7072 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 25 / Thursday, February 6, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

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

Dated: November 7, 2013. 

Shaun L. McGrath, 

Regional Administrator, Region 8. 

For the reasons set forth above, 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 TT—[AMENDED] 

■ 2. Amend § 52.2320 by adding 

paragraph (c)(76) to read as follows: 

§ 52.2320 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(76) On April 14, 2011 the State of 

Utah submitted revisions to its State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) that 

contained revised rules, submitted in 

their entirety, pertaining to regulation of 

Greenhouse Gases (GHGs) under the 

State’s Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration (PSD) program. 

(i) Incorporation by reference. 

(A) Title R307 of the Utah 

Administrative Code (UAC), 

Environmental Quality, Air Quality, 

R307–401, Permit: New and Modified 

Sources, R307–401–9, Small Source 

Exemption, (5); and R307–405, Permits: 

Major Sources in Attainment or 

Unclassified Areas (PSD), R307–405–3, 

Definitions, except (2)(a), (b), (f), (5), and 

(6); effective January 1, 2011, as 

published in the Utah State Bulletin on 

September 15, 2010 and December 15, 

2010. 

[FR Doc. 2014–02083 Filed 2–5–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

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 leone.kevin@epa.gov. 

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 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 25 / Thursday, February 6, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 7073 

1Utah repealed R307–413 in 2006. 

2Our notice of final rulemaking has not been 

published yet in the Federal Register. 

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. 

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. 

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

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. 

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, 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
7074 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 25 / Thursday, February 6, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

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-byunit 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 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 25 / Thursday, February 6, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 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. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
7076 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 25 / Thursday, February 6, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

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 SIPapproved 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 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 25 / Thursday, February 6, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 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 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart TT—[AMENDED] 

■ 2. Section 52.2320 is amended by 

adding paragraph (c)(75) to read as 

follows: 

§ 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 

§ 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 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 1039, 1042, and 1068 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2012–0102; FRL–9905–35– 

OAR] 

RIN 2060–AR48; 2127–AL31 

Nonroad Technical Amendments 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is adopting amendments 

to the technical hardship provisions 

under the Transition Program for 

Equipment Manufacturers related to the 

Tier 4 standards for nonroad diesel 

engines, and to the replacement engine 

exemption generally applicable to new 

nonroad engines. These provisions may 

have minor impacts on the costs and 

emission reductions of the underlying 

regulatory programs amended in this 

action, though in most cases these are 

simple technical amendments. For those 

provisions that may have a minor 

impact on the costs or benefits of the 

amended regulatory program, any 

potential impacts would be small and 

we have not attempted to quantify the 

potential changes. 

DATES: This final rule is effective on 

March 10, 2014, except for 

§ 1039.625(m) which will be effective on 

February 6, 2014. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Alan Stout, Environmental Protection 

Agency, Office of Transportation and 

Air Quality, Assessment and Standards 

Division, 2000 Traverwood Drive, Ann 

Arbor, Michigan 48105; telephone 

number: (734) 214–4805; email address: 

stout.alan@epa.gov. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES