Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 164 / Friday, August 23, 2013 / Proposed Rules 52477 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R08–OAR–2011–0727; FRL–FRL– 

9900–24–Region 8] 

Promulgation of State Implementation 

Plan Revisions; Revision to Prevention 

of Significant Deterioration Program; 

Infrastructure Requirements for the 

1997 and 2006 PM2.5 National Ambient 

Air Quality Standards; Utah 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to partially 

approve and partially disapprove the 

State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

submissions from the State of Utah to 

demonstrate that the SIP meets the 

infrastructure requirements of the Clean 

Air Act (CAA) for the National Ambient 

Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) 

promulgated for particulate matter less 

than or equal to 2.5 micrometers (mm) in 

diameter (PM2.5) on July 18, 1997 and on 

October 17, 2006. The CAA requires that 

each state, after a new or revised 

NAAQS is promulgated, review their 

SIP to ensure that it meets the 

requirements of the ‘‘infrastructure 

elements’’ necessary to implement the 

new or revised NAAQS. The State of 

Utah provided infrastructure 

submissions for the 1997 and 2006 

PM2.5 NAAQS, dated April 17, 2008 and 

September 21, 2010, respectively. We 

propose to disapprove the submissions 

with respect to the requirements for 

state boards and to approve the 

remaining submissions that we have not 

already acted on. We also propose to 

approve portions of a submission from 

the State which was received by EPA on 

March 19, 2012. This submission revises 

Utah’s Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration (PSD) program to meet 

Federal requirements as they existed on 

July 1, 2011, including required 

elements of EPA’s 2008 PM2.5 New 

Source Review (NSR) Implementation 

Rule and 2010 PM2.5 Increment Rule. 

EPA acted separately on the State’s 

submissions to meet certain interstate 

transport requirements of the CAA for 

the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before September 23, 

2013. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R08– 

OAR–2011–0727, by one of the 

following methods: 

• http://www.regulations.gov. Follow 

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Email: ayala.kathy@epa.gov 

• Fax: (303) 312–6064 (please alert 

the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT if you are faxing 

comments). 

• Mail: Director, Air Program, 

Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA), Region 8, Mail Code 8P–AR, 

1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 

80202–1129. 

• Hand Delivery: Director, Air 

Program, Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mail Code 8P– 

AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, 

Colorado 80202–1129. Such deliveries 

are only accepted Monday through 

Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding 

federal holidays. Special arrangements 

should be made for deliveries of boxed 

information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R08–OAR–2011– 

0727. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through www.regulations.gov 

or email. The www.regulations.gov Web 

site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, 

which means EPA will not know your 

identity or contact information unless 

you provide it in the body of your 

comment. If you send an email 

comment directly to EPA, without going 

through www.regulations.gov your email 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. For additional information 

about EPA’s public docket visit the EPA 

Docket Center homepage at http://

www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. 

For additional instructions on 

submitting comments, go to section I, 

General Information, of the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

this document. 

Docket: 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 that if at all 

possible, you contact the individual 

listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section to view the hard copy 

of the docket. You may view the hard 

copy of the docket Monday through 

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

federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Kathy Ayala, Air Program, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA), Region 8, Mail Code 8P–AR, 

1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 

80202–1129. 303–312–6142, 

ayala.kathy@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Definitions 

For the purpose of this document, we 

are giving meaning to certain words or 

initials as follows: 

(i) The words or initials Act or CAA 

mean or refer to the Clean Air Act, 

unless the context indicates otherwise. 

(ii) The initials CBI mean or refer to 

confidential business information. 

(iii) The initials DEQ mean or refer to 

Department of Environmental Quality. 

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

mean or refer to the United States 

Environmental Protection Agency. 

(v) The initials FIP mean or refer to a 

Federal Implementation Plan. 

(vi) The initials GHG mean or refer to 

greenhouse gases. 

(vii) The initials NAAQS mean or 

refer to national ambient air quality 

standards. 

(viii) The initials NOX mean or refer 

to nitrogen oxides. 

(ix) The initials NSR mean or refer to 

new source review. 

(x) The initials OAQPS mean or refer 

to the Office of Air Quality Planning 

and Standards. 

(xi) The initials PM mean or refer to 

particulate matter. 

(xii) The initials PM2.5 mean or refer 

to particulate matter with an 

aerodynamic diameter of less than 2.5 

micrometers (fine particulate matter). 

(xiii) The initials ppm mean or refer 

to parts per million. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

52478 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 164 / Friday, August 23, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

(xiv) The initials PSD mean or refer to 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration. 

(xv) The initials SIP mean or refer to 

State Implementation Plan. 

(xvi) The initials SSM mean or refer 

to start-up, shutdown, or malfunction. 

(xvii) The initials UAC mean or refer 

to Utah Administrative Code. 

(xviii) The initials UCA mean or refer 

to Utah Code Annotated. 

(xix) The initials UDAQ mean or refer 

to the Utah Department of Air Quality. 

Table of Contents 

I. General Information 

II. Background 

III. What is the scope of this rulemaking? 

IV. What infrastructure elements are required 

under Sections 110(a)(1) and (2)? 

V. How did Utah address the infrastructure 

elements of Sections 110(a)(1) and (2)? 

VI. What action is EPA taking? 

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. General Information 

What should I consider as I prepare my 

comments for EPA? 

1. Submitting Confidential Business 

Information (CBI). Do not submit CBI to 

EPA through http://www.regulations.gov 

or email. Clearly mark the part or all of 

the information that you claim to be 

CBI. For CBI information on a disk or 

CD ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the 

outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI 

and then identify electronically within 

the disk or CD ROM the specific 

information that is claimed as CBI. In 

addition to one complete version of the 

comment that includes information 

claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment 

that does not contain the information 

claimed as CBI must be submitted for 

inclusion in the public docket. 

Information so marked will not be 

disclosed except in accordance with 

procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. 

2. Tips for preparing your comments. 

When submitting comments, remember 

to: 

• Identify the rulemaking by docket 

number and other identifying 

information (subject heading, Federal 

Register, date, and page number); 

• Follow directions and organize your 

comments; 

• Explain why you agree or disagree; 

• Suggest alternatives and substitute 

language for your requested changes; 

• Describe any assumptions and 

provide any technical information and/ 

or data that you used; 

• If you estimate potential costs or 

burdens, explain how you arrived at 

your estimate in sufficient detail to 

allow for it to be reproduced; 

• Provide specific examples to 

illustrate your concerns, and suggest 

alternatives; 

• Explain your views as clearly as 

possible, avoiding the use of profanity 

or personal threats; and 

• Make sure to submit your 

comments by the comment period 

deadline identified. 

II. Background 

On July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated 

new NAAQS for particulate matter less 

than or equal to 2.5 micrometers (mm) in 

diameter (PM2.5). Two new PM2.5

standards were added, set at 15 mg/m3, 

based on the 3-year average of annual 

arithmetic mean PM2.5 concentration 

from single or multiple communityoriented monitors, and 65 mg/m3, based 

on the 3-year average of the 98th 

percentile of 24-hour PM2.5

concentrations at each populationoriented monitor within an area. In 

addition, the 24-hour PM10 standard 

was revised to be based on the 99th 

percentile of 24-hour PM10

concentration at each monitor within an 

area (62 FR 38652). 

On October 17, 2006 EPA 

promulgated a revised NAAQS for 

PM2.5, tightening the level of the 24- 

hour PM2.5 standard to 35 mg/m3 and 

retaining the level of the annual PM2.5

standard at 15 mg/m3. EPA also retained 

the 24-hour PM10 standard and revoked 

the annual PM10 standard (71 FR 

61144). By statute, SIPs meeting the 

requirements of sections 110(a)(1) and 

(2) are to be submitted by states within 

three years after promulgation of a new 

or revised standard. Section 110(a)(2) 

provides basic requirements for SIPs, 

including emissions inventories, 

monitoring, and modeling, to assure 

attainment and maintenance of the 

standards. These requirements are set 

out in several ‘‘infrastructure elements,’’ 

listed in section 110(a)(2). 

Section 110(a) imposes the obligation 

upon states to make a SIP submission to 

EPA for a new or revised NAAQS, and 

the contents of that submission may 

vary depending upon the facts and 

circumstances. In particular, the data 

and analytical tools available at the time 

the state develops and submits the SIP 

for a new or revised NAAQS affects the 

content of the submission. The contents 

of such SIP submissions may also vary 

depending upon what provisions the 

state’s existing SIP already contains. In 

the case of the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS, states typically have met the 

basic program elements required in 

section 110(a)(2) through earlier SIP 

submissions in connection with 

previous NAAQS. 

III. What is the scope of this 

rulemaking? 

This rulemaking will not cover four 

substantive issues that are not integral 

to acting on a state’s infrastructure SIP 

submission: (i) Existing provisions 

related to excess emissions during 

periods of start-up, shutdown, or 

malfunction at sources, that may be 

contrary to the CAA and EPA’s policies 

addressing such excess emissions 

(‘‘SSM’’); (ii) existing provisions related 

to ‘‘director’s variance’’ or ‘‘director’s 

discretion’’ that purport to permit 

revisions to SIP approved emissions 

limits with limited public process or 

without requiring further approval by 

EPA, that may be contrary to the CAA 

(‘‘director’s discretion’’); (iii) existing 

provisions for minor source NSR 

programs that may be inconsistent with 

the requirements of the CAA and EPA’s 

regulations that pertain to such 

programs (‘‘minor source NSR’’); and, 

(iv) existing provisions for PSD 

programs that may be inconsistent with 

current requirements of EPA’s ‘‘Final 

NSR Improvement Rule,’’ 67 FR 80186 

(December 31, 2002), as amended by 72 

FR 32526 (June 13, 2007) (‘‘NSR 

Reform’’). Instead, EPA has indicated 

that it has other authority to address any 

such existing SIP defects in other 

rulemakings, as appropriate. A detailed 

rationale for why these four substantive 

issues are not part of the scope of 

infrastructure SIP rulemakings can be 

found in EPA’s July 13, 2011, final rule 

entitled, ‘‘Infrastructure SIP 

Requirements for the 1997 8-hour Ozone 

and PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards’’ in the section entitled, 

‘‘What Is The Scope Of This Final 

Rulemaking?’’ (see 76 FR 41075 at 

41076–41079). 

IV. What infrastructure elements are 

required under Sections 110(a)(1) and 

(2)? 

Section 110(a)(1) provides the 

procedural and timing requirements for 

SIP submissions after a new or revised 

NAAQS is promulgated. Section 

110(a)(2) lists specific elements the SIP 

must contain or satisfy. These 

infrastructure elements include 

requirements such as modeling, 

monitoring, and emissions inventories, 

which are designed to assure attainment 

and maintenance of the NAAQS. The 

elements that are the subject of this 

action are listed below. 

• 110(a)(2)(A): Emission limits and 

other control measures. 

• 110(a)(2)(B): Ambient air quality 

monitoring/data system. 

• 110(a)(2)(C): Program for 

enforcement of control measures. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 164 / Friday, August 23, 2013 / Proposed Rules 52479 

1Steven Herman, Assistant Administrator for 

Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, and 

Robert Perciasepe, Assistant Administrator for Air 

and Radiation, Memorandum to EPA Air Division 

Directors, ‘‘State Implementation Plans (SIPs): 

Policy Regarding Emissions During Malfunctions, 

Startup, and Shutdown.’’ (Sept. 20, 1999) 

• 110(a)(2)(D): Interstate transport. 

• 110(a)(2)(E): Adequate resources 

and authority, conflict of interest, and 

oversight of local governments and 

regional agencies. 

• 110(a)(2)(F): Stationary source 

monitoring and reporting. 

• 110(a)(2)(G): Emergency powers. 

• 110(a)(2)(H): Future SIP revisions. 

• 110(a)(2)(J): Consultation with 

government officials; public 

notification; and PSD and visibility 

protection. 

• 110(a)(2)(K): Air quality modeling/

data. 

• 110(a)(2)(L): Permitting fees. 

• 110(a)(2)(M): Consultation/

participation by affected local entities. 

A detailed discussion of each of these 

elements is contained in the next 

section. 

EPA is acting separately on Utah’s 

submission to meet the requirements of 

element 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), interstate 

transport of pollutants which contribute 

significantly to nonattainment in, or 

interfere with maintenance by, any 

other state. EPA is also acting separately 

on the visibility portion of element 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II). 

Two elements identified in section 

110(a)(2) are not governed by the three 

year submission deadline of section 

110(a)(1) and are therefore not 

addressed in this action. These elements 

relate to part D of Title I of the CAA, and 

submissions to satisfy them are not due 

within three years after promulgation of 

a new or revised NAAQS, but rather are 

due at the same time nonattainment area 

plan requirements are due under section 

172. The two elements are: (i) Section 

110(a)(2)(C) to the extent it refers to 

permit programs (known as 

‘‘nonattainment new source review 

(NSR)’’) required under part D, and (ii) 

section 110(a)(2)(I), pertaining to the 

nonattainment planning requirements of 

part D. As a result, this action does not 

address infrastructure elements related 

to the nonattainment NSR portion of 

section 110(a)(2)(C) or related to 

110(a)(2)(I). 

V. How did Utah address the 

infrastructure elements of sections 

110(a)(1) and (2)? 

1. Emission limits and other control 

measures: Section 110(a)(2)(A) requires 

SIPs to include enforceable emission 

limitations and other control measures, 

means, or techniques (including 

economic incentives such as fees, 

marketable permits, and auctions of 

emissions rights), as well as schedules 

and timetables for compliance as may be 

necessary or appropriate to meet the 

applicable requirements of this Act. 

a. Utah’s response to this requirement: 

The State’s submissions for the 1997 

and 2006 PM2.5 infrastructure 

requirements cite the Utah Code 

Annotated (UAC) SIP Section I (Legal 

Authority). A.1.a., codified at R307– 

110–2 which allows adoption of 

standards and limits for attainment and 

maintenance of national standards (19– 

2–104 and 109, UCA) and was approved 

by EPA in the early 1980’s and most 

recently on June 25, 2003 (68 FR 37744). 

b. EPA analysis: Utah’s SIP meets the 

requirements of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(A) for the 1997 and 2006 PM 

NAAQS, subject to the following 

clarifications. First, this infrastructure 

element does not require the submittal 

of regulations or emission limitations 

developed specifically for attaining the 

1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. Aside 

from this, the Utah SIP currently 

contains provisions for control of 

particulate matter, such as open burning 

provisions in R307–202, and for control 

of precursors, such as fuel sulfur 

content provisions in R307–203. Utah 

also regulates sources of PM2.5 through 

its PSD and minor NSR programs. This 

suffices, in the case of Utah, to meet the 

requirements of section 110(a)(2)(A) for 

the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Second, in this action, EPA is not 

proposing to approve or disapprove any 

existing state rules with regard to 

director’s discretion or variance 

provisions. A number of states have 

such provisions which are contrary to 

the CAA and existing EPA guidance (52 

FR 45109, Nov. 24, 1987), and the 

Agency plans to take action in the future 

to address such state regulations. In the 

meantime, EPA encourages any state 

having a director’s discretion or 

variance provision which is contrary to 

the CAA and EPA guidance to take steps 

to correct the deficiency as soon as 

possible. 

Finally, in this action, EPA is also not 

proposing to approve or disapprove any 

existing state provisions with regard to 

excess emissions during startup, 

shutdown, or malfunction (SSM) of 

operations at a facility. A number of 

states have SSM provisions which are 

contrary to the CAA and existing EPA 

guidance.1 In the specific case of SSM 

provisions in the Utah SIP, EPA has 

issued a finding of substantial 

inadequacy and call for a SIP revision 

for Utah’s ‘‘unavoidable breakdown’’ 

rule (76 FR 21639, Apr. 18, 2011). On 

May 9, 2013 (78 FR 27165), EPA 

proposed to approve revisions 

submitted by Utah to correct the 

deficiencies identified in EPA’s April 

18, 2011 SIP call. As stated above, 

though, EPA is not proposing to address 

SSM provisions in the context of this 

action and therefore proposes to 

approve the Utah certification for 

infrastructure element 110(a)(2)(A) for 

the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

2. Ambient air quality monitoring/

data system: Section 110(a)(2)(B) 

requires SIPs to provide for 

establishment and operation of 

appropriate devices, methods, systems, 

and procedures necessary to ‘‘(i) 

monitor, compile, and analyze data on 

ambient air quality, and (ii) upon 

request, make such data available to the 

Administrator.’’ 

a. Utah’s response to this requirement: 

The State’s submissions for the 1997 

and 2006 PM2.5 infrastructure 

requirements cite UAC rule R307–110– 

5 SIP Section IV (Ambient Air 

Monitoring Program) which provides a 

brief description of the purposes of the 

air monitoring program approved by 

EPA in the early 1980’s and most 

recently on June 25, 2003 (68 FR 37744). 

b. EPA analysis: Utah’s air monitoring 

programs and data systems meet the 

requirements of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(B) for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS. The State of Utah submitted a 

2012 Air Monitoring Network Plan on 

June 5, 2013 which EPA approved for 

PM2.5 on July 24, 2013. 

3. Program for enforcement of control 

measures: Section 110(a)(2)(C) requires 

SIPs to include a program to provide for 

the enforcement of the measures 

described in subparagraph (A), and 

regulation of the modification and 

construction of any stationary source 

within the areas covered by the plan as 

necessary to assure that NAAQS are 

achieved, including a permit program as 

required in parts C and D. 

a. Utah’s response to this requirement: 

The State’s submissions for the 1997 

and 2006 PM2.5 infrastructure 

requirements cite UAC rule R307–110– 

2, SIP Section I (Legal Authority), A.1.b., 

which allows for enforcement of 

applicable laws, regulations, and 

standards and to seek injunctive relief 

(Sections 19–2–104 and 19–2–115, 

UCA), and SIP Section I (Legal 

Authority), A.1.d., which provides 

authority to prevent construction, 

modification, or operation of any 

stationary source at any location where 

emissions from such source will prevent 

the attainment or maintenance of a 

national standard or interfere with 

prevention of significant deterioration 

requirements (Authority Utah Code 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

52480 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 164 / Friday, August 23, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

Section 19–2–108). EPA approved this 

SIP in the early 1980’s and most 

recently on June 25, 2003 (68 FR 37744). 

The State also cites UAC rule R307– 

110–9. SIP Section VIII (PSD), which 

describes the program to prevent 

significant deterioration of areas of the 

state where the air is clean. EPA 

approved SIP Section VIII, PSD, on July 

15, 2011 (76 FR 41712). 

b. EPA analysis: To generally meet the 

requirements of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(C), the state is required to have 

SIP-approved PSD, nonattainment NSR, 

and minor NSR permitting programs 

adequate to implement the 1997 and 

2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. As explained 

above, in this action EPA is not 

evaluating nonattainment related 

provisions, such as the nonattainment 

NSR program required by part D of the 

Act. EPA is evaluating the state’s PSD 

program as required by part C of the 

Act, and the state’s minor NSR program 

as required by 110(a)(2)(C). 

PSD Requirements 

Utah has a SIP-approved PSD program 

that meets the general requirements of 

part C of the Act (51 FR 31125). To 

satisfy the particular requirements of 

section 110(a)(2)(C), states should have 

a PSD program that applies to all 

regulated NSR pollutants, including 

greenhouse gases (GHGs). See 40 CFR 

51.166(b)(48) and (b)(49). The PSD 

program should reflect current 

requirements for these pollutants. In 

particular, for three pollutants—ozone, 

PM2.5, and GHGs—there are additional 

regulatory requirements (set out in 

portions of 40 CFR 51.166) that we 

considered in evaluating Utah’s PSD 

program. In the rulemakings in which 

EPA revised the requirements in 40 CFR 

51.166 for these pollutants, EPA also 

updated the federal PSD program at 40 

CFR 52.21 accordingly. 

Utah implements the PSD program by, 

for the most part, incorporating by 

reference the federal PSD program as it 

existed on a specific date. The State 

periodically updates the PSD program 

by revising the date of incorporation by 

reference and submitting the change as 

a SIP revision. As a result, the SIP 

revisions generally reflect changes to 

PSD requirements that EPA has 

promulgated prior to the revised date of 

incorporation by reference. 

In particular, on July 15, 2011 (75 FR 

41712), we approved portions of a Utah 

SIP revision that revised the date of 

incorporation by reference of the federal 

PSD program to July 1, 2007. That 

revision addressed the PSD 

requirements of the Phase 2 Ozone 

Implementation Rule promulgated in 

2005 (70 FR 71612). As a result, the 

approved Utah PSD program meets 

current requirements for ozone. 

With regard to GHGs, in the ‘‘PSD SIP 

Narrowing Rule’’ (75 FR 82536, Dec. 30, 

2012), EPA withdrew its previous 

approval of Utah’s PSD program to the 

extent that it applied PSD permitting to 

GHG emissions increases from GHGemitting sources below thresholds set in 

EPA’s June 3, 2010 ‘‘Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration and Title V 

Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule’’ 

(‘‘Tailoring Rule’’), 75 FR 31514. EPA 

withdrew its approval on the basis that 

the State lacked sufficient resources to 

issue PSD permits to such sources at the 

statutory thresholds in effect in the 

previously-approved PSD program. 

After the PSD SIP Narrowing Rule, the 

portion of Utah’s PSD SIP from which 

EPA withdrew its approval had the 

status of having been submitted to EPA 

but not yet acted upon. On June 22, 

2011, EPA received a letter from Utah 

clarifying that the State relies only on 

the portion of the PSD program that 

remains approved after the PSD SIP 

Narrowing Rule issued on December 30, 

2010 to satisfy the requirements of 

infrastructure element 110(a)(2)(C). 

Given EPA’s basis for the PSD SIP 

Narrowing Rule and this clarification, 

the PSD program is adequate with 

respect to regulation of GHGs. 

For PM2.5, EPA has promulgated two 

relevant rules. The first, promulgated in 

2008, addresses (among other things) 

treatment of PM2.5 precursors in PSD 

programs. The second, promulgated in 

2010, establishes (among other things) 

increments for PM2.5. 

On January 4, 2013, the U.S. Court of 

Appeals, in Natural Resources Defense 

Council v. EPA, 706 F.3d 428 (D.C. Cir. 

2013), issued a judgment that remanded 

EPA’s 2007 and 2008 rules 

implementing the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

The Court ordered EPA to 

‘‘repromulgate these rules pursuant to 

Subpart 4 consistent with this opinion.’’ 

Id. at 437. Subpart 4 of Part D, Title 1 

of the CAA establishes additional 

provisions for particulate matter 

nonattainment areas. 

The 2008 implementation rule 

addressed by the court decision, 

‘‘Implementation of New Source Review 

(NSR) Program for Particulate Matter 

Less Than 2.5 Micrometers (PM2.5),’’ (73 

FR 28321, May 16, 2008), promulgated 

New Source Review (NSR) requirements 

for implementation of PM2.5 in 

nonattainment areas (nonattainment 

NSR) and attainment/unclassifiable 

areas (PSD). As the requirements of 

Subpart 4 only pertain to nonattainment 

areas, EPA does not consider the 

portions of the 2008 Implementation 

rule that address requirements for PM2.5

attainment and unclassifiable areas to be 

affected by the Court’s opinion. 

Moreover, EPA does not anticipate the 

need to revise any PSD requirements 

promulgated in the 2008 

Implementation rule in order to comply 

with the Court’s decision. Accordingly, 

EPA’s approval of Utah’s infrastructure 

SIP as to elements (C) or (J) with respect 

to the PSD requirements promulgated by 

the 2008 Implementation rule does not 

conflict with the Court’s opinion. 

The Court’s decision with respect to 

the nonattainment NSR requirements 

promulgated by the 2008 

Implementation rule also does not affect 

EPA’s action on the present 

infrastructure action. EPA interprets the 

Act to exclude nonattainment area 

requirements, including requirements 

associated with a nonattainment NSR 

program, from infrastructure SIP 

submissions due three years after 

adoption or revision of a NAAQS. 

Instead, these elements are typically 

referred to as nonattainment SIP or 

attainment plan elements, which would 

be due by the dates statutorily 

prescribed under subpart 2 through 5 

under part D, extending as far as ten 

years following designations for some 

elements. 

The second PSD requirement for 

PM2.5 is contained in EPA’s October 20, 

2010 rule, ‘‘Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration (PSD) for Particulate 

Matter Less Than 2.5 Micrometers 

(PM2.5)—Increments, Significant Impact 

Levels (SILs) and Significant Monitoring 

Concentration (SMC)’’ (75 FR 64864). 

EPA regards adoption of the PM2.5

increments as a necessary requirement 

when assessing a PSD program for the 

purposes of element (C). 

As explained above, the PSD program 

as currently approved into the SIP 

incorporates by reference the federal 

PSD program as it existed on July 1, 

2007, prior to EPA’s promulgation of the 

2008 PM2.5 Implementation Rule and 

the 2010 PM2.5 Increment Rule. On 

March 14, 2012, the State of Utah 

submitted revisions to the PSD program 

that adopt by reference federal 

provisions of 40 CFR part 52, section 21, 

as they existed on July 1, 2011. As that 

date is after the effective date of the two 

rules, the submission incorporates the 

requirements of them. We propose to 

approve the necessary portions of the 

March 14, 2012 submission to reflect the 

2008 PM2.5 Implementation Rule and 

the 2010 PM2.5 Increment Rule; 

specifically 40 CFR part 52, section 21, 

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

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

paragraph (c) as they existed on July 1, 

2011. We are not proposing to act on 

any other portions of the March 14, 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 164 / Friday, August 23, 2013 / Proposed Rules 52481 

2On June 12, 2013 (78 FR 35181), EPA proposed 

to partially approve and partially disapprove 

certain revisions to Utah’s minor NSR program. The 

minor NSR program as amended by those revisions 

we proposed to approve would, if we complete our 

proposal, also satisfy the general requirement in 

110(a)(2)(C) described above. 

2012 submittal, including the 

incorporation by reference of significant 

impact levels (SILs) and significant 

monitoring concentrations (SMCs) for 

PM2.5. 

With the partial approval of the 

March 14, 2012 submittal, the Utah PSD 

program will meet current requirements 

for all regulated NSR pollutants. As a 

result, we also propose to approve the 

Utah infrastructure SIP for element (C) 

for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS 

with respect to PSD requirements. 

Finally, EPA proposes to correct, 

under section 110(k)(6) of the Act, a 

statement made regarding PSD programs 

in our July 22, 2011 notice (76 FR 

43898) finalizing approval of Utah’s 

infrastructure SIP for the 1997 ozone 

NAAQS. In that notice, we responded to 

a comment stating that proposed 

changes to the Utah Administrative 

Code would, among other things, 

restrict the availability of judicial 

review of PSD permits in state courts. In 

our response, we stated, among other 

things, ‘‘Although EPA is not assessing 

the availability of state judicial review 

for PSD permits issued by Utah, as the 

CAA makes no requirements regarding 

such availability, EPA also notes that 

the comment does not explain, for 

example, why denial of a petition to 

intervene in a state administrative PSD 

permit proceeding would not exhaust 

the petitioner’s administrative remedies 

and therefore make state judicial review 

available to the petitioner.’’ The portion 

of our response stating that the Act 

makes no requirements regarding 

availability of judicial review for PSD 

permits was in error, (see, e.g., 61 FR 

1880, 1882, Jan. 24, 1996; 77 FR 65305, 

65306, Oct. 6, 2012), and we propose to 

correct the error by striking that clause. 

This correction does not change the 

basis for our approval of the Utah 

infrastructure SIP for the 1997 ozone 

NAAQS, as we rejected the comment on 

other grounds. This correction also does 

not reopen our previous action to 

comment with the exception of our 

proposed deletion of the incorrect 

language. 

Minor NSR 

The State has a SIP-approved minor 

NSR program, adopted under section 

110(a)(2)(C) of the Act. The minor NSR 

program is found in section II of the 

Utah SIP, and was originally approved 

by EPA as section 2 of the SIP (see 68 

FR 37744, June 25, 2003). Since 

approval of the minor NSR program, the 

State and EPA have relied on the 

program to assure that new and 

modified sources not captured by the 

major NSR permitting programs do not 

interfere with attainment and 

maintenance of the NAAQS. 

In this action, EPA is proposing to 

approve Utah’s infrastructure SIP for the 

1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS with 

respect to the general requirement in 

section 110(a)(2)(C) to include a 

program in the SIP that regulates the 

modification and construction of any 

stationary source as necessary to assure 

that the NAAQS are achieved. Utah’s 

minor NSR program, as approved into 

the SIP, covers the construction and 

modification of stationary sources of 

‘‘air pollution,’’ a defined term in the 

Utah SIP that covers a broad range of 

emissions, including PM2.5 and its 

precursors.2 EPA is not proposing to 

approve or disapprove the State’s 

existing minor NSR program itself to the 

extent that it is inconsistent with EPA’s 

regulations governing this program. A 

number of states may have minor NSR 

provisions that are contrary to the 

existing EPA regulations for this 

program. EPA intends to work with 

states to reconcile state minor NSR 

programs with EPA’s regulatory 

provisions for the program. The 

statutory requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(C) provide for considerable 

flexibility in designing minor NSR 

programs, and it may be time to revisit 

the regulatory requirements for this 

program to give the states an 

appropriate level of flexibility to design 

a program that meets their particular air 

quality concerns, while assuring 

reasonable consistency across the 

country in protecting the NAAQS with 

respect to new and modified minor 

sources. 

4. Interstate Transport: Section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) is subdivided into four 

‘‘prongs,’’ two under 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) 

and two under 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II). The 

two prongs under 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) are 

(prong 1) contribute significantly to 

nonattainment in any other state with 

respect to any such national primary or 

secondary NAAQS, and (prong 2) 

interfere with maintenance by any other 

state with respect to the same NAAQS. 

The two prongs under 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) 

are (prong 3) interfere with measures 

required to be included in the 

applicable implementation plan for any 

other state under part C to prevent 

significant deterioration of air quality or 

(prong 4) to protect visibility. We are 

not acting on Utah’s submissions with 

respect to the requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) (prongs 1 and 2) in this 

proposed rulemaking. We are also not 

acting on the submissions with respect 

to the requirements of prong 4 (visibility 

protection) in this action. 

a. Utah’s response to this requirement: 

Concerning PSD—EPA believes this 

requirement is satisfied for PM2.5 if a 

state’s SIP includes preconstruction 

review programs for major sources that 

satisfy the requirements of both 

Nonattainment NSR and PSD (40 CFR 

51.165(b)(1) and 51.166, respectively). 

All states are currently required to have 

some form of preconstruction permitting 

program for PM2.5, and as per the 

guidance, it is not necessary to make 

any rule revisions specifically for the 

purpose of Section 110 unless the area 

has outstanding program deficiencies. 

Utah is currently operating under the 

PM10 surrogate policy for the PSD 

program, as outlined in the 1997 EPA 

memorandum entitled ‘‘Interim 

Implementation of New Source Review 

Requirements for PM2.5.’’ Utah intends 

to incorporate PM2.5 into the PSD 

program by May 2011, as required by 

the May 16, 2008, PM2.5 Implementation 

Rule for PM2.5 NSR. We anticipate that 

EPA will have established certain 

requirements, such as PM2.5 increments 

and Significant Impact Levels, and stack 

testing requirements that need to be in 

place before PM2.5 can be adequately 

addressed in the PSD program. Utah is 

currently operating under the provisions 

of Appendix S for PM2.5 nonattainment 

areas. 

b. EPA Analysis: As noted by Utah in 

their submission for the 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS, we previously approved Utah’s 

submission for all four portions of CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i), including the 

PSD and visibility portions, for the 1997 

PM2.5 NAAQS. (73 FR 16543). In this 

action, we are only assessing Utah’s 

submission for the PSD portion of 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS. 

With regard to the PSD portion of 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), this 

requirement may be met by the state’s 

confirmation in an infrastructure SIP 

submission that new major sources and 

major modifications in the state are 

subject to a PSD program meeting all the 

current structural requirements of part C 

of title I of the CAA or (if the state 

contains a nonattainment area for the 

relevant pollutant) to a non-attainment 

NSR (NNSR) program that implements 

the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. As discussed in 

more detail in section 110(a)(2)(C), with 

our concurrent approval of certain 

revisions to Utah’s PSD program, Utah’s 

SIP will contain a PSD program that 

reflects all structural PSD requirements. 

Additionally, as stated in its 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

52482 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 164 / Friday, August 23, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

3See, for example, 78 FR 32613 (May 31, 2013), 

for a discussion of the phrase ‘‘board or body which 

approves permits or enforcement orders.’’ 

4Enrolled copies of Utah Senate Bills 11 and 21 

from the 2012 General Session, which show the 

changes in state law in strikeout/underline format, 

are provided in the docket for this action. 

5EPA also notes that even if the previous version 

of Utah Code section 19–2–103 adequately 

addressed the requirements of section 128 as 

applied to the AQB, Utah SIP section I does not 

explicitly incorporate Utah Code section 19–2–103. 

Instead, it references Utah Code section 19–2–104, 

which does not address the requirements of CAA 

section 128. CAA Section 128 must be satisfied 

through federally enforceable provisions that are 

approved into the SIP. See, for example, 78 FR 

32613 (May 31, 2013). 

submission, Utah is operating under the 

provisions of Appendix S in its 2006 

PM2.5 nonattainment areas. The State 

therefore meets the structural NNSR 

requirements for this pollutant in the 

interim period between designation and 

final EPA approval of a nonattainment 

NSR program update. Accordingly, in 

this action EPA is proposing to approve 

the infrastructure SIP submission as 

meeting the requirements of prong 3 of 

CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 2006 

PM2.5 NAAQS. 

5. Adequate resources and authority: 

Section 110(a)(2)(E) requires states to 

provide ‘‘(i) necessary assurances that 

the state will have adequate personnel, 

funding, and authority under state law 

to carry out the SIP (and is not 

prohibited by any provision of federal or 

state law from carrying out the SIP or 

portion thereof)’’ and ‘‘(iii) necessary 

assurances that, where the state has 

relied on a local or regional government, 

agency, or instrumentality for the 

implementation of any SIP provision, 

the state has responsibility for ensuring 

adequate implementation of such SIP 

provision.’’ 

a. Utah’s response to this requirement: 

The State’s submissions for the 1997 

and 2006 PM2.5 infrastructure 

requirements cite SIP Section V 

(Resources) which commits to 

implement program activities in relation 

to resources provided by the annual 

State/EPA Agreement and 105 grant 

applications. EPA approved this SIP 

originally in the early 1980’s and most 

recently on June 25, 2003 (68 FR 37744). 

Section 41–6a–1642 provides counties 

the authority to run their own emissions 

inspection and maintenance program, 

and Subsection 41–6a–1642(2)(b)(i) 

requires the counties emissions 

inspection and maintenance program to 

be made to attain or maintain ambient 

air quality standards in the county, 

consistent with the SIP and federal 

requirements. Section X of the SIP 

outlines the specific requirements of the 

automotive inspection and maintenance 

program. 

b. EPA Analysis: Chapter 2 of Title 19 

of the Utah Code gives the UDAQ and 

Air Quality Board (AQB) adequate 

authority to carry out the SIP. The State 

receives sections 103 and 105 grant 

funds through its Performance 

Partnership Grant along with required 

State matching funds to provide funding 

necessary to carry out Utah’s SIP 

requirements. Utah’s SIP meets the 

requirements of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(E)(i) and (E)(iii) for the 1997 

and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

6. State boards: Section 

110(a)(2)(E)(ii) requires that the state 

comply with the requirements 

respecting state boards under CAA 

section 128. 

a. Utah’s response to this requirement: 

The State’s submissions for the 1997 

and 2006 PM2.5 infrastructure 

requirements cite UAC rules R307–110– 

2 (approved by EPA in the early 1980’s 

and most recently on June 25, 2003 at 

68 FR 37744), R307–110–31 (approved 

by EPA on November 2, 2005 at 70 FR 

66264), R307–32 (approved by EPA on 

July 17, 1997 at 62 FR 38213), R307–33 

(approved by EPA on August 1, 2005 at 

70 FR 44055), R307–34 (approved by 

EPA on November 2, 2005 at 70 FR 

66264), and R307–35 (approved by EPA 

on September 14, 2005 at 70 FR 54267). 

SIP Section I (Legal Authority), A.1.g, 

recognizes the requirement that the 

State comply with provisions of the 

CAA (Section 128) respecting State 

Boards (Sections 19–2–104 UCA). 

b. EPA Analysis: We propose to 

disapprove Utah’s submissions for 

element 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) because the 

submissions do not adequately address 

the requirements of CAA section 128. 

To explain our proposed disapproval, 

we must discuss the state law governing 

the composition and authority of the 

Utah AQB. Under sections 19–1–301 

and 19–2–104 of the Utah Code as they 

existed at the time of Utah’s 

infrastructure submissions, the AQB 

had the authority to review decisions 

proposed by an administrative law 

judge (ALJ) on administrative appeals of 

permits and enforcement orders issued 

by the Utah DAQ. In other words, at that 

time the AQB was a ‘‘board or body 

which approves permits or enforcement 

orders’’ under the CAA and so fell 

within the scope of CAA section 128.3

Correspondingly, as described in 

Utah’s infrastructure submissions, Utah 

SIP Section I referenced Utah Code 

section 19–2–104, which sets out the 

powers of the AQB, as addressing the 

requirements of CAA section 128. 

However, Utah Code section 19–2–103, 

which sets out the composition of the 

AQB, more directly addressed those 

requirements. In particular, section 19– 

2–103 required a majority of members to 

not derive a significant portion of their 

income from persons subject to permits 

or enforcement orders under the Act, 

and it specified a diverse range of 

interests that particular members must 

represent. In addition, section 19–2–103 

required members of the AQB to 

adequately disclose potential conflicts 

of interest. 

However, Utah’s infrastructure 

submissions no longer reflect state law. 

In two bills enacted in 2012, the Utah 

Legislature amended Utah Code sections 

19–1–301, 19–2–103, and 19–2–104 in 

several significant ways.4 First, the 

Legislature added section 19–1–301.5, 

which governs administrative appeals of 

permits issued by UDAQ. Section 19–1– 

301 continues to govern adjudicative 

proceedings regarding other UDAQ 

actions. Second, in both sections 19–1– 

301 and 19–1–301.5, the Legislature 

transferred the authority of the AQB 

over proposed ALJ decisions to the 

Executive Director of DEQ. 

Correspondingly, the Legislature 

amended section 19–2–104 to reflect 

that the AQB no longer retained that 

authority. However, the AQB appears to 

still retain some enforcement authorities 

under Utah Code sections 19–2– 

104(3)(a)(ii) and (b)(i). In addition, the 

Legislature modified the requirements 

for composition of the AQB and 

removed the provision requiring 

members of the AQB to disclose 

potential conflicts of interest. 

With these changes in state law, 

Utah’s infrastructure SIP submissions 

do not adequately address how or 

whether CAA sections 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) 

and 128 are satisfied by the State’s SIP. 

First, to the extent that, after the 

changes in state law, the AQB remains 

a board that approves enforcement 

orders within the meaning of CAA 

section 128, the SIP should contain 

provisions addressing the requirements 

of section 128 as applied to the AQB, 

including the requirement of section 

128(a)(2) that members of the AQB 

adequately disclose potential conflicts 

of interest. Even if the requirements of 

section 128 were previously addressed 

to some extent by Utah Code section 19– 

2–103,5 the current version of section 

19–2–103 at a minimum no longer 

addresses disclosure of potential 

conflicts of interest by the AQB. Second, 

to the extent that, after the changes in 

state law, the Executive Director of DEQ 

now approves permits within the 

meaning of CAA section 128, the 

Executive Director (and/or the Executive 

Director’s delegate) is subject to the 

disclosure requirements of section 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 164 / Friday, August 23, 2013 / Proposed Rules 52483 

128(a)(2). See, for example, 78 FR 32613 

(May 31, 2013). Neither the previous 

version nor the current version of Utah 

Code section 19–2–103 addresses 

disclosure of potential conflicts by the 

Executive Director. 

As Utah’s infrastructure submissions 

do not address the requirements of CAA 

sections 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) and 128 as they 

apply under current state law, we 

propose to disapprove Utah’s 

submissions for the requirements of 

CAA section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) for the 1997 

and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

7. Stationary source monitoring 

system: Section 110(a)(2)(F) requires ‘‘(i) 

the installation, maintenance, and 

replacement of equipment, and the 

implementation of other necessary 

steps, by owners or operators of 

stationary sources to monitor emissions 

from such sources, (ii) periodic reports 

on the nature and amounts of emissions 

and emissions-related data from such 

sources, and (iii) correlation of such 

reports by the state agency with any 

emission limitations or standards 

established pursuant to the Act, which 

reports shall be available at reasonable 

times for public inspection.’’ 

a. Utah’s response to this requirement: 

The State’s submissions for the 1997 

and 2006 PM2.5 infrastructure 

requirements cite Section I (Legal 

Authority).A.1.f., codified at R307–110– 

2 (approved by EPA in the early 1980’s 

and most recently on June 25, 2003 at 

68 FR 37744) requiring owners or 

operators of stationary sources to install, 

maintain, and use emission monitoring 

devices; and to make periodic reports to 

the State DEQ on the nature and 

amounts of emissions from such 

sources. The State DEQ will make such 

data available to the public as reported 

and as correlated with any applicable 

emission standards or limitations 

(Sections 19–2–104, UCA). 

The State’s submissions also cite UAC 

rule R307–110–4 (approved by EPA in 

the early 1980’s and most recently on 

June 25, 2003 at 68 FR 37744) SIP 

Section III (Source Surveillance) which 

includes inventory requirements, stack 

testing, and plant inspections (Sections 

19–2–107 and 19–2–108, UCA, allow 

inspection of air pollution sources). 

b. EPA Analysis: Utah’s SIP meets the 

requirements of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(F) for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS. 

8. Emergency powers: Section 

110(a)(2)(G) requires states to provide 

for authority to address activities 

causing imminent and substantial 

endangerment to public health, 

including contingency plans to 

implement the emergency episode 

provisions in their SIPs. 

a. Utah’s response to this requirement: 

The State’s submissions for the 1997 

and 2006 PM2.5 infrastructure 

requirements cite UAC rules R307–110– 

2 (approved by EPA in the early 1980’s 

and most recently on June 25, 2003 at 

68 FR 37744) SIP Section I (Legal 

Authority). A.1.c., that provides 

authority to abate pollutant emissions 

on an emergency basis to prevent 

substantial endangerment to the health 

of persons (Section 19–2–112, UCA); 

and R307–110–8 (approved by EPA in 

the early 1980’s and most recently on 

June 25, 2003 at 68 FR 37744) SIP 

Section VII (Prevention of Air Pollution 

Emergency Episodes) (Section 19–2– 

112, UCA). A February 12, 2007, 

OAQPS Issue Paper indicated EPA will 

be issuing a significant harm level rule 

for PM2.5. Utah will address the 

requirements of 110(a)(2)(G) after EPA 

promulgates this rule. 

b. EPA analysis: Section 19–2–112 of 

the UCA, cited by Utah SIP Section I, 

provides DEQ with general emergency 

authority comparable to that in section 

303 of the Act. The SIP also requires 

DEQ to follow criteria in 40 CFR 51.151 

in proclaiming an emergency episode 

and to develop a contingency plan. 

EPA’s September 25, 2009 guidance 

suggested that states with areas that 

have had a PM2.5 exceedance greater 

than 140.4 mg/m3 should develop and 

submit an emergency episode plan. If no 

such concentration was recorded in the 

last three years, the guidance suggested 

that the State can rely on its general 

emergency authorities. In this 

rulemaking, we view these suggestions 

as still appropriate in assessing Utah’s 

SIP for this element. Utah has not had 

such a recorded PM2.5 level and thus an 

emergency episode plan for PM2.5 is not 

necessary. The SIP therefore meets the 

requirements of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(G) for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS. 

9. Future SIP revisions: Section 

110(a)(2)(H) requires that SIPs provide 

for revision of such plan: 

(i) from time to time as may be necessary 

to take account of revisions of such national 

primary or secondary ambient air quality 

standard or the availability of improved or 

more expeditious methods of attaining such 

standard, and 

(ii) except as provided in paragraph (3)(C), 

whenever the Administrator finds on the 

basis of information available to the 

Administrator that the [SIP] is substantially 

inadequate to attain the [NAAQS] which it 

implements or to otherwise comply with any 

additional requirements under this [Act]. 

a. Utah’s response to this requirement: 

The State’s submissions for the 1997 

and 2006 PM2.5 infrastructure 

requirements cite SIP Section I (Legal 

Authority).A.1.a, codified at R307–110– 

2, which identifies the statutory 

provisions that allow the UDAQ to 

revise its plans to take account of 

revisions of a NAAQS and to adopt 

expeditious methods of attaining and 

maintaining such standard. EPA 

approved this SIP originally in the early 

1980’s and most recently on June 25, 

2003 at 68 FR 37744. 

b. EPA analysis: Utah SIP Section I 

cites section 19–2–104 of the Utah Code. 

Section 19–2–104 gives the AQB 

sufficient authority to meet the 

requirements of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(H). 

10. Consultation with government 

officials, public notification, PSD and 

visibility protection: Section 110(a)(2)(J) 

requires that each SIP ‘‘meet the 

applicable requirements of section 121 

of this title (relating to consultation), 

section 127 of this title (relating to 

public notification), and part C of this 

subchapter (relating to PSD of air 

quality and visibility protection).’’ 

a. Utah’s response to this requirement: 

The State’s submissions for the 1997 

and 2006 PM2.5 infrastructure 

requirements of section 121 relating to 

consultation cite UAC rules R307–110– 

2 (approved by EPA in the early 1980’s 

and most recently on June 25, 2003 at 

68 FR 37744) SIP Section I (Legal 

Authority).A.2, which adopts 

requirements for transportation 

consultation (Section 174, CAA); R307– 

110–7 (approved by EPA in the early 

1980’s and most recently on June 25, 

2003 at 68 FR 37744) SIP Section VI 

(Intergovernmental Cooperation) which 

provides a brief listing of federal, state, 

and local agencies involved in 

protecting air quality in Utah; and 

R307–110–20 SIP Section XII 

(Transportation Conformity 

Consultation) which establishes the 

consultation procedures on 

transportation conformity issues when 

preparing state plans. EPA approved SIP 

Section XII, Involvement, but it has been 

superseded by SIP Section XII 

Transportation Conformity 

Consultation, which was submitted to 

EPA on June 26, 2007 but EPA has not 

approved this SIP. 

The State’s submissions for the 1997 

and 2006 PM2.5 infrastructure 

requirements of section 127 relating to 

public notification cite UAC rule R307– 

110–24 (approved by EPA in the early 

1980’s and most recently on June 25, 

2003 at 68 FR 37744) SIP Section XVI 

(Public Notification) which adopts the 

requirements to notify the public when 

the NAAQS have been exceeded as per 

section 127. 

The State’s submissions for the 1997 

and 2006 PM2.5 infrastructure 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

52484 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 164 / Friday, August 23, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

requirements of part C relating to the 

prevention of significant deterioration of 

air quality and visibility protection cite 

UAC rules R307–110–9 SIP Section VIII 

(PSD) which describes the program to 

prevent significant deterioration of areas 

of the state where the air is clean (EPA 

approved SIP Section VIII, PSD, but it 

has been updated and superseded by a 

new SIP Section VIII, PSD, which was 

submitted to EPA on September 15, 

2006); and R307–110–25 (approved by 

EPA in April 1997 and most recently on 

June 25, 2003 at 68 FR 37744) SIP 

Section XVII (Visibility Protection) 

which describes the program to protect 

visibility, especially within the 

boundaries of the five national parks 

located in Utah (Sections 19–2–101 and 

104, UCA). 

b. EPA Analysis: The State has 

demonstrated that it has the authority 

and rules in place to provide a process 

of consultation with general purpose 

local governments, designated 

organizations of elected officials of local 

governments and any Federal Land 

Manager having authority over federal 

land to which the SIP applies, 

consistent with the requirements of 

CAA section 121. Furthermore, SIP 

section XVI, cited by Utah, satisfies the 

requirements of section 127 of the Act. 

The State has a SIP-approved PSD 

program that incorporates by reference 

the federal program at 40 CFR 52.21; 

these provisions are located in R307– 

405–2 of the UAC. EPA has further 

evaluated Utah’s SIP-approved PSD 

program in this proposed action under 

IV.3 of CAA section 110(a)(2)(C). There, 

we propose approval with respect to the 

PSD requirements of element (C); we do 

likewise here with respect to the PSD 

requirements of element (J). 

Finally, with regard to the applicable 

requirements for visibility protection, 

EPA recognizes that states are subject to 

visibility and regional haze program 

requirements under part C of the Act. In 

the event of the establishment of a new 

NAAQS, however, the visibility and 

regional haze program requirements 

under part C do not change. Thus we 

find that there is no new visibility 

obligation ‘‘triggered’’ under section 

110(a)(2)(J) when a new NAAQS 

becomes effective. The Utah SIP meets 

the requirements of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(J) for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS. 

11. Air quality and modeling/data: 

Section 110(a)(2)(K) requires that each 

SIP provide for: 

(i) the performance of such air quality 

modeling as the Administrator may prescribe 

for the purpose of predicting the effect on 

ambient air quality of any emissions of any 

air pollutant for which the Administrator has 

established a [NAAQS], and (ii) the 

submission, upon request, of data related to 

such air quality modeling to the 

Administrator. 

a. Utah’s response to this requirement: 

The State’s submissions for the 1997 

and 2006 PM2.5 infrastructure 

requirements cite SIP Section II (Review 

of New and Modified Air Pollution 

Sources) codified at R307–110–3 

(approved by EPA in the early 1980’s 

and most recently on June 25, 2003 at 

68 FR 37744) which provides that new 

or modified sources of air pollution 

must submit plans to the UDAQ and 

receive an Approval Order before 

operating (Section 19–2–104, UCA). 

b. EPA Analysis: Utah’s SIP meets the 

requirements of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(K) for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS. In particular, Utah’s PSD 

program incorporates by reference the 

federal program at 40 CFR 52.21, 

including the provision at § 52.21(l)(1) 

requiring that estimates of ambient air 

concentrations be based on applicable 

air quality models specified in 

Appendix W of 40 CFR part 51, and the 

provision at § 52.21(l)(2) requiring that 

modification or substitution of a model 

specified in Appendix W must be 

approved by the Administrator. As a 

result, the SIP provides for such air 

quality modeling as the Administrator 

has prescribed. 

12. Permitting fees: Section 

110(a)(2)(L) requires SIPs to require the 

owner or operator of each major 

stationary source to pay to the 

permitting authority, as a condition of 

any permit required under this act, a fee 

sufficient to cover— 

(i) the reasonable costs of reviewing and 

acting upon any application for such a 

permit, and 

(ii) if the owner or operator receives a 

permit for such source, the reasonable costs 

of implementing and enforcing the terms and 

conditions of any such permit (not including 

any court costs or other costs associated with 

any enforcement action), until such fee 

requirement is superseded with respect to 

such sources by the Administrator’s approval 

of a fee program under [title] V. 

a. Utah’s response to this requirement: 

The State’s submissions for the 1997 

and 2006 PM2.5 infrastructure 

requirements cite SIP Section I (Legal 

Authority). A.1.h., codified at R307– 

110–2 (approved by EPA in the early 

1980’s and most recently on June 25, 

2003 at 68 FR 37744) which authorizes 

a fee to major sources to cover permit 

and enforcement expenses. 

b. EPA Analysis: Utah’s SIP meets the 

requirements of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(L) for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS. Final approval of Utah’s title V 

operating permit program was given by 

EPA on June 8, 1995 (60 FR 30192). As 

discussed in the notice proposing 

approval of the title V program (60 FR 

15105, Mar. 22, 1995), the State 

demonstrated that the fees collected 

were sufficient to administer the 

program. As mentioned by Utah in its 

submissions, the State is also authorized 

to collect fees from major stationary 

sources to cover permit and 

enforcement expenses. 

13. Consultation/participation by 

affected local entities: Section 

110(a)(2)(M) requires states to provide 

for consultation and participation in SIP 

development by local political 

subdivisions affected by the SIP. 

a. Utah’s response to this requirement: 

The State’s submissions for the 1997 

and 2006 PM2.5 infrastructure 

requirements cite SIP Section VI 

(Intergovernmental Cooperation), 

codified at R307–110–7 (approved by 

EPA in the early 1980s and most 

recently on June 25, 2003 at 68 FR 

37744), which lists federal, state, and 

local agencies involved in protecting air 

quality in Utah; and SIP Section XII 

(Transportation Conformity 

Consultation), codified at R307–110–20, 

which establishes the consultation 

procedures on transportation conformity 

issues when preparing state plans. EPA 

approved SIP Section XII, Involvement, 

but it has been superseded by SIP 

Section XII, Transportation Conformity 

Consultation, which was submitted to 

EPA on June 26, 2007, but has not been 

approved by EPA. 

b. EPA Analysis: Utah’s submittal 

meets the requirements of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(M) for the 1997 and 2006 

PM2.5 NAAQS. 

VI. What action is EPA taking? 

In this action, EPA is proposing to 

approve the following CAA section 

110(a)(2) infrastructure elements for the 

1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS: (A), (B), 

(C) with respect to minor NSR and PSD 

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

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

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

to disapprove the section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) 

infrastructure element for the 1997 and 

2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. We propose to 

approve the following portions of the 

State’s March 14, 2012 submission to 

address the 2008 PM2.5 NSR 

Implementation Rule and the 2010 

PM2.5 Increment Rule; specifically we 

propose to approve the adoption of the 

text of 40 CFR 52.21, paragraphs 

(b)(14)(i),(ii),(iii); (b)(15)(i),(ii); (b)(23)(i); 

(b)(50) and paragraph (c) as they existed 

on July 1, 2011. Finally, EPA is taking 

no action on infrastructure elements 

(D)(i)(I), interstate transport of 

pollutants which contribute 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 164 / Friday, August 23, 2013 / Proposed Rules 52485 

significantly to nonattainment in, or 

interfere with maintenance by, any 

other state, and (D)(i)(II), with respect to 

visibility requirements for the 2006 

PM2.5 NAAQS as EPA is acting 

separately on these elements. 

VII. 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 CAA. Accordingly, this proposed 

action merely approves some state law 

as meeting federal requirements and 

disapproves other state law because it 

does not meet federal requirements; this 

proposed action does not impose 

additional requirements beyond those 

imposed by state law. For that reason, 

this proposed 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 (Public Law 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 CAA; 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. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 

Intergovernmental relations, 

Greenhouse gases, Incorporation by 

reference, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, 

Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur 

oxides, Volatile organic compounds, 

Incorporation by reference. 

Dated: August 8, 2013. 

Shaun L. McGrath, 

Regional Administrator, Region 8. 

[FR Doc. 2013–20662 Filed 8–22–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2013–0576; FRL–9900–25– 

Region 9] 

Revisions to the Arizona State 

Implementation Plan, Maricopa County 

Area 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

revisions to the Maricopa County Area 

portion of the Arizona State 

Implementation Plan (SIP). These 

revisions concern particulate matter 

(PM) emissions from fugitive dust 

sources. We are approving local statutes 

that regulate these emission sources 

under the Clean Air Act as amended in 

1990 (CAA or the Act). We are taking 

comments on this proposal and plan to 

follow with a final action. 

DATES: Any comments must arrive by 

September 23, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, 

identified by docket number [EPA–R09– 

OAR–2013–0576], by one of the 

following methods: 

1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line 

instructions. 

2. Email: steckel.andrew@epa.gov. 

3. Mail or deliver: Andrew Steckel 

(Air-4), U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, 

San Francisco, CA 94105–3901. 

Instructions: All comments will be 

included in the public docket without 

change and may be made available 

online at www.regulations.gov, 

including any personal information 

provided, unless the comment includes 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Information that 

you consider CBI or otherwise protected 

should be clearly identified as such and 

should not be submitted through 

www.regulations.gov or email. 

www.regulations.gov is an ‘‘anonymous 

access’’ system, and EPA will not know 

your identity or contact information 

unless you provide it in the body of 

your comment. If you send email 

directly to EPA, your email address will 

be automatically captured and included 

as part of the public comment. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. 

Docket: Generally, documents in the 

docket for this action are available 

electronically at www.regulations.gov 

and in hard copy at EPA Region IX, 75 

Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, 

California. While all documents in the 

docket are listed at 

www.regulations.gov, some information 

may be publicly available only at the 

hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted 

material, large maps), and some may not 

be publicly available in either location 

(e.g., 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: 

Nancy Levin, EPA Region IX, (415) 942– 

3848, levin.nancy@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

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

and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. The State’s Submittal 

A. What rules did the State submit? 

B. Are there other versions of these rules? 

C. What is the purpose of the submitted 

rules? 

II. EPA’s Evaluation and Action. 

A. How is EPA evaluating the rules? 

B. Do the rules meet the evaluation 

criteria? 

C. EPA Recommendations to Further 

Improve the Rules 

D. Public Comment and Proposed Action 

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS