70888 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 223 / Friday, November 19, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

(4) The futures commission merchant, 

swap dealer, or major swap participant 

shall promptly furnish an amended 

annual report if material errors or 

omissions in the report are identified. 

An amendment must contain the 

certification required under paragraph 

(e)(3) of this section. 

(5) A futures commission merchant, 

swap dealer, or major swap participant 

may request from the Commission an 

extension of time to furnish its annual 

report, provided the registrant’s failure 

to timely furnish the report could not be 

eliminated by the registrant without 

unreasonable effort or expense. 

Extensions of the deadline will be 

granted at the discretion of the 

Commission. 

(6) A futures commission merchant, 

swap dealer, or major swap participant 

may incorporate by reference sections of 

an annual report that has been furnished 

within the current or immediately 

preceding reporting period to the 

Commission. If the futures commission 

merchant, swap dealer, or major swap 

participant is registered in more than 

one capacity with the Commission, and 

must submit more than one annual 

report, an annual report submitted as 

one registrant may incorporate by 

reference sections in the annual report 

furnished within the current or 

immediately preceding reporting period 

as the other registrant. 

(f) Recordkeeping. 

(1) The futures commission merchant, 

swap dealer, or major swap participant 

shall maintain: 

(i) A copy of the compliance policies, 

as defined in § 3.1(g), and all other 

policies and procedures adopted in 

furtherance of compliance with the Act 

and Commission regulations; 

(ii) Copies of materials, including 

written reports provided to the board of 

directors or the senior officer in 

connection with the review of the 

annual report under paragraph (d) of 

this section; and 

(iii) Any records relevant to the 

annual report, including, but not limited 

to, work papers and other documents 

that form the basis of the report, and 

memoranda, correspondence, other 

documents, and records that are created, 

sent or received in connection with the 

annual report and contain conclusions, 

opinions, analyses, or financial data 

related to the annual report. 

(2) All records or reports that a futures 

commission merchant, swap dealer, or 

major swap participant are required to 

maintain pursuant to this section shall 

be maintained in accordance with § 1.31 

and shall be made available promptly 

upon request to representatives of the 

Commission and to representatives of 

the applicable prudential regulator, as 

defined in 1a(39) of the Act. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on November 

10, 2010, by the Commission. 

David A. Stawick, 

Secretary of the Commission. 

Statement of Chairman Gary Gensler 

Designation of a Chief Compliance Officer; 

Required Compliance Policies; and 

Annual Report of a Futures Commission 

Merchant, Swap Dealer, or Major Swap 

Participant 

I support the proposed rulemaking 

establishing requirements for the designation, 

qualifications and duties of a chief 

compliance officer of swap dealers, major 

swap participants and futures commission 

merchants. These rules are intended to 

ensure that sufficient resources are devoted 

to compliance with laws and regulations, 

which is a core component of sound risk 

management practices. The proposed rules 

fulfill the Dodd-Frank Act’s requirements 

that intermediaries have chief compliance 

officers and establish and administer 

compliance policies, as well as resolve 

certain conflicts of interest. 

[FR Doc. 2010–29021 Filed 11–18–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6351–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R08–OAR–2010–0909; FRL–9228–9] 

Finding of Substantial Inadequacy of 

Implementation Plan; Call for Utah 

State Implementation Plan Revision 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: Pursuant to sections 

110(a)(2)(H) and 110(k)(5) of the Clean 

Air Act, EPA is proposing to find that 

the Utah State Implementation Plan 

(SIP) is substantially inadequate to 

attain or maintain the national ambient 

air quality standards or to otherwise 

comply with the requirements of the 

Clean Air Act. Specifically, the SIP 

includes Utah rule R307–107, which 

exempts emissions during unavoidable 

breakdowns from compliance with 

emission limitations. This rule 

undermines EPA’s, Utah’s, and citizens’ 

ability to enforce emission limitations 

that have been relied on to ensure 

attainment or maintenance of the 

national ambient air quality standards 

or meet other Clean Air Act 

requirements. If EPA finalizes this 

proposed finding of substantial 

inadequacy, Utah will be required to 

revise its SIP to correct this deficiency 

within 12 months of the effective date 

of our final rule. If EPA finds that Utah 

has failed to submit a complete SIP 

revision as required by a final rule or if 

EPA disapproves such a revision, such 

finding or disapproval would trigger 

clocks for mandatory sanctions and an 

obligation for EPA to impose a Federal 

Implementation Plan. EPA is also 

proposing that if EPA makes such a 

finding or disapproval, sanctions would 

apply consistent with 40 CFR 52.31, 

such that the offset sanction would 

apply 18 months after such finding or 

disapproval and highway funding 

restrictions would apply six months 

later unless EPA first takes action to stay 

the imposition of the sanctions or to 

stop the sanctions clock based on the 

State curing the SIP deficiencies. EPA is 

also requesting comment on whether 

EPA should exercise its discretionary 

authority under the Clean Air Act to 

impose highway funding restrictions in 

all areas of the State, not just in 

nonattainment areas. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before December 20, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R08– 

OAR–2010–0909, by one of the 

following methods: 

• http://www.regulations.gov. Follow 

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• E-mail: russ.tim@epa.gov. 

• Mail: Callie A. Videtich, Director, 

Air Program, Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region 8, Mailcode 8P–AR, 

1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 

80202–1129. 

• Fax: (303) 312–6064 (please alert 

the individual listed in FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT if you are faxing 

comments). 

• Hand Delivery: Callie A. Videtich, 

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 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–2010– 

0909. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 223 / Friday, November 19, 2010 / Proposed Rules 70889 

1As indicated above, the 1982, 1983, and 1999 

Policies also address excess emissions provisions 

for startup and shutdown events. However, because 

our proposed action only addresses a malfunction 

provision—Utah’s unavoidable breakdown rule— 

we are not including any further discussion of the 

Policies as they relate to startup and shutdown. 

protected through http:// 

www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The 

http://www.regulations.gov Web site is 

an ‘‘anonymous access’’ systems, 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 e-mail comment directly 

to EPA, without going through http:// 

www.regulations.gov your e-mail 

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 http:// 

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

will be publicly available only in hard 

copy. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically in http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Air Program, Environmental 

Protection Agency, 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 a.m. to 4 p.m., excluding 

Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tim 

Russ, Air Program, Mailcode 8P–AR, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, 

Colorado 80202–1129, (303) 312–6479, 

or russ.tim@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Definitions 

For the purpose of this document, the 

following definitions apply: 

(i) The word Act or initials 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 NAAQS mean 

national ambient air quality standard. 

(iv) The initials SIP mean or refer to 

State Implementation Plan. 

(v) The words State or Utah mean the 

State of Utah, unless the context 

indicates otherwise. 

Table of Contents 

I. General Information 

II. Background 

III. Why is EPA proposing a SIP call? 

A. Deficiencies in R307–107–1 

B. Deficiencies in R307–107–2 

C. Conclusion 

IV. What happens if EPA issues a final SIP 

call and the State of Utah does not 

submit a complete SIP revision that 

responds to the SIP call or if EPA 

disapproves a SIP revision that responds 

to the SIP call? 

V. Proposed Action 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. General Information 

What should I consider as I prepare my 

comments for EPA? 

1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this 

information to EPA through http:// 

www.regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly 

mark the part or all of the information 

that you claim to be CBI. For CBI 

information in a disk or CD–ROM that 

you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the 

disk or CD–ROM as CBI and then 

identify electronically within the disk or 

CD–ROM the specific information that 

is claimed as CBI. In addition to one 

complete version of the comment that 

includes information claimed as CBI, a 

copy of the comment that does not 

contain the information claimed as CBI 

must be submitted for inclusion in the 

public docket. Information so marked 

will not be disclosed except in 

accordance with procedures set forth in 

40 CFR part 2. 

2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. 

When submitting comments, remember 

to: 

a. Identify the rulemaking by docket 

number and other identifying 

information (subject heading, Federal 

Register date and page number). 

b. Follow directions—The agency may 

ask you to respond to specific questions 

or organize comments by referencing a 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 

or section number. 

c. Explain why you agree or disagree; 

suggest alternatives and substitute 

language for your requested changes. 

d. Describe any assumptions and 

provide any technical information and/ 

or data that you used. 

e. If you estimate potential costs or 

burdens, explain how you arrived at 

your estimate in sufficient detail to 

allow for it to be reproduced. 

f. Provide specific examples to 

illustrate your concerns, and suggest 

alternatives. 

g. Explain your views as clearly as 

possible, avoiding the use of profanity 

or personal threats. 

h. Make sure to submit your 

comments by the comment period 

deadline identified. 

II. Background 

On September 20, 1999, Assistant 

Administrator for Enforcement and 

Compliance Assurance, Steven A. 

Herman, and Assistant Administrator 

for Air and Radiation, Robert 

Perciasepe, issued the EPA’s most 

recent policy on appropriate State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) provisions 

addressing excess emissions during 

periods of startup, shutdown and 

malfunction (SSM). ‘‘State 

Implementation Plans: Policy Regarding 

Excess Emissions During Malfunctions, 

Startup and Shutdown’’ (1999 Policy). 

The 1999 Policy indicated that it was 

expanding on and clarifying two 

previous policies issued in 1982 and 

1983 by then Assistant Administrator 

for Air, Noise and Radiation Kathleen 

Bennett (‘‘1982 Policy’’ and ‘‘1983 

Policy’’). 

In the 1982 and 1983 Policies, 

Assistant Administrator Bennett 

enunciated the Agency’s position that 

SIPs should not be approved if they 

include exemptions for excess 

emissions during malfunction events.1

These policies reflect the Agency’s 

interpretation that broad exemptions 

from compliance with emission 

limitations during periods of 

malfunction prevent a SIP from 

adequately ensuring attainment and 

maintenance of national ambient air 

quality standards (NAAQS). For 

purposes of demonstrating attainment 

and maintenance, states rely on 

assumed compliance with emission 

limitations. See, e.g., Clean Air Act 

(CAA) sections 110(a)(2)(A) and (C); 40 

CFR 51.112; Train v. NRDC, 421 U.S. 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
70890 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 223 / Friday, November 19, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

2Even prior to the issuance of the 1982 and 1983 

Policies, it was our interpretation that all excess 

emissions, regardless of cause, should be treated as 

violations so as to provide sources with the 

incentive to properly design their facilities in the 

first instance and to improve their operation and 

maintenance practices over time. See, e.g., 42 FR 

58171 (November 8, 1977). 

3 In a 2009 decision, the United States Court of 

Appeals for the Tenth Circuit held that the policy 

was a ‘‘reasonable interpretation of the Clean Air 

Act.’’ Arizona Public Service Company v. EPA, 562 

F.3d 1116, 1129 (10th Cir. 2009). See also Michigan 

Dept. of Environmental Quality v. EPA, 230 F.3d 

181 (6th Cir. 2000). 

4For example, at our request, the State of 

Colorado revised its SIP provisions for SSM. We 

approved revised provisions in 2006 (71 FR 8958, 

February 22, 2006) and 2008 (73 FR 45879, August 

7, 2008). At our request, the State of Wyoming 

revised its SIP provision for malfunctions. We 

approved the revised provision on April 16, 2010 

(75 FR 19886). At our request, the State of North 

Dakota revised its SIP provision for malfunctions 

and submitted the revised provision to us on April 

6, 2009. That provision is modeled on the Wyoming 

provision, and we intend to propose action on it 

shortly. 

60, 78–79 (1975). Thus, the 1982 and 

1983 Policies indicated that, because 

SIPs must provide for attainment and 

maintenance of the NAAQS, any SIP 

provisions addressing malfunctions 

must be narrowly drawn and should not 

provide a blanket exemption from 

compliance with emission limitations; 

all periods during which emissions 

exceed emission limitations (‘‘excess 

emissions’’) should constitute violations 

under the SIP. 

The 1982 and 1983 Policies stated 

that EPA could approve SIP revisions 

that incorporated an enforcement 

discretion approach as described in the 

Policies. This enforcement discretion 

approach envisioned commencement of 

a proceeding to notify the source of its 

violation and a demonstration by the 

source that the excess emissions, 

‘‘though constituting a violation,’’ were 

due to an unavoidable malfunction. 

Following the proceeding and 

consideration of specific criteria, the 

state agency would decide whether to 

pursue an enforcement action. The 1982 

and 1983 Policies also advised that the 

state could choose not to include in the 

SIP any provision on malfunctions, 

which reflected the fact that the CAA 

does not require states to include in 

SIPs any form of relief for violations 

caused by malfunctions. 

EPA understood that some 

malfunctions are unavoidable: 

‘‘Generally, EPA agrees that the 

imposition of a penalty for sudden and 

unavoidable malfunctions caused by 

circumstances entirely beyond the 

control of the owner and/or operator is 

not appropriate.’’ (1982 and 1983 

Policies). However, EPA was also 

mindful of its duty under the CAA to 

protect the NAAQS: 

‘‘The rationale for establishing these 

emissions as violations, as opposed to 

granting automatic exemptions, is that SIPs 

are ambient-based standards and any 

emissions above the allowable may cause or 

contribute to violations of the national 

ambient air quality standards. Without clear 

definitions and limitations, these automatic 

exemption provisions could effectively 

shield excess emissions arising from poor 

operation and maintenance or design, thus 

precluding attainment. Additionally, by 

establishing an enforcement discretion 

approach and by requiring the source to 

demonstrate the existence of an unavoidable 

malfunction on the source, good maintenance 

procedures are indirectly encouraged.’’ (1982 

Policy.) 2

The 1999 Policy reiterated EPA’s 

interpretation that all periods of excess 

emissions should be considered 

violations. However, the 1999 Policy 

reflected our interpretation that a state 

could include a narrowly crafted 

affirmative defense provision in the SIP 

as an alternative to an enforcement 

discretion provision. Under this 

approach, a SIP could provide an 

affirmative defense to an enforcement 

action for penalties, but not to an action 

for injunctive relief. The Agency 

explained that because periods of excess 

emissions could undermine attainment 

and maintenance of the NAAQS and 

protection of prevention of significant 

deterioration (PSD) increments, an 

affirmative defense to an action for 

injunctive relief would not be 

appropriate.3

We also indicated in the 1999 Policy 

that we would not approve a rule that 

would bar EPA or citizen enforcement 

based on a state’s decision to exercise its 

discretion not to pursue an enforcement 

action. EPA explained that such a rule 

would be inconsistent with the 

regulatory scheme established in Title I 

of the CAA. 

Finally, the 1999 Policy noted that 

some SIPs had been approved that 

appeared to be in conflict with EPA’s 

SSM policies. The Policy indicated that 

EPA Regional Offices should work with 

the states to ensure SIPs were consistent 

with EPA’s interpretation of the Act’s 

requirements. 

Since the 1999 Policy was issued, 

EPA Region VIII has worked with states 

within the Region to ensure that their 

SIPs are consistent with EPA’s 

interpretation of the Act as set forth in 

the 1982, 1983, and 1999 Policies.4

Shortly after the 1999 Policy was issued, 

we advised Utah that its unavoidable 

breakdown rule was inconsistent with 

the CAA, and since that time, we have 

asked Utah several times to revise the 

rule. Among other things, the rule 

provides that ‘‘emissions resulting from 

an unavoidable breakdown will not be 

deemed a violation * * * ’’ 

Some version of the Utah unavoidable 

breakdown rule has been in the SIP for 

many years. In 1980, EPA approved a 

variation of the current Utah 

unavoidable breakdown rule. In the 

proposed rulemaking preamble, EPA 

stated that it could ‘‘not fully approve 

Regulation 4.7 because it exempts 

certain excess emissions from being 

violations of the Air Conservation 

Regulations,’’ but then proposed to 

approve Utah’s malfunction procedures 

because any exemptions granted by the 

Utah Executive Secretary ‘‘are not 

applicable as a matter of federal law.’’ 44 

FR 28688, 28691 (May 16, 1979). EPA’s 

final approval of the regulation mirrored 

this concept. 45 FR 10761, 10763 

(February 19, 1980). However, thirty 

years later, it is not clear how EPA 

reached the conclusion that exemptions 

granted by Utah would not apply as a 

matter of federal law or whether a court 

would honor EPA’s interpretation; the 

Utah rule itself makes no reference to a 

reservation of federal authority. Instead, 

the rule merely states that information 

submitted by a source regarding a 

breakdown event would be ‘‘used by the 

executive secretary in determining 

whether a violation has occurred and/or 

the need of further enforcement action.’’ 

EPA approved a revised version of the 

rule in 1994 with no preamble 

discussion, except to say that the Utah 

air rules had been renumbered and new 

requirements had been added (59 FR 

35036, July 8, 1994; 40 CFR 

52.2320(c)(25)(i)(A)). The key aspects of 

the unavoidable breakdown rule 

remained the same. 

Subsequently, Utah again renumbered its entire SIP regulations, and 

EPA approved the re-numbered 

regulations, including the re-numbered 

unavoidable breakdown rule, to 

conform the federally-approved SIP to 

the numbering of Utah’s regulations. (70 

FR 59681 (October 13, 2005).) EPA did 

not consider the substance of the 

unavoidable breakdown rule in that 

action. Instead, EPA indicated that it 

was only approving the renumbering 

and that attempts to address problems 

in the rules were ongoing: 

‘‘By this action, EPA has reviewed the Utah 

Department of Air Quality’s (UDAQ) SIP 

submittals and found that these SIP 

submittals only renumber and restructure 

UDAQ’s rules. EPA has not reviewed the 

substance of these rules as part of this action; 

EPA approved these state rules into the SIP 

in previous rulemakings. The EPA is now 

merely approving the renumbering system 

submitted by the State. The current version 

of UDAQ’s rules does not contain substantive 

changes from the prior codification that we 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 223 / Friday, November 19, 2010 / Proposed Rules 70891 

5April 18, 2002 letter from Rick Sprott, UDAQ to 

Richard Long, EPA referred to as 15-point 

commitment letter. 

6See, e.g., Coalition Against Columbus Ctr. v. 

New York, 967 F.2d 764, 769 (2d Cir. 1992); League 

to Save Lake Tahoe, Inc. v. Trounday, 598 F.2d 

1164, 1173 (9th Cir. 1979); 57 FR 32276, July 21, 

1992. 

approved into the SIP. EPA acknowledges 

that there are ongoing discussions with Utah 

to address EPA’s concerns with some rule 

language that EPA previously approved into 

the Utah SIP. In an April 18, 2002 letter from 

Richard Sprott, Director of Utah’s Division of 

Air Quality, to Richard Long, Director of the 

Air and Radiation Program in EPA Region 8, 

UDAQ committed to work with us to address 

our concerns with the Utah SIP. Because the 

SIP submittals only restructure and renumber 

the existing SIP-approved regulations, 

contain no substantive changes, and UDAQ 

has committed to address EPA’s concerns, we 

believe it is appropriate to propose to 

approve the submittal. Approving the 

restructured and renumbered Utah rules into 

the SIP will also facilitate future discussions 

on the rules. EPA will continue to require the 

State to correct any rule deficiencies despite 

EPA’s approval of this recodification.’’ (70 FR 

at 59683) 

Over the years Utah personnel 

acknowledged that the unavoidable 

breakdown rule should be revised and 

committed to do so. For example, in a 

January 17, 2001 letter to EPA, Rick 

Sprott, then the Executive Director of 

the Utah Division of Air Quality 

(UDAQ), wrote the following: 

‘‘With respect to EPA’s concern with the 

breakdown rule currently approved into 

Utah’s SIP, UDAQ agrees that the rule would 

benefit from clarification.’’ 

Later, in an April 18, 2002 letter,5 Mr. Sprott 

wrote the following: 

‘‘The Utah Division of Air Quality commits 

to work with EPA in good faith to develop 

approvable SIP revisions, which address the 

following issues: 

* * * 

8. Unavoidable breakdown rules and 

consistency with the EPA September 20, 

1999 policy regarding such breakdowns.’’ 

In 2004, UDAQ staff drafted 

replacement rule language for the 

breakdown rule, consulted with EPA 

and other stakeholders, and initiated the 

State’s public process for SIP revisions. 

EPA provided detailed comments 

regarding draft rule language and in 

January 2005 traveled to Utah to provide 

a detailed presentation to UDAQ and 

industry stakeholders regarding EPA’s 

interpretations of the CAA and concerns 

regarding UDAQ’s proposed 

replacement rule language. 

Following the January 2005 meeting, 

Fred Nelson of the Utah Attorney 

General’s Office prepared another draft 

of possible replacement rule language, 

which he shared with EPA and industry 

representatives. In May 2005, in an 

attempt to ensure that any rule revision 

could ultimately be approved by EPA, 

EPA provided specific comments and 

suggestions to Mr. Nelson regarding this 

draft. However, UDAQ did not pursue 

further rulemaking action at that time. 

During the August 2, 2006 midyear 

review between UDAQ and EPA, the 

unavoidable breakdown rule was again 

discussed. Mr. Sprott indicated that he 

did not want to pursue further action on 

the unavoidable breakdown rule given 

the disagreement between Utah industry 

and EPA. However, he said he was 

aware that Colorado was in the process 

of revising its malfunction rule, that he 

would be happy to benefit from the 

Colorado process, and that if it 

concluded successfully, he would lead 

the effort to adopt a new rule in Utah. 

Mr. Sprott also said that while he 

wanted to complete a rule revision 

through a cooperative process, if it 

couldn’t be done that way, EPA should 

do a SIP call. Although Colorado 

subsequently adopted a revised 

malfunction rule and we approved it 

into the SIP without challenge (73 FR 

45879, August 7, 2008), we are unaware 

of any further steps taken by Utah to 

revise its unavoidable breakdown rule. 

To assure that a state’s SIP provides 

for attainment and maintenance of the 

NAAQS, and compliance with other 

CAA requirements, sections 110(a)(2)(H) 

and 110(k)(5) of the CAA authorize EPA 

to find that a SIP is substantially 

inadequate to attain or maintain a 

NAAQS, or comply with other CAA 

requirements, and to require (‘‘call for’’) 

the state to submit, within a specified 

time period, a SIP revision to correct the 

inadequacy. This CAA requirement for 

a SIP revision is known as a ‘‘SIP call.’’ 

The CAA authorizes EPA to allow a 

state up to 18 months to respond to a 

SIP call. 

On September 3, 2009, WildEarth 

Guardians (WEG) filed a complaint 

against EPA in the U.S. District Court 

for the District of Colorado (Civil Action 

No. 09–cv–02109–MSK–KLM) seeking, 

among other things, an injunction 

requiring EPA to issue a SIP call to Utah 

to revise the unavoidable breakdown 

rule. On November 23, 2009, we entered 

into a Consent Decree with WEG that 

requires us to sign a notice of final 

rulemaking action by February 28, 2011. 

In that final rulemaking action we must 

determine whether the Utah breakdown 

provision (Utah Regulations 307–107–1 

through 307–107–5) renders the Utah 

SIP ‘‘substantially inadequate’’ within 

the meaning of section 110(k)(5) of the 

CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7410(k)(5), and, if EPA 

determines that the SIP is substantially 

inadequate, require the State to revise 

the SIP as it relates to the Utah 

breakdown provision. We intend to 

meet the requirements of the Consent 

Decree through the rulemaking action 

we are initiating today. 

III. Why is EPA proposing a SIP call? 

Utah rule R307–107 contains various 

provisions that are inconsistent with 

EPA’s interpretations regarding the 

appropriate treatment of malfunction 

events in SIPs and which render the 

Utah SIP substantially inadequate. As a 

result, we are calling for a SIP revision. 

A. Deficiencies in R307–107–1 

R307–107–1 indicates it applies to all 

regulated pollutants including those for 

which there are NAAQS and states that 

‘‘emissions resulting from unavoidable 

breakdown will not be deemed a 

violation of these regulations.’’ As 

described above, our interpretation of 

the CAA as expressed in our various 

policy statements since the early 1980s 

is that SIP provisions may not provide 

that periods of excess emissions are not 

violations. 

We believe the Utah rule’s broad 

exemption undermines the ability to 

protect the NAAQS, PSD increments, 

and visibility through enforcement of 

emission limits contained in the SIP. 

The Utah SIP contains generic emission 

limits that help areas maintain the 

NAAQS as well as emission limits 

specifically modeled and relied on to 

bring areas not attaining the NAAQS 

into attainment. See, e.g., Utah rule 

R307–201 (‘‘General Emission 

Standards’’) and Section IX.H.1 of the 

Utah SIP (contains emission limits for 

the Utah County PM10 nonattainment 

area SIP). Because the NAAQS are not 

directly enforceable against individual 

sources,6 SIPs rely on the adoption and 

enforcement of these generic and 

specific emission limits to attain and 

maintain the NAAQS, as well as to 

protect PSD increments and meet other 

CAA requirements, such as protection of 

visibility in Class I areas. 

In the case of an unavoidable 

breakdown, the rule’s exemption 

eliminates any opportunity to obtain 

injunctive relief that may be needed to 

protect the NAAQS, increments, and 

visibility. Thus, the rule impedes the 

ability to protect public health and the 

environment. Furthermore, the rule’s 

exemption reduces a source’s incentive 

to design, operate, and maintain its 

facility to meet emission limits at all 

times. 

We expect some commenters may 

assert that we need to show a direct 

causal link between unavoidable 

breakdown excess emissions and 

specific threats to or violations of the 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
70892 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 223 / Friday, November 19, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

7The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh 

Circuit has recognized that a SIP call under CAA 

section 110(k)(5) is the appropriate mechanism for 

EPA to require a change to an existing SSM 

provision in a SIP: ‘‘EPA policy guidance cannot 

trump the SSM Rule adopted by Georgia and 

approved formally by the EPA * * * If the EPA 

believes that its current interpretation of the Clean 

Air Act requires Georgia to modify its SSM Rule, 

the EPA should require the state to revise its SIP 

to conform to EPA policy’’ (citing CAA section 

110(k)(5)). 

8As we noted earlier, in a 1980 approval of a 

predecessor to the current unavoidable breakdown 

rule, EPA indicated that EPA might not approve 

exemptions granted by the State and that the State’s 

exemption would not apply as a matter of federal 

law. Thirty years later, we are not sanguine that a 

court would uphold our interpretation, or that five 

years from now, anyone will remember that 

interpretation. See, e.g., U.S. v. Ford Motor Co., 736 

F.Supp. 1539 (W.D. Mo. 1990) and U.S. v General 

Motors Corp., 702 F.Supp. 133 (N.D. Texas 1988) 

(EPA could not pursue enforcement of SIP emission 

limits where states had approved alternative limits 

under procedures EPA had approved into the SIP.) 

While we do not agree with the holdings of these 

cases, we think the reasonable course is to eliminate 

any uncertainty about reserved enforcement 

authority by requiring the State to revise or remove 

the unavoidable breakdown rule from the SIP. 

NAAQS to conclude that the SIP is 

substantially inadequate. We do not 

agree. It is our interpretation that the 

fundamental integrity of the CAA’s SIP 

process and structure are undermined if 

emission limits relied on to meet CAA 

requirements related to protection of 

public health and the environment can 

be violated without potential recourse. 

We do not believe we are restricted to 

issuing SIP calls only after a violation of 

the NAAQS has occurred or only where 

a violation can be directly linked to 

specific excess emissions. It is sufficient 

that emissions limits to which the 

unavoidable breakdown exemption 

applies have been, are being, and will be 

relied on to attain and maintain the 

NAAQS and meet other CAA 

requirements.7

Our interpretation of the CAA is 

supported by sections 110 and 302 of 

the CAA. Section 110(a)(2)(A) requires 

each SIP to include enforceable 

emission limitations necessary or 

appropriate to meet the CAA’s 

applicable requirements. As noted 

above, these applicable requirements 

include attainment and maintenance of 

the NAAQS, prevention of significant 

deterioration, and improvement and 

protection of visibility in national parks 

and wilderness areas. Section 302(k) 

defines emission limitation as a 

requirement established by a state or 

EPA that ‘‘limits the quantity, rate, or 

concentration of emissions of air 

pollutants on a continuous basis.’’ 

(Emphasis added.) Because of the 

exemption in R307–107–1, emission 

limits in the Utah SIP that have been 

relied on by the State to demonstrate 

attainment and maintenance of the 

NAAQS and meet other CAA 

requirements do not limit emissions on 

a continuous basis and are not fully 

enforceable. 

R307–107–1 is also substantially 

inadequate because it applies to all 

regulated pollutants, not just NAAQS 

pollutants, and because it indicates that 

excess emissions from an unavoidable 

breakdown are not deemed a violation 

of ‘‘these regulations.’’ ‘‘These 

regulations’’ includes the totality of 

Utah’s air pollution control regulations, 

which include the regulations Utah has 

incorporated by reference to receive 

delegation of federal authority—for 

example, New Source Performance 

Standards (NSPS) and National 

Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 

Pollutants (NESHAPS). See Utah rules 

R307–210 and R307–214. To the extent 

any exemptions with respect to 

malfunctions from these technologybased standards are warranted, the 

federal standards contained in EPA’s 

regulations already specify the 

appropriate exemptions. See, e.g., 40 

CFR 60.48Da(c). No additional 

exemptions are warranted or 

appropriate. See, e.g., 40 CFR 60.10(a); 

40 CFR 63.12(a)(1); and the 1999 Policy, 

Attachment, page 3. Thus, R307–107–1 

is substantially inadequate because it 

improperly provides an exemption not 

contained in and not sanctioned by the 

delegated federal standards. 

Our interpretation, as it applies to 

both technology-based standards and 

SIP limits, is further supported by a 

2008 U.S. Court of Appeals decision 

that vacated EPA’s general malfunction 

exemption from CAA section 112(d) 

maximum achievable control 

technology (MACT) standards. Sierra 

Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (DC Cir. 

2008), cert. denied. The court vacated 

the exemption because it was 

inconsistent with the CAA’s 

requirement that emission standards— 

such as the 112(d) MACT standards— 

must apply continuously, as expressed 

in section 302(k) of the CAA. The court 

specifically held that a regulatory 

provision establishing a general duty to 

minimize hazardous air pollutant (HAP) 

emissions during malfunctions was not 

an emission standard under CAA 

section 112. Although the decision 

addressed the HAP program and not the 

SIP program, it carries significant 

weight for the SIP program as well 

because section 302(k) is equally 

relevant for the SIP program. R307–107– 

1’s broad malfunction exemption from 

‘‘these regulations’’ is inconsistent with 

section 302(k) as interpreted by the 

Court in Sierra Club. 

As referenced in R307–107–1, ‘‘these 

regulations’’ would also include Utah’s 

PSD and nonattainment major new 

source review (NSR) requirements. This 

means a source could use the provisions 

of R307–107 to claim an exemption 

from best available control technology 

(BACT) or lowest achievable emission 

rate (LAER) limits in a major source 

permit for excess emissions resulting 

from an unavoidable breakdown. We 

have consistently interpreted the Act to 

not allow for outright exemptions from 

BACT limits, and the same logic applies 

to LAER limits. See, e.g., 1977 

memorandum entitled ‘‘Contingency 

Plan for FGD Systems During Downtime 

as a Function of PSD,’’ from Edward E. 

Reich to G.T. Helms and January 28, 

1993 memorandum entitled ‘‘Automatic 

or Blanket Exemptions for Excess 

Emissions During Startup and 

Shutdowns under PSD,’’ from John B. 

Rasnic to Linda M. Murphy. As noted, 

in order to ensure non-degradation of air 

quality at all times under the PSD 

program and protection of the NAAQS 

at all times, it is necessary for a source 

to comply with its permit limits at all 

times. This is another reason R307– 

107’s exemption renders the Utah SIP 

substantially inadequate. 

B. Deficiencies in R307–107–2 

R307–107–2 requires the source to 

submit information regarding an 

unavoidable breakdown to the executive 

secretary of Utah’s Air Quality Board 

(UAQB) and indicates that the 

information ‘‘shall be used by the 

executive secretary in determining 

whether a violation has occurred and/or 

the need of further enforcement action.’’ 

In other words, the executive secretary 

shall determine whether the excess 

emissions were caused by an 

unavoidable breakdown and, thus, 

whether the excess emissions constitute 

a violation or not. This rule provision 

appears to give the executive secretary 

exclusive authority to determine 

whether excess emissions constitute a 

violation.8 We believe this is 

inconsistent with the enforcement 

structure contemplated by the CAA. 

Specifically, the CAA provides 

authority to enforce violations of SIP 

and other CAA emission limits to EPA 

and citizens as well as to the states. 

Thus, the CAA provides EPA and 

citizens with authority to pursue a 

violation even if a state chooses not to. 

See sections 113 and 304 of the CAA. 

It is our interpretation, expressed in our 

1999 Policy, that SIP provisions that 

give exclusive authority to a state to 

determine whether an enforcement 

action can be pursued for an exceedance 

of an emission limit are inconsistent 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 223 / Friday, November 19, 2010 / Proposed Rules 70893 

9An exception to this, not relevant here, is areas 

located in the Ozone Transport Region, which are 

required to have a part D NSR program regardless 

of the area’s designation. See CAA section 184(b)(2). 

with the CAA’s regulatory scheme. EPA 

and citizens, and any court in which 

they seek to file an enforcement claim, 

must retain the authority to 

independently evaluate whether a 

source’s exceedance of an emission 

limit warrants enforcement action. 

Because a court could interpret section 

R307–107–2 as undermining the ability 

of EPA and citizens to independently 

exercise enforcement discretion granted 

by the CAA, it is substantially 

inadequate to comply with CAA 

requirements related to enforcement. 

Because it undermines the envisioned 

enforcement structure, attainment and 

maintenance of the NAAQS and 

compliance with other CAA 

requirements related to PSD, visibility, 

NSPS, and NESHAPS is less certain. 

Potential EPA and citizen enforcement 

provides an important safeguard in the 

event a state lacks resources or 

appropriate intention to enforce CAA 

violations. Thus, R307–107–2 renders 

the SIP substantially inadequate to 

attain or maintain the NAAQS or 

otherwise comply with the CAA. 

C. Conclusion 

For the reasons stated above, EPA is 

proposing to find, pursuant to sections 

110(a)(2)(H) and 110(k)(5) of the CAA, 

that the Utah SIP is substantially 

inadequate to attain or maintain the 

NAAQS or to otherwise comply with 

the requirements of the CAA. Utah rule 

R307–107 improperly undermines 

EPA’s, Utah’s, and citizens’ ability to 

enforce emission limitations that have 

been relied on in the SIP to ensure 

attainment and maintenance of the 

NAAQS or meet other CAA 

requirements. Pursuant to sections 

110(a)(2)(H) and 110(k)(5) of the CAA, 

we are proposing to call for Utah to 

remove R307–107 from the SIP or revise 

it to be consistent with CAA 

requirements. 

We are proposing that Utah must 

respond to our SIP call within 12 

months of the effective date of a final 

rule issuing a SIP call. We think this is 

a reasonable amount of time for several 

reasons. First, Utah has been aware of 

our concerns for years. Utah previously 

initiated the State rulemaking process to 

address the SIP deficiencies but 

dropped its efforts when it couldn’t 

achieve consensus. Second, industry 

and WildEarth Guardians’ predecessor 

had extensive involvement in the 

development of the Colorado 

malfunction rule, which, as noted 

above, we approved in 2008. The 

Colorado malfunction rule is readily 

available online, and use of the 

Colorado rule as a template would give 

the UAQB a substantial head start in 

addressing the SIP deficiencies. Other 

examples of provisions that have been 

approved or promulgated by EPA for 

areas within the Region are also 

available. See, e.g., https:// 

yosemite.epa.gov/R8/R8Sips.nsf/ 

641057911f6bd13987256b5f0054f380/ 

722dcc2462e7856a87256ef3005f6d4f/ 

$FILE/Ch%201%20Sect%205.pdf 

(Wyoming air rules, Chapter 1, Section 

5, approved at 75 FR 19886, April 16, 

2010); 73 FR 21418, 21464, April 21, 

2008. Third, another option to address 

the deficiencies is to simply remove 

R307–107 from the SIP. Under this 

option, no time would be needed to 

develop replacement SIP rule language. 

IV. What happens if EPA issues a final 

SIP call and the State of Utah does not 

submit a complete SIP revision that 

responds to the SIP call or if EPA 

disapproves a SIP revision that 

responds to the SIP call? 

If Utah fails to submit a complete SIP 

revision that responds to a final SIP call, 

CAA section 179(a) provides for EPA to 

issue a finding of State failure. Such a 

finding starts mandatory 18-month and 

24-month sanctions clocks and a 24- 

month clock for promulgation of a 

federal implementation plan (FIP) by 

EPA. The two sanctions that apply 

under CAA section 179(b) are the 2-to1 emission offset requirement for all 

new and modified major sources subject 

to the nonattainment new source review 

program and restrictions on highway 

funding. However, section 179 leaves it 

up to the Administrator to decide the 

order in which these sanctions apply. 

EPA issued an order of sanctions rule in 

1994 (59 FR 39832, August 4, 1994, 

codified at 40 CFR 52.31) but did not 

specify the order of sanctions where a 

state fails to submit or submits a 

deficient SIP in response to a SIP call. 

However, the order of sanctions 

specified in that rule (40 CFR 52.31) 

should apply here for the same reasons 

discussed in the preamble to that rule. 

Thus, if EPA issues a final SIP call and 

Utah fails to submit the required SIP 

revision, or submits a revision that EPA 

determines is incomplete or that EPA 

disapproves, EPA proposes that the 2-to1 emission offset requirement will apply 

for all new sources subject to the 

nonattainment new source review 

program 18 months following such 

finding or disapproval unless the State 

corrects the deficiency before that date. 

EPA proposes that the highway funding 

restrictions sanction will also apply 24 

months following such finding or 

disapproval unless the State corrects the 

deficiency before that date. EPA is also 

proposing that the provisions in 52.31 

regarding staying the sanctions clock 

and deferring the imposition of 

sanctions would also apply. 

Mandatory sanctions under section 

179 generally apply only in 

nonattainment areas. By its definition, 

the emission offset sanction applies 

only in areas required to have a part D 

NSR program, typically areas designated 

nonattainment.9 Section 179(b)(1) 

expressly limits the highway funding 

restriction to nonattainment areas. 

Additionally, EPA interprets the section 

179 sanctions to apply only in the area 

or areas of the State that are subject to 

or required to have in place the 

deficient SIP and for the pollutant or 

pollutants the specific SIP element 

addresses. In this case, mandatory 

sanctions would apply in all areas 

designated nonattainment for a NAAQS 

within the State because Utah rule 

R307–107 applies statewide and applies 

for all NAAQS pollutants. 

EPA has additional authority to 

impose discretionary sanctions under 

CAA section 110(m). EPA’s authority to 

impose sanctions under section 110(m) 

is triggered by the same findings that 

trigger the mandatory imposition of 

sanctions. However, under section 

110(m), EPA may impose sanctions 

more quickly than provided under the 

mandatory sanction provision and may 

also impose them in a broader area. 

Specifically, under section 110(m), EPA 

may impose sanctions ‘‘any time’’ after it 

has made a finding of deficiency or 

disapproved a SIP. In addition, EPA 

may impose the sanctions with respect 

to ‘‘any portion of the State the 

Administrator determines reasonable 

and appropriate.’’ Finally, although 

imposition of the 2-to-1 offset sanction 

is still limited by its terms to areas with 

part D NSR programs, the highway 

funding restrictions can be applied in 

areas designated as attainment or 

unclassifiable as well as those 

designated nonattainment. See 59 FR 

1476 (January 11, 1994); 40 CFR 

52.30(d)(2). EPA may determine 

whether or not to use this authority in 

response to a SIP failure, and, thus, they 

are termed discretionary sanctions. 

Because only limited portions of the 

State are designated nonattainment, the 

mandatory sanctions would not be 

applicable in all areas of the State that 

are covered by the rule we have 

proposed is deficient. EPA is requesting 

comment on whether to exercise its 

discretionary authority to impose the 

highway funding restrictions sanction in 

all areas of the State, regardless of 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
70894 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 223 / Friday, November 19, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

designation, if it finalizes this proposed 

SIP call and the State fails to submit a 

complete SIP revision or EPA 

disapproves such revision. If EPA were 

to impose discretionary sanctions, EPA 

proposes that the same 24-month clock 

would apply to the highway funding 

sanction as would apply under the 

mandatory sanctions. 

In addition to sanctions, if EPA 

finalizes this SIP call and then finds that 

the State failed to submit a complete SIP 

revision that responds to the SIP call or 

disapproves such revision, the 

requirement under section 110(c) would 

be triggered that EPA promulgate a FIP 

no later than two years from the date of 

the finding or the disapproval if the 

deficiency has not been corrected. 

V. Proposed Action 

EPA is proposing that the Utah SIP is 

substantially inadequate to attain or 

maintain the NAAQS or to otherwise 

comply with requirements of the CAA 

due to significant deficiencies created 

by Utah’s unavoidable breakdown rule, 

R307–107. Pursuant to CAA sections 

110(a)(2)(H) and 110(k)(5), EPA is 

proposing to require that Utah revise the 

SIP to correct the inadequacies and 

submit the revised SIP to EPA within 

12 months of the effective date of a final 

rule finding the SIP substantially 

inadequate. EPA is proposing that 

mandatory sanctions under CAA section 

179 would apply as provided in 40 CFR 

50.31 should Utah not submit a 

complete SIP consistent with a final SIP 

call requirement or should EPA 

disapprove any such submission. EPA is 

also requesting comment on whether 

EPA should exercise its discretionary 

authority under section 110(m) to 

impose highway funding restrictions in 

all areas of the State if 24 months after 

a sanctions clock has been triggered, the 

State has still not corrected the 

deficiency that triggered the sanctions 

clock. 

We are soliciting comments on these 

proposed actions. Final rulemaking will 

occur after consideration of any 

comments. 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 

51735, October 4, 1993), this proposed 

action is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ and therefore is not subject to 

review by the Office of Management and 

Budget. For this reason, this action is 

also not subject to Executive Order 

13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning Regulations 

That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355, May 

22, 2001). 

This proposed action would only 

require the State of Utah to revise UAC 

R307–107 to address requirements of 

the CAA. Accordingly, the 

Administrator certifies that this 

proposed action would not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.) because this 

proposed action would not impose any 

requirements on small entities. 

Since the only costs of this action 

would be those associated with 

preparation and submission of the SIP 

revision, EPA has determined that this 

proposed action would not include a 

Federal mandate that may result in 

expenditures of $100 million or more to 

either state, local, or tribal governments 

in the aggregate, or to the private sector 

in any one year. Accordingly, this 

proposed action is not subject to the 

requirements of sections 202 or 205 of 

the unfunded mandates reform act 

(UMRA). 

In addition, since the only regulatory 

requirements of this proposed action 

would apply solely to the State of Utah, 

this action is not subject to the 

requirements of section 203 of UMRA 

because it contains no regulatory 

requirements that might significantly or 

uniquely affect small governments. 

Since this proposed action would 

impose requirements only on the State 

of Utah, it also does not have tribal 

implications. It would not have a 

substantial direct effect on one or more 

Indian tribes, on the relationship 

between the Federal Government and 

Indian tribes, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities between the 

Federal Government and Indian tribes, 

as specified by Executive Order 13175 

(65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). 

This proposed action also does not 

have Federalism implications because it 

would not have substantial direct effects 

on the states, on the relationship 

between the national government and 

the states, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government, as 

specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 

FR 43255, August 10, 1999), because it 

would simply maintain the relationship 

and the distribution of power and 

responsibilities between EPA and the 

states as established by the CAA. This 

proposed SIP call is required by the 

CAA because EPA believes the current 

SIP is substantially inadequate to attain 

or maintain the NAAQS or comply with 

other CAA requirements. Utah’s direct 

compliance costs would not be 

substantial because the proposed SIP 

call would require Utah to submit only 

those revisions necessary to address the 

SIP deficiencies and applicable CAA 

requirements. 

EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 

‘‘Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety 

Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as 

applying only to those regulatory 

actions that concern health or safety 

risks, such that the analysis required 

under section 5–501 of the Executive 

Order has the potential to influence the 

regulation. This action is not subject to 

Executive Order 13045 because it would 

not establish an environmental 

standard, but instead would require 

Utah to revise a state rule to address 

requirements of the CAA. 

Section 12 of the National Technology 

Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 

requires Federal agencies to evaluate 

existing technical standards when 

developing a new regulation. To comply 

with the National Technology Transfer 

and Advancement Act, EPA must 

consider and use ‘‘voluntary consensus 

standards’’ (VCS) if available and 

applicable when developing programs 

and policies unless doing so would be 

inconsistent with applicable law or 

otherwise impractical. In making a 

finding of a SIP deficiency, EPA’s role 

is to review existing information against 

previously established standards. In this 

context, there is no opportunity to use 

VCS. Thus, the requirements of section 

12(d) of the National Technology 

Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 

(15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. 

This proposed action would not 

impose an information collection 

burden under the provisions of the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), since it would only 

require the State of Utah to revise UAC 

R307–107 to address requirements of 

the CAA. 

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. 

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

Dated: November 10, 2010. 

James B. Martin, 

Regional Administrator, Region 8. 

[FR Doc. 2010–29237 Filed 11–18–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS