PM2.5 Impracticability Demonstration included
PM2.5, SO2, NOX, VOC, Ammonia and
PM10.\3\ As PM10 was inventoried for the
PM2.5 Impracticability Demonstration, this allowed CMAQ
model sensitivity runs to be made for the purpose of evaluating and
supporting the MVEB trading provisions in Rule R307-311. The UDAQ's
methodology employed the CMAQ model, as developed for Utah County, with
a substitution of PM10 emissions for PM2.5. The
UDAQ also notes in the Rule R307-311 TSD that the CMAQ model was re-
validated with respect to PM10 emissions data from the
appropriate episode period prior to making the sensitivity runs (refer
to Appendix A of the TSD).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ We are not acting today on any portion of the state's
December 16, 2014 submittal, including the PM2.5
Impracticability Demonstration and the emission inventories.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Having made these adjustments to the CMAQ model, UDAQ ran the model
to generate a time-series plot (refer to Appendix A of the TSD). The
UDAQ determined that the ratio of NOX to PM10
equivalence was 5.702 to one. Since this ratio is considerably greater
than 1:1, the UDAQ concluded that reducing primary PM10 is
more beneficial than reducing NOX for improving Utah
County's air quality with respect to PM10. The EPA has
evaluated this additional sensitivity modeling information and has
concluded that it provides an adequate technical demonstration to
support the MVEB trading provisions in Rule R307-311. Based on the
demonstration, we also conclude that Rule R307-311 establishes an
appropriate trading ratio, and that under Rule R307-311, there will not
be adverse impacts to the overall ambient 24-hour PM10
concentrations within Utah County.
With regard to ambient 24-hour PM10 concentrations
within Utah County, we have also evaluated the current (state-
certified) 2011 through 2013 PM10 ambient air quality
monitoring data for Utah County in EPA's Air Quality System (AQS),
EPA's repository for the Nation's ambient air quality data. EPA's
guidance for the calculation of 24-hour PM10 design value
concentrations provide four techniques.\4\ Our guidance's ``Table
Lookup'' method shows a 2011 through 2013 PM10 design value
concentration as 149[mu]m\3\ at the North Provo monitor and 124[mu]m\3\
at the Lindon monitor. These values, however, contain certain data
quality issues such as missing days of monitoring data and zero reading
days. We believe that if the statistical method from our guidance,
``Using the empirical frequency distribution of several years of the
data (graphical estimation),'' is used, in this particular case it
provides a more accurate representation of the monitoring data.\5\ When
using this statistical/graphic approach, the North Provo monitor then
has a 2011 through 2013 PM10 design value concentration of
133.5 [micro]m\3\ and the Lindon monitor has a 2011 through 2013 design
value concentration of 118.7 [micro]m\3\. However, EPA notes that
regardless of the methodology used, Utah County continues to
demonstrate attainment of the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ PM10 SIP Development Guideline, EPA-450/2-86-001,
June 1987, section 6.3; pages 6-3 through 6-8. The cited portions of
this guidance are available in the docket for this action; the
entire document is available online at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/caaa/t1/memoranda/pm10sip_dev_guide.pdf.
\5\ Memorandum to File entitled ``Utah PM10 24-hour
Design Concentrations,'' Richard M. Payton, USEPA Region 8, dated
April 22, 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
c. Impact of the PM10 and NOX MVEB Trading Rule on Other Pollutants;
EPA's Evaluation of Utah's Information Regarding the Provisions of
Section 110(1) of the Clean Air Act
Section 110(1) of the CAA states that a SIP revision cannot be
approved if the revision would interfere with any applicable
requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress
towards attainment of a NAAQS or any other applicable requirement of
the CAA. EPA's evaluation above shows that this SIP revision will not
interfere with attainment of the PM10 NAAQS.
In addition to being a designated nonattainment area for
PM10, Utah County is also designated as nonattainment for
the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. The city of Provo, in Utah
County, is designated as an attainment/maintenance area for carbon
monoxide (CO). These criteria pollutants, along with the 2008 8-hour
ozone NAAQS and the 1-hour nitrogen dioxide (NO2) NAAQS,
were evaluated by the state in the TSD for potential collateral impacts
from the implementation of the provisions of Rule R307-311.
1. PM2.5
As discussed above, part of Utah County (the western portion) was
designated by EPA as nonattainment for the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS (74 FR 58688, November 13, 2009), and on
December 16, 2014, the state submitted an attainment plan containing,
among other things, the PM2.5 Impracticability
Demonstration. As with PM10 (described above), UDAQ
performed sensitivity runs using the CMAQ modeling information that was
developed for the PM2.5 Impracticability Demonstration. This
modeling exercise was performed in order to determine an equivalence
ratio between NOX and PM2.5. The resulting ratio
of NOX to PM2.5 was determined by the UDAQ to be
13.09 to 1.0. Similar to the result for PM10, the ratio is
greater than one to one, and illustrates that reducing primary
PM2.5 is more beneficial than reducing the same quantity of
NOX.
However, Rule R307-311 provides for reductions in PM10,
and generally speaking, a reduction in PM10 is not
necessarily a reduction in PM2.5. So that the above
PM2.5 to NOX ratio could support a determination
that Rule R307-311 would not have an adverse impact on overall
PM2.5 concentrations in Utah County, the UDAQ considered the
physical make-up of PM10 emissions from on-road mobile
sources in Utah County. The following table, presenting information
from the TSD, considers PM emissions as they were inventoried for
calendar year 2015 in the PM2.5 Impracticability
Demonstration for the Utah County PM2.5 nonattainment area:
Table 1--Utah County; On-Road Mobile Source Emissions
[In tons per day in 2015]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PM10 PM2.5 %PM2.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Road Dust....................................................... 3.95 0.99 25.1
[[Page 28198]]
Direct PM....................................................... 1.84 1.38 75.0
-----------------------------------------------
Total....................................................... 5.79 2.37 40.9
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As derived from the state's information and as presented in Table 1
above, for every ton of PM10 emissions due to on-road mobile
sources, 0.409 tons would be composed of PM2.5. The
provisions of Rule R307-311 would allow a one-ton increase in
NOX emissions that would be offset by a one-ton decrease in
the PM10 emissions. Based on the information in the above
table, the state concluded that a one-ton increase in NOX
emissions would be offset by a 0.409-ton decrease in PM2.5
emissions. To illustrate, using the 1:0.409 ratio and the equivalence
ratio of 13.09:1 for NOX to PM2.5, a 13 ton
increase in NOX emissions would equal a 1 ton increase of
PM2.5 emissions. However, applying the 1 to 1 trading ratio
with PM10 would then require a 13 ton PM10
emissions decrease which is a 5.3 ton (13 x 0.409) PM2.5
emissions decrease. This example results in a net 4.3 ton decrease in
PM2.5 emissions.
Based on this 1:0.409 ratio and the equivalence ratio of 13.09:1
for NOX to PM2.5, the EPA can, therefore, agree
with the state and conclude that Rule R307-311, with its requirements
to allow the trading of the PM10 budget to the
NOX budget in one direction only at a ratio of 1:1, would
not have an adverse impact on overall ambient 24-hour PM2.5
concentrations within Utah County.
The EPA notes that additional supporting information was provided
in the PM2.5 Impracticability Demonstration as it included
an emission inventory of NOX emissions for calendar year
2015. The PM2.5 Impracticability Demonstration notes that
on-road mobile sources in Utah County are expected to account for 21.48
tons per winter weekday in 2015. The on-road mobile sources emissions
were calculated using EPA's Motor Vehicle Emission Simulator (MOVES)
model and the MOVES2010a version. This estimate is greater than the
combined sum of the 2020 MVEBs for both PM10 and
NOX contained in the EPA-approved 2002 SIP revision. To
demonstrate, even if the entire PM10 MVEB was traded to
increase the NOX MVEB as a result of the application of Rule
R307-311, the resulting total NOX emissions would still be
less than the 2015 estimated NOX emissions contained in the
PM2.5 Impracticability Demonstration.
2. Carbon Monoxide (CO)
As noted previously, the Provo-Orem area is a CO attainment/
maintenance area (70 FR 66264, November 2, 2005). EPA notes that
NOX emissions do not act as a precursor to carbon monoxide;
therefore, EPA has concluded that the application of the provisions of
R307-311 will not impact the Provo-Orem CO maintenance plan or
attainment of the CO NAAQS. The state notes in the Rule R307-311 TSD
that CO maintenance plan has its own CO MVEB which has been set at a
level demonstrated to keep the Provo-Orem area in attainment with the
CO standard. The provisions of Rule R307-311 do not change the
maintenance plan's CO MVEB.
For purposes of completeness, the state provided recent CO ambient
air quality monitoring data in the Rule R307-311 TSD. These data have
been excerpted by EPA and are provided in the table below:
Table 2--CO 1-Hour and CO 8-Hour Design Values
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year Annual CO NAAQS (1-hour, 35 ppm) 8-hour CO NAAQS (9 ppm)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Monitor location: North Provo: North Provo:
2011................................. 3.2 ppm............................. 2.1 ppm
2012................................. 2.8 ppm............................. 1.9 ppm
2013................................. 2.9 ppm............................. 2.0 ppm
Preliminary 2014..................... 2.8 ppm............................. 1.9 ppm
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As can be seen in Table 2 above, the Provo area continues to
demonstrate compliance with both the CO Annual and CO 8-hour NAAQS.
3. Ozone
The EPA notes that NOX emissions are a precursor to the
formation of ground level ozone, PM2.5, and PM10.
With regard to ozone, we also note that Utah County has never been
designated as nonattainment for any applicable ozone NAAQS. The
current, applicable ozone NAAQS is the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS and Utah
County was designated by EPA as unclassifiable/attainment for that
NAAQS (77 FR 30088, May 21, 2012). Thus, the state has not had to
develop an ozone attainment plan or maintenance plan for Utah County.
To assess the potential impacts to Utah County's continued
attainment of the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS, EPA considered ozone ambient
air quality monitoring data for Utah County and predicted future-year
NOX emission reductions from motor vehicles.
The state provided recent ozone air quality monitoring data in the
Rule R307-311 TSD. EPA has excerpted that information from the TSD and
presents those data in Table 3 below:
[[Page 28199]]
Table 3--8-Hour Ozone Design Values (DV)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8-hour ozone DV (NAAQS = 75 8-hour ozone DV (NAAQS = 75
Year Monitor location ppb) Monitor location ppb)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2011........................... North Provo.................. 67.7 ppb.................... Spanish Fork................ 68.0 ppb
2012........................... North Provo.................. 70.7 ppb.................... Spanish Fork................ 70.3 ppb
2013........................... North Provo.................. 73.0 ppb.................... Spanish Fork................ 70.3 ppb
2014 (Preliminary)............. North Provo.................. 73.0 ppb.................... Spanish Fork................ 71.7 ppb
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As can be seen in Table 3 above, Utah County continues to
demonstrate compliance with 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
The provisions of Rule R307-311 would allow for an increase in the
Utah County PM10 SIP's NOX MVEB. However, EPA
believes that regardless of this potential increase in the
NOX MVEB, overall future NOX emissions from
mobile sources will significantly decrease not only in Utah County, but
in the nation as a whole. On April 28, 2014, we published a final rule
adopting new Tier 3 emission standards and fuel requirements for motor
vehicles and for motor vehicle fuels (79 FR 23414).
Our April 28, 2014 final rule included new Tier 3 emission
standards to reduce exhaust and evaporative emissions from light-duty
vehicles, light-duty trucks, and heavy-duty vehicles up to 14,000
pounds Gross Vehicle Weight Rating. In addition, the final rule
specified corresponding changes to in-use fuel requirements. The motor
vehicle tailpipe standards include different phase-in schedules that
vary by vehicle class, but generally phase-in between model years 2017
to 2021 for light duty vehicles and up to 2025 for heavy duty vehicles.
The vehicle emission standards combined with the reduction of gasoline
sulfur content, which allows both current and new vehicle emission
control systems to function at a higher pollutant removal efficiently,
will significantly reduce motor vehicle emissions of NOX,
VOCs, direct PM2.5, CO and air toxics. Compared to current
vehicle and fuel standards, the non-methane organic gases (NMOG) and
NOX, presented as NMOG+NOX, Tier 3 tailpipe
standards for light-duty vehicles are estimated to show an
approximately 80% reduction from today's fleet average. As both
NOX and VOCs contribute to the formation of ground level
ozone and secondary PM2.5, the EPA notes that these vehicle
emission reductions will have a positive impact on all areas of the
nation including Utah County. Additionally, we expect to see associated
downward trends of CO, ozone, PM2.5 and PM10
concentrations that will reflect the implementation of these fuel/
vehicle emission improvements. Based on these expected reductions in
motor vehicle emissions of NOX, along with the monitoring
data showing that Utah County is currently attaining the 2008 ozone
NAAQS, we conclude that Rule R307-311 will not interfere with
attainment of the ozone NAAQS.
4. NO2
The EPA notes that NOX emissions, which contain
NO2, are a precursor to the formation of ground level ozone,
PM2.5, and PM10. We also note that Utah County
was designated as unclassifiable/attainment for the new, more
stringent, 2010 1-hour NO2 NAAQS (77 FR 9532, February 17,
2012).
To assess the potential impacts to Utah County's continued
attainment of the 2010 1-hour NO2 NAAQS, as that version of
the NO2 NAAQS is more constraining, EPA considered
NO2 ambient air quality monitoring data for Utah County. The
state provided recent NO2 air quality monitoring data in the
Rule R307-311 TSD. EPA has excerpted that information from the TSD and
presents those data in Table 4 below:
Table 4--NO2 1-Hour Design Values
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NO2 NAAQS (DV 1-hour 100
Year ppb)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Monitor location: North Provo:
2011.................................... 54.7 ppb
2012.................................... 58.0 ppb
2013.................................... 66.3 ppb
Preliminary 2014........................ 68.3 ppb
------------------------------------------------------------------------
As can be seen in Table 4 above, Utah County continues to
demonstrate compliance with 2010 1-hour NO2 NAAQS with
values well below the level of the NAAQS. We, therefore, conclude that
Rule R307-311 will not interfere with attainment of the 1-hour
NO2 NAAQS.
d. Conclusion
On the basis of the above EPA analyses, we have concluded that
using a portion of the Utah County PM10 SIP's
PM10 MVEB to offset or compensate for excess on-road mobile
sources NOX emissions, on a one-to-one basis and in one
direction only, continues to demonstrate attainment of the
PM10 NAAQS and is conservative and justifiable. In addition,
based on the information in the Rule R307-311 TSD, and as supplemented
by information prepared by EPA, we have concluded that with the
implementation of the provisions in Rule R307-311 there will not be
adverse effects to the CO, PM2.5, 8-hour ozone, and
NO2 1-hour NAAQS. These statements are with respect to the
implementation of the provisions of Rule R307-311 by MAG when MAG
performs a transportation conformity determination for its RTP and/or
TIP.
VI. Consideration of Section 110(l) of the Clean Air Act
Section 110(l) of the CAA states that a SIP revision cannot be
approved if the revision would interfere with any applicable
requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress
towards attainment of a NAAQS or any other applicable requirement of
the CAA. In view of the state's rule language for its new Rule R307-
311, our analyses presented above in section ``V. EPA's Evaluation of
the Technical Support Document for R307-311'' with respect to
PM10, PM2.5, ozone and NO2, and the
fact that NOX has less impact on a per ton basis than
primary PM10 emissions in Utah County, we have concluded
there will be a net benefit on ambient air concentrations of
PM10 when excess NOX emissions are offset on a
one to one basis. Therefore, implementation of the provisions of Rule
R307-311 will allow the continued demonstration of attainment of the
PM10 NAAQS in Utah County and is conservative and
justifiable. We have also concluded there will be no adverse impact on
any other NAAQS or applicable requirement of the CAA. Therefore, our
approval of the State's Rule R307-311 is consistent with section 110(l)
of the CAA.
VII. Final Action
The EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal because the
Agency views the Governor of Utah's March 9, 2015 submitted SIP
revisions for Utah's Rule R307-311 and the Rule's associated TSD as a
noncontroversial amendment and anticipates no adverse
[[Page 28200]]
comments. However, in the Proposed Rules section of today's Federal
Register publication, EPA is publishing a separate document that will
serve as the proposal to approve the SIP revision if adverse comments
are filed. This rule will be effective July 17, 2015 without further
notice unless the Agency receives adverse comments by June 17, 2015. If
the EPA receives adverse comments, the EPA will publish a timely
withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the public that the rule
will not take effect. The EPA will address all public comments in a
subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. The EPA will not
institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties
interested in commenting must do so at this time. Please note that if
the EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section
of this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of
the rule, the EPA may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that
are not the subject of an adverse comment.
VIII. Incorporation by Reference
In this rule, 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 the Utah
SIP materials and rules described in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52
set forth below. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these
documents generally available electronically through
www.regulations.gov and/or in hard copy at the appropriate EPA office
(see the ADDRESSES section of this rule's preamble for more
information).
IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and therefore is not
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this
reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211,
``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action
merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes
no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law.
Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq). Because
this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does
not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by
state law, it 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).
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). This action also
does not have Federalism implications because it does not have
substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between
the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as
specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This
action merely approves a state rule implementing a Federal standard,
and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and
responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. This rule also is
not subject to Executive Order 13045 ``Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23,
1997), because it approves a state rule implementing a Federal
standard.
In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In
this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the
state to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority
to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP
submission; to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise
satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements
of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This rule does not
impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq).
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq, as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by July 17, 2015. Filing a
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. Parties with objections to this direct final
rule are encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel
notice of proposed rulemaking for this action published in the proposed
rules section of today's Federal Register, rather than file an
immediate petition for judicial review of this direct final rule, so
that EPA can withdraw this direct final rule and address the comment in
the proposed rulemaking. This action may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See CAA section 307(b)(2).)
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, and Volatile organic compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: May 1, 2015.
Shaun L. McGrath,
Regional Administrator, Region 8.
40 CFR part 52 is amended to read as follows:
PART 52 [AMENDED]
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. Section 52.2320 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(79) to read as
follows:
[[Page 28201]]
Sec. 52.2320 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(79) Revisions to the Utah State Implementation Plan involving Utah
Rule R307-311; Utah County: Trading of Emission Budgets for
Transportation Conformity. The Utah Air Quality Board adopted this SIP
revision on March 4, 2015, it became state effective on March 5, 2015,
and was submitted by the Governor to EPA by a letter dated March 9,
2015.
(i) Incorporation by reference.
(A) Utah Rules R307, Environmental Quality, Air Quality, R307-311,
Utah County: Trading of Emission Budgets for Transportation Conformity.
Effective March 5, 2015, as proposed in the Utah State Bulletin on
January 1, 2015 and published on April 1, 2015 as effective.
[FR Doc. 2015-11784 Filed 5-15-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P