Document ID: EPA-R08-OAR-2013-0474-0001
Agency: epa
Document Type: Proposed Rule
Title: Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: Utah; Revisions to Utah Administrative Code and an Associated Plan Revision
Posted Date: 2013-08-14T04:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 157 (Wednesday, August 14, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 49400-49403]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-19597]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R08-OAR-2013-0474; FRL-9846-9 ]

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

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

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

DATES: Comments must be received on or before September 13, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R08-
OAR-2013-0474, by one of the following methods:
     www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for 
submitting comments.
     Email: ostendorf.jody@epa.gov.
     Fax: (303) 312-6064 (please alert the individual listed in 
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT if you are faxing comments).
     Mail: Carl Daly, Director, Air Program, Environmental 
Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, 
Denver, Colorado 80202-1129.
     Hand Delivery: Carl Daly, Director, Air Program, 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 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-
2013-0474. 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.

[[Page 49401]]

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: Jody Ostendorf, Air Program, Mailcode 
8P-AR, Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop Street, 
Denver, Colorado 80202-1129, (303) 312-7814, or ostendorf.jody@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents

I. General Information
II. Background
III. What action is EPA proposing and why?
    a. R307-110-16, ``Section IX, Control Measures for Area and 
Point Sources, Part G, Fluoride''
    b. R307-110-29, ``Section XXI, Diesel Inspection and Maintenance 
Program''
    c. Utah SIP Revision: Section XXI, ``Diesel Inspection and 
Maintenance Program''
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

Definitions

    For the purpose of this document, we are giving meaning to certain 
words or initials as follows:
    (i) The words or initials Act or CAA mean or refer to the Clean Air 
Act, unless the context indicates otherwise.
    (ii) The words EPA, we, us or our mean or refer to the United 
States Environmental Protection Agency.
    (iii) The initials PM10 mean or refer to particulate matter with an 
aerodynamic diameter of less than or equal to 10 micrometers (coarse 
particulate matter).
    (iv) The initials PM2.5 mean or refer to particulate matter with an 
aerodynamic diameter of less than or equal to 2.5 micrometers (fine 
particulate matter).
    (v) The initials SIP mean or refer to State Implementation Plan.
    (vi) The words State or Utah mean the State of Utah, unless the 
context indicates otherwise.
    (vii) The initials UAC mean or refer to the Utah Administrative 
Code.

I. General Information

A. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through 
www.regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the 
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in 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:
    a. Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying 
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
    b. Follow directions--The agency may ask you to respond to specific 
questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal 
Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
    c. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and 
substitute language for your requested changes.
    d. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information 
and/or data that you used.
    e. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you 
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be 
reproduced.
    f. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and 
suggest alternatives.
    g. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of 
profanity or personal threats.
    h. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline 
identified.

II. Background

    Utah's September 20, 1999 submittal revised the numbering and 
format of the Utah Administrative Code (UAC) rules within Utah's SIP. 
The purpose was to provide for a more consistent numbering system and a 
coherent structure allowing provisions to be located more easily within 
Utah's rules.
    On February 14, 2006 (71 FR 7679), we approved many of the re-
numbered rules from the September 20, 1999 submittal, but we deferred 
action on others or explained why no action on the rules was 
necessary.\1\ In subsequent rulemaking actions, we acted on other rules 
from the September 20, 1999 submittal, or on later versions of the 
rules that superseded the version submitted on September 20, 1999. In 
this action, we are acting on those rules from the September 20, 1999 
submittal that still require EPA action.\2\ Specifically, we are 
proposing to approve R307-110-16, ``Section IX, Control Measures for 
Area and Point Sources, Part G, Fluoride,'' and we are proposing to 
disapprove R307-110-29, ``Section XXI, Diesel Inspection and 
Maintenance Program.'' In conjunction with our proposed disapproval of 
R307-110-29, we are also proposing to disapprove the Utah Diesel 
Inspection and Maintenance Program (Section XXI of the Utah SIP), which 
Utah submitted to EPA as a SIP revision on February 6, 1996 and which 
R307-110-29 of the September 20, 1999 submittal incorporated by 
reference.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ On April 18, 2007 (72 FR 19383), EPA issued a correction 
notice that corrected certain aspects of the regulatory text in 
EPA's February 14, 2006 action.
    \2\ Under a February 2, 2010 settlement agreement with WildEarth 
Guardians, as amended on June 30, 2011, EPA is required to sign a 
proposed rulemaking action on the September 20, 1999 submittal by 
July 31, 2013, and a final rulemaking action by December 20, 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the docket for this proposal, we have included a table that 
lists the rules from the September 20, 1999 submittal that are not 
addressed by today's action and that explains why no action on such 
rules is required.

III. What action is EPA proposing and why?

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

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

[[Page 49402]]

which the provision applied. In fact, on June 25, 2003 (68 FR 37744), 
we approved the renumbering of Utah SIP Section IX, Part G, and this 
section remains in the SIP. However, we have not acted on the 
corresponding renumbering of R307-110-16 in the September 20, 1999 
submittal. As R307-110-16 merely incorporates by reference SIP Section 
IX, Part G, which itself is currently in the SIP, we propose to approve 
the renumbering of R307-110-16.

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

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

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

    We are proposing to disapprove Utah's Diesel Inspection and 
Maintenance Program contained in Section XXI of the Utah SIP, which 
Utah submitted on February 6, 1996 (hereafter, the ``Program''). The 
Program requires the inspection of diesel-powered vehicles by means of 
an emissions opacity test. The opacity of vehicle emissions is 
measured, using what is known as a snap-idle opacity test, to determine 
the need for vehicle repair and maintenance. Utah adopted the Program 
with the goal of reducing particulate emissions from diesel vehicles in 
the PM10 \3\ nonattainment areas along the Wasatch Front--
namely, Davis, Salt Lake, and Utah Counties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than or 
equal to 10 microns (PM10).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Our proposed disapproval is based on several issues. First, 
relevant literature and studies indicate that there is not an accepted 
correlation between opacity and particulate matter mass emissions in 
diesel vehicles. Given this lack of correlation between opacity and PM 
mass emissions, it is unlikely that the snap-opacity test is a good 
predictor of PM emissions, and the State has not provided data to 
support a different conclusion. Second, the Governor's February 6, 1996 
submittal of the Program did not specify a number of critical 
parameters, such as the relevant opacity limits or specifications for 
test equipment. While many of the missing parameters were included in 
revisions to Davis, Salt Lake, and Utah Counties' inspection and 
maintenance ordinances that the Utah Division of Air Quality forwarded 
to us on April 12, 2006, the State did not amend Section XXI of the SIP 
to include the revised ordinances, and the Governor did not submit such 
an amendment to us to replace the version submitted on February 6, 
1996. Therefore, the Program as submitted is not enforceable as a 
practical matter. Finally, relevant literature and studies suggest that 
adjusting diesel vehicles to reduce the opacity of emissions may result 
in an increase in emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOX), which 
are precursors to the formation of PM2.5,\4\ 
PM10, and ground level ozone. It is possible, therefore, 
that repairing vehicles to the opacity test could exacerbate the PM 
challenge in Utah, and the State again has not provided data to 
contradict this possibility. We note that on November 13, 2009, Davis, 
Salt Lake, and Utah Counties were designated nonattainment for the 2006 
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS (74 FR 58688). Also, both Salt Lake and 
Utah Counties retain their original legal designation of nonattainment 
for PM10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than or 
equal to 2.5 microns (PM2.5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We are unable to conclude that approval of the Program would 
strengthen the SIP or would be consistent with the requirements of CAA 
section 110(l). Section 110(1) states that a SIP revision cannot be 
federally-approved if the revision would interfere with any applicable 
requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress 
towards attainment of a NAAQS or any other applicable requirement of 
the CAA. The potential increase in NOX emissions from the 
Program could interfere with attainment or reasonable further progress 
towards attainment of the PM2.5 NAAQS in the relevant 
counties. We have no conclusive data to show that the potential 
benefits of the Program outweigh the potential emission increases with 
respect to pollutants of concern. Furthermore, the State has not 
provided data that would support the benefits it ascribes to the 
Program. Instead, it references a 1988 study that attempts to 
indirectly infer a level of emission reductions resulting from fixing a 
statistically insignificant number of old-technology diesel vehicles to 
reduce exhaust opacity, but without conducting the type of before-and-
after-repair mass-emission transient testing on the contemporary fleet 
of diesel vehicles needed to actually quantify any potential impacts on 
emissions.
    For the foregoing reasons, we are proposing to disapprove Section 
XXI of the SIP, ``Diesel Inspection and Maintenance Program,'' as 
submitted by the State on February 6, 1996.

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 proposed action merely proposes to approve state law 
that meets federal requirements and proposes to disapprove state law 
that does not meet federal requirements; if finalized as proposed, this 
action would 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);

[[Page 49403]]

     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.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen 
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements, Sulfur oxides, and Volatile organic compounds.

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

    Dated: July 30, 2013.
Shaun L. McGrath,
Regional Administrator, Region 8.
[FR Doc. 2013-19597 Filed 8-13-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P