81 FR 55156 - Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; State of Utah; Revisions to the Utah Division of Administrative Rules, R307-300 Series; Area Source Rules for Attainment of Fine Particulate Matter Standards

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 160 (August 18, 2016)

Page Range		55156-55160
FR Document		2016-19775

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing approval of portions of the fine particulate matter (PM<INF>2.5</INF>) State Implementation Plan (SIP) and other general rule revisions submitted by the State of Utah. The revisions affect the Utah Division of Administrative Rules (DAR), R307-300 Series; Requirements for Specific Locations. The revisions had submission dates of May 9, 2013, May 20, 2014, September 8, 2015, and March 8, 2016. The March 8, 2016 submittal contains rule revisions to address our February 25, 2016 conditional approval of several Utah DAR R307-300 Series rules submitted on February 2, 2012, May 9, 2013, and May 20, 2014. These area source rules control emissions of direct PM<INF>2.5</INF> and PM<INF>2.5</INF> precursors, which are sulfur dioxides (SO<INF>2</INF>), nitrogen oxides (NO<INF>X</INF>) and volatile organic compounds (VOC). Additionally, the EPA is proposing to approve the State's reasonably available control measure (RACM) determinations for the rule revisions that pertain to the PM<INF>2.5</INF> SIP. This action is being taken under section 110 of the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act).

Federal Register, Volume 81 Issue 160 (Thursday, August 18, 2016)

[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 160 (Thursday, August 18, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 55156-55160]
From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org]
[FR Doc No: 2016-19775]

[[Page 55156]]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R08-OAR-2016-0311; FRL-9951-04-Region 8]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
State of Utah; Revisions to the Utah Division of Administrative Rules,
R307-300 Series; Area Source Rules for Attainment of Fine Particulate
Matter Standards

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing
approval of portions of the fine particulate matter (PM2.5)
State Implementation Plan (SIP) and other general rule revisions
submitted by the State of Utah. The revisions affect the Utah Division
of Administrative Rules (DAR), R307-300 Series; Requirements for
Specific Locations. The revisions had submission dates of May 9, 2013,
May 20, 2014, September 8, 2015, and March 8, 2016. The March 8, 2016
submittal contains rule revisions to address our February 25, 2016
conditional approval of several Utah DAR R307-300 Series rules
submitted on February 2, 2012, May 9, 2013, and May 20, 2014. These
area source rules control emissions of direct PM2.5 and
PM2.5 precursors, which are sulfur dioxides
(SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOX) and volatile organic
compounds (VOC). Additionally, the EPA is proposing to approve the
State's reasonably available control measure (RACM) determinations for
the rule revisions that pertain to the PM2.5 SIP. This
action is being taken under section 110 of the Clean Air Act (CAA or
Act).

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before September 19,
2016.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by EPA-R08-OAR-2016-0311 at
http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for
submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or
removed from regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any comment received
to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you
consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written
comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and
should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment
policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general
guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://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 at http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA Region 8, Office of
Partnerships and Regulatory Assistance, Air Program, 1595 Wynkoop
Street, Denver, Colorado, 80202-1129. The 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: Crystal Ostigaard, Air Program, EPA,
Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-
1129, (303) 312-6602, ostigaard.crystal@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

a. Submitting 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 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.
b. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
i. Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
ii. 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.
iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and
substitute language for your requested changes.
iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information
and/or data that you used.
v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and
suggest alternatives.
vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of
profanity or personal threats.
viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.

II. Background

A. Regulatory Background

On October 17, 2006 (71 FR 61144), the EPA strengthened the level
of the 24-hour PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS), lowering the primary and secondary standards from 65
micrograms per cubic meter ([mu]g/m\3\), the 1997 standard, to
35[micro]g/m\3\. On November 13, 2009 (74 FR 58688), the EPA designated
three nonattainment areas in Utah for the 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS of 35 [mu]g/m\3\. These are the Salt Lake City, Utah; Provo,
Utah; and Logan, Utah-Idaho nonattainment areas. The EPA originally
designated these areas under CAA title I, part D, subpart 1, which
required Utah to submit an attainment plan for each area no later than
three years from the date of their nonattainment designations. These
plans needed to provide for the attainment of the PM2.5
standard as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than five years
from the date the areas were designated nonattainment.
Subsequently, on January 4, 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia held that the EPA should have implemented the 2006
PM2.5 24-hour standard based on both CAA title I, part D,
subpart 1 and subpart 4. NRDC v. EPA, 706 F.3d 428 (D.C. Cir. 2013).
Under subpart 4, nonattainment areas are initially classified as
moderate, and

[[Page 55157]]

moderate area attainment plans must address the requirements of subpart
4 as well as subpart 1. Additionally, CAA subpart 4 sets a different
SIP submittal due date and attainment year. For a moderate area, the
attainment SIP is due 18 months after designation, and the attainment
year is the end of the sixth calendar year after designation. On June
2, 2014 (79 FR 31566), the EPA finalized the Identification of
Nonattainment Classification and Deadlines for Submission of State
Implementation Plan (SIP) Provisions for the 1997 Fine Particulate
(PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) and
2006 PM2.5 NAAQS (``the Classification and Deadline Rule'').
This rule classified to moderate the areas that were designated in 2009
as nonattainment, and set the attainment SIP submittal due date for
those areas at December 31, 2014. This rule did not affect the moderate
area attainment date of December 31, 2015.
On March 23, 2015, the EPA proposed the Fine Particulate Matter
National Ambient Air Quality Standards: State Implementation Plan
Requirements (``PM2.5 Implementation Rule''), 80 FR 15340,
which partially addresses the January 4, 2013 court ruling. This
proposed rule details how air agencies should meet the statutory SIP
requirements that apply under subparts 1 and 4 to areas designated
nonattainment for any PM2.5 NAAQS, such as: General
requirements for attainment plan due dates and attainment
demonstrations; provisions for demonstrating reasonable further
progress (RFP); quantitative milestones; contingency measures;
Nonattainment New Source Review (NNSR) permitting programs; and RACM
(including reasonably available control technology (RACT)), among other
things. The statutory attainment planning requirements of subparts 1
and 4 were established to ensure that the following goals of the CAA
are met: (i) That states implement measures that provide for attainment
of the PM2.5 NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable; and,
(ii) that states adopt emissions reduction strategies that will be the
most effective, and the most cost-effective, at reducing
PM2.5 levels in nonattainment areas.
The PM2.5 Implementation Rule proposed a process for
states to determine the control strategy for PM2.5
attainment plans. The process consists of identifying all
technologically and economically feasible control measures, including
control technologies for all sources of direct PM2.5 and
PM2.5 precursors in the emissions inventory for the
nonattainment area which are not otherwise exempted from consideration
for controls.\1\ From that list of measures, the state must identify
those that it can implement within four years of designation of the
area (and which would thus meet the statutory requirements for RACM and
RACT) and any ``additional reasonable measures,'' which the EPA is
proposing in the PM2.5 Implementation Rule to define as
those technologically and economically feasible measures that the state
can only implement on sources in the nonattainment area after the four-
year deadline for RACM and RACT has passed. See proposed 40 CFR
51.1000. The EPA is currently in the process of preparing its final
action on the proposed rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ Such exemptions could be due to a demonstrated lack of
significant contribution of a certain PM2.5 precursor to
the area's elevated PM2.5 concentrations or due to a
presumptive determination that a certain source category contributes
only a de minimis amount toward PM2.5 levels in a
nonattainment area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. RACT and RACM Requirements for PM2.5 Attainment Plans

Section 172(c)(1) of the Act (from subpart 1) requires that
attainment plans, in general, provide for the implementation of all
RACM as expeditiously as practicable (including RACT) and shall provide
for attainment of the national primary ambient air quality standards.
Section 189(a)(1)(C) (from subpart 4) requires moderate area attainment
plans to contain provisions to assure that RACM is implemented no later
than four years after designation.
The EPA stated its interpretation of the RACT and RACM requirements
of subparts 1 and 4 in the 1992 General Preamble for the Implementation
of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, 57 FR 13498 (Apr.
6, 1992). For RACT, the EPA followed its ``historic definition of RACT
as the lowest emission limitation that a particular source is capable
of meeting by the application of control technology that is reasonably
available considering technological and economic feasibility.'' 57 FR
13541. Like RACT, the EPA has historically considered RACM to consist
of control measures that are reasonably available, considering
technological and economic feasibility. See PM2.5
Implementation Rule, 80 FR 15373.

C. Utah's PM2.5 Attainment Plan Submittals

Under section 110(k)(4) of the Act, the EPA may approve a SIP
revision based on a commitment by the state to adopt specific
enforceable measures by a date certain, but not later than one year
after the date of approval of the plan revision. If we finalize our
proposed conditional approval, Utah must adopt and submit the specific
revisions it has committed to within one year of our finalization. If
Utah does not submit these revisions within one year, or if we find
Utah's revisions to be incomplete, or we disapprove Utah's revisions,
this conditional approval will convert to a disapproval. If any of
these occur and our conditional approval converts to a disapproval,
that will constitute a disapproval of a required plan element under
part D of title I of the Act, which starts an 18-month clock for
sanctions, see section 179(a)(2), and the two-year clock for a federal
implementation plan (FIP), see section 110(c)(1)(B).
Prior to the January 4, 2013 decision of the D.C. Circuit Court of
Appeals, Utah developed a PM2.5 attainment plan intended to
meet the requirements of subpart 1. The EPA submitted written comments
dated November 1, 2012, to the Utah Division of Air Quality (UDAQ) on
Utah's draft PM2.5 SIP, technical support document (TSD),
and area source and other rules. After the court's decision, Utah
amended its attainment plan to address requirements of subpart 4. On
December 2, 2013, the EPA provided comments on Utah's revised draft
PM2.5 SIPs for the Salt Lake City and Provo areas, including
the TSDs and rules in Section IX, Part H. These written comments from
the EPA included some comments applicable to the rules we are proposing
to act on today. The comment letters can be found within the docket for
this action on www.regulations.gov.
In addition, Utah provided a commitment letter dated August 4,
2015, committing to revise R307-101, General Requirements; R307-312,
Aggregate Processing Operations for PM2.5 Nonattainment
Areas; and R307-328, Gasoline Transfer and Storage. The EPA issued a
conditional approval of the revisions on February 25, 2016 (81 FR
9343), based on the commitment letter. In that action, the EPA also
approved other area source rules and conditionally approved the
determination of RACM for these specific rules from Utah's moderate
PM2.5 SIPs. When the EPA takes final action on today's
proposal, it will complete the action on the revisions described
earlier and the determination of RACM for these specific rules from
Utah's moderate PM2.5 SIPs.
Furthermore, Utah submitted revisions to R307-302, Solid Fuel
Burning Devices in Box Elder, Cache, Davis, Salt Lake, Tooele, Utah,
and Weber Counties on May 9, 2013, May 20, 2014, and September 8, 2015.
With this action, the EPA is proposing to conditionally approve R307-
302 based

[[Page 55158]]

on the May 19, 2016 commitment letter submitted by UDAQ. This rule is
applicable to the Utah SIPs for PM2.5 nonattainment areas.

III. EPA's Evaluation of Utah's Submittals

SIP revisions for R307-101 were submitted on May 9, 2013, May 20,
2014, and March 8, 2016. For R307-312, revisions were submitted on May
9, 2013, and March 8, 2016. Revisions for R307-328 were submitted on
February 2, 2012, and March 8, 2016. In an August 4, 2015 commitment
letter, UDAQ committed to revise R307-101, R307-312 and R307-328 and
EPA conditionally approved these rules on February 25, 2016 (81 FR
9343). Additionally, SIP revisions were submitted for R307-302 on May
9, 2013, May 20, 2014, and September 8, 2015. However, the EPA
identified an issue with R307-302 relating to startup, shutdown, and
malfunction provisions, and Utah provided a commitment letter dated May
19, 2016, that contains a commitment to revise R307-302 to address this
issue. The EPA is proposing conditional approval of the three
submittals based on Utah's May 19, 2016 commitment letter. These final
rule submissions, except for revisions to R307-101 and R307-328, are
submitted as RACM components of the PM2.5 SIP submitted by
the State of Utah. The area source rules for RACM, R307-302 and R307-
312, provide specific requirements for emissions of direct
PM2.5, VOCs, NOX, and SO2 from a few
specific categories of sources. All of these rule revision submittals
and commitment letters can found on www.regulations.gov.
The following is a summary of EPA's evaluation of the rule
revisions. In general, we reviewed the rules for: enforceability; RACM
requirements (for those rules submitted as RACM); and other applicable
requirements of the Act.

1. R307-101, General Requirements

Rule R307-101 provides general requirements that pertain to all
UDAQ R307 rules, which constitute the basis for control of air
pollution sources in the State of Utah. The primary section is R307-
101-2 Definitions, which provide definitions that are applicable to all
R307 rules, except for those definitions as specified in individual
rules. UDAQ committed in its letter dated August 4, 2015, to remove the
definition of ``PM2.5 precursor,'' as that definition is not
used for regulatory purposes in Utah's SIP. Additionally, a
``Nonsubstantive Rule Amendment'' was made by Utah to correct a
citation to the United States Code of Federal Regulations 40 CFR
51.100. In accordance with Utah Code Title 19, Chapter 2, Air
Conservation Act, Utah Code Title 63G, Chapter 3, Administrative
Rulemaking Act, and Utah Administrative Code, R15, Administrative
Rules, this change was made without public comment, as appropriate for
a non-substantive change. This submittal was made by UDAQ on May 20,
2014, and was included in the conditional approval finalized by the EPA
on February 25, 2016. With UDAQ's March 8, 2016 submittal, the
definition ``PM2.5 precursor'' was removed, which satisfies
the commitment letter on which the EPA's conditional approval was based
and completes the EPA's actions on the May 9, 2013 and May 20, 2014
submittals for R307-101 from UDAQ. (February 25, 2016; 81 FR 9343.)
Additionally, UDAQ submitted to the EPA other revisions to R307-
101-2 on March 8, 2016. These revisions included revisions to the
``Clean Air Act'' definition and ``Maintenance Area'' definition,
specific to coarse particulate matter (PM10). The definition
for ``Clean Air Act'' was revised to mean ``federal Clean Air Act as
found in 42 U.S.C. Chapter 85.'' The revisions to the ``Maintenance
Area'' definition, specific to PM10, updated the date on
when the Board adopted the maintenance plans for Salt Lake County, Utah
County, and Ogden City to ``December 2, 2015.''
The Board proposed for public comment the removal of the definition
``PM2.5 Precursor'' in R307-101-2 on October 7, 2015, and
the public comment period was held from November 1, 2015, through
December 1, 2015. No comments were received and no hearing was
requested for this comment period. The Board adopted the revision to
R307-101-2 on February 3, 2016, and it became effective on February 4,
2016. Amendments to R307-101-2 were proposed by the Board on December
2, 2015, and were out for a comment period of January 1, 2016, through
February 2, 2016. No comments were received and no hearing was
requested for this comment period. The final revision of Rule R307-101-
2 was adopted by the Board on March 2, 2016, and became effective on
March 3, 2016, and is applicable to the entire state of Utah.
With UDAQ's March 8, 2016 submittal, section R307-101 was revised
to represent what was in the commitment letter, which satisfies the
EPA's conditional approval. Additionally, the EPA is proposing to
approve the other definition revisions to R307-101 as stated earlier.

2. R307-302, Solid Fuel Burning Devices in Box Elder, Cache, Davis,
Salt Lake, Tooele, Utah, and Weber Counties

Rule R307-302 is an existing rule that was approved by the EPA on
February 14, 2006 (71 FR 7679). This rule establishes emission
standards for fireplaces and solid fuel burning devices used in
residential, commercial, institutional and industrial facilities and
associated outbuilding used to provide comfort heating.
The Board proposed revisions to R307-302 for public comment on
October 7, 2015, with the public comment period held from November 1 to
December 1, 2015. No comments were received and no public hearing was
requested. The Board adopted the latest revision to R307-302 on
February 3, 2016, and it became effective on February 4, 2015.
The EPA requested that UDAQ commit to revise R307-302-5 which
states ``R307-302-5. Opacity for Heating Appliances. Except during no-
burn periods as required by R307-302-2 and 4, visible emissions from
solid fuel burning devices and fireplaces shall be limited to a shade
or density no darker than 20% opacity as measured by EPA Method 9,
except for the following: (1) An initial fifteen minute start-up
period, and (2) A period of fifteen minutes in any three-hour period in
which emissions may exceed the 20% opacity limitation for refueling.''
The requested change is to provide continuous controls to cover
startup, shutdown, and malfunction requirements. UDAQ committed in its
May 19, 2016 letter to add continuous controls that extend to startup,
shutdown, and malfunction, by establishing a prohibition on fuel types
that can't be burned in a solid fuel burning device at any time.
Utah's RACM and rule analysis can be found in the docket posted on
regulations.gov. For direct PM2.5, the RACM analysis
considered the effect of lowering the wood burning prohibition action
level from 35 [mu]g/m\3\ to 25 [mu]g/m\3\ and alternatively to 15
[mu]g/m\3\, and the sales restriction of solid fuel devices to only
EPA-approved wood stoves. In choosing a wood burning prohibition action
level, UDAQ determined that 25 [mu]g/m\3\ was representative of RACM,
and chose to establish the 15 [mu]g/m\3\ action level as a contingency
measure. UDAQ also established a sales restriction on solid fuel
devices to EPA-approved wood stoves, with a phase-in schedule of 90% by
2014, 92.5% by 2017, and 95% by 2019.
The EPA agrees with the revisions that UDAQ has committed to and is
proposing a conditional approval of the

[[Page 55159]]

revisions to R307-302; and also proposing to find that R307-302, as
revised, constitutes RACM for the Nonattainment Areas for Solid Fuel
Burning Devices in Box Elder, Cache, Davis, Salt Lake, Tooele, and
Weber Counties for the Utah PM2.5 SIP, with the commitment
to adopt measures to address startup, shutdown, and malfunction events.

3. R307-312, Aggregate Processing Operations for PM2.5
Nonattainment Areas

R307-312 establishes emission standards for sources in the
aggregate processing industry, including aggregate processing
equipment, hot mix asphalt plants, and concrete batch plants. The rule
applies to all crushers, screens, conveyors, hot mix asphalt plants,
and concrete batch plants located within a PM2.5
nonattainment and maintenance area as defined in 40 CFR 81.345 (July 1,
2011). The provisions of R307-312 do not apply to temporary hot mix
asphalt plants.
The EPA requested that UDAQ commit to revise R307-312-5(2)(a) which
states ``Production shall be determined by scale house records or
equivalent method on a daily basis.'' The EPA requested that UDAQ
identify what could be used as an ``equivalent method'' in its rule.
UDAQ committed in their August 4, 2015 letter to remove ``equivalent
method'' and state ``Production shall be determined by scale house
records, scale house or belt scale records, or manifest statements on a
daily basis.'' The EPA finalized this commitment and conditional
approval on February 25, 2016 (81 FR 9343). With UDAQ's March 8, 2016
submittal, section R307-312-5(2)(a) was revised to represent what was
in the commitment letter, which satisfies the condition specified in
the conditional approval and completes the EPA's action on the May 9,
2013 submittal for R307-312 from UDAQ.
The Board proposed revisions to R307-312 for public comment on
October 7, 2015, with the public comment period held from November 1 to
December 1, 2015. No comments were received and no public hearing was
requested. The Board adopted the revision to R307-312 on February 3,
2016, and it became effective on February 4, 2016.
Utah's RACM and rule analysis can be found in the docket posted on
regulations.gov. For direct PM2.5, the RACM analysis
considered the following as technologically feasible control measures
for aggregate processing: water application, enclosures, and add-on
control devices, including a baghouse, electrostatic precipitator, wet
scrubber, and cyclone. UDAQ considered enclosures and add-on controls
to not be economically feasible for aggregate processing equipment and
determined water application to be RACM at a cost-effectiveness of
$650/ton. However, water application was not considered feasible for
the one existing concrete batch plant; and UDAQ determined RACM to be
the existing baghouse and fabric filter controls. The RACM analysis
considered the following add-on controls as technologically feasible
for filterable particulate matter (PM) from hot mix asphalt plants:
baghouse, electrostatic precipitator, wet scrubber, and cyclone. UDAQ
did not find any controls technologically feasible for condensable PM.
The analysis considered all the add-on controls to be economically
feasible; and UDAQ correspondingly set a direct PM2.5 limit
of 0.024 gr/dscf. For NOX, UDAQ considered low-
NOX burners, NSCR, SCR, and use of natural gas to be
technically feasible. UDAQ determined that use of natural gas was RACM.
The EPA agrees with the revisions that UDAQ has made to R307-312
and is proposing approval. Additionally, the EPA is proposing to find
that R307-312, as revised, constitutes RACM for the Nonattainment Areas
for Aggregate Processing Operations for the Utah PM2.5 SIP.
This proposal is based on our review of the RACM analysis provided in
Utah's PM2.5 SIP.

4. R307-328, Gasoline Transfer and Storage

R307-328 establishes controls of gasoline vapors during the filling
of gasoline cargo tank and storage tanks in Utah. The rule is based on
federal control technique guidance documents. This requirement is
commonly referred to as stage I vapor recovery.
The EPA requested that UDAQ commit to revise R307-328-4(6) which
stated ``A gasoline storage and transfer installation that receives
inbound loads and dispatches outbound loads (``bulk plant'') need not
comply with R307-328-4 if it does not have a daily average throughput
of more than 3,900 gallons (15,000 or more liters) of gasoline based
upon a 30-day rolling average. Such installations shall on-load and
off-load gasoline by use of bottom or submerged filling or alternate
equivalent methods. The emission limitation is based on operating
procedures and equipment specifications using RACT as defined in EPA
documents EPA 450/2-77-026 October 1977, ``Control of Hydrocarbons from
Tank Truck Gasoline Loading Terminals,'' and EPA-450/2-77-035 December
1977, ``Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Bulk Gasoline
Plants.'' The design effectiveness of such equipment and the operating
procedures must be documented and submitted to and approved by the
executive secretary.'' The requested change was to remove the
``alternative equivalent method'' from this section. UDAQ committed in
their August 4, 2015 letter to remove ``alternative equivalent method''
and state: ``A gasoline storage and transfer installation that receives
inbound loads and dispatches outbound loads (``bulk plant'') need not
comply with R307-328-4 if it does not have a daily average throughput
of more than 3,900 gallons (15,000 or more liters) of gasoline based
upon a 30-day rolling average. Such installations shall on-load and
off-load gasoline by use of bottom or submerged filling. The emission
limitation is based on operating procedures and equipment
specifications using RACT as defined in EPA documents EPA 450/2-77-026
October 1977, ``Control of Hydrocarbons from Tank Truck Gasoline
Loading Terminals,'' and EPA-450/2-77-035 December 1977, ``Control of
Volatile Organic Emissions from Bulk Gasoline Plants.'' The design
effectiveness of such equipment and the operating procedures must be
documented and submitted to and approved by the executive secretary.''
The EPA finalized this commitment and conditional approval on
February 25, 2016 (81 FR 9343). The Board proposed revisions to R307-
328 for public comment on October 7, 2015, with the public comment
period held from November 1 to December 1, 2015. No comments were
received and no public hearing was requested. The Board adopted the
revision to R307-328 on February 3, 2016, and it became effective on
February 4, 2016. With UDAQ's March 8, 2016 submittal, the section,
R307-328-4(6), was revised to represent what was in the commitment
letter, which satisfies the EPA's conditional approval and completes
the EPA's action on the February 2, 2012 submittal for R307-328 from
UDAQ. Therefore, the EPA is proposing approval of the rule, R307-328.

IV. What action is EPA proposing?

The EPA is proposing approval of the revisions to Administrative
Rules R307-101-2, along with the revisions in R307-300 Series;
Requirements for Specific Locations (Within Nonattainment and
Maintenance Areas), R307-302 (conditional approval, described later),
R307-312, and R307-328 for incorporation to the Utah SIP as submitted
by the State of Utah on May

[[Page 55160]]

9, 2013, May 20, 2014, September 8, 2015, and March 8, 2016. This
proposal will complete the EPA's February 25, 2016 (81 FR 9343)
conditional approval action on the February 2, 2012, May 9, 2013, and
May 20, 2014 submittals for R307-101, R307-312, and R307-328 from UDAQ.
We are proposing to approve Utah's determination that R307-312
constitutes RACM for the Utah PM2.5 SIP; however, we are not
proposing to determine that Utah's PM2.5 attainment plan has
met all requirements regarding RACM under subparts 1 and 4 of Part D,
title I of the Act. We intend to act separately on the remainder of
Utah's PM2.5 attainment plan.
The EPA is proposing to conditionally approve revisions to R307-302
and conditionally approve Utah's determination that R307-302
constitutes RACM for the Utah PM2.5 SIP for solid fuel
burning devices in Box Elder, Cache, Davis, Salt Lake, Tooele, Utah,
and Weber Counties. As stated earlier, we are not proposing to
determine that Utah's PM2.5 attainment plan has met all
requirements regarding RACM under subparts 1 and 4 of part D, title I
of the Act. Under section 110(k)(4) of the Act, the EPA may approve a
SIP revision based on a commitment by the State to adopt specific
enforceable measures by a date certain, but not later than one year
after the date of approval of the plan revision. On May 19, 2016, Utah
submitted a commitment letter to adopt and submit specific revisions
within one year of our final action on these submittals; specifically
to include continuous controls to cover start-up, shutdown, and
malfunction requirements. If we finalize our proposed conditional
approval, Utah must adopt and submit the specific revisions it has
committed to within one year of our final action. If Utah does not
submit these revisions within one year, or if we find Utah's revisions
to be incomplete, or we disapprove Utah's revisions, this conditional
approval will convert to a disapproval. If any of these occur and our
conditional approvals convert to a disapproval, that will constitute a
disapproval of a required plan element under part D of title I of the
Act, which starts an 18-month clock for sanctions, see CAA section
179(a)(2), and the two-year clock for a FIP, see CAA section
110(c)(1)(B).

V. Consideration of Section 110(l) of the CAA

Under section 110(l) of the CAA, the EPA cannot approve a SIP
revision if the revision would interfere with any applicable
requirements concerning attainment and RFP toward attainment of the
NAAQS, or any other applicable requirement of the Act. In addition,
section 110(l) requires that each revision to an implementation plan
submitted by a state shall be adopted by the state after reasonable
notice and public hearing.
The Utah SIP revisions that the EPA is proposing to approve do not
interfere with any applicable requirements of the Act. The DAR section
R307-300 Series submitted by the UDAQ on February 2, 2012, May 9, 2013,
May 20, 2014, September 8, 2015, and March 8, 2016, are intended to
strengthen the SIP and to serve as RACM for certain area sources for
the Utah PM2.5 SIP. Therefore, CAA section 110(l)
requirements are satisfied.

VI. Incorporation by Reference

In this rule, the EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule
regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance
with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to incorporate by
reference the UDAQ rules promulgated in the DAR, R307-300 Series as
discussed in section III of this preamble. The EPA has made, and will
continue to make, these materials generally available through
www.regulations.gov and/or at the EPA Region 8 Office (please contact
the person identified in the For Further Information Contact section of
this preamble for more information).

VII. 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, the EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this action merely proposes to approve state law as
meeting federal requirements and 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 the 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, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe
has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of
Indian Country, the proposed rule does not have tribal implications and
will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or
preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249,
November 9, 2000).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

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

Dated: August 5, 2016.
Debra H. Thomas,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 8.
[FR Doc. 2016-19775 Filed 8-17-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

55156 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 160 / Thursday, August 18, 2016 / Proposed Rules

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION considered the official comment and b. Tips for Preparing Your Comments.
AGENCY should include discussion of all points When submitting comments, remember
you wish to make. The EPA will to:
40 CFR Part 52 generally not consider comments or i. Identify the rulemaking by docket
[EPA–R08–OAR–2016–0311; FRL–9951–04– comment contents located outside of the number and other identifying
Region 8] primary submission (i.e., on the web, information (subject heading, Federal
cloud, or other file sharing system). For Register date and page number).
Approval and Promulgation of Air additional submission methods, the full ii. Follow directions—The agency
Quality Implementation Plans; State of EPA public comment policy, may ask you to respond to specific
Utah; Revisions to the Utah Division of information about CBI or multimedia questions or organize comments by
Administrative Rules, R307–300 submissions, and general guidance on referencing a Code of Federal
Series; Area Source Rules for making effective comments, please visit Regulations (CFR) part or section
Attainment of Fine Particulate Matter http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/ number.
Standards commenting-epa-dockets. iii. Explain why you agree or disagree;
suggest alternatives and substitute
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Docket: All documents in the docket
language for your requested changes.
Agency (EPA). are listed in the http://
iv. Describe any assumptions and
ACTION: Proposed rule.
www.regulations.gov index. Although
provide any technical information and/
listed in the index, some information is or data that you used.
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other v. If you estimate potential costs or
Agency (EPA) is proposing approval of information whose disclosure is burdens, explain how you arrived at
portions of the fine particulate matter restricted by statute. Certain other your estimate in sufficient detail to
(PM2.5) State Implementation Plan (SIP) material, such as copyrighted material, allow for it to be reproduced.
and other general rule revisions will be publicly available only in hard vi. Provide specific examples to
submitted by the State of Utah. The copy. Publicly-available docket illustrate your concerns, and suggest
revisions affect the Utah Division of materials are available at http:// alternatives.
Administrative Rules (DAR), R307–300 www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at vii. Explain your views as clearly as
Series; Requirements for Specific the EPA Region 8, Office of Partnerships possible, avoiding the use of profanity
Locations. The revisions had and Regulatory Assistance, Air Program, or personal threats.
submission dates of May 9, 2013, May 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, viii. Make sure to submit your
20, 2014, September 8, 2015, and March Colorado, 80202–1129. The EPA comments by the comment period
8, 2016. The March 8, 2016 submittal requests that if at all possible, you deadline identified.
contains rule revisions to address our contact the individual listed in the FOR
February 25, 2016 conditional approval FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to II. Background
of several Utah DAR R307–300 Series view the hard copy of the docket. You A. Regulatory Background
rules submitted on February 2, 2012, may view the hard copy of the docket
May 9, 2013, and May 20, 2014. These Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to On October 17, 2006 (71 FR 61144),
area source rules control emissions of the EPA strengthened the level of the
4:00 p.m., excluding federal holidays.
direct PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors, 24-hour PM2.5 National Ambient Air
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Quality Standards (NAAQS), lowering
which are sulfur dioxides (SO2),
nitrogen oxides (NOX) and volatile Crystal Ostigaard, Air Program, EPA, the primary and secondary standards
organic compounds (VOC). Region 8, Mailcode 8P–AR, 1595 from 65 micrograms per cubic meter
Additionally, the EPA is proposing to Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado (mg/m3), the 1997 standard, to 35mg/m3.
approve the State’s reasonably available 80202–1129, (303) 312–6602, On November 13, 2009 (74 FR 58688),
control measure (RACM) determinations ostigaard.crystal@epa.gov. the EPA designated three nonattainment
for the rule revisions that pertain to the areas in Utah for the 24-hour PM2.5
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
PM2.5 SIP. This action is being taken NAAQS of 35 mg/m3. These are the Salt
under section 110 of the Clean Air Act I. General Information Lake City, Utah; Provo, Utah; and
(CAA or Act). Logan, Utah-Idaho nonattainment areas.
a. Submitting CBI. Do not submit CBI The EPA originally designated these
DATES: Written comments must be to EPA through http:// areas under CAA title I, part D, subpart
received on or before September 19, www.regulations.gov or email. Clearly 1, which required Utah to submit an
2016. mark the part or all of the information attainment plan for each area no later
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, that you claim to be CBI. For CBI than three years from the date of their
identified by EPA–R08–OAR–2016– information in a disk or CD ROM that nonattainment designations. These
0311 at http://www.regulations.gov. you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the plans needed to provide for the
Follow the online instructions for disk or CD ROM as CBI and then attainment of the PM2.5 standard as
submitting comments. Once submitted, identify electronically within the disk or expeditiously as practicable, but no later
comments cannot be edited or removed CD ROM the specific information that is than five years from the date the areas
from regulations.gov. The EPA may claimed as CBI. In addition to one were designated nonattainment.
publish any comment received to its complete version of the comment that Subsequently, on January 4, 2013, the
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS

public docket. Do not submit includes information claimed as CBI, a U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of
electronically any information you copy of the comment that does not Columbia held that the EPA should
consider to be Confidential Business contain the information claimed as CBI have implemented the 2006 PM2.5 24-
Information (CBI) or other information must be submitted for inclusion in the hour standard based on both CAA title
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. public docket. Information so marked I, part D, subpart 1 and subpart 4. NRDC
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, will not be disclosed except in v. EPA, 706 F.3d 428 (D.C. Cir. 2013).
etc.) must be accompanied by a written accordance with procedures set forth in Under subpart 4, nonattainment areas
comment. The written comment is 40 CFR part 2. are initially classified as moderate, and

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:03 Aug 17, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\18AUP1.SGM 18AUP1

55158 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 160 / Thursday, August 18, 2016 / Proposed Rules

on the May 19, 2016 commitment letter to the United States Code of Federal 2. R307–302, Solid Fuel Burning Devices
submitted by UDAQ. This rule is Regulations 40 CFR 51.100. In in Box Elder, Cache, Davis, Salt Lake,
applicable to the Utah SIPs for PM2.5 accordance with Utah Code Title 19, Tooele, Utah, and Weber Counties
nonattainment areas. Chapter 2, Air Conservation Act, Utah Rule R307–302 is an existing rule that
Code Title 63G, Chapter 3, was approved by the EPA on February
III. EPA’s Evaluation of Utah’s
Administrative Rulemaking Act, and 14, 2006 (71 FR 7679). This rule
Submittals
Utah Administrative Code, R15, establishes emission standards for
SIP revisions for R307–101 were Administrative Rules, this change was
submitted on May 9, 2013, May 20, fireplaces and solid fuel burning devices
made without public comment, as used in residential, commercial,
2014, and March 8, 2016. For R307–312, appropriate for a non-substantive
revisions were submitted on May 9, institutional and industrial facilities and
change. This submittal was made by
2013, and March 8, 2016. Revisions for associated outbuilding used to provide
UDAQ on May 20, 2014, and was
R307–328 were submitted on February comfort heating.
included in the conditional approval The Board proposed revisions to
2, 2012, and March 8, 2016. In an finalized by the EPA on February 25,
August 4, 2015 commitment letter, R307–302 for public comment on
2016. With UDAQ’s March 8, 2016
UDAQ committed to revise R307–101, October 7, 2015, with the public
submittal, the definition ‘‘PM2.5
R307–312 and R307–328 and EPA comment period held from November 1
precursor’’ was removed, which satisfies
conditionally approved these rules on to December 1, 2015. No comments
the commitment letter on which the
February 25, 2016 (81 FR 9343). were received and no public hearing
EPA’s conditional approval was based
Additionally, SIP revisions were was requested. The Board adopted the
and completes the EPA’s actions on the
submitted for R307–302 on May 9, 2013, latest revision to R307–302 on February
May 9, 2013 and May 20, 2014
May 20, 2014, and September 8, 2015. 3, 2016, and it became effective on
submittals for R307–101 from UDAQ.
However, the EPA identified an issue February 4, 2015.
(February 25, 2016; 81 FR 9343.)
with R307–302 relating to startup, Additionally, UDAQ submitted to the The EPA requested that UDAQ
shutdown, and malfunction provisions, EPA other revisions to R307–101–2 on commit to revise R307–302–5 which
and Utah provided a commitment letter March 8, 2016. These revisions included states ‘‘R307–302–5. Opacity for Heating
dated May 19, 2016, that contains a revisions to the ‘‘Clean Air Act’’ Appliances. Except during no-burn
commitment to revise R307–302 to definition and ‘‘Maintenance Area’’ periods as required by R307–302–2 and
address this issue. The EPA is proposing definition, specific to coarse particulate 4, visible emissions from solid fuel
conditional approval of the three matter (PM10). The definition for ‘‘Clean burning devices and fireplaces shall be
submittals based on Utah’s May 19, Air Act’’ was revised to mean ‘‘federal limited to a shade or density no darker
2016 commitment letter. These final Clean Air Act as found in 42 U.S.C. than 20% opacity as measured by EPA
rule submissions, except for revisions to Chapter 85.’’ The revisions to the Method 9, except for the following: (1)
R307–101 and R307–328, are submitted ‘‘Maintenance Area’’ definition, specific An initial fifteen minute start-up period,
as RACM components of the PM2.5 SIP to PM10, updated the date on when the and (2) A period of fifteen minutes in
submitted by the State of Utah. The area Board adopted the maintenance plans any three-hour period in which
source rules for RACM, R307–302 and for Salt Lake County, Utah County, and emissions may exceed the 20% opacity
R307–312, provide specific Ogden City to ‘‘December 2, 2015.’’ limitation for refueling.’’ The requested
requirements for emissions of direct The Board proposed for public change is to provide continuous
PM2.5, VOCs, NOX, and SO2 from a few comment the removal of the definition controls to cover startup, shutdown, and
specific categories of sources. All of ‘‘PM2.5 Precursor’’ in R307–101–2 on malfunction requirements. UDAQ
these rule revision submittals and October 7, 2015, and the public committed in its May 19, 2016 letter to
commitment letters can found on comment period was held from add continuous controls that extend to
www.regulations.gov. November 1, 2015, through December 1, startup, shutdown, and malfunction, by
The following is a summary of EPA’s 2015. No comments were received and establishing a prohibition on fuel types
evaluation of the rule revisions. In no hearing was requested for this that can’t be burned in a solid fuel
general, we reviewed the rules for: comment period. The Board adopted the burning device at any time.
enforceability; RACM requirements (for revision to R307–101–2 on February 3, Utah’s RACM and rule analysis can be
those rules submitted as RACM); and 2016, and it became effective on found in the docket posted on
other applicable requirements of the February 4, 2016. Amendments to regulations.gov. For direct PM2.5, the
Act. R307–101–2 were proposed by the RACM analysis considered the effect of
Board on December 2, 2015, and were lowering the wood burning prohibition
1. R307–101, General Requirements action level from 35 mg/m3 to 25 mg/m3
out for a comment period of January 1,
Rule R307–101 provides general 2016, through February 2, 2016. No and alternatively to 15 mg/m3, and the
requirements that pertain to all UDAQ comments were received and no hearing sales restriction of solid fuel devices to
R307 rules, which constitute the basis was requested for this comment period. only EPA-approved wood stoves. In
for control of air pollution sources in The final revision of Rule R307–101–2 choosing a wood burning prohibition
the State of Utah. The primary section was adopted by the Board on March 2, action level, UDAQ determined that 25
is R307–101–2 Definitions, which 2016, and became effective on March 3, mg/m3 was representative of RACM, and
provide definitions that are applicable 2016, and is applicable to the entire chose to establish the 15 mg/m3 action
to all R307 rules, except for those state of Utah. level as a contingency measure. UDAQ
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS

definitions as specified in individual With UDAQ’s March 8, 2016 also established a sales restriction on
rules. UDAQ committed in its letter submittal, section R307–101 was revised solid fuel devices to EPA-approved
dated August 4, 2015, to remove the to represent what was in the wood stoves, with a phase-in schedule
definition of ‘‘PM2.5 precursor,’’ as that commitment letter, which satisfies the of 90% by 2014, 92.5% by 2017, and
definition is not used for regulatory EPA’s conditional approval. 95% by 2019.
purposes in Utah’s SIP. Additionally, a Additionally, the EPA is proposing to The EPA agrees with the revisions
‘‘Nonsubstantive Rule Amendment’’ approve the other definition revisions to that UDAQ has committed to and is
was made by Utah to correct a citation R307–101 as stated earlier. proposing a conditional approval of the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:03 Aug 17, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\18AUP1.SGM 18AUP1

Document Created: 2016-08-17 23:45:54
Document Modified: 2016-08-17 23:45:54

Category		Regulatory Information
Collection		Federal Register
sudoc Class		AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106:
Publisher		Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration
Section		Proposed Rules
Action		Proposed rule.
Dates		Written comments must be received on or before September 19, 2016.
Contact		Crystal Ostigaard, Air Program, EPA, Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202- 1129, (303) 312-6602, [email protected]
FR Citation		81 FR 55156
CFR Associated		Environmental Protection; Air Pollution Control; Carbon Monoxide; Intergovernmental Relations; Incorporation by Reference; Lead; Nitrogen Dioxide; Ozone; Particulate Matter; Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements; Sulfur Oxides and Volatile Organization Compounds