Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 80 / Tuesday, April 26, 2016 / Proposed Rules 24525 

located outside the 35-mile specified 

zone of a commercial VHF station that 

places a predicted Grade B contour, in 

whole or in part, over the cable system, 

and that is not significantly viewed or 

otherwise exempt from the FCC’s 

syndicated exclusivity rules in effect on 

June 24, 1981, for each distant signal 

equivalent or fraction thereof 

represented by the carriage of such 

commercial VHF station, the royalty rate 

shall be, in addition to the amount 

specified in paragraph (a) of this 

section, 

(1) For cable systems located wholly 

or in part within a top 50 television 

market, 

(i) 0.599 percent of such gross receipts 

for the first distant signal equivalent; 

(ii) 0.377 percent of such gross 

receipts for each of the second, third, 

and fourth distant signal equivalents; 

and 

(iii) 0.178 percent of such gross 

receipts for the fifth distant signal 

equivalent and each additional distant 

signal equivalent thereafter; 

(2) For cable systems located wholly 

or in part within a second 50 television 

market, 

(i) 0.300 percent of such gross receipts 

for the first distant signal equivalent; 

(ii) 0.189 percent of such gross 

receipts for each of the second, third, 

and fourth distant signal equivalents; 

and 

(iii) 0.089 percent of such gross 

receipts for the fifth distant signal 

equivalent and each additional distant 

signal equivalent thereafter; 

(3) For purposes of this section ‘‘top 

50 television markets’’ and ‘‘second 50 

television markets’’ shall be defined as 

the comparable terms are defined or 

interpreted in accordance with 47 CFR 

76.51, as effective June 24, 1981. 

(e) Computation of rates. Computation 

of royalty fees shall be governed by 17 

U.S.C. 111(d)(1)(C). 

Dated: April 20, 2016. 

Suzanne M. Barnett, 

Chief Copyright Royalty Judge. 

[FR Doc. 2016–09626 Filed 4–25–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 1410–72–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R08–OAR–2013–0561, FRL–9945–57– 

Region 8] 

Promulgation of State Implementation 

Plan Revisions; Infrastructure 

Requirements for the 2008 Lead, 2008 

Ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2, and 2012 

PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards; Utah 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve 

elements of State Implementation Plan 

(SIP) revisions from the State of Utah to 

demonstrate the State meets 

infrastructure requirements of the Clean 

Air Act (Act or CAA) for the National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS) promulgated for ozone on 

March 12, 2008, lead (Pb) on October 

15, 2008, nitrogen dioxide (NO2) on 

January 22, 2010, sulfur dioxide (SO2) 

on June 2, 2010 and fine particulate 

matter (PM2.5) on December 14, 2012. 

The EPA is also proposing to approve 

SIP revisions the State submitted 

regarding state boards. Section 110(a) of 

the CAA requires that each state submit 

a SIP for the implementation, 

maintenance, and enforcement of each 

NAAQS promulgated by the EPA. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before May 26, 2016. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R08– 

OAR–2013–0561 at http://

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Once submitted, comments cannot be 

edited or removed from Regulations.gov. 

The EPA may publish any comment 

received to its public docket. Do not 

submit electronically any information 

you consider to be Confidential 

Business Information (CBI) or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Multimedia 

submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be 

accompanied by a written comment. 

The written comment is considered the 

official comment and should include 

discussion of all points you wish to 

make. The EPA will generally not 

consider comments or comment 

contents located outside of the primary 

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

other file sharing system). For 

additional submission methods, the full 

EPA public comment policy, 

information about CBI or multimedia 

submissions, and general guidance on 

making effective comments, please visit 

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

commenting-epa-dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Abby Fulton, Air Program, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA), Region 8, Mail Code 8P–AR, 

1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 

80202–1129, (303) 312–6563, 

fulton.abby@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. General Information 

What should I consider as I prepare my 

comments for the EPA? 

1. Submitting Confidential Business 

Information (CBI). Do not submit CBI to 

the EPA through http://

www.regulations.gov or email. Clearly 

mark the part or all of the information 

that you claim to be CBI. For CBI 

information on a disk or CD ROM that 

you mail to the EPA, mark the outside 

of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then 

identify electronically within the disk or 

CD ROM the specific information that is 

claimed as CBI. In addition to one 

complete version of the comment that 

includes information claimed as CBI, a 

copy of the comment that does not 

contain the information claimed as CBI 

must be submitted for inclusion in the 

public docket. Information so marked 

will not be disclosed except in 

accordance with procedures set forth in 

40 CFR part 2. 

2. Tips for preparing your comments. 

When submitting comments, remember 

to: 

• Identify the rulemaking by docket 

number and other identifying 

information (subject heading, Federal 

Register volume, date, and page 

number); 

• Follow directions and organize your 

comments; 

• Explain why you agree or disagree; 

• Suggest alternatives and substitute 

language for your requested changes; 

• Describe any assumptions and 

provide any technical information and/ 

or data that you used; 

• If you estimate potential costs or 

burdens, explain how you arrived at 

your estimate in sufficient detail to 

allow for it to be reproduced; 

• Provide specific examples to 

illustrate your concerns, and suggest 

alternatives; 

• Explain your views as clearly as 

possible, avoiding the use of profanity 

or personal threats; and, 

• Make sure to submit your 

comments by the comment period 

deadline identified. 

II. Background 

On March 12, 2008, the EPA 

promulgated a new NAAQS for ozone, 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSAL

24526 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 80 / Tuesday, April 26, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

1For example: Section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) provides 

that states must provide assurances that they have 

adequate legal authority under state and local law 

to carry out the SIP; section 110(a)(2)(C) provides 

that states must have a SIP-approved program to 

address certain sources as required by part C of title 

I of the CAA; and section 110(a)(2)(G) provides that 

states must have legal authority to address 

emergencies as well as contingency plans that are 

triggered in the event of such emergencies. 

revising the levels of the primary and 

secondary 8-hour ozone standards from 

0.08 parts per million (ppm) to 0.075 

ppm (73 FR 16436, March 27, 2008). 

Subsequently, on October 15, 2008, the 

EPA revised the level of the primary and 

secondary Pb NAAQS from 1.5 

micrograms per cubic meter (mg/m3) to 

0.15 mg/m3 (73 FR 66964, Nov. 12, 

2008). On January 22, 2010, the EPA 

promulgated a new 1-hour primary 

NAAQS for NO2 at a level of 100 parts 

per billion (ppb) while retaining the 

annual standard of 53 ppb. The 2010 

NO2 NAAQS is expressed as the threeyear average of the 98th percentile of the 

annual distribution of daily maximum 

one-hour average concentrations. The 

secondary NO2 NAAQS remains 

unchanged at 53 ppb (75 FR 6474, Feb. 

9, 2010). On June 2, 2010, the EPA 

promulgated a revised primary SO2

standard at 75 ppb, based on a threeyear average of the annual 99th 

percentile of one-hour daily maximum 

concentrations (75 FR 35520, June 22, 

2010). Finally, on December 14, 2012, 

the EPA promulgated a revised annual 

PM2.5 standard by lowering the level to 

12.0 mg/m3 and retaining the 24-hour 

PM2.5 standard at a level of 35 mg/m3 (78 

FR 3086, Jan. 15, 2013). 

Under sections 110(a)(1) and (2) of the 

CAA, states are required to submit 

infrastructure SIPs to ensure their SIPs 

provide for implementation, 

maintenance and enforcement of the 

NAAQS. These submissions must 

contain any revisions needed for 

meeting the applicable SIP requirements 

of section 110(a)(2), or certifications that 

their existing SIPs for PM2.5, ozone, Pb, 

NO2, and SO2 already meet those 

requirements. The EPA highlighted this 

statutory requirement in an October 2, 

2007, guidance document entitled 

‘‘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’’ (2007 

Memo). On September 25, 2009, the 

EPA issued an additional guidance 

document pertaining to the 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS entitled ‘‘Guidance on SIP 

Elements Required Under Sections 

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

Fine Particle (PM2.5) National Ambient 

Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)’’ (2009 

Memo), followed by the October 14, 

2011, ‘‘Guidance on Infrastructure SIP 

Elements Required Under Sections 

110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2008 Lead (Pb) 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS)’’ (2011 Memo). Most recently, 

the EPA issued ‘‘Guidance on 

Infrastructure State Implementation 

Plan (SIP) Elements under Clean Air Act 

Sections 110(a)(1) and (2)’’ on 

September 13, 2013 (2013 Memo). 

III. What is the scope of this 

rulemaking? 

The EPA is acting upon the SIP 

submissions from Utah that address the 

infrastructure requirements of CAA 

sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) for the 

2008 ozone, 2008 Pb, 2010 NO2, 2010 

SO2, and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. The 

requirement for states to make a SIP 

submission of this type arises out of 

CAA section 110(a)(1). Pursuant to 

section 110(a)(1), states must make SIP 

submissions ‘‘within three years (or 

such shorter period as the Administrator 

may prescribe) after the promulgation of 

a national primary ambient air quality 

standard (or any revision thereof),’’ and 

these SIP submissions are to provide for 

the ‘‘implementation, maintenance, and 

enforcement’’ of such NAAQS. The 

statute directly imposes on states the 

duty to make these SIP submissions, 

and the requirement to make the 

submissions is not conditioned upon 

the EPA taking any action other than 

promulgating a new or revised NAAQS. 

Section 110(a)(2) includes a list of 

specific elements that ‘‘[e]ach such 

plan’’ submission must address. 

The EPA has historically referred to 

these SIP submissions made for the 

purpose of satisfying the requirements 

of CAA sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) 

as ‘‘infrastructure SIP’’ submissions. 

Although the term ‘‘infrastructure SIP’’ 

does not appear in the CAA, the EPA 

uses the term to distinguish this 

particular type of SIP submission from 

submissions that are intended to satisfy 

other SIP requirements under the CAA, 

such as ‘‘nonattainment SIP’’ or 

‘‘attainment plan SIP’’ submissions to 

address the nonattainment planning 

requirements of part D of title I of the 

CAA; ‘‘regional haze SIP’’ submissions 

required by the EPA rule to address the 

visibility protection requirements of 

CAA section 169A; and nonattainment 

new source review (NSR) permit 

program submissions to address the 

permit requirements of CAA, title I, part 

D. 

Section 110(a)(1) addresses the timing 

and general requirements for 

infrastructure SIP submissions, and 

section 110(a)(2) provides more details 

concerning the required contents of 

these submissions. The list of required 

elements provided in section 110(a)(2) 

contains a wide variety of disparate 

provisions, some of which pertain to 

required legal authority, some of which 

pertain to required substantive program 

provisions, and some of which pertain 

to requirements for both authority and 

substantive program provisions.1 The 

EPA therefore believes that while the 

timing requirement in section 110(a)(1) 

is unambiguous, some of the other 

statutory provisions are ambiguous. In 

particular, the EPA believes that the list 

of required elements for infrastructure 

SIP submissions provided in section 

110(a)(2) contains ambiguities 

concerning what is required for 

inclusion in an infrastructure SIP 

submission. 

Examples of some of these 

ambiguities and the context in which 

the EPA interprets the ambiguous 

portions of section 110(a)(1) and 

110(a)(2) are discussed at length in our 

notice of proposed rulemaking: 

Promulgation of State Implementation 

Plan Revisions; Infrastructure 

Requirements for the 1997 and 2006 

PM2.5, 2008 Lead, 2008 Ozone, and 2010 

NO2 National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards; South Dakota (79 FR 71040, 

Dec. 1, 2014) under ‘‘III. What is the 

Scope of this Rulemaking?’’ 

With respect to certain other issues, 

the EPA does not believe that an action 

on a state’s infrastructure SIP 

submission is necessarily the 

appropriate type of action in which to 

address possible deficiencies in a state’s 

existing SIP. These issues include: (i) 

Existing provisions related to excess 

emissions from sources during periods 

of startup, shutdown, or malfunction 

(SSM) that may be contrary to the CAA 

and the EPA’s policies addressing such 

excess emissions; (ii) existing provisions 

related to ‘‘director’s variance’’ or 

‘‘director’s discretion’’ that may be 

contrary to the CAA because they 

purport to allow revisions to SIPapproved emissions limits while 

limiting public process or not requiring 

further approval by the EPA; and (iii) 

existing provisions for Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration (PSD) 

programs that may be inconsistent with 

current requirements of the EPA’s 

‘‘Final NSR Improvement Rule,’’ 67 FR 

80186, Dec. 31, 2002, as amended by 72 

FR 32526, June 13, 2007 (‘‘NSR 

Reform’’). 

IV. What infrastructure elements are 

required under sections 110(a)(1) and 

(2)? 

CAA section 110(a)(1) provides the 

procedural and timing requirements for 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSAL

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 80 / Tuesday, April 26, 2016 / Proposed Rules 24527 

2Steven Herman, Assistant Administrator for 

Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, and 

Robert Perciasepe, Assistant Administrator for Air 

and Radiation, Memorandum to the EPA Air 

Division Directors, ‘‘State Implementation Plans 

(SIPs): Policy Regarding Emissions During 

Malfunctions, Startup, and Shutdown.’’ (September 

20, 1999). 

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): Interstate transport. 

• 110(a)(2)(E): Adequate resources 

and authority, conflict of interest, and 

oversight of local governments and 

regional agencies. 

• 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 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: (1) Section 

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

permit programs (known as 

‘‘nonattainment NSR’’) required under 

part D, and (2) 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). 

Furthermore, the EPA interprets the 

CAA section 110(a)(2)(J) provision on 

visibility as not being triggered by a new 

NAAQS because the visibility 

requirements in part C, title 1 of the 

CAA are not changed by a new NAAQS. 

V. How did Utah address the 

infrastructure elements of sections 

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

The Utah Department of 

Environmental Quality (Department or 

UDEQ) submitted certification of Utah’s 

infrastructure SIP for the 2008 Pb 

NAAQS on January 19, 2012; 2008 

ozone NAAQS on January 31, 2013; 

2010 NO2 NAAQS on January 31, 2013; 

2010 SO2 NAAQS on June 2, 2013; and 

2012 PM2.5 on December 4, 2015. Utah’s 

infrastructure certifications demonstrate 

how the State, where applicable, has 

plans in place that meet the 

requirements of section 110 for the 2008 

Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2 and 

2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. These plans 

reference the Utah Code Annotated 

(UCA), Utah Administrative Code (UAC) 

rules, and the Utah SIP. These 

submittals are available within the 

electronic docket for today’s proposed 

action at www.regulations.gov. The 

UCA, UAC, and the Utah SIP referenced 

in the submittals are publicly available 

at http://le.utah.gov/xcode/code.html, 

http://www.rules.utah.gov/publicat/

code/r307/r307-110.htm and http://

www.deq.utah.gov/Laws_Rules/daq/sip/

index.htm. Air pollution control 

regulations and statutes that have been 

previously approved by the EPA and 

incorporated into the Utah SIP can be 

found at 40 CFR 52.2320. 

VI. Analysis of the State Submittals 

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. 

The State’s submissions for the 2008 

Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2, 

and 2012 PM2.5 infrastructure 

requirements cite SIP Section I (Legal 

Authority) which allows the adoption of 

emission standards and other limits 

necessary for attainment and 

maintenance of national ambient air 

quality standards. SIP Section I (Legal 

Authority), in combination with other 

specific control measures adopted by 

the Utah Air Quality Board (AQB) and 

multiple SIP-approved state air quality 

regulations within the UAC and cited in 

Utah’s certifications, provide 

enforceable emission limitations and 

other control measures, means of 

techniques, schedules for compliance, 

and other related matters necessary to 

meet the requirements of the CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(A) for the 2008 Pb, 

2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2 and 

2012 PM2.5 NAAQS, subject to the 

following clarifications. 

First, this infrastructure element does 

not require the submittal of regulations 

or emission limitations developed 

specifically for attaining the 2008 Pb, 

2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2 and 

2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. Utah’s 

certifications (contained within this 

docket) generally list provisions and 

enforceable control measures within its 

SIP which regulate pollutants through 

various programs. This includes its 

stationary source permit program which 

requires sources to demonstrate that 

emissions will not cause or contribute to 

a violation of any NAAQS. This suffices, 

in the case of Utah, to meet the 

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

the 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, 

2010 SO2 and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Second, as previously discussed, the 

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, 

including Utah, 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, the 

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, the EPA is also 

not proposing to approve or disapprove 

any existing state provision with regard 

to excess emissions during SSM of 

operations at a facility. A number of 

states, including Utah, have SSM 

provisions which are contrary to the 

CAA and existing EPA guidance 2 and 

the agency is addressing such state 

regulations separately (80 FR 33840, 

June 12, 2015). 

Therefore, the EPA is proposing to 

approve Utah’s infrastructure SIP for the 

2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010 

SO2 and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS with 

respect to the general requirement in 

section 110(a)(2)(A) to include 

enforceable emission limitations and 

other control measures, means, or 

techniques to meet the applicable 

requirements of this element. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSAL

24528 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 80 / Tuesday, April 26, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

3See 77 FR 41066 (July 12, 2012) rulemaking for 

definition of ‘‘anyway’’ sources. 

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.’’ 

The State’s submissions cite UAC rule 

R307–110–5, which incorporates by 

reference SIP Section IV (Ambient Air 

Monitoring Program), and provides a 

brief description of the purposes of the 

air monitoring program approved by the 

EPA in the early 1980s and most 

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

Utah’s annual monitoring network plan 

(AMNP), is made available by the 

Department for public review and 

comment prior to submission to the 

EPA. 

In this action, the EPA is acting only 

on Utah’s submittal for 2008 ozone 

NAAQS for CAA section 110(a)(2)(B). 

Utah’s submittals for other pollutants 

will be addressed in a separate 

rulemaking action. 

Utah’s 2013 AMNP for ozone was 

approved through a letter dated 

December 24, 2013 (available within the 

docket). Additionally, the State of Utah 

submits ozone data to the EPA’s Air 

Quality System database in accordance 

with 40 CFR 58.16. 

We find that Utah’s SIP and practices 

are adequate for the ambient air quality 

monitoring and data system 

requirements and therefore propose to 

approve the infrastructure SIP for the 

2008 ozone NAAQS for this element. 

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.’’ 

To generally meet the requirements of 

section 110(a)(2)(C), the State is 

required to have SIP-approved PSD, 

nonattainment NSR, and minor NSR 

permitting programs that are adequate to 

implement the 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 

2010 NO2, 2010 SO2 and 2012 PM2.5

NAAQS. As explained elsewhere in this 

action, the EPA is not evaluating 

nonattainment related provisions, such 

as the nonattainment NSR program 

required by part D of the Act. The 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). 

Enforcement of Control Measures 

Requirement 

The State’s submissions for the 2008 

Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2, 

and 2012 PM2.5 infrastructure 

requirements cite SIP Section I (Legal 

Authority) which allows for 

enforcement of applicable laws, 

regulations, and standards and to seek 

injunctive relief, and also provides 

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 

prevention of significant deterioration 

requirements. 

PSD Requirements 

With respect to Elements (C) and (J), 

the EPA interprets the CAA to require 

each state to make an infrastructure SIP 

submission for a new or revised NAAQS 

demonstrating that the air agency has a 

complete PSD permitting program 

meeting the current requirements for all 

regulated NSR pollutants. The 

requirements of Element D(i)(II) may 

also be satisfied by demonstrating the 

air agency has a complete PSD 

permitting program that correctly 

addresses all regulated NSR pollutants. 

Utah has shown that it currently has a 

PSD program in place that covers all 

regulated NSR pollutants, including 

greenhouse gases (GHGs). SIP Section 

VIII (Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration) applies to all air 

pollutants regulated under the CAA. 

Utah implements the PSD program by, 

for the most part, incorporating by 

reference the federal PSD program as it 

existed on a specific date. The State 

periodically updates the PSD program 

by revising the date of incorporation by 

reference and submitting the change as 

a SIP revision. On October 25, 2013 (78 

FR 63883), we approved portions of a 

Utah SIP revision that revised the date 

of incorporation by reference of the 

federal PSD program to July 1, 2011. As 

a result, the SIP revisions generally 

reflect changes to PSD requirements that 

the EPA has promulgated prior to the 

revised date of incorporation by 

reference. 

On July 15, 2011 (76 FR 41712), we 

approved portions of a Utah SIP 

revision that revised the date of 

incorporation by reference of the federal 

PSD program. That revision addressed 

the PSD requirements of the Phase 2 

Ozone Implementation Rule 

promulgated in 2005 (70 FR 71612). As 

a result, the approved Utah PSD 

program meets current requirements for 

ozone. 

On June 23, 2014, the United States 

Supreme Court addressed the 

application of PSD permitting 

requirements to GHG emissions. Utility 

Air Regulatory Group v. Environmental 

Protection Agency, 134 S.Ct. 2427. The 

Supreme Court held that the EPA may 

not treat GHGs as an air pollutant for 

purposes of determining whether a 

source is a major source required to 

obtain a PSD permit. The Court also 

held that the EPA could continue to 

require that PSD permits, otherwise 

required based on emissions of 

pollutants other than GHGs (anyway 

sources) contain limitations on GHG 

emissions based on the application of 

Best Available Control Technology 

(BACT). 

In accordance with the Supreme 

Court decision, on April 10, 2015, the 

U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of 

Columbia Circuit (the DC Circuit) issued 

an amended judgment vacating the 

regulations that implemented Step 2 of 

the EPA’s PSD and Title V Greenhouse 

Gas Tailoring Rule, but not the 

regulations that implement Step 1 of 

that rule. Step 1 of the Tailoring Rule 

covers sources that are required to 

obtain a PSD permit based on emissions 

of pollutants other than GHGs. Step 2 

applied to sources that emitted only 

GHGs above the thresholds triggering 

the requirement to obtain a PSD permit. 

The amended judgment preserves, 

without the need for additional 

rulemaking by the EPA, the application 

of the BACT requirement to GHG 

emissions from Step 1 or ‘‘anyway’’ 

sources.3 With respect to Step 2 sources, 

the DC Circuit’s amended judgment 

vacated the regulations at issue in the 

litigation, including 40 CFR 

51.166(b)(48)(v), ‘‘to the extent they 

require a stationary source to obtain a 

PSD permit if greenhouse gases are the 

only pollutant (i) that the source emits 

or has the potential to emit above the 

applicable major source thresholds, or 

(ii) for which there is a significant 

emission increase from a modification.’’ 

The EPA is planning to take 

additional steps to revise the federal 

PSD rules in light of the Supreme Court 

and subsequent DC Circuit opinions. 

Some states have begun to revise their 

existing SIP-approved PSD programs in 

light of these court decisions, and some 

states may prefer not to initiate this 

process until they have more 

information about the planned revisions 

to the EPA’s PSD regulations. The EPA 

is not expecting states to have revised 

their PSD programs in anticipation of 

the EPA’s planned actions to revise its 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSAL

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 80 / Tuesday, April 26, 2016 / Proposed Rules 24529 

PSD program rules in response to the 

court decisions. 

At present, the EPA has determined 

Utah’s SIP is sufficient to satisfy 

Elements (C), (D)(i)(II) element 3, and (J) 

with respect to GHGs. This is because 

the PSD permitting program previously 

approved by the EPA into the SIP 

continues to require that PSD permits 

issued to ‘‘anyway sources’’ contain 

limitations on GHG emissions based on 

the application of BACT. The EPA most 

recently approved revisions to Utah’s 

PSD program on February 6, 2014 (79 

FR 7070). The approved Utah PSD 

permitting program still contains some 

provisions regarding Step 2 sources that 

are no longer necessary in light of the 

Supreme Court decision and DC Circuit 

amended judgment. Nevertheless, the 

presence of these provisions in the 

previously-approved plan does not 

render the infrastructure SIP submission 

inadequate to satisfy Elements (C), 

(D)(i)(II), and (J). The SIP contains the 

PSD requirements for applying the 

BACT requirement to greenhouse gas 

emissions from ‘‘anyway sources’’ that 

are necessary at this time. The 

application of those requirements is not 

impeded by the presence of other 

previously-approved provisions 

regarding the permitting of Step 2 

sources. Accordingly, the Supreme 

Court decision and subsequent DC 

Circuit judgment do not prevent the 

EPA’s approval of Utah’s infrastructure 

SIP as to the requirements of Elements 

(C), (D)(i)(II) and (J). 

Finally, we evaluate the PSD program 

with respect to current requirements for 

PM2.5. In particular, on May 16, 2008, 

the EPA promulgated the rule, 

‘‘Implementation of the New Source 

Review Program for Particulate Matter 

Less Than 2.5 Micrometers (PM2.5)’’ (73 

FR 28321). On October 20, 2010 the EPA 

promulgated the rule, ‘‘Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration (PSD) for 

Particulate Matter Less Than 2.5 

Micrometers (PM2.5)—Increments, 

Significant Impact Levels (SILs) and 

Significant Monitoring Concentration 

(SMC)’’ (75 FR 64864). The EPA regards 

adoption of these PM2.5 rules as a 

necessary requirement when assessing a 

PSD program for the purposes of 

element (C). 

On January 4, 2013, the U.S. Court of 

Appeals, in Natural Resources Defense 

Council v. EPA, 706 F.3d 428 (D.C. Cir.), 

issued a judgment that remanded the 

EPA’s 2007 and 2008 rules 

implementing the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

The court ordered the EPA to 

‘‘repromulgate these rules pursuant to 

Subpart 4 consistent with this opinion.’’ 

Id. at 437. Subpart 4 of part D, Title 1 

of the CAA establishes additional 

provisions for particulate matter 

nonattainment areas. 

The 2008 Implementation rule 

addressed by Natural Resources Defense 

Council, ‘‘Implementation of New 

Source Review (NSR) Program for 

Particulate Matter Less Than 2.5 

Micrometers (PM2.5),’’ (73 FR 28321, 

May 16, 2008), promulgated NSR 

requirements for implementation of 

PM2.5 in nonattainment areas 

(nonattainment NSR) and attainment/

unclassifiable areas (PSD). As the 

requirements of Subpart 4 only pertain 

to nonattainment areas, the EPA does 

not consider the portions of the 2008 

Implementation rule that address 

requirements for PM2.5 attainment and 

unclassifiable areas to be affected by the 

court’s opinion. Moreover, the EPA does 

not anticipate the need to revise any 

PSD requirements promulgated in the 

2008 Implementation rule in order to 

comply with the court’s decision. 

Accordingly, the EPA’s proposed 

approval of Utah’s infrastructure SIP as 

to elements C or J with respect to the 

PSD requirements promulgated by the 

2008 Implementation rule does not 

conflict with the court’s opinion. 

The court’s decision with respect to 

the nonattainment NSR requirements 

promulgated by the 2008 

Implementation rule also does not affect 

the EPA’s action on the present 

infrastructure action. The EPA 

interprets the Act to exclude 

nonattainment area requirements, 

including requirements associated with 

a nonattainment NSR program, from 

infrastructure SIP submissions due three 

years after adoption or revision of a 

NAAQS. Instead, these elements are 

typically referred to as nonattainment 

SIP or attainment plan elements, which 

would be due by the dates statutorily 

prescribed under subpart 2 through 5 

under part D, extending as far as 10 

years following designations for some 

elements. 

The second PSD requirement for 

PM2.5 is contained in the EPA’s October 

20, 2010 rule, ‘‘Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration (PSD) for Particulate 

Matter Less Than 2.5 Micrometers 

(PM2.5)—Increments, Significant Impact 

Levels (SILs) and Significant Monitoring 

Concentration (SMC)’’ (75 FR 64864). 

The EPA regards adoption of the PM2.5

increments as a necessary requirement 

when assessing a PSD program for the 

purposes of element (C). 

On March 14, 2012, Utah submitted 

revisions to the PSD program that adopt 

by reference federal provisions of 40 

CFR part 52, section 21, as they existed 

on July 1, 2011. As that date is after the 

effective date of the two rules, the 

submission incorporates those 

requirements. The EPA approved the 

necessary portions of Utah’s March 14, 

2012 submission on October 25, 2013 

(78 FR 63883). Utah’s SIP-approved PSD 

program meets current requirements for 

PM2.5. The EPA therefore is proposing to 

approve Utah’s SIP for the 2008 ozone, 

2008 Pb, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2 and 2012 

PM2.5 NAAQS with respect to the 

requirement in section 110(a)(2)(C) to 

include a permit program in the SIP as 

required by part C of the Act. 

Minor NSR 

The State has a SIP-approved minor 

NSR program, adopted under section 

110(a)(2)(C) of the Act. The minor NSR 

program is found in section II of the 

Utah SIP, and was approved by the EPA 

as section 2 of the SIP (68 FR 37744, 

June 25, 2003). Since approval of the 

minor NSR program, the State and the 

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. Utah’s minor NSR program, as 

approved into the SIP, covers the 

construction and modification of 

stationary sources of regulated NSR 

pollutants, including PM2.5, lead, and 

ozone and its precursors. 

The EPA is proposing to approve 

Utah’s infrastructure SIP for the 2008 

Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2 and 

2012 PM2.5 NAAQS with respect to the 

general requirement in section 

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

SIP that regulates the enforcement, 

modification, and construction of any 

stationary source as necessary to assure 

that the NAAQS are achieved. 

4. Interstate Transport: The interstate 

transport provisions in CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) (also called ‘‘good 

neighbor’’ provisions) require each state 

to submit a SIP that prohibits emissions 

that will have certain adverse air quality 

effects in other states. CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) identifies four distinct 

elements related to the impacts of air 

pollutants transported across state lines. 

The two elements under 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) require SIPs to contain 

adequate provisions to prohibit any 

source or other type of emissions 

activity within the state from emitting 

air pollutants that will (element 1) 

contribute significantly to 

nonattainment in any other state with 

respect to any such national primary or 

secondary NAAQS, and (element 2) 

interfere with maintenance by any other 

state with respect to the same NAAQS. 

The two elements under 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) require SIPs to contain 

adequate provisions to prohibit 

emissions that will interfere with 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSAL

24530 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 80 / Tuesday, April 26, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

4See 2013 Memo at 31. 

5 Id. at 31. 

6See R307–403. 7See R307–110–9. 

measures required to be included in the 

applicable implementation plan for any 

other state under part C (element 3) to 

prevent significant deterioration of air 

quality or (element 4) to protect 

visibility. In this action, the EPA is only 

addressing element 3 of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) for the 2008 ozone, 

2008 Pb, 2010 SO2, 2010 NO2 and 2012 

PM2.5 NAAQS. All other transport 

elements will be addressed in separate 

rulemaking actions. 

Evaluation of Interference With 

Measures To Prevent Significant 

Deterioration (PSD) 

With regard to the PSD portion of 

CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), this 

requirement may be met by a state’s 

confirmation in an infrastructure SIP 

submission that new major sources and 

major modifications in the state are 

subject to a comprehensive EPAapproved PSD permitting program in 

the SIP that applies to all regulated new 

source review (NSR) pollutants and that 

satisfies the requirements of the EPA’s 

PSD implementation rules.4 As noted in 

the discussion for infrastructure element 

(C) earlier in this notice, the EPA is 

proposing to approve CAA section 

110(a)(2) element (C) for Utah’s 

infrastructure SIP for the 2008 Pb, 2008 

ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2, and 2012 

PM2.5 NAAQS with respect to PSD 

requirements. As discussed in detail in 

that section, Utah’s SIP meets the 

current PSD-related requirements of 

section 110(a)(2)(C). For this reason, we 

are also proposing to approve Utah’s 

infrastructure SIP as meeting the 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) element 3 (PSD) 

requirements for 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS. 

In-state sources not subject to PSD for 

a particular NAAQS because they are in 

a nonattainment area for that standard 

may also have the potential to interfere 

with PSD in an attainment or 

unclassifiable area of another state.5

One way a state may satisfy element 3 

with respect to these sources is by citing 

an air agency’s EPA-approved 

nonattainment NSR provisions 

addressing any pollutants for which the 

state has designated nonattainment 

areas. Utah has a SIP-approved 

nonattainment NSR program which 

ensures regulation of major sources and 

major modifications in nonattainment 

areas, and therefore satisfies element 3 

with regard to this requirement.6

The EPA is proposing to approve the 

infrastructure SIP submission with 

regard to the requirements of element 3 

of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 2006 

PM2.5, 2008 Pb, 2008 Ozone, 2010 NO2, 

2010 SO2 and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

5. Interstate and International 

transport provisions: CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(ii) requires SIPs to include 

provisions ensuring compliance with 

the applicable requirements of CAA 

sections 126 and 115 (relating to 

interstate and international pollution 

abatement). Specifically, CAA section 

126(a) requires new or modified major 

sources to notify neighboring states of 

potential impacts from the source. 

Section 126(a) of the CAA requires 

notification to affected, nearby states of 

major proposed new (or modified) 

sources. Sections 126(b) and (c) pertain 

to petitions affected states may seek 

from the Administrator of the EPA 

(Administrator) regarding sources 

violating the ‘‘interstate transport’’ 

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

Section 115 of the CAA similarly 

pertains to international transport of air 

pollution. 

As required by 40 CFR 

51.166(q)(2)(iv), Utah’s SIP-approved 

PSD program requires notice to states 

whose air quality may be impacted by 

the emissions of sources subject to 

PSD.7 This suffices to meet the notice 

requirement of section 126(a). 

Utah has no pending obligations 

under sections 126(c) or 115(b) of the 

CAA; therefore, its SIP currently meets 

the requirements of those sections. In 

summary, the SIP meets the 

requirements of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(ii), and the EPA is therefore 

proposing approval of this element for 

the 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2,

2010 SO2 and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. The 

EPA is also proposing to approve the 

Utah SIP as meeting the requirements of 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) for the 1997 and 

2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. Utah submitted an 

infrastructure certification generally 

addressing CAA section 110(a)(2)(D) for 

the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS on December 3, 

2007, and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS on 

September 21, 2010. 

6. Adequate resources: Section 

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

‘‘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).’’ Section 

110(a)(2)(E)(ii) also requires each state 

to ‘‘comply with the requirements 

respecting State boards’’ under CAA 

section 128. Section 110(a)(2)(E)(iii) 

requires states to provide ‘‘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. Sub-Elements (i) and (iii): Adequate 

Personnel, Funding, and Legal 

Authority Under State Law To Carry 

Out Its SIP, and Related Issues 

The provisions contained in Chapter 

2 of Title 19 of the Utah Code and Utah 

SIP Section I, Legal Authority provide 

UDAQ and the AQB adequate authority 

to carry out its SIP obligations with 

respect to the 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 

NO2, 2010 SO2 and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

The State receives sections 103 and 105 

grant funds through its Performance 

Partnership Grant along with required 

state matching funds to provide funding 

necessary to carry out Utah’s SIP 

requirements (Utah SIP Section V, 

Resources). Utah’s Performance 

Partnership Agreement (available within 

the docket) with the EPA documents 

resources needed to provide resources 

to carry out agreed upon environmental 

program goals, measures, and 

commitments, including developing and 

implementing appropriate SIPs for all 

areas of the State. Annually, states 

update these grant commitments based 

on current SIP requirements, air quality 

planning, and applicable requirements 

related to the NAAQS. Utah 

satisfactorily met all commitments 

agreed to in the Air Planning Agreement 

for fiscal year 2015. Furthermore, R307– 

414, Permits: Fees for Approval Orders, 

requires the owner and operator of each 

new major source or major modification 

to pay a fee sufficient to cover 

reasonable costs of reviewing and acting 

upon the notice of intent and 

implementing and enforcing 

requirements placed on such source by 

any approval order issued. Collectively, 

these rules and commitments provide 

evidence that Utah DAQ has adequate 

personnel, funding, and legal authority 

to carry out the State’s implementation 

plan and related issues. 

With respect to section 

110(a)(2)(E)(iii), the regulations cited by 

Utah in their certifications (Utah SIP 

Section VI, Intergovernmental 

Cooperation) and contained within this 

docket also provide the necessary 

assurances that the State has 

responsibility for adequate 

implementation of SIP provisions by 

local governments. Therefore, we 

propose to approve Utah’s SIP as 

meeting the requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(E)(i) and (E)(iii) for the 2008 

Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2 and 

2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSAL

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 80 / Tuesday, April 26, 2016 / Proposed Rules 24531 

8Memorandum from David O. Bickart, Deputy 

General Counsel, to Regional Air Directors, 

Guidance to States for Meeting Conflict of Interest 

Requirements of Section 128 (Mar. 2, 1978). 

9H.R. Rep. 95–564 (1977), reprinted in 3 

Legislative History of the Clean Air Act 

Amendments of 1977, 526–27 (1978). 

b. Sub-Element (ii): State Boards 

Section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) requires each 

state’s SIP to contain provisions that 

comply with the requirements of section 

128 of the CAA. Section 128 contains 

two explicit requirements: (i) That ‘‘any 

board or body which approves permits 

or enforcement orders under [the CAA] 

shall have at least a majority of members 

who represent the public interest and do 

not derive any significant portion of 

their income from persons subject to 

permits or enforcement orders’’ under 

the CAA; and (ii) that ‘‘any potential 

conflicts of interest by members of such 

board or body or the head of an 

executive agency with similar powers be 

adequately disclosed.’’ 

In our November 25, 2013 (78 FR 

63883) action, we disapproved Utah’s 

April 17, 2008 and September 21, 2010 

infrastructure SIP submissions for the 

1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS for CAA 

Section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) because the Utah 

SIP did not contain provisions meeting 

requirements of CAA section 128. Under 

section 110(c)(1)(B), this disapproval 

started a two-year clock for the EPA to 

promulgate a federal implementation 

plan (FIP) to address the deficiency. 

On March 14, 2016, the EPA received 

a submission from the State of Utah to 

address the requirements of section 128, 

containing new rule language approved 

by the Utah AQB on March 2, 2016. A 

copy of the submission, including the 

new rules, Conflict of Interest R307– 

104–1 (Authority), R307–104–2 

(Purpose) and R307–104–3 (Disclosure 

of conflict of interest), is available 

within this docket. These rules address 

conflict of interest requirements of 

section 128(a)(2). We propose to 

approve this new rule language as 

meeting the requirements of section 128 

for the reasons explained in more detail 

below. Because this revision meets the 

requirements of section 128, we also 

propose to approve the State’s 

infrastructure SIP submissions for 

element 110(a)(2)(E)(ii). The State 

submitted the provisions to meet section 

128 separately, but section 128 is not 

NAAQS-specific and once the State has 

met the requirements of section 128, 

that is sufficient for purposes of section 

110(a)(2)(E)(ii) for all NAAQS. If we 

finalize this proposed approval for the 

2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010 

SO2, and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS, this will 

also resolve the prior disapproval for 

element 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) for the 1997 and 

2006 PM2.5 NAAQS and terminate the 

EPA’s FIP obligation. 

We are proposing to approve the 

State’s March 14, 2016 SIP submission 

as meeting the requirements of section 

128 because we believe that it complies 

with the statutory requirements and is 

consistent with the EPA’s guidance 

recommendations concerning section 

128. In 1978, the EPA issued a guidance 

memorandum recommending ways 

states could meet the requirements of 

section 128, including suggested 

interpretations of certain key terms in 

section 128.8 In this proposal notice, we 

discuss additional relevant aspects of 

section 128. We first note that, in the 

conference report of the 1977 

amendments to the CAA, the conference 

committee stated, ‘‘[i]t is the 

responsibility of each state to determine 

the specific requirements to meet the 

general requirements of [section 128].’’ 9

This legislative history indicates that 

Congress intended states to have some 

latitude in adopting SIP provisions with 

respect to section 128, so long as states 

meet the statutory requirements of the 

section. We also note that Congress 

explicitly provided in section 128 that 

states could elect to adopt more 

stringent requirements, as long as the 

minimum requirements of section 128 

are met. 

In implementing section 128, the EPA 

has identified a number of key 

considerations relevant to evaluation of 

a SIP submission. The EPA has 

identified these considerations in the 

1978 guidance and in subsequent 

rulemaking actions on SIP submissions 

relevant to section 128, whether as SIP 

revisions for this specific purpose or as 

an element of broader actions on 

infrastructure SIP submissions for one 

or more NAAQS. 

Each state must meet the 

requirements of section 128 through 

provisions that the EPA approves into 

the state’s SIP and are thus made 

federally enforceable. Section 128 

explicitly mandates that each SIP ‘‘shall 

contain requirements’’ that satisfy 

subsections 128(a)(1) and 128(a)(2). A 

mere narrative description of state 

statutes or rules, or of a state’s current 

or past practice in constituting a board 

or body and in disclosing potential 

conflicts of interest, is not a requirement 

contained in the SIP and does not 

satisfy the plain text of section 128. 

Subsection 128(a)(1) applies only to 

states that have a board or body that is 

composed of multiple individuals and 

that, among its duties, approves permits 

or enforcement orders under the CAA. 

It does not apply in states that have no 

such multi-member board or body that 

performs these functions, and where 

instead a single head of an agency or 

other similar official approves permits 

or enforcement orders under the CAA. 

This flows from the text of section 128, 

for two reasons. First, as subsection 

128(a)(1) refers to a majority of members 

of the board or body in the plural, we 

think it reasonable to read subsection 

128(a)(1) as not creating any 

requirements for an individual with sole 

authority for approving permits or 

enforcement orders under the CAA. 

Second, subsection 128(a)(2) explicitly 

applies to the head of an executive 

agency with ‘‘similar powers’’ to a board 

or body that approves permits or 

enforcement orders under the CAA, 

while subsection 128(a)(1) omits any 

reference to heads of executive agencies. 

We infer that subsection 128(a)(1) 

should not apply to heads of executive 

agencies who approve permits or 

enforcement orders. States with no 

multi-member board or body that 

performs these functions, and instead 

have a single head of an agency or other 

similar official who approves CAA 

permits or enforcement orders, can 

satisfy the requirements of CAA 

128(a)(1) with a negative declaration to 

that effect. 

Subsection 128(a)(2) applies to all 

states, regardless of whether the state 

has a multi-member board or body that 

approves permits or enforcement orders 

under the CAA. Although the title of 

section 128 is ‘‘State boards,’’ the 

language of subsection 128(a)(2) 

explicitly applies where the head of an 

executive agency, rather than a board or 

body, approves permits or enforcement 

orders. In instances where the head of 

an executive agency delegates his or her 

power to approve permits or 

enforcement orders, or where statutory 

authority to approve permits or 

enforcement orders is nominally vested 

in another state official, the requirement 

to adequately disclose potential 

conflicts of interest still applies. In other 

words, the EPA interprets section 

128(a)(2) to apply to all states, 

regardless of whether a state board or 

body approves permits or enforcement 

orders under the CAA or whether a head 

of a state agency (or his/her delegates) 

performs these duties. Thus, all state 

SIPs must contain provisions that 

require adequate disclosure of potential 

conflicts of interest in order to meet the 

requirements of subsection 128(a)(2). 

The question of which entities or parties 

must be subject to such disclosure 

requirements must be evaluated by 

states and the EPA in light of the 

specific facts and circumstances of each 

state’s regulatory structure. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSAL

24532 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 80 / Tuesday, April 26, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

10 In 2012, the Utah Legislature amended state 

law to generally transfer authority of the Utah AQB 

over permits and enforcement orders to the Director 

of Utah DAQ and Executive Director of Utah DEQ. 

See 78 FR 52477, 52482 (Aug. 23, 2013). 

A state may satisfy the requirements 

of section 128 by submitting for 

adoption into the SIP a provision of 

state law that closely tracks or mirrors 

the language of the applicable 

provisions of section 128. A state may 

take this approach in two ways. First, 

the state may adopt the language of 

subsections 128(a)(1) and 128(a)(2) 

verbatim. Under this approach, the state 

will be able to meet the continuing 

requirements of section 128 without any 

additional, future SIP revisions, even if 

the state adds or removes authority, 

either at the state or local level, to 

individual or to boards or bodies to 

approve permits or enforcement orders 

under the CAA so long as the state 

continues to meet section 128 

requirements. 

Second, the state may modify the 

language of subsections 128(a)(1) (if 

applicable) and 128(a)(2) to name the 

particular board, body, or individual 

official with approval authority. In this 

case, if the state subsequently modifies 

that authority, the state may have to 

submit a corresponding SIP revision to 

meet the continuing requirements of 

section 128. If the state chooses to not 

mirror the language of section 128, the 

state may adopt state statutes and/or 

regulations that functionally impose the 

same requirements as those of section 

128, including definitions for key terms 

such as those recommended in the 

EPA’s 1978 guidance. While either of 

these approaches would meet the 

minimum requirements of section 128, 

the statute also explicitly authorizes 

states to adopt more stringent 

requirements, for example to impose 

additional requirements for recusal of 

board members from decisions, above 

and beyond the explicit board 

composition requirements. Although 

such recusal alone does not meet the 

requirements of section 128, states have 

the authority to require that over and 

above the explicit requirements of 

section 128. These approaches give 

states flexibility in implementing 

section 128, while still ensuring 

consistency with the statute. 

As previously explained, the EPA 

interprets subsection 128(a)(1) to apply 

only to states that have a board or body 

with multiple members that, among its 

duties, approves permits or enforcement 

orders under the Act. In its 2012 PM2.5

NAAQS certification, the State asserts 

that there is no such multi-member 

board or body, citing Utah Code section 

19–2–104, Powers of the board. 

Subsection 19–2–104(7) specifies that 

the Utah AQB lacks authority over 

permits, and subsection 19–2–104(3) 

gives the Utah AQB authority only to 

recommend that the Director issue and 

enforce orders. The EPA proposes to 

determine that the Utah AQB does not 

approve permits or enforcement orders 

under the Act, and as a result, Utah 

need not submit any provisions to 

address the requirements of section 

128(a)(1).10 However, the EPA interprets 

subsection 128(a)(2) to apply to all 

states, regardless of whether the state 

has a multi-member board that approves 

permits or enforcement orders. As a 

result, 128(a)(2) applies to Utah, and, as 

previously explained, must be met 

through SIP-approved, federally 

enforceable provisions. 

The EPA has evaluated Utah’s 

submittal containing R307–104–1 

(Authority), R307–104–2 (Purpose) and 

R307–104–3 (Disclosure of conflict of 

interest) (available within this docket) 

from the State in light of the 

requirements of section 128, these key 

considerations previously noted, and 

the recommendations in the 1978 

guidance. To meet the requirements of 

subsection 128(a)(2), the State’s R307– 

104–3 (Disclosure of conflict of interest), 

includes disclosure of conflicts of 

interest requirements applying to ‘‘any 

member of the board or body which 

approves permits or enforcement orders, 

the head of the Utah [DAQ] with similar 

powers, and the head of the Utah [DEQ] 

with similar powers.’’ Under Utah’s 

administrative procedures, the Director 

of Utah DAQ has the initial authority to 

issue air permits and enforcement 

orders, and the Executive Director of 

Utah DEQ has the ultimate authority to 

resolve administrative adjudicative 

proceedings regarding permits and 

enforcement orders. See Utah Code 19– 

1–301, 19–1–301.5. Thus, Utah’s 

submittal addresses disclosure of 

potential conflicts of interest from the 

heads of executive agencies that 

approve permits and enforcement orders 

under the Act. 

Utah’s provisions are also sufficient 

for adequate disclosure. Under R307– 

104–3(2), ‘‘[e]very individual listed in 

R307–104–3(1) who is an officer, 

director, agent, employee, or the owner 

of a substantial interest in any business 

entity which is subject to the regulation 

of the agency by which the individual 

listed in R307–104–3(1) is employed, 

shall disclose any position held and the 

precise nature and value of the interest 

upon first becoming a public officer or 

public employee listed in R307–104– 

3(1), and again whenever his or her 

position in the business entity changes 

significantly or if the value of his or her 

interest in the entity is significantly 

increased.’’ This language covers a 

sufficiently broad range of potential 

conflicts of interest with any business 

subject to regulation by Utah DAQ, 

including permittees and the subjects of 

enforcement orders. The form of 

disclosure is also adequate: It is made in 

a sworn statement to the attorney 

general and is made publicly available. 

We propose to find that these 

procedures provide adequate disclosure 

of potential conflicts of interest within 

the meaning of subsection 128(a)(2). 

In summary, the EPA proposes to 

approve Utah’s March 14, 2016 

submittal into the SIP to meet the 

requirements of section 128 of the Act. 

We also propose to approve Utah’s 

infrastructure SIP with respect to the 

requirements of Section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) 

for 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010 

SO2 and 2012 PM2.5 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.’’ 

The provisions cited by Utah in SIP 

Section III Source Surveillance, 

(including R307–150, and R307–165) 

pertain to its program of periodic 

emissions testing and plant inspections 

of stationary sources, and related testing 

requirements and protocols (including 

periodic reporting) to assure compliance 

with emissions limits. R307–170 

requires certain large sources to install 

and maintain continuous emission 

monitors to assure compliance with 

emission limitations established in 

approval orders and the SIP. In 

addition, Utah provides for monitoring, 

recordkeeping, and reporting 

requirements for sources subject to 

minor and major source permitting. 

Furthermore, Utah is required to 

submit emissions data to the EPA for 

purposes of the National Emissions 

Inventory (NEI). The NEI is the EPA’s 

central repository for air emissions data. 

The EPA published the Air Emissions 

Reporting Rule (AERR) on December 5, 

2008, which modified the requirements 

for collecting and reporting air 

emissions data (73 FR 76539). The 

AERR shortened the time states had to 

report emissions data from 17 to 12 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSAL

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 80 / Tuesday, April 26, 2016 / Proposed Rules 24533 

11A discussion of the requirements for meeting 

CAA section 303 is provided in our notice of 

proposed rulemaking: Promulgation of State 

Implementation Plan Revisions; Infrastructure 

Requirements for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5, 2008 

Lead, 2008 Ozone, and 2010 NO2 National Ambient 

Air Quality Standards; South Dakota (79 FR 71040, 

Dec. 1, 2014) under ‘‘VI. Analysis of State 

Submittals, 8. Emergency powers.’’ 

12The EPA has not yet promulgated regulations 

for ambient levels pertaining to priority levels for 

PM2.5 under the 2012 NAAQS (2013 Memo, p. 47). 

EPA’s September 25, 2009 Memo (available within 

the docket) suggested that states with areas that 

have had a PM2.5 exceedance greater than 140.4 mg/ 

m3 should develop and submit an emergency 

episode plan. If no such concentration was recorded 

in the last three years, the guidance suggested that 

the State can rely on its general emergency 

authorities. In this rulemaking, we continue to view 

these suggestions as appropriate in assessing Utah’s 

SIP for this element. Utah has not had such a 

recorded PM2.5 level and thus an emergency 

episode plan for PM2.5 is not necessary. The SIP 

therefore meets the requirements of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(G) for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

13October 14, 2011, ‘‘Guidance on Infrastructure 

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

and (2) for the 2008 Lead (Pb) National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards (NAAQS).’’ 

months, giving states one calendar-year 

to submit emissions data. All states are 

required to submit a comprehensive 

emissions inventory every three years 

and report emissions for certain larger 

sources annually through the EPA’s 

online Emissions Inventory System. 

States report emissions data for the six 

criteria pollutants and their associated 

precursors—nitrogen oxides, sulfur 

dioxide, ammonia, lead, carbon 

monoxide, particulate matter and 

volatile organic compounds. Many 

states also voluntarily report emissions 

of hazardous air pollutants. Utah made 

its latest update to the NEI in March 

2016. The EPA compiles the emissions 

data, supplementing it where necessary, 

and releases it to the general public 

through the Web site https://www.epa.

gov/air-emissions-inventories. 

Based on the analysis above, we 

propose to approve the Utah SIP as 

meeting the requirements of CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(F) for the 2008 Pb, 

2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2 and 

2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

8. Emergency powers: Section 

110(a)(2)(G) of the CAA requires 

infrastructure SIPs to ‘‘provide for 

authority comparable to that in [CAA 

section 303] and adequate contingency 

plans to implement such authority[.]’’ 

Under CAA section 303, the EPA 

Administrator has authority to bring suit 

to immediately restrain an air pollution 

source that presents an ‘‘imminent and 

substantial endangerment to public 

health or welfare, or the 

environment.’’ 11 If such action may not 

practicably assure prompt protection, 

then the Administrator has authority to 

issue temporary administrative orders to 

protect the public health or welfare, or 

the environment, and such orders can 

be extended if the EPA subsequently 

files a civil suit. We propose to find that 

Utah’s infrastructure SIP submittals 

provide for authority for the State 

comparable to that granted to the EPA 

Administrator to act in the face of an 

imminent and substantial endangerment 

to the public’s health or welfare, or the 

environment. 

Utah’s SIP submittals with regard to 

the section 110(a)(2)(G) emergency order 

requirements cite the EPA approved 

provisions (State SIP Section I Legal 

Authority codified at R307–110–2) to 

abate pollutant emissions on an 

emergency basis to prevent substantial 

endangerment to the health of persons. 

Utah Code 19–2–116(3)(a) also provides 

the director the power to ‘‘initiate an 

action for appropriate injunctive relief 

. . . when it appears necessary for the 

protection of health and welfare.’’ Utah 

Code 19–2–112(1)(a) provides authority 

to the ‘‘executive director, with the 

concurrence of the governor’’ to order 

people ‘‘causing or contributing to . . . 

air pollution to reduce or discontinue 

immediately the emission of air 

pollutants’’ if the ‘‘executive director 

finds that a generalized condition of air 

pollution exists and that it creates an 

emergency requiring immediate action 

to protect human health or safety.’’ Utah 

Code 19–2–112(2)(a) describes how in 

instances of an ‘‘absence of a 

generalized condition of air pollution’’ 

referred to in subsection (1), the 

executive director may still commence 

adjudicative proceedings as long as the 

executive director ‘‘finds that emissions 

from the operation of one or more air 

pollutant sources is causing imminent 

danger to human health or safety.’’ 

In regard to imminent and substantial 

endangerment to the environment, 

Utah’s Emergency Management Act 

allows the Governor to issue rules and 

regulations having the ‘‘full force and 

effect of law’’ during a state of 

emergency. Additionally, Utah Code 

53–2a–209(1) allows the Governor to 

suspend rules and regulations of state 

agencies that would prevent the ability 

to adequately deal with such disasters. 

See Utah Code 53–2a–209(3). 

While no single Utah statute mirrors 

the authorities of CAA section 303, we 

propose to find that the combination of 

Utah Code, UAC Rules, and Utah’s 

Emergency Management Act provisions 

previously discussed provide for 

authority comparable to section 303. 

Section 303 authorizes the 

Administrator to immediately bring suit 

to restrain and issue emergency orders 

when necessary, to enable the 

Administrator to take prompt 

administrative action against any person 

causing or contributing to air pollution 

that presents an imminent and 

substantial endangerment to public 

health or welfare, or the environment. 

Therefore, we propose that Utah’s SIP 

submittals sufficiently meet the 

requirements of CAA 110(a)(2)(G) 

because they demonstrate that Utah has 

authority comparable to CAA section 

303. 

States must also have adequate 

contingency plans adopted into their 

SIP to implement the air agency’s 

emergency episode authority (as 

previously discussed). This can be done 

by submitting a plan that meets the 

applicable requirements of 40 CFR part 

51, subpart H for the relevant NAAQS 

if the NAAQS is covered by those 

regulations. The EPA approved Utah’s 

State SIP Section VII (Prevention of Air 

Pollution Emergency Episodes), codified 

at R307–110–8, most recently on 

February 14, 2006 at 71 FR 7679. We 

find that Utah’s air pollution emergency 

rules include PM10,12 ozone, NO2, and 

SO2; establish stages of episode criteria; 

provide for public announcement 

whenever any episode stage has been 

determined to exist; and specify 

emission control actions to be taken at 

each episode stage, consistent with the 

EPA emergency episode SIP 

requirements set forth at 40 CFR part 51 

subpart H (prevention of air pollution 

emergency episode) for particulate 

matter, ozone, NO2, and SO2. 

As noted in the 2011 Memo ‘‘based on 

[the] EPA’s experience to date with the 

Pb NAAQS and designating Pb 

nonattainment areas, [the] EPA expects 

that an emergency episode associated 

with Pb emissions would be unlikely 

and, if it were to occur, would be the 

result of a malfunction or other 

emergency situation at a relatively large 

source of Pb’’ (page 14).13 Accordingly, 

the EPA believes the central 

components of a contingency plan 

would be to reduce emissions from the 

source at issue and communicate with 

the public as needed. We note that 40 

CFR part 51, subpart H (51.150–51.152) 

and 40 CFR part 51, Appendix L do not 

apply to Pb. 

Based on the above analysis, we 

propose approval of Utah’s SIP as 

meeting the requirements of CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(G) for the 2008 Pb, 

2008 ozone, and 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2

and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

9. Future SIP revisions: Section 

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

for revision of such plan: (i) ‘‘[f]rom 

time to time as may be necessary to take 

account of revisions of such national 

primary or secondary ambient air 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSAL

24534 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 80 / Tuesday, April 26, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

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].’’ 

Utah SIP Section I cites 19–2–104 and 

19–2–109 of the Utah Code. Sections 

19–2–104 and 19–2–109 give the AQB 

sufficient authority to meet the 

requirements of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(H). Therefore, we propose to 

approve Utah’s SIP as meeting the 

requirements of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(H). 

10. 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).’’ 

In its certifications, the State cites SIP 

Section I (Legal Authority) adopting 

requirements for transportation 

consultation, SIP Section VI 

(Intergovernmental Cooperation), and 

SIP Section XII (Transportation 

Conformity Consultation) to meet the 

requirements of CAA section 121. 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 (see 59 FR 2988, Jan. 

20, 1994). Furthermore, SIP section XVI, 

cited by Utah, meets the general 

requirements of CAA section 127 to 

notify the public when the NAAQS have 

been exceeded. 

The State has a SIP-approved PSD 

program that incorporates by reference 

the federal program at 40 CFR 52.21; 

these provisions are located in R307– 

405–2 of the UAC. The EPA has further 

evaluated Utah’s SIP-approved PSD 

program in this proposed action under 

VI.3 of this notice which analyzes 

whether the Utah SIP has met CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(C). There, we propose 

approval with respect to the PSD 

requirements of element (C); we 

likewise do so here with respect to the 

PSD requirements of element (J). 

Finally, with regard to the applicable 

requirements for visibility protection, 

the EPA recognizes 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 are no applicable 

visibility requirements under section 

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

becomes effective. 

Based on the above analysis, we 

propose to approve the Utah SIP as 

meeting the requirements of CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(J) for the 2008 Pb, 2008 

ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2 and 2012 

PM2.5 NAAQS. 

11. Air quality and modeling/data: 

Section 110(a)(2)(K) requires 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.’’ 

UAC rule R307–405–13 incorporates 

by reference the air quality model 

provisions of 40 CFR 52.21(l), which 

includes the air quality model 

requirements of appendix W of 40 CFR 

part 51, pertaining to the Guideline on 

Air Quality Models. Additionally, Utah 

Code 19–104(1)(a)–(b) provide the AQB 

with the authority to propose and 

finalize rules that require air quality 

modeling for the purpose of predicting 

the effect on ambient air quality relating 

to NAAQS. As a result, the SIP provides 

for such air quality modeling as the 

Administrator has prescribed. 

Therefore, we propose to approve the 

Utah SIP as meeting the CAA section 

110(a)(2)(K) for the 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone,

2010 NO2, 2010 SO2 and 2012 PM2.5

NAAQS. 

12. Permitting fees: Section 

110(a)(2)(L) requires ‘‘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.’’ 

UAC rule R307–414, Permits: Fees for 

Approval Orders, requires the owner 

and operator of each new major source 

or major modification to pay a fee 

sufficient to cover the reasonable costs 

of reviewing and acting upon the notice 

of intent and implementing and 

enforcing requirements placed on such 

source by any approval order issued. 

The EPA approved R307–414 most 

recently on February 14, 2006 at 71 FR 

7679. SIP Section I (Legal Authority) 

‘‘identifies the statutory authority to 

charge a fee to major sources to cover 

permit and enforcement expenses . . .’’ 

SIP Section I was codified at R307–10– 

2 and the EPA approved it most recently 

on June 25, 2003 at 68 FR 37744. 

We also note that all the State’s 

certifications cite R307–415 which is 

the regulation that provides for 

collection of permitting fees under 

Utah’s approved title V permit program 

(60 FR 30192, June 8, 1995). As 

discussed in that approval, the State 

demonstrated that the fees collected 

were sufficient to administer the 

program. 

Therefore we propose to approve the 

submissions as supplemented by the 

State for the 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 

NO2, 2010 SO2 and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

13. 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].’’ 

The provisions cited in Utah’s SIP 

submittals (SIP Section VI 

(Intergovernmental Cooperation) 

codified at R307–110–7 and SIP Section 

XII (Transportation Conformity 

Consultation) codified at R307–110–20, 

contained within this docket) meet the 

requirements of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(M). We propose to approve 

Utah’s SIP as meeting these 

requirements for the 2008 Pb, 2008 

ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2 and 2012 

PM2.5 NAAQS. 

VII. What action is the EPA taking? 

In this action, the EPA is proposing to 

approve infrastructure elements for the 

2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010 

SO2 and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS from the 

State’s certifications as shown in Table 

1. Elements we propose no action on are 

reflected in Table 2. Finally, the EPA is 

proposing to approve a new UAC 

submitted on March 14, 2016 to satisfy 

requirements of element (E)(ii),which 

refers to requirements related to state 

boards. 

A comprehensive summary of 

infrastructure elements, and revisions 

and additions to the UAC organized by 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSAL

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 80 / Tuesday, April 26, 2016 / Proposed Rules 24535 

the EPA’s proposed rule action are 

provided in Table 1 and Table 2. 

TABLE 1—LIST OF UTAH INFRASTRUCTURE ELEMENTS AND REVISIONS THAT THE EPA IS PROPOSING TO APPROVE

Proposed for approval 

December 3, 2007 submittal—1997 PM2.5 NAAQS: (D)(ii) 

September 21, 2010 submittal—2006 PM2.5 NAAQS: (D)(ii) 

January 19, 2012 submittal—2008 Pb NAAQS: 

(A), (C), (D)(i)(II) element 3, (D)(ii), (E), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L) and (M). 

June 2, 2013 submittal—2010 SO2 NAAQS: 

(A), (C), (D)(i)(II) element 3, (D)(ii), (E), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L) and (M). 

January 31, 2013 submittal—2008 Ozone NAAQS: 

(A), (B), (C), (D)(i)(II) element 3, (D)(ii), (E), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L) and (M). 

January 31, 2013 submittal—2010 NO2 NAAQS: 

(A), (C), (D)(i)(II) element 3, (D)(ii), (E), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L) and (M). 

December 4, 2015 submittal—2012 PM2.5 NAAQS: 

(A), (C), (D)(i)(II) element 3, (D)(ii), (E), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L) and (M). 

March 14, 2016 submittal—New Rules to UAC Rules, CAA Section 128 

R307–104–1, R307–104–2 and R307–104–3. 

TABLE 2—LIST OF UTAH INFRASTRUCTURE ELEMENTS AND REVISIONS THAT THE EPA IS PROPOSING TO TAKE NO

ACTION ON

Proposed for no action 

(Revision to be made in separate rulemaking action) 

January 19, 2012 submittal—2008 Pb NAAQS: 

(B), (D)(i)(I) elements 1 and 2, (D)(i)(II) element 4. 

January 31, 2013 submittal—2008 Ozone NAAQS: 

(D)(i)(I) elements 1 and 2, (D)(i)(II) element 4. 

January 31, 2013 submittal—2010 NO2 NAAQS: 

(B), (D)(i)(I) elements 1 and 2, (D)(i)(II) element 4. 

June 2, 2013 submittal—2010 SO2 NAAQS: 

(B), (D)(i)(I) elements 1 and 2, (D)(i)(II) element 4. 

December 22, 2015 submittal—2012 PM2.5 NAAQS: 

(B), (D)(i)(I) elements 1 and 2, (D)(i)(II) element 4. 

VIII. Incorporation by Reference 

In this rule, the EPA is proposing to 

include in a final the 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 Utah 

Administrative Code Rules pertaining to 

state board requirements VI.6. b. Subelement (ii): State boards, 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). 

IX. Statutory and Executive Orders 

Review 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

Act and applicable federal regulations 

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

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the 

EPA’s role is to approve state 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, 

Oct. 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, Aug. 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 the EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, Feb. 16, 1994). 

The SIP is not approved to apply on 

any Indian reservation land or in any 

other area where the EPA or an Indian 

tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has 

jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian 

country, the rule does not have tribal 

implications and will not impose 

substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law as 

specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 

FR 67249, November 9, 2000). 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSAL

24536 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 80 / Tuesday, April 26, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 

Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, 

Greenhouse gases, Lead, Nitrogen 

dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

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

Dated: April 13, 2016. 

Debra H. Thomas, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 8. 

[FR Doc. 2016–09586 Filed 4–25–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R03–OAR–2016–0002; FRL–9945–46– 

Region 3] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; 

Pennsylvania; 2011 Base Year 

Inventories for the 2008 8-Hour Ozone 

National Ambient Air Quality Standard 

for the Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton, 

Lancaster, Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley, 

and Reading Areas, and the 

Pennsylvania Portion of the 

Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City 

Area 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) proposes to approve the 

2011 base year inventories for the 2008 

8-hour ozone national ambient air 

quality standard (NAAQS) for the 

Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton, 

Lancaster, Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley, and 

Reading nonattainment areas, and the 

Pennsylvania portion of the 

Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City 

nonattainment area, submitted by the 

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania as a 

revision to the Pennsylvania State 

Implementation Plan (SIP). In the Rules 

and Regulations section of this issue of 

the Federal Register, EPA is approving 

Pennsylvania’s SIP submittal as a direct 

final rule without prior proposal 

because the Agency views this as a 

noncontroversial submittal and 

anticipates no adverse comments. The 

rationale for the approval is set forth in 

the direct final rule. More detailed 

descriptions of the state submittal and 

EPA’s evaluation are included in 

Technical Support Documents (TSD) 

prepared in support of this rulemaking 

action. Copies of the TSDs are available, 

upon request, from the EPA Regional 

Office listed in the ADDRESSES section of 

this document or are also available 

electronically within the Docket for this 

rulemaking action. If no adverse 

comments are received in response to 

this action, no further activity is 

contemplated. If EPA receives adverse 

comments, the direct final rule will be 

withdrawn and all public comments 

received will be addressed in a 

subsequent final rule based on this 

proposed rule. EPA will not institute a 

second comment period. Any parties 

interested in commenting on this action 

should do so at this time. 

DATES: Comments must be received in 

writing by May 26, 2016. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R03– 

OAR–2016–0002 at http://

www.regulations.gov, or via email to 

fernandez.cristina@epa.gov. For 

comments submitted at Regulations.gov, 

follow the online instructions for 

submitting comments. Once submitted, 

comments cannot be edited or removed 

from Regulations.gov. For either manner 

of submission, EPA may publish any 

comment received to its public docket. 

Do not submit electronically any 

information you consider to be 

confidential business information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Multimedia 

submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be 

accompanied by a written comment. 

The written comment is considered the 

official comment and should include 

discussion of all points you wish to 

make. EPA will generally not consider 

comments or comment contents located 

outside of the primary submission (i.e. 

on the web, cloud, or other file sharing 

system). For additional submission 

methods, please contact the person 

identified in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the 

full EPA public comment policy, 

information about CBI or multimedia 

submissions, and general guidance on 

making effective comments, please visit 

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

commenting-epa-dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Maria A. Pino, (215) 814–2181, or by 

email at pino.maria@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For 

further information regarding 

Pennsylvania’s 2011 base year 

inventories for the 2008 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS for the Allentown-BethlehemEaston, Lancaster, Pittsburgh-Beaver 

Valley, and Reading areas, and the 

Pennsylvania portion of the 

Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City 

area, please see the information 

provided in the direct final action, with 

the same title, that is located in the 

Rules and Regulations section of this 

issue of the Federal Register. 

Dated: April 8, 2016. 

Shawn M. Garvin, 

Regional Administrator, Region III. 

[FR Doc. 2016–09590 Filed 4–25–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2012–0323; FRL–9945–63– 

Region 4] 

Air Plan Approval and Air Quality 

Designation; TN; Redesignation of the 

Sullivan County Lead Nonattainment 

Area to Attainment 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: On July 15, 2015, the State of 

Tennessee, through the Tennessee 

Department of Environment and 

Conservation (TDEC), submitted a 

request for the Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) to redesignate 

the Bristol, Tennessee 2008 lead 

nonattainment area (hereafter referred to 

as the ‘‘Bristol Area’’ or the ‘‘Area’’) to 

attainment for the 2008 lead National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS) and an associated State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) revision 

containing a maintenance plan and a 

reasonably available control measures 

(RACM) determination for the Area. 

EPA is proposing to determine that the 

Bristol Area is continuing to attain the 

2008 lead NAAQS; to approve the SIP 

revision containing the State’s 

maintenance plan for maintaining 

attainment of the 2008 lead standard 

and the State’s RACM determination; 

and to redesignate the Bristol Area to 

attainment for the 2008 lead NAAQS. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before May 26, 2016. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04– 

OAR–2012–0323 at http://

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Once submitted, comments cannot be 

edited or removed from Regulations.gov. 

EPA may publish any comment received 

to its public docket. Do not submit 

electronically any information you 

consider to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Multimedia submissions (audio, video, 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSAL