55156 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 160 / Thursday, August 18, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R08–OAR–2016–0311; FRL–9951–04– 

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 (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing 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 May 9, 2013, May 

20, 2014, September 8, 2015, and March 

8, 2016. The March 8, 2016 submittal 

contains rule revisions to address our 

February 25, 2016 conditional approval 

of several Utah DAR R307–300 Series 

rules submitted on February 2, 2012, 

May 9, 2013, and May 20, 2014. These 

area source rules control emissions of 

direct PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors, 

which are sulfur dioxides (SO2), 

nitrogen oxides (NOX) and volatile 

organic compounds (VOC). 

Additionally, the EPA is 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 19, 

2016. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by EPA–R08–OAR–2016– 

0311 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. 

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 in hard copy at 

the EPA Region 8, Office of Partnerships 

and Regulatory Assistance, Air Program, 

1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, 

Colorado, 80202–1129. The EPA 

requests that if at all possible, you 

contact the individual listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to 

view the hard copy of the docket. You 

may view the hard copy of the docket 

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

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

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, Utah; Provo, Utah; and 

Logan, Utah-Idaho 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. NRDC 

v. EPA, 706 F.3d 428 (D.C. Cir. 2013). 

Under subpart 4, nonattainment areas 

are initially classified as moderate, and 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 160 / Thursday, August 18, 2016 / Proposed Rules 55157 

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. 

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 (RFP); 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 the 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. 

The EPA is currently in the process of 

preparing its final action on the 

proposed rule. 

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 

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

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. 

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 approval converts 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 section 179(a)(2), and the two-year 

clock for a federal implementation plan 

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

Prior to the January 4, 2013 decision 

of the D.C. 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 

(UDAQ) 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 the 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, Utah provided a 

commitment letter dated August 4, 

2015, committing to revise R307–101, 

General Requirements; R307–312, 

Aggregate Processing Operations for 

PM2.5 Nonattainment Areas; and R307– 

328, Gasoline Transfer and Storage. The 

EPA issued a conditional approval of 

the revisions on February 25, 2016 (81 

FR 9343), based on the commitment 

letter. In that action, the EPA also 

approved other area source rules and 

conditionally approved the 

determination of RACM for these 

specific rules from Utah’s moderate 

PM2.5 SIPs. When the EPA takes final 

action on today’s proposal, it will 

complete the action on the revisions 

described earlier and the determination 

of RACM for these specific rules from 

Utah’s moderate PM2.5 SIPs. 

Furthermore, Utah submitted 

revisions to R307–302, Solid Fuel 

Burning Devices in Box Elder, Cache, 

Davis, Salt Lake, Tooele, Utah, and 

Weber Counties on May 9, 2013, May 

20, 2014, and September 8, 2015. With 

this action, the EPA is proposing to 

conditionally approve R307–302 based 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
55158 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 160 / Thursday, August 18, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

on the May 19, 2016 commitment letter 

submitted by UDAQ. This rule is 

applicable to the Utah SIPs for PM2.5

nonattainment areas. 

III. EPA’s Evaluation of Utah’s 

Submittals 

SIP revisions for R307–101 were 

submitted on May 9, 2013, May 20, 

2014, and March 8, 2016. For R307–312, 

revisions were submitted on May 9, 

2013, and March 8, 2016. Revisions for 

R307–328 were submitted on February 

2, 2012, and March 8, 2016. In an 

August 4, 2015 commitment letter, 

UDAQ committed to revise R307–101, 

R307–312 and R307–328 and EPA 

conditionally approved these rules on 

February 25, 2016 (81 FR 9343). 

Additionally, SIP revisions were 

submitted for R307–302 on May 9, 2013, 

May 20, 2014, and September 8, 2015. 

However, the EPA identified an issue 

with R307–302 relating to startup, 

shutdown, and malfunction provisions, 

and Utah provided a commitment letter 

dated May 19, 2016, that contains a 

commitment to revise R307–302 to 

address this issue. The EPA is proposing 

conditional approval of the three 

submittals based on Utah’s May 19, 

2016 commitment letter. These final 

rule submissions, except for revisions to 

R307–101 and R307–328, are submitted 

as RACM components of the PM2.5 SIP 

submitted by the State of Utah. The area 

source rules for RACM, R307–302 and 

R307–312, provide specific 

requirements for emissions of direct 

PM2.5, VOCs, NOX, and SO2 from a few 

specific categories of sources. All of 

these rule revision submittals and 

commitment letters can found on 

www.regulations.gov. 

The following is a summary of EPA’s 

evaluation of the rule revisions. In 

general, we reviewed the rules for: 

enforceability; RACM requirements (for 

those rules submitted as RACM); and 

other applicable requirements of the 

Act. 

1. R307–101, General Requirements 

Rule R307–101 provides general 

requirements that pertain to all UDAQ 

R307 rules, which constitute the basis 

for control of air pollution sources in 

the State of Utah. The primary section 

is R307–101–2 Definitions, which 

provide definitions that are applicable 

to all R307 rules, except for those 

definitions as specified in individual 

rules. UDAQ committed in its letter 

dated August 4, 2015, to remove the 

definition of ‘‘PM2.5 precursor,’’ as that 

definition is not used for regulatory 

purposes in Utah’s SIP. Additionally, a 

‘‘Nonsubstantive Rule Amendment’’ 

was made by Utah to correct a citation 

to the United States Code of Federal 

Regulations 40 CFR 51.100. In 

accordance with Utah Code Title 19, 

Chapter 2, Air Conservation Act, Utah 

Code Title 63G, Chapter 3, 

Administrative Rulemaking Act, and 

Utah Administrative Code, R15, 

Administrative Rules, this change was 

made without public comment, as 

appropriate for a non-substantive 

change. This submittal was made by 

UDAQ on May 20, 2014, and was 

included in the conditional approval 

finalized by the EPA on February 25, 

2016. With UDAQ’s March 8, 2016 

submittal, the definition ‘‘PM2.5

precursor’’ was removed, which satisfies 

the commitment letter on which the 

EPA’s conditional approval was based 

and completes the EPA’s actions on the 

May 9, 2013 and May 20, 2014 

submittals for R307–101 from UDAQ. 

(February 25, 2016; 81 FR 9343.) 

Additionally, UDAQ submitted to the 

EPA other revisions to R307–101–2 on 

March 8, 2016. These revisions included 

revisions to the ‘‘Clean Air Act’’ 

definition and ‘‘Maintenance Area’’ 

definition, specific to coarse particulate 

matter (PM10). The definition for ‘‘Clean 

Air Act’’ was revised to mean ‘‘federal 

Clean Air Act as found in 42 U.S.C. 

Chapter 85.’’ The revisions to the 

‘‘Maintenance Area’’ definition, specific 

to PM10, updated the date on when the 

Board adopted the maintenance plans 

for Salt Lake County, Utah County, and 

Ogden City to ‘‘December 2, 2015.’’ 

The Board proposed for public 

comment the removal of the definition 

‘‘PM2.5 Precursor’’ in R307–101–2 on 

October 7, 2015, and the public 

comment period was held from 

November 1, 2015, through December 1, 

2015. No comments were received and 

no hearing was requested for this 

comment period. The Board adopted the 

revision to R307–101–2 on February 3, 

2016, and it became effective on 

February 4, 2016. Amendments to 

R307–101–2 were proposed by the 

Board on December 2, 2015, and were 

out for a comment period of January 1, 

2016, through February 2, 2016. No 

comments were received and no hearing 

was requested for this comment period. 

The final revision of Rule R307–101–2 

was adopted by the Board on March 2, 

2016, and became effective on March 3, 

2016, and is applicable to the entire 

state of Utah. 

With UDAQ’s March 8, 2016 

submittal, section R307–101 was revised 

to represent what was in the 

commitment letter, which satisfies the 

EPA’s conditional approval. 

Additionally, the EPA is proposing to 

approve the other definition revisions to 

R307–101 as stated earlier. 

2. R307–302, Solid Fuel Burning Devices 

in Box Elder, Cache, Davis, Salt Lake, 

Tooele, Utah, and Weber Counties 

Rule R307–302 is an existing rule that 

was approved by the EPA on February 

14, 2006 (71 FR 7679). This rule 

establishes emission standards for 

fireplaces and solid fuel burning devices 

used in residential, commercial, 

institutional and industrial facilities and 

associated outbuilding used to provide 

comfort heating. 

The Board proposed revisions to 

R307–302 for public comment on 

October 7, 2015, with the public 

comment period held from November 1 

to December 1, 2015. No comments 

were received and no public hearing 

was requested. The Board adopted the 

latest revision to R307–302 on February 

3, 2016, and it became effective on 

February 4, 2015. 

The EPA requested that UDAQ 

commit to revise R307–302–5 which 

states ‘‘R307–302–5. Opacity for Heating 

Appliances. Except during no-burn 

periods as required by R307–302–2 and 

4, visible emissions from solid fuel 

burning devices and fireplaces shall be 

limited to a shade or density no darker 

than 20% opacity as measured by EPA 

Method 9, except for the following: (1) 

An initial fifteen minute start-up period, 

and (2) A period of fifteen minutes in 

any three-hour period in which 

emissions may exceed the 20% opacity 

limitation for refueling.’’ The requested 

change is to provide continuous 

controls to cover startup, shutdown, and 

malfunction requirements. UDAQ 

committed in its May 19, 2016 letter to 

add continuous controls that extend to 

startup, shutdown, and malfunction, by 

establishing a prohibition on fuel types 

that can’t be burned in a solid fuel 

burning device at any time. 

Utah’s RACM and rule analysis can be 

found in the docket posted on 

regulations.gov. For direct PM2.5, the 

RACM analysis considered the effect of 

lowering the wood burning prohibition 

action level from 35 mg/m3 to 25 mg/m3

and alternatively to 15 mg/m3, and the 

sales restriction of solid fuel devices to 

only EPA-approved wood stoves. In 

choosing a wood burning prohibition 

action level, UDAQ determined that 25 

mg/m3 was representative of RACM, and 

chose to establish the 15 mg/m3 action 

level as a contingency measure. UDAQ 

also established a sales restriction on 

solid fuel devices to EPA-approved 

wood stoves, with a phase-in schedule 

of 90% by 2014, 92.5% by 2017, and 

95% by 2019. 

The EPA agrees with the revisions 

that UDAQ has committed to and is 

proposing a conditional approval of the 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 160 / Thursday, August 18, 2016 / Proposed Rules 55159 

revisions to R307–302; and also 

proposing to find that R307–302, as 

revised, constitutes RACM for the 

Nonattainment Areas for Solid Fuel 

Burning Devices in Box Elder, Cache, 

Davis, Salt Lake, Tooele, and Weber 

Counties for the Utah PM2.5 SIP, with 

the commitment to adopt measures to 

address startup, shutdown, and 

malfunction events. 

3. R307–312, Aggregate Processing 

Operations for PM2.5 Nonattainment 

Areas 

R307–312 establishes emission 

standards for sources in the aggregate 

processing industry, including aggregate 

processing equipment, hot mix asphalt 

plants, and concrete batch plants. The 

rule applies to all crushers, screens, 

conveyors, hot mix asphalt plants, and 

concrete batch plants located within a 

PM2.5 nonattainment and maintenance 

area as defined in 40 CFR 81.345 (July 

1, 2011). The provisions of R307–312 do 

not apply to temporary hot mix asphalt 

plants. 

The EPA requested that UDAQ 

commit to revise R307–312–5(2)(a) 

which states ‘‘Production shall be 

determined by scale house records or 

equivalent method on a daily basis.’’ 

The EPA requested that UDAQ identify 

what could be used as an ‘‘equivalent 

method’’ in its rule. UDAQ committed 

in their August 4, 2015 letter to remove 

‘‘equivalent method’’ and state 

‘‘Production shall be determined by 

scale house records, scale house or belt 

scale records, or manifest statements on 

a daily basis.’’ The EPA finalized this 

commitment and conditional approval 

on February 25, 2016 (81 FR 9343). With 

UDAQ’s March 8, 2016 submittal, 

section R307–312–5(2)(a) was revised to 

represent what was in the commitment 

letter, which satisfies the condition 

specified in the conditional approval 

and completes the EPA’s action on the 

May 9, 2013 submittal for R307–312 

from UDAQ. 

The Board proposed revisions to 

R307–312 for public comment on 

October 7, 2015, with the public 

comment period held from November 1 

to December 1, 2015. No comments 

were received and no public hearing 

was requested. The Board adopted the 

revision to R307–312 on February 3, 

2016, and it became effective on 

February 4, 2016. 

Utah’s RACM and rule analysis can be 

found in the docket posted on 

regulations.gov. For direct PM2.5, the 

RACM analysis considered the 

following as technologically feasible 

control measures for aggregate 

processing: water application, 

enclosures, and add-on control devices, 

including a baghouse, electrostatic 

precipitator, wet scrubber, and cyclone. 

UDAQ considered enclosures and addon controls to not be economically 

feasible for aggregate processing 

equipment and determined water 

application to be RACM at a costeffectiveness of $650/ton. However, 

water application was not considered 

feasible for the one existing concrete 

batch plant; and UDAQ determined 

RACM to be the existing baghouse and 

fabric filter controls. The RACM 

analysis considered the following addon controls as technologically feasible 

for filterable particulate matter (PM) 

from hot mix asphalt plants: baghouse, 

electrostatic precipitator, wet scrubber, 

and cyclone. UDAQ did not find any 

controls technologically feasible for 

condensable PM. The analysis 

considered all the add-on controls to be 

economically feasible; and UDAQ 

correspondingly set a direct PM2.5 limit 

of 0.024 gr/dscf. For NOX, UDAQ 

considered low-NOX burners, NSCR, 

SCR, and use of natural gas to be 

technically feasible. UDAQ determined 

that use of natural gas was RACM. 

The EPA agrees with the revisions 

that UDAQ has made to R307–312 and 

is proposing approval. Additionally, the 

EPA is proposing to find that R307–312, 

as revised, constitutes RACM for the 

Nonattainment Areas for Aggregate 

Processing Operations for the Utah 

PM2.5 SIP. This proposal is based on our 

review of the RACM analysis provided 

in Utah’s PM2.5 SIP. 

4. R307–328, Gasoline Transfer and 

Storage 

R307–328 establishes controls of 

gasoline vapors during the filling of 

gasoline cargo tank and storage tanks in 

Utah. The rule is based on federal 

control technique guidance documents. 

This requirement is commonly referred 

to as stage I vapor recovery. 

The EPA requested that UDAQ 

commit to revise R307–328–4(6) which 

stated ‘‘A gasoline storage and transfer 

installation that receives inbound loads 

and dispatches outbound loads (‘‘bulk 

plant’’) need not comply with R307– 

328–4 if it does not have a daily average 

throughput of more than 3,900 gallons 

(15,000 or more liters) of gasoline based 

upon a 30-day rolling average. Such 

installations shall on-load and off-load 

gasoline by use of bottom or submerged 

filling or alternate equivalent methods. 

The emission limitation is based on 

operating procedures and equipment 

specifications using RACT as defined in 

EPA documents EPA 450/2–77–026 

October 1977, ‘‘Control of Hydrocarbons 

from Tank Truck Gasoline Loading 

Terminals,’’ and EPA–450/2–77–035 

December 1977, ‘‘Control of Volatile 

Organic Emissions from Bulk Gasoline 

Plants.’’ The design effectiveness of 

such equipment and the operating 

procedures must be documented and 

submitted to and approved by the 

executive secretary.’’ The requested 

change was to remove the ‘‘alternative 

equivalent method’’ from this section. 

UDAQ committed in their August 4, 

2015 letter to remove ‘‘alternative 

equivalent method’’ and state: ‘‘A 

gasoline storage and transfer installation 

that receives inbound loads and 

dispatches outbound loads (‘‘bulk 

plant’’) need not comply with R307– 

328–4 if it does not have a daily average 

throughput of more than 3,900 gallons 

(15,000 or more liters) of gasoline based 

upon a 30-day rolling average. Such 

installations shall on-load and off-load 

gasoline by use of bottom or submerged 

filling. The emission limitation is based 

on operating procedures and equipment 

specifications using RACT as defined in 

EPA documents EPA 450/2–77–026 

October 1977, ‘‘Control of Hydrocarbons 

from Tank Truck Gasoline Loading 

Terminals,’’ and EPA–450/2–77–035 

December 1977, ‘‘Control of Volatile 

Organic Emissions from Bulk Gasoline 

Plants.’’ The design effectiveness of 

such equipment and the operating 

procedures must be documented and 

submitted to and approved by the 

executive secretary.’’ 

The EPA finalized this commitment 

and conditional approval on February 

25, 2016 (81 FR 9343). The Board 

proposed revisions to R307–328 for 

public comment on October 7, 2015, 

with the public comment period held 

from November 1 to December 1, 2015. 

No comments were received and no 

public hearing was requested. The 

Board adopted the revision to R307–328 

on February 3, 2016, and it became 

effective on February 4, 2016. With 

UDAQ’s March 8, 2016 submittal, the 

section, R307–328–4(6), was revised to 

represent what was in the commitment 

letter, which satisfies the EPA’s 

conditional approval and completes the 

EPA’s action on the February 2, 2012 

submittal for R307–328 from UDAQ. 

Therefore, the EPA is proposing 

approval of the rule, R307–328. 

IV. What action is EPA proposing? 

The EPA is proposing approval of the 

revisions to Administrative Rules R307– 

101–2, along with the revisions in 

R307–300 Series; Requirements for 

Specific Locations (Within 

Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas), 

R307–302 (conditional approval, 

described later), R307–312, and R307– 

328 for incorporation to the Utah SIP as 

submitted by the State of Utah on May 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
55160 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 160 / Thursday, August 18, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

9, 2013, May 20, 2014, September 8, 

2015, and March 8, 2016. This proposal 

will complete the EPA’s February 25, 

2016 (81 FR 9343) conditional approval 

action on the February 2, 2012, May 9, 

2013, and May 20, 2014 submittals for 

R307–101, R307–312, and R307–328 

from UDAQ. We are proposing to 

approve Utah’s determination that 

R307–312 constitutes RACM for the 

Utah PM2.5 SIP; 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. 

The EPA is proposing to conditionally 

approve revisions to R307–302 and 

conditionally approve Utah’s 

determination that R307–302 constitutes 

RACM for the Utah PM2.5 SIP for solid 

fuel burning devices in Box Elder, 

Cache, Davis, Salt Lake, Tooele, Utah, 

and Weber Counties. As stated earlier, 

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, 

the 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 May 19, 2016, Utah 

submitted a commitment letter to adopt 

and submit specific revisions within 

one year of our final action on these 

submittals; specifically to include 

continuous controls to cover start-up, 

shutdown, and malfunction 

requirements. If we finalize our 

proposed conditional approval, Utah 

must adopt and submit the specific 

revisions it has committed to within one 

year of our final action. 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 two-year clock for a FIP, see 

CAA section 110(c)(1)(B). 

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 RFP 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 UDAQ on February 2, 

2012, May 9, 2013, May 20, 2014, 

September 8, 2015, and March 8, 2016, 

are intended to strengthen the SIP and 

to serve as RACM for certain area 

sources for the Utah PM2.5 SIP. 

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 UDAQ rules promulgated in the 

DAR, R307–300 Series as discussed in 

section III of this preamble. The EPA 

has made, and will continue to make, 

these materials generally available 

through www.regulations.gov and/or at 

the EPA Region 8 Office (please contact 

the person identified in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT 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, the 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 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Public Law 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 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, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, 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 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 5, 2016. 

Debra H. Thomas, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 8. 

[FR Doc. 2016–19775 Filed 8–17–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS