```

[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 160 (Thursday, August 18, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 55156-55160]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-19775]

[[Page 55156]]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R08-OAR-2016-0311; FRL-9951-04-Region 8]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; 
State of Utah; Revisions to the Utah Division of Administrative Rules, 
R307-300 Series; Area Source Rules for Attainment of Fine Particulate 
Matter Standards

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing 
approval of portions of the fine particulate matter (PM2.5) 
State Implementation Plan (SIP) and other general rule revisions 
submitted by the State of Utah. The revisions affect the Utah Division 
of Administrative Rules (DAR), R307-300 Series; Requirements for 
Specific Locations. The revisions had submission dates of May 9, 2013, 
May 20, 2014, September 8, 2015, and March 8, 2016. The March 8, 2016 
submittal contains rule revisions to address our February 25, 2016 
conditional approval of several Utah DAR R307-300 Series rules 
submitted on February 2, 2012, May 9, 2013, and May 20, 2014. These 
area source rules control emissions of direct PM2.5 and 
PM2.5 precursors, which are sulfur dioxides 
(SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOX) and volatile organic 
compounds (VOC). Additionally, the EPA is proposing to approve the 
State's reasonably available control measure (RACM) determinations for 
the rule revisions that pertain to the PM2.5 SIP. This 
action is being taken under section 110 of the Clean Air Act (CAA or 
Act).

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before September 19, 
2016.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by EPA-R08-OAR-2016-0311 at 
http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for 
submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or 
removed from regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any comment received 
to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you 
consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other 
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia 
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written 
comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and 
should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will 
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of 
the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing 
system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment 
policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general 
guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the 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 at http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA Region 8, Office of 
Partnerships and Regulatory Assistance, Air Program, 1595 Wynkoop 
Street, Denver, Colorado, 80202-1129. The 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 Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. 
to 4:00 p.m., excluding federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Crystal Ostigaard, Air Program, EPA, 
Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-
1129, (303) 312-6602, ostigaard.crystal@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

    a. 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.
    b. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. When submitting comments, 
remember to:
    i. Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying 
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
    ii. 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.
    iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and 
substitute language for your requested changes.
    iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information 
and/or data that you used.
    v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you 
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be 
reproduced.
    vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and 
suggest alternatives.
    vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of 
profanity or personal threats.
    viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period 
deadline identified.

II. Background

A. Regulatory Background

    On October 17, 2006 (71 FR 61144), the EPA strengthened the level 
of the 24-hour PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards 
(NAAQS), lowering the primary and secondary standards from 65 
micrograms per cubic meter ([mu]g/m\3\), the 1997 standard, to 
35[micro]g/m\3\. On November 13, 2009 (74 FR 58688), the EPA designated 
three nonattainment areas in Utah for the 24-hour PM2.5 
NAAQS of 35 [mu]g/m\3\. These are the Salt Lake City, Utah; Provo, 
Utah; and Logan, Utah-Idaho nonattainment areas. The EPA originally 
designated these areas under CAA title I, part D, subpart 1, which 
required Utah to submit an attainment plan for each area no later than 
three years from the date of their nonattainment designations. These 
plans needed to provide for the attainment of the PM2.5 
standard as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than five years 
from the date the areas were designated nonattainment.
    Subsequently, on January 4, 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 
District of Columbia held that the EPA should have implemented the 2006 
PM2.5 24-hour standard based on both CAA title I, part D, 
subpart 1 and subpart 4. NRDC v. EPA, 706 F.3d 428 (D.C. Cir. 2013). 
Under subpart 4, nonattainment areas are initially classified as 
moderate, and

[[Page 55157]]

moderate area attainment plans must address the requirements of subpart 
4 as well as subpart 1. Additionally, CAA subpart 4 sets a different 
SIP submittal due date and attainment year. For a moderate area, the 
attainment SIP is due 18 months after designation, and the attainment 
year is the end of the sixth calendar year after designation. On June 
2, 2014 (79 FR 31566), the EPA finalized the Identification of 
Nonattainment Classification and Deadlines for Submission of State 
Implementation Plan (SIP) Provisions for the 1997 Fine Particulate 
(PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) and 
2006 PM2.5 NAAQS (``the Classification and Deadline Rule''). 
This rule classified to moderate the areas that were designated in 2009 
as nonattainment, and set the attainment SIP submittal due date for 
those areas at December 31, 2014. This rule did not affect the moderate 
area attainment date of December 31, 2015.
    On March 23, 2015, the EPA proposed the Fine Particulate Matter 
National Ambient Air Quality Standards: State Implementation Plan 
Requirements (``PM2.5 Implementation Rule''), 80 FR 15340, 
which partially addresses the January 4, 2013 court ruling. This 
proposed rule details how air agencies should meet the statutory SIP 
requirements that apply under subparts 1 and 4 to areas designated 
nonattainment for any PM2.5 NAAQS, such as: General 
requirements for attainment plan due dates and attainment 
demonstrations; provisions for demonstrating reasonable further 
progress (RFP); quantitative milestones; contingency measures; 
Nonattainment New Source Review (NNSR) permitting programs; and RACM 
(including reasonably available control technology (RACT)), among other 
things. The statutory attainment planning requirements of subparts 1 
and 4 were established to ensure that the following goals of the CAA 
are met: (i) That states implement measures that provide for attainment 
of the PM2.5 NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable; and, 
(ii) that states adopt emissions reduction strategies that will be the 
most effective, and the most cost-effective, at reducing 
PM2.5 levels in nonattainment areas.
    The PM2.5 Implementation Rule proposed a process for 
states to determine the control strategy for PM2.5 
attainment plans. The process consists of identifying all 
technologically and economically feasible control measures, including 
control technologies for all sources of direct PM2.5 and 
PM2.5 precursors in the emissions inventory for the 
nonattainment area which are not otherwise exempted from consideration 
for controls.\1\ From that list of measures, the state must identify 
those that it can implement within four years of designation of the 
area (and which would thus meet the statutory requirements for RACM and 
RACT) and any ``additional reasonable measures,'' which the EPA is 
proposing in the PM2.5 Implementation Rule to define as 
those technologically and economically feasible measures that the state 
can only implement on sources in the nonattainment area after the four-
year deadline for RACM and RACT has passed. See proposed 40 CFR 
51.1000. The EPA is currently in the process of preparing its final 
action on the proposed rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Such exemptions could be due to a demonstrated lack of 
significant contribution of a certain PM2.5 precursor to 
the area's elevated PM2.5 concentrations or due to a 
presumptive determination that a certain source category contributes 
only a de minimis amount toward PM2.5 levels in a 
nonattainment area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. RACT and RACM Requirements for PM2.5 Attainment Plans

    Section 172(c)(1) of the Act (from subpart 1) requires that 
attainment plans, in general, provide for the implementation of all 
RACM as expeditiously as practicable (including RACT) and shall provide 
for attainment of the national primary ambient air quality standards. 
Section 189(a)(1)(C) (from subpart 4) requires moderate area attainment 
plans to contain provisions to assure that RACM is implemented no later 
than four years after designation.
    The EPA stated its interpretation of the RACT and RACM requirements 
of subparts 1 and 4 in the 1992 General Preamble for the Implementation 
of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, 57 FR 13498 (Apr. 
6, 1992). For RACT, the EPA followed its ``historic definition of RACT 
as the lowest emission limitation that a particular source is capable 
of meeting by the application of control technology that is reasonably 
available considering technological and economic feasibility.'' 57 FR 
13541. Like RACT, the EPA has historically considered RACM to consist 
of control measures that are reasonably available, considering 
technological and economic feasibility. See PM2.5 
Implementation Rule, 80 FR 15373.

C. Utah's PM2.5 Attainment Plan Submittals

    Under section 110(k)(4) of the Act, the EPA may approve a SIP 
revision based on a commitment by the state to adopt specific 
enforceable measures by a date certain, but not later than one year 
after the date of approval of the plan revision. If we finalize our 
proposed conditional approval, Utah must adopt and submit the specific 
revisions it has committed to within one year of our finalization. If 
Utah does not submit these revisions within one year, or if we find 
Utah's revisions to be incomplete, or we disapprove Utah's revisions, 
this conditional approval will convert to a disapproval. If any of 
these occur and our conditional approval converts to a disapproval, 
that will constitute a disapproval of a required plan element under 
part D of title I of the Act, which starts an 18-month clock for 
sanctions, see section 179(a)(2), and the two-year clock for a federal 
implementation plan (FIP), see section 110(c)(1)(B).
    Prior to the January 4, 2013 decision of the D.C. Circuit Court of 
Appeals, Utah developed a PM2.5 attainment plan intended to 
meet the requirements of subpart 1. The EPA submitted written comments 
dated November 1, 2012, to the Utah Division of Air Quality (UDAQ) on 
Utah's draft PM2.5 SIP, technical support document (TSD), 
and area source and other rules. After the court's decision, Utah 
amended its attainment plan to address requirements of subpart 4. On 
December 2, 2013, the EPA provided comments on Utah's revised draft 
PM2.5 SIPs for the Salt Lake City and Provo areas, including 
the TSDs and rules in Section IX, Part H. These written comments from 
the EPA included some comments applicable to the rules we are proposing 
to act on today. The comment letters can be found within the docket for 
this action on www.regulations.gov.
    In addition, Utah provided a commitment letter dated August 4, 
2015, committing to revise R307-101, General Requirements; R307-312, 
Aggregate Processing Operations for PM2.5 Nonattainment 
Areas; and R307-328, Gasoline Transfer and Storage. The EPA issued a 
conditional approval of the revisions on February 25, 2016 (81 FR 
9343), based on the commitment letter. In that action, the EPA also 
approved other area source rules and conditionally approved the 
determination of RACM for these specific rules from Utah's moderate 
PM2.5 SIPs. When the EPA takes final action on today's 
proposal, it will complete the action on the revisions described 
earlier and the determination of RACM for these specific rules from 
Utah's moderate PM2.5 SIPs.
    Furthermore, Utah submitted revisions to R307-302, Solid Fuel 
Burning Devices in Box Elder, Cache, Davis, Salt Lake, Tooele, Utah, 
and Weber Counties on May 9, 2013, May 20, 2014, and September 8, 2015. 
With this action, the EPA is proposing to conditionally approve R307-
302 based

[[Page 55158]]

on the May 19, 2016 commitment letter submitted by UDAQ. This rule is 
applicable to the Utah SIPs for PM2.5 nonattainment areas.

III. EPA's Evaluation of Utah's Submittals

    SIP revisions for R307-101 were submitted on May 9, 2013, May 20, 
2014, and March 8, 2016. For R307-312, revisions were submitted on May 
9, 2013, and March 8, 2016. Revisions for R307-328 were submitted on 
February 2, 2012, and March 8, 2016. In an August 4, 2015 commitment 
letter, UDAQ committed to revise R307-101, R307-312 and R307-328 and 
EPA conditionally approved these rules on February 25, 2016 (81 FR 
9343). Additionally, SIP revisions were submitted for R307-302 on May 
9, 2013, May 20, 2014, and September 8, 2015. However, the EPA 
identified an issue with R307-302 relating to startup, shutdown, and 
malfunction provisions, and Utah provided a commitment letter dated May 
19, 2016, that contains a commitment to revise R307-302 to address this 
issue. The EPA is proposing conditional approval of the three 
submittals based on Utah's May 19, 2016 commitment letter. These final 
rule submissions, except for revisions to R307-101 and R307-328, are 
submitted as RACM components of the PM2.5 SIP submitted by 
the State of Utah. The area source rules for RACM, R307-302 and R307-
312, provide specific requirements for emissions of direct 
PM2.5, VOCs, NOX, and SO2 from a few 
specific categories of sources. All of these rule revision submittals 
and commitment letters can found on www.regulations.gov.
    The following is a summary of EPA's evaluation of the rule 
revisions. In general, we reviewed the rules for: enforceability; RACM 
requirements (for those rules submitted as RACM); and other applicable 
requirements of the Act.

1. R307-101, General Requirements

    Rule R307-101 provides general requirements that pertain to all 
UDAQ R307 rules, which constitute the basis for control of air 
pollution sources in the State of Utah. The primary section is R307-
101-2 Definitions, which provide definitions that are applicable to all 
R307 rules, except for those definitions as specified in individual 
rules. UDAQ committed in its letter dated August 4, 2015, to remove the 
definition of ``PM2.5 precursor,'' as that definition is not 
used for regulatory purposes in Utah's SIP. Additionally, a 
``Nonsubstantive Rule Amendment'' was made by Utah to correct a 
citation to the United States Code of Federal Regulations 40 CFR 
51.100. In accordance with Utah Code Title 19, Chapter 2, Air 
Conservation Act, Utah Code Title 63G, Chapter 3, Administrative 
Rulemaking Act, and Utah Administrative Code, R15, Administrative 
Rules, this change was made without public comment, as appropriate for 
a non-substantive change. This submittal was made by UDAQ on May 20, 
2014, and was included in the conditional approval finalized by the EPA 
on February 25, 2016. With UDAQ's March 8, 2016 submittal, the 
definition ``PM2.5 precursor'' was removed, which satisfies 
the commitment letter on which the EPA's conditional approval was based 
and completes the EPA's actions on the May 9, 2013 and May 20, 2014 
submittals for R307-101 from UDAQ. (February 25, 2016; 81 FR 9343.)
    Additionally, UDAQ submitted to the EPA other revisions to R307-
101-2 on March 8, 2016. These revisions included revisions to the 
``Clean Air Act'' definition and ``Maintenance Area'' definition, 
specific to coarse particulate matter (PM10). The definition 
for ``Clean Air Act'' was revised to mean ``federal Clean Air Act as 
found in 42 U.S.C. Chapter 85.'' The revisions to the ``Maintenance 
Area'' definition, specific to PM10, updated the date on 
when the Board adopted the maintenance plans for Salt Lake County, Utah 
County, and Ogden City to ``December 2, 2015.''
    The Board proposed for public comment the removal of the definition 
``PM2.5 Precursor'' in R307-101-2 on October 7, 2015, and 
the public comment period was held from November 1, 2015, through 
December 1, 2015. No comments were received and no hearing was 
requested for this comment period. The Board adopted the revision to 
R307-101-2 on February 3, 2016, and it became effective on February 4, 
2016. Amendments to R307-101-2 were proposed by the Board on December 
2, 2015, and were out for a comment period of January 1, 2016, through 
February 2, 2016. No comments were received and no hearing was 
requested for this comment period. The final revision of Rule R307-101-
2 was adopted by the Board on March 2, 2016, and became effective on 
March 3, 2016, and is applicable to the entire state of Utah.
    With UDAQ's March 8, 2016 submittal, section R307-101 was revised 
to represent what was in the commitment letter, which satisfies the 
EPA's conditional approval. Additionally, the EPA is proposing to 
approve the other definition revisions to R307-101 as stated earlier.

2. R307-302, Solid Fuel Burning Devices in Box Elder, Cache, Davis, 
Salt Lake, Tooele, Utah, and Weber Counties

    Rule R307-302 is an existing rule that was approved by the EPA on 
February 14, 2006 (71 FR 7679). This rule establishes emission 
standards for fireplaces and solid fuel burning devices used in 
residential, commercial, institutional and industrial facilities and 
associated outbuilding used to provide comfort heating.
    The Board proposed revisions to R307-302 for public comment on 
October 7, 2015, with the public comment period held from November 1 to 
December 1, 2015. No comments were received and no public hearing was 
requested. The Board adopted the latest revision to R307-302 on 
February 3, 2016, and it became effective on February 4, 2015.
    The EPA requested that UDAQ commit to revise R307-302-5 which 
states ``R307-302-5. Opacity for Heating Appliances. Except during no-
burn periods as required by R307-302-2 and 4, visible emissions from 
solid fuel burning devices and fireplaces shall be limited to a shade 
or density no darker than 20% opacity as measured by EPA Method 9, 
except for the following: (1) An initial fifteen minute start-up 
period, and (2) A period of fifteen minutes in any three-hour period in 
which emissions may exceed the 20% opacity limitation for refueling.'' 
The requested change is to provide continuous controls to cover 
startup, shutdown, and malfunction requirements. UDAQ committed in its 
May 19, 2016 letter to add continuous controls that extend to startup, 
shutdown, and malfunction, by establishing a prohibition on fuel types 
that can't be burned in a solid fuel burning device at any time.
    Utah's RACM and rule analysis can be found in the docket posted on 
regulations.gov. For direct PM2.5, the RACM analysis 
considered the effect of lowering the wood burning prohibition action 
level from 35 [mu]g/m\3\ to 25 [mu]g/m\3\ and alternatively to 15 
[mu]g/m\3\, and the sales restriction of solid fuel devices to only 
EPA-approved wood stoves. In choosing a wood burning prohibition action 
level, UDAQ determined that 25 [mu]g/m\3\ was representative of RACM, 
and chose to establish the 15 [mu]g/m\3\ action level as a contingency 
measure. UDAQ also established a sales restriction on solid fuel 
devices to EPA-approved wood stoves, with a phase-in schedule of 90% by 
2014, 92.5% by 2017, and 95% by 2019.
    The EPA agrees with the revisions that UDAQ has committed to and is 
proposing a conditional approval of the

[[Page 55159]]

revisions to R307-302; and also proposing to find that R307-302, as 
revised, constitutes RACM for the Nonattainment Areas for Solid Fuel 
Burning Devices in Box Elder, Cache, Davis, Salt Lake, Tooele, and 
Weber Counties for the Utah PM2.5 SIP, with the commitment 
to adopt measures to address startup, shutdown, and malfunction events.

3. R307-312, Aggregate Processing Operations for PM2.5 
Nonattainment Areas

    R307-312 establishes emission standards for sources in the 
aggregate processing industry, including aggregate processing 
equipment, hot mix asphalt plants, and concrete batch plants. The rule 
applies to all crushers, screens, conveyors, hot mix asphalt plants, 
and concrete batch plants located within a PM2.5 
nonattainment and maintenance area as defined in 40 CFR 81.345 (July 1, 
2011). The provisions of R307-312 do not apply to temporary hot mix 
asphalt plants.
    The EPA requested that UDAQ commit to revise R307-312-5(2)(a) which 
states ``Production shall be determined by scale house records or 
equivalent method on a daily basis.'' The EPA requested that UDAQ 
identify what could be used as an ``equivalent method'' in its rule. 
UDAQ committed in their August 4, 2015 letter to remove ``equivalent 
method'' and state ``Production shall be determined by scale house 
records, scale house or belt scale records, or manifest statements on a 
daily basis.'' The EPA finalized this commitment and conditional 
approval on February 25, 2016 (81 FR 9343). With UDAQ's March 8, 2016 
submittal, section R307-312-5(2)(a) was revised to represent what was 
in the commitment letter, which satisfies the condition specified in 
the conditional approval and completes the EPA's action on the May 9, 
2013 submittal for R307-312 from UDAQ.
    The Board proposed revisions to R307-312 for public comment on 
October 7, 2015, with the public comment period held from November 1 to 
December 1, 2015. No comments were received and no public hearing was 
requested. The Board adopted the revision to R307-312 on February 3, 
2016, and it became effective on February 4, 2016.
    Utah's RACM and rule analysis can be found in the docket posted on 
regulations.gov. For direct PM2.5, the RACM analysis 
considered the following as technologically feasible control measures 
for aggregate processing: water application, enclosures, and add-on 
control devices, including a baghouse, electrostatic precipitator, wet 
scrubber, and cyclone. UDAQ considered enclosures and add-on controls 
to not be economically feasible for aggregate processing equipment and 
determined water application to be RACM at a cost-effectiveness of 
$650/ton. However, water application was not considered feasible for 
the one existing concrete batch plant; and UDAQ determined RACM to be 
the existing baghouse and fabric filter controls. The RACM analysis 
considered the following add-on controls as technologically feasible 
for filterable particulate matter (PM) from hot mix asphalt plants: 
baghouse, electrostatic precipitator, wet scrubber, and cyclone. UDAQ 
did not find any controls technologically feasible for condensable PM. 
The analysis considered all the add-on controls to be economically 
feasible; and UDAQ correspondingly set a direct PM2.5 limit 
of 0.024 gr/dscf. For NOX, UDAQ considered low-
NOX burners, NSCR, SCR, and use of natural gas to be 
technically feasible. UDAQ determined that use of natural gas was RACM.
    The EPA agrees with the revisions that UDAQ has made to R307-312 
and is proposing approval. Additionally, the EPA is proposing to find 
that R307-312, as revised, constitutes RACM for the Nonattainment Areas 
for Aggregate Processing Operations for the Utah PM2.5 SIP. 
This proposal is based on our review of the RACM analysis provided in 
Utah's PM2.5 SIP.

4. R307-328, Gasoline Transfer and Storage

    R307-328 establishes controls of gasoline vapors during the filling 
of gasoline cargo tank and storage tanks in Utah. The rule is based on 
federal control technique guidance documents. This requirement is 
commonly referred to as stage I vapor recovery.
    The EPA requested that UDAQ commit to revise R307-328-4(6) which 
stated ``A gasoline storage and transfer installation that receives 
inbound loads and dispatches outbound loads (``bulk plant'') need not 
comply with R307-328-4 if it does not have a daily average throughput 
of more than 3,900 gallons (15,000 or more liters) of gasoline based 
upon a 30-day rolling average. Such installations shall on-load and 
off-load gasoline by use of bottom or submerged filling or alternate 
equivalent methods. The emission limitation is based on operating 
procedures and equipment specifications using RACT as defined in EPA 
documents EPA 450/2-77-026 October 1977, ``Control of Hydrocarbons from 
Tank Truck Gasoline Loading Terminals,'' and EPA-450/2-77-035 December 
1977, ``Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Bulk Gasoline 
Plants.'' The design effectiveness of such equipment and the operating 
procedures must be documented and submitted to and approved by the 
executive secretary.'' The requested change was to remove the 
``alternative equivalent method'' from this section. UDAQ committed in 
their August 4, 2015 letter to remove ``alternative equivalent method'' 
and state: ``A gasoline storage and transfer installation that receives 
inbound loads and dispatches outbound loads (``bulk plant'') need not 
comply with R307-328-4 if it does not have a daily average throughput 
of more than 3,900 gallons (15,000 or more liters) of gasoline based 
upon a 30-day rolling average. Such installations shall on-load and 
off-load gasoline by use of bottom or submerged filling. The emission 
limitation is based on operating procedures and equipment 
specifications using RACT as defined in EPA documents EPA 450/2-77-026 
October 1977, ``Control of Hydrocarbons from Tank Truck Gasoline 
Loading Terminals,'' and EPA-450/2-77-035 December 1977, ``Control of 
Volatile Organic Emissions from Bulk Gasoline Plants.'' The design 
effectiveness of such equipment and the operating procedures must be 
documented and submitted to and approved by the executive secretary.''
    The EPA finalized this commitment and conditional approval on 
February 25, 2016 (81 FR 9343). The Board proposed revisions to R307-
328 for public comment on October 7, 2015, with the public comment 
period held from November 1 to December 1, 2015. No comments were 
received and no public hearing was requested. The Board adopted the 
revision to R307-328 on February 3, 2016, and it became effective on 
February 4, 2016. With UDAQ's March 8, 2016 submittal, the section, 
R307-328-4(6), was revised to represent what was in the commitment 
letter, which satisfies the EPA's conditional approval and completes 
the EPA's action on the February 2, 2012 submittal for R307-328 from 
UDAQ. Therefore, the EPA is proposing approval of the rule, R307-328.

IV. What action is EPA proposing?

    The EPA is proposing approval of the revisions to Administrative 
Rules R307-101-2, along with the revisions in R307-300 Series; 
Requirements for Specific Locations (Within Nonattainment and 
Maintenance Areas), R307-302 (conditional approval, described later), 
R307-312, and R307-328 for incorporation to the Utah SIP as submitted 
by the State of Utah on May

[[Page 55160]]

9, 2013, May 20, 2014, September 8, 2015, and March 8, 2016. This 
proposal will complete the EPA's February 25, 2016 (81 FR 9343) 
conditional approval action on the February 2, 2012, May 9, 2013, and 
May 20, 2014 submittals for R307-101, R307-312, and R307-328 from UDAQ. 
We are proposing to approve Utah's determination that R307-312 
constitutes RACM for the Utah PM2.5 SIP; however, we are not 
proposing to determine that Utah's PM2.5 attainment plan has 
met all requirements regarding RACM under subparts 1 and 4 of Part D, 
title I of the Act. We intend to act separately on the remainder of 
Utah's PM2.5 attainment plan.
    The EPA is proposing to conditionally approve revisions to R307-302 
and conditionally approve Utah's determination that R307-302 
constitutes RACM for the Utah PM2.5 SIP for solid fuel 
burning devices in Box Elder, Cache, Davis, Salt Lake, Tooele, Utah, 
and Weber Counties. As stated earlier, we are not proposing to 
determine that Utah's PM2.5 attainment plan has met all 
requirements regarding RACM under subparts 1 and 4 of part D, title I 
of the Act. Under section 110(k)(4) of the Act, the EPA may approve a 
SIP revision based on a commitment by the State to adopt specific 
enforceable measures by a date certain, but not later than one year 
after the date of approval of the plan revision. On May 19, 2016, Utah 
submitted a commitment letter to adopt and submit specific revisions 
within one year of our final action on these submittals; specifically 
to include continuous controls to cover start-up, shutdown, and 
malfunction requirements. If we finalize our proposed conditional 
approval, Utah must adopt and submit the specific revisions it has 
committed to within one year of our final action. If Utah does not 
submit these revisions within one year, or if we find Utah's revisions 
to be incomplete, or we disapprove Utah's revisions, this conditional 
approval will convert to a disapproval. If any of these occur and our 
conditional approvals convert to a disapproval, that will constitute a 
disapproval of a required plan element under part D of title I of the 
Act, which starts an 18-month clock for sanctions, see CAA section 
179(a)(2), and the two-year clock for a FIP, see CAA section 
110(c)(1)(B).

V. Consideration of Section 110(l) of the CAA

    Under section 110(l) of the CAA, the EPA cannot approve a SIP 
revision if the revision would interfere with any applicable 
requirements concerning attainment and RFP toward attainment of the 
NAAQS, or any other applicable requirement of the Act. In addition, 
section 110(l) requires that each revision to an implementation plan 
submitted by a state shall be adopted by the state after reasonable 
notice and public hearing.
    The Utah SIP revisions that the EPA is proposing to approve do not 
interfere with any applicable requirements of the Act. The DAR section 
R307-300 Series submitted by the UDAQ on February 2, 2012, May 9, 2013, 
May 20, 2014, September 8, 2015, and March 8, 2016, are intended to 
strengthen the SIP and to serve as RACM for certain area sources for 
the Utah PM2.5 SIP. Therefore, CAA section 110(l) 
requirements are satisfied.

VI. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, the EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule 
regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance 
with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to incorporate by 
reference the UDAQ rules promulgated in the DAR, R307-300 Series as 
discussed in section III of this preamble. The EPA has made, and will 
continue to make, these materials generally available through 
www.regulations.gov and/or at the EPA Region 8 Office (please contact 
the person identified in the For Further Information Contact section of 
this preamble for more information).

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a 
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and 
applicable federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state 
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. 
Accordingly, this action merely proposes to approve state law as 
meeting federal requirements and does not impose additional 
requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this 
proposed action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to 
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     does not impose an information collection burden under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     is certified as not having a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4);
     does not have federalism implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     is not an economically significant regulatory action based 
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997);
     is not a significant regulatory action subject to 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the 
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent 
with the CAA; and
     does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority 
to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or 
environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible 
methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian 
reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe 
has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of 
Indian Country, the proposed rule does not have tribal implications and 
will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or 
preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 
November 9, 2000).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

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

    Dated: August 5, 2016.
Debra H. Thomas,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 8.
[FR Doc. 2016-19775 Filed 8-17-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
```