59242 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 187 / Thursday, September 26, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

Subpart V—Maryland 

■ 2. In § 52.1070, the table in paragraph 

(c) is amended by adding an entry for 

COMAR 26.11.19.27–1, after the 

existing entry for COMAR 26.11.19.27. 

The added text reads as follows: 

§ 52.1070 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

EPA-APPROVED REGULATIONS, TECHNICAL MEMORANDA, AND STATUTES IN THE MARYLAND SIP 

Code of Maryland Administrative Regulations (COMAR) citation 

Title/subject State effective 

date EPA-Approval date 

Additional 

explanation/ 

citation at 

40 CFR 52.1100 

*******

26.11.19 Volatile Organic Compounds From Specific Processes 

*******

26.11.19.27–1 ........... Control of Volatile Organic Compounds 

from Pleasure Craft Coating Operations.

10/12/12 9/26/13 [Insert page number where the 

document begins].

Regulation Added. 

*******

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2013–23100 Filed 9–25–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R08–OAR–2012–0958; FRL–9786–3] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; Utah; 

Maintenance Plan for the 1997 8-Hour 

Ozone Standard for Salt Lake County 

and Davis County 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is partially approving 

and partially disapproving State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions 

submitted by the Governor of Utah on 

March 22, 2007. The SIP revision is the 

State of Utah’s maintenance plan for the 

1997 8-hour ozone standard for Salt 

Lake County and Davis County, along 

with associated rules: R307–101–2, 

‘‘Definitions;’’ R307–110–13, ‘‘Section 

IX, Control Measures for Area and Point 

Sources, Part D, Ozone;’’ R307–320, 

‘‘Ozone Maintenance Areas and Ogden 

City: Employer-Based Trip Reduction 

Program;’’ R307–325, ‘‘Ozone 

Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas: 

General Requirements;’’ R307–326, 

‘‘Ozone Nonattainment and 

Maintenance Areas: Control of 

Hydrocarbon Emissions in Petroleum 

Refineries;’’ R307–327, ‘‘Ozone 

Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas: 

Petroleum Liquid Storage;’’ R307–328, 

‘‘Ozone Nonattainment and 

Maintenance Areas and Utah and Weber 

Counties: Gasoline Transfer and 

Storage;’’ R307–335, ‘‘Ozone 

Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas: 

Degreasing and Solvent Cleaning 

Operations;’’ R307–340, ‘‘Ozone 

Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas: 

Surface Coating Processes;’’ R307–341, 

‘‘Ozone Nonattainment and 

Maintenance Areas: Cutback Asphalt;’’ 

and R307–342, ‘‘Ozone Nonattainment 

and Maintenance Areas: Qualification of 

Contractors and Test Procedures for 

Vapor Recovery Systems for Gasoline 

Delivery Tanks.’’ This action is being 

taken under sections 107 and 110 of the 

Clean Air Act (Act or CAA). 

DATES: This action is effective on 

October 28, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket 

Identification No. EPA–R08–OAR– 

2012–0958. All documents in the docket 

are listed at http://www.regulations.gov. 

Although listed in the index, some 

information may not be publicly 

available, i.e., Confidential Business 

Information 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 

http://www.regulations.gov or in hard 

copy at EPA Region 8, Air Quality 

Planning Unit (8P–AR), 1595 Wynkoop 

Street, Denver, Colorado, 80202. EPA 

requests that if at all possible, you 

contact the person listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to 

schedule your inspection. The Regional 

Office’s official hours of business are 

Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, 

excluding federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jody 

Ostendorf, Air Program, Mailcode 8P– 

AR, Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA), Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop St., 

Denver, Colorado 80202–1129, (303) 

312–7814, ostendorf.jody@epa.gov 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Background of State Submittals 

A. Regulatory Context 

B. Ambient Ozone Conditions 

C. Our Proposal 

D. Public Participation 

E. Alternative Methods of Control (AMOC) 

and EPA’s Concurrence Requirement 

II. Final Action 

A. Maintenance Plan 

B. Rules 

III. Issues Raised by Commenters and EPA’s 

Responses 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

Definitions 

For the purpose of this document, we 

are giving meaning to certain words 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 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 of State Submittals 

A. Regulatory Context 

Under the CAA enacted in 1970, EPA 

established national ambient air quality 

standards (NAAQS) for certain 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 187 / Thursday, September 26, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 59243 

1 Data for 2012 have not been certified yet. 

pervasive air pollutants, such as 

photochemical oxidant, carbon 

monoxide, and particulate matter. The 

NAAQS represent concentration levels 

below which public health and welfare 

are protected. The 1970 Act also 

required states to adopt and submit SIPs 

to implement, maintain, and enforce the 

NAAQS. 

From time-to-time, the CAA requires 

SIP revisions to account for new or 

amended NAAQS or to meet other 

changed circumstances. The CAA was 

significantly amended in 1977, and 

under the 1977 Amendments, EPA 

promulgated attainment status 

designations for all areas of the country 

with respect to the NAAQS. 

The CAA requires EPA to periodically 

review and revise the NAAQS, and in 

1979, EPA established a new NAAQS of 

0.12 parts per million (ppm) for ozone, 

averaged over 1 hour. This new NAAQS 

replaced the oxidant standard of 0.08 

ppm. See 44 FR 8202 (February 8, 1979). 

Areas designated nonattainment for 

oxidant were considered to be 

nonattainment for ozone as well. Part D 

of CAA Title I requires special measures 

for areas designated nonattainment. On 

August 15, 1984, EPA approved Utah’s 

SIP for the 1-hour ozone standard for 

the Salt Lake County and Davis County 

nonattainment area (49 FR 32575). 

Congress significantly amended the 

CAA again in 1990. Under the 1990 

Amendments, each area of the country 

that was designated nonattainment for 

the 1-hour ozone NAAQS, including 

Salt Lake County and Davis County, was 

classified by operation of law as 

marginal, moderate, serious, severe, or 

extreme nonattainment depending on 

the severity of the area’s air quality 

problem. The ozone nonattainment 

designation for Salt Lake County and 

Davis County continued by operation of 

law according to section 107(d)(1)(C)(i) 

of the CAA, as amended in 1990. 

Furthermore, the area was classified by 

operation of law as moderate for ozone 

under CAA section 181(a)(1). 

Under CAA section 175A, states may 

request redesignation of a 

nonattainment area to attainment if 

monitoring data showed that the area 

has met the NAAQS and if the area 

meets certain other requirements. On 

July 18, 1995, both Salt Lake and Davis 

Counties were found to be attaining the 

1-hour ozone standard (60 FR 36723). 

On July 17, 1997, EPA approved the 

State’s request to redesignate Salt Lake 

and Davis Counties to attainment for the 

1-hour ozone standard. As part of that 

action, EPA approved the State’s 1-hour 

ozone maintenance plan (62 FR 38213). 

On July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated 

an 8-hour ozone NAAQS of 0.08 ppm 

(62 FR 38894). This standard was 

intended to replace the 1-hour ozone 

standard. On April 30, 2004, EPA 

designated areas of the country for the 

1997 8-hour ozone standard (69 FR 

23857). EPA designated all areas in 

Utah, including Salt Lake County and 

Davis County, as unclassifiable/

attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS (69 FR 23940). 

Also, on April 30, 2004, EPA revoked 

the pre-existing 1-hour NAAQS (69 FR 

23951, 23996; 40 CFR 50.9(b)). As part 

of this rulemaking, EPA established 

certain requirements to prevent 

backsliding in those areas that were 

designated as nonattainment for the 1- 

hour ozone standard at the time of 

designation for the 8-hour ozone 

standard, or that were redesignated to 

‘‘attainment’’ but subject to a 

maintenance plan, as is the case for Salt 

Lake County and Davis County. These 

requirements are codified at 40 CFR 

51.905. 

In the case of Utah, one of these 

requirements was to submit a 

maintenance plan for the 1997 8-hour 

ozone standard. On March 22, 2007, the 

Governor of Utah submitted a 

maintenance plan for the 1997 8-hour 

ozone standard for Salt Lake County and 

Davis County, and associated rule 

revisions. In this notice, EPA is acting 

on the March 22, 2007 maintenance 

plan and rule revisions. 

In 2008, EPA promulgated a lower 8- 

hour ozone standard—0.075 ppm (73 FR 

16436; March 27, 2008). The 2008 ozone 

standard retains the same general form 

and averaging time as the 0.08 ppm 

standard set in 1997. Effective July 20, 

2012, Salt Lake County and Davis 

County were designated Unclassifiable/ 

Attainment for this lower standard (77 

FR 30088, 30151). 

B. Ambient Ozone Conditions 

The 1997 ozone NAAQS is attained 

when the three-year average of the 

annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8- 

hour average ambient ozone 

concentration (also referred to as the 

‘‘design value’’) is less than or equal to 

0.08 ppm at all monitoring sites within 

an air quality planning area. 40 CFR part 

50, Appendix I, section 2.3, directs that 

the third decimal place of the computed 

three-year average be rounded; values 

equal to or greater than 0.005 are 

rounded up. Thus, under our 

regulations, a computed three-year 

ozone concentration of 0.085 ppm is the 

smallest value that is considered to be 

greater than 0.08 ppm and, thus, a 

violation of the standard. 

A review of the data gathered at the 

ozone monitoring sites in Salt Lake 

County and Davis County from 2000– 

2011 1 shows the area has been attaining 

the 8-hour ozone NAAQS except for the 

2005–2007 period, which had a design 

value of 0.085 ppm. As noted above, 

EPA designated Salt Lake County and 

Davis County unclassifiable/attainment 

for the lower 2008 ozone standard 

(0.075 ppm) based on monitored values 

for 2008–2010. The following table 

shows design values for each year from 

2000 through 2011: 

TABLE 1—SALT LAKE AND DAVIS COUNTIES THREE-YEAR AVERAGE OF THE 4TH HIGHEST OZONE VALUE

[ppm] 

Monitoring site (county) 2000– 

2002 

2001– 

2003 

2002– 

2004 

2003– 

2005 

2004– 

2006 

2005– 

2007 

2006– 

2008 

2007– 

2009 

2008– 

2010 

2009– 

2011 

Beach (Salt Lake) ............................................ 0.081 0.081 0.078 0.079 0.081 0.083 0.079 0.076 0.072 0.072 

Bountiful (Davis) ............................................... 0.082 0.083 0.078 0.079 0.080 0.085 0.080 0.077 0.074 0.071 

Cottonwood (Salt Lake) ................................... 0.076 0.080 0.079 0.080 0.080 0.083 0.082 0.077 0.075 0.073 

Hawthorne (Salt Lake) ..................................... 0.077 0.080 0.078 0.077 0.077 0.081 0.078 0.076 0.074 0.074 

Herriman (Salt Lake) ........................................ 0.078 0.076 0.076 0.076 0.078 0.080 n/a n/a n/a n/a 

West Valley (Salt Lake) ................................... 0.079 0.080 0.076 0.078 0.078 0.081 2 n/a n/a n/a n/a 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

59244 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 187 / Thursday, September 26, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

2By adopting a generic SIP provision consistent 

with the EPA guidance known as White Paper 

Number 2, a state may be able to streamline EPA’s 

SIP approval process for an AMOC. White Paper 

Number 2, Attachment B, envisions the use of the 

Title V permit process to establish alternative 

requirements. 

C. Our Proposal 

Our notice of proposed rulemaking 

was published in the Federal Register 

on January 2, 2013 (78 FR 37). In that 

notice, we proposed the following 

actions with respect to the State’s March 

22, 2007 submittal: 

1. We proposed to approve the State’s 

maintenance demonstration for the 1997 

8-hour ozone NAAQS for Salt Lake and 

Davis Counties, but, in the alternative, 

to disapprove the maintenance 

demonstration if comments were to 

convince us that approval would not be 

consistent with the Clean Air Act. 

2. We proposed to approve the rest of 

the State’s 1997 8-hour ozone 

maintenance plan for Salt Lake and 

Davis Counties, except for the following 

aspects, which we proposed to 

disapprove: 

a. Those contingency measures listed 

in the State’s maintenance plan that are 

voluntary in nature, and the 

contingency measure described in the 

maintenance plan as ‘‘Establish an 

Offset Ratio for NOX.’’ 

b. The State’s proposal to remove 

from the SIP the VOC RACT approval 

orders for Hill Air Force Base. 

c. The State’s proposal to remove from 

the SIP the NOX RACT limits for the 

PacifiCorp Gadsby Power Plant. 

d. Section 5.g of the maintenance 

plan, which indicates that the employer 

based trip reduction program is 

included as part of the plan. 

3. We proposed to take no action on 

R307–101–2 because we already acted 

on a later version of the definitions. 

4. We proposed to approve R307– 

110–13, but only to the extent we were 

proposing to approve the 1997 8-hour 

ozone maintenance plan. 

5. We proposed to disapprove R307– 

320, the employer-based trip reduction 

program. 

6. We proposed to approve R307–325, 

R307–326, R307–327, R307–328, R307– 

335, R307–340, R307–341, and R307– 

342, subject to our interpretation of 

these rules. 

For further detail regarding the bases for 

our proposed actions, please see our 

notice of proposed rulemaking at 78 FR 

37. 

D. Public Participation 

We requested comments on our 

proposed action and provided a 30-day 

comment period, which closed on 

February 1, 2013. In this action, we are 

responding to the comments we 

received and taking final rulemaking 

action. 

E. Alternative Methods of Control 

(AMOC) and EPA’s Concurrence 

Requirement 

In our proposal, we noted our 

interpretation of certain Utah rules; we 

are repeating that interpretation here. 

The State’s March 22, 2007 submittal 

included revisions to rules R307–326, 

R307–327, R307–328, R307–335, R307– 

340, and R307–342. For each of these 

rules, the State included AMOC 

language that was previously included 

in R307–325. That language states: ‘‘Any 

person may apply to the executive 

secretary for approval of an alternate 

test method, an alternate method of 

control, an alternate compliance period, 

an alternate emission limit, or an 

alternate monitoring schedule. The 

application must include a 

demonstration that the proposed 

alternate produces an equal or greater 

air quality benefit than that required by 

[this rule], or that the alternate test 

method is equivalent to that required by 

these rules. The executive secretary 

shall obtain concurrence from EPA 

when approving an alternate test 

method, an alternate method of control, 

an alternate compliance period, an 

alternate emission limit, or an alternate 

monitoring schedule.’’ 

The Utah Department of 

Environmental Quality (DEQ) confirmed 

that this regulatory language requiring 

concurrence from EPA on any AMOC 

applies to all the provisions in the rules 

that allow for DEQ to alter the 

compliance requirements of the rules. 

As more fully explained below, our 

interpretation is that our concurrence on 

an alternative compliance requirement 

must occur through approval of a SIP 

revision. 

Section 110(i) of the CAA specifically 

precludes states from changing the 

requirements of the SIP that apply to 

any stationary source except through 

SIP revisions approved by EPA. SIP 

revisions will be approved by EPA only 

if they meet all requirements of section 

110 of the Act and the implementing 

regulations at 40 CFR Part 51. See, e.g., 

CAA section 110(l); 40 CFR 51.104. 

Section 51.104(d) specifically states that 

in order for a variance to be considered 

for approval as a SIP revision, the state 

must submit it in accordance with the 

requirements of 40 CFR 51.104, which 

includes the public notice, comment 

and hearing provisions of 40 CFR 

51.102. 

Furthermore, the AMOC provision in 

the State’s rules does not contain 

specific, objective, and replicable 

criteria for determining if such 

‘‘alternate methods’’ are in fact at least 

as effective as the required methods in 

terms of emission rates and ambient 

impacts. For purposes of meeting CAA 

requirements, EPA concurrence in the 

form of a SIP approval is required for 

any of the alternate compliance 

provisions throughout R307–326, R307– 

327, R307–328, R307–335, R307–340, 

and R307–342. This includes approval 

of an alternate method of control, an 

alternate test method, an alternate 

compliance period, an alternate 

emission limit, a variance, or an 

alternate monitoring schedule. The 

public notice process of a SIP approval 

will allow EPA and the public to 

determine whether any new compliance 

terms approved by the executive 

secretary continue to assure 

maintenance of the ambient standard.2

II. Final Action 

A. Maintenance Plan 

For the reasons described in our 

notice of proposed rulemaking (78 FR 

37) and in our response to public 

comments in section III, below, we are 

taking the following actions with 

respect to the maintenance plan for the 

1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS for Salt Lake 

and Davis Counties that the State 

submitted on March 22, 2007: 

1. We are approving the State’s 

maintenance demonstration for the 1997 

8-hour ozone NAAQS for Salt Lake and 

Davis Counties. 

2. We are approving the rest of the 

State’s 1997 8-hour ozone maintenance 

plan for Salt Lake and Davis Counties, 

except for the following aspects, which 

we are disapproving: 

a. Those contingency measures listed 

in section 6.d of the State’s maintenance 

plan that are voluntary in nature, as 

follows: 

1. ‘‘Alert Day Enhancements;’’ 

2. ‘‘Heavy Equipment Emission 

Control Program;’’ 

3. ‘‘Reduce Emission of VOCs,’’ to the 

extent the State would adopt and 

implement the measure as a voluntary 

commitment rather than a regulatory 

measure; 

4. ‘‘Identification of High-Polluting 

Vehicles;’’ and 

5. ‘‘Other VOC and NOX emission 

control measures as appropriate,’’ to the 

extent such measures would be 

voluntary. 

b. The contingency measure listed in 

section 6.d of the State’s maintenance 

plan as ‘‘Establish an Offset Ratio for 

NOX.’’ 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 187 / Thursday, September 26, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 59245 

3We received no adverse comments on our 

proposal to approve the State’s rule revisions. 

c. The State’s proposal in section 

5.a.(3)(b) of the maintenance plan to 

remove from the SIP the VOC RACT 

approval orders for Hill Air Force Base. 

d. The State’s proposal in section 

5.b.(1) of the maintenance plan to 

remove from the SIP the NOX RACT 

limits for the PacifiCorp Gadsby Power 

Plant. 

e. Section 5.g of the maintenance 

plan, which indicates that the employerbased trip reduction program is 

included as part of the plan. 

For the reasons stated in our notice of 

proposed rulemaking (78 FR 41–42), our 

disapproval of various aspects of the 

maintenance plan does not trigger an 

obligation under CAA section 110(c) to 

promulgate a federal implementation 

plan. 

B. Rules 

For the reasons described in our 

notice of proposed rulemaking (78 FR 

37),3 we are taking the following actions 

with respect to the rule revisions that 

the State submitted on March 22, 2007. 

1. We are taking no action on R307– 

101–2 because we have already acted on 

a later version of the definitions. 

2. We are approving R307–110–13, 

but only to the extent we are approving 

the 1997 8-hour ozone maintenance 

plan. 

3. We are disapproving R307–320, the 

employer-based trip reduction program. 

For the reasons stated in our notice of 

proposed rulemaking (78 FR 42), our 

disapproval of R307–320 does not 

trigger an obligation under CAA section 

110(c) to promulgate a federal 

implementation plan. 

4. We are approving R307–325. 

5. We are approving R307–326, 

subject to the following: We interpret 

the following provisions in R307–326 

(in addition to any other request for an 

alternate method of control under R307– 

326 that may arise outside of these 

provisions) as being subject to the 

requirement in R307–326–10(1) for EPA 

concurrence: 

a. R307–326–4(3). 

b. R307–326–6(3). 

c. In R307–326–7, the provision that 

reads, ‘‘or controlled by other methods, 

provided the design and effectiveness of 

such methods are documented, 

submitted to, and approved by the 

executive secretary.’’ 

d. R307–326–9(5)(a). 

e. In R307–326–10(3), the provision 

that reads, ‘‘or approved by the 

executive secretary.’’ 

As stated in our notice of proposed 

rulemaking (78 FR 42) and reiterated in 

section I.E. above, EPA concurrence 

under R307–326–10(1) must occur 

through EPA approval of a SIP revision. 

In addition to the foregoing, we 

interpret R307–326–10(2), which 

requires an owner or operator to repair 

a malfunctioning control device within 

15 days or other period approved by the 

executive secretary, as not excusing any 

period of violation of the control 

requirements in R307–326. 

6. We are approving R307–327, 

subject to the following: We interpret 

the following provisions in R307–327 

(in addition to any other request for an 

alternate method of control under R307– 

327 that may arise outside of these 

provisions) as being subject to the 

requirement in R307–327–7(1) for EPA 

concurrence: 

a. In R307–327–4(1), the provision 

that reads, ‘‘or alternative equivalent 

controls, provided the design and 

effectiveness of such equipment is 

documented and submitted to and 

approved by the executive secretary.’’ 

b. R307–327–6(3)(d). 

c. In R307–327–7(3), the provision 

that reads, ‘‘or approved by the 

executive secretary.’’ As stated in our 

notice of proposed rulemaking and 

reiterated in section I.E. above, EPA 

concurrence under R307–327–7(1) must 

occur through EPA approval of a SIP 

revision. 

In addition to the foregoing, we 

interpret R307–327–7(2), which requires 

an owner or operator to repair a 

malfunctioning control device within 15 

days or other period approved by the 

executive secretary, as not excusing any 

period of violation of the control 

requirements in R307–327. 

7. We are approving R307–328, 

subject to the following: We interpret 

the following provisions in R307–328 

(in addition to any other request for an 

alternate method of control under R307– 

328 that may arise outside of these 

provisions) as being subject to the 

requirement in R307–328–8(1) for EPA 

concurrence: 

a. In R307–328–4(6), the provision 

that reads, ‘‘or alternate equivalent 

methods * * *. The design effectiveness 

of such equipment and the operating 

procedures must be documented and 

submitted to and approved by the 

executive secretary.’’ 

b. In R307–328–4(9), the provision 

that reads, ‘‘The frequency of tests may 

be altered by the executive secretary 

upon submittal of documentation which 

would justify a change.’’ 

c. In R307–328–5(1)(c), the provision 

that reads, ‘‘or their equivalent which 

have been approved by the executive 

secretary.’’ 

d. In R307–328–6(4), the provision 

that reads, ‘‘or equivalent equipment 

provided the design and effectiveness of 

such equipment are documented and 

submitted to and approved by the 

executive secretary.’’ 

e. In R307–328–8(3), the provision 

that reads, ‘‘or approved by the 

executive secretary.’’ 

As stated in our notice of proposed 

rulemaking and reiterated in section I.E. 

above, EPA concurrence under R307– 

328–8(1) must occur through EPA 

approval of a SIP revision. 

In addition, we interpret R307–328– 

8(2), which requires an owner or 

operator to repair a malfunctioning 

control device within 15 days or other 

period approved by the executive 

secretary, as not excusing any period of 

violation of the control requirements in 

R307–328. 

8. We are approving R307–335, 

subject to the following: We interpret 

the following provisions in R307–335 

(in addition to any other request for an 

alternate method of control under R307– 

335 that may arise outside of these 

provisions) as being subject to the 

requirement in R307–335–7(1) for EPA 

concurrence: 

a. In R307–335–4(3), the provision 

that reads, ‘‘or by an alternate means 

approved by the executive secretary.’’ 

b. In R307–335–7(3), the provision 

that reads, ‘‘or approved by the 

executive secretary.’’ 

As stated in our notice of proposed 

rulemaking and reiterated in section I.E. 

above, EPA concurrence under R307– 

335–7(1) must occur through EPA 

approval of a SIP revision. 

In addition, we interpret R307–335– 

7(2), which requires an owner or 

operator to repair a malfunctioning 

control device within 15 days or other 

period approved by the executive 

secretary, as not excusing any period of 

violation of the control requirements in 

R307–335. 

9. We are approving R307–340, 

subject to the following: We interpret 

the following provisions in R307–340 

(in addition to any other request for an 

alternate method of control under R307– 

340 that may arise outside of these 

provisions) as being subject to the 

requirement in R307–340–16(1) for EPA 

concurrence: 

a. In R307–340–4(4), the provision 

that reads, ‘‘or by an alternate means 

approved by the executive secretary.’’ 

b. In R307–340–4(5)(a), the provision 

that reads, ‘‘Sources may request 

approval for longer times for 

compliance determination from the 

executive secretary.’’ 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

59246 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 187 / Thursday, September 26, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

c. In R307–340–15(1), the provision 

that reads, ‘‘or an alternative method 

approved by the executive secretary.’’ 

d. In R307–340–15(2), the provision 

that reads, ‘‘or an alternative method 

approved by the executive secretary or 

equivalent method.’’ 

e. In R307–340–16(3), the provision 

that reads, ‘‘or approved by the 

executive secretary.’’ As stated in our 

notice of proposed rulemaking and 

reiterated in section I.E. above, EPA 

concurrence under R307–340–16(1) 

must occur through EPA approval of a 

SIP revision. 

In addition, we interpret R307–340– 

16(2), which requires an owner or 

operator to repair a malfunctioning 

control device within 15 days or other 

period approved by the executive 

secretary, as not excusing any period of 

violation of the control requirements in 

R307–340. 

10. We are approving R307–341. 

11. We are approving R307–342, 

subject to the following: We interpret 

the following provision in R307–342 (in 

addition to any other request for an 

alternate method of control under R307– 

342 that may arise outside of this 

provision) as being subject to the 

requirement in R307–342–7(1) for EPA 

concurrence: 

a. In R307–342–7(3), the provision 

that reads, ‘‘or approved by the 

executive secretary.’’ 

As stated in our notice of proposed 

rulemaking and reiterated in section I.E. 

above, EPA concurrence under R307– 

342–7(1) must occur through EPA 

approval of a SIP revision. 

In addition, we interpret R307–342– 

7(2), which requires an owner or 

operator to repair a malfunctioning 

control device within 15 days or other 

period approved by the executive 

secretary, as not excusing any period of 

violation of the control requirements in 

R307–342. 

III. Issues Raised by Commenters and 

EPA’s Responses 

We received comments from a single 

commenter. We summarize the 

comments and provide our responses 

below. 

Comment: Utah should not be 

allowed to rely on 2002 emission 

inventories to show maintenance of the 

ozone standard when there was a 

violation of that standard for the 2005 

to 2007 season. Such an approach does 

not provide the citizens of Utah with a 

sound demonstration that the ozone 

standard will be met and that their 

health will correspondingly be 

protected. EPA itself noted in its notice 

of proposed rulemaking that the 

violation casts doubt on the use of the 

2002 emissions inventories as 

representative of the levels of emissions 

that are consistent with maintaining the 

standard. But then EPA lists several 

factors which it suggests support the use 

of the 2002 inventories as representative 

of levels consistent with compliance 

with the standard. For example, EPA 

noted that the violation was at 0.085 

ppm, only slightly above the standard. 

However, any violation of the standard 

is unacceptable and reliance on an 

inventory that results in a violation is 

inconsistent with the purpose of the 

NAAQS to protect human health and 

the environment. EPA also suggests that 

2005 was an anomaly and thus should 

be discounted. However, hot weather 

like that experienced during 2005 is 

likely to be the norm in coming years. 

Thus, it is likely that the ozone levels 

experienced in 2005 will recur. 

Monitoring data for 2012, which had the 

hottest summer on record, indicates a 

troubling trend toward higher ozone 

levels in Utah’s urban areas. 

Response: In the unique 

circumstances involved here, we 

conclude that approval of the 

maintenance demonstration is 

appropriate. As stated in our proposal, 

our conclusion is based on a 

combination of factors, and is not 

focused only on the 2002 inventories as 

the benchmark for ongoing 

maintenance. These factors are the 

following: 

1. Since the time of the area’s 

designation to attainment in 2004, the 

only monitored violation occurred 

during 2005–2007. As stated above, the 

1997 8-hour ozone standard is attained 

at a design value of 0.084, and the 

design value for 2005–2007 was 0.085 

ppm—the lowest value that can 

represent a violation. 

2. In 2005, the area monitored 

significantly higher 4th high maximum 

values than it had monitored in the 

previous four years and than it has 

monitored since 2005 to the present. 

3. In 2006–2008, the area immediately 

returned to attainment and has 

continued to attain the standard. 

Complete quality-assured data for 2007– 

2009, 2008–2010, 2009–2011, and 

preliminary data for 2012, show that the 

area has continuously maintained the 

standard. 

4. Under the applicable regulatory 

requirement, 40 CFR 51.905(a)(4), the 

State must demonstrate maintenance for 

ten years after designation, or until 

2014. 

5. In evaluating the potential for the 

area to continue to maintain through 

2014, given its continued maintenance 

during and subsequent to 2008, EPA 

takes into consideration the fact that, in 

order for the area to violate the standard 

in 2013–2014, the area would have to 

experience significantly higher 4th high 

maximums than it experienced in 2005. 

We find this prospect to be highly 

unlikely, particularly given the State’s 

projected lowering emissions trends, as 

reflected in the maintenance plan. 

6. Mobile source emissions account 

for a very large portion of the overall 

emissions inventory, and federal motor 

vehicle control standards, combined 

with fleet turnover, will continue to 

further reduce relevant mobile source 

emissions through 2014. 

In addition, as we noted in our 

proposal, EPA designated Salt Lake 

County and Davis County 

unclassifiable/attainment for the lower 

2008 ozone standard (0.075 ppm) based 

on monitored values for 2008–2010. 

Contrary to the commenter’s 

suggestion, our reference to the 2005– 

2007 design value of 0.085 was not 

intended to suggest that a lower 

violation is not a violation or that it 

should be ignored. However, we do 

think the magnitude of the value is 

relevant, along with the other factors 

noted above, to our assessment of the 

maintenance demonstration. In 

particular, the maintenance plan 

projects substantial reductions of VOC 

and NOX emissions after 2005. The 

following tables show these projections. 

TABLE 2—SALT LAKE AND DAVIS COUNTIES SOURCE CATEGORY TOTALS FOR VOCS

[Tons/day] 

2002 2005 2008 2011 2014 

Point Source ........................................................................ 11.24 11.21 11.66 11.96 12.36 

Area Source ......................................................................... 89.32 92.42 96.30 101.86 107.75 

Biogenic Source ................................................................... 120.26 120.26 120.26 120.26 120.26 

Mobile On-Road ................................................................... 57.66 44.70 35.36 29.11 24.52 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 187 / Thursday, September 26, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 59247 

TABLE 2—SALT LAKE AND DAVIS COUNTIES SOURCE CATEGORY TOTALS FOR VOCS—Continued 

[Tons/day] 

2002 2005 2008 2011 2014 

Mobile Non-Road ................................................................. 29.55 25.47 20.90 18.42 16.57 

Total .............................................................................. 308.03 294.06 284.48 281.61 281.46 

TABLE 3—SALT LAKE AND DAVIS COUNTIES SOURCE CATEGORY TOTALS FOR NOX

[Tons/day] 

2002 2005 2008 2011 2014 

Point Source ........................................................................ 39.27 38.09 37.78 36.75 36.82 

Area Source ......................................................................... 11.36 10.08 10.79 11.82 12.82 

Mobile On-Road ................................................................... 98.89 85.52 65.47 49.45 35.92 

Mobile Non-Road ................................................................. 83.87 80.35 72.56 63.48 51.30 

Total .............................................................................. 233.39 214.04 186.60 161.50 136.86 

We disagree with the commenter’s 

assertion that data from the summer of 

2012 indicate ‘‘a troubling trend toward 

higher levels of ozone in Utah’s urban 

areas’’ and undermine our statements 

about the 2005 data. While we note that 

the 2012 data are not yet certified, the 

preliminary data reflect values that are 

significantly below those experienced in 

2005, even with the high temperatures 

experienced at that time. If anything, 

these data appear to support our overall 

conclusion that ongoing reductions in 

emissions, largely due to federal motor 

vehicle control standards, will result in 

ongoing maintenance of the 1997 ozone 

NAAQS. 

Comment: EPA points out that 

‘‘[u]nder the applicable regulatory 

requirement, 40 CFR 51.905(a)(4), the 

State must demonstrate maintenance for 

ten years after designation, or until 

2014.’’ However, this statement seems to 

disregard the fact that Salt Lake and 

Davis counties violated the 8-hour 

ozone standard during the 2005 to 2007 

season. Therefore, this observation does 

not seem to bolster the case for using the 

2002 inventories as representative of 

what is necessary to maintain the 

standard. Moreover, it suggests that 

Utah cannot show maintenance for ten 

years after 2004. 

Response: As stated in our prior 

response, in the unique circumstances 

in this case, our conclusion is based on 

a combination of factors, and is not 

focused solely on the 2002 inventories 

as the benchmark for ongoing 

maintenance. We do not cite the 

proximity of 2014, the end of the 

maintenance period, to bolster the 

validity of the 2002 inventories as a 

maintenance benchmark. 

Instead, we find it relevant to our 

assessment of the likelihood that the 

area will continue to attain the standard 

through the end of the maintenance 

period, considering the other factors 

involved. 

As to the assertion that Utah cannot 

show maintenance for ten years after 

2004, this is not an instance in which 

the area has experienced repeated 

violations; it experienced a single 

violation in the 2005–2007 period, 

largely based on unusually high values 

experienced in 2005. It did not 

experience a violation in the relevant 

periods before then and has not 

experienced a violation since. It is 

highly unlikely the area will experience 

a violation before 2014, the end of the 

maintenance period, given the air 

quality values in recent years. 

Furthermore, even if we concluded that 

the maintenance demonstration should 

extend until 2015, the relevant factors 

similarly indicate the area will continue 

to maintain the standard until then. 

Comment: The State of Utah has 

failed to meet its SIP obligations relative 

to its Title V permit program. Several 

major sources in Salt Lake and Davis 

counties do not have and have never 

had Title V permits. This casts 

substantial doubt on any claim Utah 

may make that it is able to ensure 

compliance with air quality permit 

terms and conditions, to accurately 

monitor emissions from stationary 

sources and to guarantee that emissions 

from these sources will actually 

conform to the various projections on 

which the state relies to show 

maintenance. EPA should disapprove 

the maintenance plan because the State 

of Utah is failing to implement an 

adequate Title V program. 

Response: The commenters’ assertions 

do not require disapproval of the 

maintenance plan. We note that the 

Title V permit program is not a SIP 

program or requirement; it is separate 

from the SIP. Thus, there are no SIP 

obligations relative to the Title V permit 

program. Moreover, applicable CAA 

requirements are State and federally 

enforceable whether or not they are 

contained in a Title V permit. This 

includes SIP requirements and major 

and minor source construction permit 

requirements. Here, the specific 

measures for major stationary sources 

that are relevant to ongoing 

maintenance are contained in the EPAapproved ozone SIP and remain 

federally enforceable. For the foregoing 

reasons, we do not find the absence of 

Title V permits to be a basis to 

undermine or disapprove the 

maintenance plan. 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

Act and applicable Federal regulations. 

42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

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 some 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.); 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

59248 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 187 / Thursday, September 26, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

• 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 November 25, 

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) of the CAA.) 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 

Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen 

dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

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

Dated: February 13, 2013. 

James B. Martin, 

Regional Administrator, Region 8. 

Note: This document was received by the 

Office of the Federal Register on September 

19, 2013. 

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 52.2320 is amended by 

adding paragraph (c)(73) to read as 

follows: 

§ 52.2320 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(73) On March 22, 2007, the Governor 

submitted revisions to Section IX, Part 

D of the Utah State Implementation Plan 

(SIP) in the form of a maintenance plan 

for the 1997 8-hour ozone national 

ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) 

for Salt Lake County and Davis County. 

On March 22, 2007, the Governor also 

submitted revisions to associated rules: 

UAC R307–101–2, R307–110–13, R307– 

320, R307–325, R307–326, R307–327, 

R307–328, R307–335, R307–340, R307– 

341, and R307–342. EPA is approving 

the maintenance plan, except for the 

following aspects, which EPA is 

disapproving: those contingency 

measures listed in section 6.d of the 

State’s maintenance plan that are 

voluntary in nature, which consist of: 

‘‘Alert Day Enhancements,’’ ‘‘Heavy 

Equipment Emission Control Program,’’ 

‘‘Reduce Emissions of VOCs’’ (to the 

extent the State would adopt and 

implement the measure as a voluntary 

commitment rather than a regulatory 

measure), ‘‘Identification of HighPolluting Vehicles,’’ and ‘‘Other VOC or 

NOX emissions control measures as 

appropriate’’ (to the extent such 

measures would be voluntary); the 

contingency measure listed in section 

6.d of the State’s maintenance plan as 

‘‘Establish an Offset Ratio for NOX;’’ the 

State’s proposal in section 5.a.(3)(b)of 

the maintenance plan to remove from 

the SIP the VOC RACT approval orders 

for Hill Air Force Base; the State’s 

proposal in section 5.b.(1) of the 

maintenance plan to remove from the 

SIP the NOX RACT limits for the 

PacifiCorp Gadsby Power Plant; and 

section 5.g of the maintenance plan, 

which indicates that the employer-based 

trip reduction program is included as 

part of the plan. EPA is approving the 

revisions to UAC R307–110–13, which 

incorporates the maintenance plan into 

Utah’s rules, but only to the extent we 

are approving the 1997 8-hour ozone 

maintenance plan. EPA is disapproving 

UAC R307–320, the employer-based trip 

reduction program. EPA is approving 

the revisions to UAC R307–325, R307– 

326, R307–327, R307–328, R307–335, 

R307–340, R307–341, and R307–342, 

subject to our interpretation of these 

rules expressed in the preamble to our 

rulemaking action. 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). 

(i) Incorporation by reference. 

(A) Title R307 of the Utah 

Administrative Code, Environmental 

Quality, Air Quality, Rule R307–325, 

Ozone Nonattainment and Maintenance 

Areas: General Requirements; Rule 

R307–326, Ozone Nonattainment and 

Maintenance Areas: Control of 

Hydrocarbon Emissions in Petroleum 

Refineries; Rule R307–327, Ozone 

Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas: 

Petroleum Liquid Storage; and Rule 

R307–340, Ozone Nonattainment and 

Maintenance Areas: Surface Coating 

Processes. Effective March 9, 2007, as 

published in the Utah State Bulletin on 

October 1, 2006 and February 1, 2007 in 

proposed form, and April 1, 2007 as 

finally adopted. 

(B) Title R307 of the Utah 

Administrative Code, Environmental 

Quality, Air Quality, Rule R307–328, 

Ozone Nonattainment and Maintenance 

Areas and Utah and Weber Counties: 

Gasoline Transfer and Storage; Rule 

R307–335, Ozone Nonattainment and 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 187 / Thursday, September 26, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 59249 

Maintenance Areas: Degreasing and 

Solvent Cleaning Operations; Rule 

R307–341, Ozone Nonattainment and 

Maintenance Areas: Cutback Asphalt; 

and, UAC R307–342, Ozone 

Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas: 

Qualification of Contractors and Test 

Procedures for Vapor Recovery Systems 

for Gasoline Delivery Tanks. Effective 

January 16, 2007 as published in the 

Utah State Bulletin on October 1, 2006 

in proposed form and February 1, 2007 

as finally adopted. 

(ii) Additional materials. 

(A) Utah State Implementation Plan, 

Section IX, Part D, 8-Hour Ozone 

Maintenance Provisions for Salt Lake 

and Davis Counties, with the following 

exceptions: Subsection 5.a.(3)(b), 

paragraphs 2, 3, and 4, beginning with 

‘‘The State of Utah . . .’’ and ending 

with ‘‘. . . (Stratospheric Ozone).’’ on 

pages 17 and 18; subsection 5.b.(1), 

beginning in paragraph 1 at ‘‘On April 

3, 2002 . . .’’ and ending with ‘‘the 

ozone maintenance plan.’’ at the end of 

paragraph 2 on page 18; subsection 5.g., 

Control Measure Carried Forward from 

the 1-hour Ozone Plan, on page 20; 

subsection 6.d., first bullet, Alert Day 

Enhancements, on page 22; subsection 

6.d., third bullet, Heavy Equipment 

Emission Control Program, on page 22; 

subsection 6.d., fourth bullet, phrase 

‘‘Request voluntary commitments or’’ on 

page 23; subsection 6.d., fifth bullet, 

Identification of High-Polluting 

Vehicles, on page 23; and, subsection 

6.d., sixth bullet, Establish an Offset 

Ratio for NOX, on page 23. Adopted by 

the Air Quality Board on January 3, 

2007. 

[FR Doc. 2013–23248 Filed 9–25–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2013–0468; FRL–9900–74– 

Region 9] 

Revisions to the California State 

Implementation Plan, South Coast Air 

Quality Management District 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is finalizing approval of 

revisions to the South Coast Air Quality 

Management District (SCAQMD) portion 

of the California State Implementation 

Plan (SIP). This action was proposed in 

the Federal Register on June 24, 2013 

and concerns volatile organic 

compound (VOC), oxides of nitrogen 

(NOX), and particulate matter (PM) 

emissions from open burning and woodburning devices. We are approving local 

rules that regulate these emission 

sources under the Clean Air Act (CAA 

or the Act). 

DATES: These rules will be effective on 

October 28, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established docket 

number EPA–R09–OAR–2013–0468 for 

this action. Generally, documents in the 

docket for this action are available 

electronically at http://

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, 

San Francisco, California 94105–3901. 

While all documents in the docket are 

listed at http://www.regulations.gov, 

some information may be publicly 

available only at the hard copy location 

(e.g., copyrighted material, large maps, 

multi-volume reports), and some may 

not be available in either location (e.g., 

confidential business information 

(CBI)). To inspect the hard copy 

materials, please schedule an 

appointment during normal business 

hours with the contact listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Christine Vineyard, EPA Region IX, 

(415) 947–4125, vineyard.christine@

epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us’’ 

and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. Proposed Action 

II. Public Comments and EPA Responses 

III. EPA Action 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Proposed Action 

On June 24, 2013 (78 FR 37757), EPA 

proposed to approve the following rules 

into the California SIP. 

Local agency Rule No. Rule title Adopted Submitted 

SCAQMD ........................................................ 444 Open Burning ................................................. 05/03/13 06/11/13 

SCAQMD ........................................................ 445 Wood Burning Devices .................................. 05/03/13 06/11/13 

We proposed to approve these rules 

because we determined that they 

complied with the relevant CAA 

requirements. Our proposed action 

contains more information on the rules 

and our evaluation. 

II. Public Comments and EPA 

Responses 

EPA’s proposed action provided a 30- 

day public comment period. During this 

period, we received no comments. 

III. EPA Action 

No comments were submitted. 

Therefore, as authorized in section 

110(k)(3) of the Act, EPA is fully 

approving these rules into the California 

SIP. 

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 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); 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES