[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 100 (Friday, May 23, 1997)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 28396-28407]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-13649]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 52 and 81
[UT15-1-6775, UT12-2-6728, UT16-1-6776; FRL-5829-6]
Proposed Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation
Plans; State of Utah; Salt Lake and Davis Counties Ozone Redesignation
to Attainment, Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes,
Proposed Approval of Related Elements, Proposed Approval of Partial
NOX RACT Exemption, and Proposed Approval of Weber County I/
M Program
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On February 19, 1997, the Governor of Utah submitted revisions
to the Utah State Implementation Plan (SIP) that included a maintenance
plan. He also submitted a request to redesignate the Salt Lake and
Davis Counties (SLDC) moderate nonattainment area to attainment for the
current 0.12 parts per million (ppm) ozone National Ambient Air Quality
Standard (NAAQS). Included with this submittal were improved motor
vehicle inspection and maintenance provisions for Salt Lake and Davis
Counties. This February 19, 1997, submittal provided revised and
updated emission inventory figures, revised contingency measure
triggering mechanisms, updated air quality monitoring data, and other
minor revisions to the maintenance plan. In this action, EPA is
proposing to approve the SLDC redesignation request, maintenance plan,
and other related SIP elements including the 1990 base year emissions
inventory, Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) for Volatile
Organic Compounds (VOC), NOX RACT for Kennecott's Utah Power
Plant and for the Pacificorp Gadsby Power Plant, and the Basic
Inspection and Maintenance (I/M) and Improved I/M provisions for Salt
Lake and Davis Counties. EPA is also proposing to approve a partial
Nitrogen Oxides (NOX) RACT exemption request and to give
limited approval to the State's generic VOC RACT and generic
NOX RACT rules. Finally, EPA is proposing to approve the I/M
provisions for Weber County, which are unrelated to the redesignation
request for Salt Lake and Davis Counties.
DATES: To be considered, comments must be received by June 23, 1997.
ADDRESSES: Written comments on this action should be addressed to:
Richard R. Long, Director, Air Program (8P2-A), United States
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8, 999 18th Street, Suite 500,
Denver, Colorado 80202-2466.
Copies of the documents relevant to this action are available for
public inspection between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Monday through
Friday at the following office: United States Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 8, Air Program, 999 18th Street, Suite 500, Denver,
Colorado 80202-2466.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tim Russ, Air Program (8P2-A), United
States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8, 999 18th Street,
Suite 500, Denver, Colorado 80202-2466
Telephone number: (303) 312-6479
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On November 15, 1990, the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 were
enacted (Pub. L. 101-549, 104 Stat. 2399, codified at 42 U.S.C. 7401-
7671q). Under section 107(d)(1)(C) of the CAA, EPA designated the SLDC
area as nonattainment for ozone because the area had been designated as
nonattainment before November 15, 1990. The SLDC area was classified as
a moderate nonattainment area (see section 181 of the CAA for further
information regarding classifications and attainment dates for ozone
nonattainment areas).
Under the Clean Air Act (CAA), designations can be changed if
sufficient data are available to warrant such changes and if certain
other requirements are met. See CAA section 107(d)(3)(D). Section
107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA provides that the Administrator may not
promulgate a redesignation of
[[Page 28397]]
a nonattainment area to attainment unless:
(i) the Administrator determines that the area has attained the
national ambient air quality standard;
(ii) the Administrator has fully approved the applicable
implementation plan for the area under CAA section 110(k);
(iii) the Administrator determines that the improvement in air
quality is due to permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions
resulting from implementation of the applicable implementation plan and
applicable Federal air pollutant control regulations and other
permanent and enforceable reductions;
(iv) the Administrator has fully approved a maintenance plan for
the area as meeting the requirements of CAA section 175A; and,
(v) the State containing such area has met all requirements
applicable to the area under section 110 and part D of the CAA.
Thus, before EPA can approve the redesignation request, EPA must
find, among other things, that all applicable SIP elements have been
fully approved. Approval of the applicable SIP elements may occur prior
to final approval of the redesignation request or simultaneously with
final approval of the redesignation request. EPA is proposing to
approve several SIP elements, that are necessary to the redesignation,
at the same time it approves the redesignation.
EPA has reviewed the State's redesignation request, maintenance
plan, and related SIP elements and believes that approval of the
request is warranted, consistent with the requirements of CAA section
107(d)(3)(E). Descriptions of how the section 107(d)(3)(E) requirements
are being addressed are provided below in the supplementary information
section of this action.
Section 1. Brief Administrative History of the SLDC Ozone Redesignation
Request, Maintenance Plan, and Related Submittals
On November 12, 1993, the Governor of Utah submitted a
redesignation request and maintenance plan for the SLDC area along with
revisions to the SIP for offset ratios for VOCs and NOx,
RACT for VOCs and NOx, New Source Review (NSR),
Emission Statements, and Basic I/M. Following several intervening
steps, including litigation by the State, EPA issued a letter dated
July 29, 1994, that deemed the redesignation request, maintenance plan,
and ozone SIP elements complete as of November 12, 1993.
The State submitted a number of updates and revisions to the
maintenance plan and ozone SIP elements after November 12, 1993, in an
effort to address several substantive concerns identified by EPA. The
latest revisions to the maintenance plan were submitted on February 19,
1997, along with improved motor vehicle inspection and maintenance
provisions for Salt Lake and Davis Counties. The maintenance plan
references the various SIP elements that are pertinent to the
redesignation. On May 2, 1997, the State submitted a request for a
partial NOx RACT exemption. With this partial NOx
RACT exemption request, the State has now addressed all of EPA's
concerns.
Section 2. Redesignation Criterion: The Area Must Have Attained the
Ozone NAAQS
Section 107(d)(3)(E)(i) of the CAA states that for an area to be
redesignated to attainment, the Administrator must determine that the
area has attained the applicable NAAQS. As described in 40 CFR
Sec. 50.9, ``The standard is attained when the expected number of days
per calendar year with maximum hourly average concentrations above 0.12
part per million (235u/m3) is equal to or less than 1, as
determined by appendix H.'' Attainment of the ozone standard is not a
momentary phenomenon based on short-term data. Rather, for an area to
be considered attainment, each of the ozone ambient air quality
monitors in the area are allowed to record three or fewer exceedances
of the ozone standard over a continuous three-year period. 40 CFR
Sec. 50.9 and 40 CFR Part 50, Appendix H. If a single monitor in the
ozone monitoring network records more than three expected exceedances
of the standard over a three-year period as based on the expected
exceedance calculation method in Appendix H, or as actual measured
values, then the area is in violation of the ozone NAAQS. In addition,
EPA's interpretation of the CAA and EPA national policy has been that
an area seeking redesignation to attainment must not only show
attainment of the ozone NAAQS for a continuous three-year period, but
at least through the date that EPA promulgates the redesignation to
attainment in the Federal Register.
Utah's ozone redesignation request is based on an analysis of
quality assured ambient air quality monitoring data that are relevant
to the redesignation request. Most recent ambient air quality
monitoring data for consecutive calendar years 1992 through 1996 show
an expected exceedance rate of less than 1.0 per year, per monitor, of
the ozone NAAQS in the SLDC nonattainment area. These data were
collected and analyzed as required by EPA (see 40 CFR Sec. 50.9 and 40
CFR Part 50, Appendix H) and have been archived by the State in EPA's
Aerometric Information and Retrieval System (AIRS) national database.
Further information on ozone monitoring is presented in section
IX.D.2.c of the State's maintenance plan and in the State's TSD. Since
1992, exceedances of the 0.12 ppm ozone standard were measured at three
separate monitors in 1995, and one exceedance was measured in 1996. EPA
notes, however, that the SLDC area has not violated the ozone standard
and continues to demonstrate attainment.
Because the SLDC nonattainment area has complete quality-assured
data showing no violations of the ozone NAAQS over the most recent
consecutive three-calendar-year period, the SLDC area has met the first
component for redesignation; demonstration of attainment of the ozone
NAAQS. EPA notes that the State of Utah has also committed in the
maintenance plan to the necessary continued operation of the ozone
monitoring network in compliance with 40 CFR part 58.
Section 3. Redesignation Criterion: The Area Must Have Met All
Applicable Requirements Under Section 110 and Part D of the CAA
Section 107(d)(3)(E)(v) requires that, to be redesignated to
attainment, an area must meet all applicable requirements under section
110 and part D of the CAA. EPA interprets section 107(d)(3)(E)(v) to
mean that for a redesignation to be approved, the State must meet all
requirements that applied to the subject area prior to or at the time
of the submission of a complete redesignation request. Requirements of
the CAA due after the submission of a complete redesignation request
need not be considered in evaluating the request.
A. CAA Section 110 Requirements
On August 15, 1984, EPA approved revisions to Utah's SIP as meeting
the requirements of section 110(a)(2) of the CAA (45 FR 32575).
Although section 110 of the CAA was amended in 1990, most of the
changes were not substantial. Thus, EPA has determined that the SIP
revisions approved in 1984 continue to satisfy the requirements of
section 110(a)(2). For further detail, please see 45 FR 32575. In
addition, EPA has analyzed the SIP elements that it is proposing to
approve as part of this action and has determined they comply with the
relevant requirements of section 110(a)(2) of the CAA.
[[Page 28398]]
B. Part D Requirements
Before the SLDC moderate ozone nonattainment area may be
redesignated to attainment, the State must have fulfilled the
applicable requirements of part D. Under part D, an area's
classification indicates the requirements to which it will be subject.
Subpart 1 of part D sets forth the basic nonattainment requirements
applicable to all nonattainment areas, whether classified or
nonclassifiable. Subpart 2 of part D establishes additional
requirements for ozone nonattainment areas classified under table 1 of
section 181(a).
The relevant Subpart 1 requirements are contained in sections
172(c) and 176. However, under section 172(b), the section 172(c)
requirements are applicable as determined by the Administrator, but no
later than three years after an area has been designated as
nonattainment under the amended CAA. EPA has not determined that the
section 172(c) requirements were due on or before November 12, 1993,
the date the SLDC redesignation request was deemed complete. And, the
three-year period under section 172(b) would have ended November 15,
1993 for the SLDC nonattainment area. Thus, the State was not required
to meet the section 172(c) requirements for redesignation purposes.
Nonetheless, it is worth noting that the provisions of sections
172(c)(1)(RACT), 172(c)(3) (emissions inventory), and 172(c)(5) (new
source review permitting program) are subsumed or superseded by
provisions in sections 182 (a) and (b) of the CAA. Also, EPA has
interpreted the requirements of sections 172(c)(2) (reasonable further
progress), 172(c)(6) (other measures), and 172(c)(9) (contingency
measures) as being irrelevant to a redesignation request because they
only have meaning for an area that is not attaining the standard. See
EPA's September 4, 1992, John Calcagni memorandum entitled,
``Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to
Attainment'; General Preamble, 57 FR at 13564, April 16, 1992. Finally,
the State has not sought to exercise the options that would trigger
sections 172(c)(4) (identification of certain emissions increases) and
172(c)(8) (equivalent techniques). Thus, these provisions are also not
relevant to this redesignation request.
Requirements under section 176, relating to conformity, were not
due until November 25, 1994 (transportation conformity) and November
30, 1994 (general conformity). See 40 CFR sections 51.396 and 51.851.
Because these requirements were not yet due when a complete
redesignation request was submitted (November 12, 1993), they are not
necessary SIP elements for the area to be redesignated.
The SLDC nonattainment area was classified as moderate for ozone.
Therefore, to be redesignated to attainment, the area must meet the
applicable requirements of subpart 2 of part D which include sections
182(a), 182(b), and 182(f). These requirements are discussed below.
(1.) Section 182(a)(1)--Emissions inventory. Section 182(a)(1) of
the CAA requires a comprehensive, accurate, current inventory of all
actual emissions from all sources in the SLDC nonattainment area, as
described in section 172(c)(3). This was due by November 15, 1992. EPA
has interpreted ``current'' to mean calendar year 1990 (See 57 FR
13502, April 16, 1992). On November 12, 1993, the State submitted a
1990 base year inventory. This initial submittal of the 1990 base year
inventory was intended to fulfill two purposes: to meet the section
182(a)(1) emissions inventory requirement and to serve as the
attainment year emissions inventory for the SLDC ozone redesignation
maintenance plan. The State subsequently decided to use 1994 as the
attainment year. The maintenance plan that the Governor submitted on
February 19, 1997, incorporates a revised 1990 base year inventory as
background material in order to fulfill the requirements of section
182(a)(1) and includes a separate 1994 attainment year inventory. The
revised 1990 base year inventory meets the requirements of section
182(a)(1) and EPA is proposing to approve it.
Summaries of the 1990 VOC, NOX, and CO daily seasonal
emissions are provided in the tables below. Salt Lake and Davis
Counties Summary of Ozone Seasonal Emissions:
Summary of 1990 VOC Emissions
[Tons per day]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point sources Area sources On-road mobile Non-road mobile Biogenic Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
18.22............ 46.56 32.00 30.39 38.94 166.12
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Summary of 1990 NOX Emissions
[Tons per day]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
On-road Non-road
Point sources Area sources mobile mobile Total
------------------------------------------------------------------------
26.01........ 5.41 26.98 44.69 103.10
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Summary of 1990 CO Emissions
[Tons per day]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
On-road Non-road
Point sources Area sources mobile mobile Total
------------------------------------------------------------------------
12.91........ 45.60 271.64 265.53 595.68
------------------------------------------------------------------------
All supporting calculations and documentation for this 1990 ozone
base year inventory are contained in the State's Technical Support
Document (TSD) which supports this action.
(2.) Section 182(a)(2)(A) and 182(b)(2)--Reasonably Available
Control Technology (RACT) for VOCs. Section 182(a)(2)(A) of the CAA
requires that ozone nonattainment areas correct their deficient RACT
rules for VOCs
[[Page 28399]]
(known as the ``RACT fix-up'' requirement). Areas designated
nonattainment before the 1990 amendments to the CAA, which retained
that designation after the 1990 amendments and were classified as
marginal or above as of November 15, 1990, were required to meet the
RACT fix-up requirement. The SLDC ozone nonattainment area falls within
this category. Under section 182(a)(2)(A), those areas were required,
by May 15, 1991, to correct RACT regulations to comply with pre-
amendment guidance.1 To address this requirement, the
Governor submitted VOC RACT rule revisions to the SIP dated May 4,
1990, and July 25, 1991. EPA approved these VOC RACT fix-up revisions
on June 26, 1992 (57 FR 28621).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Among other things, the pre-amendment guidance consists of
the VOC RACT portions of the Post-87 policy (52 FR 45044, November
24, 1987); the ``Blue Book'' (``Issues Relating to VOC Regulation
Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and Deviations; Clarification to Appendix D
of the November 24, 1987 Federal Register Notice'' of which notice
of availability was published in the Federal Register on May 25,
1998); and the existing Control Technology Guidelines (CTG).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 182(b)(2) of the CAA contains the VOC RACT ``catch-up''
requirements. For ozone nonattainment areas designated moderate and
above, section 182(b)(2) requires SIP revisions to address three source
categories.
Section 182(b)(2)(A) requires RACT for each category of VOC sources
in the nonattainment area covered by a CTG document issued between the
enactment of the 1990 CAA amendments and the date of attainment.
Section 182(b)(2)(B) requires RACT for all VOC sources in the
nonattainment area covered by a CTG that was issued before the date of
enactment of the 1990 CAA amendments. Section 182(b)(2)(C) requires
RACT for all other major stationary sources of VOCs that are located in
the nonattainment area. SIP revisions described in section 182(b)(2)(A)
are due by the date specified in the CTG document. Revisions described
in section 182(b)(2)(B) and (C) were due November 15, 1992.
For the section 182(b)(2)(A) requirement, EPA issued a CTG document
which appeared as Appendix E in the ``Supplement to the General
Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1990'' (57 FR 18070, April 28, 1992). This CTG document
listed the eleven CTGs that EPA anticipated publishing in accordance
with section 183(a) and established timetables for the submittal of
RACT rules for sources that were not ultimately covered by a CTG issued
by November 15, 1993. Appendix E stated that for any of the eleven
source categories for which EPA did not issue CTGs by November 15,
1993, the States were required to develop RACT rules and submit them to
EPA by November 15, 1994. It should be noted that section 183(b) of the
CAA also required EPA to issue CTGs for two additional source
categories by November 15, 1993.
Due to budgetary constraints, EPA only issued one CTG, which
covered two source categories, prior to November 15, 1993. This CTG was
entitled ``Control of Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Reactor
Processes and Distillation Operations Processed in the Synthetic
Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry'' (SOCMI) (reference EPA-450/4-
91-031, August, 1993). In section IX.D.2.b(3)(a) of the SLDC
maintenance plan, the State indicates there are no SOCMI sources in the
SLDC nonattainment area. Therefore, no SIP revision was needed to
address SOCMI sources.
For the remaining nine source categories, the State was either
required to make a negative declaration or submit a RACT rule for major
sources by November 15, 1994, that required implementation of RACT by
May 15, 1995. In the SLDC maintenance plan, the State provides negative
declarations for seven of the nine source categories. The State also
makes a negative declaration for one of the two section 183(b) source
categories. For the two remaining section 183(a) source categories and
the one remaining section 183(b) source category, the State submitted
VOC RACT provisions for all major sources in the nonattainment area.
These sources are the Amoco, Chevron, Crysen, Flying J, and Phillips
refineries, Olympia Sales, and Hill Air Force Base. EPA has evaluated
the VOC limits and requirements for these sources and has determined
that they satisfy the requirements for VOC RACT. Based on the negative
declarations and the adoption of VOC RACT for identified sources, EPA
has determined that the State has met the requirements of section
182(b)(2)(A) of the CAA.
In addition, in section IX.D.2.b(3)(a) of the SLDC maintenance plan
the State makes the following commitment to adopt CTGs issued in the
future by EPA: ``As each CTG is issued, the State will review the
sources in the nonattainment area, and either issue a negative
declaration for that particular source category, meaning there are no
sources for which the CTG is applicable or revise its rules in a manner
consistent with a SIP revision to incorporate RACT (in the context of
Section 182(b)(1)(A) of the Act)) for the following categories: (1)
those source categories of VOC for which EPA issues a CTG document
during the time between the submittal of the redesignation request, and
the time when the area is officially redesignated to attainment in the
Federal Register; and (2) at any time thereafter as CTGs are published
by the EPA.''
For the section 182(b)(2)(B) requirement, EPA has determined that
the Governor's submittals of May 4, 1990, and July 25, 1991, that were
approved by EPA on June 26, 1992 (57 FR 28621), addressed RACT for all
VOC sources in the SLDC nonattainment area covered by a CTG that was
issued before the date of enactment of the 1990 CAA amendments.
Regarding the section 182(b)(2)(C) requirement for VOC RACT for
major non-CTG sources, the SLDC maintenance plan addresses the same
seven sources that it addresses for the 182(b)(2)(A) requirements. As
noted above, EPA is satisfied that the limits and requirements for
these sources represent VOC RACT. Although Utah submitted a ``generic''
RACT rule (contained in R307-14-1., UACR) for any other unidentified
major sources of VOCs in the nonattainment area, EPA is satisfied that
the State has identified all major sources of VOCs in the area. In
reaching this conclusion, EPA is relying on the negative declarations
by the State as well as EPA's review of sources in the national
Aerometic Information and Retrieval System (AIRS) and of the 1994
attainment year emission inventory for the SLDC maintenance plan. Thus,
Utah's generic VOC RACT rule is not needed to fulfill the requirements
of section 182(b)(2)(C) of the CAA.
Also, R307-14-1. contains provisions that prevent EPA from fully
approving it as meeting EPA's requirements for a generic RACT rule. In
particular, R307-14-1. defines RACT in several places by reference to
40 CFR 51.100(o). This federal definition is limited by its own terms
to circumstances that do not apply to a RACT determination under
section 182(b) of the Act. In fact, this definition is at odds with
EPA's longstanding definition of RACT as the lowest emission limitation
that a particular source is capable of meeting by the application of
control technology that is reasonably available considering
technological and economic feasibility (44 FR 53762, September 17,
1979). Although R307-14-1. does require any unidentified sources to
meet RACT requirements and thus strengthens the SIP, it does not meet
the CAA's requirements for VOC RACT. In addition, R307-14-1.F. could be
construed to allow the executive secretary of Utah's Department of
[[Page 28400]]
Environmental Quality to approve alternative test methods without EPA
approval. This type of director's discretion provision is not
consistent with EPA's requirements. Accordingly, EPA is only proposing
limited approval of R307-14-1. for its strengthening effect on the SIP,
but not as meeting the CAA's requirements for VOC RACT.
EPA also notes that in Section IX, Part D.2, pages 10--12 of the
maintenance plan the State includes references to 40 CFR 51.100(o) and
lists factors considered in determining RACT for sources that suggest
that VOC RACT may vary depending on whether or not the area is
attaining the standard. It is EPA's position that VOC RACT is not
dependent on whether or not the area is attaining the standard. Thus,
although the language in the maintenance plan did not result in
inappropriate RACT determinations, EPA wants to make clear that use of
the RACT definition in 40 CFR 51.100(o) and factors that suggest that
RACT is dependent on whether or not an area is attaining the standard
is inappropriate for VOC RACT determinations under section 182(b)(2) of
the CAA. EPA would expect the State to use the proper RACT definition
in making any future RACT determinations.
(3.) Section 182(a)(2)(C) New Source Review (NSR). The CAA requires
all classified ozone nonattainment areas to meet several requirements
regarding NSR including provisions to ensure that increased emissions
of VOC compounds will not result from any new or modified stationary
major sources and a general offset rule. The State of Utah has a fully-
approved NSR program (60 FR 22277, May 5, 1995) that meets the
requirements of section 182(a)(2)(C). This NSR program also meets the
requirements of section 172(c)(5).
(4.) Section 182(a)(3)(B)--Emissions Statements. Section
182(a)(3)(B) of the CAA required a revision to the SIP, by November 15,
1992, to require sources of NOX and VOCs to provide the
State with a statement detailing actual emissions each calendar year.
The Governor of Utah submitted a revision to the SIP on November 12,
1993, for the purpose of implementing an emission statement program for
stationary sources within the Salt Lake/Davis County nonattainment
area. EPA determined that this submittal adequately addressed the
requirements of section 182(a)(3)(B) and fully approved this SIP
revision on May 6, 1996 (61 FR 20142).
(5.) Section 182(b)(1)--15% Reasonable further progress plan, and
attainment demonstration. The SIP elements required by CAA section
182(b)(1) of the CAA--a 15% VOC reduction plan and an attainment
demonstration--were not due until November 15, 1993, after the
redesignation request was deemed complete. Therefore, these SIP
elements are not necessary for the area to be redesignated to
attainment. In addition, EPA has interpreted section 182(b)(1) to not
require these SIP elements for areas that are attaining the ozone
standard. See May 10, 1995, memorandum from John S. Seitz, entitled
``Reasonable Further Progress, Attainment Demonstration, and Related
Requirements for Ozone Nonattainment Areas Meeting the Ozone National
Ambient Air Quality Standard.'' The Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund
challenged the application of this interpretation to the SLDC
nonattainment area, and the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld EPA's
interpretation.
(6.) Section 182(b)(3)--Stage II. For ozone nonattainment areas
classified as moderate and above, section 182(b)(3) required States to
submit SIP revisions by November 15, 1992, to require the installation
and operation of gasoline refueling vapor recovery systems (``Stage
II''). However, pursuant to CAA section 202(a)(6), this requirement was
superseded for moderate ozone nonattainment areas when EPA promulgated
onboard vapor recovery regulations (59 FR 16262, April 6, 1994). Thus,
the SLDC nonattainment area is not required to meet the requirements of
section 182(b)(3).
(7.) Section 182(b)(4)--Motor Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance
(I/M). Section 182(b)(4) of the CAA requires a SIP revision for all
moderate ozone nonattainment areas that provides for the implementation
of a basic vehicle inspection and maintenance program. In addition,
Congress directed EPA in section 182(a)(2)(B) to publish updated
guidance for state I/M programs, taking into consideration findings of
the Administrator's audits and investigations of these programs. The
states were to incorporate this guidance into the SIP for all areas
required by the CAA to have an I/M program.
On November 5, 1992, the EPA published a final regulation
establishing the I/M requirements, pursuant to sections 182 and 187 of
the CAA (57 FR 52950). The I/M regulation was codified at 40 CFR Part
51, subpart S, and required states to submit an I/M SIP revision which
includes all necessary legal authority and the items specified in 40
CFR 51.372 (a)(1) through (a)(8) by November 15, 1993.
The State of Utah submitted a SIP revision in November 1993 which
upgraded the then existing County-run I/M programs to meet the CAA
requirements for basic I/M programs in the Salt Lake (Davis and Salt
Lake Counties), Ogden (Weber County), and Provo-Orem (Utah County)
metropolitan statistical areas (MSA) beginning on July 1, 1994. On
February 19, 1997, the State submitted a SIP revision that provides for
improved basic I/M programs in Salt Lake and Davis Counties to be
implemented beginning January 1, 1998. The improved basic I/M programs
in Salt Lake and Davis Counties provide additional VOC and
NOX reductions necessary for the ozone maintenance
demonstration.
The Weber County basic I/M program is required by the CAA as a SIP
element unrelated to the SLDC ozone nonattainment area requirements.
Therefore, EPA is proposing approval of the Weber County program in
this notice as an action separate from the SLDC ozone redesignation
request and maintenance plan. The Utah County I/M program is not being
proposed for approval in this notice, but instead will be addressed in
a future notice.
Utah is currently implementing annual test-and-repair I/M programs
(Davis, Salt Lake, and Weber Counties) which meet the requirements of
EPA's performance standard and other requirements contained in the
Federal I/M rule. Testing is being performed by independent inspection
stations with State/County oversight. Other aspects of Utah's I/M
programs include: testing of all 1968 and newer vehicles, a test fee to
ensure the State/Counties have adequate resources to implement the
program, enforcement by registration denial, a repair effectiveness
program, a commitment to testing convenience, quality assurance, data
collection, a specified waiver rate, reporting, test equipment and test
procedure specifications, a commitment to ongoing public information
and consumer protection programs, inspector training and certification,
and penalties for inspector incompetence. EPA has reviewed the
submittals against the CAA statutory requirements and for consistency
with Federal I/M regulations as codified in 40 CFR Sec. 51.350 through
Sec. 51.373. EPA summarizes the Federal requirements and how the State/
Counties have satisfied the requirements below.
(7.)a. 40 CFR 51.350--Applicability. The SIP needs to describe the
applicable areas in detail and must also include the legal authority or
rules necessary to establish program boundaries. Utah's County-run I/M
programs, as authorized by Sections 41-6-163.6 thru 41-6-163.7 of the
Utah Code Unannotated, are to be implemented county-wide in Davis, Salt
[[Page 28401]]
Lake, and Weber Counties, as described in the Utah SIP, Section X,
Basic Automotive Inspection and Maintenance (I/M).
(7.)b. 40 CFR 51.352--Basic I/M performance standard. The I/M
programs provided for in the SIP are required to meet a performance
standard for basic I/M for the pollutants that caused the affected area
to come under I/M requirements. The performance standard sets an
emission reduction target that must be met by a program in order for
the SIP to be approvable. The SIP must also provide that the program
will meet the performance standard in actual operation, with provisions
for appropriate adjustments if the standard is not met.
The State/Counties have submitted a modeling demonstration using
the EPA's emissions factor model showing that the basic performance
standard is met in all of the affected Counties. Additional modeling
was submitted for the improved basic programs which will be implemented
in Salt Lake and Davis Counties beginning January 1, 1998. The State/
Counties used EPA's MOBILE5a emission factor model to conservatively
estimate future reductions for these improved basic programs. EPA
believes the conservative methodology employed by the State/Counties
provides the VOC and NOx reductions necessary to demonstrate
maintenance of the ozone NAAQs without further demonstration/program
evaluation.
The State/Counties may choose to perform future program evaluations
to quantify emissions reductions beyond those claimed using the
conservative approach employed for this submittal.
(7.)c. 40 CFR 51.353--Network type. The SIP includes a description
of the network to be employed, and the required legal authority. Salt
Lake and Weber Counties have chosen to implement decentralized, I/M
programs, which are comprised of independently operated facilities.
Davis County provides for a decentralized network of independently
operated facilities through January 1, 1998, at which time the County
will operate centralized testing facilities performing the IM240 test
procedure in addition to independently operated facilities performing
two-speed idle testing.
The Utah I/M programs, in each of the affected Counties, allow
fleet self-testing programs with oversight by County Health Department
employees. Legal authority contained in Sections 41-6-163.6 thru 41-6-
163.7, Utah Code Unannotated, authorizes the Counties to implement
these programs.
(7.)d. 40 CFR 51.354--Adequate tools and resources. The SIP needs
to include a description of the resources that will be used for program
operation, which include: (1) A detailed budget plan which describes
the source of funds for personnel, program administration, program
enforcement, purchase of necessary equipment, and any other
requirements discussed throughout, for the period prior to the next
biennial self-evaluation required in Federal I/M rule; and (2) a
description of personnel resources, the number of personnel dedicated
to overt and covert auditing, data analysis, program administration,
enforcement, and other necessary functions and the training attendant
to each function.
The SIP narrative and County Ordinances contained in the SIP
submittal detail that adequate budget resources, staffing support, and
equipment and resources are dedicated to the program. Thus, the
submittal meets the requirements of the Federal Rule.
(7.)e. 40 CFR 51.355--Test frequency and convenience. The SIP needs
to include the test schedule in detail, including the test year
selection scheme if testing is other than annual.
The County I/M Ordinances require annual inspections for all
subject motor vehicles in the basic I/M programs. For new vehicles the
first test is required for re-registration two years after initial
registration.
The improved basic program in Salt Lake County requires annual
testing of all 1968 and newer vehicles, with an option to perform
biennial testing if legislative authority is changed to allow biennial
testing. If the County seeks to switch to biennial testing, EPA would
require the State/Salt Lake County to demonstrate that the necessary
emission reductions can still be provided to demonstrate maintenance of
the ozone standard.
The Davis County improved basic I/M program ordinance requires all
3, 6, and 9 year-old vehicles to be inspected at the County-run
centralized facilities. All other vehicles are required to obtain
annual inspections in independent testing facilities.
All motor vehicles registered as government-owned vehicles or
gasoline-powered heavy-duty trucks are required to be certified
annually in both the basic and improved basic programs.
(7.)f. 40 CFR 51.356--Vehicle coverage. The SIP includes a detailed
description of the number and types of vehicles covered by the County-
run programs, and a plan for how those vehicles are to be identified.
The County-run programs' vehicle coverage includes all 1968 and
newer model year light-duty cars and trucks and heavy-duty gasoline-
powered trucks, registered or required to be registered within the MSA,
and fleets primarily operated within the I/M program areas, including
government-owned and operated vehicles. Vehicles are identified through
the State of Utah's Tax Commission Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV)
database.
Vehicles exempted from the program include: motorcycles, farm
trucks and diesel vehicles. Diesel vehicles are required to be
inspected in County-run diesel I/M lanes. The exempted vehicles are
accounted for in the modeling submitted by the State/Counties and
documented in the SIP narrative as required.
(7.)g. 40 CFR 51.357--Test procedures and standards. The SIP
includes a description of each test procedure used, and a rule,
ordinance, or law describing and establishing the test procedures.
Davis and Weber Counties' I/M programs incorporate by reference
EPA's preconditioned two-speed idle test as specified in EPA-AA-TSA-I/
M-90-3 March 1990, Technical Report, ``Recommended I/M Short Test
Procedures for the 1990's: Six Alternatives.'' Additionally, Davis
County incorporates by reference the IM240 test procedure specified in
EPA-AA-RSPD-IM-96-1 to be administered on 3, 6, and 9 year-old vehicles
beginning January 1, 1998.
Salt Lake County's I/M program currently uses EPA's Preconditioned
two-speed idle test as specified in EPA-AA-TSA-I/M-90-3 March 1990,
Technical Report. Beginning January 1, 1998, the County will implement
the 2-mode Acceleration Simulation Mode (ASM2) test in accordance with
E0PA-AA-RSPD-IM-96-2.
The calibration specifications and emissions test procedures meet
the minimum standard established in Appendix A of 40 CFR Part 51,
Subpart S. Test procedures are established in each of the County Rules,
which are incorporated into the SIP.
(7.)h. 40 CFR 51.358--Test equipment. The SIP needs to include
written technical specifications for all test equipment used in the
program and shall address each of the requirements in 40 CFR 51.358.
The specifications need to describe the emission analysis process, the
necessary test equipment, the required features, and written acceptance
testing criteria and procedures.
The Utah I/M SIP provides that the program equipment will meet the
California BAR 90/BAR97 accuracy standards at a minimum for the two-
speed idle and ASM2 testing equipment. Also, Utah's SIP for Davis
[[Page 28402]]
County provides that the program equipment will meet the IM240
equipment specifications contained in EPA-AA-RSPD-IM-96-1.
The Utah SIP narrative addresses the requirements in 40 CFR 51.358
and includes descriptions of performance features and functional
characteristics of the computerized test systems. The necessary test
equipment, required features, and acceptance testing criteria are also
contained in the SIP.
(7.)i. 40 CFR 51.359--Quality control. The SIP needs to include a
description of quality control and recordkeeping procedures. The SIP
also needs to include the procedures manual, rule, and ordinance or law
describing and establishing the quality control procedures and
requirements.
The Utah I/M SIP narrative contains descriptions and requirements
establishing the quality control procedures in accordance with the
Federal I/M rule. These requirements will help ensure that equipment
calibrations are properly performed and recorded, and that compliance
certificates are properly maintained and secured. Additional quality
control procedures are documented in individual County Ordinances.
(7.)j. 40 CFR 51.360--Waivers and Compliance Via Diagnostic
Inspection
The SIP needs to include a maximum waiver rate expressed as a
percentage of initially failed vehicles. This waiver rate needs to be
used for estimating emission reduction benefits in the modeling
analysis. Also, the State needs to take corrective action if the waiver
rate exceeds that estimated in the SIP or revise the SIP and the
emission reductions claimed accordingly. In addition, the SIP needs to
describe the waiver criteria and procedures, including cost limits,
quality assurance methods and measures, and administration. Lastly, the
SIP shall include the necessary legal authority, ordinance, or rules to
issue waivers, set and adjust cost limits as required, and carry out
any other functions necessary to administer the waiver system,
including enforcement of the waiver provisions.
The Salt Lake and Davis County I/M programs commit to a waiver rate
of 1 percent or less. The Weber County I/M program commits to a waiver
rate of 5 percent or less. Waiver procedures are detailed in individual
County ordinances, which are incorporated into the SIP. Legal authority
for waivers is delegated to the Counties in section 41-6-163, Utah Code
Unannotated.
(7.)k. 40 CFR 51.361--Motorist compliance enforcement. The SIP
needs to provide information concerning the enforcement process,
including: (1) A description of the existing compliance mechanism if it
is to be used in the future and the demonstration that it is as
effective or more effective than registration-denial enforcement; (2)
an identification of the agencies responsible for performing each of
the applicable activities in this section; (3) a description of and
accounting for all classes of exempt vehicles; and (4) a description of
the plan for testing fleet vehicles, rental car fleets, leased
vehicles, and any other special classes of subject vehicles, e.g. those
operated in (but not necessarily registered in) the program area. Also,
the SIP needs to include a determination of the current compliance rate
based on a study of the system that includes an estimate of compliance
losses due to loopholes, counterfeiting, and unregistered vehicles.
Estimates of the effect of closing such loopholes and otherwise
improving the enforcement mechanism need to be supported with detailed
analyses. In addition, the SIP needs to include the legal authority to
implement and enforce the program. Lastly, the SIP needs to include a
commitment to an enforcement level to be used for modeling purposes and
to be maintained, at a minimum, in practice.
The motorist compliance enforcement program provisions are
contained in the SIP narrative and in the individual County Ordinances.
The motorist compliance enforcement program will be implemented, in
part, by the Utah Tax Commission Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV),
which will take the lead in ensuring that owners of all subject
vehicles are denied registration unless they provide valid proof of
having received a certificate indicating they passed an emissions test
or were granted a compliance waiver. State and local police agencies
have the authority to cite motorists with expired registration tags.
Authority for these provisions is contained in Section 41-6-163 of the
Utah Code Unannotated.
Current compliance rates are estimated at greater than 95 percent
in each of the County areas. The SIP commits to a level of motorist
enforcement necessary to ensure a compliance rate of no less than 96
percent among subject vehicles.
(7.)l. 40 CFR 51.362--Motorist Compliance Enforcement Program
oversight. The SIP narrative includes a description of the enforcement
program oversight and information management activities. The State/
Counties will periodically review the compliance rates of area I/M
programs to ensure the 96 percent commitment is being met. The DMV,
Utah Division of Air Quality, Utah highway patrol, and County I/M
program staff meet twice a month to ensure on-going high quality
oversight of a joint motorist compliance program.
(7.)m. 40 CFR 51.363--Quality assurance. The SIP needs to include a
description of the quality assurance program, and written procedures
manuals covering both overt and covert performance audits, record
audits, and equipment audits. This requirement does not include
materials or discussion of details of enforcement strategies that would
ultimately hamper the enforcement process.
The Utah I/M SIP narrative and appendices to the County I/M
ordinances include descriptions of the quality assurance programs and
procedures. The quality assurance programs include operation progress
reports, and overt and covert audits of all emission inspectors and
emission inspections. Overt and covert audits are conducted by the
County I/M staff. In addition, remote inspector audits are performed by
the County I/M personnel. Procedures and techniques for overt and
covert performance, recordkeeping, and equipment audits are given to
auditors and updated as needed.
(7.)n. 40 CFR 51.364--Enforcement Against Contractors, Stations and
Inspectors
The SIP needs to include the penalty schedule and the legal
authority for establishing and imposing penalties, civil fines, license
suspension, and revocations. Also, the SIP needs to describe the
administrative and judicial procedures and responsibilities relevant to
the enforcement process, including which agencies, courts, and
jurisdictions are involved; who will prosecute and adjudicate cases;
and other aspects of the enforcement of the program requirements, the
resources to be allocated to this function, and the source of those
funds.
The individual Counties are responsible for enforcement actions
against incompetent or dishonest stations and inspectors. Each County
I/M ordinance or regulation includes a penalty schedule. For repeat or
serious offenses, auditors are authorized to immediately suspend the
station or inspector by locking out the analyzer(s). A station permit
may be suspended or revoked even if the owner/operator had no direct
knowledge of the violation. In the case of incompetence, re-training is
required before a permit is restored.
(7.)o. 40 CFR 51.366--Data analysis and reporting. The Utah I/M SIP
narrative provides that the State/County programs will report summary
data based upon program activities taking place in the previous year.
The report
[[Page 28403]]
will provide statistics for the testing program, the quality control
program, the quality assurance program, and the enforcement program. At
a minimum, Utah commits to address all of the data elements listed in
section 51.366 of the Federal I/M rule.
(7.)p. 40 CFR 51.367--Inspector training and licensing or
certification. The SIP needs to include a description of the training
program, the written and hands-on tests, and the licensing or
certification process.
The Utah I/M SIP provides for the implementation of training,
certification, and refresher programs for emission inspectors. Training
includes all elements required by 40 CFR 51.367(a). All inspectors are
required to pass a written test in order to become certified to inspect
vehicles in the Utah I/M program.
(7.)q. 40 CFR 51.369--Improving repair effectiveness. The SIP needs
to include a description of the technical assistance program to be
implemented, and a description of the repair technician training
resources available in the community.
The Utah I/M SIP commits the program technical and supervisory
staff to continue to work with both motor vehicle owners and the
automotive service industry regarding their vehicles failing to meet
the exhaust emission levels. These direct contacts are normally either
by telephone or person-to-person. Customers with vehicles that present
unusual testing problems or situations are referred to a County-run
Technical Center for further testing and diagnostics.
The Utah Air Quality Board (UAQB) formally adopted the above-
described I/M programs for Salt Lake County and Davis County on
February 5, 1997. The Weber County I/M program was re-numbered and also
re-adopted by the UAQB on February 5, 1997. Based on the above analysis
of each of the three County programs, EPA is proposing approval of the
I/M programs for Salt Lake, Davis, and Weber Counties as a revision to
Utah's SIP.
(8.) Section 182(f)--Oxides of Nitrogen (NOX)
requirements. Section 182(f) of the CAA requires States with ozone
nonattainment areas to impose the same control requirements for major
stationary sources of NOX as apply to major stationary
sources of VOCs. These NOX requirements, NOX RACT
and NOX NSR, were to be submitted to EPA in a SIP revision
by November 15, 1992. Section 182(f) also specifies circumstances under
which these NOX requirements would be limited or would not
apply.
(8.)a. NSR for NOX. For the NOX NSR
requirement, the State of Utah has a fully-approved NSR program (60 FR
22277, May 5, 1995) that meets the requirements of section 182(a)(2)(C)
and applies to sources of NOX. This program also meets the
requirements of section 172(c)(5).
(8.)b. Section 182(f)--.NOX RACT For the purposes of
addressing the NOX RACT requirement of section 182(f),
sources within the SLDC ozone nonattainment area with NOX
emissions of greater than or equal to 100 tons per year are required to
employ RACT. The NOX RACT requirements are defined by
reference to section 182(b)(2) of the CAA. As EPA has not issued any
CTGs for NOX sources, the provisions of sections
182(b)(2)(A) and (B) are not applicable. Section 182(b)(2)(C), as
applied to NOX, required the submittal of RACT rules for
major stationary sources of NOX by November 15, 1992.
The State has established NOX RACT for the Gadsby Power
Plant, owned by PacifiCorp, and the Utah Power Plant, owned by
Kennecott Utah Copper (KUC). As part of the Utah PM10 SIP
revision that EPA approved on July 8, 1994 (59 FR 35036), the Gadsby
Power Plant was required to switch from coal to natural gas on a year-
round basis and to meet NOX limits based on the use of low-
NOX burners. These NOX limits are contained in
section IX, Part H of the Utah SIP.
For the Utah Power Plant, the State established NOX
limits for boilers numbered 1 through 4. For boiler number 4, a
tangentially fired coal-burning boiler, the State established a
NOX limit of 384 ppm and 377 lbs. per hour (equivalent to
0.45 lbs. of NOX per million Btu.) This is consistent with
EPA's presumptive NOX RACT limit for tangentially fired
coal-burning boilers (see 57 FR 55620, November 25, 1992).
Boilers numbered 1 through 3 are older, coal-burning wet bottom
units. Through testing, Kennecott determined that these boilers could
be retrofitted with low-NOX burners. Based on the use of
low-NOX burners, the State set NOX limits for
boilers numbered 1 through 3 at 216 lbs. of NOX per hour and
426.5 ppmdv (parts per million dry by volume) measured at 3% oxygen.
These emission limits are specified in an approval order for the Utah
Power Plant and in the maintenance plan.
EPA has evaluated the NOX limits for the Gadsby and Utah
Power Plants and has determined they satisfy the NOX RACT
requirement for these sources.
(8.)c. Partial NOX RACT Exemption request. Although the
State required some NOX reductions at other major stationary
sources of NOX as part of the PM10 SIP for Salt
Lake County and southern Davis County, the State did not perform a
NOX RACT evaluation or require NOX RACT for these
other sources. However, the State has submitted a request pursuant to
CAA section 182(f)(2) for a NOX RACT exemption for major
stationary sources of NOX in the SLDC nonattainment area
other than the Gadsby and Utah Power Plants.
Under section 182(f)(2)(A), the Administrator may limit the
application of the NOX RACT requirement to the extent
necessary to avoid excess reductions of NOX. Section
182(f)(2)(B)(i) defines excess NOX reductions as reductions
the Administrator determines would not contribute to attainment of the
ozone NAAQS in the area. EPA has indicated that in cases where a
nonattainment area is demonstrating attainment with 3 consecutive years
of air quality monitoring data, without having implemented all or a
portion of the section 182(f) NOX provisions, it is clear
that this test is met since ``additional reductions of [NOX]
would not contribute to attainment'' of the NAAQS in that area. EPA
issued guidance memorandums addressing this NOX exemption
issue; of particular importance to the Utah situation are a May 27,
1994, John S. Seitz memorandum entitled ``Section 182(f) Nitrogen
Oxides (NOX) Exemptions--Revised Process and Criteria'' and
a January 12, 1995, G. T. Helms memorandum entitled ``Scope of Nitrogen
Oxides (NOX) Exemptions.''
The State met this NOX exemption threshold in 1992 as
ambient air quality monitoring data from 1990, 1991, and 1992 showed
that the SLDC area had attained the ozone NAAQS. In addition,
monitoring data show that the SLDC area has continued to maintain the
ozone NAAQS.
The ambient air quality monitoring data for the years 1990, 1991,
and 1992, as provided with the State's May 2, 1997, letter, have been
quality assured and archived in EPA's Aerometric Information and
Retrieval System (AIRS) by the State in accordance with 40 CFR Part 58.
These data were then evaluated by EPA according to the procedures in 40
CFR Part 50, Appendix H. The results of this analysis indicate that the
SLDC area attained the current ozone NAAQS as of 1992. Additional
quality assured data were provided with the State's May 2, 1997,
letter, and are also included in the maintenance plan and the State's
TSD for the redesignation request. These data were also archived in
AIRS by the State, in accordance with 40 CFR part 58, and
[[Page 28404]]
include the years 1993, 1994, 1995, and 1996. Based on EPA's review of
all the air monitoring data from 1990 through 1996, EPA has determined
that the SLDC area attained the ozone NAAQS in 1992 and has continued
to demonstrate attainment of the ozone NAAQS through 1996. Therefore,
EPA has determined that the State's May 2, 1997, partial NOX
RACT exemption request for the SLDC area meets the applicable
requirements of section 182(f)(2) of the CAA and is consistent with EPA
guidance.
It is important to note that EPA is only proposing to approve an
exemption from the NOX RACT requirements for those major
stationary sources of NOX in the SLDC nonattainment area
other than the Gadsby Power Plant and the Utah Power Plant. EPA is not
proposing an exemption from the NOX NSR requirements,
NOX conformity requirements, or the motor vehicle I/M
requirements related to NOX. Furthermore, EPA notes that
NOX limits for some or all of the major stationary sources
of NOX other than the Gadsby and Utah Power Plants are
necessary for the SLDC nonattainment area to demonstrate maintenance of
the ozone NAAQS through 2007 (2020 for conformity purposes).
(8.)d. R307-14-1 Generic NOX RACT. The State also has a
generic NOX RACT rule, contained in R307-14-1, UACR, which
requires RACT for existing major sources of NOX for which no
specific emission limits or other control requirements have been
established in R307-14. EPA is proposing limited approval of the
generic NOX RACT provisions for their strengthening effect
on the SIP. EPA is not making a finding that these provisions meet the
requirements to be considered RACT. As noted above with respect to the
State's generic VOC RACT provisions, which are also contained in R307-
14-1 and which overlap to a significant degree, the State's reference
to 40 CFR 51.100(o) to define RACT is inappropriate. In addition, R307-
14-1.D.(2) suggests that prior applications of RACT under other Federal
or State requirements might be deemed adequate to satisfy the
NOX RACT requirements of CAA section 182(f) even if they do
not meet presumptive NOX RACT levels. EPA believes the State
may be referring to limits set for the PM10 SIP. It is EPA's
position that the State's suggested approach is not allowed under
section 182(f) of the CAA. NOX RACT for section 182(f)
purposes must be evaluated independently of NOX limits set
for purposes of a PM10 SIP or other State or Federal
requirement. Finally, EPA notes that R307-14-1.F applies to
NOX as well as VOCs and leaves discretion in the Executive
Secretary of the Utah Department of Environmental Quality to change
test methods without EPA approval. As discussed above with respect to
VOC RACT, this type of provision is not consistent with EPA's
requirements.
For these reasons, EPA cannot fully approve Utah's generic
NOX RACT rule as meeting section 182(f) and other SIP
requirements. However, EPA believes this generic NOX RACT
rule strengthens the SIP and is proposing limited approval of the rule
provisions for their strengthening effect only. The State's generic
NOX RACT rule is not necessary to the redesignation request
because the State has adopted NOX RACT for the Gadsby and
Utah Power Plants and the SLDC area qualifies for a NOX RACT
exemption for any other major stationary sources of NOX.
Section 4. Redesignation Criterion: The Area Must Have A Fully Approved
SIP Under Section 110(k) of the CAA
Section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii) of the CAA states that for an area to be
redesignated to attainment, it must be determined that the
Administrator has fully approved the applicable implementation plan for
the area under section 110(k).
Based on the approval into the SIP of provisions under the pre-1990
CAA and EPA's prior approval of SIP revisions required under the 1990
amendments to the CAA, EPA has determined that Utah will have a fully
approved ozone SIP under section 110(k) for the SLDC ozone
nonattainment area if EPA takes final action to approve the 1990 base
year emissions inventory, the State's VOC and NOX RACT
requirements (with the exceptions noted above), the State's partial
NOX RACT exemption request, the Basic I/M program, and the
Salt Lake and Davis Counties Improved I/M rules as described above. EPA
intends to take final action approving the above SIP elements at the
same time that EPA takes final action to approve the SLDC ozone
redesignation request.
Section 5. Redesignation Criterion: The Area Must Show That The
Improvement in Air Quality is Due to Permanent and Enforceable
Emissions Reductions
Section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii) of the CAA provides that for an area to
be redesignated to attainment, the Administrator must determine that
the improvement in air quality is due to permanent and enforceable
reductions in emissions resulting from implementation of the applicable
implementation plan, implementation of applicable Federal air pollutant
control regulations, and other permanent and enforceable reductions.
In addition to the reduction of emissions from the revisions to the
SIP described above (VOC RACT, NOX RACT for the Utah Power
Plant and Gadsby Power Plant, the PM10 SIP revision, VOC/
NOX NSR) and in section IX.D.2.b of the SLDC maintenance
plan, other Federal emission control measures have come into place
since the SLDC area last violated the current ozone standard. These
control measures include the reduction in summertime fuel volatility to
7.8 psi (beginning in 1992), as measured by Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP),
and fleet turnover due to the Federal Motor Vehicle Control Program
(FMVCP). Both of these control measures provided significant VOC
emission reductions.
EPA has evaluated the various State and Federal control measures,
the 1990 base year emission inventory, the 1994 attainment year
emission inventory, and the projected emissions described below, and
has concluded that the improvement in air quality in the SLDC
nonattainment area has resulted from emission reductions that are
permanent and enforceable.
Section 6. Redesignation Criterion: The Area Must Have A Fully Approved
Maintenance Plan Under Section 175A
Section 107(d)(3)(E)(iv) of the CAA provides that for an area to be
redesignated to attainment, the Administrator must have fully approved
a maintenance plan for the area meeting the requirements of section
175A of the CAA.
Section 175A of the CAA sets forth the elements of a maintenance
plan for areas seeking redesignation from nonattainment to attainment.
The maintenance plan must demonstrate continued attainment of the
applicable NAAQS for at least ten years after the Administrator
approves a redesignation to attainment. Eight years after the
promulgation of the redesignation, the State must submit a revised
maintenance plan that demonstrates continued attainment for the
subsequent ten-year period following the initial ten-year maintenance
period. To address the possibility of future NAAQS violations, the
maintenance plan must contain contingency measures, with a schedule for
adoption and implementation, that are adequate to assure prompt
correction of a violation. In addition, EPA issued further maintenance
plan interpretations in the ``General Preamble for the Implementation
of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990'' (57 FR 13498,
April 16, 1992), ``General Preamble for the Implementation of
[[Page 28405]]
Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990; Supplemental'' (57 FR
18070, April 28, 1992), and the EPA guidance memorandum entitled
``Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to
Attainment'' from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management
Division, Office of Air Quality and Planning Standards, to Regional Air
Division Directors, dated September 4, 1992. In this Federal Register
action, EPA is proposing approval of the State of Utah's maintenance
plan for the SLDC nonattainment area because EPA has determined, as
detailed below, that the State's maintenance plan submittal meets the
requirements of section 175A and is consistent with the documents
referenced above. EPA's analysis of the pertinent maintenance plan
requirements, with reference to the Governor's February 19, 1997,
submittal, is provided as follows:
A. Emissions Inventories--Attainment Year and Projections
EPA's interpretations of the CAA section 175A maintenance plan
requirements are generally provided in the General Preamble and
September 4, 1992, policy memorandum referenced above. Under EPA's
interpretations, areas seeking to redesignate to attainment for ozone
may demonstrate future maintenance of the NAAQS either by showing that
future ozone precursor emissions will be equal to or less than the
attainment year emissions or by providing a modeling demonstration. For
the SLDC area, the State selected the emissions inventory approach for
demonstrating maintenance of the ozone NAAQS.
The maintenance plan that the Governor submitted on February 19,
1997, included comprehensive inventories of the VOC, NOX,
and CO emissions from the SLDC area. These inventories include
emissions from stationary point sources, area sources, non-road mobile
sources, on-road mobile sources, and biogenics. The State selected 1994
as the year from which to develop the attainment year inventory and
included year-by-year projections out to 2007. More detailed
descriptions of the 1994 attainment year inventory and the projected
inventories are documented in the maintenance plan, sections IX.D.2.e
and IX.D.2.f, and in the State's TSD. The State's submittal contains
detailed emission inventory information that was prepared in accordance
with EPA guidance. Summary emission figures from the 1994 attainment
year and a sampling of the projected years are provided in the tables
below.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1994 1997 2000 2003 2007
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Summary of VOC Emissions in Tons Per Day
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point Sources.................................. 11.81 12.79 13.42 14.13 15.04
Area Sources................................... 40.81 45.24 48.50 51.81 56.59
Non-Road Mobile Sources........................ 33.16 32.12 30.91 28.35 22.81
On-Road Mobile Sources......................... 75.40 70.66 62.96 60.46 58.47
Biogenics...................................... 38.94 38.94 38.94 38.94 38.94
----------------------------------------------------------------
Total.................................... 200.13 199.75 194.73 193.69 191.84
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Summary of NOX Emissions in Tons Per Day
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point Sources.................................. 27.74 24.97 26.15 27.57 29.47
Area Sources................................... 7.32 7.95 8.38 8.85 9.57
Non-Road Mobile Sources........................ 50.17 51.04 49.34 48.44 48.06
On-Road Mobile Sources......................... 73.66 73.11 65.87 65.24 67.31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Total.................................... 158.89 157.08 149.74 150.10 154.39
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Summary of CO Emissions in Tons Per Day
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point Sources.................................. 3.83 3.99 4.18 4.40 4.67
Area Sources................................... 4.88 10.19 10.45 10.72 11.15
Non-Road Mobile Sources........................ 292.86 308.05 322.65 339.76 366.63
On-Road Mobile Sources......................... 634.95 557.84 451.89 413.22 393.23
----------------------------------------------------------------
Total.................................... 936.51 880.07 789.17 768.10 775.68
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Demonstration of Maintenance--Projected Inventories
Total ozone precursor emissions of VOCs and NOX were
projected by the State year-by-year from 1995 through 2007.2
These projected inventories were prepared in accordance with EPA
guidance (further information is provided in section IX.D.2.f of the
maintenance plan). The projected inventories show that VOC and
NOX emissions are not expected to exceed the 1994 attainment
level during this time period and, therefore, the SLDC area has
satisfactorily demonstrated maintenance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ EPA notes that in developing the 1990 base year inventory,
the State provided CO emission data as required by EPA for 1990 base
year emission inventories. As the initial November 12, 1993,
maintenance plan submittal used 1990 as the attainment year
inventory, these CO emissions were projected by the State along with
VOC and NOX emissions. The State continued to carry CO
emission data through each subsequent revision to the maintenance
plan up through, and including, the February 19, 1997 version. EPA
is acknowledging and archiving these CO emission projections with
this Federal Register action. However, these CO emission projections
are not necessary for the SLDC redesignation to attainment and will
not be discussed further.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Monitoring Network and Verification of Continued Attainment
Continued attainment of the ozone NAAQS in the SLDC area depends,
in part, on the State's efforts to track indicators throughout the
maintenance period. This requirement is met in two sections of the SLDC
maintenance plan. In section IX.D.2.c.(4) and section IX.D.2.j.(2) the
State commits to continue the operation of the ozone monitors in the
SLDC area and to annually review this monitoring
[[Page 28406]]
network and make changes as appropriate. Also, in section
IX.D.2.j.(1)(a) the State commits to prepare a comprehensive emission
inventory of VOC, NOX, and CO emissions every three years
beginning with 1996. These inventories will be based on the most
current Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) data, actual point source
emissions, and area source emissions based on the most current
population and industry growth information. The above commitments by
the State, which will be enforceable by EPA following the final
approval of the SLDC maintenance plan SIP revision, are deemed adequate
by EPA.
D. Contingency Plan
Section 175A(d) of the CAA requires that a maintenance plan include
contingency provisions. To meet this requirement, the State has
identified appropriate contingency measures along with a schedule for
the development and implementation of such measures. As stated in
Section IX.D.2.h of the maintenance plan, the contingency measures for
the SLDC area will be triggered by a violation of the ozone standard.
The contingency measures identified are: (1) increase the VOC and
NOX offset levels from 1.15 to 1 to 1.20 to 1, (2) decrease
the threshold level for requiring offsets from 100 tons per year to 50
tons per year, (3) implement Stage II vapor recovery, and (4) require
more stringent low-NOX burner controls. A more complete
description of the triggering mechanism and these contingency measures
can be found in section IX.D.2.h of the maintenance plan SIP submittal.
EPA finds that the contingency measures provided in the State's
maintenance plan meet the requirements of section 175A(d) of the CAA.
E. Subsequent Maintenance Plan Revisions
In accordance with section 175A(b) of the CAA, the State of Utah
has committed to submit a revised maintenance plan SIP revision eight
years after redesignation. This provision and other State-triggered
mechanisms (such as in response to revisions to the ozone NAAQS or to
take advantage of improved or more expeditious methods of maintaining
the ozone standard) for revising the maintenance plan are contained in
section IX.D.2.h.(3) of the SLDC maintenance plan.
F. Transportation Conformity
One key provision of the conformity regulations requires a
demonstration that emissions from the transportation plan and
Transportation Improvement Program are consistent with the emissions
budgets in the SIP (40 CFR sections 93.118 and 93.119). The emissions
budget is defined as the level of mobile source emissions relied upon
in the attainment or maintenance demonstration to maintain compliance
with the NAAQS in the nonattainment area. The rule's requirements and
EPA's policy on emissions budgets are found in the Preamble to the
transportation conformity rule (58 FR 62193-96) and in the sections of
the rule referenced above.
The maintenance plan defines emissions budgets for each year
between 1994 and 2007, and for 2015 and 2020. (See Table 8 of the
maintenance plan). The 1994-2007 emissions budgets are based on the
maintenance plan's emission inventory projections, while the 2015 and
2020 budgets are based on EKMA modeling. The maintenance plan lists
budgets for Salt Lake County and Davis County separately, and for the
entire nonattainment area (both Counties combined). The plan provides
that the metropolitan planning organization (Wasatch Front Regional
Council) may demonstrate conformity with the budgets for each County
individually or for the entire nonattainment area at its option. The
plan also identifies a safety margin (called the ``emissions credit'')
for each year, which is the difference between total emissions from all
sources in the attainment year and in each future year. The plan
provides that this safety margin may be used for conformity purposes if
authorized by the Utah Air Quality Board.
Proposed Action
In this action, EPA is proposing to approve the SLDC redesignation
request, maintenance plan, and other related SIP elements, including
the 1990 base year emissions inventory, Reasonably Available Control
Technology (RACT) for Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC), NOX
RACT for Kennecott's Utah Power Plant and for the Gadsby Power Plant,
and the Basic Inspection and Maintenance (I/M) and Improved I/M
provisions for Salt Lake and Davis Counties. EPA is also proposing to
approve a partial Nitrogen Oxides (NOX) RACT exemption
request. EPA will not proceed with approval of the redesignation
request unless EPA also proceeds with the final full approval of the
maintenance plan, all applicable SIP elements, and the partial
NOX RACT exemption.
In this action, EPA is also proposing to give limited approval to
the State's generic VOC RACT and generic NOX RACT rules, and
to fully approve the I/M provisions for Weber County. These SIP
elements are either not necessary or not relevant to the SLDC
redesignation request.
EPA is requesting comments on all aspects of this proposal. As
indicated elsewhere in this document, to be considered, comments must
be received by June 23, 1997.
Nothing in this action should be construed as permitting or
allowing or establishing a precedent for any future request for
revision to any State Implementation Plan. Each request for revision to
any State Implementation Plan shall be considered separately in light
of specific technical, economic, and environmental factors and in
relation to relevant statutory and regulatory requirements.
Administrative Requirements
A. Executive Order 12866
This action has been classified as a Table 3 action for signature
by the Regional Administrator under the procedures published in the
Federal Register on January 19, 1989 (54 FR 2214-2225), as revised by a
July 10, 1995 memorandum from Mary Nichols, Assistant Administrator for
Air and Radiation. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has
exempted this regulatory action from E.O. 12866 review.
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 600 et. seq., EPA
must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis assessing the impact of
any proposed or final rule on small entities. 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604.
Alternatively, EPA may certify that the rule will not have a
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small
entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises,
and government entities with jurisdiction over populations of less than
50,000.
Redesignation of an area to attainment under sections 107(d)(3) (D)
and (E) of the CAA does not impose any new requirements on small
entities. Redesignation to attainment is an action that affects the
status of a geographical area and does not impose any regulatory
requirements on sources. Therefore, I certify that the approval of the
redesignation request will not affect a substantial number of small
entities.
SIP approvals under section 110 and subchapter I, part D of the
Clean Air Act do not create any new requirements but simply approve
requirements that the State is already imposing. Therefore, because the
Federal SIP approval does not impose any new requirements, I
[[Page 28407]]
certify that it does not have a significant impact on any small
entities affected. Moreover, due to the nature of the Federal-State
relationship under the CAA, preparation of a flexibility analysis would
constitute Federal inquiry into the economic reasonableness of State
action. The Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base its actions concerning
SIPs on such grounds. Union Electric Co. v. U.S. EPA, 427 U.S. 246,
255-66 (1976); 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).
Approvals of NOX exemption requests under section 182(f)
of the CAA do not create any new requirements. Therefore, I certify
that approval of the State's partial NOX RACT exemption
request will not have a significant impact on any small entities
affected.
C. Unfunded Mandates
Under Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(``Unfunded Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA
must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or
final rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in estimated
costs to State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate, or to
the private sector, of $100 million or more. Under Section 205, EPA
must select the most cost-effective and least burdensome alternative
that achieves the objectives of the rule and is consistent with
statutory requirements. Section 203 requires EPA to establish a plan
for informing and advising any small governments that may be
significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule.
EPA has determined that the proposed action does not include a
Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs of $100 million or
more to either State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate or
to the private sector. This Federal action will approve a redesignation
to attainment, pre-existing requirements under State or local law, and
an exemption from requirements otherwise imposed under the CAA; this
action will impose no new requirements. Accordingly, no additional
costs to State, local, or tribal governments, or to the private sector,
will result from this action.
List of Subjects
40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Hydrocarbons, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations,
Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,
Volatile organic compounds.
40 CFR Part 81
Air pollution control, National parks, Wilderness areas.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
Dated: May 14, 1997.
Jack W. McGraw,
Acting Regional Administrator.
[FR Doc. 97-13649 Filed 5-22-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P