[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 21 (Friday, January 31, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 5325-5329]
[FR Doc No: 2014-01954]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2014-0034; Directorate Identifier 2013-SW-006-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Eurocopter Deutschland GmbH Helicopters

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to supersede Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2012-10-
53 for Eurocopter Deutschland GmbH (ECD) Model EC135P1, EC135P2,
EC135P2+, EC135T1, EC135T2, and EC135T2+ helicopters. AD 2012-10-53
currently requires, before further flight and at specified intervals,
checking and inspecting the upper and lower main rotor hub (MRH) shaft
flanges for a crack, and inspecting the lower hub-shaft flange bolt
attachment areas for a crack. Since we issued AD 2012-10-53, it has
been determined that it is safe to increase the visual inspection
intervals of the MRH shaft flanges from 10 hours time-in-service (TIS)
to 50 hours TIS and remove the inspection of the lower MRH shaft flange
bolt attachment areas. This proposed AD would continue to require
checking and inspecting the upper and lower MRH shaft flanges for a
crack. The proposed actions are intended to detect a crack on the MRH
shaft flange, which if not corrected, could result in failure of the
MRH and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by April 1, 2014.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Docket: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Send comments to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to the ``Mail'' address between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov or in person at the Docket Operations Office
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the European
Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD, the economic evaluation, any comments
received and other information. The street address for the Docket
Operations Office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES section.
Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.
    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact
American Eurocopter Corporation, 2701 N. Forum Drive, Grand Prairie, TX
75052; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>;
or at http://www.eurocopter.com/techpub. You may review service
information at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest
Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 663, Fort Worth, Texas 76137.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gary Roach, Aviation Safety Engineer,
Regulations and Policy Group, Rotorcraft Directorate, FAA, 2601 Meacham
Blvd., Fort Worth, Texas 76137; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting
written comments, data, or views. We also invite comments relating to
the economic, environmental, energy, or federalism impacts that might
result from adopting the proposals in this document. The most helpful
comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the
reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. To
ensure the docket does not contain duplicate comments, commenters
should send only one copy of written comments, or if comments are filed
electronically, commenters should submit only one time.
    We will file in the docket all comments that we receive, as well as
a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel
concerning this proposed rulemaking. Before acting on this proposal, we
will

consider all comments we receive on or before the closing date for
comments. We will consider comments filed after the comment period has
closed if it is possible to do so without incurring expense or delay.
We may change this proposal in light of the comments we receive.

Discussion

    On May 15, 2012, we issued Emergency AD (EAD) No. 2012-10-51 for
ECD Model EC135 series helicopters to detect a crack on the MRH shaft
flange. EAD No. 2012-10-51 required a pilot check of the lower MRH
shaft flange for a crack or deformed blade attachment bolt safety pins
before the first flight of each day, inspecting the upper and lower MRH
shaft flanges for a crack within 5 hours TIS, and replacing the MRH
shaft if there is a crack. EAD No. 2012-10-51 was prompted by AD No.
2012-0041-E, dated March 12, 2012, issued by EASA, which is the
Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, to correct
an unsafe condition for the ECD Model EC 135 series helicopters. EASA
revised AD No. 2012-0041-E with EASA AD No. 2012-0041R1, dated March
15, 2012.
    After we issued EAD No. 2012-10-51, EASA issued AD No. 2012-0085-E,
dated May 17, 2012, which superseded EASA AD No. 2012-0041R1. EASA
advised that since issuing EASA AD No. 2012-0041R1, further cracks had
been detected on two other helicopters during the pre-flight checks.
These are the same two cracks that prompted our EAD No. 2012-10-51.
However, EASA also stated that identification of deformed safety pins
may not be sufficient to detect a crack on the MRH shaft flange. ECD
investigated the cause of the cracks and developed new inspection
procedures with further corrective actions. Therefore, we issued EAD
No. 2012-10-53 on May 18, 2012, which superseded EAD No. 2012-10-51.
EAD No. 2012-10-53 was published in the Federal Register as a Final
rule; request for comments on November 20, 2012, at 77 FR 69558.
    In issuing AD No. 2012-10-53, we included additional part-numbered
MRH shafts that should have been included in EAD No. 2012-10-51,
changed the daily checks to recurring checks at intervals not to exceed
6 hours TIS, added a 10 hour-TIS recurring inspection on MRH shafts
with 400 or more hours TIS, and removed the check of the blade
attachment bolt safety pins for deformation.

Actions Since AD 2012-10-53 Was Issued

    Since we issued EAD No. 2012-10-53 on May 18, 2012, which was
published as a Final Rule; Request for Comments on November 20, 2012 at
77 FR 69558, Eurocopter revised Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) No. EC135-
62A-029, now at Revision 7, dated October 22, 2012. The inspection
interval for the visual inspection of the MRH shaft flanges was
increased to 50 flight hours based on results from full scale component
testing. The note regarding the preflight check states that the time
between two preflight checks must not exceed 6 flight hours, and
clarifies that one flight may comprise of multiple take-offs and
landings and a flight starts when the helicopter takes off and ends
when the helicopter is on the ground with the engines shut off.
Eurocopter also removed the visual inspection of the blade bolt
attachment areas from the ASB.
    EASA also revised its AD, now at EASA AD No. 2012-0085R5, dated
October 30, 2012, to correct the unsafe condition. EASA advised that
based on results of the further full scale component testing, it has
been determined that the interval for the repetitive visual inspections
of the upper and lower hub shaft flanges can be extended to 50 flight
hours. EASA AD No. 2012-0085R5 also references ECD ASB No. EC135-62A-
029, Revision 7, dated October 22, 2012, for related information. EASA
considers AD No. 2012-0085R5 to be interim AD action and further AD
action may follow.

FAA's Determination

    These helicopters have been approved by the aviation authority of
Germany and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant
to our bilateral agreement with Germany, EASA, its technical
representative, has notified us of the unsafe condition described in
its AD. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all known
relevant information and determined that an unsafe condition is likely
to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.

Related Service Information

    We reviewed Eurocopter ASB No. EC135-62A-029, Revision 7, dated
October 22, 2012, which describes procedures for preflight checking the
visible area of the upper and lower MRH shaft flanges and performing a
repetitive visual inspection of the upper and lower MRH shaft for
cracks. EASA classified this ASB as mandatory and issued AD No. 2012-
0085R5 to ensure the continued airworthiness of these helicopters.

Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would retain the repetitive visual check and
inspection of the upper and lower MRH shaft flanges, as well as the
replacement requirements of AD No. 2012-10-53 (77 FR 69558, November
20, 2012). An owner/operator (pilot) may perform the required visual
check and must enter compliance with the applicable paragraph of the AD
into the helicopter maintenance records in accordance with 14 CFR
Sec. Sec.  43.9(a)(1)-(4) and 91.417(a)(2)(v). A pilot may perform this
check because it involves only looking at the visible area of the MRH
shaft flanges and can be performed equally well by a pilot or a
mechanic. That check is an exception to our standard maintenance
regulations. Further, this proposed AD would increase the repetitive
visual inspection interval for MRH shafts with 400 hours or more TIS
from 10 hours TIS to 50 hours TIS.
    Any alternative method of compliance (AMOC) previously approved in
accordance with AD No. 2012-10-53 (77 FR 69558, November 20, 2012),
would continue to be considered approved as an AMOC for the
corresponding requirements in this proposed AD.

Differences Between This Proposed AD and the EASA AD

    EASA considers its AD action to be an interim action; we do not
consider this proposed AD to be interim AD action because the proposed
requirements for the applicable part-numbered MRH shafts are not
expected to change. The EASA AD requires you to report the findings and
send the removed MRH to ECD, while this proposed AD would not. The EASA
AD requires the initial visual check within 3 days, while this proposed
AD would require the initial visual check before further flight. The
EASA AD does not specify affected MRH shaft part numbers; this proposed
AD would because the FAA anticipates that ECD will produce new part-
numbered MRH shafts without the same unsafe condition.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 244 helicopters of
U.S. Registry. We estimate inspecting the MRH shaft flanges would
require 2.5 work-hours at an average labor rate of $85 per work-hour,
for a total cost per helicopter of $212 and a total cost to U.S.
operators of $51,728 per inspection cycle. Replacing an MRH shaft would
require about 8 work-hours at an

average labor rate of $85 per work-hour, and required parts would cost
$55,715, for a total cost per helicopter of $56,395.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. ``Subtitle VII: Aviation
Programs,'' describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's
authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
``Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed, I certify this proposed regulation:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska to the extent that
it justifies making a regulatory distinction; and
    4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    We prepared an economic evaluation of the estimated costs to comply
with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by removing Airworthiness Directive (AD)
2012-10-53 (77 FR 69558, November 20, 2012), and adding the following
new AD:

Eurocopter Deutschland GmbH (ECD): Docket No. FAA-2014-0034;
Directorate Identifier 2013-SW-006-AD.

(a) Applicability

    This AD applies to Model EC135P1, EC135P2, EC135P2+, EC135T1,
EC135T2, and EC135T2+ helicopters, with a main rotor hub (MRH)
shaft, part number (P/N) L623M1006101, L623M1206101, L623M1006102,
L623M1206102, L623M1006103, or L623M1206103 installed, certificated
in any category.

(b) Unsafe Condition

    This AD defines the unsafe condition as a crack in the MRH shaft
flange, which could result in failure of the MRH and subsequent loss
of control of the helicopter.

(c) Affected ADs

    This AD supersedes AD 2012-10-53, Amendment 39-17254 (77 FR
69558, November 20, 2012).

(d) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by April 1, 2014.

(e) Compliance

    You are responsible for performing each action required by this
AD within the specified compliance time unless it has already been
accomplished prior to that time.

(f) Required Actions

    (1) Before further flight, and thereafter at intervals not to
exceed 6 hours time-in-service (TIS), check the MRH shaft lower
flange and the visible area of the MRH shaft upper flange for a
crack. Figures 1 and 2 to Paragraph (f)(1) of this AD are examples
of cracks that have been discovered in the MRH shaft lower flange.
The actions required by this paragraph may be performed by the
owner/operator (pilot) holding at least a private pilot certificate,
and must be entered into the aircraft records showing compliance
with this AD in accordance with 14 CFR 43.9 (a)(1)-(4) and 14 CFR
91.417(a)(2)(v). The record must be maintained as required by 14 CFR
91.417, 121.380, or 135.439.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP31JA14.001

    (2) For MRH shafts with 400 or more hours TIS, within 50 hours
TIS, and thereafter at intervals not to exceed 50 hours TIS:
    (i) Remove the rotor-hub cap.
    (ii) Clean the upper and lower MRH shaft flange as depicted in
Figure 2 of Eurocopter Alert Service Bulletin No. EC135-62A-029,
Revision 7, dated October 22, 2012, and visually inspect for a
crack.
    (3) If there is a crack in the upper or lower MRH shaft flange,
before further flight, replace that MRH shaft with an airworthy MRH
shaft. Replacing the MRH shaft with an MRH shaft having a P/N listed
in the applicability of this AD does not constitute terminating
action for the requirements of this AD.

(g) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Safety Management Group, FAA, may approve AMOCs
for this AD. Send your proposal to: Gary Roach,

Aviation Safety Engineer, Regulations and Policy Group, Rotorcraft
Directorate, FAA, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, Texas 76137;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) For operations conducted under a 14 CFR part 119 operating
certificate or under 14 CFR part 91, subpart K, we suggest that you
notify your principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector,
the manager of the local flight standards district office or
certificate holding district office before operating any aircraft
complying with this AD through an AMOC.
    (3) Any AMOC approved previously in accordance with AD No. 2012-
10-53, Amendment 39-17254 (77 FR 69558, November 20, 2012), is
approved as an AMOC for the corresponding requirements in paragraph
(f) of this AD.

(h) Additional Information

    The subject of this AD is addressed in European Aviation Safety
Agency (EASA) AD No. 2012-0085R5, dated October 30, 2012. You may
view the EASA AD in Docket No. FAA-2014-0034 on the Internet at
http://www.regulations.gov.

(i) Subject

    Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 6220, Main Rotor
Head.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on January 16, 2014.
Lance T. Gant,
Acting Directorate Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2014-01954 Filed 1-30-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 233 (Wednesday, December 8, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 69586]
[FR Doc No: C1-2021-26268]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

29 CFR Parts 1910, 1915, 1917, 1918, 1926, and 1928

[Docket No. OSHA-2021-0007]
RIN 1218-AD42

COVID-19 Vaccination and Testing; Emergency Temporary Standard

Correction

    In rule document 2021-26268, appearing on page 68560 in the issue
of Friday, December 3, 2021, make the following correction:
    On page 68560, in the first column, in the DATES section, on the
third and fourth lines, ``86 FR 6140'' should read, ``86 FR 61402''.

[FR Doc. C1-2021-26268 Filed 12-7-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 0099-10-D


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 80 (Tuesday, April 26, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 24525-24536]
[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,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
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,

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
NO2 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

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
NO2 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.

    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

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

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.

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.

    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

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

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

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).

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 Volume 81, Number 88 (Friday, May 6, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 27425]
[FR Doc No: 2016-10676]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL16-54-000]

Lakewood Cogeneration, L.P.; Essential Power Rock Springs, LLC;
Essential Power OPP, LLC; Notice of Institution of Section 206
Proceeding and Refund Effective Date

    On April 28, 2016, the Commission issued an order in Docket No.
EL16-54-000, pursuant to section 206 of the Federal Power Act (FPA), 16
U.S.C. 824e (2012), instituting an investigation into the justness and
reasonableness of the individual reactive power rates of Lakewood
Cogeneration, L.P., Essential Power Rock Springs, LLC, and Essential
Power OPP, LLC. Lakewood Cogeneration, L.P., 155 FERC ] 61,109 (2016).
    The refund effective date in Docket No. EL16-54-000, established
pursuant to section 206(b) of the FPA, will be the date of publication
of this notice in the Federal Register.

    Dated: April 29, 2016.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-10676 Filed 5-5-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P