
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 164 (Tuesday, August 25, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 51499-51504]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-20895]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R08-OAR-2014-0369; FRL-9932-90-Region 8]


Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; 
State of Utah; Revisions to the Utah Division of Administrative Rules, 
R307-300 Series; Area Source Rules for Attainment of Fine Particulate 
Matter Standards

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing 
approval and conditional approval of portions of the fine particulate 
matter (PM2.5) State Implementation Plan (SIP) and other 
general rule revisions submitted by the State of Utah. The revisions 
affect the Utah Division of Administrative Rules (DAR), R307-300 
Series; Requirements for Specific Locations; the revisions had 
submission dates of February 2, 2012, May 9, 2013, June 8, 2013, 
February 18, 2014, April 17, 2014, May 20, 2014, July 10, 2014, August 
6, 2014, and December

[[Page 51500]]

9, 2014. These area source rules control emissions of direct 
PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors, sulfur dioxides 
(SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOx) and volatile organic compounds 
(VOC). Additionally, the EPA will be proposing to approve the State's 
reasonably available control measure (RACM) determinations for the rule 
revisions that pertain to the PM2.5 SIP. This action is 
being taken under section 110 of the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act).

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before September 24, 
2015.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by EPA-R08-OAR-2014-0369, 
by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions 
for submitting comments.
     Email: ostigaard.crystal@epa.gov.
     Fax: (303) 312-6064 (please alert the individual listed in 
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT if you are faxing comments).
     Mail: Director, Air Program, EPA, Region 8, Mailcode 8P-
AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129.
     Hand Delivery: Director, Air Program, EPA, Region 8, 
Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129. Such 
deliveries are only accepted Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 
p.m., excluding federal holidays. Special arrangements should be made 
for deliveries of boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R08-OAR-
2014-0369. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included 
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at 
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information 
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be 
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose 
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you 
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or email. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site 
is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your 
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of 
your comment. If you send an email comment directly to EPA, without 
going through http://www.regulations.gov, your email address will be 
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is 
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you 
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name 
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any 
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to 
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA 
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid 
the use of special characters, any form of encryption and be free of 
any defects or viruses. For additional instructions on submitting 
comments, go to Section I. General Information of the SUPPLEMENTARY 
INFORMATION section of this document.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some 
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information 
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such 
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. 
Publicly-available docket materials are available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the EPA Region 8, Office of Partnerships and 
Regulatory Assistance, Air Program, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, 
Colorado, 80202-1129. EPA requests that you contact the individual 
listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to view the hard 
copy of the docket. You may view the hard copy of the docket Monday 
through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., excluding federal holidays. An 
electronic copy of the State's SIP compilation is also available at 
http://www.epa.gov/region8/air/sip.html.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Crystal Ostigaard, Air Program, EPA, 
Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-
1129, (303) 312-6602, ostigaard.crystal@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

    a. Submitting CBI. Do not submit CBI to EPA through http://www.regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the 
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or 
CD ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as 
CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the 
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one 
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as 
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information 
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. 
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with 
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    b. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. When submitting comments, 
remember to:
    i. Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying 
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
    ii. Follow directions--The agency may ask you to respond to 
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of 
Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
    iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and 
substitute language for your requested changes.
    iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information 
and/or data that you used.
    v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you 
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be 
reproduced.
    vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and 
suggest alternatives.
    vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of 
profanity or personal threats.
    viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period 
deadline identified.

II. Background

A. Regulatory Background

    On October 17, 2006 (71 FR 61144), the EPA strengthened the level 
of the 24-hour PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards 
(NAAQS), lowering the primary and secondary standards from 65 
micrograms per cubic meter ([micro]g/m\3\), the 1997 standard, to 
35[micro]g/m\3\. On November 13, 2009 (74 FR 58688), the EPA designated 
three nonattainment areas in Utah for the 24-hour PM2.5 
NAAQS of 35 [micro]g/m\3\. These are the Salt Lake City, UT; Provo, UT; 
and Logan, UT-ID nonattainment areas. The EPA originally designated 
these areas under CAA title I, part D, subpart 1, which required Utah 
to submit an attainment plan for each area no later than three years 
from the date of their nonattainment designations. These plans needed 
to provide for the attainment of the PM2.5 standard as 
expeditiously as practicable, but no later than five years from the 
date the areas were designated nonattainment.
    Subsequently, on January 4, 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 
District of Columbia held that the EPA should have implemented the 2006 
PM2.5 24-hour standard based on both CAA title I, part D, 
subpart 1 and subpart 4. Under

[[Page 51501]]

subpart 4, nonattainment areas are initially classified as moderate, 
and moderate area attainment plans must address the requirements of 
subpart 4 as well as subpart 1. Additionally, CAA subpart 4 sets a 
different SIP submittal due date and attainment year. For a moderate 
area, the attainment SIP is due 18 months after designation and the 
attainment year is the end of the sixth calendar year after 
designation. On June 2, 2014 (79 FR 31566), the EPA finalized the 
Identification of Nonattainment Classification and Deadlines for 
Submission of State Implementation Plan (SIP) Provisions for the 1997 
Fine Particulate (PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality 
Standard (NAAQS) and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS (``the Classification 
and Deadline Rule''). This rule classified to moderate the areas that 
were designated in 2009 as nonattainment, and set the attainment SIP 
submittal due date for those areas at December 31, 2014. This rule did 
not affect the moderate area attainment date of December 31, 2015.
    On March 23, 2015, the EPA proposed the Fine Particulate Matter 
National Ambient Air Quality Standards: State Implementation Plan 
Requirements (``PM2.5 Implementation Rule''), 80 FR 15340, 
which partially addresses the January 4, 2013 court ruling. This 
proposed rule details how air agencies should meet the statutory SIP 
requirements that apply under subparts 1 and 4 to areas designated 
nonattainment for any PM2.5 NAAQS, such as: General 
requirements for attainment plan due dates and attainment 
demonstrations; provisions for demonstrating reasonable further 
progress; quantitative milestones; contingency measures; Nonattainment 
New Source Review (NNSR) permitting programs; and RACM (including 
reasonably available control technology (RACT)), among other things. 
The statutory attainment planning requirements of subparts 1 and 4 were 
established to ensure that the following goals of the CAA are met: (i) 
That states implement measures that provide for attainment of the 
PM2.5 NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable; and, (ii) that 
states adopt emissions reduction strategies that will be the most 
effective, and the most cost-effective, at reducing PM2.5 
levels in nonattainment areas.
    The PM2.5 Implementation Rule proposed a process for 
states to determine the control strategy for PM2.5 
attainment plans. The process consists of identifying all 
technologically and economically feasible control measures, including 
control technologies for all sources of direct PM2.5 and 
PM2.5 precursors in the emissions inventory for the 
nonattainment area which are not otherwise exempted from consideration 
for controls.\1\ From that list of measures, the state must identify 
those that it can implement within four years of designation of the 
area (and which would thus meet the statutory requirements for RACM and 
RACT) and any ``additional reasonable measures,'' which EPA is 
proposing in the PM2.5 Implementation Rule to define as 
those technologically and economically feasible measures that the state 
can only implement on sources in the nonattainment area after the four 
year deadline for RACM and RACT has passed. See proposed 40 CFR 
51.1000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Such exemptions could be due to a demonstrated lack of 
significant contribution of a certain PM2.5 precursor to 
the area's elevated PM2.5 concentrations or due to a 
presumptive determination that a certain source category contributes 
only a de minimis amount toward PM2.5 levels in a 
nonattainment area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. RACT and RACM Requirements for PM2.5 Attainment Plans

    Section 172(c)(1) of the Act (from subpart 1) requires that 
attainment plans, in general, provide for the implementation of all 
RACM as expeditiously as practicable (including RACT) and shall provide 
for attainment of the national primary ambient air quality standards. 
Section 189(a)(1)(C) (from subpart 4) requires moderate area attainment 
plans to contain provisions to assure that RACM is implemented no later 
than four years after designation.
    The EPA stated its interpretation of the RACT and RACM requirements 
of subparts 1 and 4 in the 1992 General Preamble for the Implementation 
of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, 57 FR 13498 (Apr. 
6, 1992). For RACT, the EPA followed its ``historic definition of RACT 
as the lowest emission limitation that a particular source is capable 
of meeting by the application of control technology that is reasonably 
available considering technological and economic feasibility.'' 57 FR 
13541. Like RACT, the EPA has historically considered RACM to consist 
of control measures that are reasonably available, considering 
technological and economic feasibility. See PM2.5 
Implementation Rule, 80 FR 15373.

C. Utah's PM2.5 Attainment Plan Submittals

    Prior to the January 4, 2013 decision of the DC Circuit Court of 
Appeals, Utah developed a PM2.5 attainment plan intended to 
meet the requirements of subpart 1. The EPA submitted written comments 
dated November 1, 2012 to the Utah Division of Air Quality (DAQ) on 
Utah's draft PM2.5 SIP, technical support document (TSD), 
and area source and other rules. After the court's decision, Utah 
amended its attainment plan to address requirements of subpart 4. On 
December 2, 2013, the EPA provided comments on Utah's revised draft 
PM2.5 SIPs for the Salt Lake City and Provo areas, including 
the TSDs and rules in Section IX, Part H. These written comments from 
EPA included some comments applicable to the rules we are proposing to 
act on today. The comment letters can be found within the docket for 
this action on www.regulations.gov.
    In addition to Utah's February 2, 2012 SIP submittal, on May 9, 
2013, June 8, 2013, February 18, 2014, April 17, 2014, May 20, 2014, 
July 10, 2014, August 6, 2014, and December 9, 2014 the State of Utah 
submitted to EPA various revisions to the Division of Administrative 
Rules (DAR), Title R307--Environmental Quality, set of rules, most of 
which are applicable to the Utah SIP for PM2.5 nonattainment 
areas. The new rules or revised rules we are addressing in this 
proposed rule were provided by Utah in the nine different submissions 
listed above, and these rules are: R307-101-2, General Requirements: 
Definitions; R307-103, Administrative Procedures; R307-303, Commercial 
Cooking; R307-307, Road Salting and Sanding; R307-312, Aggregate 
Processing Operations for PM2.5 Nonattainment Areas; R307-
328, Gasoline Transfer and Storage; R307-335, Degreasing and Solvent 
Cleaning Operations; R307-342, Adhesives and Sealants; R307-343 
Emissions Standards for Wood Furniture Manufacturing Operations; R307-
344, Paper, Film, and Foil Coatings; R307-345, Fabric and Vinyl 
Coatings; R307-346, Metal Furniture Surface Coatings; R307-347, Large 
Appliance Surface Coatings; R307-348, Magnet Wire Coatings; R307-349, 
Flat Wood Panel Coatings; R307-350, Miscellaneous Metal Parts and 
Products Coatings; R307-351, Graphic Arts; R307-352, Metal Container, 
Closure, and Coil Coatings; R307-353, Plastic Parts Coatings; R307-354, 
Automotive Refinishing Coatings; R307-355, Control of Emissions from 
Aerospace Manufacture and Rework Facilities; R307-356, Appliance Pilot 
Light; R307-357, Consumer Products; and R307-361, Architectural 
Coatings.
    A previous rule, Rule R307-340 Surface Coating Processes, was 
replaced in these submittals by the specific rules for coatings listed 
above. Utah correspondingly repealed R307-340. In addition, Rule R307-
342, Adhesives and Sealants, replaces an unrelated rule, R307-342 
Qualifications of Contractors and Test Procedures for Vapor Recovery

[[Page 51502]]

Systems for Gasoline Delivery Tanks. The removal of the previous 
version of R307-342 is addressed by the State's February 2, 2012 
submittal, which repeals R307-342 and amends R307-328, Gasoline 
Transfer and Storage, to account for the repeal of R307-342.
    The final Utah submittal for fourteen of these rules was the 
December 9, 2014 submittal. The final Utah submittals for the remaining 
rules were from the February 2, 2012, May 9, 2013, June 8, 2013, 
February 18, 2014, April 17, 2014, May 20, 2014, July 10, 2014, and 
August 6, 2014 submittals. For each individual rule, the particular 
submittal containing the final version of the rule is identified in the 
technical support document provided in the docket for this proposed 
action.

III. EPA's Evaluation of Utah's Submittals

    The SIP revisions in the February 2, 2012, May 9, 2013, June 8, 
2013, February 18, 2014, April 17, 2014, May 20, 2014, July 10, 2014, 
August 6, 2014, and December 9, 2014 submittals that we are proposing 
to act on involve revisions to the DAR, Title R307--Environmental 
Quality, R307-101-2 General Requirements: Definitions; R307-103, 
Administrative Procedures; and the R307-300 Series; Requirements for 
Specific Locations (Within Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas). A 
number of the rules were submitted in multiple submission packages. The 
final, most recent submission package for each individual rule 
supersedes earlier submissions, and our proposed determination for each 
rule takes all changes from those earlier submissions into account. 
These final rule submissions, except for revisions to R307-101-2, R307-
103, and R307-328, and the repeal of R307-342, are submitted and 
requested for approval as RACM components of the PM2.5 SIP 
submitted by the State of Utah. EPA is also taking action on two rule 
revisions that do not pertain to the Utah PM2.5 SIPs which 
include revisions to R307-328 and the repeal of R307-342. All of these 
rule revisions found in these submittals can be found on 
www.regulations.gov.
    The rules for RACM for area sources fall into two types. First, 
there are a number of similar rules for control of VOC emissions. These 
rules cover categories of area sources that use materials that contain 
VOCs, and also in some cases categories of area sources that 
manufacture or produce these materials.\2\ The second type of rule 
provide specific requirements for emissions of direct PM2.5, 
VOCs, NOx, and SO2 from a few specific categories of 
sources.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The rules of this type are: R307-335, Degreasing and Solvent 
Cleaning Operations; R307-342, Adhesives and Sealants; R307-343 
Emissions Standards for Wood Furniture Manufacturing Operations; 
R307-344, Paper, Film, and Foil Coatings; R307-345, Fabric and Vinyl 
Coatings; R307-346, Metal Furniture Surface Coatings; R307-347, 
Large Appliance Surface Coatings; R307-348, Magnet Wire Coatings; 
R307-349, Flat Wood Panel Coatings; R307-350, Miscellaneous Metal 
Parts and Products Coatings; R307-351, Graphic Arts; R307-352, Metal 
Container, Closure, and Coil Coatings; R-307-353, Plastic Parts 
Coatings; R307-354, Automotive Refinishing Coatings; R307-355, 
Control of Emissions from Aerospace Manufacture and Rework 
Facilities; R307-357, Consumer Products; and R307-361, Architectural 
Coatings.
    \3\ The rules of this type are: R307-303, Commercial Cooking; 
R307-307, Road Salting and Sanding; R307-312, Aggregate Processing 
Operations for PM2.5 Nonattainment Areas; and R307-357, 
Appliance Pilot Light.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the first type of rule, Utah generally allows area sources to 
comply in two ways. One is through use or production of materials with 
specified VOC content levels. The other is through use of add-on 
controls. For use of materials, in most rules sources can demonstrate 
compliance through manufacturer's data sheets. For add-on controls, the 
State has provided specific test methods to determine the efficiency of 
the controls.
    The following is a summary of EPA's evaluation of the rule 
revisions. The details of our evaluation are provided in a TSD that is 
available in the docket for this action. In general, we reviewed the 
rules for: enforceability; RACM requirements (for those rules submitted 
as RACM); and other applicable requirements of the Act.
    With respect to enforceability, section 110(a)(2)(A) of the Act 
requires SIP provisions such as emission limitations to be enforceable, 
and sections 110(a)(2)(F)(i) and (F)(ii) require plans to contain 
certain types of provisions related to enforceability, such as source 
monitoring, as prescribed by the Administrator. 40 CFR part 51, subpart 
K, Source Surveillance, prescribes requirements that plans must meet in 
this respect. 40 CFR Section 51.211 requires plans to contain legally 
enforceable procedures for owners or operators of stationary sources to 
maintain records and report information to the State in order to 
determine whether the source is in compliance. 40 CFR Section 51.212 
requires plans to, among other things, contain enforceable test methods 
for each emission limit in the plan. Appropriate test methods may be 
selected from Appendix M to 40 CFR part 51 or Appendix A to 40 CFR part 
60, or a state may use an alternative method following review and 
approval of that method by the EPA.
    Our review of the rules for enforceability revealed a few potential 
issues. First, certain rules did not clearly identify the test method 
that should be used to determine compliance. On August 4, 2015, the 
State provided a clarification letter that addresses this issue. 
Second, certain rules specified use of an ``equivalent method'' for 
compliance. This can create issues for enforceability of the provision 
under section CAA 110(a)(2)(C), as well as potentially violating the 
requirement of section 110(i) that SIP requirements for stationary 
sources can only be changed (with certain limited exceptions) through 
the SIP revision process. The State has provided a letter on August 4, 
2015 that commits to provide a specific SIP revision to either remove 
the provision for use of an equivalent method, or to specify the other 
methods that can be used for compliance. Details of our analysis are in 
the docket for this rulemaking.
    For review of the State's RACM analyses, the EPA proposes to adopt 
the interpretation of RACM set out in the General Preamble, 57 FR 
13498, 13540-13544 (April 6, 1992), and described in the March 23, 2015 
proposed PM2.5 Implementation Rule. That is, RACM consists 
of the control measures that are reasonably available considering 
technological and economic feasibility. This includes EPA's 
longstanding interpretation that economic feasibility ``involves 
considering the cost of reducing emissions and the difference between 
the cost of an emissions reduction measure at a particular source and 
the cost of emissions reduction measures that have been implemented at 
other similar sources in the same or other areas.'' 80 FR 15373-74.
    Our detailed review of the State's RACM analyses for the rules we 
are acting on is provided in a TSD in the docket for this action. We 
did not review whether Utah's PM2.5 attainment plan as a 
whole addresses all necessary requirements for RACM under subparts 1 
and 4. Based on our review, we are proposing to approve the State's 
submission that the particular rules we are acting on constitute RACM 
for the covered source categories, but we are not proposing to approve 
the PM2.5 attainment plan as a whole with respect to RACM 
requirements. We will act on the remainder of the attainment plan in a 
separate action.
    Finally, we reviewed all rules for compliance with other 
requirements of the Act. This review revealed a potential issue with 
one provision in the general definitions in R307-101-2. The provision 
defined ``PM2.5 precursor'' to

[[Page 51503]]

include specifically only VOC, SO2, and NOX. As a 
factual matter, ammonia (NH3) is also a precursor to 
PM2.5, and at a minimum PM2.5 attainment plans 
should include inventories of all PM2.5 precursors.\4\ 
However, after review by UDAQ and EPA, we found that this definition 
was not used anywhere in Utah's SIP and could be removed. On August 4, 
2015, the State provided a commitment letter to address the issue by 
removing the definition of PM2.5 precursor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The PM2.5 Implementation Rule proposes options 
for how states should substantively address control of these 
precursors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. What action is EPA proposing?

    EPA is proposing approval of the revisions to Administrative Rules 
R307-101-2 and R307-103, along with the additions/revisions/repeals in 
R307-300 Series; Requirements for Specific Locations (Within 
Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas), R307-303, R307-307, R307-312 
(conditionally approved, see below), R307-335, R307-340 (repealed), 
R307-342 (repealed and replaced), R307-343, R307-344, R307-345, R307-
346, R307-347, R307-348, R307-349, R307-350, R307-351, R307-352, R307-
353, R307-354, R307-355, R307-356, R307-357, and R307-361 for 
incorporation to the Utah SIP as submitted by the State of Utah on May 
9, 2013, June 8, 2013, February 18, 2014, April 17, 2014, May 20, 2014, 
July 10, 2014, August 6, 2014, and December 9, 2014. We are proposing 
to approve Utah's determination that the above rules in R307-300 
Series; Requirements for Specific Locations (Within Nonattainment and 
Maintenance Areas) constitute RACM for the Utah PM2.5 SIP 
for the specific source categories addressed; however, we are not 
proposing to determine that Utah's PM2.5 attainment plan has 
met all requirements regarding RACM under subparts 1 and 4 of Part D, 
title I of the Act. We intend to act separately on the remainder of 
Utah's PM2.5 attainment plan.
    EPA is proposing to conditionally approve revisions to R307-312 and 
R307-328. Additionally, EPA is proposing to conditionally approve 
Utah's determination that R307-312 constitutes RACM for the Utah 
PM2.5 SIP for aggregate processing operations. As stated 
above, we are not proposing to determine that Utah's PM2.5 
attainment plan has met all requirements regarding RACM under subparts 
1 and 4 of Part D, title I of the Act. Under section 110(k)(4) of the 
Act, EPA may approve a SIP revision based on a commitment by the State 
to adopt specific enforceable measures by a date certain, but not later 
than one year after the date of approval of the plan revision. On 
August 4, 2015, Utah submitted a commitment letter to adopt and submit 
specific revisions within one year of our final action on these 
submittals; specifically to remove the phrase ``or equivalent method'' 
in one rule and to specify three equivalent methods in the other rule. 
If we finalize our proposed conditional approval, Utah must adopt and 
submit the specific revisions it has committed to within one year of 
our finalization. If Utah does not submit these revisions within one 
year, or if we find Utah's revisions to be incomplete, or we disapprove 
Utah's revisions, this conditional approval will convert to a 
disapproval. If any of these occur and our conditional approvals 
convert to a disapproval, that will constitute a disapproval of a 
required plan element under part D of title I of the Act, which starts 
an 18-month clock for sanctions, see CAA section 179(a)(2), and the 
two-year clock for a federal implementation plan (FIP), see CAA section 
110(c)(1)(B).
    Finally, EPA is proposing to approve the repeal of R307-342, 
Qualification of Contractors and Test Procedures for Vapor Recovery 
Systems for Gasoline Delivery Tanks, submitted by DAQ on February 2, 
2012.

V. Consideration of Section 110(l) of the CAA

    Under section 110(l) of the CAA, the EPA cannot approve a SIP 
revision if the revision would interfere with any applicable 
requirements concerning attainment and reasonable further progress 
toward attainment of the NAAQS, or any other applicable requirement of 
the Act. In addition, section 110(l) requires that each revision to an 
implementation plan submitted by a state shall be adopted by the state 
after reasonable notice and public hearing.
    The Utah SIP revisions that the EPA is proposing to approve do not 
interfere with any applicable requirements of the Act. The DAR section 
R307-300 Series submitted by the DAQ on May 9, 2013, June 8, 2013, 
February 18, 2014, April 17, 2014, May 20, 2014, July 10, 2014, August 
6, 2014, and December 9, 2014 are intended to strengthen the SIP and to 
serve as RACM for certain area sources for the Utah PM2.5 
SIP. The repeal of R307-340 does not weaken the Utah SIP or the Ozone 
Maintenance Plan as a number of the new or revised rules addressing 
surface coatings take the place of R307-340 in total, and are as or 
more protective than R307-340. The revision to R307-328, Gasoline 
Transfer and Storage, and the repeal of R307-342, Qualification of 
Contractors and Test Procedures for Vapor Recovery Systems for Gasoline 
Delivery Tanks, submitted on by DAQ February 2, 2012, do not weaken the 
Utah SIP or the Ozone Maintenance Plan, because R307-328 replaces the 
testing requirements for trucks in R307-342 with the federal Maximum 
Achievable Control Technology (MACT) requirements. Finally, Utah's 
submittals provide adequate evidence that the revisions were adopted 
after reasonable public notices and hearings. Therefore, CAA section 
110(l) requirements are satisfied.

VI. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, the EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule 
regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance 
with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to incorporate by 
reference the DAQ rules promulgated in the DAR, R307-300 Series as 
discussed in section III, EPA's Evaluation of Utah's Submittals, 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).

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a 
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and 
applicable federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state 
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. 
Accordingly, this action merely proposes to approve state law as 
meeting federal requirements and does not impose additional 
requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this 
proposed action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to 
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     does not impose an information collection burden under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     is certified as not having a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments, as described

[[Page 51504]]

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, August 10, 1999);
     is not an economically significant regulatory action based 
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997);
     is not a significant regulatory action subject to 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the 
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent 
with the CAA; and
     does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to 
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental 
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under 
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian 
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has 
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian 
country, the proposed rule does not have tribal implications and will 
not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt 
tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 
9, 2000).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 
Intergovernmental relations, Incorporation by reference, Lead, Nitrogen 
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organization compounds.

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

    Dated: August 10, 2015.
Debra H. Thomas,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 8.
[FR Doc. 2015-20895 Filed 8-24-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


