Proposed Rule2025-13337
Air Plan Approval; State of Utah; Utah PM2.5 State Implementation Plan Revisions
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
July 16, 2025
Issuing agencies
Environmental Protection Agency
Abstract
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve, through parallel processing, a State Implementation Plan (SIP) submission from the State of Utah with revisions to Utah Administrative Code (UAC), Utah State SIP, and the best available control measures/ best available control technologies (BACM/BACT) determinations for five facilities found in the Salt Lake City, Utah nonattainment area (NAA) for the 2006 24-hour fine particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to a nominal 2.5 microns (PM<INF>2.5</INF>) National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) (State of Utah draft dated May 20, 2025). The EPA is taking this action pursuant to the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act).
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 90 Issue 134 (Wednesday, July 16, 2025)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 134 (Wednesday, July 16, 2025)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 31901-31906]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2025-13337]
========================================================================
Proposed Rules
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.
========================================================================
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 134 / Wednesday, July 16, 2025 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 31901]]
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R08-OAR-2020-0098; FRL-12594-01-R8]
Air Plan Approval; State of Utah; Utah PM2.5 State Implementation
Plan Revisions
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve, through parallel processing, a State Implementation Plan (SIP)
submission from the State of Utah with revisions to Utah Administrative
Code (UAC), Utah State SIP, and the best available control measures/
best available control technologies (BACM/BACT) determinations for five
facilities found in the Salt Lake City, Utah nonattainment area (NAA)
for the 2006 24-hour fine particulate matter with an aerodynamic
diameter less than or equal to a nominal 2.5 microns (PM<INF>2.5</INF>)
National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) (State of Utah draft
dated May 20, 2025). The EPA is taking this action pursuant to the
Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act).
DATES: Written comments must be received on or before August 15, 2025.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R08-
OAR-2020-0098, to the Federal Rulemaking Portal: <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from
<a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>. 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 <a href="https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets">https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets</a>.
Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> 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 electronically in
<a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>. Please email or call the person listed in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section if you need to make
alternative arrangements for access to the docket.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Crystal Ostigaard, Air and Radiation
Division, EPA, Region 8, Mailcode 8ARD-IO, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver,
Colorado, 80202-1129, telephone number: (303) 312-6602, email address:
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#80eff3f4e9e7e1e1f2e4aee3f2f9f3f4e1ecc0e5f0e1aee7eff6"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="731c00071a14121201175d10010a0007121f331603125d141c05">[email protected]</span></a>.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document wherever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean the EPA.
Table of Contents
I. Background
II. EPA's Evaluation of the May 20, 2025 Draft SIP Submission
III. Proposed Action
IV. Incorporation by Reference
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background
A. Statutory and Regulatory Background for EPA's Regulation of
PM<INF>2.5
</INF>Under section 109 of the Act, the EPA has promulgated NAAQS
for certain pollutants, including PM<INF>2.5</INF> (40 CFR 50.2(b)).
Once the EPA promulgates a NAAQS, section 107 of the Act specifies a
process for the designation of each area within a state, generally as
either an attainment area (an area attaining the NAAQS) or as a NAA (an
area not attaining the NAAQS, or that contributes to nonattainment of
the NAAQS in a nearby area). For PM<INF>2.5</INF>, certain areas have
also been designated ``unclassifiable.'' These various designations, in
turn, trigger certain state planning requirements.
For all areas, regardless of designation, section 110 of the Act
requires that each state adopt and submit for EPA approval, a plan to
provide for implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of the NAAQS.
This plan is commonly referred to as a SIP. CAA section 110 contains
requirements that a SIP must meet to gain EPA approval.\1\ For NAAs,
SIPs must meet additional requirements in part D of title I of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ EPA's approval of a SIP has several consequences. For
example, after the EPA approves a SIP, the EPA and citizens may
enforce the SIP's requirements in federal court under section 113
and section 304 of the Act; in other words, the EPA's approval of a
SIP makes the SIP ``federally enforceable.'' Also, once the EPA has
approved a SIP, a state cannot unilaterally change the federally
enforceable version of the SIP. Instead, the state must first submit
a SIP revision to the EPA and gain EPA's approval of that revision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On October 17, 2006 (71 FR 61144), the EPA revised the level of the
24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS, lowering the primary and secondary
standards from the 1997 standard of 65 micrograms per cubic meter
([micro]g/m\3\) to 35 [micro]g/m\3\. On November 13, 2009 (74 FR
58688), the EPA designated three NAAs in Utah for the 2006 24-hour
PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS of 35 [micro]g/m\3\. These are the Salt Lake
City; Provo; and Logan, Utah-Idaho \2\ NAAs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The Logan, Utah-Idaho NAA was redesignated to attainment for
the 2006 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS on May 19, 2021 (86 FR
27035).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA originally issued a rule in 2007 \3\ regarding
implementation of the 2006 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS for the NAA
plan requirements specified in CAA title I, part D, subpart 1. Under
subpart 1, Utah was required to submit an attainment plan for each area
no later than three years from the date of nonattainment designation.
These plans needed to provide for the attainment of the
PM<INF>2.5</INF> standards as expeditiously as practicable, but no
later than five years from the date the areas were designated
nonattainment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ 72 FR 20586 (Apr. 25, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
held that the EPA should have implemented the 2006
[[Page 31902]]
PM<INF>2.5</INF> 24-hour standards, as well as the other
PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS, based on both subpart 1 and subpart 4 of CAA
title I, part D.\4\ Under subpart 4, all NAAs are initially classified
as Moderate, and Moderate area attainment plans must address the
requirements of subpart 4 as well as subpart 1. Additionally, 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 as expeditiously as practicable, but no
later than the end of the sixth calendar year after designation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Nat. Res. Def. Council v. EPA, 706 F.3d 428, 437 (D.C. Cir.
2013) (NRDC) or 2013 National Resources Defense Council (NRDC)
decision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
(PM<INF>2.5</INF>) National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) and
2006 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS. This rule classified the areas
that were designated as Moderate in 2009 as nonattainment and set the
attainment SIP submittal due date for those areas to December 31, 2014.
Additionally, this rule established the Moderate area attainment date
of December 31, 2015.
On August 24, 2016 (81 FR 58010), the EPA finalized the Fine
Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards: State
Implementation Plan Requirements (``PM<INF>2.5</INF> Requirements
Rule''), which partially addressed the 2013 National Resources Defense
Council (NRDC) decision. The final PM<INF>2.5</INF> Requirements Rule
details how air agencies can meet the SIP requirements under subparts 1
and 4 that apply to areas designated nonattainment for any
PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 reasonable available control measures
(RACM) (including reasonably available control technologies (RACT)).
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
PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable; and (ii) that
states adopt emissions reduction strategies that will be the most
effective at reducing PM<INF>2.5</INF> levels in NAAs.
If an area is reclassified from Moderate to Serious, the area will
then be subject to Serious PM<INF>2.5</INF> CAA requirements under
subpart 1 and subpart 4, and the CAA requires the state to submit the
following Serious area SIP elements: (1) CAA section 172(c)(3); (2) CAA
sections 172(c)(1) and 189(b)(1)(B); (3) CAA section 188(c)(2); (4) CAA
section 172(c)(2); (5) CAA section 189(c); (6) CAA section 189(e); (7)
CAA section 172(c)(9); and (8) CAA section 302(j) and CAA section
189(b)(3).
Serious area 2006 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> plans must also satisfy
the general requirements applicable to all SIP submissions under
section 110 of the CAA, including the requirement to provide necessary
assurances that the implementing agencies have adequate personnel,
funding, and authority under CAA section 110(a)(2)(E), and the
requirements concerning enforcement in CAA section 110(a)(2)(C).
B. Utah's PM2.5 Attainment Status and SIP Development
After the November 13, 2009 designation of nonattainment for the
2006 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS, Utah developed draft
PM<INF>2.5</INF> attainment plans intended to meet the requirements of
subpart 1. Utah submitted these revised 2006 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF>
attainment plans for the Salt Lake City and Provo NAAs on December 14,
2012.
After the court's 2013 decision, Utah amended its attainment plans
to address the requirements of subpart 4. On December 16, 2014, Utah
Division of Air Quality (UDAQ) withdrew all prior Salt Lake City and
Provo 2006 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> Moderate SIP attainment plan
submissions and submitted a subpart 1 and subpart 4 Salt Lake City and
Provo 2006 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> Moderate SIP. Additionally, the
State of Utah submitted various revisions to the UAC Title R307
(Environmental Quality) area source rules in multiple submissions:
February 2, 2012; May 9, 2013; June 8, 2013; February 18, 2014; April
17, 2014; May 20, 2014; July 10, 2014; and August 6, 2014. These area
source rules were either new or revised to meet RACM/RACT for the Salt
Lake City and Provo 2006 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> SIPs. The EPA acted
on these submittals, along with the area source rule revisions in the
December 16, 2014, submission, on February 25, 2016 (81 FR 9343),
October 19, 2016 (81 FR 71988), October 2, 2019 (84 FR 52368), and
February 26, 2020 (85 FR 10989).
On January 19, 2017, the State of Utah submitted revisions to their
Part H.11, 12, and 13 emission limits section of the Utah 2006 24-hour
PM<INF>2.5</INF> SIP and revised R307-110-17. R307-110-17 incorporation
by reference (IBR) section IX., Control Measures for Area and Point
Sources, Part H, Emission Limits; which formally incorporates the Salt
Lake City and Provo 2006 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> Part H.11, 12, and 13
emission limits into Utah's State regulations. This was undertaken by
UDAQ to correlate any overlapping limits between the 2006 24-hour
PM<INF>2.5</INF> Part H.11, 12, and 13, to the coarse particulate
matter (PM<INF>10</INF>) Part H.1, 2, 3, and 4.
On May 10, 2017 (82 FR 21711), the EPA published a final rule
reclassifying the Salt Lake City and Provo areas to ``Serious''
nonattainment status, based on the EPA's determination that the areas
could not practicably attain the 2006 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF>
standards by the December 31, 2015 attainment date. This
reclassification became effective on June 9, 2017. The reclassification
was based on the EPA's evaluation of ambient air quality data from the
2013-2015 period, indicating that it was not practicable for some of
the monitoring sites in the Salt Lake City and Provo areas to show
PM<INF>2.5</INF> design values at or below the level of the 2006 24-
hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS by December 31, 2015.
On March 23, 2018, the State of Utah submitted quantitative
milestone reports for the Salt Lake City and Provo 2006 24-hour
PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAs, meeting its due date of no later than 90 days
after the December 31, 2017, milestone date. On October 24, 2018, the
EPA determined that the 2017 quantitative milestone reports for the
Salt Lake City and Provo 2006 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAs were
adequate.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ The state's quantitative milestone reports and the adequacy
determination letter from the EPA Administrator to the Governor of
Utah are in the docket for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
After the Serious reclassification, UDAQ revised certain area
source rules in UAC section R307-200 and R307-300 Series and submitted
these revisions on April 19, 2018, May 21, 2020, and July 21, 2020. On
February 4, 2019, the State of Utah submitted the Serious 2006 24-hour
PM<INF>2.5</INF> SIP for the Salt Lake City NAA which included the
BACM/BACT analysis for the Provo Serious 2006 PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAA. The
analysis was based on the emission limits submitted on January 19,
2017, for only Part H.13. On February 15, 2019, Utah submitted the
Serious 2006 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> SIP for the Salt Lake City NAA,
which included revisions to Utah SIP Part H.11 and 12, and the
accompanying BACM/BACT analysis. The February 4, 2019 and February 15,
2019, submission included BACM/BACT analyses for on-road, off-road, and
area source rules; some of
[[Page 31903]]
these area source rules were revised and others were deemed BACM/BACT
without revising.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ On November 6, 2020, (85 FR 71023), the EPA proposed
approval of the redesignation requests, maintenance plans, and the
Moderate and Serious PM<INF>2.5</INF> SIP submissions including
BACM/BACT determinations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applying the Clean Data Policy,\7\ on April 10, 2019 (84 FR 14267)
and September 27, 2019 (84 FR 51055), the EPA finalized a determination
that the obligation to submit any remaining attainment-related SIP
revisions arising from classification of the Provo and Salt Lake City
area, as Moderate NAAs and the subsequent reclassification as Serious
NAAs for the 2006 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS does not apply for so
long as the area continues to attain the 2006 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF>
NAAQS.\8\ The attainment-related SIP revisions that were suspended
include: an attainment demonstration (Moderate and Serious), provisions
demonstrating timely implementation of RACM/RACT (Moderate), an RFP
plan (Moderate and Serious), quantitative milestones and quantitative
milestone reports (Moderate and Serious), and contingency measures
(Moderate and Serious). The only remaining attainment-related SIP
elements for EPA action include baseline emission inventories, NNSR,
and BACM/BACT.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ The EPA codified the Clean Data Policy in the
PM<INF>2.5</INF> Requirements Rule for the implementation of current
and future PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS. See 81 FR at 58161; 40 CFR
51.1015(a).
\8\ 40 CFR 51.1015(a) and (b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Requirements for BACM/BACT
For any Serious 2006 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAA, section
189(b)(1)(B) of the Act requires that a state submit provisions to
assure that BACM/BACT for the control of PM<INF>2.5</INF> and
PM<INF>2.5</INF> precursors shall be implemented no later than four
years after the date the area is reclassified as a Serious area. The
EPA defines BACM (including BACT) as, among other things, the maximum
degree of emissions reduction achievable for a source or source
category, which is determined on a case-by-case basis considering
energy, economic and environmental impacts, and other costs.\9\ We
consider BACM a control level that goes beyond existing RACM-level
controls, for example by expanding the use of RACM controls or by
requiring preventative measures instead of remediation.\10\ The level
of stringency generally refers to the overall level of emissions
reductions of a control measure or technology, or of such measures and
technologies combined.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ State Implementation Plans for Serious PM<INF>10</INF>
Nonattainment Areas, and Attainment Date Waivers for PM<INF>10</INF>
Nonattainment Areas Generally; Addendum to the General Preamble for
the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of
1990 (``Addendum''), August 16, 1994; 59 FR 41998, 42010, 42013
(Aug. 16, 1994). The General Preamble for the Implementation of
Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (``General
Preamble'') was published at 57 FR 13498 (Apr. 16, 1992).
\10\ Id. at 42011, 42013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The PM<INF>2.5</INF> Requirements Rule explains that BACM/BACT are
generally independent requirements, to be determined without regard to
the specific attainment analysis (i.e., attainment demonstration) for
the area.\11\ The EPA found it reasonable to interpret the statute as
requiring a different analysis for determining BACM/BACT, i.e., that
while RACM emphasizes the attainment needs of the area, BACM has a
greater emphasis on identifying measures that are feasible to
implement. The Addendum to the General Preamble noted that the test for
BACM puts a ``greater emphasis on the merits of the measure or
technology alone,'' rather than on ``flexibility in considering other
factors,'' in contrast to the approach for RACM/RACT.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ 81 FR at 58081.
\12\ 59 FR at 42011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 189(b)(1)(B) of the Act allows states, in appropriate
circumstances, to delay implementation of BACM until four years after
reclassification. Because the EPA reclassified the Provo and Salt Lake
City areas as Serious NAAs for the 2006 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS
effective June 9, 2017 (82 FR 21711; May 10, 2017), the date four years
after reclassification is June 9, 2021. In this case, however, all BACM
for direct PM<INF>2.5</INF> and PM<INF>2.5</INF> precursors in the Salt
Lake City area must be, and was, implemented no later than December 31,
2019, which is the outermost statutory attainment date for the Salt
Lake City area under section 188(c)(2).\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ CAA section 189(b)(1)(B) establishes an outermost deadline
(``no later than four years after the date the area is
reclassified'') and does not preclude an earlier implementation
deadline for BACM where necessary to satisfy the attainment
requirements of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under the PM<INF>2.5</INF> Requirements Rule, control measures that
can be implemented in whole or in part by the end of the fourth year
after an area's reclassification to Serious are considered BACM, and
control measures that can only be implemented after this period but
before the attainment date are considered ``additional feasible
measures.'' \14\ The EPA has defined ``additional feasible measures''
as ``those measures and technologies that otherwise meet the criteria
for BACM/BACT but that can only be implemented in whole or in part
beginning 4 years after reclassification of an area, but no later than
the statutory attainment date of the area.'' \15\ Given that the
statutory attainment date is less than three years from the effective
date of the reclassification of the Provo and Salt Lake City areas,
additional feasible measures are not required in this case.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ 40 CFR 51.1010(a)(4)(ii). ``Additional feasible measures''
may be necessary in certain circumstances to implement the
requirements of CAA section 172(c)(6), which states that NAA plans
shall include enforceable emission limitations and such other
control measures, means or techniques, as well as schedules and
timetables for compliance, as may be necessary or appropriate to
provide for attainment of the NAAQS by the applicable attainment
date.
\15\ 40 CFR 51.1000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Addendum and the PM<INF>2.5</INF> Requirements Rule explain
that the BACM/BACT selection process for implementation of the 2006 24-
hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS is designed to take into account the local
facts and circumstances and the nature of the air pollution problem in
a given NAA. The following steps are used in determining BACM/BACT: (1)
Develop a comprehensive emission inventory of the sources of directly
emitted PM<INF>2.5</INF> and PM<INF>2.5</INF> precursors; (2) Identify
existing and potential control measures for the sources in the
inventory; (3) Evaluate the technological feasibility of potential
control measures; (4) Evaluate the economic feasibility of potential
control measures; and (5) Determine the earliest date by which a
control measure or technology can be implemented in whole or in
part.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Addendum at 42012-42014; 81 FR at 58084-58085.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, the information found within this action, coupled
with the statutory and regulatory requirements, support the EPA's
decision that BACT or lowest achievable emission rate (LAER) provisions
for new sources (as distinct from BACT for existing sources), or best
available retrofit technology (BART) for existing sources, could
potentially qualify as BACM or BACT for purposes of meeting the Serious
area attainment plan requirements.\17\ However, as discussed further in
the PM<INF>2.5</INF> Requirements Rule, it is not appropriate for a
state to assume that just because a certain control technology was
determined to meet BACT, LAER or BART criteria for a new source
sometime in the past, that such a control will also automatically meet
the criteria for BACM or BACT or additional feasible measures for
attainment planning purposes. This is because the regulated pollutant
or source applicability may differ and the analyses may be conducted
years apart. Thus, a state may not simply rely on
[[Page 31904]]
prior BACT, LAER or BART analyses for the purposes of showing that a
source has also met BACT for the relevant 2006 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF>
NAAQS. Rather, the EPA expects that in Step 2 (discussed above) of the
BACM/BACT determination process, the state would identify such measures
as ``existing measures'' that should be further evaluated as potential
BACM or BACT, or additional feasible measures. At the same time, the
EPA notes that the presence of previously installed control technology,
and the technical and economic considerations that would be associated
with upgrading to a measure that achieves greater reductions, is
something that should be considered in the assessments of technological
and economic feasibility of the newer measure.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ See 81 FR at 58086.
\18\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Once these analyses are complete, a state must use this information
to develop enforceable control measures and submit them to the EPA for
evaluation under CAA section 110. We use these steps from the Addendum
and the PM<INF>2.5</INF> Requirements Rule, as guidelines in our
evaluation of the BACM measures and related analyses in the Provo and
Salt Lake City 2006 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> Serious SIP.
D. What is parallel processing? <SUP>19</SUP>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ 40 CFR part 51, appendix V, section 2.3.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parallel processing refers to a process that utilizes concurrent
state and Federal proposed rulemaking actions to process state SIP
submissions in less time than the standard process. During parallel
processing, generally, the state submits a copy of the proposed
regulation or other revisions to the EPA before conducting its public
hearing and completing its public comment process under state law. The
EPA reviews this proposed state action and prepares a notice of
proposed rulemaking under Federal Law. In some cases, the EPA's notice
of proposed rulemaking is published in the Federal Register during the
same time frame that the state is holding its public hearing and
conducting its public comment process. The state and the EPA then
provide for concurrent public comment periods on both the state action
and Federal action. If, after completing the state and EPA's public
comment process, the state changes its final submittal from the
proposed submittal, the EPA evaluates those changes and decides on
whether to publish another notice of proposed rulemaking in light of
those changes or to proceed to taking the final action on its proposed
action and describe the state's changes in its final rulemaking action.
Any final rulemaking action by the EPA will occur only after the final
submittal has been adopted by the state and formally provided to the
EPA. Parallel processing is designed to require less time than the
standard process, in which a state completes its entire state process
before submitting a final SIP package to the EPA, only after which the
EPA proposes action on the state submission, seeks public comment, and
takes final action.
In this case, however, the EPA's and Utah's processes have not been
perfectly concurrent. The State submitted the draft SIP revisions on
May 20, 2025, with a public comment period starting March 1 and going
through March 31, 2025, with a public hearing held online at 2:00 p.m.
on March 13, 2025. The State's intention is to submit its final SIP
revisions in July 2025. After Utah submits these formal SIP revisions,
the EPA will evaluate the submittal. If the State changes the formal
submittal from the proposed submittal, the EPA will evaluate those
changes for significance. If the EPA finds any such changes to be
significant, then the Agency intends to determine whether to re-propose
the actions based on the revised submission or to proceed to take final
action on the submittal as changed by the State. Although the EPA was
unable to have a concurrent public comment process with the State,
parallel processing allows the EPA to begin to take action on the
State's proposed submittal in advance of a formal and final submission.
II. EPA's Evaluation of the May 20, 2025 Draft SIP Submission
A. BACM/BACT Revisions
1. BACM/BACT Analysis in the Serious PM<INF>2.5</INF> SIP
The UDAQ's BACM/BACT process and control measure evaluations for
the identified sources are described in detail in their draft May 20,
2025 submission.\20\ For each identified source, UDAQ identified its
adopted control measures and potential additional control measures
based on measures implemented in other areas, measures identified in
EPA regulations or guidance (e.g., in control technique guidelines
(CTGs), alternative control technique documents (ACTs), new sources
performance standards (NSPSs), or in the EPA's ``Cost Analysis Models/
Tools for Air Pollution Regulations''), or measures identified in prior
EPA rulemaking documents (e.g., recommendations in SIP actions).\21\
UDAQ evaluated these potential additional control measures to determine
whether implementation of the measures would be technologically and
economically feasible in the Salt Lake City area. Based upon their
evaluation, UDAQ determined BACM/BACT to be the existing controls for
all five facilities listed below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ On November 6, 2020, (85 FR 71023), the EPA proposed
approval of the redesignation requests, maintenance plans, and the
Moderate and Serious PM<INF>2.5</INF> SIP submissions including
BACM/BACT determinations for all other sources (which included on-
road mobile sources, off-road mobile sources, area sources, and
major stationary sources).
\21\ The Cost Analysis Models/Tools for Air Pollution
Regulations can be found at <a href="https://www.epa.gov/economic-and-cost-analysis-air-pollution-regulations/cost-analysis-modelstools-air-pollution">https://www.epa.gov/economic-and-cost-analysis-air-pollution-regulations/cost-analysis-modelstools-air-pollution</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the following sections, we review key components of UDAQ's
demonstrations concerning BACM/BACT for the identified sources of
direct PM<INF>2.5</INF>, nitrogen oxide (NO<INF>X</INF>), volatile
organic compounds (VOC), sulfur dioxide (SO<INF>2</INF>), and ammonia
(NH<INF>3</INF>) emissions in the Salt Lake City NAA: (1) Big West Oil
LLC Refinery; (2) Chevron Products Company--Salt Lake Refinery; (3)
Hexcel Corporation: Salt Lake Operations; (4) Holly Frontier Sinclair
Woods Cross Refinery; and (5) Tesoro Refining and Marketing Company LLC
Marathon Refinery: Salt Lake City Refinery.
2. EPA's Evaluation and Conclusion of UDAQ's BACM/BACT Demonstrations
for Identified Sources in the Salt Lake City NAA
EPA reviewed UDAQ's analysis and determination in the May 20, 2025
draft submission that the five major stationary source control measures
represent BACM/BACT for direct PM<INF>2.5</INF> and PM<INF>2.5</INF>
precursors within the Provo and Salt Lake City NAAs. As a result, the
EPA proposes to determine that UDAQ's Utah SIP Part H emission limits
provide for the implementation of BACM/BACT for the five major
stationary sources of direct PM<INF>2.5</INF> and PM<INF>2.5</INF>
precursors. Additional detail can be found in our technical support
document (TSD) located in the docket for this action.
We are proposing to approve, through parallel processing, the May
20, 2025 draft submission of revisions to Utah SIP section IX.H.11. and
12. and to find that the May 20, 2025 draft submission provides for the
implementation of BACM/BACT for all sources of direct PM<INF>2.5</INF>
and PM<INF>2.5</INF> precursors as expeditiously as practicable, for
purposes of the 2006 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS in the Salt Lake
City area, in accordance with the requirements of CAA section
189(b)(1)(B) and 40 CFR 51.1010. Additional detail can be found in the
TSD within the docket.
[[Page 31905]]
B. Utah's Additional SIP Revisions in the May 20, 2025 Draft Submission
When certain sections of the Utah state SIP are amended by the Utah
Air Quality Board (UAQB), those sections must be incorporated into the
Utah Air Quality Rules in the UAC. Utah incorporates its state SIP
sections within UAC section R307-110. These rules are amended as needed
to change the effective dates to match the UAQB approval date of
various amendments to the Utah state SIP. For this proposed action, we
are also proposing to approve into the federally approved SIP, through
the parallel process based on the information in the May 20, 2025 UDAQ
submission, section IX., Control Measures for Area and Point Sources,
Part H, Emission Limits,\22\ which incorporates all the emission limits
in the Utah state SIP section IX.H.11. and 12. Additionally, we are
proposing to approve into the federally approved SIP the revisions
within Utah SIP sections 11. and 12. through the parallel process based
on the information May 20, 2025 UDAQ submission. In section I.C. above,
we discuss the process of this type of action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ Utah's SIP for R307 series rules are located at: <a href="https://deq.utah.gov/air-quality/air-quality-laws-and-rules">https://deq.utah.gov/air-quality/air-quality-laws-and-rules</a>; and section
IX.H. are located at: <a href="https://deq.utah.gov/air-quality/sections-state-implementation-plan-sip">https://deq.utah.gov/air-quality/sections-state-implementation-plan-sip</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. R307-110-17
Section R307-110-17 incorporates the amendments to Utah State SIP
section IX., Control Measures for Area and Point Sources, Part H,
Emission Limits into the UAC. This is a ministerial provision, which
only revises the effective date within the rule to May 7, 2025, and
does not by itself change any state SIP control measures.
2. Utah State SIP Section IX.H.11
Utah State SIP section IX.H.11. (General Requirements: Control
Measures for Area and Point Sources, Emission Limits and Operating
Practices, PM<INF>2.5</INF>) establishes general requirements for
recordkeeping, reporting, good combustion practices for emission
minimization, and monitoring for the stationary sources subject to
emission limits under Utah State SIP sections IX.H.12. and 13., except
as otherwise outlined in individual conditions in sections IX.H.12. and
13. Additionally, this section establishes general refinery
requirements, addressing limitations on emitting units common to the
refineries in the NAAs. These general refinery requirements include
limits at fluid catalytic cracking units, limits on refinery fuel gas
and heat exchangers, requirements on tank degassing, restrictions on
liquid fuel oil consumption, requirements for leak detections and
repairs, and requirements for hydrocarbon flares. Furthermore, section
IX.H.11. controls VOCs through catalytic oxidation at internal
combustion engines and natural gas combustion turbines.
UDAQ revised IX.H.11.c. where subsections `iv' and `v' were
created. These two subsections describe how each source under IX.H.12.
and 13. are required to comply with all applicable recordkeeping and
reporting sections of the facilities' most recently, federally,
approved title V permit, which includes submissions of annual
compliance certifications and bi-annual monitoring reports, unless a
more stringent requirement is found under IX.H.12. and/or 13.
Additionally, subsection `v' requires that each source complies with
applicable recordkeeping and reporting found in 40 CFR part 60 and 40
CFR part 63.
Additionally, UDAQ revised subsection IX.H.11.g.vii.B. and created
two other subsections under IX.H.11.g. which includes IX.H.11.g.viii.
and IX.H.11.g.ix. Subsection IX.H.11.g.vii.B. revised a reference of 40
CFR 80.510 to 1090.305. The two subsections that were created, create
good combustion practices, and recordkeeping and reporting requirements
specific to refineries located in the PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAs. To ensure
minimization of emissions, each owner/operator shall operate all
combustion units in accordance with good combustion practices and
maintain all combustion units following the manufacturer's
recommendations. The additional recordkeeping and reporting
requirements for refineries are in addition to IX.H.11.c. and each
refinery shall comply with the listed requirements until such time as a
title V operating permit is federally approved:
(a) All required monitoring data and support information
required by IX.H.11 and IX.H.12 shall be retained by the source for
a period of five years from the date of monitoring sample,
measurement, report, or application. Support information includes
all calibration and maintenance records, all original strip-charts
or appropriate readings for continuous monitoring instrumentation,
and copies of all reports required by IX.H.11 and IX.H.12.
(b) Monitoring reports, if applicable, shall be submitted to
UDAQ as specified in IX.H.11.e. and IX.H.11.f.
The detailed analysis of our parallel process on the May 20, 2025
submission of draft revisions to Utah State SIP section IX.H.11., can
be found in our TSD in the docket.
3. Utah State SIP Section IX.H.12
Utah State SIP section IX.H.12. (Source-Specific Emission
Limitations in Salt Lake City--UT PM<INF>2.5</INF> Nonattainment Area)
establishes specific emission limitations for 17 sources. These sources
are ATK Launch Systems Inc. Promontory, Big West Oil LLC Refinery,
Chemical Lime Company (LHoist North America), Chevron Products
Company--Salt Lake Refinery, Compass Minerals Ogden Inc., Holly
Frontier Sinclair Woods Cross Refinery, Kennecott Utah Copper (KUC):
Mine, Kennecott Utah Copper (KUC): Power Plant, Kennecott Utah Copper:
Smelter and Refinery, Nucor Steel Mills, PacifiCorp Energy: Gadsby
Power Plant, Tesoro Refining and Marketing Company LLC Marathon
Refinery: Salt Lake City Refinery, The Proctor & Gamble Paper Products
Company, Utah Municipal Power Association: West Valley Power Plant,
University of Utah: University of Utah Facilities, and Hill Air Force
Base. Major stationary sources were identified based on their potential
to emit (PTE) of 70 tpy or more of PM<INF>2.5</INF>, NO<INF>X</INF>,
SO<INF>2</INF>, VOC, and/or NH<INF>3</INF>. With this draft submittal,
UDAQ is completing major revisions to emission limitations for the
following five sources in section IX.H.12.: (1) IX.H.12.b. Big West Oil
LLC Refinery; (2) IX.H.12.d. Chevron Products Company--Salt Lake
Refinery; (3) IX.H.12.f. Hexcel Corporation: Salt Lake Operations; (4)
IX.H.11.g. Holly Frontier Sinclair Woods Cross Refinery; and (5)
IX.H.12.m. Tesoro Refining and Marketing Company LLC Marathon Refinery:
Salt Lake City Refinery. A summary of the proposed new emission limits
is outlined below.
The detailed analysis of our parallel process on the May 20, 2025
submission of draft revisions and BACM/BACT analyses to Utah state SIP
section IX.H.12., can be found in our TSD in the docket.
4. EPA's Evaluation and Conclusion of Utah's Additional SIP Revisions
in the May 20, 2025 Draft Submission
We are proposing to approve, through parallel processing, the May
20, 2025 draft submission of revisions to the federally approved Utah
SIP as listed in the Utah state SIP section IX.H.11. and 12. We are
also proposing to find that the May 20, 2025 draft submission provides
for the implementation of BACM/BACT for the five sources of direct
PM<INF>2.5</INF> and PM<INF>2.5</INF> precursors listed above as
expeditiously as practicable, for purposes of the 2006 24-hour
PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS in the Salt Lake City area, in accordance with
the requirements of CAA section 189(b)(1)(B) and 40 CFR
[[Page 31906]]
51.1010. Additional detail can be found within the TSD in the docket.
C. Did Utah follow the proper procedures for adopting their action?
Section 110(k) of the CAA addresses our actions on submissions of
revisions to a SIP. The Act also requires states to observe procedural
requirements in developing implementation plans and plan revisions for
submission. Section 110(a)(2) of the Act provides that each
implementation plan submitted by a state must be adopted after
reasonable notice and public hearing. Section 110(l) of the Act
similarly provides that each revision to an implementation plan
submitted by a state under the Act must be adopted by the state after
reasonable notice and public hearing.
We also must determine whether a submittal is complete and
therefore warrants further review and action.\23\ Our completeness
criteria for SIP submittals is set out at 40 CFR part 51, appendix V. A
submittal is deemed complete by operation of law under section
110(k)(1)(B) of the Act if a completeness determination is not made
within six months after receipt of the submission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ CAA section 110(k)(1); 57 FR 13565.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On May 20, 2025, UDAQ submitted to the EPA for parallel processing
a draft SIP revision based upon draft revisions to the Utah state SIP
section IX.H.11. and 12., and R307-110-17. The comment period at the
State level began March 1 and ended March 31, 2025, with a public
hearing held online at 2:00 p.m. on March 13, 2025. UDAQ requested this
parallel processing so as not to delay action on the 2006 24-hour
PM<INF>2.5</INF> redesignations for the Salt Lake City and Provo NAAs.
UDAQ is planning on submitting its final SIP revision early in July
2025. After the State formally submits these final revisions, the EPA
will evaluate the final submittal for any changes between the proposed
and final versions. As discussed above in section I.C., the EPA will
determine if any changes to the draft submission would warrant another
proposed rule, or if on the other hand the agency may proceed with a
final action. This formal submission from the State of Utah will
accompany either the final rule or the new proposed rule under this
docket number.
III. Proposed Action
As mentioned in the sections above, we are proposing to approve,
through parallel processing, Utah's draft May 20, 2025 submission to
revise the federally approved Utah SIP based upon revisions to the Utah
state SIP sections IX.H.11. and 12., and the accompanying R307-110-17.
Additionally, the EPA is proposing to approve for incorporation into
the federally approved Utah SIP the five major stationary sources BACM/
BACT analyses/updates for the Salt Lake City 2006 24-hour
PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAA that were submitted as a draft on May 20, 2025.
IV. Incorporation by Reference
In this document, the EPA is proposing to include regulatory text
in an EPA final rule that includes incorporation by reference. In
accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to
incorporate by reference R307-110-17 and Utah state SIP section
IX.H.11. and 12, as discussed in sections I. and II. of this preamble.
The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally
available through <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> and at the EPA Region 8
Office (please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more information).
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
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:
<bullet> 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);
<bullet> Is not subject to Executive Order 14192 (90 FR 9065,
February 6, 2025) because SIP actions are exempt from review under
Executive Order 12866;
<bullet> Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
<bullet> 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.);
<bullet> 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);
<bullet> Does not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
<bullet> Is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885,
April 23, 1997) because it approves a state program;
<bullet> Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); and
<bullet> 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.
In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian Tribe has
demonstrated that a Tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the 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,
Greenhouse gases, 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: July 2, 2025.
Cyrus M. Western,
Regional Administrator, Region 8.
[FR Doc. 2025-13337 Filed 7-15-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on July 16, 2025.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.