Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 11, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 47149 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

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

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

The SIP is not approved to apply on 

any Indian reservation land or in any 

other area where EPA or an Indian tribe 

has demonstrated that a tribe has 

jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian 

country, the rule does not have tribal 

implications and will not impose 

substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law as 

specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 

FR 67249, November 9, 2000). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate Matter, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur Dioxides. 

Dated: September 27, 2017. 

Cathy Stepp, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 7. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, EPA is amending 40 CFR part 

52 as set forth below: 

PART 52—APPROVAL AND 

PROMULGATION OF 

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart AA—Missouri 

■ 2. Amend § 52.1320 by adding 

paragraphs (e)(72) and (73) to read as 

follows: 

§ 52.1320 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

EPA-APPROVED MISSOURI NONREGULATORY SIP PROVISIONS

Name of non-regulatory SIP provision 

Applicable 

geographic or 

nonattainment 

area 

State submittal 

date EPA approval date Explanation 

*******

(72) Sections 110 (a)(1) and 110(a)(2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 2012 

Annual Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) 

NAAQS.

Statewide ....... 10/14/2015 10/11/2017, [Insert 

Federal Register 

citation].

This action approves the following CAA 

elements: 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2)(A), 

(B), (C), (D)(i)(II)—prong 3, D((ii), (E), 

(F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L), and (M). 

110(a)(2)(I) is not applicable. [EPA– 

R07–OAR–2017–0513; FRL–9969– 

12—Region 7.] 

(73) Missouri State Statute section 

105.483(5) RSMo 2014, and Missouri 

State Statute section 105.485 RSMo 

2014.

Statewide ....... 10/14/2015 10/11/2017, [Insert 

Federal Register 

citation].

EPA–R07–OAR–2017–0513; FRL–9969– 

12—Region 7. 

[FR Doc. 2017–21806 Filed 10–10–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R08–OAR–2017–0298; FRL–9969–01– 

Region 8] 

Approval and Promulgation; State of 

Utah; Salt Lake County and Utah 

County Nonattainment Area Coarse 

Particulate Matter State 

Implementation Plan Revisions To 

Control Measures for Point Sources 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is finalizing approval of 

certain State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

revisions submitted by Utah on January 

4, 2016, and of certain revisions 

submitted on January 19, 2017, for the 

coarse particulate matter (PM10) national 

ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) 

in the Salt Lake County and Utah 

County PM10 nonattainment areas. The 

revisions that the EPA is approving are 

located in Utah Division of 

Administrative Rule (DAR) R307–110– 

17 and SIP Subsection IX.H.1–4, and 

establish emissions limits for PM10, NOX

and SO2 for certain stationary sources in 

the nonattainment areas. These actions 

are being taken under section 110 of the 

Clean Air Act (CAA). 

DATES: This final rule is effective on 

November 13, 2017. 

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–R08–OAR–2017–0298. All 

documents in the docket are listed on 

the http://www.regulations.gov Web 

site. 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, is not placed on 

the Internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available through http://

www.regulations.gov, or please contact 

the person identified in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section for 

additional availability information. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

James Hou, Air Program, EPA, Region 8, 

Mailcode 8P–AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, 

Denver, Colorado 80202–1129, (303) 

312–6210, hou.james@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

Under the 1990 amendments to the 

CAA, Salt Lake and Utah Counties were 

designated nonattainment for PM10 and 

classified as moderate areas by 

operation of law as of November 15, 

1990 (56 FR 56694, 56840; November 6, 

1991). On July 8, 1994, the EPA 

approved the PM10 SIP for the Salt Lake 

and Utah County Nonattainment Areas 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES
47150 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 11, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 

(59 FR 35036). The SIP included a 

demonstration of attainment and 

various control measures, including 

emission limits at stationary sources. 

On January 4, 2016, Utah submitted 

SIP revisions to R307–110–17 titled 

‘‘Section IX, Control Measures for Area 

and Point Sources, Part H, Emission 

Limits’’ and revisions to Subsection 

IX.H.1–4. The titles for Subsection 

IX.H.1–4 include: (1) General 

Requirements: Control Measures for 

Area and Point Sources, Emission 

Limits and Operating Practices, PM10

Requirements; (2) Source Specific 

Emission Limitations in Salt Lake 

County PM10 Nonattainment/ 

Maintenance Area; (3) Source Specific 

Emission Limitations in Utah County 

PM10 Nonattainment/Maintenance Area; 

and (4) Interim Emission Limits and 

Operating Practices. Additionally, on 

January 19, 2017, Utah submitted 

revisions to Subsection IX.H.1–4. 

Further discussion of the revisions to 

R307–110–17 and Subsection IX.H.1–4 

can be found below. 

On July 13, 2017 (82 FR 32287), the 

EPA proposed to approve certain SIP 

revisions to the Salt Lake County and 

Utah County NAA Moderate area SIPs 

submitted by the State. Our proposed 

notice provides details on the EPA’s 

evaluation of the State’s submittals. The 

submittals dated January 4, 2016, and 

January 19, 2017, contained revisions to 

the Utah DAR, Title R307— 

Environmental Quality, set of rules, and 

SIP subsection IX.H.1–4. 

II. Response to Comments 

The EPA did not receive any 

comments on the July 13, 2017 

proposed action. 

III. Final Action 

For the reasons stated in our proposed 

notice, the EPA is finalizing approval of 

revisions to Administrative Rule R307– 

110–17 and revisions to Subsection 

IX.H.1–4 for incorporation into the Utah 

SIP as submitted by the State of Utah on 

January 4, 2016, and January 19, 2017. 

These revisions establish emissions 

limitations and related requirements for 

certain stationary sources of PM10, NOX

and SO2, and will therefore serve to 

continue progress towards attainment 

and maintenance of the PM10 NAAQS in 

the nonattainment areas. The revisions 

reflect more stringent emission levels 

for total emissions of PM10, SO2, and 

NOX for each of the affected facilities, as 

well as updates of the inventory of 

major stationary sources to accurately 

reflect the current sources in both the 

Salt Lake County and Utah County 

nonattainment areas (e.g., removing 

sources which no longer exist, or are 

now covered under an area source rule). 

The updated list of sources and revised 

emission limits for the major stationary 

sources in the two nonattainment areas 

will serve to enhance both area’s ability 

to attain or maintain the NAAQS. 

The specific emission limits and 

operating practices the EPA is finalizing 

for approval are listed in the following 

tables: 

TABLE 1—SOURCE SPECIFIC EMISSION LIMITATIONS IN THE SALT LAKE COUNTY PM10 NONATTAINMENT AREA

Source Pollutant Process unit Mass based limits Concentration based 

limits 

Alternative emission 

limits 

Big West Oil ..................... PM10 ............................... Facility Wide ................... 1.037 tons per day (tpd) 

NOX ................................ Facility Wide ................... 0.8 tpd.

SO2 ................................. Facility Wide ................... 0.6 tpd.

Bountiful City Light and 

Power.

NOX ................................ GT#1 ............................... 0.6 g NOX/kW-hr.

NOX ................................ GT#2 and GT#3 ............. 7.5 lb NOX/hr.

Central Valley Water Reclamation Facility.NOX ................................ Facility Wide ................... 0.648 tpd.

Chevron Products Company.PM10 ............................... Facility Wide ................... 0.715 tpd.

NOX ................................ Facility Wide ................... 2.1 tpd.

SO2 ................................. Facility Wide ................... 1.05 tpd.

Hexcel Corporations ........ ......................................... ......................................... ......................................... ......................................... 5.50 MMscf natural gas 

per day. 

......................................... ......................................... ......................................... ......................................... 0.061 MM pounds of carbon fiber produced per 

day. 

Holly Refining and Marketing Company.PM10 ............................... Facility Wide ................... 0.416 tpd.

NOX ................................ Facility Wide ................... 2.09 tpd.

SO2 ................................. Facility Wide ................... 0.31 tpd.

Kennecott Utah Copper: 

Bingham Canyon Mine.

......................................... ......................................... ......................................... ......................................... Maximum of 30,000 

miles for waste haul 

trucks per day. 

......................................... ......................................... ......................................... ......................................... Fugitive road dust emission control requirements. 

Kennecott Copperton 

Concentrator.

......................................... ......................................... ......................................... ......................................... Requirement to operate a 

gas scrubber operated 

in accordance with 

parametric monitoring. 

Kennecott Utah Copper: 

Power Plant and 

Tailings Impoundment.

PM10 ............................... Power Plant Unit #5 ....... 18.8 lb/hr. 

NOX ................................ Power Plant Unit #5 ....... ......................................... 2.0 ppmdv (15% O2 dry). 

NOX ................................ Power Plant Unit #5 

Startup/Shutdown.

395 lb/hr. 

PM10 (Filterable) ............. Units #1, #2, #3, and #4 

Nov 1–Feb 28/29 ............

0.004 grains/dscf. 

PM10 (Filterable + Condensable).Units #1, #2, #3, and #4 

Nov 1–Feb 28/29.

0.03 grains/dscf. 

NOX ................................ Units #1, #2, and #3 Nov 

1–Feb 28/29.

......................................... 336 ppmdv (3% O2). 

NOX ................................ Unit #4 Nov 1–Feb 28/29 ......................................... 336 ppmdv (3% O2). 

PM10 (Filterable) ............. Units #1, #2, and #3; Mar 

1–Oct 1.

0.029 grains/dscf. 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 11, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 47151 

TABLE 1—SOURCE SPECIFIC EMISSION LIMITATIONS IN THE SALT LAKE COUNTY PM10 NONATTAINMENT AREA— 

Continued 

Source Pollutant Process unit Mass based limits Concentration based 

limits 

Alternative emission 

limits 

PM10 (Filterable + Condensable).Units #1, #2, and #3; Mar 

1–Oct 1.

0.29 grains/dscf. 

PM10 (Filterable) ............. Unit #4; Mar 1–Oct 1 ...... 0.029 grains/dscf. 

NOX ................................ Units #1, #2, and #3; Mar 

1–Oct 1.

......................................... 426.5 ppmdv (3% O2). 

NOX ................................ Unit #4; Mar 1–Oct 1 ...... ......................................... 384 ppmdv (3% O2). 

Kennecott Utah Copper: 

Smelter and Refinery.

PM10 (Filterable) ............. Main Stack ...................... 89.5 lb/hr. 

PM10 (Filterable + Condensable).Main Stack ...................... 439 lb/hr. 

SO2 (3-hr rolling avg) ..... Main Stack ...................... 552 lb/hr. 

SO2 (daily avg) ............... Main Stack ...................... 422 lb/hr. 

NOX (daily avg) .............. Main Stack ...................... 154 lb/hr. 

NOX ................................ Refinery: Sum of 2 tank 

house boilers.

9.5 lb/hr. 

NOX ................................ Refinery: Combined Heat 

Plant.

5.96 lb/hr. 

NOX ................................ Molybdenum Autoclave 

Project: Combined 

Heat Plant.

5.01 lb/hr. 

PacifiCorp Energy: Gadsby Power Plant.NOX ................................ Steam Unit #1 ................ 179 lb/hr. 

NOX ................................ Steam Unit #2 ................ 204 lb/hr. 

NOX ................................ Steam Unit #3 ................ 142 lb./hr. (Nov 1–Feb 

28/29). 

NOX ................................ Steam Unit #3 ................ 203 lb/hr (Mar 1–Oct 31). 

Tesoro Refining and Marketing Company.PM10 ............................... Facility Wide ................... 2.25 tpd.

NOX ................................ Facility Wide ................... 1.988 tpd. 

SO2 ................................. Facility Wide ................... 3.1 tpd. 

University of Utah ............ NOX ................................ Boiler #3 ......................... ......................................... 187 ppmdv (3% O2 Dry). 

Boiler #4a & #4b ............ ......................................... 9 ppmdv (3% O2 Dry). 

Boiler #5a & #5b ............ ......................................... 9 ppmdv (3% O2 Dry). 

Turbine ........................... ......................................... 9 ppmdv (3% O2 Dry). 

Turbine and WHRU Duct 

burner.

......................................... 15 ppmdv (3% O2 Dry). 

West Valley Power 1 ........ NOX ................................ Sum of all five turbines .. 1,050 lb/day. 

1West Valley Power was not a listed source in the 1994 SIP for the Salt Lake County PM10 NAA. 

TABLE 2—SOURCE SPECIFIC EMISSION LIMITATIONS IN THE UTAH COUNTY PM10 NONATTAINMENT AREA

Source Pollutant Process unit Mass based limits Concentration 

based limits 

Alternative 

emission limits 

Brigham Young University NOX ................................ Unit #1 2 .......................... 9.55 lb/hr ........................ 95 ppmdv (7% O2 Dry). 

NOX ................................ Unit #2 ............................ 37.4 lb/hr. 331 ppmdv (7% O2 Dry).

SO2 ................................. Unit #2 ............................ 56.0 lb/hr ........................ 597 ppmdv (7% O2 Dry). 

NOX ................................ Unit #3 ............................ 37.4 lb/hr ........................ 331 ppmdv (7% O2 Dry). 

SO2 ................................. Unit #3 ............................ 56.0 lb/hr ........................ 597 ppmdv (7% O2 Dry). 

NOX ................................ Unit #4 3 .......................... 19.2 lb/hr ........................ 127 ppmdv (7% O2 Dry). 

NOX ................................ Unit #5 ............................ 74.8 lb/hr ........................ 331 ppmdv (7% O2 Dry). 

SO2 ................................. Unit #5 ............................ 112.07 lb/hr .................... 597 ppmdv (7% O2 Dry). 

NOX ................................ Unit #6 3 .......................... 19.2 lb/hr ........................ 127 ppmdv (7% O2 Dry). 

Geneva Nitrogen Inc.: 

Geneva Plant.

PM10 ............................... Prill Tower ...................... 0.236 tpd.

PM2.5 .............................. Prill Tower ...................... 0.196 tpd. 

NOX ................................ Montecatini Plant ............ 30.8 lb/hr. 

NOX ................................ Weatherly Plant .............. 18.4 lb/hr. 

PacifiCorp Energy: Lakeside Power Plant.NOX ................................ Block #1 Turbine/HRSG 

Stacks.

14.9 lb/hr. 

NOX ................................ Block #2 Turbine/HRSG 

Stacks.

18.1 lb/hr. 

Payson City Corporation: 

Payson City Power.

NOX ................................ All engines combined ..... 1.54 tpd. 

Provo City Power: Power 

Plant.

NOX ................................ All engines combined ..... 2.45 tpd. 

Springville City Corporation: Whitehead Power 

Plant.

NOX ................................ All engines combined ..... 1.68 tpd. 

2The NOX limit for Unit #1 is 95 ppm (9.55 lb/hr) until it operates for more than 300 hours during a rolling 12-month period, then the limit will be 36 ppm (5.44 lb/ 

hr). This will be accomplished through the installation of low NOX burners with Flue Gas Recirculation. 3The NOX limit for Units #4 and #6 is 127 ppm (38.5 lb/hr) until December 31, 2018, at which time the limit will then be 36 ppm (19.2 lb/hr). 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES
47152 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 11, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 

1 62 FR 27968 (May 22, 1997). 

TABLE 3—INTERIM EMISSION LIMITS AND OPERATING PRACTICES 4

Source Pollutant Process unit Mass based limits Concentration based 

limits 

Alternative emission 

limits 

Big West Oil ..................... PM10 ............................... Facility Wide ................... 0.377 tpd Oct 1–Mar 31. 

0.407 tpd April 1–Sept 30.

SO2 ................................. Facility Wide ................... 2.764 tpd Oct 1–March 

31 3.639 tpd April 1– 

Sept 30.

NOX ................................ Facility Wide ................... 1.027 tpd Oct 1–Mar 31 

1.145 tpd Apr 1 – Sep 

30.

Chevron Products Company.PM10 ............................... Facility Wide ................... 0.234 tpd.

SO2 ................................. Facility Wide ................... 0.5 tpd. 

NOX ................................ Facility Wide ................... 2.52 tpd. 

Holly Refining and Marketing Company.PM10 ............................... Facility Wide ................... 0.44 tpd. 

SO2 ................................. Facility Wide ................... 4.714 tpd. 

NOX ................................ Facility Wide ................... 2.20 tpd. 

Tesoro Refining and Marketing Company.PM10 ............................... Facility Wide ................... 0.261 tpd. 

SO2 ................................. Facility Wide ................... 3.699 tpd Nov 1–Feb 28/ 

29–4.374 tpd Mar 1– 

Oct 31.

NOX ................................ Facility Wide ................... 1.988 tpd. 

4This section establishes interim emission limits for sources whose new emission limits under Subsections IX.H.2 and 3 are based on controls that are not currently 

installed, with the provision that all necessary controls needed to meet the emission limits under Subsection IX.H.2 and IX.H.3 shall be installed by January 1, 2019. 

IV. Incorporation by Reference 

In this rule, the EPA is finalizing 

regulatory text that includes 

incorporation by reference. In 

accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 

51.5, the EPA is finalizing the 

incorporation by reference of Utah 

Division of Administrative Rules 

described in the amendments set forth 

to 40 CFR part 52 below. 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). 

Therefore, these materials have been 

approved by the EPA for inclusion in 

the SIP, have been incorporated by 

reference by the EPA into that plan, are 

fully federally enforceable under 

sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of 

the effective date of the final rulemaking 

of the EPA’s approval, and will be 

incorporated by reference by the 

Director of the Federal Register in the 

next update to the SIP compilation.1

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. General Requirements 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 

See 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, these actions 

merely approve state law as meeting 

federal requirements and do not impose 

additional requirements beyond those 

imposed by state law. For this reason, 

these actions: 

• Are not significant regulatory 

actions subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, 

January 21, 2011); Do not impose an 

information collection burden under the 

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction 

Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• Are 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.); 

• Do 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); 

• Do not have federalism implications 

as specified in Executive Order 13132 

(64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999); 

• Are not economically significant 

regulatory actions based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

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

• Are not significant regulatory 

actions subject to Executive Order 

13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Are 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 

• Do 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 does not 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 final 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). 

B. Congressional Review Act 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. The EPA will 

submit a report containing this action 

and other required information to the 

U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of 

Representatives, and the Comptroller 

General of the United States prior to 

publication of the rule in the Federal 

Register. A major rule cannot take effect 

until 60 days after it is published in the 

Federal Register. This action is not a 

‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 

804(2). 

C. Petitions for Judicial Review 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, 

petitions for judicial review of this 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 11, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 47153 

action must be filed in the United States 

Court of Appeals for the appropriate 

circuit by December 11, 2017. Filing a 

petition for reconsideration by the 

Administrator of this final rule does not 

affect the finality of this action for the 

purposes of judicial review nor does it 

extend the time within which a petition 

for judicial review may be filed, and 

shall not postpone the effectiveness of 

such rule or action. This action may not 

be challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements. See CAA 

section 307(b)(2). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 

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: September 25, 2017. 

Suzanne J. Bohan, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 8. 

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows: 

PART 52—APPROVAL AND 

PROMULGATION OF 

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart TT—Utah 

■ 2. Section 52.2320 is amended as 

follows: 

■ a. In the table in paragraph (c), by 

revising under the centered heading 

‘‘R307–110. General Requirements: State 

Implementation Plan,’’ the table entry 

for ‘‘R307–110–17’’; 

■ b. In the table in paragraph (e), by 

revising under the centered heading 

‘‘IX. Control Measures for Area and 

Point Sources,’’ the table entry for 

‘‘Section IX.H.1. Fine Particulate Matter 

(PM10), Emission Limits and Operating 

Practices (Utah County)’’; 

■ c. In the table in paragraph (e), by 

adding under the centered heading ‘‘IX. 

Control Measures for Area and Point 

Sources.’’ table entries for ‘‘Section 

IX.H.2. Source Specific Emission 

Limitations in Salt Lake County PM10

Nonattainment/Maintenance Area;’’ 

‘‘Section IX.H.3. Source Specific 

Emission Limitations in Utah County 

PM10 Nonattainment/Maintenance 

Area;’’ and ‘‘Section IX.H.4. Interim 

Emission Limits and Operating 

Practices’’ in numerical order. 

The revision reads as follows: 

§ 52.2320 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

Rule No. Rule title State 

effective date 

Final rule 

citation, date Comments 

*******

R307–110. General Requirements: State Implementation Plan 

*******

R307–110–17 ... Section IX, Control Measures for Area and Point 

Sources, Part H, Emission Limits.

12/8/2016 [Insert Federal Register 

citation].

10/11/2017 ......................

Except for Section IX.H.21.e. which is conditionally 

approved through one year from 7/5/16, 

IX.H.21.g., Sections of IX.H.21 that reference and 

apply to the source specific emission limitations 

disapproved in Section IX.H.22, and Sections 

IX.H.22.a.ii–iii, IX.H.22.b.ii, and IX.H.22.c. 

* * * * * * * 

* * * * * (e) * * * 

Rule title State 

effective date 

Final rule 

citation, date Comments 

*******

IX. Control Measures for Area and Point Sources 

*******

Section IX.H.1. General Requirements: Control Measures for Area and 

Point Sources, Emission Limits and Operating Practices, PM10 Requirements.

12/3/2015 [Insert Federal Register citation] 

10/11/2017.

Section IX.H.2. Source Specific Emission Limitations in Salt Lake County PM10 Nonattainment/Maintenance Area.

12/3/2015 

12/8/2016 

[Insert Federal Register citation] 

10/11/2017.

Section IX.H.3. Source Specific Emission Limitations in Utah County 

PM10 Nonattainment/Maintenance Area.

12/3/2015 [Insert Federal Register citation] 

10/11/2017.

Section IX.H.4. Interim Emission Limits and Operating Practices ............ 12/3/2015 [Insert Federal Register citation] 

10/11/2017.

* * * * * * * 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES
47154 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 11, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 

[FR Doc. 2017–21778 Filed 10–10–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R07–OAR–2017–0268; FRL–9969– 

10—Region 7] 

Approval of Missouri Air Quality 

Implementation Plans; Infrastructure 

SIP Requirements for the 2010 

Nitrogen Dioxide National Ambient Air 

Quality Standard 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is approving elements of 

a State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

revision from the State of Missouri for 

the 2010 Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) 

National Ambient Air Quality Standard 

(NAAQS). Section 110 of the CAA 

requires that each state adopt and 

submit a SIP for the implementation, 

maintenance, and enforcement of each 

new or revised NAAQS promulgated by 

EPA. These SIPs are commonly referred 

to as ‘‘infrastructure’’ SIPs. The 

infrastructure requirements are designed 

to ensure that the structural components 

of each state’s air quality management 

program are adequate to meet the state’s 

responsibilities under the CAA. 

DATES: This direct final rule will be 

effective December 11, 2017, without 

further notice, unless EPA receives 

adverse comment by November 13, 

2017. If EPA receives adverse comment, 

we will publish a timely withdrawal of 

the direct final rule in the Federal 

Register informing the public that the 

rule will not take effect. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R07– 

OAR–2017–0268, to https://

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, 

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, the full 

EPA public comment policy, 

information about CBI or multimedia 

submissions, and general guidance on 

making effective comments, please visit 

https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/ 

commenting-epa-dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Tracey Casburn, Environmental 

Protection Agency, Air Planning and 

Development Branch, 11201 Renner 

Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219 at 

(913) 551–7016, or by email at 

casburn.tracey@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ 

and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA. This section 

provides additional information by 

addressing the following: 

I. What is being addressed in this document? 

II. Have the requirements for approval of a 

SIP revision been met? 

III. What action is EPA taking? 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What is being addressed in this 

document? 

EPA is approving the revision as 

meeting the submittal requirement of 

section 110(a)(1). EPA is approving 

elements of the infrastructure SIP 

submission from the State of Missouri 

received on April 30, 2013. Specifically, 

EPA is approving the following 

elements of section 110(a)(2): (A) 

Through (H) (except (D)(i)(II)-protection 

of visibility (prong 4)), and (J) through 

(M). EPA is not acting on section 

110(a)(2)(I) as it does not expect 

infrastructure SIP submissions to 

address the element. EPA will act on 

prong 4 in a separate action. A 

Technical Support Document (TSD) is 

included in this docket to discuss the 

details of this action, including analysis 

of how the SIP meets the applicable 110 

requirements for infrastructure SIPs. 

II. Have the requirements for approval 

of a SIP revision been met? 

The state’s submission has met the 

public notice requirements for SIP 

submissions in accordance with 40 CFR 

51.102. The state held a public hearing 

on March 28, 2013 and a public 

comment period from February 25, 2013 

to April 4, 2013. EPA provided 

comments to the state on April 3, 2013, 

and were the only commenters. The 

state revised its proposed SIP in 

response to EPA’s comments and the 

revisions were contained in the SIP 

submitted to EPA on April 30, 2013. 

The submission satisfied the 

completeness criteria of 40 CFR part 51, 

appendix V. As explained in more detail 

in the TSD, which is part of this docket, 

the revision meets the substantive SIP 

requirements of the CAA, including 

section 110 and implementing 

regulations. 

III. What action is EPA taking? 

EPA is taking direct final action to 

approve elements of the April 30, 2013, 

infrastructure SIP submission from the 

State of Missouri, which addresses the 

requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(1) 

and (2) as applicable to the 2010 NO2

NAAQS. As stated in above preamble, 

EPA is approving the revision as 

meeting the submittal requirement of 

section 110(a)(1) and approving the 

following elements of section 110(a)(2): 

(A) Through (H) (except (D)(i)(II)- 

protection of visibility (prong 4)), and (J) 

through (M). EPA is not acting on 

section 110(a)(2)(I) as it does not expect 

infrastructure SIP submissions to 

address the element. EPA will act on 

prong 4 in a separate action. 

Section 110(a)(2)(I) requires that in 

the case of a plan or plan revision for 

areas designated as nonattainment areas, 

states must meet applicable 

requirements of part D of the CAA, 

relating to SIP requirements for 

designated nonattainment areas. EPA 

does not expect infrastructure SIP 

submissions to address element (I). The 

specific SIP submissions for designated 

nonattainment areas, as required under 

CAA title I, part D, are subject to 

different submission schedules than 

those for section 110 infrastructure 

elements. EPA will take action on part 

D attainment plan SIP submissions 

through a separate rulemaking governed 

by the requirements for nonattainment 

areas, as described in part D. 

We are publishing this direct final 

rule without a prior proposed rule 

because we view this as a 

noncontroversial action and anticipate 

no adverse comment. However, in the 

‘‘Proposed Rules’’ section of this issue 

of the Federal Register, we are 

publishing a separate document that 

will serve as the proposed rule to 

approve the SIP revision if adverse 

comments are received on this direct 

final rule. We will not institute a second 

comment period on this action. Any 

parties interested in commenting must 

do so at this time. For further 

information about commenting on this 

rule, see the ADDRESSES section of this 

document. If EPA receives adverse 

comment, we will publish a timely 

withdrawal in the Federal Register 

informing the public that this direct 

final rule will not take effect. We will 

address all public comments in any 

subsequent final rule based on the 

proposed rule. 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES