81 FR 24525 - Promulgation of State Implementation Plan Revisions; Infrastructure Requirements for the 2008 Lead, 2008 Ozone, 2010 NO2,
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 80 (April 26, 2016)
Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 80 (April 26, 2016)
| Page Range | 24525-24536 | |
| FR Document | 2016-09586 |
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 80 (Tuesday, April 26, 2016)] [Proposed Rules] [Pages 24525-24536] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [FR Doc No: 2016-09586] ======================================================================= ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R08-OAR-2013-0561, FRL-9945-57-Region 8] Promulgation of State Implementation Plan Revisions; Infrastructure Requirements for the 2008 Lead, 2008 Ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2 , and 2012 PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards; Utah AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve elements of State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions from the State of Utah to demonstrate the State meets infrastructure requirements of the Clean Air Act (Act or CAA) for the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) promulgated for ozone on March 12, 2008, lead (Pb) on October 15, 2008, nitrogen dioxide (NO2 ) on January 22, 2010, sulfur dioxide (SO2 ) on June 2, 2010 and fine particulate matter (PM2.5 ) on December 14, 2012. The EPA is also proposing to approve SIP revisions the State submitted regarding state boards. Section 110(a) of the CAA requires that each state submit a SIP for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of each NAAQS promulgated by the EPA. DATES: Written comments must be received on or before May 26, 2016. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R08- OAR-2013-0561 at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Abby Fulton, Air Program, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mail Code 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129, (303) 312-6563, [email protected]. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. General Information What should I consider as I prepare my comments for the EPA? 1. Submitting Confidential Business Information (CBI). Do not submit CBI to the EPA through http://www.regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information on a disk or CD ROM that you mail to the EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. 2. Tips for preparing your comments. When submitting comments, remember to:Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register volume, date, and page number); Follow directions and organize your comments; Explain why you agree or disagree; Suggest alternatives and substitute language for your requested changes; Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you used; If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced; Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and suggest alternatives; Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal threats; and, Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified. II. Background On March 12, 2008, the EPA promulgated a new NAAQS for ozone, [[Page 24526]] revising the levels of the primary and secondary 8-hour ozone standards from 0.08 parts per million (ppm) to 0.075 ppm (73 FR 16436, March 27, 2008). Subsequently, on October 15, 2008, the EPA revised the level of the primary and secondary Pb NAAQS from 1.5 micrograms per cubic meter ([mu]g/m\3\) to 0.15 [mu]g/m\3\ (73 FR 66964, Nov. 12, 2008). On January 22, 2010, the EPA promulgated a new 1-hour primary NAAQS for NO 2 at a level of 100 parts per billion (ppb) while retaining the annual standard of 53 ppb. The 2010 NO2 NAAQS is expressed as the three-year average of the 98th percentile of the annual distribution of daily maximum one-hour average concentrations. The secondary NO2 NAAQS remains unchanged at 53 ppb (75 FR 6474, Feb. 9, 2010). On June 2, 2010, the EPA promulgated a revised primary SO2 standard at 75 ppb, based on a three-year average of the annual 99th percentile of one-hour daily maximum concentrations (75 FR 35520, June 22, 2010). Finally, on December 14, 2012, the EPA promulgated a revised annual PM2.5 standard by lowering the level to 12.0 [mu]g/m\3\ and retaining the 24-hour PM2.5 standard at a level of 35 [mu]g/m\3\ (78 FR 3086, Jan. 15, 2013). Under sections 110(a)(1) and (2) of the CAA, states are required to submit infrastructure SIPs to ensure their SIPs provide for implementation, maintenance and enforcement of the NAAQS. These submissions must contain any revisions needed for meeting the applicable SIP requirements of section 110(a)(2), or certifications that their existing SIPs for PM2.5 , ozone, Pb, NO2, and SO2 already meet those requirements. The EPA highlighted this statutory requirement in an October 2, 2007, guidance document entitled ``Guidance on SIP Elements Required Under Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 1997 8-hour Ozone and PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards'' (2007 Memo). On September 25, 2009, the EPA issued an additional guidance document pertaining to the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS entitled ``Guidance on SIP Elements Required Under Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2006 24- Hour Fine Particle (PM2.5 ) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)'' (2009 Memo), followed by the October 14, 2011, ``Guidance on Infrastructure SIP Elements Required Under Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2008 Lead (Pb) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)'' (2011 Memo). Most recently, the EPA issued ``Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and (2)'' on September 13, 2013 (2013 Memo). III. What is the scope of this rulemaking? The EPA is acting upon the SIP submissions from Utah that address the infrastructure requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) for the 2008 ozone, 2008 Pb, 2010 NO2 , 2010 SO2 , and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. The requirement for states to make a SIP submission of this type arises out of CAA section 110(a)(1). Pursuant to section 110(a)(1), states must make SIP submissions ``within three years (or such shorter period as the Administrator may prescribe) after the promulgation of a national primary ambient air quality standard (or any revision thereof),'' and these SIP submissions are to provide for the ``implementation, maintenance, and enforcement'' of such NAAQS. The statute directly imposes on states the duty to make these SIP submissions, and the requirement to make the submissions is not conditioned upon the EPA taking any action other than promulgating a new or revised NAAQS. Section 110(a)(2) includes a list of specific elements that ``[e]ach such plan'' submission must address. The EPA has historically referred to these SIP submissions made for the purpose of satisfying the requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) as ``infrastructure SIP'' submissions. Although the term ``infrastructure SIP'' does not appear in the CAA, the EPA uses the term to distinguish this particular type of SIP submission from submissions that are intended to satisfy other SIP requirements under the CAA, such as ``nonattainment SIP'' or ``attainment plan SIP'' submissions to address the nonattainment planning requirements of part D of title I of the CAA; ``regional haze SIP'' submissions required by the EPA rule to address the visibility protection requirements of CAA section 169A; and nonattainment new source review (NSR) permit program submissions to address the permit requirements of CAA, title I, part D. Section 110(a)(1) addresses the timing and general requirements for infrastructure SIP submissions, and section 110(a)(2) provides more details concerning the required contents of these submissions. The list of required elements provided in section 110(a)(2) contains a wide variety of disparate provisions, some of which pertain to required legal authority, some of which pertain to required substantive program provisions, and some of which pertain to requirements for both authority and substantive program provisions.\1\ The EPA therefore believes that while the timing requirement in section 110(a)(1) is unambiguous, some of the other statutory provisions are ambiguous. In particular, the EPA believes that the list of required elements for infrastructure SIP submissions provided in section 110(a)(2) contains ambiguities concerning what is required for inclusion in an infrastructure SIP submission. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ For example: Section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) provides that states must provide assurances that they have adequate legal authority under state and local law to carry out the SIP; section 110(a)(2)(C) provides that states must have a SIP-approved program to address certain sources as required by part C of title I of the CAA; and section 110(a)(2)(G) provides that states must have legal authority to address emergencies as well as contingency plans that are triggered in the event of such emergencies. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Examples of some of these ambiguities and the context in which the EPA interprets the ambiguous portions of section 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) are discussed at length in our notice of proposed rulemaking: Promulgation of State Implementation Plan Revisions; Infrastructure Requirements for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 , 2008 Lead, 2008 Ozone, and 2010 NO2 National Ambient Air Quality Standards; South Dakota (79 FR 71040, Dec. 1, 2014) under ``III. What is the Scope of this Rulemaking?'' With respect to certain other issues, the EPA does not believe that an action on a state's infrastructure SIP submission is necessarily the appropriate type of action in which to address possible deficiencies in a state's existing SIP. These issues include: (i) Existing provisions related to excess emissions from sources during periods of startup, shutdown, or malfunction (SSM) that may be contrary to the CAA and the EPA's policies addressing such excess emissions; (ii) existing provisions related to ``director's variance'' or ``director's discretion'' that may be contrary to the CAA because they purport to allow revisions to SIP-approved emissions limits while limiting public process or not requiring further approval by the EPA; and (iii) existing provisions for Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) programs that may be inconsistent with current requirements of the EPA's ``Final NSR Improvement Rule,'' 67 FR 80186, Dec. 31, 2002, as amended by 72 FR 32526, June 13, 2007 (``NSR Reform''). IV. What infrastructure elements are required under sections 110(a)(1) and (2)? CAA section 110(a)(1) provides the procedural and timing requirements for [[Page 24527]] SIP submissions after a new or revised NAAQS is promulgated. Section 110(a)(2) lists specific elements the SIP must contain or satisfy. These infrastructure elements include requirements such as modeling, monitoring, and emissions inventories, which are designed to assure attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS. The elements that are the subject of this action are listed below.110(a)(2)(A): Emission limits and other control measures. 110(a)(2)(B): Ambient air quality monitoring/data system. 110(a)(2)(C): Program for enforcement of control measures. 110(a)(2)(D): Interstate transport. 110(a)(2)(E): Adequate resources and authority, conflict of interest, and oversight of local governments and regional agencies. 110(a)(2)(F): Stationary source monitoring and reporting. 110(a)(2)(G): Emergency powers. 110(a)(2)(H): Future SIP revisions. 110(a)(2)(J): Consultation with government officials; public notification; and PSD and visibility protection. 110(a)(2)(K): Air quality modeling/data. 110(a)(2)(L): Permitting fees. 110(a)(2)(M): Consultation/participation by affected local entities. A detailed discussion of each of these elements is contained in the next section. Two elements identified in section 110(a)(2) are not governed by the three year submission deadline of section 110(a)(1) and are therefore not addressed in this action. These elements relate to part D of Title I of the CAA, and submissions to satisfy them are not due within three years after promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, but rather are due at the same time nonattainment area plan requirements are due under section 172. The two elements are: (1) Section 110(a)(2)(C) to the extent it refers to permit programs (known as ``nonattainment NSR'') required under part D, and (2) section 110(a)(2)(I), pertaining to the nonattainment planning requirements of part D. As a result, this action does not address infrastructure elements related to the nonattainment NSR portion of section 110(a)(2)(C) or related to 110(a)(2)(I). Furthermore, the EPA interprets the CAA section 110(a)(2)(J) provision on visibility as not being triggered by a new NAAQS because the visibility requirements in part C, title 1 of the CAA are not changed by a new NAAQS. V. How did Utah address the infrastructure elements of sections 110(a)(1) and (2)? The Utah Department of Environmental Quality (Department or UDEQ) submitted certification of Utah's infrastructure SIP for the 2008 Pb NAAQS on January 19, 2012; 2008 ozone NAAQS on January 31, 2013; 2010 NO 2 NAAQS on January 31, 2013; 2010 SO2 NAAQS on June 2, 2013; and 2012 PM2.5 on December 4, 2015. Utah's infrastructure certifications demonstrate how the State, where applicable, has plans in place that meet the requirements of section 110 for the 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2 and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. These plans reference the Utah Code Annotated (UCA), Utah Administrative Code (UAC) rules, and the Utah SIP. These submittals are available within the electronic docket for today's proposed action at www.regulations.gov. The UCA, UAC, and the Utah SIP referenced in the submittals are publicly available at http://le.utah.gov/xcode/code.html, http://www.rules.utah.gov/publicat/code/r307/r307-110.htm and http://www.deq.utah.gov/Laws_Rules/daq/sip/index.htm. Air pollution control regulations and statutes that have been previously approved by the EPA and incorporated into the Utah SIP can be found at 40 CFR 52.2320. VI. Analysis of the State Submittals 1. Emission limits and other control measures: Section 110(a)(2)(A) requires SIPs to include enforceable emission limitations and other control measures, means, or techniques (including economic incentives such as fees, marketable permits, and auctions of emissions rights), as well as schedules and timetables for compliance as may be necessary or appropriate to meet the applicable requirements of this Act. The State's submissions for the 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2 , 2010 SO2 , and 2012 PM2.5 infrastructure requirements cite SIP Section I (Legal Authority) which allows the adoption of emission standards and other limits necessary for attainment and maintenance of national ambient air quality standards. SIP Section I (Legal Authority), in combination with other specific control measures adopted by the Utah Air Quality Board (AQB) and multiple SIP-approved state air quality regulations within the UAC and cited in Utah's certifications, provide enforceable emission limitations and other control measures, means of techniques, schedules for compliance, and other related matters necessary to meet the requirements of the CAA section 110(a)(2)(A) for the 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2 and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS, subject to the following clarifications. First, this infrastructure element does not require the submittal of regulations or emission limitations developed specifically for attaining the 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2 and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. Utah's certifications (contained within this docket) generally list provisions and enforceable control measures within its SIP which regulate pollutants through various programs. This includes its stationary source permit program which requires sources to demonstrate that emissions will not cause or contribute to a violation of any NAAQS. This suffices, in the case of Utah, to meet the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(A) for the 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2 , 2010 SO2 and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. Second, as previously discussed, the EPA is not proposing to approve or disapprove any existing state rules with regard to director's discretion or variance provisions. A number of states, including Utah, have such provisions which are contrary to the CAA and existing EPA guidance (52 FR 45109, Nov. 24, 1987), and the agency plans to take action in the future to address such state regulations. In the meantime, the EPA encourages any state having a director's discretion or variance provision which is contrary to the CAA and EPA guidance to take steps to correct the deficiency as soon as possible. Finally, in this action, the EPA is also not proposing to approve or disapprove any existing state provision with regard to excess emissions during SSM of operations at a facility. A number of states, including Utah, have SSM provisions which are contrary to the CAA and existing EPA guidance \2\ and the agency is addressing such state regulations separately (80 FR 33840, June 12, 2015). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \2\ Steven Herman, Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, and Robert Perciasepe, Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, Memorandum to the EPA Air Division Directors, ``State Implementation Plans (SIPs): Policy Regarding Emissions During Malfunctions, Startup, and Shutdown.'' (September 20, 1999). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Therefore, the EPA is proposing to approve Utah's infrastructure SIP for the 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2 and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS with respect to the general requirement in section 110(a)(2)(A) to include enforceable emission limitations and other control measures, means, or techniques to meet the applicable requirements of this element. [[Page 24528]] 2. Ambient air quality monitoring/data system: Section 110(a)(2)(B) requires SIPs to ``provide for establishment and operation of appropriate devices, methods, systems, and procedures necessary'' to ``(i) monitor, compile, and analyze data on ambient air quality, and (ii) upon request, make such data available to the Administrator.'' The State's submissions cite UAC rule R307-110-5, which incorporates by reference SIP Section IV (Ambient Air Monitoring Program), and provides a brief description of the purposes of the air monitoring program approved by the EPA in the early 1980s and most recently on June 25, 2003 (68 FR 37744). Utah's annual monitoring network plan (AMNP), is made available by the Department for public review and comment prior to submission to the EPA. In this action, the EPA is acting only on Utah's submittal for 2008 ozone NAAQS for CAA section 110(a)(2)(B). Utah's submittals for other pollutants will be addressed in a separate rulemaking action. Utah's 2013 AMNP for ozone was approved through a letter dated December 24, 2013 (available within the docket). Additionally, the State of Utah submits ozone data to the EPA's Air Quality System database in accordance with 40 CFR 58.16. We find that Utah's SIP and practices are adequate for the ambient air quality monitoring and data system requirements and therefore propose to approve the infrastructure SIP for the 2008 ozone NAAQS for this element. 3. Program for enforcement of control measures: Section 110(a)(2)(C) requires SIPs to ``include a program to provide for the enforcement of the measures described in subparagraph (A), and regulation of the modification and construction of any stationary source within the areas covered by the plan as necessary to assure that [NAAQS] are achieved, including a permit program as required in parts C and D.'' To generally meet the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C), the State is required to have SIP-approved PSD, nonattainment NSR, and minor NSR permitting programs that are adequate to implement the 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2 , 2010 SO2 and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. As explained elsewhere in this action, the EPA is not evaluating nonattainment related provisions, such as the nonattainment NSR program required by part D of the Act. The EPA is evaluating the State's PSD program as required by part C of the Act, and the State's minor NSR program as required by 110(a)(2)(C). Enforcement of Control Measures Requirement The State's submissions for the 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2 , 2010 SO2 , and 2012 PM2.5 infrastructure requirements cite SIP Section I (Legal Authority) which allows for enforcement of applicable laws, regulations, and standards and to seek injunctive relief, and also provides authority to prevent construction, modification, or operation of any stationary source at any location where emissions from such source will prevent the attainment or maintenance of a national standard or interfere with prevention of significant deterioration requirements. PSD Requirements With respect to Elements (C) and (J), the EPA interprets the CAA to require each state to make an infrastructure SIP submission for a new or revised NAAQS demonstrating that the air agency has a complete PSD permitting program meeting the current requirements for all regulated NSR pollutants. The requirements of Element D(i)(II) may also be satisfied by demonstrating the air agency has a complete PSD permitting program that correctly addresses all regulated NSR pollutants. Utah has shown that it currently has a PSD program in place that covers all regulated NSR pollutants, including greenhouse gases (GHGs). SIP Section VIII (Prevention of Significant Deterioration) applies to all air pollutants regulated under the CAA. Utah implements the PSD program by, for the most part, incorporating by reference the federal PSD program as it existed on a specific date. The State periodically updates the PSD program by revising the date of incorporation by reference and submitting the change as a SIP revision. On October 25, 2013 (78 FR 63883), we approved portions of a Utah SIP revision that revised the date of incorporation by reference of the federal PSD program to July 1, 2011. As a result, the SIP revisions generally reflect changes to PSD requirements that the EPA has promulgated prior to the revised date of incorporation by reference. On July 15, 2011 (76 FR 41712), we approved portions of a Utah SIP revision that revised the date of incorporation by reference of the federal PSD program. That revision addressed the PSD requirements of the Phase 2 Ozone Implementation Rule promulgated in 2005 (70 FR 71612). As a result, the approved Utah PSD program meets current requirements for ozone. On June 23, 2014, the United States Supreme Court addressed the application of PSD permitting requirements to GHG emissions. Utility Air Regulatory Group v. Environmental Protection Agency, 134 S.Ct. 2427. The Supreme Court held that the EPA may not treat GHGs as an air pollutant for purposes of determining whether a source is a major source required to obtain a PSD permit. The Court also held that the EPA could continue to require that PSD permits, otherwise required based on emissions of pollutants other than GHGs (anyway sources) contain limitations on GHG emissions based on the application of Best Available Control Technology (BACT). In accordance with the Supreme Court decision, on April 10, 2015, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (the DC Circuit) issued an amended judgment vacating the regulations that implemented Step 2 of the EPA's PSD and Title V Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule, but not the regulations that implement Step 1 of that rule. Step 1 of the Tailoring Rule covers sources that are required to obtain a PSD permit based on emissions of pollutants other than GHGs. Step 2 applied to sources that emitted only GHGs above the thresholds triggering the requirement to obtain a PSD permit. The amended judgment preserves, without the need for additional rulemaking by the EPA, the application of the BACT requirement to GHG emissions from Step 1 or ``anyway'' sources.\3\ With respect to Step 2 sources, the DC Circuit's amended judgment vacated the regulations at issue in the litigation, including 40 CFR 51.166(b)(48)(v), ``to the extent they require a stationary source to obtain a PSD permit if greenhouse gases are the only pollutant (i) that the source emits or has the potential to emit above the applicable major source thresholds, or (ii) for which there is a significant emission increase from a modification.'' --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \3\ See 77 FR 41066 (July 12, 2012) rulemaking for definition of ``anyway'' sources. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The EPA is planning to take additional steps to revise the federal PSD rules in light of the Supreme Court and subsequent DC Circuit opinions. Some states have begun to revise their existing SIP-approved PSD programs in light of these court decisions, and some states may prefer not to initiate this process until they have more information about the planned revisions to the EPA's PSD regulations. The EPA is not expecting states to have revised their PSD programs in anticipation of the EPA's planned actions to revise its [[Page 24529]] PSD program rules in response to the court decisions. At present, the EPA has determined Utah's SIP is sufficient to satisfy Elements (C), (D)(i)(II) element 3, and (J) with respect to GHGs. This is because the PSD permitting program previously approved by the EPA into the SIP continues to require that PSD permits issued to ``anyway sources'' contain limitations on GHG emissions based on the application of BACT. The EPA most recently approved revisions to Utah's PSD program on February 6, 2014 (79 FR 7070). The approved Utah PSD permitting program still contains some provisions regarding Step 2 sources that are no longer necessary in light of the Supreme Court decision and DC Circuit amended judgment. Nevertheless, the presence of these provisions in the previously-approved plan does not render the infrastructure SIP submission inadequate to satisfy Elements (C), (D)(i)(II), and (J). The SIP contains the PSD requirements for applying the BACT requirement to greenhouse gas emissions from ``anyway sources'' that are necessary at this time. The application of those requirements is not impeded by the presence of other previously- approved provisions regarding the permitting of Step 2 sources. Accordingly, the Supreme Court decision and subsequent DC Circuit judgment do not prevent the EPA's approval of Utah's infrastructure SIP as to the requirements of Elements (C), (D)(i)(II) and (J). Finally, we evaluate the PSD program with respect to current requirements for PM2.5 . In particular, on May 16, 2008, the EPA promulgated the rule, ``Implementation of the New Source Review Program for Particulate Matter Less Than 2.5 Micrometers (PM2.5 )'' (73 FR 28321). On October 20, 2010 the EPA promulgated the rule, ``Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) for Particulate Matter Less Than 2.5 Micrometers (PM2.5 )-- Increments, Significant Impact Levels (SILs) and Significant Monitoring Concentration (SMC)'' (75 FR 64864). The EPA regards adoption of these PM2.5 rules as a necessary requirement when assessing a PSD program for the purposes of element (C). On January 4, 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals, in Natural Resources Defense Council v. EPA, 706 F.3d 428 (D.C. Cir.), issued a judgment that remanded the EPA's 2007 and 2008 rules implementing the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. The court ordered the EPA to ``repromulgate these rules pursuant to Subpart 4 consistent with this opinion.'' Id. at 437. Subpart 4 of part D, Title 1 of the CAA establishes additional provisions for particulate matter nonattainment areas. The 2008 Implementation rule addressed by Natural Resources Defense Council, ``Implementation of New Source Review (NSR) Program for Particulate Matter Less Than 2.5 Micrometers (PM2.5 ),'' (73 FR 28321, May 16, 2008), promulgated NSR requirements for implementation of PM2.5 in nonattainment areas (nonattainment NSR) and attainment/unclassifiable areas (PSD). As the requirements of Subpart 4 only pertain to nonattainment areas, the EPA does not consider the portions of the 2008 Implementation rule that address requirements for PM2.5 attainment and unclassifiable areas to be affected by the court's opinion. Moreover, the EPA does not anticipate the need to revise any PSD requirements promulgated in the 2008 Implementation rule in order to comply with the court's decision. Accordingly, the EPA's proposed approval of Utah's infrastructure SIP as to elements C or J with respect to the PSD requirements promulgated by the 2008 Implementation rule does not conflict with the court's opinion. The court's decision with respect to the nonattainment NSR requirements promulgated by the 2008 Implementation rule also does not affect the EPA's action on the present infrastructure action. The EPA interprets the Act to exclude nonattainment area requirements, including requirements associated with a nonattainment NSR program, from infrastructure SIP submissions due three years after adoption or revision of a NAAQS. Instead, these elements are typically referred to as nonattainment SIP or attainment plan elements, which would be due by the dates statutorily prescribed under subpart 2 through 5 under part D, extending as far as 10 years following designations for some elements. The second PSD requirement for PM2.5 is contained in the EPA's October 20, 2010 rule, ``Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) for Particulate Matter Less Than 2.5 Micrometers (PM2.5 )--Increments, Significant Impact Levels (SILs) and Significant Monitoring Concentration (SMC)'' (75 FR 64864). The EPA regards adoption of the PM2.5 increments as a necessary requirement when assessing a PSD program for the purposes of element (C). On March 14, 2012, Utah submitted revisions to the PSD program that adopt by reference federal provisions of 40 CFR part 52, section 21, as they existed on July 1, 2011. As that date is after the effective date of the two rules, the submission incorporates those requirements. The EPA approved the necessary portions of Utah's March 14, 2012 submission on October 25, 2013 (78 FR 63883). Utah's SIP-approved PSD program meets current requirements for PM2.5 . The EPA therefore is proposing to approve Utah's SIP for the 2008 ozone, 2008 Pb, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2 and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS with respect to the requirement in section 110(a)(2)(C) to include a permit program in the SIP as required by part C of the Act. Minor NSR The State has a SIP-approved minor NSR program, adopted under section 110(a)(2)(C) of the Act. The minor NSR program is found in section II of the Utah SIP, and was approved by the EPA as section 2 of the SIP (68 FR 37744, June 25, 2003). Since approval of the minor NSR program, the State and the EPA have relied on the program to assure that new and modified sources not captured by the major NSR permitting programs do not interfere with attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS. Utah's minor NSR program, as approved into the SIP, covers the construction and modification of stationary sources of regulated NSR pollutants, including PM2.5 , lead, and ozone and its precursors. The EPA is proposing to approve Utah's infrastructure SIP for the 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2 and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS with respect to the general requirement in section 110(a)(2)(C) to include a program in the SIP that regulates the enforcement, modification, and construction of any stationary source as necessary to assure that the NAAQS are achieved. 4. Interstate Transport: The interstate transport provisions in CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) (also called ``good neighbor'' provisions) require each state to submit a SIP that prohibits emissions that will have certain adverse air quality effects in other states. CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) identifies four distinct elements related to the impacts of air pollutants transported across state lines. The two elements under 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) require SIPs to contain adequate provisions to prohibit any source or other type of emissions activity within the state from emitting air pollutants that will (element 1) contribute significantly to nonattainment in any other state with respect to any such national primary or secondary NAAQS, and (element 2) interfere with maintenance by any other state with respect to the same NAAQS. The two elements under 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) require SIPs to contain adequate provisions to prohibit emissions that will interfere with [[Page 24530]] measures required to be included in the applicable implementation plan for any other state under part C (element 3) to prevent significant deterioration of air quality or (element 4) to protect visibility. In this action, the EPA is only addressing element 3 of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) for the 2008 ozone, 2008 Pb, 2010 SO2 , 2010 NO2 and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. All other transport elements will be addressed in separate rulemaking actions. Evaluation of Interference With Measures To Prevent Significant Deterioration (PSD) With regard to the PSD portion of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), this requirement may be met by a state's confirmation in an infrastructure SIP submission that new major sources and major modifications in the state are subject to a comprehensive EPA-approved PSD permitting program in the SIP that applies to all regulated new source review (NSR) pollutants and that satisfies the requirements of the EPA's PSD implementation rules.\4\ As noted in the discussion for infrastructure element (C) earlier in this notice, the EPA is proposing to approve CAA section 110(a)(2) element (C) for Utah's infrastructure SIP for the 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2 , 2010 SO2, and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS with respect to PSD requirements. As discussed in detail in that section, Utah's SIP meets the current PSD-related requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C). For this reason, we are also proposing to approve Utah's infrastructure SIP as meeting the 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) element 3 (PSD) requirements for 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \4\ See 2013 Memo at 31. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- In-state sources not subject to PSD for a particular NAAQS because they are in a nonattainment area for that standard may also have the potential to interfere with PSD in an attainment or unclassifiable area of another state.\5\ One way a state may satisfy element 3 with respect to these sources is by citing an air agency's EPA-approved nonattainment NSR provisions addressing any pollutants for which the state has designated nonattainment areas. Utah has a SIP-approved nonattainment NSR program which ensures regulation of major sources and major modifications in nonattainment areas, and therefore satisfies element 3 with regard to this requirement.\6\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \5\ Id. at 31. \6\ See R307-403. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The EPA is proposing to approve the infrastructure SIP submission with regard to the requirements of element 3 of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 2006 PM2.5 , 2008 Pb, 2008 Ozone, 2010 NO2 , 2010 SO2 and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. 5. Interstate and International transport provisions: CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) requires SIPs to include provisions ensuring compliance with the applicable requirements of CAA sections 126 and 115 (relating to interstate and international pollution abatement). Specifically, CAA section 126(a) requires new or modified major sources to notify neighboring states of potential impacts from the source. Section 126(a) of the CAA requires notification to affected, nearby states of major proposed new (or modified) sources. Sections 126(b) and (c) pertain to petitions affected states may seek from the Administrator of the EPA (Administrator) regarding sources violating the ``interstate transport'' provisions of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i). Section 115 of the CAA similarly pertains to international transport of air pollution. As required by 40 CFR 51.166(q)(2)(iv), Utah's SIP-approved PSD program requires notice to states whose air quality may be impacted by the emissions of sources subject to PSD.\7\ This suffices to meet the notice requirement of section 126(a). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \7\ See R307-110-9. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Utah has no pending obligations under sections 126(c) or 115(b) of the CAA; therefore, its SIP currently meets the requirements of those sections. In summary, the SIP meets the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii), and the EPA is therefore proposing approval of this element for the 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2 and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. The EPA is also proposing to approve the Utah SIP as meeting the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. Utah submitted an infrastructure certification generally addressing CAA section 110(a)(2)(D) for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS on December 3, 2007, and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS on September 21, 2010. 6. Adequate resources: Section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) requires states to provide ``necessary assurances that the State [. . .] will have adequate personnel, funding, and authority under State law to carry out [the SIP] (and is not prohibited by any provision of federal or state law from carrying out the SIP or portion thereof).'' Section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) also requires each state to ``comply with the requirements respecting State boards'' under CAA section 128. Section 110(a)(2)(E)(iii) requires states to provide ``necessary assurances that, where the State has relied on a local or regional government, agency, or instrumentality for the implementation of any [SIP] provision, the State has responsibility for ensuring adequate implementation of such [SIP] provision.'' a. Sub-Elements (i) and (iii): Adequate Personnel, Funding, and Legal Authority Under State Law To Carry Out Its SIP, and Related Issues The provisions contained in Chapter 2 of Title 19 of the Utah Code and Utah SIP Section I, Legal Authority provide UDAQ and the AQB adequate authority to carry out its SIP obligations with respect to the 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2 and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. The State receives sections 103 and 105 grant funds through its Performance Partnership Grant along with required state matching funds to provide funding necessary to carry out Utah's SIP requirements (Utah SIP Section V, Resources). Utah's Performance Partnership Agreement (available within the docket) with the EPA documents resources needed to provide resources to carry out agreed upon environmental program goals, measures, and commitments, including developing and implementing appropriate SIPs for all areas of the State. Annually, states update these grant commitments based on current SIP requirements, air quality planning, and applicable requirements related to the NAAQS. Utah satisfactorily met all commitments agreed to in the Air Planning Agreement for fiscal year 2015. Furthermore, R307-414, Permits: Fees for Approval Orders, requires the owner and operator of each new major source or major modification to pay a fee sufficient to cover reasonable costs of reviewing and acting upon the notice of intent and implementing and enforcing requirements placed on such source by any approval order issued. Collectively, these rules and commitments provide evidence that Utah DAQ has adequate personnel, funding, and legal authority to carry out the State's implementation plan and related issues. With respect to section 110(a)(2)(E)(iii), the regulations cited by Utah in their certifications (Utah SIP Section VI, Intergovernmental Cooperation) and contained within this docket also provide the necessary assurances that the State has responsibility for adequate implementation of SIP provisions by local governments. Therefore, we propose to approve Utah's SIP as meeting the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) and (E)(iii) for the 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2 and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. [[Page 24531]] b. Sub-Element (ii): State Boards Section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) requires each state's SIP to contain provisions that comply with the requirements of section 128 of the CAA. Section 128 contains two explicit requirements: (i) That ``any board or body which approves permits or enforcement orders under [the CAA] shall have at least a majority of members who represent the public interest and do not derive any significant portion of their income from persons subject to permits or enforcement orders'' under the CAA; and (ii) that ``any potential conflicts of interest by members of such board or body or the head of an executive agency with similar powers be adequately disclosed.'' In our November 25, 2013 (78 FR 63883) action, we disapproved Utah's April 17, 2008 and September 21, 2010 infrastructure SIP submissions for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS for CAA Section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) because the Utah SIP did not contain provisions meeting requirements of CAA section 128. Under section 110(c)(1)(B), this disapproval started a two-year clock for the EPA to promulgate a federal implementation plan (FIP) to address the deficiency. On March 14, 2016, the EPA received a submission from the State of Utah to address the requirements of section 128, containing new rule language approved by the Utah AQB on March 2, 2016. A copy of the submission, including the new rules, Conflict of Interest R307-104-1 (Authority), R307-104-2 (Purpose) and R307-104-3 (Disclosure of conflict of interest), is available within this docket. These rules address conflict of interest requirements of section 128(a)(2). We propose to approve this new rule language as meeting the requirements of section 128 for the reasons explained in more detail below. Because this revision meets the requirements of section 128, we also propose to approve the State's infrastructure SIP submissions for element 110(a)(2)(E)(ii). The State submitted the provisions to meet section 128 separately, but section 128 is not NAAQS-specific and once the State has met the requirements of section 128, that is sufficient for purposes of section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) for all NAAQS. If we finalize this proposed approval for the 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2 , 2010 SO2, and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS, this will also resolve the prior disapproval for element 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS and terminate the EPA's FIP obligation. We are proposing to approve the State's March 14, 2016 SIP submission as meeting the requirements of section 128 because we believe that it complies with the statutory requirements and is consistent with the EPA's guidance recommendations concerning section 128. In 1978, the EPA issued a guidance memorandum recommending ways states could meet the requirements of section 128, including suggested interpretations of certain key terms in section 128.\8\ In this proposal notice, we discuss additional relevant aspects of section 128. We first note that, in the conference report of the 1977 amendments to the CAA, the conference committee stated, ``[i]t is the responsibility of each state to determine the specific requirements to meet the general requirements of [section 128].'' \9\ This legislative history indicates that Congress intended states to have some latitude in adopting SIP provisions with respect to section 128, so long as states meet the statutory requirements of the section. We also note that Congress explicitly provided in section 128 that states could elect to adopt more stringent requirements, as long as the minimum requirements of section 128 are met. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \8\ Memorandum from David O. Bickart, Deputy General Counsel, to Regional Air Directors, Guidance to States for Meeting Conflict of Interest Requirements of Section 128 (Mar. 2, 1978). \9\ H.R. Rep. 95-564 (1977), reprinted in 3 Legislative History of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977, 526-27 (1978). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- In implementing section 128, the EPA has identified a number of key considerations relevant to evaluation of a SIP submission. The EPA has identified these considerations in the 1978 guidance and in subsequent rulemaking actions on SIP submissions relevant to section 128, whether as SIP revisions for this specific purpose or as an element of broader actions on infrastructure SIP submissions for one or more NAAQS. Each state must meet the requirements of section 128 through provisions that the EPA approves into the state's SIP and are thus made federally enforceable. Section 128 explicitly mandates that each SIP ``shall contain requirements'' that satisfy subsections 128(a)(1) and 128(a)(2). A mere narrative description of state statutes or rules, or of a state's current or past practice in constituting a board or body and in disclosing potential conflicts of interest, is not a requirement contained in the SIP and does not satisfy the plain text of section 128. Subsection 128(a)(1) applies only to states that have a board or body that is composed of multiple individuals and that, among its duties, approves permits or enforcement orders under the CAA. It does not apply in states that have no such multi-member board or body that performs these functions, and where instead a single head of an agency or other similar official approves permits or enforcement orders under the CAA. This flows from the text of section 128, for two reasons. First, as subsection 128(a)(1) refers to a majority of members of the board or body in the plural, we think it reasonable to read subsection 128(a)(1) as not creating any requirements for an individual with sole authority for approving permits or enforcement orders under the CAA. Second, subsection 128(a)(2) explicitly applies to the head of an executive agency with ``similar powers'' to a board or body that approves permits or enforcement orders under the CAA, while subsection 128(a)(1) omits any reference to heads of executive agencies. We infer that subsection 128(a)(1) should not apply to heads of executive agencies who approve permits or enforcement orders. States with no multi-member board or body that performs these functions, and instead have a single head of an agency or other similar official who approves CAA permits or enforcement orders, can satisfy the requirements of CAA 128(a)(1) with a negative declaration to that effect. Subsection 128(a)(2) applies to all states, regardless of whether the state has a multi-member board or body that approves permits or enforcement orders under the CAA. Although the title of section 128 is ``State boards,'' the language of subsection 128(a)(2) explicitly applies where the head of an executive agency, rather than a board or body, approves permits or enforcement orders. In instances where the head of an executive agency delegates his or her power to approve permits or enforcement orders, or where statutory authority to approve permits or enforcement orders is nominally vested in another state official, the requirement to adequately disclose potential conflicts of interest still applies. In other words, the EPA interprets section 128(a)(2) to apply to all states, regardless of whether a state board or body approves permits or enforcement orders under the CAA or whether a head of a state agency (or his/her delegates) performs these duties. Thus, all state SIPs must contain provisions that require adequate disclosure of potential conflicts of interest in order to meet the requirements of subsection 128(a)(2). The question of which entities or parties must be subject to such disclosure requirements must be evaluated by states and the EPA in light of the specific facts and circumstances of each state's regulatory structure. [[Page 24532]] A state may satisfy the requirements of section 128 by submitting for adoption into the SIP a provision of state law that closely tracks or mirrors the language of the applicable provisions of section 128. A state may take this approach in two ways. First, the state may adopt the language of subsections 128(a)(1) and 128(a)(2) verbatim. Under this approach, the state will be able to meet the continuing requirements of section 128 without any additional, future SIP revisions, even if the state adds or removes authority, either at the state or local level, to individual or to boards or bodies to approve permits or enforcement orders under the CAA so long as the state continues to meet section 128 requirements. Second, the state may modify the language of subsections 128(a)(1) (if applicable) and 128(a)(2) to name the particular board, body, or individual official with approval authority. In this case, if the state subsequently modifies that authority, the state may have to submit a corresponding SIP revision to meet the continuing requirements of section 128. If the state chooses to not mirror the language of section 128, the state may adopt state statutes and/or regulations that functionally impose the same requirements as those of section 128, including definitions for key terms such as those recommended in the EPA's 1978 guidance. While either of these approaches would meet the minimum requirements of section 128, the statute also explicitly authorizes states to adopt more stringent requirements, for example to impose additional requirements for recusal of board members from decisions, above and beyond the explicit board composition requirements. Although such recusal alone does not meet the requirements of section 128, states have the authority to require that over and above the explicit requirements of section 128. These approaches give states flexibility in implementing section 128, while still ensuring consistency with the statute. As previously explained, the EPA interprets subsection 128(a)(1) to apply only to states that have a board or body with multiple members that, among its duties, approves permits or enforcement orders under the Act. In its 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS certification, the State asserts that there is no such multi-member board or body, citing Utah Code section 19-2-104, Powers of the board. Subsection 19-2-104(7) specifies that the Utah AQB lacks authority over permits, and subsection 19-2-104(3) gives the Utah AQB authority only to recommend that the Director issue and enforce orders. The EPA proposes to determine that the Utah AQB does not approve permits or enforcement orders under the Act, and as a result, Utah need not submit any provisions to address the requirements of section 128(a)(1).\10\ However, the EPA interprets subsection 128(a)(2) to apply to all states, regardless of whether the state has a multi-member board that approves permits or enforcement orders. As a result, 128(a)(2) applies to Utah, and, as previously explained, must be met through SIP- approved, federally enforceable provisions. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \10\ In 2012, the Utah Legislature amended state law to generally transfer authority of the Utah AQB over permits and enforcement orders to the Director of Utah DAQ and Executive Director of Utah DEQ. See 78 FR 52477, 52482 (Aug. 23, 2013). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The EPA has evaluated Utah's submittal containing R307-104-1 (Authority), R307-104-2 (Purpose) and R307-104-3 (Disclosure of conflict of interest) (available within this docket) from the State in light of the requirements of section 128, these key considerations previously noted, and the recommendations in the 1978 guidance. To meet the requirements of subsection 128(a)(2), the State's R307-104-3 (Disclosure of conflict of interest), includes disclosure of conflicts of interest requirements applying to ``any member of the board or body which approves permits or enforcement orders, the head of the Utah [DAQ] with similar powers, and the head of the Utah [DEQ] with similar powers.'' Under Utah's administrative procedures, the Director of Utah DAQ has the initial authority to issue air permits and enforcement orders, and the Executive Director of Utah DEQ has the ultimate authority to resolve administrative adjudicative proceedings regarding permits and enforcement orders. See Utah Code 19-1-301, 19-1-301.5. Thus, Utah's submittal addresses disclosure of potential conflicts of interest from the heads of executive agencies that approve permits and enforcement orders under the Act. Utah's provisions are also sufficient for adequate disclosure. Under R307-104-3(2), ``[e]very individual listed in R307-104-3(1) who is an officer, director, agent, employee, or the owner of a substantial interest in any business entity which is subject to the regulation of the agency by which the individual listed in R307-104-3(1) is employed, shall disclose any position held and the precise nature and value of the interest upon first becoming a public officer or public employee listed in R307-104-3(1), and again whenever his or her position in the business entity changes significantly or if the value of his or her interest in the entity is significantly increased.'' This language covers a sufficiently broad range of potential conflicts of interest with any business subject to regulation by Utah DAQ, including permittees and the subjects of enforcement orders. The form of disclosure is also adequate: It is made in a sworn statement to the attorney general and is made publicly available. We propose to find that these procedures provide adequate disclosure of potential conflicts of interest within the meaning of subsection 128(a)(2). In summary, the EPA proposes to approve Utah's March 14, 2016 submittal into the SIP to meet the requirements of section 128 of the Act. We also propose to approve Utah's infrastructure SIP with respect to the requirements of Section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) for 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2 and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. 7. Stationary source monitoring system: Section 110(a)(2)(F) requires: (i) ``the installation, maintenance, and replacement of equipment, and the implementation of other necessary steps, by owners or operators of stationary sources to monitor emissions from such sources; (ii) periodic reports on the nature and amounts of emissions and emissions-related data from such sources; and (iii) correlation of such reports by the State agency with any emission limitations or standards established pursuant to [the Act], which reports shall be available at reasonable times for public inspection.'' The provisions cited by Utah in SIP Section III Source Surveillance, (including R307-150, and R307-165) pertain to its program of periodic emissions testing and plant inspections of stationary sources, and related testing requirements and protocols (including periodic reporting) to assure compliance with emissions limits. R307- 170 requires certain large sources to install and maintain continuous emission monitors to assure compliance with emission limitations established in approval orders and the SIP. In addition, Utah provides for monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements for sources subject to minor and major source permitting. Furthermore, Utah is required to submit emissions data to the EPA for purposes of the National Emissions Inventory (NEI). The NEI is the EPA's central repository for air emissions data. The EPA published the Air Emissions Reporting Rule (AERR) on December 5, 2008, which modified the requirements for collecting and reporting air emissions data (73 FR 76539). The AERR shortened the time states had to report emissions data from 17 to 12 [[Page 24533]] months, giving states one calendar-year to submit emissions data. All states are required to submit a comprehensive emissions inventory every three years and report emissions for certain larger sources annually through the EPA's online Emissions Inventory System. States report emissions data for the six criteria pollutants and their associated precursors--nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, ammonia, lead, carbon monoxide, particulate matter and volatile organic compounds. Many states also voluntarily report emissions of hazardous air pollutants. Utah made its latest update to the NEI in March 2016. The EPA compiles the emissions data, supplementing it where necessary, and releases it to the general public through the Web site https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-inventories. Based on the analysis above, we propose to approve the Utah SIP as meeting the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(F) for the 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2 and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. 8. Emergency powers: Section 110(a)(2)(G) of the CAA requires infrastructure SIPs to ``provide for authority comparable to that in [CAA section 303] and adequate contingency plans to implement such authority[.]'' Under CAA section 303, the EPA Administrator has authority to bring suit to immediately restrain an air pollution source that presents an ``imminent and substantial endangerment to public health or welfare, or the environment.'' \11\ If such action may not practicably assure prompt protection, then the Administrator has authority to issue temporary administrative orders to protect the public health or welfare, or the environment, and such orders can be extended if the EPA subsequently files a civil suit. We propose to find that Utah's infrastructure SIP submittals provide for authority for the State comparable to that granted to the EPA Administrator to act in the face of an imminent and substantial endangerment to the public's health or welfare, or the environment. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \11\ A discussion of the requirements for meeting CAA section 303 is provided in our notice of proposed rulemaking: Promulgation of State Implementation Plan Revisions; Infrastructure Requirements for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 , 2008 Lead, 2008 Ozone, and 2010 NO2 National Ambient Air Quality Standards; South Dakota (79 FR 71040, Dec. 1, 2014) under ``VI. Analysis of State Submittals, 8. Emergency powers.'' --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Utah's SIP submittals with regard to the section 110(a)(2)(G) emergency order requirements cite the EPA approved provisions (State SIP Section I Legal Authority codified at R307-110-2) to abate pollutant emissions on an emergency basis to prevent substantial endangerment to the health of persons. Utah Code 19-2-116(3)(a) also provides the director the power to ``initiate an action for appropriate injunctive relief . . . when it appears necessary for the protection of health and welfare.'' Utah Code 19-2-112(1)(a) provides authority to the ``executive director, with the concurrence of the governor'' to order people ``causing or contributing to . . . air pollution to reduce or discontinue immediately the emission of air pollutants'' if the ``executive director finds that a generalized condition of air pollution exists and that it creates an emergency requiring immediate action to protect human health or safety.'' Utah Code 19-2-112(2)(a) describes how in instances of an ``absence of a generalized condition of air pollution'' referred to in subsection (1), the executive director may still commence adjudicative proceedings as long as the executive director ``finds that emissions from the operation of one or more air pollutant sources is causing imminent danger to human health or safety.'' In regard to imminent and substantial endangerment to the environment, Utah's Emergency Management Act allows the Governor to issue rules and regulations having the ``full force and effect of law'' during a state of emergency. Additionally, Utah Code 53-2a-209(1) allows the Governor to suspend rules and regulations of state agencies that would prevent the ability to adequately deal with such disasters. See Utah Code 53-2a-209(3). While no single Utah statute mirrors the authorities of CAA section 303, we propose to find that the combination of Utah Code, UAC Rules, and Utah's Emergency Management Act provisions previously discussed provide for authority comparable to section 303. Section 303 authorizes the Administrator to immediately bring suit to restrain and issue emergency orders when necessary, to enable the Administrator to take prompt administrative action against any person causing or contributing to air pollution that presents an imminent and substantial endangerment to public health or welfare, or the environment. Therefore, we propose that Utah's SIP submittals sufficiently meet the requirements of CAA 110(a)(2)(G) because they demonstrate that Utah has authority comparable to CAA section 303. States must also have adequate contingency plans adopted into their SIP to implement the air agency's emergency episode authority (as previously discussed). This can be done by submitting a plan that meets the applicable requirements of 40 CFR part 51, subpart H for the relevant NAAQS if the NAAQS is covered by those regulations. The EPA approved Utah's State SIP Section VII (Prevention of Air Pollution Emergency Episodes), codified at R307-110-8, most recently on February 14, 2006 at 71 FR 7679. We find that Utah's air pollution emergency rules include PM10 ,\12\ ozone, NO2, and SO2 ; establish stages of episode criteria; provide for public announcement whenever any episode stage has been determined to exist; and specify emission control actions to be taken at each episode stage, consistent with the EPA emergency episode SIP requirements set forth at 40 CFR part 51 subpart H (prevention of air pollution emergency episode) for particulate matter, ozone, NO2 , and SO2 . --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \12\ The EPA has not yet promulgated regulations for ambient levels pertaining to priority levels for PM2.5 under the 2012 NAAQS (2013 Memo, p. 47). EPA's September 25, 2009 Memo (available within the docket) suggested that states with areas that have had a PM2.5 exceedance greater than 140.4 mg/m3 should develop and submit an emergency episode plan. If no such concentration was recorded in the last three years, the guidance suggested that the State can rely on its general emergency authorities. In this rulemaking, we continue to view these suggestions as appropriate in assessing Utah's SIP for this element. Utah has not had such a recorded PM2.5 level and thus an emergency episode plan for PM2.5 is not necessary. The SIP therefore meets the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(G) for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- As noted in the 2011 Memo ``based on [the] EPA's experience to date with the Pb NAAQS and designating Pb nonattainment areas, [the] EPA expects that an emergency episode associated with Pb emissions would be unlikely and, if it were to occur, would be the result of a malfunction or other emergency situation at a relatively large source of Pb'' (page 14).\13\ Accordingly, the EPA believes the central components of a contingency plan would be to reduce emissions from the source at issue and communicate with the public as needed. We note that 40 CFR part 51, subpart H (51.150-51.152) and 40 CFR part 51, Appendix L do not apply to Pb. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \13\ October 14, 2011, ``Guidance on Infrastructure SIP Elements Required Under Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2008 Lead (Pb) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS).'' --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Based on the above analysis, we propose approval of Utah's SIP as meeting the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(G) for the 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, and 2010 NO2 , 2010 SO2 and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. 9. Future SIP revisions: Section 110(a)(2)(H) requires that SIPs provide for revision of such plan: (i) ``[f]rom time to time as may be necessary to take account of revisions of such national primary or secondary ambient air [[Page 24534]] quality standard or the availability of improved or more expeditious methods of attaining such standard[;] and (ii) except as provided in paragraph (3)(C), whenever the Administrator finds on the basis of information available to the Administrator that the [SIP] is substantially inadequate to attain the [NAAQS] which it implements or to otherwise comply with any additional requirements under this [Act].'' Utah SIP Section I cites 19-2-104 and 19-2-109 of the Utah Code. Sections 19-2-104 and 19-2-109 give the AQB sufficient authority to meet the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(H). Therefore, we propose to approve Utah's SIP as meeting the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(H). 10. Consultation with government officials, public notification, PSD and visibility protection: Section 110(a)(2)(J) requires that each SIP ``meet the applicable requirements of section 121 of this title (relating to consultation), section 127 of this title (relating to public notification), and part C of this subchapter (relating to PSD of air quality and visibility protection).'' In its certifications, the State cites SIP Section I (Legal Authority) adopting requirements for transportation consultation, SIP Section VI (Intergovernmental Cooperation), and SIP Section XII (Transportation Conformity Consultation) to meet the requirements of CAA section 121. The State has demonstrated that it has the authority and rules in place to provide a process of consultation with general purpose local governments, designated organizations of elected officials of local governments and any Federal Land Manager having authority over federal land to which the SIP applies, consistent with the requirements of CAA section 121 (see 59 FR 2988, Jan. 20, 1994). Furthermore, SIP section XVI, cited by Utah, meets the general requirements of CAA section 127 to notify the public when the NAAQS have been exceeded. The State has a SIP-approved PSD program that incorporates by reference the federal program at 40 CFR 52.21; these provisions are located in R307-405-2 of the UAC. The EPA has further evaluated Utah's SIP-approved PSD program in this proposed action under VI.3 of this notice which analyzes whether the Utah SIP has met CAA section 110(a)(2)(C). There, we propose approval with respect to the PSD requirements of element (C); we likewise do so here with respect to the PSD requirements of element (J). Finally, with regard to the applicable requirements for visibility protection, the EPA recognizes states are subject to visibility and regional haze program requirements under part C of the Act. In the event of the establishment of a new NAAQS, however, the visibility and regional haze program requirements under part C do not change. Thus, we find that there are no applicable visibility requirements under section 110(a)(2)(J) when a new NAAQS becomes effective. Based on the above analysis, we propose to approve the Utah SIP as meeting the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(J) for the 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2 , 2010 SO2 and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. 11. Air quality and modeling/data: Section 110(a)(2)(K) requires each SIP provide for: (i) ``the performance of such air quality modeling as the Administrator may prescribe for the purpose of predicting the effect on ambient air quality of any emissions of any air pollutant for which the Administrator has established a [NAAQS]; and (ii) the submission, upon request, of data related to such air quality modeling to the Administrator.'' UAC rule R307-405-13 incorporates by reference the air quality model provisions of 40 CFR 52.21(l), which includes the air quality model requirements of appendix W of 40 CFR part 51, pertaining to the Guideline on Air Quality Models. Additionally, Utah Code 19-104(1)(a)- (b) provide the AQB with the authority to propose and finalize rules that require air quality modeling for the purpose of predicting the effect on ambient air quality relating to NAAQS. As a result, the SIP provides for such air quality modeling as the Administrator has prescribed. Therefore, we propose to approve the Utah SIP as meeting the CAA section 110(a)(2)(K) for the 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2 and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. 12. Permitting fees: Section 110(a)(2)(L) requires ``the owner or operator of each major stationary source to pay to the permitting authority, as a condition of any permit required under this [Act], a fee sufficient to cover[:] (i) The reasonable costs of reviewing and acting upon any application for such a permit[;] and (ii) if the owner or operator receives a permit for such source, the reasonable costs of implementing and enforcing the terms and conditions of any such permit (not including any court costs or other costs associated with any enforcement action), until such fee requirement is superseded with respect to such sources by the Administrator's approval of a fee program under [title] V.'' UAC rule R307-414, Permits: Fees for Approval Orders, requires the owner and operator of each new major source or major modification to pay a fee sufficient to cover the reasonable costs of reviewing and acting upon the notice of intent and implementing and enforcing requirements placed on such source by any approval order issued. The EPA approved R307-414 most recently on February 14, 2006 at 71 FR 7679. SIP Section I (Legal Authority) ``identifies the statutory authority to charge a fee to major sources to cover permit and enforcement expenses . . .'' SIP Section I was codified at R307-10-2 and the EPA approved it most recently on June 25, 2003 at 68 FR 37744. We also note that all the State's certifications cite R307-415 which is the regulation that provides for collection of permitting fees under Utah's approved title V permit program (60 FR 30192, June 8, 1995). As discussed in that approval, the State demonstrated that the fees collected were sufficient to administer the program. Therefore we propose to approve the submissions as supplemented by the State for the 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2 and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. 13. Consultation/participation by affected local entities: Section 110(a)(2)(M) requires states to ``provide for consultation and participation [in SIP development] by local political subdivisions affected by [the SIP].'' The provisions cited in Utah's SIP submittals (SIP Section VI (Intergovernmental Cooperation) codified at R307-110-7 and SIP Section XII (Transportation Conformity Consultation) codified at R307-110-20, contained within this docket) meet the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(M). We propose to approve Utah's SIP as meeting these requirements for the 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2 and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. VII. What action is the EPA taking? In this action, the EPA is proposing to approve infrastructure elements for the 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2 and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS from the State's certifications as shown in Table 1. Elements we propose no action on are reflected in Table 2. Finally, the EPA is proposing to approve a new UAC submitted on March 14, 2016 to satisfy requirements of element (E)(ii),which refers to requirements related to state boards. A comprehensive summary of infrastructure elements, and revisions and additions to the UAC organized by [[Page 24535]] the EPA's proposed rule action are provided in Table 1 and Table 2. Table 1--List of Utah Infrastructure Elements and Revisions That the EPA Is Proposing To Approve ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Proposed for approval ------------------------------------------------------------------------- December 3, 2007 submittal--1997 PM2.5 NAAQS: (D)(ii) September 21, 2010 submittal--2006 PM2.5 NAAQS: (D)(ii) January 19, 2012 submittal--2008 Pb NAAQS: (A), (C), (D)(i)(II) element 3, (D)(ii), (E), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L) and (M). June 2, 2013 submittal--2010 SO2 NAAQS: (A), (C), (D)(i)(II) element 3, (D)(ii), (E), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L) and (M). January 31, 2013 submittal--2008 Ozone NAAQS: (A), (B), (C), (D)(i)(II) element 3, (D)(ii), (E), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L) and (M). January 31, 2013 submittal--2010 NO2 NAAQS: (A), (C), (D)(i)(II) element 3, (D)(ii), (E), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L) and (M). December 4, 2015 submittal--2012 PM2.5 NAAQS: (A), (C), (D)(i)(II) element 3, (D)(ii), (E), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L) and (M). March 14, 2016 submittal--New Rules to UAC Rules, CAA Section 128 R307-104-1, R307-104-2 and R307-104-3. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Table 2--List of Utah Infrastructure Elements and Revisions That the EPA Is Proposing To Take No Action On ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Proposed for no action (Revision to be made in separate rulemaking action) ------------------------------------------------------------------------- January 19, 2012 submittal--2008 Pb NAAQS: (B), (D)(i)(I) elements 1 and 2, (D)(i)(II) element 4. January 31, 2013 submittal--2008 Ozone NAAQS: (D)(i)(I) elements 1 and 2, (D)(i)(II) element 4. January 31, 2013 submittal--2010 NO2 NAAQS: (B), (D)(i)(I) elements 1 and 2, (D)(i)(II) element 4. June 2, 2013 submittal--2010 SO2 NAAQS: (B), (D)(i)(I) elements 1 and 2, (D)(i)(II) element 4. December 22, 2015 submittal--2012 PM2.5 NAAQS: (B), (D)(i)(I) elements 1 and 2, (D)(i)(II) element 4. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ VIII. Incorporation by Reference In this rule, the EPA is proposing to include in a final the EPA rule regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to incorporate by reference the Utah Administrative Code Rules pertaining to state board requirements VI.6. b. Sub-element (ii): State boards, of this preamble. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents generally available electronically through www.regulations.gov and/or in hard copy at the appropriate EPA office (see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble for more information). IX. Statutory and Executive Orders Review Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable federal regulations (42 U.S.C. 7410(k), 40 CFR 52.02(a)). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this proposed action merely approves some state law as meeting federal requirements and disapproves other state law because it does not meet federal requirements; this proposed action does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, Oct. 4, 1993); Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.); Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4); Does not have federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, Aug. 10, 1999); Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and, Does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, Feb. 16, 1994). The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). [[Page 24536]] List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Greenhouse gases, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds. Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. Dated: April 13, 2016. Debra H. Thomas, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 8. [FR Doc. 2016-09586 Filed 4-25-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
![Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 80 / Tuesday, April 26, 2016 / Proposed Rules 24525
located outside the 35-mile specified ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION making effective comments, please visit
zone of a commercial VHF station that AGENCY http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/
places a predicted Grade B contour, in commenting-epa-dockets.
whole or in part, over the cable system, 40 CFR Part 52 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
and that is not significantly viewed or [EPA–R08–OAR–2013–0561, FRL–9945–57– Abby Fulton, Air Program, U.S.
otherwise exempt from the FCC’s Region 8] Environmental Protection Agency
syndicated exclusivity rules in effect on (EPA), Region 8, Mail Code 8P–AR,
June 24, 1981, for each distant signal Promulgation of State Implementation 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado
equivalent or fraction thereof Plan Revisions; Infrastructure 80202–1129, (303) 312–6563,
represented by the carriage of such Requirements for the 2008 Lead, 2008 fulton.abby@epa.gov.
Ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2, and 2012 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
commercial VHF station, the royalty rate
PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality
shall be, in addition to the amount I. General Information
Standards; Utah
specified in paragraph (a) of this
section, AGENCY: Environmental Protection What should I consider as I prepare my
Agency (EPA). comments for the EPA?
(1) For cable systems located wholly
ACTION: Proposed rule. 1. Submitting Confidential Business
or in part within a top 50 television
Information (CBI). Do not submit CBI to
market, SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection the EPA through http://
(i) 0.599 percent of such gross receipts Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve www.regulations.gov or email. Clearly
for the first distant signal equivalent; elements of State Implementation Plan mark the part or all of the information
(SIP) revisions from the State of Utah to that you claim to be CBI. For CBI
(ii) 0.377 percent of such gross
demonstrate the State meets information on a disk or CD ROM that
receipts for each of the second, third,
infrastructure requirements of the Clean you mail to the EPA, mark the outside
and fourth distant signal equivalents; Air Act (Act or CAA) for the National
and of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then
Ambient Air Quality Standards identify electronically within the disk or
(iii) 0.178 percent of such gross (NAAQS) promulgated for ozone on CD ROM the specific information that is
receipts for the fifth distant signal March 12, 2008, lead (Pb) on October claimed as CBI. In addition to one
equivalent and each additional distant 15, 2008, nitrogen dioxide (NO2) on complete version of the comment that
signal equivalent thereafter; January 22, 2010, sulfur dioxide (SO2) includes information claimed as CBI, a
(2) For cable systems located wholly on June 2, 2010 and fine particulate copy of the comment that does not
matter (PM2.5) on December 14, 2012. contain the information claimed as CBI
or in part within a second 50 television
The EPA is also proposing to approve must be submitted for inclusion in the
market,
SIP revisions the State submitted public docket. Information so marked
(i) 0.300 percent of such gross receipts regarding state boards. Section 110(a) of will not be disclosed except in
for the first distant signal equivalent; the CAA requires that each state submit accordance with procedures set forth in
(ii) 0.189 percent of such gross a SIP for the implementation, 40 CFR part 2.
receipts for each of the second, third, maintenance, and enforcement of each 2. Tips for preparing your comments.
and fourth distant signal equivalents; NAAQS promulgated by the EPA. When submitting comments, remember
and DATES: Written comments must be to:
received on or before May 26, 2016. • Identify the rulemaking by docket
(iii) 0.089 percent of such gross number and other identifying
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
receipts for the fifth distant signal information (subject heading, Federal
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R08–
equivalent and each additional distant OAR–2013–0561 at http:// Register volume, date, and page
signal equivalent thereafter; www.regulations.gov. Follow the online number);
(3) For purposes of this section ‘‘top instructions for submitting comments. • Follow directions and organize your
50 television markets’’ and ‘‘second 50 Once submitted, comments cannot be comments;
television markets’’ shall be defined as edited or removed from Regulations.gov. • Explain why you agree or disagree;
The EPA may publish any comment • Suggest alternatives and substitute
the comparable terms are defined or
received to its public docket. Do not language for your requested changes;
interpreted in accordance with 47 CFR • Describe any assumptions and
76.51, as effective June 24, 1981. submit electronically any information
provide any technical information and/
you consider to be Confidential
(e) Computation of rates. Computation or data that you used;
Business Information (CBI) or other • If you estimate potential costs or
of royalty fees shall be governed by 17
information whose disclosure is burdens, explain how you arrived at
U.S.C. 111(d)(1)(C).
restricted by statute. Multimedia your estimate in sufficient detail to
Dated: April 20, 2016. submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be allow for it to be reproduced;
Suzanne M. Barnett, accompanied by a written comment. • Provide specific examples to
Chief Copyright Royalty Judge. The written comment is considered the illustrate your concerns, and suggest
[FR Doc. 2016–09626 Filed 4–25–16; 8:45 am]
official comment and should include alternatives;
discussion of all points you wish to • Explain your views as clearly as
BILLING CODE 1410–72–P
make. The EPA will generally not possible, avoiding the use of profanity
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSAL
consider comments or comment or personal threats; and,
contents located outside of the primary • Make sure to submit your
submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or comments by the comment period
other file sharing system). For deadline identified.
additional submission methods, the full
EPA public comment policy, II. Background
information about CBI or multimedia On March 12, 2008, the EPA
submissions, and general guidance on promulgated a new NAAQS for ozone,
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:13 Apr 25, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\26APP1.SGM 26APP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_24605/page/1.svg)
![24526 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 80 / Tuesday, April 26, 2016 / Proposed Rules
revising the levels of the primary and Sections 110(a)(1) and (2)’’ on substantive program provisions.1 The
secondary 8-hour ozone standards from September 13, 2013 (2013 Memo). EPA therefore believes that while the
0.08 parts per million (ppm) to 0.075 timing requirement in section 110(a)(1)
III. What is the scope of this
ppm (73 FR 16436, March 27, 2008). is unambiguous, some of the other
rulemaking?
Subsequently, on October 15, 2008, the statutory provisions are ambiguous. In
EPA revised the level of the primary and The EPA is acting upon the SIP particular, the EPA believes that the list
secondary Pb NAAQS from 1.5 submissions from Utah that address the of required elements for infrastructure
micrograms per cubic meter (mg/m3) to infrastructure requirements of CAA SIP submissions provided in section
0.15 mg/m3 (73 FR 66964, Nov. 12, sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) for the 110(a)(2) contains ambiguities
2008). On January 22, 2010, the EPA 2008 ozone, 2008 Pb, 2010 NO2, 2010 concerning what is required for
promulgated a new 1-hour primary SO2, and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. The inclusion in an infrastructure SIP
NAAQS for NO2 at a level of 100 parts requirement for states to make a SIP submission.
per billion (ppb) while retaining the submission of this type arises out of Examples of some of these
CAA section 110(a)(1). Pursuant to ambiguities and the context in which
annual standard of 53 ppb. The 2010
section 110(a)(1), states must make SIP the EPA interprets the ambiguous
NO2 NAAQS is expressed as the three-
submissions ‘‘within three years (or portions of section 110(a)(1) and
year average of the 98th percentile of the
such shorter period as the Administrator 110(a)(2) are discussed at length in our
annual distribution of daily maximum notice of proposed rulemaking:
one-hour average concentrations. The may prescribe) after the promulgation of
a national primary ambient air quality Promulgation of State Implementation
secondary NO2 NAAQS remains Plan Revisions; Infrastructure
unchanged at 53 ppb (75 FR 6474, Feb. standard (or any revision thereof),’’ and
these SIP submissions are to provide for Requirements for the 1997 and 2006
9, 2010). On June 2, 2010, the EPA PM2.5, 2008 Lead, 2008 Ozone, and 2010
the ‘‘implementation, maintenance, and
promulgated a revised primary SO2 NO2 National Ambient Air Quality
enforcement’’ of such NAAQS. The
standard at 75 ppb, based on a three- Standards; South Dakota (79 FR 71040,
statute directly imposes on states the
year average of the annual 99th Dec. 1, 2014) under ‘‘III. What is the
duty to make these SIP submissions,
percentile of one-hour daily maximum Scope of this Rulemaking?’’
and the requirement to make the
concentrations (75 FR 35520, June 22, With respect to certain other issues,
submissions is not conditioned upon
2010). Finally, on December 14, 2012, the EPA taking any action other than the EPA does not believe that an action
the EPA promulgated a revised annual promulgating a new or revised NAAQS. on a state’s infrastructure SIP
PM2.5 standard by lowering the level to Section 110(a)(2) includes a list of submission is necessarily the
12.0 mg/m3 and retaining the 24-hour specific elements that ‘‘[e]ach such appropriate type of action in which to
PM2.5 standard at a level of 35 mg/m3 (78 plan’’ submission must address. address possible deficiencies in a state’s
FR 3086, Jan. 15, 2013). The EPA has historically referred to existing SIP. These issues include: (i)
Under sections 110(a)(1) and (2) of the these SIP submissions made for the Existing provisions related to excess
CAA, states are required to submit purpose of satisfying the requirements emissions from sources during periods
infrastructure SIPs to ensure their SIPs of startup, shutdown, or malfunction
of CAA sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2)
provide for implementation, (SSM) that may be contrary to the CAA
as ‘‘infrastructure SIP’’ submissions.
maintenance and enforcement of the and the EPA’s policies addressing such
Although the term ‘‘infrastructure SIP’’
NAAQS. These submissions must excess emissions; (ii) existing provisions
does not appear in the CAA, the EPA
contain any revisions needed for related to ‘‘director’s variance’’ or
uses the term to distinguish this
‘‘director’s discretion’’ that may be
meeting the applicable SIP requirements particular type of SIP submission from
contrary to the CAA because they
of section 110(a)(2), or certifications that submissions that are intended to satisfy
purport to allow revisions to SIP-
their existing SIPs for PM2.5, ozone, Pb, other SIP requirements under the CAA,
approved emissions limits while
NO2, and SO2 already meet those such as ‘‘nonattainment SIP’’ or
limiting public process or not requiring
requirements. The EPA highlighted this ‘‘attainment plan SIP’’ submissions to further approval by the EPA; and (iii)
statutory requirement in an October 2, address the nonattainment planning existing provisions for Prevention of
2007, guidance document entitled requirements of part D of title I of the Significant Deterioration (PSD)
‘‘Guidance on SIP Elements Required CAA; ‘‘regional haze SIP’’ submissions programs that may be inconsistent with
Under Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the required by the EPA rule to address the current requirements of the EPA’s
1997 8-hour Ozone and PM2.5 National visibility protection requirements of ‘‘Final NSR Improvement Rule,’’ 67 FR
Ambient Air Quality Standards’’ (2007 CAA section 169A; and nonattainment 80186, Dec. 31, 2002, as amended by 72
Memo). On September 25, 2009, the new source review (NSR) permit FR 32526, June 13, 2007 (‘‘NSR
EPA issued an additional guidance program submissions to address the Reform’’).
document pertaining to the 2006 PM2.5 permit requirements of CAA, title I, part
NAAQS entitled ‘‘Guidance on SIP D. IV. What infrastructure elements are
Elements Required Under Sections Section 110(a)(1) addresses the timing required under sections 110(a)(1) and
110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2006 24-Hour and general requirements for (2)?
Fine Particle (PM2.5) National Ambient infrastructure SIP submissions, and CAA section 110(a)(1) provides the
Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)’’ (2009 section 110(a)(2) provides more details procedural and timing requirements for
Memo), followed by the October 14, concerning the required contents of
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSAL
2011, ‘‘Guidance on Infrastructure SIP these submissions. The list of required 1 For example: Section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) provides
Elements Required Under Sections elements provided in section 110(a)(2) that states must provide assurances that they have
adequate legal authority under state and local law
110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2008 Lead (Pb) contains a wide variety of disparate to carry out the SIP; section 110(a)(2)(C) provides
National Ambient Air Quality Standards provisions, some of which pertain to that states must have a SIP-approved program to
(NAAQS)’’ (2011 Memo). Most recently, required legal authority, some of which address certain sources as required by part C of title
pertain to required substantive program I of the CAA; and section 110(a)(2)(G) provides that
the EPA issued ‘‘Guidance on states must have legal authority to address
Infrastructure State Implementation provisions, and some of which pertain emergencies as well as contingency plans that are
Plan (SIP) Elements under Clean Air Act to requirements for both authority and triggered in the event of such emergencies.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:13 Apr 25, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\26APP1.SGM 26APP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_24605/page/2.svg)
![24528 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 80 / Tuesday, April 26, 2016 / Proposed Rules
2. Ambient air quality monitoring/ Enforcement of Control Measures On June 23, 2014, the United States
data system: Section 110(a)(2)(B) Requirement Supreme Court addressed the
requires SIPs to ‘‘provide for The State’s submissions for the 2008 application of PSD permitting
establishment and operation of Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2, requirements to GHG emissions. Utility
appropriate devices, methods, systems, and 2012 PM2.5 infrastructure Air Regulatory Group v. Environmental
and procedures necessary’’ to ‘‘(i) requirements cite SIP Section I (Legal Protection Agency, 134 S.Ct. 2427. The
monitor, compile, and analyze data on Authority) which allows for Supreme Court held that the EPA may
ambient air quality, and (ii) upon enforcement of applicable laws, not treat GHGs as an air pollutant for
request, make such data available to the purposes of determining whether a
regulations, and standards and to seek
Administrator.’’ source is a major source required to
injunctive relief, and also provides
The State’s submissions cite UAC rule obtain a PSD permit. The Court also
authority to prevent construction,
R307–110–5, which incorporates by held that the EPA could continue to
reference SIP Section IV (Ambient Air modification, or operation of any
require that PSD permits, otherwise
Monitoring Program), and provides a stationary source at any location where
required based on emissions of
brief description of the purposes of the emissions from such source will prevent
pollutants other than GHGs (anyway
air monitoring program approved by the the attainment or maintenance of a
sources) contain limitations on GHG
EPA in the early 1980s and most national standard or interfere with
emissions based on the application of
recently on June 25, 2003 (68 FR 37744). prevention of significant deterioration
Best Available Control Technology
Utah’s annual monitoring network plan requirements. (BACT).
(AMNP), is made available by the PSD Requirements In accordance with the Supreme
Department for public review and Court decision, on April 10, 2015, the
With respect to Elements (C) and (J),
comment prior to submission to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of
the EPA interprets the CAA to require
EPA. Columbia Circuit (the DC Circuit) issued
In this action, the EPA is acting only each state to make an infrastructure SIP
an amended judgment vacating the
on Utah’s submittal for 2008 ozone submission for a new or revised NAAQS regulations that implemented Step 2 of
NAAQS for CAA section 110(a)(2)(B). demonstrating that the air agency has a the EPA’s PSD and Title V Greenhouse
Utah’s submittals for other pollutants complete PSD permitting program Gas Tailoring Rule, but not the
will be addressed in a separate meeting the current requirements for all regulations that implement Step 1 of
rulemaking action. regulated NSR pollutants. The that rule. Step 1 of the Tailoring Rule
Utah’s 2013 AMNP for ozone was requirements of Element D(i)(II) may covers sources that are required to
approved through a letter dated also be satisfied by demonstrating the obtain a PSD permit based on emissions
December 24, 2013 (available within the air agency has a complete PSD of pollutants other than GHGs. Step 2
docket). Additionally, the State of Utah permitting program that correctly applied to sources that emitted only
submits ozone data to the EPA’s Air addresses all regulated NSR pollutants. GHGs above the thresholds triggering
Quality System database in accordance Utah has shown that it currently has a the requirement to obtain a PSD permit.
with 40 CFR 58.16. PSD program in place that covers all The amended judgment preserves,
We find that Utah’s SIP and practices regulated NSR pollutants, including without the need for additional
are adequate for the ambient air quality greenhouse gases (GHGs). SIP Section rulemaking by the EPA, the application
monitoring and data system VIII (Prevention of Significant of the BACT requirement to GHG
requirements and therefore propose to Deterioration) applies to all air emissions from Step 1 or ‘‘anyway’’
approve the infrastructure SIP for the pollutants regulated under the CAA. sources.3 With respect to Step 2 sources,
2008 ozone NAAQS for this element. Utah implements the PSD program by, the DC Circuit’s amended judgment
3. Program for enforcement of control for the most part, incorporating by vacated the regulations at issue in the
measures: Section 110(a)(2)(C) requires reference the federal PSD program as it litigation, including 40 CFR
SIPs to ‘‘include a program to provide existed on a specific date. The State 51.166(b)(48)(v), ‘‘to the extent they
for the enforcement of the measures periodically updates the PSD program require a stationary source to obtain a
described in subparagraph (A), and by revising the date of incorporation by PSD permit if greenhouse gases are the
regulation of the modification and reference and submitting the change as only pollutant (i) that the source emits
construction of any stationary source a SIP revision. On October 25, 2013 (78 or has the potential to emit above the
within the areas covered by the plan as FR 63883), we approved portions of a applicable major source thresholds, or
necessary to assure that [NAAQS] are Utah SIP revision that revised the date (ii) for which there is a significant
achieved, including a permit program as of incorporation by reference of the emission increase from a modification.’’
required in parts C and D.’’ federal PSD program to July 1, 2011. As The EPA is planning to take
To generally meet the requirements of a result, the SIP revisions generally additional steps to revise the federal
section 110(a)(2)(C), the State is reflect changes to PSD requirements that PSD rules in light of the Supreme Court
required to have SIP-approved PSD, the EPA has promulgated prior to the and subsequent DC Circuit opinions.
nonattainment NSR, and minor NSR revised date of incorporation by Some states have begun to revise their
permitting programs that are adequate to reference. existing SIP-approved PSD programs in
implement the 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, On July 15, 2011 (76 FR 41712), we light of these court decisions, and some
2010 NO2, 2010 SO2 and 2012 PM2.5 approved portions of a Utah SIP states may prefer not to initiate this
NAAQS. As explained elsewhere in this revision that revised the date of process until they have more
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSAL
action, the EPA is not evaluating incorporation by reference of the federal information about the planned revisions
nonattainment related provisions, such PSD program. That revision addressed to the EPA’s PSD regulations. The EPA
as the nonattainment NSR program the PSD requirements of the Phase 2 is not expecting states to have revised
required by part D of the Act. The EPA Ozone Implementation Rule their PSD programs in anticipation of
is evaluating the State’s PSD program as promulgated in 2005 (70 FR 71612). As the EPA’s planned actions to revise its
required by part C of the Act, and the a result, the approved Utah PSD
State’s minor NSR program as required program meets current requirements for 3 See 77 FR 41066 (July 12, 2012) rulemaking for
by 110(a)(2)(C). ozone. definition of ‘‘anyway’’ sources.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:13 Apr 25, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\26APP1.SGM 26APP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_24605/page/4.svg)
![24530 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 80 / Tuesday, April 26, 2016 / Proposed Rules
measures required to be included in the of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 2006 relied on a local or regional government,
applicable implementation plan for any PM2.5, 2008 Pb, 2008 Ozone, 2010 NO2, agency, or instrumentality for the
other state under part C (element 3) to 2010 SO2 and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. implementation of any [SIP] provision,
prevent significant deterioration of air 5. Interstate and International the State has responsibility for ensuring
quality or (element 4) to protect transport provisions: CAA section adequate implementation of such [SIP]
visibility. In this action, the EPA is only 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) requires SIPs to include provision.’’
addressing element 3 of CAA section provisions ensuring compliance with
the applicable requirements of CAA a. Sub-Elements (i) and (iii): Adequate
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) for the 2008 ozone,
sections 126 and 115 (relating to Personnel, Funding, and Legal
2008 Pb, 2010 SO2, 2010 NO2 and 2012
interstate and international pollution Authority Under State Law To Carry
PM2.5 NAAQS. All other transport
abatement). Specifically, CAA section Out Its SIP, and Related Issues
elements will be addressed in separate
rulemaking actions. 126(a) requires new or modified major The provisions contained in Chapter
sources to notify neighboring states of 2 of Title 19 of the Utah Code and Utah
Evaluation of Interference With potential impacts from the source. SIP Section I, Legal Authority provide
Measures To Prevent Significant Section 126(a) of the CAA requires UDAQ and the AQB adequate authority
Deterioration (PSD) notification to affected, nearby states of to carry out its SIP obligations with
With regard to the PSD portion of major proposed new (or modified) respect to the 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010
CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), this sources. Sections 126(b) and (c) pertain NO2, 2010 SO2 and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.
requirement may be met by a state’s to petitions affected states may seek The State receives sections 103 and 105
confirmation in an infrastructure SIP from the Administrator of the EPA grant funds through its Performance
submission that new major sources and (Administrator) regarding sources Partnership Grant along with required
major modifications in the state are violating the ‘‘interstate transport’’ state matching funds to provide funding
subject to a comprehensive EPA- provisions of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i). necessary to carry out Utah’s SIP
approved PSD permitting program in Section 115 of the CAA similarly requirements (Utah SIP Section V,
the SIP that applies to all regulated new pertains to international transport of air Resources). Utah’s Performance
source review (NSR) pollutants and that pollution. Partnership Agreement (available within
satisfies the requirements of the EPA’s As required by 40 CFR the docket) with the EPA documents
PSD implementation rules.4 As noted in 51.166(q)(2)(iv), Utah’s SIP-approved resources needed to provide resources
the discussion for infrastructure element PSD program requires notice to states to carry out agreed upon environmental
(C) earlier in this notice, the EPA is whose air quality may be impacted by program goals, measures, and
proposing to approve CAA section the emissions of sources subject to commitments, including developing and
110(a)(2) element (C) for Utah’s PSD.7 This suffices to meet the notice implementing appropriate SIPs for all
infrastructure SIP for the 2008 Pb, 2008 requirement of section 126(a). areas of the State. Annually, states
ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2, and 2012 Utah has no pending obligations update these grant commitments based
PM2.5 NAAQS with respect to PSD under sections 126(c) or 115(b) of the on current SIP requirements, air quality
requirements. As discussed in detail in CAA; therefore, its SIP currently meets planning, and applicable requirements
that section, Utah’s SIP meets the the requirements of those sections. In related to the NAAQS. Utah
current PSD-related requirements of summary, the SIP meets the satisfactorily met all commitments
section 110(a)(2)(C). For this reason, we requirements of CAA section agreed to in the Air Planning Agreement
are also proposing to approve Utah’s 110(a)(2)(D)(ii), and the EPA is therefore for fiscal year 2015. Furthermore, R307–
infrastructure SIP as meeting the proposing approval of this element for 414, Permits: Fees for Approval Orders,
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) element 3 (PSD) the 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, requires the owner and operator of each
requirements for 2006 24-hour PM2.5 2010 SO2 and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. The new major source or major modification
NAAQS. EPA is also proposing to approve the to pay a fee sufficient to cover
In-state sources not subject to PSD for Utah SIP as meeting the requirements of reasonable costs of reviewing and acting
a particular NAAQS because they are in section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) for the 1997 and upon the notice of intent and
a nonattainment area for that standard 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. Utah submitted an implementing and enforcing
may also have the potential to interfere infrastructure certification generally requirements placed on such source by
with PSD in an attainment or addressing CAA section 110(a)(2)(D) for any approval order issued. Collectively,
unclassifiable area of another state.5 the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS on December 3, these rules and commitments provide
One way a state may satisfy element 3 2007, and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS on evidence that Utah DAQ has adequate
with respect to these sources is by citing September 21, 2010. personnel, funding, and legal authority
an air agency’s EPA-approved 6. Adequate resources: Section to carry out the State’s implementation
nonattainment NSR provisions 110(a)(2)(E)(i) requires states to provide plan and related issues.
addressing any pollutants for which the ‘‘necessary assurances that the State With respect to section
state has designated nonattainment [. . .] will have adequate personnel, 110(a)(2)(E)(iii), the regulations cited by
areas. Utah has a SIP-approved funding, and authority under State law Utah in their certifications (Utah SIP
nonattainment NSR program which to carry out [the SIP] (and is not Section VI, Intergovernmental
ensures regulation of major sources and prohibited by any provision of federal or Cooperation) and contained within this
major modifications in nonattainment state law from carrying out the SIP or docket also provide the necessary
areas, and therefore satisfies element 3 portion thereof).’’ Section assurances that the State has
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSAL
with regard to this requirement.6 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) also requires each state responsibility for adequate
The EPA is proposing to approve the to ‘‘comply with the requirements implementation of SIP provisions by
infrastructure SIP submission with respecting State boards’’ under CAA local governments. Therefore, we
regard to the requirements of element 3 section 128. Section 110(a)(2)(E)(iii) propose to approve Utah’s SIP as
requires states to provide ‘‘necessary meeting the requirements of section
4 See 2013 Memo at 31. assurances that, where the State has 110(a)(2)(E)(i) and (E)(iii) for the 2008
5 Id.at 31. Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2 and
6 See R307–403. 7 See R307–110–9. 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:13 Apr 25, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\26APP1.SGM 26APP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_24605/page/6.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 80 / Tuesday, April 26, 2016 / Proposed Rules 24531
b. Sub-Element (ii): State Boards with the statutory requirements and is performs these functions, and where
Section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) requires each consistent with the EPA’s guidance instead a single head of an agency or
state’s SIP to contain provisions that recommendations concerning section other similar official approves permits
comply with the requirements of section 128. In 1978, the EPA issued a guidance or enforcement orders under the CAA.
128 of the CAA. Section 128 contains memorandum recommending ways This flows from the text of section 128,
two explicit requirements: (i) That ‘‘any states could meet the requirements of for two reasons. First, as subsection
board or body which approves permits section 128, including suggested 128(a)(1) refers to a majority of members
or enforcement orders under [the CAA] interpretations of certain key terms in of the board or body in the plural, we
shall have at least a majority of members section 128.8 In this proposal notice, we think it reasonable to read subsection
who represent the public interest and do discuss additional relevant aspects of 128(a)(1) as not creating any
not derive any significant portion of section 128. We first note that, in the requirements for an individual with sole
conference report of the 1977 authority for approving permits or
their income from persons subject to
amendments to the CAA, the conference enforcement orders under the CAA.
permits or enforcement orders’’ under
committee stated, ‘‘[i]t is the Second, subsection 128(a)(2) explicitly
the CAA; and (ii) that ‘‘any potential
responsibility of each state to determine applies to the head of an executive
conflicts of interest by members of such
the specific requirements to meet the agency with ‘‘similar powers’’ to a board
board or body or the head of an
general requirements of [section 128].’’ 9 or body that approves permits or
executive agency with similar powers be
This legislative history indicates that enforcement orders under the CAA,
adequately disclosed.’’
Congress intended states to have some while subsection 128(a)(1) omits any
In our November 25, 2013 (78 FR
latitude in adopting SIP provisions with reference to heads of executive agencies.
63883) action, we disapproved Utah’s
respect to section 128, so long as states We infer that subsection 128(a)(1)
April 17, 2008 and September 21, 2010
meet the statutory requirements of the should not apply to heads of executive
infrastructure SIP submissions for the
section. We also note that Congress agencies who approve permits or
1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS for CAA
explicitly provided in section 128 that enforcement orders. States with no
Section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) because the Utah
states could elect to adopt more multi-member board or body that
SIP did not contain provisions meeting
stringent requirements, as long as the performs these functions, and instead
requirements of CAA section 128. Under minimum requirements of section 128
section 110(c)(1)(B), this disapproval have a single head of an agency or other
are met. similar official who approves CAA
started a two-year clock for the EPA to In implementing section 128, the EPA
promulgate a federal implementation permits or enforcement orders, can
has identified a number of key satisfy the requirements of CAA
plan (FIP) to address the deficiency. considerations relevant to evaluation of
On March 14, 2016, the EPA received 128(a)(1) with a negative declaration to
a SIP submission. The EPA has that effect.
a submission from the State of Utah to identified these considerations in the
address the requirements of section 128, 1978 guidance and in subsequent Subsection 128(a)(2) applies to all
containing new rule language approved rulemaking actions on SIP submissions states, regardless of whether the state
by the Utah AQB on March 2, 2016. A relevant to section 128, whether as SIP has a multi-member board or body that
copy of the submission, including the revisions for this specific purpose or as approves permits or enforcement orders
new rules, Conflict of Interest R307– an element of broader actions on under the CAA. Although the title of
104–1 (Authority), R307–104–2 infrastructure SIP submissions for one section 128 is ‘‘State boards,’’ the
(Purpose) and R307–104–3 (Disclosure or more NAAQS. language of subsection 128(a)(2)
of conflict of interest), is available Each state must meet the explicitly applies where the head of an
within this docket. These rules address requirements of section 128 through executive agency, rather than a board or
conflict of interest requirements of provisions that the EPA approves into body, approves permits or enforcement
section 128(a)(2). We propose to the state’s SIP and are thus made orders. In instances where the head of
approve this new rule language as federally enforceable. Section 128 an executive agency delegates his or her
meeting the requirements of section 128 explicitly mandates that each SIP ‘‘shall power to approve permits or
for the reasons explained in more detail contain requirements’’ that satisfy enforcement orders, or where statutory
below. Because this revision meets the subsections 128(a)(1) and 128(a)(2). A authority to approve permits or
requirements of section 128, we also mere narrative description of state enforcement orders is nominally vested
propose to approve the State’s statutes or rules, or of a state’s current in another state official, the requirement
infrastructure SIP submissions for or past practice in constituting a board to adequately disclose potential
element 110(a)(2)(E)(ii). The State or body and in disclosing potential conflicts of interest still applies. In other
submitted the provisions to meet section conflicts of interest, is not a requirement words, the EPA interprets section
128 separately, but section 128 is not contained in the SIP and does not 128(a)(2) to apply to all states,
NAAQS-specific and once the State has satisfy the plain text of section 128. regardless of whether a state board or
met the requirements of section 128, Subsection 128(a)(1) applies only to body approves permits or enforcement
that is sufficient for purposes of section states that have a board or body that is orders under the CAA or whether a head
110(a)(2)(E)(ii) for all NAAQS. If we composed of multiple individuals and of a state agency (or his/her delegates)
finalize this proposed approval for the that, among its duties, approves permits performs these duties. Thus, all state
2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010 or enforcement orders under the CAA. SIPs must contain provisions that
SO2, and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS, this will It does not apply in states that have no require adequate disclosure of potential
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSAL
also resolve the prior disapproval for such multi-member board or body that conflicts of interest in order to meet the
element 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) for the 1997 and requirements of subsection 128(a)(2).
2006 PM2.5 NAAQS and terminate the 8 Memorandum from David O. Bickart, Deputy The question of which entities or parties
EPA’s FIP obligation. General Counsel, to Regional Air Directors, must be subject to such disclosure
We are proposing to approve the Guidance to States for Meeting Conflict of Interest requirements must be evaluated by
Requirements of Section 128 (Mar. 2, 1978).
State’s March 14, 2016 SIP submission 9 H.R. Rep. 95–564 (1977), reprinted in 3 states and the EPA in light of the
as meeting the requirements of section Legislative History of the Clean Air Act specific facts and circumstances of each
128 because we believe that it complies Amendments of 1977, 526–27 (1978). state’s regulatory structure.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:13 Apr 25, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\26APP1.SGM 26APP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_24605/page/7.svg)
![24532 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 80 / Tuesday, April 26, 2016 / Proposed Rules
A state may satisfy the requirements enforce orders. The EPA proposes to interest in the entity is significantly
of section 128 by submitting for determine that the Utah AQB does not increased.’’ This language covers a
adoption into the SIP a provision of approve permits or enforcement orders sufficiently broad range of potential
state law that closely tracks or mirrors under the Act, and as a result, Utah conflicts of interest with any business
the language of the applicable need not submit any provisions to subject to regulation by Utah DAQ,
provisions of section 128. A state may address the requirements of section including permittees and the subjects of
take this approach in two ways. First, 128(a)(1).10 However, the EPA interprets enforcement orders. The form of
the state may adopt the language of subsection 128(a)(2) to apply to all disclosure is also adequate: It is made in
subsections 128(a)(1) and 128(a)(2) states, regardless of whether the state a sworn statement to the attorney
verbatim. Under this approach, the state has a multi-member board that approves general and is made publicly available.
will be able to meet the continuing permits or enforcement orders. As a We propose to find that these
requirements of section 128 without any result, 128(a)(2) applies to Utah, and, as procedures provide adequate disclosure
additional, future SIP revisions, even if previously explained, must be met of potential conflicts of interest within
the state adds or removes authority, through SIP-approved, federally the meaning of subsection 128(a)(2).
either at the state or local level, to enforceable provisions. In summary, the EPA proposes to
individual or to boards or bodies to The EPA has evaluated Utah’s approve Utah’s March 14, 2016
approve permits or enforcement orders submittal containing R307–104–1 submittal into the SIP to meet the
under the CAA so long as the state (Authority), R307–104–2 (Purpose) and requirements of section 128 of the Act.
continues to meet section 128 R307–104–3 (Disclosure of conflict of We also propose to approve Utah’s
requirements. interest) (available within this docket) infrastructure SIP with respect to the
Second, the state may modify the from the State in light of the requirements of Section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii)
language of subsections 128(a)(1) (if requirements of section 128, these key for 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010
applicable) and 128(a)(2) to name the considerations previously noted, and SO2 and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.
particular board, body, or individual the recommendations in the 1978 7. Stationary source monitoring
official with approval authority. In this guidance. To meet the requirements of system: Section 110(a)(2)(F) requires: (i)
case, if the state subsequently modifies subsection 128(a)(2), the State’s R307– ‘‘the installation, maintenance, and
that authority, the state may have to 104–3 (Disclosure of conflict of interest), replacement of equipment, and the
submit a corresponding SIP revision to includes disclosure of conflicts of implementation of other necessary
meet the continuing requirements of interest requirements applying to ‘‘any steps, by owners or operators of
section 128. If the state chooses to not member of the board or body which stationary sources to monitor emissions
mirror the language of section 128, the approves permits or enforcement orders, from such sources; (ii) periodic reports
state may adopt state statutes and/or the head of the Utah [DAQ] with similar on the nature and amounts of emissions
regulations that functionally impose the powers, and the head of the Utah [DEQ] and emissions-related data from such
same requirements as those of section with similar powers.’’ Under Utah’s sources; and (iii) correlation of such
128, including definitions for key terms administrative procedures, the Director reports by the State agency with any
such as those recommended in the of Utah DAQ has the initial authority to emission limitations or standards
EPA’s 1978 guidance. While either of issue air permits and enforcement established pursuant to [the Act], which
these approaches would meet the orders, and the Executive Director of reports shall be available at reasonable
minimum requirements of section 128, Utah DEQ has the ultimate authority to times for public inspection.’’
the statute also explicitly authorizes resolve administrative adjudicative The provisions cited by Utah in SIP
states to adopt more stringent proceedings regarding permits and Section III Source Surveillance,
requirements, for example to impose enforcement orders. See Utah Code 19– (including R307–150, and R307–165)
additional requirements for recusal of 1–301, 19–1–301.5. Thus, Utah’s pertain to its program of periodic
board members from decisions, above submittal addresses disclosure of emissions testing and plant inspections
and beyond the explicit board potential conflicts of interest from the of stationary sources, and related testing
composition requirements. Although heads of executive agencies that requirements and protocols (including
such recusal alone does not meet the approve permits and enforcement orders periodic reporting) to assure compliance
requirements of section 128, states have under the Act. with emissions limits. R307–170
the authority to require that over and Utah’s provisions are also sufficient requires certain large sources to install
above the explicit requirements of for adequate disclosure. Under R307– and maintain continuous emission
section 128. These approaches give 104–3(2), ‘‘[e]very individual listed in monitors to assure compliance with
states flexibility in implementing R307–104–3(1) who is an officer, emission limitations established in
section 128, while still ensuring director, agent, employee, or the owner approval orders and the SIP. In
consistency with the statute. of a substantial interest in any business addition, Utah provides for monitoring,
As previously explained, the EPA entity which is subject to the regulation recordkeeping, and reporting
interprets subsection 128(a)(1) to apply of the agency by which the individual requirements for sources subject to
only to states that have a board or body listed in R307–104–3(1) is employed, minor and major source permitting.
with multiple members that, among its shall disclose any position held and the Furthermore, Utah is required to
duties, approves permits or enforcement precise nature and value of the interest submit emissions data to the EPA for
orders under the Act. In its 2012 PM2.5 upon first becoming a public officer or purposes of the National Emissions
NAAQS certification, the State asserts public employee listed in R307–104– Inventory (NEI). The NEI is the EPA’s
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSAL
that there is no such multi-member 3(1), and again whenever his or her central repository for air emissions data.
board or body, citing Utah Code section position in the business entity changes The EPA published the Air Emissions
19–2–104, Powers of the board. significantly or if the value of his or her Reporting Rule (AERR) on December 5,
Subsection 19–2–104(7) specifies that 2008, which modified the requirements
the Utah AQB lacks authority over 10 In 2012, the Utah Legislature amended state
for collecting and reporting air
law to generally transfer authority of the Utah AQB emissions data (73 FR 76539). The
permits, and subsection 19–2–104(3) over permits and enforcement orders to the Director
gives the Utah AQB authority only to of Utah DAQ and Executive Director of Utah DEQ. AERR shortened the time states had to
recommend that the Director issue and See 78 FR 52477, 52482 (Aug. 23, 2013). report emissions data from 17 to 12
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:13 Apr 25, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\26APP1.SGM 26APP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_24605/page/8.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 80 / Tuesday, April 26, 2016 / Proposed Rules 24533
months, giving states one calendar-year emergency basis to prevent substantial applicable requirements of 40 CFR part
to submit emissions data. All states are endangerment to the health of persons. 51, subpart H for the relevant NAAQS
required to submit a comprehensive Utah Code 19–2–116(3)(a) also provides if the NAAQS is covered by those
emissions inventory every three years the director the power to ‘‘initiate an regulations. The EPA approved Utah’s
and report emissions for certain larger action for appropriate injunctive relief State SIP Section VII (Prevention of Air
sources annually through the EPA’s . . . when it appears necessary for the Pollution Emergency Episodes), codified
online Emissions Inventory System. protection of health and welfare.’’ Utah at R307–110–8, most recently on
States report emissions data for the six Code 19–2–112(1)(a) provides authority February 14, 2006 at 71 FR 7679. We
criteria pollutants and their associated to the ‘‘executive director, with the find that Utah’s air pollution emergency
precursors—nitrogen oxides, sulfur concurrence of the governor’’ to order rules include PM10,12 ozone, NO2, and
dioxide, ammonia, lead, carbon people ‘‘causing or contributing to . . . SO2; establish stages of episode criteria;
monoxide, particulate matter and air pollution to reduce or discontinue provide for public announcement
volatile organic compounds. Many immediately the emission of air whenever any episode stage has been
states also voluntarily report emissions pollutants’’ if the ‘‘executive director determined to exist; and specify
of hazardous air pollutants. Utah made finds that a generalized condition of air emission control actions to be taken at
its latest update to the NEI in March pollution exists and that it creates an each episode stage, consistent with the
2016. The EPA compiles the emissions emergency requiring immediate action EPA emergency episode SIP
data, supplementing it where necessary, to protect human health or safety.’’ Utah requirements set forth at 40 CFR part 51
and releases it to the general public Code 19–2–112(2)(a) describes how in subpart H (prevention of air pollution
through the Web site https://www.epa. instances of an ‘‘absence of a emergency episode) for particulate
gov/air-emissions-inventories. generalized condition of air pollution’’ matter, ozone, NO2, and SO2.
Based on the analysis above, we referred to in subsection (1), the As noted in the 2011 Memo ‘‘based on
propose to approve the Utah SIP as executive director may still commence [the] EPA’s experience to date with the
meeting the requirements of CAA adjudicative proceedings as long as the Pb NAAQS and designating Pb
section 110(a)(2)(F) for the 2008 Pb, executive director ‘‘finds that emissions nonattainment areas, [the] EPA expects
2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2 and from the operation of one or more air that an emergency episode associated
2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. pollutant sources is causing imminent with Pb emissions would be unlikely
8. Emergency powers: Section danger to human health or safety.’’ and, if it were to occur, would be the
110(a)(2)(G) of the CAA requires In regard to imminent and substantial result of a malfunction or other
infrastructure SIPs to ‘‘provide for endangerment to the environment, emergency situation at a relatively large
authority comparable to that in [CAA Utah’s Emergency Management Act source of Pb’’ (page 14).13 Accordingly,
section 303] and adequate contingency allows the Governor to issue rules and the EPA believes the central
plans to implement such authority[.]’’ regulations having the ‘‘full force and components of a contingency plan
Under CAA section 303, the EPA effect of law’’ during a state of would be to reduce emissions from the
Administrator has authority to bring suit emergency. Additionally, Utah Code source at issue and communicate with
to immediately restrain an air pollution 53–2a–209(1) allows the Governor to the public as needed. We note that 40
source that presents an ‘‘imminent and suspend rules and regulations of state CFR part 51, subpart H (51.150–51.152)
substantial endangerment to public agencies that would prevent the ability and 40 CFR part 51, Appendix L do not
health or welfare, or the to adequately deal with such disasters. apply to Pb.
environment.’’ 11 If such action may not See Utah Code 53–2a–209(3). Based on the above analysis, we
practicably assure prompt protection, While no single Utah statute mirrors propose approval of Utah’s SIP as
then the Administrator has authority to the authorities of CAA section 303, we meeting the requirements of CAA
issue temporary administrative orders to propose to find that the combination of section 110(a)(2)(G) for the 2008 Pb,
Utah Code, UAC Rules, and Utah’s 2008 ozone, and 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2
protect the public health or welfare, or
Emergency Management Act provisions and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.
the environment, and such orders can
previously discussed provide for 9. Future SIP revisions: Section
be extended if the EPA subsequently
authority comparable to section 303. 110(a)(2)(H) requires that SIPs provide
files a civil suit. We propose to find that for revision of such plan: (i) ‘‘[f]rom
Section 303 authorizes the
Utah’s infrastructure SIP submittals time to time as may be necessary to take
Administrator to immediately bring suit
provide for authority for the State account of revisions of such national
to restrain and issue emergency orders
comparable to that granted to the EPA primary or secondary ambient air
when necessary, to enable the
Administrator to act in the face of an
Administrator to take prompt
imminent and substantial endangerment
administrative action against any person 12 The EPA has not yet promulgated regulations
to the public’s health or welfare, or the causing or contributing to air pollution for ambient levels pertaining to priority levels for
environment. that presents an imminent and
PM2.5 under the 2012 NAAQS (2013 Memo, p. 47).
Utah’s SIP submittals with regard to EPA’s September 25, 2009 Memo (available within
substantial endangerment to public the docket) suggested that states with areas that
the section 110(a)(2)(G) emergency order health or welfare, or the environment. have had a PM2.5 exceedance greater than 140.4 mg/
requirements cite the EPA approved Therefore, we propose that Utah’s SIP m3 should develop and submit an emergency
provisions (State SIP Section I Legal submittals sufficiently meet the
episode plan. If no such concentration was recorded
Authority codified at R307–110–2) to in the last three years, the guidance suggested that
requirements of CAA 110(a)(2)(G) the State can rely on its general emergency
abate pollutant emissions on an because they demonstrate that Utah has authorities. In this rulemaking, we continue to view
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSAL
these suggestions as appropriate in assessing Utah’s
11 A discussion of the requirements for meeting
authority comparable to CAA section SIP for this element. Utah has not had such a
CAA section 303 is provided in our notice of 303. recorded PM2.5 level and thus an emergency
proposed rulemaking: Promulgation of State States must also have adequate episode plan for PM2.5 is not necessary. The SIP
Implementation Plan Revisions; Infrastructure contingency plans adopted into their therefore meets the requirements of CAA section
Requirements for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5, 2008 SIP to implement the air agency’s 110(a)(2)(G) for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.
Lead, 2008 Ozone, and 2010 NO2 National Ambient 13 October 14, 2011, ‘‘Guidance on Infrastructure
Air Quality Standards; South Dakota (79 FR 71040,
emergency episode authority (as SIP Elements Required Under Sections 110(a)(1)
Dec. 1, 2014) under ‘‘VI. Analysis of State previously discussed). This can be done and (2) for the 2008 Lead (Pb) National Ambient Air
Submittals, 8. Emergency powers.’’ by submitting a plan that meets the Quality Standards (NAAQS).’’
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:13 Apr 25, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\26APP1.SGM 26APP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_24605/page/9.svg)
![24534 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 80 / Tuesday, April 26, 2016 / Proposed Rules
quality standard or the availability of the EPA recognizes states are subject to UAC rule R307–414, Permits: Fees for
improved or more expeditious methods visibility and regional haze program Approval Orders, requires the owner
of attaining such standard[;] and (ii) requirements under part C of the Act. In and operator of each new major source
except as provided in paragraph (3)(C), the event of the establishment of a new or major modification to pay a fee
whenever the Administrator finds on NAAQS, however, the visibility and sufficient to cover the reasonable costs
the basis of information available to the regional haze program requirements of reviewing and acting upon the notice
Administrator that the [SIP] is under part C do not change. Thus, we of intent and implementing and
substantially inadequate to attain the find that there are no applicable enforcing requirements placed on such
[NAAQS] which it implements or to visibility requirements under section source by any approval order issued.
otherwise comply with any additional 110(a)(2)(J) when a new NAAQS The EPA approved R307–414 most
requirements under this [Act].’’ becomes effective. recently on February 14, 2006 at 71 FR
Utah SIP Section I cites 19–2–104 and Based on the above analysis, we 7679. SIP Section I (Legal Authority)
19–2–109 of the Utah Code. Sections propose to approve the Utah SIP as ‘‘identifies the statutory authority to
19–2–104 and 19–2–109 give the AQB meeting the requirements of CAA charge a fee to major sources to cover
sufficient authority to meet the section 110(a)(2)(J) for the 2008 Pb, 2008 permit and enforcement expenses . . .’’
requirements of CAA section ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2 and 2012 SIP Section I was codified at R307–10–
110(a)(2)(H). Therefore, we propose to PM2.5 NAAQS. 2 and the EPA approved it most recently
approve Utah’s SIP as meeting the 11. Air quality and modeling/data: on June 25, 2003 at 68 FR 37744.
requirements of CAA section Section 110(a)(2)(K) requires each SIP We also note that all the State’s
110(a)(2)(H). provide for: (i) ‘‘the performance of such certifications cite R307–415 which is
10. Consultation with government air quality modeling as the the regulation that provides for
officials, public notification, PSD and Administrator may prescribe for the collection of permitting fees under
visibility protection: Section 110(a)(2)(J) purpose of predicting the effect on Utah’s approved title V permit program
requires that each SIP ‘‘meet the (60 FR 30192, June 8, 1995). As
ambient air quality of any emissions of
applicable requirements of section 121 discussed in that approval, the State
any air pollutant for which the
of this title (relating to consultation), demonstrated that the fees collected
Administrator has established a
section 127 of this title (relating to were sufficient to administer the
[NAAQS]; and (ii) the submission, upon
public notification), and part C of this
request, of data related to such air program.
subchapter (relating to PSD of air
quality modeling to the Administrator.’’ Therefore we propose to approve the
quality and visibility protection).’’
In its certifications, the State cites SIP UAC rule R307–405–13 incorporates submissions as supplemented by the
Section I (Legal Authority) adopting by reference the air quality model State for the 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010
requirements for transportation provisions of 40 CFR 52.21(l), which NO2, 2010 SO2 and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.
consultation, SIP Section VI includes the air quality model 13. Consultation/participation by
(Intergovernmental Cooperation), and requirements of appendix W of 40 CFR affected local entities: Section
SIP Section XII (Transportation part 51, pertaining to the Guideline on 110(a)(2)(M) requires states to ‘‘provide
Conformity Consultation) to meet the Air Quality Models. Additionally, Utah for consultation and participation [in
requirements of CAA section 121. The Code 19–104(1)(a)–(b) provide the AQB SIP development] by local political
State has demonstrated that it has the with the authority to propose and subdivisions affected by [the SIP].’’
authority and rules in place to provide finalize rules that require air quality The provisions cited in Utah’s SIP
a process of consultation with general modeling for the purpose of predicting submittals (SIP Section VI
purpose local governments, designated the effect on ambient air quality relating (Intergovernmental Cooperation)
organizations of elected officials of local to NAAQS. As a result, the SIP provides codified at R307–110–7 and SIP Section
governments and any Federal Land for such air quality modeling as the XII (Transportation Conformity
Manager having authority over federal Administrator has prescribed. Consultation) codified at R307–110–20,
land to which the SIP applies, Therefore, we propose to approve the contained within this docket) meet the
consistent with the requirements of Utah SIP as meeting the CAA section requirements of CAA section
CAA section 121 (see 59 FR 2988, Jan. 110(a)(2)(K) for the 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 110(a)(2)(M). We propose to approve
20, 1994). Furthermore, SIP section XVI, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2 and 2012 PM2.5 Utah’s SIP as meeting these
cited by Utah, meets the general NAAQS. requirements for the 2008 Pb, 2008
requirements of CAA section 127 to 12. Permitting fees: Section ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2 and 2012
notify the public when the NAAQS have 110(a)(2)(L) requires ‘‘the owner or PM2.5 NAAQS.
been exceeded. operator of each major stationary source
VII. What action is the EPA taking?
The State has a SIP-approved PSD to pay to the permitting authority, as a
program that incorporates by reference condition of any permit required under In this action, the EPA is proposing to
the federal program at 40 CFR 52.21; this [Act], a fee sufficient to cover[:] (i) approve infrastructure elements for the
these provisions are located in R307– The reasonable costs of reviewing and 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010
405–2 of the UAC. The EPA has further acting upon any application for such a SO2 and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS from the
evaluated Utah’s SIP-approved PSD permit[;] and (ii) if the owner or State’s certifications as shown in Table
program in this proposed action under operator receives a permit for such 1. Elements we propose no action on are
VI.3 of this notice which analyzes source, the reasonable costs of reflected in Table 2. Finally, the EPA is
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSAL
whether the Utah SIP has met CAA implementing and enforcing the terms proposing to approve a new UAC
section 110(a)(2)(C). There, we propose and conditions of any such permit (not submitted on March 14, 2016 to satisfy
approval with respect to the PSD including any court costs or other costs requirements of element (E)(ii),which
requirements of element (C); we associated with any enforcement refers to requirements related to state
likewise do so here with respect to the action), until such fee requirement is boards.
PSD requirements of element (J). superseded with respect to such sources A comprehensive summary of
Finally, with regard to the applicable by the Administrator’s approval of a fee infrastructure elements, and revisions
requirements for visibility protection, program under [title] V.’’ and additions to the UAC organized by
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:13 Apr 25, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\26APP1.SGM 26APP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_24605/page/10.svg)
![24536 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 80 / Tuesday, April 26, 2016 / Proposed Rules
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 action. Copies of the TSDs are available, provided in the direct final action, with
Environmental protection, Air upon request, from the EPA Regional the same title, that is located in the
pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Office listed in the ADDRESSES section of Rules and Regulations section of this
Incorporation by reference, this document or are also available issue of the Federal Register.
Intergovernmental relations, electronically within the Docket for this Dated: April 8, 2016.
Greenhouse gases, Lead, Nitrogen rulemaking action. If no adverse Shawn M. Garvin,
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, comments are received in response to
Regional Administrator, Region III.
Reporting and recordkeeping this action, no further activity is
contemplated. If EPA receives adverse [FR Doc. 2016–09590 Filed 4–25–16; 8:45 am]
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile
organic compounds. comments, the direct final rule will be BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
withdrawn and all public comments
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. received will be addressed in a
Dated: April 13, 2016. subsequent final rule based on this ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
Debra H. Thomas, proposed rule. EPA will not institute a AGENCY
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 8. second comment period. Any parties
40 CFR Parts 52 and 81
[FR Doc. 2016–09586 Filed 4–25–16; 8:45 am] interested in commenting on this action
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
should do so at this time. [EPA–R04–OAR–2012–0323; FRL–9945–63–
DATES: Comments must be received in Region 4]
writing by May 26, 2016.
Air Plan Approval and Air Quality
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
Designation; TN; Redesignation of the
AGENCY identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R03– Sullivan County Lead Nonattainment
OAR–2016–0002 at http:// Area to Attainment
40 CFR Part 52 www.regulations.gov, or via email to
[EPA–R03–OAR–2016–0002; FRL–9945–46– fernandez.cristina@epa.gov. For AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Region 3] comments submitted at Regulations.gov, Agency (EPA).
follow the online instructions for ACTION: Proposed rule.
Approval and Promulgation of Air submitting comments. Once submitted,
Quality Implementation Plans; comments cannot be edited or removed SUMMARY: On July 15, 2015, the State of
Pennsylvania; 2011 Base Year from Regulations.gov. For either manner Tennessee, through the Tennessee
Inventories for the 2008 8-Hour Ozone of submission, EPA may publish any Department of Environment and
National Ambient Air Quality Standard comment received to its public docket. Conservation (TDEC), submitted a
for the Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton, Do not submit electronically any request for the Environmental
Lancaster, Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley, information you consider to be Protection Agency (EPA) to redesignate
and Reading Areas, and the confidential business information (CBI) the Bristol, Tennessee 2008 lead
Pennsylvania Portion of the or other information whose disclosure is nonattainment area (hereafter referred to
Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City restricted by statute. Multimedia as the ‘‘Bristol Area’’ or the ‘‘Area’’) to
Area submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be attainment for the 2008 lead National
accompanied by a written comment. Ambient Air Quality Standards
AGENCY: Environmental Protection (NAAQS) and an associated State
The written comment is considered the
Agency (EPA). Implementation Plan (SIP) revision
official comment and should include
ACTION: Proposed rule. containing a maintenance plan and a
discussion of all points you wish to
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection make. EPA will generally not consider reasonably available control measures
Agency (EPA) proposes to approve the comments or comment contents located (RACM) determination for the Area.
2011 base year inventories for the 2008 outside of the primary submission (i.e. EPA is proposing to determine that the
8-hour ozone national ambient air on the web, cloud, or other file sharing Bristol Area is continuing to attain the
quality standard (NAAQS) for the system). For additional submission 2008 lead NAAQS; to approve the SIP
Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton, methods, please contact the person revision containing the State’s
Lancaster, Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley, and identified in the FOR FURTHER maintenance plan for maintaining
Reading nonattainment areas, and the INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the attainment of the 2008 lead standard
Pennsylvania portion of the full EPA public comment policy, and the State’s RACM determination;
Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City information about CBI or multimedia and to redesignate the Bristol Area to
nonattainment area, submitted by the submissions, and general guidance on attainment for the 2008 lead NAAQS.
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania as a making effective comments, please visit DATES: Comments must be received on
revision to the Pennsylvania State http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/ or before May 26, 2016.
Implementation Plan (SIP). In the Rules commenting-epa-dockets. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
and Regulations section of this issue of FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04–
the Federal Register, EPA is approving Maria A. Pino, (215) 814–2181, or by OAR–2012–0323 at http://
Pennsylvania’s SIP submittal as a direct email at pino.maria@epa.gov. www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
final rule without prior proposal SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For instructions for submitting comments.
because the Agency views this as a further information regarding Once submitted, comments cannot be
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSAL
noncontroversial submittal and Pennsylvania’s 2011 base year edited or removed from Regulations.gov.
anticipates no adverse comments. The inventories for the 2008 8-hour ozone EPA may publish any comment received
rationale for the approval is set forth in NAAQS for the Allentown-Bethlehem- to its public docket. Do not submit
the direct final rule. More detailed Easton, Lancaster, Pittsburgh-Beaver electronically any information you
descriptions of the state submittal and Valley, and Reading areas, and the consider to be Confidential Business
EPA’s evaluation are included in Pennsylvania portion of the Information (CBI) or other information
Technical Support Documents (TSD) Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
prepared in support of this rulemaking area, please see the information Multimedia submissions (audio, video,
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:13 Apr 25, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\26APP1.SGM 26APP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_24605/page/12.svg)
Document Created: 2016-04-26 01:36:43
Document Modified: 2016-04-26 01:36:43
| 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 | Proposed Rules | |
| Action | Proposed rule. | |
| Dates | Written comments must be received on or before May 26, 2016. | |
| Contact | Abby Fulton, Air Program, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mail Code 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129, (303) 312-6563, [email protected] | |
| FR Citation | 81 FR 24525 | |
| CFR Associated | Environmental Protection; Air Pollution Control; Carbon Monoxide; Incorporation by Reference; Intergovernmental Relations; Greenhouse Gases; Lead; Nitrogen Dioxide; Ozone; Particulate Matter; Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements; Sulfur Oxides and Volatile Organic Compounds |
2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR