Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 164 / Tuesday, August 25, 2015 / Proposed Rules 51499 

Comments Invited 

Interested parties are invited to 

participate in this proposed rulemaking 

by submitting such written data, views, 

or arguments as they may desire. 

Comments that provide the factual basis 

supporting the views and suggestions 

presented are particularly helpful in 

developing reasoned regulatory 

decisions on the proposal. Comments 

are specifically invited on the overall 

regulatory, aeronautical, economic, 

environmental, and energy-related 

aspects of the proposal. 

Communications should identify both 

docket numbers (FAA Docket No. FAA– 

2014–0739 and Airspace Docket No. 14– 

AWP–11) and be submitted in triplicate 

to the Docket Management System (see 

ADDRESSES section for address and 

phone number). You may also submit 

comments through the Internet at 

www.regulations.gov. 

Commenters wishing the FAA to 

acknowledge receipt of their comments 

on this action must submit with those 

comments a self-addressed, stamped 

postcard on which the following 

statement is made: ‘‘Comments to FAA 

Docket No. FAA–2015–0739 and 

Airspace Docket No. 14–AWP–11.’’ The 

postcard will be date/time stamped and 

returned to the commenter. 

All communications received on or 

before the specified closing date for 

comments will be considered before 

taking action on the proposed rule. The 

proposal contained in this action may 

be changed in light of comments 

received. All comments submitted will 

be available for examination in the 

public docket both before and after the 

closing date for comments. A report 

summarizing each substantive public 

contact with FAA personnel concerned 

with this rulemaking will be filed in the 

docket. 

Availability of NPRMs 

An electronic copy of this document 

may be downloaded through the 

Internet at www.regulations.gov. 

You may review the public docket 

containing the proposal, any comments 

received and any final disposition in 

person at the Dockets Office (see 

ADDRESSES section for address and 

phone number) between 9:00 a.m. and 

5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays. An informal 

docket may also be examined during 

normal business hours at the office of 

the Operations Support Group, Western 

Service Center, Federal Aviation 

Administration, 1601 Lind Ave. SW., 

Renton, WA 98057. 

Persons interested in being placed on 

a mailing list for future NPRMs should 

contact the FAA’s Office of Rulemaking, 

(202) 267–9677, for a copy of Advisory 

Circular No. 11–2A, Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking Distribution System, which 

describes the application procedure. 

The Proposal 

The FAA is proposing an amendment 

to 14 CFR part 73 to expand the lateral 

dimensions of restricted area R–7201, 

Farallon De Medinilla Island, Mariana 

Islands, GU and rename it R–7201A. 

The proposed R–7201A would be the 

minimum size required for containing 

stand-off weapons employment, naval 

gun fire training, and laser activities 

conducted there. The actual usage of the 

restricted area is estimated to be 4–5 

days per week, 3–6 hours per day with 

1,680 sorties per year. 

The proposed R–7201A boundary 

would extend the current boundary 

from 3 NM to 12 NM from latitude 

16°01′04′′ N., longitude 146°03′31′′ E. 

Regulatory Notices and Analyses 

The FAA has determined that this 

proposed regulation only involves an 

established body of technical 

regulations for which frequent and 

routine amendments are necessary to 

keep them operationally current. 

Therefore, this proposed regulation: (1) 

Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ 

under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not 

a ‘‘significant rule’’ under Department of 

Transportation (DOT) Regulatory 

Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; 

February 26, 1979); and (3) does not 

warrant preparation of a regulatory 

evaluation as the anticipated impact is 

so minimal. Since this is a routine 

matter that will only affect air traffic 

procedures and air navigation, it is 

certified that this proposed rule, when 

promulgated, will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities under the 

criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. 

Environmental Review 

This proposal will be subjected to an 

environmental analysis in accordance 

with FAA Order 1050.1E, 

‘‘Environmental Impacts: Policies and 

Procedures,’’ prior to any FAA final 

regulatory action. 

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 73 

Airspace, Prohibited areas, Restricted 

areas. 

The Proposed Amendment 

In consideration of the foregoing, the 

Federal Aviation Administration 

proposes to amend 14 CFR part 73 as 

follows: 

PART 73—SPECIAL USE AIRSPACE 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 73 is 

amended to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 

40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 

1959–1963 Comp., p. 389. 

§ 73.72 Guam [Amended] 

■ 2. § 73.72 is amended as follows: 

R–7201 Farallon De Medinilla Island 

Mariana Islands, GU [Removed] 

R–7201A Farallon De Medinilla 

Island Mariana Islands, GU [New] 

Boundaries: Beginning at latitude 

16°01′04′′ N., longitude 146°03′31′′ E.; 

extending outward in a 12 NM radius. 

Altitudes: Surface up to and including 

FL 600. 

Times of Use: As scheduled by 

NOTAM 12 hours in advance. 

Controlling Agency: FAA, Guam 

Center/Radar Approach Control. 

Using Agency: Commander, Naval 

Forces, Marianas. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on August 19, 

2015. 

Gary A. Norek, 

Manager, Airspace Policy and Regulations 

Group. 

[FR Doc. 2015–21084 Filed 8–24–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R08–OAR–2014–0369; FRL–9932–90– 

Region 8] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; State of 

Utah; Revisions to the Utah Division of 

Administrative Rules, R307–300 

Series; Area Source Rules for 

Attainment of Fine Particulate Matter 

Standards 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing approval and 

conditional approval of portions of the 

fine particulate matter (PM2.5) State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) and other 

general rule revisions submitted by the 

State of Utah. The revisions affect the 

Utah Division of Administrative Rules 

(DAR), R307–300 Series; Requirements 

for Specific Locations; the revisions had 

submission dates of February 2, 2012, 

May 9, 2013, June 8, 2013, February 18, 

2014, April 17, 2014, May 20, 2014, July 

10, 2014, August 6, 2014, and December 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
51500 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 164 / Tuesday, August 25, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

9, 2014. These area source rules control 

emissions of direct PM2.5 and PM2.5

precursors, sulfur dioxides (SO2), 

nitrogen oxides (NOx) and volatile 

organic compounds (VOC). 

Additionally, the EPA will be proposing 

to approve the State’s reasonably 

available control measure (RACM) 

determinations for the rule revisions 

that pertain to the PM2.5 SIP. This action 

is being taken under section 110 of the 

Clean Air Act (CAA or Act). 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before September 24, 

2015. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by EPA–R08–OAR–2014– 

0369, by one of the following methods: 

• http://www.regulations.gov. Follow 

the online instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Email: ostigaard.crystal@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, EPA, 

Region 8, Mailcode 8P–AR, 1595 

Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 

80202–1129. 

• Hand Delivery: 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–2014– 

0369. 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 at http://

www.regulations.gov or at the EPA 

Region 8, Office of Partnerships and 

Regulatory Assistance, Air Program, 

1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, 

Colorado, 80202–1129. EPA requests 

that you contact the individual listed in 

the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

section to view the hard copy of the 

docket. You may view the hard copy of 

the docket Monday through Friday, 8:00 

a.m. to 4:00 p.m., excluding federal 

holidays. An electronic copy of the 

State’s SIP compilation is also available 

at http://www.epa.gov/region8/air/

sip.html. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Crystal Ostigaard, Air Program, EPA, 

Region 8, Mailcode 8P–AR, 1595 

Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 

80202–1129, (303) 312–6602, 

ostigaard.crystal@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. General Information 

a. 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. 

b. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. 

When submitting comments, remember 

to: 

i. Identify the rulemaking by docket 

number and other identifying 

information (subject heading, Federal 

Register date and page number). 

ii. 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. 

iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; 

suggest alternatives and substitute 

language for your requested changes. 

iv. Describe any assumptions and 

provide any technical information and/ 

or data that you used. 

v. If you estimate potential costs or 

burdens, explain how you arrived at 

your estimate in sufficient detail to 

allow for it to be reproduced. 

vi. Provide specific examples to 

illustrate your concerns, and suggest 

alternatives. 

vii. Explain your views as clearly as 

possible, avoiding the use of profanity 

or personal threats. 

viii. Make sure to submit your 

comments by the comment period 

deadline identified. 

II. Background 

A. Regulatory Background 

On October 17, 2006 (71 FR 61144), 

the EPA strengthened the level of the 

24-hour PM2.5 National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards (NAAQS), lowering 

the primary and secondary standards 

from 65 micrograms per cubic meter 

(mg/m3), the 1997 standard, to 35mg/m3. 

On November 13, 2009 (74 FR 58688), 

the EPA designated three nonattainment 

areas in Utah for the 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS of 35 mg/m3. These are the Salt 

Lake City, UT; Provo, UT; and Logan, 

UT–ID nonattainment areas. The EPA 

originally designated these areas under 

CAA title I, part D, subpart 1, which 

required Utah to submit an attainment 

plan for each area no later than three 

years from the date of their 

nonattainment designations. These 

plans needed to provide for the 

attainment of the PM2.5 standard as 

expeditiously as practicable, but no later 

than five years from the date the areas 

were designated nonattainment. 

Subsequently, on January 4, 2013, the 

U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of 

Columbia held that the EPA should 

have implemented the 2006 PM2.5 24- 

hour standard based on both CAA title 

I, part D, subpart 1 and subpart 4. Under 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 164 / Tuesday, August 25, 2015 / Proposed Rules 51501 

1Such exemptions could be due to a 

demonstrated lack of significant contribution of a 

certain PM2.5 precursor to the area’s elevated PM2.5

concentrations or due to a presumptive 

determination that a certain source category 

contributes only a de minimis amount toward PM2.5

levels in a nonattainment area. 

subpart 4, nonattainment areas are 

initially classified as moderate, and 

moderate area attainment plans must 

address the requirements of subpart 4 as 

well as subpart 1. Additionally, CAA 

subpart 4 sets a different SIP submittal 

due date and attainment year. For a 

moderate area, the attainment SIP is due 

18 months after designation and the 

attainment year is the end of the sixth 

calendar year after designation. On June 

2, 2014 (79 FR 31566), the EPA finalized 

the Identification of Nonattainment 

Classification and Deadlines for 

Submission of State Implementation 

Plan (SIP) Provisions for the 1997 Fine 

Particulate (PM2.5) National Ambient 

Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) and 

2006 PM2.5 NAAQS (‘‘the Classification 

and Deadline Rule’’). This rule 

classified to moderate the areas that 

were designated in 2009 as 

nonattainment, and set the attainment 

SIP submittal due date for those areas at 

December 31, 2014. This rule did not 

affect the moderate area attainment date 

of December 31, 2015. 

On March 23, 2015, the EPA proposed 

the Fine Particulate Matter National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards: State 

Implementation Plan Requirements 

(‘‘PM2.5 Implementation Rule’’), 80 FR 

15340, which partially addresses the 

January 4, 2013 court ruling. This 

proposed rule details how air agencies 

should meet the statutory SIP 

requirements that apply under subparts 

1 and 4 to areas designated 

nonattainment for any PM2.5 NAAQS, 

such as: General requirements for 

attainment plan due dates and 

attainment demonstrations; provisions 

for demonstrating reasonable further 

progress; quantitative milestones; 

contingency measures; Nonattainment 

New Source Review (NNSR) permitting 

programs; and RACM (including 

reasonably available control technology 

(RACT)), among other things. The 

statutory attainment planning 

requirements of subparts 1 and 4 were 

established to ensure that the following 

goals of the CAA are met: (i) That states 

implement measures that provide for 

attainment of the PM2.5 NAAQS as 

expeditiously as practicable; and, (ii) 

that states adopt emissions reduction 

strategies that will be the most effective, 

and the most cost-effective, at reducing 

PM2.5 levels in nonattainment areas. 

The PM2.5 Implementation Rule 

proposed a process for states to 

determine the control strategy for PM2.5

attainment plans. The process consists 

of identifying all technologically and 

economically feasible control measures, 

including control technologies for all 

sources of direct PM2.5 and PM2.5

precursors in the emissions inventory 

for the nonattainment area which are 

not otherwise exempted from 

consideration for controls.1 From that 

list of measures, the state must identify 

those that it can implement within four 

years of designation of the area (and 

which would thus meet the statutory 

requirements for RACM and RACT) and 

any ‘‘additional reasonable measures,’’ 

which EPA is proposing in the PM2.5

Implementation Rule to define as those 

technologically and economically 

feasible measures that the state can only 

implement on sources in the 

nonattainment area after the four year 

deadline for RACM and RACT has 

passed. See proposed 40 CFR 51.1000. 

B. RACT and RACM Requirements for 

PM2.5 Attainment Plans 

Section 172(c)(1) of the Act (from 

subpart 1) requires that attainment 

plans, in general, provide for the 

implementation of all RACM as 

expeditiously as practicable (including 

RACT) and shall provide for attainment 

of the national primary ambient air 

quality standards. Section 189(a)(1)(C) 

(from subpart 4) requires moderate area 

attainment plans to contain provisions 

to assure that RACM is implemented no 

later than four years after designation. 

The EPA stated its interpretation of 

the RACT and RACM requirements of 

subparts 1 and 4 in the 1992 General 

Preamble for the Implementation of 

Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments 

of 1990, 57 FR 13498 (Apr. 6, 1992). For 

RACT, the EPA followed its ‘‘historic 

definition of RACT as the lowest 

emission limitation that a particular 

source is capable of meeting by the 

application of control technology that is 

reasonably available considering 

technological and economic feasibility.’’ 

57 FR 13541. Like RACT, the EPA has 

historically considered RACM to consist 

of control measures that are reasonably 

available, considering technological and 

economic feasibility. See PM2.5

Implementation Rule, 80 FR 15373. 

C. Utah’s PM2.5 Attainment Plan 

Submittals 

Prior to the January 4, 2013 decision 

of the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, Utah 

developed a PM2.5 attainment plan 

intended to meet the requirements of 

subpart 1. The EPA submitted written 

comments dated November 1, 2012 to 

the Utah Division of Air Quality (DAQ) 

on Utah’s draft PM2.5 SIP, technical 

support document (TSD), and area 

source and other rules. After the court’s 

decision, Utah amended its attainment 

plan to address requirements of subpart 

4. On December 2, 2013, the EPA 

provided comments on Utah’s revised 

draft PM2.5 SIPs for the Salt Lake City 

and Provo areas, including the TSDs 

and rules in Section IX, Part H. These 

written comments from EPA included 

some comments applicable to the rules 

we are proposing to act on today. The 

comment letters can be found within the 

docket for this action on 

www.regulations.gov. 

In addition to Utah’s February 2, 2012 

SIP submittal, on May 9, 2013, June 8, 

2013, February 18, 2014, April 17, 2014, 

May 20, 2014, July 10, 2014, August 6, 

2014, and December 9, 2014 the State of 

Utah submitted to EPA various revisions 

to the Division of Administrative Rules 

(DAR), Title R307—Environmental 

Quality, set of rules, most of which are 

applicable to the Utah SIP for PM2.5

nonattainment areas. The new rules or 

revised rules we are addressing in this 

proposed rule were provided by Utah in 

the nine different submissions listed 

above, and these rules are: R307–101–2, 

General Requirements: Definitions; 

R307–103, Administrative Procedures; 

R307–303, Commercial Cooking; R307– 

307, Road Salting and Sanding; R307– 

312, Aggregate Processing Operations 

for PM2.5 Nonattainment Areas; R307– 

328, Gasoline Transfer and Storage; 

R307–335, Degreasing and Solvent 

Cleaning Operations; R307–342, 

Adhesives and Sealants; R307–343 

Emissions Standards for Wood 

Furniture Manufacturing Operations; 

R307–344, Paper, Film, and Foil 

Coatings; R307–345, Fabric and Vinyl 

Coatings; R307–346, Metal Furniture 

Surface Coatings; R307–347, Large 

Appliance Surface Coatings; R307–348, 

Magnet Wire Coatings; R307–349, Flat 

Wood Panel Coatings; R307–350, 

Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products 

Coatings; R307–351, Graphic Arts; 

R307–352, Metal Container, Closure, 

and Coil Coatings; R307–353, Plastic 

Parts Coatings; R307–354, Automotive 

Refinishing Coatings; R307–355, Control 

of Emissions from Aerospace 

Manufacture and Rework Facilities; 

R307–356, Appliance Pilot Light; R307– 

357, Consumer Products; and R307–361, 

Architectural Coatings. 

A previous rule, Rule R307–340 

Surface Coating Processes, was replaced 

in these submittals by the specific rules 

for coatings listed above. Utah 

correspondingly repealed R307–340. In 

addition, Rule R307–342, Adhesives 

and Sealants, replaces an unrelated rule, 

R307–342 Qualifications of Contractors 

and Test Procedures for Vapor Recovery 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
51502 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 164 / Tuesday, August 25, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

2The rules of this type are: R307–335, Degreasing 

and Solvent Cleaning Operations; R307–342, 

Adhesives and Sealants; R307–343 Emissions 

Standards for Wood Furniture Manufacturing 

Operations; R307–344, Paper, Film, and Foil 

Coatings; R307–345, Fabric and Vinyl Coatings; 

R307–346, Metal Furniture Surface Coatings; R307– 

347, Large Appliance Surface Coatings; R307–348, 

Magnet Wire Coatings; R307–349, Flat Wood Panel 

Coatings; R307–350, Miscellaneous Metal Parts and 

Products Coatings; R307–351, Graphic Arts; R307– 

352, Metal Container, Closure, and Coil Coatings; 

R–307–353, Plastic Parts Coatings; R307–354, 

Automotive Refinishing Coatings; R307–355, 

Control of Emissions from Aerospace Manufacture 

and Rework Facilities; R307–357, Consumer 

Products; and R307–361, Architectural Coatings. 

3The rules of this type are: R307–303, 

Commercial Cooking; R307–307, Road Salting and 

Sanding; R307–312, Aggregate Processing 

Operations for PM2.5 Nonattainment Areas; and 

R307–357, Appliance Pilot Light. 

Systems for Gasoline Delivery Tanks. 

The removal of the previous version of 

R307–342 is addressed by the State’s 

February 2, 2012 submittal, which 

repeals R307–342 and amends R307– 

328, Gasoline Transfer and Storage, to 

account for the repeal of R307–342. 

The final Utah submittal for fourteen 

of these rules was the December 9, 2014 

submittal. The final Utah submittals for 

the remaining rules were from the 

February 2, 2012, May 9, 2013, June 8, 

2013, February 18, 2014, April 17, 2014, 

May 20, 2014, July 10, 2014, and August 

6, 2014 submittals. For each individual 

rule, the particular submittal containing 

the final version of the rule is identified 

in the technical support document 

provided in the docket for this proposed 

action. 

III. EPA’s Evaluation of Utah’s 

Submittals 

The SIP revisions in the February 2, 

2012, May 9, 2013, June 8, 2013, 

February 18, 2014, April 17, 2014, May 

20, 2014, July 10, 2014, August 6, 2014, 

and December 9, 2014 submittals that 

we are proposing to act on involve 

revisions to the DAR, Title R307— 

Environmental Quality, R307–101–2 

General Requirements: Definitions; 

R307–103, Administrative Procedures; 

and the R307–300 Series; Requirements 

for Specific Locations (Within 

Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas). 

A number of the rules were submitted 

in multiple submission packages. The 

final, most recent submission package 

for each individual rule supersedes 

earlier submissions, and our proposed 

determination for each rule takes all 

changes from those earlier submissions 

into account. These final rule 

submissions, except for revisions to 

R307–101–2, R307–103, and R307–328, 

and the repeal of R307–342, are 

submitted and requested for approval as 

RACM components of the PM2.5 SIP 

submitted by the State of Utah. EPA is 

also taking action on two rule revisions 

that do not pertain to the Utah PM2.5

SIPs which include revisions to R307– 

328 and the repeal of R307–342. All of 

these rule revisions found in these 

submittals can be found on 

www.regulations.gov. 

The rules for RACM for area sources 

fall into two types. First, there are a 

number of similar rules for control of 

VOC emissions. These rules cover 

categories of area sources that use 

materials that contain VOCs, and also in 

some cases categories of area sources 

that manufacture or produce these 

materials.2 The second type of rule 

provide specific requirements for 

emissions of direct PM2.5, VOCs, NOx, 

and SO2 from a few specific categories 

of sources.3

For the first type of rule, Utah 

generally allows area sources to comply 

in two ways. One is through use or 

production of materials with specified 

VOC content levels. The other is 

through use of add-on controls. For use 

of materials, in most rules sources can 

demonstrate compliance through 

manufacturer’s data sheets. For add-on 

controls, the State has provided specific 

test methods to determine the efficiency 

of the controls. 

The following is a summary of EPA’s 

evaluation of the rule revisions. The 

details of our evaluation are provided in 

a TSD that is available in the docket for 

this action. In general, we reviewed the 

rules for: enforceability; RACM 

requirements (for those rules submitted 

as RACM); and other applicable 

requirements of the Act. 

With respect to enforceability, section 

110(a)(2)(A) of the Act requires SIP 

provisions such as emission limitations 

to be enforceable, and sections 

110(a)(2)(F)(i) and (F)(ii) require plans 

to contain certain types of provisions 

related to enforceability, such as source 

monitoring, as prescribed by the 

Administrator. 40 CFR part 51, subpart 

K, Source Surveillance, prescribes 

requirements that plans must meet in 

this respect. 40 CFR Section 51.211 

requires plans to contain legally 

enforceable procedures for owners or 

operators of stationary sources to 

maintain records and report information 

to the State in order to determine 

whether the source is in compliance. 40 

CFR Section 51.212 requires plans to, 

among other things, contain enforceable 

test methods for each emission limit in 

the plan. Appropriate test methods may 

be selected from Appendix M to 40 CFR 

part 51 or Appendix A to 40 CFR part 

60, or a state may use an alternative 

method following review and approval 

of that method by the EPA. 

Our review of the rules for 

enforceability revealed a few potential 

issues. First, certain rules did not 

clearly identify the test method that 

should be used to determine 

compliance. On August 4, 2015, the 

State provided a clarification letter that 

addresses this issue. Second, certain 

rules specified use of an ‘‘equivalent 

method’’ for compliance. This can 

create issues for enforceability of the 

provision under section CAA 

110(a)(2)(C), as well as potentially 

violating the requirement of section 

110(i) that SIP requirements for 

stationary sources can only be changed 

(with certain limited exceptions) 

through the SIP revision process. The 

State has provided a letter on August 4, 

2015 that commits to provide a specific 

SIP revision to either remove the 

provision for use of an equivalent 

method, or to specify the other methods 

that can be used for compliance. Details 

of our analysis are in the docket for this 

rulemaking. 

For review of the State’s RACM 

analyses, the EPA proposes to adopt the 

interpretation of RACM set out in the 

General Preamble, 57 FR 13498, 13540– 

13544 (April 6, 1992), and described in 

the March 23, 2015 proposed PM2.5

Implementation Rule. That is, RACM 

consists of the control measures that are 

reasonably available considering 

technological and economic feasibility. 

This includes EPA’s longstanding 

interpretation that economic feasibility 

‘‘involves considering the cost of 

reducing emissions and the difference 

between the cost of an emissions 

reduction measure at a particular source 

and the cost of emissions reduction 

measures that have been implemented 

at other similar sources in the same or 

other areas.’’ 80 FR 15373–74. 

Our detailed review of the State’s 

RACM analyses for the rules we are 

acting on is provided in a TSD in the 

docket for this action. We did not 

review whether Utah’s PM2.5 attainment 

plan as a whole addresses all necessary 

requirements for RACM under subparts 

1 and 4. Based on our review, we are 

proposing to approve the State’s 

submission that the particular rules we 

are acting on constitute RACM for the 

covered source categories, but we are 

not proposing to approve the PM2.5

attainment plan as a whole with respect 

to RACM requirements. We will act on 

the remainder of the attainment plan in 

a separate action. 

Finally, we reviewed all rules for 

compliance with other requirements of 

the Act. This review revealed a potential 

issue with one provision in the general 

definitions in R307–101–2. The 

provision defined ‘‘PM2.5 precursor’’ to 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 164 / Tuesday, August 25, 2015 / Proposed Rules 51503 

4The PM2.5 Implementation Rule proposes 

options for how states should substantively address 

control of these precursors. 

include specifically only VOC, SO2, and 

NOX. As a factual matter, ammonia 

(NH3) is also a precursor to PM2.5, and 

at a minimum PM2.5 attainment plans 

should include inventories of all PM2.5

precursors.4 However, after review by 

UDAQ and EPA, we found that this 

definition was not used anywhere in 

Utah’s SIP and could be removed. On 

August 4, 2015, the State provided a 

commitment letter to address the issue 

by removing the definition of PM2.5

precursor. 

IV. What action is EPA proposing? 

EPA is proposing approval of the 

revisions to Administrative Rules R307– 

101–2 and R307–103, along with the 

additions/revisions/repeals in R307–300 

Series; Requirements for Specific 

Locations (Within Nonattainment and 

Maintenance Areas), R307–303, R307– 

307, R307–312 (conditionally approved, 

see below), R307–335, R307–340 

(repealed), R307–342 (repealed and 

replaced), R307–343, R307–344, R307– 

345, R307–346, R307–347, R307–348, 

R307–349, R307–350, R307–351, R307– 

352, R307–353, R307–354, R307–355, 

R307–356, R307–357, and R307–361 for 

incorporation to the Utah SIP as 

submitted by the State of Utah on May 

9, 2013, June 8, 2013, February 18, 2014, 

April 17, 2014, May 20, 2014, July 10, 

2014, August 6, 2014, and December 9, 

2014. We are proposing to approve 

Utah’s determination that the above 

rules in R307–300 Series; Requirements 

for Specific Locations (Within 

Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas) 

constitute RACM for the Utah PM2.5 SIP 

for the specific source categories 

addressed; however, we are not 

proposing to determine that Utah’s 

PM2.5 attainment plan has met all 

requirements regarding RACM under 

subparts 1 and 4 of Part D, title I of the 

Act. We intend to act separately on the 

remainder of Utah’s PM2.5 attainment 

plan. 

EPA is proposing to conditionally 

approve revisions to R307–312 and 

R307–328. Additionally, EPA is 

proposing to conditionally approve 

Utah’s determination that R307–312 

constitutes RACM for the Utah PM2.5

SIP for aggregate processing operations. 

As stated above, we are not proposing 

to determine that Utah’s PM2.5

attainment plan has met all 

requirements regarding RACM under 

subparts 1 and 4 of Part D, title I of the 

Act. Under section 110(k)(4) of the Act, 

EPA may approve a SIP revision based 

on a commitment by the State to adopt 

specific enforceable measures by a date 

certain, but not later than one year after 

the date of approval of the plan revision. 

On August 4, 2015, Utah submitted a 

commitment letter to adopt and submit 

specific revisions within one year of our 

final action on these submittals; 

specifically to remove the phrase ‘‘or 

equivalent method’’ in one rule and to 

specify three equivalent methods in the 

other rule. If we finalize our proposed 

conditional approval, Utah must adopt 

and submit the specific revisions it has 

committed to within one year of our 

finalization. If Utah does not submit 

these revisions within one year, or if we 

find Utah’s revisions to be incomplete, 

or we disapprove Utah’s revisions, this 

conditional approval will convert to a 

disapproval. If any of these occur and 

our conditional approvals convert to a 

disapproval, that will constitute a 

disapproval of a required plan element 

under part D of title I of the Act, which 

starts an 18-month clock for sanctions, 

see CAA section 179(a)(2), and the twoyear clock for a federal implementation 

plan (FIP), see CAA section 110(c)(1)(B). 

Finally, EPA is proposing to approve 

the repeal of R307–342, Qualification of 

Contractors and Test Procedures for 

Vapor Recovery Systems for Gasoline 

Delivery Tanks, submitted by DAQ on 

February 2, 2012. 

V. Consideration of Section 110(l) of the 

CAA 

Under section 110(l) of the CAA, the 

EPA cannot approve a SIP revision if the 

revision would interfere with any 

applicable requirements concerning 

attainment and reasonable further 

progress toward attainment of the 

NAAQS, or any other applicable 

requirement of the Act. In addition, 

section 110(l) requires that each revision 

to an implementation plan submitted by 

a state shall be adopted by the state after 

reasonable notice and public hearing. 

The Utah SIP revisions that the EPA 

is proposing to approve do not interfere 

with any applicable requirements of the 

Act. The DAR section R307–300 Series 

submitted by the DAQ on May 9, 2013, 

June 8, 2013, February 18, 2014, April 

17, 2014, May 20, 2014, July 10, 2014, 

August 6, 2014, and December 9, 2014 

are intended to strengthen the SIP and 

to serve as RACM for certain area 

sources for the Utah PM2.5 SIP. The 

repeal of R307–340 does not weaken the 

Utah SIP or the Ozone Maintenance 

Plan as a number of the new or revised 

rules addressing surface coatings take 

the place of R307–340 in total, and are 

as or more protective than R307–340. 

The revision to R307–328, Gasoline 

Transfer and Storage, and the repeal of 

R307–342, Qualification of Contractors 

and Test Procedures for Vapor Recovery 

Systems for Gasoline Delivery Tanks, 

submitted on by DAQ February 2, 2012, 

do not weaken the Utah SIP or the 

Ozone Maintenance Plan, because 

R307–328 replaces the testing 

requirements for trucks in R307–342 

with the federal Maximum Achievable 

Control Technology (MACT) 

requirements. Finally, Utah’s submittals 

provide adequate evidence that the 

revisions were adopted after reasonable 

public notices and hearings. Therefore, 

CAA section 110(l) requirements are 

satisfied. 

VI. Incorporation by Reference 

In this rule, the EPA is proposing to 

include in a final EPA rule regulatory 

text that includes incorporation by 

reference. In accordance with 

requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is 

proposing to incorporate by reference 

the DAQ rules promulgated in the DAR, 

R307–300 Series as discussed in section 

III, EPA’s Evaluation of Utah’s 

Submittals, of this preamble. 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 preamble 

for more information). 

VII. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the Clean Air Act, the 

Administrator is required to approve a 

SIP submission that complies with the 

provisions of the Act and applicable 

federal regulations. 42 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 Clean Air Act. 

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 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
51504 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 164 / Tuesday, August 25, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

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, 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 proposed rule does 

not have tribal implications and will not 

impose substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law as 

specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 

FR 67249, November 9, 2000). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 

Intergovernmental relations, 

Incorporation by reference, Lead, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile 

organization compounds. 

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

Dated: August 10, 2015. 

Debra H. Thomas, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 8. 

[FR Doc. 2015–20895 Filed 8–24–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid 

Services 

42 CFR Part 510 

[CMS–5516–CN] 

RIN 0938–AS64 

Medicare Program; Comprehensive 

Care for Joint Replacement Payment 

Model for Acute Care Hospitals 

Furnishing Lower Extremity Joint 

Replacement Services; Corrections 

AGENCY: Centers for Medicare & 

Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; correction. 

SUMMARY: This document corrects 

technical and typographical errors that 

appeared in the proposed rule 

published in the July 14, 2015 Federal 

Register entitled ‘‘Medicare Program; 

Comprehensive Care for Joint 

Replacement Payment Model for Acute 

Care Hospitals Furnishing Lower 

Extremity Joint Replacement Services.’’ 

DATES: The comment due date for the 

proposed rule published in the Federal 

Register on July 14, 2015 (80 FR 41198) 

remains September 8, 2015. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Claire Schreiber, Claire.Schreiber@

cms.hhs.gov, (410) 786–8939. 

Gabriel Scott, Gabriel.Scott@

cms.hhs.gov, (410) 786–3928. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

In FR Doc. 2015–17190 of July 14, 

2015 (80 FR 41198), there were a 

number of technical and typographical 

errors that are identified and corrected 

in the Correction of Errors section of 

this document. 

II. Summary of Errors 

On page 41210, in our discussion of 

the factors considered but not used in 

creating proposed strata, we 

inadvertently omitted a term and used 

an incorrect term. 

On pages 41212 and 41269, we made 

errors in referencing the name of the 

Comprehensive Care for Joint 

Replacement (CCJR) model. 

On pages 41223 and 41224, in our 

discussion of the proposed pricing 

adjustment for high payment episodes, 

we made errors in describing the 

distribution model presented in 

Figure 2. 

On page 41234, in our discussion of 

the proposed combination of CCJR 

episodes anchored by Medical Severity 

Diagnosis-Related Groups (MS–DRGs) 

469 and 470, we made an error in the 

unpooled hospital-specific historical 

average payments calculation for 

MS–DRG 469 anchored target prices. 

On pages 41235 and 41236, in our 

discussion of the proposed approach to 

combine pricing features, we made an 

error in the placement and the language 

of a sentence that was part of the 

bulleted text. 

On page 41240, in the discussion of 

the criteria for applicable hospitals and 

performance scoring, we made errors in 

stating the percentage of eligible elective 

primary total hip arthroplasty/total knee 

arthoplasty (THA/TKA) patients for 

which hospitals must submit data and 

the timeframe for the submission of 

data. 

On pages 41241 and 41242, we made 

errors in stating a National Quality 

Forum (NQF) measure number. 

On page 41250, in the discussion of 

the accounting for CCJR reconciliation 

payments and repayments in other 

models and programs, we inadvertently 

omitted a word. 

On page 41251, in the discussion of 

the accounting for per beneficiary per 

month (PBPM) payments in the episode 

definition, we made an error in stating 

the total number of models with PBPMs. 

On pages 41268, 41270, and 41278, 

we made typographical errors in 

footnotes 42, 43, and 55, respectively. 

These errors include omitting the title of 

the article that was referenced, omitting 

the text of the footnote, and 

inadvertently adding a reference to a 

footnote. 

On page 41283, in the discussion of 

‘‘Case Mix Adjustment,’’ we 

inadvertently omitted a term. 

On pages 41242, 41281, and 41284, 

we made technical and typographical 

errors in using the acronyms ‘‘CCJR-,’’ 

‘‘HCAHPS,’’ and ‘‘THA’’. 

On page 41285, in our discussion of 

pre-operative assessments, we made 

errors in our designation of several 

bulleted paragraphs. 

On pages 41287 and 41288, Table 16, 

we made errors in the table formatting 

and omitted language that would 

identify the entries pertaining to the 

duration of the performance period. 

III. Correction of Errors 

In FR Doc. 2015–17190 of July 14, 

2015 (80 FR 41198), make the following 

corrections: 

1. On page 41210, first column, fifth 

full paragraph, lines 1 through 3, the 

phrase ‘‘these measures are proposed to 

be part of the selection stratus’’ is 

corrected to read ‘‘these measures are 

not proposed to be part of the selection 

strata’’. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS