29688 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 99 / Monday, May 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

submission addresses Virginia’s 

compliance with the portion of CAA 

Section 110(a)(2)(C) & (J) relating to the 

CAA’s part C PSD permit program for 

the 1997 Ozone NAAQS, because this 

proposed approval would approve 

regulating NOX as a precursor to ozone 

in Virginia’s SIP in accordance with the 

Federal Register action dated November 

29, 2005 (70 FR 71612) that finalized 

NOX as a precursor for ozone 

regulations set forth at 40 CFR 51.166 

and in 40 CFR 52.21. 

We are proposing to fully approve the 

Virginia SIP revision request for these 

changes only. Prior ‘‘limited approval’’ 

of certain aspects of Virginia’s PSD 

program elements remain valid. A 

description of these items for ‘‘limited 

approval’’ can be found in the Technical 

Support Document contained in this 

Docket or in the Federal Register action 

dated October 22, 2008 (73 FR 62897). 

EPA is soliciting public comments on 

the issues discussed for this proposed 

approval document only. These 

comments will be considered before 

taking final action. 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 

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

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this action 

merely proposes to approve state law as 

meeting Federal requirements and does 

not impose additional requirements 

beyond those imposed by state law. For 

that reason, this proposed action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

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

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

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

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

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

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

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

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this proposed rule to 

include NOX as a precursor to ozone in 

Virginia does not have tribal 

implications as specified by Executive 

Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 

2000), because the SIP is not approved 

to apply in Indian country located in the 

state, and EPA notes that it will not 

impose substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Intergovernmental 

relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

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

Dated: April 25, 2011. 

James W. Newson, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region III. 

[FR Doc. 2011–12515 Filed 5–20–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R08–OAR–0210–0302; FRL–9309–9] 

Approval and Promulgation of State 

Implementation Plan Revisions; 

Infrastructure Requirements for the 

1997 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient 

Air Quality Standards; Utah 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed Rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

and conditionally approve the State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) submissions 

from the State of Utah which 

demonstrate that the State meets the 

requirements of section 110(a)(1) and (2) 

of the Clean Air Act (CAA) for the 

National Ambient Air Quality Standard 

(NAAQS) promulgated for ozone on July 

18, 1997. Section 110(a) of the CAA 

requires that each state adopt and 

submit an ‘‘infrastructure SIP’’ for the 

implementation, maintenance and 

enforcement of each NAAQS 

promulgated by the EPA. The State of 

Utah submitted two certifications of 

their Infrastructure SIP for the 1997 

ozone NAAQS, one dated December 3, 

2007, which was determined to be 

complete on March 27, 2008 (73 FR 

16205), and one dated December 21, 

2009. EPA does not propose to act on 

the State’s March 22, 2007 submission 

to meet the requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) of the CAA, relating to 

interstate transport of air pollution, for 

the 1997 ozone NAAQS. EPA approved 

the State’s interstate transport SIP 

submission on May 28, 2008 (73 FR 

16543). 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before June 22, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R08– 

OAR–2010–0302, by one of the 

following methods: 

• http://www.regulations.gov. Follow 

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• E-mail: dolan.kathy@epa.gov 

• Fax: (303) 312–6064 (please alert 

the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT if you are faxing 

comments). 

• Mail: Director, Air Program, 

Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA), Region 8, Mail Code 8P–AR, 

1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 

80202–1129. 

• Hand Delivery: Director, Air 

Program, Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mail Code 8P– 

AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, 

Colorado 80202–1129. Such deliveries 

are only accepted Monday through 

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

federal holidays. Special arrangements 

should be made for deliveries of boxed 

information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R08–OAR–2010– 

0302. 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 e-mail. The 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 99 / Monday, May 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 29689 

1Memorandum from William T. Harnett, 

Director, Air Quality Policy Division, ‘‘Guidance on 

SIP Elements Required Under Sections 110(a)(1) 

and (2) for the 1997 8-hour Ozone and PM2.5

National Ambient Air Quality Standards’’ (Oct. 2, 

2007). 

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 e-mail comment directly 

to EPA, without going through http:// 

www.regulations.gov your e-mail 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. For additional information 

about EPA’s public docket visit the EPA 

Docket Center homepage at http:// 

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

For additional instructions on 

submitting comments, go to section I, 

General Information, of the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

this document. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the http:// 

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

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

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

will be publicly available only in hard 

copy. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically in http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Air Program, Environmental 

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

federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Kathy Dolan, Air Program, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA), Region 8, Mail Code 8P–AR, 

1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 

80202–1129. 303–312–6142, 

dolan.kathy@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Definitions 

For the purpose of this document, we 

are giving meaning to certain words or 

initials as follows: 

(i) The words or initials Act or CAA 

mean or refer to the Clean Air Act, 

unless the context indicates otherwise. 

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

mean or refer to the United States 

Environmental Protection Agency. 

(iii) The initials SIP mean or refer to 

State Implementation Plan. 

Table of Contents 

I. General Information 

II. Background 

III. What infrastructure elements are required 

under sections 110(a)(1) and (2)? 

IV. How did the State of Utah address the 

infrastructure elements of sections 

110(a)(1) and (2)? 

V. What action is EPA taking? 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. General Information 

What should I consider as I prepare my 

comments for EPA? 

1. Submitting Confidential Business 

Information (CBI). Do not submit CBI to 

EPA through http://www.regulations.gov 

or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of 

the information that you claim to be 

CBI. For CBI information on a disk or 

CD ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the 

outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI 

and then identify electronically within 

the disk or CD ROM the specific 

information that is claimed as CBI. In 

addition to one complete version of the 

comment that includes information 

claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment 

that does not contain the information 

claimed as CBI must be submitted for 

inclusion in the public docket. 

Information so marked will not be 

disclosed except in accordance with 

procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. 

2. Tips for preparing your comments. 

When submitting comments, remember 

to: 

Identify the rulemaking by docket 

number and other identifying 

information (subject heading, Federal 

Register, date, and page number); 

Follow directions and organize your 

comments; 

Explain why you agree or disagree; 

Suggest alternatives and substitute 

language for your requested changes; 

Describe any assumptions and 

provide any technical information and/ 

or data that you used; 

If you estimate potential costs or 

burdens, explain how you arrived at 

your estimate in sufficient detail to 

allow for it to be reproduced; 

Provide specific examples to illustrate 

your concerns, and suggest alternatives; 

Explain your views as clearly as 

possible, avoiding the use of profanity 

or personal threats; and, 

Make sure to submit your comments 

by the comment period deadline 

identified. 

II. Background 

On July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated 

new NAAQS for ozone based on 8-hour 

average concentrations. The 8-hour 

averaging period replaced the previous 

1-hour averaging period, and the level of 

the NAAQS was changed from 0.12 

parts per million (ppm) to 0.08 ppm (62 

FR 38856). By statute, SIPs meeting the 

requirements of sections 110(a)(1) and 

(2) are to be submitted by states within 

three years after promulgation of a new 

or revised standard. Section 110(a)(2) 

provides basic requirements for SIPs, 

including emissions inventories, 

monitoring, and modeling, to assure 

attainment and maintenance of the 

standards. These requirements are set 

out in several ‘‘infrastructure elements,’’ 

listed in section 110(a)(2). 

Section 110(a) imposes the obligation 

upon states to make a SIP submission to 

EPA for a new or revised NAAQS, and 

the contents of that submission may 

vary depending upon the facts and 

circumstances. In particular, the data 

and analytical tools available at the time 

the state develops and submits the SIP 

for a new or revised NAAQS affects the 

content of the submission. The contents 

of such SIP submissions may also vary 

depending upon what provisions the 

state’s existing SIP already contains. In 

the case of the 1997 ozone NAAQS, 

states typically have met the basic 

program elements required in section 

110(a)(2) through earlier SIP 

submissions in connection with 

previous NAAQS. In a guidance issued 

on October 2, 2007, EPA noted that, to 

the extent an existing SIP already meets 

the section 110(a)(2) requirements, 

states need only to certify that fact via 

a letter to EPA.1

On March 27, 2008, EPA published a 

final rule entitled, ‘‘Completeness 

Findings for Section 110(a) State 

Implementation Plans for the 8-hour 

Ozone NAAQS’’ (73 FR 16205). In the 

rule, EPA made a finding for each State 

that it had submitted or had failed to 

submit a complete SIP that provided the 

basic program elements of section 

110(a)(2) necessary to implement the 

1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. In 

particular, EPA found that Utah had 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
29690 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 99 / Monday, May 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

2Steven Herman, Assistant Administrator for 

Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, and 

Robert Perciasepe, Assistant Administrator for Air 

and Radiation, Memorandum to EPA Air Division 

Directors, ‘‘State Implementation Plans (SIPs): 

Policy Regarding Excess Emissions During 

Malfunctions, Startup, and Shutdown.’’ (Sept. 20, 

1999). 

submitted a complete SIP to meet these 

requirements. 

III. What infrastructure elements are 

required under sections 110(a)(1) and 

(2)? 

Section 110(a)(1) provides the 

procedural and timing requirements for 

SIP submissions after a new or revised 

NAAQS is promulgated. Section 

110(a)(2) lists specific elements the SIP 

must contain or satisfy. These 

infrastructure elements include 

requirements, such as modeling, 

monitoring, and emissions inventories, 

which are designed to assure attainment 

and maintenance of the NAAQS. The 

elements that are the subject of this 

action are listed below. 

• 110(a)(2)(A): Emission limits and 

other control measures. 

• 110(a)(2)(B): Ambient air quality 

monitoring/data system. 

• 110(a)(2)(C): Program for 

enforcement of control measures. 

• 110(a)(2)(D)(ii): Interstate and 

international pollution. 

• 110(a)(2)(E): Adequate resources 

and authority. 

• 110(a)(2)(F): Stationary source 

monitoring and reporting. 

• 110(a)(2)(G): Emergency powers. 

• 110(a)(2)(H): Future SIP revisions. 

• 110(a)(2)(J): Consultation with 

government officials; public 

notification; and prevention of 

significant deterioration (PSD) and 

visibility protection. 

• 110(a)(2)(K): Air quality modeling/ 

data. 

• 110(a)(2)(L): Permitting fees. 

• 110(a)(2)(M): Consultation/ 

participation by affected local entities. 

A detailed discussion of each of these 

elements is contained in the next 

section. 

Two elements identified in section 

110(a)(2) are not governed by the three 

year submission deadline of section 

110(a)(1) and are therefore not 

addressed in this action. These elements 

relate to part D of Title I of the CAA, and 

submissions to satisfy them are not due 

within three years after promulgation of 

a new or revised NAAQS, but rather are 

due at the same time nonattainment area 

plan requirements are due under section 

172. The two elements are: (i) Section 

110(a)(2)(C) to the extent it refers to 

permit programs (known as 

‘‘nonattainment new source review 

(NSR)’’) required under part D, and (ii) 

section 110(a)(2)(I), pertaining to the 

nonattainment planning requirements of 

part D. As a result, this action does not 

address infrastructure elements related 

to the nonattainment NSR portion of 

section 110(a)(2)(C) or related to 

110(a)(2)(I). 

This action also does not address the 

‘‘interstate transport’’ requirements of 

element 110(a)(2)(D)(i). In a separate 

action, EPA approved the State’s 

submission to meet the requirements of 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997 ozone 

NAAQS. (73 FR 16543). 

IV. How did the State of Utah address 

the infrastructure elements of sections 

110(a)(1) and (2)? 

1. Emission limits and other control 

measures: Section 110(a)(2)(A) requires 

SIPs to include enforceable emission 

limitations and other control measures, 

means, or techniques (including 

economic incentives such as fees, 

marketable permits, and auctions of 

emissions rights), as well as schedules 

and timetables for compliance as may be 

necessary or appropriate to meet the 

applicable requirements of this Act. 

a. Utah’s response to this requirement: 

SIP Section I (Legal Authority) A.1.a, 

codified at R307–110–2, identifies the 

statutory provisions that allow adoption 

of standards and limitations for 

attainment and maintenance of national 

standards. (19–2–104 and 109, Utah 

Code Annotated 1953 (UCA)). EPA 

approved this SIP originally in the early 

1980’s and most recently on June 25, 

2003 (68 FR 37744). 

b. EPA analysis: Utah’s SIP meets the 

requirements of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(A) for the 1997 ozone NAAQS, 

subject to the following clarifications. 

First, although Utah’s certification cited 

its legal authority to adopt emissions 

limitations for maintenance of the 

NAAQS, the certification did not 

identify emissions limitations specific 

to the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS that 

the State has adopted and that have 

been approved into the SIP. EPA notes 

that, among other emissions limitations, 

the Utah SIP contains emissions 

limitations originally developed to 

attain the previous 1-hour ozone 

standard. For the purposes of this 

action, EPA is reviewing any rules 

originally submitted in response to part 

D solely for the purposes of determining 

whether they support a finding that the 

State has met the basic infrastructure 

requirements under section 110(a)(2). 

In this action, EPA is not proposing to 

approve or disapprove any existing state 

rules with regard to director’s discretion 

or variance provisions. A number of 

states have such provisions which are 

contrary to the CAA and existing EPA 

guidance (52 FR 45109, Nov. 24, 1987), 

and the Agency plans to take action in 

the future to address such state 

regulations. In the meantime, EPA 

encourages any state having a director’s 

discretion or variance provision which 

is contrary to the CAA and EPA 

guidance to take steps to correct the 

deficiency as soon as possible. 

Finally, in this action, EPA is also not 

proposing to approve or disapprove any 

existing state provisions with regard to 

excess emissions during startup, 

shutdown, or malfunction (SSM) of 

operations at a facility. A number of 

states have SSM provisions which are 

contrary to the CAA and existing EPA 

guidance 2 and the Agency plans to 

address such state regulations in the 

future. In the specific case of SSM 

provisions in the Utah SIP, EPA has 

issued a finding of substantial 

inadequacy and call for a SIP revision 

for Utah’s ‘‘unavoidable breakdown’’ 

rule (76 FR 21639, Apr. 18, 2011). As 

stated above, though, EPA is not 

proposing to address SSM provisions in 

the context of this action and therefore 

proposes to approve the Utah 

certification for infrastructure element 

110(a)(2)(A) for the 1997 ozone NAAQS. 

2. Ambient air quality monitoring/ 

data system: Section 110(a)(2)(B) 

requires SIPs to provide for 

establishment and operation of 

appropriate devices, methods, systems, 

and procedures necessary to (i) monitor, 

compile, and analyze data on ambient 

air quality, and (ii) upon request, make 

such data available to the 

Administrator. 

a. Utah’s response to this requirement: 

SIP Section IV (Ambient Air Monitoring 

Program), codified at R307–110–5, 

provides a brief description of the 

purposes of the air monitoring program. 

EPA approved this SIP originally in the 

early 1980’s and most recently on June 

25, 2003 (68 FR 37744). 

b. EPA analysis: Utah’s air monitoring 

programs and data systems do not meet 

the requirements of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(B) for the 1997 ozone NAAQS. 

In particular, deficiencies in Utah’s 

monitoring network plan are detailed in 

a memorandum in the docket for this 

action. Utah has formally committed to 

submitting an adequate annual 

monitoring plan not later than one year 

after the date of final action on Utah’s 

infrastructure SIP for the 1997 ozone 

NAAQS. The specific measures Utah 

will take are detailed in the 

commitment letter, which may be found 

in the docket for this action. EPA has 

reviewed these measures and agrees that 

they will rectify the deficiencies in 

Utah’s ambient air monitoring network. 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 99 / Monday, May 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 29691 

As a result of Utah’s formal 

commitment, EPA proposes to 

conditionally approve the Utah 

infrastructure SIP for section 

110(a)(2)(B) for the 1997 ozone NAAQS. 

If, however, Utah does not implement 

the measures specified in its 

commitment within one year after the 

date of final action on Utah’s 

infrastructure SIP for the 1997 ozone 

NAAQS, EPA’s conditional approval 

will automatically revert to disapproval 

of the infrastructure SIP for section 

110(a)(2)(B) for the 1997 ozone NAAQS. 

3. Program for enforcement of control 

measures: Section 110(a)(2)(C) requires 

SIPs to include a program to provide for 

the enforcement of the measures 

described in subparagraph (A), and 

regulation of the modification and 

construction of any stationary source 

within the areas covered by the plan as 

necessary to assure that NAAQS are 

achieved, including a permit program as 

required in parts C and D. 

a. Utah’s response to this requirement: 

SIP Section I (Legal Authority) A.1.b, 

identifies the statutory provisions that 

allow the Division of Air Quality (DAQ) 

to enforce applicable laws, regulations 

and standards and seek injunctive relief. 

(Sections 19–2–104 and 19–2–115, 

UCA.) 

SIP Section I (Legal Authority) A.1.d, 

codified at R307–110–2, identifies the 

statutory provisions that allow the DAQ 

to prevent construction, modification or 

operation of any stationary source at any 

location where emissions from such 

source will prevent the attainment or 

maintenance of a national standard or 

interfere with PSD requirements. 

(Authority Utah Code Section 19–2– 

108) EPA approved this SIP originally in 

the early 1980’s and most recently on 

June 25, 2003 (68 FR 37744). 

SIP Section VIII (PSD), codified at 

R307–110–9 and R307–405, describes 

the program to prevent significant 

deterioration of areas of the State where 

the air is clean. EPA approved the PSD 

SIP originally in the early 1980’s and 

most recently on June 25, 2003 (68 FR 

37744). EPA most recently approved 

R307–405 on August 19, 2004 (69 FR 

51368). Utah submitted revisions to the 

PSD SIP and R307–405 on September 

15, 2006. Updates to the incorporation 

by reference (IBR) date of 40 CFR 52.21 

were submitted on October 1, 2007 and 

March 3, 2008. The October 1, 2007 

update incorporated provisions in the 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) that 

added NOX as a precursor for ozone. 

The most recent update of the IBR date 

was adopted on February 5, 2009 and 

will be submitted to EPA in the near 

future when the final administrative 

paperwork is available. EPA has not yet 

acted on these submittals. 

SIP Section XVII (Visibility 

protection), codified at R307–10–25, 

describes the program to protect 

visibility, especially within the 

boundaries of the five national parks 

located in Utah. (Sections 19–2–101 and 

104, UCA) EPA approved this SIP in 

April 1997 and most recently on June 

25, 2003 (68 FR 37744). 

b. EPA analysis: To generally meet the 

requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C), the 

State is required to have SIP-approved 

PSD, nonattainment New Source 

Review (NSR), and minor NSR 

permitting programs adequate to 

implement the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS. As explained above, in this 

action EPA is not evaluating 

nonattainment related provisions, such 

as the nonattainment NSR program 

required by part D of the Act. EPA is 

evaluating the State’s PSD program as 

required by part C of the Act, and the 

State’s minor NSR program as required 

by 110(a)(2)(C). 

Utah has a SIP-approved PSD program 

that meets the general requirements of 

part C of the Act (51 FR 31125). Below, 

EPA considers requirements for the PSD 

program specific to the 1997 ozone 

NAAQS, but first considers the effects of 

recent rules regulating greenhouse gases 

on Utah’s PSD program. 

Greenhouse Gas Regulation 

EPA notes a potential inconsistency 

between Utah’s December 3, 2007 and 

December 21, 2009 infrastructure SIP 

certifications and EPA’s recently 

promulgated rule, ‘‘Limitation of 

Approval of Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration Provisions Concerning 

Greenhouse Gas Emitting-Sources in 

State Implementation Plans’’ (‘‘PSD SIP 

Narrowing Rule’’), 75 FR 82536 (Dec. 30, 

2010). In the PSD SIP Narrowing Rule, 

EPA withdrew its previous approval of 

Utah’s PSD program to the extent that it 

applied PSD permitting to greenhouse 

gas (GHG) emissions increases from 

GHG-emitting sources below thresholds 

set in EPA’s June 3, 2010 ‘‘Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration and Title V 

Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule’’ 

(‘‘Tailoring Rule’’), 75 FR 31514. EPA 

withdrew its approval on the basis that 

the State lacked sufficient resources to 

issue PSD permits to such sources at the 

statutory thresholds in effect in the 

previously-approved PSD program. 

After the PSD SIP Narrowing Rule, the 

portion of Utah’s PSD SIP from which 

EPA withdrew its approval had the 

status of having been submitted to EPA 

but not yet acted upon. In its December 

3, 2007 and December 21, 2009 

certifications, Utah relied on its PSD 

program as approved at that date— 

which was before December 30, 2010, 

the effective date of the PSD SIP 

Narrowing Rule—to satisfy the 

requirements of infrastructure element 

110(a)(2)(C). Given EPA’s basis for the 

PSD SIP Narrowing Rule, EPA proposes 

approval of the Utah infrastructure SIP 

for infrastructure element (C) if either 

the State clarifies (or modifies) its 

certification to make clear that the State 

relies only on the portion of the PSD 

program that remains approved after the 

PSD SIP Narrowing Rule issued on 

December 30, 2010, and for which the 

State has sufficient resources to 

implement, or the State acts to 

withdraw from EPA consideration the 

remaining portion of its PSD program 

submission that would have applied 

PSD permitting to GHG sources below 

the Tailoring Rule thresholds. In the 

alternative, if Utah does not take either 

action, EPA proposes to disapprove the 

infrastructure SIP to the extent it 

incorporates that portion of the 

previously-approved PSD program from 

which EPA withdrew its approval in the 

PSD SIP Narrowing Rule, which is the 

portion which would have applied PSD 

permitting requirements to GHG 

emissions increases from GHG-emitting 

sources below the Tailoring Rule 

thresholds. Such disapproval, if 

finalized, would not result in a need for 

Utah to resubmit a SIP revision, 

sanctions, or a federal implementation 

plan (FIP). 

Regulation of Ozone Precursors 

In order for the State’s SIP-approved 

PSD program to satisfy the requirements 

of section 110(a)(2)(C) for the 1997 

ozone NAAQS, the program must 

properly regulate ozone precursors. On 

November 29, 2005, EPA promulgated 

the phase 2 implementation rule for the 

1997 ozone NAAQS (Phase 2 Rule), 

which includes requirements for PSD 

programs to treat nitrogen oxides (NOX) 

as a precursor for ozone (72 FR 71612). 

The Phase 2 Rule accordingly updated 

the federal program at 40 CFR 52.21 to 

meet these requirements, effective 

January 30, 2006. On August 7, 2008, 

Utah submitted to EPA revisions to the 

State’s PSD program. The State’s PSD 

program, as submitted, for the most part 

incorporates by reference the federal 

program at 40 CFR 52.21. The August 7, 

2008 submittal updates the date of 

incorporation by reference to July 1, 

2007, after the effective date of the 

Phase 2 Rule, and thereby implementing 

the requirements of the rule. On January 

7, 2009, EPA proposed approval of the 

August 7, 2008 submittal (74 FR 667). 

We anticipate finalizing that approval in 

conjunction with finalizing approval of 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
29692 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 99 / Monday, May 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

Utah’s infrastructure SIP. Contingent on 

that approval, Utah’s PSD program 

meets the requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(C) for the 1997 ozone NAAQS. 

Minor NSR 

The State has a SIP-approved minor 

NSR program, adopted under section 

110(a)(2)(C) of the Act that regulates 

emissions of ozone and its precursors. 

The minor NSR program is found in 

section II of the Utah SIP, and was 

originally approved by EPA as section 2 

of the SIP (See 68 FR 37744, June 25, 

2003). Since approval of the minor NSR 

program, the State and EPA have relied 

on the program to assure that new and 

modified sources not captured by the 

major NSR permitting programs do not 

interfere with attainment and 

maintenance of the NAAQS. 

In this action, EPA is proposing to 

approve Utah’s infrastructure SIP for the 

1997 ozone NAAQS with respect to the 

general requirement in section 

110(a)(2)(C) to include a program in the 

SIP that regulates the modification and 

construction of any stationary source as 

necessary to assure that the NAAQS are 

achieved. EPA is not proposing to 

approve or disapprove the State’s 

existing minor NSR program itself to the 

extent that it is inconsistent with EPA’s 

regulations governing this program. A 

number of states may have minor NSR 

provisions that are contrary to the 

existing EPA regulations for this 

program. EPA intends to work with 

states to reconcile state minor NSR 

programs with EPA’s regulatory 

provisions for the program. The 

statutory requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(C) provide for considerable 

flexibility in designing minor NSR 

programs, and it may be time to revisit 

the regulatory requirements for this 

program to give the states an 

appropriate level of flexibility to design 

a program that meets their particular air 

quality concerns, while assuring 

reasonable consistency across the 

country in protecting the NAAQS with 

respect to new and modified minor 

sources. 

Visibility Protection 

Finally, Utah cited SIP provisions 

relating to visibility protection. With 

regards to part C of title I of the Act, 

section 110(a)(2)(C) of the Act (unlike 

section 110(a)(2)(J)) refers only to the 

required PSD permit program, and not 

to visibility protection. Moreover, as 

explained below under infrastructure 

element (J), EPA finds that no new 

visibility obligation is ‘‘triggered’’ under 

section 110(a)(2)(J) when a new NAAQS 

becomes effective. EPA is therefore not 

assessing in this action the visibility 

protection provisions cited by Utah. 

4. Interstate transport: Section 

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

adequate provisions prohibiting, 

consistent with the provisions of this 

title, any source or other type of 

emissions activity within the state from 

emitting any air pollutant in amounts 

which will (I) contribute significantly to 

nonattainment in, or interfere with 

maintenance by, any other state, with 

respect to any such national primary or 

secondary ambient air quality standard, 

or (II) interfere with measures required 

to be included in the applicable 

implementation plan for any other state 

under part C to prevent significant 

deterioration of air quality or to protect 

visibility. 

a. Utah’s response to this requirement: 

SIP Section XXIII (Interstate Transport), 

codified at R307–110–36, was written to 

satisfy the requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) of the CAA for the 1997 

NAAQS for 8-hour ozone. This SIP was 

approved by EPA on March 28, 2008 at 

73 FR 16543. 

b. EPA Analysis: EPA approved the 

State’s Interstate Transport provisions 

for the 1997 ozone NAAQS on March 

28, 2008 (73 FR 16543). EPA is taking 

no action relevant to section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) in this proposal. 

5. Interstate and International 

transport provisions: Section 

110(a)(2)(D)(ii) requires that each SIP 

shall contain adequate provisions 

insuring compliance with applicable 

requirements of sections 126 and 115 

(relating to interstate and international 

pollution abatement). 

a. Utah’s response to this requirement: 

Utah did not cite any specific provisions 

for this requirement. 

b. EPA Analysis: Section 126(a) 

requires notification to affected, nearby 

states of major proposed new (or 

modified) sources. Sections 126(b) and 

(c) pertain to petitions by affected states 

to the Administrator regarding sources 

violating the ‘‘interstate transport’’ 

provisions of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i). 

Section 115 similarly pertains to 

international transport of air pollution. 

Utah’s rules for PSD permits IBR the 

public participation requirements at 40 

CFR 51.166(q)(2). (See UAC R307–405– 

18). In particular, the rule incorporates 

40 CFR 51.166(q)(2)(iii), which requires 

notice to states whose lands may be 

affected by the emissions of sources 

subject to PSD. This rule was submitted 

to EPA and proposed for approval in the 

action discussed in section IV.3 above 

(74 FR 667, Jan. 7, 2009). Contingent on 

approval of this rule, the Utah SIP 

satisfies the requirements of section 

126(a). 

Utah has no pending obligations 

under sections 126(c) or 115(b), 

therefore, Utah’s SIP currently meets the 

requirements of those sections. The SIP 

therefore meets the requirements of 

110(a)(2)(D)(ii) for the 1997 ozone 

NAAQS. 

6. Adequate resources: Section 

110(a)(2)(E) requires states to provide (i) 

Necessary assurances that the state will 

have adequate personnel, funding, and 

authority under state law to carry out 

the SIP (and is not prohibited by any 

provision of federal or state law from 

carrying out the SIP or portion thereof), 

(ii) requires that the state comply with 

the requirements respecting state boards 

under section 128, and (iii) necessary 

assurances that, where the state has 

relied on a local or regional government, 

agency, or instrumentality for the 

implementation of any SIP provision, 

the state has responsibility for ensuring 

adequate implementation of such SIP 

provision. 

a. Utah’s response to this requirement: 

SIP Section V (Resources), codified at 

R307–110–6, commits to implement 

program activities in relation to 

resources provided by the annual State/ 

EPA Agreement and 105 grant 

applications. EPA approved this SIP 

originally in the early 1980’s and most 

recently on June 25, 2003 (68 FR 37744). 

SIP Section I (Legal Authority) A.1.g, 

codified at R307–110–2, identifies the 

statutory provisions that implement the 

provisions of the CAA (Section 128) 

respecting State Boards (Section 9–2– 

104 UCA.) EPA approved this SIP 

originally in the early 1980’s and most 

recently on June 25, 2003 (68 FR 37744). 

Section 41–6a–1642 UCA provides 

the counties the authority to run their 

own emissions inspection and 

maintenance program, and Subsection 

41–6a–1642 (2)(b)(i) UCA requires that 

the counties’ emissions inspection and 

maintenance program ‘‘shall be made to 

attain or maintain ambient air quality 

standards in the county, consistent with 

the SIP and federal requirements.’’ 

Section X of the SIP, codified at sections 

R307–110–31 to –35, outlines the 

specific requirements of the automotive 

inspection and maintenance program. 

EPA approved this SIP section in action 

on July 17, 1997 (62 FR 38213), August 

1, 2005 (70 FR 44055), September 14, 

2005 (70 FR 54267), and November 2, 

2005 (70 FR 66264). 

b. EPA Analysis: Chapter 2 of Title 19 

of the Utah Code gives the DAQ and Air 

Quality Board (AQB) adequate authority 

to carry out the SIP. UCA 19–2–103 

requires the AQB be composed and act 

in accordance with section 128 of the 

CAA. The State receives sections 103 

and 105 grant funds through its 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 99 / Monday, May 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 29693 

Performance Partnership Grant along 

with required State matching funds to 

provide funding necessary to carry out 

Utah’s SIP requirements. Utah’s SIP 

meets the requirements of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(E) for the 1997 ozone NAAQS. 

7. Stationary source monitoring 

system: Section 110(a)(2)(F) requires (i) 

the installation, maintenance, and 

replacement of equipment, and the 

implementation of other necessary 

steps, by owners or operators of 

stationary sources to monitor emissions 

from such sources, (ii) periodic reports 

on the nature and amounts of emissions 

and emissions-related data from such 

sources, and (iii) correlation of such 

reports by the state agency with any 

emission limitations or standards 

established pursuant to the Act, which 

reports shall be available at reasonable 

times for public inspection. 

a. Utah’s response to this requirement: 

SIP Section I (Legal Authority) A.1.f, 

codified at R307–110–2, identifies the 

statutory provisions that require owners 

or operators of stationary sources to 

install, maintain, and use emission 

monitoring devices and to make 

periodic reports to the State Department 

of Environmental Quality (DEQ) on the 

nature and amounts of emissions from 

such sources. The State DEQ will make 

such data available to the public as 

reported and as correlated with any 

applicable emission standards or 

limitations (Section 19–2–104, UCA). 

EPA approved this SIP originally in the 

early 1980’s and most recently on June 

25, 2003 (68 FR 37744). 

SIP Section III (Source Surveillance), 

codified at R307–110–4, includes 

inventory requirements, stack testing, 

and plant inspections (Sections 19–2– 

107 and 19–2–108, UCA, allow 

inspection of air pollution sources). EPA 

approved this SIP section originally in 

the early 1980’s and most recently on 

June 25, 2003 (68 FR 37744). 

b. EPA Analysis: Utah’s SIP meets the 

requirements of section 110(a)(2)(F) for 

the 1997 ozone NAAQS. 

8. Emergency powers: Section 

110(a)(2)(G) requires states to provide 

for authority to address activities 

causing imminent and substantial 

endangerment to public health, 

including contingency plans to 

implement the emergency episode 

provisions in their SIPs. 

a. Utah’s response to this requirement: 

SIP Section 1 (Legal Authority) A.1.c, 

codified at R307–110–2, identifies the 

statutory provisions to abate pollutant 

emissions on an emergency basis to 

prevent substantial endangerment to the 

health of persons (Section 19–2–112, 

UCA). EPA approved this SIP originally 

in the early 1980’s and most recently on 

June 25, 2003 (68 FR 37744). 

More details can be found in SIP 

Section VII (Prevention of Air Pollution 

Emergency Episodes), codified at R307– 

110–8 (Section 19–2–112, UCA). EPA 

approved this SIP originally in the early 

1980’s and most recently on June 25, 

2003 (68 FR 37744). 

b. EPA analysis: Section 19–2–112 of 

the UCA provides DEQ with general 

emergency authority comparable to that 

in section 303 of the Act. The SIP also 

requires DEQ to follow criteria in 40 

CFR 51.151 in proclaiming an 

emergency episode and to develop a 

contingency plan. The SIP meets the 

requirements of 110(a)(2)(G) for the 

1997 ozone NAAQS. 

9. Future SIP revisions: Section 

110(a)(2)(H) requires that SIPs provide 

for revision of such plan (i) from time 

to time as may be necessary to take 

account of revisions of such national 

primary or secondary ambient air 

quality standard or the availability of 

improved or more expeditious methods 

of attaining such standard, and (ii), 

except as provided in paragraph (3)(C), 

whenever the Administrator finds on 

the basis of information available to the 

Administrator that the SIP is 

substantially inadequate to attain the 

NAAQS which it implements or to 

otherwise comply with any additional 

requirements under this Act. 

a. Utah’s response to this requirement: 

SIP Section I (Legal Authority) A.1.a, 

codified at R307–110–2, identifies the 

statutory provisions that allow the DAQ 

to revise its plans to take account of 

revisions of a NAAQS and to adopt 

expeditious methods of attaining and 

maintaining such standard. EPA 

approved this SIP originally in the early 

1980’s and most recently on June 25, 

2003 (68 FR 37744). 

b. EPA analysis: Section 19–2–104 of 

the UCA gives the AQB sufficient 

authority to meet the requirements of 

110(a)(2)(H). 

10. Nonattainment Area Plan or Plan 

Revision under Part D: Section 

110(a)(2)(I) requires that a SIP or SIP 

revision for an area designated as a 

nonattainment area must meet the 

applicable requirements of part D of this 

subchapter (relating to nonattainment 

areas). 

a. EPA analysis for section 

110(a)(2)(I): As noted above, the specific 

nonattainment area plan requirements 

of section 110(a)(2)(I) are subject to the 

timing requirement of section 172, not 

the timing requirement of section 

110(a)(1). This element is therefore not 

applicable to this action. EPA will take 

action on part D attainment plans 

through a separate process. 

11. Consultation with government 

officials, public notification, PSD and 

visibility protection: Section 110(a)(2)(J) 

requires that each SIP meet the 

applicable requirements of section 121 

of this title (relating to consultation), 

section 127 of this title (relating to 

public notification), and part C of this 

subchapter (relating to PSD of air 

quality and visibility protection). 

a. Utah’s response to this requirement: 

SIP Section I (Legal Authority) A.2, 

codified at R307–110–2, adopts 

requirements for transportation 

consultation (Section 174, Clean Air 

Act). EPA approved this SIP originally 

in the early 1980’s and most recently on 

June 25, 2003 (68 FR 37744). 

SIP Section I (Legal Authority) A.1.d, 

codified at R307–110–2, identifies the 

statutory authority to prevent 

construction, modification or operation 

of any stationary source at any location 

where emissions from such source will 

prevent the attainment or maintenance 

of a national standard or interfere with 

PSD requirements. (UCA Section 19–2– 

108) EPA approved this SIP originally in 

the early 1980’s and most recently on 

June 25, 2003 (68 FR 37744). 

SIP Section VI (Intergovernmental 

Cooperation), provides a brief listing of 

federal, state, and local agencies 

involved in protecting air quality in 

Utah. Codified at R307–110–7/EPA 

approved this SIP originally in the early 

1980’s and most recently on June 25, 

2003 at 68 FR 37744. 

SIP Section XII (Transportation 

Conformity Consultation), codified at 

R307–110–20, establishes the 

consultation procedures on 

transportation conformity issues when 

preparing State plans. EPA approved 

SIP Section XII, Transportation 

Conformity Consultation, on September 

2, 2008 (73 FR 51222). 

SIP Section VIII (PSD), codified at 

R307–110–9 and R307–405, describes 

the program to prevent significant 

deterioration of areas of the State where 

the air is clean. EPA approved the PSD 

SIP originally in the early 1980’s and 

most recently on June 25, 2003 (68 FR 

37744). EPA most recently approved 

R307–405 on August 18, 2004 (69 FR 

51368). Utah submitted revisions to the 

PSD SIP and R307–405 on September 

15, 2006. Updates to the IBR date of 40 

CFR 52.21 were submitted on October 1, 

2007 and March 3, 2008. The October 1, 

2007 update incorporates provisions in 

the CFR that added NOX as a precursor 

for ozone. The most recent update of the 

IBR date was adopted on February 5, 

2009 and will be submitted to EPA in 

the near future when the final 

administrative paperwork is available. 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
29694 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 99 / Monday, May 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

EPA has not yet acted on these 

submittals. 

SIP Section XVI (Public Notification), 

codified at R307–110–24, includes 

provisions to notify the public when 

NAAQS have been exceeded as per 

section 127 of the CAA. EPA approved 

this SIP originally in the early 1980’s 

and most recently on June 25, 2003 (68 

FR 37744). 

SIP Section XVII (Visibility 

Protection), codified at R307–110–25, 

describes the program to protect 

visibility, especially within the 

boundaries of the five national parks 

located in Utah. (Sections 19–2–101 and 

104, UCA) EPA approved this SIP in 

April 1997 and most recently on June 

25, 2003 (68 FR 37744). 

SIP Section XX (Regional Haze), 

codified at R307–110–28, addresses the 

requirements in part C of the CAA 

relating to regional haze. The SIP was 

based on the recommendations of the 

Grand Canyon Visibility Transport 

Commission established by section 

169B(f) of the CAA. (Sections 19–2–104, 

UCA). The Regional Haze SIP was 

submitted to EPA on December 12, 

2003. Revisions to the Regional Haze 

SIP were submitted on August 8, 2004; 

May 8, 2006; and September 9, 2008. 

EPA has not yet acted on these 

submittals. 

b. EPA Analysis: The State has 

demonstrated that it has the authority 

and rules in place to provide a process 

of consultation with general purpose 

local governments, designated 

organizations of elected officials of local 

governments and any Federal Land 

Manager having authority over federal 

land to which the SIP applies, 

consistent with the requirements of 

CAA section 121. Furthermore, SIP 

section XVI, cited by Utah, satisfies the 

requirements of section 127 of the Act. 

The State has a SIP-approved PSD 

program that incorporates by reference 

the federal program at 40 CFR 52.21. 

The federal program (and therefore 

Utah’s SIP-approved PSD program) 

automatically implements new PSD 

requirements triggered by the effective 

date of any new NAAQS. EPA has 

further evaluated Utah’s SIP-approved 

PSD program in this proposed action 

under IV.3 of section 110(a)(2)(C). 

Finally, with regard to the applicable 

requirements for visibility protection, 

EPA recognizes that states are subject to 

visibility and regional haze program 

requirements under part C of the act. In 

the event of the establishment of a new 

NAAQS, however, the visibility and 

regional haze program requirements 

under part C do not change. Thus we 

find that there is no new visibility 

obligation ‘‘triggered’’ under section 

110(a)(2)(J) when a new NAAQS 

becomes effective. In conclusion, the 

Utah SIP meets the requirements of 

section 110(a)(2)(J) for the 1997 ozone 

NAAQS. 

12. Air quality and modeling/data: 

Section 110(a)(2)(K) requires that each 

SIP provide for (i) the performance of 

such air quality modeling as the 

Administrator may prescribe for the 

purpose of predicting the effect on 

ambient air quality of any emissions of 

any air pollutant for which the 

Administrator has established a 

NAAQS, and (ii) the submission, upon 

request, of data related to such air 

quality modeling to the Administrator. 

a. Utah’s response to this requirement: 

SIP Section II (Review of New and 

Modified Air Pollution Sources), 

codified at R307–110–3, provides that 

new or modified sources of air pollution 

must submit plans to the DAQ and 

receive an Approval Order before 

operating. (Section 19–2–104, UCA) 

EPA approved this SIP originally in the 

early 1980’s and most recently on June 

25, 2003 (68 FR 37744). 

b. EPA Analysis: Utah’s SIP meets the 

requirements of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(K) for the 1997 ozone NAAQS. 

In particular, Utah’s PSD program 

incorporates by reference the federal 

program at 40 CFR 52.21, including the 

provision at 52.21(l)(1) requiring that 

estimates of ambient air concentrations 

be based on applicable air quality 

models specified in Appendix W of 40 

CFR part 51, and the provision at 

52.21(l)(2) requiring that modification or 

substitution of a model specified in 

Appendix W must be approved by the 

Administrator. As a result, the SIP 

provides for such air quality modeling 

as the Administrator has prescribed. 

13. Permitting fees: Section 

110(a)(2)(L) requires SIPs to require the 

owner or operator of each major 

stationary source to pay to the 

permitting authority, as a condition of 

any permit required under this act, a fee 

sufficient to cover (i) the reasonable 

costs of reviewing and acting upon any 

application for such a permit, and (ii) if 

the owner or operator receives a permit 

for such source, the reasonable costs of 

implementing and enforcing the terms 

and conditions of any such permit (not 

including any court costs or other costs 

associated with any enforcement 

action), until such fee requirement is 

superseded with respect to such sources 

by the Administrator’s approval of a fee 

program under title V. 

a. Utah’s response to this requirement: 

SIP Section I (Legal Authority) A.1.h, 

codified at R307–110–2, identifies the 

statutory authority to charge a fee to 

major sources to cover permit and 

enforcement expenses. EPA approved 

this SIP originally in the early 1980s 

and most recently on June 25, 2003 (68 

FR 37744). 

b. EPA Analysis: Utah’s approved title 

V operating permit program meets the 

requirements of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(L) for the 1997 ozone NAAQS. 

Final approval of the title V operating 

permit program was approved on June 

8, 1995 (60 FR 30192). As discussed in 

the notice proposing approval of the 

title V program (60 FR 15105, Mar. 22, 

1995), the State demonstrated that the 

fees collected were sufficient to 

administer the program. 

14. Consultation/participation by 

affected local entities: Section 

110(a)(2)(M) requires states to provide 

for consultation and participation in SIP 

development by local political 

subdivisions affected by the SIP. 

a. Utah’s response to this requirement: 

SIP Section VI (Intergovernmental 

Cooperation), codified at R307–110–7, 

lists federal, state, and local agencies 

involved in protecting air quality in 

Utah. EPA approved this SIP originally 

in the early 1980’s and most recently on 

June 25, 2003 (68 FR 37744). 

SIP Section XII (Transportation 

Conformity Consultation), codified at 

R307–110–20, establishes the 

consultation procedures on 

transportation conformity issues when 

preparing state plans. EPA approved SIP 

Section XII, Transportation Conformity 

Consultation, on September 2 2008 (73 

FR 51222). 

b. EPA Analysis: Utah’s submittal 

meets the requirements of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(M) for the 1997 ozone 

NAAQS. 

V. What action is EPA taking? 

In this action, EPA is proposing to 

approve the following infrastructure 

elements for the 1997 ozone NAAQS: 

(A), (D)(ii), (E), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L), 

and (M). EPA proposes to approve the 

section 110(a)(2)(C) infrastructure 

element in full for the 1997 ozone 

NAAQS in the event that Utah takes one 

of the actions described in the 

discussion of that element; in the 

alternative, EPA proposes to disapprove 

the section 110(a)(2)(C) element to the 

extent described and to otherwise 

approve this element. EPA proposes to 

conditionally approve the section 

110(a)(2)(B) infrastructure element for 

the 1997 ozone NAAQS based on the 

formal commitment by Utah described 

in the discussion of that element. 

Finally, in this action, EPA is taking no 

action on infrastructure elements (D)(i) 

and (I) for the 1997 ozone NAAQS. 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 99 / Monday, May 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 29695 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

Act and applicable federal regulations 

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

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this proposed 

action merely approves some state law 

as meeting federal requirements and 

disapproves other state law because it 

does not meet federal requirements; this 

proposed action does not impose 

additional requirements beyond those 

imposed by state law. For that reason, 

this proposed action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

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

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

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

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

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

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

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

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and, 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this rule does not have 

Tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the State, and EPA notes that 

it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on Tribal governments or preempt 

Tribal law. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 

Intergovernmental relations, Lead, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

Dated: May 16, 2011. 

James B. Martin, 

Regional Administrator, Region 8. 

[FR Doc. 2011–12606 Filed 5–20–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 

[EPA–R05–OAR–2008–0396; FRL–9307–1] 

Approval, and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; Indiana; 

Redesignation of the Evansville Area 

to Attainment of the Fine Particulate 

Matter Standard 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: On April 3, 2008, the Indiana 

Department of Environmental 

Management (IDEM) submitted a 

request for EPA to approve the 

redesignation of the Evansville, Indiana 

nonattainment area to attainment of the 

1997 annual fine particulate matter 

(PM2.5) standard. The air quality 

improvement in this area and 

maintenance of the standard in this area 

is attributable in substantial part to 

power plant emission reductions in the 

Eastern United States prompted by the 

Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR). The 

United States Court of Appeals for the 

District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. 

Circuit) has remanded CAIR, but EPA 

has proposed a replacement rule known 

as the Transport Rule. The Evansville 

area has attained the standard with only 

a fraction of the reductions that the 

proposed Transport Rule proposed to 

require. Therefore, EPA is proposing to 

approve the redesignation request for 

the Evansville area, along with related 

SIP revisions, if and when EPA takes 

final action to promulgate the Transport 

Rule, provided that the final Transport 

Rule requires emission reductions that 

are at least substantially equivalent to 

those of the proposed Transport Rule for 

purposes of maintaining the standard in 

the Evansville area. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before June 22, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05– 

OAR–2008–0396, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. http://www.regulations.gov: Follow 

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. E-mail: mooney.john@epa.gov. 

3. Fax: (312) 692–2551. 

4. Mail: John M. Mooney, Chief, Air 

Programs Branch (AR–18J), U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 77 

West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, 

Illinois 60604. 

5. Hand Delivery: John M. Mooney, 

Chief, Air Programs Branch (AR–18J), 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, 

Illinois 60604. Such deliveries are only 

accepted during the Regional Office 

normal hours of operation, and special 

arrangements should be made for 

deliveries of boxed information. The 

Regional Office official hours of 

business are Monday through Friday, 

8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. excluding Federal 

holidays. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R05–OAR–2008– 

0396. 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 e-mail. 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 e-mail comment directly 

to EPA without going through http:// 

www.regulations.gov your e-mail 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. For additional instructions on 

submitting comments, go to Section I of 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS