Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Utah; Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan for Salt Lake County; Utah County; Ogden City PM10, 62717-62733 [E9-28692]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 229 / Tuesday, December 1, 2009 / Proposed Rules
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R08–OAR–2006–0013; FRL–9087–5]
Approval and Promulgation of Air
Quality Implementation Plans; Utah;
Redesignation Request and
Maintenance Plan for Salt Lake
County; Utah County; Ogden City PM10
Nonattainment Area
pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to
disapprove the State of Utah’s requests
under the Clean Air Act to redesignate
the Salt Lake County, Utah County, and
Ogden City PM10 nonattainment areas to
attainment, and to approve some and
disapprove other associated State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions.
The Governor of Utah submitted the
redesignation requests and associated
SIP revisions on September 2, 2005.
EPA is proposing to disapprove the
redesignation requests because the areas
do not meet all Clean Air Act
requirements for redesignation.
Regarding the SIP revisions, EPA is
proposing to approve several definitions
in Utah rule R307–101–2 (‘‘Definitions’’)
and portions of Utah rule R307–302
(‘‘Davis, Salt Lake, Utah, Weber
Counties: Residential Fireplaces and
Stoves’’). EPA is proposing to approve
these SIP revisions because they meet
Clean Air Act requirements. EPA is
proposing to disapprove the
maintenance plans for Salt Lake County,
Utah County, and Ogden City, including
the motor vehicle emissions budgets in
those plans. EPA is also proposing to
disapprove all other SIP revisions that
the Governor submitted on September 2,
2005 that EPA is not proposing to
approve, except that EPA is proposing
to take no action on revised Utah rule
R307–310 (‘‘Salt Lake County: Trading
of Emission Budgets for Transportation
Conformity’’). EPA is proposing to
disapprove these SIP elements because
they do not meet Clean Air Act
requirements. EPA is proposing to take
no action on Utah’s revised R307–310
because acting on the revised rule
would serve no purpose. EPA is also
proposing that it need not act on certain
revisions to the Utah PM10 SIP that the
Governor submitted on July 11, 1996
and June 2, 1997. These revisions have
been superseded by subsequent
revisions to the Utah PM10 SIP.
This action is being taken under
sections 107, 110, and 175A of the Clean
Air Act.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:03 Nov 30, 2009
Jkt 220001
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before December 31, 2009.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R08–
OAR–2006–0013, by one of the
following methods:
• https://www.regulations.gov. Follow
the on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
• E-mail: videtich.callie@epa.gov.
• Fax: (303) 312–6064 (please alert
the individual listed in FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT if you are faxing
comments).
• Mail: Callie Videtich, Director, Air
Program, Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P–
AR, 1595 Wynkoop St., Denver,
Colorado 80202–1129.
• Hand Delivery: Callie Videtich,
Director, Air Program, Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mail
Code 8P–AR, 1595 Wynkoop St.,
Denver, Colorado 80202–1129. Such
deliveries are only accepted Monday
through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.,
excluding Federal holidays. Special
arrangements should be made for
deliveries of boxed information.
Instructions: Direct your comments to
Docket ID No. EPA–R08–OAR–2006–
0013. EPA’s policy is that all comments
received will be included in the public
docket without change and may be
made available online at https://
www.regulations.gov, 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 https://
www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The
https://www.regulations.gov Web site is
an anonymous access system, 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 https://
www.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
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
62717
about EPA’s public docket, visit the EPA
Docket Center homepage at https://
www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
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 https://
www.regulations.gov index. Although
listed in the index, some information is
not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other
information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material,
will be publicly available only in hard
copy. Publicly available docket
materials are available either
electronically in https://
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at
the Air Program, Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8,
1595 Wynkoop St., Denver, Colorado
80202–1129. EPA requests that, if at all
possible, you contact the individual
listed in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT to view the hard copy of the
docket. You may view the hard copy of
the docket Monday through Friday, 8:00
a.m. to 4:00 p.m., excluding Federal
holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Catherine Roberts, Air Program, Mail
Code 8P–AR, Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop
St., Denver, Colorado 80202–1129, (303)
312–6025, roberts.catherine@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. General Information
II. Background of State Submittal
III. Evaluation Criteria for the Redesignation
Request
IV. EPA Analysis of the Redesignation
Request
V. Sections IX.H.1–4 of Utah’s September 2,
2005 Submission
VI. Rule Revisions
VII. Transportation Conformity—Motor
Vehicle Emissions Budgets
VIII. Proposed Action
IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Definitions
For the purpose of this document, the
following definitions apply:
(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 SIP mean or refer to
the State Implementation Plan.
(iv) The words State or Utah mean the
State of Utah, unless the context
indicates otherwise.
E:\FR\FM\01DEP1.SGM
01DEP1
62718
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 229 / Tuesday, December 1, 2009 / Proposed Rules
(v) The phrase PM10 means particulate
matter with an aerodynamic diameter
less than or equal to a nominal ten
micrometers.
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 https://
www.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:
a. Identify the rulemaking by docket
number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal
Register date and page number).
b. 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.
c. Explain why you agree or disagree;
suggest alternatives and substitute
language for your requested changes.
d. Describe any assumptions and
provide any technical information and/
or data that you used.
e. If you estimate potential costs or
burdens, explain how you arrived at
your estimate in sufficient detail to
allow for it to be reproduced.
f. Provide specific examples to
illustrate your concerns, and suggest
alternatives.
g. Explain your views as clearly as
possible, avoiding the use of profanity
or personal threats.
h. Make sure to submit your
comments by the comment period
deadline identified.
pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES
II. Background of State Submittal
This proposal addresses Clean Air Act
(CAA) requirements for the pollutant
PM10 as they apply to three adjacent
areas in the greater Salt Lake City
metropolitan area: Salt Lake County,
Utah County, and Ogden City. As
described below, Utah has asked EPA to
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:13 Nov 30, 2009
Jkt 220001
approve changes to the CAA plans for
each of these areas and change the areas’
planning status under the Act from
nonattainment to attainment.
Under section 109 of the Act, EPA has
promulgated national ambient air
quality standards (NAAQS) for certain
pollutants, including PM10 (40 CFR
50.6). NAAQS define levels of air
quality which the Administrator judges
are necessary to protect public health
and welfare (40 CFR 50.2(b)). Once EPA
promulgates a NAAQS, section 107 of
the Act specifies a process for the
designation of all areas within a state,
generally as either an attainment area
(an area attaining the NAAQS) or as a
nonattainment area (an area not
attaining the NAAQS, or that
contributes to nonattainment of the
NAAQS in a nearby area). For PM10,
certain areas have also been designated
‘‘unclassifiable.’’ These various
designations, in turn, trigger certain
state planning requirements.
For all areas, regardless of
designation, section 110 of the Act
requires that each state adopt and
submit for EPA approval a plan to
provide for implementation,
maintenance, and enforcement of the
NAAQS. This plan is commonly
referred to as a State Implementation
Plan (SIP). Section 110 contains
requirements that any SIP must meet to
gain EPA approval.1 For nonattainment
areas, SIPs must meet additional
requirements contained in part D of
Title I of the Act. Usually, SIPs include
measures to control emissions of air
pollutants from various sources,
including stationary, mobile, and area
sources. For example, a SIP may specify
emission limits at power plants or other
industrial sources.
Under the 1990 amendments to the
CAA, Salt Lake and Utah Counties were
designated nonattainment for PM10 and
classified as moderate areas by
operation of law as of November 15,
1990 (56 FR 56694, 56840, November 6,
1991). The air quality planning
requirements for moderate PM10
nonattainment areas are set out in
subparts 1 and 4, part D, Title I of the
Act. As described in sections 110 and
172 of the Act, areas designated
nonattainment based on a failure to
meet the PM10 NAAQS are required to
develop SIPs with sufficient control
measures to expeditiously attain and
maintain the NAAQS.
On July 8, 1994, EPA approved the
PM10 SIP for Salt Lake and Utah
Counties (59 FR 35036). The SIP
included a demonstration of attainment
and various control measures, including
emission limits at stationary sources.
Because emissions of sulfur dioxide
(SO2) and nitrogen oxides (NOX)
contribute significantly to the PM10
problem in the area, the SIP included
limits on emissions of SO2 and NOX in
addition to emissions of PM10.
On December 6, 1999, EPA approved
revisions to the road salting and sanding
programs for the two counties (64 FR
68031). On July 1, 2002, EPA approved
additional revisions to the Salt Lake
County PM10 SIP that allowed trading
between PM10 and NOX motor vehicle
emissions budgets for transportation
conformity determinations (67 FR
44065). On December 23, 2002, EPA
approved additional revisions to the
Utah County PM10 SIP that updated
attainment demonstrations, established
new 24-hour emission limits for major
stationary sources, and established new
motor vehicle emission budgets (67 FR
78181).
On September 26, 1995, EPA
designated Ogden City as nonattainment
for PM10 and classified the area as
moderate under section 107(d)(3) of the
Act (60 FR 38726, July 28, 1995). EPA
has not approved a PM10 attainment
demonstration for Ogden City.2
Under section 107(d)(3)(D) of the Act,
a state may ask EPA to change the
designation of an area. On September 2,
2005, Utah requested that EPA
redesignate Salt Lake County, Utah
County, and Ogden City from
nonattainment to attainment for PM10.
Section 175A of the Act requires that a
state include with its redesignation
request a maintenance plan that
provides for maintenance of the NAAQS
for at least 10 years after redesignation.
On September 2, 2005, Utah also
submitted maintenance plans for each of
the three areas (Utah SIP sections
IX.A.10, 11, and 12). While the three
maintenance plans are mostly identical,
some elements are different—for
example, they contain different
emission limits for stationary sources
1 EPA’s approval of a SIP has several
consequences. For example, after EPA approves a
SIP, EPA and citizens may enforce the SIP’s
requirements in Federal court under section 113
and section 304 of the Act; in other words, EPA’s
approval of a SIP makes the SIP ‘‘Federally
enforceable.’’ Also, once EPA has approved a SIP,
a state cannot unilaterally change the Federally
enforceable version of the SIP. Instead, the state
must first submit a SIP revision to EPA and gain
EPA’s approval of that revision.
2 Under EPA’s ‘‘Clean Data Policy,’’ EPA may
determine that Ogden City does not need to submit
an attainment demonstration or certain other SIP
elements (See, e.g., 71 FR 63642, October, 30, 2006;
71 FR 13021, March 14, 2006; 71 FR 6352, February
8, 2006; 71 FR 27440, May 11, 2006; and 72 FR
14422, March 28, 2007). We will address this issue
in a separate action. Because we are proposing to
disapprove the redesignation request for Ogden
City, on unrelated grounds, we need not address
this issue further in this action.
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\01DEP1.SGM
01DEP1
pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 229 / Tuesday, December 1, 2009 / Proposed Rules
and different monitoring requirements.
Finally, on September 2, 2005, Utah
submitted other revisions to the current
EPA-approved Federally enforceable SIP
(hereafter referred to as ‘‘EPA-approved
SIP’’). As described in footnote 1, the
Act allows states to adopt and submit
revisions to their SIPs, but the revisions
must meet certain CAA requirements
before EPA will approve them. The
following are the other SIP revisions
that Utah submitted to us for approval
on September 2, 2005:
1. Revised Sections IX.H.1 through 4
of the Utah PM10 SIP. These sections
contain limits and requirements for
stationary sources in Salt Lake County
and Utah County. Utah made numerous
changes to the EPA-approved version of
sections IX.H.1 through 3, including
deletion of some emission limits,
changes to others, and changes to
methods for determining compliance
with emission limits. The PM10
maintenance plans for Salt Lake County
and Utah County rely on and assume
EPA approval of revised sections IX.H.1
through 3. As a matter of State law, the
EPA-approved versions of sections
IX.H.1 through 3 no longer exist.
Section IX.H.4 is an entirely new
section that contains procedures for
establishing alternative stationary
source requirements.
2. Revised Utah rules R307–110–10
and 110–17, which incorporate by
reference into Utah’s rules the PM10
maintenance plans for Salt Lake County,
Utah County, and Ogden City, and the
stationary source provisions in revised
sections IX.H.1 through 4, respectively.
3. Revised Utah rule R307–101–2,
which contains Utah’s set of generally
applicable definitions for air rules in the
State. Utah revised, removed, and added
certain definitions.
4. Revised Utah rule R307–165, which
contains generic emission testing
requirements for all areas of the State.
5. Revised Utah rule R307–302, which
contains provisions related to
residential fireplaces and stoves in
Davis, Salt Lake, Utah, and Weber
Counties.
6. Revised Utah rule R307–305, which
contains generic emission standards for
sources in PM10 nonattainment and
maintenance areas.
7. Revised Utah rule R307–306, which
contains provisions related to abrasive
blasting in PM10 nonattainment and
maintenance areas.
8. Revised Utah rule R307–309, which
contains provisions related to fugitive
emissions and fugitive dust in PM10
nonattainment and maintenance areas.
9. Revised Utah rule R307–310, which
contains provisions related to trading
between emissions budgets for PM10
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:13 Nov 30, 2009
Jkt 220001
transportation conformity in Salt Lake
County.
In addition to the foregoing, in 1996
and 1997, Utah submitted revisions to
the Salt Lake County and Utah County
PM10 SIPs. Specifically, on July 11,
1996, Utah submitted revisions to
section 9.A and appendix A, 2.2.A, of
the PM10 SIP, and to Utah rule R307–2–
1, to account for proposed changes to
emission limits at the former Amoco
refinery in Salt Lake County.3 We have
not acted on those revisions. The former
Amoco refinery is now owned by
Tesoro, and the proposed SIP revisions
that Utah submitted on September 2,
2005 contain a new SIP section IX.H.2.l
and limits for Tesoro that replace Utah’s
prior section 2.2.A and limits for
Amoco. Because Utah replaced the
emission limits for Amoco with
emission limits for Tesoro as a matter of
State law, and submitted the Tesoro
provisions to us for approval in 2005,
we consider the July 11, 1996 submittal
to be superseded and effectively
withdrawn. Thus, we are proposing that
no action is required on Utah’s July 11,
1996 submittal.
Similarly, on June 2, 1997, Utah
submitted revisions to sections IX.A and
H of the PM10 SIP, and to Utah rules
R307–2–10 and R307–2–17,4 to account
for proposed changes to emissions
limits for various stationary sources in
Utah County, and particularly Geneva
Steel. We have not acted on those
revisions. On July 3, 2002, Utah
submitted new SIP sections IX.A and H
with new limits for stationary sources in
Utah County. These new sections IX.A
and H completely replaced as a matter
of State law the versions of sections
IX.A and H that Utah submitted on June
2, 1997. On December 23, 2002, in an
action we reference above, we approved
the new sections IX.A and H that Utah
submitted on July 3, 2002, along with
accompanying changes to Utah rules
R307–110–10 and R307–110–17 (67 FR
78181). Also, the proposed SIP revisions
that Utah submitted on September 2,
2005 contain further proposed revisions
to sections IX.A and H. Because Utah
completely replaced sections IX.A and
H as contained in Utah’s June 2, 1997
SIP submittal with new sections IX.A
and H as a matter of State law, and
submitted the replacement versions of
those sections to us in 2002 and 2005,
we consider the June 2, 1997 submittal
to be superseded and effectively
3 Utah subsequently changed the numbering of its
SIP and rules. Section 9 is now section IX.
Appendix A is now section IX.H. R307–2–1 is now
R307–110–1.
4 Utah subsequently changed the numbering of
rules R307–2–10 and R307–2–17 to R307–110–10
and R307–110–17.
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
62719
withdrawn. Thus, we are proposing that
no action is required on Utah’s June 2,
1997 submittal.
III. Evaluation Criteria for the
Redesignation Request
Section 107(d)(3)(E) of the Act
provides that EPA may not promulgate
a redesignation of a nonattainment area
to attainment unless:
1. The area has attained the relevant
NAAQS;
2. EPA has fully approved the
applicable implementation plan for the
area under section 110(k) of the Act;
3. The improvement in air quality in
the area 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;
4. EPA has fully approved a
maintenance plan for the area meeting
the requirements of section 175A of the
Act; and
5. The State containing the area has
met all requirements applicable to the
area under section 110 and Part D of the
Act.
If any of these criteria is not met, we
must disapprove the redesignation
request.
In addition, on September 4, 1992,
EPA issued guidance outlining how it
intended to process redesignation
requests. (Memorandum entitled,
‘‘Procedures for Processing Requests to
Redesignate Areas to Attainment,’’
signed by John Calcagni, Director, Air
Quality Management Division, Office of
Air Quality Planning and Standards;
hereafter referred to as the ‘‘Calcagni
Memo.’’) For further information, you
may want to read the Calcagni Memo.
IV. EPA Analysis of the Redesignation
Request
The areas that Utah seeks to
redesignate do not meet all five criteria
for redesignation. Specifically, we
cannot determine that Salt Lake and
Utah Counties have attained the
NAAQS, and we cannot approve the
maintenance plans for the three areas.
Thus, we are proposing to disapprove
the redesignation requests.5 We provide
more detail below.
A. Redesignation Criterion 1—the Area
Must Have Attained the PM10 NAAQS
1. The level of the primary and
secondary PM10 NAAQS is 150
5 Because we are finding that the redesignation
submissions for these areas do not satisfy these
criteria, we do not find it necessary to address
whether the additional criteria for redesignation
have been met.
E:\FR\FM\01DEP1.SGM
01DEP1
62720
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 229 / Tuesday, December 1, 2009 / Proposed Rules
micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m3),
24-hour average concentration (40 CFR
50.6). Under the rounding convention
contained in EPA’s regulations, a
monitored concentration lower than 155
μg/m3 is considered to be attaining the
PM10 NAAQS (40 CFR part 50, appendix
K).
To determine whether an area has
attained the PM10 NAAQS for purposes
of redesignation, we rely on ambient air
quality data from a monitoring network
representing maximum PM10
concentrations (40 CFR 50.6; 40 CFR
part 50, appendix K; 40 CFR part 58;
Calcagni Memo, page 2). The data must
be quality assured and recorded in
EPA’s Air Quality System database
(AQS). The NAAQS are attained when
the expected number of exceedances of
the NAAQS at each monitoring site in
the area is less than or equal to 1.0 per
year, based on three consecutive years
of data.6 For example, if the expected
number of exceedances at a monitor for
each of three consecutive years is 1.0,
the expected number of exceedances
averaged over the three years would also
be 1.0 (3.0 divided by 3), which would
not be a violation. However, if the
expected number of exceedances in year
one of the three-year period were 2.0
instead of 1.0 and the values remained
at 1.0 for years two and three, the
expected number of exceedances
averaged over the three years would be
1.33 (4.0 divided by 3), which would be
a violation.
For redesignations, EPA’s consistent
interpretation has been that the area
must have attained the standard in the
base year for the maintenance
demonstration and in all subsequent
years up through EPA’s action on the
redesignation request. (See, e.g., EPA’s
final and proposed disapprovals of the
redesignation requests for various areas,
including Pittsburgh (61 FR 19193, May
1, 1996), Richmond (59 FR 22757, May
3, 1994), Kentucky portion of
Cincinnati-Hamilton (61 FR 50718,
September 27, 1996), Ohio portion of
Cincinnati-Hamilton (62 FR 7194,
February 18, 1997), and Birmingham (62
FR 23421, April 30, 1997); the proposed
correction of the designation for
Lafourche Parish (62 FR 38237, July 17,
1997); and the Calcagni Memo, page 5.)
Between 1985 and 2006, Utah
operated a total of 15 PM10 monitors,
which were either State and Local Air
Monitoring Stations (SLAMS) or
National Air Monitoring Sites (NAMS),
in the Salt Lake County, Utah County,
and Ogden City PM10 nonattainment
areas.7 Currently, four PM10 SLAMS
operate in Salt Lake County, two operate
in Utah County, and one operates in
Ogden City.
a. Salt Lake County
In June 2001, we determined that Salt
Lake County had attained the PM10
NAAQS as of December 31, 1995 (66 FR
32752, June 18, 2001). However,
beginning in 2001, which is the base
year for Utah’s maintenance
demonstration, Salt Lake County began
experiencing exceedances of the PM10
NAAQS that resulted in violations.
Specifically, two exceedances of the
PM10 NAAQS in 2001 at the Magna
monitoring site resulted in a violation of
the NAAQS in each three-year period
that includes 2001—i.e., 1999–2001,
2000–2002, and 2001–2003.8 On 12
days from 2002 through 2007, there
were 15 more measured exceedances at
three monitors. At least one Salt Lake
County monitor has been in violation of
the PM10 NAAQS in every three-year
period since 2001. The table below
summarizes the actual PM10
exceedances recorded in Salt Lake
County in 2001 through 2007 that
contributed to or are associated with
violations, as well as the calculated
expected number of exceedances and
the violations.
TABLE 1—PM10 EXCEEDANCES CONTRIBUTING TO VIOLATIONS IN SALT LAKE COUNTY, 2001 THROUGH 2007
PM10, (μg/m3)
Expected
number of
exceedances
Year
Date
Monitor and AQS ID No.
2001 ..................
March 14, 2001 ..............
April 22, 2001 ................
Magna, 49–035–1001 .............
Magna, 49–035–1001 .............
201
156
6.4
2003 ..................
February 1, 2003 ...........
April 1, 2003 ..................
North Salt Lake City, 49–035–
0012.
North Salt Lake City, 49–035–
0012.
North Salt Lake City, 49–035–
0012.
Magna, 49–035–1001 .............
169
358
3.1
421
3.1
April 2, 2003 ..................
April 1, 2003 ..................
North Salt Lake City, 49–035–
0012.
189
1.0
2005 ..................
pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES
May 10, 2004 .................
September 10, 2005 ......
Magna, 49–035–1001 .............
177
3.3
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:13 Nov 30, 2009
Jkt 220001
7 SLAMS monitoring stations are defined in 40
CFR 58.1, and are those ambient air monitors
operated by State and local governments primarily
used for comparison to the NAAQS. NAMS
monitors were formerly defined in 40 CFR 58.1 as
a subset of the SLAMS network; the NAMS monitor
type was discontinued through changes to 40 CFR
part 58 promulgated in 2006 (71 FR 61236, October
17, 2006).
8 A violation occurred in each of these periods
because the two measured exceedances in 2001
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Constitutes a violation for
1999–2001 through 2001–
2003 data sets.
No violation as of end of
2003, but contributes to violation with 2004 data; see
below.9
209
2004 ..................
6 40 CFR part 50, appendix K describes how to
determine the expected number of exceedances
each year. For monitors operating less than daily,
or for monitors with data missing on some days
within quarters in which exceedances are
measured, the expected number of exceedances is
calculated to account for possible exceedances on
unsampled days within calendar quarters. Thus, for
example, a single recorded exceedance at a monitor
in a given year could result in an expected number
of exceedances at that monitor significantly greater
than 1.0 for the year.
Contribution to violations
No new violation, but adds to
other violations.
Constitutes a violation in combination with 3.1
exceedances in 2003;
2002–2004 and 2003–2005
data sets violate.
Constitutes a violation for
2003–2005 through 2005–
2007 data sets.
resulted in a calculated expected number of
exceedances in that year alone of 6.4. The two
measured exceedances resulted in a calculated
expected number of exceedances of 6.4 because the
Magna monitor operates only once every three days.
(See 40 CFR part 50, appendix K.) Even if averaged
with a value of zero expected exceedances in two
other years, a value of 6.4 expected exceedances in
a single year causes a violation (6.4 divided by 3
exceeds 1.0).
E:\FR\FM\01DEP1.SGM
01DEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 229 / Tuesday, December 1, 2009 / Proposed Rules
62721
TABLE 1—PM10 EXCEEDANCES CONTRIBUTING TO VIOLATIONS IN SALT LAKE COUNTY, 2001 THROUGH 2007—Continued
Year
Date
2006 ..................
July 4, 2006 ...................
July 26, 2006 .................
2007 ..................
Monitor and AQS ID No.
July 7, 2007 ...................
July 11, 2007 .................
July 13, 2007 .................
October 25, 2007 ...........
pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES
State and local monitoring agencies
may apply a ‘‘flag’’ (a flag is a code
placed on the data in the AQS database)
to an exceedance recorded in AQS when
they believe an exceptional event such
as high winds or wildfires caused the
measured exceedance of the NAAQS.
The State or local agency may then
provide EPA with documentation on the
exceptional event and request that EPA
remove the data from the dataset EPA
uses to calculate violations. Currently,
EPA’s Exceptional Events Rule governs
the flagging of data (72 FR 13560, March
22, 2007, and 72 FR 28612, May 22,
2007). Before May 22, 2007, EPA’s
Natural Events Policy (NEP) applied.10
Utah has placed high wind exceptional
event flags on each of the data values in
the table above, with the exception of
the value at North Salt Lake City on
October 25, 2007, and claims these data
values should be excluded from EPA’s
regulatory calculations.
Under the NEP, EPA indicated that it
would exclude data from its decisions
regarding an area’s attainment status
when those data were attributable to
uncontrollable natural events, which
under certain circumstances could
include high winds. The policy defined
a high wind event as an event with
unusually high winds where the dust
originated from either (1)
nonanthropogenic sources (not man
made), or (2) anthropogenic sources
(man made) controlled with the best
available control measures (BACM).11
When natural events such as high winds
caused a violation of the PM10 NAAQS,
9 Per 40 CFR part 50, appendix K, the three-year
average based on 3.1 expected exceedances in 2003
and zero expected exceedances in 2001 and 2002
is 1.03 (3.1 divided by 3), which rounds down to
1.0 and is not a violation.
10 Memorandum from Mary D. Nichols, Assistant
Administrator for Air and Radiation, entitled,
‘‘Areas Affected by PM10 Natural Events,’’ May 30,
1996.
11 See 59 FR 42010, August 16, 1994, for a
discussion of PM10 BACM.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:13 Nov 30, 2009
Jkt 220001
North Salt
0012.
North Salt
0012.
North Salt
0012.
North Salt
0012.
North Salt
0012.
North Salt
0012.
PM10, (μg/m3)
Lake City, 49–035–
Contribution to violations
188
164
2.2
Constitutes a new violation for
the 2004–2006 data set.
174
156
4.3
Constitutes a violation for
2005–2007 through 2007–
2009 data sets.
Lake City, 49–035–
Lake City, 49–035–
Lake City, 49–035–
Lake City, 49–035–
166
Lake City, 49–035–
172
states were to develop a natural events
action plan (NEAP) that included
certain elements listed in the NEP. For
high winds, the NEAP should have
included the application of BACM, and
the application criteria required analysis
of the technological and economic
feasibility of individual control
measures. In addition, a state seeking
exclusion of data impacted by natural
events had the responsibility to submit
documentation establishing ‘‘a clear
causal relationship between the
measured exceedance and the natural
event.’’ (NEP, page 10). In its
submission, a state had to show that
BACM were required at anthropogenic
sources of dust and that these sources
were in compliance at the time of the
high wind event. Finally, for areas
allegedly affected by natural events
seeking redesignation, such as the Salt
Lake County nonattainment area, a state
had to include the NEAP in its
maintenance plan.
While Utah applied a high wind flag
to the exceedances recorded at Magna,
Utah on March 14, 2001 and April 22,
2001, Utah’s submission to EPA failed
to meet the criteria for exclusion of data
under the policy. Utah’s documentation
identified the source of windblown dust
as Kennecott Utah Copper, a major
permitted source that was not in
compliance with its permit at the time
of the exceedances. As discussed above,
Utah had to show in its submission,
among other things, that anthropogenic
sources of dust were in compliance at
the time of the high wind event (NEP,
page 11).12 Thus, EPA did not concur on
Utah’s flags in AQS for the 2001
exceedances at Magna. As stated above,
because the Magna monitor operates on
a once in three-day schedule, the
12 Similarly, under the current Exceptional Events
Rule discussed below, an event is not eligible for
consideration as an exceptional event and exclusion
of data if there is source noncompliance (40 CFR
50.1(j).)
PO 00000
Expected
number of
exceedances
Frm 00014
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
expected number of exceedances
calculated for 2001 is 6.4 (see 40 CFR
part 50, appendix K), which results in
a PM10 NAAQS violation at the Magna
monitoring site for any 3-year period
containing 2001 (1999–2001, 2000–2002
and 2001–2003).
As stated above, Utah also placed
high wind flags on later exceedances of
the PM10 NAAQS at the Magna and
North Salt Lake City monitors. While
Utah submitted documentation with
respect to these exceedances and a
NEAP, Utah failed to include the NEAP
as part of the maintenance plan
submitted to EPA in 2005, as it should
have done under the NEP. In addition,
the analysis in the NEAP did not
establish that BACM was implemented
at the time of the exceedances for the
three main anthropogenic sources of
emissions identified as causing or
contributing to the exceedances: (1)
Kennecott tailings; (2) agriculture; and
(3) construction. For example, the NEAP
asserted that for Kennecott sources, a
best available control technology
(BACT) analysis had been done
historically and that BACT is generally
more stringent than BACM, but the
NEAP did not analyze whether the
control requirements constituted BACM
for wind blown dust at the time of the
events. Similarly, the NEAP mentioned
certain control measures that the other
contributing anthropogenic sources
were currently implementing, but did
not include a BACM analysis evaluating
these control measures. Also, Utah did
not determine the high wind conditions
that would overcome BACM (See NEP,
page 7). Thus, we were unable to concur
on Utah’s data flags under the NEP.
We are also unable to disregard the
flagged data under our Exceptional
Events Rule, which took effect on May
22, 2007. The rule implements section
319 of the CAA, as amended by section
6013 of the Safe Accountable Flexible
Efficient-Transportation Equity Act: A
E:\FR\FM\01DEP1.SGM
01DEP1
62722
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 229 / Tuesday, December 1, 2009 / Proposed Rules
pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES
Legacy for Users (SAFE–TEA–LU) of
2005. The rule establishes procedures
and criteria to govern the review and
handling of air quality monitoring data
influenced by exceptional events, and
under certain circumstances, EPA may
exclude such data from regulatory
actions under the CAA, including
redesignations to attainment or
nonattainment.
Under the Exceptional Events Rule, a
state asking EPA to exclude data from
its regulatory calculations must, after
notice and opportunity for public
comment, submit a demonstration that
shows to EPA’s satisfaction that the
flagged event caused a specific
concentration in excess of the NAAQS
at the particular monitor location. The
state must submit the demonstration
and any public comments to EPA within
3 years of the calendar quarter following
the event, but no later than 12 months
prior to an EPA regulatory decision (40
CFR 50.14(c)(3)(i)). Of particular note,
40 CFR 50.14(c)(2)(ii) states that data
shall not be excluded from
determinations with respect to
exceedances or violations of the
NAAQS, and that all flags are
considered for information only, until
such time as a state submits the
demonstration and EPA concurs on the
flags.
To date, Utah has not submitted any
demonstrations for PM10 high wind flags
under the Exceptional Events Rule, and
the regulatory deadlines for submitting
such demonstrations for any of the
events before 2006 have passed.13 Since
concurrence was not possible on these
flags under the NEP, and
demonstrations meeting the
requirements of the current Exceptional
Events Rule have not been submitted,
the flagged concentrations recorded in
Salt Lake County between 2001 and
2005 may not be excluded as
exceptional events from our calculations
of violations. Thus, Salt Lake County
violated the PM10 NAAQS from 2001
through 2007 based on exceedances
13 Between May 22, 2007 (the effective date of the
Exceptional Events Rule) and December 31, 2007,
EPA permitted states to choose to comply with
either the rule or the NEP. This flexibility was
limited to situations where the following two
conditions were met: (a) Before May 22, 2007, a
state had flagged data and submitted a timely
demonstration to attempt to show that an
exceptional event caused a NAAQS exceedance
reflected in the data; and (b) EPA had not already
determined whether an exceptional event caused
the exceedance. Unless the state, in the limited
circumstances described above, specifically
requested that EPA evaluate a natural or
exceptional event demonstration under the NEP,
EPA presumed that the rule applied after May 22,
2007.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:13 Nov 30, 2009
Jkt 220001
measured in 2001, 2003, 2004, and
2005.
Similarly, because Utah has not
submitted demonstrations meeting the
requirements of the Exceptional Events
Rule, EPA must consider the flags on
exceedances in 2006 and 2007 as being
informational only per 40 CFR
50.14(c)(2)(ii). Thus, these exceedances
represent new PM10 violations that are
relevant to the evaluation of attainment
for 2005–2007, 2006–2008, and 2007–
2009. Finally, 2008 data in AQS, not yet
certified by Utah, show new
exceedances at the North Salt Lake City
monitor on April 15, 2008 (188 μg/m3)
and April 19, 2008 (181 μg/m3).
Additionally, the data show an
exceedance at the Cottonwood monitor
(AQS ID49–035–0003) on April 15, 2008
(177 μg/m3), which, assuming the data
are certified, would result in a new
violation of the PM10 NAAQS.
Based on the monitored violations of
the PM10 NAAQS during and
subsequent to the base year for the
maintenance demonstration, we are
unable to determine that the Salt Lake
County area has attained the NAAQS in
accordance with section 107(d)(3)(E) of
the Act. Therefore, Salt Lake County is
currently ineligible for redesignation to
attainment for the PM10 NAAQS.
b. Utah County
While there were exceedances of the
PM10 NAAQS in Utah County in 2002,
2003, and 2004, there were no violations
in the area in any three-year period from
1993 through 2007. However, 2008 data
in AQS, not yet certified by Utah, show
four exceedances of the PM10 NAAQS at
the Lindon monitor in Utah County: 164
μg/m3 on April 15, 2008; 181 μg/m3 on
April 19, 2008; 155 μg/m3 on April 29,
2008; and 177 μg/m3 on May 20, 2008.
Assuming the data are certified, the four
exceedances would represent a violation
of the PM10 NAAQS in Utah County for
the three-year periods that include 2008.
Utah has flagged these exceedances as
high wind exceptional events, but EPA
must consider these flags as
informational only until the
demonstration requirements of the
Exceptional Events Rule are met and
EPA concurs on the flags.14 Thus, given
the fact that these exceedances are
currently in AQS and EPA has not yet
determined that they should be
excluded from consideration, we are
unable to determine that the area has
attained the NAAQS for purposes of
redesignation under section
14 The Lindon monitor recorded an additional
exceedance of 200 μg/m3 on March 4, 2009. Utah
has also placed a high wind flag on this exceedance.
This exceedance alone would not represent a new
violation of the NAAQS.
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
107(d)(3)(E). Therefore, Utah County is
currently ineligible for redesignation to
attainment for the PM10 NAAQS.
c. Ogden City
While there were exceedances of the
PM10 NAAQS in Ogden City in 2002,
2003, and 2004, there were no violations
in the area in any three-year period from
1993 through 2007. Similarly, 2008 data
in AQS, not yet certified by Utah,
indicate there were no violations
through 2008. Thus, Ogden City data
indicate that the area is currently
attaining the NAAQS. However, the area
fails to meet other redesignation
requirements, as discussed below.
B. Redesignation Criterion 4—The Area
Must Have a Fully Approved
Maintenance Plan That Meets the
Requirements of Section 175A
1. Deficiencies applicable to all three
maintenance plans.
a. The State did not adequately define
24-hour stationary source inputs to
modeling. For purposes of
demonstrating maintenance, Utah
conducted dispersion modeling for all
three nonattainment areas combined
using the UAM-Aero model. While the
modeling outcomes indicate the areas
will maintain the PM10 NAAQS at least
through 2017,15 we are unable to
determine and confirm the 24-hour
major stationary source inputs used in
the modeling. This key information is
not contained in Utah’s electronic data
files. Thus, we cannot determine what
24-hour emission rates were used in the
modeling analysis to evaluate model
performance16 or to show maintenance
of the PM10 standard. Without this
information, we cannot determine that
the model met relevant performance
standards, and we cannot determine
that major stationary source emission
limits in the Utah SIP will be adequate
to maintain the NAAQS for the 10-year
period required by the CAA.
While Utah did compile annual
baseline and projected inventories of
major stationary source emissions in its
Technical Support Document (TSD),
15 Section 175A of the Act requires that the
maintenance plan demonstrate maintenance for at
least 10 years following EPA’s approval of a
redesignation to attainment. As of the date of this
proposal, the 2017 maintenance year in the Utah
maintenance plans would not meet the 10-yearmaintenance requirement.
16 The performance of a photochemical grid
model like UAM–Aero must be verified before it is
used to model maintenance. Roughly speaking, this
is done by inputting actual emissions and
meteorological data for a period with known,
monitored ambient values—in the case of the Utah
PM10 plans, certain 24-hour ‘‘episodes’’ during 2001
and 2002—and determining whether the model
predictions are sufficiently close to actual
monitored values.
E:\FR\FM\01DEP1.SGM
01DEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 229 / Tuesday, December 1, 2009 / Proposed Rules
pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES
these are not a substitute for 24-hour
inventories, and they are not a
substitute for electronic data files
containing 24-hour major stationary
source inputs for the dispersion
modeling. In addition, we cannot
determine from Utah’s annual
inventories whether Utah evaluated and
regulated all significant stationary
emission sources in the maintenance
plan. For example, we cannot determine
whether Utah evaluated refinery flare
emissions in the maintenance
demonstration. Flares can be a
significant source of emissions. Also,
Utah’s SIP submittal does not include
emission limits for several major
stationary sources located outside the
designated PM10 nonattainment areas
but inside the modeling domain for
Utah’s maintenance demonstration. It
appears these sources were not included
in Utah’s annual inventories, but we
cannot determine why they were
excluded or whether exclusion was
appropriate.
b. Utah did not properly model
Kennecott’s banked emissions.
Kennecott has ‘‘banked’’ thousands of
tons per year of SO2 emissions
reductions.17 In the maintenance
demonstration, Utah modeled 12,567
tons per year of these banked emissions
as though they were being emitted from
Kennecott’s 1200-foot stack.18 This
assumption is not reasonable. For
example, if several companies
purchased these banked SO2 emissions
from Kennecott, it is highly unlikely the
companies would emit the SO2 from
1200-foot stacks. An appropriate
assumption, which Utah employed
when modeling other banked emissions,
is that Kennecott’s banked emissions
would be emitted from within a core
industrial area in Salt Lake County at a
height of 65 meters (213 feet) or less.
This difference in the assumed stack
height of future emissions is significant.
Generally, the higher that emissions are
released from ground level, the more the
emissions disperse and the less they
impact pollutant concentrations at the
surface.19 Under wintertime inversion
conditions in the Salt Lake area, when
17 Utah allows sources who permanently reduce
their emissions to ‘‘bank’’ the emissions reductions
and later use or sell them to offset emission
increases from new or modified sources anywhere
in the nonattainment area. Kennecott made changes
to its smelter that reduced SO2 emissions by
thousands of tons and banked the reductions.
18 In predicting ground-level concentrations,
dispersion models account for the height and
location of the emissions point.
19 Modeling for maintenance and attainment
predicts pollutant concentrations at ground level
because compliance with the NAAQS is evaluated
against ground-level ambient concentrations. This
is based on the fact that people breathe ground-level
air.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:03 Nov 30, 2009
Jkt 220001
the inversion height is typically 1,000
feet or less, it is particularly unlikely
that pollutants emitted from a 1200-foot
stack (i.e., above the inversion height)
would be mixed to the surface and
contribute to PM10 concentrations at the
surface. Thus, we believe Utah’s
modeling substantially underestimates
the potential PM10 impact of
Kennecott’s banked SO2 emissions. This
would affect the maintenance
demonstration for Salt Lake County and
may affect the maintenance
demonstration for Utah County and
Ogden City as well. In order to quantify
the exact effect, the model would need
to be re-run with appropriate
assumptions for the location and height
of release of the banked emissions.
Therefore, we propose to find that the
modeled maintenance demonstrations
for all three areas are invalid.
c. Use of improper estimates of road
dust emissions in modeling. For
purposes of estimating mobile source
road dust emissions in its maintenance
demonstration, Utah used EPA’s AP–42
document to calculate PM10 road dust
emissions estimates but then discounted
those estimates by 75%. This discount
is not supported.
As discussed in EPA’s policy
memoranda of February 24, 2004 20 and
August 2, 2007,21 EPA’s MOBILE6.2 is
the approved model for calculating
direct PM10 and PM2.5 from vehicle
exhaust and brake and tire wear. Both
memoranda state that Chapter 13.2 of
AP–42 (specifically sections 13.2.1,
‘‘Paved Roads,’’ and 13.2.2, ‘‘Unpaved
Roads’’) contains the EPA-approved
methods for calculating re-entrained
road dust emissions. The August 2, 2007
memorandum indicates that November
1, 2006 revisions to AP–42 will lower
estimates of PM2.5 re-entrained road
dust emissions from paved roads by
40% and from unpaved roads by 33%.
But, the memorandum affirms that
‘‘* * * PM10 road dust estimates are
unchanged from the previous version.’’
[Emphasis in the original.]
While our February 24, 2004 policy
memorandum suggests that states may
be able to justify deviations from AP–42
and EPA’s approved mobile source
20 ‘‘Policy Guidance on the Use of MOBILE6.2
and the December 2003 AP–42 Method for ReEntrained Road Dust for SIP Development and
Transportation Conformity,’’ signed by Margo Oge
of EPA’s Office of Transportation and Air Quality
and Steve Page of EPA’s Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards.
21 ‘‘Policy Guidance on the Use of the November
1, 2006, Update to AP–42 for Re-entrained Road
Dust for SIP Development and Transportation
Conformity,’’ signed by Merrylin Zaw-Mon of EPA’s
Office of Transportation and Air Quality and Peter
Tsirigotis of EPA’s Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards.
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
62723
inventory methodology, Utah has not
justified a 75% discount of re-entrained
PM10 road dust emissions estimates.
Utah’s TSD indicated that the 75%
discount method resulted in part from
consultation with Sonoma
Technologies, but provided insufficient
detail (TSD, tab 2.d.ii(3)(iii), page 17). In
its response to comments on the draft
maintenance plan, Utah also referenced
some general studies that discussed the
difficulties and inaccuracies in
estimating paved and unpaved road
dust emissions (June 27, 2005 Response
to Comments, response to comment
#104, page 7). Specifically, Utah
referenced ‘‘A Conceptual Model to
Adjust Fugitive Dust Emissions to
Account for Near Source Particle
Removal in Grid Model Applications,’’
by Thompson G. Pace, US EPA, August
22, 2003. This paper discusses, ‘‘some
recent studies and proposes refinements
to the ‘‘divide-by-four’’ factor that may
be applicable to these source categories’’
(Pace, 2003, page 1). (Dividing estimated
emissions by four has the same impact
as reducing them by 75%.) As noted by
Pace, an across-the-board 75%
reduction requires ‘‘refinement’’ and
case-by-case analysis. Furthermore, Pace
refers to a study by the Desert Research
Institute 22 that states:
This enormous range of removal rates
emphasizes that it is not appropriate to apply
a single correction factor to all fugitive dust
emissions as a means of accounting for nearfield particle removal. Though not
documented, the community of scientists and
professionals has, in the last several years,
been circulating the idea that if fugitive dust
emissions were divided by a factor of four,
then the discrepancy between emissions and
ambient measurements of geological PM10
would disappear. While it is possible that
this is true on an average basis (i.e. over large
spatial domains), it is unlikely that this factor
of four is applicable to every combination of
air shed, land use distribution, and
atmospheric conditions. Each combination of
setting and meteorological conditions should
be considered separately in a modeling
framework that makes use of the known
physics of particle dispersion and deposition.
Thus, the paper Utah relies on to
discount the AP–42-estimated PM10
emissions actually supports EPA’s view
that it is not appropriate to employ a
75% reduction or divide-by-four
methodology in all situations, and
suggests that, while some change may
be appropriate, the specific conditions
along the Wasatch Front must be
considered. Any reduction proposed by
22 ‘‘Field Testing And Evaluation Of Dust
Deposition And Removal Mechanisms: Final
Report,’’ Etyemezian, et. al, Desert Research
Institute, prepared for: The WESTAR Council,
January1, 2003; found January 18, 2006 at: https://
www.westar.org/Docs/Dust/Transportable_Dust_
Final_Report_DRI_WESTAR.pdf.
E:\FR\FM\01DEP1.SGM
01DEP1
62724
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 229 / Tuesday, December 1, 2009 / Proposed Rules
pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES
Utah must be supported by an analysis
that explains why the reduction is
appropriate for the area, considering the
local geography, land use, and
atmospheric conditions. Utah did not
provide such an analysis.
To further evaluate the issue, EPA
conducted its own analysis to determine
whether a 75% reduction could be
supported. EPA evaluated available
information regarding the transportable
fraction of PM10 re-entrained road dust
emissions, as discussed below.
EPA has developed a method to
estimate a transportable fraction of
fugitive dust emissions 23 for grid
modeling inventories. In that method,
EPA has considered the land use,
vegetation, topography, and other
factors and estimated an aggregate
transportable fraction for counties
around the United States. The
transportable fraction for each county
can be seen at EPA’s webpage at: http:
//www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/emch/
dustfractions/.
The transportable fractions estimated
for Utah, Salt Lake, and Weber Counties
are .69, .66, and .75, respectively. These
transportable fractions indicate that
appropriate emission reductions from
AP–42-based estimates, when
considering the specific features of the
areas, are 31% for Utah County, 34% for
Salt Lake County, and 25% for Weber
County, which includes the Ogden City
PM10 nonattainment area. Thus, EPA’s
supplemental analysis does not support
Utah’s use of a 75% reduction from AP–
42 estimates of PM10 road dust
emissions. Utah’s use of such reduction
is inappropriate; by overestimating the
reduction in re-entrained road dust
emissions, Utah underestimated
ambient concentrations of PM10 in its
maintenance demonstrations for all
three areas. Without accurate estimates
of emissions and ambient
concentrations, we cannot determine
that the maintenance plans will be
adequate to maintain the NAAQS for the
10-year period.
2. Deficiencies Applicable to the
Maintenance Plans for Salt Lake and
Utah Counties
a. Utah has not attained the NAAQS.
The Calcagni Memo states that the
attainment inventory used in the
maintenance demonstration must come
from a period for which the area attains
the NAAQS. The attainment inventory
used for the maintenance demonstration
came from 2001, a year in which Salt
23 ‘‘Methodology
to Estimate the Transportable
Fraction (TF) of Fugitive Dust Emissions for
Regional and Urban Scale Air Quality Analyses,’’
Thompson G. Pace, US EPA (August 3, 2005
Revision).
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:13 Nov 30, 2009
Jkt 220001
Lake County did not attain the NAAQS.
(See discussion in section IV.A above.)
In addition, Salt Lake County has
violated the PM10 NAAQS in every
three-year period since 2001. These
persistent violations indicate that the
underlying basis of the maintenance
demonstration for Salt Lake County is
not valid.
As discussed above in section
IV.A.1.b, 2008 data in AQS, not yet
certified by Utah, indicate exceedances
that would comprise violations of the
PM10 NAAQS in Utah County for any
three-year period that includes 2008.
These data call into question the
maintenance demonstration for Utah
County.
b. Maintenance plans rely on
inadequate methods for intermittent
sources. The maintenance plans for Salt
Lake and Utah Counties rely on controls
contained in submitted SIP section
IX.H,24 including opacity limits for
intermittent sources. Section IX.H.1
specifies a method for conducting
opacity observations. The last sentence
in submitted SIP section IX.H.1.g says:
‘‘For intermittent sources and mobile
sources, opacity observations shall be
conducted using procedures similar to
Method 9, but the requirement for
observations to be made at 15-second
intervals over a six-minute period shall
not apply.’’ This language is not
sufficiently clear.25 The language must
indicate what test method will apply.
Without this, we cannot be assured that
the opacity limits for intermittent and
mobile sources will be enforceable or
that the maintenance plan is adequate to
ensure maintenance of the NAAQS.
3. Deficiencies Applicable to the Salt
Lake County Maintenance Plan
a. Maintenance plan relies on
deficient control measures for stationary
sources in Salt Lake County. Utah
revised as a matter of State law the Salt
Lake County stationary source control
measures in section IX.H of the SIP,
incorporated these State-revised
measures into its proposed maintenance
plan (see submitted SIP section IX.A.10,
pages 30–31), and based its maintenance
demonstration on the assumption that
these State-revised measures would be
approved into the SIP by EPA and
24 Hereafter, when we refer to the submitted SIP
or a submitted SIP section, revision, or rule, we
mean the SIP or SIP section, revision, or rule that
Utah submitted to us for approval on September 2,
2005, as opposed to the EPA-approved SIP or SIP
section, revision, or rule.
25 We recognize that this language is similar to
language in the EPA-approved SIP. However, due
to the potential problems with this language, it
would be inappropriate for us to re-approve it or
accept reliance on it for purposes of the
maintenance plan.
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
would therefore be in place.26 For the
reasons set forth below, many parts of
State-revised section IX.H are not
approvable, therefore, the maintenance
plan, which relies upon assumed
approval of the State’s revisions to
section IX.H, does not demonstrate that
the area will maintain the NAAQS for
ten years after redesignation.
(i) For a number of the source
emission limits, submitted SIP section
IX.H does not contain adequate
compliance determining and reporting
requirements, as required by section 110
of the Act. Absent adequate compliance
determining and reporting
requirements, there is no assurance that
the emission limits relied on to
demonstrate maintenance in Salt Lake
County will be met. Thus, these flaws
render the specific source requirements
and the maintenance plan as a whole,
which relies on them, unapprovable.
The following are examples of
inadequate compliance determining and
reporting requirements.
(A) Lack of emission factors for PM10
and NOX. For Chevron, Flying J, Holly
Refining, and Tesoro West Coast,
submitted SIP sections IX.H.2.c, d, f,
and l, respectively, require that PM10
emissions from external combustion
process equipment be determined daily
by ‘‘multiplying the appropriate
emission factor from section IX.H.1.i.2
or from testing listed below by the
relevant parameter (e.g., hours of
operation, feed rate, or quantity of fuel
combusted) at each affected unit, and
summing the results for the group or
affected unit.’’ The same approach is
prescribed for determining NOX
emissions. Submitted SIP section
IX.H.1.i.(2) does not list any emission
factors for PM10 or NOX. The SIP should
specify the appropriate emission factors
and equations for determining
compliance with the emission limits. In
contrast to submitted SIP section
IX.H.1.i.(2), the EPA-approved SIP
specifies the numerical value of the
emission factors for PM10 and NOX at
each refinery, for each type of fuel used
in external combustion process
equipment. The lack of specificity in
submitted SIP sections IX.H.1 and 2
renders the emission limits
unenforceable.
(B) Lack of metering or other
measurement techniques. Submitted SIP
section IX.H.1.i.(2) of the general
requirements for refineries does not
specify how the ‘‘hours of operation,
26 Note that revising the EPA-approved SIP is a
two-step process. First, the state adopts changes as
a matter of state law and submits them to EPA.
Then, EPA either approves or disapproves those
changes. Only if EPA approves the changes do they
take effect as a matter of Federal law.
E:\FR\FM\01DEP1.SGM
01DEP1
pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 229 / Tuesday, December 1, 2009 / Proposed Rules
feed rate, or quantity of fuel combusted’’
are to be measured. No metering devices
or other measurement techniques are
specified. The submitted SIP departs
from the EPA-approved SIP, which
specifies the monitoring devices and
measurement techniques. Because Utah
did not specify the methods to measure
the hours of operation, feed rate, or
quantity of fuel combusted in submitted
SIP section IX.H.1.i.(2), the
corresponding emission limits are
unenforceable.
(C) Lack of enforceable requirement
for re-establishing emission factor at
Flying J refinery. For the Catalyst
Regeneration system at Flying J refinery,
submitted SIP section IX.H.2.d.(1)(a)(ii)
says the PM10 emission factor of 22
pounds per thousand barrels (lbs/kbbl)
‘‘may be re-established by stack testing’’
but does not specify a schedule for such
stack testing. The PM10 emission control
equipment (an electrostatic precipitator)
could deteriorate over time without
proper maintenance, and the emission
factor could change. Under these
circumstances, the SIP must require at
least annual stack testing to re-establish
the emission factor. The lack of at least
annual stack testing renders the
submitted SIP’s methods for
determining compliance with the PM10
limits inadequate.
(D) Lack of required technique for
calculating Sulfur Recovery Unit (SRU)
efficiency. Submitted SIP section
IX.H.1.i.(1)(a) requires removal of a
‘‘minimum of 95% of the sulfur from
feed streams processed by the SRU’’ at
refineries. For demonstrating
compliance, ‘‘SRU efficiency shall be
estimated and reported to the Executive
Secretary a minimum of once per year.’’
Since no technique is specified for
calculating SRU efficiency, this is not a
practically enforceable requirement.
Also, once-per-year reporting is not
frequent enough. Performance problems
can easily develop at SRUs over a
shorter period of time than a year.
Continuous Emission Monitoring
Systems (CEMS) for SO2 are installed at
each SRU to collect data continuously.
Thus, the requirement should be to
demonstrate 95% sulfur removal
efficiency on a daily basis (24-hour
block average) via SO2 CEMS data, with
reporting through quarterly compliance
reports. The lack of such requirements
renders the submitted SIP inadequate.
(E) Lack of practical enforceability of
PM10, SO2, and NOX emission limits at
Kennecott Power Plant. Submitted SIP
section IX.H.2.i.(1)(f), which applies to
Kennecott Power Plant, does not specify
any metering devices or other
measurement techniques for monitoring
the rate of fuel consumption at the
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:13 Nov 30, 2009
Jkt 220001
Kennecott Power Plant. Values for fuel
consumption are needed to determine
compliance with emission limits in
submitted SIP sections IX.H.2.i(1)(a) and
(b). In contrast to the submitted SIP, the
EPA-approved SIP does specify the
location and technique of measuring
natural gas consumption. Without
specific, accurate, and replicable
techniques for measuring both the
natural gas consumption and the coal
consumption, Utah’s submitted
emission limits for Kennecott Power
Plant are not practically enforceable and
the submitted SIP is not approvable. In
addition, the opening sentence in
submitted SIP section IX.H.2.i.(1)(f)
reads, ‘‘To determine compliance with a
daily limit owner/operator shall
calculate a daily limit.’’ This is unclear.
This lack of clarity also undermines SIP
enforceability.
(F) Stack tests once every five years
are not frequent enough for reestablishing NOX emission factors at
Central Valley Water Reclamation.
Submitted SIP section IX.H.2.b.(2),
which applies to Central Valley Water
Reclamation, requires a stack test at
least once every five years, for reestablishing emission factors necessary
to show compliance with NOX emission
limits at the engines. All of the engines
are equipped with air-fuel ratio
controllers that must be adjusted
properly to avoid excessive NOX
emission rates, and some of the engines
are also equipped with catalytic
converters for NOX control that can
degrade if not maintained properly.
Thus, EPA considers once every five
years not frequent enough to ensure
compliance with the limit. Once every
year or every three years typically
appears in other sections of the EPAapproved SIP for other sources where
emission control devices are involved,
and should be required here also. Less
frequent stack testing is not acceptable
without monitoring of catalyst
degradation and proper adjustment of
air-fuel ratio controllers on a reasonable
frequency.
Unlike the submitted SIP, the EPAapproved SIP requires monthly NOX
emission measurement by a portable
analyzer at all engines at Central Valley
Water Reclamation. For the engines
equipped with catalytic converters, the
EPA-approved SIP also requires
monthly evaluation of catalyst
degradation.
The EPA-approved SIP also restricts
Central Valley Water Reclamation’s fuel
to natural gas or digester gas, a
restriction that Utah assumed would
continue to apply when it prepared its
emission inventory for its maintenance
plan. However, Utah did not include the
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
62725
restriction in the submitted SIP. This
restriction must be enforceable to be a
valid assumption in the maintenance
demonstration.
(ii) Blanket exemptions from emission
limits at refineries during startup/
shutdown/malfunction periods.
Submitted SIP section IX.H.1.h.(1)(a)
says the requirement for 95% sulfur
removal efficiency at refinery SRUs
applies ‘‘except for startup, shutdown,
or malfunction of the SRU.’’ Similarly,
submitted SIP section IX.H.1.h.(1)(b)
indicates that the requirement to reduce
the hydrogen sulfide (H2S) content of
the refinery plant gas to 0.10 grains per
dry standard cubic foot (160 parts per
million or less) applies ‘‘except for
startup, shutdown, or malfunction of the
amine plant.’’ These provisions
constitute blanket exemptions during
startups, shutdowns, and malfunctions.
EPA’s interpretations regarding
treatment of emissions during these
periods in SIPs are more fully described
in the following EPA Federal Register
notices and policy memoranda: (1)
September 20, 1999, memorandum from
Steve Herman and Robert Perciasepe,
EPA Assistant Administrators, to EPA
Regional Offices, entitled ‘‘State
Implementation Plans: Policy Regarding
Excess Emissions During Malfunctions,
Startup, and Shutdown’’; (2) April 27,
1977, final rule, ‘‘Utah SO2 Control
Strategy’’ (42 FR 21472); and 3)
November 8, 1977, final rule, ‘‘Idaho
SO2 Control Strategy’’ (42 FR 58171.) In
short, EPA believes that it is
inconsistent with the CAA to allow
blanket exemptions from compliance
with emission standards in SIPs for
periods of startup, shutdown, and
malfunction. This is because excess
emissions during such periods may
aggravate air quality so as to prevent
attainment or interfere with
maintenance of the NAAQS. Generally,
EPA has said that such excess emissions
must be treated as violations.27 Thus,
27 In our September 20, 1999, policy
memorandum, we indicated that in certain limited
circumstances, it may be appropriate for states, in
consultation with EPA, to create narrowly-tailored
exceptions in their SIPs to otherwise applicable
emission limits during startup and shutdown. A
state seeking to include such a narrowly-tailored
startup/shutdown exception in its SIP would need
to analyze the potential worst-case emissions that
could occur during startup and shutdown and
associated impacts on ambient air quality. The
memorandum also identified other factors that EPA
believes it would be important for a state to address.
Also, in our September 1999 memorandum, we
indicated that a SIP revision including such a
narrowly-tailored startup/shutdown exception
should, among other things, require the source
owner or operator to show, following an exceedance
of the otherwise applicable emission limit, that it
operated its facility in a manner consistent with
good practice for minimizing emissions; that it used
E:\FR\FM\01DEP1.SGM
Continued
01DEP1
62726
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 229 / Tuesday, December 1, 2009 / Proposed Rules
pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES
EPA proposes to disapprove the
maintenance plan because it includes by
reference these inappropriate
exemptions in submitted SIP section
IX.H.
(iii) Lack of appropriate restrictions
for flaring emissions at refineries.
Submitted SIP section IX.H.1.i.(2)(f)
says: ‘‘Emissions due to upset flaring
shall not be included in the daily (24hr) or annual compliance
demonstrations.’’ As indicated above,
EPA cannot approve SIP provisions that
provide blanket exemptions from
compliance with emission standards for
malfunction or upset emissions. We
recognize that flares are sometimes used
as emergency devices, but this does not
justify excluding upset flare emissions
at the refineries from limits in the SIP.
(See, e.g., the Billings/Laurel SO2
Federal Implementation Plan, 73 FR
21418, April 21, 2008.) We are
concerned that flare emissions during
upsets might interfere with maintenance
of the NAAQS, and that submitted SIP
section IX.H.1.i(2) would explicitly
ignore such emissions for purposes of
assessing compliance with daily and
annual emissions caps.
The submitted SIP also does not
properly address flare emissions during
periods other than upsets. In submitted
SIP section IX.H.2, it is unclear whether
Utah intended flare emissions (even in
non-upset situations) to be accounted
for in determining compliance with the
daily and annual emission caps at the
refineries. For example, submitted SIP
section IX.H.2.c.(2)(a) for Chevron
provides: ‘‘Combined emissions of
sulfur dioxide from gas-fired
compressor drivers and all external
combustion process equipment,
including the FCC CO Boiler and
Catalyst Regenerator, shall not exceed
2.977 tons/day.’’ A similar form of
emission limit is expressed for the other
four refineries as well. It is unclear
whether the term ‘‘external combustion
process equipment’’ includes the
refinery flares. Refinery flaring can be a
significant source of emissions that
should be clearly accounted for in the
maintenance plan. Even if it were clear
that flare emissions were included in
best efforts to meet the otherwise applicable
emission limit; that it took all possible steps to
minimize the impact of emissions during startup
and shutdown on ambient air quality; and that it
minimized to the maximum extent practicable the
frequency and duration of operation in startup or
shutdown mode. Utah has not provided any
analysis demonstrating the effects of these
exceptions, as they relate to startup and shutdown
periods, on the ability of the area to attain and
maintain the standard, nor has Utah attempted to
address any of the other criteria that EPA has
recommended to support a narrowly-tailored
exemption for periods of startup and shutdown.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:13 Nov 30, 2009
Jkt 220001
the emission limits for the refineries,
Utah’s submitted SIP does not specify
an adequate means to determine flare
emissions. The submitted SIP states that
emissions from external combustion
process equipment shall be determined
by multiplying the appropriate emission
factor (from section IX.H.1.i.2 or from
testing) by the relevant parameter (e.g.
hours of operation, feed rate, or quantity
of fuel combusted). However, as noted
above, submitted SIP section IX.H.1.i.2
specifies no emission factors for PM10
and NOx. For SO2, an emission factor is
specified, based on sampling of H2S in
refinery fuel gas. But, it is highly
unlikely that H2S content sampled in
the refinery fuel gas would be
representative of H2S going to the flare
during all periods of operation. Also,
this approach would not account for
other sulfur compounds that may be
going to the flare. Finally, Utah’s
submitted SIP provides no means to
determine flow to the flares (in either
normal operation or upset situations),
which would be essential to
determining flare emissions. Because
Utah did not properly address flare
emissions, the maintenance plan is
unapprovable.
(iv) Deletion of certain NOX emission
limits at Bountiful City Power. The
EPA-approved SIP includes NOX
emission limits of 79.5 lbs/hr and 3.70
grams/hp-hr for the 9,750-horsepower
dual-fuel engine, which is by far the
largest potential emitting unit at the
Bountiful facility. No emission limits or
restrictions on operating hours are
included for this engine in the
submitted SIP. Similarly, the submitted
SIP deletes emission limits for other
dual-fuel engines, but contains no
restriction on their operation. The
maintenance plan’s inventory and
maintenance demonstration does not
properly account for the lack of
restrictions or limits on these engines.
(v) Permits for Kennecott Power Plant
superseding the SIP. For Kennecott
Power Plant, submitted SIP sections
IX.H.2.i.(1)(a) and (g) provide that the
requirements in submitted SIP sections
IX.H.2.i.(1)(a) through (f) for emission
limits and compliance demonstration
requirements apply ‘‘unless and until’’ a
Notice of Intent (i.e., New Source
Review permit application) is submitted
for ‘‘specific technologies’’ and an
Approval Order (permit) is issued. This
revision would undermine the
enforceability of the SIP because a
control measure relied on in the
maintenance plan could be changed
through an Approval Order, making the
original limit unenforceable. Also, the
process for issuing an Approval Order is
an inadequate substitute for revising the
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
SIP. The latter requires EPA approval
and public involvement at both state
and Federal levels. Section 110(i) of the
Act, with exceptions not relevant here,
does not allow a state to revise
stationary source SIP requirements
through issuance of an Approval Order
(i.e., a New Source Review permit.)
(vi) Lack of restriction on annual NOX
emissions at Kennecott Bingham
Canyon Mine, and lack of restriction on
daily emissions of any pollutant. Utah’s
inventory assumes that NOX emissions
from the mine are limited to 5,078 tons
per year, but submitted SIP section
IX.H.2.h.(1) contains no corresponding
NOX limit or operating restrictions
consistent with NOX emission rates
used in the inventory. It only limits SO2
emissions. Submitted SIP section
IX.H.2.h.(1) also does not restrict daily
emissions of PM10, NOX, or SO2. Since
the PM10 maintenance plan must
address the PM10 NAAQS, which is a
24-hour standard, the maintenance plan
must include a daily emissions limit or
daily operating restriction
corresponding to the daily PM10, NOX,
and SO2 emission rates necessary to
demonstrate maintenance. The lack of
these limits renders the maintenance
demonstration invalid.
(vii) Lack of requirement for control of
fugitive particulate emissions at
Kennecott Bingham Canyon Mine.
Submitted SIP section IX.H.2.h.(1) does
not include any requirements to control
fugitive particulate emissions, even
though the inventory and maintenance
demonstration assume that fugitive dust
emissions from the mine are limited.
This is a significant change from the
EPA-approved SIP, which contains
numerous measures for control of
fugitive particulate emissions from the
mine.
Because of the numerous deficiencies
in submitted SIP section IX.H, the
maintenance plan for Salt Lake County
is inadequate to ensure maintenance of
the PM10 NAAQS as required by section
175A(a) of the Act.
b. Prior stationary source control
measures for Salt Lake County sources
are not included as potential
contingency measures. Pursuant to
section 175A(d) of the Act, the
maintenance plan must include as
potential contingency measures all
control measures that were contained in
the SIP for the area before redesignation.
As noted above, as part of its adoption
of the maintenance plan for Salt Lake
County, Utah revised as a matter of State
law the stationary source limits for Salt
Lake County sources in section IX.H of
the SIP, sometimes removing them
entirely and sometimes making them
less stringent. Contrary to the
E:\FR\FM\01DEP1.SGM
01DEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 229 / Tuesday, December 1, 2009 / Proposed Rules
requirement of section 175A(d) of the
Act, the Salt Lake County maintenance
plan does not list as a potential
contingency measure the reimplementation of the prior version of
the Salt Lake County stationary source
control measures. While we are
proposing to disapprove Utah’s
proposed changes to the Salt Lake
County stationary source control
measures, this is an additional,
independent reason we are proposing to
disapprove the Salt Lake County
maintenance plan. Put another way,
even if we could approve all of Utah’s
proposed changes to the stationary
source control measures, we would be
unable to approve the maintenance plan
because it fails to list as a potential
contingency measure the reimplementation of the relevant
measures.
pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES
4. Deficiencies Applicable to the Utah
County Maintenance Plan
a. Maintenance plan relies on
deficient measures for stationary
sources in Utah County. Utah revised as
a matter of State law the stationary
source control measures for Utah
County in section IX.H.3 of the SIP,
incorporated these State-revised
measures into its proposed maintenance
plan (see submitted SIP Section IX.A.10,
pages 30–31), and based its maintenance
demonstration on the assumption that
these State-revised measures would be
approved into the SIP by EPA and
would therefore be in place. Utah’s
revisions to section IX.H.3 are not
approvable. Specifically, Utah has
added emission limits for Payson City
Power to IX.H.3. As part of those limits,
Utah has included an exemption from
opacity limits for certain periods during
startup and shutdown. Utah has not
adequately explained or justified this
exemption as a narrowly-tailored
exception to the otherwise applicable
emission limits in accordance with our
interpretation of the Act or established
appropriate conditions for such an
exception. (See discussion above in
section IV.B.3.a.ii of this action
regarding excess emissions during
startup, shutdown, and malfunctions.)
This is another reason the Utah County
maintenance plan, which relies on the
control measures in submitted SIP
section IX.H.3, is unapprovable.
V. Sections IX.H.1–4 of Utah’s
September 2, 2005 Submission
We are proposing to disapprove the
provisions contained in submitted SIP
sections IX.H.1–4. In section IV of this
action, above, we identify a number of
deficiencies in submitted sections
IX.H.1–3. Based on these deficiencies,
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:13 Nov 30, 2009
Jkt 220001
submitted sections IX.H.1–3 do not meet
the requirements of section 110 of the
Act.
We also note in section IV, above, that
Utah has either removed or altered a
number of stationary source
requirements in section IX.H.2. Section
110(l) of the Act provides that EPA shall
not approve a SIP revision if it would
interfere with any applicable
requirement concerning attainment and
reasonable further progress or any other
applicable requirement of the Act. The
maintenance plan for PM10 is not
approvable, and there has been no
section 110(l) demonstration that these
proposed changes will not interfere with
attainment of the PM10 or other NAAQS,
or with additional Act requirements. We
believe these proposed changes pose a
problem under section 110(l) of the Act
because they will likely result in an
increase in emissions in the Salt Lake
County area, which is already
experiencing violations of the PM10,
PM2.5, and ozone NAAQS. Thus, this is
another reason we cannot approve
Utah’s submitted revisions to section
IX.H.2.
We are proposing to disapprove
submitted SIP section IX.H.4
(‘‘Establishment of Alternative
Requirements’’) because this section
depends on the validity of submitted
sections IX.H.1–3, which we are
proposing to disapprove. Submitted
section IX.H.4 would permit Utah to
establish alternatives to the
requirements in sections IX.H.1–3
through the use of Utah’s Title V
operating permits program. Submitted
section IX.H.4 reads, in part, as follows:
In lieu of the requirements imposed
pursuant to Subsections IX.H.1, 2 and 3
above, a facility owner may comply with
alternative requirements, provided the
requirements are established pursuant to the
permit issuance, renewal, or significant
permit revision process found in R307–415
and are consistent with the streamlining
procedures and guidelines set forth in
Subsections b and c below.
In other words, the requirements of
submitted sections IX.H.1–3 are a
necessary benchmark for the
implementation of submitted section
IX.H.4. Because we are proposing to
disapprove submitted sections IX.H.1–3,
we are also proposing to disapprove
submitted section IX.H.4.
VI. Rule Revisions
With the redesignation requests and
maintenance plans, Utah submitted
several specific rule revisions. Utah
relied on some of these revised rules to
support the maintenance plans.
Evidently, Utah made other rule
revisions in anticipation that we would
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
62727
redesignate the areas from
nonattainment to attainment. We
evaluate each of these provisions below.
A. R307–101–2. ‘‘Definitions.’’ Utah
deleted certain definitions from this rule
and revised or added others. We
evaluate these various changes below.
1. Utah deleted the definition for
‘‘Actual Area of Nonattainment.’’ We are
proposing to disapprove this change
because at least one other rule in the
EPA-approved SIP uses this term. EPAapproved R307–403–2 requires a source
constructed in an actual area of
nonattainment to meet certain emission
limits. Utah has not given us a revision
to R307–403–2 to replace the term
‘‘Actual Area of Nonattainment.’’ Also,
the term may appear in other provisions
of the EPA-approved SIP that EPA has
not identified.
2. Utah revised the definition of
‘‘Baseline Date’’ so as to redefine the
major source baseline date in areas
redesignated to attainment. We are
proposing to disapprove this change
because there is no provision in the Act
or our regulations that allows a state to
establish a major source baseline date
other than January 6, 1975 for PM10 and
SO2. (See section 169(4) of the CAA and
40 CFR 51.166(b)(14)(i).)
3. Utah added a definition of ‘‘EPA
Method 9.’’ Since the definition merely
cross-references EPA’s definition of
Method 9, at 40 CFR part 60, we are
proposing to approve it.
4. Utah added a definition for
‘‘Maintenance Area.’’ The definition
reads, ‘‘ ‘Maintenance Area’ means an
area that is subject to the provisions of
a maintenance plan that is included in
the Utah state implementation plan, and
that has been redesignated by EPA from
nonattainment to attainment of any
National Ambient Air Quality
Standard.’’ The definition then lists
maintenance areas in Utah for different
pollutants. We are proposing to approve
the first paragraph and subsections (a)
and (b) of this addition and to
disapprove subsections (c) and (d).
Subsections (a) and (b) list maintenance
areas for ozone and carbon monoxide.
We have redesignated the listed areas
from nonattainment to attainment and
have approved maintenance plans for
the areas. Subsections (c) and (d) list
maintenance areas for PM10 and SO2.
However, for the listed areas—Salt Lake
County, Utah County, and Ogden City
for PM10, and Salt Lake County and the
eastern portion of Tooele County above
5600 feet for SO2—we have not
approved redesignations or maintenance
plans. In addition, in this action, we are
proposing to disapprove the
redesignation requests and maintenance
plans for PM10 for Salt Lake County,
E:\FR\FM\01DEP1.SGM
01DEP1
pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES
62728
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 229 / Tuesday, December 1, 2009 / Proposed Rules
Utah County, and Ogden City. While
subsections (c) and (d), with one
exception, provide that these PM10 and
SO2 areas would not be considered
maintenance areas until EPA approves
the maintenance plans for the areas, we
think it would merely confuse the
public and the regulated community if
we were to approve language that
implies that these areas may be
maintenance areas or that we may
approve redesignation requests and
maintenance plans for these areas. The
one exception we refer to pertains to
Tooele County. Subsection (d) of the
definition indicates that the eastern
portion of Tooele County above 5600
feet is a maintenance area for SO2 and
contains no condition based on EPA
approval of a maintenance plan for the
area. Because EPA has not approved a
redesignation request or maintenance
plan for this area, it is still designated
nonattainment for sulfur dioxide (40
CFR 81.34), and it would be
inappropriate for us to approve a
definition that indicates the area is a
maintenance area.
5. Utah revised the definition of
‘‘Nonattainment Area.’’ The revised
definition reads, ‘‘ ‘Nonattainment Area’
means an area designated by the
Environmental Protection Agency as
nonattainment under Section 107, Clean
Air Act for any National Ambient Air
Quality Standard. The designations for
Utah are listed in 40 CFR 81.345.’’ We
are proposing to approve the revised
definition because it merely crossreferences our official area designations
at 40 CFR 81.345.
6. Utah deleted the definition of
‘‘PM10 Nonattainment Area.’’ The
definition reads, ‘‘ ‘PM10 Nonattainment
Area’ means Salt Lake County, Utah
County, or Ogden City.’’ We are
proposing to approve the deletion of
this definition based on Utah’s revision
to the definition of ‘‘Nonattainment
Area,’’ described immediately above. If
we finalize our proposal, the meaning of
the term PM10 Nonattainment Area will
depend on the PM10 area designations
appearing at 40 CFR 81.345.
7. Utah replaced the term ‘‘PM10
Particulate Matter’’ with the term
‘‘PM10.’’ We are proposing to approve
this change because Utah only changed
the term. Utah did not change the
definition of the term.
8. Utah revised the definition of
‘‘PM10 Precursor’’ to delete the
sentence, ‘‘It includes sulfur dioxide
and nitrogen oxides.’’ The revised
definition reads, ‘‘ ‘PM10 Precursor’
means any chemical compound or
substance, which, after it has been
emitted into the atmosphere, undergoes
chemical or physical changes that
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:13 Nov 30, 2009
Jkt 220001
convert it into particulate matter,
specifically PM10.’’ We are proposing to
approve this change because the
deletion of the one sentence will not
change the meaning of the term. Sulfur
dioxide and nitrogen oxides would still
be considered PM10 precursors under
Utah’s revised definition. In a
memorandum to the Utah Air Quality
Board dated June 23, 2005, the Utah
Division of Air Quality indicated that
the specific reference to sulfur dioxide
and nitrogen dioxides was removed to
avoid the implication that there were no
other PM10 precursors to consider.
9. Utah added a definition of ‘‘Road.’’
We are proposing to approve this
definition as it merely defines the term
to mean any public or private road.
10. Utah changed the definition of
‘‘Significant’’ by substituting the term
‘‘PM10’’ for the term ‘‘PM10 Particulate
Matter.’’ We are proposing to approve
this change because it coincides with
Utah’s substitution of the term ‘‘PM10’’
for ‘‘PM10 Particulate Matter’’
elsewhere in the Definitions section.
B. R307–165. ‘‘Emission Testing.’’
Utah’s revised rule contains five
sections: R307–165–1, ‘‘Purpose;’’
R307–165–2, ‘‘Testing Every 5 Years;’’
R307–165–3, ‘‘Notification of DAQ;’’
R307–165–4, ‘‘Test Conditions;’’ and
R307–165–5, ‘‘Rejection of Test
Results.’’ R307–165–1 is new. The other
four sections are contained in the EPAapproved SIP, but Utah has renumbered
them and made revisions to them.
R307–165–2 provides that emission
testing is required at least once every
five years for all sources with emission
limits in Approval Orders or in section
IX.H of the SIP (i.e., the PM10 SIP
limits). In addition, R307–165–2
provides that the Utah Air Quality
Board may grant exceptions to the
mandatory testing requirements of
R307–165–2 that are consistent with the
purposes of R307. We believe five years
is not frequent enough to satisfy the
requirements of the Act and our
regulations for practical enforceability
and periodic testing and inspection of
stationary sources. (See, e.g., sections
110(a)(2)(A), (C), and (F) of the Act; 40
CFR 51.210, 51.212.) We recognize that
the five-year period is contained in the
EPA-approved SIP. However, it would
be inappropriate for us to re-approve
this provision. It would also be
inappropriate for us to re-approve the
Board’s discretionary authority to grant
exceptions to R307–165–2’s mandatory
testing requirements because the
exercise of such discretionary authority
would undermine the enforceability of
the SIP.
C. R307–302. ‘‘Davis, Salt Lake, Utah,
Weber Counties: Residential Fireplaces
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
and Stoves.’’ Utah’s revised R307–302
contains residential fuel-burning
restrictions and has five sections: R307–
302–1, ‘‘Definitions;’’ R307–302–2,
‘‘Applicability;’’ R307–302–3, ‘‘No-Burn
Periods for Fine Particulate;’’ R307–
302–4, ‘‘No-Burn Periods for Carbon
Monoxide;’’ and R307–302–5, ‘‘Opacity
for Residential Heating.’’ R307–302–1 is
unchanged from the EPA-approved rule.
R307–302–2 is new. R307–302–3 and 4
are contained in the EPA-approved rule,
but Utah has renumbered and made
revisions to them. The restrictions in
R307–302–5, which are new to R307–
302, also appear in EPA-approved
R307–201–3; but, the geographic scope
of R307–302–5 is more limited. Finally,
Utah has deleted EPA-approved R307–
302–4, ‘‘Violations,’’ from its State rules.
We are proposing to approve some
parts of Utah’s revised R307–302 and
disapprove other parts. We are
proposing to approve R307–302–1,
R307–302–2(1), and R307–302–3, as
submitted by Utah, and we are
proposing to approve Utah’s deletion of
EPA-approved R307–302–4, for the
following reasons:
1. R307–302–1 merely defines ‘‘Sole
Source of Heat’’ and is unchanged from
the current SIP. The definition is
acceptable, and, thus, we are proposing
to re-approve it.
2. R307–302–2(1), part of Utah’s new
‘‘Applicability’’ section, specifies that
the residential fuel burning restrictions
for particulate matter contained in
R307–302–3 (‘‘No-Burn Periods for Fine
Particulate’’) apply in parts of Utah
County, all of Salt Lake County, all of
Davis County, and in parts of Weber
County. This represents an expansion of
the geographic scope of the EPAapproved particulate matter provision,
which applies in only part of Davis
County and does not apply in any part
of Weber County. This expansion in
area strengthens the rule. Thus, we are
proposing to approve R307–302–2(1).
3. Revised R307–302–3 (‘‘No-Burn
Periods for Fine Particulate’’), specifies
residential fuel-burning restrictions and
requirements for particulate matter only,
including the trigger levels for
mandatory no-burn periods. These
provisions are essentially the same as
those contained in the EPA-approved
rule, except that Utah has expanded the
area in which the rule would apply
through the applicability provisions in
revised R307–302–2(1) and has
submitted for our approval contingency
provisions that are not part of the EPAapproved SIP. If the contingency
provisions are triggered, no-burn
periods would start when monitored
PM10 levels reached 110 micrograms per
cubic meter instead of the normal 120
E:\FR\FM\01DEP1.SGM
01DEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 229 / Tuesday, December 1, 2009 / Proposed Rules
pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES
micrograms per cubic meter, and
restrictions on sale and installation of
solid fuel burning devices would go into
effect. Because these changes would
strengthen the SIP, we are proposing to
approve them.28
4. The EPA-approved version of
R307–302–4 (‘‘Violations’’) provides
that it is a violation of R307–302 to
operate a residential solid fuel burning
device or fireplace during a mandatory
no-burn period. Utah deleted this
provision from R307–302 and indicated
in response to comments that it
removed this provision because it was
redundant and unnecessary. According
to Utah, ‘‘As with all of our other rules,
if a person does not comply with the
requirements, it is considered a
violation of the rule.’’ We agree that this
deletion will not affect the State’s,
EPA’s, or citizens’ ability to enforce the
requirements of the rule. Thus, we are
proposing to approve the deletion of
R307–302–4 (‘‘Violations’’).
We are proposing to disapprove
R307–302–2(2) and (3), R307–302–4,
and R307–302–5, as submitted by Utah,
and we are proposing to disapprove
Utah’s proposed deletion of EPAapproved R307–302–3. These provisions
are distinct from the parts of R307–302
we are proposing to approve because
they either relate to a different pollutant
(carbon monoxide) or a different
requirement (opacity limit.) We are
proposing to disapprove these
submitted provisions for the following
reasons:
1. R307–302–2(2), R307–302–4, and
Utah’s proposed deletion of current
EPA-approved R307–302–3. The current
EPA-approved version of R307–302–3
(‘‘No-Burn Periods for Carbon
Monoxide’’) contains residential fuel
burning restrictions for carbon
monoxide. Its no-burn requirements
apply to Orem City as well as Provo.
Utah has renumbered R307–302–3 as
R307–302–4. In addition, through the
addition of new applicability provisions
in R307–302–2(2) and changes within
R307–302–4, Utah has reduced the area
to which the no-burn requirements for
carbon monoxide would apply.
Specifically, they would no longer
apply to Orem City. As noted
previously, section 110(l) of the Act
provides that EPA shall not approve a
SIP revision if it would interfere with
any applicable requirement concerning
28 We note that Utah did not submit one
subsection of revised R307–302–3 to us for
approval—specifically, R307–302–3(4), which
contains no-burn triggers based on PM2.5
concentrations. This is an entirely new provision
that is not in the EPA-approved version of the rule.
Because Utah did not submit it to us, we cannot act
on it.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:13 Nov 30, 2009
Jkt 220001
attainment and reasonable further
progress or any other applicable
requirement of the Act. There has been
no section 110(l) demonstration that this
change would not interfere with
attainment or maintenance of NAAQS.
We believe the change poses a problem
under section 110(l) of the Act because
it may result in an increase in emissions
from residential fuel burning in Orem
City that could have a negative effect on
attainment or maintenance of one or
more NAAQS. Thus, we are proposing
to disapprove R307–302–2(2) and R307–
302–4, as submitted by Utah, as well as
Utah’s proposed deletion of the current
EPA-approved version of R307–302–3.29
2. R307–302–2(3) and R307–302–5.
R307–302–2(3), part of Utah’s new
‘‘Applicability’’ section in R307–302,
specifies that the opacity limits in
R307–302–5 (‘‘Opacity for Residential
Heating’’) apply in ‘‘both areas,’’ which
is a reference to the geographic areas
specified in R307–302–2(1) and R307–
302–2(2). As noted above, we are
proposing to disapprove submitted
R307–302–2(2). If we disapprove R307–
302–2(2) as proposed, the meaning of
R307–302–2(3), and the geographic
scope of R307–302–5, will be unclear.
Thus, we are also proposing to
disapprove submitted R307–302–2(3)
and R307–302–5.
As mentioned above, the same opacity
restrictions contained in R307–302–5
are also contained in current EPAapproved R307–201–3. The only
difference is that R307–201–3 applies
everywhere in the State, while R307–
302–5 was apparently only intended to
apply in certain areas along the Wasatch
Front. Utah has not submitted changes
to R307–201–3 or proposed that it be
deleted from the EPA-approved SIP.
Because R307–201–3 is still in the EPAapproved SIP, there will be no gap in
the coverage of the opacity limits on
residential heating if we disapprove
submitted R307–302–2(3) and R307–
302–5.
D. R307–305. ‘‘Nonattainment and
Maintenance Areas for PM10: Emission
Standards.’’ Utah’s revised R307–305
specifies certain generic requirements
and standards that would apply within
PM10 nonattainment and maintenance
areas. The rule would replace the
current EPA-approved version of R307–
305 (‘‘Davis, Salt Lake and Utah
Counties and Ogden City, and
Nonattainment Areas for PM10:
29 If we finalize our proposal, both the current
EPA-approved version of R307–302–3, which
relates to no-burn periods for carbon monoxide, and
Utah’s revised R307–302–3, which relates to noburn periods for particulate matter and that we are
proposing to approve today, would be part of the
Federally enforceable SIP.
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
62729
Particulates’’). The revised rule has
seven sections: R307–305–1, ‘‘Purpose;’’
R307–305–2, ‘‘Applicability;’’ R307–
305–3, ‘‘Visible Emissions;’’ R307–305–
4, ‘‘Particulate Emission Limitations and
Operating Parameters (PM10);’’ R307–
305–5, ‘‘Compliance Testing (PM10);’’
R307–305–6, ‘‘Automobile Emission
Control Devices;’’ and R307–305–7,
‘‘Compliance Schedule for New
Nonattainment Areas.’’ R307–305–1, –2,
–6, and –7 are new. R307–305–3
through 5 are contained in the EPAapproved rule as R307–305–1 through 3,
but Utah has made revisions to these
sections. Also, Utah has deleted EPAapproved rule sections R307–305–4,
‘‘Compliance Schedule (PM10);’’ R307–
305–5, ‘‘Particulate Emission
Limitations and Operating Parameters
(TSP);’’ R307–305–6, ‘‘Compliance
Schedule (TSP);’’ and R307–305–7,
‘‘Compliance Testing (TSP).’’
We are proposing to disapprove
Utah’s revised R307–305 for the
following reasons:
1. Revised R307–305–3 contains
opacity limits for various sources in
PM10 nonattainment and maintenance
areas. While Utah kept the generic
opacity limit of 20% for most sources
and clarified various aspects of the rule,
Utah deleted a 40% opacity limit that
applied to certain older sources in areas
other than PM10 nonattainment areas.
Utah has not explained the deletion of
the 40% opacity limit. There has been
no section 110(l) demonstration that the
deletion of the 40% opacity limit would
not interfere with attainment of NAAQS
or other Act requirements. We believe
that deletion of this standard poses a
problem under section 110(l) of the Act
because it may lead to an increase in
emissions that could have a negative
impact on attainment or maintenance of
one or more NAAQS. Therefore, we
cannot approve the deletion.
Utah also added an exemption, at
R307–305–3(4), from R307–305–3’s
opacity limits for short exceedances
during various periods, including
startup and shutdown. We recognize
that EPA-approved R307–201 contains
the same exemption. However, Utah has
not explained or justified this
exemption as a narrowly tailored
exception to the otherwise applicable
emission limits in accordance with our
interpretation of the Act or established
appropriate conditions for such an
exception. (See discussion above in
section IV.B.3.A.ii of this action
regarding excess emissions during
startup, shutdown, and malfunctions.)
Thus, we do not consider it appropriate
to re-approve the exemption.
2. Utah’s revised R307–305 deletes
various provisions from the EPA-
E:\FR\FM\01DEP1.SGM
01DEP1
pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES
62730
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 229 / Tuesday, December 1, 2009 / Proposed Rules
approved SIP (R307–305–5 through –7)
that pertain to control of total
suspended particulates in Weber
County, including emission limits for
seven sources. There has been no
section 110(l) demonstration that the
deletion of these emission limits and
related requirements will not interfere
with attainment of NAAQS or other Act
requirements. Utah, in its response to
comments for its rulemaking action,
indicated that some of the sources listed
in EPA-approved R307–305–5 no longer
exist, but did not specify which sources
no longer exist. Utah also said that
source Approval Orders contain
equivalent or more stringent emission
limits, but such Approval Orders are not
a substitute for limits in the SIP. We
believe that deletion of the limits poses
a problem under section 110(l) of the
Act because it may lead to an increase
in emissions that could have a negative
impact on attainment or maintenance of
one or more NAAQS.
In addition, section 193 of the Act
provides that no control requirement in
effect before November 15, 1990 (which
would include the provisions in EPAapproved R307–305–5 through –7) in
any area which is nonattainment for any
pollutant may be modified in any
manner unless the modification insures
equivalent or greater emission
reductions of such air pollutant. Ogden
City, where some of the sources may be
located, is nonattainment for PM10, and
Weber County has recorded a violation
of the PM2.5 NAAQS and has been
designated nonattainment for that
standard. We are unable to determine
that Utah’s proposed revisions to R307–
305 will insure equivalent or greater
emission reductions of PM2.5 or PM10.
Because we are unable to conclude
that approval would be consistent with
the requirements of sections 110(l) and
193 of the Act, we are proposing to
disapprove Utah’s revised R307–305.
E. R307–306. ‘‘PM10 Nonattainment
and Maintenance Areas: Abrasive
Blasting.’’ Utah’s R307–306 establishes
requirements that apply to abrasive
blasting operations in PM10
nonattainment and maintenance areas.
The EPA-approved SIP does not include
a rule numbered R307–306. However,
the EPA-approved SIP does include
R307–206, which contains essentially
the same requirements for abrasive
blasting requirements, but applies to
both attainment and nonattainment
areas.
We are proposing to disapprove
R307–306 because the test method for
measuring opacity at intermittent
abrasive blasting operations is not
adequate. As with the test method
specified in submitted SIP section
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:13 Nov 30, 2009
Jkt 220001
IX.H.1.g, which we discuss in section
IV.B.2.b of this action, subsection R307–
306–5 of R307–306 says: ‘‘Visible
emissions from intermittent sources
shall use procedures similar to Method
9, but the requirement for observations
to be made at 15 second intervals over
a six minute period shall not apply.’’
This language is not sufficiently clear.30
The language must indicate what test
method will apply. Without this, we
cannot be assured that the opacity limits
for intermittent abrasive blasting
operations will be enforceable.
F. R307–309. ‘‘Nonattainment and
Maintenance Areas for PM10: Fugitive
Emissions and Fugitive Dust.’’ This rule,
which is not in the EPA-approved SIP,
establishes work practices and emission
standards for sources of fugitive
emissions and fugitive dust listed in
section IX.H of the SIP or located in
PM10 nonattainment or maintenance
areas. The EPA-approved SIP does
include R307–1–4.05 (‘‘Emissions
Standards. Fugitive Emissions and
Fugitive Dust’’), which contains
provisions to control fugitive emissions
and fugitive dust in both attainment and
nonattainment areas.
We are proposing to disapprove
R307–309. First, the rule doesn’t
adequately specify in an enforceable
form the requirements that sources must
meet to limit fugitive dust and fugitive
emissions. For example, for mining
activities and tailings piles and ponds,
owners or operators must ‘‘take steps to
minimize fugitive dust’’ (R307–309–10
and R307–309–11). This is not
sufficiently defined to be an enforceable
standard. R307–309–6(2) merely
suggests potential control measures.
Further detail is left to a fugitive dust
control plan that is not part of the rule
and that can be approved or modified
without EPA approval or public input.
EPA is unable to verify that the control
plans for such sources are adequate to
ensure attainment and maintenance of
the NAAQS or meet other Act
requirements.
Second, R307–309–5, a subsection of
R307–309, specifies opacity limits for
fugitive dust, but then indicates these
limits do not apply when wind speeds
exceed 25 miles per hour and the owner
or operator is taking ‘‘appropriate
actions to control fugitive dust.’’ This
exemption does not appear in EPAapproved R307–1–4.05, and we believe
the exemption could lead to an increase
in emissions. Furthermore, the rule
defines ‘‘appropriate actions to control
30 We recognize that this language is similar to
language in EPA-approved R307–201, which
applies to R307–206. However, due to the problems
with this language, it would be inappropriate for us
to re-approve it.
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
fugitive dust’’ by reference to the
fugitive dust control plan, which, as
explained above, EPA has no
opportunity to review or approve.
Finally, the rule does not adequately
define or specify the method for
measuring opacity at intermittent
sources. We discuss this issue in greater
detail in section IV.B.2.b of this action.
Third, R307–309 contains certain
requirements that pertain to roads that
would constitute a relaxation of EPAapproved R307–1–4.05.
There has been no section 110(l)
demonstration that the various changes
R307–309 would make to EPA-approved
R307–1–4.05 would not interfere with
attainment or maintenance of NAAQS
or other Act requirements. We believe
the proposed changes pose a problem
under section 110(l) of the Act because
they may lead to an increase in
emissions that could have a negative
impact on attainment or maintenance of
one or more NAAQS, particularly since
Salt Lake County and Utah County have
already experienced exceedances of the
PM10 NAAQS associated with fugitive
emissions and dust.
We’re also concerned that approval of
R307–309 would make it difficult for us
to delineate which aspects of EPAapproved R307–1–4.05 remain in force
and which do not. We recognize that
EPA-approved R307–1–4.05 contains
some of the same flaws we describe
above. However, once we’ve identified
issues with the enforceability of current
provisions, it would be inappropriate
for us to reapprove them.
G. R307–310. ‘‘Salt Lake County:
Trading of Emission Budgets for
Transportation Conformity.’’ EPA is
proposing to take no action on the
change to this rule. Utah has merely
added section R307–310–5, ‘‘Transition
Provision,’’ to the EPA-approved R307–
310 (which contains only R307–310–1
through 4), but has resubmitted the
entire rule. R307–310–5 indicates that
R307–310–1 through –4 only remain in
effect until EPA approves the
conformity budgets in Utah’s PM10
maintenance plan for Salt Lake County.
R307–310–1 through –4 allow trading
between the Salt Lake County PM10
attainment plan’s motor vehicle
emission budgets for PM10 and NOX.31
EPA is proposing to disapprove the Salt
Lake County PM10 maintenance plan
and, as noted in section VII below, the
maintenance plan’s motor vehicle
emission budgets. Our disapproval of
the motor vehicle emissions budgets
would moot any potential effect of
R307–310–5; thus, there would be no
31 EPA approved the PM
10 attainment plan on
July 8, 1994 (59 FR 35036.)
E:\FR\FM\01DEP1.SGM
01DEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 229 / Tuesday, December 1, 2009 / Proposed Rules
pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES
purpose in our acting on R307–310–5.
If, as proposed, we do not act on Utah’s
revised R307–310, the provisions of
EPA-approved R307–310–1 through 4
will continue in effect.
H. R307–110–10. ‘‘Section IX, Control
Measures for Area and Point Sources,
Part A, Fine Particulate Matter.’’ The
rule incorporates by reference into
Utah’s rules the submitted PM10
maintenance plans for Salt Lake County,
Utah County, and Ogden City. Because
we are proposing to disapprove the
maintenance plans, we are also
proposing to disapprove this rule.
I. R307–110–17. ‘‘Section IX, Control
Measures for Area and Point Sources,
Part H, Emissions Limits.’’ The rule
incorporates by reference into Utah’s
rules the stationary source requirements
contained in submitted SIP section
IX.H. Because we are proposing to
disapprove the provisions in submitted
IX.H.1–4, we are also proposing to
disapprove this rule.
VII. Transportation Conformity—Motor
Vehicle Emissions Budgets
We are proposing to disapprove the
motor vehicle emissions budgets
contained in the submitted Salt Lake
County, Utah County, and Ogden City
PM10 maintenance plans. The
transportation conformity provisions of
section 176(c)(2)(A) of the CAA require
regional transportation plans and
programs to show that ‘‘* * * emissions
expected from implementation of plans
and programs are consistent with
estimates of emissions from motor
vehicles and necessary emissions
reductions contained in the applicable
implementation plan* * *’’ These
‘‘estimates of emissions’’ are in the form
of motor vehicle emissions budgets (40
CFR 93.118).
Consistent with 40 CFR
93.118(e)(4)(iv), EPA will not approve a
motor vehicle emissions budget unless
the budget, ‘‘when considered together
with all other emissions sources, is
consistent with applicable requirements
for * * * maintenance.’’ As described
in section IV.B of this action, above, we
are proposing to disapprove the
submitted PM10 maintenance plans and
maintenance demonstrations for Salt
Lake County, Utah County, and Ogden
City. In that section, we identify a
number of concerns with the
assumptions Utah used in the modeling,
including Utah’s inappropriate
treatment of Kennecott’s banked SO2
emissions and unjustified reduction of
re-entrained road dust emissions. We
also identify concerns with the control
measures underlying Utah’s
maintenance demonstration. Due to
these various concerns, we cannot find
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:13 Nov 30, 2009
Jkt 220001
that the submitted maintenance plans
will be adequate to maintain the PM10
NAAQS for the 10-year period, as
required by section 175A of the Act.
Utah modeled its proposed motor
vehicle emission budgets in its
submitted maintenance plans along
with emission projections for all other
source categories. Under 40 CFR
93.118(e)(4)(iv), we cannot evaluate the
adequacy of the motor vehicle emission
budgets without considering the overall
adequacy of the maintenance
demonstrations, and in particular the
modeling supporting the
demonstrations, because the same
modeling provided the basis for the
proposed motor vehicle emissions
budgets. Because the maintenance
demonstrations for all three areas are
invalid, we are unable to conclude that
the motor vehicle emissions budgets,
when considered together with all other
emissions sources, are consistent with
maintenance of the PM10 NAAQS.
If we finalize our proposed
disapproval of the motor vehicle
emissions budgets in the submitted
maintenance plans, those budgets will
be unavailable for use in conformity
determinations, and the areas will need
to continue 32 addressing transportation
conformity as follows:
A. Salt Lake County: Per 40 CFR
93.118, conformity will have to be
shown to the following 2003 motor
vehicle emissions budgets: 40.30 tons
per day (tpd) of direct PM10 and 32.30
tpd of NOX. These values are derived
from the Salt Lake County PM10
attainment plan that EPA approved on
July 8, 1994 (59 FR 35036).
B. Utah County: Per 40 CFR 93.118,
conformity will have to be shown to the
following motor vehicle emissions
budgets, which are contained in the
Utah County PM10 attainment plan that
EPA approved on December 23, 2002
(67 FR 78181):
Year
2003 ......
2010 ......
2020 ......
Direct PM10
(tpd)
6.57
7.74
10.34
NOX
(tpd)
20.35
12.75
5.12
C. Ogden City: Because EPA has not
approved a PM10 SIP revision for the
Ogden City area, there are no motor
vehicle emissions budgets as defined in
40 CFR 93.101. Instead, conformity
demonstrations will have to show that
direct PM10 and NOX emissions are
32 The submitted maintenance plans’ motor
vehicle emissions budgets have not been available
for use pending this action because EPA never
determined the budgets to be adequate pursuant to
40 CFR 93.118(e) and (f).
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
62731
either not greater than 1990 emissions
or not greater than ‘‘no build’’ emissions
(40 CFR 93.119(d)). The 1990 direct
PM10 emissions and NOX emissions for
the Ogden City area are currently
defined as 4.57 tpd and 2.28 tpd,
respectively.
VIII. Proposed Action
As described above, EPA is proposing
to disapprove Utah’s September 2, 2005
redesignation requests for the Salt Lake
County, Utah County, and Ogden City
PM10 nonattainment areas, the
submitted PM10 maintenance plans for
these areas, and the motor vehicle
emissions budgets contained in the
maintenance plans. EPA is proposing to
approve some of the associated SIP
revisions, disapprove others, and take
no action on one rule revision.
EPA is also proposing to find that it
is not required to act on proposed SIP
revisions that Utah submitted on July
11, 1996 and June 2, 1997 because those
revisions have been superseded by
revisions Utah subsequently adopted.
EPA is soliciting public comments on
its proposed rulemaking as discussed in
this document. These comments will be
considered before taking final action.
Interested parties may participate in the
Federal rulemaking process by
submitting written comments to EPA as
discussed in this action.
IX. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory
Planning and Review
Under Executive Order 12866, (58 FR
51735 (October 4, 1993)) the Agency
must determine whether the regulatory
action is ‘‘significant’’ and therefore
subject to the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) review and the
requirements of the Executive Order.
The Order defines ‘‘significant
regulatory action’’ as one that is likely
to result in a rule that may: (1) Have an
annual effect on the economy of $100
million or more or adversely affect in a
material way the economy, a sector of
the economy, productivity, competition,
jobs, the environment, public health or
safety, or state, local, or tribal
governments or communities; (2) create
a serious inconsistency or otherwise
interfere with an action taken or
planned by another agency; (3)
materially alter the budgetary impact of
entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan
programs or the rights and obligations of
recipients thereof; or (4) raise novel
legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President’s priorities, or
the principles set forth in the Executive
Order.’’
E:\FR\FM\01DEP1.SGM
01DEP1
62732
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 229 / Tuesday, December 1, 2009 / Proposed Rules
The OMB has exempted this
regulatory action from Executive Order
12866 review.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
This action does not impose an
information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction
Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. This action
merely proposes to partially approve
and partially disapprove revisions to the
Utah State Implementation Plan and to
disapprove a redesignation request.
pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
generally requires an agency to prepare
a regulatory flexibility analysis of any
rule subject to notice and comment
rulemaking requirements under the
Administrative Procedure Act or any
other statute unless the agency certifies
that the rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Small entities
include small businesses, small
organizations, and small governmental
jurisdictions.
This proposed rule will not have a
significant impact on a substantial
number of small entities because SIP
approvals and disapprovals under
section 110 and subchapter I, part D of
the Clean Air Act do not create any new
requirements, but simply approve or
disapprove requirements that the state is
already imposing. Similarly,
disapproval of a redesignation request
only affects the legal designation of an
area under the Clean Air Act and does
not create any new requirements.
Therefore, because the Federal SIP
approval/disapproval and redesignation
disapproval does not create any new
requirements, I certify that this action
will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
Moreover, due to the nature of the
Federal-state relationship under the
Clean Air Act, preparation of flexibility
analysis would constitute Federal
inquiry into the economic
reasonableness of state action. The
Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base its
actions concerning SIPs on such
grounds. Union Electric Co., v. U.S.
EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255–66 (1976); 42
U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Pub. L.
104–4, establishes requirements for
Federal agencies to assess the effects of
their regulatory actions on state, local,
and tribal governments and the private
sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA,
EPA generally must prepare a written
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:13 Nov 30, 2009
Jkt 220001
statement, including a cost-benefit
analysis, for proposed and final rules
with ‘‘Federal mandates’’ that may
result in expenditures to state, local,
and tribal governments, in the aggregate,
or to the private sector, of $100 million
or more in any one year. Before
promulgating an EPA rule for which a
written statement is needed, section 205
of the UMRA generally requires EPA to
identify and consider a reasonable
number of regulatory alternatives and
adopt the least costly, most costeffective or least burdensome alternative
that achieves the objectives of the rule.
The provisions of section 205 do not
apply when they are inconsistent with
applicable law. Moreover, section 205
allows EPA to adopt an alternative other
than the least costly, most cost-effective
or least burdensome alternative if the
Administrator publishes with the final
rule an explanation why that alternative
was not adopted. Before EPA establishes
any regulatory requirements that may
significantly or uniquely affect small
governments, including tribal
governments, it must have developed
under section 203 of the UMRA a small
government agency plan. The plan must
provide for notifying potentially
affected small governments, enabling
officials of affected small governments
to have meaningful and timely input in
the development of EPA regulatory
proposals with significant Federal
intergovernmental mandates, and
informing, educating, and advising
small governments on compliance with
the regulatory requirements.
EPA has determined that this rule
does not contain a Federal mandate that
may result in expenditures of $100
million or more for state, local, and
tribal governments, in the aggregate, or
the private sector in any one year. This
Federal action proposes to partially
approve and partially disapprove preexisting requirements under state or
local law, and to disapprove a
redesignation request, and imposes no
new requirements. Accordingly, no
additional costs to state, local, or tribal
governments, or to the private sector,
result from this action. Thus, today’s
rule is not subject to the requirements
of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.
E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism
Executive Order 13132, entitled
‘‘Federalism’’ (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999), requires EPA to develop an
accountable process to ensure
‘‘meaningful and timely input by state
and local officials in the development of
regulatory policies that have federalism
implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have
federalism implications’’ is defined in
the Executive Order to include
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct
effects on the states, on the relationship
between the national government and
the states, or on the distribution of
power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government.’’
This proposed rule does not have
federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the states,
on the relationship between the national
government and the states, or on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government, as specified in
Executive Order 13132. This rule merely
proposes to partially approve and
partially disapprove state rules
implementing a Federal standard, and to
disapprove a redesignation request, and
does not alter the relationship or the
distribution of power and
responsibilities established in the Clean
Air Act. Thus, Executive Order 13132
does not apply to this rule.
F. Executive Order 13175, Coordination
With Indian Tribal Governments
Executive Order 13175, entitled
Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments (65 FR
67249, November 9, 2000), requires EPA
to develop an accountable process to
ensure meaningful and timely input by
tribal officials in the development of
regulatory policies that have tribal
implications. This proposed rule does
not have tribal implications, as specified
in Executive Order 13175. It will not
have substantial direct effects on tribal
governments, on the relationship
between the Federal government and
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of
power and responsibilities between the
Federal government and Indian tribes.
This action does not involve or impose
any requirements that affect Indian
Tribes. Thus, Executive Order 13175
does not apply to this rule.
EPA specifically solicits additional
comment on this proposed rule from
tribal officials.
G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of
Children From Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks
Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997),
applies to any rule that: (1) is
determined to be economically
significant as defined under Executive
Order 12866, and (2) concerns an
environmental health or safety risk that
EPA has reason to believe may have a
disproportionate effect on children. If
the regulatory action meets both criteria,
the Agency must evaluate the
environmental health or safety effects of
the planned rule on children, and
E:\FR\FM\01DEP1.SGM
01DEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 229 / Tuesday, December 1, 2009 / Proposed Rules
explain why the planned regulation is
preferable to other potentially effective
and reasonably feasible alternatives
considered by the Agency.
EPA interprets Executive Order 13045
as applying only to those regulatory
actions that are based on health or safety
risks, such that the analysis required
under section 5–501 of the Order has
the potential to influence the regulation.
This proposed rule is not subject to
Executive Order 13045 because it
proposes to partially approve and
partially disapprove a state rule
implementing a Federal program and to
disapprove a redesignation request.
H. Executive Order 13211, Actions That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use
This rule is not subject to Executive
Order 13211, Actions Concerning
Regulations That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use (66
FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is
not a significant regulatory action under
Executive Order 12866.
I. National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (‘‘NTTAA’’), Public Law
104–113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note)
directs EPA to use voluntary consensus
standards in its regulatory activities
unless to do so would be inconsistent
with applicable law or otherwise
impractical. Voluntary consensus
standards are technical standards (e.g.,
materials specifications, test methods,
sampling procedures, and business
practices) that are developed or adopted
by voluntary consensus standards
bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to
provide Congress, through OMB,
explanations when the Agency decides
not to use available and applicable
voluntary consensus standards.
This proposed rulemaking does not
involve technical standards. Therefore,
EPA is not considering the use of any
voluntary consensus standards.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Intergovernmental
relations, Particulate matter, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.
pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: November 18, 2009.
Carol Rushin,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 8.
[FR Doc. E9–28692 Filed 11–30–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:03 Nov 30, 2009
Jkt 220001
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 73
[DA 09–2263; MB Docket No. 09–190; RM–
11566]
Radio Broadcasting Services;
Stonewall, Texas
AGENCY: Federal Communications
Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
SUMMARY: This document sets forth a
proposal to amend the FM Table of
Allotments, Section 73.202(b) of the
Commission’s rules, 47 C.F.R. Section
73.202(b). The Commission requests
comment on a petition filed by
Katherine Pyeatt proposing the
allotment of FM Channel 280A as a first
local service at Stonewall, Texas.
Channel 280A can be allotted at
Stonewall in compliance with the
Commission’s minimum distance
separation requirements with a site
restriction of 13.8 km (8.6 miles)
southwest of Stonewall, at 30–08–45
North Latitude and 98–45–45 West
Longitude. See Supplementary
Information infra.
DATES: The deadline for filing comments
is December 31, 2009. Reply comments
must be filed on or before 15 days
following the deadline for initial
comments.
ADDRESSES: Federal Communications
Commission, 445 12th Street, SW,
Washington, DC 20554. In addition to
filing comments with the FCC interested
parties should serve petitioner, as
follows: Katherine Pyeatt, 2215 Cedar
Springs Road, Suite 1605, Dallas, Texas
75201.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Deborah A. Dupont, Media Bureau,
(202) 418–7072.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a
synopsis of the Commission’s Notice of
Proposed Rule Making, MB Docket 09–
190, adopted October 21, 2009, and
released October 23, 2009. The full text
of this Commission decision is available
for inspection and copying during
normal business hours in the FCC
Reference Information Center (Room
CY–A257), 445 12th Street, SW.,
Washington, DC. 20554.
The complete text of this decision
may also be purchased from the
Commission’s copy contractor, Best
Copy and Printing, Inc., 445 12th Street,
SW, Room CY–B402, Washington, DC
20554, 800–378–3160 or via the
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
62733
company’s website, https://
www.bcpiweb.com.
This document does not contain
proposed information collection
requirements subject to the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104–
13. In addition, therefore, it does not
contain any proposed information
collection burden ’’for small business
concerns with fewer than 25
employees,’’ pursuant to the Small
Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002,
Public Law 107–198, see 44 U.S.C.
3506(c)(4).
Provisions of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act of 1980 do not apply to
this proceeding.
Members of the public should note
that from the time a Notice of Proposed
Rule Making is issued until the matter
is no longer subject to Commission
consideration or court review, all ex
parte contacts are prohibited in
Commission proceedings, such as this
one, which involve channel allotments.
See 47 CFR 1.1204(b) for rules
governing permissible ex parte contacts.
For information regarding proper
filing procedures for comments, see 47
CFR 1.415 and 1.420.
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73
Radio, Radio broadcasting.
For the reasons discussed in the
preamble, the Federal Communications
Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR
part 73 as follows:
PART 73 – RADIO BROADCAST
SERVICES
1. The authority citation for Part 73
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334,
336.
$ 73.202 [Amended]
2. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FM
Allotments under Texas, is amended by
adding Stonewall, Channel 280A.
Federal Communications
Commission.
Federal Communications Commission.
John A. Karousos,
Assistant Chief,
Audio Division,
Media Bureau.
[FR Doc. E9–28671 Filed 11–30–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712–01–S
E:\FR\FM\01DEP1.SGM
01DEP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 229 (Tuesday, December 1, 2009)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 62717-62733]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-28692]
[[Page 62717]]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R08-OAR-2006-0013; FRL-9087-5]
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Utah; Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan for Salt Lake County;
Utah County; Ogden City PM10 Nonattainment Area
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to disapprove the State of Utah's requests
under the Clean Air Act to redesignate the Salt Lake County, Utah
County, and Ogden City PM10 nonattainment areas to
attainment, and to approve some and disapprove other associated State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions. The Governor of Utah submitted the
redesignation requests and associated SIP revisions on September 2,
2005. EPA is proposing to disapprove the redesignation requests because
the areas do not meet all Clean Air Act requirements for redesignation.
Regarding the SIP revisions, EPA is proposing to approve several
definitions in Utah rule R307-101-2 (``Definitions'') and portions of
Utah rule R307-302 (``Davis, Salt Lake, Utah, Weber Counties:
Residential Fireplaces and Stoves''). EPA is proposing to approve these
SIP revisions because they meet Clean Air Act requirements. EPA is
proposing to disapprove the maintenance plans for Salt Lake County,
Utah County, and Ogden City, including the motor vehicle emissions
budgets in those plans. EPA is also proposing to disapprove all other
SIP revisions that the Governor submitted on September 2, 2005 that EPA
is not proposing to approve, except that EPA is proposing to take no
action on revised Utah rule R307-310 (``Salt Lake County: Trading of
Emission Budgets for Transportation Conformity''). EPA is proposing to
disapprove these SIP elements because they do not meet Clean Air Act
requirements. EPA is proposing to take no action on Utah's revised
R307-310 because acting on the revised rule would serve no purpose. EPA
is also proposing that it need not act on certain revisions to the Utah
PM10 SIP that the Governor submitted on July 11, 1996 and
June 2, 1997. These revisions have been superseded by subsequent
revisions to the Utah PM10 SIP.
This action is being taken under sections 107, 110, and 175A of the
Clean Air Act.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before December 31, 2009.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R08-
OAR-2006-0013, by one of the following methods:
https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line
instructions for submitting comments.
E-mail: videtich.callie@epa.gov.
Fax: (303) 312-6064 (please alert the individual listed in
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT if you are faxing comments).
Mail: Callie Videtich, Director, Air Program,
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595
Wynkoop St., Denver, Colorado 80202-1129.
Hand Delivery: Callie Videtich, Director, Air Program,
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mail Code 8P-AR, 1595
Wynkoop St., Denver, Colorado 80202-1129. Such deliveries are only
accepted Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding
Federal holidays. Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information.
Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R08-OAR-
2006-0013. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
https://www.regulations.gov, 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 https://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The https://www.regulations.gov Web site
is an anonymous access system, 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 https://www.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 the EPA Docket Center homepage at https://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. 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 https://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in https://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air Program,
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop St.,
Denver, Colorado 80202-1129. EPA requests that, if at all possible, you
contact the individual listed in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT to
view the hard copy of the docket. You may view the hard copy of the
docket Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., excluding Federal
holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Catherine Roberts, Air Program, Mail
Code 8P-AR, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, 1595
Wynkoop St., Denver, Colorado 80202-1129, (303) 312-6025,
roberts.catherine@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. General Information
II. Background of State Submittal
III. Evaluation Criteria for the Redesignation Request
IV. EPA Analysis of the Redesignation Request
V. Sections IX.H.1-4 of Utah's September 2, 2005 Submission
VI. Rule Revisions
VII. Transportation Conformity--Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets
VIII. Proposed Action
IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Definitions
For the purpose of this document, the following definitions apply:
(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 SIP mean or refer to the State Implementation
Plan.
(iv) The words State or Utah mean the State of Utah, unless the
context indicates otherwise.
[[Page 62718]]
(v) The phrase PM10 means particulate matter with an aerodynamic
diameter less than or equal to a nominal ten micrometers.
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
https://www.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:
a. Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
b. 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.
c. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and
substitute language for your requested changes.
d. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information
and/or data that you used.
e. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
f. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and
suggest alternatives.
g. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of
profanity or personal threats.
h. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline
identified.
II. Background of State Submittal
This proposal addresses Clean Air Act (CAA) requirements for the
pollutant PM10 as they apply to three adjacent areas in the
greater Salt Lake City metropolitan area: Salt Lake County, Utah
County, and Ogden City. As described below, Utah has asked EPA to
approve changes to the CAA plans for each of these areas and change the
areas' planning status under the Act from nonattainment to attainment.
Under section 109 of the Act, EPA has promulgated national ambient
air quality standards (NAAQS) for certain pollutants, including
PM10 (40 CFR 50.6). NAAQS define levels of air quality which
the Administrator judges are necessary to protect public health and
welfare (40 CFR 50.2(b)). Once EPA promulgates a NAAQS, section 107 of
the Act specifies a process for the designation of all areas within a
state, generally as either an attainment area (an area attaining the
NAAQS) or as a nonattainment area (an area not attaining the NAAQS, or
that contributes to nonattainment of the NAAQS in a nearby area). For
PM10, certain areas have also been designated
``unclassifiable.'' These various designations, in turn, trigger
certain state planning requirements.
For all areas, regardless of designation, section 110 of the Act
requires that each state adopt and submit for EPA approval a plan to
provide for implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of the NAAQS.
This plan is commonly referred to as a State Implementation Plan (SIP).
Section 110 contains requirements that any SIP must meet to gain EPA
approval.\1\ For nonattainment areas, SIPs must meet additional
requirements contained in part D of Title I of the Act. Usually, SIPs
include measures to control emissions of air pollutants from various
sources, including stationary, mobile, and area sources. For example, a
SIP may specify emission limits at power plants or other industrial
sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ EPA's approval of a SIP has several consequences. For
example, after EPA approves a SIP, EPA and citizens may enforce the
SIP's requirements in Federal court under section 113 and section
304 of the Act; in other words, EPA's approval of a SIP makes the
SIP ``Federally enforceable.'' Also, once EPA has approved a SIP, a
state cannot unilaterally change the Federally enforceable version
of the SIP. Instead, the state must first submit a SIP revision to
EPA and gain EPA's approval of that revision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under the 1990 amendments to the CAA, Salt Lake and Utah Counties
were designated nonattainment for PM10 and classified as
moderate areas by operation of law as of November 15, 1990 (56 FR
56694, 56840, November 6, 1991). The air quality planning requirements
for moderate PM10 nonattainment areas are set out in
subparts 1 and 4, part D, Title I of the Act. As described in sections
110 and 172 of the Act, areas designated nonattainment based on a
failure to meet the PM10 NAAQS are required to develop SIPs
with sufficient control measures to expeditiously attain and maintain
the NAAQS.
On July 8, 1994, EPA approved the PM10 SIP for Salt Lake
and Utah Counties (59 FR 35036). The SIP included a demonstration of
attainment and various control measures, including emission limits at
stationary sources. Because emissions of sulfur dioxide
(SO2) and nitrogen oxides (NOX) contribute
significantly to the PM10 problem in the area, the SIP
included limits on emissions of SO2 and NOX in
addition to emissions of PM10.
On December 6, 1999, EPA approved revisions to the road salting and
sanding programs for the two counties (64 FR 68031). On July 1, 2002,
EPA approved additional revisions to the Salt Lake County
PM10 SIP that allowed trading between PM10 and
NOX motor vehicle emissions budgets for transportation
conformity determinations (67 FR 44065). On December 23, 2002, EPA
approved additional revisions to the Utah County PM10 SIP
that updated attainment demonstrations, established new 24-hour
emission limits for major stationary sources, and established new motor
vehicle emission budgets (67 FR 78181).
On September 26, 1995, EPA designated Ogden City as nonattainment
for PM10 and classified the area as moderate under section
107(d)(3) of the Act (60 FR 38726, July 28, 1995). EPA has not approved
a PM10 attainment demonstration for Ogden City.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Under EPA's ``Clean Data Policy,'' EPA may determine that
Ogden City does not need to submit an attainment demonstration or
certain other SIP elements (See, e.g., 71 FR 63642, October, 30,
2006; 71 FR 13021, March 14, 2006; 71 FR 6352, February 8, 2006; 71
FR 27440, May 11, 2006; and 72 FR 14422, March 28, 2007). We will
address this issue in a separate action. Because we are proposing to
disapprove the redesignation request for Ogden City, on unrelated
grounds, we need not address this issue further in this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under section 107(d)(3)(D) of the Act, a state may ask EPA to
change the designation of an area. On September 2, 2005, Utah requested
that EPA redesignate Salt Lake County, Utah County, and Ogden City from
nonattainment to attainment for PM10. Section 175A of the
Act requires that a state include with its redesignation request a
maintenance plan that provides for maintenance of the NAAQS for at
least 10 years after redesignation. On September 2, 2005, Utah also
submitted maintenance plans for each of the three areas (Utah SIP
sections IX.A.10, 11, and 12). While the three maintenance plans are
mostly identical, some elements are different--for example, they
contain different emission limits for stationary sources
[[Page 62719]]
and different monitoring requirements. Finally, on September 2, 2005,
Utah submitted other revisions to the current EPA-approved Federally
enforceable SIP (hereafter referred to as ``EPA-approved SIP''). As
described in footnote 1, the Act allows states to adopt and submit
revisions to their SIPs, but the revisions must meet certain CAA
requirements before EPA will approve them. The following are the other
SIP revisions that Utah submitted to us for approval on September 2,
2005:
1. Revised Sections IX.H.1 through 4 of the Utah PM10
SIP. These sections contain limits and requirements for stationary
sources in Salt Lake County and Utah County. Utah made numerous changes
to the EPA-approved version of sections IX.H.1 through 3, including
deletion of some emission limits, changes to others, and changes to
methods for determining compliance with emission limits. The
PM10 maintenance plans for Salt Lake County and Utah County
rely on and assume EPA approval of revised sections IX.H.1 through 3.
As a matter of State law, the EPA-approved versions of sections IX.H.1
through 3 no longer exist. Section IX.H.4 is an entirely new section
that contains procedures for establishing alternative stationary source
requirements.
2. Revised Utah rules R307-110-10 and 110-17, which incorporate by
reference into Utah's rules the PM10 maintenance plans for
Salt Lake County, Utah County, and Ogden City, and the stationary
source provisions in revised sections IX.H.1 through 4, respectively.
3. Revised Utah rule R307-101-2, which contains Utah's set of
generally applicable definitions for air rules in the State. Utah
revised, removed, and added certain definitions.
4. Revised Utah rule R307-165, which contains generic emission
testing requirements for all areas of the State.
5. Revised Utah rule R307-302, which contains provisions related to
residential fireplaces and stoves in Davis, Salt Lake, Utah, and Weber
Counties.
6. Revised Utah rule R307-305, which contains generic emission
standards for sources in PM10 nonattainment and maintenance
areas.
7. Revised Utah rule R307-306, which contains provisions related to
abrasive blasting in PM10 nonattainment and maintenance
areas.
8. Revised Utah rule R307-309, which contains provisions related to
fugitive emissions and fugitive dust in PM10 nonattainment
and maintenance areas.
9. Revised Utah rule R307-310, which contains provisions related to
trading between emissions budgets for PM10 transportation
conformity in Salt Lake County.
In addition to the foregoing, in 1996 and 1997, Utah submitted
revisions to the Salt Lake County and Utah County PM10 SIPs.
Specifically, on July 11, 1996, Utah submitted revisions to section 9.A
and appendix A, 2.2.A, of the PM10 SIP, and to Utah rule
R307-2-1, to account for proposed changes to emission limits at the
former Amoco refinery in Salt Lake County.\3\ We have not acted on
those revisions. The former Amoco refinery is now owned by Tesoro, and
the proposed SIP revisions that Utah submitted on September 2, 2005
contain a new SIP section IX.H.2.l and limits for Tesoro that replace
Utah's prior section 2.2.A and limits for Amoco. Because Utah replaced
the emission limits for Amoco with emission limits for Tesoro as a
matter of State law, and submitted the Tesoro provisions to us for
approval in 2005, we consider the July 11, 1996 submittal to be
superseded and effectively withdrawn. Thus, we are proposing that no
action is required on Utah's July 11, 1996 submittal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Utah subsequently changed the numbering of its SIP and
rules. Section 9 is now section IX. Appendix A is now section IX.H.
R307-2-1 is now R307-110-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Similarly, on June 2, 1997, Utah submitted revisions to sections
IX.A and H of the PM10 SIP, and to Utah rules R307-2-10 and
R307-2-17,\4\ to account for proposed changes to emissions limits for
various stationary sources in Utah County, and particularly Geneva
Steel. We have not acted on those revisions. On July 3, 2002, Utah
submitted new SIP sections IX.A and H with new limits for stationary
sources in Utah County. These new sections IX.A and H completely
replaced as a matter of State law the versions of sections IX.A and H
that Utah submitted on June 2, 1997. On December 23, 2002, in an action
we reference above, we approved the new sections IX.A and H that Utah
submitted on July 3, 2002, along with accompanying changes to Utah
rules R307-110-10 and R307-110-17 (67 FR 78181). Also, the proposed SIP
revisions that Utah submitted on September 2, 2005 contain further
proposed revisions to sections IX.A and H. Because Utah completely
replaced sections IX.A and H as contained in Utah's June 2, 1997 SIP
submittal with new sections IX.A and H as a matter of State law, and
submitted the replacement versions of those sections to us in 2002 and
2005, we consider the June 2, 1997 submittal to be superseded and
effectively withdrawn. Thus, we are proposing that no action is
required on Utah's June 2, 1997 submittal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Utah subsequently changed the numbering of rules R307-2-10
and R307-2-17 to R307-110-10 and R307-110-17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Evaluation Criteria for the Redesignation Request
Section 107(d)(3)(E) of the Act provides that EPA may not
promulgate a redesignation of a nonattainment area to attainment
unless:
1. The area has attained the relevant NAAQS;
2. EPA has fully approved the applicable implementation plan for
the area under section 110(k) of the Act;
3. The improvement in air quality in the area 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;
4. EPA has fully approved a maintenance plan for the area meeting
the requirements of section 175A of the Act; and
5. The State containing the area has met all requirements
applicable to the area under section 110 and Part D of the Act.
If any of these criteria is not met, we must disapprove the
redesignation request.
In addition, on September 4, 1992, EPA issued guidance outlining
how it intended to process redesignation requests. (Memorandum
entitled, ``Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to
Attainment,'' signed by John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management
Division, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards; hereafter
referred to as the ``Calcagni Memo.'') For further information, you may
want to read the Calcagni Memo.
IV. EPA Analysis of the Redesignation Request
The areas that Utah seeks to redesignate do not meet all five
criteria for redesignation. Specifically, we cannot determine that Salt
Lake and Utah Counties have attained the NAAQS, and we cannot approve
the maintenance plans for the three areas. Thus, we are proposing to
disapprove the redesignation requests.\5\ We provide more detail below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Because we are finding that the redesignation submissions
for these areas do not satisfy these criteria, we do not find it
necessary to address whether the additional criteria for
redesignation have been met.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. Redesignation Criterion 1--the Area Must Have Attained the PM10
NAAQS
1. The level of the primary and secondary PM10 NAAQS is
150
[[Page 62720]]
micrograms per cubic meter ([mu]g/m\3\), 24-hour average concentration
(40 CFR 50.6). Under the rounding convention contained in EPA's
regulations, a monitored concentration lower than 155 [mu]g/m\3\ is
considered to be attaining the PM10 NAAQS (40 CFR part 50,
appendix K).
To determine whether an area has attained the PM10 NAAQS
for purposes of redesignation, we rely on ambient air quality data from
a monitoring network representing maximum PM10
concentrations (40 CFR 50.6; 40 CFR part 50, appendix K; 40 CFR part
58; Calcagni Memo, page 2). The data must be quality assured and
recorded in EPA's Air Quality System database (AQS). The NAAQS are
attained when the expected number of exceedances of the NAAQS at each
monitoring site in the area is less than or equal to 1.0 per year,
based on three consecutive years of data.\6\ For example, if the
expected number of exceedances at a monitor for each of three
consecutive years is 1.0, the expected number of exceedances averaged
over the three years would also be 1.0 (3.0 divided by 3), which would
not be a violation. However, if the expected number of exceedances in
year one of the three-year period were 2.0 instead of 1.0 and the
values remained at 1.0 for years two and three, the expected number of
exceedances averaged over the three years would be 1.33 (4.0 divided by
3), which would be a violation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ 40 CFR part 50, appendix K describes how to determine the
expected number of exceedances each year. For monitors operating
less than daily, or for monitors with data missing on some days
within quarters in which exceedances are measured, the expected
number of exceedances is calculated to account for possible
exceedances on unsampled days within calendar quarters. Thus, for
example, a single recorded exceedance at a monitor in a given year
could result in an expected number of exceedances at that monitor
significantly greater than 1.0 for the year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For redesignations, EPA's consistent interpretation has been that
the area must have attained the standard in the base year for the
maintenance demonstration and in all subsequent years up through EPA's
action on the redesignation request. (See, e.g., EPA's final and
proposed disapprovals of the redesignation requests for various areas,
including Pittsburgh (61 FR 19193, May 1, 1996), Richmond (59 FR 22757,
May 3, 1994), Kentucky portion of Cincinnati-Hamilton (61 FR 50718,
September 27, 1996), Ohio portion of Cincinnati-Hamilton (62 FR 7194,
February 18, 1997), and Birmingham (62 FR 23421, April 30, 1997); the
proposed correction of the designation for Lafourche Parish (62 FR
38237, July 17, 1997); and the Calcagni Memo, page 5.)
Between 1985 and 2006, Utah operated a total of 15 PM10
monitors, which were either State and Local Air Monitoring Stations
(SLAMS) or National Air Monitoring Sites (NAMS), in the Salt Lake
County, Utah County, and Ogden City PM10 nonattainment
areas.\7\ Currently, four PM10 SLAMS operate in Salt Lake
County, two operate in Utah County, and one operates in Ogden City.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ SLAMS monitoring stations are defined in 40 CFR 58.1, and
are those ambient air monitors operated by State and local
governments primarily used for comparison to the NAAQS. NAMS
monitors were formerly defined in 40 CFR 58.1 as a subset of the
SLAMS network; the NAMS monitor type was discontinued through
changes to 40 CFR part 58 promulgated in 2006 (71 FR 61236, October
17, 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
a. Salt Lake County
In June 2001, we determined that Salt Lake County had attained the
PM10 NAAQS as of December 31, 1995 (66 FR 32752, June 18,
2001). However, beginning in 2001, which is the base year for Utah's
maintenance demonstration, Salt Lake County began experiencing
exceedances of the PM10 NAAQS that resulted in violations.
Specifically, two exceedances of the PM10 NAAQS in 2001 at
the Magna monitoring site resulted in a violation of the NAAQS in each
three-year period that includes 2001--i.e., 1999-2001, 2000-2002, and
2001-2003.\8\ On 12 days from 2002 through 2007, there were 15 more
measured exceedances at three monitors. At least one Salt Lake County
monitor has been in violation of the PM10 NAAQS in every
three-year period since 2001. The table below summarizes the actual
PM10 exceedances recorded in Salt Lake County in 2001
through 2007 that contributed to or are associated with violations, as
well as the calculated expected number of exceedances and the
violations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ A violation occurred in each of these periods because the
two measured exceedances in 2001 resulted in a calculated expected
number of exceedances in that year alone of 6.4. The two measured
exceedances resulted in a calculated expected number of exceedances
of 6.4 because the Magna monitor operates only once every three
days. (See 40 CFR part 50, appendix K.) Even if averaged with a
value of zero expected exceedances in two other years, a value of
6.4 expected exceedances in a single year causes a violation (6.4
divided by 3 exceeds 1.0).
Table 1--PM10 Exceedances Contributing to Violations in Salt Lake County, 2001 Through 2007
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Expected
Year Date Monitor and AQS ID No. PM10, ([mu]g/ number of Contribution to
m\3\) exceedances violations
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2001......................... March 14, 2001......................... Magna, 49-035-1001..... 201 6.4 Constitutes a violation
April 22, 2001......................... Magna, 49-035-1001..... 156 for 1999-2001 through
2001-2003 data sets.
2003......................... February 1, 2003....................... North Salt Lake City, 169 3.1 No violation as of end
April 1, 2003.......................... 49-035-0012. 358 of 2003, but
North Salt Lake City, contributes to
49-035-0012. violation with 2004
data; see below.\9\
April 2, 2003.......................... North Salt Lake City, 209
49-035-0012.
April 1, 2003.......................... Magna, 49-035-1001..... 421 3.1 No new violation, but
adds to other
violations.
2004......................... May 10, 2004........................... North Salt Lake City, 189 1.0 Constitutes a violation
49-035-0012. in combination with
3.1 exceedances in
2003; 2002-2004 and
2003-2005 data sets
violate.
2005......................... September 10, 2005..................... Magna, 49-035-1001..... 177 3.3 Constitutes a violation
for 2003-2005 through
2005-2007 data sets.
[[Page 62721]]
2006......................... July 4, 2006........................... North Salt Lake City, 188 2.2 Constitutes a new
July 26, 2006.......................... 49-035-0012. 164 violation for the 2004-
North Salt Lake City, 2006 data set.
49-035-0012.
2007......................... July 7, 2007........................... North Salt Lake City, 174 4.3 Constitutes a violation
July 11, 2007.......................... 49-035-0012. 156 for 2005-2007 through
North Salt Lake City, 2007-2009 data sets.
49-035-0012.
July 13, 2007.......................... North Salt Lake City, 166
49-035-0012.
October 25, 2007....................... North Salt Lake City, 172
49-035-0012.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State and local monitoring agencies may apply a ``flag'' (a flag is
a code placed on the data in the AQS database) to an exceedance
recorded in AQS when they believe an exceptional event such as high
winds or wildfires caused the measured exceedance of the NAAQS. The
State or local agency may then provide EPA with documentation on the
exceptional event and request that EPA remove the data from the dataset
EPA uses to calculate violations. Currently, EPA's Exceptional Events
Rule governs the flagging of data (72 FR 13560, March 22, 2007, and 72
FR 28612, May 22, 2007). Before May 22, 2007, EPA's Natural Events
Policy (NEP) applied.\10\ Utah has placed high wind exceptional event
flags on each of the data values in the table above, with the exception
of the value at North Salt Lake City on October 25, 2007, and claims
these data values should be excluded from EPA's regulatory
calculations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Per 40 CFR part 50, appendix K, the three-year average based
on 3.1 expected exceedances in 2003 and zero expected exceedances in
2001 and 2002 is 1.03 (3.1 divided by 3), which rounds down to 1.0
and is not a violation.
\10\ Memorandum from Mary D. Nichols, Assistant Administrator
for Air and Radiation, entitled, ``Areas Affected by PM10
Natural Events,'' May 30, 1996.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under the NEP, EPA indicated that it would exclude data from its
decisions regarding an area's attainment status when those data were
attributable to uncontrollable natural events, which under certain
circumstances could include high winds. The policy defined a high wind
event as an event with unusually high winds where the dust originated
from either (1) nonanthropogenic sources (not man made), or (2)
anthropogenic sources (man made) controlled with the best available
control measures (BACM).\11\ When natural events such as high winds
caused a violation of the PM10 NAAQS, states were to develop
a natural events action plan (NEAP) that included certain elements
listed in the NEP. For high winds, the NEAP should have included the
application of BACM, and the application criteria required analysis of
the technological and economic feasibility of individual control
measures. In addition, a state seeking exclusion of data impacted by
natural events had the responsibility to submit documentation
establishing ``a clear causal relationship between the measured
exceedance and the natural event.'' (NEP, page 10). In its submission,
a state had to show that BACM were required at anthropogenic sources of
dust and that these sources were in compliance at the time of the high
wind event. Finally, for areas allegedly affected by natural events
seeking redesignation, such as the Salt Lake County nonattainment area,
a state had to include the NEAP in its maintenance plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ See 59 FR 42010, August 16, 1994, for a discussion of
PM10 BACM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While Utah applied a high wind flag to the exceedances recorded at
Magna, Utah on March 14, 2001 and April 22, 2001, Utah's submission to
EPA failed to meet the criteria for exclusion of data under the policy.
Utah's documentation identified the source of windblown dust as
Kennecott Utah Copper, a major permitted source that was not in
compliance with its permit at the time of the exceedances. As discussed
above, Utah had to show in its submission, among other things, that
anthropogenic sources of dust were in compliance at the time of the
high wind event (NEP, page 11).\12\ Thus, EPA did not concur on Utah's
flags in AQS for the 2001 exceedances at Magna. As stated above,
because the Magna monitor operates on a once in three-day schedule, the
expected number of exceedances calculated for 2001 is 6.4 (see 40 CFR
part 50, appendix K), which results in a PM10 NAAQS
violation at the Magna monitoring site for any 3-year period containing
2001 (1999-2001, 2000-2002 and 2001-2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Similarly, under the current Exceptional Events Rule
discussed below, an event is not eligible for consideration as an
exceptional event and exclusion of data if there is source
noncompliance (40 CFR 50.1(j).)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As stated above, Utah also placed high wind flags on later
exceedances of the PM10 NAAQS at the Magna and North Salt
Lake City monitors. While Utah submitted documentation with respect to
these exceedances and a NEAP, Utah failed to include the NEAP as part
of the maintenance plan submitted to EPA in 2005, as it should have
done under the NEP. In addition, the analysis in the NEAP did not
establish that BACM was implemented at the time of the exceedances for
the three main anthropogenic sources of emissions identified as causing
or contributing to the exceedances: (1) Kennecott tailings; (2)
agriculture; and (3) construction. For example, the NEAP asserted that
for Kennecott sources, a best available control technology (BACT)
analysis had been done historically and that BACT is generally more
stringent than BACM, but the NEAP did not analyze whether the control
requirements constituted BACM for wind blown dust at the time of the
events. Similarly, the NEAP mentioned certain control measures that the
other contributing anthropogenic sources were currently implementing,
but did not include a BACM analysis evaluating these control measures.
Also, Utah did not determine the high wind conditions that would
overcome BACM (See NEP, page 7). Thus, we were unable to concur on
Utah's data flags under the NEP.
We are also unable to disregard the flagged data under our
Exceptional Events Rule, which took effect on May 22, 2007. The rule
implements section 319 of the CAA, as amended by section 6013 of the
Safe Accountable Flexible Efficient-Transportation Equity Act: A
[[Page 62722]]
Legacy for Users (SAFE-TEA-LU) of 2005. The rule establishes procedures
and criteria to govern the review and handling of air quality
monitoring data influenced by exceptional events, and under certain
circumstances, EPA may exclude such data from regulatory actions under
the CAA, including redesignations to attainment or nonattainment.
Under the Exceptional Events Rule, a state asking EPA to exclude
data from its regulatory calculations must, after notice and
opportunity for public comment, submit a demonstration that shows to
EPA's satisfaction that the flagged event caused a specific
concentration in excess of the NAAQS at the particular monitor
location. The state must submit the demonstration and any public
comments to EPA within 3 years of the calendar quarter following the
event, but no later than 12 months prior to an EPA regulatory decision
(40 CFR 50.14(c)(3)(i)). Of particular note, 40 CFR 50.14(c)(2)(ii)
states that data shall not be excluded from determinations with respect
to exceedances or violations of the NAAQS, and that all flags are
considered for information only, until such time as a state submits the
demonstration and EPA concurs on the flags.
To date, Utah has not submitted any demonstrations for
PM10 high wind flags under the Exceptional Events Rule, and
the regulatory deadlines for submitting such demonstrations for any of
the events before 2006 have passed.\13\ Since concurrence was not
possible on these flags under the NEP, and demonstrations meeting the
requirements of the current Exceptional Events Rule have not been
submitted, the flagged concentrations recorded in Salt Lake County
between 2001 and 2005 may not be excluded as exceptional events from
our calculations of violations. Thus, Salt Lake County violated the
PM10 NAAQS from 2001 through 2007 based on exceedances
measured in 2001, 2003, 2004, and 2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Between May 22, 2007 (the effective date of the Exceptional
Events Rule) and December 31, 2007, EPA permitted states to choose
to comply with either the rule or the NEP. This flexibility was
limited to situations where the following two conditions were met:
(a) Before May 22, 2007, a state had flagged data and submitted a
timely demonstration to attempt to show that an exceptional event
caused a NAAQS exceedance reflected in the data; and (b) EPA had not
already determined whether an exceptional event caused the
exceedance. Unless the state, in the limited circumstances described
above, specifically requested that EPA evaluate a natural or
exceptional event demonstration under the NEP, EPA presumed that the
rule applied after May 22, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Similarly, because Utah has not submitted demonstrations meeting
the requirements of the Exceptional Events Rule, EPA must consider the
flags on exceedances in 2006 and 2007 as being informational only per
40 CFR 50.14(c)(2)(ii). Thus, these exceedances represent new
PM10 violations that are relevant to the evaluation of
attainment for 2005-2007, 2006-2008, and 2007-2009. Finally, 2008 data
in AQS, not yet certified by Utah, show new exceedances at the North
Salt Lake City monitor on April 15, 2008 (188 [mu]g/m\3\) and April 19,
2008 (181 [mu]g/m\3\). Additionally, the data show an exceedance at the
Cottonwood monitor (AQS ID49-035-0003) on April 15, 2008 (177 [mu]g/
m\3\), which, assuming the data are certified, would result in a new
violation of the PM10 NAAQS.
Based on the monitored violations of the PM10 NAAQS
during and subsequent to the base year for the maintenance
demonstration, we are unable to determine that the Salt Lake County
area has attained the NAAQS in accordance with section 107(d)(3)(E) of
the Act. Therefore, Salt Lake County is currently ineligible for
redesignation to attainment for the PM10 NAAQS.
b. Utah County
While there were exceedances of the PM10 NAAQS in Utah
County in 2002, 2003, and 2004, there were no violations in the area in
any three-year period from 1993 through 2007. However, 2008 data in
AQS, not yet certified by Utah, show four exceedances of the
PM10 NAAQS at the Lindon monitor in Utah County: 164 [mu]g/
m\3\ on April 15, 2008; 181 [mu]g/m\3\ on April 19, 2008; 155 [mu]g/
m\3\ on April 29, 2008; and 177 [mu]g/m\3\ on May 20, 2008. Assuming
the data are certified, the four exceedances would represent a
violation of the PM10 NAAQS in Utah County for the three-
year periods that include 2008. Utah has flagged these exceedances as
high wind exceptional events, but EPA must consider these flags as
informational only until the demonstration requirements of the
Exceptional Events Rule are met and EPA concurs on the flags.\14\ Thus,
given the fact that these exceedances are currently in AQS and EPA has
not yet determined that they should be excluded from consideration, we
are unable to determine that the area has attained the NAAQS for
purposes of redesignation under section 107(d)(3)(E). Therefore, Utah
County is currently ineligible for redesignation to attainment for the
PM10 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ The Lindon monitor recorded an additional exceedance of 200
[mu]g/m\3\ on March 4, 2009. Utah has also placed a high wind flag
on this exceedance. This exceedance alone would not represent a new
violation of the NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
c. Ogden City
While there were exceedances of the PM10 NAAQS in Ogden
City in 2002, 2003, and 2004, there were no violations in the area in
any three-year period from 1993 through 2007. Similarly, 2008 data in
AQS, not yet certified by Utah, indicate there were no violations
through 2008. Thus, Ogden City data indicate that the area is currently
attaining the NAAQS. However, the area fails to meet other
redesignation requirements, as discussed below.
B. Redesignation Criterion 4--The Area Must Have a Fully Approved
Maintenance Plan That Meets the Requirements of Section 175A
1. Deficiencies applicable to all three maintenance plans.
a. The State did not adequately define 24-hour stationary source
inputs to modeling. For purposes of demonstrating maintenance, Utah
conducted dispersion modeling for all three nonattainment areas
combined using the UAM-Aero model. While the modeling outcomes indicate
the areas will maintain the PM10 NAAQS at least through
2017,\15\ we are unable to determine and confirm the 24-hour major
stationary source inputs used in the modeling. This key information is
not contained in Utah's electronic data files. Thus, we cannot
determine what 24-hour emission rates were used in the modeling
analysis to evaluate model performance\16\ or to show maintenance of
the PM10 standard. Without this information, we cannot
determine that the model met relevant performance standards, and we
cannot determine that major stationary source emission limits in the
Utah SIP will be adequate to maintain the NAAQS for the 10-year period
required by the CAA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Section 175A of the Act requires that the maintenance plan
demonstrate maintenance for at least 10 years following EPA's
approval of a redesignation to attainment. As of the date of this
proposal, the 2017 maintenance year in the Utah maintenance plans
would not meet the 10-year-maintenance requirement.
\16\ The performance of a photochemical grid model like UAM-Aero
must be verified before it is used to model maintenance. Roughly
speaking, this is done by inputting actual emissions and
meteorological data for a period with known, monitored ambient
values--in the case of the Utah PM10 plans, certain 24-
hour ``episodes'' during 2001 and 2002--and determining whether the
model predictions are sufficiently close to actual monitored values.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While Utah did compile annual baseline and projected inventories of
major stationary source emissions in its Technical Support Document
(TSD),
[[Page 62723]]
these are not a substitute for 24-hour inventories, and they are not a
substitute for electronic data files containing 24-hour major
stationary source inputs for the dispersion modeling. In addition, we
cannot determine from Utah's annual inventories whether Utah evaluated
and regulated all significant stationary emission sources in the
maintenance plan. For example, we cannot determine whether Utah
evaluated refinery flare emissions in the maintenance demonstration.
Flares can be a significant source of emissions. Also, Utah's SIP
submittal does not include emission limits for several major stationary
sources located outside the designated PM10 nonattainment
areas but inside the modeling domain for Utah's maintenance
demonstration. It appears these sources were not included in Utah's
annual inventories, but we cannot determine why they were excluded or
whether exclusion was appropriate.
b. Utah did not properly model Kennecott's banked emissions.
Kennecott has ``banked'' thousands of tons per year of SO2
emissions reductions.\17\ In the maintenance demonstration, Utah
modeled 12,567 tons per year of these banked emissions as though they
were being emitted from Kennecott's 1200-foot stack.\18\ This
assumption is not reasonable. For example, if several companies
purchased these banked SO2 emissions from Kennecott, it is
highly unlikely the companies would emit the SO2 from 1200-
foot stacks. An appropriate assumption, which Utah employed when
modeling other banked emissions, is that Kennecott's banked emissions
would be emitted from within a core industrial area in Salt Lake County
at a height of 65 meters (213 feet) or less.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ Utah allows sources who permanently reduce their emissions
to ``bank'' the emissions reductions and later use or sell them to
offset emission increases from new or modified sources anywhere in
the nonattainment area. Kennecott made changes to its smelter that
reduced SO2 emissions by thousands of tons and banked the
reductions.
\18\ In predicting ground-level concentrations, dispersion
models account for the height and location of the emissions point.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This difference in the assumed stack height of future emissions is
significant. Generally, the higher that emissions are released from
ground level, the more the emissions disperse and the less they impact
pollutant concentrations at the surface.\19\ Under wintertime inversion
conditions in the Salt Lake area, when the inversion height is
typically 1,000 feet or less, it is particularly unlikely that
pollutants emitted from a 1200-foot stack (i.e., above the inversion
height) would be mixed to the surface and contribute to PM10
concentrations at the surface. Thus, we believe Utah's modeling
substantially underestimates the potential PM10 impact of
Kennecott's banked SO2 emissions. This would affect the
maintenance demonstration for Salt Lake County and may affect the
maintenance demonstration for Utah County and Ogden City as well. In
order to quantify the exact effect, the model would need to be re-run
with appropriate assumptions for the location and height of release of
the banked emissions. Therefore, we propose to find that the modeled
maintenance demonstrations for all three areas are invalid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ Modeling for maintenance and attainment predicts pollutant
concentrations at ground level because compliance with the NAAQS is
evaluated against ground-level ambient concentrations. This is based
on the fact that people breathe ground-level air.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
c. Use of improper estimates of road dust emissions in modeling.
For purposes of estimating mobile source road dust emissions in its
maintenance demonstration, Utah used EPA's AP-42 document to calculate
PM10 road dust emissions estimates but then discounted those
estimates by 75%. This discount is not supported.
As discussed in EPA's policy memoranda of February 24, 2004 \20\
and August 2, 2007,\21\ EPA's MOBILE6.2 is the approved model for
calculating direct PM10 and PM2.5 from vehicle
exhaust and brake and tire wear. Both memoranda state that Chapter 13.2
of AP-42 (specifically sections 13.2.1, ``Paved Roads,'' and 13.2.2,
``Unpaved Roads'') contains the EPA-approved methods for calculating
re-entrained road dust emissions. The August 2, 2007 memorandum
indicates that November 1, 2006 revisions to AP-42 will lower estimates
of PM2.5 re-entrained road dust emissions from paved roads
by 40% and from unpaved roads by 33%. But, the memorandum affirms that
``* * * PM10 road dust estimates are unchanged from the previous
version.'' [Emphasis in the original.]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ ``Policy Guidance on the Use of MOBILE6.2 and the December
2003 AP-42 Method for Re-Entrained Road Dust for SIP Development and
Transportation Conformity,'' signed by Margo Oge of EPA's Office of
Transportation and Air Quality and Steve Page of EPA's Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards.
\21\ ``Policy Guidance on the Use of the November 1, 2006,
Update to AP-42 for Re-entrained Road Dust for SIP Development and
Transportation Conformity,'' signed by Merrylin Zaw-Mon of EPA's
Office of Transportation and Air Quality and Peter Tsirigotis of
EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While our February 24, 2004 policy memorandum suggests that states
may be able to justify deviations from AP-42 and EPA's approved mobile
source inventory methodology, Utah has not justified a 75% discount of
re-entrained PM10 road dust emissions estimates. Utah's TSD
indicated that the 75% discount method resulted in part from
consultation with Sonoma Technologies, but provided insufficient detail
(TSD, tab 2.d.ii(3)(iii), page 17). In its response to comments on the
draft maintenance plan, Utah also referenced some general studies that
discussed the difficulties and inaccuracies in estimating paved and
unpaved road dust emissions (June 27, 2005 Response to Comments,
response to comment 104, page 7). Specifically, Utah
referenced ``A Conceptual Model to Adjust Fugitive Dust Emissions to
Account for Near Source Particle Removal in Grid Model Applications,''
by Thompson G. Pace, US EPA, August 22, 2003. This paper discusses,
``some recent studies and proposes refinements to the ``divide-by-
four'' factor that may be applicable to these source categories''
(Pace, 2003, page 1). (Dividing estimated emissions by four has the
same impact as reducing them by 75%.) As noted by Pace, an across-the-
board 75% reduction requires ``refinement'' and case-by-case analysis.
Furthermore, Pace refers to a study by the Desert Research Institute
\22\ that states:
\22\ ``Field Testing And Evaluation Of Dust Deposition And
Removal Mechanisms: Final Report,'' Etyemezian, et. al, Desert
Research Institute, prepared for: The WESTAR Council, January1,
2003; found January 18, 2006 at: https://www.westar.org/Docs/Dust/Transportable_Dust_Final_Report_DRI_WESTAR.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This enormous range of removal rates emphasizes that it is not
appropriate to apply a single correction factor to all fugitive dust
emissions as a means of accounting for near-field particle removal.
Though not documented, the community of scientists and professionals
has, in the last several years, been circulating the idea that if
fugitive dust emissions were divided by a factor of four, then the
discrepancy between emissions and ambient measurements of geological
PM10 would disappear. While it is possible that this is
true on an average basis (i.e. over large spatial domains), it is
unlikely that this factor of four is applicable to every combination
of air shed, land use distribution, and atmospheric conditions. Each
combination of setting and meteorological conditions should be
considered separately in a modeling framework that makes use of the
known physics of particle dispersion and deposition.
Thus, the paper Utah relies on to discount the AP-42-estimated
PM10 emissions actually supports EPA's view that it is not
appropriate to employ a 75% reduction or divide-by-four methodology in
all situations, and suggests that, while some change may be
appropriate, the specific conditions along the Wasatch Front must be
considered. Any reduction proposed by
[[Page 62724]]
Utah must be supported by an analysis that explains why the reduction
is appropriate for the area, considering the local geography, land use,
and atmospheric conditions. Utah did not provide such an analysis.
To further evaluate the issue, EPA conducted its own analysis to
determine whether a 75% reduction could be supported. EPA evaluated
available information regarding the transportable fraction of
PM10 re-entrained road dust emissions, as discussed below.
EPA has developed a method to estimate a transportable fraction of
fugitive dust emissions \23\ for grid modeling inventories. In that
method, EPA has considered the land use, vegetation, topography, and
other factors and estimated an aggregate transportable fraction for
counties around the United States. The transportable fraction for each
county can be seen at EPA's webpage at: https://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/emch/dustfractions/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ ``Methodology to Estimate the Transportable Fraction (TF)
of Fugitive Dust Emissions for Regional and Urban Scale Air Quality
Analyses,'' Thompson G. Pace, US EPA (August 3, 2005 Revision).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The transportable fractions estimated for Utah, Salt Lake, and
Weber Counties are .69, .66, and .75, respectively. These transportable
fractions indicate that appropriate emission reductions from AP-42-
based estimates, when considering the specific features of the areas,
are 31% for Utah County, 34% for Salt Lake County, and 25% for Weber
County, which includes the Ogden City PM10 nonattainment
area. Thus, EPA's supplemental analysis does not support Utah's use of
a 75% reduction from AP-42 estimates of PM10 road dust
emissions. Utah's use of such reduction is inappropriate; by
overestimating the reduction in re-entrained road dust emissions, Utah
underestimated ambient concentrations of PM10 in its
maintenance demonstrations for all three areas. Without accurate
estimates of emissions and ambient concentrations, we cannot determine
that the maintenance plans will be adequate to maintain the NAAQS for
the 10-year period.
2. Deficiencies Applicable to the Maintenance Plans for Salt Lake and
Utah Counties
a. Utah has not attained the NAAQS. The Calcagni Memo states that
the attainment inventory used in the maintenance demonstration must
come from a period for which the area attains the NAAQS. The attainment
inventory used for the maintenance demonstration came from 2001, a year
in which Salt Lake County did not attain the NAAQS. (See discussion in
section IV.A above.) In addition, Salt Lake County has violated the
PM10 NAAQS in every three-year period since 2001. These
persistent violations indicate that the underlying basis of the
maintenance demonstration for Salt Lake County is not valid.
As discussed above in section IV.A.1.b, 2008 data in AQS, not yet
certified by Utah, indicate exceedances that would comprise violations
of the PM10 NAAQS in Utah County for any three-year period
that includes 2008. These data call into question the maintenance
demonstration for Utah County.
b. Maintenance plans rely on inadequate methods for intermittent
sources. The maintenance plans for Salt Lake and Utah Counties rely on
controls contained in submitted SIP section IX.H,\24\ including opacity
limits for intermittent sources. Section IX.H.1 specifies a method for
conducting opacity observations. The last sentence in submitted SIP
section IX.H.1.g says: ``For intermittent sources and mobile sources,
opacity observations shall be conducted using procedures similar to
Method 9, but the requirement for observations to be made at 15-second
intervals over a six-minute period shall not apply.'' This language is
not sufficiently clear.\25\ The language must indicate what test method
will apply. Without this, we cannot be assured that the opacity limits
for intermittent and mobile sources will be enforceable or that the
maintenance plan is adequate to ensure maintenance of the NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ Hereafter, when we refer to the submitted SIP or a
submitted SIP section, revision, or rule, we mean the SIP or SIP
section, revision, or rule that Utah submitted to us for approval on
September 2, 2005, as opposed to the EPA-approved SIP or SIP
section, revision, or rule.
\25\ We recognize that this language is similar to language in
the EPA-approved SIP. However, due to the potential problems with
this language, it would be inappropriate for us to re-approve it or
accept reliance on it for purposes of the maintenance plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Deficiencies Applicable to the Salt Lake County Maintenance Plan
a. Maintenance plan relies on deficient control measures for
stationary sources in Salt Lake County. Utah revised as a matter of
State law the Salt Lake County stationary source control measures in
section IX.H of the SIP, incorporated these State-revised measures into
its proposed maintenance plan (see submitted SIP section IX.A.10, pages
30-31), and based its maintenance demonstration on the assumption that
these State-revised measures would be approved into the SIP by EPA and
would therefore be in place.\26\ For the reasons set forth below, many
parts of State-revised section IX.H are not approvable, therefore, the
maintenance plan, which relies upon assumed approval of the State's
revisions to section IX.H, does not demonstrate that the area will
maintain the NAAQS for ten years after redesignation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ Note that revising the EPA-approved SIP is a two-step
process. First, the state adopts changes as a matter of state law
and submits them to EPA. Then, EPA either approves or disapproves
those change
