80 FR 28193 - Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; State of Utah; Utah County-Trading of Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets for PM10
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 95 (May 18, 2015)
Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 95 (May 18, 2015)
| Page Range | 28193-28201 | |
| FR Document | 2015-11784 |
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 95 (Monday, May 18, 2015)] [Rules and Regulations] [Pages 28193-28201] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [FR Doc No: 2015-11784] ======================================================================= ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R08-OAR-2015-0227; FRL-9927-68-Region 8] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; State of Utah; Utah County--Trading of Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets for PM10 Transportation Conformity AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency. ACTION: Direct final rule. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking direct final action to approve a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of Utah. On March 9, 2015, the Governor of Utah submitted a revision to the Utah SIP, adding a new rule regarding trading of motor vehicle emission budgets (MVEB) for Utah County. The rule allows trading from the motor vehicle emissions budget for primary particulate matter of 10 microns or less in diameter (PM10 ) to the motor vehicle emissions budget for nitrogen oxides (NOX ), which is a PM10 precursor. The resulting motor vehicle emissions budgets for NOX and PM10 may then be used to demonstrate transportation conformity with the SIP. The EPA is taking this action under section 110 of the Clean Air Act (CAA). DATES: This rule is effective on July 17, 2015 without further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comment by June 17, 2015. If adverse comment is received, EPA 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-R08- OAR-2015-0227, by one of the following methods:http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. Email: [email protected] Fax: (303) 312-6064 (please alert the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT if you are faxing comments). Mail: Carl Daly, Director, Air Program, EPA, Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129. Hand Delivery: Carl Daly, Director, Air Program, EPA, Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202- 1129. Such deliveries are only accepted Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding federal holidays. Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R08-OAR- 2015-0227. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or email. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment directly to EPA, without going through http://www.regulations.gov, your email address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional instructions on submitting comments, go to Section I, General Information of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document. Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly-available docket materials are available either electronically in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air Program, EPA, Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202- 1129. EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to view the hard copy of the docket. You may view the hard copy of the docket [[Page 28194]] Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., excluding Federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tim Russ, Air Program, EPA, Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129, (303) 312-6479, [email protected]. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Table of Contents I. General Information II. Background III. What was the State's process? IV. EPA's Evaluation of Utah Rule R307-311 V. EPA's Evaluation of the Technical Support Document for R307-311 VI. Consideration of Section 110(l) of the Clean Air Act VII. Final Action VIII. Incorporation by Reference IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. General Information 1. 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. 2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. When submitting comments, remember to: a. Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number). b. 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. c. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and substitute language for your requested changes. d. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you used. e. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced. f. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and suggest alternatives. g. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal threats. h. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified. II. Background In this action, we are approving and soliciting public comment regarding the Governor's March 9, 2015, submittal of Utah's new Rule R307-311 for adoption into the Utah SIP. The rule will allow certain trading of MVEBs for the purposes of transportation conformity for PM 10 for Utah County. Once approved by EPA, the Mountainland Association of Governments (MAG) will then be able to use the provisions of Rule R307-311 when MAG performs a transportation conformity determination for its Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and/or Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). The above SIP action that was adopted by the Utah Air Quality Board (UAQB), and subsequently submitted to EPA by the Governor of Utah for approval, is discussed in greater detail in sections III, IV, and V below. We also discuss the state's associated technical support document (TSD), which gives technical information to support new Rule R307-311. III. What was the State's process? Sections 110(a)(2) and 110(l) of the CAA requires that a state provide reasonable notice and public hearing before adopting a SIP revision and submitting it to us. More detailed requirements for notice and public hearing are set out in 40 CFR 51.102. On December 4, 2014 the UAQB proposed for public comment amendments to the Utah SIP for Utah Air Quality Rule R307-311; ``Utah County: Trading of Emission Budgets for Transportation Conformity.'' In addition on January 12, 2015, the Utah Division of Air Quality (UDAQ) made the proposed TSD available for public comment and extended the Rule R307-311 public comment period to February 12, 2015. EPA notes that included with the state's administrative documentation for this SIP and Rule revision was a letter memorandum, DAQ-010-15 dated February 19, 2015, from Bryce Bird, Director, UDAQ to the UAQB. This letter memorandum indicated that a public comment period was held from January 1, 2015 through February 12, 2015 regarding the proposed Rule R307-311 SIP revisions. The UDAQ February 19, 2015 letter memorandum noted that no public comments were received on the proposed rule R307- 311, but that EPA did comment on the TSD. UDAQ summarized and responded to EPA's comments in its February 19, 2015 letter memorandum to the UAQB. In addition, UDAQ noted that no public hearings were requested. In consideration of the February 19, 2015 UDAQ letter memorandum, the UAQB subsequently adopted the proposed Rule R307-311, and a revised TSD, on March 4, 2015. The SIP Rule revision became state effective on March 5, 2015 and was submitted by the Governor to EPA by a letter dated March 9, 2015. By a subsequent letter dated March 11, 2015, Bryce Bird, Director, UDAQ submitted the necessary administrative documentation that supported the Governor's submittal. We have evaluated Utah's March 9, 2015 SIP submittal and the March 11, 2015 submitted administrative documentation and have determined that the state met the requirements for reasonable notice and public hearing under section 110(a)(2) of the CAA. By a letter dated March 24, 2015, we advised the state that the SIP submittal was complete under section 110(k)(1)(B) of the Act, because the submittal met the minimum ``completeness'' criteria found in 40 CFR part 51, Appendix V. IV. EPA's Evaluation of Utah Rule R307-311 (a) Background and Purpose Transportation conformity is required by section 176 of the CAA to ensure that federally supported highway and transit project activities are consistent with (``conform to'') the purpose of a SIP. Conformity to the purpose of the SIP means that transportation activities will not cause new air quality violations, worsen existing violations, or delay timely attainment of the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). EPA's transportation conformity rule establishes the criteria and procedures for determining whether transportation activities conform to the state air quality plan. One key provision of EPA's transportation conformity rule (see 40 CFR part 93, subpart A) requires a demonstration that emissions from the RTP and TIP are consistent with the MVEB in the applicable SIP (40 CFR 93.118 and 93.124). The transportation conformity MVEB is defined as the level of on-road mobile source emissions relied upon in the SIP to attain or maintain compliance with the NAAQS in the nonattainment or maintenance area. In this particular instance, the NAAQS involved is PM10 , the nonattainment area is Utah County, the [[Page 28195]] MVEBs involve direct emissions of PM10 and NOX , the latter as a precursor to the formation of PM10 , and the applicable SIP is the EPA-approved Utah PM10 attainment plan, as updated on December 23, 2002 (67 FR 78181). The approved PM10 attainment plan contains (among other things) an attainment demonstration for Utah County that sets PM10 and NOX MVEBs. Transportation conformity is demonstrated when future year's projected on-road mobile source's emissions, for a particular pollutant or precursor, are estimated to be at or below the on-road motor vehicle's emissions budget for that pollutant or precursor in the applicable SIP. For the PM10 NAAQS for Utah County, conformity must be demonstrated separately for the PM10 and NOX MVEBs established in the Utah County PM10 attainment demonstration. However, emissions can be traded between the PM10 and NOX budgets if there is an approved rule in the SIP that establishes appropriate mechanisms for such trades. See 40 CFR 93.124(b). Currently, the Utah SIP does not contain an approved rule that establishes an appropriate mechanism for trading of emissions between the PM10 and NOX MVEBs for Utah County. The EPA notes, however, that we previously approved a Utah Rule (R307-310) that allows trading of emissions between the PM10 and NOX MVEBs for another PM10 nonattainment area in Utah, Salt Lake County. 67 FR 44065 (July 1, 2002). For Utah County, the state has developed a new Rule R307-311, very similar to that for Salt Lake County, which establishes an on-road mobile source emissions trading mechanism that; (1) involves only PM10 and NOX MVEBs from the PM10 attainment demonstration SIP, (2) allows trading in only one direction from the PM10 budget to the NOX budget on a one-to-one basis, (3) applies only to transportation conformity determinations in Utah County in conjunction with the PM10 attainment demonstration SIP, and (4) is pursuant to 40 CFR part 93, subpart A. (b) Utah Rule R307-311 Description An overview of all portions of the state's new Rule R307-311 is provided below: 1. R307-311 is entitled ``Utah County: Trading of Emission Budgets for Transportation Conformity.'' 2. R307-311-1 ``Purpose.'' The stated purpose of this new rule is: This rule establishes the procedures that may be used to trade a portion of the primary PM10 budget when demonstrating that a transportation plan, transportation improvement program, or project conforms with the motor vehicle emissions budgets in the Utah County portion of Section IX, Part A of the State Implementation Plan, ``Fine Particulate Matter (PM10 ). 3. R307-311-2. ``Definitions.'' This section provides applicable definitions: The definitions contained in 40 CFR 93.101, effective as of the date referenced in R307-101-3,\1\ are incorporated into this rule by reference. The following additional definitions apply to this rule. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ R307-101-3 is approved into the Utah SIP and reflects a date of July 1, 2013 for incorporation by reference of federal rules. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ``Budget'' means the motor vehicle emission projections used in the attainment demonstration in the Utah County portion of Section IX, Part A of the State Implementation Plan, ``Fine Particulate Matter (PM10 ). ``NOX '' means oxides of nitrogen. ``Primary PM10 '' means PM10 that is emitted directly by a source. Primary PM10 does not include particulate matter that is formed when gaseous emissions undergo chemical reactions in the ambient air. ``Transportation Conformity'' means a demonstration that a transportation plan, transportation improvement program, or project conforms with the emissions budgets in a state implementation plan, as outlined in 40 CFR, Chapter 1, Part 93; \2\ Determining Conformity of Federal Actions to State or Federal Implementation Plans. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \2\ EPA notes this is applicable to projects not from a conforming RTP and TIP which must conform with the MVEBs. This clarification is only for those projects, and not projects from a conforming RTP and TIP. See 40 CFR 93.109(b) and 40 CFR 93.115(a). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4. R307-311-3. ``Applicability''. This portion of the rule defines its applicability. EPA notes that this rule may only be applied to Utah County and only for PM10 : (A) This rule applies to agencies responsible for demonstrating transportation conformity with the Utah County portion of Section IX, Part A of the State Implementation Plan, ``Fine Particulate Matter (PM10 ). (B) This rule does not apply to emission budgets from Section IX, Part C.6 of the State Implementation Plan, ``Carbon Monoxide Maintenance Provisions. 5. R307-311-4. ``Trading Between Emission Budgets.'' This portion of the rule specifies the trading mechanism and provides the trading ratio of NOX and PM10 . In our section V below, EPA evaluates the technical justification provided in the TSD for the trading ratio. In this section, we find that the rule language establishes an appropriate trading mechanism for the Utah County NOX and PM10 motor vehicle emission budgets: The agencies responsible for demonstrating transportation conformity are authorized to supplement the budget for NOX with a portion of the budget for primary PM10 for the purpose of demonstrating transportation conformity for NOX . The NOX budget shall be supplemented using the following procedures. (a) The metropolitan planning organization shall include the following information in the transportation conformity demonstration: (i) The budget for primary PM10 and NOX for each required year of the conformity demonstration, before trading allowed by this rule has been applied; (ii) The portion of the primary PM10 budget that will be used to supplement the NOX budget, specified in tons per day using a 1:1 ratio of primary PM10 to NOX , for each required year of the conformity demonstration; (iii) The remainder of the primary PM10 budget that will be used in the conformity demonstration for primary PM10 , specified in tons per day for each required year of the conformity demonstration; and (iv) The budget for primary PM10 and NOX for each required year of the conformity demonstration after the trading allowed by this rule has been applied. (b) Transportation conformity for NOX shall be demonstrated using the NOX budget supplemented by a portion of the primary PM10 budget as described in (a)(ii). Transportation conformity for primary PM10 shall be demonstrated using the remainder of the primary PM10 budget described in (a)(iii). (c) The primary PM10 budget shall not be supplemented by using a portion of the NOX budget. V. EPA's Evaluation of the Technical Support Document for R307-311 The Governor's SIP revision submittal provided a TSD to support the new Rule R307-311 and address MVEB trading, as contemplated by 40 CFR 93.124(b), for PM10 and NOX in Utah County. a. Description PM10 is particulate matter with diameters smaller than 10 micrometers. PM10 consists of solid and/or liquid particles of; (1) primary particles that are directly emitted particulate matter (PM) or PM that quickly condenses upon release, and (2) secondary particles which are PM that is formed in the atmosphere from gaseous [[Page 28196]] precursors. Important gaseous precursors to PM include sulfur dioxide (SO2 ) which converts to sulfate (SO4 ) particles, NOX which converts to nitrate (NO3 ) particles, volatile organic compounds (VOCs) some of which convert to secondary organic aerosols, and ammonia (NH3 ) which adds to the mass of sulfate PM and allows nitric acid to convert to PM10 in the form of ammonium nitrate. Currently in Utah County, the RTP and TIP must demonstrate conformity to the MVEBs for PM10 and NOX that were derived from the 2002 EPA-approved PM10 attainment demonstration SIP (see 67 FR 78181, December 23, 2002). Since the regulatory goal is to achieve and maintain attainment of the NAAQS and conformity related to total PM10 , not individual components, it should not matter in the conformity analysis whether PM10 consists of directly emitted (primary) PM10 or secondary nitrate PM10 formed in the atmosphere from precursor NOX gas emissions, provided the MVEBs for PM10 and NOX are consistent with the SIP's demonstration of attainment. The state's TSD outlines the scientific rationale for why excess NOX motor vehicle emissions (above the NOX MVEB level) can be offset, on a 1 to 1 basis, with available motor vehicle PM10 emissions (below the PM10 MVEB level). The State's TSD explains why the provisions of Rule R307-311 are considered conservative (i.e., protective of the environment) in that the Rule only allows a one-way direction trading of the MVEBs and a trading ratio of only 1 to 1. b. What fraction of the NOX emissions in Utah County convert to PM10 ? The state's TSD describes how each ton of gaseous NOX that gets converted to PM10 creates more than a ton of PM10 because the molecular weight of ammonium nitrate PM10 is greater than the molecular weight of NOX gaseous emissions. Considering the ratio of the molecular weights of the NOX precursor gas and the resulting ammonium nitrate aerosol (PM10 ), the state notes that a ton of NOX that is converted from a gas to a particle can form as much as 1.74 tons of PM10 . However, not all NOX emissions are converted because it takes time to convert NOX to nitric acid (HNO3 ), which is the necessary gaseous precursor to ammonium nitrate PM10. These reactions generally occur at rates of 1 to 10 percent per hour. It would take approximately at least 10 hours to fully convert to nitric acid. After this initial conversion, only a fraction of the gaseous nitric acid will condense as ammonium nitrate PM10 , depending on equilibrium considerations. Finally, during the gas-to-particle conversion process, deposition will remove a significant amount of material. Throughout this process of NOX conversion to nitric acid, and then to PM10 and deposition, an equivalent amount of directly emitted PM10 is having a much larger effect on the PM10 concentration. Directly emitted PM10 has an effect on the ambient concentration immediately upon its release, while NOX emissions require hours to have an effect. From a historical perspective, the conversion of NOX to PM10 has been discussed at EPA since at least 1996. In our 1996 proposed rule to revise the regulations for the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and nonattainment New Source Review (NSR) programs, we discussed a proposed approach for interpollutant trading for PM10 offsets in the nonattainment NSR program: The conversion process may depend on several variables, including the availability of chemical reactants in the atmosphere for the conversion process, and the difference in mass between the PM10 precursor molecule and the PM10 particle that the precursor reacts to become. Another concern is that the rate of conversion of the precursor to PM10 may be so long that the precursor may not entirely convert to PM10 within the same nonattainment area. Thus, there would be less counteracting effect and no net improvement to air quality in the area. Under the EPA's proposal, a source of a PM10 precursor may offset its increased emissions with the same precursor type or PM10 (or a combination of the two). In this situation, a net improvement in air quality would be assured. At this point, however, the EPA is not proposing to allow offsetting among different types of PM10 precursors, or offsetting PM10 increases with reduction in PM10 precursors, because the Agency does not now have a scientific basis to propose conversion factors. (61 FR 38305, July 23, 1996). These statements were cited in our 2002 proposed approval of the MVEB trading rule (R307-310) for Salt Lake County. 67 FR 21609 (May 1, 2002). However, EPA has more recently issued guidance on interpollutant trading provisions for fine particulate matter (PM2.5 ) for offsets under the nonattainment NSR program. The guidance memorandum is entitled ``Revised Policy to Address Reconsideration of Interpollutant Trading Provisions for Fine Particles (PM2.5 )'' and is dated July 21, 2011 (hereafter referred to as ``Revised 2011 Trading Policy''). The Revised 2011 Trading Policy states in part (page 3, fourth paragraph) that ``. . . states will be expected to develop separate PM2.5 precursor offset ratios that are demonstrated to be suitable for addressing the particular precursor's relationship with ambient PM2.5 concentrations for 24-hour averaging periods that are causing violations in that nonattainment area.'' And on page 4, first paragraph; ``. . . each ratio will need to be supported by modeling or other technical demonstration to show that such ratio is suitable for the particular PM2.5 nonattainment area of concern . . .'' Our Revised 2011 Trading Policy provides a general framework for such efforts, involving the following steps: 1. Definition of the appropriate geographical area. 2. Sensitivity runs with appropriate air quality models. 3. Calculation of interpollutant ratios. 4. Quality assurance of the results. To support Utah's rule R307-311, the UDAQ applied the above methodology to the Utah County 24-hour PM10 NAAQS nonattainment area. Although the Revised 2011 Trading Policy is specific to PM2.5 and nonattainment NSR offsets, and is nonbinding guidance, in this action we consider that the recommendations in the Revised 2011 Trading Policy provide a suitable approach for a technical demonstration that the trading ratio for Utah County for the PM10 and NOX MVEBs is appropriate under 40 CFR 93.124(b). The UDAQ states in the TSD that exceedances of the PM10 24-hour NAAQS in Utah County are characterized by spikes in secondary aerosol formation under conditions of wintertime temperature inversions which prevent good atmospheric mixing and facilitate conversion of secondary PM10 . The UDAQ also states that a high percentage of the PM10 monitored in Utah County, during winter episodes of elevated concentration, lies also within the PM2.5 fraction. EPA also notes that the 2002 Utah County PM10 SIP revision identified both NOX and SO2 as precursors to the formation of PM10 . The TSD for Rule R307-311 identifies that parts of Utah County (the valley regions, western area of the County) are also designated as nonattainment for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS (74 FR 58688, November 13, 2009). To meet the requirements set out in subparts 1 and 4 of Part D, title I of the CAA, the UDAQ developed a moderate area attainment plan for Utah County that (among other things) contained a demonstration that attainment of the 24-hour PM2.5 standards by the applicable attainment date for moderate areas, December 31, 2015, is impracticable (hereafter ``PM2.5 Impracticability Demonstration''). This [[Page 28197]] attainment plan was submitted by the Governor to EPA on December 16, 2014. The air quality modeling for the PM2.5 Impracticability Demonstration was conducted by UDAQ using the Community Multi-Scale Air Quality model (CMAQ). CMAQ is also capable of determining the relative importance of NOX and PM10 in contributing to PM10 nonattainment. The emission inventories that were developed by UDAQ for the Utah County PM2.5 Impracticability Demonstration included PM2.5 , SO2 , NOX , VOC, Ammonia and PM10 .\3\ As PM10 was inventoried for the PM2.5 Impracticability Demonstration, this allowed CMAQ model sensitivity runs to be made for the purpose of evaluating and supporting the MVEB trading provisions in Rule R307-311. The UDAQ's methodology employed the CMAQ model, as developed for Utah County, with a substitution of PM10 emissions for PM2.5 . The UDAQ also notes in the Rule R307-311 TSD that the CMAQ model was re- validated with respect to PM10 emissions data from the appropriate episode period prior to making the sensitivity runs (refer to Appendix A of the TSD). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \3\ We are not acting today on any portion of the state's December 16, 2014 submittal, including the PM2.5 Impracticability Demonstration and the emission inventories. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Having made these adjustments to the CMAQ model, UDAQ ran the model to generate a time-series plot (refer to Appendix A of the TSD). The UDAQ determined that the ratio of NOX to PM10 equivalence was 5.702 to one. Since this ratio is considerably greater than 1:1, the UDAQ concluded that reducing primary PM10 is more beneficial than reducing NOX for improving Utah County's air quality with respect to PM10 . The EPA has evaluated this additional sensitivity modeling information and has concluded that it provides an adequate technical demonstration to support the MVEB trading provisions in Rule R307-311. Based on the demonstration, we also conclude that Rule R307-311 establishes an appropriate trading ratio, and that under Rule R307-311, there will not be adverse impacts to the overall ambient 24-hour PM10 concentrations within Utah County. With regard to ambient 24-hour PM10 concentrations within Utah County, we have also evaluated the current (state- certified) 2011 through 2013 PM10 ambient air quality monitoring data for Utah County in EPA's Air Quality System (AQS), EPA's repository for the Nation's ambient air quality data. EPA's guidance for the calculation of 24-hour PM10 design value concentrations provide four techniques.\4\ Our guidance's ``Table Lookup'' method shows a 2011 through 2013 PM10 design value concentration as 149[mu]m\3\ at the North Provo monitor and 124[mu]m\3\ at the Lindon monitor. These values, however, contain certain data quality issues such as missing days of monitoring data and zero reading days. We believe that if the statistical method from our guidance, ``Using the empirical frequency distribution of several years of the data (graphical estimation),'' is used, in this particular case it provides a more accurate representation of the monitoring data.\5\ When using this statistical/graphic approach, the North Provo monitor then has a 2011 through 2013 PM10 design value concentration of 133.5 [micro]m\3\ and the Lindon monitor has a 2011 through 2013 design value concentration of 118.7 [micro]m\3\. However, EPA notes that regardless of the methodology used, Utah County continues to demonstrate attainment of the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \4\ PM10 SIP Development Guideline, EPA-450/2-86-001, June 1987, section 6.3; pages 6-3 through 6-8. The cited portions of this guidance are available in the docket for this action; the entire document is available online at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/caaa/t1/memoranda/pm10sip_dev_guide.pdf. \5\ Memorandum to File entitled ``Utah PM10 24-hour Design Concentrations,'' Richard M. Payton, USEPA Region 8, dated April 22, 2015. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- c. Impact of the PM10 and NOX MVEB Trading Rule on Other Pollutants; EPA's Evaluation of Utah's Information Regarding the Provisions of Section 110(1) of the Clean Air Act Section 110(1) of the CAA states that a SIP revision cannot be approved if the revision would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress towards attainment of a NAAQS or any other applicable requirement of the CAA. EPA's evaluation above shows that this SIP revision will not interfere with attainment of the PM10 NAAQS. In addition to being a designated nonattainment area for PM10 , Utah County is also designated as nonattainment for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. The city of Provo, in Utah County, is designated as an attainment/maintenance area for carbon monoxide (CO). These criteria pollutants, along with the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS and the 1-hour nitrogen dioxide (NO2 ) NAAQS, were evaluated by the state in the TSD for potential collateral impacts from the implementation of the provisions of Rule R307-311. 1. PM2.5 As discussed above, part of Utah County (the western portion) was designated by EPA as nonattainment for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS (74 FR 58688, November 13, 2009), and on December 16, 2014, the state submitted an attainment plan containing, among other things, the PM2.5 Impracticability Demonstration. As with PM10 (described above), UDAQ performed sensitivity runs using the CMAQ modeling information that was developed for the PM2.5 Impracticability Demonstration. This modeling exercise was performed in order to determine an equivalence ratio between NOX and PM2.5 . The resulting ratio of NOX to PM2.5 was determined by the UDAQ to be 13.09 to 1.0. Similar to the result for PM10 , the ratio is greater than one to one, and illustrates that reducing primary PM2.5 is more beneficial than reducing the same quantity of NOX . However, Rule R307-311 provides for reductions in PM10 , and generally speaking, a reduction in PM10 is not necessarily a reduction in PM2.5 . So that the above PM2.5 to NOX ratio could support a determination that Rule R307-311 would not have an adverse impact on overall PM2.5 concentrations in Utah County, the UDAQ considered the physical make-up of PM10 emissions from on-road mobile sources in Utah County. The following table, presenting information from the TSD, considers PM emissions as they were inventoried for calendar year 2015 in the PM2.5 Impracticability Demonstration for the Utah County PM2.5 nonattainment area: Table 1--Utah County; On-Road Mobile Source Emissions [In tons per day in 2015] ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PM10 PM2.5 %PM2.5 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Road Dust....................................................... 3.95 0.99 25.1 [[Page 28198]] Direct PM....................................................... 1.84 1.38 75.0 ----------------------------------------------- Total....................................................... 5.79 2.37 40.9 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- As derived from the state's information and as presented in Table 1 above, for every ton of PM10 emissions due to on-road mobile sources, 0.409 tons would be composed of PM2.5 . The provisions of Rule R307-311 would allow a one-ton increase in NOX emissions that would be offset by a one-ton decrease in the PM10 emissions. Based on the information in the above table, the state concluded that a one-ton increase in NOX emissions would be offset by a 0.409-ton decrease in PM2.5 emissions. To illustrate, using the 1:0.409 ratio and the equivalence ratio of 13.09:1 for NOX to PM2.5 , a 13 ton increase in NOX emissions would equal a 1 ton increase of PM2.5 emissions. However, applying the 1 to 1 trading ratio with PM10 would then require a 13 ton PM10 emissions decrease which is a 5.3 ton (13 x 0.409) PM2.5 emissions decrease. This example results in a net 4.3 ton decrease in PM2.5 emissions. Based on this 1:0.409 ratio and the equivalence ratio of 13.09:1 for NOX to PM2.5 , the EPA can, therefore, agree with the state and conclude that Rule R307-311, with its requirements to allow the trading of the PM10 budget to the NOX budget in one direction only at a ratio of 1:1, would not have an adverse impact on overall ambient 24-hour PM2.5 concentrations within Utah County. The EPA notes that additional supporting information was provided in the PM2.5 Impracticability Demonstration as it included an emission inventory of NOX emissions for calendar year 2015. The PM2.5 Impracticability Demonstration notes that on-road mobile sources in Utah County are expected to account for 21.48 tons per winter weekday in 2015. The on-road mobile sources emissions were calculated using EPA's Motor Vehicle Emission Simulator (MOVES) model and the MOVES2010a version. This estimate is greater than the combined sum of the 2020 MVEBs for both PM10 and NOX contained in the EPA-approved 2002 SIP revision. To demonstrate, even if the entire PM10 MVEB was traded to increase the NOX MVEB as a result of the application of Rule R307-311, the resulting total NOX emissions would still be less than the 2015 estimated NOX emissions contained in the PM2.5 Impracticability Demonstration. 2. Carbon Monoxide (CO) As noted previously, the Provo-Orem area is a CO attainment/ maintenance area (70 FR 66264, November 2, 2005). EPA notes that NOX emissions do not act as a precursor to carbon monoxide; therefore, EPA has concluded that the application of the provisions of R307-311 will not impact the Provo-Orem CO maintenance plan or attainment of the CO NAAQS. The state notes in the Rule R307-311 TSD that CO maintenance plan has its own CO MVEB which has been set at a level demonstrated to keep the Provo-Orem area in attainment with the CO standard. The provisions of Rule R307-311 do not change the maintenance plan's CO MVEB. For purposes of completeness, the state provided recent CO ambient air quality monitoring data in the Rule R307-311 TSD. These data have been excerpted by EPA and are provided in the table below: Table 2--CO 1-Hour and CO 8-Hour Design Values ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Year Annual CO NAAQS (1-hour, 35 ppm) 8-hour CO NAAQS (9 ppm) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Monitor location: North Provo: North Provo: 2011................................. 3.2 ppm............................. 2.1 ppm 2012................................. 2.8 ppm............................. 1.9 ppm 2013................................. 2.9 ppm............................. 2.0 ppm Preliminary 2014..................... 2.8 ppm............................. 1.9 ppm ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- As can be seen in Table 2 above, the Provo area continues to demonstrate compliance with both the CO Annual and CO 8-hour NAAQS. 3. Ozone The EPA notes that NOX emissions are a precursor to the formation of ground level ozone, PM2.5 , and PM10 . With regard to ozone, we also note that Utah County has never been designated as nonattainment for any applicable ozone NAAQS. The current, applicable ozone NAAQS is the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS and Utah County was designated by EPA as unclassifiable/attainment for that NAAQS (77 FR 30088, May 21, 2012). Thus, the state has not had to develop an ozone attainment plan or maintenance plan for Utah County. To assess the potential impacts to Utah County's continued attainment of the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS, EPA considered ozone ambient air quality monitoring data for Utah County and predicted future-year NOX emission reductions from motor vehicles. The state provided recent ozone air quality monitoring data in the Rule R307-311 TSD. EPA has excerpted that information from the TSD and presents those data in Table 3 below: [[Page 28199]] Table 3--8-Hour Ozone Design Values (DV) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8-hour ozone DV (NAAQS = 75 8-hour ozone DV (NAAQS = 75 Year Monitor location ppb) Monitor location ppb) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2011........................... North Provo.................. 67.7 ppb.................... Spanish Fork................ 68.0 ppb 2012........................... North Provo.................. 70.7 ppb.................... Spanish Fork................ 70.3 ppb 2013........................... North Provo.................. 73.0 ppb.................... Spanish Fork................ 70.3 ppb 2014 (Preliminary)............. North Provo.................. 73.0 ppb.................... Spanish Fork................ 71.7 ppb -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- As can be seen in Table 3 above, Utah County continues to demonstrate compliance with 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The provisions of Rule R307-311 would allow for an increase in the Utah County PM10 SIP's NOX MVEB. However, EPA believes that regardless of this potential increase in the NOX MVEB, overall future NOX emissions from mobile sources will significantly decrease not only in Utah County, but in the nation as a whole. On April 28, 2014, we published a final rule adopting new Tier 3 emission standards and fuel requirements for motor vehicles and for motor vehicle fuels (79 FR 23414). Our April 28, 2014 final rule included new Tier 3 emission standards to reduce exhaust and evaporative emissions from light-duty vehicles, light-duty trucks, and heavy-duty vehicles up to 14,000 pounds Gross Vehicle Weight Rating. In addition, the final rule specified corresponding changes to in-use fuel requirements. The motor vehicle tailpipe standards include different phase-in schedules that vary by vehicle class, but generally phase-in between model years 2017 to 2021 for light duty vehicles and up to 2025 for heavy duty vehicles. The vehicle emission standards combined with the reduction of gasoline sulfur content, which allows both current and new vehicle emission control systems to function at a higher pollutant removal efficiently, will significantly reduce motor vehicle emissions of NOX , VOCs, direct PM2.5 , CO and air toxics. Compared to current vehicle and fuel standards, the non-methane organic gases (NMOG) and NOX , presented as NMOG+NOX , Tier 3 tailpipe standards for light-duty vehicles are estimated to show an approximately 80% reduction from today's fleet average. As both NOX and VOCs contribute to the formation of ground level ozone and secondary PM2.5 , the EPA notes that these vehicle emission reductions will have a positive impact on all areas of the nation including Utah County. Additionally, we expect to see associated downward trends of CO, ozone, PM2.5 and PM10 concentrations that will reflect the implementation of these fuel/ vehicle emission improvements. Based on these expected reductions in motor vehicle emissions of NOX , along with the monitoring data showing that Utah County is currently attaining the 2008 ozone NAAQS, we conclude that Rule R307-311 will not interfere with attainment of the ozone NAAQS. 4. NO2 The EPA notes that NOX emissions, which contain NO2 , are a precursor to the formation of ground level ozone, PM2.5 , and PM10 . We also note that Utah County was designated as unclassifiable/attainment for the new, more stringent, 2010 1-hour NO2 NAAQS (77 FR 9532, February 17, 2012). To assess the potential impacts to Utah County's continued attainment of the 2010 1-hour NO2 NAAQS, as that version of the NO2 NAAQS is more constraining, EPA considered NO2 ambient air quality monitoring data for Utah County. The state provided recent NO2 air quality monitoring data in the Rule R307-311 TSD. EPA has excerpted that information from the TSD and presents those data in Table 4 below: Table 4--NO2 1-Hour Design Values ------------------------------------------------------------------------ NO2 NAAQS (DV 1-hour 100 Year ppb) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Monitor location: North Provo: 2011.................................... 54.7 ppb 2012.................................... 58.0 ppb 2013.................................... 66.3 ppb Preliminary 2014........................ 68.3 ppb ------------------------------------------------------------------------ As can be seen in Table 4 above, Utah County continues to demonstrate compliance with 2010 1-hour NO2 NAAQS with values well below the level of the NAAQS. We, therefore, conclude that Rule R307-311 will not interfere with attainment of the 1-hour NO2 NAAQS. d. Conclusion On the basis of the above EPA analyses, we have concluded that using a portion of the Utah County PM10 SIP's PM10 MVEB to offset or compensate for excess on-road mobile sources NOX emissions, on a one-to-one basis and in one direction only, continues to demonstrate attainment of the PM10 NAAQS and is conservative and justifiable. In addition, based on the information in the Rule R307-311 TSD, and as supplemented by information prepared by EPA, we have concluded that with the implementation of the provisions in Rule R307-311 there will not be adverse effects to the CO, PM2.5 , 8-hour ozone, and NO2 1-hour NAAQS. These statements are with respect to the implementation of the provisions of Rule R307-311 by MAG when MAG performs a transportation conformity determination for its RTP and/or TIP. VI. Consideration of Section 110(l) of the Clean Air Act Section 110(l) of the CAA states that a SIP revision cannot be approved if the revision would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress towards attainment of a NAAQS or any other applicable requirement of the CAA. In view of the state's rule language for its new Rule R307- 311, our analyses presented above in section ``V. EPA's Evaluation of the Technical Support Document for R307-311'' with respect to PM10 , PM2.5 , ozone and NO2 , and the fact that NOX has less impact on a per ton basis than primary PM10 emissions in Utah County, we have concluded there will be a net benefit on ambient air concentrations of PM10 when excess NOX emissions are offset on a one to one basis. Therefore, implementation of the provisions of Rule R307-311 will allow the continued demonstration of attainment of the PM10 NAAQS in Utah County and is conservative and justifiable. We have also concluded there will be no adverse impact on any other NAAQS or applicable requirement of the CAA. Therefore, our approval of the State's Rule R307-311 is consistent with section 110(l) of the CAA. VII. Final Action The EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal because the Agency views the Governor of Utah's March 9, 2015 submitted SIP revisions for Utah's Rule R307-311 and the Rule's associated TSD as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipates no adverse [[Page 28200]] comments. However, in the Proposed Rules section of today's Federal Register publication, EPA is publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposal to approve the SIP revision if adverse comments are filed. This rule will be effective July 17, 2015 without further notice unless the Agency receives adverse comments by June 17, 2015. If the EPA receives adverse comments, the EPA will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the public that the rule will not take effect. The EPA will address all public comments in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. The EPA will not institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time. Please note that if the EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, the EPA may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment. VIII. 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 the Utah SIP materials and rules described in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth below. 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 rule's preamble for more information). IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq). Because this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it 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). 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). This action also does not have Federalism implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely approves a state rule implementing a Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 ``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it approves a state rule implementing a Federal standard. In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the state to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission; to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq). 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. EPA will submit a report containing this rule 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). Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by July 17, 2015. 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. Parties with objections to this direct final rule are encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel notice of proposed rulemaking for this action published in the proposed rules section of today's Federal Register, rather than file an immediate petition for judicial review of this direct final rule, so that EPA can withdraw this direct final rule and address the comment in the proposed rulemaking. 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, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, and Volatile organic compounds. Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. Dated: May 1, 2015. Shaun L. McGrath, Regional Administrator, Region 8. 40 CFR part 52 is amended to read as follows: PART 52 [AMENDED] 0 1. The authority citation for Part 52 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. Subpart TT--Utah 0 2. Section 52.2320 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(79) to read as follows: [[Page 28201]] Sec. 52.2320 Identification of plan. * * * * * (c) * * * (79) Revisions to the Utah State Implementation Plan involving Utah Rule R307-311; Utah County: Trading of Emission Budgets for Transportation Conformity. The Utah Air Quality Board adopted this SIP revision on March 4, 2015, it became state effective on March 5, 2015, and was submitted by the Governor to EPA by a letter dated March 9, 2015. (i) Incorporation by reference. (A) Utah Rules R307, Environmental Quality, Air Quality, R307-311, Utah County: Trading of Emission Budgets for Transportation Conformity. Effective March 5, 2015, as proposed in the Utah State Bulletin on January 1, 2015 and published on April 1, 2015 as effective. [FR Doc. 2015-11784 Filed 5-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
![Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 95 / Monday, May 18, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 28193
(ii) After the season, provide written ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION should be made for deliveries of boxed
documentation of required evaluation AGENCY information.
information to the Federal fishery Instructions: Direct your comments to
manager including, but not limited to, 40 CFR Part 52 Docket ID No. EPA–R08–OAR–2015–
persons or households operating the [EPA–R08–OAR–2015–0227; FRL–9927–68– 0227. EPA’s policy is that all comments
gear, hours of operation, and number of Region 8] received will be included in the public
each species caught and retained or docket without change and may be
released. Approval and Promulgation of Air made available online at http://
(3) The gillnet owner (organization) Quality Implementation Plans; State of www.regulations.gov, including any
may operate the net for subsistence Utah; Utah County—Trading of Motor personal information provided, unless
purposes on behalf of residents of Vehicle Emission Budgets for PM10 the comment includes information
Ninilchik by requesting a subsistence Transportation Conformity claimed to be Confidential Business
fishing permit that: Information (CBI) or other information
(i) Identifies a person who will be AGENCY: Environmental Protection
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
responsible for fishing the gillnet; Agency.
Do not submit information that you
(ii) Includes provisions for recording ACTION: Direct final rule.
consider to be CBI or otherwise
daily catches, the household to whom protected through http://
the catch was given, and other SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is taking direct final www.regulations.gov or email. The
information determined to be necessary http://www.regulations.gov Web site is
for effective resource management by action to approve a State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revision an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which
the Federal fishery manager. means EPA will not know your identity
(4) Fishing will be allowed from June submitted by the State of Utah. On
March 9, 2015, the Governor of Utah or contact information unless you
15 through August 15 on the Kenai
submitted a revision to the Utah SIP, provide it in the body of your comment.
River unless closed or otherwise
adding a new rule regarding trading of If you send an email comment directly
restricted by Federal special action.
motor vehicle emission budgets (MVEB) to EPA, without going through http://
(5) Salmon taken in the gillnet fishery
for Utah County. The rule allows trading www.regulations.gov, your email
will be included as part of the dip net/
from the motor vehicle emissions address will be automatically captured
rod and reel fishery annual total harvest
budget for primary particulate matter of and included as part of the comment
limits for the Kenai River and as part of
10 microns or less in diameter (PM10) to that is placed in the public docket and
dip net/rod and reel household annual
the motor vehicle emissions budget for made available on the Internet. If you
limits of participating households.
(6) Fishing for each salmon species nitrogen oxides (NOX), which is a PM10 submit an electronic comment, EPA
will end and the fishery will be closed precursor. The resulting motor vehicle recommends that you include your
by Federal special action prior to emissions budgets for NOX and PM10 name and other contact information in
regulatory end dates if the annual total may then be used to demonstrate the body of your comment and with any
harvest limit for that species is reached transportation conformity with the SIP. disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA
or superseded by Federal special action. The EPA is taking this action under cannot read your comment due to
section 110 of the Clean Air Act (CAA). technical difficulties and cannot contact
* * * * * you for clarification, EPA may not be
(13) * * * DATES: This rule is effective on July 17,
(xiii) * * * 2015 without further notice, unless EPA able to consider your comment.
(E) Fishing nets must be checked at receives adverse comment by June 17, Electronic files should avoid the use of
least twice each day. The total annual 2015. If adverse comment is received, special characters, any form of
guideline harvest level for the Stikine EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of encryption, and be free of any defects or
River fishery is 125 Chinook, 600 the direct final rule in the Federal viruses. For additional instructions on
Sockeye, and 400 Coho salmon. All Register informing the public that the submitting comments, go to Section I,
salmon harvested, including rule will not take effect. General Information of the
incidentally taken salmon, will count SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
against the guideline for that species. this document.
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R08–
* * * * * OAR–2015–0227, by one of the Docket: All documents in the docket
(xx) The Klawock River drainage is following methods: are listed in the http://
closed to the use of seines and gillnets • http://www.regulations.gov. Follow www.regulations.gov index. Although
during July and August. the on-line instructions for submitting listed in the index, some information is
(xxi) The Federal public waters in the comments. not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other
Makhnati Island area, as defined in • Email: russ.tim@epa.gov information whose disclosure is
§ ll.3(b)(5) are closed to the harvest of • Fax: (303) 312–6064 (please alert restricted by statute. Certain other
herring and herring spawn except by the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER material, such as copyrighted material,
Federally qualified users. INFORMATION CONTACT if you are faxing will be publicly available only in hard
comments). copy. Publicly-available docket
Dated: April 29, 2015.
• Mail: Carl Daly, Director, Air materials are available either
Eugene R. Peltola, Jr., electronically in http://
Program, EPA, Region 8, Mailcode
Assistant Regional Director, U.S. Fish and 8P–AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Wildlife Service, Acting Chair, Federal
Colorado 80202–1129. the Air Program, EPA, Region 8,
Subsistence Board.
• Hand Delivery: Carl Daly, Director, Mailcode 8P–AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street,
Dated: April 29, 2015. Air Program, EPA, Region 8, Mailcode Denver, Colorado 80202–1129. EPA
Thomas Whitford, 8P–AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, requests that if at all possible, you
Subsistence Program Leader, USDA—Forest Colorado 80202–1129. Such deliveries contact the individual listed in the FOR
Service. are only accepted Monday through FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to
[FR Doc. 2015–11907 Filed 5–15–15; 8:45 am] Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding view the hard copy of the docket. You
BILLING CODE 3410–11–P; 4310–55–P federal holidays. Special arrangements may view the hard copy of the docket
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:45 May 15, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\18MYR1.SGM 18MYR1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_28288/page/1.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 95 / Monday, May 18, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 28197
attainment plan was submitted by the With regard to ambient 24-hour PM10 County is also designated as
Governor to EPA on December 16, 2014. concentrations within Utah County, we nonattainment for the 2006 24-hour
The air quality modeling for the PM2.5 have also evaluated the current (state- PM2.5 NAAQS. The city of Provo, in
Impracticability Demonstration was certified) 2011 through 2013 PM10 Utah County, is designated as an
conducted by UDAQ using the ambient air quality monitoring data for attainment/maintenance area for carbon
Community Multi-Scale Air Quality Utah County in EPA’s Air Quality monoxide (CO). These criteria
model (CMAQ). CMAQ is also capable System (AQS), EPA’s repository for the pollutants, along with the 2008 8-hour
of determining the relative importance Nation’s ambient air quality data. EPA’s ozone NAAQS and the 1-hour nitrogen
of NOX and PM10 in contributing to guidance for the calculation of 24-hour dioxide (NO2) NAAQS, were evaluated
PM10 nonattainment. PM10 design value concentrations by the state in the TSD for potential
The emission inventories that were provide four techniques.4 Our collateral impacts from the
developed by UDAQ for the Utah guidance’s ‘‘Table Lookup’’ method implementation of the provisions of
County PM2.5 Impracticability shows a 2011 through 2013 PM10 design Rule R307–311.
Demonstration included PM2.5, SO2, value concentration as 149mm3 at the
1. PM2.5
NOX, VOC, Ammonia and PM10.3 As North Provo monitor and 124mm3 at the
PM10 was inventoried for the PM2.5 Lindon monitor. These values, however, As discussed above, part of Utah
Impracticability Demonstration, this contain certain data quality issues such County (the western portion) was
allowed CMAQ model sensitivity runs as missing days of monitoring data and designated by EPA as nonattainment for
to be made for the purpose of evaluating zero reading days. We believe that if the the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS (74 FR
and supporting the MVEB trading statistical method from our guidance, 58688, November 13, 2009), and on
provisions in Rule R307–311. The ‘‘Using the empirical frequency December 16, 2014, the state submitted
UDAQ’s methodology employed the distribution of several years of the data an attainment plan containing, among
CMAQ model, as developed for Utah (graphical estimation),’’ is used, in this other things, the PM2.5 Impracticability
County, with a substitution of PM10 particular case it provides a more Demonstration. As with PM10 (described
emissions for PM2.5. The UDAQ also accurate representation of the above), UDAQ performed sensitivity
notes in the Rule R307–311 TSD that the monitoring data.5 When using this runs using the CMAQ modeling
CMAQ model was re-validated with statistical/graphic approach, the North information that was developed for the
respect to PM10 emissions data from the Provo monitor then has a 2011 through PM2.5 Impracticability Demonstration.
appropriate episode period prior to 2013 PM10 design value concentration of This modeling exercise was performed
making the sensitivity runs (refer to 133.5 mm3 and the Lindon monitor has in order to determine an equivalence
Appendix A of the TSD). a 2011 through 2013 design value ratio between NOX and PM2.5. The
Having made these adjustments to the concentration of 118.7 mm3. However, resulting ratio of NOX to PM2.5 was
CMAQ model, UDAQ ran the model to EPA notes that regardless of the determined by the UDAQ to be 13.09 to
generate a time-series plot (refer to methodology used, Utah County 1.0. Similar to the result for PM10, the
Appendix A of the TSD). The UDAQ continues to demonstrate attainment of ratio is greater than one to one, and
determined that the ratio of NOX to the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS. illustrates that reducing primary PM2.5
PM10 equivalence was 5.702 to one. is more beneficial than reducing the
Since this ratio is considerably greater c. Impact of the PM10 and NOX MVEB same quantity of NOX.
than 1:1, the UDAQ concluded that Trading Rule on Other Pollutants; EPA’s However, Rule R307–311 provides for
reducing primary PM10 is more Evaluation of Utah’s Information reductions in PM10, and generally
beneficial than reducing NOX for Regarding the Provisions of Section speaking, a reduction in PM10 is not
improving Utah County’s air quality 110(1) of the Clean Air Act necessarily a reduction in PM2.5. So that
with respect to PM10. The EPA has Section 110(1) of the CAA states that the above PM2.5 to NOX ratio could
evaluated this additional sensitivity a SIP revision cannot be approved if the support a determination that Rule
modeling information and has revision would interfere with any R307–311 would not have an adverse
concluded that it provides an adequate applicable requirement concerning impact on overall PM2.5 concentrations
technical demonstration to support the attainment and reasonable further in Utah County, the UDAQ considered
MVEB trading provisions in Rule R307– progress towards attainment of a the physical make-up of PM10 emissions
311. Based on the demonstration, we NAAQS or any other applicable from on-road mobile sources in Utah
also conclude that Rule R307–311 requirement of the CAA. EPA’s County. The following table, presenting
establishes an appropriate trading ratio, evaluation above shows that this SIP information from the TSD, considers PM
and that under Rule R307–311, there revision will not interfere with emissions as they were inventoried for
will not be adverse impacts to the attainment of the PM10 NAAQS. calendar year 2015 in the PM2.5
overall ambient 24-hour PM10 In addition to being a designated Impracticability Demonstration for the
concentrations within Utah County. nonattainment area for PM10, Utah Utah County PM2.5 nonattainment area:
TABLE 1—UTAH COUNTY; ON-ROAD MOBILE SOURCE EMISSIONS
[In tons per day in 2015]
PM10 PM2.5 %PM2.5
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Road Dust .................................................................................................................................... 3.95 0.99 25.1
3 We are not acting today on any portion of the 4 PM
10 SIP Development Guideline, EPA–450/2– www.epa.gov/ttn/caaa/t1/memoranda/
state’s December 16, 2014 submittal, including the 86–001, June 1987, section 6.3; pages 6–3 through pm10sip_dev_guide.pdf.
PM2.5 Impracticability Demonstration and the 6–8. The cited portions of this guidance are 5 Memorandum to File entitled ‘‘Utah PM
10 24-
emission inventories. available in the docket for this action; the entire hour Design Concentrations,’’ Richard M. Payton,
document is available online at http:// USEPA Region 8, dated April 22, 2015.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:45 May 15, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\18MYR1.SGM 18MYR1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_28288/page/5.svg)
![28198 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 95 / Monday, May 18, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 1—UTAH COUNTY; ON-ROAD MOBILE SOURCE EMISSIONS—Continued
[In tons per day in 2015]
PM10 PM2.5 %PM2.5
Direct PM ..................................................................................................................................... 1.84 1.38 75.0
Total ...................................................................................................................................... 5.79 2.37 40.9
As derived from the state’s trading of the PM10 budget to the NOX 2015 estimated NOX emissions
information and as presented in Table 1 budget in one direction only at a ratio contained in the PM2.5 Impracticability
above, for every ton of PM10 emissions of 1:1, would not have an adverse Demonstration.
due to on-road mobile sources, 0.409 impact on overall ambient 24-hour
tons would be composed of PM2.5. The PM2.5 concentrations within Utah 2. Carbon Monoxide (CO)
provisions of Rule R307–311 would County. As noted previously, the Provo-Orem
allow a one-ton increase in NOX The EPA notes that additional
area is a CO attainment/maintenance
emissions that would be offset by a one- supporting information was provided in
area (70 FR 66264, November 2, 2005).
ton decrease in the PM10 emissions. the PM2.5 Impracticability
EPA notes that NOX emissions do not
Based on the information in the above Demonstration as it included an
act as a precursor to carbon monoxide;
table, the state concluded that a one-ton emission inventory of NOX emissions
therefore, EPA has concluded that the
increase in NOX emissions would be for calendar year 2015. The PM2.5
application of the provisions of R307–
offset by a 0.409-ton decrease in PM2.5 Impracticability Demonstration notes
311 will not impact the Provo-Orem CO
emissions. To illustrate, using the that on-road mobile sources in Utah
maintenance plan or attainment of the
1:0.409 ratio and the equivalence ratio County are expected to account for
21.48 tons per winter weekday in 2015. CO NAAQS. The state notes in the Rule
of 13.09:1 for NOX to PM2.5, a 13 ton
The on-road mobile sources emissions R307–311 TSD that CO maintenance
increase in NOX emissions would equal
were calculated using EPA’s Motor plan has its own CO MVEB which has
a 1 ton increase of PM2.5 emissions.
Vehicle Emission Simulator (MOVES) been set at a level demonstrated to keep
However, applying the 1 to 1 trading
model and the MOVES2010a version. the Provo-Orem area in attainment with
ratio with PM10 would then require a 13
This estimate is greater than the the CO standard. The provisions of Rule
ton PM10 emissions decrease which is a
combined sum of the 2020 MVEBs for R307–311 do not change the
5.3 ton (13 x 0.409) PM2.5 emissions
decrease. This example results in a net both PM10 and NOX contained in the maintenance plan’s CO MVEB.
4.3 ton decrease in PM2.5 emissions. EPA-approved 2002 SIP revision. To For purposes of completeness, the
Based on this 1:0.409 ratio and the demonstrate, even if the entire PM10 state provided recent CO ambient air
equivalence ratio of 13.09:1 for NOX to MVEB was traded to increase the NOX quality monitoring data in the Rule
PM2.5, the EPA can, therefore, agree with MVEB as a result of the application of R307–311 TSD. These data have been
the state and conclude that Rule R307– Rule R307–311, the resulting total NOX excerpted by EPA and are provided in
311, with its requirements to allow the emissions would still be less than the the table below:
TABLE 2—CO 1-HOUR AND CO 8-HOUR DESIGN VALUES
Annual CO NAAQS
Year 8-hour CO NAAQS (9 ppm)
(1-hour, 35 ppm)
Monitor location: North Provo: North Provo:
2011 ......................................................... 3.2 ppm .............. 2.1 ppm
2012 ......................................................... 2.8 ppm .............. 1.9 ppm
2013 ......................................................... 2.9 ppm .............. 2.0 ppm
Preliminary 2014 ...................................... 2.8 ppm .............. 1.9 ppm
As can be seen in Table 2 above, the ozone NAAQS. The current, applicable the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS, EPA
Provo area continues to demonstrate ozone NAAQS is the 2008 8-hour ozone considered ozone ambient air quality
compliance with both the CO Annual NAAQS and Utah County was monitoring data for Utah County and
and CO 8-hour NAAQS. designated by EPA as unclassifiable/ predicted future-year NOX emission
3. Ozone attainment for that NAAQS (77 FR reductions from motor vehicles.
30088, May 21, 2012). Thus, the state The state provided recent ozone air
The EPA notes that NOX emissions has not had to develop an ozone
are a precursor to the formation of quality monitoring data in the Rule
attainment plan or maintenance plan for R307–311 TSD. EPA has excerpted that
ground level ozone, PM2.5, and PM10.
Utah County. information from the TSD and presents
With regard to ozone, we also note that
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Utah County has never been designated To assess the potential impacts to those data in Table 3 below:
as nonattainment for any applicable Utah County’s continued attainment of
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:45 May 15, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\18MYR1.SGM 18MYR1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_28288/page/6.svg)
![28200 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 95 / Monday, May 18, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
comments. However, in the Proposed under state law and does not impose copy of the rule, to each House of the
Rules section of today’s Federal any additional enforceable duty beyond Congress and to the Comptroller General
Register publication, EPA is publishing that required by state law, it does not of the United States. EPA will submit a
a separate document that will serve as contain any unfunded mandate or report containing this rule and other
the proposal to approve the SIP revision significantly or uniquely affect small required information to the U.S. Senate,
if adverse comments are filed. This rule governments, as described in the the U.S. House of Representatives, and
will be effective July 17, 2015 without Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 the Comptroller General of the United
further notice unless the Agency (Pub. L. 104–4). States prior to publication of the rule in
receives adverse comments by June 17, The SIP is not approved to apply on the Federal Register. A major rule
2015. If the EPA receives adverse any Indian reservation land or in any cannot take effect until 60 days after it
comments, the EPA will publish a other area where EPA or an Indian tribe is published in the Federal Register.
timely withdrawal in the Federal has demonstrated that a tribe has This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as
Register informing the public that the jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
rule will not take effect. The EPA will country, the rule does not have tribal Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean
address all public comments in a implications and will not impose Air Act, petitions for judicial review of
subsequent final rule based on the substantial direct costs on tribal this action must be filed in the United
proposed rule. The EPA will not governments or preempt tribal law as States Court of Appeals for the
institute a second comment period on specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 appropriate circuit by July 17, 2015.
this action. Any parties interested in FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This Filing a petition for reconsideration by
commenting must do so at this time. action also does not have Federalism the Administrator of this final rule does
Please note that if the EPA receives implications because it does not have not affect the finality of this action for
adverse comment on an amendment, substantial direct effects on the states, the purposes of judicial review nor does
paragraph, or section of this rule and if on the relationship between the national it extend the time within which a
that provision may be severed from the government and the states, or on the petition for judicial review may be filed,
remainder of the rule, the EPA may distribution of power and and shall not postpone the effectiveness
adopt as final those provisions of the responsibilities among the various of such rule or action. Parties with
rule that are not the subject of an levels of government, as specified in objections to this direct final rule are
adverse comment. Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, encouraged to file a comment in
August 10, 1999). This action merely response to the parallel notice of
VIII. Incorporation by Reference approves a state rule implementing a proposed rulemaking for this action
In this rule, the EPA is finalizing Federal standard, and does not alter the published in the proposed rules section
regulatory text that includes relationship or the distribution of power of today’s Federal Register, rather than
incorporation by reference. In and responsibilities established in the file an immediate petition for judicial
accordance with requirements of 1 CFR Clean Air Act. This rule also is not review of this direct final rule, so that
51.5, the EPA is finalizing the subject to Executive Order 13045 EPA can withdraw this direct final rule
incorporation by reference of the Utah ‘‘Protection of Children from and address the comment in the
SIP materials and rules described in the Environmental Health Risks and Safety proposed rulemaking. This action may
amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), not be challenged later in proceedings to
below. The EPA has made, and will because it approves a state rule enforce its requirements. (See CAA
continue to make, these documents implementing a Federal standard. section 307(b)(2).)
generally available electronically In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA’s
through www.regulations.gov and/or in role is to approve state choices, List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
hard copy at the appropriate EPA office provided that they meet the criteria of Environmental protection, Air
(see the ADDRESSES section of this rule’s the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
preamble for more information). absence of a prior existing requirement Incorporation by reference,
for the state to use voluntary consensus Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen
IX. Statutory and Executive Order
standards (VCS), EPA has no authority dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter,
Reviews
to disapprove a SIP submission for Reporting and recordkeeping
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR failure to use VCS. It would thus be
51735, October 4, 1993), this action is requirements, and Volatile organic
inconsistent with applicable law for compounds.
not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ and EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission;
therefore is not subject to review by the to use VCS in place of a SIP submission Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Office of Management and Budget. For that otherwise satisfies the provisions of Dated: May 1, 2015.
this reason, this action is also not the Clean Air Act. Thus, the Shaun L. McGrath,
subject to Executive Order 13211, requirements of section 12(d) of the Regional Administrator, Region 8.
‘‘Actions Concerning Regulations That National Technology Transfer and
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 40 CFR part 52 is amended to read as
Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C.
Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355, May follows:
272 note) do not apply. This rule does
22, 2001). This action merely approves not impose an information collection PART 52 [AMENDED]
state law as meeting Federal burden under the provisions of the
requirements and imposes no additional Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 ■ 1. The authority citation for Part 52
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
requirements beyond those imposed by U.S.C. 3501 et seq). continues to read as follows:
state law. Accordingly, the The Congressional Review Act, 5
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Administrator certifies that this rule U.S.C. 801 et seq, as added by the Small
will not have a significant economic Business Regulatory Enforcement Subpart TT—Utah
impact on a substantial number of small Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides
entities under the Regulatory Flexibility that before a rule may take effect, the ■ 2. Section 52.2320 is amended by
Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq). Because this agency promulgating the rule must adding paragraph (c)(79) to read as
rule approves pre-existing requirements submit a rule report, which includes a follows:
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:45 May 15, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\18MYR1.SGM 18MYR1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_28288/page/8.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 95 / Monday, May 18, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 28201
§ 52.2320 Identification of plan. Regulatory Public Docket (OPP Docket) identify docket ID number EPA–HQ–
* * * * * in the Environmental Protection Agency OPP–2012–0963 in the subject line on
(c) * * * Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William the first page of your submission. All
(79) Revisions to the Utah State Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 objections and requests for a hearing
Implementation Plan involving Utah Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC must be in writing, and must be
Rule R307–311; Utah County: Trading 20460–0001. The Public Reading Room received by the Hearing Clerk on or
of Emission Budgets for Transportation is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., before July 17, 2015. Addresses for mail
Conformity. The Utah Air Quality Board Monday through Friday, excluding legal and hand delivery of objections and
adopted this SIP revision on March 4, holidays. The telephone number for the hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR
2015, it became state effective on March Public Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, 178.25(b).
5, 2015, and was submitted by the and the telephone number for the OPP In addition to filing an objection or
Governor to EPA by a letter dated March Docket is (703) 305–5805. Please review hearing request with the Hearing Clerk
9, 2015. the visitor instructions and additional as described in 40 CFR part 178, please
(i) Incorporation by reference. information about the docket available submit a copy of the filing (excluding
(A) Utah Rules R307, Environmental at http://www.epa.gov/dockets. any Confidential Business Information
Quality, Air Quality, R307–311, Utah FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: (CBI)) for inclusion in the public docket.
County: Trading of Emission Budgets for Robert McNally, Biopesticides and Information not marked confidential
Transportation Conformity. Effective Pollution Prevention Division (7511P), pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be
March 5, 2015, as proposed in the Utah Office of Pesticide Programs, disclosed publicly by EPA without prior
State Bulletin on January 1, 2015 and Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your
published on April 1, 2015 as effective. Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, objection or hearing request, identified
DC 20460–0001; main telephone by docket ID number EPA–HQ–OPP–
[FR Doc. 2015–11784 Filed 5–15–15; 8:45 am]
number: (703) 305–7090; email address: 2012–0963, by one of the following
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
BPPDFRNotices@epa.gov. methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
I. General Information instructions for submitting comments.
AGENCY
Do not submit electronically any
A. Does this action apply to me? information you consider to be CBI or
40 CFR Part 180
You may be potentially affected by other information whose disclosure is
[EPA–HQ–OPP–2012–0963; FRL–9926–87] this action if you are an agricultural restricted by statute.
producer, food manufacturer, or • Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental
Trichoderma asperelloides strain JM41R; Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/
pesticide manufacturer. The following
Exemption From the Requirement of a DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave.
list of North American Industrial
Tolerance NW., Washington, DC 20460–0001.
Classification System (NAICS) codes is
AGENCY: Environmental Protection not intended to be exhaustive, but rather • Hand Delivery: To make special
Agency (EPA). provides a guide to help readers arrangements for hand delivery or
determine whether this document delivery of boxed information, please
ACTION: Final rule.
applies to them. Potentially affected follow the instructions at http://
SUMMARY: This regulation establishes an entities may include: www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html.
exemption from the requirement of a • Crop production (NAICS code 111). Additional instructions on commenting
tolerance for residues of Trichoderma • Animal production (NAICS code or visiting the docket, along with more
asperelloides strain JM41R in or on all 112). information about dockets generally, is
food commodities when used in • Food manufacturing (NAICS code available at http://www.epa.gov/
accordance with label directions and 311). dockets.
good agricultural practices. BASF • Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS
II. Background
Corporation submitted a petition to EPA code 32532).
under the Federal Food, Drug, and In the Federal Register of February
B. How can I get electronic access to 21, 2014 (79 FR 9870) (FRL–9904–98),
Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), requesting an other related information?
exemption from the requirement of a EPA issued a document pursuant to
tolerance. This regulation eliminates the You may access a frequently updated FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21 U.S.C.
need to establish a maximum electronic version of 40 CFR part 180 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a
permissible level for residues of through the Government Printing pesticide tolerance petition (PP 2F8102)
Trichoderma asperelloides strain JM41R Office’s e-CFR site at http:// by BASF Corporation, 26 Davis Dr.,
under FFDCA. www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text- Research Triangle Park, NC 27709. The
idx?&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title40/ petition requested that 40 CFR part 180
DATES: This regulation is effective May
40tab_02.tpl. be amended by establishing an
18, 2015. Objections and requests for
exemption from the requirement of a
hearings must be received on or before C. How can I file an objection or hearing tolerance for residues of Trichoderma
July 17, 2015, and must be filed in request? fertile strain JM41R in or on all food
accordance with the instructions Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 commodities. That document referenced
provided in 40 CFR part 178 (see also
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
U.S.C. 346a(g), any person may file an a summary of the petition prepared by
Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY objection to any aspect of this regulation the petitioner BASF Corporation, which
INFORMATION).
and may also request a hearing on those is available in the docket via http://
ADDRESSES: The docket for this action, objections. You must file your objection www.regulations.gov. There were no
identified by docket identification (ID) or request a hearing on this regulation comments received in response to the
number EPA–HQ–OPP–2012–0963, is in accordance with the instructions notice of filing.
available at http://www.regulations.gov provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure Subsequently, the petitioner provided
or at the Office of Pesticide Programs proper receipt by EPA, you must additional data (i.e., DNA sequence
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:45 May 15, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\18MYR1.SGM 18MYR1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_28288/page/9.svg)
Document Created: 2015-12-16 07:38:43
Document Modified: 2015-12-16 07:38:43
| Category | Regulatory Information | |
| Collection | Federal Register | |
| sudoc Class | AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106: | |
| Publisher | Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration | |
| Section | Rules and Regulations | |
| Action | Direct final rule. | |
| Dates | This rule is effective on July 17, 2015 without further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comment by June 17, 2015. If adverse comment is received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule in the Federal Register informing the public that the rule will not take effect. | |
| Contact | Tim Russ, Air Program, EPA, Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129, (303) 312-6479, [email protected] | |
| FR Citation | 80 FR 28193 | |
| CFR Associated | Environmental Protection; Air Pollution Control; Carbon Monoxide; Incorporation by Reference; Intergovernmental Relations; Nitrogen Dioxide; Ozone; Particulate Matter; Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements and Volatile Organic Compounds |
2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR