Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Utah; Maintenance Plan for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone Standard for Salt Lake County and Davis County, 59242-59249 [2013-23248]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
59242
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 187 / Thursday, September 26, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
Subpart V—Maryland
2. In § 52.1070, the table in paragraph
(c) is amended by adding an entry for
■
§ 52.1070
COMAR 26.11.19.27–1, after the
existing entry for COMAR 26.11.19.27.
The added text reads as follows:
*
Identification of plan.
*
*
(c) * * *
*
*
EPA-APPROVED REGULATIONS, TECHNICAL MEMORANDA, AND STATUTES IN THE MARYLAND SIP
Code of Maryland Administrative Regulations (COMAR) citation
*
*
*
26.11.19
*
26.11.19.27–1 ...........
*
*
*
*
*
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R08–OAR–2012–0958; FRL–9786–3]
Approval and Promulgation of Air
Quality Implementation Plans; Utah;
Maintenance Plan for the 1997 8-Hour
Ozone Standard for Salt Lake County
and Davis County
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
EPA is partially approving
and partially disapproving State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions
submitted by the Governor of Utah on
March 22, 2007. The SIP revision is the
State of Utah’s maintenance plan for the
1997 8-hour ozone standard for Salt
Lake County and Davis County, along
with associated rules: R307–101–2,
‘‘Definitions;’’ R307–110–13, ‘‘Section
IX, Control Measures for Area and Point
Sources, Part D, Ozone;’’ R307–320,
‘‘Ozone Maintenance Areas and Ogden
City: Employer-Based Trip Reduction
Program;’’ R307–325, ‘‘Ozone
Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas:
General Requirements;’’ R307–326,
‘‘Ozone Nonattainment and
Maintenance Areas: Control of
Hydrocarbon Emissions in Petroleum
Refineries;’’ R307–327, ‘‘Ozone
Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas:
Petroleum Liquid Storage;’’ R307–328,
‘‘Ozone Nonattainment and
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
SUMMARY:
17:00 Sep 25, 2013
Jkt 229001
Additional
explanation/
citation at
40 CFR 52.1100
EPA-Approval date
*
*
*
Volatile Organic Compounds From Specific Processes
*
[FR Doc. 2013–23100 Filed 9–25–13; 8:45 am]
VerDate Mar<15>2010
*
*
*
Control of Volatile Organic Compounds
from Pleasure Craft Coating Operations.
*
*
State effective
date
Title/subject
*
10/12/12
*
*
*
9/26/13 [Insert page number where the
document begins].
*
Maintenance Areas and Utah and Weber
Counties: Gasoline Transfer and
Storage;’’ R307–335, ‘‘Ozone
Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas:
Degreasing and Solvent Cleaning
Operations;’’ R307–340, ‘‘Ozone
Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas:
Surface Coating Processes;’’ R307–341,
‘‘Ozone Nonattainment and
Maintenance Areas: Cutback Asphalt;’’
and R307–342, ‘‘Ozone Nonattainment
and Maintenance Areas: Qualification of
Contractors and Test Procedures for
Vapor Recovery Systems for Gasoline
Delivery Tanks.’’ This action is being
taken under sections 107 and 110 of the
Clean Air Act (Act or CAA).
DATES: This action is effective on
October 28, 2013.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a
docket for this action under Docket
Identification No. EPA–R08–OAR–
2012–0958. All documents in the docket
are listed at https://www.regulations.gov.
Although listed in the index, some
information may not be publicly
available, i.e., Confidential Business
Information or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute.
Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, is not placed on
the Internet and will be publicly
available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically through
https://www.regulations.gov or in hard
copy at EPA Region 8, Air Quality
Planning Unit (8P–AR), 1595 Wynkoop
Street, Denver, Colorado, 80202. EPA
requests that if at all possible, you
contact the person listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to
schedule your inspection. The Regional
Office’s official hours of business are
PO 00000
Frm 00080
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
*
*
Regulation Added.
*
Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30,
excluding federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jody
Ostendorf, Air Program, Mailcode 8P–
AR, Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA), Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop St.,
Denver, Colorado 80202–1129, (303)
312–7814, ostendorf.jody@epa.gov
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Background of State Submittals
A. Regulatory Context
B. Ambient Ozone Conditions
C. Our Proposal
D. Public Participation
E. Alternative Methods of Control (AMOC)
and EPA’s Concurrence Requirement
II. Final Action
A. Maintenance Plan
B. Rules
III. Issues Raised by Commenters and EPA’s
Responses
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Definitions
For the purpose of this document, we
are giving meaning to certain words as
follows:
(i) The words or initials Act or CAA mean
or refer to the Clean Air Act, unless the
context indicates otherwise.
(ii) The words EPA, we, us or our mean or
refer to the United States Environmental
Protection Agency.
(iii) The initials SIP mean or refer to State
Implementation Plan.
(iv) The words State or Utah mean the
State of Utah, unless the context indicates
otherwise.
I. Background of State Submittals
A. Regulatory Context
Under the CAA enacted in 1970, EPA
established national ambient air quality
standards (NAAQS) for certain
E:\FR\FM\26SER1.SGM
26SER1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 187 / Thursday, September 26, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
pervasive air pollutants, such as
photochemical oxidant, carbon
monoxide, and particulate matter. The
NAAQS represent concentration levels
below which public health and welfare
are protected. The 1970 Act also
required states to adopt and submit SIPs
to implement, maintain, and enforce the
NAAQS.
From time-to-time, the CAA requires
SIP revisions to account for new or
amended NAAQS or to meet other
changed circumstances. The CAA was
significantly amended in 1977, and
under the 1977 Amendments, EPA
promulgated attainment status
designations for all areas of the country
with respect to the NAAQS.
The CAA requires EPA to periodically
review and revise the NAAQS, and in
1979, EPA established a new NAAQS of
0.12 parts per million (ppm) for ozone,
averaged over 1 hour. This new NAAQS
replaced the oxidant standard of 0.08
ppm. See 44 FR 8202 (February 8, 1979).
Areas designated nonattainment for
oxidant were considered to be
nonattainment for ozone as well. Part D
of CAA Title I requires special measures
for areas designated nonattainment. On
August 15, 1984, EPA approved Utah’s
SIP for the 1-hour ozone standard for
the Salt Lake County and Davis County
nonattainment area (49 FR 32575).
Congress significantly amended the
CAA again in 1990. Under the 1990
Amendments, each area of the country
that was designated nonattainment for
the 1-hour ozone NAAQS, including
Salt Lake County and Davis County, was
classified by operation of law as
marginal, moderate, serious, severe, or
extreme nonattainment depending on
the severity of the area’s air quality
problem. The ozone nonattainment
designation for Salt Lake County and
Davis County continued by operation of
law according to section 107(d)(1)(C)(i)
of the CAA, as amended in 1990.
Furthermore, the area was classified by
operation of law as moderate for ozone
under CAA section 181(a)(1).
Under CAA section 175A, states may
request redesignation of a
nonattainment area to attainment if
monitoring data showed that the area
has met the NAAQS and if the area
meets certain other requirements. On
July 18, 1995, both Salt Lake and Davis
Counties were found to be attaining the
1-hour ozone standard (60 FR 36723).
On July 17, 1997, EPA approved the
State’s request to redesignate Salt Lake
and Davis Counties to attainment for the
1-hour ozone standard. As part of that
action, EPA approved the State’s 1-hour
ozone maintenance plan (62 FR 38213).
On July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated
an 8-hour ozone NAAQS of 0.08 ppm
(62 FR 38894). This standard was
intended to replace the 1-hour ozone
standard. On April 30, 2004, EPA
designated areas of the country for the
1997 8-hour ozone standard (69 FR
23857). EPA designated all areas in
Utah, including Salt Lake County and
Davis County, as unclassifiable/
attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS (69 FR 23940).
Also, on April 30, 2004, EPA revoked
the pre-existing 1-hour NAAQS (69 FR
23951, 23996; 40 CFR 50.9(b)). As part
of this rulemaking, EPA established
certain requirements to prevent
backsliding in those areas that were
designated as nonattainment for the 1hour ozone standard at the time of
designation for the 8-hour ozone
standard, or that were redesignated to
‘‘attainment’’ but subject to a
maintenance plan, as is the case for Salt
Lake County and Davis County. These
requirements are codified at 40 CFR
51.905.
In the case of Utah, one of these
requirements was to submit a
maintenance plan for the 1997 8-hour
ozone standard. On March 22, 2007, the
Governor of Utah submitted a
maintenance plan for the 1997 8-hour
59243
ozone standard for Salt Lake County and
Davis County, and associated rule
revisions. In this notice, EPA is acting
on the March 22, 2007 maintenance
plan and rule revisions.
In 2008, EPA promulgated a lower 8hour ozone standard—0.075 ppm (73 FR
16436; March 27, 2008). The 2008 ozone
standard retains the same general form
and averaging time as the 0.08 ppm
standard set in 1997. Effective July 20,
2012, Salt Lake County and Davis
County were designated Unclassifiable/
Attainment for this lower standard (77
FR 30088, 30151).
B. Ambient Ozone Conditions
The 1997 ozone NAAQS is attained
when the three-year average of the
annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8hour average ambient ozone
concentration (also referred to as the
‘‘design value’’) is less than or equal to
0.08 ppm at all monitoring sites within
an air quality planning area. 40 CFR part
50, Appendix I, section 2.3, directs that
the third decimal place of the computed
three-year average be rounded; values
equal to or greater than 0.005 are
rounded up. Thus, under our
regulations, a computed three-year
ozone concentration of 0.085 ppm is the
smallest value that is considered to be
greater than 0.08 ppm and, thus, a
violation of the standard.
A review of the data gathered at the
ozone monitoring sites in Salt Lake
County and Davis County from 2000–
2011 1 shows the area has been attaining
the 8-hour ozone NAAQS except for the
2005–2007 period, which had a design
value of 0.085 ppm. As noted above,
EPA designated Salt Lake County and
Davis County unclassifiable/attainment
for the lower 2008 ozone standard
(0.075 ppm) based on monitored values
for 2008–2010. The following table
shows design values for each year from
2000 through 2011:
TABLE 1—SALT LAKE AND DAVIS COUNTIES THREE-YEAR AVERAGE OF THE 4TH HIGHEST OZONE VALUE
[ppm]
2000–
2002
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Monitoring site (county)
Beach (Salt Lake) ............................................
Bountiful (Davis) ...............................................
Cottonwood (Salt Lake) ...................................
Hawthorne (Salt Lake) .....................................
Herriman (Salt Lake) ........................................
West Valley (Salt Lake) ...................................
1 Data
2001–
2003
2002–
2004
2003–
2005
2004–
2006
2005–
2007
2006–
2008
2007–
2009
2008–
2010
2009–
2011
0.081
0.082
0.076
0.077
0.078
0.079
0.081
0.083
0.080
0.080
0.076
0.080
0.078
0.078
0.079
0.078
0.076
0.076
0.079
0.079
0.080
0.077
0.076
0.078
0.081
0.080
0.080
0.077
0.078
0.078
0.083
0.085
0.083
0.081
0.080
0.081
0.079
0.080
0.082
0.078
n/a
2 n/a
0.076
0.077
0.077
0.076
n/a
n/a
0.072
0.074
0.075
0.074
n/a
n/a
0.072
0.071
0.073
0.074
n/a
n/a
for 2012 have not been certified yet.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:00 Sep 25, 2013
Jkt 229001
PO 00000
Frm 00081
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\26SER1.SGM
26SER1
59244
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 187 / Thursday, September 26, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
C. Our Proposal
Our notice of proposed rulemaking
was published in the Federal Register
on January 2, 2013 (78 FR 37). In that
notice, we proposed the following
actions with respect to the State’s March
22, 2007 submittal:
1. We proposed to approve the State’s
maintenance demonstration for the 1997
8-hour ozone NAAQS for Salt Lake and
Davis Counties, but, in the alternative,
to disapprove the maintenance
demonstration if comments were to
convince us that approval would not be
consistent with the Clean Air Act.
2. We proposed to approve the rest of
the State’s 1997 8-hour ozone
maintenance plan for Salt Lake and
Davis Counties, except for the following
aspects, which we proposed to
disapprove:
a. Those contingency measures listed
in the State’s maintenance plan that are
voluntary in nature, and the
contingency measure described in the
maintenance plan as ‘‘Establish an
Offset Ratio for NOX.’’
b. The State’s proposal to remove
from the SIP the VOC RACT approval
orders for Hill Air Force Base.
c. The State’s proposal to remove from
the SIP the NOX RACT limits for the
PacifiCorp Gadsby Power Plant.
d. Section 5.g of the maintenance
plan, which indicates that the employer
based trip reduction program is
included as part of the plan.
3. We proposed to take no action on
R307–101–2 because we already acted
on a later version of the definitions.
4. We proposed to approve R307–
110–13, but only to the extent we were
proposing to approve the 1997 8-hour
ozone maintenance plan.
5. We proposed to disapprove R307–
320, the employer-based trip reduction
program.
6. We proposed to approve R307–325,
R307–326, R307–327, R307–328, R307–
335, R307–340, R307–341, and R307–
342, subject to our interpretation of
these rules.
For further detail regarding the bases for
our proposed actions, please see our
notice of proposed rulemaking at 78 FR
37.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
D. Public Participation
We requested comments on our
proposed action and provided a 30-day
comment period, which closed on
February 1, 2013. In this action, we are
responding to the comments we
received and taking final rulemaking
action.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:00 Sep 25, 2013
Jkt 229001
E. Alternative Methods of Control
(AMOC) and EPA’s Concurrence
Requirement
In our proposal, we noted our
interpretation of certain Utah rules; we
are repeating that interpretation here.
The State’s March 22, 2007 submittal
included revisions to rules R307–326,
R307–327, R307–328, R307–335, R307–
340, and R307–342. For each of these
rules, the State included AMOC
language that was previously included
in R307–325. That language states: ‘‘Any
person may apply to the executive
secretary for approval of an alternate
test method, an alternate method of
control, an alternate compliance period,
an alternate emission limit, or an
alternate monitoring schedule. The
application must include a
demonstration that the proposed
alternate produces an equal or greater
air quality benefit than that required by
[this rule], or that the alternate test
method is equivalent to that required by
these rules. The executive secretary
shall obtain concurrence from EPA
when approving an alternate test
method, an alternate method of control,
an alternate compliance period, an
alternate emission limit, or an alternate
monitoring schedule.’’
The Utah Department of
Environmental Quality (DEQ) confirmed
that this regulatory language requiring
concurrence from EPA on any AMOC
applies to all the provisions in the rules
that allow for DEQ to alter the
compliance requirements of the rules.
As more fully explained below, our
interpretation is that our concurrence on
an alternative compliance requirement
must occur through approval of a SIP
revision.
Section 110(i) of the CAA specifically
precludes states from changing the
requirements of the SIP that apply to
any stationary source except through
SIP revisions approved by EPA. SIP
revisions will be approved by EPA only
if they meet all requirements of section
110 of the Act and the implementing
regulations at 40 CFR Part 51. See, e.g.,
CAA section 110(l); 40 CFR 51.104.
Section 51.104(d) specifically states that
in order for a variance to be considered
for approval as a SIP revision, the state
must submit it in accordance with the
requirements of 40 CFR 51.104, which
includes the public notice, comment
and hearing provisions of 40 CFR
51.102.
Furthermore, the AMOC provision in
the State’s rules does not contain
specific, objective, and replicable
criteria for determining if such
‘‘alternate methods’’ are in fact at least
as effective as the required methods in
PO 00000
Frm 00082
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
terms of emission rates and ambient
impacts. For purposes of meeting CAA
requirements, EPA concurrence in the
form of a SIP approval is required for
any of the alternate compliance
provisions throughout R307–326, R307–
327, R307–328, R307–335, R307–340,
and R307–342. This includes approval
of an alternate method of control, an
alternate test method, an alternate
compliance period, an alternate
emission limit, a variance, or an
alternate monitoring schedule. The
public notice process of a SIP approval
will allow EPA and the public to
determine whether any new compliance
terms approved by the executive
secretary continue to assure
maintenance of the ambient standard.2
II. Final Action
A. Maintenance Plan
For the reasons described in our
notice of proposed rulemaking (78 FR
37) and in our response to public
comments in section III, below, we are
taking the following actions with
respect to the maintenance plan for the
1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS for Salt Lake
and Davis Counties that the State
submitted on March 22, 2007:
1. We are approving the State’s
maintenance demonstration for the 1997
8-hour ozone NAAQS for Salt Lake and
Davis Counties.
2. We are approving the rest of the
State’s 1997 8-hour ozone maintenance
plan for Salt Lake and Davis Counties,
except for the following aspects, which
we are disapproving:
a. Those contingency measures listed
in section 6.d of the State’s maintenance
plan that are voluntary in nature, as
follows:
1. ‘‘Alert Day Enhancements;’’
2. ‘‘Heavy Equipment Emission
Control Program;’’
3. ‘‘Reduce Emission of VOCs,’’ to the
extent the State would adopt and
implement the measure as a voluntary
commitment rather than a regulatory
measure;
4. ‘‘Identification of High-Polluting
Vehicles;’’ and
5. ‘‘Other VOC and NOX emission
control measures as appropriate,’’ to the
extent such measures would be
voluntary.
b. The contingency measure listed in
section 6.d of the State’s maintenance
plan as ‘‘Establish an Offset Ratio for
NOX.’’
2 By adopting a generic SIP provision consistent
with the EPA guidance known as White Paper
Number 2, a state may be able to streamline EPA’s
SIP approval process for an AMOC. White Paper
Number 2, Attachment B, envisions the use of the
Title V permit process to establish alternative
requirements.
E:\FR\FM\26SER1.SGM
26SER1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 187 / Thursday, September 26, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
c. The State’s proposal in section
5.a.(3)(b) of the maintenance plan to
remove from the SIP the VOC RACT
approval orders for Hill Air Force Base.
d. The State’s proposal in section
5.b.(1) of the maintenance plan to
remove from the SIP the NOX RACT
limits for the PacifiCorp Gadsby Power
Plant.
e. Section 5.g of the maintenance
plan, which indicates that the employerbased trip reduction program is
included as part of the plan.
For the reasons stated in our notice of
proposed rulemaking (78 FR 41–42), our
disapproval of various aspects of the
maintenance plan does not trigger an
obligation under CAA section 110(c) to
promulgate a federal implementation
plan.
B. Rules
For the reasons described in our
notice of proposed rulemaking (78 FR
37),3 we are taking the following actions
with respect to the rule revisions that
the State submitted on March 22, 2007.
1. We are taking no action on R307–
101–2 because we have already acted on
a later version of the definitions.
2. We are approving R307–110–13,
but only to the extent we are approving
the 1997 8-hour ozone maintenance
plan.
3. We are disapproving R307–320, the
employer-based trip reduction program.
For the reasons stated in our notice of
proposed rulemaking (78 FR 42), our
disapproval of R307–320 does not
trigger an obligation under CAA section
110(c) to promulgate a federal
implementation plan.
4. We are approving R307–325.
5. We are approving R307–326,
subject to the following: We interpret
the following provisions in R307–326
(in addition to any other request for an
alternate method of control under R307–
326 that may arise outside of these
provisions) as being subject to the
requirement in R307–326–10(1) for EPA
concurrence:
a. R307–326–4(3).
b. R307–326–6(3).
c. In R307–326–7, the provision that
reads, ‘‘or controlled by other methods,
provided the design and effectiveness of
such methods are documented,
submitted to, and approved by the
executive secretary.’’
d. R307–326–9(5)(a).
e. In R307–326–10(3), the provision
that reads, ‘‘or approved by the
executive secretary.’’
As stated in our notice of proposed
rulemaking (78 FR 42) and reiterated in
3 We received no adverse comments on our
proposal to approve the State’s rule revisions.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:00 Sep 25, 2013
Jkt 229001
section I.E. above, EPA concurrence
under R307–326–10(1) must occur
through EPA approval of a SIP revision.
In addition to the foregoing, we
interpret R307–326–10(2), which
requires an owner or operator to repair
a malfunctioning control device within
15 days or other period approved by the
executive secretary, as not excusing any
period of violation of the control
requirements in R307–326.
6. We are approving R307–327,
subject to the following: We interpret
the following provisions in R307–327
(in addition to any other request for an
alternate method of control under R307–
327 that may arise outside of these
provisions) as being subject to the
requirement in R307–327–7(1) for EPA
concurrence:
a. In R307–327–4(1), the provision
that reads, ‘‘or alternative equivalent
controls, provided the design and
effectiveness of such equipment is
documented and submitted to and
approved by the executive secretary.’’
b. R307–327–6(3)(d).
c. In R307–327–7(3), the provision
that reads, ‘‘or approved by the
executive secretary.’’ As stated in our
notice of proposed rulemaking and
reiterated in section I.E. above, EPA
concurrence under R307–327–7(1) must
occur through EPA approval of a SIP
revision.
In addition to the foregoing, we
interpret R307–327–7(2), which requires
an owner or operator to repair a
malfunctioning control device within 15
days or other period approved by the
executive secretary, as not excusing any
period of violation of the control
requirements in R307–327.
7. We are approving R307–328,
subject to the following: We interpret
the following provisions in R307–328
(in addition to any other request for an
alternate method of control under R307–
328 that may arise outside of these
provisions) as being subject to the
requirement in R307–328–8(1) for EPA
concurrence:
a. In R307–328–4(6), the provision
that reads, ‘‘or alternate equivalent
methods * * *. The design effectiveness
of such equipment and the operating
procedures must be documented and
submitted to and approved by the
executive secretary.’’
b. In R307–328–4(9), the provision
that reads, ‘‘The frequency of tests may
be altered by the executive secretary
upon submittal of documentation which
would justify a change.’’
c. In R307–328–5(1)(c), the provision
that reads, ‘‘or their equivalent which
have been approved by the executive
secretary.’’
PO 00000
Frm 00083
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
59245
d. In R307–328–6(4), the provision
that reads, ‘‘or equivalent equipment
provided the design and effectiveness of
such equipment are documented and
submitted to and approved by the
executive secretary.’’
e. In R307–328–8(3), the provision
that reads, ‘‘or approved by the
executive secretary.’’
As stated in our notice of proposed
rulemaking and reiterated in section I.E.
above, EPA concurrence under R307–
328–8(1) must occur through EPA
approval of a SIP revision.
In addition, we interpret R307–328–
8(2), which requires an owner or
operator to repair a malfunctioning
control device within 15 days or other
period approved by the executive
secretary, as not excusing any period of
violation of the control requirements in
R307–328.
8. We are approving R307–335,
subject to the following: We interpret
the following provisions in R307–335
(in addition to any other request for an
alternate method of control under R307–
335 that may arise outside of these
provisions) as being subject to the
requirement in R307–335–7(1) for EPA
concurrence:
a. In R307–335–4(3), the provision
that reads, ‘‘or by an alternate means
approved by the executive secretary.’’
b. In R307–335–7(3), the provision
that reads, ‘‘or approved by the
executive secretary.’’
As stated in our notice of proposed
rulemaking and reiterated in section I.E.
above, EPA concurrence under R307–
335–7(1) must occur through EPA
approval of a SIP revision.
In addition, we interpret R307–335–
7(2), which requires an owner or
operator to repair a malfunctioning
control device within 15 days or other
period approved by the executive
secretary, as not excusing any period of
violation of the control requirements in
R307–335.
9. We are approving R307–340,
subject to the following: We interpret
the following provisions in R307–340
(in addition to any other request for an
alternate method of control under R307–
340 that may arise outside of these
provisions) as being subject to the
requirement in R307–340–16(1) for EPA
concurrence:
a. In R307–340–4(4), the provision
that reads, ‘‘or by an alternate means
approved by the executive secretary.’’
b. In R307–340–4(5)(a), the provision
that reads, ‘‘Sources may request
approval for longer times for
compliance determination from the
executive secretary.’’
E:\FR\FM\26SER1.SGM
26SER1
59246
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 187 / Thursday, September 26, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
c. In R307–340–15(1), the provision
that reads, ‘‘or an alternative method
approved by the executive secretary.’’
d. In R307–340–15(2), the provision
that reads, ‘‘or an alternative method
approved by the executive secretary or
equivalent method.’’
e. In R307–340–16(3), the provision
that reads, ‘‘or approved by the
executive secretary.’’ As stated in our
notice of proposed rulemaking and
reiterated in section I.E. above, EPA
concurrence under R307–340–16(1)
must occur through EPA approval of a
SIP revision.
In addition, we interpret R307–340–
16(2), which requires an owner or
operator to repair a malfunctioning
control device within 15 days or other
period approved by the executive
secretary, as not excusing any period of
violation of the control requirements in
R307–340.
10. We are approving R307–341.
11. We are approving R307–342,
subject to the following: We interpret
the following provision in R307–342 (in
addition to any other request for an
alternate method of control under R307–
342 that may arise outside of this
provision) as being subject to the
requirement in R307–342–7(1) for EPA
concurrence:
a. In R307–342–7(3), the provision
that reads, ‘‘or approved by the
executive secretary.’’
As stated in our notice of proposed
rulemaking and reiterated in section I.E.
above, EPA concurrence under R307–
342–7(1) must occur through EPA
approval of a SIP revision.
In addition, we interpret R307–342–
7(2), which requires an owner or
operator to repair a malfunctioning
control device within 15 days or other
period approved by the executive
secretary, as not excusing any period of
violation of the control requirements in
R307–342.
III. Issues Raised by Commenters and
EPA’s Responses
We received comments from a single
commenter. We summarize the
comments and provide our responses
below.
Comment: Utah should not be
allowed to rely on 2002 emission
inventories to show maintenance of the
ozone standard when there was a
violation of that standard for the 2005
to 2007 season. Such an approach does
not provide the citizens of Utah with a
sound demonstration that the ozone
standard will be met and that their
health will correspondingly be
protected. EPA itself noted in its notice
of proposed rulemaking that the
violation casts doubt on the use of the
2002 emissions inventories as
representative of the levels of emissions
that are consistent with maintaining the
standard. But then EPA lists several
factors which it suggests support the use
of the 2002 inventories as representative
of levels consistent with compliance
with the standard. For example, EPA
noted that the violation was at 0.085
ppm, only slightly above the standard.
However, any violation of the standard
is unacceptable and reliance on an
inventory that results in a violation is
inconsistent with the purpose of the
NAAQS to protect human health and
the environment. EPA also suggests that
2005 was an anomaly and thus should
be discounted. However, hot weather
like that experienced during 2005 is
likely to be the norm in coming years.
Thus, it is likely that the ozone levels
experienced in 2005 will recur.
Monitoring data for 2012, which had the
hottest summer on record, indicates a
troubling trend toward higher ozone
levels in Utah’s urban areas.
Response: In the unique
circumstances involved here, we
conclude that approval of the
maintenance demonstration is
appropriate. As stated in our proposal,
our conclusion is based on a
combination of factors, and is not
focused only on the 2002 inventories as
the benchmark for ongoing
maintenance. These factors are the
following:
1. Since the time of the area’s
designation to attainment in 2004, the
only monitored violation occurred
during 2005–2007. As stated above, the
1997 8-hour ozone standard is attained
at a design value of 0.084, and the
design value for 2005–2007 was 0.085
ppm—the lowest value that can
represent a violation.
2. In 2005, the area monitored
significantly higher 4th high maximum
values than it had monitored in the
previous four years and than it has
monitored since 2005 to the present.
3. In 2006–2008, the area immediately
returned to attainment and has
continued to attain the standard.
Complete quality-assured data for 2007–
2009, 2008–2010, 2009–2011, and
preliminary data for 2012, show that the
area has continuously maintained the
standard.
4. Under the applicable regulatory
requirement, 40 CFR 51.905(a)(4), the
State must demonstrate maintenance for
ten years after designation, or until
2014.
5. In evaluating the potential for the
area to continue to maintain through
2014, given its continued maintenance
during and subsequent to 2008, EPA
takes into consideration the fact that, in
order for the area to violate the standard
in 2013–2014, the area would have to
experience significantly higher 4th high
maximums than it experienced in 2005.
We find this prospect to be highly
unlikely, particularly given the State’s
projected lowering emissions trends, as
reflected in the maintenance plan.
6. Mobile source emissions account
for a very large portion of the overall
emissions inventory, and federal motor
vehicle control standards, combined
with fleet turnover, will continue to
further reduce relevant mobile source
emissions through 2014.
In addition, as we noted in our
proposal, EPA designated Salt Lake
County and Davis County
unclassifiable/attainment for the lower
2008 ozone standard (0.075 ppm) based
on monitored values for 2008–2010.
Contrary to the commenter’s
suggestion, our reference to the 2005–
2007 design value of 0.085 was not
intended to suggest that a lower
violation is not a violation or that it
should be ignored. However, we do
think the magnitude of the value is
relevant, along with the other factors
noted above, to our assessment of the
maintenance demonstration. In
particular, the maintenance plan
projects substantial reductions of VOC
and NOX emissions after 2005. The
following tables show these projections.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
TABLE 2—SALT LAKE AND DAVIS COUNTIES SOURCE CATEGORY TOTALS FOR VOCS
[Tons/day]
2002
Point Source ........................................................................
Area Source .........................................................................
Biogenic Source ...................................................................
Mobile On-Road ...................................................................
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:00 Sep 25, 2013
Jkt 229001
PO 00000
Frm 00084
2005
11.24
89.32
120.26
57.66
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
11.21
92.42
120.26
44.70
2008
2011
11.66
96.30
120.26
35.36
E:\FR\FM\26SER1.SGM
26SER1
11.96
101.86
120.26
29.11
2014
12.36
107.75
120.26
24.52
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 187 / Thursday, September 26, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
59247
TABLE 2—SALT LAKE AND DAVIS COUNTIES SOURCE CATEGORY TOTALS FOR VOCS—Continued
[Tons/day]
2002
2005
2008
2011
2014
Mobile Non-Road .................................................................
29.55
25.47
20.90
18.42
16.57
Total ..............................................................................
308.03
294.06
284.48
281.61
281.46
TABLE 3—SALT LAKE AND DAVIS COUNTIES SOURCE CATEGORY TOTALS FOR NOX
[Tons/day]
2002
2005
2008
2011
2014
39.27
11.36
98.89
83.87
38.09
10.08
85.52
80.35
37.78
10.79
65.47
72.56
36.75
11.82
49.45
63.48
36.82
12.82
35.92
51.30
Total ..............................................................................
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Point Source ........................................................................
Area Source .........................................................................
Mobile On-Road ...................................................................
Mobile Non-Road .................................................................
233.39
214.04
186.60
161.50
136.86
We disagree with the commenter’s
assertion that data from the summer of
2012 indicate ‘‘a troubling trend toward
higher levels of ozone in Utah’s urban
areas’’ and undermine our statements
about the 2005 data. While we note that
the 2012 data are not yet certified, the
preliminary data reflect values that are
significantly below those experienced in
2005, even with the high temperatures
experienced at that time. If anything,
these data appear to support our overall
conclusion that ongoing reductions in
emissions, largely due to federal motor
vehicle control standards, will result in
ongoing maintenance of the 1997 ozone
NAAQS.
Comment: EPA points out that
‘‘[u]nder the applicable regulatory
requirement, 40 CFR 51.905(a)(4), the
State must demonstrate maintenance for
ten years after designation, or until
2014.’’ However, this statement seems to
disregard the fact that Salt Lake and
Davis counties violated the 8-hour
ozone standard during the 2005 to 2007
season. Therefore, this observation does
not seem to bolster the case for using the
2002 inventories as representative of
what is necessary to maintain the
standard. Moreover, it suggests that
Utah cannot show maintenance for ten
years after 2004.
Response: As stated in our prior
response, in the unique circumstances
in this case, our conclusion is based on
a combination of factors, and is not
focused solely on the 2002 inventories
as the benchmark for ongoing
maintenance. We do not cite the
proximity of 2014, the end of the
maintenance period, to bolster the
validity of the 2002 inventories as a
maintenance benchmark.
Instead, we find it relevant to our
assessment of the likelihood that the
area will continue to attain the standard
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:00 Sep 25, 2013
Jkt 229001
through the end of the maintenance
period, considering the other factors
involved.
As to the assertion that Utah cannot
show maintenance for ten years after
2004, this is not an instance in which
the area has experienced repeated
violations; it experienced a single
violation in the 2005–2007 period,
largely based on unusually high values
experienced in 2005. It did not
experience a violation in the relevant
periods before then and has not
experienced a violation since. It is
highly unlikely the area will experience
a violation before 2014, the end of the
maintenance period, given the air
quality values in recent years.
Furthermore, even if we concluded that
the maintenance demonstration should
extend until 2015, the relevant factors
similarly indicate the area will continue
to maintain the standard until then.
Comment: The State of Utah has
failed to meet its SIP obligations relative
to its Title V permit program. Several
major sources in Salt Lake and Davis
counties do not have and have never
had Title V permits. This casts
substantial doubt on any claim Utah
may make that it is able to ensure
compliance with air quality permit
terms and conditions, to accurately
monitor emissions from stationary
sources and to guarantee that emissions
from these sources will actually
conform to the various projections on
which the state relies to show
maintenance. EPA should disapprove
the maintenance plan because the State
of Utah is failing to implement an
adequate Title V program.
Response: The commenters’ assertions
do not require disapproval of the
maintenance plan. We note that the
Title V permit program is not a SIP
program or requirement; it is separate
PO 00000
Frm 00085
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
from the SIP. Thus, there are no SIP
obligations relative to the Title V permit
program. Moreover, applicable CAA
requirements are State and federally
enforceable whether or not they are
contained in a Title V permit. This
includes SIP requirements and major
and minor source construction permit
requirements. Here, the specific
measures for major stationary sources
that are relevant to ongoing
maintenance are contained in the EPAapproved ozone SIP and remain
federally enforceable. For the foregoing
reasons, we do not find the absence of
Title V permits to be a basis to
undermine or disapprove the
maintenance plan.
IV. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Under the CAA, the Administrator is
required to approve a SIP submission
that complies with the provisions of the
Act and applicable Federal regulations.
42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions,
EPA’s role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of
the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this
action merely approves some state law
as meeting Federal requirements and
disapproves some state law as not
meeting Federal requirements; it does
not impose additional requirements
beyond those imposed by state law. For
that reason, this action:
• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory
action’’ subject to review by the Office
of Management and Budget under
Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993);
• does not impose an information
collection burden under the provisions
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
E:\FR\FM\26SER1.SGM
26SER1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
59248
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 187 / Thursday, September 26, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
• is certified as not having a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
• does not contain any unfunded
mandate or significantly or uniquely
affect small governments, as described
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4);
• does not have Federalism
implications as specified in Executive
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999);
• is not an economically significant
regulatory action based on health or
safety risks subject to Executive Order
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• is not a significant regulatory action
subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001);
• is not subject to requirements of
Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because
application of those requirements would
be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act;
and
• does not provide EPA with the
discretionary authority to address, as
appropriate, disproportionate human
health or environmental effects, using
practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898
(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this rule does not have
tribal implications as specified by
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249,
November 9, 2000), because the SIP is
not approved to apply in Indian country
located in the state, and EPA notes that
it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt
tribal law.
The Congressional Review Act, 5
U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides
that before a rule may take effect, the
agency promulgating the rule must
submit a rule report which includes a
copy of the rule, to each House of the
Congress and to the Comptroller General
of the United States. EPA will submit a
report containing this action and other
required information to the U.S. Senate,
the U.S. House of Representatives, and
the Comptroller General of the United
States prior to publication of the rule in
the Federal Register. A major rule
cannot take effect until 60 days after it
is published in the Federal Register.
This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as
defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean
Air Act, petitions for judicial review of
this action must be filed in the United
States Court of Appeals for the
appropriate circuit by November 25,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:00 Sep 25, 2013
Jkt 229001
2013. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of
this final rule does not affect the finality
of this action for the purposes of judicial
review nor does it extend the time
within which a petition for judicial
review may be filed, and shall not
postpone the effectiveness of such rule
or action. This action may not be
challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. (See section
307(b)(2) of the CAA.)
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference,
Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen
dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Volatile
organic compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: February 13, 2013.
James B. Martin,
Regional Administrator, Region 8.
Note: This document was received by the
Office of the Federal Register on September
19, 2013.
40 CFR part 52 is amended to read as
follows:
PART 52—APPROVAL AND
PROMULGATION OF
IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
1. The authority citation for part 52
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart TT—Utah
2. Section 52.2320 is amended by
adding paragraph (c)(73) to read as
follows:
■
§ 52.2320
Identification of plan.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) * * *
(73) On March 22, 2007, the Governor
submitted revisions to Section IX, Part
D of the Utah State Implementation Plan
(SIP) in the form of a maintenance plan
for the 1997 8-hour ozone national
ambient air quality standard (NAAQS)
for Salt Lake County and Davis County.
On March 22, 2007, the Governor also
submitted revisions to associated rules:
UAC R307–101–2, R307–110–13, R307–
320, R307–325, R307–326, R307–327,
R307–328, R307–335, R307–340, R307–
341, and R307–342. EPA is approving
the maintenance plan, except for the
following aspects, which EPA is
disapproving: those contingency
measures listed in section 6.d of the
State’s maintenance plan that are
voluntary in nature, which consist of:
‘‘Alert Day Enhancements,’’ ‘‘Heavy
PO 00000
Frm 00086
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Equipment Emission Control Program,’’
‘‘Reduce Emissions of VOCs’’ (to the
extent the State would adopt and
implement the measure as a voluntary
commitment rather than a regulatory
measure), ‘‘Identification of HighPolluting Vehicles,’’ and ‘‘Other VOC or
NOX emissions control measures as
appropriate’’ (to the extent such
measures would be voluntary); the
contingency measure listed in section
6.d of the State’s maintenance plan as
‘‘Establish an Offset Ratio for NOX;’’ the
State’s proposal in section 5.a.(3)(b)of
the maintenance plan to remove from
the SIP the VOC RACT approval orders
for Hill Air Force Base; the State’s
proposal in section 5.b.(1) of the
maintenance plan to remove from the
SIP the NOX RACT limits for the
PacifiCorp Gadsby Power Plant; and
section 5.g of the maintenance plan,
which indicates that the employer-based
trip reduction program is included as
part of the plan. EPA is approving the
revisions to UAC R307–110–13, which
incorporates the maintenance plan into
Utah’s rules, but only to the extent we
are approving the 1997 8-hour ozone
maintenance plan. EPA is disapproving
UAC R307–320, the employer-based trip
reduction program. EPA is approving
the revisions to UAC R307–325, R307–
326, R307–327, R307–328, R307–335,
R307–340, R307–341, and R307–342,
subject to our interpretation of these
rules expressed in the preamble to our
rulemaking action. EPA is not acting on
the revisions to UAC R307–101–2
because the revisions have been
superseded by later revisions to the rule,
which EPA approved at
§ 52.2320(c)(67).
(i) Incorporation by reference.
(A) Title R307 of the Utah
Administrative Code, Environmental
Quality, Air Quality, Rule R307–325,
Ozone Nonattainment and Maintenance
Areas: General Requirements; Rule
R307–326, Ozone Nonattainment and
Maintenance Areas: Control of
Hydrocarbon Emissions in Petroleum
Refineries; Rule R307–327, Ozone
Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas:
Petroleum Liquid Storage; and Rule
R307–340, Ozone Nonattainment and
Maintenance Areas: Surface Coating
Processes. Effective March 9, 2007, as
published in the Utah State Bulletin on
October 1, 2006 and February 1, 2007 in
proposed form, and April 1, 2007 as
finally adopted.
(B) Title R307 of the Utah
Administrative Code, Environmental
Quality, Air Quality, Rule R307–328,
Ozone Nonattainment and Maintenance
Areas and Utah and Weber Counties:
Gasoline Transfer and Storage; Rule
R307–335, Ozone Nonattainment and
E:\FR\FM\26SER1.SGM
26SER1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 187 / Thursday, September 26, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
Maintenance Areas: Degreasing and
Solvent Cleaning Operations; Rule
R307–341, Ozone Nonattainment and
Maintenance Areas: Cutback Asphalt;
and, UAC R307–342, Ozone
Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas:
Qualification of Contractors and Test
Procedures for Vapor Recovery Systems
for Gasoline Delivery Tanks. Effective
January 16, 2007 as published in the
Utah State Bulletin on October 1, 2006
in proposed form and February 1, 2007
as finally adopted.
(ii) Additional materials.
(A) Utah State Implementation Plan,
Section IX, Part D, 8-Hour Ozone
Maintenance Provisions for Salt Lake
and Davis Counties, with the following
exceptions: Subsection 5.a.(3)(b),
paragraphs 2, 3, and 4, beginning with
‘‘The State of Utah . . .’’ and ending
with ‘‘. . . (Stratospheric Ozone).’’ on
pages 17 and 18; subsection 5.b.(1),
beginning in paragraph 1 at ‘‘On April
3, 2002 . . .’’ and ending with ‘‘the
ozone maintenance plan.’’ at the end of
paragraph 2 on page 18; subsection 5.g.,
Control Measure Carried Forward from
the 1-hour Ozone Plan, on page 20;
subsection 6.d., first bullet, Alert Day
Enhancements, on page 22; subsection
6.d., third bullet, Heavy Equipment
Emission Control Program, on page 22;
subsection 6.d., fourth bullet, phrase
‘‘Request voluntary commitments or’’ on
page 23; subsection 6.d., fifth bullet,
Identification of High-Polluting
Vehicles, on page 23; and, subsection
6.d., sixth bullet, Establish an Offset
Local agency
Ratio for NOX, on page 23. Adopted by
the Air Quality Board on January 3,
2007.
[FR Doc. 2013–23248 Filed 9–25–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R09–OAR–2013–0468; FRL–9900–74–
Region 9]
Revisions to the California State
Implementation Plan, South Coast Air
Quality Management District
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
EPA is finalizing approval of
revisions to the South Coast Air Quality
Management District (SCAQMD) portion
of the California State Implementation
Plan (SIP). This action was proposed in
the Federal Register on June 24, 2013
and concerns volatile organic
compound (VOC), oxides of nitrogen
(NOX), and particulate matter (PM)
emissions from open burning and woodburning devices. We are approving local
rules that regulate these emission
sources under the Clean Air Act (CAA
or the Act).
DATES: These rules will be effective on
October 28, 2013.
SUMMARY:
Rule No.
SCAQMD ........................................................
SCAQMD ........................................................
We proposed to approve these rules
because we determined that they
complied with the relevant CAA
requirements. Our proposed action
contains more information on the rules
and our evaluation.
II. Public Comments and EPA
Responses
EPA’s proposed action provided a 30day public comment period. During this
period, we received no comments.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
III. EPA Action
No comments were submitted.
Therefore, as authorized in section
110(k)(3) of the Act, EPA is fully
approving these rules into the California
SIP.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:00 Sep 25, 2013
Jkt 229001
444
445
PO 00000
Frm 00087
EPA has established docket
number EPA–R09–OAR–2013–0468 for
this action. Generally, documents in the
docket for this action are available
electronically at https://
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at
EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street,
San Francisco, California 94105–3901.
While all documents in the docket are
listed at https://www.regulations.gov,
some information may be publicly
available only at the hard copy location
(e.g., copyrighted material, large maps,
multi-volume reports), and some may
not be available in either location (e.g.,
confidential business information
(CBI)). To inspect the hard copy
materials, please schedule an
appointment during normal business
hours with the contact listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Christine Vineyard, EPA Region IX,
(415) 947–4125, vineyard.christine@
epa.gov.
ADDRESSES:
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us’’
and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA.
Table of Contents
I. Proposed Action
II. Public Comments and EPA Responses
III. EPA Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Proposed Action
On June 24, 2013 (78 FR 37757), EPA
proposed to approve the following rules
into the California SIP.
Rule title
Adopted
Open Burning .................................................
Wood Burning Devices ..................................
IV. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Under the Clean Air Act, the
Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the
provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k);
40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP
submissions, EPA’s role is to approve
State choices, provided that they meet
the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this action merely
approves State law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose
additional requirements beyond those
imposed by State law. For that reason,
this action:
• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory
action’’ subject to review by the Office
of Management and Budget under
Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993);
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
59249
05/03/13
05/03/13
Submitted
06/11/13
06/11/13
• does not impose an information
collection burden under the provisions
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
• is certified as not having a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
• does not contain any unfunded
mandate or significantly or uniquely
affect small governments, as described
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4);
• does not have Federalism
implications as specified in Executive
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999);
• is not an economically significant
regulatory action based on health or
safety risks subject to Executive Order
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
E:\FR\FM\26SER1.SGM
26SER1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 187 (Thursday, September 26, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 59242-59249]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-23248]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R08-OAR-2012-0958; FRL-9786-3]
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Utah; Maintenance Plan for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone Standard for Salt Lake
County and Davis County
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is partially approving and partially disapproving State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the Governor of Utah
on March 22, 2007. The SIP revision is the State of Utah's maintenance
plan for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard for Salt Lake County and Davis
County, along with associated rules: R307-101-2, ``Definitions;'' R307-
110-13, ``Section IX, Control Measures for Area and Point Sources, Part
D, Ozone;'' R307-320, ``Ozone Maintenance Areas and Ogden City:
Employer-Based Trip Reduction Program;'' R307-325, ``Ozone
Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas: General Requirements;'' R307-326,
``Ozone Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas: Control of Hydrocarbon
Emissions in Petroleum Refineries;'' R307-327, ``Ozone Nonattainment
and Maintenance Areas: Petroleum Liquid Storage;'' R307-328, ``Ozone
Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas and Utah and Weber Counties:
Gasoline Transfer and Storage;'' R307-335, ``Ozone Nonattainment and
Maintenance Areas: Degreasing and Solvent Cleaning Operations;'' R307-
340, ``Ozone Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas: Surface Coating
Processes;'' R307-341, ``Ozone Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas:
Cutback Asphalt;'' and R307-342, ``Ozone Nonattainment and Maintenance
Areas: Qualification of Contractors and Test Procedures for Vapor
Recovery Systems for Gasoline Delivery Tanks.'' This action is being
taken under sections 107 and 110 of the Clean Air Act (Act or CAA).
DATES: This action is effective on October 28, 2013.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket
Identification No. EPA-R08-OAR-2012-0958. All documents in the docket
are listed at https://www.regulations.gov. Although listed in the index,
some information may not be publicly available, i.e., Confidential
Business Information or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically through https://www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy at EPA Region 8, Air Quality Planning Unit (8P-AR), 1595
Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado, 80202. EPA requests that if at all
possible, you contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's
official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30,
excluding federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jody Ostendorf, Air Program, Mailcode
8P-AR, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop
St., Denver, Colorado 80202-1129, (303) 312-7814,
ostendorf.jody@epa.gov
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Background of State Submittals
A. Regulatory Context
B. Ambient Ozone Conditions
C. Our Proposal
D. Public Participation
E. Alternative Methods of Control (AMOC) and EPA's Concurrence
Requirement
II. Final Action
A. Maintenance Plan
B. Rules
III. Issues Raised by Commenters and EPA's Responses
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Definitions
For the purpose of this document, we are giving meaning to certain
words as follows:
(i) The words or initials Act or CAA mean or refer to the Clean
Air Act, unless the context indicates otherwise.
(ii) The words EPA, we, us or our mean or refer to the United
States Environmental Protection Agency.
(iii) The initials SIP mean or refer to State Implementation
Plan.
(iv) The words State or Utah mean the State of Utah, unless the
context indicates otherwise.
I. Background of State Submittals
A. Regulatory Context
Under the CAA enacted in 1970, EPA established national ambient air
quality standards (NAAQS) for certain
[[Page 59243]]
pervasive air pollutants, such as photochemical oxidant, carbon
monoxide, and particulate matter. The NAAQS represent concentration
levels below which public health and welfare are protected. The 1970
Act also required states to adopt and submit SIPs to implement,
maintain, and enforce the NAAQS.
From time-to-time, the CAA requires SIP revisions to account for
new or amended NAAQS or to meet other changed circumstances. The CAA
was significantly amended in 1977, and under the 1977 Amendments, EPA
promulgated attainment status designations for all areas of the country
with respect to the NAAQS.
The CAA requires EPA to periodically review and revise the NAAQS,
and in 1979, EPA established a new NAAQS of 0.12 parts per million
(ppm) for ozone, averaged over 1 hour. This new NAAQS replaced the
oxidant standard of 0.08 ppm. See 44 FR 8202 (February 8, 1979). Areas
designated nonattainment for oxidant were considered to be
nonattainment for ozone as well. Part D of CAA Title I requires special
measures for areas designated nonattainment. On August 15, 1984, EPA
approved Utah's SIP for the 1-hour ozone standard for the Salt Lake
County and Davis County nonattainment area (49 FR 32575).
Congress significantly amended the CAA again in 1990. Under the
1990 Amendments, each area of the country that was designated
nonattainment for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS, including Salt Lake County
and Davis County, was classified by operation of law as marginal,
moderate, serious, severe, or extreme nonattainment depending on the
severity of the area's air quality problem. The ozone nonattainment
designation for Salt Lake County and Davis County continued by
operation of law according to section 107(d)(1)(C)(i) of the CAA, as
amended in 1990. Furthermore, the area was classified by operation of
law as moderate for ozone under CAA section 181(a)(1).
Under CAA section 175A, states may request redesignation of a
nonattainment area to attainment if monitoring data showed that the
area has met the NAAQS and if the area meets certain other
requirements. On July 18, 1995, both Salt Lake and Davis Counties were
found to be attaining the 1-hour ozone standard (60 FR 36723). On July
17, 1997, EPA approved the State's request to redesignate Salt Lake and
Davis Counties to attainment for the 1-hour ozone standard. As part of
that action, EPA approved the State's 1-hour ozone maintenance plan (62
FR 38213).
On July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated an 8-hour ozone NAAQS of 0.08 ppm
(62 FR 38894). This standard was intended to replace the 1-hour ozone
standard. On April 30, 2004, EPA designated areas of the country for
the 1997 8-hour ozone standard (69 FR 23857). EPA designated all areas
in Utah, including Salt Lake County and Davis County, as
unclassifiable/attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS (69 FR
23940).
Also, on April 30, 2004, EPA revoked the pre-existing 1-hour NAAQS
(69 FR 23951, 23996; 40 CFR 50.9(b)). As part of this rulemaking, EPA
established certain requirements to prevent backsliding in those areas
that were designated as nonattainment for the 1-hour ozone standard at
the time of designation for the 8-hour ozone standard, or that were
redesignated to ``attainment'' but subject to a maintenance plan, as is
the case for Salt Lake County and Davis County. These requirements are
codified at 40 CFR 51.905.
In the case of Utah, one of these requirements was to submit a
maintenance plan for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard. On March 22, 2007,
the Governor of Utah submitted a maintenance plan for the 1997 8-hour
ozone standard for Salt Lake County and Davis County, and associated
rule revisions. In this notice, EPA is acting on the March 22, 2007
maintenance plan and rule revisions.
In 2008, EPA promulgated a lower 8-hour ozone standard--0.075 ppm
(73 FR 16436; March 27, 2008). The 2008 ozone standard retains the same
general form and averaging time as the 0.08 ppm standard set in 1997.
Effective July 20, 2012, Salt Lake County and Davis County were
designated Unclassifiable/Attainment for this lower standard (77 FR
30088, 30151).
B. Ambient Ozone Conditions
The 1997 ozone NAAQS is attained when the three-year average of the
annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average ambient ozone
concentration (also referred to as the ``design value'') is less than
or equal to 0.08 ppm at all monitoring sites within an air quality
planning area. 40 CFR part 50, Appendix I, section 2.3, directs that
the third decimal place of the computed three-year average be rounded;
values equal to or greater than 0.005 are rounded up. Thus, under our
regulations, a computed three-year ozone concentration of 0.085 ppm is
the smallest value that is considered to be greater than 0.08 ppm and,
thus, a violation of the standard.
A review of the data gathered at the ozone monitoring sites in Salt
Lake County and Davis County from 2000-2011 \1\ shows the area has been
attaining the 8-hour ozone NAAQS except for the 2005-2007 period, which
had a design value of 0.085 ppm. As noted above, EPA designated Salt
Lake County and Davis County unclassifiable/attainment for the lower
2008 ozone standard (0.075 ppm) based on monitored values for 2008-
2010. The following table shows design values for each year from 2000
through 2011:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Data for 2012 have not been certified yet.
Table 1--Salt Lake and Davis Counties Three-Year Average of the 4th Highest Ozone Value
[ppm]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Monitoring site (county) 2000-2002 2001-2003 2002-2004 2003-2005 2004-2006 2005-2007 2006-2008 2007-2009 2008-2010 2009-2011
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beach (Salt Lake)......................... 0.081 0.081 0.078 0.079 0.081 0.083 0.079 0.076 0.072 0.072
Bountiful (Davis)......................... 0.082 0.083 0.078 0.079 0.080 0.085 0.080 0.077 0.074 0.071
Cottonwood (Salt Lake).................... 0.076 0.080 0.079 0.080 0.080 0.083 0.082 0.077 0.075 0.073
Hawthorne (Salt Lake)..................... 0.077 0.080 0.078 0.077 0.077 0.081 0.078 0.076 0.074 0.074
Herriman (Salt Lake)...................... 0.078 0.076 0.076 0.076 0.078 0.080 n/a n/a n/a n/a
West Valley (Salt Lake)................... 0.079 0.080 0.076 0.078 0.078 0.081 \2\ n/a n/a n/a n/a
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 59244]]
C. Our Proposal
Our notice of proposed rulemaking was published in the Federal
Register on January 2, 2013 (78 FR 37). In that notice, we proposed the
following actions with respect to the State's March 22, 2007 submittal:
1. We proposed to approve the State's maintenance demonstration for
the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS for Salt Lake and Davis Counties, but, in
the alternative, to disapprove the maintenance demonstration if
comments were to convince us that approval would not be consistent with
the Clean Air Act.
2. We proposed to approve the rest of the State's 1997 8-hour ozone
maintenance plan for Salt Lake and Davis Counties, except for the
following aspects, which we proposed to disapprove:
a. Those contingency measures listed in the State's maintenance
plan that are voluntary in nature, and the contingency measure
described in the maintenance plan as ``Establish an Offset Ratio for
NOX.''
b. The State's proposal to remove from the SIP the VOC RACT
approval orders for Hill Air Force Base.
c. The State's proposal to remove from the SIP the NOX
RACT limits for the PacifiCorp Gadsby Power Plant.
d. Section 5.g of the maintenance plan, which indicates that the
employer based trip reduction program is included as part of the plan.
3. We proposed to take no action on R307-101-2 because we already
acted on a later version of the definitions.
4. We proposed to approve R307-110-13, but only to the extent we
were proposing to approve the 1997 8-hour ozone maintenance plan.
5. We proposed to disapprove R307-320, the employer-based trip
reduction program.
6. We proposed to approve R307-325, R307-326, R307-327, R307-328,
R307-335, R307-340, R307-341, and R307-342, subject to our
interpretation of these rules.
For further detail regarding the bases for our proposed actions, please
see our notice of proposed rulemaking at 78 FR 37.
D. Public Participation
We requested comments on our proposed action and provided a 30-day
comment period, which closed on February 1, 2013. In this action, we
are responding to the comments we received and taking final rulemaking
action.
E. Alternative Methods of Control (AMOC) and EPA's Concurrence
Requirement
In our proposal, we noted our interpretation of certain Utah rules;
we are repeating that interpretation here. The State's March 22, 2007
submittal included revisions to rules R307-326, R307-327, R307-328,
R307-335, R307-340, and R307-342. For each of these rules, the State
included AMOC language that was previously included in R307-325. That
language states: ``Any person may apply to the executive secretary for
approval of an alternate test method, an alternate method of control,
an alternate compliance period, an alternate emission limit, or an
alternate monitoring schedule. The application must include a
demonstration that the proposed alternate produces an equal or greater
air quality benefit than that required by [this rule], or that the
alternate test method is equivalent to that required by these rules.
The executive secretary shall obtain concurrence from EPA when
approving an alternate test method, an alternate method of control, an
alternate compliance period, an alternate emission limit, or an
alternate monitoring schedule.''
The Utah Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) confirmed that
this regulatory language requiring concurrence from EPA on any AMOC
applies to all the provisions in the rules that allow for DEQ to alter
the compliance requirements of the rules. As more fully explained
below, our interpretation is that our concurrence on an alternative
compliance requirement must occur through approval of a SIP revision.
Section 110(i) of the CAA specifically precludes states from
changing the requirements of the SIP that apply to any stationary
source except through SIP revisions approved by EPA. SIP revisions will
be approved by EPA only if they meet all requirements of section 110 of
the Act and the implementing regulations at 40 CFR Part 51. See, e.g.,
CAA section 110(l); 40 CFR 51.104. Section 51.104(d) specifically
states that in order for a variance to be considered for approval as a
SIP revision, the state must submit it in accordance with the
requirements of 40 CFR 51.104, which includes the public notice,
comment and hearing provisions of 40 CFR 51.102.
Furthermore, the AMOC provision in the State's rules does not
contain specific, objective, and replicable criteria for determining if
such ``alternate methods'' are in fact at least as effective as the
required methods in terms of emission rates and ambient impacts. For
purposes of meeting CAA requirements, EPA concurrence in the form of a
SIP approval is required for any of the alternate compliance provisions
throughout R307-326, R307-327, R307-328, R307-335, R307-340, and R307-
342. This includes approval of an alternate method of control, an
alternate test method, an alternate compliance period, an alternate
emission limit, a variance, or an alternate monitoring schedule. The
public notice process of a SIP approval will allow EPA and the public
to determine whether any new compliance terms approved by the executive
secretary continue to assure maintenance of the ambient standard.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ By adopting a generic SIP provision consistent with the EPA
guidance known as White Paper Number 2, a state may be able to
streamline EPA's SIP approval process for an AMOC. White Paper
Number 2, Attachment B, envisions the use of the Title V permit
process to establish alternative requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Final Action
A. Maintenance Plan
For the reasons described in our notice of proposed rulemaking (78
FR 37) and in our response to public comments in section III, below, we
are taking the following actions with respect to the maintenance plan
for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS for Salt Lake and Davis Counties that
the State submitted on March 22, 2007:
1. We are approving the State's maintenance demonstration for the
1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS for Salt Lake and Davis Counties.
2. We are approving the rest of the State's 1997 8-hour ozone
maintenance plan for Salt Lake and Davis Counties, except for the
following aspects, which we are disapproving:
a. Those contingency measures listed in section 6.d of the State's
maintenance plan that are voluntary in nature, as follows:
1. ``Alert Day Enhancements;''
2. ``Heavy Equipment Emission Control Program;''
3. ``Reduce Emission of VOCs,'' to the extent the State would adopt
and implement the measure as a voluntary commitment rather than a
regulatory measure;
4. ``Identification of High-Polluting Vehicles;'' and
5. ``Other VOC and NOX emission control measures as
appropriate,'' to the extent such measures would be voluntary.
b. The contingency measure listed in section 6.d of the State's
maintenance plan as ``Establish an Offset Ratio for NOX.''
[[Page 59245]]
c. The State's proposal in section 5.a.(3)(b) of the maintenance
plan to remove from the SIP the VOC RACT approval orders for Hill Air
Force Base.
d. The State's proposal in section 5.b.(1) of the maintenance plan
to remove from the SIP the NOX RACT limits for the
PacifiCorp Gadsby Power Plant.
e. Section 5.g of the maintenance plan, which indicates that the
employer-based trip reduction program is included as part of the plan.
For the reasons stated in our notice of proposed rulemaking (78 FR
41-42), our disapproval of various aspects of the maintenance plan does
not trigger an obligation under CAA section 110(c) to promulgate a
federal implementation plan.
B. Rules
For the reasons described in our notice of proposed rulemaking (78
FR 37),\3\ we are taking the following actions with respect to the rule
revisions that the State submitted on March 22, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ We received no adverse comments on our proposal to approve
the State's rule revisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. We are taking no action on R307-101-2 because we have already
acted on a later version of the definitions.
2. We are approving R307-110-13, but only to the extent we are
approving the 1997 8-hour ozone maintenance plan.
3. We are disapproving R307-320, the employer-based trip reduction
program. For the reasons stated in our notice of proposed rulemaking
(78 FR 42), our disapproval of R307-320 does not trigger an obligation
under CAA section 110(c) to promulgate a federal implementation plan.
4. We are approving R307-325.
5. We are approving R307-326, subject to the following: We
interpret the following provisions in R307-326 (in addition to any
other request for an alternate method of control under R307-326 that
may arise outside of these provisions) as being subject to the
requirement in R307-326-10(1) for EPA concurrence:
a. R307-326-4(3).
b. R307-326-6(3).
c. In R307-326-7, the provision that reads, ``or controlled by
other methods, provided the design and effectiveness of such methods
are documented, submitted to, and approved by the executive
secretary.''
d. R307-326-9(5)(a).
e. In R307-326-10(3), the provision that reads, ``or approved by
the executive secretary.''
As stated in our notice of proposed rulemaking (78 FR 42) and
reiterated in section I.E. above, EPA concurrence under R307-326-10(1)
must occur through EPA approval of a SIP revision.
In addition to the foregoing, we interpret R307-326-10(2), which
requires an owner or operator to repair a malfunctioning control device
within 15 days or other period approved by the executive secretary, as
not excusing any period of violation of the control requirements in
R307-326.
6. We are approving R307-327, subject to the following: We
interpret the following provisions in R307-327 (in addition to any
other request for an alternate method of control under R307-327 that
may arise outside of these provisions) as being subject to the
requirement in R307-327-7(1) for EPA concurrence:
a. In R307-327-4(1), the provision that reads, ``or alternative
equivalent controls, provided the design and effectiveness of such
equipment is documented and submitted to and approved by the executive
secretary.''
b. R307-327-6(3)(d).
c. In R307-327-7(3), the provision that reads, ``or approved by the
executive secretary.'' As stated in our notice of proposed rulemaking
and reiterated in section I.E. above, EPA concurrence under R307-327-
7(1) must occur through EPA approval of a SIP revision.
In addition to the foregoing, we interpret R307-327-7(2), which
requires an owner or operator to repair a malfunctioning control device
within 15 days or other period approved by the executive secretary, as
not excusing any period of violation of the control requirements in
R307-327.
7. We are approving R307-328, subject to the following: We
interpret the following provisions in R307-328 (in addition to any
other request for an alternate method of control under R307-328 that
may arise outside of these provisions) as being subject to the
requirement in R307-328-8(1) for EPA concurrence:
a. In R307-328-4(6), the provision that reads, ``or alternate
equivalent methods * * *. The design effectiveness of such equipment
and the operating procedures must be documented and submitted to and
approved by the executive secretary.''
b. In R307-328-4(9), the provision that reads, ``The frequency of
tests may be altered by the executive secretary upon submittal of
documentation which would justify a change.''
c. In R307-328-5(1)(c), the provision that reads, ``or their
equivalent which have been approved by the executive secretary.''
d. In R307-328-6(4), the provision that reads, ``or equivalent
equipment provided the design and effectiveness of such equipment are
documented and submitted to and approved by the executive secretary.''
e. In R307-328-8(3), the provision that reads, ``or approved by the
executive secretary.''
As stated in our notice of proposed rulemaking and reiterated in
section I.E. above, EPA concurrence under R307-328-8(1) must occur
through EPA approval of a SIP revision.
In addition, we interpret R307-328-8(2), which requires an owner or
operator to repair a malfunctioning control device within 15 days or
other period approved by the executive secretary, as not excusing any
period of violation of the control requirements in R307-328.
8. We are approving R307-335, subject to the following: We
interpret the following provisions in R307-335 (in addition to any
other request for an alternate method of control under R307-335 that
may arise outside of these provisions) as being subject to the
requirement in R307-335-7(1) for EPA concurrence:
a. In R307-335-4(3), the provision that reads, ``or by an alternate
means approved by the executive secretary.''
b. In R307-335-7(3), the provision that reads, ``or approved by the
executive secretary.''
As stated in our notice of proposed rulemaking and reiterated in
section I.E. above, EPA concurrence under R307-335-7(1) must occur
through EPA approval of a SIP revision.
In addition, we interpret R307-335-7(2), which requires an owner or
operator to repair a malfunctioning control device within 15 days or
other period approved by the executive secretary, as not excusing any
period of violation of the control requirements in R307-335.
9. We are approving R307-340, subject to the following: We
interpret the following provisions in R307-340 (in addition to any
other request for an alternate method of control under R307-340 that
may arise outside of these provisions) as being subject to the
requirement in R307-340-16(1) for EPA concurrence:
a. In R307-340-4(4), the provision that reads, ``or by an alternate
means approved by the executive secretary.''
b. In R307-340-4(5)(a), the provision that reads, ``Sources may
request approval for longer times for compliance determination from the
executive secretary.''
[[Page 59246]]
c. In R307-340-15(1), the provision that reads, ``or an alternative
method approved by the executive secretary.''
d. In R307-340-15(2), the provision that reads, ``or an alternative
method approved by the executive secretary or equivalent method.''
e. In R307-340-16(3), the provision that reads, ``or approved by
the executive secretary.'' As stated in our notice of proposed
rulemaking and reiterated in section I.E. above, EPA concurrence under
R307-340-16(1) must occur through EPA approval of a SIP revision.
In addition, we interpret R307-340-16(2), which requires an owner
or operator to repair a malfunctioning control device within 15 days or
other period approved by the executive secretary, as not excusing any
period of violation of the control requirements in R307-340.
10. We are approving R307-341.
11. We are approving R307-342, subject to the following: We
interpret the following provision in R307-342 (in addition to any other
request for an alternate method of control under R307-342 that may
arise outside of this provision) as being subject to the requirement in
R307-342-7(1) for EPA concurrence:
a. In R307-342-7(3), the provision that reads, ``or approved by the
executive secretary.''
As stated in our notice of proposed rulemaking and reiterated in
section I.E. above, EPA concurrence under R307-342-7(1) must occur
through EPA approval of a SIP revision.
In addition, we interpret R307-342-7(2), which requires an owner or
operator to repair a malfunctioning control device within 15 days or
other period approved by the executive secretary, as not excusing any
period of violation of the control requirements in R307-342.
III. Issues Raised by Commenters and EPA's Responses
We received comments from a single commenter. We summarize the
comments and provide our responses below.
Comment: Utah should not be allowed to rely on 2002 emission
inventories to show maintenance of the ozone standard when there was a
violation of that standard for the 2005 to 2007 season. Such an
approach does not provide the citizens of Utah with a sound
demonstration that the ozone standard will be met and that their health
will correspondingly be protected. EPA itself noted in its notice of
proposed rulemaking that the violation casts doubt on the use of the
2002 emissions inventories as representative of the levels of emissions
that are consistent with maintaining the standard. But then EPA lists
several factors which it suggests support the use of the 2002
inventories as representative of levels consistent with compliance with
the standard. For example, EPA noted that the violation was at 0.085
ppm, only slightly above the standard. However, any violation of the
standard is unacceptable and reliance on an inventory that results in a
violation is inconsistent with the purpose of the NAAQS to protect
human health and the environment. EPA also suggests that 2005 was an
anomaly and thus should be discounted. However, hot weather like that
experienced during 2005 is likely to be the norm in coming years. Thus,
it is likely that the ozone levels experienced in 2005 will recur.
Monitoring data for 2012, which had the hottest summer on record,
indicates a troubling trend toward higher ozone levels in Utah's urban
areas.
Response: In the unique circumstances involved here, we conclude
that approval of the maintenance demonstration is appropriate. As
stated in our proposal, our conclusion is based on a combination of
factors, and is not focused only on the 2002 inventories as the
benchmark for ongoing maintenance. These factors are the following:
1. Since the time of the area's designation to attainment in 2004,
the only monitored violation occurred during 2005-2007. As stated
above, the 1997 8-hour ozone standard is attained at a design value of
0.084, and the design value for 2005-2007 was 0.085 ppm--the lowest
value that can represent a violation.
2. In 2005, the area monitored significantly higher 4th high
maximum values than it had monitored in the previous four years and
than it has monitored since 2005 to the present.
3. In 2006-2008, the area immediately returned to attainment and
has continued to attain the standard. Complete quality-assured data for
2007- 2009, 2008-2010, 2009-2011, and preliminary data for 2012, show
that the area has continuously maintained the standard.
4. Under the applicable regulatory requirement, 40 CFR
51.905(a)(4), the State must demonstrate maintenance for ten years
after designation, or until 2014.
5. In evaluating the potential for the area to continue to maintain
through 2014, given its continued maintenance during and subsequent to
2008, EPA takes into consideration the fact that, in order for the area
to violate the standard in 2013-2014, the area would have to experience
significantly higher 4th high maximums than it experienced in 2005. We
find this prospect to be highly unlikely, particularly given the
State's projected lowering emissions trends, as reflected in the
maintenance plan.
6. Mobile source emissions account for a very large portion of the
overall emissions inventory, and federal motor vehicle control
standards, combined with fleet turnover, will continue to further
reduce relevant mobile source emissions through 2014.
In addition, as we noted in our proposal, EPA designated Salt Lake
County and Davis County unclassifiable/attainment for the lower 2008
ozone standard (0.075 ppm) based on monitored values for 2008-2010.
Contrary to the commenter's suggestion, our reference to the 2005-
2007 design value of 0.085 was not intended to suggest that a lower
violation is not a violation or that it should be ignored. However, we
do think the magnitude of the value is relevant, along with the other
factors noted above, to our assessment of the maintenance
demonstration. In particular, the maintenance plan projects substantial
reductions of VOC and NOX emissions after 2005. The
following tables show these projections.
Table 2--Salt Lake and Davis Counties Source Category Totals for VOCs
[Tons/day]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2002 2005 2008 2011 2014
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point Source.................... 11.24 11.21 11.66 11.96 12.36
Area Source..................... 89.32 92.42 96.30 101.86 107.75
Biogenic Source................. 120.26 120.26 120.26 120.26 120.26
Mobile On-Road.................. 57.66 44.70 35.36 29.11 24.52
[[Page 59247]]
Mobile Non-Road................. 29.55 25.47 20.90 18.42 16.57
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total....................... 308.03 294.06 284.48 281.61 281.46
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 3--Salt Lake and Davis Counties Source Category Totals for NOX
[Tons/day]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2002 2005 2008 2011 2014
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point Source.................... 39.27 38.09 37.78 36.75 36.82
Area Source..................... 11.36 10.08 10.79 11.82 12.82
Mobile On-Road.................. 98.89 85.52 65.47 49.45 35.92
Mobile Non-Road................. 83.87 80.35 72.56 63.48 51.30
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total....................... 233.39 214.04 186.60 161.50 136.86
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We disagree with the commenter's assertion that data from the
summer of 2012 indicate ``a troubling trend toward higher levels of
ozone in Utah's urban areas'' and undermine our statements about the
2005 data. While we note that the 2012 data are not yet certified, the
preliminary data reflect values that are significantly below those
experienced in 2005, even with the high temperatures experienced at
that time. If anything, these data appear to support our overall
conclusion that ongoing reductions in emissions, largely due to federal
motor vehicle control standards, will result in ongoing maintenance of
the 1997 ozone NAAQS.
Comment: EPA points out that ``[u]nder the applicable regulatory
requirement, 40 CFR 51.905(a)(4), the State must demonstrate
maintenance for ten years after designation, or until 2014.'' However,
this statement seems to disregard the fact that Salt Lake and Davis
counties violated the 8-hour ozone standard during the 2005 to 2007
season. Therefore, this observation does not seem to bolster the case
for using the 2002 inventories as representative of what is necessary
to maintain the standard. Moreover, it suggests that Utah cannot show
maintenance for ten years after 2004.
Response: As stated in our prior response, in the unique
circumstances in this case, our conclusion is based on a combination of
factors, and is not focused solely on the 2002 inventories as the
benchmark for ongoing maintenance. We do not cite the proximity of
2014, the end of the maintenance period, to bolster the validity of the
2002 inventories as a maintenance benchmark.
Instead, we find it relevant to our assessment of the likelihood
that the area will continue to attain the standard through the end of
the maintenance period, considering the other factors involved.
As to the assertion that Utah cannot show maintenance for ten years
after 2004, this is not an instance in which the area has experienced
repeated violations; it experienced a single violation in the 2005-2007
period, largely based on unusually high values experienced in 2005. It
did not experience a violation in the relevant periods before then and
has not experienced a violation since. It is highly unlikely the area
will experience a violation before 2014, the end of the maintenance
period, given the air quality values in recent years. Furthermore, even
if we concluded that the maintenance demonstration should extend until
2015, the relevant factors similarly indicate the area will continue to
maintain the standard until then.
Comment: The State of Utah has failed to meet its SIP obligations
relative to its Title V permit program. Several major sources in Salt
Lake and Davis counties do not have and have never had Title V permits.
This casts substantial doubt on any claim Utah may make that it is able
to ensure compliance with air quality permit terms and conditions, to
accurately monitor emissions from stationary sources and to guarantee
that emissions from these sources will actually conform to the various
projections on which the state relies to show maintenance. EPA should
disapprove the maintenance plan because the State of Utah is failing to
implement an adequate Title V program.
Response: The commenters' assertions do not require disapproval of
the maintenance plan. We note that the Title V permit program is not a
SIP program or requirement; it is separate from the SIP. Thus, there
are no SIP obligations relative to the Title V permit program.
Moreover, applicable CAA requirements are State and federally
enforceable whether or not they are contained in a Title V permit. This
includes SIP requirements and major and minor source construction
permit requirements. Here, the specific measures for major stationary
sources that are relevant to ongoing maintenance are contained in the
EPA-approved ozone SIP and remain federally enforceable. For the
foregoing reasons, we do not find the absence of Title V permits to be
a basis to undermine or disapprove the maintenance plan.
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly,
this action merely approves some state law as meeting Federal
requirements and disapproves some state law as not meeting Federal
requirements; it does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
[[Page 59248]]
is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by November 25, 2013. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2) of the
CAA.)
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen
dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile
organic compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: February 13, 2013.
James B. Martin,
Regional Administrator, Region 8.
Note: This document was received by the Office of the Federal
Register on September 19, 2013.
40 CFR part 52 is amended to read as follows:
PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart TT--Utah
0
2. Section 52.2320 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(73) to read as
follows:
Sec. 52.2320 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(73) On March 22, 2007, the Governor submitted revisions to Section
IX, Part D of the Utah State Implementation Plan (SIP) in the form of a
maintenance plan for the 1997 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality
standard (NAAQS) for Salt Lake County and Davis County. On March 22,
2007, the Governor also submitted revisions to associated rules: UAC
R307-101-2, R307-110-13, R307-320, R307-325, R307-326, R307-327, R307-
328, R307-335, R307-340, R307-341, and R307-342. EPA is approving the
maintenance plan, except for the following aspects, which EPA is
disapproving: those contingency measures listed in section 6.d of the
State's maintenance plan that are voluntary in nature, which consist
of: ``Alert Day Enhancements,'' ``Heavy Equipment Emission Control
Program,'' ``Reduce Emissions of VOCs'' (to the extent the State would
adopt and implement the measure as a voluntary commitment rather than a
regulatory measure), ``Identification of High-Polluting Vehicles,'' and
``Other VOC or NOX emissions control measures as
appropriate'' (to the extent such measures would be voluntary); the
contingency measure listed in section 6.d of the State's maintenance
plan as ``Establish an Offset Ratio for NOX;'' the State's
proposal in section 5.a.(3)(b)of the maintenance plan to remove from
the SIP the VOC RACT approval orders for Hill Air Force Base; the
State's proposal in section 5.b.(1) of the maintenance plan to remove
from the SIP the NOX RACT limits for the PacifiCorp Gadsby
Power Plant; and section 5.g of the maintenance plan, which indicates
that the employer-based trip reduction program is included as part of
the plan. EPA is approving the revisions to UAC R307-110-13, which
incorporates the maintenance plan into Utah's rules, but only to the
extent we are approving the 1997 8-hour ozone maintenance plan. EPA is
disapproving UAC R307-320, the employer-based trip reduction program.
EPA is approving the revisions to UAC R307-325, R307-326, R307-327,
R307-328, R307-335, R307-340, R307-341, and R307-342, subject to our
interpretation of these rules expressed in the preamble to our
rulemaking action. EPA is not acting on the revisions to UAC R307-101-2
because the revisions have been superseded by later revisions to the
rule, which EPA approved at Sec. 52.2320(c)(67).
(i) Incorporation by reference.
(A) Title R307 of the Utah Administrative Code, Environmental
Quality, Air Quality, Rule R307-325, Ozone Nonattainment and
Maintenance Areas: General Requirements; Rule R307-326, Ozone
Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas: Control of Hydrocarbon Emissions
in Petroleum Refineries; Rule R307-327, Ozone Nonattainment and
Maintenance Areas: Petroleum Liquid Storage; and Rule R307-340, Ozone
Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas: Surface Coating Processes.
Effective March 9, 2007, as published in the Utah State Bulletin on
October 1, 2006 and February 1, 2007 in proposed form, and April 1,
2007 as finally adopted.
(B) Title R307 of the Utah Administrative Code, Environmental
Quality, Air Quality, Rule R307-328, Ozone Nonattainment and
Maintenance Areas and Utah and Weber Counties: Gasoline Transfer and
Storage; Rule R307-335, Ozone Nonattainment and
[[Page 59249]]
Maintenance Areas: Degreasing and Solvent Cleaning Operations; Rule
R307-341, Ozone Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas: Cutback Asphalt;
and, UAC R307-342, Ozone Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas:
Qualification of Contractors and Test Procedures for Vapor Recovery
Systems for Gasoline Delivery Tanks. Effective January 16, 2007 as
published in the Utah State Bulletin on October 1, 2006 in proposed
form and February 1, 2007 as finally adopted.
(ii) Additional materials.
(A) Utah State Implementation Plan, Section IX, Part D, 8-Hour
Ozone Maintenance Provisions for Salt Lake and Davis Counties, with the
following exceptions: Subsection 5.a.(3)(b), paragraphs 2, 3, and 4,
beginning with ``The State of Utah . . .'' and ending with ``. . .
(Stratospheric Ozone).'' on pages 17 and 18; subsection 5.b.(1),
beginning in paragraph 1 at ``On April 3, 2002 . . .'' and ending with
``the ozone maintenance plan.'' at the end of paragraph 2 on page 18;
subsection 5.g., Control Measure Carried Forward from the 1-hour Ozone
Plan, on page 20; subsection 6.d., first bullet, Alert Day
Enhancements, on page 22; subsection 6.d., third bullet, Heavy
Equipment Emission Control Program, on page 22; subsection 6.d., fourth
bullet, phrase ``Request voluntary commitments or'' on page 23;
subsection 6.d., fifth bullet, Identification of High-Polluting
Vehicles, on page 23; and, subsection 6.d., sixth bullet, Establish an
Offset Ratio for NOX, on page 23. Adopted by the Air Quality Board on
January 3, 2007.
[FR Doc. 2013-23248 Filed 9-25-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
