[Federal Register: December 23, 2002 (Volume 67, Number 246)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 78181-78191]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr23de02-13]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[UT-001-0047; FRL-7422-9]
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
State of Utah; Utah County PM10 State Implementation Plan Revisions
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is finalizing approval of the State of Utah's revision to
the Utah State Implementation Plan (SIP) that was submitted by the
Governor on July 3, 2002, revising the SIP for the Utah County
nonattainment area for particulates of 10 microns in size or smaller
(PM10). The Governor's submittal, among other things,
revises the existing attainment demonstration in the approved
PM10 SIP based on a short-term emissions inventory,
establishes 24-hour emission limits for the major stationary sources in
the Utah County PM10 nonattainment area and establishes
motor vehicle emission budgets based on EPA's most recent mobile source
emissions model, Mobile6.
On September 10, 2002 EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPR) (67 FR 57357). EPA's comment period concluded on October 10,
2002. During this comment period, EPA received ten letters from various
local governments within the Utah County area supporting EPA's approval
of this SIP revision and two letters with specific comments regarding
the approval of this action. The comments received and EPA's responses
are addressed below.
In this final rule action, EPA approves the Governor's July 3, 2002
submittal adopting rule R307-110-10 which incorporates revisions to
portions of Utah's SIP Section IX, Part A and rule R307-110-17 which
incorporates revisions to portions of Utah's SIP Section IX, Part H.
This action is being taken under sections 107, 110, and 189 of the
Clean Air Act (Act).
EFFECTIVE DATE: This final rule is effective January 22, 2003.
ADDRESSES: 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 300, Denver, Colorado, 80202-2466 and copies of
the Incorporation by Reference material are available at the Air and
Radiation Docket and Information Center, Environmental Protection
Agency, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW Room B108, Mail Code 6102T
Washington D.C. 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: Libby Faulk, EPA, Region VIII, (303)
312-6083.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On September 10, 2002 EPA published a
[[Page 78182]]
notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR) for approval of the Utah County
PM10 SIP revision (67 FR 57357). In this final rule action,
EPA summarizes all comments and EPA's responses and approves the
Governor's July 3, 2002, final SIP revision. Throughout this document,
wherever ``we'', ``us'', or ``our'' are used, we mean the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA).
Table of Contents
I. Background Information
A. What Is the Purpose of This Action?
B. What Changes to the SIP is EPA Approving?
1. Transportation Conformity Requirements
2. Updated Emissions Inventory and Attainment Demonstration
3. Establishment of Enforceable Short-Term Emission Limits for
Major Stationary Sources
4. Director's Discretion Provisions
C. What Is the State's Process To Submit These Materials to EPA?
II. UDAQ's Commitment for Future SIP Revisions
III. Summary of Public Comments and EPA's Responses
IV. EPA's Final Action
V. Administrative Requirements
I. Background Information
A. What Is the Purpose of This action?
We are approving the Governor of Utah's submittal of July 3, 2002
that requests our approval of the Utah County PM10 SIP
revision that Utah adopted on June 5, 2002 and July 3, 2002 and that
became State effective on September 5, 2002. With this SIP revision,
Utah has revised Section IX (Section 9 under our current approved
version of the Utah SIP), ``Control Measures for Area and Point
Sources,'' Part A, ``Fine Particulate Matter'' and Part H, ``Emission
Limits'' of the SIP. In addition, Utah revised its regulation R307-110-
10 (R307-2-10 under our current approved version of the Utah SIP) to
incorporate by reference its July 3, 2002 revision of the Utah County
portion of the Utah SIP, Section IX, Part A. In addition, Utah revised
its regulation R307-110-117 (R307-2-17 under our current approved
version of the Utah SIP) to incorporate by reference its June 5, 2002
revision of the Utah County portion of the Utah SIP, Section IX, Part
H. We are approving this request and its accompanying regulation
revisions because the SIP revision meets the applicable requirements of
the Act. For additional information on the Utah County PM10
SIP revision, please refer to our notice of proposed rulemaking (67 FR
57357).
B. What Changes to the SIP Is EPA Approving?
1. Transportation Conformity Requirements
This SIP revision establishes motor vehicle emission budgets and
includes an analysis of those budgets. Under EPA's regulations at 40
CFR part 93, the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) is required
to determine conformity of transportation plans and projects to the
motor vehicle emission budgets as approved in the PM10 SIP.
The MPO in Utah County is the Mountainland Association of Governments
(MAG).
Utah County has been in a conformity lapse since August 2000
because transportation plans for the area could not meet the
PM10 and NOX motor vehicle emission budgets that
were derived from the emissions inventory in the approved
PM10 SIP.\1\ Utah County could not meet the established
motor vehicle emission budgets because the budgets were based on an
outdated mobile source emissions model (Mobile4) \2\ and the area
exceeded its growth projections.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ EPA approved the PM10 SIP on July 8, 1994 (59 FR
35036).
\2\ Sections 40 CFR 93.110 and 93.111 require areas to use the
latest planning assumptions and the latest emissions model for
conformity determinations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SIP revision establishes new motor vehicle emission budgets
for PM10 and NOX which are based on the latest
planning assumptions, including the latest growth projections, and the
latest emissions model (Mobile6), released on January 29, 2002 (67 FR
4254). The new motor vehicle emission budgets are established for years
2003, 2010, and 2020 and take into account growth in all other source
categories. Please refer to Table 1: Transportation Conformity Motor
Vehicle Emission Budgets.
Table I.--Transportation Conformity Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year Primary PM (tons/day) NOX (tons/day)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2003 6.57 20.35
2010 7.74 12.75
2020 10.34 5.12
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The values for 2003 reflect the inventory values for motor vehicles
that were used in the CMB modeling. The CMB modeling, based on these
inventory values, and inventory values for other source categories,
demonstrates attainment in 2003. For 2010 and 2020, inventory values
for all source categories were projected forward. The 2010 and 2020
motor vehicle emissions budgets reflect the motor vehicle inventory
values in 2010 and 2020, except that ``road dust'' and ``brake wear''
portions of the 2020 motor vehicle inventory for PM10 were
expanded by 7 percent to take advantage of part of the available safety
margin in that year. Per 40 CFR 93.101, the safety margin is the amount
by which the total projected emissions from all sources of a given
pollutant are less than the total emissions that would satisfy the
applicable requirement for reasonable further progress, attainment or
maintenance. The applicable standard for PM10 is 150 [mu]g/
m3; even using the expanded 2020 motor vehicle emissions
budget for PM10 reflected in the table above, the CMB
projections for 2020 show a maximum concentration of 146.4 [mu]g/
m3, still below the 150 [mu]g/m3 standard.
The emissions budgets must be used for conformity determinations
per 40 CFR 93.118. Specifically, the 2003 budgets will apply for years
2003 through 2009, the 2010 budgets will apply for years 2010 through
2019, and the 2020 budgets will apply for years 2020 and beyond. In
addition, upon the effective date of this final approval of the motor
vehicle emission budgets and upon the Federal Highway Administration's
approval of a positive conformity determination, the present conformity
lapse in Utah County will end.
On March 2, 1999, the United States Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit issued a decision in Environmental Defense
Fund vs. The Environmental Protection Agency, No. 97-1637, that we must
make an affirmative determination that the submitted motor vehicle
emission budgets contained in SIPs are adequate before they are used to
determine the conformity of Transportation Improvement Programs or Long
Range Transportation Plans. In response to the court decision, we are
making most submitted SIP revisions containing a control strategy plan
available for public comment and responding to these comments before
announcing our adequacy determination. (We do not perform adequacy
determinations for SIP revisions that only create new emission budgets
for years in which an EPA-approved SIP already establishes a budget,
because these new budgets cannot be used for conformity until they are
approved by EPA.) We make the motor vehicle emission budgets in SIP
revisions available for comment by posting notification of their
availability
[[Page 78183]]
on our Web site (currently, these notifications are posted at
www.epa.gov/oms/transp/conform/adequacy.htm). The adequacy process is
discussed in greater detail in a May 14, 1999 memorandum from Gay
MacGregor entitled ``Conformity Guidance on Implementation on March 2,
1999 Conformity Court Decision,'' also available on our Web site at:
www.epa.gov/oms/transp/traqconf.htm.
Because they extend beyond the time-frame of the previously
approved Utah County PM10 SIP, we reviewed the 2010 and 2020
motor vehicle emission budgets in this plan for adequacy using the
criteria located at 40 CFR 93.118(e). The 2003 motor vehicle emission
budgets replace the previously approved 2003 budgets in the Utah County
PM710 SIP revision and can't be used for purposes of
demonstrating conformity until the effective date approving this Utah
County PM10 SIP revision. The 2010 and 2020 motor vehicle
emission budgets were posted to our Web site at: http://www.epa.gov/oms/transp/conform/adequacy.htm
and were made available for public
comment from August 1, 2002 through August 30, 2002. No comments were
received. The 2010 and 2020 motor vehicle emission budgets were found
to be adequate, effective October 16, 2002. The Utah Department of
Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration must use these
budgets in future conformity analyses.
2. Updated Emissions Inventory and Attainment Demonstration
The emissions inventory for the Utah County PM10
nonattainment area covers emissions from all sources of both primary
and secondary PM10 inside Provo and Orem. The SIP revision
uses a 1988 and 1989 base year emissions inventory, as well as a 2003
projected emissions inventory for all sources in the inventory domain.
The 1988/89 base year inventory was updated for purposes of this SIP
revision to create a 24-hour inventory in order to be protective of the
24-hour PM10 National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS).
The 1994 approved version of the PM10 SIP includes an
emissions inventory based on monthly and annual PM10 values.
The 2003 projected emissions inventory, which also contains 24-hour
values, has been updated to reflect stationary source shut-downs and
other changes affecting PM10, NOX, and
SO2 emissions that have occurred since the development of
the original PM10 SIP. The mobile source portion of both the
base year and projected inventories were updated to include the use of
the new Mobile6 emissions model.
Utah updated the existing attainment demonstration from the
original PM10 SIP to again create an analysis based on 24-
hour averages instead of annual values. Utah used the existing chemical
mass balance (CMB) methodology for the 24-hour attainment
demonstration. The CMB analysis was also updated to account for changes
that have occurred since the development of the original
PM10 SIP. One such change to the attainment demonstration is
that Utah increased the wood burning control strategy effectiveness to
90%, meaning that additional reductions in woodburning emissions are
calculated into the attainment demonstration. In addition, since the
development of the original PM10 SIP, some sources in the
Utah County nonattainment area have banked emissions. Although these
emissions are banked, the potential exists for the purchase and use of
part or all of such banked emissions. Because of this, Utah has
accounted for these banked emissions in the attainment demonstration by
assessing the emissions to the source from which they came.
Utah's revised attainment demonstration for Utah County projects
attainment for 2002 and 2003 for SIP purposes, and for 2010 and 2020
for conformity purposes only. In this revised SIP, the CMB analysis is
based on 1988 and 1989 recorded monitoring data, which is the same data
used in the original SIP. Table II below shows the results of the CMB
analysis on the projected attainment years using only the highest
concentration site for each year. Please refer to the Utah County SIP
revision and technical support document (TSD) for more detailed
information. Utah used three monitoring sites to demonstrate attainment
on numerous high concentration days, although a demonstration of
attainment is only required for the design day. In the table below, we
only present results from the established design day (this is the same
design day as in the original SIP revision).
Table II.--Utah County PM10 CMB Analysis Results in [mu]g/m3 at Highest Concentration Monitor
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2010 (North 2020 (North
Sources 2002 (Lindon) 2003 (Lindon) Provo) Provo)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Geneva Steel.................................... 51.5 51.5 38.7 38.7
Point Sources\*\................................ 23.5 23.5 18.5 18.5
Mobile Sources.................................. 46.5 45.8 56.1 55.4
Area Sources.................................... 17.4 17.7 16.8 19.1
-----------------
Total Concentration........................... 138.9 138.4 130.0 131.7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\*\ All point sources in Provo and Orem, excluding Geneva Steel. Includes secondary sulfates and nitrates.
In the original SIP as well as in this SIP revision, Utah uses
three monitoring sites to demonstrate attainment: Lindon, North Provo
and West Orem. The West Orem monitoring site has been shut down since
December 31, 1997.
3. Establishment of Enforceable Short-Term Emission Limits for Major
Stationary Sources
The original Utah County PM10 SIP includes the entire
permit (circa 1988--1991) for most of the stationary sources in Provo
and Orem. We only require that the major stationary sources of
PM10 and its precursors have specific limits in SIPs. For
these majors sources, it is important to include their appropriate
emission limits and the enforceable provisions for those limits, but
it's usually not essential to include their entire permit. Because Utah
County is designated nonattainment for the 24-hour PM10
NAAQS, the SIP limits must include short-term limits with an averaging
time of 24 hours or less. To determine which sources should be treated
as major sources for purposes of the PM10 SIP, threshold
limits were chosen of 100 tons per year of primary PM10
emissions, 200 tons per year of NOX emissions, and 250 tons
per year of SO2 emissions. UDAQ's and EPA's analysis of the
sources in Provo and Orem showed that sources above these levels
account for a high
[[Page 78184]]
percentage of stationary source emissions in the area. The five sources
with explicit emission limits in the Utah County PM10 SIP
revision are, Geneva Steel, Geneva Nitrogen, Inc., Provo City Power,
Springville City Corporation and Geneva Rock Product's Asphalt Plant
Baghouse Stack. Table III below shows the emission limits established
through this SIP revision for the major sources, except Geneva Steel.
Table III.--Emission Limits for Stationary Sources in Tons/Day
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sources Primary PM10 NOX SO2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Geneva Nitrogen, Inc.--Montecantini Acid Plant Vent.......... ............... 0.389 ...............
Geneva Nitrogen, Inc.--Weatherly Acid Plant Vent............. ............... 0.233 ...............
Geneva Nitrogen, Inc.--Prill Tower........................... 0.24 ............... ...............
Geneva Rock Products Asphalt Plant Baghouse Stack............ 0.103 0.568 0.484
Provo City Power............................................. ............... 2.45 ...............
Springville City Corporation................................. ............... 1.68 ...............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table IV below provides the 24-hour emission limits for the major
emitting units at Geneva Steel for September through May, and Table V
below provides the 24-hour emission limits for the major emitting units
at Geneva Steel for June through August. Table VI below provides the
annual emission limits for Geneva Steel's major emitting units.
Table IV.--Emission Limits for Geneva Steel in Tons/Day (September-May)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Geneva steel source Primary PM10 NOX SO2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coke Plant\*\................................................... 0.1 .............. 0.0
Sinter Plant\**\................................................ .............. .............. ..............
Blast Furnace................................................... 1.3 .............. ..............
Q-BOP........................................................... 0.5 .............. ..............
Geneva Other\***\............................................... 1.2 .............. ..............
Secondary Sulfate............................................... .............. .............. 1.0
Secondary Nitrate............................................... .............. 7.7 ..............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\*\ All NOX emissions from coke plant ovens have been banked. Emissions of NOX associated with continuing
operations in the vicinity of the coke plant (coke pile handling) are accounted for in the secondary nitrate
limit.
\**\ All emissions of PM10, SO2, and NOX from the sinter plant have been banked.
\***\ The ``Geneva Other'' category includes the power house, rolling mill and fugitive emissions.
Table V.--Emission Limits for Geneva Steel in Tons/Day (June-August)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Geneva steel source Primary PM10 NOX SO2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coke Plant\*\................................................... 0.1 .............. 0.0
Sinter Plant\**\................................................ .............. .............. ..............
Blast Furnace................................................... 1.3 .............. ..............
Q-BOP........................................................... 0.5 .............. ..............
Geneva Other.................................................... 1.4 .............. ..............
Secondary Sulfate............................................... .............. .............. 3.4
Secondary Nitrate............................................... .............. 9.6 ..............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\*\ All NOX emissions from coke plant ovens have been banked. Emissions of NOX associated with continuing
operations in the vicinity of the coke plant (coke pile handling) are accounted for in the secondary nitrate
limit.
\**\ All emissions of PM10, SO2, and NOX from the sinter plant have been banked.
Table VI.--Annual Emission Limits for Geneva Steel in Tons/Year
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Geneva steel source Primary PM10 NOX SO2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coke Plant\*\................................................... 29.6 .............. 0.0
Sinter Plant\**\................................................ .............. .............. ..............
Blast Furnace................................................... 454.4 .............. ..............
Q-BOP........................................................... 178.2 .............. ..............
Geneva Other.................................................... 448.1 .............. ..............
Secondary Sulfate............................................... .............. .............. 560.2
Secondary Nitrate............................................... .............. 2971.8 ..............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\*\ All NOX emissions from coke plant ovens have been banked. Emissions of NOX associated with continuing
operations in the vicinity of the coke plant (coke pile handling) are accounted for in the secondary nitrate
limit.
\**\ All emissions of PM10, SO2, and NOX from the sinter plant have been banked.
It is important to note here that Geneva Steel is in the process of
banking or has banked a significant amount of its emissions from the
coke plant, sinter plant, Q-and sources in the ``Geneva Other''
category. This is due to the shutting down or reduction in emissions
for the coke plant (some fugitive emissions remain from the coke
piles), sinter plant, foundry and rolling mill scarfer facility.
Emissions reductions are also due to fuel
[[Page 78185]]
switching. Table VII below shows the banked emissions per process in
tons per year of PM10, NOX, and SO2.
Where Tables IV, V and VI reflect that all process emissions have been
banked, no emissions from such process will occur under the SIP
revision.
Table VII.--Banked Emissions for Geneva Steel in Tons/Year
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Geneva steel source Primary PM10 NOX SO2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coke Plant...................................................... 461.8 557.2 454.9
Sinter Plant.................................................... 101.0 705.2 434.2
Q-BOP........................................................... 27.2
Geneva Other.................................................... 51.0
-----------------
Total....................................................... 641 1262.4 889.1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Director's Discretion Provisions
The original EPA-approved PM10 SIPs for Utah County and
Salt Lake County contain provisions that some would argue allow the
Executive Secretary of the State of Utah to make changes effective to
the SIP without first obtaining EPA approval. We believe these
``director's discretion'' provisions are contrary to the CAA and should
not have been approved into the SIP. At the very least, these
provisions have led to uncertainty regarding the content of the
federally enforceable SIP. In order to address these concerns, Utah has
inserted the following language into the SIP: ``Notwithstanding any
other provision in the Utah SIP, no change to this SIP revision shall
be effective to change the federal enforceability of the emission
limits or other requirements of the Utah County PM10 SIP
without EPA approval of such change as a SIP revision.'' This language
makes clear that Utah may not unilaterally change the limits and
requirements of the federally enforceable SIP, and thatUtah's changes
to elements of the SIP will not be federally effective without EPA's
approval. As explained further below, Utah has also committed to work
with us in order to permanently resolve the director's discretion
issues in the Salt Lake County and Utah County PM10 SIPs.
C. What Is the State's Process To Submit These Materials to EPA?
Section 110(k) of the CAA addresses our actions on submissions of
revisions to a SIP. The CAA requires States to observe certain
procedural requirements in developing SIP revisions for submittal to
us. Section 110(a)(2) of the CAA requires that each SIP revision be
adopted after reasonable notice and public hearing. This public process
must occur prior to the State submitting its final revision to us.
At the March 13, 2002 Utah Air Quality Board (UAQB) meeting, the
UAQB proposed for public comment revisions to R307-110-10, SIP Section
IX.A, R307-110-17, and SIP Section IX.H.1. The UAQB proposed the SIP
revision for a 30-day State public comment period that began on April
1, 2002. However, due to problems with copies of the amendment to the
Utah County PM10 Plan, the State made revised copies
available beginning April 4, 2002 and extended the public comment
period to May 4, 2002. The State conducted public hearings on April 23
and 24, 2002. Final action and approval was taken by the UAQB on June
5, 2002 and July 3, 2002 and rule R307-110-10 incorporating revised
Section IX.A, and rule R307-110-17 incorporating revised Section
IX.H.1, into Utah's SIP became State effective on September 5, 2002.
On July 3, 2002, the Governor submitted final rule R307-110-10, SIP
Section IX.A, R307-110-17, and SIP Section IX.H.1 to us for approval
into the Utah SIP. In a letter dated August 15, 2002, from Robert E.
Roberts, EPA Region Administrator for Region VIII, to Governor Leavitt
of Utah, we determined that the Governor's July 3, 2002, SIP submittal
met the completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51, Appendix V, and
therefore the submittal was considered administratively and technically
complete.
II. UDAQ's Commitment for Future SIP Revisions
With an April 18, 2002 letter from Richard Sprott, Director of
Utah's Division of Air Quality to Richard Long, Director of the Air and
Radiation Program in EPA Region 8, UDAQ committed to work with us to
address remaining issues with the PM10 SIPs for both the
Utah and Salt Lake County nonattainment areas and with the Utah SIP
generally. Utah will address these ongoing issues in a SIP revision
(which may be in the form of a maintenance plan) that will be submitted
by March 1, 2004. Utah has committed to address the following issues
with the existing SIP:
(1) State authority as it relates to the discretion granted to the
Executive Secretary of the Utah Air Quality Board (EPA uses the term
``director's discretion'' for these provisions);
(2) Variance provisions as provided in Utah law, Air Quality
regulations and the SIP;
(3) UAM-AERO based modeling and analysis to address pollutants of
concern in the SIP or maintenance plan;
(4) Stationary source modeling for major sources and appropriate
non-major sources to determine predicted impacts of emission limits
established in the SIP or maintenance plan;
(5) Enforceable emission limits for sources in the SIP or
maintenance plan, including enforceable 24-hour emission limits for
major sources in both Salt Lake and Utah Counties and emission limits
(or surrogates for emission limits) for refinery process flaring and
SRU maintenance downtime;
(6) Emissions inventory and modeling analysis for the nonattainment
areas in Salt Lake and Utah Counties;
(7) New source review, emissions banking, and interpollutant
trading (EPA's issues with these programs were explained in a May 10,
2001 letter from Region 8 to UDAQ);
(8) Unavoidable breakdown rules and consistency with the EPA
September 20, 1999 policy regarding such breakdowns;
(9) Inclusion of annual growth rates in the SIP or maintenance
plans;
(10) Justification for credits and growth rates for wood and coal
burning in Utah County;
(11) Backhalf emissions measuring for PM10 emissions
limit stack testing;
(12) General language clean up in the PM10 SIP to assure
SIP is consistent and reads appropriately;
(13) Diesel I/M revision or program withdrawal;
(14) Emission budgets for PM10 and NOX in
Salt Lake portion of PM10 SIP;
(15) Emission inventory and modeling analysis for automobile
emission inspection and maintenance program changes, if any such
changes are made in the SIP or maintenance plan.
[[Page 78186]]
The above issues aren't addressed in this SIP revision for Utah
County and therefore, these issues will continue after our final
approval of this SIP revision.
III. Summary of Public Comments and EPA's Responses
A number of the comments we received are more properly directed to
the State of Utah. For instance, several comments complained that the
State adopted additional controls for stationary sources in this SIP
revision. Others complained that the State should've changed parts of
the existing SIP that we have previously approved. We note that EPA's
role in reviewing and acting on SIP revisions is limited. We take SIP
revisions as they are submitted to us by a state. We must approve a SIP
revision if it meets the applicable requirements of the Clean Air Act;
we must disapprove it if it does not meet these requirements. We may
not change the provisions that a state has adopted. As we describe in
greater detail below, we do not view the negative comments we received
as a basis to disapprove the SIP revision. We believe the SIP revision
meets the applicable requirements of the CAA, and we are approving it.
(1) Comment: One commenter suggests that the correct way to address
a conformity problem is through mobile source control measures rather
than revision to the entire SIP. Another commenter states that
throughout the SIP revision process, not enough effort was made to
control mobile source emissions which are the real source of the
conformity problem.
Response: The commenters' policy concerns are more properly
directed to the State. The State has exercised its discretion in
adopting changes to the SIP and allocating any burden of those changes
among various source categories. Our role is limited; we must either
approve or disapprove the changes the State has submitted depending on
whether those changes meet the applicable requirements of the Clean Air
Act. We are not authorized to disapprove the SIP based on the State's
decision to allocate some or all of the control burden to stationary
sources. We have evaluated the State's SIP revision; because it meets
applicable requirements of the CAA, including the requirement to
demonstrate attainment, we are approving it.
(2) Comment: One commenter states that EPA encouraged a revision to
the entire SIP rather than focus on mobile source emissions because EPA
suggested it would not approve the conformity demonstration/SIP
revision without satisfactory changes to stationary source portions of
the SIP. The commenter suggests we took this ``indirect approach''
because the CAA clearly does not authorize the agency to make a SIP
call under the circumstances.
Response: This commenter's concerns do not present a basis for us
to disapprove the SIP revision. Please see our response to the previous
comment. As a point of clarification, we note that the State chose to
revise the SIP to address the conformity lapse in Utah County. While
the State was developing the SIP revision, we identified a number of
concerns with the existing Utah County PM10 SIP, some of
which related to stationary source provisions. Consistent with our
obligations under the Clean Air Act, we advised the State of changes we
thought necessary to ensure that the SIP revision would meet applicable
Clean Air Act requirements. Whether we had authority to issue a SIP
call is not a question that is before us today. We'd also like to
clarify that EPA does not approve conformity demonstrations; instead,
the Department of Transportation has the authority for such decisions.
(3) Comment: One commenter, despite reservations, asks that EPA
approve the SIP revision as soon as possible.
Response: We acknowledge the supportive comment. We disagree with
the commenter's suggestion that the revision is not legally or
technically justified; even if the commenter is correct that the SIP
revision is more stringent than minimally necessary to meet the Clean
Air Act's requirements, this would not form a basis for us to
disapprove the SIP. If a SIP revision meets the minimum requirements of
the Clean Air Act, we are bound to approve it, even if it exceeds the
minimum requirements. See Union Electric Co. v. Environmental
Protection Agency, 427 U.S. 246, 263-264 (1976).
(4) Comment: One commenter believes the Utah Division of Air
Quality (DAQ) and Mountainland Association of Governments (MAG) have
demonstrated conformity with the PM10 SIP and that EPA
should approve the SIP revision as soon as possible so as not to stand
in the way of Utah County receiving its federal highway funds.
Response: We are approving the SIP, including the new budgets. Upon
the effective date of this action, the new budgets will apply for
purposes of determining conformity. It will then be up to the
metropolitan planning organization (MAG) and the Department of
Transportation to determine conformity with the new budgets.
(5) Comment: One commenter believes that when the problem being
addressed is growing mobile source emissions, it is bad policy to do
anything other than address mobile source emissions exclusively.
According to the commenter, EPA and DAQ should not use a conformity
lapse situation as justification for demanding changes to the
stationary source portion of the SIP. This sets a bad precedent.
Response: The commenter's policy concerns are more properly
directed to the State. The State has considerable latitude to determine
the best way to address a conformity lapse. In revising the SIP to
remedy such a lapse, the State has discretion to choose which sources
to regulate and to what degree, so long as the SIP demonstrates
attainment and meets other requirements of the CAA. Put another way, it
is not our place to dictate where the State should find emissions
reductions if emissions reductions are needed. Instead, our concern is
that any SIP revision submitted by the State meet the requirements of
the CAA and our regulations; to the extent we offered input to the
State during the State's development of the Utah County PM10
SIP revision, our input was intended to help the State adopt a SIP that
would meet these criteria. Also, our conformity regulation at 40 CFR
93.118(e)(4)(iv) indicates that emissions from all source categories
must be considered when we determine whether motor vehicle budgets are
consistent with attainment of the NAAQS. In determining adequacy or
approvability of motor vehicle emissions budgets we cannot look at
mobile sources in isolation.
(6) Comment: One commenter asserts that the Utah PM10
SIP should be further revised during the maintenance plan process to
allow for plant modifications without requiring SIP revisions. The
commenter expresses his opinions regarding the way in which the permit
and SIP process should interact to allow source flexibility.
Response: The issues raised by the commenter are not relevant to
the submission made by the State and thus do not affect our approval of
it.
(7) Comment: One commenter suggests that any commitments or
comments contained in an April 18, 2002 letter from DAQ to EPA
regarding future SIP revisions are independent from this SIP revision
and should not affect its approval.
Response: While we noted the April 18, 2002 letter in our notice of
proposed rulemaking, we proposed to approve the Utah County SIP
revision. We are
[[Page 78187]]
approving the SIP revision with this rulemaking and the budgets
contained in the SIP revision must be used for conformity
determinations once our rulemaking is effective. We will address the
commitments contained in the April 18, 2002, letter in future
rulemaking.
(8) Comment: We received numerous comments asking that we approve
the SIP revision.
Response: We acknowledge the supportive comments.
(9) Comment: One commenter submitted a copy of the comments it
submitted to the State during its hearing process. The commenter
indicates that the comments raise some ``fundamental policy issues
concerning the approach taken both by EPA and DAQ with regard to
proposed SIP revisions,'' and asks that EPA consider the comments
during its deliberations on the Utah County PM10 SIP
revisions.
Response: The commenter has not specified whether it is seeking EPA
disapproval of the Utah County SIP revisions. However, for purposes of
responding, we will assume that the commenter believes the SIP
revisions should be disapproved. The following are summaries of
comments submitted by this commenter and our responses.
(10) Comment: The commenter complains that State changes to the
proposed SIP revision were made without ample opportunity for comment
by affected businesses. The commenter asks that all future changes
allow stationary sources to provide input to the decision making
process.
Response: The commenter does not specify the changes that the State
made to the proposed SIP revision; thus, we lack sufficient information
to evaluate the commenter's complaint. We are not aware of changes the
State made to the proposed SIP revision that would require a restart of
the public participation process. Information submitted by the State
indicates that the State conducted public hearings on the SIP revisions
on April 23 and 24, 2002 and provided published notice of the hearings
on March 23 and April 9, 2002. The State also provided a 30-day period
for public comment and met with various stakeholders, including
industrial sources, during the development of the SIP revisions.
Section 110(a)(2) of the CAA requires states to adopt SIPs after
reasonable notice and public hearing. We believe the State met these
requirements.
(11) Comment: The commenter seems to be asserting that we are
holding or have held approval of the Utah County SIP revisions hostage
until the State addresses our concerns. The commenter cites a case
titled Snowbird Corporation v. U.S. Department of Agriculture for the
proposition that such behavior is illegal.
Response: We provided input to the State while the State developed
revisions to the Utah County SIP revision and identified issues we felt
the State would need to address in order for us to approve a revision
to the SIP. The issues we raised were based on our interpretation of
requirements of the Clean Air Act, and we believe our actions were
completely within our authority under the Clean Air Act. If the State
disagreed with our interpretations, it was free to disregard our input,
submit a SIP revision, and exercise its legal rights under the Clean
Air Act in the event we disapproved the submitted revision. There is no
entitlement to approval of a SIP revision under the Clean Air Act
unless the revision meets the requirements of the CAA and EPA
regulations. Since receiving the SIP submittal from the State, we have
acted expeditiously to propose it for approval and approve it. We have
not held the SIP revision ``hostage.''
(12) Comment: The commenter indicates that increases in mobile
source emissions should not be used to justify reductions in allowable
emission limits currently applicable to stationary sources. The
commenter wants reasonably stringent budgets for mobile sources and
wants mobile sources to stay within budget. The commenter wants any
reductions in the inventory from use of MOBILE 6 modeling to be
allocated to stationary sources.
Response: These decisions are within the State's discretion in the
first instance, and EPA may not consider these comments in determining
whether the SIP revision meets the requirements of the CAA. See our
response to previous comments. Also, see Union Electric Co. v.
Environmental Protection Agency, 427 U.S. 246, 266 (1976), in which the
Supreme Court held that a state ``may select whatever mix of control
devices it desires'' as long as the NAAQS are met.
(13) Comment: The commenter argues that the SIP revision contains
emissions caps that will preclude plant production increases and
growth. The commenter was concerned that these emissions caps may only
be changed through an EPA-approved SIP revision. According to the
commenter, such an approach is unrealistic and unworkable because the
revision and approval process can take as long as 5 to 10 years. The
commenter expressed concern that this will result in functionally
prohibiting industrial and business expansion. The commenter suggests a
countywide cap be implemented that allows emissions trading under the
cap.
Response: The commenter's concerns are more properly directed to
the State because they raise issues with the State's chosen approach,
not matters that are within the scope of EPA's approval or disapproval
of this action. EPA's decision to approve the revision is limited to
whether it complies with the applicable requirements of the CAA. We
believe that the emissions limits meet the requirements of the Clean
Air Act because they are practically enforceable and will ensure
attainment of the NAAQS. The fact that the limits may only be changed
through a SIP revision is not a basis for us to disapprove the SIP
revision. In addition, we believe the commenter's assumptions are
unfounded in certain respects. First, it is our understanding that many
of the allowable limits in the SIP allow for considerable growth in
emissions. (Whether such increases would trigger new source review
requirements is a separate question.) Second, we have a responsibility
under the Clean Air Act to ensure that emissions limits that form the
basis for an attainment demonstration are enforceable and permanent.
Permanent in this instance means that they may not be changed without
EPA's approval through a SIP revision. See section 110(i) of the Act
and 40 CFR 51.105. Third, this approach has proven workable throughout
Region 8. Industrial and business expansion has continued, despite firm
emissions limits in SIPs.
(14) Comment: The commenter is concerned that language in the Utah
SIP that relates to New Source Review negates one of the stated goals
of the SIP revision--to remove smaller sources from the SIP and thus
allow those smaller sources to change their Approval Orders without EPA
review. The commenter mentions language stating that diffusion modeling
will be performed to predict the source's effect on air quality in the
area, and requiring issuance of an Approval Order. The commenter is
concerned that this language could be interpreted to require EPA
approval of changes to Approval Orders as SIP revisions.
Response: The commenter's concerns are more properly directed to
the State, rather than to EPA. The State did not adopt the changes the
commenter requested and has not submitted changes to Section 2 of the
Utah SIP. The absence of such changes does not render the Utah County
PM10 SIP revision inadequate, and we are approving the SIP
revision as submitted. However, we believe the commenter's
[[Page 78188]]
fears are unfounded. Requirements for New Source Review are intended to
complement the SIP; see our response to comment 18, below. But, there
is no requirement in the State's regulations or in our regulations that
the State seek or gain prior EPA approval of changes to Approval
Orders. This does not mean a state is free to ignore state or federal
regulatory requirements in implementing its New Source Review
requirements; if a state fails to implement those requirements, we may
take a variety of actions under the Clean Air Act to correct the
state's failure.
(15) Comment: The commenter questions the addition of Geneva Rock
asphalt plant to the SIP ``when it is not in the same category as the
large stationary sources.'' The commenter also wonders why Geneva Rock
has no annual emission limitations like other sources in the SIP.
Response: We asked the State to include Geneva Rock in the SIP
because Geneva Rock's allowables (i.e., permitted levels) for
PM10 exceed 100 tons per year. This is the threshold for
PM10 that the State and EPA settled on to define which
sources to include in the SIP. We note that the inclusion in the SIP of
emission limits for Geneva Rock is not a basis for us to disapprove the
SIP revision. We don't know why the State did not include annual
emission limits in the SIP for Geneva Rock. However, given Geneva
Rock's size and the daily limits that apply November through February,
we don't believe the lack of annual emission limits for this one source
threatens the annual PM10 NAAQS.
(16) Comment: The commenter suggests that other states, such as
California and Texas, allow changes in equipment and/or facility
modifications that do not require a SIP revision and asks the State to
evaluate these approaches.
Response: The commenter directed this comment to the State, but the
State did not elect to adopt the suggested approach. Because the State
has not submitted such mechanisms as part of this SIP revision, the
comment is not relevant to our approval. The absence of such mechanisms
does not form a basis for us to disapprove the SIP revision.
(17) Comment: The commenter says that the provision in the SIP that
requires offsets for emissions increases greater than 25 tons has never
been adequately justified or considered and that it should be removed
from the SIP.
Response: The commenter directed this comment to the State, but the
State did not elect to modify this provision of the SIP. The continued
presence of this offset provision in the SIP does not render the
submitted SIP revision inadequate or form a basis for us to disapprove
the SIP revision.
(18) Comment: The commenter indicates that for many companies
regulated under the pre-existing Utah County PM10 SIP,
details such as hours of operation and specific emission limitations
have been added to their Approval Orders solely for the purpose of
having the Approval Orders be consistent with the SIP. Now that the
revised SIP no longer contains such limitations for many sources, the
commenter argues that the Approval Orders for those sources should be
revised to eliminate such limitations as well.
Response: This comment does not pertain to the validity of the SIP
revision itself. However, we do not believe it would be appropriate for
the State to engage in wholesale changes to existing Approval Orders.
The idea behind taking specific emissions limitations out of the SIP
for some sources was to provide the type of flexibility the commenter
is seeking--namely to make source changes without the need for a SIP
revision. However, removal of these specific SIP provisions does not
mean that such sources would be exempt from emissions limitations
entirely, or that changes to their Approval Orders would be made
without complying with the permitting requirements in the Utah SIP.
Those permitting requirements, which EPA has approved and which are
intended to meet the requirements of 40 CFR 51.160 through 51.166, are
designed to ensure that permit changes are carefully evaluated for
possible impacts on the relevant SIPs and on attainment and maintenance
of the NAAQS. Neither the State nor sources can assume that removal of
emissions limitations and other requirements from the Utah County SIP
justifies their removal from Approval Orders.
(19) Comment: The commenter suggests that EPA Method 5 should be
added as an alternative to Method 201a for compliance testing, at a
source's option. According to the commenter, the Executive Secretary
should have the discretion to change other details specified in Section
1.a.A without having to go through a full SIP revision, because this is
a relatively minor aspect of the SIP.
Response: The commenter's concern is directed at the State. We note
that the SIP permits the use of EPA Method 5 under certain
circumstances, depending on the characteristics of the gas stream in
the stack. Beyond that, it is not within our authority to change the
SIP that has been submitted to us. The lack of source or Executive
Secretary discretion to change the test method is not a basis for
disapproval of the submitted SIP. The inclusion of the discretion
requested by the commenter would be a basis for disapproval. We note
that the State has committed to address some issues we have with
compliance testing in a future SIP revision, but these issues do not
relate to the commenter's comment.
(20) Comment: The commenter wonders whether incorporating the
definitions of R307-101-2 into section 1.a.E of the SIP will limit
DAQ's ability to modify its definitions without EPA approval of a SIP
revision.
Response: The requirement for EPA approval of changes to an element
of the SIP is not a flaw in the submitted SIP, and we are approving the
SIP as submitted. Our approval means that State changes to the SIP
revision, including incorporated definitions, will not be federally
effective until we approve them. This is because the Clean Air Act and
our regulations provide that no changes to an applicable implementation
plan are effective unless and until they are approved by us as a SIP
revision. See section 110(i) of the CAA and 40 CFR 51.105.
(21) Comment: The commenter indicates that the opacity measurement
requirement of section 1.a.G of the SIP is more stringent than the
federal Method 9 and that Method 9 opacity observations without
modification should be used instead.
Response: This comment was addressed to the State. The State did
not adopt the change the commenter suggested. The State's adoption of a
standard that is more stringent than applicable federal requirements is
not a basis for disapproval.
(22) Comment: The commenter states that section 1.a.H of the SIP
should state that facilities with a required site-specific fugitive
dust control plan are exempted from the requirements of this section.
Response: The State did not adopt the change the commenter
suggested. We believe the provision is adequate as written and are
approving this provision of the SIP.
IV. EPA's Final Action
In this action EPA is finalizing approval of the State of Utah's
revision to the Utah State Implementation Plan (SIP) that was submitted
by the Governor on July 3, 2002, revising the SIP for the Utah County
nonattainment area for particulates of 10 microns in size or smaller
(PM10). The Governor's submittal contains rule R307-110-10
which incorporates revisions to portions
[[Page 78189]]
of Utah's SIP Section IX, Part A and rule R307-110-17 which
incorporates revisions to portions of Utah's SIP Section IX, Part H.
The Governor's submittal, among other things, revises the existing
attainment demonstration in the approved PM10 SIP based on a
short-term emissions inventory, establishes 24-hour emission limits for
the major stationary sources in the Utah County PM10
nonattainment area and establishes motor vehicle emission budgets based
on EPA's most recent mobile source emissions model, Mobile6.
We note that Section IX, Part H of the SIP revision indicates that
definitions contained in rule R307-101-2 apply to Section IX, Part H.
Rule R307-101-2 is a recodification of rule R307-1-1. We have approved
R307-1-1 into the SIP but not R307-101-2. For purposes of this action
only, we have reviewed R307-101-2. We find that the definitions in
R307-101-2 are generally the same as those contained in R307-1-1 and
that they are acceptable as they apply to Section IX, Part H of the SIP
revision. Therefore, we are listing under the additional materials
section of this rulemaking (section C(54)(ii)(E) below) rule R307-101-2
as in effect at the time Utah adopted the revisions to Section IX, Part
H of the SIP and are placing a copy of the rule in the docket for this
action. We will evaluate rule R307-101-2 as it applies to the Utah SIP
generally in a future rulemaking action.
This final action will become effective on January 22, 2003.
V. Administrative Requirements
(a) Executive Order 12866
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this
regulatory action from Executive Order 12866, entitled ``Regulatory
Planning and Review.''
(b) 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
Executive Order 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 Executive Order 13045 because it is not
economically significant and EPA does not have the discretion to engage
in a risk assessment or alternatives analysis in acting on SIP
revisions.
(c) 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 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 regulation.
This 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
levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132, because it
merely approves state rules 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.
(d) Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and Coordination with Indian
Tribal Governments)
Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000),
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful
and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory
policies that have tribal implications.''
This final rule does not have tribal implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the relationship
between the Federal government and Indian tribes, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
government and Indian tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175.
Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule.
(e) Executive Order 13211 (Energy Effects)
This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211 ``Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)) because it is not a
significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
(f) Regulatory Flexibility
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 approval 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 SIP final 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). Therefore, because the final rule does not create
any new requirements, I certify that the final rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
[[Page 78190]]
(g) 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
costs to State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate; or to
the 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 this final approval action does not include
a Federal mandate that may result in estimated 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.
(h) Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. section 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 action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
section 804(2). This rule will be effective January 22, 2003.
(i) 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.
In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In
this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the
State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority
to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP
submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise
satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements
of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply.
(j) 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 21, 2003. 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) of the Clean Air
Act.)
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Dated: December 12, 2002.
Robert E. Roberts,
Regional Administrator.
Title 40, chapter I, part 52 of the Code of Federal Regulations 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)(54) to read
as follows:
Sec. 52.2320 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(54) On July 3, 2002, the Governor of Utah submitted a SIP revision
revising the SIP for the Utah County nonattainment area for
particulates of 10 microns in size or smaller (PM10). The
Governor's submittal, among other things, revises the existing
attainment demonstration in the approved PM10 SIP based on a
short-term emissions inventory, establishes 24-hour emission limits for
the major stationary sources in the Utah County PM10
nonattainment area and establishes motor vehicle emission budgets based
on EPA's most recent mobile source emissions model, Mobile6.
(i) Incorporation by reference.
(A) Rule R307-110-10, which incorporates revisions to portions of
the Utah State Implementation Plan, Section IX, ``Control Measures for
Area and Point Sources,'' Part A, ``Fine Particulate Matter'' as
adopted on July 3, 2002, by the Utah Air Quality Board, and State
effective on September 5, 2002. (Section IX of the Utah SIP was
formerly designated Section 9. The revisions to Section IX, Part A we
are incorporating by reference with this action do not replace Section
9, Part A entirely, but revise portions of Section 9.A.3., 9.A.6,
9.A.7, 9.A.8, 9.A.9 of the previously approved Utah SIP and add a new
Section IX.A.10.)
(B) Rule R307-110-17, which incorporates revisions to portions of
the Utah State Implementation Plan, Section IX, ``Control Measures for
Area and Point Sources,'' Part H, ``Emission Limits,'' as adopted on
June 5, 2002, by the Utah Air Quality, and State effective on September
5, 2002. (Section IX, Part H of the Utah SIP was formerly designated
Section 9, Appendix A. The revisions to Section IX, Part H we are
incorporating by reference with this action replace the following
sections of Section 9, Appendix A of the previously approved Utah SIP:
Section 1.1 (General Requirements (Utah County)) and all subsections
thereof; Section 1.2 (Particulate Emission Limitations (company
specific)) and all subsections thereof.)
(ii) Additional material.
(A) Letter dated August 9, 2002 from Richard Sprott, Director, Utah
Division of Air Quality, to Richard Long, Director, Air and Radiation
Program, EPA Region 8, transmitting the
[[Page 78191]]
chronology of how the Utah County PM10 SIP revision was
adopted over two Utah Air Quality Board meetings (June 5, 2002 and July
3, 2002) and the justification for the nonsubstantive revisions made
between the two adoption dates.
(B) Letter dated July 3, 2002 from Governor Michael O. Leavitt,
State of Utah, to Robert E. Roberts, Regional Administrator, EPA Region
8, requesting EPA's approval of the Utah State Implementation Plan for
PM10 in Utah County.
(C) Commitment letter dated April 18, 2002 from Richard Sprott,
Director, Utah Division of Air Quality, to Richard Long, Director, Air
and Radiation Program, EPA Region 8, committing to work with us to
address remaining issues with the PM10 SIPs for both the
Utah and Salt Lake County nonattainment areas and with the Utah SIP in
general. Utah will address these ongoing issues in a SIP revision
(which may be in the form of a maintenance plan) that will be submitted
by March 1, 2004.
(D) Letter dated March 15, 2002 from, Richard Sprott, Director,
Utah Division of Air Quality, to Richard Long, Director, Air and
Radiation Program, EPA Region 8, accompanied by three volumes of
Technical Support Documentation titled ``Supplement II-02 to the
Technical Support Documentation for the State Implementation Plan for
PM10'' for the Utah County PM10 SIP revision.
(E) Utah's General Definition rule R307-101-2 as in effect at the
time Utah adopted Section IX, Part H of the SIP revision on June 5,
2002.
(F) All portions of the July 3, 2002 Utah PM10 SIP
revision submittal, other than any documents or provisions mentioned in
paragraph (c)(54)(i) of this section.
[FR Doc. 02-32259 Filed 12-20-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P