Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 207 / Friday, October 25, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 63883 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Particulate matter, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

Dated: September 24, 2013. 

W.C. Early, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region III. 

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows: 

PART 52—APPROVAL AND 

PROMULGATION OF 

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart NN—Pennsylvania 

■ 2. Section 52.2056 is amended by 

adding paragraph (j) to read as follows: 

§ 52.2056 Determinations of attainment. 

* * * * * 

(j) EPA has determined, based on 

quality-assured air monitoring data for 

2009–2011, that the Liberty-Clairton, PA 

fine particle (PM2.5) nonattainment area 

attained the 1997 annual PM2.5 national 

ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) 

by the applicable attainment date of 

December 31, 2011. Therefore, EPA has 

met the requirement of CAA section 

188(b)(2) to determine, based on the 

area’s air quality as of the attainment 

date, whether the area attained the 1997 

annual PM2.5 NAAQS. 

■ 3. Section 52.2059 is amended by 

adding paragraph (i) to read as follows: 

§ 52.2059 Control strategy: Particulate 

matter. 

* * * * * 

(i) Determination of Attainment. EPA 

has determined, as of October 25, 2013, 

based on quality-assured ambient air 

quality data for 2009 to 2011 and 2010 

to 2012 ambient air quality data, that the 

Liberty-Clairton, PA nonattainment area 

has attained the 1997 annual fine 

particle (PM2.5) national ambient air 

quality standards (NAAQS). This 

determination suspends the 

requirements for this area to submit an 

attainment demonstration, associated 

reasonably available control measures, a 

reasonable further progress plan, 

contingency measures, and other 

planning SIPs related to attainment of 

the standard for as long as this area 

continues to meet the 1997 annual PM2.5

NAAQS. If EPA determines, after noticeand-comment rulemaking, that this area 

no longer meets the 1997 annual PM2.5

NAAQS, the corresponding 

determination of attainment for that area 

shall be withdrawn. 

[FR Doc. 2013–25040 Filed 10–24–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R08–OAR–2011–0727, FRL–9901–92– 

Region 8] 

Promulgation of State Implementation 

Plan Revisions; Revision to Prevention 

of Significant Deterioration Program; 

Infrastructure Requirements for the 

1997 and 2006 PM2.5 National Ambient 

Air Quality Standards; Utah 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is partially approving 

and partially disapproving State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) submissions 

from the State of Utah to demonstrate 

that the SIP meets the infrastructure 

requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA) 

for the National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards (NAAQS) promulgated for 

fine particulate matter (PM2.5) on July 

18, 1997 and on October 17, 2006. The 

CAA requires that each state, after a new 

or revised NAAQS is promulgated, 

review their SIPs to ensure that they 

meet infrastructure requirements. The 

State of Utah provided infrastructure 

SIP submissions on April 17, 2008 for 

the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS and September 

21, 2010 for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. In 

addition, EPA is approving portions of 

SIP revisions submitted by the State of 

Utah on March 14, 2012. This 

submission revises Utah’s Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration (PSD) program 

to incorporate the required elements of 

the 2008 PM2.5 New Source Review 

(NSR) Implementation Rule and the 

2010 PM2.5 Increment Rule. 

DATES: This final rule is effective 

November 25, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No.EPA–R08–OAR–2011–0727. All 

documents in the docket are listed on 

the www.regulations.gov Web site. 

Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

e.g., Confidential Business Information 

(CBI) or other information whose 

disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the Internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available either electronically through 

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 that if at all 

possible, you contact the individual 

listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section to view the hard copy 

of the docket. You may view the hard 

copy of the docket Monday through 

Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., excluding 

Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Kathy Ayala, Air Program, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA), Region 8, Mail Code 8P–AR, 

1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 

80202–1129, (303) 312–6142, 

ayala.kathy@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

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 initials CBI mean or refer to 

confidential business information. 

(iii) The words EPA, we, us or our 

mean or refer to the United States 

Environmental Protection Agency. 

(iv) The initials NAAQS mean or refer 

to national ambient air quality 

standards. 

(v) The initials PM mean or refer to 

particulate matter. 

(vi) The initials PM2.5 mean or refer to 

particulate matter with an aerodynamic 

diameter of less than 2.5 micrometers 

(fine particulate matter). 

(vii) The initials PSD mean or refer to 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration. 

(viii) The initials SIP mean or refer to 

State Implementation Plan. 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

II. Response to Comments 

III. Final Action 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background 

Infrastructure requirements for SIPs 

are provided in section 110(a)(1) and (2) 

of the CAA. Section 110(a)(2) lists the 

specific infrastructure elements that a 

SIP must contain or satisfy. The 

elements that are the subject of this 

action are described in detail in our 

notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR) of 

May 23, 2013 (78 FR 30830). 

In our NPR, we proposed to act on 

submissions from the State of Utah to 

address infrastructure requirements for 

the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. The 

NPR proposed approval of the 

submissions with respect to the 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
63884 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 207 / Friday, October 25, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

following infrastructure elements for the 

1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS: CAA 

Sections 110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C) with 

respect to minor NSR requirements, (E), 

(F), (G), (H), (J) with respect to the 

requirements of sections 121 and 127 of 

the Act, (K), (L), and (M). The reasons 

for our approval are provided in detail 

in the NPR. 

For reasons explained in the NPR, 

EPA also proposed to approve the 

submissions for infrastructure elements 

(C) and (J) with respect to PSD 

requirements for the 1997 and 2006 

PM2.5 NAAQS. Concurrently, EPA 

proposed to approve revisions to the 

Utah SIP submitted by the State on 

March 14, 2012 which incorporate the 

requirements of the 2008 PM2.5 NSR 

Implementation Rule and the 2010 

PM2.5 Increment Rule; specifically, 

approval of the text of 40 CFR 52.21, 

paragraphs (b)(14)(i), (ii), and (iii); 

(b)(15)(i) and (ii); (b)(23)(i); (b)(50); and, 

paragraph (c) as they existed on July 1, 

2011. EPA is taking no action at this 

time on infrastructure element (D) for 

the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

EPA also proposed to correct, under 

section 110(k)(6) of the CAA, an 

erroneous statement made in a previous 

action on Utah’s infrastructure SIP 

submission for the 1997 ozone NAAQS. 

As explained in more detail in our 

proposal, in EPA’s action on the 1997 

ozone infrastructure submittal, EPA 

erroneously stated that the CAA made 

no requirements for state judicial review 

of PSD permits. 

II. Response to Comments 

Comment: Three trade associations 

opposed our proposed disapproval of 

Utah’s infrastructure SIP with respect to 

element 110(a)(2)(E)(ii). The 

commenters acknowledge that Utah’s 

state law governing the Utah Air Quality 

Board (Board) was amended by Senate 

Bill 21 in 2011 to remove the provision 

in Utah Code section 19–2–203 

requiring members of the Board to 

adequately disclose potential conflicts 

of interest. However, the commenters 

cite another provision, added in Senate 

Bill 21 to Utah Code section 19–1–201, 

requiring the Utah Department of 

Environmental Quality (Department) to 

promulgate rules regarding conflict of 

interest procedures for the Board. The 

commenters therefore disagree with our 

statement that Utah Code section 19–2– 

203 does not address disclosure of 

potential conflicts of interest by 

members of the Board, and our 

statement that the 2008 and 2010 

infrastructure submittals no longer 

reflect state law. The commenters cite 

conflict of interest rules promulgated by 

the Department in Utah Administrative 

Code (UAC) sections R305–9–101 to 

–106 and note that the Director is a 

member of the Board and is thus subject 

to these rules. As a result, the 

commenters also take exception to our 

statement that Utah Code section 19–2– 

203 does not address disclosure of 

conflicts of interest by the Director, and 

state that they have ‘‘no idea’’ why EPA 

did not take the rules promulgated in 

UAC sections R305–9–101 to –106 into 

account in our proposal. The 

commenters conclude, based on the 

revisions to Utah Code section 19–1– 

203 and the rules in Utah 

Administrative Code section R305–9, 

that the infrastructure SIP should be 

approved for CAA element 

110(a)(2)(E)(ii). 

Response: EPA disagrees with this 

comment. First, we stated a general 

principle in our proposed action: 

section 128 must be satisfied through 

federally enforceable provisions that are 

approved into the SIP. See 78 FR at 

52842 n.5 (citing 78 FR 32613 (May 31, 

2013)). The language of section 128 

compels this. It mandates that each SIP 

‘‘contain requirements’’ meeting the 

terms of subsections 128(a)(1) and (a)(2). 

In turn, section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) requires 

section 128 to be satisfied. The 

commenters do not dispute any of this. 

EPA correctly stated that the 

infrastructure SIP submittals no longer 

reflect state law. As stated in our 

proposal, the submittals were made on 

April 17, 2008 and September 21, 2010, 

for the 1997 PM2.5 and 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS, respectively. Also stated in our 

proposal, S.B. 21 was enacted in 2011, 

after the submittals were made. In other 

words, state law changed after the 

submittals were made. 

EPA also correctly stated that revised 

Utah Code section 19–2–203 does not 

address disclosure of potential conflicts 

of interest. To the extent that EPA 

should have considered the revisions to 

Utah Code section 19–1–201 (which 

were not referenced in the infrastructure 

SIP submittals nor separately submitted 

for inclusion in the SIP), a general 

requirement such as that in section 19– 

1–203 to promulgate conflict of interest 

rules nonetheless does not address how 

potential conflicts of interest will be 

disclosed. Furthermore, as noted in our 

proposed action, the Utah SIP contains 

only a reference to Utah Code section 

19–2–104. See 78 FR at 52842 n.5. Thus, 

even to the extent that a general 

provision requiring promulgation of 

conflict of interest rules can be said to 

‘‘address’’ the specific disclosure 

requirements in CAA section 128(a)(2), 

Utah Code section 19–1–201 cannot be 

used for that purpose, as it is not 

approved into the SIP. 

We turn to the rules in UAC sections 

R305–9–101 to –106 cited by the 

commenters. These rules have not been 

submitted to EPA by the State of Utah 

for inclusion in the SIP. If and when 

they and any other provisions are 

submitted by the State, EPA will 

evaluate them for compliance with 

section 128 and act accordingly. Until 

such provisions are approved into the 

SIP, they cannot be relied on to satisfy 

the requirements of section 128 for 

purposes of an infrastructure SIP 

submission. Thus, it was not necessary 

for EPA to assess these unsubmitted 

provisions (which also were not cited in 

the infrastructure SIP submittals) in 

proposing disapproval of Utah’s 

infrastructure SIP submissions for 

element 110(a)(2)(E)(ii). 

Aside from the requirement that 

provisions to meet section 128 must be 

approved into the SIP, the commenters 

do not explain how the new rules in 

UAC sections R305–9–101 to –106 

would meet the requirements for section 

128(a)(2) when, for example, the 

Director, acting alone and not as a 

member of the Board, approves a 

permit. As explained in our notice—and 

again undisputed by the commenters— 

the Board no longer has authority to 

approve permits that the State issues 

under the Act. By their own terms, the 

disclosure rules promulgated by the 

Department apply only to ‘‘matters 

before the Board.’’ See UAC R305–9– 

104, –105. Because the Board no longer 

has authority to approve permits, the 

disclosure rules do not apply to permit 

actions. In those actions, the Director 

acts alone and not as a member of the 

Board. The rules on their face thus do 

not appear to apply to the Director’s 

decisions on permits or to satisfy the 

requirements of section 128(a)(2) as 

applied to the Director. 

As mentioned above, when the State 

does submit provisions to meet the 

requirements of section 128, we will act 

on them. However, the comment 

provides no basis for us to change our 

proposed disapproval of the Utah 

infrastructure SIPs for element 

110(a)(2)(E)(ii) for the 1997 and 2006 

PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Comment: One commenter questioned 

our approval of Utah’s SIP as to the 

October 20, 2010 major source baseline 

date for the PM2.5 increments. The 

commenter contends that the court 

decision in NRDC v. EPA, 706 F.3d 428 

(D.C. Cir. 2013), requires that EPA treat 

PM2.5 in the same manner as PM10 with 

respect to establishing baseline dates. 

The commenter contends that, because 

the court held that the statutory 

definition of PM10 includes PM2.5, EPA 

must interpret CAA sections 166(f) and 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 207 / Friday, October 25, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 63885 

169(4) as applying the statutory major 

source baseline date of January 6, 1975, 

to the regulation of PM2.5 increments in 

the same manner that it applies to the 

regulation of PM10. 

Response: EPA does not agree with 

the commenter’s contention, and is 

approving this element of the Utah SIP 

because it is consistent with applicable 

EPA regulations implementing the CAA. 

EPA’s regulations are not altered by the 

court decision cited by the commenter. 

As discussed in the proposal, the court 

in NRDC v. EPA addressed whether EPA 

acted appropriately in establishing SIP 

requirements in the 2007 and 2008 

PM2.5 NAAQS implementation rules via 

only subpart 1 of Part D, title I, of the 

CAA, which establishes plan 

requirements for nonattainment areas in 

general, instead of subpart 4 of Part D, 

which establishes additional provisions 

for particulate matter nonattainment 

areas. The court concluded that because 

the Act defines the term PM10 to include 

PM2.5, the requirements of subpart 4 that 

pertain to PM10 nonattainment areas 

also apply to PM2.5 nonattainment areas. 

As subpart 4 pertains exclusively to 

particulate matter nonattainment areas, 

the court’s decision does not address the 

part C PSD program requirements for 

PM2.5, which apply to attainment and 

unclassifiable areas. 

EPA adopted the PM2.5 increments 

and the associated baseline dates in a 

2010 rule that was not before the court 

in NRDC v. EPA. The D.C. Circuit issued 

a separate decision on January 22, 2013, 

in Sierra Club v. EPA, 705 F.3d 458, that 

vacated the SILs and SMC for PM2.5 that 

were also promulgated by EPA in the 

2010 rule. Because no party raised the 

issue in that case, the January 2013 

decision did not address any of the 

PM2.5 increment provisions (including 

the baseline dates) adopted in that rule. 

The PM2.5 increments and baseline 

dates promulgated in the 2010 rule thus 

remain in effect and are unchanged by 

recent court decisions. EPA established 

the PM2.5 increments as additional 

increments under section 166(a) of the 

CAA rather than substitute increments 

under section 166(f). See 75 FR 64864, 

64871–2 (Oct. 20, 2010). A complete 

discussion of how the rule implements 

the requirements of the CAA is 

contained in the preamble to the 2010 

rule. An opportunity to raise concerns 

with EPA’s decision to set the PM2.5

major source baseline date in 2010 was 

available during the comment period on 

the 2010 rulemaking and court 

challenge that produced the January 

2013 decision. EPA may not rewrite 

those rules in the context of this action, 

but rather EPA is bound to apply them 

in their present form to the Utah SIP 

submission. 

The 2010 rule amended EPA’s 

regulations at 40 CFR 51.166, which 

establishes the minimum requirements 

that a state must meet in order to obtain 

EPA approval of the PSD program 

elements of a state implementation plan. 

Section 51.166(b) specifies that ‘‘[a]ll 

state plans shall use the following 

definitions for the purposes of this 

section.’’ Within this provision, section 

51.166(b)(14)(i) establishes separate and 

distinct major source baseline dates for 

PM10 and PM2.5. Furthermore, the 

definition of minor source baseline date 

in section 51.166(b)(14)(ii) contains 

separate and distinct trigger dates for 

PM10 and PM2.5. Utah’s plan is 

approvable because it uses these 

definitions and thus meets the criteria 

EPA has established by rule as sufficient 

to satisfy the relevant requirements of 

title I, Part C of the CAA. The Utah plan 

incorporates by reference the definitions 

of major source baseline date and minor 

source baseline date in section 40 CFR 

52.21(b)(14), which are the same as 

those in section 51.166(b)(14). 

III. Final Action 

EPA is approving Utah’s April 17, 

2008 and March 14, 2012 submissions 

with respect to the following CAA 

section 110(a)(2) infrastructure elements 

for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS: 

(A), (B), (C) with respect to minor NSR 

and PSD requirements, (D)(i)(II) with 

respect to PSD requirements, (E)(i), 

(E)(iii), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L), and (M). 

EPA disapproves Utah’s submissions 

with respect to the section 

110(a)(2)(E)(ii) infrastructure element 

for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

We are approving the following 

portions of the State’s March 14, 2012 

submission to address the 2008 PM2.5

NSR Implementation Rule and the 2010 

PM2.5 Increment Rule; specifically we 

approve the adoption of the text of 40 

CFR 52.21, paragraphs (b)(14)(i),(ii),(iii); 

(b)(15)(i),(ii); (b)(23)(i); (b)(50) and 

paragraph (c) as they existed on July 1, 

2011. 

EPA is taking no action on 

infrastructure elements (D)(i)(I), 

interstate transport of pollutants which 

contribute significantly to 

nonattainment in, or interfere with 

maintenance by, any other state, and 

(D)(i)(II), with respect to visibility 

requirements for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS 

as EPA is acting separately on these 

elements. Finally, EPA is correcting an 

erroneous statement made in a previous 

action regarding requirements for state 

judicial review of PSD permits. 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the Clean Air Act, the 

Administrator is required to approve a 

SIP submission that complies with the 

provisions of the Act and applicable 

Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 

40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP 

submissions, EPA’s role is to approve 

state choices, provided that they meet 

the criteria of the Clean Air Act. 

Accordingly, this action merely 

approves some state law as meeting 

Federal requirements and disapproves 

other state law as not meeting Federal 

requirements; it 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 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
63886 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 207 / Friday, October 25, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

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 December 24, 

2013. 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 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. 

Dated: September 30, 2013. 

Shaun L. McGrath, 

Regional Administrator, Region 8. 

40 CFR part 52 is amended to read as 

follows: 

PART 52—APPROVAL AND 

PROMULGATION OF 

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 

■ 1. The authority citation for Part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart TT—Utah 

■ 2. Section 52.2346 is amended by 

adding paragraph (d) to read as follows: 

§ 52.2346 Significant deterioration of air 

quality. 

* * * * * 

(d) On March 14, 2012 the State of 

Utah submitted revisions to the State 

Implementation Plan that incorporated 

the required elements of the 2008 PM2.5

NSR Implementation Rule and the 2010 

PM2.5 Increment Rule. The following 

provisions are approved into the State 

Implementation Plan. 

(1) Major source baseline date means: 

(i) In the case of PM10 and sulfur 

dioxide, January 6, 1975; 

(ii) In the case of nitrogen dioxide, 

February 8, 1988; and 

(iii) In the case of PM2.5, October 20, 

2010. 

(2) Minor source baseline date means 

the earliest date after the trigger date on 

which a major stationary source or a 

major modification subject to 40 CFR 

52.21 or to regulations approved 

pursuant to 40 CFR 51.166 submits a 

complete application under the relevant 

regulations. The trigger date is: 

(i) In the case of PM10 and sulfur 

dioxide, August 7, 1977; 

(ii) In the case of nitrogen dioxide, 

February 8, 1988; and 

(iii) In the case of PM2.5, October 20, 

2011. 

(3) The baseline date is established for 

each pollutant for which increments or 

other equivalent measures have been 

established if: 

(i) The area in which the proposed 

source or modification would construct 

is designated as attainment or 

unclassifiable under section 

107(d)(1)(A)(ii) or (iii) of the Act for the 

pollutant on the date of its complete 

application under 40 CFR 52.21 or 

under regulations approved pursuant to 

40 CFR 51.166; and 

(ii) In the case of a major stationary 

source, the pollutant would be emitted 

in significant amounts, or in the case of 

a major modification, there would be a 

significant net emissions increase of the 

pollutant. 

(4) Baseline area means any intrastate 

area (and every part thereof) designated 

as attainment or unclassifiable under 

section 107(d)(1)(A)(ii) or (iii) of the Act 

in which the major source or major 

modification establishing the minor 

source baseline date would construct or 

would have an air quality impact for the 

pollutant for which the baseline date is 

established, as follows: equal to or 

greater than 1 mg/m3 (annual average) 

for SO2, NO2, or PM10; or equal or 

greater than 0.3 mg/m3 (annual average) 

for PM2.5. 

(5) Area redesignations under section 

107(d)(1)(A)(ii) or (iii) of the Act cannot 

intersect or be smaller than the area of 

impact of any major stationary source or 

major modification which: 

(i) Establishes a minor source baseline 

date; or 

(ii) Is subject to 40 CFR 52.21 or [Utah 

Administrative Code (UAC)] R307–405 

and would be constructed in the same 

state as the state proposing the 

redesignation. 

(6) Significant means, in reference to 

a net emissions increase or the potential 

of a source to emit any of the following 

pollutants, a rate of emissions that 

would equal or exceed any of the 

following rates: 

(i) Carbon monoxide: 100 tons per 

year (tpy). 

(ii) Nitrogen oxides: 40 tpy. 

(iii) Sulfur dioxide: 40 tpy. 

(iv) Particulate matter: 25 tpy of 

particulate matter emissions. 

(v) PM10: 15 tpy. 

(vi) PM2.5: 10 tpy of direct PM2.5

emissions; 40 tpy of sulfur dioxide 

emissions; 40 tpy of nitrogen oxide 

emissions unless demonstrated not to be 

a PM2.5 precursor under 40 CFR 

52.21(b)(50). 

(vii) Ozone: 40 tpy of volatile organic 

compounds or nitrogen oxides. 

(viii) Lead: 0.6 tpy. 

(ix) Fluorides: 3 tpy. 

(x) Sulfuric acid mist: 7 tpy. 

(xi) Hydrogen sulfide (H2S): 10 tpy. 

(xii) Total reduced sulfur (including 

H2S): 10 tpy. 

(xiii) Reduced sulfur compounds 

(including H2S): 10 tpy. 

(xiv) Municipal waste combustor 

organics (measured as total tetrathrough octa-chlorinated diebenzo-pdioxins and dibenzofurans): 3.2 × 10M6

megagrams per year (3.5 × 10M6 tons per 

year). 

(xv) Municipal waste combustor 

metals (measured as particulate matter): 

14 megagrams per year (15 tons per 

year). 

(xvi) Municipal waste combustor acid 

gases (measured as sulfur dioxide and 

hydrogen chloride): 36 megagrams per 

year (40 tons per year). 

(xvii) Municipal solid waste landfills 

emissions (measured as nonmethane 

organic compounds): 45 megagrams per 

year (50 tons per year). 

(7) Regulated NSR pollutant, for 

purposes of this section means the 

following: 

(i) Any pollutant for which a national 

ambient air quality standard has been 

promulgated and any pollutant 

identified under 40 CFR 52.21(b)(50)(i) 

as a constituent or precursor for such 

pollutant. Precursors identified by the 

EPA Administrator for purposes of NSR 

are the following: 

(A) Volatile organic compounds and 

nitrogen oxides are precursors to ozone 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 207 / Friday, October 25, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 63887 

in all attainment and unclassifiable 

areas. 

(B) Sulfur dioxide is a precursor to 

PM2.5 in all attainment and 

unclassifiable areas. 

(C) Nitrogen oxides are presumed to 

be precursors to PM2.5 in all attainment 

and unclassifiable areas, unless the 

State demonstrates to the EPA 

Administrator’s satisfaction or EPA 

demonstrates that emissions of nitrogen 

oxides from sources in a specific area 

are not a significant contributor to that 

area’s ambient PM2.5 concentrations. 

(D) Volatile organic compounds are 

presumed not to be precursors to PM2.5

in any attainment or unclassifiable area, 

unless the State demonstrates to the 

EPA Administrator’s satisfaction or EPA 

demonstrates that emissions of volatile 

organic compounds from sources in a 

specific area are a significant 

contributor to that area’s ambient PM2.5

concentrations. 

(ii) Any pollutant that is subject to 

any standard promulgated under section 

111 of the Act; 

(iii) Any Class I or II substance subject 

to a standard promulgated under or 

established by title VI of the Act; 

(iv) Any pollutant that otherwise is 

subject to regulation under the Act. 

(v) Notwithstanding 40 CFR 

52.21(b)(50)(i) through (iv), the term 

regulated NSR pollutant shall not 

include any or all hazardous air 

pollutant either listed in section 112 of 

the Act, or added to the list pursuant to 

section 112(b)(2) of the Act, and which 

have not been delisted pursuant to 

section 122(b)(3) of the Act, unless the 

listed hazardous air pollutant is also 

regulated as a constituent or precursor 

of a general pollutant listed under 

section 108 of the Act. 

(vi) Participate matter (PM) emissions, 

PM2.5 emissions and PM10 emissions 

shall include gaseous emissions from a 

source or activity which condense to 

form particulate matter at ambient 

temperatures. On or after January 1, 

2011 (or any earlier date established in 

the upcoming rulemaking codifying test 

methods), such condensable particulate 

matter shall be accounted for in 

applicability determinations and in 

establishing emissions limitations for 

PM, PM2.5 and PM10 in PSD permits. 

Compliance with emissions limitations 

for PM, PM2.5 and PM10 issued prior to 

this date shall not be based on 

condensable particular matter unless 

required by the terms and conditions of 

the permit or the applicable 

implementation plan. Applicability 

determinations made prior to this date 

without accounting for condensable 

particular matter shall not be considered 

in violation of this section unless the 

applicable implementation plan 

required condensable particular matter 

to be included. 

(8) Ambient air increments. (i) In 

areas designated as Class I, II, or III, 

increases in pollutant concentration 

over the baseline concentration shall be 

limited to the following: 

Pollutant 

Maximum allowable increase 

(micrograms 

per cubic 

meter) 

Class I Area 

PM2.5: 

Annual arithmetic mean .. 1 

24-hr maximum ............... 2 

PM10: 

Annual arithmetic mean .. 4 

24-hr maximum ............... 8 

Sulfur dioxide: 

Annual arithmetic mean .. 2 

24-hr maximum ............... 5 

3-hr maximum ................. 25 

Nitrogen dioxide Annual 

arithmetic mean .............. 2 .5 

Class II Area 

PM2.5: 

Annual arithmetic mean .. 4 

24-hr maximum ............... 9 

PM10: 

Annual arithmetic mean .. 17 

24-hr maximum ............... 30 

Sulfur dioxide: 

Annual arithmetic mean .. 20 

24-hr maximum ............... 91 

3-hr maximum ................. 512 

Nitrogen dioxide Annual 

arithmetic mean .............. 25 

Class III Area 

PM2.5: 

Annual arithmetic mean .. 8 

24-hr maximum ............... 18 

PM10: 

Annual arithmetic mean .. 34 

24-hr maximum ............... 60 

Sulfur dioxide: 

Annual arithmetic mean .. 40 

24-hr maximum ............... 182 

3-hr maximum ................. 700 

Nitrogen dioxide Annual 

arithmetic mean .............. 50 

(ii) For any period other than an 

annual period the applicable maximum 

allowable increase may be exceeded 

during one such period per year at any 

one location. 

■ 3. Section 52.2355 is amended by 

designating the existing paragraph as 

paragraph (a) and adding paragraph (b) 

to read as follows: 

§ 52.2355 Section 110(a)(2) infrastructure 

requirements. 

* * * * * 

(b) On December 3, 2007, Jon L. 

Huntsman, Jr. Governor, State of Utah, 

provided a submission to meet the 

infrastructure requirements for the State 

of Utah for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. On 

April 17, 2008, M. Cheryl Heying, 

Director, Utah Department of 

Environmental Quality, provided a 

second submission to meet the 

infrastructure requirements for the State 

of Utah for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. On 

September 21, 2010, M. Cheryl Heying, 

Director, Utah Department of 

Environmental Quality, provided a 

submission to meet the infrastructure 

requirements for the State of Utah for 

the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. The State’s 

Infrastructure SIP is approved with 

respect to the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS with respect to CAA section 

110(a)(1) and the following elements of 

section 110(a)(2): (A), (B), (C) with 

respect to PSD and minor NSR 

requirements, (D)(i)(II) with respect to 

PSD requirements, (E)(i), (E)(iii), (F), (G), 

(H), (J), (K), (L), and (M). 

[FR Doc. 2013–24889 Filed 10–24–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 52, 62, and 70 

[EPA–R07–OAR–2012–0410; FRL 9901–65– 

Region 7] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; Approval and 

Promulgation of State Air Quality Plans 

for Designated Facilities and 

Pollutants, State of Iowa; Control of 

Emissions From Existing Hospital/

Medical/Infectious Waste Incinerator 

Units, Negative Declaration and 111(d) 

Plan Rescission; Approval and 

Promulgation of Operating Permits 

Program, State of Iowa 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is approving, through 

direct final rulemaking, revisions to the 

State of Iowa’s State Implementation 

Plan (SIP), Title V program, and Clean 

Air Act (CAA) section 111(d) plan. The 

purpose of these revisions is to make 

general updates to existing state air 

quality rules, approve an exemption 

from constructing permitting for engines 

used in periodic pipeline testing, 

approve changes to state rules regarding 

regional haze requirements, and to 

approve adoption of Federal regulations 

including the National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards (NAAQS) for 2008 

Ozone, 2008 Lead, and 2010 Nitrogen 

Dioxide. EPA is approving the SIP 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES