Document ID: EPA-R08-OAR-2013-0395-0012
Agency: epa
Document Type: Rule
Title: Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: Utah; Revisions to Utah Administrative Code - Permit; New and Modified Sources
Posted Date: 2014-02-06T05:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 25 (Thursday, February 6, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 7072-7077]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-02080]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R08-OAR-2013-0395; FRL-9904-24-Region 8]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; 
Utah; Revisions to Utah Administrative Code--Permit: New and Modified 
Sources

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final 
action to partially approve and partially disapprove State 
Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the State of Utah on 
September 15, 2006. The September 15, 2006 revisions contain new, 
amended and renumbered rules in Utah Administrative Code (UAC) Title R-
307 that pertain to the issuance of Utah air quality permits. The 
September 15, 2006 revisions supersede and entirely replace an October 
9, 1998 submittal that initially revised provisions in Utah's air 
quality permit program, and partially supersede and replace a September 
20, 1999 submittal. In this action, we are fully approving the SIP 
revisions in the September 15, 2006 submittal with the following 
exceptions: we are disapproving the State's rules R307-401-7 (Public 
Notice), R307-401-9(b) and portions of (9)(c) (Small Source Exemption), 
R307-401-12 (Reduction in Air Contaminants), and R307-410-5 
(Documentation of Ambient Air Impacts for Hazardous Air Pollutants); we 
are limitedly approving and limitedly disapproving R307-410-6 (Stack 
Heights and Dispersion Techniques); and we are not acting on R307-101-
2, R307-401-14, R307-401-15, and R307-401-16 for the reasons explained 
in this action. This action is being taken under section 110 of the 
Clean Air Act (CAA).

DATES: Effective Date: This final rule is effective March 10, 2014.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID 
No. EPA-R08-OAR-2013-0395. All documents in the docket are listed in 
the www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some 
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information 
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such 
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. 
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically 
in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air Program, 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop Street, 
Denver, Colorado 80202-1129. EPA requests you contact the individual 
listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to view the hard 
copy of the docket. You may view the hard copy of the docket Monday 
through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., excluding Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kevin Leone, Air Program, Mailcode 8P-
AR, Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop Street, 
Denver, Colorado 80202-1129, (303) 312-6227, or leone.kevin@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. Response to Comments
III. Changes From our Proposed Action and Basis for our Final Action
IV. Final Action
V. Statutory and Executive Orders Review

Definitions

    For the purpose of this document, we are giving meaning to certain 
words or initials as follows:
    (i) The words or initials Act or CAA mean or refer to the Clean Air 
Act, unless the context indicates otherwise.
    (ii) The words EPA, we, us or our mean or refer to the United 
States Environmental Protection Agency.
    (iii) The words Minor NSR mean NSR established under section 110 of 
the Act and 40 CFR 51.160.
    (iv) The initials NSR mean new source review, a phrase intended to 
encompass the stationary source regulatory programs that regulate the 
construction and modification of stationary sources as provided under 
CAA section 110(a)(2)(C), CAA Title I, parts C and D, and 40 CFR 51.160 
through 51.166.
    (v) The initials SIP mean or refer to State Implementation Plan.
    (iv) The words State or Utah mean the State of Utah, unless the 
context indicates otherwise.

I. Background

    The CAA (section 110(a)(2)(C)) and 40 CFR 51.160 require states to 
have legally enforceable procedures in their SIPs to prevent 
construction or modification of a source if it would violate any SIP 
control strategies or interfere with attainment or maintenance of the 
national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). Such minor new source 
review (NSR) programs are for pollutants from stationary sources that 
do not require Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) or 
nonattainment NSR permits. A state may customize the requirements of 
its minor NSR program as long as the program meets minimum 
requirements.
    On September 15, 2006, Utah submitted revisions to its minor source 
NSR program. The September 15, 2006 revisions supersede and entirely 
replace an October 9, 1998 submittal that initially revised provisions 
in Utah's air quality permit program, and partially supersede and 
replace a September 20, 1999 submittal that renumbered the provisions 
in the October 9, 1998 submittal. A cross-walk table comparing

[[Page 7073]]

the provisions from the October 9, 1998, September 20, 1999, and 
September 15, 2006 submittals is included in the docket for this 
action.
    Utah's September 15, 2006 submittal: (1) Revised R307-101-2 
(Definitions); (2) added a new section R307-401 (Notice of Intent and 
Approval Order); (3) added a new section R307-410 (Permits: Emission 
Impact Analysis); and (4) moved rules in State rule section R307-413 
(Permit: Exemptions and Special Provisions) to R307-401.\1\ The purpose 
of the September 15, 2006 submittal was to separate minor source 
permitting and modeling requirements from major source permitting and 
modeling requirements within Title R307.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Utah repealed R307-413 in 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On June 12, 2013 (78 FR 35181), we proposed to act on Utah's 
September 15, 2006 submittal, with the following exceptions: (1) R307-
101-2 (Definitions); and (2) R307-401-14 (Used Oil Fuel Burned for 
Energy Recovery), R307-401-15 (Air Strippers and Soil Venting 
Projects), and R307-401-16 (De minimis Emissions From Soil Aeration 
Projects). As we explained in our notice of proposed rulemaking (78 FR 
35183), we need not act on R307-101-2 as submitted on September 15, 
2006, because on September 2, 2008, we approved a superseding version 
of R307-101-2 that Utah adopted on February 6, 2008. See 73 FR 51222. 
We need not act on R307-401-14 through 16 in this action because we 
previously acted on such provisions. See 77 FR 37859 (June 25, 2012) 
(notice of proposed rulemaking); notice of final rulemaking, signed 
October 19, 2012, copy included in the docket for this action.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Our notice of final rulemaking has not been published yet in 
the Federal Register.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In our June 12, 2013 proposed action, we proposed to: (1) Approve 
R307-401-1 through 6, R307-401-8, R307-401-9 (except for paragraph (b) 
and the portions of paragraph (c) that reference paragraph (b)), R307-
401-10 through 11, R307-401-13, R307-401-17 through 20; and R307-410-1 
through 4; (2) disapprove R307-401-7, R307-401-9(b) and portions of 
9(c) that reference (9)(b), R307-401-12, and R307-410-5; and (3) 
partially approve and partially disapprove R307-410-6.\3\ We provided a 
detailed explanation of the bases for our proposal. See 78 FR 35183-
35188. We invited comment on all aspects of our proposal and provided a 
30-day comment period. The comment period ended on July 12, 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ It would have been more appropriate to say we were proposing 
to limitedly approve and limitedly disapprove R307-410-6. Limited 
approval/disapproval is the approach EPA has used historically where 
a rule provision meets some of the statutory and regulatory 
requirements and will strengthen the SIP, but does not meet all of 
the statutory and regulatory requirements, thus warranting 
disapproval. It is used in lieu of partial approval/partial 
disapproval where the compliant and non-compliant rule provisions 
are not separable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In this action, we are responding to the comments we received and 
taking final rulemaking action on the enumerated rules from the State's 
September 15, 2006 submittal.

II. Response to Comments

    In response to our June 12, 2013 proposed rulemaking, we received 
one comment letter from Joro Walker and Rob Dubuc on behalf of Utah 
Physicians for a Healthy Environment and Western Resource Advocates 
(collectively ``Utah Physicians''). In this section, we summarize their 
comments and provide our responses.
    Comment: R307-401-1 Utah Physicians support EPA's proposal to 
approve this provision.
    Response: We acknowledge receipt of this comment and the support 
for our approval.
    Comment: R307-401-2 Utah Physicians take no position on EPA's 
proposal relative to this provision.
    Response: We acknowledge receipt of this comment.
    Comment: R307-401-3 Utah Physicians support EPA's proposal to 
approve this provision.
    Response: We acknowledge receipt of this comment and the support 
for our approval.
    Comment: R307-401-4 Utah Physicians support EPA's proposal to 
approve this provision with the following exception:

    401-4(1), which currently states that ``[a]ny control apparatus 
installed on an installation shall be adequately and properly 
maintained,'' should be revised to state: ``[a]ny control apparatus 
installed on an installation shall be adequately and properly 
maintained and operated[.]'' After all, unless a control apparatus 
is properly operated, maintenance is likely to be of little 
consequence.

    Response: We conclude that the comment does not provide a basis for 
EPA to disapprove the regulation. While the language suggested by the 
commenters might strengthen the regulation, we find no basis to 
conclude that the language is required by the Act or our regulations. 
For example, CAA section 110(a)(2)(C) requires that the SIP include a 
program for the regulation of the modification and construction of any 
stationary source as necessary to assure the NAAQS are achieved. We do 
not find that the addition of the words ``and operated'' is necessary 
to assure the NAAQS are achieved. Similarly, our minor source NSR 
regulations, at 40 CFR 51.160 and 51.161 are relatively general in 
nature. They do not require that a state's minor source NSR regulations 
require any specific operation and maintenance procedures. Furthermore, 
to a substantial degree, it is the permit process itself, embodied in 
Utah's regulations, that provides the vehicle to identify and make 
enforceable specific measures necessary to protect the NAAQS. Any 
measures established through the SIP-approved permit process become 
federally enforceable, and specific emission limits are likely to be a 
more effective measure to ensure proper source operation than a general 
requirement to operate properly. We note, for example, that Utah's 
regulations include a requirement that sources meet BACT. See R307-401-
8(1)(a). Finally, we think that the language ``shall be adequately and 
properly maintained'' could be interpreted broadly enough to include 
the ongoing operation of the control apparatus.
    Comment: R307-401-5 Utah Physicians support EPA's proposal to 
approve this provision with the following two exceptions:

    1. 40 CFR 160(c)(1) requires that the legal provisions in 
question ``must provide for the submission, by the owner or operator 
of the building, facility, structure, or installation to be 
constructed or modified, of such information on . . . [t]he nature 
and amounts of emissions to be emitted by it or emitted by 
associated mobile sources.'' This requirement is missing from Rule 
401-5.
    2. 401-5 should include a requirement that the source identify, 
including by providing flow or process diagrams, the location and 
characteristics of each emission unit that is a part of the 
building, facility, structure, or installation. The rule should 
mandate that source provide the ``[e]xpected composition and 
physical characteristics of [the] effluent stream both before and 
after treatment by any control apparatus, including emission rates, 
volume, temperature, air contaminant types, and concentration of air 
contaminants'' for each emission unit. Without this information, the 
public is not in a position to provide meaningful comment on the 
adequacy of the proposed permits, particularly whether the permits 
will result in a violation of applicable portions of the control 
strategy or interfere with attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS. 
Similarly, without this information, Utah is not in a position to 
determine whether the project will result in a violation of 
applicable portions of the control strategy or interfere with 
attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS.

    Response: 1. 40 CFR 51.160(c)(1) requires the state program to 
provide for the owner or operator of the building,

[[Page 7074]]

facility, structure, or installation to submit ``such information on . 
. . [t]he nature and amounts of emissions to be emitted by it or 
emitted by associated mobile sources . . . as may be necessary to 
permit the State or local agency to make the determination referred to 
in paragraph (a) of this section.'' EPA concludes that R307-401 
complies with this requirement. R307-401 applies to indirect sources as 
well as direct sources of pollution. R307-401-3(1)(a) and (b). R307-
401-2 defines indirect source as ``a building, structure, facility or 
installation which attracts or may attract mobile source activity that 
results in emission of a pollutant for which there is a national 
standard.'' R307-401-5 requires any person subject to R307-401 to 
submit a notice of intent to the executive secretary. The notice of 
intent must include, among other things, ``a description of the nature 
of the processes involved,'' ``the type and quantity of fuels 
employed,'' the ``[e]xpected composition and physical characteristics 
of [the] effluent stream both before and after treatment by any control 
apparatus, including emission rates, volume, temperature, air 
contaminant types, and concentration of air contaminants,'' and ``other 
information necessary to appraise the possible effects of the 
effluent.'' R307-401-5(2)(a), (b), and (e). Finally, R307-401-5(k) 
requires that the notice of intent include ``[a]ny other information 
necessary to determine if the proposed source or modification will be 
in compliance with Title R307.'' As required by 40 CFR 51.160(c)(1), 
the language of R307-401-5 clearly requires the notice of intent to 
include information on the nature and amount of the proposed source's 
emissions. Given that R307-401 specifically applies to indirect sources 
and requires them to submit notices of intent as well, we find that the 
language of R307-401-5 applies to information regarding the nature and 
amount of emissions from associated mobile sources as well. We also 
note that the requirement in 40 CFR 51.160(c)(1) is modified by the 
language following 40 CFR 51.160(c)(2), which reads, ``as may be 
necessary to permit the State or local agency'' to determine whether 
the construction or modification would violate the control strategy or 
interfere with attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS.
    2. We do not agree that the regulation must explicitly require the 
information the commenters describe or that the lack of the desired 
specificity renders the regulation deficient. Neither the CAA nor our 
minor source NSR regulations specifically dictate the level of 
specificity the commenters seek. We note, however, that the language of 
the State's regulation is broad enough to encompass much of the type of 
information the commenters seek, and that the State often may need 
unit-by-unit information to properly conduct the required analysis. 
Also, the commenters have a voice through the State's public 
participation process. If they believe more specific information is 
needed regarding a particular application, they can inform the State of 
their views. We conclude that R307-401-5 adequately addresses the 
requirements of 40 CFR 51.160(c)(1) and (2).
    Comment: R307-401-6 Utah Physicians take no position on EPA's 
proposal relative to this provision.
    Response: We acknowledge receipt of this comment.
    Comment: R307-401-7 Utah Physicians support EPA's proposal to 
disapprove this provision.
    Response: We acknowledge receipt of this comment and the support 
for our disapproval of this provision.
    Comment: R307-401-8 Utah Physicians support EPA's proposal to 
approve this provision with the following two exceptions:

    1. 401-8(2), which currently states that the ``approval order 
will require that all pollution control equipment be adequately and 
properly maintained.'' As indicated above, proper operation of the 
equipment should also be required.
    2. 401-8(4) is improper and does not adequately provide Utah 
with the opportunity to determine whether the project will result in 
a violation of applicable portions of the control strategy or 
interfere with attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS. This is 
because approval of an initial stage may prevent the imposition of 
requirements on later stages that have been precluded by that 
initial construction, thereby biasing the outcome of the permitting 
process. For example, the completion of the initial stage may 
influence what is BACT for the subsequent stages.

    Response: 1. For the reasons stated in our response to the comment 
above regarding R307-401-4(1), EPA disagrees that R307-401-8(2) is 
deficient or that disapproval is required.
    2. EPA disagrees that 401-8(4) is improper and does not adequately 
provide Utah with the opportunity to determine whether a staged project 
will result in a violation of applicable portions of the control 
strategy or interfere with attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS. All 
phases of a staged construction project are still required to submit a 
notice of intent, as outlined in R307-401-5, which provides the public 
and the State the opportunity to determine whether the project will 
result in a violation of applicable portions of the control strategy or 
interfere with attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS. In addition, 
R307-401-8(4) requires previous determinations under R307-401-8(1) and 
(2) to be reviewed and modified as appropriate prior to the 
commencement and construction of each individual phase of the proposed 
source or modification. This would allow the State the opportunity to 
review the most recent plans and information in order to determine the 
most appropriate control requirements during subsequent phases of the 
project.
    Comment: R307-401-9 Utah Physicians support EPA's proposal to 
disapprove aspects of this provision. Utah Physicians disagree with 
EPA's position that: ``R307-401-9 contains a safeguard that a source 
shall no longer be exempt and is required to submit a notice of intent 
if its actual emissions exceed the thresholds listed in R307-401-
9(1)(a).'' The commenters state that R307-401-9 does not require the 
source to monitor or report actual emissions. Rather, under R307-401-
9(3), the source need only provide: a description of the nature of the 
processes involved, equipment, anticipated quantities of materials 
used, the type and quantity of fuel employed and nature and quantity of 
the finished product; identification of expected emissions; estimated 
annual emission rates; any control apparatus used; and typical 
operating schedule. The commenters state that the rule does not require 
the reporting of actual emissions or specify that the information in 
the ``registry'' be updated, for example, annually. The commenters 
state that R307-401-9 does not give the state the opportunity to 
determine whether the project--or changes to the project--will result 
in a violation of applicable portions of the control strategy or 
interfere with attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS.
    Response: We disagree with the commenters that the provisions of 
the regulation that we are approving are not sufficient. Under our 
minor source NSR regulations, a state's regulation must identify the 
types and sizes of facilities, buildings, structures, or installations 
which will be subject to review and must discuss the basis for 
determining which facilities will be subject to review. 40 CFR 
51.160(e). We have reviewed the thresholds that Utah has established in 
R307-401-9 and the basis for those thresholds and determined they are 
reasonable based on a number of factors. See our proposal at 78 FR 
35184-35185. In our proposal, we noted that an exempt source whose 
actual

[[Page 7075]]

emissions later exceed the thresholds would be required to submit a 
notice of intent. The State's registration program for sub-threshold 
minor sources will allow the State to track such sources to some 
degree. However, there is no requirement in our minor source NSR 
regulations that sources whom the State has appropriately determined 
should not be subject to review due to their small size must monitor 
and report actual emissions. Insisting on such action for such small 
sources would tend to defeat the purpose of the exemption and overwhelm 
the State with unnecessary information. Like numerous other standards 
and permitting requirements, sources are expected to self-determine 
whether they are subject to the applicable requirements of the 
regulation and comply with them. If a source ignores the requirements 
of the regulation, or erroneously concludes it is not subject to them, 
the source is subject to potential enforcement action. We are not 
convinced that the State is required to alter this approach for 
purposes of R307-401-9.
    Comment: R307-401-10 Utah Physicians take no position on EPA's 
proposal relative to this provision.
    Response: We acknowledge receipt of this comment.
    Comment: R307-401-11 Utah Physicians take no position on EPA's 
proposal relative to this provision.
    Response: We acknowledge receipt of this comment.
    Comment: R307-401-12 Utah Physicians agree with EPA's proposal to 
disapprove this provision for the reasons EPA provides. Utah Physicians 
further note that the public must be provided with the opportunity to 
provide meaningful comment on the determination of whether the project 
does indeed reduce or eliminate air contaminants. Therefore, public 
notice should be required. Similarly, the public must be able to 
participate in the decision to modify any existing permit or to ensure 
that the reductions or eliminations are enforceable.
    Response: We acknowledge receipt of this comment and the support 
for our disapproval of this provision.
    Comment: R307-401-13 Utah Physicians agree with EPA's proposal to 
approve this provision.
    Response: We acknowledge receipt of this comment and the support 
for our approval of this provision.
    Comment: R307-401-18 Utah Physicians take no position on this 
provision.
    Response: We acknowledge receipt of this comment.
    Comment: R307-401-19 Utah Physicians support EPA's proposal to 
approve this provision.
    Response: We acknowledge receipt of this comment and the support 
for our approval of this provision.
    Comment: R307-401-20 Utah Physicians support EPA's proposal to 
approve this provision.
    Response: We acknowledge receipt of this comment and the support 
for our approval of this provision.
    Comment: R307-410 Utah Physicians support EPA's proposal to 
disapprove aspects of this rule for the reasons EPA states. In 
addition, Utah Physicians urge EPA to disapprove other aspects of this 
provision because they do not provide Utah with the opportunity to 
determine whether a project will result in a violation of applicable 
portions of the control strategy or interfere with attainment or 
maintenance of the NAAQS. Utah has repeatedly maintained that sources 
in nonattainment areas do not need to undertake emission impact 
analysis and do not need to model the impact of any nonattainment 
pollution on the airshed. For example, Utah does not require a source 
located in a PM2.5 nonattainment area to model the impact of 
an increase in PM2.5 emissions. EPA must disapprove the rule 
so it can be rewritten to more clearly require modeling of emissions in 
nonattainment areas. EPA has always understood R307-410 to apply to all 
sources, including those in nonattainment areas, and has repeatedly 
indicated that emission impact analysis in nonattainment areas for 
nonattainment pollutants is required by the Clean Air Act. Without such 
modeling, Utah cannot ensure compliance with a nonattainment area 
control strategy and cannot determine whether there will be additional 
NAAQS exceedances or violations. Thus, R307-410 does not comply with 40 
CFR 51.160 or the Clean Air Act and fails to protect human health and 
the environment from air pollution.
    Response: We do not agree that disapproval of other aspects of 
R307-410 is warranted. EPA has recognized that the CAA provides states 
a broad degree of discretion in developing their minor source programs. 
EPA's regulations at 40 CFR 51.160(c) require that a source provide 
sufficient information on the nature and amount of its emissions and 
its location, design, construction, and operation to enable the state 
to determine whether the source will cause a violation of the control 
strategy or interfere with attainment or maintenance of a NAAQS. The 
Utah SIP requires a notice of intent from each source above an 
exemption threshold describing the source's operation, location, 
control technology and emission stream, ``including emission rates, 
volume, temperature, air contaminant types, and concentration of air 
contaminants.'' R307-401-5(1)--(2). The notice of intent must also 
provide additional permitting information complying with offset 
requirements for ozone in two counties (R307-401-5(2)(j)(v)) and for PM 
10 in two counties (R307-401-5(2)(j)(vi)). This information enables the 
state to prevent violations of the control strategy or threats to 
attainment or reasonable further progress.
    The commenters express concern with potential emissions increases 
related to growth in PM2.5 nonattainment areas. We do not 
read the CAA or our regulations as requiring modeling or impact 
analysis for every instance of minor source construction or 
modification, particularly in nonattainment areas, where it is 
generally assumed that any new emissions growth must be addressed to 
ensure attainment of the NAAQS. In our view, generally, the 
nonattainment area SIP will provide the more appropriate and more 
efficient venue to address minor source growth in nonattainment areas. 
The nonattainment area SIP will project minor source growth as part of 
any approvable attainment demonstration. Essentially, this should 
provide a buffer against future emissions growth from minor 
construction and modification projects. In the context of Utah's 
development of its PM2.5 SIPs, we have suggested that Utah 
either adopt an offset program, as it has done for PM10, or 
a minor source growth tracking program to help ensure that such growth 
does not exceed the attainment demonstration's projections. We 
anticipate working with Utah regarding the details of either approach, 
or another effective approach.
    We also note that the language of the State's minor NSR regulations 
is broad enough to allow the State to require modeling or other form of 
impact analysis for applications for minor construction or modification 
projects in nonattainment areas, if necessary. R307-401-5(2)(k) 
requires the notice of intent to include ``[a]ny other information 
necessary to determine if the proposed source or modification will be 
in compliance with Title R307.'' We think it is reasonable to allow the 
State some flexibility in determining when such impact analysis may be 
necessary for minor construction or modification projects in 
nonattainment areas.

[[Page 7076]]

    Comment: R307-410 Utah Physicians state that R307-410 conflicts 
with the Utah SIP, citing the following from Utah's PSD program, 
Section VIII:

    ``In addition to the PSD permitting program, Utah also requires 
new minor sources and minor modifications to all sources to apply 
best available control technology. R307-410 establishes modeling 
requirements to ensure that minor sources and modifications will not 
cause or contribute to a violation of the NAAQS.''

    The commenters state that ``this provision is not limited to areas 
attaining the NAAQS and instead applies in locations where NAAQS are 
being violated, but where emissions may further contribute to that 
violation.'' Thus, the commenters assert that R307-410 does not comply 
with the Utah SIP.
    Response: We understand Utah SIP Section VIII to apply to Utah's 
Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) program, which applies in 
attainment areas, not nonattainment areas. Reading the quoted passage 
in the comment, we understand the language to be explaining that Utah 
requires best available control technology for minor sources as an 
additional requirement beyond what is required by the PSD program. 
Nothing in the language of the quoted passage indicates to us that Utah 
intended the language to modify the requirements of R307-410. We do not 
agree that R307-410 conflicts with this SIP language.

III. Changes From our Proposed Action and Basis for our Final Action

    We have made one change from our proposed action. In our proposed 
action, we proposed to approve the provisions of R307-410, with the 
exception of R307-410-5, which we proposed to disapprove, and R307-410-
6, which we proposed to partially approve and partially disapprove. In 
this final action, we are changing our proposed partial approval/
partial disapproval of R307-410-6 to a limited approval/limited 
disapproval. This does not alter the intent behind our proposal, but 
changes the terminology and the approach to those that EPA has 
historically used when a provision meets some, but not all, of the 
statutory and regulatory requirements, approval of the provision would 
strengthen the SIP, and the compliant elements within the provision 
cannot be separated from the noncompliant elements.
    We have fully considered the comments we received, and with the 
exception of the change noted above, have concluded that no changes 
from our proposal are warranted. Our action is based on an evaluation 
of Utah's rules against the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(C) 
and our minor source NSR regulations at 40 CFR 51.160 through 51.164. 
We have also applied CAA section 110(l) in our evaluation of any 
changes Utah made in its September 15, 2006 submittal to the prior SIP-
approved version of its minor source NSR program. Section 110(l) 
provides that EPA shall not approve a revision to a plan if the 
revision would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning 
attainment and reasonable further progress (as defined in CAA section 
171), or any other applicable requirement of the CAA. This is 
particularly relevant to R307-401-9, which establishes de minimis 
thresholds below which sources need not obtain an approval order under 
R307-401. The State submitted a 110(l) demonstration for the de minimis 
thresholds contained in R307-401-9, and we evaluated that demonstration 
as part of our evaluation of Utah's rules.
    We are approving those rules that meet the relevant requirements 
and disapproving those rules that do not meet the relevant 
requirements, or are not appropriate for inclusion in the SIP (the 
rules addressing hazardous air pollutants). Where a rule meets some 
requirements but not all, either we are partially approving and 
partially disapproving the compliant and noncompliant portions of the 
rule or limitedly approving and limitedly disapproving the rule. We 
have concluded that R307-401-9's establishment of de minimis thresholds 
will not interfere with attainment or reasonable further progress 
toward attainment of any NAAQS, or any other CAA requirement. Thus, our 
partial approval of R307-401-9 is consistent with CAA section 110(l).
    For a detailed description of the bases for our actions on the 
individual rules, please refer to our notice of proposed rulemaking (78 
FR 35181) and our response to comments in section II of this action.

IV. Final Action

    From Utah's September 15, 2006 submittal, we are approving the 
following rules or parts of rules: R307-401-1 through 6; R307-401-8; 
R307-401-9 (except for paragraph (b) and the portions of paragraph (c) 
that reference paragraph (b)); R307-401-10 through 11; R307-401-13; 
R307-401-17 through 20; and R307-410-1 through 4. We are disapproving 
the following rules or parts of rules: R307-401-7; R307-401-9(b) and 
the portions of 9(c) that reference (9)(b); R307-401-12; and R307-410-
5. We are limitedly approving and limitedly disapproving R307-410-6--
that is, we are approving this provision because it will strengthen the 
SIP but are simultaneously disapproving it because it does not fully 
comply with applicable requirements.

V. Statutory and Executive Orders Review

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a 
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and 
applicable Federal regulations 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state 
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. 
Accordingly, this final action merely approves state law as meeting 
Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond 
those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to 
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based 
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the 
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent 
with the Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to 
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental 
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under 
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as 
specified by

[[Page 7077]]

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP 
is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state, and 
EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal 
governments or preempt tribal law.
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the 
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally 
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating 
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, 
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the 
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and 
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of 
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior 
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot 
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal 
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for 
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court 
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by April 7, 2014. Filing a 
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule 
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of 
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for 
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness 
of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in 
proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See CAA section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

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

    Dated: December 4, 2013.
Debra H. Thomas,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 8.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended to read as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart TT--[AMENDED]

0
2. Section 52.2320 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(75) to read as 
follows:

Sec.  52.2320  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (75) On September 15, 2006, the Governor submitted revisions to the 
Utah State Implementation Plan (SIP) permitting rules. The September 
15, 2006 submittal contains new, amended and renumbered rules in Utah 
Administrative Code (UAC) Title R-307 that pertain to the issuance of 
Utah air quality permits. EPA is approving the following rules or parts 
of rules from the September 15, 2006 submittal: R307-401-1 through 6; 
R307-401-8; R307-401-9 (except for paragraph (b) and the portions of 
paragraph (c) that reference paragraph (b)); R307-401-10 through 11; 
R307-401-13; R307-401-17 through 20; and R307-410-1 through 4. EPA is 
disapproving the following rules or parts of rules from the September 
15, 2006 submittal: R307-401-7; R307-401-9(b) and the portions of 9(c) 
that reference (9)(b); R307-401-12; and R307-410-5. EPA is limitedly 
approving and limitedly disapproving R307-410-6 from the September 15, 
2006 submittal--this means EPA is approving this rule because it will 
strengthen the SIP but is simultaneously disapproving it because it 
does not fully comply with applicable requirements. EPA is not acting 
on the revisions to UAC R307-101-2 because the revisions have been 
superseded by later revisions to the rule, which EPA approved at Sec.  
52.2320(c)(67) (see 73 FR 51222). EPA is not acting on R307-401-14 
through 16 because EPA previously acted on such provisions (notice of 
final rulemaking signed October 19, 2012).
    (i) Incorporation by reference.
    (A) Title R307 of the Utah Administrative Code, Environmental 
Quality, Air Quality, Rule R307-401, Permits: New and Modified Sources, 
Rule R307-401-1, Purpose; Rule R307-401-2, Definitions; Rule R307-401-
3, Applicability; Rule R307-401-4, General Requirements; Rule R307-401-
5, Notice of Intent; Rule R307-401-6, Review Period; Rule R307-401-8, 
Approval Order; R307-401-9, Small Source Exemption except for R307-401-
9(1)(b) and the phrase ``or (b)'' in R307-401-9(1)(c); Rule R307-401-
10, Source Category Exemptions; Rule R307-401-11, Replacement-in-Kind 
Equipment; Rule R307-401-13, Plantwide Applicability Limits; Rule R307-
401-17, Temporary Relocation; Rule R307-401-18, Eighteen Month Review; 
Rule R307-401-19, Analysis of Alternatives; and Rule R307-401-20, 
Relaxation of Limitations. Title R307 of the Utah Administrative Code, 
Environmental Quality, Air Quality, Rule R307-410, Permits: Emissions 
Impact Analysis, Rule R307-410-1, Purpose; Rule R307-410-2, 
Definitions; Rule R307-410-3, Use of Dispersion Models; R307-410-4, 
Modeling of Criteria Pollutant Impacts in Attainment Areas; and R307-
410-6, Stack Heights and Dispersion Techniques. Effective June 16, 
2006, as published in the Utah State Bulletin on December 1, 2005, 
modified on April 1, 2006, and July 15, 2006. Note: The July 15, 2006 
publication contains a typographical error in the title for Rule R307-
410.

[FR Doc. 2014-02080 Filed 2-5-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P