[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 25 (Thursday, February 6, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 7072-7077]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-02080]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R08-OAR-2013-0395; FRL-9904-24-Region 8]
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Utah; Revisions to Utah Administrative Code--Permit: New and Modified
Sources
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final
action to partially approve and partially disapprove State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the State of Utah on
September 15, 2006. The September 15, 2006 revisions contain new,
amended and renumbered rules in Utah Administrative Code (UAC) Title R-
307 that pertain to the issuance of Utah air quality permits. The
September 15, 2006 revisions supersede and entirely replace an October
9, 1998 submittal that initially revised provisions in Utah's air
quality permit program, and partially supersede and replace a September
20, 1999 submittal. In this action, we are fully approving the SIP
revisions in the September 15, 2006 submittal with the following
exceptions: we are disapproving the State's rules R307-401-7 (Public
Notice), R307-401-9(b) and portions of (9)(c) (Small Source Exemption),
R307-401-12 (Reduction in Air Contaminants), and R307-410-5
(Documentation of Ambient Air Impacts for Hazardous Air Pollutants); we
are limitedly approving and limitedly disapproving R307-410-6 (Stack
Heights and Dispersion Techniques); and we are not acting on R307-101-
2, R307-401-14, R307-401-15, and R307-401-16 for the reasons explained
in this action. This action is being taken under section 110 of the
Clean Air Act (CAA).
DATES: Effective Date: This final rule is effective March 10, 2014.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA-R08-OAR-2013-0395. All documents in the docket are listed in
the www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air Program,
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop Street,
Denver, Colorado 80202-1129. EPA requests you contact the individual
listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to view the hard
copy of the docket. You may view the hard copy of the docket Monday
through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., excluding Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kevin Leone, Air Program, Mailcode 8P-
AR, Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop Street,
Denver, Colorado 80202-1129, (303) 312-6227, or [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Background
II. Response to Comments
III. Changes From our Proposed Action and Basis for our Final Action
IV. Final Action
V. Statutory and Executive Orders Review
Definitions
For the purpose of this document, we are giving meaning to certain
words or initials as follows:
(i) The words or initials Act or CAA mean or refer to the Clean Air
Act, unless the context indicates otherwise.
(ii) The words EPA, we, us or our mean or refer to the United
States Environmental Protection Agency.
(iii) The words Minor NSR mean NSR established under section 110 of
the Act and 40 CFR 51.160.
(iv) The initials NSR mean new source review, a phrase intended to
encompass the stationary source regulatory programs that regulate the
construction and modification of stationary sources as provided under
CAA section 110(a)(2)(C), CAA Title I, parts C and D, and 40 CFR 51.160
through 51.166.
(v) The initials SIP mean or refer to State Implementation Plan.
(iv) The words State or Utah mean the State of Utah, unless the
context indicates otherwise.
I. Background
The CAA (section 110(a)(2)(C)) and 40 CFR 51.160 require states to
have legally enforceable procedures in their SIPs to prevent
construction or modification of a source if it would violate any SIP
control strategies or interfere with attainment or maintenance of the
national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). Such minor new source
review (NSR) programs are for pollutants from stationary sources that
do not require Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) or
nonattainment NSR permits. A state may customize the requirements of
its minor NSR program as long as the program meets minimum
requirements.
On September 15, 2006, Utah submitted revisions to its minor source
NSR program. The September 15, 2006 revisions supersede and entirely
replace an October 9, 1998 submittal that initially revised provisions
in Utah's air quality permit program, and partially supersede and
replace a September 20, 1999 submittal that renumbered the provisions
in the October 9, 1998 submittal. A cross-walk table comparing
[[Page 7073]]
the provisions from the October 9, 1998, September 20, 1999, and
September 15, 2006 submittals is included in the docket for this
action.
Utah's September 15, 2006 submittal: (1) Revised R307-101-2
(Definitions); (2) added a new section R307-401 (Notice of Intent and
Approval Order); (3) added a new section R307-410 (Permits: Emission
Impact Analysis); and (4) moved rules in State rule section R307-413
(Permit: Exemptions and Special Provisions) to R307-401.\1\ The purpose
of the September 15, 2006 submittal was to separate minor source
permitting and modeling requirements from major source permitting and
modeling requirements within Title R307.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Utah repealed R307-413 in 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On June 12, 2013 (78 FR 35181), we proposed to act on Utah's
September 15, 2006 submittal, with the following exceptions: (1) R307-
101-2 (Definitions); and (2) R307-401-14 (Used Oil Fuel Burned for
Energy Recovery), R307-401-15 (Air Strippers and Soil Venting
Projects), and R307-401-16 (De minimis Emissions From Soil Aeration
Projects). As we explained in our notice of proposed rulemaking (78 FR
35183), we need not act on R307-101-2 as submitted on September 15,
2006, because on September 2, 2008, we approved a superseding version
of R307-101-2 that Utah adopted on February 6, 2008. See 73 FR 51222.
We need not act on R307-401-14 through 16 in this action because we
previously acted on such provisions. See 77 FR 37859 (June 25, 2012)
(notice of proposed rulemaking); notice of final rulemaking, signed
October 19, 2012, copy included in the docket for this action.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Our notice of final rulemaking has not been published yet in
the Federal Register.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In our June 12, 2013 proposed action, we proposed to: (1) Approve
R307-401-1 through 6, R307-401-8, R307-401-9 (except for paragraph (b)
and the portions of paragraph (c) that reference paragraph (b)), R307-
401-10 through 11, R307-401-13, R307-401-17 through 20; and R307-410-1
through 4; (2) disapprove R307-401-7, R307-401-9(b) and portions of
9(c) that reference (9)(b), R307-401-12, and R307-410-5; and (3)
partially approve and partially disapprove R307-410-6.\3\ We provided a
detailed explanation of the bases for our proposal. See 78 FR 35183-
35188. We invited comment on all aspects of our proposal and provided a
30-day comment period. The comment period ended on July 12, 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ It would have been more appropriate to say we were proposing
to limitedly approve and limitedly disapprove R307-410-6. Limited
approval/disapproval is the approach EPA has used historically where
a rule provision meets some of the statutory and regulatory
requirements and will strengthen the SIP, but does not meet all of
the statutory and regulatory requirements, thus warranting
disapproval. It is used in lieu of partial approval/partial
disapproval where the compliant and non-compliant rule provisions
are not separable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this action, we are responding to the comments we received and
taking final rulemaking action on the enumerated rules from the State's
September 15, 2006 submittal.
II. Response to Comments
In response to our June 12, 2013 proposed rulemaking, we received
one comment letter from Joro Walker and Rob Dubuc on behalf of Utah
Physicians for a Healthy Environment and Western Resource Advocates
(collectively ``Utah Physicians''). In this section, we summarize their
comments and provide our responses.
Comment: R307-401-1 Utah Physicians support EPA's proposal to
approve this provision.
Response: We acknowledge receipt of this comment and the support
for our approval.
Comment: R307-401-2 Utah Physicians take no position on EPA's
proposal relative to this provision.
Response: We acknowledge receipt of this comment.
Comment: R307-401-3 Utah Physicians support EPA's proposal to
approve this provision.
Response: We acknowledge receipt of this comment and the support
for our approval.
Comment: R307-401-4 Utah Physicians support EPA's proposal to
approve this provision with the following exception:
401-4(1), which currently states that ``[a]ny control apparatus
installed on an installation shall be adequately and properly
maintained,'' should be revised to state: ``[a]ny control apparatus
installed on an installation shall be adequately and properly
maintained and operated[.]'' After all, unless a control apparatus
is properly operated, maintenance is likely to be of little
consequence.
Response: We conclude that the comment does not provide a basis for
EPA to disapprove the regulation. While the language suggested by the
commenters might strengthen the regulation, we find no basis to
conclude that the language is required by the Act or our regulations.
For example, CAA section 110(a)(2)(C) requires that the SIP include a
program for the regulation of the modification and construction of any
stationary source as necessary to assure the NAAQS are achieved. We do
not find that the addition of the words ``and operated'' is necessary
to assure the NAAQS are achieved. Similarly, our minor source NSR
regulations, at 40 CFR 51.160 and 51.161 are relatively general in
nature. They do not require that a state's minor source NSR regulations
require any specific operation and maintenance procedures. Furthermore,
to a substantial degree, it is the permit process itself, embodied in
Utah's regulations, that provides the vehicle to identify and make
enforceable specific measures necessary to protect the NAAQS. Any
measures established through the SIP-approved permit process become
federally enforceable, and specific emission limits are likely to be a
more effective measure to ensure proper source operation than a general
requirement to operate properly. We note, for example, that Utah's
regulations include a requirement that sources meet BACT. See R307-401-
8(1)(a). Finally, we think that the language ``shall be adequately and
properly maintained'' could be interpreted broadly enough to include
the ongoing operation of the control apparatus.
Comment: R307-401-5 Utah Physicians support EPA's proposal to
approve this provision with the following two exceptions:
1. 40 CFR 160(c)(1) requires that the legal provisions in
question ``must provide for the submission, by the owner or operator
of the building, facility, structure, or installation to be
constructed or modified, of such information on . . . [t]he nature
and amounts of emissions to be emitted by it or emitted by
associated mobile sources.'' This requirement is missing from Rule
401-5.
2. 401-5 should include a requirement that the source identify,
including by providing flow or process diagrams, the location and
characteristics of each emission unit that is a part of the
building, facility, structure, or installation. The rule should
mandate that source provide the ``[e]xpected composition and
physical characteristics of [the] effluent stream both before and
after treatment by any control apparatus, including emission rates,
volume, temperature, air contaminant types, and concentration of air
contaminants'' for each emission unit. Without this information, the
public is not in a position to provide meaningful comment on the
adequacy of the proposed permits, particularly whether the permits
will result in a violation of applicable portions of the control
strategy or interfere with attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS.
Similarly, without this information, Utah is not in a position to
determine whether the project will result in a violation of
applicable portions of the control strategy or interfere with
attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS.
Response: 1. 40 CFR 51.160(c)(1) requires the state program to
provide for the owner or operator of the building,
[[Page 7074]]
facility, structure, or installation to submit ``such information on .
. . [t]he nature and amounts of emissions to be emitted by it or
emitted by associated mobile sources . . . as may be necessary to
permit the State or local agency to make the determination referred to
in paragraph (a) of this section.'' EPA concludes that R307-401
complies with this requirement. R307-401 applies to indirect sources as
well as direct sources of pollution. R307-401-3(1)(a) and (b). R307-
401-2 defines indirect source as ``a building, structure, facility or
installation which attracts or may attract mobile source activity that
results in emission of a pollutant for which there is a national
standard.'' R307-401-5 requires any person subject to R307-401 to
submit a notice of intent to the executive secretary. The notice of
intent must include, among other things, ``a description of the nature
of the processes involved,'' ``the type and quantity of fuels
employed,'' the ``[e]xpected composition and physical characteristics
of [the] effluent stream both before and after treatment by any control
apparatus, including emission rates, volume, temperature, air
contaminant types, and concentration of air contaminants,'' and ``other
information necessary to appraise the possible effects of the
effluent.'' R307-401-5(2)(a), (b), and (e). Finally, R307-401-5(k)
requires that the notice of intent include ``[a]ny other information
necessary to determine if the proposed source or modification will be
in compliance with Title R307.'' As required by 40 CFR 51.160(c)(1),
the language of R307-401-5 clearly requires the notice of intent to
include information on the nature and amount of the proposed source's
emissions. Given that R307-401 specifically applies to indirect sources
and requires them to submit notices of intent as well, we find that the
language of R307-401-5 applies to information regarding the nature and
amount of emissions from associated mobile sources as well. We also
note that the requirement in 40 CFR 51.160(c)(1) is modified by the
language following 40 CFR 51.160(c)(2), which reads, ``as may be
necessary to permit the State or local agency'' to determine whether
the construction or modification would violate the control strategy or
interfere with attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS.
2. We do not agree that the regulation must explicitly require the
information the commenters describe or that the lack of the desired
specificity renders the regulation deficient. Neither the CAA nor our
minor source NSR regulations specifically dictate the level of
specificity the commenters seek. We note, however, that the language of
the State's regulation is broad enough to encompass much of the type of
information the commenters seek, and that the State often may need
unit-by-unit information to properly conduct the required analysis.
Also, the commenters have a voice through the State's public
participation process. If they believe more specific information is
needed regarding a particular application, they can inform the State of
their views. We conclude that R307-401-5 adequately addresses the
requirements of 40 CFR 51.160(c)(1) and (2).
Comment: R307-401-6 Utah Physicians take no position on EPA's
proposal relative to this provision.
Response: We acknowledge receipt of this comment.
Comment: R307-401-7 Utah Physicians support EPA's proposal to
disapprove this provision.
Response: We acknowledge receipt of this comment and the support
for our disapproval of this provision.
Comment: R307-401-8 Utah Physicians support EPA's proposal to
approve this provision with the following two exceptions:
1. 401-8(2), which currently states that the ``approval order
will require that all pollution control equipment be adequately and
properly maintained.'' As indicated above, proper operation of the
equipment should also be required.
2. 401-8(4) is improper and does not adequately provide Utah
with the opportunity to determine whether the project will result in
a violation of applicable portions of the control strategy or
interfere with attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS. This is
because approval of an initial stage may prevent the imposition of
requirements on later stages that have been precluded by that
initial construction, thereby biasing the outcome of the permitting
process. For example, the completion of the initial stage may
influence what is BACT for the subsequent stages.
Response: 1. For the reasons stated in our response to the comment
above regarding R307-401-4(1), EPA disagrees that R307-401-8(2) is
deficient or that disapproval is required.
2. EPA disagrees that 401-8(4) is improper and does not adequately
provide Utah with the opportunity to determine whether a staged project
will result in a violation of applicable portions of the control
strategy or interfere with attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS. All
phases of a staged construction project are still required to submit a
notice of intent, as outlined in R307-401-5, which provides the public
and the State the opportunity to determine whether the project will
result in a violation of applicable portions of the control strategy or
interfere with attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS. In addition,
R307-401-8(4) requires previous determinations under R307-401-8(1) and
(2) to be reviewed and modified as appropriate prior to the
commencement and construction of each individual phase of the proposed
source or modification. This would allow the State the opportunity to
review the most recent plans and information in order to determine the
most appropriate control requirements during subsequent phases of the
project.
Comment: R307-401-9 Utah Physicians support EPA's proposal to
disapprove aspects of this provision. Utah Physicians disagree with
EPA's position that: ``R307-401-9 contains a safeguard that a source
shall no longer be exempt and is required to submit a notice of intent
if its actual emissions exceed the thresholds listed in R307-401-
9(1)(a).'' The commenters state that R307-401-9 does not require the
source to monitor or report actual emissions. Rather, under R307-401-
9(3), the source need only provide: a description of the nature of the
processes involved, equipment, anticipated quantities of materials
used, the type and quantity of fuel employed and nature and quantity of
the finished product; identification of expected emissions; estimated
annual emission rates; any control apparatus used; and typical
operating schedule. The commenters state that the rule does not require
the reporting of actual emissions or specify that the information in
the ``registry'' be updated, for example, annually. The commenters
state that R307-401-9 does not give the state the opportunity to
determine whether the project--or changes to the project--will result
in a violation of applicable portions of the control strategy or
interfere with attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS.
Response: We disagree with the commenters that the provisions of
the regulation that we are approving are not sufficient. Under our
minor source NSR regulations, a state's regulation must identify the
types and sizes of facilities, buildings, structures, or installations
which will be subject to review and must discuss the basis for
determining which facilities will be subject to review. 40 CFR
51.160(e). We have reviewed the thresholds that Utah has established in
R307-401-9 and the basis for those thresholds and determined they are
reasonable based on a number of factors. See our proposal at 78 FR
35184-35185. In our proposal, we noted that an exempt source whose
actual
[[Page 7075]]
emissions later exceed the thresholds would be required to submit a
notice of intent. The State's registration program for sub-threshold
minor sources will allow the State to track such sources to some
degree. However, there is no requirement in our minor source NSR
regulations that sources whom the State has appropriately determined
should not be subject to review due to their small size must monitor
and report actual emissions. Insisting on such action for such small
sources would tend to defeat the purpose of the exemption and overwhelm
the State with unnecessary information. Like numerous other standards
and permitting requirements, sources are expected to self-determine
whether they are subject to the applicable requirements of the
regulation and comply with them. If a source ignores the requirements
of the regulation, or erroneously concludes it is not subject to them,
the source is subject to potential enforcement action. We are not
convinced that the State is required to alter this approach for
purposes of R307-401-9.
Comment: R307-401-10 Utah Physicians take no position on EPA's
proposal relative to this provision.
Response: We acknowledge receipt of this comment.
Comment: R307-401-11 Utah Physicians take no position on EPA's
proposal relative to this provision.
Response: We acknowledge receipt of this comment.
Comment: R307-401-12 Utah Physicians agree with EPA's proposal to
disapprove this provision for the reasons EPA provides. Utah Physicians
further note that the public must be provided with the opportunity to
provide meaningful comment on the determination of whether the project
does indeed reduce or eliminate air contaminants. Therefore, public
notice should be required. Similarly, the public must be able to
participate in the decision to modify any existing permit or to ensure
that the reductions or eliminations are enforceable.
Response: We acknowledge receipt of this comment and the support
for our disapproval of this provision.
Comment: R307-401-13 Utah Physicians agree with EPA's proposal to
approve this provision.
Response: We acknowledge receipt of this comment and the support
for our approval of this provision.
Comment: R307-401-18 Utah Physicians take no position on this
provision.
Response: We acknowledge receipt of this comment.
Comment: R307-401-19 Utah Physicians support EPA's proposal to
approve this provision.
Response: We acknowledge receipt of this comment and the support
for our approval of this provision.
Comment: R307-401-20 Utah Physicians support EPA's proposal to
approve this provision.
Response: We acknowledge receipt of this comment and the support
for our approval of this provision.
Comment: R307-410 Utah Physicians support EPA's proposal to
disapprove aspects of this rule for the reasons EPA states. In
addition, Utah Physicians urge EPA to disapprove other aspects of this
provision because they do not provide Utah with the opportunity to
determine whether a project will result in a violation of applicable
portions of the control strategy or interfere with attainment or
maintenance of the NAAQS. Utah has repeatedly maintained that sources
in nonattainment areas do not need to undertake emission impact
analysis and do not need to model the impact of any nonattainment
pollution on the airshed. For example, Utah does not require a source
located in a PM2.5 nonattainment area to model the impact of
an increase in PM2.5 emissions. EPA must disapprove the rule
so it can be rewritten to more clearly require modeling of emissions in
nonattainment areas. EPA has always understood R307-410 to apply to all
sources, including those in nonattainment areas, and has repeatedly
indicated that emission impact analysis in nonattainment areas for
nonattainment pollutants is required by the Clean Air Act. Without such
modeling, Utah cannot ensure compliance with a nonattainment area
control strategy and cannot determine whether there will be additional
NAAQS exceedances or violations. Thus, R307-410 does not comply with 40
CFR 51.160 or the Clean Air Act and fails to protect human health and
the environment from air pollution.
Response: We do not agree that disapproval of other aspects of
R307-410 is warranted. EPA has recognized that the CAA provides states
a broad degree of discretion in developing their minor source programs.
EPA's regulations at 40 CFR 51.160(c) require that a source provide
sufficient information on the nature and amount of its emissions and
its location, design, construction, and operation to enable the state
to determine whether the source will cause a violation of the control
strategy or interfere with attainment or maintenance of a NAAQS. The
Utah SIP requires a notice of intent from each source above an
exemption threshold describing the source's operation, location,
control technology and emission stream, ``including emission rates,
volume, temperature, air contaminant types, and concentration of air
contaminants.'' R307-401-5(1)--(2). The notice of intent must also
provide additional permitting information complying with offset
requirements for ozone in two counties (R307-401-5(2)(j)(v)) and for PM
10 in two counties (R307-401-5(2)(j)(vi)). This information enables the
state to prevent violations of the control strategy or threats to
attainment or reasonable further progress.
The commenters express concern with potential emissions increases
related to growth in PM2.5 nonattainment areas. We do not
read the CAA or our regulations as requiring modeling or impact
analysis for every instance of minor source construction or
modification, particularly in nonattainment areas, where it is
generally assumed that any new emissions growth must be addressed to
ensure attainment of the NAAQS. In our view, generally, the
nonattainment area SIP will provide the more appropriate and more
efficient venue to address minor source growth in nonattainment areas.
The nonattainment area SIP will project minor source growth as part of
any approvable attainment demonstration. Essentially, this should
provide a buffer against future emissions growth from minor
construction and modification projects. In the context of Utah's
development of its PM2.5 SIPs, we have suggested that Utah
either adopt an offset program, as it has done for PM10, or
a minor source growth tracking program to help ensure that such growth
does not exceed the attainment demonstration's projections. We
anticipate working with Utah regarding the details of either approach,
or another effective approach.
We also note that the language of the State's minor NSR regulations
is broad enough to allow the State to require modeling or other form of
impact analysis for applications for minor construction or modification
projects in nonattainment areas, if necessary. R307-401-5(2)(k)
requires the notice of intent to include ``[a]ny other information
necessary to determine if the proposed source or modification will be
in compliance with Title R307.'' We think it is reasonable to allow the
State some flexibility in determining when such impact analysis may be
necessary for minor construction or modification projects in
nonattainment areas.
[[Page 7076]]
Comment: R307-410 Utah Physicians state that R307-410 conflicts
with the Utah SIP, citing the following from Utah's PSD program,
Section VIII:
``In addition to the PSD permitting program, Utah also requires
new minor sources and minor modifications to all sources to apply
best available control technology. R307-410 establishes modeling
requirements to ensure that minor sources and modifications will not
cause or contribute to a violation of the NAAQS.''
The commenters state that ``this provision is not limited to areas
attaining the NAAQS and instead applies in locations where NAAQS are
being violated, but where emissions may further contribute to that
violation.'' Thus, the commenters assert that R307-410 does not comply
with the Utah SIP.
Response: We understand Utah SIP Section VIII to apply to Utah's
Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) program, which applies in
attainment areas, not nonattainment areas. Reading the quoted passage
in the comment, we understand the language to be explaining that Utah
requires best available control technology for minor sources as an
additional requirement beyond what is required by the PSD program.
Nothing in the language of the quoted passage indicates to us that Utah
intended the language to modify the requirements of R307-410. We do not
agree that R307-410 conflicts with this SIP language.
III. Changes From our Proposed Action and Basis for our Final Action
We have made one change from our proposed action. In our proposed
action, we proposed to approve the provisions of R307-410, with the
exception of R307-410-5, which we proposed to disapprove, and R307-410-
6, which we proposed to partially approve and partially disapprove. In
this final action, we are changing our proposed partial approval/
partial disapproval of R307-410-6 to a limited approval/limited
disapproval. This does not alter the intent behind our proposal, but
changes the terminology and the approach to those that EPA has
historically used when a provision meets some, but not all, of the
statutory and regulatory requirements, approval of the provision would
strengthen the SIP, and the compliant elements within the provision
cannot be separated from the noncompliant elements.
We have fully considered the comments we received, and with the
exception of the change noted above, have concluded that no changes
from our proposal are warranted. Our action is based on an evaluation
of Utah's rules against the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(C)
and our minor source NSR regulations at 40 CFR 51.160 through 51.164.
We have also applied CAA section 110(l) in our evaluation of any
changes Utah made in its September 15, 2006 submittal to the prior SIP-
approved version of its minor source NSR program. Section 110(l)
provides that EPA shall not approve a revision to a plan if the
revision would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning
attainment and reasonable further progress (as defined in CAA section
171), or any other applicable requirement of the CAA. This is
particularly relevant to R307-401-9, which establishes de minimis
thresholds below which sources need not obtain an approval order under
R307-401. The State submitted a 110(l) demonstration for the de minimis
thresholds contained in R307-401-9, and we evaluated that demonstration
as part of our evaluation of Utah's rules.
We are approving those rules that meet the relevant requirements
and disapproving those rules that do not meet the relevant
requirements, or are not appropriate for inclusion in the SIP (the
rules addressing hazardous air pollutants). Where a rule meets some
requirements but not all, either we are partially approving and
partially disapproving the compliant and noncompliant portions of the
rule or limitedly approving and limitedly disapproving the rule. We
have concluded that R307-401-9's establishment of de minimis thresholds
will not interfere with attainment or reasonable further progress
toward attainment of any NAAQS, or any other CAA requirement. Thus, our
partial approval of R307-401-9 is consistent with CAA section 110(l).
For a detailed description of the bases for our actions on the
individual rules, please refer to our notice of proposed rulemaking (78
FR 35181) and our response to comments in section II of this action.
IV. Final Action
From Utah's September 15, 2006 submittal, we are approving the
following rules or parts of rules: R307-401-1 through 6; R307-401-8;
R307-401-9 (except for paragraph (b) and the portions of paragraph (c)
that reference paragraph (b)); R307-401-10 through 11; R307-401-13;
R307-401-17 through 20; and R307-410-1 through 4. We are disapproving
the following rules or parts of rules: R307-401-7; R307-401-9(b) and
the portions of 9(c) that reference (9)(b); R307-401-12; and R307-410-
5. We are limitedly approving and limitedly disapproving R307-410-6--
that is, we are approving this provision because it will strengthen the
SIP but are simultaneously disapproving it because it does not fully
comply with applicable requirements.
V. Statutory and Executive Orders Review
Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this final action merely approves state law as meeting
Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond
those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by
[[Page 7077]]
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP
is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state, and
EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal
governments or preempt tribal law.
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by April 7, 2014. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See CAA section 307(b)(2).)
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: December 4, 2013.
Debra H. Thomas,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 8.
40 CFR part 52 is amended to read as follows:
PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart TT--[AMENDED]
0
2. Section 52.2320 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(75) to read as
follows:
Sec. 52.2320 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(75) On September 15, 2006, the Governor submitted revisions to the
Utah State Implementation Plan (SIP) permitting rules. The September
15, 2006 submittal contains new, amended and renumbered rules in Utah
Administrative Code (UAC) Title R-307 that pertain to the issuance of
Utah air quality permits. EPA is approving the following rules or parts
of rules from the September 15, 2006 submittal: R307-401-1 through 6;
R307-401-8; R307-401-9 (except for paragraph (b) and the portions of
paragraph (c) that reference paragraph (b)); R307-401-10 through 11;
R307-401-13; R307-401-17 through 20; and R307-410-1 through 4. EPA is
disapproving the following rules or parts of rules from the September
15, 2006 submittal: R307-401-7; R307-401-9(b) and the portions of 9(c)
that reference (9)(b); R307-401-12; and R307-410-5. EPA is limitedly
approving and limitedly disapproving R307-410-6 from the September 15,
2006 submittal--this means EPA is approving this rule because it will
strengthen the SIP but is simultaneously disapproving it because it
does not fully comply with applicable requirements. EPA is not acting
on the revisions to UAC R307-101-2 because the revisions have been
superseded by later revisions to the rule, which EPA approved at Sec.
52.2320(c)(67) (see 73 FR 51222). EPA is not acting on R307-401-14
through 16 because EPA previously acted on such provisions (notice of
final rulemaking signed October 19, 2012).
(i) Incorporation by reference.
(A) Title R307 of the Utah Administrative Code, Environmental
Quality, Air Quality, Rule R307-401, Permits: New and Modified Sources,
Rule R307-401-1, Purpose; Rule R307-401-2, Definitions; Rule R307-401-
3, Applicability; Rule R307-401-4, General Requirements; Rule R307-401-
5, Notice of Intent; Rule R307-401-6, Review Period; Rule R307-401-8,
Approval Order; R307-401-9, Small Source Exemption except for R307-401-
9(1)(b) and the phrase ``or (b)'' in R307-401-9(1)(c); Rule R307-401-
10, Source Category Exemptions; Rule R307-401-11, Replacement-in-Kind
Equipment; Rule R307-401-13, Plantwide Applicability Limits; Rule R307-
401-17, Temporary Relocation; Rule R307-401-18, Eighteen Month Review;
Rule R307-401-19, Analysis of Alternatives; and Rule R307-401-20,
Relaxation of Limitations. Title R307 of the Utah Administrative Code,
Environmental Quality, Air Quality, Rule R307-410, Permits: Emissions
Impact Analysis, Rule R307-410-1, Purpose; Rule R307-410-2,
Definitions; Rule R307-410-3, Use of Dispersion Models; R307-410-4,
Modeling of Criteria Pollutant Impacts in Attainment Areas; and R307-
410-6, Stack Heights and Dispersion Techniques. Effective June 16,
2006, as published in the Utah State Bulletin on December 1, 2005,
modified on April 1, 2006, and July 15, 2006. Note: The July 15, 2006
publication contains a typographical error in the title for Rule R307-
410.
[FR Doc. 2014-02080 Filed 2-5-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P