35036 Federal Register I Vol. 59, No. 130 I Friday, July 8, 1994 I Rules and Regulations 

proposed approval and related TSD, 

EPA believes the State adequately 

-" '!monstrated that the repeal of the 

:.ission limitations regarding alfalfa 

.hydrators in Regulation No. 5 will not 

mterfere with attainment or 

maintenance of the NAAQS. The 

approval thus removes Colorado 

Regulation No. 5, which contained 

provisions regulating existing alfalfa 

dehydrators, from the Federallyapproved SIP.2·For further information 

on the State's demonstration and EPA's 

rationale for approving this SIP revision. 

please refer to the Apri~ 21, 1994 notice 

of proposed rulemakiilg (59 FR 18988-

18990) and the TSD accompanying this 

action. 

· Nothing in this action should be 

· construed as permitting or allowing or 

establishing a precedent for any future 

request for revision to any SIP. Each 

request for revision to any SIP shall be 

considered separately in light of specific 

technical, economic, and environmental 

factors and in relation to relevant 

statutory and regulatory requirements. 

Final Action 

This document makes final the action 

proposed on·April21, 1994 (59 FR 

18988). As noted elsewhere in this final 

action, EPA received no public 

omments on the proposed action. As a 

-ect result, the Regional Administrator 

.s reclassified this action from Table 2 

,o Table 3 under the processing 

proced~s established at 54 FR 2214, 

January 19, 1989.. ' . This action has been class1fied as a 

Table 3 action by the Regional 

Administrator under the procedures 

published in the Federal Register on 

January 19, 1989 (54 FR 2214-2225), as 

revised by an October 4, 1993 

memorandum from Michael H. Shapiro, 

Acting Assistant Administrator for Air 

and Radiation. The OMB has exempted 

this regulatory action from Executive 

Order 12866 review. 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean 

Air Act, petitions for judicial review of 

this action must be filed in the United 

States Court of Appeals for the 

appropriate circuit by September 6, 

1994. Filing a petition for 

·· reconsideration by the Administrator of 

this final rule does not affect the finality 

of this rule for the purposes of judicial 

review nor does it extend the time 

y;ithin which a petition for judicial 

review may be filed, and shall not 

postpone the effectiveness of sue~. rule 

2 Note that the new construction or modification 

.ifalfa dehydration plant drum facilities· will 

:irme tD be regulated under the State's 

• .\'eotioo of significant deterioration (PSD) and 

new source ~view (NSR) provisions, which are · 

included in Colorado Regulation No. 3. 

or action. This action may not l?e 

challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements. (See section 

307(b)(2).) 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Air pollution control. Carbon 

monoxide, Environmental protection, 

Hydrocarbons, lntergove~ental 

relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioXide, 

Ozone, Particulate. matter, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur 

oxides, Volatile organic compounds. 

Dated: June 22, 1994. 

Jack McGraw, 

Regional Administrator. 

Part 5Z, chapter I. title 40 of the Code 

of Federal Regulations is amended as 

follows: 

PART 52-{AMENDED] 

1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority; 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q. 

Subpart G-Colorado 

2. Section 52.320 is amended by 

revising paragraphs·(c)(32) and (c)(38) to 

read as follows: 

§ 52.320 Identification of Plan . 

·* • * * • 

(c): * * 

(32) Revisions to Air Pollution 

Control Commission Regulation No.1, 

section Il.A.6 and Ili.C.2 (a) and (b), 

submitted by the Gove~or on April 9, 

1985. 

(i) Incorporation by reference. 

(A) Revisions to Air Pollution Control 

Commission Regulation No.1, 

"Emission Control Regulation for 

Particulates, Smokes, and Sulfur Oxides 

for the Sta.te of Colorado," sections 

Il.A.6 and III.C.2 (a) and (b), effec!ive 

March 2, 1985. · · 

* * * * * 

(38) Revisions to Regulation 1 to 

control emissions from alfalfa 

dehydrators were submitted by the 

Governor on July 29,1987. · 

(i)_lncorporation by reference. 

(A) Section II.A.6 and introductory 

text of Section III.C.2.a of Regulation 1 

adopted by the Colorado Air Quality 

Control Commission on January 15, 

1987, effective on March 2, 1987. 

[FR Doc. 94-16504 Filed 7-7-94; 6:45am) 

BILLING CODE 6560-60-P 

40 CFR Part 52 

[UT3-1--5452, FRL-0003-0] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air · 

Quality Implementation Plan; Utah; 

Revision to the State Implementation 

Plan Addressing PM10 for Salt Lake 

and Utah County 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: In this action, EPA is 

approving the State Implementation 

Plan (SIP) submitted by the State of 

Utah for the purpose of bringing about 

the attainment of the national ambient 

air quality standards (NAAQS) for 

particulate matter with an aerodynamic 

diameter less than or equal to a nominal 

10 micrometers (PM10). The SIP was 

submitted by the Governor of Utah to 

satisfy certain Federal requirements for 

an approvable nonattainment area PM10 

SIP for Utah and Salt Lake Counties. 

EPA is also approving revisions to the 

State-wide SIP, chapters 1 through 7 

and 10 through 15, which were 

submitted by the Utah Air Quality 

Division Director as a supplement to the 

Governor's submittal. The State-\\ide 

revisions pertain to air program 

elements necessary to implement 

control,strategies to assure attainment 

and maintenance of the NAAQS, such 

as resources, emergency episodes, 

monitoring program, legislative 

authority, public notification, etc. 

The Utah Air Conservation 

Regulations (UACR) have been revised 

numerous times since the early 1970's. 

The regu~ations have been renumbered 

and new requirements added. EPA is, 

therefore, approving the State request to 

replace, in its entirety, the existing 

UACR with that which was submitted 

on November 15, 1991. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: Effective on August 8, 

1994. 

ADDRESSES: Copies of the State's 

submittal and other information are 

available for inspection during normal 

business hours at the following location: 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Region VIII, Air Programs Branch, 999 

18th Street, suite 500, Denver, Colorado 

80202-2466. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lee 

Hanley at (303) 293-liBO. 
Federal Register I Vol. 59, No. 130 I Friday, July 8, 1994 I Rules and Regulations 35037 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

1. Background 

A. Utah PM10 Statutory and Regulatory 

History · 

1. 1977 Clean Air Act (CAA) 

Requirements: Revision and 

Implementation ofPM1o NAAQS 

The CAA requires EPA to periodically 

. review and, if appropriate, revise the 

criteria on which the NAAQS for each 

air pollutant are based, as well as revise 

the NAAQS themselves. On July 1. 1987 

(52 FR 24634), EPA finalized its 

decision to revise the particulate matter 

NAAQS from "total suspended 

particulate" (TSP) to particles with an 

aerodynamic diameter less than or equal 

to a nominal10 micrometers (PM10). To implement the new particulate 

matter NAAQS, all areas in the country 

were divided into three groups, based 

on the probability that each area would 

violate the new PM10 NAAQS. "Group 

I" areas were those areas having 

violated the PM1 o NAAQS or having air 

quality data showing a high (greater 

than 95%) probability of violating the 

NAAQS. These areas required 

substantial SIP adjustment: "Group II" 

areas were those areas estimated at 

having 20-95% probability of violating 

the PM1o NAAQS and needing less 

adjustment to their existing SIPs. 

"Group ill" areas were those areas 

estimated as having less than 20% 

probability of violating the PM 10 

NAAQS and, therefore, only needing 

SIP adjustment as required under the 

preconstruction review program. See 52 

FR 24672 and 52 FR 24679-82 (July 1, 

1987). . In the State of Utah, Salt Lake and 

Utah Counties were identified by EPA 

as Group I areas. The rest of the State 

was classified as Group III (52 FR 29383, 

August 7, 1987). The State, therefore, 

under section 110(a)(1) of the CAA then 

in effect, was required to submit a PM10 

SIP by April1988. On November 15, 

1990, the President signed into law 

revisions to the CAA (Public Law No. 

101-549, 104 Stat. 2399). All former 

"Group I" areas and certain other areas 

were designated nonattainment for PM 10 

and classified as moderate by operation 

of law upon enactment of the 1990 

Amendments. See Section 107(d)(4)(B) 

and 188(a)_ of the Act. Thus, Utah and 

Salt Lake Counties became moderate 

PM10 nonattainment areas (56 FR 56694, 

56840, November 6, 1991) and were 

subject to the associated moderate PM 10 

nonattainment area SIP requirements. 

2. Citizen Lawsuit 

In 1989, a lawsuit (Preservation 

Counsel v. Reilly, Ci\'il Action No. 89-

C-262-G, (D. Utah)) was filed by the 

Preservation Couru:il, Utah Environment 

Center and the Utah Valley Citizens for 

Clean Air against EPA. The plaintiffs 

claimed that, because the State had 

failed to submit a PM10 SIP within the 

timeframe provided under the CAA that 

provided for attainment of the PM1o 

NAAQS, the duty to issue such a plan 

for Utah had devolved to EPA and that 

EPA was required to issue a plan for. 

Utah pursuant to·Section 110(c)(1) of 

the CAA then in effect. 

A settlement agreement was signed by 

the parties in January 1990, which 

called for submittal of a SIP for Utah 

County and Salt Lake County and EPA 

approval, or EPA promulgation of a 

Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) for 

these co~ties, if necessary, signed by 

the EPA Administrator by December 31, 

1991. The settlement allowed the State 

to maintain the SIP development lead, 

but placed significant emphasis on 

EPA's involvement and technical ·· 

oversight. · · The Utah County area plan was 

adopted in September 1990 and 

submitted to EPA in October 1990. The 

Salt Lake County area plan was adopted 

in June 1991, and submitted to EPA in 

November 1991. EPA's agreement as to · 

the appropriateness of developing 

separate plans for the two area plans 

was based on its review of the various 

complex source contributions in these 

areas, the effort by the State to address 

the issues in an equitable and timely 

manner (numerous scoping and public 

hearings were held to obtain interested 

parties' comments), and the different 

areas' design values. 

The State did consider control 

$trategies for area and mobile sources 

which were common to both counties. 

The Utah County plan, therefore, was 

modified in June 1991 to be consistent 

with the Salt Lake County plan and 

resubmitted with the Salt Lake County 

plan in November 1991. The parties 

voluntarily stipulated to dismissal of the 

lawsuit (agreeing to vacate the 

Settlement Agreement and dismiss the 

complaint) in August 1991. 

B. Moderate PM10 Nonattainment Area 

SIP Requirements 

The air quality planning requirements 

for moderate PM10 nonattainment areas 

are set out in title I of the Act. The EPA 

issued a ·:General Preamble" describing 

EPA's preliminary views on how EPA 

intends to review SIPs and SIP revisions 

submitted·under title I of the Act, 

including those State submittals 

containing moderate PM10 

· nonattainment area SIP requirements. 

(See 57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992) and 

57 FR 18070 (April28,_:992).) Today's 

final approval rulemaking action \\ill 

apply EPA's interpretations to the Utah 

PMIO SIP. Part D of title I contains the 

provisions applicable to nonattainment 

areas. Moderate PM10 nonattainment 

areas must meet the applicable 

requirements set out in Subparts 1 and 

4 of Part D. Subpart 1 contains 

provisions generally applicable to all 

nonattaiiunent areas and Subpart 4 

contains provisions specifically 

applicable to PM10 nonattainment areas. 

At times, Subparts 1 and 4 overlap or 

conflict. The EPA has attempted to 

clarify the relationship among these 

various provisions in the General 

Preamble and, as appropriate, in today·s 

notice. · 

Those States containing initial 

moderate PM10 nonattainment areas 

were required to submit, among other 

things, the following provisions by_ 

November 15, 1991: 

1. A comprehensive, accurate, current 

inventory of actual emissions which 

provides a sufficient basis for 

determining the adequacy af the 

attainment demonstration; 

2. Provisions to assure that reasonablv 

available control measures (RACM) -

(including such reductions in emissions 

from existing sources in the area as may 

be obtained through the adoption, at a 

minimum, of reasonably available 

control technology (RACI")) to be 

implemented no later than December 

10,1993; . . 

3. Either a demonstration (including 

air quality modeling) that the plan will · 

provide for attainment as expeditiously 

as practicable, but no later than 

December 31, 1994, or a demon.stration 

that attainment by that date is 

impracticable; . · 4. Quantitative milestones which are 

to be achieved every three years and 

which demonstrate reasonable further 

progress (RFP) toward attainment by 

December 31, 1994; and · 5. Provisions to assure that control 

requirements applicable to major 

stationary sources ofPM1o also apply to 

major stationary sources of P11.o 

precursors, except where the 

Administrator determines that such 

sources do not contribute significantly 

to PM1o levels which exceed the 

NAAQS in the area. See Sections 172(c), 

188, and 189 of the Act. · Some provisions are due at a later 

date. States with initial moderate PM1o 

nonattainment areas were required to 

submit a permit program for the 

construction and operation of new and 

modified major stationary sources of 

PM1o by June 30, 1992. (See Section 

189(a).) Such States also must submit 

contingency measures by November 15. 
35038 Federal Register I Vol. 59, No. 130 I Friday, July 8, 1994 I Rules and Regulations 

1993, which become effective without · 

further action by the-state or EPA, upon 

a determination by EPA that the area 

'as failed to achieve RFP or to attain the 

M10 NAAQS by the applicable · 

statutory deadline of December 1994. 

(See Section 17~(c)(9) and 57 FR 13543-

13544.) 

IT. Today's Action 

Section llO(k) of the Act sets out 

provisions governing EPA's review of 

SIP submittals. (See 57 FR 13565-

13566.) In this action, EPA is approving 

the Utah PM10 plan revision submitted 

to EPA in a letter dated November 15, . 

1991. This submittal was iri.tended to 

satisfy those moderate PMao 

nonattainment area SIP requirements 

due November 15,1991. EPA proposed 

to approve the submittal on December 

18, 1992, 57 FR 60149. Comments were 

received from Geneva Steel and 

Kennecott Utah Copper Corporation. 

EPA's response to these comments are 

discussed below in lli. Public Comment. 

A. Regulatocy 'Discussion 

1. Procedural Background 

The ~requires States to observe 

certain procedural requirements in 

developing implementation plans and 

plan revisions for submission to EPA. 

<;ection 110(a)(2) of the Act provides 

;at eacli implementation plan ·

4 

. ubmitted by a State must be adopted 

after reasonable notice and public 

hearing. (Also, Section 172(c)(7) of the 

Act requires that plan provisions for 

nonattainment areas meet the applicable 

provisions of Section 110(a)(2).) Section 

110(1) of the Act similarly provides that 

each revision to an implementation plan 

submitted by a State under the Act must 

be adopted by such State after 

reasonable notice and public hearing: 

Utah held several public hearings after 

reasonable notice, evaluated the hearing 

comments, made changes to the SIPs 

and regulations as needed, and provided 

EPA with documentation of this 

process. The state documentation can be 

found in the State's Technical Support 

Document (TSD), Evaluation of the PM 10 

SIPs Compliance with 40 CFR 51, 

Appendix V Requirements. 

The EPA also must determine 

whether a submittal is complete and 

therefore warrants further EPA review 

and action. (See Section 110{k)(1) and 

57 FR 13565.) The EPA's completeness . 

criteria for SIP submittals are set out at 

40 CFR Part 51, Appendix V (1992). The 

EPA attempts to make completeness 

· 'lterminations within 60 days of 

ceiving a submission. However, a 

submittal is deemed complete by 

operation of law if a completeness 

determination is not made by EP.J\ six 

months after receipt of the submission. 

The Utah PM10 SIP revision was 

reviewed by EPA to determine 

completeness shortly after its submittal, 

in accordance with the completeness 

criteria set out at 40 CFR Part 51, 

Appendix V (1992). The submittal was 

found to be complete, and a letter dated 

January 19, 1992, was forwarded to the 

Governor indicating the completeness of 

the submittal and the next steps to be 

taken in the review process. · 

The reader is referred to the Federal 

Register dated December 18, 1992, 57 

FR 60149, for the detailed discussion on 

the Utah PM10 SIP and corresponding 

regulatory requirements. In summary, 

the Utah PM10 SIP must address various 

elements such as: emissions inventory, 

RACM (including RACf), 

demonstration of attainment, PMao 

precursors, quantitative milestones and 

reasonable further progress (RFP), and 

enforceability issues. 

C. The Utah PM1o SIP 

1.-utah County 

. The Utah County area has three · 

monitoring sites, each of which 

recorded violations of the PM10 NAAQS. 

The Lindon .site had 666 total number 

of days of available data; the second 

highest value is 254 J181m3 , measured in 

February 1989. The North Provo site 

had 226 days of available data; the first 

high is 191 JJ.g/m3 measured in January 

1988. The West Orem site had 339 days 

of available data; the first high is 263 JJ.g/ 

mJ. These high/second high days 

represent the design value for these 

sites; they were determined using the 

"look-up table," Table 6-1, in the PM10 

SIP Development Guideline document 

(EP A--450/2-86--{)01). 

The Utah County monitoring network 

·recorded additional data other than 

those stated above. However, to ensure 

that each season of the year is 

represented by the data used in 

determining the design value, EPA 

requires the use of a complete discrete 

12-month data set, or sets which are 

multiples of 12-month periods. The use 

of the most recent data sets which 

represents the area is also encouraged.-

The Utah County area had a unique 

data base involving the operationshutdown-startup of Geneva SteeL The 

steel mill was down for the period 

August 1986 to September 1987. Data 

comparison showed the facility as a 

major contributor to the PM10 violations. 

The days of violations, the average 

winter concentration, and average iron 

content on the filters were significantly 

greater during the operation of the 

facility than during the -down period. 

• 

tP A recommends the use of certain 

methods to demonstrate whether a plan 

·will provide for timely attainment {57 

FR 13538-39). Dispersion and receptor 

modeling are among the recommended 

methods and these methods were 

initially used by the State to define the 

design value(s) and control strategies. 

Within the time constraints in 

meeting the settlement agreement 

imposed deadlines to complete a SIP, 

there were extensive reanalyses of the 

nimlitoring network, Chemical Mass 

Balance {Q.ffi) filters, and the emission 

inventory (CMB is a receptor modeling 

effort which can be used to define PMao 

emissions). EPA determined that, with 

the information available from the 

detailed emission inventory (supported 

by a micro inventory) and CMB 

analyses, the SIP would not result in 

additional or different control strategies 

if there was sufficient time to run a 

dispersion modeling analysis, adjusting 

for the concerns regarding stagnation 

and secondary contributions. 

As indicated in the General Preamble, 

57 FR 13539, EPA has developed a 

supplemental attainment demonstration 

policy that applies to the initial 

moderate PM10 nonattainment areas. See 

"PM10 SIP Attainment Demonstration 

Policy for Initial Moderate 

Nonattainment Areas," issued by John 

Calcagni on March 4, 1991. The policy 

indicates that in certain circumstances 

{where time constraints, inadequate 

resources, inadequate data bases, lack of 

a model for some unique situations, and 

other unavoidable circumstances would 

leave an area unable to submit an 

attainment demonstration by November 

15, 1991), "modified demonstrations" 

may be accepted on a case-by-case basis. 

The policy recommends that a modified 

demonstration be accompanie~ with the 

following: (1) documentation of the 

procedures or analyses used in the 

modified method; {2) an explanation 

why alternative methods identified in 

EPA guidance were not used; (3) a . 

description of how the modified method 

demonstrates, adequately and · 

appropriately. area-wide attainment; 

and ( 4) when the design value is based 

on monitoring data, a showing that the 

SIP is _based on one full year of adequate 

data for an approved network, a review 

of the monitoring data and network, and 

provision for appropriate followup 

monitoring to address issues raised 

during the review. For the reasons 

stated previously, EPA believes it was 

appropriate for the State to use a 

modified demonstration for Utah 

County. The State TSD describes how 

the Utah County analyses are consistent 

with this policy. 
Federal Register I Vol. 59, No. 130 I Friday, July 8, 1994 I Rules and Regulations 35039 

The base year emission inventory was 

for 1988. Since the exceedances are 

wintertime occurrences, the State 

focused on a wintertime (1988-89 

season) inventory and an annual 

inventory. Summaries of these 

inventories, as well as the attainment 

year inventory, are provided in Table 

9.A.3 of the SIP. Specific details of the 

base year and attainment year (after 

controls) inventories are providfld in 

Volume II~ Utah·County, State Technical 

Support DocumenL . 

Although the design values varied by 

site, the source apportionments were 

similar. The source apportionment at 

the West Orem monitoring site, which 

bad the County's highest design value, 

was representative of the source 

apportionment of the Lindon and North 

Provo monitoring sites. Thus, if _ 

attainment can be demonstrated at West 

Orem, attainment could also be assured 

at the other two sites. The categories of 

sources contributing to the design day 

include Geneva Steel {62.5%, primary 

and secondary), automobile (10.9%. 

primary and secondary), space heating 

(includfug wood and coal burning, 

primary and secondary, 16.6%), and 

other point sources (10%, primary and 

secondary). 

To demonstrate attainment by 

De~mber 1994 (and to show on-going 

maintenance of the NAAQS), the SIP 

provided for implementation of the 

following control measures (the SIP 

shows attainment by 1993 and 

maintenance to 2003): 

(1) New operating parameters and 

emission limitations for PMao. S02, and 

NO. for existing sources of primary and 

secondary PMao impacting the ambient 

concentrations at the monitoring sites 

are detailed in Appendix A.l. of the 

Utah Air Conservation Regulation 

(UACR). These control measures 

include: 

(a) a 54.4% emission reduction for 

Geneva Steel (primarily from the coke 

oven stacks and open hearth) includes 

facility-wide emission limitations and 

reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements specified in Appendix 

A.1.2.F of the SIP; 

{b) fourteen other sources, whichinclude a nitric acid plant, power 

plants, and asphalt & cement plants, 

have emission limitations specified in 

Appendix A.1.2.A through A.1.2.0; 

(c) provisions limiting fuel burning to 

natural gas or to a specific sulfur 

content in the fuel, \vith specific 

permitting and recordkeeping 

requirements, apply to all major fuel 

burning units or facilities in the County; 

(d) general provisions relating to stack 

testing. opacity, compliance with 

annual limitations, recordkeeping 

requirementS of consUmption/ 

production. on-site fugitive dust control 

requirements from unpaved operation 

areas, etc .. are specified in Appendix 

A.1.1; · 

(e) regulations to ensure 

implementation and enforcement 

provisions were revised or added, such 

as definitions, general requirements 

applicable to all sources or source 

categories, permitting regulations, 

emission standards, and emergency 

epi!!ode req_uirements. 

(2) No _bum periods, beginning 

September 1992, will achieve 60% 

emission reduction from fireplaces and 

SO% from woodstoves (Section 

9.A.6(4)(a) of the SIP): 

(a) area coverage is north of the 

southernmost border of Payson City and 

east of State Route 68 (this covers 

virtually all the populated areas in Utah 

County; the areas not covered are 

mountainous areas and Utah Lake); 

(b) program is triggered when ambient 

PMao concentrations reach 120 11g/m3 as measured by the real-time monitor · 

located at the Lindon monitoring site; 

(c) City_ and County Health 

Department commits to adopt local 

regulations to promulgate plan 

consistent with the State regulations; 

(d) the State commits to eight 

inspectors round-the-dock during 

mandatory no bum periods and 

inspections to include investigation of 

calls made by private citizens; 

(e) a regulation which specifically 

prohibits any visible emissions during 

the mandatory no bum period, except 

for tliose residences with burning as the 

sole source of heat for the entire 

residence and registered with the 

Executive Secretary or the local Health 

District (UACR 4.13.3);' and 

(f) guidelines established for assessing 

' the amount of penalty for violation of 

the no burn regulation (UACR 

9.A.6.( 4)(c)(viii)). 

(3) Reducing sand/salt/slag applied to 

roads during the wintertime by 20% 

ASection 9.A.6(7) of the SIP). In 

addition, a study is to be conducted to 

confirm 20% reduction. Within six 

- months from completion of the study, 

agencies responsible for application of 

these materials on the road must submit 

a plan and implementation schedules to 

reduce initial silt loading by 25% from 

the amount applied during the 1990 

base year. The methods included in the 

'The SIP requires that the Count). develop 

regulations/ordinances for fLreplace and woodstove 

installer and operator training programs, a solid fuel : 

burner inspectiOn program, weatherization 

requirements for homes. and banning of coal 

burning. EPA notes that when implemented, this 

program should help ensure maintenance of the 

NAAQS in the area. 

Plan'must be implemented by" October 

1, 1993. Regulations specifying the 

_requirements for those who apply salt. 

slag or sand tp roads are located in 

UACR 3.2.7.A & B. 

EPA requires that attainment be 

demonstrated at all sites violating the 

PM10 standard. The control measures 

discussed above are necessary for all th 

sites to attain the standard, although tho 

impact of a specific source category at 

a site may vary. The attainment 

summary for the 24-hour PMao NAAQS 

at each of the three monitoring sites 

(Lindon, North Provo, and West Orem) 

through the year 2003 can be found in 

Tables 9.A.5, 9.A.7 and 9.A.9 of the SIP 

respectively. Changes in emissions 

between 1993 and 2003 show a slight 

decrease in -mobile source emissions, 

but a slight increase in residential space 

heating (woodburning) emissions. 

Although the State focused on the 

emissions and exceedances during the 

winter months, the control measures 

specific to the stationary sources are 

year-round. The highest annual average 

in Utah County occurred in 1988 at the 

Lindon site and was 54 ~/m • Since 

attainment of the 2~-hour design value 

results in an emission reduction of 43% 

in Utah County, the 24-hour emission 

limits are the more restrictive and will 

. ensure attainment of the annual 

standard (as summarized in Table 

9.A.24 of the SIP). . . _ 

The State has also committed to adopt 

a diesel inspection and maintenance (U 

M) program to reduce diesel particulate 

emissions by 20%. The SIP contains a 

detailed discussion of the program 

elements, committed to by the State, 

including, among other things. the 

following measures: (a) opacity inspections and mandatory 

repair upon failure; 

(b) compliance monitored through 

diesel vehicle registration; 

(c) certification of mechanics and 

stations upon their demonstration of 

adeguate training, skill, and resources; 

(d) opacity compliance test methods 

and roadside opacity enforcement; _ (e) fleet self-certification; 

(f) limited waiver provisions; 

(g) public education on the program 

requirements provided to diesel vehicle 

owners and diesel industry 

organizations; . (h) enforcement program; penalties 

and annual program evaluation_ 

The SIP contains a detailed schedule 

of the State's action on the diesel IfM 

program that indicates, among other 

things, the program provisions will 

become effective on July 1. 1993. The 

State has since advised EPA that the 

implementation of this program has 

slipped due to delays in the national 
35040 Federal Register I Vol. 59, No. 130 I Friday, July 8, 1994 I Rules and Regulations 

opacity testing and measurement 

specifications. 

?_ Salt Lake County 

Two distinct PM1o problems have 

.:len identified in Salt Lake County: (1) 

the summertime exceedances due to 

blowing dust from the Kennecott 

tailings in Magna, and (2) the winter 

exceedances during winter inversion 

periods in Salt Lake and Davis Counties. . - a. Magna 

Based on 724 observations in a threeyear period, 1987 through 1989, the 

design value was determined to be the 

third-high reading, 304 !lg/m3. The 

exceedances were specifically caused by 

blowing dust from the Kennecott 

tailings pond while the facility was shut 

down. Additional analyses to determine 

any other source contribution were not 

necessary. _ 

Kennecott and the State agreed to 

various control measures to ensure cfust 

control of the tailings pond during 

current operation, and temporary or 

permanent shutdown of the mine, 

smelter and/or associated tailings pond 

operations. 

The control measures (which 

included slurry distribution throughout 

the periphery and surface top of the 

pond) were completed in July 1988. 

·..,getation planting was also initiated. 

~meteorological conditions (winds at 

, mph or greater) which caused the 

past exceedances hcrve occurred since 

the implementation of the control 

measure and no exceedances were 

recorded. The control measures are 

defined in Section 9.A.6(1) of the SIP 

and Appendix A.2.2.BB.B of the Utah 

Air Conservation Regulation. 

b. Salt Lake County 

The Salt uike County exceedances, 

with the exception of the Magna area 

problem, occurred only during the 

\\inter season (November through 

February). The County has three 

monitoring sites (North Salt Lake, Air 

Monitoring Center, and Salt Lake), 

whlch recorded violations of the PM10 

NAAQS. The North Salt Lake design 

\'alue is 169 J.lg/m3. The Air Monitoring 

Center design value is 177 j.lgfm3. The 

Salt Lake design value is 170 j.lg/m3. _ . The source apportionments for these 

sites are fairly similar, showing 

significant PM10 contribution from 

secondary emissions. The Salt Lake area 

has different types of major stationary 

sources which emit S02 and NO, 

P.missions, including refineries, a copper 

Iter, power plants, and asphalt 

1ts. Significant emissions were also 

__ ,mtified from industrial vehicles, 

trains, and planes (Salt Lake has an 

international airport and a major 

railroad distribution center), 

woodburning, and from gasoline 

vehicles. The State concluded that 

showing attainment at the Air 

Monitoring Center, where the design 

value-was highest, would also show 

attainment at the remaining two sites. 

Analyses of the gridded emission 

inventory and the CMB indicated that 

-the Salt Lake monitors, especially the 

North Salt Lake site, we~e impacted by 

PM10 and its precursors (S~ and NO,) 

in Davis County. Therefore, to 

adequately address the nonattainment 

problem in Salt Lake County, sources 

were evaluated and controls required in 

Davis County, as well as in Salt Lake 

County. 

As with the Utah County effort, the 

Salt Lake modeling analysis was 

receptor modeling, or CMB, due to 

difficulties with using dispersion 

modeling. Low wind speed (stagnation) 

and inversions were recurring 

meteorological conditions; the_y were. 

not necessarily as severe as the 

conditions in Utah County. The area, 

however, had significant mountainvalley-lake effects. (The Wasatch 

Mountains are to the east and the Great 

Salt Lake is to the west.) The State has 

only vector wind data, which could not 

be changed to scaler units in a timely 

manner. Therefore, to meet the 

deadlines of the Settlement Agreement, 

EPA and the State agreed to proceed 

with the Salt Lake analysis using CMB 

and emission inventory rollback. A · 

micro inventory and critical review of 

the CMB provides an adequate and 

appropriate analysis of the. PM10 · 

contribution and !}le required emission 

reduction necessary for attainment in 

Salt Lake County. In addition, 

Kennecott Copper performed a tracer 

study in February 1990 to determine if 

its emissions impact the Salt Lake 

monitoring sites. That study confirmed 

that the 1215 ft. stack and emissions 

from low heights at the smelter do 

impact the monitoring sites. · As discussed in II.C.1. above, EPA's 

policy indicates that, in certain 

circumstances, "modified 

demonstrations" may be accepted on a 

case-by-case basis. The policy is 

applicable to the Salt Lake County · 

attainment demonstration due to the 

meteorological and topographical 

concerns, as well as the secondary 

particulate contribution issues. These 

issues were documented in Volume I, 

Salt Lake County, General Data 

Technical Support Document. 

The base year emission inventory was 

for 1988. Since the exceedances were 

wintertime occurrences, the State 

focused on a wintertime (1988-89 

season) inventory and an annual 

inventory. Summaries of these 

inventories, as well as the attainment 

year inventory, are provided in Table 

9.A.13 of the SIP. Specific details of the 

base year and attainment year _(after 

controls) inventories are provided in 

Volumes II through VI, Salt Lake 

County, State Technical Support 

Document. 

The Air Monitoring Center site, with 

the highest design value in the area, was 

- used as the "control" site for 

derp.onstrating attainment of the PM 10 

NAAQS 'in Salt Lake County. The . 

categories of source contribution for the 

highest design value site include · 

refineries (5.35% primary), other point 

sources (12.42% primary), secondary 

sulfates (12.97%, primarily from 

Kennecott smelter and refineries), 

secondary nitrates (10.42%, primarily 

from Kennecott mine and refineries), 

automobiles (29.28% primary and 

secondary), space heating (including 

wood and coal burning, 24% primary 

and secondary), and other sources 

(trains and planes, 3.52% primary and 

secondary). The source contribution for 

all the sources, except Kennecott, is 

similar at the other monitoring sites. 

The Kennecott source contributions 

were 4 to 6% for primary PM10 at the 

North Provo and Salt Lake sites and 0% 

at the Air Monitoring Center. 

To demonstrate attainment by 

December 1994 (and to show ongoing 

maintenance of the NAAQS), the SIP 

provides for implementation of the 

following control measures (the SIP 

shows attainment by 1993 and 

maintenance to at least 2000): 

(1) New operating parameters and 

emission limitations for PM11" S~. and 

NO, for existing sources of primary and 

secondary PM10 impacting the ambient 

concentrations at the monitoring sites 

are detailed in Appendix A.2. of the 

UACR. These control measures include: 

(a) significant emission reduction for 

Kennecott's facilities (concentrator, 

power plant, refinery, gold mine, copper 

mine and smelter). The smelter's 1215 

ft. stack previously was allowed to emit 

so2 emissions of 18,000 lbs/hr, annual 

average and a maximum 3-hour average 

of 98,400 lbs/hr. The new emission limit 

which requires emission reduction 

equivalent to that which would be 

realized from a double contact .acid 

plant is 3240 lbs/hr, annual average and 

5700 lbs/hr, 24-hour average. 

(b) emission reduction for the 

refineries (the major control 

requirements are the installation of a 

sulfur recovery unit, and emission 

limitations on the boilers, furnaces, 

flares, catalytic crackers, etc.); 
Federal Register I Vol. 59, No. 130 I Friday, July 8, 1994 I Rules and Regulations '-35041 

(c) provisions allowing the burning of rules contained in the SIP. Based on the are required by Section 110(a)(2) and 

only natural gas fuel during tlie information currently available, EPA Section 172 (Part D) of the CAA. The 

wintertime (November through believes the 20% reduction estimated by Utah SIP has been revised since 1978, 

February) at all power plants; year- the State is reasonable. However, in . but the revisions were only for pollutaJ 

round burning of natural gas fuel is acting on any SIP revision following specific nonattairunentareas. To ensm 

required at Utah Power and Light from the study described in B.l.d.3 · adequate implementation and 

(Gadsby and 40 N:lOOW.) and Murray above, EPA would review the - enforcement of the PM1o SIP, the State 

· City Power; . sufficiency of any new measures in light reviewed and updated its State-wide Sl 

(d) sources are considered major if of the new information. EPA also may and regulations. The regulations were 

they emit 50 tpy ofPM10. S02, or NO., find it necessary to assess the · . revised, as necessary. to enforce the 

or any combination of the three sufficiency of the area's attainment PM10 SIP. The State-wide SIP, excludin 

pollutants. demonstration in light of such new Section 9 (pollutant-specific 

(e) general provisions relating to stack information. See Section 110(k)(6) of the nonattainment area plans), and Section 

testing, opacity, compliance with Act. ·. 8 (Prevention of Significant 

annual limitations, recordkeeping The control strategies discussed above Deterioration), was revised to address 

requirements of consumption! . are necessary to demonstrate attainment changes in EPA guidance and other 

pmduction, on-site fugitive dust control · at the three monitoring sites, although Federal requirements. A public hearing 

requirements from unpaved operation the impact of a specific source category was held on these revisions on 

areas, etc. at a site may vary. The attainment- December 16, 1991. The revisions were 

(0 regulations to ensure summaries for the 24-hour PM10 made effective on March 31, 1992 and 

_implementation and enforcement NAAQS at each of the monitoring sites officially submitted to EPA on October 

provisions were revised or added, such (North Salt Lake, Air Monitoring Center, 16, 1992. 

as definitions, general requirements and Salt Lake City) through the year Prior to this revision, the UACR were 

applicable to all sources or source 2000 can be found in :rabies 9.A.1S. incorporated into the State-wide SIP, 

categories, permitting regulations, 9.A.a and 9.A.22, respectively. Changes Chapter 12. During the public hearing 

emission standards, emergency episode in emissions between 1993 and 2000 process, the State identified 

requirements and malfunction show a slight decrease in mobile source administrative and publishing concerns 

provisions. emissions. but an increase from which justified the "rearranging" of the 

(2) No burn period, beginning residential space heating regp.lations and the document titled 

September 1992, will achieve 60% (woodburning). - · "SIP". The State clarified that the SIP . 

emission reduction from fireplaces and . Although the State focused on the has always been incorporated by 

SO% from woodstoves (Section emissions and exceedances during the reference into the regulations, as stated 

9.A.6(4)(b) of the SIP): winter months, the control measures - in UACR R446-2. Past inclusion of the 

(a) area coverage is all of Salt Lake specific to the stationary sources are regulations· into the SIP creates a double 

County and for areas in Davis County year-round. The highest annual average, incorporation. The ·State clarified that 

which are south of the southernmost 54 J.Ull1 , in Salt Lake County occurred in the regulations and the revised "SIP" 

_border of Kaysville; the prohibition 1988 at the North Salt Lake site. Since will continue to be federally enforceable 

applies when the ambient concentration the 24-hour design value results in a for the State-wide. program. Clarification 

ofPM10 reaches 120 Jlg/ml and the • PM10 emission reduction of 19.6% in of the State's position on this issue is 

forecasted weather includes a Salt Lake County, the 24-hour emission documented in the State's response to 

temperature inversion which is · limits are more restrictive, and will public hearing comments on the 

predicted to continue for at least 24 ensure attainment of the annual revisions to Chapter 1-7 and 1Q-15; the 

hours; standard (as sUmmarized in Table State's internal memorandum of its 

(b) the State commits to eight . 9.A.24 of the SIP): response to public hearing comments is 

inspectors round-the-clock during The State's commitment to adopt a dated December 23, 1991, and is 

mandatory no burn periods and · diesel UM program to reduce diesel included in the State TSD. 

inspections to include investigation of particulate emission by 20% applies to E. Post SIP Submittal Issues 

calls made by private citizens; Salt Lake and Davis County as well as 

. (c) a regulation which specifically Utah County (Section 9.A.6(6) of the 

· prohibits any visible emissions during SIP). In the Utah County portion of this 

the mandatory no burn period, except notice, EPA described in broad terms 

for those residences with burning as the the program elements and associated 

sole source of heat for the entire · schedules committed to by the State. 

residence and registered with the The prior discussion of the commitment 

Executive Secretary or the local health .applies with equal force here. EPA's 

department (UACR 4.13.3); and position regarding the State's . (d) guidelines established for commitment to adopt this program is 

assessing the amount of penalty for also the same as that described in the 

violation of the no burn regulation Utah County discussion above and is 

(UACR 9.A.6.(4)(c)(viill) incorporated here by reference. 

(3) Reducing sandlsalt/slag applied to . . : roads during the wintertime by 20%, as . D. A~d1tional Section ~10(a)(2) and 

described above in the Utah County . Section 172 CAA Reqwrements 

plan, B.l.d.3. EPA's position regarding The Utah State-wide SIP was last 

this measure is also the same as revised in 1978 and, at that time, the 

described above in the discussion of the State addressed major SIP elements 

Utah County plan and is incorporated such as ~sources, ambient monitoring 

here by reference. In short, EPA is program, emergency episodes, 

approving the road salting and sanding permitting. etc. These program elements 

EPA reviewed the Utah PM 10 

submittal dated November 15, 1991, and 

determined the package as 

administratively and technically 

complete. This finding was documented 

in a letter to the Governor of Utah on 

January 17,1992. EPA, however, had 

several concerns on the appro~bility of 

the SIP due to missing documentation. 

Documentat.Wn on the State's analyses 

on various stationary source control 

· measures and how they were to be 

· revised in the SIP and specified in the 

permits was needed. EPA has since · . 

received a majority of the --

documentation requested or has 

received an adequate State response · 

with respect to correcting any 

stationary-source emission-limitation 

clarity issues. The State did not need a 

formal SIP revision (i.e., that which has 
3504Z Federal Register I Vol. 59, No. 130 I Friday, July 8, 1994 I Rules and ·Regulations 

gone to the public hearing process) to 

correct these changes (with the 

·'=eption of the Pacific States Cast Iron 

1city and the 202 test method, 

..;cussed below) because the changes 

were not significant and substantive · 

modifications. · 

The Pacific States Cast Iron Company 

(this source is located in Utah County) 

opacity limit stated in the SIP is 30%. 

Generally. EPA policy provides that, for 

any major stationary source emitting 

particulates in a nonattainment area, the 

opacity should be restricted to 20% 

unless the source can demonstrate that 

20% is not feasible. In that case. the · 

source must demonstrate the lowestopacity level that is feasible. The 30% 

opacity was a requirement that was 

stated in the public hearing document. 

This opacity limit was an oversight in 

the review of the Pacific States Cast Iron 

emission limitations. In a letter dated 

October 23, 1992, the Director of the 

Utah Division of Air Quality committed 

to review the emission limit (the 20% or 

feasible opacity level) for this source 

and to adopt a SIP revision. if 

appropriate, by March 1993. This 

review must be completed by the State. 

When the Utah PM1o SIP was . 

finalized, Method 202 had not been 

promulgated by EPA. Therefore, the 

' ·•mce of Method 202 is not a basis for 

1proving any. requirements or 

.Ients in the SIP submittal being 

acted on today. However, Method 202 is 

now available and should be specified 

in the future as appropriate in the SIP 

and in the stationary source permits. 

The State was aware of this potential 

requirement and has agreed to address 

this issue as part ofits 5tate/EP A 

Agreemenffor fiscal year 1994. · During the review of the November 

15, 1991 submittal, EPA and the State 

identified typographical errors in the 

final printing of the SIP. The State has 

committed to correct these errors in a· 

letter dated July 1, 1992. The 

typographical errors on (1) page 42 of 

the SIP, Section 9.A.6.(2)(a), (2) page 52 

of the SIP, third paragraph, sixth line, 

and (3) page 185, Section 9_ofthe SIP, 

Appendix A.2.2.RR, Condition 6, have 

been corrected in September 1993. 

Since State adoption of this PM 1o SIP, 

theState has been finalizing the permit · 

conditions for stationary sources. EPA 

has discussed and advised the State on 

the need to ensure consistency with the 

State's permits and the federallyenforceable SIP. The State's permit 

program is in the federally-approved 

The final approval to the PM 10 SIP 

lso make the emission limitations 

.. e stationary sources federally 

enforceable. EPA is giving notice that 

should di.fferent emission limitations 

exist, EPA will enforce the more 

stringent of the two (or more) emission 

limitations. EPA must have assurance 

that the attainment demonstration of a 

nonattainment area plan is maintained. 

The less stringent emission limitation 

may not provide that assurance without 

a reanalysis of the attainment · 

demonstration. It is, therefore, critical 

that the State maintain consistent 

emission limitations in the permits and 

in the federally-approved 

nonattainment-area plan. EPA bas 

agreed to allow the State to update the 

emission limitations section of the SIP 

once a year, i.e., by September of each 

year beginning 1993. The tracking of 

this effort will be docum_ented annually · 

inlhe EPA/State Agreement. 

III. Public Comment 

. EPA proposed to approve the Utah 

PM10 SIP on December 18, 1992, 57 FR 

60149. Comments. were received from 

Geneva Steel and Kennecott Utah 

Copper Corporation. The Geneva 

comments consisted of two parts: 

general comments in support of the SIP 

and a specific comment regarding equity 

on where controls were required and 

what controls are necessary for growth. 

The Kennecott comments contained a 

status report of its control measures on 

its tailings pond and the belief that the 

Federal approval of the PM1o SIP, which . 

includes sulfur emission limitations for 

the smelter, would automatically imply 

resolution of the stack-height issues at _ 

the smelter. (The Kennecott smelter has 

a long history of issues surrounding its 

, 1215 ft. stack. These issues are being . 

addressed in a separate Federal Register 

action.) The Geneva arid Kennecott 

comments are discussed in more details 

below. 

A. Geneva Comments 

The Geneva comments raised 

interesting issues, some of which have 

been raised previously during the PM 10 

SIP development, others which would 

be more appropriately addressed by the 

State in its current ·work on the PM1o 

contingency plan SIP Revision or the 

Carbon Monoxide SIP Revision. The 

comments are summarized below: 

1. Geneva believes it has done its fair 

share to reduce emissions, but the SIP 

does not provide an adequate margin for 

growth from area and mobile sources. 

Geneva claims it has submitted data in 

February 1993 suggesting that ignoring 

the increasing vehicle emissions has 

resulted in overcontrol at Geneva. Response: EPA bas not seen the -

February 1993 data. The SIP, however, 

carmot be changed simply by the 

submittal of new data. EPA believes the 

State made the best decision with the 

data available at the time of the SIP 

development in 1990. The State can 

evaluate new data and revise the SIP 

accordingly. The State is required to · 

submit a SIP Revision by November 15, 

1993, to address contingency measures. 

The State should work with Geneva in 

considering the February 1993 data in 

the next SIP Revision. 

2. Geneva commented that no UpDown-Up analysis was performed on a 

similar source [the Kennecott· smelter] 

in Salt Lake County which was also 

temporarily shut down dtping the PM1o 

data collection period. If the Up-DownUp analysis is really useful, equivalent 

use for source apportionment in Salt 

Lake· County would be expected. 

Response: EPA believes that the State 

, did not have sufficient data or time to 

perform an Up-Down-Up analysis for 

the Kennecott facility. Instead, the State 

used a tracer study which Kennecott 

funded. EPA and the State reviewed the 

data and believed they adequately 

evaluated the Kennecott emissions 

impact in the Wasatch Front. EPA 

believes that for PM1o. equitable 

emission reduction was applied to this 

stationary source category. 

3. Geneva claims significantly 

different approaches were applied in 

defining the design values for the Utah . 

Coimty and Salt Lake County SIPs. 

Response: The design value 

determination had been discussed . 

between EPA, the State and Geneva 

prior to and during the State public 

hearing period. EPA continues to 

believe that the State adequately applied 

the appropriate rationale for evaluating 

quality assured complete data sets for 

both area SIPs. EPA Headquarters 

specifically documented the procedures 

for review ofPM10 data in Utah County 

in EPA internal memoranda dated May 

11, 1990 and July 11, 1990. The Salt 

Lake data were reviewed in the same 

marmer. 

4. Geneva pointed out that reductions 

in coal burning emissions were not 

· adequately considered in the Utah 

County SIP and credit inappropriately 

applied in the Salt Lake County SIP. 

Response: EPA agrees that coal 

burning emissions may not have bcim 

adequately addressed in the Utah 

County or Salt Lake County SIPs. EPA, 

however, did not give emission 

reduction credit for coal burning control 

measures in either SIP. EPA does agree 

that significant data were gathered on 

coal burning emissions in the Utah 

County area and that more data 

gathering may be needed in Salt Lake 

County. EPA believes the State could 

address these issues when it develops 

its PM10 contingency plan. 
Federal Register I Vol. 59, No. 130 I Friday, July 8, 1994 I Rules and Regulations 35043 

5. Geneva commented that the 

oxygenated fuels program may increase 

mobile source NOx emissions which 

could jeopardize the success of the PM10 

SIP (NOx has been determined to be a · 

PM10 precursor in the Utah County 

area). 

Response: The oxygenated fuels 

program is being implemented in Utah 

County in response to the CAA mandate 

for moderate CO nonattainment areas 

with design values greater than 12.7 

ppm. It was adopted and implemented 

after the PM10 SIP was adopted and · 

submitted to EPA. That is, the PM10 SIP 

did not and could not·have anticipated 

the impact of other future CAA 

requirements. EPA believes that the 

State should address the Utah County 

oxygenated fuels issues through the 

Carbon Monoxide (CO) SIP and filter 

data analyses to demonstrate that · 

mobile source emissions, during the 

oxygenated fuels program; did in fact 

raise the NOx emissions in the area. 

EPA has seen much of the data 

referenced by Geneva, but has also seen 

data to the contrary. EPA Headquarters 

has not made a conclusive 

determination on either data base. 

6. Geneva suggested that the diesel 

emissions may not have been accurately 

apportioned; emissions assigned to 

diesel vehicles should have been 

assigned to gasoline vehicles. 

Response: The PM10 SIP does break 

out diesel and gasoline fueled PM1o 

emissions, but does not break out NOx 

emissions; there is only a single 

category for secondary nitrate. The NOx 

emission estimates came from the 

MOBILE model, which includes both 

EPA's tailpipe emission factors and 

VMT shares for gasoline and diesel 

fueled vehicles. The model provides one 

composite NOx emission factor, which 

is multiplied by total VMT in the 

County to produce one NOx emissions 

number. Since the MOBILE model 

includes the necessary emission factors 

for the different vehicle types, the only 

way the State could have produced an 

erroneous NOx estimate using the 

model would have been to input faulty 

VMT share information for gas and 

diesel vehicles. EPA believes the State 

used EPA's default inputs for VMT 

share. 

7. Geneva claims that EPA and the 

State used the Kennecott tracer study for 

the PM10 SIP but that EPA was not in 

favor of applying the Geneva tracer 

study in the same manner for the Utah 

County CO SIP. 

Response: EPA believes the intent and 

application of the Kennecott PM10 tracer 

study differed from the Geneva CO 

study. The Kennecott study was to 

determine if there was an impact from 

Kennecott in the Salt Lake or Utah 

County PM 10 nonattainment area. The 

Kennecott emission limitations were 

then set using emission rollback and 

CMB analyses. The Geneva study was to 

determine Geneva's impact in 

downtown Provo, but EPA has 

questioned the e·mission rates used 

during the study and the length of the 

study time. EPA believes that the study 

contains good information, but is 

inadequate to define the CO impact 

during stagnation conditions or 

establish emission rates as was done 

with the Kennecott study. This 

discussion, however, is not applicable 

to the approval of the Utah County PM1o 

SIP. · 

In summary, the Geneva comments 

raised interesting issues, some of which 

have been raised previously, and others 

which are more appropriate for the State 

to address during the PM 10 contingency 

SIP revision or for the CO SIP revision. 

B. Kennecott Comments 

Kennecott made two specific 

comments. The first is the status of the 

vegetation cover around the tailings 

pond and its success in attaining the 

standard in the Magna area in ·the past 

four and a half years. In the second 

comment, Kennecott indicates that for 

PM1o. attainment was demonstrated 

using receptor modeling and ambient 

monitoring data. Kennecott states that 

"If the smokestacks used by one or more 

of the PM10 sources had been taller or 

shorter than they actually are, the 

ambient data would have been different 

and the results of the CMB analysis 

would have been different. Therefore, if 

any of the stacks were taller than GEP. 

credit could not be given for the height 

above GEP and an attainment 

demonstration based on CMB would not 

be valid." Kennecott reiterates its 

commitment to install a double contact 

acid plan and asserts that EPA's 

approval of the PM10 SIP implies 

approval of the GEP SIP. 

Response: EPA acknowledges the 

good faith effort Kennecott has made in 

successfully implementing the control 

measures for the tailings pond. The 

comment on GEP, however, is not 

applicable here. The PM10 SIP did not 

attempt to review stack height issues in 

the Salt Lake or Utah County areas. 

(Stack heights could have been 

reviewed if any of the stationary sources 

emitted greater than 5000 tpy total 

suspended particulates. Such sources 

did not exist in these PM 10 

nonattainment areas.) 

As stated in I.C.2.b above, Kennecott 

emissions from the tall stack and from 

other sources did impact PM1o 

monitoring sites in Utah and Salt Lake 

Counties. The Salt Lake PM10 SIP is 

related to the stack height (GEP) issue 

because S01 emissions in the Wasatch 

Front have been determined to be 

precursors ofPM10. To demonstrate 

attainment for the Utili SIP, "major" 

PM1o sources and their precursors must 

demonstrate RACT. For the Kennecott 

smelter, RACT was a double contact 

acid plant or its equivalent. A double 

contact acid plant has been determined 

by EPA to be RACT for the S01 SIP, but 

it is a control measure that was highly 

contested by Kennecott over the past 

two decades in favor of other contror 

measures. Emissions rollback was used 

to determine the level necessary for -

PM10 attainment of the area. Stack 

height (or GEP) was not an issue which 

had to be resolved for the PM1o SIP. EPA 

did encourage the double contact acid 

plant control measure since such 

control measure, combined with other 

requirements, was necessary for both 

the PM1o and S02 attainment 

demonstration. The GEP SIP is focused 

on another criteria pollutant, was not 

discussed in the proposed approval · 

rulemaking of the Utah PM1o SIP, and 

must be processed in a separ~te Federal 

Register action. · 

As with the Geneva comments, the 

Kennecott comments/issues do not 

affect the approvability of the PM1o SIP. 

IV. Implications ofToday's Action 

The EPA is approving the plan · 

revision submitted to EPA for the Utah 

and Salt Lake Counties, Utah, in a letter 

from the Governor dated November 15, 

1991. Among other things, the State of 

Utah has demonstrated that the Utah 

and Salt Lake Counties PM10 

nonattainment areas will attain the PM10 

NAAQS by December 31, 1994. 

The Utah Air Conservation 

Regulations (UACR) have been revised 

numerous times since the early 1970's. 

The regulations have been renumbered 

and new requirements added. EPA is 

today approving the replacement of the 

entire UACR submitted on November 

15, 1991. 

EPA is approving the State·wide SIP 

revisions (Chapters 1-7 and 10-15) 

submitted in a letter dated October 15, 

1992; by the Dire.ctor, Utah Air Quality 

Division. As with the UACR, the Statewide SIP was updated to clarity and 

consistency with current State and 

Federal requirements. The October 15, 

1992 submittal was referenced in the 

Governor's original November 15, 1991 

letter. ~ 

As noted, additional submittals for 

the initial moderate PM10 nonattainment 

areas were due at later dates. These 

include a new source review program 

for new and modified major sources of 
Federal Register I Vol. 59, No. 130 I Friday, July 8, 1994 J Rules and Regulations -

PM 10 (and PMro. precursors. where 

applicable}. which was required to be 

submitted by June 30. 1992. (see Section 

189(a) of the Act) and contingency 

measures. v.·bich WC"e required to be 

.mbmitted byNovemberlS, 1993 (see 

Section 112(c}{9) of the Act and 57 FR 

13543}. The E?A will determine the 

adequacy of any such submittal as 

appropriate. 

The approval of the PM 10 plans for the 

Salt Lake and Utah Counties has 

benefits that mend to other criteria 

poilutant efforts. The approval of these 

PM~ plans, however. does not 

automatically resolve the other criteria 

pollutant issues, such as GEP and the · 

S02 SIP. The GEP issue and the SOl SIP 

for Salt Lake County will be addressed 

in a separate Federal Register notice. 

The approval of this PMro plan for 

·Salt Lake and Utah Counties establishes 

emission limitations and 

implementation milestones. The State 

must update its SIP for changes to these 

emission limitations. especially for 

stationary sources. EPA and the State 

agree that such updates (which are SIP 

Revisions} will oceur each September, 

as appro~. Should differences exist 

between emission limitations, EPA will 

enforce. as necessary, the most stringent 

limitation. 

Final Action 

This document makes final the action 

roposed at 57 FR 60149, December tB, 

1992, lnduding the clarifications 

discussed above. As noted elsewhere in 

this notice. EPA received public 

comments in support of its proposed 

approval and on comments more 

applicable to other pollutant (SDJ and 

CO) issues; no adverse public comments 

were believed to have been submitted 

on the proposed action. As a direct 

result, ·the Regional Administrator has 

reclassified this action from Table I to 

a Table Ill under the processing 

procedures established at 54 FR 2214. 

January 19. 1989.. 

Regulatory Process 

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 

5 U.S.C.IiOO 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. 60:J 

and 604. Ah.ematively.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 population of less 

n50,000-

IP approvals Wlder-Section llOand 

. .x:hapta- 1,. Part D of the CAA do not 

creale an:y new ~uirements. but 

simply approve requirements that the 

State is already imposiug. Therefore. 

because the federal SIP-epproval does 

not impose any new requirements, 1 

certify that it does not have a significant 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities .affected. Moreover, due to the 

nature of the federal-state relationship 

under thl' CAA, preparation of a . 

regulatory fltmbility analysis would 

constitute federal inqliliy into the 

economic reasonableness of state action. 

The CAA forbids EPA to base its actions 

concerning SIPs on such ~s. 

Union Electric Co. v. U.S. E.P .A. 427 

U.S. 246, Z56-66 (1916}; 4Z U.S.C. 

7410(a)(Z). 

Under Section .307(bH1) o(the C.'\.A. 

petitions for judicial review of this 

action mUst be filed in the United States 

Court of Appeals for the appropriate 

circuit by September 6, 1994. riling a 

petition for reconsideration by the 

Administrator ofthis final rule does nof 

affect the finality of this rule. for the 

purposes of judicial review nor does it 

exte11d the time within which a petition 

for judicial review may be filed, and 

shall not postpone the effectiveness of 

such rule or a.ctioa Thi& action may not 

be challenged later in proceedings tG 

enforce its requirements (see Section 

307(bl(2)). 

Executive Order 12866 

OMB has exempted this action from 

Executive Order 12866. review. . . 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Air pollution coritrol. Environmental 

protection, Incorporation by reference, 

hydrocarbons, intergovernmental 

relaticms. nitrogen dioXide, particulate 

matter, reporting and record1ceeping 

requirements, and sulfur dioxide. 

Note: Incorporation by reference of the 

State Implementation Plan far thtr State of 

Utah was approYed by the Director af the 

Federal Register an July t, 1982. 

Dated; April 26, 1994. 

William Yellowtail, 

Regional Administ.-war. 

Chapter I. title 40 of the Code of 

Federal Regulations ~s amended as 

follows: 

PART 52-{AMENOED} -

1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. -740"t-7671q. 

Subpart TT -Utah · 

2. Section 52...2320 is amended by 

adding paragraph (c)(25 J to reed as 

follows: 

§ 52.2320 Jdentlfk:atJols oS plan. 

" • • • • 

(c} • .-" 

tzs} The Governor of Utah submitted 

a PMro State-Implementation Plan (SIPJ 

for Salt Lake a:nd.Utah Counties, Utah 

with a letter dated November 15, 1991. 

The submittals were made tG scrtisfy 

those moderate PM10 nonattainment 

area SIP requirements due for Salt Lake 

and Utah Counties as outlined in the 

Clean Air Act of 199ft. The Governor's 

submittal also included revisions to the 

Utah Air Quality Rules and to other 

sections of the State-wide SIP. The Utah 

Air Conservation Regulations have been 

revised and renumbered over the past 

decade and are. being replaced in its 

·entirely with this Governor's submittal. 

(i) Incorporation by reference. 

(A} Utah Air Conservation 

Regulations, printed January 21,1992. 

(B} Utah State Implementation Plan. 

Section 1-7 and 10-15, effective March 

31, 199Z. 

(C) Utah State Implementation Plan, 

Section 9, Part A and Section 9. Part A, 

Appendix A effective August 14.1991. 

IFR Doc. 94-16505 Piled 7-i--9-l; 8:45- aml 

BILUNG COO£~ 

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 

PN15-2-6326A;FRL~ 

Approval and Promutgation of 

lmptementatlon Plans anc:r Designation 

of Areas for Air Qua!Uy Planning 

Purposes; State ot fndlana 

AGENCY: Environritental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The United States 

Environmental Protediort Agency 

(USEP A) is approving three n:quests to 

redesignate marginal ozone 

nonattainment areas in the- Stare of 

Indiana to attaimnent. Ths USEPA is 

also approving their accompanying 

maintenance plans. as State 

Implementation Plan (SIP} revisions.. 

The redesignation requests and 

- maintenance plans weie submitted by _ the Indiana Depamnent of 

Environmental Management (IDEM) for 

the following ozone nonattaimnent · 

areas: St. Joseph ami El.khart.. 

Vanderburgh..: and Marlon. Counties. The 

State has met the: requirements for · 

redesignation cmrtained m the Clean Air 

Act (the Act), as amended in 1900. The 

·redesignation requesa are based on 

ambient monitoring data that show no violations of the ozone National 

Ambient Air Quality-Standard INAAQS} 

during the ~year pftiod from 1900