
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 133 (Thursday, July 13, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 32282-32284]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-14739]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R08-OAR-2015-0617; FRL-9964-72-Region 8]


Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; 
State of Utah; General Burning Rule Revisions

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing 
approval of State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions submitted by Utah 
on January 28, 2013, and July 8, 2015. In the letter accompanying the 
rule revisions sent to the EPA on July 8, 2015, the Governor stated 
that no further action is necessary on the January 28, 2013 submittal 
since it has been superseded. Upon consultation with Utah Department of 
Air Quality (DAQ) staff, the EPA was informed that this is not 
accurate. A clarifying letter was sent by the Governor of Utah on June 
6, 2017 requesting that the EPA act on both SIP revisions. The 
submittals request SIP revisions to the State's General Burning rule; a 
repeal and reenactment of the General Burning rule with changes to 
applicability, timing, and duration of burning windows, and an 
amendment to exempt Native American ceremonial burning during 
restricted burning days.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before August 14, 2017.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R08-
OAR-2015-0617 at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot 
be edited or removed from www.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.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Chris Dresser, Air Program, U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mail Code 8P-AR, 1595 
Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129, (303) 312-6385, 
dresser.chris@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. General Information

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

    1. Submitting Confidential Business Information (CBI). Do not 
submit CBI to the 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 on a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to the EPA, 
mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify 
electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that 
is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment 
that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that 
does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for 
inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be 
disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 
2.
    2. Tips for preparing your comments. When submitting comments, 
remember to:
     Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other 
identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register volume, 
date, and page number);
     Follow directions and organize your comments;
     Explain why you agree or disagree;
     Suggest alternatives and substitute language for your 
requested changes;
     Describe any assumptions and provide any technical 
information and/or data that you used;
     If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how 
you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be 
reproduced;
     Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and 
suggest alternatives;
     Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the 
use of profanity or personal threats; and,
     Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period 
deadline identified.

II. Analysis of the State Submittal

    On January 28, 2013, the State of Utah requested that the EPA 
approve a repeal and reenactment of R307-202, Emission Standards: 
General Burning. The rule was changed to add an ``Applicability'' 
section that clarifies that the rule only applies to incorporated 
communities under the authority of a county or municipal fire 
authority. Additionally, the 30-day burning windows allowing the 
burning of material covered under R307-202 were eliminated in the 
amendment because they were a source of localized air quality 
impairment. This request was made by several local fire chiefs with 
support from the Utah State Fire Marshal. Language was also added to 
the rule that states that no person shall burn under R307-202 when the 
director of the Division of Air Quality (DAQ) issues a public 
announcement of a mandatory no-burn period.
    The changes made to R307-202 include the following five amendments:
    (1) Fire marshals were previously permitted to establish a spring 
30-day burn window between March 1 and May 30. The rule amendment 
expanded the spring burning window for the entire period from March 1 
to May 30 for Washington, Kane, San Juan, Iron, Garfield, Beaver, 
Piute, Wayne, Grand, and Emery counties. The burn window was expanded 
because fire marshals reported adverse localized air quality conditions 
within the 30-day burn window because the window was actually 
compressed to a few days where the Clearing Index was over 500. The 
Utah DAQ relies on a metric called the Clearing Index, an Air Quality/
Smoke Dispersal Index, to determine when ventilation and dispersion are 
adequate for general burning and as an

[[Page 32283]]

input for other air quality decisions throughout Utah. Clearing Index 
values below 500 are considered poor ventilation and open burning is 
restricted under these conditions. Expanding the burn period provides 
added days where the Clearing Index is above 500, thereby improving air 
quality during the spring burn period.
    (2) The spring 30-day burn window has been expanded to the entire 
burn window from March 30 to May 30 for the remaining portions of the 
state. The window expansion follows the same rational as item 1 above, 
that serves to improve air quality during spring burning. The calendar 
difference between southern and northern counties (covered in items 1 
and 2, respectively) is due to climatic differences across the state.
    (3) The fall burn window for counties that are in attainment of the 
national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for particulate matter 
(PM2.5 and/or PM10) were permitted to burn from 
September 15 to October 30. The burn window has been expanded from 
September 15 to November 15 because the frost dates for those counties 
are later than October 30. This window is however subject to annual 
approval by the State Forester.
    (4) A new fall burn window has been established for counties that 
are in nonattainment for the NAAQS for particulate matter 
(PM2.5 and/or PM10) from September 15 to October 
30. This period is before the inversion season in northern counties. 
The burn window was requested by fire marshals in affected counties. 
This window is however subject to annual approval by the State 
Forester.
    (5) An applicability section was added clarifying that the rule 
applies to general burning within incorporated communities under the 
authority of a county or municipal fire authority. This new section was 
added to address comments received from the State Forester during the 
public comment period held by the State of Utah. The State Forester was 
concerned that the public would be confused regarding who has the 
authority to issue burn permits within different portions of the state. 
While statutory authority has not changed from when the rule was 
initially promulgated, this new section was only added for clarity 
purposes.
    The proposed rule revisions capture Utah's restrictions and 
exemptions for open burning of pollutants to ensure compliance with the 
Clean Air Act (CAA) NAAQS for PM2.5 and PM10 
consistent with 40 CFR part 50. As part of the most recent January 28, 
2013 submittal, Utah DAQ provide a demonstration that the changes made 
to the General Burning rule would not result in adverse air quality 
conditions; consistent with the requirements under Section 110(l) of 
the CAA. The EPA agrees with the analysis completed by Utah and that 
the rule changes submitted on January 28, 2013, will not adversely 
impact air quality. The EPA conducted a further review of the effect of 
an expanded burn window on resulting air quality in nonattainment areas 
and a copy of this analysis is included in the administrative record. 
The additional time periods available for burning include the full 
March 1 to May 30 period and an additional fall burn window of 
September 15 to October 30. Through a review of air quality and 
clearing index data from DAQ's Web site, the EPA finds that although 
elevated 24-hr PM2.5 and PM10 can occur during 
these periods, they do not typically occur on days where the clearing 
index is greater than 500. Elevated PM10 has been measured 
on days within the burn window with a clearing index above 500. 
However, these events are a result of high winds and resulting re-
entrained dust impacting PM10 concentrations, conditions 
under which burn permits would not be issued due to safety concerns. 
Therefore, the EPA finds that it is unlikely burning would occur in the 
expanded burn window on days with elevated PM.
    Additionally, on July 8, 2015, the State of Utah requested further 
revisions to R307-202 (Emission Standards: General Burning) that allows 
Native American tribes to conduct ceremonial burning during restricted 
burning days when conducted by a ``Native American spiritual advisor'' 
as defined by the rule. The Utah DAQ submitted a supplementary analysis 
to the EPA on May 9, 2017 demonstrating that the exemption allowing 
ceremonial burning during restricted burning days would not result in 
adverse air quality conditions consistent with the requirements under 
CAA Section 110(l). The analysis included a calculation of emissions 
associated with the expected frequency of ceremonial burning, volume of 
combustible material, and using the appropriate AP-42 emission factors. 
The emissions for PM2.5 and PM10 associated with 
ceremonial burning were estimated to be 0.012 tons per year. To give 
these values context, from the most recent NEI, emissions of total 
PM10 and PM2.5 for all sources in Salt Lake 
County in 2014 are 18,165 tons and 5,902 tons, respectively. The 
estimated impact of ceremonial burning is therefore less than 0.0001% 
of the total PM inventory, and therefore the EPA finds that this 
exemption would not result in adverse air quality.

III. The EPA's Proposed Action

    The EPA is proposing to approve Utah's January 28, 2013 SIP 
submission, which repeals and reenacts the General Burning provisions 
in R307-202 with the amendments discussed in Section II. Additionally, 
the EPA is proposing approval of Utah's July 8, 2015 revisions, which 
exempts ceremonial burning conducted by a ``Native American spiritual 
advisor'' during restricted burn days.

IV. Statutory and Executive Orders Review

    Under the CAA, 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 CAA. Accordingly, this 
proposed action merely approves state law as meeting federal 
requirements; this proposed action 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 Orders 
12866 (58 FR 51735, Oct. 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have federalism implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based 
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the 
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 
note) because application of those requirements would

[[Page 32284]]

be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; 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).
    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 
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, 
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen 
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements.

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

    Dated: June 27, 2017.
Debra H. Thomas,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 8.
[FR Doc. 2017-14739 Filed 7-12-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


