50430 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 147 / Monday, August 1, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

4On January 15, 2013, EPA revised the primary 

annual PM2.5 NAAQS to 12 mg/m3, based on annual 

mean PM2.5 concentrations averaged over three 

years. See 78 FR 3086. Since Jefferson County’s May 

3, 2012, submission preceded EPA’s promulgation 

of the new annual standard, an update reflecting the 

new NAAQS was not included as part of SIP 

revision. 

consistent with the NAAQS 

promulgated by EPA in 2006.4

iii. O3

On July 18, 1997, EPA revoked the 1- 

hour primary NAAQS for O3. See 62 FR 

38856. On March 27, 2008, EPA 

promulgated a new 8-hour primary and 

secondary NAAQS for O3 at a level of 

0.075 parts per million (ppm), based on 

an annual fourth-highest daily 

maximum 8-hr concentration averaged 

over three years. See 73 FR 16483. 

Accordingly, in the May 3, 2012, SIP 

submission, Jefferson County revised 

Regulation 3.01 to update its air quality 

standards for O3 to be consistent with 

the NAAQS promulgated by EPA in 

2008. 

iv. NO2

On February 9, 2010, EPA 

promulgated a new 1-hour primary 

NAAQS for NO2 at a level of 100 parts 

per billion (ppb), based on a 3-year 

average of the 98th percentile of the 

yearly distribution of 1-hour daily 

maximum concentrations. See 75 FR 

6474. Accordingly, in the May 3, 2012, 

SIP submission, Jefferson County 

revised Regulation 3.01 to update its 

primary air quality standard for NO2 to 

be consistent with the NAAQS 

promulgated by EPA in 2010. 

v. SO2

On June 22, 2010, EPA promulgated a 

revised primary SO2 NAAQS to an 

hourly standard of 75 ppb, based on a 

3-year average of the annual 99th 

percentile of 1-hour daily maximum 

concentrations, and revoked the 24-hour 

SO2 NAAQS. See 75 FR 35520. 

Accordingly, in the May 3, 2012, SIP 

submission, Jefferson County revised 

Regulation 3.01 to update its primary air 

quality standards for SO2 to be 

consistent with the NAAQS 

promulgated by EPA in 2010. 

EPA has reviewed the revisions to 

Regulation 3.01 in the May 3, 2012, SIP 

submission, including the NAAQS 

updates for Pb, particulate matter, O3, 

NO2, and SO2, and has made the 

preliminary determination that these 

changes are consistent with the CAA. 

III. Incorporation by Reference 

In this rule, EPA is proposing to 

include in a final EPA rule regulatory 

text that includes incorporation by 

reference. In accordance with 

requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is 

proposing to incorporate by reference 

Jefferson County Regulation 1.02— 

Definitions (except for the definitions of 

‘‘Acute noncancer effect,’’ ‘‘Cancer,’’ 

‘‘Carcinogen,’’ and ‘‘Chronic noncancer 

effect’’) and Regulation 3.01—Ambient 

Air Quality Standards. EPA has made, 

and will continue to make, these 

documents generally available 

electronically through 

www.regulations.gov and/or in hard 

copy at the Region 4 office (see the 

ADDRESSES section of this preamble for 

more information). 

IV. Proposed Action 

EPA is proposing to approve the 

portions of the Commonwealth of 

Kentucky’s March 22, 2011, and May 3, 

2012, SIP revisions identified in section 

II, above, because they are consistent 

with the CAA. 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

Act and applicable Federal regulations. 

See 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this action 

merely proposes to approve state law as 

meeting Federal requirements and does 

not impose additional requirements 

beyond those imposed by state law. For 

that reason, this action: 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to review by the Office of 

Management and Budget under 

Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, 

January 21, 2011); 

• does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Public Law 104–4); 

• does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• does not provide 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). 

The SIP is not approved to apply on 

any Indian reservation land or in any 

other area where EPA or an Indian tribe 

has demonstrated that a tribe has 

jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian 

country, the rule does not have tribal 

implications as specified by Executive 

Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 

2000), nor will it impose substantial 

direct costs on tribal governments or 

preempt tribal law. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Sulfur dioxide, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Dated: July 20, 2016. 

Heather McTeer Toney, 

Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

[FR Doc. 2016–18011 Filed 7–29–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R08–OAR–2016–0107; FRL–9949–98– 

Region 8] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; 

Interstate Transport for Utah 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to take 

action on portions of six submissions 

from the State of Utah that are intended 

to demonstrate that the State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) meets certain 

interstate transport requirements of the 

Clean Air Act (Act or CAA). These 

submissions address the 2006 and 2012 

fine particulate matter (PM2.5) National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS), 2008 ozone NAAQS, 2008 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 147 / Monday, August 1, 2016 / Proposed Rules 50431 

lead (Pb) NAAQS, 2010 sulfur dioxide 

(SO2) NAAQS and 2010 nitrogen 

dioxide (NO2) NAAQS. Specifically, the 

EPA is proposing to approve interstate 

transport prong 4 for the 2008 Pb and 

2010 SO2 NAAQS, and proposing to 

disapprove prong 4 for the 2006 PM2.5, 

2008 ozone, 2010 NO2 and 2012 PM2.5

NAAQS. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before August 31, 2016. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R08– 

OAR–2016–0107 at http://

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Once submitted, comments cannot be 

edited or removed from regulations.gov. 

The EPA may publish any comment 

received to its public docket. Do not 

submit electronically any information 

you consider to be Confidential 

Business Information (CBI) or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Multimedia 

submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be 

accompanied by a written comment. 

The written comment is considered the 

official comment and should include 

discussion of all points you wish to 

make. The EPA will generally not 

consider comments or comment 

contents located outside of the primary 

submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or 

other file sharing system). For 

additional submission methods, the full 

EPA public comment policy, 

information about CBI or multimedia 

submissions, and general guidance on 

making effective comments, please visit 

http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/

commenting-epa-dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Adam Clark, Air Program, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA), Region 8, Mail Code 8P–AR, 

1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 

80202–1129. (303) 312–7104, 

clark.adam@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. General Information 

What should I consider as I prepare my 

comments for EPA? 

1. Submitting Confidential Business 

Information (CBI). Do not submit CBI to 

EPA through http://www.regulations.gov 

or email. Clearly mark the part or all of 

the information that you claim to be 

CBI. For CBI information on 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: 

• Identify the rulemaking by docket 

number and other identifying 

information (subject heading, Federal 

Register volume, date, and page 

number); 

• Follow directions and organize your 

comments; 

• Explain why you agree or disagree; 

• Suggest alternatives and substitute 

language for your requested changes; 

• Describe any assumptions and 

provide any technical information and/ 

or data that you used; 

• If you estimate potential costs or 

burdens, explain how you arrived at 

your estimate in sufficient detail to 

allow for it to be reproduced; 

• Provide specific examples to 

illustrate your concerns, and suggest 

alternatives; 

• Explain your views as clearly as 

possible, avoiding the use of profanity 

or personal threats; and, 

• Make sure to submit your 

comments by the comment period 

deadline identified. 

II. Background 

On September 21, 2006, the EPA 

revised the primary 24-hour NAAQS for 

PM2.5 to 35 micrograms per cubic meter 

(mg/m3) (71 FR 61144, Oct. 17, 2006). On 

March 12, 2008, the EPA revised the 

levels of the primary and secondary 8- 

hour ozone standards to 0.075 parts per 

million (ppm) (73 FR 16436, Mar. 27, 

2008). On October 15, 2008, the EPA 

revised the level of the primary and 

secondary Pb NAAQS to 0.15 mg/m3 (73 

FR 66964, Nov. 12, 2008). On January 

22, 2010, the EPA promulgated a new 1- 

hour primary NAAQS for NO2 at a level 

of 100 parts per billion (ppb) while 

retaining the annual standard of 53 ppb 

(75 FR 6474, Feb. 9, 2010). The 

secondary NO2 NAAQS remains 

unchanged at 53 ppb. On June 2, 2010, 

the EPA promulgated a revised primary 

1-hour SO2 standard at 75 ppb (75 FR 

35520, June 22, 2010). Finally, on 

December 14, 2012, the EPA 

promulgated a revised annual PM2.5

standard by lowering the level to 12.0 

mg/m3 and retaining the 24-hour PM2.5

standard at a level of 35 mg/m3 (78 FR 

3086, Jan. 15, 2013). 

Pursuant to section 110(a)(1) of the 

CAA, states are required to submit SIPs 

meeting the applicable requirements of 

section 110(a)(2) within three years after 

promulgation of a new or revised 

NAAQS or within such shorter period 

as the EPA may prescribe. Section 

110(a)(2) requires states to address 

structural SIP elements such as 

monitoring, basic program 

requirements, and legal authority that 

are designed to provide for 

implementation, maintenance, and 

enforcement of the NAAQS. The SIP 

submission required by these provisions 

is referred to as the ‘‘infrastructure’’ SIP. 

Section 110(a) imposes the obligation 

upon states to make a SIP submission to 

the EPA for a new or revised NAAQS, 

but the contents of individual state 

submissions may vary depending upon 

the facts and circumstances. 

CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requires 

SIPs to include provisions prohibiting 

any source or other type of emissions 

activity in one state from emitting any 

air pollutant in amounts that will 

contribute significantly to 

nonattainment, or interfere with 

maintenance, of the NAAQS in another 

state (known as the ‘‘good neighbor’’ 

provision). The two provisions of this 

section are referred to as prong 1 

(significant contribution to 

nonattainment) and prong 2 (interfere 

with maintenance). Section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) requires SIPs to 

contain adequate provisions to prohibit 

emissions that will interfere with 

measures required to be included in the 

applicable implementation plan for any 

other state under part C to prevent 

significant deterioration of air quality 

(prong 3) or to protect visibility (prong 

4). 

In this action, the EPA is addressing 

prong 4 with regard to the 2006 and 

2012 PM2.5, 2008 ozone, 2008 Pb, 2010 

SO2 and 2010 NO2 NAAQS. The EPA 

addressed prongs 1 and 2 for the 2008 

ozone and 2008 Pb NAAQS in a 

proposed action published May 10, 

2016 (81 FR 28807), and intends to 

finalize that action in conjunction with 

the actions in this proposed rule in one 

joint, final rulemaking. The EPA is 

addressing prong 3 for the applicable 

NAAQS in a separate action proposed 

April 26, 2016 (81 FR 24525), which can 

be found in regulations.gov under the 

docket EPA–R08–OAR–2013–0561. 

III. State Submissions 

The Utah Department of 

Environmental Quality (Department or 

UDEQ) submitted the following: A 

certification of Utah’s infrastructure SIP 

for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS on 

September 21, 2010; a certification of 

Utah’s infrastructure SIP for the 2008 Pb 

SIP on January 19, 2012; a certification 

of Utah’s infrastructure SIP for the 2008 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
50432 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 147 / Monday, August 1, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

1For discussion of other infrastructure elements, 

see EPA’s ‘‘Guidance on Infrastructure State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements under Clean 

Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and (2),’’ September 13, 

2013. 2See EPA’s ‘‘Guidance on SIP Elements Required 

Under Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2006 24- 

Hour Fine Particle (PM2.5) National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards (NAAQS),’’ September 25, 2009, 

at 6. 3See ‘‘Guidance on Infrastructure State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements under Clean 

Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and (2),’’ September 13, 

2013, at 34. 

4See ‘‘Guidance on Infrastructure State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements under Clean 

Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and (2),’’ September 13, 

2013, at 33. 

5EPA’s final approval of the ‘‘Western Backstop 

Sulfur Dioxide Trading Program’’ into the Utah SIP 

is codified at 40 CFR 52.2320(c)(71)(C) and (D). 

6See ‘‘Guidance on Infrastructure State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements under Clean 

Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and (2)’’ at 33. 

7See ‘‘Guidance on Infrastructure State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements under Clean 

Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and (2)’’ at 34, and also 

76 FR 22036 (April 20, 2011) containing EPA’s 

approval of the visibility requirement of 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) based on a demonstration by 

Colorado that did not rely on the Colorado Regional 

Haze SIP. 

8Specifically, the State is required to reach its 

‘‘emissions milestone’’ for this program by keeping 

its SO2 emissions below 141,849 tons/SO2 in 2018 

and each year thereafter. 

ozone NAAQS and 2010 NO2 NAAQS 

on January 31, 2013; a certification of 

Utah’s infrastructure SIP for the 2010 

SO2 NAAQS on June 2, 2013; and a 

certification of Utah’s infrastructure SIP 

for the 2012 PM2.5 on December 22, 

2015. 

Each of these infrastructure 

certifications addressed all of the 

required infrastructure elements under 

section 110(a)(2).1 As noted above, the 

EPA is only addressing the 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), prong 4 (visibility) 

element of each of these submissions 

here; all other infrastructure elements 

from these certifications are being 

addressed in separate actions. 

In Utah’s 2006 PM2.5 infrastructure 

certification, UDEQ pointed to SIP 

language verifying that no Utah sources 

of emissions interfere with 

implementation of reasonably 

attributable visibility impairment 

(RAVI) SIPs in other states, in 

accordance with EPA guidance.2

In Utah’s 2006 PM2.5, 2008 ozone, 

2010 SO2, 2010 NO2 and 2012 PM2.5

NAAQS infrastructure certifications, the 

Department pointed to its Regional Haze 

SIP (Utah SIP Section XX) to certify that 

the State meets the visibility 

requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II). Utah specifically 

noted in each of these submittals (aside 

from the 2006 PM2.5 submittal) that the 

State had consulted with other states in 

the Western Regional Air Partnership 

(WRAP), and that reductions in 

emissions from Utah were included in 

the WRAP regional visibility modeling. 

As explained below, this information is 

relevant in determining whether Utah’s 

SIP will achieve the emission 

reductions that the WRAP states 

mutually agreed are necessary to avoid 

interstate visibility impacts in Class I 

areas.3

UDEQ addressed visibility for the 

2008 Pb NAAQS by pointing to the 

short distance travelled by Pb 

emissions, and by noting that there was 

not a significant source of Pb in Utah 

within 100 miles of a Class I area. 

IV. Utah’s Regional Haze SIP 

As stated in the EPA’s September 13, 

2013 Infrastructure SIP Guidance Memo 

(‘‘2013 Guidance’’), ‘‘[o]ne way in which 

prong 4 may be satisfied for any relevant 

NAAQS is through an air agency’s 

confirmation in its infrastructure SIP 

submission that it has an approved 

regional haze SIP that fully meets the 

requirements of 40 CFR 51.308 or 

51.309. 40 CFR 51.308 and 51.309 

specifically require that a state 

participating in a regional planning 

process include all measures needed to 

achieve its apportionment of emission 

reduction obligations agreed upon 

through that process.’’ 4

On May 26, 2011, Utah submitted to 

the EPA a SIP revision to address the 

requirements of the regional haze 

program. The EPA partially approved 

and partially disapproved Utah’s SIP 

revision on December 14, 2012 (77 FR 

74355). In that action, the EPA 

disapproved Utah’s NOX and PM10 Best 

Available Retrofit Technology (BART) 

determinations (77 FR 74357), and 

approved Utah’s BART alternative for 

SO2, which relied on the State’s 

participation in the backstop SO2

trading program.5

In response to the EPA’s December 14, 

2012 partial disapproval, UDEQ 

submitted further SIP revisions on June 

4, 2015, and October 20, 2015, to meet 

the regional haze requirements for NOX

and PM10 BART. Instead of establishing 

BART controls for NOX, Utah’s SIP 

revisions contained an alternative to 

BART. The revisions also included 

BART controls for PM10. 

On July 5, 2016, the EPA finalized 

action on Utah’s June 4, 2015 Regional 

Haze SIP, approving the PM10 BART 

determinations for both the affected 

sources, the Hunter and Huntington 

power plants, and disapproving the 

State’s NOX BART alternative for these 

two facilities. The EPA also 

promulgated a final federal 

implementation plan (FIP) to address 

the deficiencies in Utah’s NOX BART 

determinations and the associated 

monitoring, recordkeeping and 

reporting requirements for both the 

Hunter and Huntington power plants 

(81 FR 43894, July 5, 2016). 

V. EPA’s Assessment 

The 2013 Guidance states that section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)’s prong 4 requirements 

can be satisfied by approved SIP 

provisions that the EPA has found to 

adequately address a state’s contribution 

to visibility impairment in other states. 

The EPA interprets prong 4 to be 

pollutant-specific, such that the 

infrastructure SIP submission need only 

address the potential for interference 

with protection of visibility caused by 

the pollutant (including precursors) to 

which the new or revised NAAQS 

applies.6

The 2013 Guidance lays out two ways 

in which a state’s infrastructure SIP 

submittal may satisfy prong 4. As 

explained above, one way is through a 

state’s confirmation in its infrastructure 

SIP submittal that it has an EPA 

approved regional haze SIP in place. In 

the absence of a fully approved regional 

haze SIP, a state can make a 

demonstration in its infrastructure SIP 

submittal that emissions within its 

jurisdiction do not interfere with other 

states’ plans to protect visibility. Such a 

submittal should point to measures in 

the state’s SIP that limit visibilityimpairing pollutants and ensure that the 

resulting reductions conform with any 

mutually agreed emission reductions 

under the relevant regional haze 

regional planning organization (RPO) 

process.7

UDEQ worked through its RPO, the 

WRAP, to develop strategies to address 

regional haze. To help states in 

establishing reasonable progress goals 

for improving visibility in Class I areas, 

the WRAP modeled future visibility 

conditions based on the mutually agreed 

emissions reductions from each state. 

The WRAP states then relied on this 

modeling in setting their respective 

reasonable progress goals. As a result, 

we consider emissions reductions from 

measures in Utah’s SIP that conform 

with the level of emission reductions 

the State agreed to include in the WRAP 

modeling to meet the visibility 

requirement of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II). 

With regard to the 2010 SO2 NAAQS, 

the EPA proposes to find that the State’s 

implementation of the Western 

Backstop Sulfur Dioxide Trading 

Program and the agreed upon SO2

reductions achieved through that 

program sufficient to meet the 

requirements of prong 4.8 Under 40 CFR 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 147 / Monday, August 1, 2016 / Proposed Rules 50433 

9 40 CFR 51.309. 

10 77 FR 74355 (Dec. 14, 2012). 

11EPA’s September 13, 2013 Infrastructure SIP 

Guidance, at 33. 

12With the exception of the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, 

which referenced the State’s lack of interference 

with RAVI. 

13EPA’s September 13, 2013 Infrastructure SIP 

Guidance, at 34. 

14 Id. at 35. 

15 Id. 

51.309, certain states, including Utah, 

can satisfy their SO2 BART 

requirements by adopting an alternative 

program consisting of SO2 emission 

milestones and a backstop trading 

program.9 Utah Administrative Rules 

(UAR) R307–250 and R307–150 

implement the backstop trading 

program provisions and the EPA has 

approved the State’s rules, including the 

SO2 reduction milestones, as satisfying 

its regional haze SO2 obligations.10

Utah’s SIP thus contains measures 

requiring reductions of SO2 consistent 

with what the State agreed to achieve 

under the WRAP process in order to 

protect visibility. As a result, EPA is 

proposing to approve 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) 

prong 4 for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. 

The EPA is also proposing to approve 

Utah’s prong 4 SIP submittal for the 

2008 Pb NAAQS. The EPA agrees with 

UDEQ’s submission, which states that 

significant impacts from Pb emissions 

from stationary sources are expected to 

be limited to short distances from the 

source. The State also noted that it does 

not have any major sources of Pb 

located within 100 miles of a 

neighboring state’s Class I area. Further, 

when evaluating the extent to which Pb 

could impact visibility, the EPA has 

found Pb-related visibility impacts 

insignificant (e.g., less than 0.10 

percent).11 The EPA proposes to 

approve prong 4 for the 2008 Pb 

NAAQS based on Utah’s conclusion that 

it does not have any significant sources 

of lead emissions near another state’s 

Class I area and that it, therefore, does 

not have emissions of Pb that would 

interfere with the requirements of 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) with respect to 

visibility. 

The EPA is proposing to disapprove 

Utah’s prong 4 infrastructure SIP 

submittals for the 2006 PM2.5, 2008 

ozone, 2010 NO2, and 2012 PM2.5

NAAQS. The EPA’s disapproval of 

Utah’s NOX BART determination in our 

July 5, 2016 final rulemaking included 

the specific disapproval of the NOX

control measures the State submitted for 

the Hunter and Huntington facilities (81 

FR 43894, 43902). 

As noted, Utah relied on its Regional 

Haze SIP (Utah SIP Section XX), and 

specifically its participation in the 

WRAP, as justification for the 

approvability of prong 4 for 2006 PM2.5, 

2008 ozone, 2010 NO2 and 2012 PM2.5

NAAQS. Because the Department did 

not provide an alternative 

demonstration that its SIP contains 

measures to limit NOX emissions in 

accordance with the emission 

reductions it agreed to under the 

WRAP,12 the EPA’s disapproval of 

Utah’s NOX BART alternative makes 

Utah’s justification insufficient for the 

NAAQS pollutants impacted by the 

control of NOX. Specifically, NOX is a 

precursor of PM2.5 and ozone, and is 

also a term which refers to both NO 

(nitrogen oxide) and NO2. The EPA is 

therefore proposing to disapprove prong 

4 of Utah’s infrastructure certifications 

with regard to the 2006 PM2.5, 2008 

ozone, 2010 NO2 and 2012 PM2.5

NAAQS. 

If the EPA disapproves an 

infrastructure SIP submission for prong 

4, as we are proposing for the 2006 

PM2.5, 2008 Ozone, 2010 NO2 and 2012 

PM2.5 NAAQS, a FIP obligation will be 

created. However, since the EPA 

recently promulgated a FIP for Utah that 

corrects all regional haze SIP 

deficiencies (81 FR 43894), there will be 

no additional practical consequences 

from the disapproval for UDEQ, the 

sources within its jurisdiction, or the 

EPA.13 The EPA will not be required to 

take further action with respect to these 

prong 4 disapprovals, if finalized, 

because the FIP already in place would 

satisfy the requirements with respect to 

prong 4.14 Additionally, since the 

infrastructure SIP submission is not 

required in response to a SIP call under 

CAA section 110(k)(5), mandatory 

sanctions under CAA section 179 would 

not apply because the deficiencies are 

not with respect to a submission that is 

required under CAA title I part D.15

VI. Proposed Action 

The EPA is proposing to approve 

portions of Utah’s infrastructure 

certifications which address the 

interstate transport requirements of 

CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), and to 

disapprove portions of other 

certifications addressing this CAA 

requirement. The EPA is proposing to 

approve 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) prong 4 for 

the 2008 Pb and 2010 SO2 NAAQS. The 

EPA is also proposing to disapprove 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) prong 4 for the 2006 

PM2.5, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2 and 2012 

PM2.5 NAAQS. The EPA is soliciting 

public comments on this proposed 

action and will consider public 

comments received during the comment 

period. 

VII. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

Act and applicable federal regulations. 

42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the 

EPA’s role is to approve state actions, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this 

proposed action merely proposes 

approval of some state law as meeting 

federal requirements and proposes 

disapproval of other state law because it 

does not meet federal requirements; this 

proposed action does not propose 

additional requirements beyond those 

imposed by state law. For that reason, 

this proposed action: 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to review by the Office of 

Management and Budget under 

Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, 

January 21, 2011); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Public Law 104–4); 

• Does not have federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; 

and 

• Does not provide the EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, the SIP does not apply on 

any Indian reservation land or in any 

other area where the EPA or an Indian 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
50434 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 147 / Monday, August 1, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has 

jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian 

country, the proposed rule does not 

have tribal implications and will not 

impose substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law as 

specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 

FR 67249, November 9, 2000). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 

Incorporation by reference, 

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: July 19, 2016. 

Shaun L. McGrath, 

Regional Administrator, Region 8. 

[FR Doc. 2016–18153 Filed 7–29–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 122 

[EPA–HQ–OW–2016–0376; FRL–9950–07– 

OW] 

Public Notification for Combined 

Sewer Overflows in the Great Lakes; 

Public Listening Session; Request for 

Stakeholder Input 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Request for stakeholder input. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is announcing plans to 

hold a public ‘‘listening session’’ on 

September 14, 2016 in Chicago, Illinois 

to obtain information from the public to 

help inform development of a new 

regulation establishing public 

notification requirements for combined 

sewer overflow discharges in the Great 

Lakes. This rulemaking is in response to 

new requirements included with the 

2016 appropriations. EPA is requesting 

input from the public regarding 

potential approaches for these new 

public notification requirements for 

combined sewer overflow discharges in 

the Great Lakes through participation in 

the public listening session and by 

submitting information in writing at the 

listening sessions or to the agency 

directly through email, fax, or mail. The 

agency is undertaking this outreach to 

help it shape a future regulatory 

proposal intended to provide the 

affected public with information that 

will help better protect public health. 

DATES: The session will be held on 

September 14, 2016. Comments must be 

received on or before September 23, 

2016. 

ADDRESSES: The public listening session 

will be held at the Environmental 

Protection Agency Region 5 Office (Lake 

Erie Room, Floor 12), 77 West Jackson 

Boulevard, Chicago, IL 60604–3507. 

Submit your comments, identified by 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OW–2016– 

0378, to the Federal eRulemaking 

Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. 

Follow the online instructions for 

submitting comments. Once submitted, 

comments cannot be edited or 

withdrawn. EPA may publish any 

comment received to its public docket. 

Do not submit electronically any 

information you consider to be 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Multimedia 

submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be 

accompanied by a written comment. 

The written comment is considered the 

official comment and should include 

discussion of all points you wish to 

make. EPA will generally not consider 

comments or comment contents located 

outside of the primary submission (i.e., 

on the web, cloud, or other file sharing 

system). For additional submission 

methods, the full EPA public comment 

policy, information about CBI or 

multimedia submissions, and general 

guidance on making effective 

comments, please visit http://

www2.epa.gov/dockets/commentingepa-dockets. For details on the public 

listening session see SUPPLEMENTAL

INFORMATION. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lisa 

Biddle, Water Permits Division, Office 

of Water (4203M), Environmental 

Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania 

Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460; 

telephone number: 202–566–0350; fax 

number: 202–564–6392; email address: 

biddle.lisa@epa.gov. Also see the 

following Web site for additional 

information regarding the rulemaking: 

https://www.epa.gov/npdes/combinedsewer-overflows-great-lakes-basin. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. General Information 

A. Public Listening Session 

EPA will hold an informal public 

listening session to afford an 

opportunity for the public to provide 

input on a regulatory action that EPA is 

considering to establish public 

notification requirements for combined 

sewer overflow discharges in the Great 

Lakes. Brief oral comments (three 

minutes or less) and written statements 

will be accepted at the session. The 

listening session will be held on 

September 14, 2016 at 10 a.m. at the 

Environmental Protection Agency 

Region 5 Office (Lake Erie Room, Floor 

12), 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 

Chicago, IL 60604–3507. The listening 

session will continue until all speakers 

in attendance have had a chance to 

provide comments or 3 p.m., whichever 

comes first. If time allows after all 

comments have been heard, a broader 

discussion may take place regarding 

topics identified under Section III, Input 

on Public Notice Considerations. 

B. Additional Information and Public 

Meeting Registration 

Prior to the public meeting date, EPA 

will post any relevant materials to the 

following Web site: https://

www.epa.gov/npdes/combined-seweroverflows-great-lakes-basin. Information 

posted to the Web site will include any 

handouts that may be provided at the 

meeting as well as a web link that 

participants may use to register for the 

public meeting in advance. Advanced 

registration is not required but is 

requested so that EPA can ensure there 

is sufficient space and time allotted for 

those who wish to participate. 

II. Background 

The Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA) will be proposing a rule to 

establish public notification 

requirements for combined sewer 

overflows (CSOs) to the Great Lakes, as 

required by Section 425 of the 

Consolidated Appropriations Act of 

2016 (Pub. L. 114–113) (hereafter, 

referred to as ‘‘Section 425’’). Section 

425 requires EPA to work with the Great 

Lakes states to create these public notice 

requirements, and EPA is also seeking 

public input in the development of 

these requirements. 

Combined Sewer Overflows From 

Municipal Wastewater Collection 

Systems 

Municipal wastewater collection 

systems collect domestic sewage and 

other wastewater from homes and other 

buildings and convey it to wastewater 

treatment plants for proper treatment 

and disposal. The collection and 

treatment of municipal sewage and 

wastewater is vital to the public health 

in our cities and towns. In the United 

States, municipalities historically have 

used two major types of sewer systems. 

Many municipalities collect domestic 

sewage in a sanitary sewer system and 

convey the sewage to a publicly owned 

treatment works (POTW) for treatment. 

These municipalities also have separate 

sewer systems to collect surface 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS