Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; State of Utah; Provo Attainment Demonstration of the Carbon Monoxide Standard, Redesignation to Attainment, Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes, and Approval of Related Revisions, 66264-66280 [05-21837]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
66264
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 211 / Wednesday, November 2, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
under state law and does not impose
any additional enforceable duty beyond
that required by state law, it 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). This rule also does not
have tribal implications because it will
not have a substantial direct effect on
one or more Indian tribes, 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 by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This
action also does not have federalism
implications because it does 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 (64 FR 43255,
August 10, 1999). This action merely
approves a state rule implementing a
Federal requirement, and does not alter
the relationship or the distribution of
power and responsibilities established
in the Clean Air Act. This rule also is
not subject to Executive Order 13045
‘‘Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997),
because it is not economically
significant.
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. This rule does
not impose an information collection
burden under the provisions of the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
B. 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
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:38 Nov 01, 2005
Jkt 208001
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. This rule is not a
‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
C. 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 January 3, 2006.
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 to
approve the repeal Maryland’s NOX
Budget Trading Program under COMAR
29.11.27 and 29.11.28 may not be
challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. (See section
307(b)(2).)
List of Subjects in 40 CFR part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Nitrogen dioxide,
Ozone.
Dated: October 24, 2005.
Donald S. Welsh,
Regional Administrator, Region III.
I
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
PART 52—[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 52
continues to read as follows:
I
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart V—Maryland
§ 52.1070
[Amended]
2. In § 52.1070, the table in paragraph
(c) is amended by removing the entries
for COMAR 26.11.27 (26.11.27.01
through 26.11.27.14) and 26.11.28
(26.11.28.01 through 26.11.28.13).
I
[FR Doc. 05–21753 Filed 11–1–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 52 and 81
[RME Docket Number R08–OAR–2005–UT–
0006; FRL–7992–6]
Approval and Promulgation of Air
Quality Implementation Plans; State of
Utah; Provo Attainment Demonstration
of the Carbon Monoxide Standard,
Redesignation to Attainment,
Designation of Areas for Air Quality
Planning Purposes, and Approval of
Related Revisions
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Direct final rule.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final
action approving State Implementation
Plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the
State of Utah. On April 1, 2004, the
Governor of Utah submitted an
attainment demonstration and plan for
the Provo metropolitan area (hereafter,
Provo area) for the carbon monoxide
(CO) National Ambient Air Quality
Standard (NAAQS) to replace the
demonstration and plan that were
submitted by Governor Leavitt on July
11, 1994. The Governor’s submittal also
contained a request to redesignate the
Provo area to attainment for the CO
NAAQS and a maintenance plan which
includes transportation conformity
motor vehicle emission budgets (MVEB)
for 2014 and 2015. The Governor also
submitted revisions to: Utah’s Rule
R307–110–12, ‘‘Section IX, Control
Measures for Area and Point Sources,
Part C, Carbon Monoxide,’’ which
incorporates the attainment
demonstration, plan, and maintenance
plan; Utah’s Rule R307–110–31,
‘‘Section X , Vehicle Inspection and
Maintenance Program, Part A,’’ which
incorporates general requirements and
applicability for motor vehicle
emissions inspections; and Utah’s Rule
R307–110–34, ‘‘Section X, Vehicle
Inspection and Maintenance Program,
Part D, Utah County,’’ which
incorporates a revised vehicle
inspection and maintenance program for
Utah County. The Governor’s April 1,
2004 submittal also stated that the prior
July 11, 1994 submittal of Utah’s Rule
R307–1–4.12, ‘‘Emissions Standards for
Residential Solid Fuel Burning Devices
and Fireplaces’’ to restrict woodburning
in Utah County, remains part of her
April 1, 2004 submittal and requested
that Utah’s Rule R307–301,
‘‘Oxygenated Gasoline Program,’’ be
eliminated from the Federally-approved
SIP. We note that on September 20,
1999, the Governor submitted Utah
E:\FR\FM\02NOR1.SGM
02NOR1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 211 / Wednesday, November 2, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
Rules R307–302–3 and –4, which
together comprise a re-numbered and retitled version of R307–1–4.12. The text
of Rules R307–302–3 and –4 is identical
to the text of Rule R307–1–4.12 that the
Governor submitted on July 11, 1994. In
this action, we are approving and
incorporating by reference Rules R307–
302–3 and –4, because these comprise
the current version of the State rule.
Approving these rules rather than the
earlier version will avoid confusion to
the public and will obviate the need for
a future SIP revision merely to renumber the SIP. In the remainder of this
notice, we will refer to the rule by its
current numbers, unless the context
dictates otherwise.
In this action, EPA is approving the
Provo area’s attainment demonstration
and plan, the request for redesignation
to attainment for the Provo area, the
maintenance plan, the transportation
conformity MVEBs for 2014 and 2015,
the revisions to Part A of the Vehicle
Inspection and Maintenance Program
pertaining to general requirements and
applicability, the revisions to Part D of
the Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance
Program pertaining to the program for
Utah County, the revisions to Rule
R307–110–12, the revisions to Rule
R307–110–31, the revisions to Rule
R307–110–34, Rules R307–302–3 and
–4, and the request to remove Rule
R307–301 from the Federally-approved
SIP. EPA is also identifying the
transportation conformity MVEB for the
year 2000, which is derived from the
attainment year emission inventory in
the attainment plan. This action is being
taken under section 110 of the Clean Air
Act.
DATES: This rule is effective on January
3, 2006 without further notice, unless
EPA receives adverse comment by
December 2, 2005. 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: Submit your comments,
identified by RME Docket Number R08–
OAR–2005–UT–0006, by one of the
following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line
instructions for submitting comments.
• Agency Web site: https://
docket.epa.gov/rmepub/index.jsp.
Regional Materials in EDOCKET (RME),
EPA’s electronic public docket and
comment system for regional actions, is
EPA’s preferred method for receiving
comments. Follow the on-line
instructions for submitting comments.
• E-mail: long.richard@epa.gov and
russ.tim@epa.gov.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:38 Nov 01, 2005
Jkt 208001
• Fax: (303) 312–6064 (please alert
the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT if you are faxing
comments).
• Mail: Richard R. Long, Director, Air
and Radiation Program, Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8,
Mailcode 8P–AR, 999 18th Street, Suite
200, Denver, Colorado 80202–2466.
• Hand Delivery: Richard R. Long,
Director, Air and Radiation Program,
Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P–AR, 999
18th Street, Suite 200, Denver, Colorado
80202–2466. Such deliveries are only
accepted Monday through Friday, 8 a.m.
to 4:55 p.m., excluding federal holidays.
Special arrangements should be made
for deliveries of boxed information.
Instructions: Direct your comments to
RME Docket Number R08–OAR–2005–
UT–0006. EPA’s policy is that all
comments received will be included in
the public docket without change and
may be made available at https://
docket.epa.gov/rmepub/index.jsp,
including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes
information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit
information that you consider to be CBI
or otherwise protected through
EDOCKET, regulations.gov, or e-mail.
EPA’s Regional Materials in EDOCKET
and federal regulations.gov website are
‘‘nonymous access’’ systems, which
means EPA will not know your identity
or contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment.
If you send an e-mail comment directly
to EPA, without going through
EDOCKET or regulations.gov, your email address will be automatically
captured and included as part of the
comment that is placed in the public
docket and made available on the
Internet. If you submit an electronic
comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name and other contact
information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD–ROM
you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties
and cannot contact you for clarification,
EPA may not be able to consider your
comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form
of encryption, and be free of any defects
or viruses. For additional information
about EPA’s public docket visit
EDOCKET online or see the Federal
Register of May 31, 2002 (67 FR 38102).
For additional instructions on
submitting comments, go to Section I.
General Information of the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of
this document.
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
66265
Docket: All documents in the docket
are listed in the Regional Materials in
EDOCKET index at https://
docket.epa.gov/rmepub/index.jsp.
Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available,
i.e., CBI or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute.
Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, is not placed on
the Internet and will be publicly
available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically in
Regional Materials in EDOCKET or in
hard copy at the Air and Radiation
Program, Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), Region 8, 999 18th
Street, Suite 200, Denver, Colorado
80202–2466. EPA requests that if at all
possible, you contact the individual
listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section to view the hard copy
of the docket. You may view the hard
copy of the docket Monday through
Friday, 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., excluding
federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tim
Russ, Air and Radiation Program,
Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P–AR, 999
18th Street, Suite 200, Denver, Colorado
80202–2466, phone (303) 312–6479, and
e-mail at: russ.tim@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. General Information
II. What is the purpose of this action?
III. What is the State’s process to submit
these materials to EPA?
IV. Brief History of the Provo Area and the
CO NAAQS
V. The Provo Area’s Attainment/Maintenance
Plan (Provo CO Plan): Contents
VI. EPA’s Evaluation of the Introduction and
Monitoring Sections of the Provo CO
Plan
VII. EPA’s evaluation of the Clean Air Act
Requirements Relevant to the Provo Area
VIII. EPA’s Evaluation of the Provo Area’s
2000 Attainment Demonstration &
Maintenance Plan Modeling
IX. EPA’s evaluation of the Provo Area’s 2000
Attainment Demonstration and Plan
X. EPA’s evaluation of the Provo Area’s
Redesignation Request and Maintenance
Plan
XI. EPA’s evaluation of the Transportation
Conformity Requirements
XII. EPA’s evaluation of the Rule R307–110–
31 Revisions
XIII. EPA’s evaluation of the Rule R307–110–
34 Revisions
XIV. EPA’s evaluation of Rules R307–302–3
and –4
XV. EPA’s evaluation of the removal of Rule
R307–301
XVI. Consideration of Section 110(l) of the
CAA
XVII. Final Action
E:\FR\FM\02NOR1.SGM
02NOR1
66266
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 211 / Wednesday, November 2, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
XVIII. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Definitions
For the purpose of this document, we
are giving meaning to certain words or
initials as follows:
(i) The words or initials Act or CAA
mean or refer to the Clean Air Act,
unless the context indicates otherwise.
(ii) The words EPA, we, us or our
mean or refer to the United States
Environmental Protection Agency.
(iii) The initials NAAQS mean
National Ambient Air Quality Standard.
(iv) The initials SIP mean or refer to
State Implementation Plan.
(v) The word State means the State of
Utah, unless the context indicates
otherwise.
I. General Information
A. What Should I Consider as I Prepare
My Comments for EPA?
1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this
information to EPA through
regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark
the part or all of the information that
you claim to be CBI. For CBI
information in a disk or CD ROM that
you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the
disk or CD ROM as CBI and then
identify electronically within the disk or
CD ROM the specific information that is
claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that
includes information claimed as CBI, a
copy of the comment that does not
contain the information claimed as CBI
must be submitted for inclusion in the
public docket. Information so marked
will not be disclosed except in
accordance with procedures set forth in
40 CFR part 2.
2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments.
When submitting comments, remember
to:
i. Identify the rulemaking by docket
number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal
Register date and page number).
ii. Follow directions—The agency
may ask you to respond to specific
questions or organize comments by
referencing a Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) part or section
number.
iii. Explain why you agree or disagree;
suggest alternatives and substitute
language for your requested changes.
iv. Describe any assumptions and
provide any technical information and/
or data that you used.
v. If you estimate potential costs or
burdens, explain how you arrived at
your estimate in sufficient detail to
allow for it to be reproduced.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:38 Nov 01, 2005
Jkt 208001
vi. Provide specific examples to
illustrate your concerns, and suggest
alternatives.
vii. Explain your views as clearly as
possible, avoiding the use of profanity
or personal threats.
viii. Make sure to submit your
comments by the comment period
deadline identified.
II. What is the purpose of this action?
In this action, we are approving an
attainment demonstration and plan for
the year 2000 for the Provo area for the
CO NAAQS to replace the
demonstration and plan that were
submitted by Governor Leavitt on July
11, 1994. As part of our action on the
attainment demonstration and plan, we
are identifying the transportation
conformity MVEB for the year 2000. We
are also approving a change in the legal
designation of the Provo area from
nonattainment for CO to attainment,
we’re approving the maintenance plan
that is designed to keep the Provo area
in attainment for CO for the next 10
years, we’re approving the maintenance
demonstration, and we’re approving the
maintenance plan’s transportation
conformity MVEBs for 2014 and 2015.
All the above are addressed in the
State’s document entitled ‘‘Carbon
Monoxide Provisions For Provo, Section
IX, Part C.6’’ (hereafter, Provo CO Plan)
which contains the Provo area’s
attainment plan and the maintenance
plan and was included with the
Governor’s April 1, 2004 submittal.
In addition, we’re approving revisions
to Utah’s Rule R307–110–12, that
incorporates revisions to ‘‘Section IX,
Control Measures for Area and Point
Sources, Part C, Carbon Monoxide,’’ that
incorporates the Provo CO Plan
(‘‘Carbon Monoxide Provisions For
Provo, Section IX, Part C.6’’), revisions
to Utah’s Rule R307–110–31, that
incorporates revisions to ‘‘Section X,
Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance
Program, Part A, General Requirements
and Applicability,’’ and revisions to
Utah’s Rule R307–110–34, that
incorporates revisions to ‘‘Section X,
Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance
Program, Part D, Utah County.’’ We are
also approving Utah’s Rules R307–302–
3 and –4, ‘‘No Burn Periods for Carbon
Monoxide’’ and ‘‘Violations,’’
respectively, to restrict woodburning in
Utah County, and we’re approving the
elimination of Utah’s Rule R307–301,
‘‘Oxygenated Gasoline Program,’’ from
the Federally-approved SIP.
III. What is the State’s process to
submit these materials to EPA?
The CAA requires States to observe
certain procedural requirements in
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
developing SIP revisions. Section
110(a)(2) of the CAA requires that each
SIP revision be adopted after reasonable
notice and public hearing. This must
occur before the State submits the
revision to us.
A. On February 19, 2004, the Utah Air
Quality Board (UAQB) held a public
hearing on the Provo year 2000
attainment demonstration and plan for
the CO NAAQS, the request to
redesignate the Provo area to attainment
for the CO NAAQS, the maintenance
plan, the MVEBs for 2014 and 2015, and
the revisions to Utah’s Rule R307–110–
12, Utah’s Rule R307–110–31, and
Utah’s Rule R307–110–34. The UAQB
adopted these SIP revisions on March
31, 2004, they became State effective on
May 18, 2004, and the Governor
submitted them to us on April 1, 2004.
We evaluated the Governor’s
submittal and concluded that the State
met the requirements for reasonable
notice and public hearing under section
110(a)(2) of the CAA. Pursuant to
section 110(k)(1)(B) of the CAA, we
reviewed these SIP materials for
conformance with the completeness
criteria in 40 CFR part 51, Appendix V
and determined that the Governor’s
April 1, 2004, submittal was
administratively and technically
complete. We sent our completeness
determination on July 2, 2004, in a letter
from Robert E. Roberts, Regional
Administrator, to Governor Olene
Walker.
B. On June 23, 1998, the UAQB held
a public hearing for the revisions to
Utah’s Rules R307–302–3 and 4, to
restrict woodburning in Utah County.
The UAQB adopted these SIP revisions
on August 13, 1998, they became State
effective on September 15, 1998, and the
Governor submitted them to us on
September 20, 1999.
We evaluated the Governor’s
submittal of Utah’s Rules R307–302–3
and –4, and determined that the State
met the requirements for reasonable
notice and public hearing under section
110(a)(2) of the CAA. By operation of
law under the provisions of section
110(k)(1)(B) of the CAA, the Governor’s
September 20, 1999, submittal was
deemed complete on March 20, 2000.
IV. Brief History of the Provo Area and
the CO NAAQS
The Provo area was first designated
nonattainment for the CO NAAQS on
March 3, 1978 (43 FR 8964.) This
designation was assigned by EPA
pursuant to the requirements of the
1977 amendments to the Clean Air Act
(CAA). On November 15, 1990, the
Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990
were enacted (Pub. L. 101–549, 104 Stat.
E:\FR\FM\02NOR1.SGM
02NOR1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 211 / Wednesday, November 2, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
2399, codified at 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q).
In response to Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1990, we designated the
Provo area as nonattainment for CO
under section 107(d)(1)(C) of the CAA,
because the area had been designated as
nonattainment before November 15,
1990. The Provo area was classified as
a ‘‘moderate’’ CO nonattainment area
with a design value greater than 12.7
parts per million (ppm). See 56 FR
56694, November 6, 1991. CO
nonattainment areas classified as
‘‘moderate’’ were expected to attain the
CO NAAQS as expeditiously as
practical, but no later than December 31,
1995. Further information regarding this
classification and the accompanying
requirements are described in section
187 of the CAA and in the ‘‘General
Preamble for the Implementation of
Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments
of 1990.’’ See 57 FR 13498, April 16,
1992.
The provisions of section 187 of the
CAA applicable to areas classified as
‘‘moderate’’ with a design value greater
than 12.7 ppm, such as the Provo area,
required that a SIP revision be
submitted to EPA by November 15, 1992
that included: (1) A 1990 base year
emission inventory, (2) a vehicle miles
traveled (VMT) forecast, (3) contingency
provisions that would go into place if
the VMT forecast was exceeded or if the
area failed to attain the CO NAAQS by
December 31, 1995, (4) a motor vehicle
inspection and maintenance (I/M)
program, (5) periodic emission
inventories beginning in September,
1995, continuing until the area is
redesignated to attainment, and, (6) an
attainment demonstration. In addition,
section 211(m) of the CAA also required
the implementation of an oxygenated
fuels program. With respect to the
oxygenated fuels requirement, section
211(m)(2)(B) of the CAA set the
Federally-required oxygenate level at
2.7% oxygen by weight.
On July 11, 1994, the Governor
submitted a revision to the Utah SIP
(hereafter, July 11, 1994 submittal) that
included a CO attainment
demonstration, plan, and several other
SIP revisions applicable to the Provo
area. Among other provisions, the
attainment plan relied on an enhanced
motor vehicle inspection and
maintenance (I/M) program, that was to
be implemented by January 1, 1996, and
the 2.7% oxygenated gasoline program.
However, the commitment to implement
an enhanced I/M program was not
definite. Due to several technical and
legal issues with the attainment
demonstration (notably the State’s
failure to implement the enhanced I/M
program and miscalculation of credit for
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:38 Nov 01, 2005
Jkt 208001
woodburning emission reductions), EPA
never took action on the July 11, 1994
submittal’s attainment demonstration,
enhanced I/M program, contingency
measures, VMT forecasting provisions,
or woodburning requirements (Utah’s
Rule R307–1–4.12.)
Over time, however, we did approve
certain SIP revisions or materials
relevant to the Provo area. These were
the 1990 base year emission inventory
(see 60 FR 33745, June 29, 1995) the
1993 periodic emission inventory (see
63 FR 18122, April 14, 1998) the 1996
periodic emission inventory (see 65 FR
63546, October 24, 2000) revisions to
the State’s rule R307–8 1 ‘‘Oxygenated
Gasoline Program’’ for the
implementation of a 2.7% program (59
FR 55585, November 8, 1994) the 3.1%
oxygen by weight gasoline program for
Utah County (66 FR 14078, March 9,
2001) the improved basic I/M program
for Utah County that was designed to
satisfy the applicable requirements of
both the CAA and section 348 of the
National Highway Safety Designation
Act (NHSDA) of 1995 (interim final
approval 62 FR 31349, June 9, 1997;
final approval 67 FR 57744, September
12, 2002), and the determination of
attainment of the CO NAAQS for the
Provo area along with the change from
a 3.1% to a 2.7% by weight oxygenated
gasoline program (67 FR 59165,
September 20, 2002).
Additional historical information is
also provided in section IX.C.6.a of the
Provo CO Plan.
V. The Provo Area’s Attainment/
Maintenance Plan (Provo CO Plan):
Contents
As noted above, the Provo CO Plan
contains both an attainment plan and a
maintenance plan and is divided into
six sections: an introduction section
(IX.C.6.a), a CO monitoring section
(IX.C.6.b), the attainment plan section
with the attainment demonstration
(IX.C.6.c), the maintenance plan section
(IX.C.6.d), the maintenance
demonstration (IX.C.6.e), and a section
addressing transportation conformity
(IX.C.6.f). We have reviewed the Provo
CO Plan with respect to the relevant
requirements of sections 107, 110, 175A,
176, 187, and 211 of the CAA and EPA
policy and guidance and believe that
approval of the Provo CO Plan is
warranted. Below are our descriptions
and analysis of how the Provo CO Plan
meets the necessary provisions
referenced above.
1 In 1998, the State re-numbered rule R307–8
‘‘Oxygenated Gasoline Program’’ as R307–301 and
changed the title to ‘‘Utah and Weber Counties:
Oxygenated Gasoline Program.’’
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
66267
VI. EPA’s Evaluation of the
Introduction and Monitoring Sections
of the Provo CO Plan
A. Introduction Section (IX.C.6.a)
This section of the Provo CO Plan
provides a discussion of the CO
NAAQS, the Provo area’s geographic
setting and basic demographic
information, and a brief history of the
Provo designation history similar to that
provided in our section IV above.
B. CO Monitoring Network Section
(IX.C.6.b)
As described in 40 CFR § 50.8, the
national primary ambient air quality
standard for carbon monoxide is 9 parts
per million (10 milligrams per cubic
meter) for an 8-hour average
concentration not to be exceeded more
than once per year. 40 CFR 50.8
continues by stating that the levels of
CO in the ambient air shall be measured
by a reference method based on 40 CFR
part 50, Appendix C and designated in
accordance with 40 CFR part 53 or an
equivalent method designated in
accordance with 40 CFR part 53.
Attainment of the CO standard is not a
momentary phenomenon based on
short-term data. Instead, we consider an
area to be in attainment if each of the
CO ambient air quality monitors in the
area doesn’t have more than one
exceedance of the CO standard over a
one-year period. 40 CFR § 50.8 and 40
CFR part 50, Appendix C. If any monitor
in the area’s CO monitoring network
records more than one exceedance of
the CO standard during a one-year
calendar period, then the area is in
violation of the CO NAAQS.
As described in section IX.C.6.b, the
Provo CO Plan is based on an analysis
of quality assured ambient air quality
monitoring data that are relevant to the
attainment demonstration and the
maintenance demonstration. As
presented in section IX.C.6.b of the
Provo CO plan, ambient air quality
monitoring data for calendar years 1994
through 2003 show a measured
exceedance rate of the CO NAAQS of
1.0 or less per year, per monitor, in the
Provo nonattainment area. Further, we
have reviewed ambient air quality data
from 2004 and the first calendar quarter
of 2005 and the Provo area shows
continuous attainment of the CO
NAAQS from 1994 to present.
All of the data discussed above were
collected and analyzed as required by
EPA (see 40 CFR § 50.8 and 40 CFR part
50, Appendix C) and have been
archived by the State in our Air Quality
System (AQS) national database.
E:\FR\FM\02NOR1.SGM
02NOR1
66268
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 211 / Wednesday, November 2, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
VII. EPA’s Evaluation of the Clean Air
Act Requirements Relevant to the Provo
Area
Section IX.C.6.c.1 of the Provo CO
Plan includes Table 3 which presents
certain requirements that the State has
referenced from sections 172 and 187 of
the CAA for a ‘‘moderate’’ CO
nonattainment area with a design value
greater than 12.7 ppm. Our evaluation of
how the Provo area met the relevant
CAA requirements is as follows:
A. Base year emission inventory. The
State submitted a 1990 base year CO
emissions inventory for the Provo area
on July 11, 1994 which met the
requirements of sections 172(c)(3) and
187(a)(1) of the CAA. We approved this
inventory on June 29, 1995 (60 FR
33745). The Governor’s April 1, 2004
submittal contains a new base year
emission inventory for the year 2000
that we are approving with this action.
A further description of this inventory
is provided below in section IX.
B. Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT).
Section 187(a)(2)(A) of the CAA requires
a forecast of VMT in the nonattainment
area for each year before the year in
which the plan projects the NAAQS for
CO to be attained in the area. The July
11, 1994 submittal projected attainment
of the CO NAAQS by December 31,
1995 and the State met this CAA
requirement with its submittal of
projected VMT, for 1994, 1995, and
1996, in a letter dated March 28, 1995.
As noted earlier, we determined the
Provo area attained the CO NAAQS by
December 31, 1995, in our action of
September 20, 2002 (67 FR 59165).
C. Contingency provisions. Section
187(a)(3) requires the submittal of
measures to be implemented in the
event that the forecasted VMT, required
by CAA section 187(a)(2)(A), is
exceeded or the area does not attain the
CO NAAQS by the applicable
attainment date, which in this case was
December 31, 1995. In the event these
contingency provisions are triggered,
they are to be implemented without any
further action by the State. With the July
11, 1994 submittal, the State adopted as
a contingency measure an increase in
the oxygen content of gasoline, for the
Provo area, from 2.7% by weight to
3.1% by weight. The State’s oxygenated
gasoline rule stated that the 3.1% by
weight program would be triggered by
either the actual VMT exceeding the
forecasted VMT or if an enhanced I/M
program was not implemented by
January 1, 1996. In actuality, both
conditions arose; the State did not
implement an enhanced I/M program in
the Provo area by January 1, 1996 (or for
that matter, at all) and the Provo area
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:38 Nov 01, 2005
Jkt 208001
exceeded the forecasted VMT levels.
Based on the above, the Provo area
began a 3.1% by weight program in
1996. However, as we noted earlier, the
Provo area attained the CO NAAQS by
December 31, 1995 with only the benefit
of a 2.7% program (see 67 FR 59165,
September 20, 2002).
Generally, EPA does not insist on
CAA section 187(a)(3) contingency
measures for an area being redesignated
to attainment. See 57 FR 13564, April
16, 1992. This is because the area must
have already attained the standard to be
redesignated, and section 175A of the
Act requires that the maintenance plan
have its own set of contingency
measures.
D. Basic I/M. Section 187(a)(4) of the
CAA includes a ‘‘Savings Clause for
Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance
Provisions of the State Implementation
Plan.’’ The reference in this section of
the CAA relates back to section
182(a)(2)(B) which essentially directs
States to the implementation of a twospeed idle check Basic I/M program that
is at least as effective as the Federal
Basic I/M performance standard as
specified in 40 CFR 51.352. The State
met this CAA obligation by submitting
an improved I/M program revision, on
March 15, 1996, that addressed both the
requirements of the CAA and the
National Highway System Designation
Act (NHSDA) of 1995. As noted in our
2002 final rule approval for this
program (67 FR 5774, September 12,
2002), Utah County’s improved vehicle
I/M program exceeds the Federal Basic
I/M performance standard established in
40 CFR 51, subpart S (‘‘Inspection/
Maintenance Program Requirements for
CO non-attainment areas.’’) We gave
interim final approval of this I/M
program SIP revision on June 9, 1997
(62 FR 31349) and final approval on
September 12, 2002 (67 FR 5774).
E. Periodic inventory. Section
187(a)(5) requires the submittal of a
periodic emission inventory, for the
nonattainment area, every three years
until the area is redesignated to
attainment. The State submitted a 1993
periodic CO emission inventory for the
Provo area on November 12, 1997. We
approved the 1993 periodic inventory
on April 14, 1998 (63 FR 18122). The
State submitted a 1996 periodic CO
emission inventory for the Provo area on
June 14, 1999. We approved the 1996
periodic CO emission inventory on
October 24, 2000 (65 FR 63546). The
Governor’s April 1, 2004 SIP submittal
included a CO emission inventory for
2000 as a component of the year 2000
attainment demonstration. We consider
this inventory sufficient to address the
1999 periodic inventory requirement.
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
F. Enhanced Vehicle Inspection and
Maintenance. Section 187(a)(6) of the
CAA requires ‘‘moderate’’ CO
nonattainment areas to implement an
enhanced I/M program as is provided in
section 182(c)(3) of the CAA. The
provisions of section 182(c)(3), however,
only apply to nonattainment areas
located in urbanized areas with a 1980
census of 200,000 or more. Because the
1980 census for the Provo (and Orem)
urbanized area was 169,699, an
enhanced I/M program was not required
for the Provo area.
G. Attainment Demonstration and
Specific Annual Emission Reductions.
Section 187(a)(7) of the CAA requires
‘‘moderate’’ CO nonattainment areas to
submit ‘‘* * * a demonstration that the
plan as revised will provide, for
attainment of the carbon monoxide
NAAQS by the applicable attainment
date and provisions for such specific
annual emission reductions as are
necessary to attain the standard by that
date.’’ To address this CAA
requirement, the Governor’s July 11,
1994 submittal contained an attainment
demonstration that was based on
dispersion modeling using the Urban
Airshed Model (UAM) and the
CAL3QHC intersection ‘‘hotspot’’
model. As we noted in section IV above,
the July 11, 1994 submittal’s attainment
plan was not Federally-approvable due
to both legal and technical issues.
However, to address this outstanding
CAA requirement, on April 1, 2004, the
Governor submitted a new attainment
plan that demonstrates attainment in the
year 2000. This new attainment plan is
described in sections VIII and IX below.
Its attainment demonstration is based on
UAM–AERO and CAL3QHC–R
modeling.
H. Oxygenated fuels. Section 211(m)
of the CAA requires the implementation
of an oxygenated gasoline program in
any CO area designated as
nonattainment and with a design value
of 9.5 ppm or greater. As this CAA
requirement applied to the Provo area,
the State submitted a SIP revision on
November 9, 1992 for the
implementation of an oxygenated
gasoline program in the Provo area. We
approved this SIP revision on November
8, 1994 (59 FR 55585). In addition, we
also approved revisions to the State’s
oxygenated gasoline program that
involved several definition changes,
average and maximum oxygen content,
and recordkeeping, with our action of
March 9, 2001 (66 FR 14078). We
approved the most recent revisions on
September 20, 2002 (67 FR 59165).
E:\FR\FM\02NOR1.SGM
02NOR1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 211 / Wednesday, November 2, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
VIII. EPA’s Evaluation of the Provo
Area’s 2000 Attainment Demonstration
and Maintenance Plan Modeling
Section IX.C.6.c and section IX.c.6.e
of the Provo CO Plan along with Volume
12, Section 4 of the State’s TSD contain
thorough descriptions of the attainment
demonstration and maintenance plan
dispersion modeling. Major components
of these activities are briefly described
below.
A. Dispersion Modeling
1. Model Approach Selected. The
State selected the EPA-approved
photochemical model Urban Airshed
Model with Aerosol (UAM–AERO)
chemistry to estimate the background
CO concentrations for the modeling
domain. Meteorological fields for input
into the UAM–AERO model were
produced with the Diagnostic Wind
Model (DWM). Emissions data were
processed with the Sparse Matrix
Operator Kernel Emissions (SMOKE)
modeling system. The UAM–AERO
dispersion modeling for carbon
monoxide was performed in accordance
with EPA’s June, 1992 modeling
guidance entitled ‘‘Guideline for
Regulatory Application of the Urban
Airshed Model for Areawide Carbon
Monoxide.’’ To evaluate the impacts at
high volume/congested intersections,
the State used the CAL3QHC–R model.
The incremental CO concentration
impact results from the application of
the CAL3QHC–R model (a more
thorough discussion of the CAL3QHC–
R model is included in section 4.a.5 of
Volume 12 of the State’s TSD) were then
added to the UAM–AERO background
concentration for a total predicted CO
concentration at a selected intersection.
The above modeling effort was
performed by the State in accordance
with the State’s modeling protocol, that
was approved by EPA, which is located
in Volume 12, section 4.b.i of the State’s
TSD.
2. Modeling Domain. Section 4.a.3.2
of Volume 12, of the State’s TSD
discusses the UAM–AERO modeling
domain. The domain covers portions of
13 counties in northern Utah and is 134
kilometers (km) east to west by 226 km
north to south. This is the same
modeling domain that was developed by
the State for the UAM–AERO
application for the development of the
Utah PM10 SIP revision. The State
determined that using the same
modeling domain for both SIP revisions
was a simpler task rather than
developing a smaller, specific domain
for the CO modeling for the Provo area.
EPA agreed with this approach after our
review of the State’s modeling protocol
which is included in section 4.b.i of
Volume 12 of the State’s TSD. For both
66269
the SMOKE emissions preprocessor and
UAM–AERO, the modeling resolution
was at a 2 km by 2km grid. A more indepth discussion of the modeling
domain is located in Section 4.a.3.2 of
Volume 12, of the State’s TSD.
3. Episode Selection. Initially, the
State evaluated six episodes from 1990
to 2001. As explained in the modeling
protocol, in section 4.b.i of Volume 12
of the State’s TSD, and in section 4.a.2
of Volume 12 of the State’s TSD, two CO
episodes were selected that met the
overall requirements for necessary
meteorological data, recent emission
inventory data, and our modeling
guidance. These episodes were January
12th to January 15th of 2000 and
January 6th to January 9th of 2001.
Additional discussion on episode
selection can be found in sections 4.a.2
and 4.b.i of Volume 12 of the State’s
TSD.
4. Modeling Emission Inventories.
The State prepared modeling emission
inventories for the 2000 and 2001
episodes and for the maintenance
demonstration years of 2005, 2006,
2008, 2011, 2014, and 2015 2. Emission
totals by category for each of these years
are presented in sections IX.C.6.c.(3),
IX.C.6.e.(1) Table 12, and IX.C.6.e.(2)
Table 13 of the Provo CO Plan and in
Table VIII–1 below.
TABLE VIII–1.—SPECIFIC CO EMISSION INVENTORIES FOR THE PROVO AREA OF THE MODELING DOMAIN
[All in tons per day of CO]
Source category
2000
2001
2005
2006
2008
2011
2014
2015
Point Sources ...................................................
Area Sources ...................................................
On-road Mobile Sources ..................................
Non-road Sources ............................................
0.03
1.28
59.44
3.05
0.03
1.28
65.38
3.05
0.04
1.18
70.44
3.05
0.04
1.17
72.10
3.03
0.04
1.10
59.69
2.97
0.04
1.03
55.75
2.90
0.05
0.97
52.88
2.86
0.05
0.96
52.46
2.87
Totals ........................................................
63.80
69.74
74.71
76.34
63.80
59.72
56.76
56.34
Our review of the 2000 episode and
2000 attainment demonstration
modeling shows that it should be
approved. We have also reviewed the
2001 episode modeling and the
maintenance demonstration modeling
(for 2005, 2006, 2008, 2011, 2014, and
2015) and have concluded this
modeling should also be approved. The
State has adopted acceptable control
strategies and has performed modeling
that meets our modeling guidance
requirements for the CO NAAQS.
Modeling based on adopted and existing
control measures demonstrates
attainment of the CO NAAQS in 2000
and maintenance through 2015. Our
2 The State also prepared and modeled emission
inventories for 2004 (to consider the elimination of
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:38 Nov 01, 2005
Jkt 208001
evaluation of the 2000 attainment plan
appears in section IX below and our
evaluation of the maintenance
demonstration appears in section X
below.
attainment plan discussed here involve
the base case emission inventory for
2000, the control measures in place in
2000, and the results of the attainment
demonstration episode modeling.
IX. EPA’s Evaluation of the Provo
Area’s 2000 Attainment Demonstration
and Plan
A. Base Case Emission Inventory for
2000
The State’s 2000 attainment plan for
the Provo area is based on relevant data
for the calendar year 2000; specifically
for a winter-time episode. The
monitoring data and episode selection
are described further above in section
VIII and in Volume 12, Section 4.b.ii of
the State’s TSD. Components of the
the oxygenated gasoline program) and 2007 (at the
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
As described in section IX.C.6.c.(3) of
the Provo CO Plan, the State prepared
a winter-time episode CO emission
inventory that would serve both the
purpose of a base case inventory for the
2000 attainment plan and as the
attainment year inventory for the
maintenance plan. The State used
demographic data that was provided by
specific request of Mountainland Association of
Governments.)
E:\FR\FM\02NOR1.SGM
02NOR1
66270
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 211 / Wednesday, November 2, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
the metropolitan planning organization
(MPO): the Mountainland Association of
Governments (MAG). MAG provided the
necessary demographic data, the
applicable transportation data, and
prepared the on-road mobile sources
portion of the inventory. This
information and associated analyses are
provided in Volume 10, Section 3.b.i of
the State’s TSD. Area source emissions
and non-road source emissions are
discussed in Volume 10 and Volume 11
of the State’s TSD. Section
IX.C.6.c.(3)(a) of the Provo CO Plan
states there are no major point sources
of CO within the Provo City limits (the
non-major point source CO emissions
were included with the area sources).
The State notes that with the
development of the 1994 SIP submittal,
two major point sources of CO
emissions existed in Utah County, but
outside the Provo City municipal
boundary. With the development of the
1994 SIP submittal, the State performed
an analysis that indicated these two
major point sources did not have a
significant impact on the Provo
nonattainment area. This particular
analysis is further described in Volume
1, Section 2 of the State’s TSD. The
State indicates in section IX.C.6.c.(3)(a)
that emissions from these two major
point sources were input into the UAM–
AERO modeling domain and that the
intersection modeling analyses with
CAL3QHC–R were paired in time and
space with the output from UAM–
AERO.
The 2000 base-year episode inventory
is presented in section IX.C.6.c(3)
‘‘Table 4. 2000 Provo AttainmentEpisode Inventory’’ of the Provo CO
Plan and the emissions are: Point
sources = 0.03 tons per day (tpd) of CO,
Area sources = 1.28 tpd of CO, Non-road
= 3.05 tpd of CO, On-road mobile =
59.44 tpd of CO. The total is 63.80 tpd
of CO.
B. Control Strategies To Attain the CO
NAAQS
The 2000 base case inventory
accounts for control measures that were
in place for the Provo area at that time.
These State control measures, that are
described below and in section
IX.C.6.c.(4)(c) of the Provo CO Plan,
were: (1) Oxygenated gasoline, (2) motor
vehicle I/M, and (3) residential
woodburning controls. These State
control measures were in addition to the
Federally-mandated regulations for
motor vehicle exhaust (or tailpipe)
emissions and the Federally-mandated
regulations for exhaust emissions from
non-road engines.
1. Oxygenated Gasoline Program. As
described in section IX.C.6.c.(4)(c)(i) of
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:38 Nov 01, 2005
Jkt 208001
the Provo CO Plan, the oxygenated
gasoline program for 2000 involved a
winter season control period of
November through February, with a
minimum requirement for 3.1% by
weight oxygen content for gasoline sold
in Utah County.
2. Gasoline Vehicle Emissions
Inspection and Maintenance (I/M)
Program. As described in section
IX.C.6.c.(4)(c)(ii) of the Provo CO Plan,
model year 1968 through 1995 cars and
trucks fueled with gasoline, propane, or
natural gas, owned by residents of Utah
County, including the Provo area, were
subject to an annual two-speed idle test
program. Vehicles of model year 1996
and newer underwent an On-Board
Diagnostics (OBD) inspection. The I/M
program was primarily a de-centralized
test-and-repair program. We gave
interim final approval to this I/M
program on June 9, 1997 (62 FR 31349).
Based on the NHSDA, we determined
that Utah County’s I/M program was
equivalent to a test-only program with
our final approval on September 12,
2002 (67 FR 57744).
3. Residential Wood-burning Controls.
As described in section
IX.C.6.c.(4)(c)(iii) of the Provo CO Plan,
the State initiated controls on
residential woodburning stoves and
fireplaces with the adoption of Rule
R307–1–4.12, which was included with
the July 11, 1994 submittal. Further
information on this particular rule (now
re-numbered R307–302–3 and –4) is
provided in section XIV below and in
Volume 1, Section 2 of the State’s TSD.
The rule provided for a ‘‘Red’’ status, or
mandatory no-burn, when ambient CO
concentrations reached 6.0 ppm and the
forecasted meteorological conditions
were such that carbon monoxide levels
might continue to increase.
C. Attainment Demonstration Episode
Modeling for 2000
As described in section IX.C.6.c.(4) of
the Provo CO Plan, the attainment
demonstration modeling for 2000 was
performed using UAM–AERO
dispersion model along with the
CAL3QHC–R intersection model. The
modeling was performed according to
the Modeling Protocol, which is
contained in Volume 12, Section 4.b.i of
the State’s TSD.
1. Modeling Analysis. In section
IX.C.6.c.(4)(a) of the Provo CO Plan, the
State indicates that the technical
evaluation of the CO concentrations in
the Provo area was completed in 1994
and concluded that the CO problem was
occurring primarily at one intersection
on University Avenue in Provo (see
Volume 1, Section 2 of the State’s TSD.)
The 1994 analysis also considered the
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
potential influence of two large point
sources of CO (Geneva Steel and Pacific
States Cast Iron Pipe), but concluded
that intersections in the Provo area were
not being significantly affected by
emissions from these sources. The State
also states that detailed meteorological
analysis of both the observation record
and prognostic modeling (for use with
UAM–AERO) showed that specific
meteorological conditions accompanied
the elevated CO concentrations. The
State indicates that analysis of the CO
ambient air quality monitoring database
for the Provo area, along with the
meteorological record over the last
decade, essentially reaches the same
conclusions as the original 1994
analysis: the elevated CO concentrations
at specific intersections are locally
produced by traffic and not influenced
by emissions from point sources. We
note that Section 2 of the Episode
Selection Document (Volume 12,
Section 4.b.ii of the State’s TSD)
describes in detail the analysis used to
select the episode for the year 2000
attainment demonstration.
2. Episode Modeling and Attainment
Demonstration for 2000. Volume 12,
Section 4.a, ‘‘UAM–CAL3QHC
Modeling’’ of the State’s TSD describes
in detail the use of the UAM–AERO
dispersion model to generate the
background, gridded CO values. This
section of the TSD also describes the use
of the CAL3QHC–R intersection model
to calculate the contribution of CO
emissions from automobiles at
particular intersections. The predicted
CO concentrations from these two
models are summed to derive an
estimate of the total CO concentrations
that can be expected at specific
intersections.
As required by us, the State evaluated
the three intersections with the highest
VMT counts and the three intersections
with the lowest Level Of Service (LOS)
in the Provo area. These intersections
are: (1) University Avenue and
University Parkway, (2) 1230 North
(West Bulldog Boulevard) and
University Avenue, (3) 1230 North
(West Bulldog Boulevard) and 500 West
(State Street), (4) 500 West and Center
Street, and (5) 500 North and University
Avenue with University Avenue and
Center Street. The last entry is actually
two intersections—these two
intersections are the nearest major
intersections to the ambient CO air
quality monitor located at 363 North
University Avenue. These intersections
and the modeling results are presented
in Table 5 in the Provo CO Plan and in
Table IX–1 below.
The State modeled the 2000 episode
with control strategies that were in
E:\FR\FM\02NOR1.SGM
02NOR1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 211 / Wednesday, November 2, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
place at that time. Results of the
modeling are presented in Table 5 of the
Provo CO Plan and in our Table IX–1
below and indicate there were no
modeled exceedances of the CO NAAQS
(values are less than 9.0 ppm) at the
specified intersections. The State also
states in section IX.C.6.c.(4)(a) of the
Provo CO Plan that there were no
modeled exceedances of the CO NAAQS
throughout the modeling domain.
Therefore, the State has satisfactorily
66271
demonstrated attainment of the CO
NAAQS for 2000 for the Provo area.
Additional information about the 2000
episode modeling is provided in section
VIII above and in Volume 12, Section
4.b.i of the State’s TSD.
TABLE IX–1.—2000 EPISODE PREDICTED 8-HOUR CO CONCENTRATIONS
Concentration
in ppm
(UAM &
CAL3QHC–R)
Intersection location
University Ave. & University Parkway ...........................................................................................................................................
1230 North & University Ave .........................................................................................................................................................
1230 North & 500 West .................................................................................................................................................................
500 West & Center St ...................................................................................................................................................................
500 North & University Ave. & Center St ......................................................................................................................................
X. EPA’s Evaluation of the Provo Area’s
Redesignation Request and
Maintenance Plan
We have reviewed the Provo area’s
redesignation request and maintenance
plan (section IX.C.6.d of the Provo CO
Plan) and believe that approval of the
request is warranted, consistent with the
requirements of CAA section
107(d)(3)(E). Under the CAA, we can
change designations if acceptable data
are available and if certain other
requirements are met. See CAA section
107(d)(3)(D). Section 107(d)(3)(E) of the
CAA provides that the Administrator
may not promulgate a redesignation of
a nonattainment area to attainment
unless:
(i) The Administrator determines that
the area has attained the national
ambient air quality standard;
(ii) The Administrator has fully
approved the applicable
implementation plan for the area under
CAA section 110(k);
(iii) The Administrator determines
that the improvement in air quality is
due to permanent and enforceable
reductions in emissions resulting from
implementation of the applicable
implementation plan and applicable
Federal air pollutant control regulations
and other permanent and enforceable
reductions;
(iv) The Administrator has fully
approved a maintenance plan for the
area as meeting the requirements of
CAA section 175A; and,
(v) The State containing such area has
met all requirements applicable to the
area under section 110 and part D of the
CAA.
Before we can approve the
redesignation request, we must decide
that all applicable SIP elements have
been fully approved. Approval of the
applicable SIP elements may occur
simultaneously with final approval of
the redesignation request. That’s why
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:38 Nov 01, 2005
Jkt 208001
we are also approving the 2000
attainment demonstration and plan, and
the revisions to Utah’s Rule R307–110–
12, Rule R307–110–31, Rule R307–110–
34, and R307–1–4.12 (now re-numbered
R307–302–3 and –4). The following are
descriptions of how the section
107(d)(3)(E) requirements are being
addressed.
A. Redesignation Criterion: The Area
Must Have Attained the Carbon
Monoxide (CO) NAAQS
Section 107(d)(3)(E)(i) of the CAA
states that for an area to be redesignated
to attainment, the Administrator must
determine that the area has attained the
applicable NAAQS. As described in 40
CFR 50.8, the national primary ambient
air quality standard for carbon
monoxide is 9 parts per million (10
milligrams per cubic meter) for an 8hour average concentration not to be
exceeded more than once per year. 40
CFR 50.8 continues by stating that the
levels of CO in the ambient air shall be
measured by a reference method based
on 40 CFR part 50, Appendix C and
designated in accordance with 40 CFR
part 53 or an equivalent method
designated in accordance with 40 CFR
part 53. As stated above in section VI
and as described in section IX.C.6.b of
the Provo CO Plan, ambient air quality
monitoring data for calendar years 1994
through 2003 show a measured
exceedance rate of the CO NAAQS of
1.0 or less per year, per monitor, in the
Provo nonattainment area. Further, we
have reviewed ambient air quality data
from 2004 and the first calendar quarter
of 2005 and the Provo area shows
continuous attainment of the CO
NAAQS from 1994 to present. All of the
data discussed above were collected and
analyzed as required by EPA (see 40
CFR 50.8 and 40 CFR part 50, Appendix
C) and have been archived by the State
in our Air Quality System (AQS)
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
8.3
7.1
7.7
8.5
8.6
national database. Therefore, we believe
the Provo area has met the first
component for redesignation:
demonstration of attainment of the CO
NAAQS. We note that the State of Utah
has also committed, in the maintenance
plan, to continue the necessary
operation of the CO monitors in
compliance with all applicable federal
regulations and guidelines.
B. Redesignation Criterion: The Area
Must Have Met All Applicable
Requirements Under Section 110 and
Part D of the CAA
To be redesignated to attainment,
section 107(d)(3)(E)(v) requires that an
area must meet all applicable
requirements under section 110 and part
D of the CAA. We interpret section
107(d)(3)(E)(v) to mean that for a
redesignation to be approved by us, the
State must meet all requirements that
applied to the subject area prior to or at
the time of submission of a complete
redesignation request. In our evaluation
of a redesignation request, we don’t
need to consider other requirements of
the CAA that became due after the date
of submission of a complete
redesignation request.
1. CAA Section 110 Requirements
On August 15, 1984, we approved
revisions to Utah’s SIP as meeting the
requirements of section 110(a)(2) of the
CAA (see 45 FR 32575). Although
section 110 of the CAA was amended in
1990, most of the changes were not
substantial. Thus, we have determined
that the SIP revisions approved in 1984
continue to satisfy the requirements of
section 110(a)(2). In addition, we have
analyzed the SIP elements we are
approving as part of this action, and we
have determined they comply with the
relevant requirements of section
110(a)(2).
E:\FR\FM\02NOR1.SGM
02NOR1
66272
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 211 / Wednesday, November 2, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
2. Part D Requirements
Before the Provo ‘‘moderate’’ CO
nonattainment area may be redesignated
to attainment, the State must have
fulfilled the applicable requirements of
part D. Under part D, an area’s
classification indicates the requirements
to which it will be subject. Subpart 1 of
part D sets forth the basic nonattainment
requirements applicable to all
nonattainment areas, whether classified
or nonclassifiable. Subpart 3 of part D
contains specific provisions for
‘‘moderate’’ CO nonattainment areas.
The relevant subpart 1 requirements
are contained in sections 172(c) and
176. Our General Preamble (see 57 FR
13529, 13533, April 16, 1992) provides
EPA’s interpretations of the CAA
requirements for ‘‘moderate’’ CO areas.
The General Preamble (see 57 FR
13530, et seq.) provides that the
applicable requirements of CAA section
172 are 172(c)(3) (emissions inventory),
172(c)(5) (new source review permitting
program), 172(c)(7) (the section
110(a)(2) air quality monitoring
requirements), and 172(c)(9)
(contingency measures). It is also worth
noting that we interpreted the
requirements of sections 172(c)(2)
(reasonable further progress—RFP) and
172(c)(6) (other measures) as being
irrelevant to a redesignation request
because they only have meaning for an
area that is not attaining the standard.
See EPA’s September 4, 1992,
memorandum entitled, ‘‘Procedures for
Processing Requests to Redesignate
Areas to Attainment’’, and the General
Preamble, 57 FR at 13564, dated April
16, 1992. Finally, the State has not
sought to exercise the options that
would trigger sections 172(c)(4)
(identification of certain emissions
increases) and 172(c)(8) (equivalent
techniques). Thus, these provisions are
also not relevant to this redesignation
request.
Regarding the requirements of
sections 172(c)(3) (inventory) and
172(c)(9) (contingency measures) and
how the Provo area met these
requirements, please refer to our
discussions above in section VII. A.,
‘‘Base year inventory,’’ concerning
section 187(a)(1) of the CAA, and
section VII. C., ‘‘Contingency
provisions,’’ concerning section
187(a)(3) of the CAA, which are
provisions of subpart 3 of Part D of the
CAA that establish the same
requirements as sections 172(c)(3) and
172(c)(9).
For the section 172(c)(5) New Source
Review (NSR) requirements, the CAA
requires all nonattainment areas to meet
several requirements regarding NSR,
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:38 Nov 01, 2005
Jkt 208001
including provisions to ensure that
increased emissions will not result from
any new or modified stationary major
sources and a general offset rule. The
State of Utah has a fully-approved NSR
program (60 FR 22277, May 5, 1995.)
The State also has a fully approved
Prevention of Significant Deterioration
(PSD) program (56 FR 29436, June 27,
1991) that will apply, instead of
nonattainment NSR, if we approve the
redesignation to attainment.
For the CAA section 172(c)(7)
provisions (compliance with the CAA
section 110(a)(2) Air Quality Monitoring
Requirements), our interpretations are
presented in the General Preamble (57
FR 13535). CO nonattainment areas are
to meet the ‘‘applicable’’ air quality
monitoring requirements of section
110(a)(2) of the CAA. We have
determined that the Provo area has met
the applicable air quality monitoring
requirements of section 110(a)(2) of the
CAA. See our descriptions in section VI
above.
Section 176 of the CAA contains
requirements related to conformity.
Although EPA’s regulations (see 40 CFR
51.390) require that states adopt
transportation conformity provisions in
their SIPs for areas designated
nonattainment or subject to an EPAapproved maintenance plan, we have
decided that a transportation conformity
SIP is not an applicable requirement for
purposes of evaluating a redesignation
request under section 107(d) of the
CAA. This decision is reflected in EPA’s
1996 approval of the Boston carbon
monoxide redesignation. (See 61 FR
2918, January 30, 1996.)
The relevant Subpart 3 provisions
were created when the CAA was
amended on November 15, 1990. The
new CAA requirements for ‘‘moderate’’
CO areas, such as Provo, required that
the SIP be revised to include a 1990
base year emissions inventory (CAA
section 187(a)(1)), vehicle miles traveled
tracking (CAA section 187(a)(2)(A)),
contingency provisions (CAA section
187(a)(3)), corrections to existing motor
vehicle inspection and maintenance
(I/M) programs (CAA section 187(a)(4)),
periodic emission inventories (CAA
section 187(a)(5)), enhanced motor
vehicle I/M program (CAA section
187(a)(6)), and a modeled attainment
demonstration with specific annual
emissions reductions (CAA section
187(a)(7)). Title II, Part A of the CAA
also requires the implementation of an
oxygenated fuels program (CAA section
211(m)(1)).
These CAA Subpart 3 provisions have
been met for the Provo area. Our
discussions appear earlier in this action.
Please refer to the sections of our action
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
listed as follows for the appropriate
discussion: (a) 1990 base year emissions
inventory requirement of section
187(a)(1) of the CAA, see section VII.A.,
(b) vehicle miles traveled tracking
requirement of section 187(a)(2)(A) of
the CAA, see section VII.B, (c)
contingency provisions of section
187(a)(3) of the CAA, see section VII.C,
(d) corrections to existing motor vehicle
inspection and maintenance (I/M)
programs as required by section
187(a)(4) of the CAA, see section VII.D,
(e) periodic emission inventory
requirement of section 187(a)(5) of the
CAA, see section VII.E, (f) enhanced
motor vehicle I/M program requirement
of section 187(a)(6) of the CAA, see
section VII.F, and (g) the requirement of
section 187(a)(7) of the CAA for a
modeled attainment demonstration with
specific annual emissions reductions,
see section VII.G. Regarding the CAA
Title II, Part A requirement for the
implementation of an oxygenated fuels
program to meet the requirements of
section 211(m)(1) of the CAA, see
section VII.H.
C. Redesignation Criterion: The Area
Must Have a Fully Approved SIP Under
Section 110(k) of the CAA
Section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii) of the CAA
states that for an area to be redesignated
to attainment, it must be determined
that the Administrator has fully
approved the applicable
implementation plan for the area under
section 110(k).
As noted above, EPA previously
approved (or sufficiently explained
otherwise) SIP revisions based on the
pre-1990 CAA as well as SIP revisions
required under the 1990 amendments to
the CAA. In this action, EPA is
approving the Provo area’s 2000
attainment demonstration and plan, the
revisions to Rule R307–110–12, the
revisions to Rule R307–110–31, the
revisions to Rule R307–110–34, Rules
R307–302–3 and –4, and the request to
eliminate the Federal applicability of
Rule R307–301. Thus, with our final
approval of these SIP revisions, we will
have fully approved the Provo area’s CO
element of the SIP under section 110(k)
of the CAA.
D. Redesignation Criterion: The Area
Must Show That the Improvement in Air
Quality Is Due to Permanent and
Enforceable Emissions Reductions
Section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii) of the CAA
provides that for an area to be
redesignated to attainment, the
Administrator must determine that the
improvement in air quality is due to
permanent and enforceable reductions
in emissions resulting from
E:\FR\FM\02NOR1.SGM
02NOR1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 211 / Wednesday, November 2, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
implementation of the applicable
implementation plan, implementation
of applicable Federal air pollutant
control regulations, and other
permanent and enforceable reductions.
The CO emissions reductions for the
Provo area, that are further described in
section IX.C.6.c(4)(c) ‘‘Control Strategies
to Attain the NAAQS’’ of the attainment
plan, were achieved primarily through
the State’s basic I/M program, improved
I/M program, woodburning controls,
oxygenated gasoline program, and the
Federal Motor Vehicle Control Program
(FMVCP).
The four State control strategies listed
above are fully discussed in section
VIII.B above. Regarding FMVCP, these
are Federal provisions that require
vehicle manufacturers to meet more
stringent vehicle emission limitations
for new vehicles in future years. These
emission limitations are phased in (as a
percentage of new vehicles
manufactured) over a period of years. As
new, lower emitting vehicles replace
older, higher emitting vehicles (‘‘fleet
turnover’’), emission reductions are
realized for a particular area such as
Provo.
We have evaluated the various State
and Federal control measures, the
original 1990 base year emission
inventory (60 FR 33745, June 29, 1995),
the 1993 periodic emission inventory
(63 FR 18122, April 14, 1998), the 1996
periodic emission inventory (65 FR
63546, October 24, 2000), and the 2000
attainment year inventory provided
with the State’s April 1, 2004 submittal
and have concluded that the
improvement in air quality in the Provo
nonattainment area has resulted from
emission reductions that are permanent
and enforceable.
E. Redesignation Criterion: The Area
Must Have a Fully Approved
Maintenance Plan Under CAA Section
175A
Section 107(d)(3)(E)(iv) of the CAA
provides that for an area to be
redesignated to attainment, the
Administrator must have fully approved
a maintenance plan for the area meeting
the requirements of section 175A of the
CAA.
Section 175A of the CAA sets forth
the elements of a maintenance plan for
areas seeking redesignation from
nonattainment to attainment. The
maintenance plan must demonstrate
continued attainment of the applicable
NAAQS for at least ten years after the
Administrator approves a redesignation
to attainment. Eight years after the
promulgation of the redesignation, the
State must submit a revised
maintenance plan that demonstrates
continued attainment for the subsequent
ten-year period following the initial tenyear maintenance period. To address the
possibility of future NAAQS violations,
the maintenance plan must contain
contingency measures, with a schedule
for adoption and implementation, that
are adequate to assure prompt
correction of a violation. In addition, we
issued further maintenance plan
interpretations in the ‘‘General Preamble
for the Implementation of Title I of the
Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990’’ (57
FR 13498, April 16, 1992), ‘‘General
Preamble for the Implementation of
Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments
of 1990; Supplemental’’ (57 FR 18070,
April 28, 1992), and the EPA guidance
memorandum entitled ‘‘Procedures for
Processing Requests to Redesignate
Areas to Attainment’’ from John
Calcagni, Director, Air Quality
Management Division, Office of Air
Quality and Planning Standards, to
Regional Air Division Directors, dated
September 4, 1992.
In this Federal Register action, EPA is
approving the maintenance plan for the
Provo nonattainment area because we
have determined, as detailed below, that
the State’s maintenance plan meets the
requirements of section 175A and is
consistent with the documents
referenced above. Our analysis of the
pertinent maintenance plan
requirements, with reference to the
Governor’s April 1, 2004, submittal, is
provided as follows:
66273
1. Emissions Inventories—Attainment
Year and Projections
EPA’s interpretations of the CAA
section 175A maintenance plan
requirements are generally provided in
the General Preamble (see 57 FR 13498,
April 16, 1992) and the September 4,
1992, Calcagni Memorandum referenced
above. Under our interpretations, areas
seeking to redesignate to attainment for
CO may demonstrate future
maintenance of the CO NAAQS either
by showing that future CO emissions
will be equal to or less than the
attainment year emissions or by
providing a modeling demonstration.
However, under the CAA, many areas
(such as Provo) were required to submit
a modeled attainment demonstration to
show that reductions in emissions
would be sufficient to attain the
applicable NAAQS. For these areas, the
maintenance demonstration is to be
based on the same level of modeling
(see the September 4, 1992, Calcagni
Memorandum). As noted above in
section IX, for the Provo area, this
involved the use of UAM–AERO in
conjunction with intersection modeling
using the CAL3QHC–R model.
The maintenance plan that the
Governor submitted on April 1, 2004,
included comprehensive inventories of
CO emissions for the Provo area. These
inventories include emissions from
stationary point sources, area sources,
non-road mobile sources, and on-road
mobile sources. The State used the 2000
attainment year inventory and included
interim-year projections with a final
maintenance year of 2015. More
detailed descriptions of the 2000
attainment year inventory and the
projected inventories are documented in
the maintenance plan in section
IX.C.6.e. and in Volumes 9, 10, 11, and
12 of the State’s TSD. The State’s
submittal contains detailed emission
inventory information that was prepared
in accordance with EPA guidance.
Summary emission figures from the
2000 attainment year and the projected
years are provided in Table X–1 below.
TABLE X–1.—CO EMISSION INVENTORIES FOR THE PROVO AREA PORTION OF THE MODELING DOMAIN
[All in tons per day of CO]
Source category
2000
2001
2005
2006
2008
2011
2014
2015
Point Sources ...................................................
Area Sources ...................................................
On-road Mobile Sources ..................................
Non-road Sources ............................................
0.03
1.28
59.44
3.05
0.03
1.28
65.38
3.05
0.04
1.18
70.44
3.05
0.04
1.17
72.10
3.03
0.04
1.10
59.69
2.97
0.04
1.03
55.75
2.90
0.05
0.97
52.88
2.86
0.05
0.96
52.46
2.87
Totals ........................................................
63.80
69.74
74.71
76.34
63.80
59.72
56.76
56.34
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:38 Nov 01, 2005
Jkt 208001
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\02NOR1.SGM
02NOR1
66274
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 211 / Wednesday, November 2, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
2. Demonstration of Maintenance
The September 4, 1992, Calcagni
Memorandum states that where
modeling was relied on to demonstrate
maintenance, the plan is to contain a
summary of the air quality
concentrations expected to result from
the application of the control strategies.
Also, the plan is to identify and describe
the dispersion model or other air quality
model used to project ambient
concentrations.
For the Provo CO maintenance
demonstration, the State used UAM–
AERO in conjunction with
concentrations derived from the
CAL3QHC–R intersection model. This
was the same level of modeling the State
used for the 2000 Provo CO SIP
attainment demonstration, discussed in
section IX.C.6.c of the Provo CO Plan
and in section IX above, to meet the
requirements of section 187(a)(7) of the
CAA. The UAM–AERO and CAL3QHC–
R models were applied to both the 2000
and 2001 episodes and were used to
predict concentrations in 2000, 2001,
2005, 2006, 2008, 2011, 2014, and 2015
for the intersections identified for the
2000 attainment demonstration (see
section IX.C.6.c of the Provo CO Plan
and section IX above.) This modeling
effort was performed consistently with
our modeling guidance.
The results of the State’s modeling for
the 2000 and 2001 episodes and
projections for 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007,
2008, 2011, 2014 and 2015 are
presented in section IX.C.6.e.2 of the
maintenance plan and in the Volume 12
of the State’s TSD, and are reproduced
in Table X–2 and Table X–3 below. We
note that the State also modeled
emissions for 2004 and 2007. The 2004
modeling was performed to confirm
there would be no adverse impacts from
eliminating the oxygenated gasoline
program in that year and the 2007
modeling was performed at the specific
request of Mountainland Association of
Governments (MAG), which is the
metropolitan planning organization
(MPO) for the Provo area.
TABLE X–2.—2000 EPISODE AND PROJECTIONS, 8-HOUR MAXIMUM CO CONCENTRATIONS IN PPM
[UAM–AERO and CAL3QHC–R combined results]
Intersection location
2000
University Ave. & University Parkway ...........................................
1230 North & University Ave .......
1230 North & 500 West ...............
500 West & Center St ..................
500 North & University Ave. &
Center St ..................................
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2011
2014
2015
8.3
7.1
7.7
8.5
7.9
6.6
7.2
8.0
7.9
6.6
7.2
8.0
8.1
6.8
7.3
8.2
6.5
5.5
5.9
6.5
6.5
5.5
5.9
6.5
6.0
5.0
5.4
6.1
5.6
4.7
5.0
5.6
5.5
4.6
4.9
5.6
8.6
8.4
8.3
8.5
6.9
6.9
6.3
5.9
5.8
TABLE X–3.—2001 EPISODE AND PROJECTIONS, 8-HOUR MAXIMUM CO CONCENTRATIONS IN PPM
[UAM–AERO and CAL3QHC–R combined results]
Intersection location
2001
University Ave. & University Parkway ...........................................
1230 North & University Ave .......
1230 North & 500 West ...............
500 West & Center St ..................
500 North & University Ave. &
Center St ..................................
2004
16:38 Nov 01, 2005
Jkt 208001
2006
2007
2008
2011
2014
2015
7.5
6.7
5.8
8.3
8.7
5.8
5.2
8.2
8.7
5.8
5.2
8.1
7.3
5.8
5.2
8.2
5.8
4.7
4.2
6.7
5.8
4.7
4.2
6.7
5.4
4.3
3.8
6.1
4.9
4.0
3.5
5.7
4.9
3.9
3.4
5.7
9.2
8.9
8.8
8.9
7.3
7.3
6.7
6.2
6.1
As presented in Table 15 of the Provo
CO Plan, and our Table X–3 above, the
500 North and University Avenue and
Center Street shows a modeled
exceedance of the 8-hour CO NAAQS
(9.0 ppm) in 2001 (predicted value of
9.2 ppm). The State notes in section
IX.C.6.e.(2)(b) of the Provo CO Plan that
the highest actual monitored 8-hour CO
value in 2001 was 7.5 ppm. The State
also notes that this CO value was
recorded at a monitor that is only three
blocks from this particular intersection.
The State concludes that, because the
monitored data for 2001 indicate no
exceedances of the CO NAAQS for the
Provo area and the modeled CO values
for all future years are less than the 8hour CO NAAQS (9.0 ppm),
maintenance of the CO NAAQS is
demonstrated.
We consider the State’s position to be
reasonable regarding the 9.2 ppm value
VerDate Aug<31>2005
2005
in 2001 and agree with the conclusion
regarding the maintenance
demonstration as it begins in 2004. As
additional support, we note that an area
is considered to be in attainment for the
8-hour CO NAAQS when no more than
one value above 9 ppm is recorded at
any single monitor in the same calendar
year. Further, to account for instrument
uncertainties, data are rounded to the
nearest 1 ppm before comparison to the
NAAQS. Thus, measured values up to
9.4 ppm are rounded to 9 ppm and not
considered to exceed the CO NAAQS.
Therefore, we accept the State’s
modeling results, which predict no 8hour CO values above 9 ppm after 2001
for all projection years, as evaluated
with both the 2000 and 2001 episodes,
and find that maintenance of the CO
NAAQS is satisfactorily demonstrated
through 2015. Further information
regarding the modeling strategy and
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
results is included in Volume 12,
section 4.b.ii of the State’s TSD.
3. Monitoring Network and Verification
of Continued Attainment
Continued attainment of the CO
NAAQS in the Provo area depends, in
part, on the State’s efforts to track
indicators throughout the maintenance
period. This requirement is met in
section IX.C.6.e.(5) of the Provo CO
Plan. In section IX.C.6.e.(5)(a) the State
commits to track emission inventory
data and compare that information to
the emission inventory data in the Provo
CO Plan. In section IX.C.6.e.(5)(b)
commits to continue the operation of
the CO monitors in the Provo area and
in section IX.C.6.e.(5)(c), to annually
review this monitoring network and
make changes as appropriate.
Based on the above, we are approving
these commitments as satisfying the
E:\FR\FM\02NOR1.SGM
02NOR1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 211 / Wednesday, November 2, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
relevant requirements and note that this
approval will render the State’s
commitments federally enforceable.
maintenance plan is contained in
section IX.C.6.e.(5)(f) of the Provo CO
Plan.
4. Contingency Plan
Section 175A(d) of the CAA requires
that a maintenance plan include
contingency provisions. To meet this
requirement, the State has identified
appropriate contingency measures along
with a schedule for the development
and implementation of such measures.
As stated in section IX.C.6.e.(4)(a) of
the Provo CO Plan, the contingency
measures for the Provo area will be
triggered by a violation of the CO
NAAQS.
The State, in coordination with the
UAQB, will initiate a process to begin
evaluating potential contingency
measures no more than 30 days after
being notified that a violation of the CO
NAAQS has occurred. The State will
present recommendations to the UAQB
within 45 days of notification. The
UAQB will then hold a public hearing
to consider the contingency measures
recommended by the State, along with
any other contingency measures that the
UAQB believes may be appropriate to
effectively address the violation of the
CO NAAQS. The necessary contingency
measures will be adopted and
implemented before November 1 of the
beginning of the next winter season.3
The potential contingency measures
that are identified in section
IX.C.6.e.(4)(c) of the Provo CO Plan
include (a) implementation of a 2.7%
oxygenated fuels program in Utah
County from November 1st through the
end of February, and (b) a return to
annual vehicle emissions inspections. A
more complete description of the
triggering mechanism and these
contingency measures can be found in
section IX.C.6.e.(4)(b) and (c) of the
Provo CO Plan.
Based on the above, we find that the
contingency plan provided in the Provo
CO Plan meets the requirements of
section 175A(d) of the CAA.
6. Revisions to Existing Control
Measures for the Maintenance Plan
The Governor’s submittal letter of
April 1, 2004, stated that because the
maintenance demonstration showed the
CO NAAQS could be maintained
through the next 10 years (i.e., 2015),
the Governor was requesting that EPA
remove the Federal applicability of the
oxygenated gasoline program for Utah
County. This request was further
described in section IX.C.6.e.(3) of the
Provo CO Plan. There the State indicates
that the UAM–AERO and CAL3QHC–R
modeling did not include any emission
reductions credits for an oxygenated
gasoline program beginning in 2004 and
extending through 2015. In addition,
section IX.C.6.e.(3) states that due to
better durability of emissions control
equipment and a lower failure rate of
newer vehicles, the State is switching
from an annual to a biennial vehicle
inspection requirement for vehicles less
than six years old. The State’s modeling
accounts for this change and still
demonstrates maintenance. We agree
with these revisions to the Provo area’s
CO control measures. The modeling
results presented in Tables 14 and 15 in
the Provo CO Plan, and presented above
in our Tables X–2 and X–3, demonstrate
maintenance of the CO NAAQS from
2004 through 2015, even with these
changes.
Based on our review and evaluation of
the components of the Provo CO Plan,
as discussed in our items X.A through
X.E above, we have concluded that the
State has met the necessary
requirements in order for us to approve
the Provo CO Plan’s redesignation
request from nonattainment to
attainment for CO, the maintenance
demonstration, and the required
maintenance plan components.
5. Subsequent Maintenance Plan
Revisions
In accordance with section 175A(b) of
the CAA, Utah has committed to submit
a revised maintenance plan eight years
after our approval of the redesignation.
This provision for revising the
3 Section IX.C.6.e.(4)(b) of the maintenance plan
indicates that implementation of either the
oxygenated gasoline program or annual vehicle
inspections will require some lead time. We do not
view this statement as modifying the commitment
to implement any contingency measures before
November 1 of the beginning of the next winter
season following a violation. Our decision to
approve the maintenance plan is partially based on
this commitment.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:38 Nov 01, 2005
Jkt 208001
XI. EPA’s Evaluation of the
Transportation Conformity
Requirements
One key provision of our conformity
regulation requires a demonstration that
emissions from the transportation plan
and Transportation Improvement
Program are consistent with the
emissions budget(s) in the SIP (40 CFR
sections 93.118 and 93.124). The
emissions budget is defined as the level
of mobile source emissions relied upon
in the attainment or maintenance
demonstration to maintain compliance
with the NAAQS in the nonattainment
or maintenance area. The rule’s
requirements and EPA’s policy on
emissions budgets are found in the
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
66275
preamble to the November 24, 1993,
transportation conformity rule (58 FR
62193–96) and in the sections of the
rule referenced above. In addition,
section 93.118 of our conformity rule
requires that motor vehicle emissions
budgets (MVEB) must be established for
the last year of a maintenance plan and
may be established for any other years
deemed appropriate by the State.
Based on the above, for transportation
plan analysis years after the last year of
the maintenance plan (in this case 2015
for the Provo CO Plan), a conformity
determination must show that emissions
are less than or equal to the
maintenance plan’s specified MVEB for
the last year of the maintenance plan.
EPA’s conformity regulation (40 CFR
93.124) also allows the implementation
plan to quantify explicitly the amount
by which motor vehicle emissions could
be higher while still demonstrating
compliance with the maintenance
requirement. The implementation plan
can then allocate some or all of this
additional ‘‘safety margin’’ to the
emissions budget(s) for transportation
conformity purposes.
Section IX.C.6.f of the Provo CO Plan
briefly describes the applicable
transportation conformity requirements,
provides MVEB information for 2014
and 2015, identifies ‘‘safety margin,’’
indicates that the UAQB allocated some
of the ‘‘safety margin’’ to the 2014 and
2015 MVEBs, and provides UAM–
AERO/CAL3QHC–R modeling that
includes the 2014 and 2015 MVEBs for
intersections noted above.
A. MVEB for 2014
In Table 13 of the Provo CO Plan, the
State identified CO emissions from
point sources of 0.05 tons per day (tpd),
emissions from area sources of 0.97 tpd,
emissions from non-road sources of 2.86
tpd, and emissions from on-road mobile
sources of 52.88 tpd for 2014. Modeling
with UAM–AERO and CAL3QHC–R, as
described above, predicted maintenance
of the CO NAAQS at the evaluated
intersections as presented in Tables 14
and 15 of the Provo CO maintenance
plan. For the 2014 MVEB, the State
increased the on-road mobile source
emissions from 52.88 tpd to 70.44 tpd,
thus producing a ‘‘safety margin’’ of
17.56 tpd. In section IX.C.6.f of the
Provo CO Plan, this 17.56 tpd of ‘‘safety
margin’’ is allocated to the 2014 MVEB
producing the 70.44 tpd MVEB. The
State then applied the UAM–AERO and
CAL3QHC–R models to the above-noted
intersections with point, area, non-road,
and on-road mobile sources emissions
discussed above and demonstrated there
would be no exceedances of the 8-hour
CO NAAQS. The modeling results for
E:\FR\FM\02NOR1.SGM
02NOR1
66276
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 211 / Wednesday, November 2, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
the 2014 MVEB appear in Table 16
(2000 episode) and 17 (2001 episode) of
the Provo CO Plan and are reproduced
below in Table XI–1 and Table XI–2.
B. MVEB for 2015 and Beyond
In Table 13 of the Provo CO Plan, the
State identified CO emissions from
point sources of 0.05 tons per day (tpd),
emissions from area sources of 0.96 tpd,
emissions from non-road sources of 2.87
tpd, and emissions from on-road mobile
sources of 52.46 tpd in 2015. Modeling
with UAM–AERO and CAL3QHC–R, as
described above, predicted maintenance
of the CO NAAQS at the evaluated
intersections as presented in Tables 14
and 15 of the Provo CO Plan. For the
2015 and beyond MVEB, the State
increased the on-road mobile source
emissions from 52.46 tpd to 72.10 tpd,
thus producing a ‘‘safety margin’’ of
19.64 tpd. In section IX.C.6.f of the
Provo CO Plan, this 19.64 tpd of ‘‘safety
margin’’ is allocated to the 2015 and
beyond MVEB producing the 72.10 tpd
MVEB. The State then applied the
UAM–AERO and CAL3QHC–R models
to the above-noted intersections with
point, area, non-road, and on-road
mobile sources emissions discussed
above and demonstrated there would be
no exceedances of the 8-hour CO
NAAQS. The modeling results for the
2015 MVEB appear in Table 16 (2000
episode) and 17 (2001 episode) of the
Provo CO Plan and are reproduced
below in Table XI–1 and Table XI–2.
TABLE XI–1.—2000 EPISODE PREDICTED CONFORMITY MVEB 8-HOUR CO CONCENTRATIONS
Concentration in
ppm (UAM &
CAL3QHC–R) for
2014
Intersection location
Concentration in
ppm (UAM &
CAL3QHC–R) for
2015 and beyond
6.3
5.4
5.7
6.3
6.6
6.3
5.4
5.8
6.3
6.5
University Ave. & University Parkway .........................................................................................................
1230 North & University Ave .......................................................................................................................
1230 North & 500 West ...............................................................................................................................
500 West & Center St .................................................................................................................................
500 North & University Ave. & Center St ....................................................................................................
TABLE XI–2.—2001 EPISODE PREDICTED CONFORMITY MVEB 8-HOUR CO CONCENTRATIONS
Concentration in
ppm (UAM &
CAL3QHC–R) for
2014
Intersection location
Concentration in
ppm (UAM &
CAL3QHC–R) for
2015 and beyond
5.2
4.4
3.8
5.9
6.6
5.3
4.4
3.8
5.9
6.6
University Ave. & University Parkway .........................................................................................................
1230 North & University Ave .......................................................................................................................
1230 North & 500 West ...............................................................................................................................
500 West & Center St .................................................................................................................................
500 North & University Ave. & Center St ....................................................................................................
Pursuant to section 93.118(e)(4) of
EPA’s transportation conformity rule, as
amended, EPA must determine the
adequacy of submitted mobile source
emissions budgets. EPA reviewed the
Provo CO Plan’s emission budgets for
2014 and 2015 and beyond for adequacy
using the criteria in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4),
and determined that the budgets were
adequate for conformity purposes.
EPA’s adequacy determination was
made in a letter to the Utah Division of
Air Quality June 30, 2004, and was
announced in the Federal Register on
July 2, 2004 (69 FR 43412). As a result
of this adequacy finding, the 2014
budget and the 2015 and beyond budget
took effect for conformity
determinations in the Provo area on July
17, 2004. However, we note that we are
not bound by this determination in
acting on the Provo CO Plan.
We have concluded that the State has
satisfactorily demonstrated continued
maintenance of the CO NAAQS while
using transportation conformity MVEBs
of 70.44 tpd for 2014 and 72.10 tpd for
2015 and beyond. Therefore, we are
approving the transportation conformity
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:38 Nov 01, 2005
Jkt 208001
MVEB of 70.44 tpd of CO, for the Provo
attainment/maintenance area, for 2014
and the transportation conformity
MVEB of 72.10 tpd of CO for 2015 and
beyond.
C. Attainment Year MVEB
In addition to the requirements
relating to the maintenance plan MVEBs
discussed above, EPA’s regulations at 40
CFR 93.101 define the term ‘‘motor
vehicle emissions budget’’ as ‘‘that
portion of the total allowable emissions
defined in the submitted or approved
control strategy implementation plan
revision * * * for a certain date for the
purpose of * * * demonstrating
attainment * * * of the NAAQS, for any
criteria pollutant or its precursors,
allocated to highway and transit vehicle
use and emissions.’’ The State’s
attainment plan for Provo CO falls
within EPA’s definition of a control
strategy implementation plan revision
(see 40 CFR 93.101). By definition, the
attainment year—in this case 2000—is a
budget year under EPA’s conformity
regulations. Because the Provo CO plan
does not explicitly identify a MVEB for
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
2000, the budget value defaults to the
inventory value for on-road mobile
sources for that year. That value, and
thus the MVEB, for 2000 is 59.44 tpd of
CO. This 2000 budget applies to
conformity analysis years as specified in
40 CFR 93.118.
XII. EPA’s Evaluation of the Rule R307–
110–31 Revisions
The revisions to Rule R307–110–31
involve the incorporation into the Utah
Rules revisions to Section X of the Utah
SIP entitled ‘‘Vehicle Inspection and
Maintenance Program, Part A, General
Requirements and Applicability.’’ The
revisions to Part A involve the removal
of a historical statement in the ‘‘Utah
I/M program history and general
authority,’’ the reference to the 2002
State legislative changes to Utah Code
Annotated, Section 41–6–163.7 to allow
I/M inspections to go from an annual to
an every-other-year testing program for
vehicles less than six years old, updated
census figures for 1980, 1990, and 2000
in section 2, ‘‘Applicability,’’ and an
amendment to section 2,
‘‘Applicability,’’ under ‘‘Test
E:\FR\FM\02NOR1.SGM
02NOR1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 211 / Wednesday, November 2, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
Frequency’’ to reflect the changes noted
above to Section 41–6–163.7 of the Utah
Code Annotated. Upon our approval,
these revisions to Rule R307–110–31
that were adopted by the UAQB on
March 31, 2004 (State effective on May
18, 2004, submitted by the Governor to
us on April 1, 2004) will become part
of the Federally-enforceable SIP.
We have evaluated and determined
that the revisions to Rule R307–110–31
involving ‘‘Section X, Vehicle
Inspection and Maintenance Program,
Part A, General Requirements and
Applicability’’ of the Utah SIP described
above are acceptable and we are
approving them. In particular, we note
that the State accounted for the changes
to the rule in its maintenance
demonstration, and was still able to
demonstrate maintenance of the CO
NAAQS. Furthermore, we have
concluded that the change from an
annual to a biennial program for
vehicles less than six years old will not
impact attainment of any other NAAQS.
We have based our conclusion on our
evaluation of the State-submitted
supplemental document to the TSD
entitled ‘‘Technical Support Document
for the Utah SIP, Section X, Vehicle
Inspection & Maintenance Program, Part
A, General Requirements, April, 2004
Final’’ and on our own analysis which
is included in the docket for this action.
The program change will not interfere
with any other applicable requirements
of the CAA. Thus, the requirements of
section 110(l) of the CAA are met.
XIII. EPA’s Evaluation of the Rule
R307–110–34 Revisions
The revisions to Rule R307–110–34
involve the incorporation into the Utah
Rules of revisions to Section X of the
Utah SIP entitled ‘‘Vehicle Inspection
and Maintenance Program, Part D, Utah
County.’’ The revisions to Part D section
1. ‘‘I/M performance standard’’ involve
the removal of certain historical
statements, the removal of references to
EPA’s MOBILE5a emission factor
model, and the addition of new
language reflecting EPA’s September 12,
2002 approval (67 FR 57744) of Utah
County’s ‘‘National Highway System
Designation Act (NHSDA) of 1995’’
improved I/M program. Revisions to
Part D also involve the removal of the
obsolete language in section 2,
‘‘Network type,’’ that dealt with
enhanced I/M provisions for Utah
County and changes to section 5,
‘‘Vehicle Coverage,’’ to go from an
annual to an every-other-year testing
program for vehicles less than six years
old. In addition, revisions to Part D
include the ‘‘Vehicle Emission
Inspection/Maintenance Program’’
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:38 Nov 01, 2005
Jkt 208001
ordinance and appendices for Utah
County as adopted by the Utah County
Board of County Commissioners on June
10, 2003, to replace the Utah County
I/M ordinance and appendices that were
in Part D dated December 29, 1999.
Upon our approval, these revisions to
Rule R307–110–34 that were adopted by
the UAQB on March 31, 2004 (State
effective on May 18, 2004, submitted by
the Governor to us on April 1, 2004)
will become part of the Federallyenforceable SIP.
We note that in section 12.2 of
Appendix 1 and in section 7.0 of
Appendix 4 of the June 10, 2003 Utah
County I/M ordinance it is stated that
the adopted cut-points for motor vehicle
emissions inspections contained in
Appendix C to Appendix 1 (of the
ordinance) shall remain in effect until
changed by the Utah County
Commission or Director. In addition,
section 12.2 of Appendix 1 and section
7.1 of Appendix 4 also state that the
maximum concentration of cut-points
shall be determined by the County
Commission or the Director to meet the
NAAQS established by EPA. The
maintenance demonstration, however, is
based on the cut-points contained in
Appendix C to Appendix 1 of the
County’s I/M ordinance. Given this, any
decision by the County Commission or
the Director to change the cut-points in
Appendix C to Appendix 1 shall only be
Federally-effective upon EPA’s approval
of such change as a revision to the SIP.
This is consistent with the
interpretation of the Utah Division of
Air Quality as expressed in an August
2, 2005 letter from Richard W. Sprott,
Director, Utah Division of Air Quality,
to Jerry Grover of the Utah County
Commission.
We have evaluated and determined
that the revisions to Rule R307–110–34
involving ‘‘Section X, Vehicle
Inspection and Maintenance Program,
Part D, Utah County’’ of the Utah SIP
described above are acceptable and we
are approving them. As discussed in
section XII above, we note that the State
accounted for the changes to the rule in
its maintenance demonstration, and was
still able to demonstrate maintenance of
the CO NAAQS. Furthermore, we have
concluded that the change from an
annual to a biennial program for
vehicles less than six years old will not
impact attainment of any other NAAQS.
We have based our conclusion on our
evaluation of the State-submitted
supplemental document to the TSD
entitled ‘‘Technical Support Document
for the Utah SIP, Section X, Vehicle
Inspection & Maintenance Program, Part
A, General Requirements, April, 2004
Final’’ and on our own analysis which
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
66277
is included in the docket for this action.
The program change will not interfere
with any other applicable requirements
of the CAA. Thus, the requirements of
section 110(l) of the CAA are met.
XIV. EPA’s Evaluation of Rules R307–
302–3 and –4
Utah’s Rules R307–302–3 and –4 are
entitled ‘‘No-Burn Periods for Carbon
Monoxide’’ and ‘‘Violations’’
respectively. The UAQB held a public
hearing on the revisions to Utah’s Rule
R307–302–3 and –4, to restrict
woodburning in Utah County, on June
23, 1998. The UAQB adopted these SIP
revisions on August 13, 1998, they
became State effective on September 15,
1998, and the Governor submitted them
to us on September 20, 1999. These
revisions to Rules R307–302–3 and –4
address the requirements and
mechanism for implementing
mandatory ‘‘no-burn’’ periods, for
residential solid fuel devices and
fireplaces, when specified conditions
occur which could lead to formation of
elevated levels of carbon monoxide.
We note the Governor’s submittal
letter of April 1, 2004, requested that
EPA approve the July 11, 1994,
woodburning rule revisions contained
in Utah’s prior Rule R307–1–4.12 in
conjunction with our action on the
Provo CO Plan. As stated earlier in this
action, the Governor’s September 20,
1999 submittal of Utah Rules R307–
302–3 and –4, comprises a re-numbered
and re-titled version of R307–1–4.12.
The text of Rules R307–302–3 and –4 is
identical to the text of Rule R307–1–
4.12 that the Governor submitted on
July 11, 1994.
We have evaluated these revisions to
Utah’s Rules R307–302–3 and –4. We
find them acceptable and are approving
them.
XV. EPA’s Evaluation of the Removal of
Rule R307–301
As stated in the Governor’s April 1,
2004 submittal letter, because the Provo
CO maintenance plan was able to
demonstrate maintenance of the CO
NAAQS for the next 10 years (i.e., 2015)
without the use of an oxygenated
gasoline program, the Governor
requested that EPA remove the State’s
Rule R307–301 from the Federallyapproved SIP. Utah’s Rule R307–301
will, however, remain as a contingency
measure as noted in section IX.C.6.e.(4)
of the Provo CO Plan.
EPA is allowed to approve this
elimination of the Federally-approved
oxygenated gasoline program for Utah
County and the Provo area based on
section 211(m)(6) of the CAA which
states:
E:\FR\FM\02NOR1.SGM
02NOR1
66278
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 211 / Wednesday, November 2, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
‘‘ATTAINMENT AREAS—Nothing in this
subsection shall be interpreted as requiring
an oxygenated gasoline program in an area
which is in attainment for carbon monoxide,
except that in a carbon monoxide
nonattainment area which is redesignated as
attainment for carbon monoxide, the
requirements of this subsection shall remain
in effect to the extent such program is
necessary to maintain such standard
thereafter in the area.’’
The State has satisfied the above
requirements of section 211(m)(6) as
follows:
A. The Provo area is in attainment for
the CO NAAQS. EPA made a
determination of attainment for the CO
NAAQS for the Provo area on
September 20, 2002 (67 FR 59165.) In
addition, as is presented in the Provo
CO Plan, ambient air quality data have
been archived in AQS that show the
Provo area has been in attainment for
the CO NAAQS for the period of 1994–
2003. We have evaluated the ambient air
quality data in AQS and have concluded
the Provo area continued to attain the
CO NAAQS in 2004 and the first
calendar quarter of 2005. Therefore, the
area has been in continuous attainment
for the CO NAAQS from 1994 to the
present. Further information on relevant
ambient air quality data is presented in
section VI.B and X.A above and in
section IX.C.6.a of the Provo CO Plan.
B. The State has provided an adequate
demonstration that shows, beginning in
2004, the oxygenated gasoline program
is not needed to maintain the CO
NAAQS in the Provo area. The State’s
CO maintenance plan for the Provo area
addresses this requirement. As
described in section IX.C.6.e of the
Provo CO Plan, the State used EPA’s
MOBILE6.2 emission factor model to
calculate on-road mobile source
emissions, without any emission
reduction benefits from an oxygenated
gasoline program, for 2004, 2005, 2006,
2007, 2008, 2011, 2014 and 2015. These
on-road mobile source emissions, along
with projected point, area, and non-road
emissions were then modeled with
UAM–AERO and CAL3QHC–R. As
discussed in section IX.C.6.e of the
Provo CO Plan and in section X above,
maintenance of the CO NAAQS is
demonstrated for the time period 2004
through 2015 with the elimination of
the oxygenated gasoline program
beginning in 2004. Therefore,
elimination of the oxygenated gasoline
program will not interfere with
continued maintenance of the CO
NAAQS. In addition, in accordance
with section 110(l) of the CAA, we find
that elimination of the oxygenated
gasoline program will not interfere with
attainment of any other NAAQS or any
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:38 Nov 01, 2005
Jkt 208001
other applicable requirement of the
CAA. Because the oxygenated gasoline
program is a wintertime program, its
elimination will have no impact on
attainment/maintenance of the ozone
NAAQS, which in Utah is a
summertime concern. Regarding
particulate matter, relevant information
and data indicate that the elimination of
the oxygenated gasoline program will
have no impact on attainment/
maintenance of either the PM10 or the
PM2.5 NAAQS.
Consistent with the foregoing, we are
approving the elimination of Utah’s
Rule R307–301 from the Federallyapproved SIP.
XVI. Consideration of Section 110(l) of
the CAA
Section 110(l) of the CAA states that
a SIP revision cannot be approved if the
revision would interfere with any
applicable requirement concerning
attainment and reasonable further
progress towards attainment of a
NAAQS or any other applicable
requirement of the CAA. The Provo CO
Plan’s attainment demonstration and
plan, the maintenance plan, the
revisions to the general requirements
and applicability for automotive I/M,
the revisions to the automotive I/M
provisions for Utah County, the
revisions addressing woodburning
restrictions, and the elimination of the
Federal applicability of the oxygenated
gasoline program for Utah County will
not interfere with attainment,
reasonable further progress, or any other
applicable requirement of the CAA.
Further detail is provided in sections
XII, XIII, and XV of this action.
XVII. Final Action
In this action, EPA is approving the
Provo area’s CO attainment
demonstration and plan for 2000, the
request for redesignation from
nonattainment to attainment for CO for
the Provo area, the Provo area’s
maintenance plan, the transportation
conformity CO motor vehicle emission
budgets for the years 2014 and 2015, the
revisions to Rule R307–110–12 (which
incorporates the Provo CO Plan into the
Utah Rules,) the revisions to Rule R307–
110–31 (which incorporates the
revisions to ‘‘Section X, Vehicle
Inspection and Maintenance Program,
Part A, General Requirements and
Applicability’’ into the Utah Rules), the
revisions to Rule R307–110–34 (which
incorporates the revisions to ‘‘Section X,
Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance
Program, Part D, Utah County’’ into the
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Utah Rules) 4, and the request to
eliminate the Federal applicability of
Rule R307–301, all as submitted by the
Governor on April 1, 2004. We are also
approving Rules R307–302–3 and –4
which were submitted by the Governor
on September 20, 1999. As part of this
action, EPA is also identifying the Provo
CO area motor vehicle emission budget
of 59.44 tpd of CO for the year 2000.
EPA is publishing this rule without
prior proposal because the Agency
views this as a noncontroversial
amendment and anticipates no adverse
comments. However, in the ‘‘Proposed
Rules’’ section of today’s Federal
Register publication, EPA is publishing
a separate document that will serve as
the proposal to approve the SIP revision
if adverse comments are filed. This rule
will be effective January 3, 2006 without
further notice unless the Agency
receives adverse comments by
December 2, 2005. If the EPA receives
adverse comments, EPA will publish a
timely withdrawal in the Federal
Register informing the public that the
rule will not take effect. EPA will
address all public comments in a
subsequent final rule based on the
proposed rule. The EPA will not
institute a second comment period on
this action. Any parties interested in
commenting must do so at this time.
Please note that if EPA receives adverse
comment on an amendment, paragraph,
or section of this rule and if that
provision may be severed from the
remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt
as final those provisions of the rule that
are not the subject of an adverse
comment.
XVIII. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR
51735, October 4, 1993), this action is
not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ and
therefore is not subject to review by the
Office of Management and Budget. For
this reason, this action is also not
subject to Executive Order 13211,
‘‘Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355, May
22, 2001). This action merely approves
state law as meeting Federal
requirements and imposes no additional
requirements beyond those imposed by
state law. Accordingly, the
Administrator certifies that this rule
will not have a significant economic
4 Please note the condition EPA expresses in
section XIII of this action, that any decision by the
Utah County Board of Commissioners to change
cut-points will not be effective to change the cutpoints EPA is approving in Section X, Part D,
Appendix C to Appendix 1 of the SIP absent EPA
approval as a SIP revision.
E:\FR\FM\02NOR1.SGM
02NOR1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 211 / Wednesday, November 2, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
impact on a substantial number of small
entities under the Regulatory Flexibility
Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this
rule approves pre-existing requirements
under state law and does not impose
any additional enforceable duty beyond
that required by state law, it 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).
This rule also does not have tribal
implications because it will not have a
substantial direct effect on one or more
Indian tribes, 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 by Executive Order 13175
(65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This
action also does not have Federalism
implications because it does 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 (64 FR 43255,
August 10, 1999). This action 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. This rule also is not
subject to Executive Order 13045
‘‘Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997),
because it is not economically
significant.
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. This rule does
not impose an information collection
burden under the provisions of the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
The Congressional Review Act, 5
U.S.C. section 801 et seq., as added by
the Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996,
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:38 Nov 01, 2005
Jkt 208001
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. 804(2).
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 January 3, 2006.
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).)
List of Subjects
40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Carbon Monoxide,
Incorporation by reference,
Intergovernmental relations, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.
40 CFR Part 81
Air pollution control, National parks,
Wilderness areas.
Dated: October 24, 2005.
Robert E. Roberts,
Regional Administrator, Region VIII.
40 CFR parts 52 and 81 are amended
as follows:
I
PART 52—[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 52
continues to read as follows:
I
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart TT—Utah
2. Section 52.2320 is amended by
adding paragraph (c)(62) to read as
follows:
I
§ 52.2320
Identification of plan.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) * * *
(62) Revisions to the Utah State
Implementation Plan, ‘‘Section IX, Part
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
66279
C.6, Carbon Monoxide Provisions for
Provo,’’ as submitted by the Governor
on April 1, 2004; revisions to UAC
R307–110–12, ‘‘Section IX, Control
Measures for Area and Point Sources,
Part C, Carbon Monoxide,’’ as submitted
by the Governor on April 1, 2004;
revisions to the Utah State
Implementation Plan, ‘‘Section X,
Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance
Program, Part A, General Requirements
and Applicability,’’ as submitted by the
Governor on April 1, 2004; revisions to
UAC R307–110–31, ‘‘Section X, Vehicle
Inspection and Maintenance Program,
Part A, General Requirements and
Applicability,’’ as submitted by the
Governor on April 1, 2004; revisions to
the Utah State Implementation Plan,
‘‘Section X, Vehicle Inspection and
Maintenance Program, Part D, Utah
County,’’ as submitted by the Governor
on April 1, 2004; revisions to UAC
R307–110–34, ‘‘Section X, Vehicle
Inspection and Maintenance Program,
Part D, Utah County,’’ as submitted by
the Governor on April 1, 2004; the
removal of UAC R307–301 from the
Federally-approved SIP as requested by
the Governor on April 1, 2004; and UAC
R307–302–3, and UAC R307–302–4,
‘‘No-Burn Periods for Carbon
Monoxide’’ and ‘‘Violations,’’
respectively, as submitted by the
Governor on September 20, 1999.
(i) Incorporation by reference.
(A) UAC R307–110–12, as adopted by
the Utah Air Quality Board on March
31, 2004, effective May 18, 2004. This
incorporation by reference of UAC
R307–110–12 only extends to the
following Utah SIP provisions and
excludes any other provisions that UAC
R307–110–12 incorporates by reference:
‘‘Section IX, Part C.6, Carbon Monoxide
Provisions for Provo,’’ adopted by the
Utah Air Quality Board on March 31,
2004, effective May 18, 2004.
(B) UAC R307–110–31, ‘‘Section X,
Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance
Program, Part A, General Requirements
and Applicability,’’ as adopted by the
Utah Air Quality Board on March 31,
2004, effective May 18, 2004.
(C) UAC R307–110–34, ‘‘Section X,
Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance
Program, Part D, Utah County,’’ as
adopted by the Utah Air Quality Board
on March 31, 2004, effective May 18,
2004.
(D) UAC R307–302–3, ‘‘No-Burn
Periods for Carbon Monoxide,’’ as
adopted by the Utah Air Quality Board
on August 13, 1998, effective September
15, 1998.
(E) UAC R307–302–4, ‘‘Violations,’’ as
adopted by the Utah Air Quality Board
on August 13, 1998, effective September
15, 1998.
E:\FR\FM\02NOR1.SGM
02NOR1
66280
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 211 / Wednesday, November 2, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
(ii) Additional materials.
(A) An August 2, 2005 letter from
Richard Sprott, Utah Department of
Environmental Quality, to Jerry Grover,
Utah County Commission, addressing
limits on Utah County authority to
revise vehicle emission cut-points.
(B) An August 19, 2005 letter from
Richard Sprott, Utah Department of
Environmental Quality, to Richard
Long, EPA Region VIII, providing
supplemental Technical Support
Documentation to Volumes 11 and 12 of
the State’s Technical Support Document
for the Provo area’s carbon monoxide
attainment demonstration and
maintenance plan that was submitted by
Governor Walker on April 1, 2004.
(C) A September 8, 2005 letter from
Jan Miller, Utah Department of
Environmental Quality, to Kerri Fiedler,
EPA Region VIII, to address
typographical errors in ‘‘Section X, Part
D, Utah County Vehicle Emissions
Inspection and Maintenance Program’’
that was submitted by Governor Walker
on April 1, 2004.
PART 81—[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 81
continues to read as follows:
I
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
2. In § 81.345, the table entitled
‘‘Utah-Carbon Monoxide’’ is amended
by revising the entry for ‘‘Provo Area’’
to read as follows:
I
§ 81.345
*
*
Utah.
*
*
*
UTAH—CARBON MONOXIDE
Designation
Classification
Designated area
Date 1
*
*
*
Provo Area
Utah County (part) city of Provo ......................................
*
1 This
*
*
Type
*
*
*
*
*
1/3/06
*
Date 1
*
*
Type
Attainment.
*
date is November 15, 1990, unless otherwise noted.
*
*
*
clarify the dates by which all plants
must meet the NESHAP requirements,
and to specify the time allowed to
demonstrate initial compliance for a
new or reconstructed potline, anode
bake furnace, or pitch storage tank as
well as an existing potline or anode
bake furnace that has been shutdown
and subsequently restarted. We are
making these amendments to reduce
compliance uncertainties and improve
understanding of the NESHAP
requirements.
*
[FR Doc. 05–21837 Filed 11–1–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 63
[OAR–2002–0031; FRL–7992–8]
RIN 2060–AK50
National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants for Primary
Aluminum Reduction Plants
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule; amendments.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: EPA is amending the national
emission standards for hazardous air
pollutants (NESHAP) for primary
aluminum reduction plants. The
amendments will revise the emission
limit for polycyclic organic matter
(POM) applicable to one potline
subcategory. The amendments will
revise the compliance provisions to
Category
November 2, 2005.
ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a
docket for this action under Docket ID
No. OAR–2002–0031. All documents in
the docket at listed in the EDOCKET
index at https://docket.epa.gov/edkpub/
index.jsp. Although listed in the index,
some information is not publicly
available, i.e., confidential business
information or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute.
Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, is not placed on
the Internet and will be publicly
available only in hard copy form.
EFFECTIVE DATE:
NAICS code 1
Industry .....................................................
331312
Federal government ..................................
State/local/tribal government ....................
........................
........................
1 North
Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically in
EDOCKET or in hard copy at the EPA
Docket Center, Docket ID Number OAR–
2002–0031, EPA West Building, Room
B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC. The Public Reading
Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding
legal holidays. The telephone number
for the Public Reading Room is (202)
566–1744, and the telephone number for
the EPA Docket Center is (202) 566–
1742. A reasonable fee may be charged
for copying docket materials.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr.
Donna Lee Jones, EPA, Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards,
Emission Standards Division, Metals
Group (C439–02), Research Triangle
Park, NC 27711, telephone number (919)
541–5251, fax number (919) 541–3207,
e-mail address:
Jones.DonnaLee@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Regulated Entities. The regulated
categories and entities affected by the
NESHAP include:
Examples of regulated entities
Establishments primarily engaged in producing primary aluminum by electrolytically
reducing alumina.
Not affected.
Not affected.
American Industry Classification System.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:38 Nov 01, 2005
Jkt 208001
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\02NOR1.SGM
02NOR1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 211 (Wednesday, November 2, 2005)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 66264-66280]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-21837]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 52 and 81
[RME Docket Number R08-OAR-2005-UT-0006; FRL-7992-6]
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
State of Utah; Provo Attainment Demonstration of the Carbon Monoxide
Standard, Redesignation to Attainment, Designation of Areas for Air
Quality Planning Purposes, and Approval of Related Revisions
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Direct final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final action approving State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the State of Utah. On
April 1, 2004, the Governor of Utah submitted an attainment
demonstration and plan for the Provo metropolitan area (hereafter,
Provo area) for the carbon monoxide (CO) National Ambient Air Quality
Standard (NAAQS) to replace the demonstration and plan that were
submitted by Governor Leavitt on July 11, 1994. The Governor's
submittal also contained a request to redesignate the Provo area to
attainment for the CO NAAQS and a maintenance plan which includes
transportation conformity motor vehicle emission budgets (MVEB) for
2014 and 2015. The Governor also submitted revisions to: Utah's Rule
R307-110-12, ``Section IX, Control Measures for Area and Point Sources,
Part C, Carbon Monoxide,'' which incorporates the attainment
demonstration, plan, and maintenance plan; Utah's Rule R307-110-31,
``Section X , Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Program, Part A,''
which incorporates general requirements and applicability for motor
vehicle emissions inspections; and Utah's Rule R307-110-34, ``Section
X, Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Program, Part D, Utah County,''
which incorporates a revised vehicle inspection and maintenance program
for Utah County. The Governor's April 1, 2004 submittal also stated
that the prior July 11, 1994 submittal of Utah's Rule R307-1-4.12,
``Emissions Standards for Residential Solid Fuel Burning Devices and
Fireplaces'' to restrict woodburning in Utah County, remains part of
her April 1, 2004 submittal and requested that Utah's Rule R307-301,
``Oxygenated Gasoline Program,'' be eliminated from the Federally-
approved SIP. We note that on September 20, 1999, the Governor
submitted Utah
[[Page 66265]]
Rules R307-302-3 and -4, which together comprise a re-numbered and re-
titled version of R307-1-4.12. The text of Rules R307-302-3 and -4 is
identical to the text of Rule R307-1-4.12 that the Governor submitted
on July 11, 1994. In this action, we are approving and incorporating by
reference Rules R307-302-3 and -4, because these comprise the current
version of the State rule. Approving these rules rather than the
earlier version will avoid confusion to the public and will obviate the
need for a future SIP revision merely to re-number the SIP. In the
remainder of this notice, we will refer to the rule by its current
numbers, unless the context dictates otherwise.
In this action, EPA is approving the Provo area's attainment
demonstration and plan, the request for redesignation to attainment for
the Provo area, the maintenance plan, the transportation conformity
MVEBs for 2014 and 2015, the revisions to Part A of the Vehicle
Inspection and Maintenance Program pertaining to general requirements
and applicability, the revisions to Part D of the Vehicle Inspection
and Maintenance Program pertaining to the program for Utah County, the
revisions to Rule R307-110-12, the revisions to Rule R307-110-31, the
revisions to Rule R307-110-34, Rules R307-302-3 and -4, and the request
to remove Rule R307-301 from the Federally-approved SIP. EPA is also
identifying the transportation conformity MVEB for the year 2000, which
is derived from the attainment year emission inventory in the
attainment plan. This action is being taken under section 110 of the
Clean Air Act.
DATES: This rule is effective on January 3, 2006 without further
notice, unless EPA receives adverse comment by December 2, 2005. 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: Submit your comments, identified by RME Docket Number R08-
OAR-2005-UT-0006, by one of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
Agency Web site: https://docket.epa.gov/rmepub/index.jsp.
Regional Materials in EDOCKET (RME), EPA's electronic public docket and
comment system for regional actions, is EPA's preferred method for
receiving comments. Follow the on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
E-mail: long.richard@epa.gov and russ.tim@epa.gov.
Fax: (303) 312-6064 (please alert the individual listed in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT if you are faxing comments).
Mail: Richard R. Long, Director, Air and Radiation
Program, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P-
AR, 999 18th Street, Suite 200, Denver, Colorado 80202-2466.
Hand Delivery: Richard R. Long, Director, Air and
Radiation Program, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8,
Mailcode 8P-AR, 999 18th Street, Suite 200, Denver, Colorado 80202-
2466. Such deliveries are only accepted Monday through Friday, 8 a.m.
to 4:55 p.m., excluding federal holidays. Special arrangements should
be made for deliveries of boxed information.
Instructions: Direct your comments to RME Docket Number R08-OAR-
2005-UT-0006. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be
included in the public docket without change and may be made available
at https://docket.epa.gov/rmepub/index.jsp, including any personal
information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed
to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information
that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through EDOCKET,
regulations.gov, or e-mail. EPA's Regional Materials in EDOCKET and
federal regulations.gov website are ``nonymous access'' systems, which
means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment
directly to EPA, without going through EDOCKET or regulations.gov, your
e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of
the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on
the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that
you include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional
information about EPA's public docket visit EDOCKET online or see the
Federal Register of May 31, 2002 (67 FR 38102). For additional
instructions on submitting comments, go to Section I. General
Information of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.
Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the Regional
Materials in EDOCKET index at https://docket.epa.gov/rmepub/index.jsp.
Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly
available, i.e., CBI or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically in Regional Materials in EDOCKET or in
hard copy at the Air and Radiation Program, Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), Region 8, 999 18th Street, Suite 200, Denver, Colorado
80202-2466. EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact the
individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to
view the hard copy of the docket. You may view the hard copy of the
docket Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., excluding federal
holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tim Russ, Air and Radiation Program,
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 999
18th Street, Suite 200, Denver, Colorado 80202-2466, phone (303) 312-
6479, and e-mail at: russ.tim@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. General Information
II. What is the purpose of this action?
III. What is the State's process to submit these materials to EPA?
IV. Brief History of the Provo Area and the CO NAAQS
V. The Provo Area's Attainment/Maintenance Plan (Provo CO Plan):
Contents
VI. EPA's Evaluation of the Introduction and Monitoring Sections of
the Provo CO Plan
VII. EPA's evaluation of the Clean Air Act Requirements Relevant to
the Provo Area
VIII. EPA's Evaluation of the Provo Area's 2000 Attainment
Demonstration & Maintenance Plan Modeling
IX. EPA's evaluation of the Provo Area's 2000 Attainment
Demonstration and Plan
X. EPA's evaluation of the Provo Area's Redesignation Request and
Maintenance Plan
XI. EPA's evaluation of the Transportation Conformity Requirements
XII. EPA's evaluation of the Rule R307-110-31 Revisions
XIII. EPA's evaluation of the Rule R307-110-34 Revisions
XIV. EPA's evaluation of Rules R307-302-3 and -4
XV. EPA's evaluation of the removal of Rule R307-301
XVI. Consideration of Section 110(l) of the CAA
XVII. Final Action
[[Page 66266]]
XVIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Definitions
For the purpose of this document, we are giving meaning to certain
words or initials as follows:
(i) The words or initials Act or CAA mean or refer to the Clean Air
Act, unless the context indicates otherwise.
(ii) The words EPA, we, us or our mean or refer to the United
States Environmental Protection Agency.
(iii) The initials NAAQS mean National Ambient Air Quality
Standard.
(iv) The initials SIP mean or refer to State Implementation Plan.
(v) The word State means the State of Utah, unless the context
indicates otherwise.
I. General Information
A. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?
1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or
CD ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as
CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
i. Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
ii. Follow directions--The agency may ask you to respond to
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and
substitute language for your requested changes.
iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information
and/or data that you used.
v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and
suggest alternatives.
vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of
profanity or personal threats.
viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.
II. What is the purpose of this action?
In this action, we are approving an attainment demonstration and
plan for the year 2000 for the Provo area for the CO NAAQS to replace
the demonstration and plan that were submitted by Governor Leavitt on
July 11, 1994. As part of our action on the attainment demonstration
and plan, we are identifying the transportation conformity MVEB for the
year 2000. We are also approving a change in the legal designation of
the Provo area from nonattainment for CO to attainment, we're approving
the maintenance plan that is designed to keep the Provo area in
attainment for CO for the next 10 years, we're approving the
maintenance demonstration, and we're approving the maintenance plan's
transportation conformity MVEBs for 2014 and 2015. All the above are
addressed in the State's document entitled ``Carbon Monoxide Provisions
For Provo, Section IX, Part C.6'' (hereafter, Provo CO Plan) which
contains the Provo area's attainment plan and the maintenance plan and
was included with the Governor's April 1, 2004 submittal.
In addition, we're approving revisions to Utah's Rule R307-110-12,
that incorporates revisions to ``Section IX, Control Measures for Area
and Point Sources, Part C, Carbon Monoxide,'' that incorporates the
Provo CO Plan (``Carbon Monoxide Provisions For Provo, Section IX, Part
C.6''), revisions to Utah's Rule R307-110-31, that incorporates
revisions to ``Section X, Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Program,
Part A, General Requirements and Applicability,'' and revisions to
Utah's Rule R307-110-34, that incorporates revisions to ``Section X,
Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Program, Part D, Utah County.'' We
are also approving Utah's Rules R307-302-3 and -4, ``No Burn Periods
for Carbon Monoxide'' and ``Violations,'' respectively, to restrict
woodburning in Utah County, and we're approving the elimination of
Utah's Rule R307-301, ``Oxygenated Gasoline Program,'' from the
Federally-approved SIP.
III. What is the State's process to submit these materials to EPA?
The CAA requires States to observe certain procedural requirements
in developing SIP revisions. Section 110(a)(2) of the CAA requires that
each SIP revision be adopted after reasonable notice and public
hearing. This must occur before the State submits the revision to us.
A. On February 19, 2004, the Utah Air Quality Board (UAQB) held a
public hearing on the Provo year 2000 attainment demonstration and plan
for the CO NAAQS, the request to redesignate the Provo area to
attainment for the CO NAAQS, the maintenance plan, the MVEBs for 2014
and 2015, and the revisions to Utah's Rule R307-110-12, Utah's Rule
R307-110-31, and Utah's Rule R307-110-34. The UAQB adopted these SIP
revisions on March 31, 2004, they became State effective on May 18,
2004, and the Governor submitted them to us on April 1, 2004.
We evaluated the Governor's submittal and concluded that the State
met the requirements for reasonable notice and public hearing under
section 110(a)(2) of the CAA. Pursuant to section 110(k)(1)(B) of the
CAA, we reviewed these SIP materials for conformance with the
completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51, Appendix V and determined that
the Governor's April 1, 2004, submittal was administratively and
technically complete. We sent our completeness determination on July 2,
2004, in a letter from Robert E. Roberts, Regional Administrator, to
Governor Olene Walker.
B. On June 23, 1998, the UAQB held a public hearing for the
revisions to Utah's Rules R307-302-3 and 4, to restrict woodburning in
Utah County. The UAQB adopted these SIP revisions on August 13, 1998,
they became State effective on September 15, 1998, and the Governor
submitted them to us on September 20, 1999.
We evaluated the Governor's submittal of Utah's Rules R307-302-3
and -4, and determined that the State met the requirements for
reasonable notice and public hearing under section 110(a)(2) of the
CAA. By operation of law under the provisions of section 110(k)(1)(B)
of the CAA, the Governor's September 20, 1999, submittal was deemed
complete on March 20, 2000.
IV. Brief History of the Provo Area and the CO NAAQS
The Provo area was first designated nonattainment for the CO NAAQS
on March 3, 1978 (43 FR 8964.) This designation was assigned by EPA
pursuant to the requirements of the 1977 amendments to the Clean Air
Act (CAA). On November 15, 1990, the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990
were enacted (Pub. L. 101-549, 104 Stat.
[[Page 66267]]
2399, codified at 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q). In response to Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1990, we designated the Provo area as nonattainment for
CO under section 107(d)(1)(C) of the CAA, because the area had been
designated as nonattainment before November 15, 1990. The Provo area
was classified as a ``moderate'' CO nonattainment area with a design
value greater than 12.7 parts per million (ppm). See 56 FR 56694,
November 6, 1991. CO nonattainment areas classified as ``moderate''
were expected to attain the CO NAAQS as expeditiously as practical, but
no later than December 31, 1995. Further information regarding this
classification and the accompanying requirements are described in
section 187 of the CAA and in the ``General Preamble for the
Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990.''
See 57 FR 13498, April 16, 1992.
The provisions of section 187 of the CAA applicable to areas
classified as ``moderate'' with a design value greater than 12.7 ppm,
such as the Provo area, required that a SIP revision be submitted to
EPA by November 15, 1992 that included: (1) A 1990 base year emission
inventory, (2) a vehicle miles traveled (VMT) forecast, (3) contingency
provisions that would go into place if the VMT forecast was exceeded or
if the area failed to attain the CO NAAQS by December 31, 1995, (4) a
motor vehicle inspection and maintenance (I/M) program, (5) periodic
emission inventories beginning in September, 1995, continuing until the
area is redesignated to attainment, and, (6) an attainment
demonstration. In addition, section 211(m) of the CAA also required the
implementation of an oxygenated fuels program. With respect to the
oxygenated fuels requirement, section 211(m)(2)(B) of the CAA set the
Federally-required oxygenate level at 2.7% oxygen by weight.
On July 11, 1994, the Governor submitted a revision to the Utah SIP
(hereafter, July 11, 1994 submittal) that included a CO attainment
demonstration, plan, and several other SIP revisions applicable to the
Provo area. Among other provisions, the attainment plan relied on an
enhanced motor vehicle inspection and maintenance (I/M) program, that
was to be implemented by January 1, 1996, and the 2.7% oxygenated
gasoline program. However, the commitment to implement an enhanced I/M
program was not definite. Due to several technical and legal issues
with the attainment demonstration (notably the State's failure to
implement the enhanced I/M program and miscalculation of credit for
woodburning emission reductions), EPA never took action on the July 11,
1994 submittal's attainment demonstration, enhanced I/M program,
contingency measures, VMT forecasting provisions, or woodburning
requirements (Utah's Rule R307-1-4.12.)
Over time, however, we did approve certain SIP revisions or
materials relevant to the Provo area. These were the 1990 base year
emission inventory (see 60 FR 33745, June 29, 1995) the 1993 periodic
emission inventory (see 63 FR 18122, April 14, 1998) the 1996 periodic
emission inventory (see 65 FR 63546, October 24, 2000) revisions to the
State's rule R307-8 \1\ ``Oxygenated Gasoline Program'' for the
implementation of a 2.7% program (59 FR 55585, November 8, 1994) the
3.1% oxygen by weight gasoline program for Utah County (66 FR 14078,
March 9, 2001) the improved basic I/M program for Utah County that was
designed to satisfy the applicable requirements of both the CAA and
section 348 of the National Highway Safety Designation Act (NHSDA) of
1995 (interim final approval 62 FR 31349, June 9, 1997; final approval
67 FR 57744, September 12, 2002), and the determination of attainment
of the CO NAAQS for the Provo area along with the change from a 3.1% to
a 2.7% by weight oxygenated gasoline program (67 FR 59165, September
20, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ In 1998, the State re-numbered rule R307-8 ``Oxygenated
Gasoline Program'' as R307-301 and changed the title to ``Utah and
Weber Counties: Oxygenated Gasoline Program.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additional historical information is also provided in section
IX.C.6.a of the Provo CO Plan.
V. The Provo Area's Attainment/Maintenance Plan (Provo CO Plan):
Contents
As noted above, the Provo CO Plan contains both an attainment plan
and a maintenance plan and is divided into six sections: an
introduction section (IX.C.6.a), a CO monitoring section (IX.C.6.b),
the attainment plan section with the attainment demonstration
(IX.C.6.c), the maintenance plan section (IX.C.6.d), the maintenance
demonstration (IX.C.6.e), and a section addressing transportation
conformity (IX.C.6.f). We have reviewed the Provo CO Plan with respect
to the relevant requirements of sections 107, 110, 175A, 176, 187, and
211 of the CAA and EPA policy and guidance and believe that approval of
the Provo CO Plan is warranted. Below are our descriptions and analysis
of how the Provo CO Plan meets the necessary provisions referenced
above.
VI. EPA's Evaluation of the Introduction and Monitoring Sections of the
Provo CO Plan
A. Introduction Section (IX.C.6.a)
This section of the Provo CO Plan provides a discussion of the CO
NAAQS, the Provo area's geographic setting and basic demographic
information, and a brief history of the Provo designation history
similar to that provided in our section IV above.
B. CO Monitoring Network Section (IX.C.6.b)
As described in 40 CFR Sec. 50.8, the national primary ambient air
quality standard for carbon monoxide is 9 parts per million (10
milligrams per cubic meter) for an 8-hour average concentration not to
be exceeded more than once per year. 40 CFR 50.8 continues by stating
that the levels of CO in the ambient air shall be measured by a
reference method based on 40 CFR part 50, Appendix C and designated in
accordance with 40 CFR part 53 or an equivalent method designated in
accordance with 40 CFR part 53. Attainment of the CO standard is not a
momentary phenomenon based on short-term data. Instead, we consider an
area to be in attainment if each of the CO ambient air quality monitors
in the area doesn't have more than one exceedance of the CO standard
over a one-year period. 40 CFR Sec. 50.8 and 40 CFR part 50, Appendix
C. If any monitor in the area's CO monitoring network records more than
one exceedance of the CO standard during a one-year calendar period,
then the area is in violation of the CO NAAQS.
As described in section IX.C.6.b, the Provo CO Plan is based on an
analysis of quality assured ambient air quality monitoring data that
are relevant to the attainment demonstration and the maintenance
demonstration. As presented in section IX.C.6.b of the Provo CO plan,
ambient air quality monitoring data for calendar years 1994 through
2003 show a measured exceedance rate of the CO NAAQS of 1.0 or less per
year, per monitor, in the Provo nonattainment area. Further, we have
reviewed ambient air quality data from 2004 and the first calendar
quarter of 2005 and the Provo area shows continuous attainment of the
CO NAAQS from 1994 to present.
All of the data discussed above were collected and analyzed as
required by EPA (see 40 CFR Sec. 50.8 and 40 CFR part 50, Appendix C)
and have been archived by the State in our Air Quality System (AQS)
national database.
[[Page 66268]]
VII. EPA's Evaluation of the Clean Air Act Requirements Relevant to the
Provo Area
Section IX.C.6.c.1 of the Provo CO Plan includes Table 3 which
presents certain requirements that the State has referenced from
sections 172 and 187 of the CAA for a ``moderate'' CO nonattainment
area with a design value greater than 12.7 ppm. Our evaluation of how
the Provo area met the relevant CAA requirements is as follows:
A. Base year emission inventory. The State submitted a 1990 base
year CO emissions inventory for the Provo area on July 11, 1994 which
met the requirements of sections 172(c)(3) and 187(a)(1) of the CAA. We
approved this inventory on June 29, 1995 (60 FR 33745). The Governor's
April 1, 2004 submittal contains a new base year emission inventory for
the year 2000 that we are approving with this action. A further
description of this inventory is provided below in section IX.
B. Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT). Section 187(a)(2)(A) of the CAA
requires a forecast of VMT in the nonattainment area for each year
before the year in which the plan projects the NAAQS for CO to be
attained in the area. The July 11, 1994 submittal projected attainment
of the CO NAAQS by December 31, 1995 and the State met this CAA
requirement with its submittal of projected VMT, for 1994, 1995, and
1996, in a letter dated March 28, 1995. As noted earlier, we determined
the Provo area attained the CO NAAQS by December 31, 1995, in our
action of September 20, 2002 (67 FR 59165).
C. Contingency provisions. Section 187(a)(3) requires the submittal
of measures to be implemented in the event that the forecasted VMT,
required by CAA section 187(a)(2)(A), is exceeded or the area does not
attain the CO NAAQS by the applicable attainment date, which in this
case was December 31, 1995. In the event these contingency provisions
are triggered, they are to be implemented without any further action by
the State. With the July 11, 1994 submittal, the State adopted as a
contingency measure an increase in the oxygen content of gasoline, for
the Provo area, from 2.7% by weight to 3.1% by weight. The State's
oxygenated gasoline rule stated that the 3.1% by weight program would
be triggered by either the actual VMT exceeding the forecasted VMT or
if an enhanced I/M program was not implemented by January 1, 1996. In
actuality, both conditions arose; the State did not implement an
enhanced I/M program in the Provo area by January 1, 1996 (or for that
matter, at all) and the Provo area exceeded the forecasted VMT levels.
Based on the above, the Provo area began a 3.1% by weight program in
1996. However, as we noted earlier, the Provo area attained the CO
NAAQS by December 31, 1995 with only the benefit of a 2.7% program (see
67 FR 59165, September 20, 2002).
Generally, EPA does not insist on CAA section 187(a)(3) contingency
measures for an area being redesignated to attainment. See 57 FR 13564,
April 16, 1992. This is because the area must have already attained the
standard to be redesignated, and section 175A of the Act requires that
the maintenance plan have its own set of contingency measures.
D. Basic I/M. Section 187(a)(4) of the CAA includes a ``Savings
Clause for Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Provisions of the State
Implementation Plan.'' The reference in this section of the CAA relates
back to section 182(a)(2)(B) which essentially directs States to the
implementation of a two-speed idle check Basic I/M program that is at
least as effective as the Federal Basic I/M performance standard as
specified in 40 CFR 51.352. The State met this CAA obligation by
submitting an improved I/M program revision, on March 15, 1996, that
addressed both the requirements of the CAA and the National Highway
System Designation Act (NHSDA) of 1995. As noted in our 2002 final rule
approval for this program (67 FR 5774, September 12, 2002), Utah
County's improved vehicle I/M program exceeds the Federal Basic I/M
performance standard established in 40 CFR 51, subpart S (``Inspection/
Maintenance Program Requirements for CO non-attainment areas.'') We
gave interim final approval of this I/M program SIP revision on June 9,
1997 (62 FR 31349) and final approval on September 12, 2002 (67 FR
5774).
E. Periodic inventory. Section 187(a)(5) requires the submittal of
a periodic emission inventory, for the nonattainment area, every three
years until the area is redesignated to attainment. The State submitted
a 1993 periodic CO emission inventory for the Provo area on November
12, 1997. We approved the 1993 periodic inventory on April 14, 1998 (63
FR 18122). The State submitted a 1996 periodic CO emission inventory
for the Provo area on June 14, 1999. We approved the 1996 periodic CO
emission inventory on October 24, 2000 (65 FR 63546). The Governor's
April 1, 2004 SIP submittal included a CO emission inventory for 2000
as a component of the year 2000 attainment demonstration. We consider
this inventory sufficient to address the 1999 periodic inventory
requirement.
F. Enhanced Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance. Section 187(a)(6)
of the CAA requires ``moderate'' CO nonattainment areas to implement an
enhanced I/M program as is provided in section 182(c)(3) of the CAA.
The provisions of section 182(c)(3), however, only apply to
nonattainment areas located in urbanized areas with a 1980 census of
200,000 or more. Because the 1980 census for the Provo (and Orem)
urbanized area was 169,699, an enhanced I/M program was not required
for the Provo area.
G. Attainment Demonstration and Specific Annual Emission
Reductions. Section 187(a)(7) of the CAA requires ``moderate'' CO
nonattainment areas to submit ``* * * a demonstration that the plan as
revised will provide, for attainment of the carbon monoxide NAAQS by
the applicable attainment date and provisions for such specific annual
emission reductions as are necessary to attain the standard by that
date.'' To address this CAA requirement, the Governor's July 11, 1994
submittal contained an attainment demonstration that was based on
dispersion modeling using the Urban Airshed Model (UAM) and the CAL3QHC
intersection ``hotspot'' model. As we noted in section IV above, the
July 11, 1994 submittal's attainment plan was not Federally-approvable
due to both legal and technical issues. However, to address this
outstanding CAA requirement, on April 1, 2004, the Governor submitted a
new attainment plan that demonstrates attainment in the year 2000. This
new attainment plan is described in sections VIII and IX below. Its
attainment demonstration is based on UAM-AERO and CAL3QHC-R modeling.
H. Oxygenated fuels. Section 211(m) of the CAA requires the
implementation of an oxygenated gasoline program in any CO area
designated as nonattainment and with a design value of 9.5 ppm or
greater. As this CAA requirement applied to the Provo area, the State
submitted a SIP revision on November 9, 1992 for the implementation of
an oxygenated gasoline program in the Provo area. We approved this SIP
revision on November 8, 1994 (59 FR 55585). In addition, we also
approved revisions to the State's oxygenated gasoline program that
involved several definition changes, average and maximum oxygen
content, and recordkeeping, with our action of March 9, 2001 (66 FR
14078). We approved the most recent revisions on September 20, 2002 (67
FR 59165).
[[Page 66269]]
VIII. EPA's Evaluation of the Provo Area's 2000 Attainment
Demonstration and Maintenance Plan Modeling
Section IX.C.6.c and section IX.c.6.e of the Provo CO Plan along
with Volume 12, Section 4 of the State's TSD contain thorough
descriptions of the attainment demonstration and maintenance plan
dispersion modeling. Major components of these activities are briefly
described below.
A. Dispersion Modeling
1. Model Approach Selected. The State selected the EPA-approved
photochemical model Urban Airshed Model with Aerosol (UAM-AERO)
chemistry to estimate the background CO concentrations for the modeling
domain. Meteorological fields for input into the UAM-AERO model were
produced with the Diagnostic Wind Model (DWM). Emissions data were
processed with the Sparse Matrix Operator Kernel Emissions (SMOKE)
modeling system. The UAM-AERO dispersion modeling for carbon monoxide
was performed in accordance with EPA's June, 1992 modeling guidance
entitled ``Guideline for Regulatory Application of the Urban Airshed
Model for Areawide Carbon Monoxide.'' To evaluate the impacts at high
volume/congested intersections, the State used the CAL3QHC-R model. The
incremental CO concentration impact results from the application of the
CAL3QHC-R model (a more thorough discussion of the CAL3QHC-R model is
included in section 4.a.5 of Volume 12 of the State's TSD) were then
added to the UAM-AERO background concentration for a total predicted CO
concentration at a selected intersection. The above modeling effort was
performed by the State in accordance with the State's modeling
protocol, that was approved by EPA, which is located in Volume 12,
section 4.b.i of the State's TSD.
2. Modeling Domain. Section 4.a.3.2 of Volume 12, of the State's
TSD discusses the UAM-AERO modeling domain. The domain covers portions
of 13 counties in northern Utah and is 134 kilometers (km) east to west
by 226 km north to south. This is the same modeling domain that was
developed by the State for the UAM-AERO application for the development
of the Utah PM10 SIP revision. The State determined that
using the same modeling domain for both SIP revisions was a simpler
task rather than developing a smaller, specific domain for the CO
modeling for the Provo area. EPA agreed with this approach after our
review of the State's modeling protocol which is included in section
4.b.i of Volume 12 of the State's TSD. For both the SMOKE emissions
preprocessor and UAM-AERO, the modeling resolution was at a 2 km by 2km
grid. A more in-depth discussion of the modeling domain is located in
Section 4.a.3.2 of Volume 12, of the State's TSD.
3. Episode Selection. Initially, the State evaluated six episodes
from 1990 to 2001. As explained in the modeling protocol, in section
4.b.i of Volume 12 of the State's TSD, and in section 4.a.2 of Volume
12 of the State's TSD, two CO episodes were selected that met the
overall requirements for necessary meteorological data, recent emission
inventory data, and our modeling guidance. These episodes were January
12th to January 15th of 2000 and January 6th to January 9th of 2001.
Additional discussion on episode selection can be found in sections
4.a.2 and 4.b.i of Volume 12 of the State's TSD.
4. Modeling Emission Inventories. The State prepared modeling
emission inventories for the 2000 and 2001 episodes and for the
maintenance demonstration years of 2005, 2006, 2008, 2011, 2014, and
2015 \2\. Emission totals by category for each of these years are
presented in sections IX.C.6.c.(3), IX.C.6.e.(1) Table 12, and
IX.C.6.e.(2) Table 13 of the Provo CO Plan and in Table VIII-1 below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The State also prepared and modeled emission inventories for
2004 (to consider the elimination of the oxygenated gasoline
program) and 2007 (at the specific request of Mountainland
Association of Governments.)
Table VIII-1.--Specific CO Emission Inventories for the Provo Area of the Modeling Domain
[All in tons per day of CO]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source category 2000 2001 2005 2006 2008 2011 2014 2015
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point Sources................................................... 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.05 0.05
Area Sources.................................................... 1.28 1.28 1.18 1.17 1.10 1.03 0.97 0.96
On-road Mobile Sources.......................................... 59.44 65.38 70.44 72.10 59.69 55.75 52.88 52.46
Non-road Sources................................................ 3.05 3.05 3.05 3.03 2.97 2.90 2.86 2.87
------------
Totals...................................................... 63.80 69.74 74.71 76.34 63.80 59.72 56.76 56.34
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our review of the 2000 episode and 2000 attainment demonstration
modeling shows that it should be approved. We have also reviewed the
2001 episode modeling and the maintenance demonstration modeling (for
2005, 2006, 2008, 2011, 2014, and 2015) and have concluded this
modeling should also be approved. The State has adopted acceptable
control strategies and has performed modeling that meets our modeling
guidance requirements for the CO NAAQS. Modeling based on adopted and
existing control measures demonstrates attainment of the CO NAAQS in
2000 and maintenance through 2015. Our evaluation of the 2000
attainment plan appears in section IX below and our evaluation of the
maintenance demonstration appears in section X below.
IX. EPA's Evaluation of the Provo Area's 2000 Attainment Demonstration
and Plan
The State's 2000 attainment plan for the Provo area is based on
relevant data for the calendar year 2000; specifically for a winter-
time episode. The monitoring data and episode selection are described
further above in section VIII and in Volume 12, Section 4.b.ii of the
State's TSD. Components of the attainment plan discussed here involve
the base case emission inventory for 2000, the control measures in
place in 2000, and the results of the attainment demonstration episode
modeling.
A. Base Case Emission Inventory for 2000
As described in section IX.C.6.c.(3) of the Provo CO Plan, the
State prepared a winter-time episode CO emission inventory that would
serve both the purpose of a base case inventory for the 2000 attainment
plan and as the attainment year inventory for the maintenance plan. The
State used demographic data that was provided by
[[Page 66270]]
the metropolitan planning organization (MPO): the Mountainland
Association of Governments (MAG). MAG provided the necessary
demographic data, the applicable transportation data, and prepared the
on-road mobile sources portion of the inventory. This information and
associated analyses are provided in Volume 10, Section 3.b.i of the
State's TSD. Area source emissions and non-road source emissions are
discussed in Volume 10 and Volume 11 of the State's TSD. Section
IX.C.6.c.(3)(a) of the Provo CO Plan states there are no major point
sources of CO within the Provo City limits (the non-major point source
CO emissions were included with the area sources). The State notes that
with the development of the 1994 SIP submittal, two major point sources
of CO emissions existed in Utah County, but outside the Provo City
municipal boundary. With the development of the 1994 SIP submittal, the
State performed an analysis that indicated these two major point
sources did not have a significant impact on the Provo nonattainment
area. This particular analysis is further described in Volume 1,
Section 2 of the State's TSD. The State indicates in section
IX.C.6.c.(3)(a) that emissions from these two major point sources were
input into the UAM-AERO modeling domain and that the intersection
modeling analyses with CAL3QHC-R were paired in time and space with the
output from UAM-AERO.
The 2000 base-year episode inventory is presented in section
IX.C.6.c(3) ``Table 4. 2000 Provo Attainment-Episode Inventory'' of the
Provo CO Plan and the emissions are: Point sources = 0.03 tons per day
(tpd) of CO, Area sources = 1.28 tpd of CO, Non-road = 3.05 tpd of CO,
On-road mobile = 59.44 tpd of CO. The total is 63.80 tpd of CO.
B. Control Strategies To Attain the CO NAAQS
The 2000 base case inventory accounts for control measures that
were in place for the Provo area at that time. These State control
measures, that are described below and in section IX.C.6.c.(4)(c) of
the Provo CO Plan, were: (1) Oxygenated gasoline, (2) motor vehicle I/
M, and (3) residential woodburning controls. These State control
measures were in addition to the Federally-mandated regulations for
motor vehicle exhaust (or tailpipe) emissions and the Federally-
mandated regulations for exhaust emissions from non-road engines.
1. Oxygenated Gasoline Program. As described in section
IX.C.6.c.(4)(c)(i) of the Provo CO Plan, the oxygenated gasoline
program for 2000 involved a winter season control period of November
through February, with a minimum requirement for 3.1% by weight oxygen
content for gasoline sold in Utah County.
2. Gasoline Vehicle Emissions Inspection and Maintenance (I/M)
Program. As described in section IX.C.6.c.(4)(c)(ii) of the Provo CO
Plan, model year 1968 through 1995 cars and trucks fueled with
gasoline, propane, or natural gas, owned by residents of Utah County,
including the Provo area, were subject to an annual two-speed idle test
program. Vehicles of model year 1996 and newer underwent an On-Board
Diagnostics (OBD) inspection. The I/M program was primarily a de-
centralized test-and-repair program. We gave interim final approval to
this I/M program on June 9, 1997 (62 FR 31349). Based on the NHSDA, we
determined that Utah County's I/M program was equivalent to a test-only
program with our final approval on September 12, 2002 (67 FR 57744).
3. Residential Wood-burning Controls. As described in section
IX.C.6.c.(4)(c)(iii) of the Provo CO Plan, the State initiated controls
on residential woodburning stoves and fireplaces with the adoption of
Rule R307-1-4.12, which was included with the July 11, 1994 submittal.
Further information on this particular rule (now re-numbered R307-302-3
and -4) is provided in section XIV below and in Volume 1, Section 2 of
the State's TSD. The rule provided for a ``Red'' status, or mandatory
no-burn, when ambient CO concentrations reached 6.0 ppm and the
forecasted meteorological conditions were such that carbon monoxide
levels might continue to increase.
C. Attainment Demonstration Episode Modeling for 2000
As described in section IX.C.6.c.(4) of the Provo CO Plan, the
attainment demonstration modeling for 2000 was performed using UAM-AERO
dispersion model along with the CAL3QHC-R intersection model. The
modeling was performed according to the Modeling Protocol, which is
contained in Volume 12, Section 4.b.i of the State's TSD.
1. Modeling Analysis. In section IX.C.6.c.(4)(a) of the Provo CO
Plan, the State indicates that the technical evaluation of the CO
concentrations in the Provo area was completed in 1994 and concluded
that the CO problem was occurring primarily at one intersection on
University Avenue in Provo (see Volume 1, Section 2 of the State's
TSD.) The 1994 analysis also considered the potential influence of two
large point sources of CO (Geneva Steel and Pacific States Cast Iron
Pipe), but concluded that intersections in the Provo area were not
being significantly affected by emissions from these sources. The State
also states that detailed meteorological analysis of both the
observation record and prognostic modeling (for use with UAM-AERO)
showed that specific meteorological conditions accompanied the elevated
CO concentrations. The State indicates that analysis of the CO ambient
air quality monitoring database for the Provo area, along with the
meteorological record over the last decade, essentially reaches the
same conclusions as the original 1994 analysis: the elevated CO
concentrations at specific intersections are locally produced by
traffic and not influenced by emissions from point sources. We note
that Section 2 of the Episode Selection Document (Volume 12, Section
4.b.ii of the State's TSD) describes in detail the analysis used to
select the episode for the year 2000 attainment demonstration.
2. Episode Modeling and Attainment Demonstration for 2000. Volume
12, Section 4.a, ``UAM-CAL3QHC Modeling'' of the State's TSD describes
in detail the use of the UAM-AERO dispersion model to generate the
background, gridded CO values. This section of the TSD also describes
the use of the CAL3QHC-R intersection model to calculate the
contribution of CO emissions from automobiles at particular
intersections. The predicted CO concentrations from these two models
are summed to derive an estimate of the total CO concentrations that
can be expected at specific intersections.
As required by us, the State evaluated the three intersections with
the highest VMT counts and the three intersections with the lowest
Level Of Service (LOS) in the Provo area. These intersections are: (1)
University Avenue and University Parkway, (2) 1230 North (West Bulldog
Boulevard) and University Avenue, (3) 1230 North (West Bulldog
Boulevard) and 500 West (State Street), (4) 500 West and Center Street,
and (5) 500 North and University Avenue with University Avenue and
Center Street. The last entry is actually two intersections--these two
intersections are the nearest major intersections to the ambient CO air
quality monitor located at 363 North University Avenue. These
intersections and the modeling results are presented in Table 5 in the
Provo CO Plan and in Table IX-1 below.
The State modeled the 2000 episode with control strategies that
were in
[[Page 66271]]
place at that time. Results of the modeling are presented in Table 5 of
the Provo CO Plan and in our Table IX-1 below and indicate there were
no modeled exceedances of the CO NAAQS (values are less than 9.0 ppm)
at the specified intersections. The State also states in section
IX.C.6.c.(4)(a) of the Provo CO Plan that there were no modeled
exceedances of the CO NAAQS throughout the modeling domain. Therefore,
the State has satisfactorily demonstrated attainment of the CO NAAQS
for 2000 for the Provo area. Additional information about the 2000
episode modeling is provided in section VIII above and in Volume 12,
Section 4.b.i of the State's TSD.
Table IX-1.--2000 Episode Predicted 8-Hour CO Concentrations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Concentration in
Intersection location ppm (UAM &
CAL3QHC-R)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
University Ave. & University Parkway................. 8.3
1230 North & University Ave.......................... 7.1
1230 North & 500 West................................ 7.7
500 West & Center St................................. 8.5
500 North & University Ave. & Center St.............. 8.6
------------------------------------------------------------------------
X. EPA's Evaluation of the Provo Area's Redesignation Request and
Maintenance Plan
We have reviewed the Provo area's redesignation request and
maintenance plan (section IX.C.6.d of the Provo CO Plan) and believe
that approval of the request is warranted, consistent with the
requirements of CAA section 107(d)(3)(E). Under the CAA, we can change
designations if acceptable data are available and if certain other
requirements are met. See CAA section 107(d)(3)(D). Section
107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA provides that the Administrator may not
promulgate a redesignation of a nonattainment area to attainment
unless:
(i) The Administrator determines that the area has attained the
national ambient air quality standard;
(ii) The Administrator has fully approved the applicable
implementation plan for the area under CAA section 110(k);
(iii) The Administrator determines that the improvement in air
quality is due to permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions
resulting from implementation of the applicable implementation plan and
applicable Federal air pollutant control regulations and other
permanent and enforceable reductions;
(iv) The Administrator has fully approved a maintenance plan for
the area as meeting the requirements of CAA section 175A; and,
(v) The State containing such area has met all requirements
applicable to the area under section 110 and part D of the CAA.
Before we can approve the redesignation request, we must decide
that all applicable SIP elements have been fully approved. Approval of
the applicable SIP elements may occur simultaneously with final
approval of the redesignation request. That's why we are also approving
the 2000 attainment demonstration and plan, and the revisions to Utah's
Rule R307-110-12, Rule R307-110-31, Rule R307-110-34, and R307-1-4.12
(now re-numbered R307-302-3 and -4). The following are descriptions of
how the section 107(d)(3)(E) requirements are being addressed.
A. Redesignation Criterion: The Area Must Have Attained the Carbon
Monoxide (CO) NAAQS
Section 107(d)(3)(E)(i) of the CAA states that for an area to be
redesignated to attainment, the Administrator must determine that the
area has attained the applicable NAAQS. As described in 40 CFR 50.8,
the national primary ambient air quality standard for carbon monoxide
is 9 parts per million (10 milligrams per cubic meter) for an 8-hour
average concentration not to be exceeded more than once per year. 40
CFR 50.8 continues by stating that the levels of CO in the ambient air
shall be measured by a reference method based on 40 CFR part 50,
Appendix C and designated in accordance with 40 CFR part 53 or an
equivalent method designated in accordance with 40 CFR part 53. As
stated above in section VI and as described in section IX.C.6.b of the
Provo CO Plan, ambient air quality monitoring data for calendar years
1994 through 2003 show a measured exceedance rate of the CO NAAQS of
1.0 or less per year, per monitor, in the Provo nonattainment area.
Further, we have reviewed ambient air quality data from 2004 and the
first calendar quarter of 2005 and the Provo area shows continuous
attainment of the CO NAAQS from 1994 to present. All of the data
discussed above were collected and analyzed as required by EPA (see 40
CFR 50.8 and 40 CFR part 50, Appendix C) and have been archived by the
State in our Air Quality System (AQS) national database. Therefore, we
believe the Provo area has met the first component for redesignation:
demonstration of attainment of the CO NAAQS. We note that the State of
Utah has also committed, in the maintenance plan, to continue the
necessary operation of the CO monitors in compliance with all
applicable federal regulations and guidelines.
B. Redesignation Criterion: The Area Must Have Met All Applicable
Requirements Under Section 110 and Part D of the CAA
To be redesignated to attainment, section 107(d)(3)(E)(v) requires
that an area must meet all applicable requirements under section 110
and part D of the CAA. We interpret section 107(d)(3)(E)(v) to mean
that for a redesignation to be approved by us, the State must meet all
requirements that applied to the subject area prior to or at the time
of submission of a complete redesignation request. In our evaluation of
a redesignation request, we don't need to consider other requirements
of the CAA that became due after the date of submission of a complete
redesignation request.
1. CAA Section 110 Requirements
On August 15, 1984, we approved revisions to Utah's SIP as meeting
the requirements of section 110(a)(2) of the CAA (see 45 FR 32575).
Although section 110 of the CAA was amended in 1990, most of the
changes were not substantial. Thus, we have determined that the SIP
revisions approved in 1984 continue to satisfy the requirements of
section 110(a)(2). In addition, we have analyzed the SIP elements we
are approving as part of this action, and we have determined they
comply with the relevant requirements of section 110(a)(2).
[[Page 66272]]
2. Part D Requirements
Before the Provo ``moderate'' CO nonattainment area may be
redesignated to attainment, the State must have fulfilled the
applicable requirements of part D. Under part D, an area's
classification indicates the requirements to which it will be subject.
Subpart 1 of part D sets forth the basic nonattainment requirements
applicable to all nonattainment areas, whether classified or
nonclassifiable. Subpart 3 of part D contains specific provisions for
``moderate'' CO nonattainment areas.
The relevant subpart 1 requirements are contained in sections
172(c) and 176. Our General Preamble (see 57 FR 13529, 13533, April 16,
1992) provides EPA's interpretations of the CAA requirements for
``moderate'' CO areas.
The General Preamble (see 57 FR 13530, et seq.) provides that the
applicable requirements of CAA section 172 are 172(c)(3) (emissions
inventory), 172(c)(5) (new source review permitting program), 172(c)(7)
(the section 110(a)(2) air quality monitoring requirements), and
172(c)(9) (contingency measures). It is also worth noting that we
interpreted the requirements of sections 172(c)(2) (reasonable further
progress--RFP) and 172(c)(6) (other measures) as being irrelevant to a
redesignation request because they only have meaning for an area that
is not attaining the standard. See EPA's September 4, 1992, memorandum
entitled, ``Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to
Attainment'', and the General Preamble, 57 FR at 13564, dated April 16,
1992. Finally, the State has not sought to exercise the options that
would trigger sections 172(c)(4) (identification of certain emissions
increases) and 172(c)(8) (equivalent techniques). Thus, these
provisions are also not relevant to this redesignation request.
Regarding the requirements of sections 172(c)(3) (inventory) and
172(c)(9) (contingency measures) and how the Provo area met these
requirements, please refer to our discussions above in section VII. A.,
``Base year inventory,'' concerning section 187(a)(1) of the CAA, and
section VII. C., ``Contingency provisions,'' concerning section
187(a)(3) of the CAA, which are provisions of subpart 3 of Part D of
the CAA that establish the same requirements as sections 172(c)(3) and
172(c)(9).
For the section 172(c)(5) New Source Review (NSR) requirements, the
CAA requires all nonattainment areas to meet several requirements
regarding NSR, including provisions to ensure that increased emissions
will not result from any new or modified stationary major sources and a
general offset rule. The State of Utah has a fully-approved NSR program
(60 FR 22277, May 5, 1995.) The State also has a fully approved
Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) program (56 FR 29436,
June 27, 1991) that will apply, instead of nonattainment NSR, if we
approve the redesignation to attainment.
For the CAA section 172(c)(7) provisions (compliance with the CAA
section 110(a)(2) Air Quality Monitoring Requirements), our
interpretations are presented in the General Preamble (57 FR 13535). CO
nonattainment areas are to meet the ``applicable'' air quality
monitoring requirements of section 110(a)(2) of the CAA. We have
determined that the Provo area has met the applicable air quality
monitoring requirements of section 110(a)(2) of the CAA. See our
descriptions in section VI above.
Section 176 of the CAA contains requirements related to conformity.
Although EPA's regulations (see 40 CFR 51.390) require that states
adopt transportation conformity provisions in their SIPs for areas
designated nonattainment or subject to an EPA-approved maintenance
plan, we have decided that a transportation conformity SIP is not an
applicable requirement for purposes of evaluating a redesignation
request under section 107(d) of the CAA. This decision is reflected in
EPA's 1996 approval of the Boston carbon monoxide redesignation. (See
61 FR 2918, January 30, 1996.)
The relevant Subpart 3 provisions were created when the CAA was
amended on November 15, 1990. The new CAA requirements for ``moderate''
CO areas, such as Provo, required that the SIP be revised to include a
1990 base year emissions inventory (CAA section 187(a)(1)), vehicle
miles traveled tracking (CAA section 187(a)(2)(A)), contingency
provisions (CAA section 187(a)(3)), corrections to existing motor
vehicle inspection and maintenance (I/M) programs (CAA section
187(a)(4)), periodic emission inventories (CAA section 187(a)(5)),
enhanced motor vehicle I/M program (CAA section 187(a)(6)), and a
modeled attainment demonstration with specific annual emissions
reductions (CAA section 187(a)(7)). Title II, Part A of the CAA also
requires the implementation of an oxygenated fuels program (CAA section
211(m)(1)).
These CAA Subpart 3 provisions have been met for the Provo area.
Our discussions appear earlier in this action. Please refer to the
sections of our action listed as follows for the appropriate
discussion: (a) 1990 base year emissions inventory requirement of
section 187(a)(1) of the CAA, see section VII.A., (b) vehicle miles
traveled tracking requirement of section 187(a)(2)(A) of the CAA, see
section VII.B, (c) contingency provisions of section 187(a)(3) of the
CAA, see section VII.C, (d) corrections to existing motor vehicle
inspection and maintenance (I/M) programs as required by section
187(a)(4) of the CAA, see section VII.D, (e) periodic emission
inventory requirement of section 187(a)(5) of the CAA, see section
VII.E, (f) enhanced motor vehicle I/M program requirement of section
187(a)(6) of the CAA, see section VII.F, and (g) the requirement of
section 187(a)(7) of the CAA for a modeled attainment demonstration
with specific annual emissions reductions, see section VII.G. Regarding
the CAA Title II, Part A requirement for the implementation of an
oxygenated fuels program to meet the requirements of section 211(m)(1)
of the CAA, see section VII.H.
C. Redesignation Criterion: The Area Must Have a Fully Approved SIP
Under Section 110(k) of the CAA
Section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii) of the CAA states that for an area to be
redesignated to attainment, it must be determined that the
Administrator has fully approved the applicable implementation plan for
the area under section 110(k).
As noted above, EPA previously approved (or sufficiently explained
otherwise) SIP revisions based on the pre-1990 CAA as well as SIP
revisions required under the 1990 amendments to the CAA. In this
action, EPA is approving the Provo area's 2000 attainment demonstration
and plan, the revisions to Rule R307-110-12, the revisions to Rule
R307-110-31, the revisions to Rule R307-110-34, Rules R307-302-3 and -
4, and the request to eliminate the Federal applicability of Rule R307-
301. Thus, with our final approval of these SIP revisions, we will have
fully approved the Provo area's CO element of the SIP under section
110(k) of the CAA.
D. Redesignation Criterion: The Area Must Show That the Improvement in
Air Quality Is Due to Permanent and Enforceable Emissions Reductions
Section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii) of the CAA provides that for an area to
be redesignated to attainment, the Administrator must determine that
the improvement in air quality is due to permanent and enforceable
reductions in emissions resulting from
[[Page 66273]]
implementation of the applicable implementation plan, implementation of
applicable Federal air pollutant control regulations, and other
permanent and enforceable reductions.
The CO emissions reductions for the Provo area, that are further
described in section IX.C.6.c(4)(c) ``Control Strategies to Attain the
NAAQS'' of the attainment plan, were achieved primarily through the
State's basic I/M program, improved I/M program, woodburning controls,
oxygenated gasoline program, and the Federal Motor Vehicle Control
Program (FMVCP).
The four State control strategies listed above are fully discussed
in section VIII.B above. Regarding FMVCP, these are Federal provisions
that require vehicle manufacturers to meet more stringent vehicle
emission limitations for new vehicles in future years. These emission
limitations are phased in (as a percentage of new vehicles
manufactured) over a period of years. As new, lower emitting vehicles
replace older, higher emitting vehicles (``fleet turnover''), emission
reductions are realized for a particular area such as Provo.
We have evaluated the various State and Federal control measures,
the original 1990 base year emission inventory (60 FR 33745, June 29,
1995), the 1993 periodic emission inventory (63 FR 18122, April 14,
1998), the 1996 periodic emission inventory (65 FR 63546, October 24,
2000), and the 2000 attainment year inventory provided with the State's
April 1, 2004 submittal and have concluded that the improvement in air
quality in the Provo nonattainment area has resulted from emission
reductions that are permanent and enforceable.
E. Redesignation Criterion: The Area Must Have a Fully Approved
Maintenance Plan Under CAA Section 175A
Section 107(d)(3)(E)(iv) of the CAA provides that for an area to be
redesignated to attainment, the Administrator must have fully approved
a maintenance plan for the area meeting the requirements of section
175A of the CAA.
Section 175A of the CAA sets forth the elements of a maintenance
plan for areas seeking redesignation from nonattainment to attainment.
The maintenance plan must demonstrate continued attainment of the
applicable NAAQS for at least ten years after the Administrator
approves a redesignation to attainment. Eight years after the
promulgation of the redesignation, the State must submit a revised
maintenance plan that demonstrates continued attainment for the
subsequent ten-year period following the initial ten-year maintenance
period. To address the possibility of future NAAQS violations, the
maintenance plan must contain contingency measures, with a schedule for
adoption and implementation, that are adequate to assure prompt
correction of a violation. In addition, we issued further maintenance
plan interpretations in the ``General Preamble for the Implementation
of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990'' (57 FR 13498,
April 16, 1992), ``General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I
of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990; Supplemental'' (57 FR 18070,
April 28, 1992), and the EPA guidance memorandum entitled ``Procedures
for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment'' from John
Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management Division, Office of Air
Quality and Planning Standards, to Regional Air Division Directors,
dated September 4, 1992.
In this Federal Register action, EPA is approving the maintenance
plan for the Provo nonattainment area because we have determined, as
detailed below, that the State's maintenance plan meets the
requirements of section 175A and is consistent with the documents
referenced above. Our analysis of the pertinent maintenance plan
requirements, with reference to the Governor's April 1, 2004,
submittal, is provided as follows:
1. Emissions Inventories--Attainment Year and Projections
EPA's interpretations of the CAA section 175A maintenance plan
requirements are generally provided in the General Preamble (see 57 FR
13498, April 16, 1992) and the September 4, 1992, Calcagni Memorandum
referenced above. Under our interpretations, areas seeking to
redesignate to attainment for CO may demonstrate future maintenance of
the CO NAAQS eithe
