```

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 40 (Friday, February 28, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 11325-11327]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-04336]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R08-OAR-2013-0474; FRL-9905-25-Region 8]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; 
Utah; Revisions to Utah Administrative Code and an Associated Plan 
Revision

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is partially 
approving and partially disapproving State Implementation Plan (SIP) 
revisions submitted by the State of Utah on September 20, 1999. The 
September 20, 1999 submittal revised the numbering and format of the 
Utah Administrative Code (UAC) rules within Utah's SIP. In this action, 
EPA is acting on those rules from the September 20, 1999 submittal that 
still require EPA action. Specifically, EPA is approving R307-110-16, 
``Section IX, Control Measures for Area and Point Sources, Part G, 
Fluoride,'' and disapproving R307-110-29, ``Section XXI, Diesel 
Inspection and Maintenance Program.'' In conjunction with our 
disapproval of R307-110-29, we are also disapproving the Utah Diesel 
Inspection and Maintenance Program, which Utah submitted as a revision 
to the SIP on February 6, 1996, and which was incorporated by reference 
in R307-110-29 as part of the September 20, 1999 submittal. This action 
is being taken under section 110 of the Clean Air Act (CAA).

DATES: This final rule is effective March 31, 2014.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID 
No. EPA-R08-OAR-2013-0474. All documents in the docket are listed in 
the www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some 
information may not be 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. 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: Jody Ostendorf, Air Program, Mailcode 
8P-AR, Environmental Protection Agency Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop Street, 
Denver, Colorado 80202-1129, (303) 312-7814, or ostendorf.jody@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. What action is EPA finalizing and why?
III. 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 initials PM10 mean or refer to particulate 
matter with an aerodynamic diameter of less than or equal to 10 
micrometers (coarse particulate matter).
    (iv) The initials PM2.5 mean or refer to particulate 
matter with an aerodynamic diameter of less than or equal to 2.5 
micrometers (fine particulate matter).
    (v) The initials SIP mean or refer to State Implementation Plan.
    (vi) The words State or Utah mean the State of Utah, unless the 
context indicates otherwise.
    (vii) The initials UAC mean or refer to the Utah Administrative 
Code.

I. Background

    Utah's September 20, 1999 submittal revised the numbering and 
format of the UAC rules within Utah's SIP. The purpose was to provide 
for a more consistent numbering system and a coherent structure 
allowing provisions to be located more easily within Utah's rules.
    On February 14, 2006 (71 FR 7679), we approved many of the re-
numbered rules from the September 20, 1999 submittal, but we deferred 
action on others or explained why no action on the rules was 
necessary.\1\ In subsequent rulemaking actions, we acted on other rules 
from the September 20, 1999 submittal, or on later versions of the 
rules that superseded the version submitted on September 20, 1999.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ On April 18, 2007 (74 FR 19383), EPA issued a correction 
notice that corrected certain aspects of the regulatory text in 
EPA's February 14, 2006 action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On August 14, 2013, we proposed to act on those rules from the 
September 20, 1999 submittal that still required EPA action. See 78 FR 
49400. Specifically, we proposed to approve R307-110-16, ``Section IX, 
Control Measures for Area and Point Sources, Part G, Fluoride,'' and we 
proposed to disapprove R307-110-29, ``Section XXI, Diesel Inspection 
and Maintenance Program.'' In conjunction with our proposed disapproval 
of R307-110-29, we also proposed to disapprove the Utah Diesel 
Inspection and Maintenance Program (Section XXI of the Utah SIP), which 
Utah submitted to EPA as a SIP revision on February 6, 1996 and which 
R307-110-29 of the September 20, 1999 submittal incorporated by 
reference.

[[Page 11326]]

    Our August 14, 2013 notice of proposed rulemaking invited comment 
on our proposal and provided a 30-day comment period. The comment 
period ended on September 13, 2013. We received no comments. 
Accordingly, we are finalizing our actions as proposed.
    In the docket for this final rule we have included a table that 
lists the rules from the September 20, 1999 submittal that are not 
addressed by today's action and explains why no action on such rules is 
required.

II. What action is EPA finalizing and why?

A. R307-110-16, ``Section IX, Control Measures for Area and Point 
Sources, Part G, Fluoride''

    We are approving the renumbering of R307-110-16, ``Section IX, 
Control Measures for Area and Point Sources, Part G, Fluoride.'' This 
provision incorporates by reference Utah SIP Section IX, Part G, as 
amended by the Utah Air Quality Board on December 18, 1992, into the 
UAC.
    In our October 13, 2005 proposed rule on Utah's September 20, 1999 
submittal (70 FR 59681), we did not propose to act on the renumbering 
of R307-110-16. As our reason, we stated: ``Utah repealed this rule 
from the federally approved SIP in their June 17, 1998 SIP submittal 
that EPA approved on May 20, 2002 (67 FR 35442).'' (70 FR 59687) That 
statement was incorrect. The May 20, 2002 action did not remove R307-
110-16 (under its previous numbering) or associated Utah SIP section 
IX, Part G from the SIP. Instead, that action removed R307-1-4.11, 
``Regulation for the Control of Fluorides from Existing Plants'' from 
the SIP, in part based on the dismantling of the only facility to which 
the provision applied. In fact, on June 25, 2003 (68 FR 37744), we 
approved the renumbering of Utah SIP Section IX, Part G, and this 
section remains in the SIP. However, we have not acted on the 
corresponding renumbering of R307-110-16 in the September 20, 1999 
submittal. As R307-110-16 merely incorporates by reference SIP Section 
IX, Part G, which itself is currently in the SIP, we are approving the 
renumbering of R307-110-16.

B. R307-110-29, ``Section XXI, Diesel Inspection and Maintenance 
Program''

    We are disapproving R307-110-29, ``Section XXI, Diesel Inspection 
and Maintenance Program.'' R307-110-29 incorporated by reference the 
Utah Diesel Inspection and Maintenance Program (Section XXI of the 
SIP), as adopted by the Utah Air Quality Board on July 12, 1995 (and 
submitted to EPA on February 6, 1996), which we have not acted on 
previously. In our October 13, 2005 notice of proposed rulemaking (70 
FR 59681), we stated that we would not act to approve R307-110-29 
because the rule incorporated by reference Utah's February 6, 1996 SIP 
submittal. We noted that we would address the February 6, 1996 SIP 
submittal at a later date (70 FR 59687). We restated our intentions in 
our final rule of February 14, 2006 (71 FR 7679) in which we noted that 
we would act on R307-110-29 when we acted on Utah's February 6, 1996 
SIP submittal (71 FR 7681). With this final rule, we are disapproving 
the State's February 6, 1996 submittal of its Diesel Inspection and 
Maintenance Program (see section II.C. below). Therefore, EPA is also 
disapproving R307-110-29 because it incorporates by reference the 
State's Diesel Inspection and Maintenance Program that we are 
disapproving.

C. Utah SIP Revision: Section XXI, ``Diesel Inspection and Maintenance 
Program.''

    We are disapproving Utah's Diesel Inspection and Maintenance (I/M) 
Program contained in Section XXI of the Utah SIP, which Utah submitted 
on February 6, 1996 (hereafter, the ``I/M Program''). The Program 
requires the inspection of diesel-powered vehicles by means of an 
emissions opacity test. The opacity of vehicle emissions is measured, 
using what is known as a snap-idle opacity test, to determine the need 
for vehicle repair and maintenance. Utah adopted the Program with the 
goal of reducing particulate emissions from diesel vehicles in the 
PM10 \2\ nonattainment areas along the Wasatch Front--
namely, Davis, Salt Lake, and Utah Counties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than or 
equal to 10 microns (PM10).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Our disapproval is based on several issues. First, relevant 
literature and studies indicate that there is not an accepted 
correlation between opacity and particulate matter mass emissions in 
diesel vehicles. Given this lack of correlation between opacity and PM 
mass emissions, it is unlikely that the snap-opacity test is a good 
predictor of PM emissions, and the State has not provided data to 
support a different conclusion. Second, the Governor's February 6, 1996 
submittal of the Program did not specify a number of critical 
parameters, such as the relevant opacity limits or specifications for 
test equipment. While many of the missing parameters were included in 
revisions to Davis, Salt Lake, and Utah Counties' inspection and 
maintenance ordinances that the Utah Division of Air Quality forwarded 
to us on April 12, 2006, the State did not amend Section XXI of the SIP 
to include the revised ordinances, and the Governor did not submit such 
an amendment to us to replace the version submitted on February 6, 
1996. Therefore, the Program as submitted is not enforceable as a 
practical matter. Finally, relevant literature and studies suggest that 
adjusting diesel vehicles to reduce the opacity of emissions may result 
in an increase in emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOX), which 
are precursors to the formation of PM2.5,\3\ 
PM10, and ground level ozone. It is possible, therefore, 
that repairing vehicles to meet the opacity test could exacerbate PM 
emissions in Utah, and the State has not provided data to contradict 
this possibility. We note that on November 13, 2009, Davis, Salt Lake, 
and Utah Counties were designated nonattainment for the 2006 24-hour 
PM2.5 NAAQS (74 FR 58688). Also, both Salt Lake and Utah 
Counties retain their original legal designation of nonattainment for 
PM10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than or 
equal to 2.5 microns (PM2.5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We are unable to conclude that approval of the I/M Program would 
strengthen the SIP or would be consistent with the requirements of CAA 
section 110(l). Section 110(1) states that a SIP revision cannot be 
federally-approved if the revision would interfere with any applicable 
requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress 
towards attainment of a NAAQS or any other applicable requirement of 
the CAA. The potential increase in NOX emissions from the I/
M Program could interfere with attainment or reasonable further 
progress towards attainment of the PM2.5 NAAQS in the 
relevant counties. We have no conclusive data to show that the 
potential benefits of the I/M Program outweigh the potential emission 
increases with respect to pollutants of concern. Furthermore, the State 
has not provided data that would support the benefits it ascribes to 
the I/M Program. Instead, it references a 1988 study that attempts to 
indirectly infer a level of emission reductions resulting from fixing a 
statistically insignificant number of old-technology diesel vehicles to 
reduce exhaust opacity, but without conducting the type of before-and-
after-repair mass-emission transient testing on the contemporary fleet 
of diesel vehicles needed to actually quantify any potential impacts on 
emissions.
    For the foregoing reasons, we are disapproving Section XXI of the 
SIP,

[[Page 11327]]

``Diesel Inspection and Maintenance Program,'' as submitted by the 
State on February 6, 1996.

III. 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 action merely approves state law that meets federal 
requirements and disapproves state law that does not meet federal 
requirements; this action 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 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 29, 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, and Volatile organic compounds.

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

    Dated: December 19, 2013.
Shaun L. McGrath,
Regional Administrator, Region 8.

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--Utah

0
2. Amend Sec.  52.2320 by adding paragraph (c)(77) to read as follows:

Sec.  52.2320  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (77) On February 6, 1996, Utah submitted as a revision to its State 
Implementation Plan (SIP) a ``Diesel Inspection and Maintenance 
Program,'' Section XXI of the Utah SIP. EPA is disapproving the Utah 
Diesel Inspection and Maintenance Program as submitted on February 6, 
1996. On September 20, 1999 the State of Utah submitted revisions to 
its SIP that revised the numbering and format of the Utah 
Administrative Code rules within Utah's SIP. From the September 20, 
1999 submittal, EPA is approving R307-110-16, ``Section IX, Control 
Measures for Area and Point Sources, Part G, Fluoride,'' and 
disapproving R307-110-29, ``Section XXI, Diesel Inspection and 
Maintenance Program,'' which incorporated Utah's Diesel Inspection and 
Maintenance Program by reference into Utah's rules. EPA has previously 
acted on other provisions from the September 20, 1999 submittal.
    (i) Incorporation by reference.
    (A) Title R307 of the Utah Administrative Code, Environmental 
Quality, Air Quality, R307-110, General Requirements: State 
Implementation Plan, R307-110-16, Section IX, Control Measures for Area 
and Point Sources, Part G, Fluoride; effective September 15, 1998; as 
published in the Utah State Bulletin on June 1, 1998 and October 1, 
1998.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2014-04336 Filed 2-27-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
```