[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 233 (Monday, December 6, 1999)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 68031-68034]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-31533]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[UT-001-0016a; FRL-6482-9]


Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; 
Utah; Road Salting and Sanding, Control of Installations, Revisions to 
Salting and Sanding Requirements and Deletion of Non-Ferrous Smelter 
Orders, Incorporation by Reference, and Nonsubstantive Changes

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: On February 1, 1995, the Governor of the State of Utah 
submitted State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions for the purpose of 
establishing new requirements for road sanding and salting in section 
9.A.6.7 (referred to by the State as section IX.A.6.g in a renumbering 
revision that has yet to be approved by EPA) of the SIP and in UACR 
R307-1-3, updating the incorporation by reference in R307-2-1, deleting 
obsolete measures for nonferrous smelters in R307-1-3, and 
nonsubstantive changes to R307-1-1 and R307-1-3. This action is being 
taken under section 110 of the Clean Air Act (Act).

DATES: This rule is effective on February 4, 2000 without further 
notice, unless EPA receives adverse comment by January 5, 2000. If 
adverse comment is received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of 
the direct final rule in the Federal Register informing the public that 
the rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Written comments may be mailed to Richard R. Long, Director, 
Air and Radiation Program, Mailcode 8P-AR, Environmental Protection 
Agency (EPA), Region VIII, 999 18th Street, Suite 500, Denver, 
Colorado, 80202. Copies of the documents relevant to this action are 
available for public inspection during normal business hours at the Air 
and Radiation Program, Environmental Protection Agency, Region VIII, 
999 18th Street, Suite 500, Denver, Colorado, 80202 and copies of the 
Incorporation by Reference material are available at the Air and 
Radiation Docket and Information Center, Environmental Protection 
Agency, 401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460. Copies of the state 
documents relevant to this action are available for public inspection 
at the Utah Department of Environmental Quality, Division of Air 
Quality, 150 North 1950 West, Salt Lake City, Utah 84114-4820.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cindy Rosenberg, EPA, Region VIII, 
(303) 312-6436.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, wherever ``we,'' 
``us,'' or ``our'' are used, we mean the Environmental Protection 
Agency (EPA).

Table of Contents

I. EPA's Final Action
    What Action is EPA Taking in this Direct Final Rule?
II. Summary of SIP Revision
    A. What Revisions Were Made to the SIP?
    B. Did Utah Follow the Proper Procedures for Adopting these 
Revisions?
III. Background
    What Problems Does Today's Rule Address?
IV. Administrative Requirements

I. EPA's Final Action

What Action is EPA Taking in this Direct Final Rule?

    We are approving the Governor's submittal of February 1, 1995, that 
establishes new requirements for road salting and sanding in section 
9.A.6.7 (referred to by the State as section IX.A.6.g) of the SIP and 
in UACR R307-1-3. Concurrently, the State's ``Incorporation by 
Reference'' was changed in UACR R307-2-1. This same submittal also 
deletes obsolete rules for nonferrous smelter orders in UACR R307-1-3, 
and makes nonsubstantive changes to R307-1-1 and R307-1-3.
    We are publishing this rule without prior proposal because we view 
this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipate no adverse 
comments. However, in the ``Proposed Rules'' section of today's Federal 
Register publication, we are publishing a separate document that will 
serve as the proposal to approve the SIP revision should adverse 
comments be filed. This rule will be effective February 4, 2000 without 
further notice unless the Agency receives adverse comments by January 
5, 2000. If we receive adverse comments, we will publish a timely 
withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the public that the rule 
will not take effect. We will address all public comments in a 
subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. We will not institute 
a second comment period on this action. Any parties interested in 
commenting must do so at this time.

II. Summary of SIP Revision

A. What Revisions Were Made to the SIP?

    This revision made changes to the road salting and sanding 
requirements in section 9.A.6.7 (referred to by the State as section 
IX.A.6.g) of the SIP and in UACR R307-1-3. This regulatory revision 
achieves the 20% emission reduction relied upon in the SIP's attainment 
demonstration. The State revised the SIP and UACR R307-1-3.2.7 to 
establish the use of salt that is at least 92% sodium chloride as 
Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) for road anti-skid 
treatment. Entities applying a material other than this are required to 
either demonstrate that the material generates no more emissions than 
salt which is at least 92% sodium chloride, or to sweep the affected 
roadways using vacuum street sweeper technology within three days of 
the end of the storm for which the material was applied. Recordkeeping 
requirements were also imposed. Concurrent with this action, the 
State's incorporation by reference under R307-2-1 was updated to change 
the recently amended date of the SIP from December 18, 1992 to December 
9, 1993.
    In addition to the changes to road salting and sanding, UACR R307-
1-3.10, ``Non-Ferrous Smelter Orders,'' was deleted due to its being 
obsolete because the nonferrous smelter orders expired on January 1, 
1988.
    After the revised rules were adopted, the State identified a number 
of typographical errors in the printed version of the road salting and 
sanding rules in ``Control of Installations.'' This

[[Page 68032]]

was corrected through a nonsubstantive change revision (DAR filing 
#15820) in R307-1-3.2.7. The State also made a definition change to the 
definition for PM10 precursor at this time. This was 
corrected through a nonsubstantive change revision (DAR filing #15819) 
in UACR R307-1-1. The revisions were included in the submittal to EPA 
on February 1, 1995 as well.

B. Did Utah Follow the Proper Procedures for Adopting These Revisions?

    The Clean Air Act (Act) requires States to observe certain 
procedural requirements in developing SIP revisions for submittal to 
us. Section 110(a)(2) of the Act provides that each SIP revision be 
adopted after going through a reasonable notice and public hearing 
process prior to being submitted by a State.
    Copies of the proposed changes were made available to the public 
and the State held public hearings for the changes to R307-2-1 
``Incorporation by Reference'' and SIP section 9.A.6.7, ``Road Salting 
and Sanding'' (DAR filing #14834) as well as for the changes to R307-1-
3 ``Control of Installations'' for the road salting and sanding changes 
and the deletion of ``Non-Ferrous Smelter Orders'' (DAR filing #14833) 
on October 5, 1993, October 6, 1993, October 7, 1993 and October 13, 
1993. The State made changes in response to public comments and the 
rule revisions to R307-2-1 and SIP section 9.A.6.7 were adopted by the 
Air Quality Board on January 3, 1994 and became effective on January 
31, 1994; the revisions to R307-1-3 were adopted by the Air Quality 
Board on November 5, 1993 and became effective on January 3, 1994. The 
nonsubstantive changes which were made to R307-1-1, ``Foreword and 
Definitions'' and R307-1-3 ``Control of Installations'' (DAR filing 
#15819 and #15820) were effective on June 1, 1994. These revisions were 
formally submitted by the Governor on February 1, 1995. This submission 
was found to be administratively and technically complete in a letter 
to the Governor dated July 27, 1995.

III. Background

What Problems Does Today's Rule Address?

    On February 1, 1995, the Governor submitted revisions to the road 
salting and sanding provisions in the SIP and the State rules, along 
with a deletion of the Non-Ferrous Smelter Orders, and an updated 
incorporation by reference and other nonsubstantive changes. This 
submission was found to be administratively and technically complete in 
a letter to the Governor dated July 27, 1995.
    Road salt and sand are minor emission sources in Salt Lake and Utah 
Counties, with design day impacts ranging from 0% to 3.2% for salt and 
0% to 7.5% for sand and other road dust. The original SIP (approved in 
1994) required all agencies applying salt, sand or other anti-skid 
materials to roadways in the nonattainment areas to submit a plan to 
the State documenting the methods and schedule that would be used to 
achieve a 25% reduction in roadway surface loading of these materials, 
which was in turn anticipated to provide a 20% reduction in ambient 
contributions from this source category.
    In addition, the State committed to complete a study to gather more 
information on this source category in order to confirm the expected 
20% reduction. This study was completed in 1992. It demonstrated that 
road salting was not a contributor to PM10 in the 
nonattainment areas. The roadways sampled during the study were found 
to be cleaner after storm events than prior to the events, leading the 
State to the conclusion that road salting did not contribute 
PM10 emissions to the nonattainment area. As a result of 
this finding, the State revised the SIP and R307-1-3.2.7 to establish 
evaporative salt (the type used during the study) as Reasonably 
Available Control Technology for road anti-skid treatment. Entities 
applying a material other than at least 92% sodium chloride salt are 
required to either demonstrate that the material generates no more 
emissions than this salt, or to sweep the affected roadways using 
vacuum street sweeper technology within three days of the end of the 
storm for which the material was applied. Recordkeeping requirements 
were also imposed.
    This regulatory revision achieves the 20% emission reduction relied 
upon in the SIP's attainment demonstration. As noted above, salt that 
is at least 92% sodium chloride (used by the majority of road 
maintenance agencies in the nonattainment areas) was found to have no 
impact on PM10 concentrations. Vacuum sweeper technology has 
been found through a number of EPA and non-EPA studies to reduce 
PM10 emissions from roadways by approximately 34%, exceeding 
the 20% emission reduction target in the SIP.
    In addition to the changes to road sanding and salting, UACR R307-
1-3.10, ``Non-Ferrous Smelter Orders,'' allowing nonferrous smelters to 
postpone compliance, was deleted due to this provision being obsolete. 
Pursuant to CAA section 119, nonferrous smelters could postpone their 
compliance with the statutes, but compliance could not be postponed 
beyond January 1, 1988.
    After the revised rules were adopted, the State identified a number 
of typographical errors in the printed version of the rules. The State 
also made a minor change to the definition for PM10 
precursor at this time. These were corrected through nonsubstantive 
change revisions (DAR filing #15820 and #15819). This revision was 
submitted to EPA on February 1, 1995 as well.

IV. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this 
regulatory action from Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, entitled 
``Regulatory Planning and Review.''

B. Executive Order 13132

    Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) revokes and replaces 
Executive Orders 12612 (Federalism) and 12875 (Enhancing the 
Intergovernmental Partnership). Executive Order 13132 requires EPA to 
develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely input 
by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies 
that have federalism implications.'' ``Policies that have federalism 
implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations 
that have ``substantial direct effects on the States, on the 
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the 
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of 
government.'' Under Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a 
regulation that has federalism implications, that imposes substantial 
direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless 
the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct 
compliance costs incurred by State and local governments, or EPA 
consults with State and local officials early in the process of 
developing the proposed regulation. EPA also may not issue a regulation 
that has federalism implications and that preempts State law unless the 
Agency consults with State and local officials early in the process of 
developing the proposed regulation.
    This final rule will not have substantial direct effects on the 
States, on the relationship between the national government and the 
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the 
various

[[Page 68033]]

levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 
43255, August 10, 1999), because it merely approves a state rule 
implementing a federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or 
the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean 
Air Act. Thus, the requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order do 
not apply to this rule.

C. Executive Order 13045

    Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety 
Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), applies to any rule that: (1) is 
determined to be ``economically significant'' as defined under E.O. 
12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health or safety risk that EPA 
has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. 
If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate 
the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on 
children, and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other 
potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered 
by the Agency.
    This rule is not subject to E.O. 13045 because it does not involve 
decisions intended to mitigate environmental health or safety risks.

D. Executive Order 13084

    Under E.O. 13084, EPA may not issue a regulation that is not 
required by statute, that significantly affects or uniquely affects the 
communities of Indian tribal governments, and that imposes substantial 
direct compliance costs on those communities, unless the Federal 
government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance 
costs incurred by the tribal governments. If the mandate is unfunded, 
EPA must provide to the Office of Management and Budget, in a 
separately identified section of the preamble to the rule, a 
description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation with 
representatives of affected tribal governments, a summary of the nature 
of their concerns, and a statement supporting the need to issue the 
regulation.
    In addition, E.O. 13084 requires EPA to develop an effective 
process permitting elected and other representatives of Indian tribal 
governments ``to provide meaningful and timely input in the development 
of regulatory policies on matters that significantly or uniquely affect 
their communities.'' Today's rule does not significantly or uniquely 
affect the communities of Indian tribal governments. Accordingly, the 
requirements of section 3(b) of E.O. 13084 do not apply to this rule.

E. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency 
to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to 
notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies 
that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small 
businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental 
jurisdictions.
    This final rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial 
number of small entities because SIP approvals under section 110 and 
subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air Act do not create any new 
requirements but simply approve requirements that the State is already 
imposing. Therefore, because the Federal SIP approval does not create 
any new requirements, I certify that this action will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    Moreover, due to the nature of the Federal-State relationship under 
the Clean Air Act, preparation of flexibility analysis would constitute 
Federal inquiry into the economic reasonableness of state action. The 
Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base its actions concerning SIPs on such 
grounds. Union Electric Co., v. U.S. EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255-66 (1976); 
42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).

F. Unfunded Mandates

    Under section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 
(``Unfunded Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA 
must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or 
final rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in estimated 
annual costs to State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate; 
or to private sector, of $100 million or more. Under section 205, EPA 
must select the most cost-effective and least burdensome alternative 
that achieves the objectives of the rule and is consistent with 
statutory requirements. Section 203 requires EPA to establish a plan 
for informing and advising any small governments that may be 
significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule.
    EPA has determined that the approval action promulgated does not 
include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated annual costs of 
$100 million or more to either State, local, or tribal governments in 
the aggregate, or to the private sector. This Federal action approves 
pre-existing requirements under State or local law, and imposes no new 
requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local, or 
tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from this action.

G. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the 
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally 
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating 
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, 
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the 
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other 
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of 
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior 
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot 
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal 
Register. This rule is not a ``major'' rule as defined by 5 U.S.C. 
804(2).

H. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12 of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act 
(NTTAA) of 1995 requires Federal agencies to evaluate existing 
technical standards when developing a new regulation. To comply with 
NTTAA, EPA must consider and use ``voluntary consensus standards'' 
(VCS) if available and applicable when developing programs and policies 
unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise 
impractical.
    The EPA believes that VCS are inapplicable to this action. Today's 
action does not require the public to perform activities conducive to 
the use of VCS.

I. Petitions for Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for 
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court 
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by February 4, 2000. Filing a 
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule 
does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial 
review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial 
review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such 
rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings 
to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

[[Page 68034]]

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by 
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Particulate matter, Reporting 
and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: November 9, 1999.
 Jack W. McGraw,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region VIII.

    40 CFR part 52, subpart TT of chapter I, title 40 is amended as 
follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

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

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

Subpart TT--Utah

    2. Section 52.2320 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(43) to read 
as follows:


Sec. 52.2320  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (43) On February 1, 1995 the Governor of Utah submitted revisions 
to the Utah SIP to revise the provisions for road salting and sanding 
in Section 9, part A of the SIP and in UACR R307-1-3, updating the 
incorporation by reference in R307-2-1, deleting obsolete measures for 
nonferrous smelters in R307-1-3, and making nonsubstantive changes to 
UACR R307-1-1 and R307-1-3.
    (i) Incorporation by reference.
    (A) UACR R307-1-3, a portion of ``Control of Installations,'' 
revisions to road salting and sanding requirements and deletion of non 
ferrous smelter orders, as adopted by Utah Air Quality Board on 
November 5, 1993, effective on January 3, 1994.
    (B) UACR R307-2-1, ``Incorporation by Reference,'' revised date for 
incorporation by reference of the State Implementation Plan, as adopted 
by Utah Air Quality Board on January 31, 1994.
    (C) UACR R307-1-1, ``Foreword and Definitions,'' nonsubstantive 
change made to definition of ``PM10 precursor,'' effective 
on June 1, 1994.
    (D) UACR R307-1-3, ``Control of Installations,'' nonsubstantive 
changes to road salting and sanding, effective on June 1, 1994.
    (ii) Additional Material.
    (A) February 22, 1999 letter from Ursula Trueman, Director, Utah 
Division of Air Quality, to Richard Long, Director, EPA Region VIII Air 
and Radiation Program, transmitting nonsubstantive change correction to 
R307-2-1, ``Incorporation by Reference,'' that was left out of the 
February 1, 1995 SIP submittal.
    (B) March 16, 1999 letter from Larry Svoboda, Unit Leader, EPA 
Region VIII Air and Radiation Program, to Ursula Trueman, Director, 
Utah Division of Air Quality, explaining EPA's interpretation of 
nonsubstantive revision to definition of ``PM10 precursor.''
    (C) April 28, 1999 letter from Richard Sprott, Planning Branch 
Manager, Utah Division of Air Quality, to Larry Svoboda, Unit Leader, 
EPA Region VIII Air and Radiation Program, providing explanation for 
and background to the ``PM10 precursor'' definition.
    (D) August 26, 1999 fax from Jan Miller, Utah Division of Air 
Quality, to Cindy Rosenberg, EPA Region VIII Air and Radiation Program, 
transmitting documentation for effective date of the ``PM10 
precursor'' definition.

[FR Doc. 99-31533 Filed 12-3-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P