Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 95 / Monday, May 18, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 28193 

(ii) After the season, provide written 

documentation of required evaluation 

information to the Federal fishery 

manager including, but not limited to, 

persons or households operating the 

gear, hours of operation, and number of 

each species caught and retained or 

released. 

(3) The gillnet owner (organization) 

may operate the net for subsistence 

purposes on behalf of residents of 

Ninilchik by requesting a subsistence 

fishing permit that: 

(i) Identifies a person who will be 

responsible for fishing the gillnet; 

(ii) Includes provisions for recording 

daily catches, the household to whom 

the catch was given, and other 

information determined to be necessary 

for effective resource management by 

the Federal fishery manager. 

(4) Fishing will be allowed from June 

15 through August 15 on the Kenai 

River unless closed or otherwise 

restricted by Federal special action. 

(5) Salmon taken in the gillnet fishery 

will be included as part of the dip net/ 

rod and reel fishery annual total harvest 

limits for the Kenai River and as part of 

dip net/rod and reel household annual 

limits of participating households. 

(6) Fishing for each salmon species 

will end and the fishery will be closed 

by Federal special action prior to 

regulatory end dates if the annual total 

harvest limit for that species is reached 

or superseded by Federal special action. 

* * * * * 

(13) * * * 

(xiii) * * * 

(E) Fishing nets must be checked at 

least twice each day. The total annual 

guideline harvest level for the Stikine 

River fishery is 125 Chinook, 600 

Sockeye, and 400 Coho salmon. All 

salmon harvested, including 

incidentally taken salmon, will count 

against the guideline for that species. 

* * * * * 

(xx) The Klawock River drainage is 

closed to the use of seines and gillnets 

during July and August. 

(xxi) The Federal public waters in the 

Makhnati Island area, as defined in 

§ ll.3(b)(5) are closed to the harvest of 

herring and herring spawn except by 

Federally qualified users. 

Dated: April 29, 2015. 

Eugene R. Peltola, Jr., 

Assistant Regional Director, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Acting Chair, Federal 

Subsistence Board. 

Dated: April 29, 2015. 

Thomas Whitford, 

Subsistence Program Leader, USDA—Forest 

Service. 

[FR Doc. 2015–11907 Filed 5–15–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–11–P; 4310–55–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R08–OAR–2015–0227; FRL–9927–68– 

Region 8] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; State of 

Utah; Utah County—Trading of Motor 

Vehicle Emission Budgets for PM10

Transportation Conformity 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is taking direct final 

action to approve a State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) revision 

submitted by the State of Utah. On 

March 9, 2015, the Governor of Utah 

submitted a revision to the Utah SIP, 

adding a new rule regarding trading of 

motor vehicle emission budgets (MVEB) 

for Utah County. The rule allows trading 

from the motor vehicle emissions 

budget for primary particulate matter of 

10 microns or less in diameter (PM10) to 

the motor vehicle emissions budget for 

nitrogen oxides (NOX), which is a PM10

precursor. The resulting motor vehicle 

emissions budgets for NOX and PM10

may then be used to demonstrate 

transportation conformity with the SIP. 

The EPA is taking this action under 

section 110 of the Clean Air Act (CAA). 

DATES: This rule is effective on July 17, 

2015 without further notice, unless EPA 

receives adverse comment by June 17, 

2015. If adverse comment is received, 

EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of 

the direct final rule in the Federal 

Register informing the public that the 

rule will not take effect. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R08– 

OAR–2015–0227, by one of the 

following methods: 

• http://www.regulations.gov. Follow 

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Email: russ.tim@epa.gov 

• Fax: (303) 312–6064 (please alert 

the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT if you are faxing 

comments). 

• Mail: Carl Daly, Director, Air 

Program, EPA, Region 8, Mailcode 

8P–AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, 

Colorado 80202–1129. 

• Hand Delivery: Carl Daly, Director, 

Air Program, EPA, Region 8, Mailcode 

8P–AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, 

Colorado 80202–1129. Such deliveries 

are only accepted Monday through 

Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding 

federal holidays. Special arrangements 

should be made for deliveries of boxed 

information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R08–OAR–2015– 

0227. 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 

protected through http://

www.regulations.gov or email. The 

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

an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an email comment directly 

to EPA, without going through http://

www.regulations.gov, your email 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. For additional 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, EPA, Region 8, 

Mailcode 8P–AR, 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 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
28194 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 95 / Monday, May 18, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 

4:00 p.m., excluding Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tim 

Russ, Air Program, EPA, Region 8, 

Mailcode 8P–AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, 

Denver, Colorado 80202–1129, (303) 

312–6479, russ.tim@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. General Information 

II. Background 

III. What was the State’s process? 

IV. EPA’s Evaluation of Utah Rule R307–311 

V. EPA’s Evaluation of the Technical Support 

Document for R307–311 

VI. Consideration of Section 110(l) of the 

Clean Air Act 

VII. Final Action 

VIII. Incorporation by Reference 

IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. General Information 

1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit CBI 

to EPA through http://

www.regulations.gov or email. Clearly 

mark the part or all of the information 

that you claim to be CBI. For CBI 

information in a disk or CD–ROM that 

you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the 

disk or CD–ROM as CBI and then 

identify electronically within the disk or 

CD–ROM the specific information that 

is claimed as CBI. In addition to one 

complete version of the comment that 

includes information claimed as CBI, a 

copy of the comment that does not 

contain the information claimed as CBI 

must be submitted for inclusion in the 

public docket. Information so marked 

will not be disclosed except in 

accordance with procedures set forth in 

40 CFR part 2. 

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 

In this action, we are approving and 

soliciting public comment regarding the 

Governor’s March 9, 2015, submittal of 

Utah’s new Rule R307–311 for adoption 

into the Utah SIP. The rule will allow 

certain trading of MVEBs for the 

purposes of transportation conformity 

for PM10 for Utah County. Once 

approved by EPA, the Mountainland 

Association of Governments (MAG) will 

then be able to use the provisions of 

Rule R307–311 when MAG performs a 

transportation conformity determination 

for its Regional Transportation Plan 

(RTP) and/or Transportation 

Improvement Program (TIP). 

The above SIP action that was 

adopted by the Utah Air Quality Board 

(UAQB), and subsequently submitted to 

EPA by the Governor of Utah for 

approval, is discussed in greater detail 

in sections III, IV, and V below. We also 

discuss the state’s associated technical 

support document (TSD), which gives 

technical information to support new 

Rule R307–311. 

III. What was the State’s process? 

Sections 110(a)(2) and 110(l) of the 

CAA requires that a state provide 

reasonable notice and public hearing 

before adopting a SIP revision and 

submitting it to us. More detailed 

requirements for notice and public 

hearing are set out in 40 CFR 51.102. 

On December 4, 2014 the UAQB 

proposed for public comment 

amendments to the Utah SIP for Utah 

Air Quality Rule R307–311; ‘‘Utah 

County: Trading of Emission Budgets for 

Transportation Conformity.’’ In addition 

on January 12, 2015, the Utah Division 

of Air Quality (UDAQ) made the 

proposed TSD available for public 

comment and extended the Rule R307– 

311 public comment period to February 

12, 2015. EPA notes that included with 

the state’s administrative 

documentation for this SIP and Rule 

revision was a letter memorandum, 

DAQ–010–15 dated February 19, 2015, 

from Bryce Bird, Director, UDAQ to the 

UAQB. This letter memorandum 

indicated that a public comment period 

was held from January 1, 2015 through 

February 12, 2015 regarding the 

proposed Rule R307–311 SIP revisions. 

The UDAQ February 19, 2015 letter 

memorandum noted that no public 

comments were received on the 

proposed rule R307–311, but that EPA 

did comment on the TSD. UDAQ 

summarized and responded to EPA’s 

comments in its February 19, 2015 letter 

memorandum to the UAQB. In addition, 

UDAQ noted that no public hearings 

were requested. In consideration of the 

February 19, 2015 UDAQ letter 

memorandum, the UAQB subsequently 

adopted the proposed Rule R307–311, 

and a revised TSD, on March 4, 2015. 

The SIP Rule revision became state 

effective on March 5, 2015 and was 

submitted by the Governor to EPA by a 

letter dated March 9, 2015. By a 

subsequent letter dated March 11, 2015, 

Bryce Bird, Director, UDAQ submitted 

the necessary administrative 

documentation that supported the 

Governor’s submittal. 

We have evaluated Utah’s March 9, 

2015 SIP submittal and the March 11, 

2015 submitted administrative 

documentation and have determined 

that the state met the requirements for 

reasonable notice and public hearing 

under section 110(a)(2) of the CAA. By 

a letter dated March 24, 2015, we 

advised the state that the SIP submittal 

was complete under section 110(k)(1)(B) 

of the Act, because the submittal met 

the minimum ‘‘completeness’’ criteria 

found in 40 CFR part 51, Appendix V. 

IV. EPA’s Evaluation of Utah Rule 

R307–311 

(a) Background and Purpose 

Transportation conformity is required 

by section 176 of the CAA to ensure that 

federally supported highway and transit 

project activities are consistent with 

(‘‘conform to’’) the purpose of a SIP. 

Conformity to the purpose of the SIP 

means that transportation activities will 

not cause new air quality violations, 

worsen existing violations, or delay 

timely attainment of the national 

ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). 

EPA’s transportation conformity rule 

establishes the criteria and procedures 

for determining whether transportation 

activities conform to the state air quality 

plan. 

One key provision of EPA’s 

transportation conformity rule (see 40 

CFR part 93, subpart A) requires a 

demonstration that emissions from the 

RTP and TIP are consistent with the 

MVEB in the applicable SIP (40 CFR 

93.118 and 93.124). The transportation 

conformity MVEB is defined as the level 

of on-road mobile source emissions 

relied upon in the SIP to attain or 

maintain compliance with the NAAQS 

in the nonattainment or maintenance 

area. 

In this particular instance, the 

NAAQS involved is PM10, the 

nonattainment area is Utah County, the 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 95 / Monday, May 18, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 28195 

1R307–101–3 is approved into the Utah SIP and 

reflects a date of July 1, 2013 for incorporation by 

reference of federal rules. 

2EPA notes this is applicable to projects not from 

a conforming RTP and TIP which must conform 

with the MVEBs. This clarification is only for those 

projects, and not projects from a conforming RTP 

and TIP. See 40 CFR 93.109(b) and 40 CFR 

93.115(a). 

MVEBs involve direct emissions of PM10

and NOX, the latter as a precursor to the 

formation of PM10, and the applicable 

SIP is the EPA-approved Utah PM10

attainment plan, as updated on 

December 23, 2002 (67 FR 78181). The 

approved PM10 attainment plan contains 

(among other things) an attainment 

demonstration for Utah County that sets 

PM10 and NOX MVEBs. 

Transportation conformity is 

demonstrated when future year’s 

projected on-road mobile source’s 

emissions, for a particular pollutant or 

precursor, are estimated to be at or 

below the on-road motor vehicle’s 

emissions budget for that pollutant or 

precursor in the applicable SIP. For the 

PM10 NAAQS for Utah County, 

conformity must be demonstrated 

separately for the PM10 and NOX MVEBs 

established in the Utah County PM10

attainment demonstration. However, 

emissions can be traded between the 

PM10 and NOX budgets if there is an 

approved rule in the SIP that establishes 

appropriate mechanisms for such trades. 

See 40 CFR 93.124(b). 

Currently, the Utah SIP does not 

contain an approved rule that 

establishes an appropriate mechanism 

for trading of emissions between the 

PM10 and NOX MVEBs for Utah County. 

The EPA notes, however, that we 

previously approved a Utah Rule (R307– 

310) that allows trading of emissions 

between the PM10 and NOX MVEBs for 

another PM10 nonattainment area in 

Utah, Salt Lake County. 67 FR 44065 

(July 1, 2002). For Utah County, the 

state has developed a new Rule R307– 

311, very similar to that for Salt Lake 

County, which establishes an on-road 

mobile source emissions trading 

mechanism that; (1) involves only PM10

and NOX MVEBs from the PM10

attainment demonstration SIP, (2) 

allows trading in only one direction 

from the PM10 budget to the NOX budget 

on a one-to-one basis, (3) applies only 

to transportation conformity 

determinations in Utah County in 

conjunction with the PM10 attainment 

demonstration SIP, and (4) is pursuant 

to 40 CFR part 93, subpart A. 

(b) Utah Rule R307–311 Description 

An overview of all portions of the 

state’s new Rule R307–311 is provided 

below: 

1. R307–311 is entitled ‘‘Utah County: 

Trading of Emission Budgets for 

Transportation Conformity.’’ 

2. R307–311–1 ‘‘Purpose.’’ The stated 

purpose of this new rule is: 

This rule establishes the procedures 

that may be used to trade a portion of 

the primary PM10 budget when 

demonstrating that a transportation 

plan, transportation improvement 

program, or project conforms with the 

motor vehicle emissions budgets in the 

Utah County portion of Section IX, Part 

A of the State Implementation Plan, 

‘‘Fine Particulate Matter (PM10). 

3. R307–311–2. ‘‘Definitions.’’ This 

section provides applicable definitions: 

The definitions contained in 40 CFR 

93.101, effective as of the date 

referenced in R307–101–3,1 are 

incorporated into this rule by reference. 

The following additional definitions 

apply to this rule. 

‘‘Budget’’ means the motor vehicle 

emission projections used in the 

attainment demonstration in the Utah 

County portion of Section IX, Part A of 

the State Implementation Plan, ‘‘Fine 

Particulate Matter (PM10). 

‘‘NOX’’ means oxides of nitrogen. 

‘‘Primary PM10’’ means PM10 that is 

emitted directly by a source. Primary 

PM10 does not include particulate 

matter that is formed when gaseous 

emissions undergo chemical reactions 

in the ambient air. 

‘‘Transportation Conformity’’ means a 

demonstration that a transportation 

plan, transportation improvement 

program, or project conforms with the 

emissions budgets in a state 

implementation plan, as outlined in 40 

CFR, Chapter 1, Part 93; 2 Determining 

Conformity of Federal Actions to State 

or Federal Implementation Plans. 

4. R307–311–3. ‘‘Applicability’’. This 

portion of the rule defines its 

applicability. EPA notes that this rule 

may only be applied to Utah County and 

only for PM10: 

(A) This rule applies to agencies 

responsible for demonstrating 

transportation conformity with the Utah 

County portion of Section IX, Part A of 

the State Implementation Plan, ‘‘Fine 

Particulate Matter (PM10). 

(B) This rule does not apply to 

emission budgets from Section IX, Part 

C.6 of the State Implementation Plan, 

‘‘Carbon Monoxide Maintenance 

Provisions. 

5. R307–311–4. ‘‘Trading Between 

Emission Budgets.’’ This portion of the 

rule specifies the trading mechanism 

and provides the trading ratio of NOX

and PM10. In our section V below, EPA 

evaluates the technical justification 

provided in the TSD for the trading 

ratio. In this section, we find that the 

rule language establishes an appropriate 

trading mechanism for the Utah County 

NOX and PM10 motor vehicle emission 

budgets: 

The agencies responsible for 

demonstrating transportation 

conformity are authorized to 

supplement the budget for NOX with a 

portion of the budget for primary PM10

for the purpose of demonstrating 

transportation conformity for NOX. The 

NOX budget shall be supplemented 

using the following procedures. 

(a) The metropolitan planning 

organization shall include the following 

information in the transportation 

conformity demonstration: 

(i) The budget for primary PM10 and 

NOX for each required year of the 

conformity demonstration, before 

trading allowed by this rule has been 

applied; 

(ii) The portion of the primary PM10

budget that will be used to supplement 

the NOX budget, specified in tons per 

day using a 1:1 ratio of primary PM10 to 

NOX, for each required year of the 

conformity demonstration; 

(iii) The remainder of the primary 

PM10 budget that will be used in the 

conformity demonstration for primary 

PM10, specified in tons per day for each 

required year of the conformity 

demonstration; and 

(iv) The budget for primary PM10 and 

NOX for each required year of the 

conformity demonstration after the 

trading allowed by this rule has been 

applied. 

(b) Transportation conformity for NOX

shall be demonstrated using the NOX

budget supplemented by a portion of the 

primary PM10 budget as described in 

(a)(ii). Transportation conformity for 

primary PM10 shall be demonstrated 

using the remainder of the primary PM10

budget described in (a)(iii). 

(c) The primary PM10 budget shall not 

be supplemented by using a portion of 

the NOX budget. 

V. EPA’s Evaluation of the Technical 

Support Document for R307–311 

The Governor’s SIP revision submittal 

provided a TSD to support the new Rule 

R307–311 and address MVEB trading, as 

contemplated by 40 CFR 93.124(b), for 

PM10 and NOX in Utah County. 

a. Description 

PM10 is particulate matter with 

diameters smaller than 10 micrometers. 

PM10 consists of solid and/or liquid 

particles of; (1) primary particles that 

are directly emitted particulate matter 

(PM) or PM that quickly condenses 

upon release, and (2) secondary 

particles which are PM that is formed in 

the atmosphere from gaseous 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
28196 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 95 / Monday, May 18, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

precursors. Important gaseous 

precursors to PM include sulfur dioxide 

(SO2) which converts to sulfate (SO4) 

particles, NOX which converts to nitrate 

(NO3) particles, volatile organic 

compounds (VOCs) some of which 

convert to secondary organic aerosols, 

and ammonia (NH3) which adds to the 

mass of sulfate PM and allows nitric 

acid to convert to PM10 in the form of 

ammonium nitrate. 

Currently in Utah County, the RTP 

and TIP must demonstrate conformity to 

the MVEBs for PM10 and NOX that were 

derived from the 2002 EPA-approved 

PM10 attainment demonstration SIP (see 

67 FR 78181, December 23, 2002). Since 

the regulatory goal is to achieve and 

maintain attainment of the NAAQS and 

conformity related to total PM10, not 

individual components, it should not 

matter in the conformity analysis 

whether PM10 consists of directly 

emitted (primary) PM10 or secondary 

nitrate PM10 formed in the atmosphere 

from precursor NOX gas emissions, 

provided the MVEBs for PM10 and NOX

are consistent with the SIP’s 

demonstration of attainment. The state’s 

TSD outlines the scientific rationale for 

why excess NOX motor vehicle 

emissions (above the NOX MVEB level) 

can be offset, on a 1 to 1 basis, with 

available motor vehicle PM10 emissions 

(below the PM10 MVEB level). The 

State’s TSD explains why the provisions 

of Rule R307–311 are considered 

conservative (i.e., protective of the 

environment) in that the Rule only 

allows a one-way direction trading of 

the MVEBs and a trading ratio of only 

1 to 1. 

b. What fraction of the NOX emissions 

in Utah County convert to PM10? 

The state’s TSD describes how each 

ton of gaseous NOX that gets converted 

to PM10 creates more than a ton of PM10

because the molecular weight of 

ammonium nitrate PM10 is greater than 

the molecular weight of NOX gaseous 

emissions. Considering the ratio of the 

molecular weights of the NOX precursor 

gas and the resulting ammonium nitrate 

aerosol (PM10), the state notes that a ton 

of NOX that is converted from a gas to 

a particle can form as much as 1.74 tons 

of PM10. 

However, not all NOX emissions are 

converted because it takes time to 

convert NOX to nitric acid (HNO3), 

which is the necessary gaseous 

precursor to ammonium nitrate PM10.

These reactions generally occur at rates 

of 1 to 10 percent per hour. It would 

take approximately at least 10 hours to 

fully convert to nitric acid. After this 

initial conversion, only a fraction of the 

gaseous nitric acid will condense as 

ammonium nitrate PM10, depending on 

equilibrium considerations. Finally, 

during the gas-to-particle conversion 

process, deposition will remove a 

significant amount of material. 

Throughout this process of NOX

conversion to nitric acid, and then to 

PM10 and deposition, an equivalent 

amount of directly emitted PM10 is 

having a much larger effect on the PM10

concentration. Directly emitted PM10

has an effect on the ambient 

concentration immediately upon its 

release, while NOX emissions require 

hours to have an effect. 

From a historical perspective, the 

conversion of NOX to PM10 has been 

discussed at EPA since at least 1996. In 

our 1996 proposed rule to revise the 

regulations for the Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration (PSD) and 

nonattainment New Source Review 

(NSR) programs, we discussed a 

proposed approach for interpollutant 

trading for PM10 offsets in the 

nonattainment NSR program: 

The conversion process may depend on 

several variables, including the availability of 

chemical reactants in the atmosphere for the 

conversion process, and the difference in 

mass between the PM10 precursor molecule 

and the PM10 particle that the precursor 

reacts to become. Another concern is that the 

rate of conversion of the precursor to PM10

may be so long that the precursor may not 

entirely convert to PM10 within the same 

nonattainment area. Thus, there would be 

less counteracting effect and no net 

improvement to air quality in the area. Under 

the EPA’s proposal, a source of a PM10

precursor may offset its increased emissions 

with the same precursor type or PM10 (or a 

combination of the two). In this situation, a 

net improvement in air quality would be 

assured. At this point, however, the EPA is 

not proposing to allow offsetting among 

different types of PM10 precursors, or 

offsetting PM10 increases with reduction in 

PM10 precursors, because the Agency does 

not now have a scientific basis to propose 

conversion factors. (61 FR 38305, July 23, 

1996). 

These statements were cited in our 

2002 proposed approval of the MVEB 

trading rule (R307–310) for Salt Lake 

County. 67 FR 21609 (May 1, 2002). 

However, EPA has more recently 

issued guidance on interpollutant 

trading provisions for fine particulate 

matter (PM2.5) for offsets under the 

nonattainment NSR program. The 

guidance memorandum is entitled 

‘‘Revised Policy to Address 

Reconsideration of Interpollutant 

Trading Provisions for Fine Particles 

(PM2.5)’’ and is dated July 21, 2011 

(hereafter referred to as ‘‘Revised 2011 

Trading Policy’’). The Revised 2011 

Trading Policy states in part (page 3, 

fourth paragraph) that ‘‘. . . states will 

be expected to develop separate PM2.5

precursor offset ratios that are 

demonstrated to be suitable for 

addressing the particular precursor’s 

relationship with ambient PM2.5

concentrations for 24-hour averaging 

periods that are causing violations in 

that nonattainment area.’’ And on page 

4, first paragraph; ‘‘. . . each ratio will 

need to be supported by modeling or 

other technical demonstration to show 

that such ratio is suitable for the 

particular PM2.5 nonattainment area of 

concern . . .’’ 

Our Revised 2011 Trading Policy 

provides a general framework for such 

efforts, involving the following steps: 

1. Definition of the appropriate 

geographical area. 

2. Sensitivity runs with appropriate 

air quality models. 

3. Calculation of interpollutant ratios. 

4. Quality assurance of the results. 

To support Utah’s rule R307–311, the 

UDAQ applied the above methodology 

to the Utah County 24-hour PM10

NAAQS nonattainment area. Although 

the Revised 2011 Trading Policy is 

specific to PM2.5 and nonattainment 

NSR offsets, and is nonbinding 

guidance, in this action we consider that 

the recommendations in the Revised 

2011 Trading Policy provide a suitable 

approach for a technical demonstration 

that the trading ratio for Utah County for 

the PM10 and NOX MVEBs is 

appropriate under 40 CFR 93.124(b). 

The UDAQ states in the TSD that 

exceedances of the PM10 24-hour 

NAAQS in Utah County are 

characterized by spikes in secondary 

aerosol formation under conditions of 

wintertime temperature inversions 

which prevent good atmospheric mixing 

and facilitate conversion of secondary 

PM10. The UDAQ also states that a high 

percentage of the PM10 monitored in 

Utah County, during winter episodes of 

elevated concentration, lies also within 

the PM2.5 fraction. EPA also notes that 

the 2002 Utah County PM10 SIP revision 

identified both NOX and SO2 as 

precursors to the formation of PM10. 

The TSD for Rule R307–311 identifies 

that parts of Utah County (the valley 

regions, western area of the County) are 

also designated as nonattainment for the 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS (74 FR 

58688, November 13, 2009). To meet the 

requirements set out in subparts 1 and 

4 of Part D, title I of the CAA, the UDAQ 

developed a moderate area attainment 

plan for Utah County that (among other 

things) contained a demonstration that 

attainment of the 24-hour PM2.5

standards by the applicable attainment 

date for moderate areas, December 31, 

2015, is impracticable (hereafter ‘‘PM2.5

Impracticability Demonstration’’). This 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 95 / Monday, May 18, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 28197 

3We are not acting today on any portion of the 

state’s December 16, 2014 submittal, including the 

PM2.5 Impracticability Demonstration and the 

emission inventories. 

4PM10 SIP Development Guideline, EPA–450/2– 

86–001, June 1987, section 6.3; pages 6–3 through 

6–8. The cited portions of this guidance are 

available in the docket for this action; the entire 

document is available online at http:// 

www.epa.gov/ttn/caaa/t1/memoranda/ 

pm10sip_dev_guide.pdf. 

5Memorandum to File entitled ‘‘Utah PM10 24- 

hour Design Concentrations,’’ Richard M. Payton, 

USEPA Region 8, dated April 22, 2015. 

attainment plan was submitted by the 

Governor to EPA on December 16, 2014. 

The air quality modeling for the PM2.5

Impracticability Demonstration was 

conducted by UDAQ using the 

Community Multi-Scale Air Quality 

model (CMAQ). CMAQ is also capable 

of determining the relative importance 

of NOX and PM10 in contributing to 

PM10 nonattainment. 

The emission inventories that were 

developed by UDAQ for the Utah 

County PM2.5 Impracticability 

Demonstration included PM2.5, SO2, 

NOX, VOC, Ammonia and PM10.3 As 

PM10 was inventoried for the PM2.5

Impracticability Demonstration, this 

allowed CMAQ model sensitivity runs 

to be made for the purpose of evaluating 

and supporting the MVEB trading 

provisions in Rule R307–311. The 

UDAQ’s methodology employed the 

CMAQ model, as developed for Utah 

County, with a substitution of PM10

emissions for PM2.5. The UDAQ also 

notes in the Rule R307–311 TSD that the 

CMAQ model was re-validated with 

respect to PM10 emissions data from the 

appropriate episode period prior to 

making the sensitivity runs (refer to 

Appendix A of the TSD). 

Having made these adjustments to the 

CMAQ model, UDAQ ran the model to 

generate a time-series plot (refer to 

Appendix A of the TSD). The UDAQ 

determined that the ratio of NOX to 

PM10 equivalence was 5.702 to one. 

Since this ratio is considerably greater 

than 1:1, the UDAQ concluded that 

reducing primary PM10 is more 

beneficial than reducing NOX for 

improving Utah County’s air quality 

with respect to PM10. The EPA has 

evaluated this additional sensitivity 

modeling information and has 

concluded that it provides an adequate 

technical demonstration to support the 

MVEB trading provisions in Rule R307– 

311. Based on the demonstration, we 

also conclude that Rule R307–311 

establishes an appropriate trading ratio, 

and that under Rule R307–311, there 

will not be adverse impacts to the 

overall ambient 24-hour PM10

concentrations within Utah County. 

With regard to ambient 24-hour PM10

concentrations within Utah County, we 

have also evaluated the current (statecertified) 2011 through 2013 PM10

ambient air quality monitoring data for 

Utah County in EPA’s Air Quality 

System (AQS), EPA’s repository for the 

Nation’s ambient air quality data. EPA’s 

guidance for the calculation of 24-hour 

PM10 design value concentrations 

provide four techniques.4 Our 

guidance’s ‘‘Table Lookup’’ method 

shows a 2011 through 2013 PM10 design 

value concentration as 149mm3 at the 

North Provo monitor and 124mm3 at the 

Lindon monitor. These values, however, 

contain certain data quality issues such 

as missing days of monitoring data and 

zero reading days. We believe that if the 

statistical method from our guidance, 

‘‘Using the empirical frequency 

distribution of several years of the data 

(graphical estimation),’’ is used, in this 

particular case it provides a more 

accurate representation of the 

monitoring data.5 When using this 

statistical/graphic approach, the North 

Provo monitor then has a 2011 through 

2013 PM10 design value concentration of 

133.5 mm3 and the Lindon monitor has 

a 2011 through 2013 design value 

concentration of 118.7 mm3. However, 

EPA notes that regardless of the 

methodology used, Utah County 

continues to demonstrate attainment of 

the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS. 

c. Impact of the PM10 and NOX MVEB 

Trading Rule on Other Pollutants; EPA’s 

Evaluation of Utah’s Information 

Regarding the Provisions of Section 

110(1) of the Clean Air Act 

Section 110(1) of the CAA states that 

a SIP revision cannot be approved if the 

revision would interfere with any 

applicable requirement concerning 

attainment and reasonable further 

progress towards attainment of a 

NAAQS or any other applicable 

requirement of the CAA. EPA’s 

evaluation above shows that this SIP 

revision will not interfere with 

attainment of the PM10 NAAQS. 

In addition to being a designated 

nonattainment area for PM10, Utah 

County is also designated as 

nonattainment for the 2006 24-hour 

PM2.5 NAAQS. The city of Provo, in 

Utah County, is designated as an 

attainment/maintenance area for carbon 

monoxide (CO). These criteria 

pollutants, along with the 2008 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS and the 1-hour nitrogen 

dioxide (NO2) NAAQS, were evaluated 

by the state in the TSD for potential 

collateral impacts from the 

implementation of the provisions of 

Rule R307–311. 

1. PM2.5

As discussed above, part of Utah 

County (the western portion) was 

designated by EPA as nonattainment for 

the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS (74 FR 

58688, November 13, 2009), and on 

December 16, 2014, the state submitted 

an attainment plan containing, among 

other things, the PM2.5 Impracticability 

Demonstration. As with PM10 (described 

above), UDAQ performed sensitivity 

runs using the CMAQ modeling 

information that was developed for the 

PM2.5 Impracticability Demonstration. 

This modeling exercise was performed 

in order to determine an equivalence 

ratio between NOX and PM2.5. The 

resulting ratio of NOX to PM2.5 was 

determined by the UDAQ to be 13.09 to 

1.0. Similar to the result for PM10, the 

ratio is greater than one to one, and 

illustrates that reducing primary PM2.5

is more beneficial than reducing the 

same quantity of NOX. 

However, Rule R307–311 provides for 

reductions in PM10, and generally 

speaking, a reduction in PM10 is not 

necessarily a reduction in PM2.5. So that 

the above PM2.5 to NOX ratio could 

support a determination that Rule 

R307–311 would not have an adverse 

impact on overall PM2.5 concentrations 

in Utah County, the UDAQ considered 

the physical make-up of PM10 emissions 

from on-road mobile sources in Utah 

County. The following table, presenting 

information from the TSD, considers PM 

emissions as they were inventoried for 

calendar year 2015 in the PM2.5

Impracticability Demonstration for the 

Utah County PM2.5 nonattainment area: 

TABLE 1—UTAH COUNTY; ON-ROAD MOBILE SOURCE EMISSIONS

[In tons per day in 2015] 

PM10 PM2.5 %PM2.5

Road Dust .................................................................................................................................... 3.95 0.99 25.1 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
28198 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 95 / Monday, May 18, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 1—UTAH COUNTY; ON-ROAD MOBILE SOURCE EMISSIONS—Continued 

[In tons per day in 2015] 

PM10 PM2.5 %PM2.5

Direct PM ..................................................................................................................................... 1.84 1.38 75.0 

Total ...................................................................................................................................... 5.79 2.37 40.9 

As derived from the state’s 

information and as presented in Table 1 

above, for every ton of PM10 emissions 

due to on-road mobile sources, 0.409 

tons would be composed of PM2.5. The 

provisions of Rule R307–311 would 

allow a one-ton increase in NOX

emissions that would be offset by a oneton decrease in the PM10 emissions. 

Based on the information in the above 

table, the state concluded that a one-ton 

increase in NOX emissions would be 

offset by a 0.409-ton decrease in PM2.5

emissions. To illustrate, using the 

1:0.409 ratio and the equivalence ratio 

of 13.09:1 for NOX to PM2.5, a 13 ton 

increase in NOX emissions would equal 

a 1 ton increase of PM2.5 emissions. 

However, applying the 1 to 1 trading 

ratio with PM10 would then require a 13 

ton PM10 emissions decrease which is a 

5.3 ton (13 x 0.409) PM2.5 emissions 

decrease. This example results in a net 

4.3 ton decrease in PM2.5 emissions. 

Based on this 1:0.409 ratio and the 

equivalence ratio of 13.09:1 for NOX to 

PM2.5, the EPA can, therefore, agree with 

the state and conclude that Rule R307– 

311, with its requirements to allow the 

trading of the PM10 budget to the NOX

budget in one direction only at a ratio 

of 1:1, would not have an adverse 

impact on overall ambient 24-hour 

PM2.5 concentrations within Utah 

County. 

The EPA notes that additional 

supporting information was provided in 

the PM2.5 Impracticability 

Demonstration as it included an 

emission inventory of NOX emissions 

for calendar year 2015. The PM2.5

Impracticability Demonstration notes 

that on-road mobile sources in Utah 

County are expected to account for 

21.48 tons per winter weekday in 2015. 

The on-road mobile sources emissions 

were calculated using EPA’s Motor 

Vehicle Emission Simulator (MOVES) 

model and the MOVES2010a version. 

This estimate is greater than the 

combined sum of the 2020 MVEBs for 

both PM10 and NOX contained in the 

EPA-approved 2002 SIP revision. To 

demonstrate, even if the entire PM10

MVEB was traded to increase the NOX

MVEB as a result of the application of 

Rule R307–311, the resulting total NOX

emissions would still be less than the 

2015 estimated NOX emissions 

contained in the PM2.5 Impracticability 

Demonstration. 

2. Carbon Monoxide (CO) 

As noted previously, the Provo-Orem 

area is a CO attainment/maintenance 

area (70 FR 66264, November 2, 2005). 

EPA notes that NOX emissions do not 

act as a precursor to carbon monoxide; 

therefore, EPA has concluded that the 

application of the provisions of R307– 

311 will not impact the Provo-Orem CO 

maintenance plan or attainment of the 

CO NAAQS. The state notes in the Rule 

R307–311 TSD that CO maintenance 

plan has its own CO MVEB which has 

been set at a level demonstrated to keep 

the Provo-Orem area in attainment with 

the CO standard. The provisions of Rule 

R307–311 do not change the 

maintenance plan’s CO MVEB. 

For purposes of completeness, the 

state provided recent CO ambient air 

quality monitoring data in the Rule 

R307–311 TSD. These data have been 

excerpted by EPA and are provided in 

the table below: 

TABLE 2—CO 1-HOUR AND CO 8-HOUR DESIGN VALUES

Year Annual CO NAAQS 

(1-hour, 35 ppm) 8-hour CO NAAQS (9 ppm) 

Monitor location: North Provo: North Provo: 

2011 ......................................................... 3.2 ppm .............. 2.1 ppm 

2012 ......................................................... 2.8 ppm .............. 1.9 ppm 

2013 ......................................................... 2.9 ppm .............. 2.0 ppm 

Preliminary 2014 ...................................... 2.8 ppm .............. 1.9 ppm 

As can be seen in Table 2 above, the 

Provo area continues to demonstrate 

compliance with both the CO Annual 

and CO 8-hour NAAQS. 

3. Ozone 

The EPA notes that NOX emissions 

are a precursor to the formation of 

ground level ozone, PM2.5, and PM10. 

With regard to ozone, we also note that 

Utah County has never been designated 

as nonattainment for any applicable 

ozone NAAQS. The current, applicable 

ozone NAAQS is the 2008 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS and Utah County was 

designated by EPA as unclassifiable/ 

attainment for that NAAQS (77 FR 

30088, May 21, 2012). Thus, the state 

has not had to develop an ozone 

attainment plan or maintenance plan for 

Utah County. 

To assess the potential impacts to 

Utah County’s continued attainment of 

the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS, EPA 

considered ozone ambient air quality 

monitoring data for Utah County and 

predicted future-year NOX emission 

reductions from motor vehicles. 

The state provided recent ozone air 

quality monitoring data in the Rule 

R307–311 TSD. EPA has excerpted that 

information from the TSD and presents 

those data in Table 3 below: 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 95 / Monday, May 18, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 28199 

TABLE 3—8-HOUR OZONE DESIGN VALUES (DV) 

Year Monitor location 8-hour ozone DV 

(NAAQS = 75 ppb) Monitor location 8-hour ozone DV (NAAQS = 75 ppb) 

2011 ................................................................. North Provo ............... 67.7 ppb .................... Spanish Fork ............. 68.0 ppb 

2012 ................................................................. North Provo ............... 70.7 ppb .................... Spanish Fork ............. 70.3 ppb 

2013 ................................................................. North Provo ............... 73.0 ppb .................... Spanish Fork ............. 70.3 ppb 

2014 (Preliminary) ............................................ North Provo ............... 73.0 ppb .................... Spanish Fork ............. 71.7 ppb 

As can be seen in Table 3 above, Utah 

County continues to demonstrate 

compliance with 2008 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS. 

The provisions of Rule R307–311 

would allow for an increase in the Utah 

County PM10 SIP’s NOX MVEB. 

However, EPA believes that regardless 

of this potential increase in the NOX

MVEB, overall future NOX emissions 

from mobile sources will significantly 

decrease not only in Utah County, but 

in the nation as a whole. On April 28, 

2014, we published a final rule adopting 

new Tier 3 emission standards and fuel 

requirements for motor vehicles and for 

motor vehicle fuels (79 FR 23414). 

Our April 28, 2014 final rule included 

new Tier 3 emission standards to reduce 

exhaust and evaporative emissions from 

light-duty vehicles, light-duty trucks, 

and heavy-duty vehicles up to 14,000 

pounds Gross Vehicle Weight Rating. In 

addition, the final rule specified 

corresponding changes to in-use fuel 

requirements. The motor vehicle 

tailpipe standards include different 

phase-in schedules that vary by vehicle 

class, but generally phase-in between 

model years 2017 to 2021 for light duty 

vehicles and up to 2025 for heavy duty 

vehicles. The vehicle emission 

standards combined with the reduction 

of gasoline sulfur content, which allows 

both current and new vehicle emission 

control systems to function at a higher 

pollutant removal efficiently, will 

significantly reduce motor vehicle 

emissions of NOX, VOCs, direct PM2.5, 

CO and air toxics. Compared to current 

vehicle and fuel standards, the nonmethane organic gases (NMOG) and 

NOX, presented as NMOG+NOX, Tier 3 

tailpipe standards for light-duty 

vehicles are estimated to show an 

approximately 80% reduction from 

today’s fleet average. As both NOX and 

VOCs contribute to the formation of 

ground level ozone and secondary 

PM2.5, the EPA notes that these vehicle 

emission reductions will have a positive 

impact on all areas of the nation 

including Utah County. Additionally, 

we expect to see associated downward 

trends of CO, ozone, PM2.5 and PM10

concentrations that will reflect the 

implementation of these fuel/vehicle 

emission improvements. Based on these 

expected reductions in motor vehicle 

emissions of NOX, along with the 

monitoring data showing that Utah 

County is currently attaining the 2008 

ozone NAAQS, we conclude that Rule 

R307–311 will not interfere with 

attainment of the ozone NAAQS. 

4. NO2

The EPA notes that NOX emissions, 

which contain NO2, are a precursor to 

the formation of ground level ozone, 

PM2.5, and PM10. We also note that Utah 

County was designated as 

unclassifiable/attainment for the new, 

more stringent, 2010 1-hour NO2

NAAQS (77 FR 9532, February 17, 

2012). 

To assess the potential impacts to 

Utah County’s continued attainment of 

the 2010 1-hour NO2 NAAQS, as that 

version of the NO2 NAAQS is more 

constraining, EPA considered NO2

ambient air quality monitoring data for 

Utah County. The state provided recent 

NO2 air quality monitoring data in the 

Rule R307–311 TSD. EPA has excerpted 

that information from the TSD and 

presents those data in Table 4 below: 

TABLE 4—NO2 1-HOUR DESIGN

VALUES

Year NO2 NAAQS 

(DV 1-hour 100 ppb) 

Monitor location: North Provo: 

2011 ....................... 54.7 ppb 

2012 ....................... 58.0 ppb 

2013 ....................... 66.3 ppb 

Preliminary 2014 ... 68.3 ppb 

As can be seen in Table 4 above, Utah 

County continues to demonstrate 

compliance with 2010 1-hour NO2

NAAQS with values well below the 

level of the NAAQS. We, therefore, 

conclude that Rule R307–311 will not 

interfere with attainment of the 1-hour 

NO2 NAAQS. 

d. Conclusion 

On the basis of the above EPA 

analyses, we have concluded that using 

a portion of the Utah County PM10 SIP’s 

PM10 MVEB to offset or compensate for 

excess on-road mobile sources NOX

emissions, on a one-to-one basis and in 

one direction only, continues to 

demonstrate attainment of the PM10

NAAQS and is conservative and 

justifiable. In addition, based on the 

information in the Rule R307–311 TSD, 

and as supplemented by information 

prepared by EPA, we have concluded 

that with the implementation of the 

provisions in Rule R307–311 there will 

not be adverse effects to the CO, PM2.5, 

8-hour ozone, and NO2 1-hour NAAQS. 

These statements are with respect to the 

implementation of the provisions of 

Rule R307–311 by MAG when MAG 

performs a transportation conformity 

determination for its RTP and/or TIP. 

VI. Consideration of Section 110(l) of 

the Clean Air Act 

Section 110(l) of the CAA states that 

a SIP revision cannot be approved if the 

revision would interfere with any 

applicable requirement concerning 

attainment and reasonable further 

progress towards attainment of a 

NAAQS or any other applicable 

requirement of the CAA. In view of the 

state’s rule language for its new Rule 

R307–311, our analyses presented above 

in section ‘‘V. EPA’s Evaluation of the 

Technical Support Document for R307– 

311’’ with respect to PM10, PM2.5, ozone 

and NO2, and the fact that NOX has less 

impact on a per ton basis than primary 

PM10 emissions in Utah County, we 

have concluded there will be a net 

benefit on ambient air concentrations of 

PM10 when excess NOX emissions are 

offset on a one to one basis. Therefore, 

implementation of the provisions of 

Rule R307–311 will allow the continued 

demonstration of attainment of the PM10

NAAQS in Utah County and is 

conservative and justifiable. We have 

also concluded there will be no adverse 

impact on any other NAAQS or 

applicable requirement of the CAA. 

Therefore, our approval of the State’s 

Rule R307–311 is consistent with 

section 110(l) of the CAA. 

VII. Final Action 

The EPA is publishing this rule 

without prior proposal because the 

Agency views the Governor of Utah’s 

March 9, 2015 submitted SIP revisions 

for Utah’s Rule R307–311 and the Rule’s 

associated TSD as a noncontroversial 

amendment and anticipates no adverse 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
28200 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 95 / Monday, May 18, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

comments. However, in the Proposed 

Rules section of today’s Federal 

Register publication, EPA is publishing 

a separate document that will serve as 

the proposal to approve the SIP revision 

if adverse comments are filed. This rule 

will be effective July 17, 2015 without 

further notice unless the Agency 

receives adverse comments by June 17, 

2015. If the EPA receives adverse 

comments, the EPA will publish a 

timely withdrawal in the Federal 

Register informing the public that the 

rule will not take effect. The EPA will 

address all public comments in a 

subsequent final rule based on the 

proposed rule. The EPA will not 

institute a second comment period on 

this action. Any parties interested in 

commenting must do so at this time. 

Please note that if the EPA receives 

adverse comment on an amendment, 

paragraph, or section of this rule and if 

that provision may be severed from the 

remainder of the rule, the EPA may 

adopt as final those provisions of the 

rule that are not the subject of an 

adverse comment. 

VIII. Incorporation by Reference 

In this rule, the EPA is finalizing 

regulatory text that includes 

incorporation by reference. In 

accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 

51.5, the EPA is finalizing the 

incorporation by reference of the Utah 

SIP materials and rules described in the 

amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth 

below. The EPA has made, and will 

continue to make, these documents 

generally available electronically 

through www.regulations.gov and/or in 

hard copy at the appropriate EPA office 

(see the ADDRESSES section of this rule’s 

preamble for more information). 

IX. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 

51735, October 4, 1993), this 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 action merely approves 

state law as meeting Federal 

requirements and imposes no additional 

requirements beyond those imposed by 

state law. Accordingly, the 

Administrator certifies that this rule 

will 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 

rule approves pre-existing requirements 

under state law and does not impose 

any additional enforceable duty beyond 

that required by state law, it 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). 

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 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). This 

action also does not have Federalism 

implications because it does 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). This action merely 

approves a state rule implementing a 

Federal standard, and does not alter the 

relationship or the distribution of power 

and responsibilities established in the 

Clean Air Act. This rule also is not 

subject to Executive Order 13045 

‘‘Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety 

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

because it approves a state rule 

implementing a Federal standard. 

In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA’s 

role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the 

absence of a prior existing requirement 

for the state to use voluntary consensus 

standards (VCS), EPA has no authority 

to disapprove a SIP submission for 

failure to use VCS. It would thus be 

inconsistent with applicable law for 

EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission; 

to use VCS in place of a SIP submission 

that otherwise satisfies the provisions of 

the Clean Air Act. 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 rule does 

not impose an information collection 

burden under the provisions of the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq). 

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 rule 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 July 17, 2015. 

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. Parties with 

objections to this direct final rule are 

encouraged to file a comment in 

response to the parallel notice of 

proposed rulemaking for this action 

published in the proposed rules section 

of today’s Federal Register, rather than 

file an immediate petition for judicial 

review of this direct final rule, so that 

EPA can withdraw this direct final rule 

and address the comment in the 

proposed rulemaking. This action may 

not be challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements. (See CAA 

section 307(b)(2).) 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 

Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen 

dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, and Volatile organic 

compounds. 

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

Dated: May 1, 2015. 

Shaun L. McGrath, 

Regional Administrator, Region 8. 

40 CFR part 52 is amended to read as 

follows: 

PART 52 [AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for Part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart TT—Utah 

■ 2. Section 52.2320 is amended by 

adding paragraph (c)(79) to read as 

follows: 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 95 / Monday, May 18, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 28201 

§ 52.2320 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(79) Revisions to the Utah State 

Implementation Plan involving Utah 

Rule R307–311; Utah County: Trading 

of Emission Budgets for Transportation 

Conformity. The Utah Air Quality Board 

adopted this SIP revision on March 4, 

2015, it became state effective on March 

5, 2015, and was submitted by the 

Governor to EPA by a letter dated March 

9, 2015. 

(i) Incorporation by reference. 

(A) Utah Rules R307, Environmental 

Quality, Air Quality, R307–311, Utah 

County: Trading of Emission Budgets for 

Transportation Conformity. Effective 

March 5, 2015, as proposed in the Utah 

State Bulletin on January 1, 2015 and 

published on April 1, 2015 as effective. 

[FR Doc. 2015–11784 Filed 5–15–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 180 

[EPA–HQ–OPP–2012–0963; FRL–9926–87] 

Trichoderma asperelloides strain JM41R; 

Exemption From the Requirement of a 

Tolerance 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes an 

exemption from the requirement of a 

tolerance for residues of Trichoderma 

asperelloides strain JM41R in or on all 

food commodities when used in 

accordance with label directions and 

good agricultural practices. BASF 

Corporation submitted a petition to EPA 

under the Federal Food, Drug, and 

Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), requesting an 

exemption from the requirement of a 

tolerance. This regulation eliminates the 

need to establish a maximum 

permissible level for residues of 

Trichoderma asperelloides strain JM41R 

under FFDCA. 

DATES: This regulation is effective May 

18, 2015. Objections and requests for 

hearings must be received on or before 

July 17, 2015, and must be filed in 

accordance with the instructions 

provided in 40 CFR part 178 (see also 

Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION). 

ADDRESSES: The docket for this action, 

identified by docket identification (ID) 

number EPA–HQ–OPP–2012–0963, is 

available at http://www.regulations.gov 

or at the Office of Pesticide Programs 

Regulatory Public Docket (OPP Docket) 

in the Environmental Protection Agency 

Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William 

Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 

Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 

20460–0001. The Public Reading Room 

is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., 

Monday through Friday, excluding legal 

holidays. The telephone number for the 

Public Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, 

and the telephone number for the OPP 

Docket is (703) 305–5805. Please review 

the visitor instructions and additional 

information about the docket available 

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Robert McNally, Biopesticides and 

Pollution Prevention Division (7511P), 

Office of Pesticide Programs, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, 

DC 20460–0001; main telephone 

number: (703) 305–7090; email address: 

BPPDFRNotices@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

You may be potentially affected by 

this action if you are an agricultural 

producer, food manufacturer, or 

pesticide manufacturer. The following 

list of North American Industrial 

Classification System (NAICS) codes is 

not intended to be exhaustive, but rather 

provides a guide to help readers 

determine whether this document 

applies to them. Potentially affected 

entities may include: 

• Crop production (NAICS code 111). 

• Animal production (NAICS code 

112). 

• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 

311). 

• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS 

code 32532). 

B. How can I get electronic access to 

other related information? 

You may access a frequently updated 

electronic version of 40 CFR part 180 

through the Government Printing 

Office’s e-CFR site at http://

www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/textidx?&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title40/

40tab_02.tpl. 

C. How can I file an objection or hearing 

request? 

Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 

U.S.C. 346a(g), any person may file an 

objection to any aspect of this regulation 

and may also request a hearing on those 

objections. You must file your objection 

or request a hearing on this regulation 

in accordance with the instructions 

provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure 

proper receipt by EPA, you must 

identify docket ID number EPA–HQ– 

OPP–2012–0963 in the subject line on 

the first page of your submission. All 

objections and requests for a hearing 

must be in writing, and must be 

received by the Hearing Clerk on or 

before July 17, 2015. Addresses for mail 

and hand delivery of objections and 

hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 

178.25(b). 

In addition to filing an objection or 

hearing request with the Hearing Clerk 

as described in 40 CFR part 178, please 

submit a copy of the filing (excluding 

any Confidential Business Information 

(CBI)) for inclusion in the public docket. 

Information not marked confidential 

pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be 

disclosed publicly by EPA without prior 

notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your 

objection or hearing request, identified 

by docket ID number EPA–HQ–OPP– 

2012–0963, by one of the following 

methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Do not submit electronically any 

information you consider to be CBI or 

other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. 

• Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental 

Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/ 

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

NW., Washington, DC 20460–0001. 

• Hand Delivery: To make special 

arrangements for hand delivery or 

delivery of boxed information, please 

follow the instructions at http://

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

Additional instructions on commenting 

or visiting the docket, along with more 

information about dockets generally, is 

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

dockets. 

II. Background 

In the Federal Register of February 

21, 2014 (79 FR 9870) (FRL–9904–98), 

EPA issued a document pursuant to 

FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21 U.S.C. 

346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a 

pesticide tolerance petition (PP 2F8102) 

by BASF Corporation, 26 Davis Dr., 

Research Triangle Park, NC 27709. The 

petition requested that 40 CFR part 180 

be amended by establishing an 

exemption from the requirement of a 

tolerance for residues of Trichoderma 

fertile strain JM41R in or on all food 

commodities. That document referenced 

a summary of the petition prepared by 

the petitioner BASF Corporation, which 

is available in the docket via http://

www.regulations.gov. There were no 

comments received in response to the 

notice of filing. 

Subsequently, the petitioner provided 

additional data (i.e., DNA sequence 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES