Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 113 / Wednesday, June 12, 2013 / Proposed Rules 35181 

individual negotiators who reflect the 

diversity among program participants, 

in accordance with section 492(b)(1) of 

the HEA. Our goal is to establish a 

committee that will allow significantly 

affected parties to be represented while 

keeping the committee size manageable. 

The committee may create subgroups 

on particular aspects of this topic that 

may involve additional individuals who 

are not members of the committee. Such 

individuals who are not selected as 

members of the committee will be able 

to attend the meetings, have access to 

the individuals representing their 

constituencies, and participate in 

informal working groups on various 

issues between the meetings. The 

committee meetings will be open to the 

public. 

Through the publication of future 

Federal Register notices in the coming 

months, we intend to establish 

committees to address other rulemaking 

issues. 

Constituencies: We have identified 

the following constituencies as having 

interests that are significantly affected 

by the topic proposed for negotiations. 

The Department plans to seat as 

negotiators individuals from 

organizations or groups representing 

these constituencies: 

• Students. 

• Legal assistance organizations that 

represent students. 

• Consumer advocacy organizations. 

• Financial aid administrators at 

postsecondary institutions. 

• State higher education executive 

officers. 

• State attorneys general and other 

appropriate State officials. 

• Business and industry. 

• Institutions of higher education 

eligible to receive Federal assistance 

under title III, Parts A, B, and F and title 

V of the HEA, which include 

Historically Black Colleges and 

Universities, Hispanic-Serving 

Institutions, American Indian Tribally 

Controlled Colleges and Universities, 

Alaska Native and Native HawaiianServing Institutions, Predominantly 

Black Institutions, and other institutions 

with a substantial enrollment of needy 

students as defined in title III of the 

HEA. 

• Two-year public institutions of 

higher education. 

• Four-year public institutions of 

higher education. 

• Private, non-profit institutions of 

higher education. 

• Private, for-profit institutions of 

higher education. 

• Regional accrediting agencies. 

• National accrediting agencies. 

• Specialized accrediting agencies. 

The goal of the committee is to 

develop proposed regulations that 

reflect a final consensus of the 

committee. Consensus means that there 

is no dissent by any member of the 

negotiating committee, including the 

committee member representing the 

Department. An individual selected as a 

negotiator will be expected to represent 

the interests of his or her organization 

or group, and participate in the 

negotiations in a manner consistent 

with the goal of developing proposed 

regulations on which the committee will 

reach consensus. If consensus is 

reached, all members of the organization 

or group represented by a negotiator are 

bound by the consensus and are 

prohibited from commenting negatively 

on the resulting proposed regulations. 

The Department will not consider any 

such negative comments that are 

submitted by members of such an 

organization or group. 

Nominations: Nominations should 

include: 

• The name of the nominee, the 

organization or group the nominee 

represents, and a description of the 

interests that the nominee represents. 

• Evidence of the nominee’s expertise 

or experience in the subject to be 

negotiated. 

• Evidence of support from 

individuals or groups within the 

constituency that the nominee will 

represent. 

• The nominee’s commitment that he 

or she will actively participate in good 

faith in the development of the 

proposed regulations. 

• The nominee’s contact information, 

including address, phone number, fax 

number, and email address. 

For a better understanding of the 

negotiated rulemaking process, 

nominees should review The Negotiated 

Rulemaking Process for Title IV 

Regulations, Frequently Asked 

Questions at http://www.ed.gov/policy/ 

highered/reg/hearulemaking/hea08/negreg-faq.html prior to committing to 

serve as a negotiator. 

Nominees will be notified whether or 

not they have been selected as 

negotiators as soon as the Department’s 

review process is completed. 

Schedule for Negotiations: The 

committee will meet for two sessions on 

the following dates: 

Session 1: September 9–11, 2013. 

Session 2: October 21–23, 2013. 

Sessions will run from 9:00 a.m. to 

5:00 p.m. on the first two days, and 9:00 

a.m. to 12:00 p.m. on the last day. 

The meetings will be held at the U.S. 

Department of Education at: 1990 K 

Street NW., Eighth Floor Conference 

Center, Washington, DC 20006. 

Electronic Access to This Document: 

The official version of this document is 

the document published in the Federal 

Register. Free Internet access to the 

official edition of the Federal Register 

and the Code of Federal Regulations is 

available via the Federal Digital System 

at: www.gpo.gov/fdsys. At this site you 

can view this document, as well as all 

other documents of the Department 

published in the Federal Register, in 

text or Adobe Portable Document 

Format (PDF). To use PDF you must 

have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is 

available free at the site. You may also 

access documents of the Department 

published in the Federal Register by 

using the article search feature at: 

www.federalregister.gov. Specifically, 

through the advanced search feature at 

this site, you can limit your search to 

documents published by the 

Department. 

Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1098a. 

Dated: June 7, 2013. 

Martha Kanter, 

Under Secretary for Education. 

[FR Doc. 2013–13975 Filed 6–11–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R08–OAR–2013–0395; FRL–9823–5] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; Utah; 

Revisions to Utah Administrative 

Code—Permit: New and Modified 

Sources 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to partially 

approve and partially disapprove State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions 

submitted by the State of Utah on 

September 15, 2006. The September 15, 

2006 revisions contain new, amended 

and renumbered rules in Utah 

Administrative Code (UAC) Title R–307 

that pertain to the issuance of Utah air 

quality permits. The September 15, 2006 

revisions supersedes, in its entirety, and 

replaces an October 9, 1998 submittal 

that initially revised provisions in 

Utah’s air quality permit program. In 

this action, we are proposing to approve 

all but four of the SIP revisions in the 

September 15, 2006 submittal. We are 

proposing to disapprove the State’s 

rules, R307–401–7 (Public Notice), 

R307–401–9(b) and portions of (c) 

(Small Source Exemption), R307–401– 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
35182 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 113 / Wednesday, June 12, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

12 (Reduction in Air Contaminants), 

and R307–410–5 (Documentation of 

Ambient Air Impacts for Hazardous Air 

Pollutants). We are also proposing to 

partially approve and partially 

disapprove R307–410–6 (Stack Heights 

and Dispersion Techniques). This action 

is being taken under section 110 of the 

CAA. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before July 12, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R08– 

OAR–2013–0395, by one of the 

following methods: 

• www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Email: leone.kevin@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, Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 

8P–AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, 

Colorado 80202–1129. 

• Hand Delivery: Carl Daly, Director, 

Air Program, Environmental Protection 

Agency (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–2013– 

0395. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at 

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 www.regulations.gov 

or email. The 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 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 information 

about EPA’s public docket visit the EPA 

Docket Center homepage at http:// 

www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. 

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 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. Publiclyavailable docket materials are available 

either electronically in 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Air Program, Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, 

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 Monday through 

Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., excluding 

federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Kevin Leone, Air Program, Mailcode 

8P–AR, Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop 

Street, Denver, Colorado 80202–1129, 

(303) 312–6227, or leone.kevin@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. General Information 

II. Background 

III. What action is EPA taking? 

IV. What authorities apply to EPA’s proposed 

action? 

V. EPA’s Analysis of Proposed Approval 

Actions on SIP Revisions 

VI. EPA’s Analysis of Proposed Disapproval 

Actions on SIP Revisions 

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

Definitions 

For the purpose of this document, we 

are giving meaning to certain words or 

initials as follows: 

(i) The words or initials Act or CAA 

mean or refer to the Clean Air Act, 

unless the context indicates otherwise. 

(ii) The words EPA, we, us or our 

mean or refer to the United States 

Environmental Protection Agency. 

(iii) The initials SIP mean or refer to 

State Implementation Plan. 

(iv) The words State or Utah mean the 

State of Utah, unless the context 

indicates otherwise. 

(v) The initials NSR mean or refer to 

New Source Review. 

(vi) The initials SIP mean or refer to 

State Implementation Plan. 

(vii) The initials UAC mean or refer to 

the Utah Administrative Code. 

I. General Information 

A. What should I consider as I prepare 

my comments for EPA? 

1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this 

information to EPA through 

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. 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 113 / Wednesday, June 12, 2013 / Proposed Rules 35183 

1While the SIP submittal contains numerous 

rules, the three-page Enclosure to the Governor’s 

cover letter identifies these three specific rule 

amendments that were submitted to EPA for review 

and approval. 

2The regulations impacted in the submittal from 

the Notice of Intent and Approval Order section 

include the following: R307–401–1, R307–401–2, 

R307–401–3, R307–401–4, R307–401–5, R307–401– 

6, R307–401–7, R307–401–8, R307–401–9, R307– 

401–10, R307–401–11, R307–401–12, R307–401–13, 

R307–401–14, R307–401–15, R307–401–16, R307– 

401–17, R307–401–18, R307–401–19, and R307– 

401–20. 

3The regulations impacted in the submittal from 

the Permits: Emission Impact Analysis section 

include the following: R307–410–1, R307–410–2, 

R307–410–3, R307–410–4, R307–410–5, and R307– 

410–6. 

II. Background 

Several revisions to Utah’s minor 

source permitting program were 

originally submitted to EPA on October 

9, 1998. The SIP revisions covered the 

following three areas of the State’s rules: 

(1) R307–1–1 (Forward and Definitions); 

(2) R307–1–3 (Control of Installations); 

and R307–15–6(5) (Permit Content).1 On 

September 20, 1999, Utah submitted a 

revision that renumbered the regulatory 

provisions in the October 9, 1998 

submittal. On September 15, 2006, Utah 

submitted additional revisions to the 

minor source permitting program and 

some of the rules were renumbered a 

second time. 

A cross-walk table comparing the 

provisions from the October 9, 1998, 

September 20, 1999, and September 15, 

2006 submittals is included in the 

docket for this action. The September 

15, 2006 submittal supersedes and 

replaces the October 9, 1998 submittal 

in its entirety and partially supersedes 

and replaces the September 20, 1999 

submittal, as outlined in the cross-walk 

table. As explained below, we approved 

a subsequent revision of the regulations 

contained in Definitions Section, and 

therefore we are not taking action on 

R307–1–1 in this action. See 73 FR 

51222 (September 2, 2008). 

Utah’s September 15, 2006, submittal 

covers four groups of rules: (1) Revised 

R307–101–2 (Definitions), which we 

previously acted on in 73 FR 51222; (2) 

added a new section R307–401 (Notice 

of Intent and Approval Order); 2 (3) 

added a new section R307–410 (Permits: 

Emission Impact Analysis); 3 and (4) 

renumbered rules in State rule section 

R307–413 (Permit: Exemptions and 

Special Provisions) to R307–401. The 

permit exemptions in Utah’s October 9, 

1998, submittal (R307–1–3.1.7) were 

renumbered by the State to R307–413 in 

Utah’s September 20, 1999, submittal. In 

the September 15, 2006 submittal, some 

of the rules which were renumbered to 

R307–413 were then renumbered a 

second time by the State to R307–401. 

The purpose of the State’s SIP actions in 

the September 15, 2006 submittal was to 

separate minor source permitting and 

modeling requirements in Title R307 

from major source permitting and 

modeling requirements in Title R307. 

The September 15, 2006, submittal 

supersedes and replaces Utah’s October 

9, 1998, submittal; thus, by acting on the 

September 15, 2006, submittal we are 

also concurrently acting on the October 

9, 1998 submittal. 

III. What action is EPA taking? 

The rules outlined below represent 

the rules submitted by Utah on 

September 15, 2006. These rules 

supersede and replace corresponding 

citations from Utah’s September 20, 

1999 and October 9, 1998 submittals 

(See Table 1—Rulemaking Crosswalk in 

docket). 

R307–101–2 (Definitions) 

In Utah’s October 9, 1998 submittal, 

the State requested the addition of the 

definitions ‘‘Air Quality Related 

Values’’ and ‘‘Carcinogen’’ in R307–1–1 

(Forward and Definitions) to the SIP. In 

Utah’s September 20, 1999 submittal, 

R307–1–1 was renumbered to R307– 

101–2. The September 15, 2006, 

submittal requested the deletion of two 

definitions in R307–101–2 (‘‘Air Quality 

Related Values’’ and ‘‘Significant’’. In 73 

FR 51222 (September 2, 2008), EPA 

incorporated by reference UAC R307– 

101–2 as adopted by the Utah Air 

Quality Board on February 6, 2008, 

effective on February 8, 2008. Therefore, 

our 73 FR 51222 action superseded and 

replaced R307–1–1, as submitted on 

October 9, 1998, and R307–101–2, as 

submitted on September 15, 2006. We 

approved the 2008 version of the rule 

into Utah’s SIP on September 2, 2008 

and incorporated it by reference into the 

Code of Federal Regulations. See 73 FR 

51222.’’ Thus, in this proposal, we do 

not need to act on the September 15, 

2006 version of R307–101–2. (see Table 

1—Rulemaking cross-walk in docket). 

R307–401 (Permit: Notice of Intent and 

Approval Order) 

We are proposing to approve new rule 

R307–401–1 (Purpose). This rule 

explains that the R307–401 rules 

establish the application and permit 

requirements for new and modified 

sources. R307–401–1 states there are 

additional permitting requirements for 

larger sources or sources located in 

nonattainment or maintenance areas. 

The rule also states the exemptions 

listed in R307–401 do not affect the 

applicability of other permitting rules in 

the SIP. 

We are proposing to approve R307– 

401–2 (Definitions). We are proposing to 

approve these definitions because they 

are consistent with applicable federal 

rules, as described in Table 2— 

Definitions Cross-walk. Additionally, 

the definitions have either been 

renumbered from prior State rules or 

contain approvable changes to the 

definition. (see Table 2—Definitions 

Crosswalk in docket). 

We are proposing to approve R307– 

401–3 (Applicability). This rule 

outlines: (1) what type of activities are 

applicable to the requirements in R307– 

401; (2) other sections in R307 which 

may establish additional permitting 

requirements; (3) how exemptions in 

R307–401 affect applicability of other 

requirements in R307; and (4) how 

exemptions in other sections in R307 

affect applicability of requirements in 

R307–401. R307–401–3 (2)(a) and (b) 

contains specific safeguards that clarify 

that sources may also have additional 

permitting requirements in other 

permitting rules in the SIP. This rule is 

particularly significant because it 

clarifies that sources which are exempt 

in sections R307–401–9 through R307– 

401–17 cannot circumvent major NSR 

requirements. 

We are proposing to approve R307– 

401–4 (General Requirements). R307– 

401–4 applies to all new and modified 

sources, including sources that are 

exempt from the requirements to obtain 

an approval order. This rule requires: (1) 

control apparatus installed at the source 

shall be adequately and properly 

maintained; (2) under certain 

circumstances, the executive secretary 

may require an exempted source to 

submit a notice of intent and obtain an 

approval order in accordance with 

R307–401–5 through R307–401–8; and 

(3) with certain exceptions, fuel 

combustion devices shall be replaced 

with low oxide of nitrogen burners. We 

are proposing to approve R307–401–4(1) 

and (3) because they comply with 40 

CFR 51.160(a) and (b). Additionally, 

R307–401–4(2) complies with 40 CFR 

51.160(b) because it provides a means 

by which the State or local agency can 

prevent an otherwise exempted source 

from violating applicable portions of the 

control strategy or interfering with 

attainment or maintenance of the 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS). 

We are proposing to approve R307– 

401–5 (Notice of Intent). The 

requirements in R307–401–5 contain a 

list of information that shall be included 

with a notice of intent submitted by any 

person to the State. The rule clarifies 

that the notice of intent requirements do 

not apply to R307–401–9 through R307– 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
35184 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 113 / Wednesday, June 12, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

401–17. The notice of Intent 

requirements outlined in R307–401–5(1) 

and (2)(a)–(k) meet the requirements of 

40 CFR 51. 160(a), (c) and (e) because 

(1) the procedures allow the State or a 

local agency to determine whether the 

project will result in a violation of 

applicable portions of the control 

strategy or interfere with attainment or 

maintenance of the NAAQS; (2) the 

procedures provide for the submission 

to include: information on the nature 

and amounts of emissions to be emitted; 

the location, design, construction and 

operation of the facility, building, 

structure, or installation necessary for 

the State or a local agency to make a 

determination whether the project will 

result in a violation of applicable 

portions of the control strategy or 

interfere with attainment or 

maintenance of the NAAQS; and (3) the 

procedures provide that the owner must 

identify the types and sizes of facilities, 

buildings, structures, or installations 

which will be subject to review. 

We are proposing to approve R307– 

401–6 (Review Period). R307–401–6 

contains the deadlines and procedures 

applicable to the State in processing a 

notice of intent. R307–401–6(2)(b) meets 

the requirement of 40 CFR 51.160(a) 

because the rule provides the State or a 

local agency the opportunity to 

determine whether the project will 

result in a violation of applicable 

portions of the control strategy or 

interfere with attainment or 

maintenance of the NAAQS. R307–401– 

6(2)(b) also meets the requirement of 40 

CFR 51. 160(b), because the rule 

provides a means for the State or a local 

agency can prevent an exempted source 

from violating applicable portions of the 

control strategy or interfering with 

attainment or maintenance of the 

NAAQS. 

We are proposing to disapprove 

R307–401–7 (Public Notice). R307–401– 

7 revised Utah’s public notice 

procedures to allow for a 10-day public 

comment period for an approval or 

disapproval order issued under R307– 

401–8. The rule allows for the public 

comment period to be increased to 30 

days under certain conditions. We note 

that the public comment period for an 

approval or disapproval order currently 

in Utah’s federally approved SIP is 30 

days. (See R307–1–3.1.3) Federal 

regulations for Public Availability of 

Information found at 40 CFR 

51.161(b)(2) require at a minimum a 30- 

day public comment period for the 

permitting of a source, including minor 

source permits. In addition, the 30-day 

comment period is important to allow 

adequate opportunity for comment by 

other affected states, federal agencies, 

and the public. 

We are proposing to approve R307– 

401–8 (Approval Order). This rule 

describes the conditions that must be 

met before the State will issue and 

approval order. R307–401–8 is 

consistent with the Federal 

requirements located in 40 CFR 

51.160(a) because the rule provides the 

State or a local agency the opportunity 

to determine whether the project will 

result in a violation of applicable 

portions of the control strategy or 

interfere with attainment or 

maintenance of the NAAQS. The rule is 

also consistent with 40 CFR 51.160(b) 

because the rule provides a means for 

the State or a local agency can prevent 

an otherwise exempted source from 

violating applicable portions of the 

control strategy or interfering with 

attainment or maintenance of the 

NAAQS. In addition, R307–401–8 lists 

additional safeguards to clarify that 

sources may also have additional 

permitting requirements in other State 

regulations. R307–401–8(b)(i) and (ii) is 

particularly significant because they 

prohibit sources from circumventing 

major NSR requirements. 

We are proposing to partially approve 

and partially disapprove R307–401–9 

(Small Source Exemptions). R307–401– 

9 creates a de minimis exemption 

threshold from the requirement to 

submit a notice of intent and apply for 

an approval order prior to initiation of 

construction, modification, or 

relocation. There currently is no de 

minimis exemption threshold from 

notice of intent and approval order 

requirements approved into the Utah 

SIP. Section 110(l) of the CAA states 

that EPA cannot approve a SIP revision 

that would interfere with any applicable 

requirement concerning attainment or 

reasonable further progress (RFP), as 

defined in section 171 of the CAA, or 

any other applicable requirement of the 

CAA. The State submitted a CAA 110(l) 

demonstration of noninterference (see 

docket). 

R307–401–9 provides that a stationary 

source is exempt from the requirement 

to obtain an approval order in R307– 

401–5 through 8 if the following 

conditions are met: (1) Actual emissions 

are less than five tons per year of any 

criteria pollutant; (2) actual emissions 

are less than 500 pounds per year of any 

hazardous air pollutant (HAP) or less 

than 2000 pounds per year of any 

combination of HAPs; and (3) actual 

emissions are less than 500 pounds per 

year of air contaminant not included 

above and are less than 2000 pounds per 

year of any combination of air 

contaminant not included in above. 

We are proposing to approve all of 

R307–401–9, except for paragraph (b) 

and the portions of paragraph (c) that 

reference paragraph (b). We are 

proposing to disapprove R307–401–9(b) 

and the phrase ‘‘or (b)’’ in paragraph (c) 

because EPA lacks authority in an 

action on a SIP revision under CAA 

section 110 to approve provisions 

addressing hazardous air pollutants. 

Thus we are proposing to disapprove 

these specific provisions. We are 

proposing to approve all of R307–401– 

9, except for paragraph (b) and the 

portions of paragraph (c) that reference 

paragraph (b) because: 

R307–401–9 contains a safeguard that 

a source shall no longer be exempt and 

is required to submit a notice of intent 

if its actual emissions exceed the 

thresholds listed in R307–401–9(1)(a). 

In addition, sources receiving an 

exemption under R307–401–9 are still 

subject to the requirements located in: 

(1) R307–401(2)(a), which prevents 

exempt sources from circumventing 

major NSR requirements; (2) R307–401– 

4, which contains the general permitting 

requirements; (3) State permitting area 

source regulations under R307–201 

through 207; and (4) R307 section 300 

that contains the State permitting 

nonattainment and maintenance area 

regulations (see docket, 110(l) 

demonstration of noninterference). The 

exemption thresholds and the 

additional safeguards just described 

ensure NAAQS protection and thus 

meet the requirements of CAA 

110(a)(2)(C) and 40 CFR 51.160. 

EPA’s regulations at 40 CFR 51.160 do 

not require the issuance of a permit for 

the construction or modification of 

minor sources, but only that the SIP 

include a procedure to prevent the 

construction of a source or modification 

that would violate the SIP control 

strategy or interfere with attainment or 

maintenance of the NAAQS. 

EPA recognizes that, under the 

applicable federal regulations, states 

have broad discretion to determine the 

scope of their minor NSR programs as 

needed to attain and maintain the 

NAAQS. A state may tailor its minor 

NSR requirements as long as they are 

consistent with the requirements of 

CAA 110(a)(2)(C) and 40 CFR part 

51.160—164. States may also provide a 

rationale for why the rules are at least 

as stringent as the 40 CFR part 51 

requirements where the revisions are 

different from those in 40 CFR part 51. 

The State has shown through their 

CAA 110(l) demonstration that while 

sources below the de minimis 

exemption permit thresholds in R307– 

401–9 are no longer required to undergo 

a case-by-case review and receive an 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 113 / Wednesday, June 12, 2013 / Proposed Rules 35185 

approval order, they are still regulated 

by other rules within R307–401 and 

underlying statewide area source rules 

in Title R307. 

In addition, the de minimis level 

permit threshold in R307–401–9, which 

has been implemented as a stateapproved rule since 1996, is comparable 

to the de minimis level threshold in 

many of the federally enforceable minor 

NSR programs in surrounding states 

such as Idaho, Montana, and North 

Dakota, and for sources covered by 

EPA’s tribal NSR rule for sources 

located in Indian Country. 

EPA notes that we have approved 

several similar de minimis exemption 

provisions in other states as follows: 

a. On January 16, 2003, EPA approved 

a minor NSR program for the State of 

Idaho (68 FR 2217). This rule allows 

changes to be considered exempt from 

permitting if the source’s uncontrolled 

potential emissions are less than ten 

percent (10%) of the NSR significant 

emissions rate. For example: 1.5 tons 

per year for PM10, 4 tons per year for 

volatile organic compounds (VOCs), 

nitrogen dioxide (NO2), and sulfur 

dioxide (SO2), and 10 tons per year for 

carbon monoxide (CO). EPA determined 

in this instance that states may exempt 

from minor NSR certain categories of 

changes based on de minimis or 

administrative necessity grounds in 

accordance with the criteria set out in 

Alabama Power Co. v. Costle, 636 F.2d 

323 (D.C. Cir. 1979). De minimis sources 

are presumed to not have an impact and 

the state has determined that their 

emissions would not prevent or 

interfere with attainment of the NAAQS, 

even within nonattainment areas. 

b. On February 13, 2012, EPA 

approved a five tons per year potential 

emissions level as a de minimis 

threshold to be exempt from permitting 

requirements in the State of Montana 

(77 FR 7531). In this final rulemaking, 

EPA determined this de minimis 

threshold met the requirements of CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(C), 40 CFR part 51.160 

and CAA section 110(l). 

c. On July 1, 2011, EPA finalized the 

tribal NSR rule (76 FR 38748). In this 

rulemaking, EPA established de minimis 

thresholds at which sources are to be 

exempt from permitting requirements 

for each regulated NSR pollutant (see 40 

CFR 49.153—Table 1) utilizing an 

allowable-to-allowable applicability 

test. EPA stated in this rulemaking that 

these threshold levels represent a 

reasonable balance between 

environmental protection and economic 

growth (76 FR 38758). EPA further 

recognized in designing the tribal NSR 

rule, that the overarching requirement is 

ensuring NAAQS protection (76 FR 

38756) as described in CAA section 

110(a)(2)(C). In order to determine that 

the sources below minor NSR permit 

thresholds in 40 CFR 49.153—Table 1 

would be inconsequential to attainment 

or maintenance of the NAAQS, EPA 

performed a national source distribution 

analysis (see 71 FR 48702). In this 

analysis, EPA looked at size distribution 

of existing sources across the country. 

Using the National Emissions Inventory 

(NEI), which includes the most 

comprehensive inventory of existing 

U.S. stationary point sources that is 

available, EPA determined how many of 

these sources fall below the proposed 

minor NSR thresholds (see 71 FR 48702, 

Table 2). For each pollutant, EPA found 

that only around 1 percent (or less) of 

total emissions would be exempt from 

review under the minor NSR program. 

At the same time, the thresholds would 

promote an effective balance between 

environmental protection and source 

burden because anywhere from 42 

percent to 76 percent of sources 

(depending on the pollutant) would be 

too small to be subject to 

preconstruction review (76 FR 38758). 

Utah, which contains areas of Indian 

country that are subject to the 

permitting thresholds in the tribal NSR 

rule, has established generally lower 

exemption levels than those in the tribal 

NSR rule. In addition, as EPA explained 

in the tribal NSR rule, this will ‘‘allow 

us to begin leveling the playing field 

with the surrounding state programs 

and will result in a more cost-effective 

program by reducing the burden on 

sources and reviewing authorities.’’ (see 

76 FR 38758). 

d. On May 27, 2008, EPA approved a 

25 tons per year actual emissions level 

as a de minimis threshold for fossil fuel 

burning equipment to be exempt from 

permitting requirements in the State of 

North Dakota, and a 5 ton per year 

actual emissions level as a de minimis 

threshold for any internal combustion 

engine, or multiple engines to be 

exempt from permitting requirements 

(73 FR 30308). EPA determined the 

revision will not adversely impact the 

NAAQS or PSD increments (73 FR 

30308). 

e. On February 1, 2006, EPA approved 

a 5 tons per year actual emissions level 

as a de minimis threshold to be exempt 

from permitting requirements in the 

State of North Carolina (see 61 FR 3584). 

We are proposing to approve R307– 

401–9 because: (1) R307–401–9 has 

safeguards which prevent 

circumvention of NSR requirements; (2) 

the State’s 110(l) demonstration shows 

sources are still regulated by other rules 

within R307–401 and underlying 

statewide area source rules in Title 

R307; (3) R307–401–9 is similar to the 

de minimis level threshold in many of 

the federally enforceable minor NSR 

programs in surrounding states and 

around the country; and (4) Utah, which 

contains areas of Indian country that are 

subject to the permitting thresholds in 

the tribal NSR rule, has established 

generally lower exemption levels than 

those in the tribal NSR rule. 

We are proposing to approve R307– 

401–10 (Source Category Exemptions). 

R307–401–10, as submitted on 

September 20, 1999, was originally 

titled ‘‘Low Oxides of Nitrogen Burner 

Technology’’. In Utah’s September 15, 

2006 submittal, this was deleted and 

moved to R307–325; R307–401–10 was 

then replaced with ‘‘Source Category 

Exemptions’’ (see Table 1—Rulemaking 

Crosswalk). 

Sources receiving an exemption under 

R307–401–10 are still subject to the 

requirements located in: (1) R307– 

401(2)(a), which prevents exempt 

sources from circumventing major NSR 

requirements; (2) R307–401–4, which 

contains the general permitting 

requirements; (3) R307–201 through 

207, which contains the State permitting 

area source regulations; and (4) R307 

section 300, which contains the State 

permitting nonattainment and 

maintenance area regulations (see 

docket, 110(l) demonstration of 

noninterference). The exemption 

thresholds and the additional regulatory 

safeguards just described ensure 

NAAQS protection and thus meet the 

requirements of 110(a)(2)(C) and 40 CFR 

51.160. 

We are proposing to approve R307– 

401–11 (Replacement-in-Kind 

Equipment). This rule applies to 

existing process equipment or pollution 

control equipment covered by an 

existing approval order or SIP 

requirement. Before equipment may be 

replaced using the procedures in this 

rule and in lieu of filing a notice of 

intent, R307–401–11(2)(a) requires the 

owner or operator of a stationary source 

to submit written notification to the 

executive secretary. This notification 

contains a description of the 

replacement-in-kind equipment 

including the control capability of any 

control apparatus and demonstrations 

that the conditions in R307–401–11(1) 

are met. One of these conditions is 

R307–401–11(1)(h), which requires the 

source to demonstrate that the 

replacement of the control apparatus or 

process equipment does not violate any 

provisions of Title R307, including: 

R307–403 (New and Modified Sources 

in Nonattainment and Maintenance 

Areas) and R307–405 (PSD). This is 

further clarified in R307–401–3(2)(a), 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
35186 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 113 / Wednesday, June 12, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

which states, ‘‘Exemptions contained in 

R307–401 do not affect applicability or 

other requirements under R307–403, 

R307–405 or R307–406.’’ In addition, 

R307–401–3 indicates that the rules 

contained in R307–401 are limited to 

the State’s minor source permitting 

program and are separate from major 

source regulations. These rules satisfy 

the requirements of 40 CFR 51.160(a) 

because R307–401–11(2)(a) provides the 

State or a local agency the opportunity 

to determine whether the project will 

result in a violation of applicable 

portions of the control strategy or 

interfere with attainment or 

maintenance of the NAAQS and 40 CFR 

51.160(b) because R307–401–11(1)(h) 

provides a means for the State or a local 

agency can prevent an exempted source 

from violating applicable portions of the 

control strategy or interfering with 

attainment or maintenance of the 

NAAQS. These provisions provide 

important safeguards that prevent any 

increase that could occur as a result of 

replacement-in-kind from 

circumventing review under any other 

provision of the NSR program. 

R307–401–11(2)(b) states that public 

review is not required for the update of 

an approval order. Since replacementin-kind under R307–401–11 is exempt 

from filing a notice of intent under 

R307–401–5, public notice requirements 

under R307–401–7 do not apply. 

We are proposing to disapprove 

R307–401–12 (Reduction in Air 

Contaminants). R307–401–12(1) 

provides that an owner or operator of a 

stationary source of air contaminants 

that reduces or eliminates air 

contaminants is exempt from the 

approval order requirements in R307– 

401–5 through R307–401–8 if the 

project does not increase the potential to 

emit of any air contaminant or cause 

emissions of any new air contaminant. 

However, the rule states in R307–401– 

12(1)(b) that the reduction in air 

contaminants is made enforceable 

through an approval order in 

accordance with R307–401–12(2). 

R307–401–12(2) states that the 

executive secretary will update the 

sources approval order or issue a new 

approval order to include the project 

and to make the emissions reductions 

enforceable. 

R307–401–12 does not meet the 

requirements of CAA 110(a)(2)(C) and 

40 CFR 51.160(a). 40 CFR 51.160(a) 

requires that a state or local agency must 

provide for enforceable procedures that 

enable it to determine whether a 

construction or modification project 

would result in a violation of the control 

strategy or interfere with attainment or 

maintenance of the NAAQS. As 

outlined above, the rules within R307– 

401–12 require clarification. It is not 

clear to the source or to the public what 

projects under R307–401–12 would 

trigger approval order requirements in 

R307–401–5 through R307–401–8. 

We are proposing to approve R307– 

401–13 (Plantwide Applicability 

Limits). R307–401–13 provides that a 

plantwide applicability limit under 

R307–405–21 does not exempt a 

stationary source from the requirements 

in R307–401. This rule is approvable 

because it specifies that major PSD 

sources are not exempt from the 

requirements of R307–401. 

R307–401–14 (Used Oil Fuel Burned 

for Energy Recovery), R307–401–15 (Air 

Strippers and Soil Venting Projects) and 

R307–401–16 (De minimis Emissions 

From Soil Aeration Projects) were 

previously proposed for approval (see 

77 FR 37859 (June 25, 2012)). Therefore, 

we do not need to act on these rules in 

this notice. 

We are proposing to approve R307– 

401–17 (Temporary Relocation). R307– 

401–17 allows temporary relocation of a 

stationary source for up to 180 days 

without submitting the proposal for 

public comment prior to approval or 

disapproval. R307–401–17 requires: (1) 

The executive secretary to ‘‘evaluate the 

expected emissions impact at the site 

and (evaluate) compliance with 

applicable Title R307 rules as a basis for 

determining if approval for temporary 

relocation may be granted’’ and (2) the 

owner to keep records at the site and 

submit the records to the executive 

secretary at the end of 180 calendar 

days, and provide that the records are 

made available for review. We are 

proposing to approve this rule because 

it meets the requirement of 40 CFR 

51.160(a) because the rule provides the 

State or a local agency the opportunity 

to determine whether the project will 

result in a violation of applicable 

portions of the control strategy or 

interfere with attainment or 

maintenance of the NAAQS. 

We are proposing to approve R307– 

401–18 (Eighteen Month Review). This 

rule provides that approval orders 

issued with the provisions of R307–401 

will be reviewed eighteen months after 

the date of issuance to determine the 

status of the project. If the project is not 

proceeding, the approval order may be 

revoked. This rule is consistent with 40 

CFR 51.160(a) because the rule provides 

the State or a local agency the 

opportunity to determine whether the 

project will result in a violation of 

applicable portions of the control 

strategy or interfere with attainment or 

maintenance of the NAAQS. 

We are proposing to approve R307– 

401–19 (Analysis of Alternatives). 

R307–401–19 requires an owner or 

operator of a major new source or major 

modification that is located in a 

nonattainment or maintenance area or 

which could impact a nonattainment or 

maintenance area must, in addition to 

the requirements in R307–401, submit 

with the notice of intent an adequate 

analysis as outlined in this rule. This 

rule meets the requirements of 40 CFR 

51.160(a) and (b) because R307–401–19 

provides that an analysis, as described 

in this provision, must be submitted 

along with the notice of intent; the 

source must comply with all 

requirements in R307–401; the 

executive secretary shall review the 

analysis; and the analysis and the 

executive secretary’s comments shall be 

subject to public comment as required 

by R307–401–7. This provision provides 

important safeguards that prevent any 

increase that could affect maintenance 

of the NAAQS. 

We are proposing to approve R307– 

401–20 (Relaxation of Limitations). 

R307–401–20 specifies that the 

relaxation of limitations provision only 

applies to a source or modification to be 

located in a nonattainment or 

maintenance area. This rule has been 

previously approved in 71 FR 7679 on 

February 14, 2006, into R307–401–9. In 

this rulemaking, we are proposing to 

approve the renumbering of the rule 

‘‘Relaxation of Limitations’’ from R307– 

401–9 to R307–401–20. 

EPA further notes that the comparable 

federal definition for relaxation of 

limitations which applies to PSD 

sources, located in 40 CFR 52.21(r)(4), 

was incorporated by reference into the 

Utah SIP on July 15, 2011 (76 FR 

41712). This rule is located in the Utah 

SIP at R307–405–19. 

R307–410 (Permits: Emission Impact 

Analysis) 

We are proposing to partially approve 

and partially disapprove R307–401–10 

(Permits: Emission Impact Analysis). 

We are proposing to approve all of 

R307–410, except for R307–410–5 

(Documentation of Ambient Air Impacts 

for Hazardous Air Pollutants); we are 

proposing to disapprove R307–410–5 

because EPA lacks authority in an 

action on a SIP revision under CAA 

section 110 to approve provisions 

addressing hazardous air pollutants. 

Thus we are proposing to disapprove 

these specific provisions. We are also 

proposing to partially approve and 

partially disapprove R307–410–6, as 

explained below. 

These rules (R307–410) establish 

modeling requirements to determine the 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 113 / Wednesday, June 12, 2013 / Proposed Rules 35187 

impact of emissions from new or 

modified sources that require an 

approval order under R307–401. The 

rules are intended to ensure that the 

construction or modification project 

will not interfere with attainment or 

maintenance of any NAAQS as required 

by 40 CFR 51.160. These rules also 

establish the procedures and 

requirements for evaluating the 

emissions impact of hazardous air 

pollutants and procedures for 

establishing an emissions rate based on 

good engineering practice stack height 

as required by 40 CFR 51.118. 

The modeling requirements for PSD 

permitting are incorporated by reference 

into R307–405; however, they appear in 

R307–410–3 and R307–410–4 and are 

not deleted from R307–410 because the 

same requirements still apply to smaller 

sources that are not subject to PSD rule 

requirements of R307–405. The 

definitions in R307–410 are deleted 

from R307–410–2 and incorporated by 

reference from 40 CFR 51.100 into 

R307–410–2(2). All of the definitions 

deleted in R307–410 are located in 40 

CFR part 51.100(ff) through (kk) and 

(nn). The definitions of ‘‘Vertically 

Restricted Emissions Release’’ and 

‘‘Vertically Unrestricted Emissions 

Release,’’ which we approved for 

deletion from section R307–101–2 in 

our prior action (73 FR 51222) have not 

changed; they are simply being 

renumbered to Rule R307–410–2 

because the terms are not used in other 

rules. The incorporation by reference of 

the Federal Guidelines on Air Quality 

Models in R307–410–3 is updated to 

reflect the most current issue at the time 

the rules were adopted by the State. For 

ease of use, the modeling limit for 

carbon monoxide in R307–410–4, Table 

1, is specified instead of referencing 

another rule. 

The R307–410 provisions provide air 

impact analysis guidelines, which 

establish legally enforceable procedures 

enabling state and local agencies to 

determine whether construction or 

modification of a facility will violate 

applicable portions of the control 

strategy or interfere with attainment or 

maintenance of the NAAQS, which 

meets the requirement of 40 CFR 

51.160(a). 

The R307–410–6 provisions provide 

that the degree of emission limitation 

required of any source for control of any 

air contaminant to include 

determinations made under R307–401, 

R307–403 and R307–405, must not be 

affected by so much of any source’s 

stack height that exceeds good 

engineering practice or by any other 

dispersion technique. The rule also 

outlines who the provisions apply to. 

While the rule is generally consistent 

with the requirements in 40 CFR 51.164 

(Stack Height Procedures), similar to the 

disapproval discussed elsewhere in this 

notice regarding the 10-day public 

comment period, R307–410–6 is missing 

the required public notice elements 

found in 40 CFR 51.164. Specifically, 

R307–410–6 is missing the requirement 

that ‘‘[s]uch procedures must provide 

that before a State issues a permit to a 

source based on a good engineering 

practice stack height that exceeds the 

height allowed by § 51.100(ii) (1) or (2), 

the State must notify the public of the 

availability of the demonstration study 

and must provide opportunity for public 

hearing on it’’. Therefore, we are 

proposing to partially approve and 

partially disapprove this particular rule 

since the State rule omits the 

requirements for the State to notify the 

public of the availability of 

documentation of a study where a 

source exceeds the height allowed and 

provide an opportunity for public 

hearing. 

IV. What Authorities Apply to EPA’s 

Proposed Action 

In determining whether SIP revisions 

submitted by the State of Utah on 

October 15, 2006, are approvable or not 

approvable, EPA applies the following 

authorities. 

The CAA at section 110(a)(2)(C) 

requires states to include a minor NSR 

program in their SIP to regulate 

modifications and new construction of 

stationary sources within the area as 

necessary to assure the NAAQS are 

achieved. EPA’s implementing 

regulations at 40 CFR 51.160–164 are 

intended to ensure that new source 

growth is consistent with maintenance 

of the NAAQS and 40 CFR 51.160(e) 

requires states to identify types and 

sizes of facilities which will be subject 

to review under their minor NSR 

program. For sources identified under 

40 CFR 51.160(e), 40 CFR 51.160(a) 

requires that the SIP include legally 

enforceable procedures that enable a 

state or local agency to determine 

whether construction or modification of 

a facility, building, structure or 

installation, or combination of these 

will result in a violation of applicable 

portions of the control strategy or 

interference with attainment or 

maintenance of a national standard in 

the state in which the proposed source 

(or modification) is located or in a 

neighboring state. 40 CFR 51.160(b) 

requires these procedures must include 

a means by which the state or local 

agency can prevent a construction or 

modification if the construction or 

modification will result in a violation of 

applicable portions of the control 

strategy or interference with attainment 

or maintenance of a national standard. 

Section 110(i) of the CAA specifically 

precludes states from changing the 

requirements of the SIP except through 

SIP revisions approved by EPA. SIP 

revisions will be approved by EPA only 

if they meet all requirements of section 

110 of the CAA and the implementing 

regulations at 40 CFR part 51. See CAA 

section 110(l); and 40 CFR 51.104. 

EPA recognizes that, under the 

applicable federal regulations, states 

have broad discretion to determine the 

scope of their minor NSR programs as 

needed to attain and maintain the 

NAAQS. The states have significant 

discretion to tailor minor NSR 

requirements that are consistent with 

the requirements of 40 CFR part 51.160. 

States may also provide a rationale for 

why their rules are at least as stringent 

as the 40 CFR part 51 requirements 

where their rules are different from 

those in 40 CFR part 51. For example, 

states may exempt from minor NSR 

certain categories of changes based on 

de minimis or administrative necessity 

grounds in accordance with the criteria 

set out in Alabama Power Co. v. Costle, 

636 F.2d 323, 360–361 (D.C. Cir. 1979). 

De minimis sources are presumed not to 

have an impact and their emissions 

would not prevent or interfere with 

attainment of the NAAQS, even within 

nonattainment areas. 

Section 110(l) of the CAA states: 

‘‘Each revision to an implementation 

plan submitted by a State under this Act 

shall be adopted by such State after 

reasonable notice and public hearing. 

The Administrator shall not approve a 

revision to a plan if the revision would 

interfere with any applicable 

requirement concerning attainment and 

reasonable further progress (as defined 

in section 171), or any other applicable 

requirement of this chapter.’’ 

The states’ obligation to comply with 

each of the NAAQS is considered as 

‘‘any applicable requirement(s) 

concerning attainment.’’ A 

demonstration of noninterference is 

necessary to show that this revision will 

not interfere with attainment or 

maintenance of the NAAQS, including 

those for ozone, particulate matter, 

carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur dioxide 

(SO2), lead, nitrogen oxides (NOX) or 

any other requirement of the Act. EPA 

has determined that a 110(l) 

demonstration of noninterference is 

applicable to R307–401–9. Utah has 

submitted this demonstration (see 

docket). 

Since there are no ambient air quality 

standards for hazardous air pollutants, 

the area’s compliance with any 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
35188 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 113 / Wednesday, June 12, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

applicable maximum achievable control 

technology (MACT) standards, as well 

as any federal mobile source control 

requirements under CAA sections 112 

or 202(l) would constitute an acceptable 

demonstration of noninterference for 

hazardous air pollutants. 

Section 110(l) does not require a 

demonstration of noninterference for 

changes to federal requirements that are 

not included in the SIP. A revision to 

the SIP, however, cannot interfere with 

any federally mandated program such as 

a MACT standard (or related section 112 

requirements). 

V. EPA’s Analysis of Proposed 

Approval Actions on SIP Revisions 

In this proposed rulemaking, we are 

proposing to approve the new and 

revised rules and renumbering of rules 

as outlined in section III above and as 

described in Table 1—Rulemaking 

Crosswalk and Table 2—Definitions 

Crosswalk, located in the docket for 

R307–101–2, R307–401 and R307–410. 

We are proposing approval based on the 

authorities as outlined in section IV of 

this rulemaking. As explained in this 

rulemaking, the rules we are proposing 

to approve meet the statutory 

requirements of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(C) and the regulatory 

requirements of 40 CFR 51.160. 

We also evaluated the new rule R307– 

401–9 using CAA section 110(l). Section 

110(l) provides that EPA cannot approve 

a SIP revision if the revision would 

interfere with any applicable 

requirement concerning attainment and 

RFP, or any other applicable 

requirement of the CAA. Therefore, EPA 

will approve a SIP revision only after a 

state has demonstrated that such a 

revision will not interfere 

(‘‘noninterference’’) with attainment of 

the NAAQS, RFP or any other 

applicable requirement of the CAA. 

EPA retains the discretion to adopt 

approaches on a case-by-case basis to 

determine what the appropriate 

demonstration of noninterference with 

attainment of the NAAQS, rate of 

progress, RFP or any other applicable 

requirement of the CAA should entail. 

In this instance, EPA asked the State to 

submit an analysis showing that the 

approval of new section R307–401–9 

would not violate section 110(l) of the 

CAA (see docket); this is also referred to 

as a ‘‘demonstration of noninterference’’ 

with attainment and maintenance under 

CAA section 110(l). Based on the state’s 

demonstration and analysis in this 

notice, we are proposing to approve 

portions of new rule R307–401–9, as 

outlined in Section III above. 

VI. EPA’s Analysis of Proposed 

Disapproval Actions on SIP Revisions 

We are proposing to disapprove 

R307–401–7 (Public Notice). This rule, 

which generally allows for a 10-day 

comment period, is inconsistent with 

federal regulations for Public 

Availability of Information found at 40 

CFR 51.161(b)(2), which require at a 

minimum a 30-day public comment 

period for the permitting of a source, 

including minor source permits. In 

addition, the 30-day comment period is 

important to allow adequate 

opportunity for comment by other 

affected states, federal agencies, and the 

public. 

We are proposing to disapprove 

R307–401–9 (Small Source Exemption) 

paragraph (b) and the phrase ‘‘or (b)’’ in 

paragraph (c). EPA lacks authority in an 

action on a SIP revision under CAA 

section 110 to approve provisions 

addressing hazardous air pollutants. 

Thus we are proposing to disapprove 

these specific provisions. If the State 

requests to withdraw these specific 

provisions prior to the time we take 

final action, we would not be obligated 

to take final action because these 

provisions would no longer be pending 

before the Agency as a SIP revision. 

We are proposing to disapprove 

R307–401–12 (Reduction in Air 

Contaminants). As explained in this 

rulemaking, R307–401–12 does not meet 

the requirements of CAA 110(a)(2)(C) 

and 40 CFR 51.160(a). 40 CFR 51.160(a) 

requires that a state or local agency must 

be able to determine whether a 

construction or modification project 

would result in a violation of the control 

strategy or interfere with attainment or 

maintenance of the NAAQS. As 

outlined above, the rules within R307– 

401–12 require clarification. It is not 

clear to the source or to the public what 

projects under R307–401–12 would 

trigger approval order requirements in 

R307–401–5 through R307–401–8. 

We are proposing to disapprove 

R307–410–5 (Documentation of 

Ambient Air Impacts for Hazardous Air 

Pollutants). EPA lacks authority in an 

action on a SIP revision under CAA 

section 110 to approve provisions 

addressing hazardous air pollutants. 

Thus we are proposing to disapprove 

these specific provisions. If the State 

requests to withdraw these specific 

provisions prior to the time we take 

final action, we would not be obligated 

to take final action because these 

provisions would no longer be pending 

before the Agency as a SIP revision. 

We are proposing to partially approve 

and partially disapprove R307–410–6 

(Stack Heights and Dispersion 

Techniques). While the rule is generally 

consistent with the requirements in 40 

CFR 51.164 (Stack Height Procedures), 

similar to the disapproval discussed 

elsewhere in this notice regarding the 

10-day public comment period, R307– 

410–6 is missing the required public 

notice elements found in 40 CFR 51.164. 

Specifically, R307–410–6 is missing the 

requirement that ‘‘[s]uch procedures 

must provide that before a State issues 

a permit to a source based on a good 

engineering practice stack height that 

exceeds the height allowed by 

§ 51.100(ii) (1) or (2), the State must 

notify the public of the availability of 

the demonstration study and must 

provide opportunity for public hearing 

on it’’. Therefore, we are proposing to 

partially approve and partially 

disapprove this particular rule since the 

State rule omits the requirements for the 

State to notify the public of the 

availability of documentation of a study 

where a source exceeds the height 

allowed and provide an opportunity for 

public hearing. 

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, EPA’s role is to approve 

state choices, provided that they meet 

the criteria of the Clean Air Act. 

Accordingly, this proposed action 

merely approves state law as meeting 

federal requirements and does not 

impose additional requirements beyond 

those imposed by state law. For that 

reason, this action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive 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 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 113 / Wednesday, June 12, 2013 / Proposed Rules 35189 

• 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 Clean Air Act; 

and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). In 

addition, this rule does not have tribal 

implications as specified by Executive 

Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 

2000), because the SIP is not approved 

to apply in Indian country located in the 

state, and EPA notes that it will not 

impose substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 

Intergovernmental relations, Lead, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile 

organic compounds, Incorporation by 

reference. 

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

Dated: May 30, 2013. 

Shaun L. McGrath, 

Regional Administrator, Region 8. 

[FR Doc. 2013–13979 Filed 6–11–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 180 

[EPA–HQ–OPP–2011–0360; FRL–9390–3] 

Tetrachlorvinphos; Proposed Pesticide 

Tolerances 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: This regulation proposes to 

amend the existing time-limited interim 

tolerances by converting them to 

permanent tolerances for the combined 

residues of the insecticide 

tetrachlorvinphos, including its 

metabolites, in or on multiple 

commodities identified in this 

document, under the Federal Food, 

Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA). 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before August 12, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by docket identification (ID) 

number EPA–HQ–OPP–2011–0360, by 

one of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Do not submit electronically any 

information you consider to be 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. 

• Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental 

Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/ 

DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. 

NW., Washington, DC 20460–0001. 

• Hand Delivery: To make special 

arrangements for hand delivery or 

delivery of boxed information, please 

follow the instructions at http:// 

www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html. 

Additional instructions on commenting 

or visiting the docket, along with more 

information about dockets generally, is 

available at http://www.epa.gov/ 

dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Carmen Rodia, Registration Division 

(7504P), Office of Pesticide Programs, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, 

DC 20460–0001; telephone number: 

(703) 306–0327; email address: 

rodia.carmen@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

You may be potentially affected by 

this action if you are an agricultural 

producer, food manufacturer, or 

pesticide manufacturer. The following 

list of North American Industrial 

Classification System (NAICS) codes is 

not intended to be exhaustive, but rather 

provides a guide to help readers 

determine whether this document 

applies to them. Potentially affected 

entities may include: 

• Crop production (NAICS code 111). 

• Animal production (NAICS code 

112). 

• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 

311). 

• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS 

code 32532). 

B. What should I consider as I prepare 

my comments for EPA? 

1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this 

information to EPA through 

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: 

i. Identify the document by docket ID 

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 detailed summary of the 

background related to EPA’s extension 

of the time-limited interim tolerances 

for the combined residues of the 

insecticide tetrachlorvinphos, including 

its metabolites, in or on multiple 

commodities can be found in the 

Federal Register documents of August 

14, 2002 (67 FR 52985) (FRL–7192–4); 

February 6, 2008 (73 FR 6867) (FRL– 

8345–2); September 17, 2008 (73 FR 

53732) (FRL–8375–2); June 8, 2011 (76 

FR 33184) (FRL–8874–7); September 16, 

2011 (76 FR 57657) (FRL–8887–5); 

March 6, 2013 (78 FR 14487) (FRL– 

9380–8); and March 13, 2013 (78 FR 

15880) (FRL–9380–9). The referenced 

documents in this unit are available in 

the docket for this proposed rule under 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1