Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 25 / Thursday, February 6, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 7067 

consider the use of any voluntary 

consensus standards. 

Executive Order 13045 

Executive Order 13045, ‘‘Protection of 

Children from Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, 

April 23, 1997), applies to any rule that: 

(1) Is determined to be ‘‘economically 

significant’’ as defined under Executive 

Order 12866, and (2) concerns an 

environmental health or safety risk that 

we have reason to believe may have a 

disproportionate effect on children. If 

the regulatory action meets both criteria, 

we must evaluate the environmental 

health or safety effects of the rule on 

children, and explain why the 

regulation is preferable to other 

potentially effective and reasonably 

feasible alternatives. 

This rule is not subject to this 

Executive Order because it is not 

economically significant as defined in 

Executive Order 12866. In addition, it 

does not concern an environmental or 

safety risk that we have reason to 

believe may have a disproportionate 

effect on children. 

Executive Order 13175 

Executive Order 13175, entitled 

‘‘Consultation and Coordination with 

Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR 

67249, November 6, 2000), requires 

agencies to develop an accountable 

process to ensure ‘‘meaningful and 

timely input by tribal officials in the 

development of regulatory policies that 

have tribal implications.’’ The phrase 

‘‘policies that have tribal implications’’ 

is defined in the Executive Order to 

include regulations that have 

‘‘substantial direct effects on one or 

more Indian tribes, on the relationship 

between the Federal government and 

the Indian tribes, or on the distribution 

of power and responsibilities between 

the Federal government and Indian 

tribes.’’ 

This rule does not have tribal 

implications. It will not have substantial 

direct effects on tribal governments, on 

the relationship between the Federal 

government and the Indian tribes, or on 

the distribution of power and 

responsibilities between the Federal 

government and Indian tribes. 

Therefore, Executive Order 13175 does 

not apply to this rule. 

Environmental Documentation 

This action will not have any adverse 

environmental impact and therefore 

environmental documentation under the 

National Environmental Policy Act is 

not required for this rule. 

Congressional Review Act 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as amended by the 

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. We will submit a 

report containing this rule and other 

required information to the U.S. Senate, 

the U.S. House of Representatives, and 

the Comptroller General of the United 

States. A major rule cannot take effect 

until 60 days after it is published in the 

Federal Register. This rule is not a 

‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 

804(2). 

Executive Order 12898 

Executive Order 12898 requires that, 

to the greatest extent practicable and 

permitted by law, each Federal agency 

must make achieving environmental 

justice part of its mission. Executive 

Order 12898 provides that each Federal 

agency conduct its programs, policies, 

and activities that substantially affect 

human health or the environment in a 

manner that ensures that such programs, 

policies, and activities do not have the 

effect of excluding persons (including 

populations) from participation in, 

denying persons (including 

populations) the benefits of, or 

subjecting persons (including 

populations) to discrimination under 

such programs, policies, and activities 

because of their race, color, or national 

origin. This rule is not expected to 

negatively impact any community, and 

therefore is not expected to cause any 

disproportionately high and adverse 

impacts. 

Executive Order 13211 

This rule is not a ‘‘significant energy 

action’’ as defined in Executive Order 

13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning Regulations 

That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

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

22, 2001) because it is not likely to have 

a significant adverse effect on the 

supply, distribution, or use of energy. 

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 211 

Claims, Flood control, Public lands, 

Real property acquisition, Reservoirs, 

Rights-of-way, Waterways. 

Dated: January 31, 2014. 

Scott Whiteford, 

Director of Real Estate. 

PART 211—[REMOVED] 

For the reasons set out in the 

preamble, under the authority of 5 

U.S.C. 301, the Corps amends 33 CFR 

chapter II by removing part 211. 

[FR Doc. 2014–02604 Filed 2–5–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3720–58–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R08–OAR–2012–0746; FRL–9902–49- 

Region 8] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; Utah; Revisions 

to Utah Rule R307–107; General 

Requirements; Breakdowns 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is approving changes to 

Utah’s rule R307–107, which pertains to 

source emissions during breakdowns. 

Utah’s prior version of rule R307–107 

had several deficiencies related to the 

treatment of excess emissions from 

sources during malfunction events. On 

April 18, 2011, EPA finalized a 

rulemaking which found that the Utah 

State Implementation Plan (SIP) was 

substantially inadequate to attain or 

maintain the national ambient air 

quality standards (NAAQS) or to 

otherwise comply with the requirements 

of the Clean Air Act (CAA) because it 

included rule R307–107. Concurrent 

with this finding, EPA issued a SIP call 

that required the State to revise its SIP 

by either removing R307–107 or 

correcting its deficiencies, and to submit 

the revised SIP to EPA by November 18, 

2012. On August 16, 2012, the State 

submitted to EPA revisions to R307– 

107. EPA is approving these revisions 

because they correct the identified SIP 

deficiencies concerning the treatment of 

excess emissions during malfunctions 

and, therefore, satisfy EPA’s April 18, 

2011 SIP call. This final approval 

eliminates all potential clocks for 

sanctions and for EPA to promulgate a 

federal implementation plan (FIP) 

related to the April 18, 2011 SIP call. 

DATES: This final rule is effective March 

10, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–R08–OAR–2012–0746. All 

documents in the docket are listed on 

the www.regulations.gov Web site. 

Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

e.g., Confidential Business Information 

(CBI) or other information whose 

disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
7068 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 25 / Thursday, February 6, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the Internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available either electronically through 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Air Program, Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, 

1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 

80202–1129. EPA requests that if at all 

possible, you contact the individual 

listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section to view the hard copy 

of the docket. You may view the hard 

copy of the docket Monday through 

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

Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Adam Clark, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, 

Mailcode 8P–AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, 

Denver, Colorado 80202–1129, (303) 

312–7104, clark.adam@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

II. Response to Comments 

III. Final Action 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

Definitions 

For the purpose of this document, the 

following definitions apply: 

i. The words or initials Act or CAA 

mean or refer to the Clean Air Act, 

unless the context indicates otherwise. 

ii. The words EPA, we, us or our mean 

or refer to the United States 

Environmental Protection Agency. 

iii. The initials FIP mean or refer to 

federal implementation plan. 

iv. The initials NAAQS mean or refer 

to National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards. 

v. The initials NESHAPS mean or 

refer to National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants. 

vi. The initials NSPS mean or refer to 

New Source Performance Standards. 

vii. The initials SIP mean or refer to 

state implementation plan. 

viii. The words State or Utah mean 

the State of Utah, unless the context 

indicates otherwise. 

ix. The initials UDAQ mean or refer 

to the Utah Division of Air Quality, 

Utah Department of Environmental 

Quality. 

I. Background 

On April 18, 2011, EPA published a 

final rulemaking in the Federal Register 

(76 FR 21639) that found that the Utah 

SIP was substantially inadequate to 

attain or maintain the NAAQS or to 

otherwise comply with the requirements 

of the CAA because it included rule 

R307–107. As explained in more detail 

in that rulemaking, we evaluated R307– 

107 to determine whether it was 

consistent with CAA requirements for 

SIP provisions. EPA’s longstanding 

interpretation of CAA requirements 

applicable to SIP provisions related to 

the treatment of excess emissions during 

startup, shutdown, and malfunction 

(SSM) events is reflected in a series of 

EPA guidance documents and 

rulemaking actions. In particular, we 

explained that R307–107: (1) Did not 

treat all exceedances of SIP and permit 

limits as violations; (2) could have been 

interpreted to grant the Utah executive 

secretary exclusive authority to decide 

whether excess emissions constituted a 

violation; and (3) improperly applied to 

Federal technology-based standards 

such as New Source Performance 

Standards (NSPS) and National 

Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 

Pollutants (NESHAPS). We concluded 

that R307–107 undermined 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. 76 FR 21640, 

April 18, 2011. The failure to meet 

fundamental CAA requirements for SIP 

provisions rendered R307–107 

substantially inadequate. 

Accordingly, we issued a SIP call 

under CAA sections 110(a)(2)(H) and 

110(k)(5) which required the State to 

revise its SIP by either removing R307– 

107 or correcting its deficiencies, and to 

submit the revised SIP to us by 

November 18, 2012. Id. We also 

explained that if the State failed to 

submit a complete SIP revision by 

November 18, 2012, or if we 

disapproved a submitted SIP revision 

intended to address the deficiencies 

identified in the SIP call, clocks would 

be triggered for mandatory sanctions 

and for EPA to promulgate a FIP. Id. at 

21640–41. 

On June 17, 2011, U.S. Magnesium 

challenged our finding of substantial 

inadequacy and SIP call in the United 

States Court of Appeals for the 10th 

Circuit. In particular, U.S. Magnesium 

argued that we had failed to base the 

finding of substantial inadequacy on 

specific factual findings concerning the 

impacts of the excess emissions that 

occurred during the events affected by 

the deficient SIP provision on 

attainment and maintenance of the 

NAAQS. On August 6, 2012, the 10th 

Circuit upheld EPA’s finding of 

substantial inadequacy and SIP call. 

On August 16, 2012, the State 

submitted to EPA revisions to R307–107 

for the purpose of correcting the 

deficiencies described in the SIP call. In 

this SIP revision, the State specifically 

eliminated the exemption for excess 

emissions during malfunction events 

that was inconsistent with fundamental 

requirements of the CAA for emission 

limitations in SIP provisions. The State 

likewise revised prior regulatory 

language that appeared to grant state 

personnel the exclusive authority to 

determine whether a violation had 

occurred, thereby precluding 

independent enforcement by EPA and 

citizens if the State made a nonviolation determination. As revised, 

R307–107 now only pertains to the 

State’s exercise of its own enforcement 

discretion in the case of violations that 

occur due to excess emissions during 

malfunctions, and that exercise of 

discretion by the State will have no 

bearing upon potential enforcement by 

EPA or citizens. The State’s August 16, 

2012, SIP submission thus eliminated 

the deficiencies in R307–107 and made 

it consistent with fundamental CAA 

requirements for SIP provisions 

applicable to excess emissions during 

malfunction events. Accordingly, we 

proposed to approve the State’s 

revisions on May 9, 2013. 78 FR 27165. 

II. Response to Comments 

We received one comment letter on 

our proposed approval from the 

organizations Western Resource 

Advocates and Utah Physicians for a 

Healthy Environment. The letter 

primarily expressed support for our 

proposed approval, but requested that 

the State’s revised R307–107 ‘‘include a 

requirement that any reports of excess 

emissions be posted on the Division of 

Air Quality Web site in a manner 

readily available to public review.’’ 

We acknowledge the commenters’ 

support for our proposed action. 

Regarding the comment that the State’s 

rule should require that reports of 

excess emissions be posted on the Utah 

Division of Air Quality (UDAQ) Web 

site, the commenters do not indicate 

whether they think the lack of such a 

requirement constitutes a deficiency 

under the CAA that warrants our 

disapproval of the rule now, or whether 

they would like the State to revise the 

rule in the future to provide for such 

posting. The totality of the commenters’ 

letter suggests that they would like us to 

approve revised R307–107 now. 

Regardless of the commenters’ intent, 

we do not find that the revised rule’s 

lack of such a requirement for posting 

of excess emissions reports on a State 

Web site requires our disapproval of the 

revised rule. The commenters have not 

specified, and we are not aware of, a 

CAA or regulatory provision that 

specifically requires a state to post 

excess emissions reports on an internet 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 25 / Thursday, February 6, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 7069 

Web site in order to meet SIP 

requirements. CAA section 110(a) 

generally requires that SIP provisions be 

legally and practicably enforceable, but 

such requirements long predate the 

advent of the internet. CAA section 

110(a)(2)(F) only requires that emissions 

reports be available at reasonable times 

for public inspection. So long as the 

information in these reports is treated as 

emissions data, available to the public 

by other means, posting the reports on 

the internet is not necessary. While we 

agree that it may be helpful for a state 

to post such reports on a Web site, at 

this time we do not interpret CAA 

section 110(a) as requiring it. Were the 

State to revise R307–107 to include such 

a requirement for posting of excess 

emissions reports on a State Web site, 

however, this could serve to strengthen 

and enhance compliance with 

applicable SIP emission limits. 

We find that the revised R307–107 

submitted by the State addresses the 

deficiencies we identified in our April 

18, 2011 SIP call and, consistent with 

CAA section 110(l), our approval of the 

revised rule will not interfere with any 

applicable requirement of the CAA. Our 

approval of the revised rule will 

enhance the State’s, our, and citizens’ 

ability to enforce the Utah SIP. 

III. Final Action 

For the reasons discussed in our 

notice of proposed rulemaking (78 FR 

27165) and in our response to 

comments, we are approving the 

revisions to rule R307–107 of the Utah 

SIP that the State submitted to us on 

August 16, 2012. We are approving 

these revisions because they correct the 

deficiencies identified in our April 18, 

2011 SIP call. We wish to emphasize 

one point we discussed in our notice of 

proposed rulemaking. Revised R307– 

107 only addresses the State’s exercise 

of its enforcement discretion and 

contains no language that suggests that 

a State decision not to pursue an 

enforcement action for a particular 

violation bars EPA or citizens from 

taking an enforcement action. Therefore, 

EPA interprets revised R307–107, 

consistent with EPA’s interpretations of 

the CAA, as not barring EPA and citizen 

enforcement of violations of applicable 

requirements when the State decides 

not to undertake enforcement. 

This approval eliminates all potential 

clocks for mandatory sanctions and for 

EPA to promulgate a FIP related to the 

April 18, 2011 SIP call. 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the Clean Air Act, the 

Administrator is required to approve a 

SIP submission that complies with the 

provisions of the Act and applicable 

Federal regulations. 42 USC 7410(k); 40 

CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP 

submissions, EPA’s role is to approve 

state choices, provided that they meet 

the criteria of the Clean Air Act. 

Accordingly, this action merely 

approves state law as meeting Federal 

requirements and does not impose 

additional requirements beyond those 

imposed by state law. For that reason, 

this action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

USC 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 

USC 601 et seq.); 

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• 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 USC 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; 

and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this rule does not have 

tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the state, and EPA notes that 

it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal law. 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. EPA will submit a 

report containing this action and other 

required information to the U.S. Senate, 

the U.S. House of Representatives, and 

the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. A major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as 

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean 

Air Act, petitions for judicial review of 

this action must be filed in the United 

States Court of Appeals for the 

appropriate circuit by April 7, 2014. 

Filing a petition for reconsideration by 

the Administrator of this final rule does 

not affect the finality of this action for 

the purposes of judicial review nor does 

it extend the time within which a 

petition for judicial review may be filed, 

and shall not postpone the effectiveness 

of such rule or action. This action may 

not be challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements. (See section 

307(b)(2) of the Clean Air Act.) 

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: October 23, 2013. 

Howard M. Cantor, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 8. 

40 CFR part 52 is amended to read as 

follows: 

PART 52—APPROVAL AND 

PROMULGATION OF 

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart TT—[AMENDED] 

■ 2. Section 52.2320 is amended by 

adding paragraph (c)(74) to read as 

follows: 

§ 52.2320 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(74) On August 16, 2012 the State of 

Utah submitted as a SIP revision a 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
7070 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 25 / Thursday, February 6, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

revised version of its breakdown rule, 

Utah Administrative Code (UAC) R307– 

107, which replaces the prior version of 

UAC R307–107. 

(i) Incorporation by reference. 

(A) Title R307 of the Utah 

Administrative Code, Environmental 

Quality, Air Quality, Rule R307–107, 

General Requirements: Breakdowns. 

Effective July 31, 2012; as published in 

the Utah State Bulletin on March 1, 

2012, modified on July 1, 2012, and 

August 15, 2012. Note: The August 15, 

2012 publication contains a 

typographical error in the title of Rule 

R307–107. 

[FR Doc. 2014–02079 Filed 2–5–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R08–OAR–2012–0300; FRL–9903–27– 

Region 8] 

Approval and Promulgation of State 

Implementation Plans; Utah: 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration; 

Greenhouse Gas Permitting Authority 

and Tailoring Rule 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is partially approving and 

partially disapproving revisions to the 

Utah State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

relating to regulation of Greenhouse 

Gases (GHGs) under Utah’s Prevention 

of Significant Deterioration (PSD) 

program and other SIP provisions. 

These revisions were submitted to EPA 

on April 14, 2011 by the Governor. The 

GHG-related SIP revisions are designed 

to align Utah’s regulations with the GHG 

emission thresholds established in 

EPA’s ‘‘PSD and Title V Greenhouse Gas 

Tailoring Final Rule,’’ which EPA 

issued by notice dated June 3, 2010. In 

today’s action, EPA is approving the 

GHG (as it relates to the PSD program) 

revisions because the Agency has 

determined that this SIP revision, which 

is already adopted by Utah as a final 

effective rule, is in accordance with the 

Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) and EPA 

regulations regarding PSD permitting for 

GHGs. 

DATES: This final rule is effective March 

10, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket 

Identification No. EPA–R08–OAR– 

2012–0300. All documents in the docket 

are listed in the www.regulations.gov 

index. Although listed in the index, 

some information is not publicly 

available, e.g., CBI or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, will be publicly 

available only in hard copy. Publicly 

available docket materials are available 

either electronically in 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Air Program, Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, 

1595 Wynkoop St., Denver, Colorado 

80202–1129. EPA requests that if at all 

possible, you contact the individual 

listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section to view the hard copy 

of the docket. You may view the hard 

copy of the docket Monday through 

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

Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jody 

Ostendorf, Air Program, Mailcode 8P– 

AR, Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA), Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop St., 

Denver, Colorado 80202–1129, (303) 

312–7814, ostendorf.jody@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ 

or ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. Background for Our Final Action 

II. What final action is EPA taking? 

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background for Our Final Action 

The background for today’s final rule 

and EPA’s national actions pertaining to 

GHGs is discussed in detail in our 

September 5, 2013 proposal (see 78 FR 

54602). The comment period was open 

for 21 days and we received no written 

comments. However, we did receive a 

phone call of clarification from the State 

of Utah, which is explained below and 

documented in a Memo to the Docket 

dated September 30, 2013. 

II. What final action is EPA taking? 

Utah has adopted and submitted 

regulations that are substantively 

similar to the federal requirements for 

the permitting of GHG-emitting sources 

subject to PSD. As presented in our 

proposed notice, we conclude that the 

revisions are consistent with the 

requirements of 40 CFR 51.166, in 

particular the requirements set out in 

EPA’s final GHG Tailoring Rule, and 

that the revisions should be approved 

into Utah’s SIP. 

R307–401–9 (Small Source 

Exemption), was revised by the State to 

exclude sources from the requirement to 

obtain an approval order if their GHG 

emissions are below the thresholds 

established by EPA, and adopted into 

the State rules (R307–401–9(5)). 

Therefore, preconstruction permits for 

GHGs are only required under the PSD 

permitting program, thus exempting 

minor sources from GHG permitting. We 

are approving the rule amendment as 

submitted by the State and this revision. 

R307–405–3 (Definitions), was also 

revised by the State to amend the 

definition of ‘‘subject to regulation’’ to 

include ‘‘greenhouse gases (GHGs)’’ as 

defined in 40 CFR 86.1818–12(a). R307– 

405–3 was modified to establish 

thresholds for permitting of GHGs under 

the PSD program. Definitions for the 

terms ‘‘GHGs’’, ‘‘emissions increase’’ 

and ‘‘tpy CO2 equivalent emissions 

(CO2e)’’, were added to this rule. 

Applicability thresholds for several 

different types of permitting scenarios 

were also added. Therefore, we are 

approving the state’s additions to R307– 

405–3(9) as they are consistent with the 

federal rule provisions in 40 CFR 

51.166(b)(48). 

Our final review determines that there 

are eight provisions in the R307–405–3 

in the State submittal that are identical 

in rule number and language to the 

definitions we approved in our July 15, 

2011 approval (76 FR 41712) and we are 

approving these definitions as 

resubmitted. These provisions include: 

R307–405–3(1)(adopting by reference 

the definitions in 40 CFR 52.21(b) with 

exceptions as noted in the rules); R307– 

405–3(2)(c)(definition of ‘‘Reviewing 

Authority’’); R307–405– 

3(2)(d)(definition of ‘‘Administrator’’); 

R307–405–3(2)(e)(definitions or 

portions of definitions vacated by the 

DC Circuit Court of Appeals on March 

17, 2006); R307–405–3(3)(definition of 

‘‘Air Quality Related Values’’); R307– 

405–3(4)(definition of ‘‘Heat Input’’); 

R307–405–3(7)(definition of ‘‘Good 

Engineering Practice’’); and R307–405– 

3(8)(definition of ‘‘Dispersion 

Technique’’). 

We proposed to approve R307–405– 

3(2)(e) and indicated in our proposal 

that this is a new rule that is not 

currently in the SIP. The rule explains 

that ‘‘certain definitions or portions of 

definitions that apply to the equipment 

repair and replacement provisions are 

not incorporated into the SIP because 

these provisions were vacated by the DC 

Circuit Court of Appeals.’’ Upon further 

research we found that we previously 

approved this rule in our final action on 

July 15, 2011 (76 FR 41712). Therefore, 

we are reapproving the resubmittal of 

this provision. 

Additionally, in our proposed action 

we indicated there is a definition that 

had a new rule number, and upon 

further research we found that we had 

previously approved the definition with 

that rule number in our July 15, 2011 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES