### 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 ofthe

:

. ission limitations regarding alfalfa

. hydrators in Regulation No. 5 will not mterfere with attainment or maintenance ofthe 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 ofproposed rulemakiilg (59 FR 18988- 18990) and the TSD accompanying this action.

· Nothing in this action should be

· construed 

### aspermitting 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 ofspecific 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, theRegional Administrator


### .s reclassified this action from Table 2 ,oTable 3 underthe processing**proced~s** established at 54 FR 2214, January 19, 1989.

. '

.

This action 

### has been class1fied as a Table 3 actionby the Regional Administratorunder 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.

Undersection 307(b)(1) ofthe Clean Air Act, petitions forjudicialreview of this action must be filed in the United States Court ofAppeals for the appropriate circuitby September 6, 1994

. Filing a petition for

··reconsiderationbythe Administrator of

this final rule does not affect the finality ofthis rule for the purposes ofjudicial review nor does it extend thetime y;ithin which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of**sue~ .** rule

2 Note that the newconstruction 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 notl?e challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements

. (See section 307(b)(2)

.)
List ofSubjects in 40 

### CFR Part 52

Airpollution 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, RegionalAdministrator.

Part 5Z, chapter 

### I. title 40 ofthe Code ofFederal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 52-{AMENDED]

1. The authority citationfor part 52 continues to read as follows:

Authority; 42 U.S

.C

. 7401-7671q. Subpart G-Colorado

2

. Section 52.320 is amendedby 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 ofColorado," 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 ofRegulation 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: Finalrule.

SUMMARY: In this action, EPA is approving the State Implementation Plan (SIP) submittedby the State of Utah for the purpose ofbringing about the attainment ofthe 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 ofUtah to satisfy certain Federalrequirements 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 ofthe 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 ofthe 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 PM 10 Statutory and Regulatory History · 1

. 1977 Clean Air Act (CAA) Requirements: Revision and Implementation ofPM1o NAAQS

The CAA requires EPA to periodically

. review and, ifappropriate, 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 PM 10 NAAQS. " Group I" areas were those areas having violated the PM 1oNAAQS or having air quality data showing a high (greater than 95%) probability ofviolating the NAAQS. These areas required substantial SIP adjustment: "Group II"
areas were those areas estimated at having 20-95% probability ofviolating the PM1o NAAQS and needing less adjustment to their existing SIPs. "Group ill" areas were those areas estimated as having less than 20% probability ofviolating 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 ofUtah, Salt Lake and Utah Counties were identified by EPA
as Group I areas. The rest ofthe State
was classified as Group III (52 FR 29383, August 7, 1987)

. The State, therefore, under section 110(a)(1) ofthe 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 PM10 and classified as moderate by operation oflaw upon enactment ofthe 1990 Amendments. See Section 107(d)(4)(B) and 188(a)_ ofthe 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 PM10 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 PM 10 SIP within the timeframe provided under the CAA that provided for attainment ofthe 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 ofa SIP for Utah County and Salt Lake County and EPA approval, or EPA promulgation ofa Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) for these**co~ties,** ifnecessary, signed by the EPA Administratorby 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 ofdeveloping separate plans for the two area plans
was based on its review ofthe 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 ofthe lawsuit (agreeing to vacate the Settlement Agreement and dismiss the complaint) in August 1991. B. Moderate PM 10 Nonattainment Area SIP Requirements

The air quality planning requirements for moderate PM 10 nonattainment areas are set out in title I ofthe 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 ofthe Act, including those State submittals containing moderate PM 10

·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 oftitle I contains the provisions applicable to nonattainment
areas

. Moderate PM 10 nonattainment
areas must meet the applicable requirements set out in Subparts 1 and 4 ofPart D. Subpart 1 contains provisions generally applicable to all nonattaiiunent areas and Subpart 4 contains provisions specifically applicable to PM 10nonattainment 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 PM 10 nonattainment areas were required to submit, among other things, the following provisions 

### by

_ November 15, 1991:

1

. A comprehensive, accurate, current inventory ofactual emissions which provides a sufficient basis for determining the adequacy afthe 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, ofreasonably available control technology (RACI")) to be implemented no laterthan 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 ofP11.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 ofthe 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 ofnew 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 orEPA, upon a determinationby EPA that the area

'as failed to achieve RFP or to attain the M10 

### NAAQS by 

### the applicable · statutory deadline ofDecember 1994. (See Section**17~(c)(9)** 

### and 57 FR 13543- 13544.) IT. Today's Action

Section llO(k) 

### ofthe Act sets out provisions governing EPA's review of SIP submittals. (See 

### 57 FR 13565- 13566

.) In

### this action, EPA is approving the Utah PM 10 

### plan revision submitted to EPA in a letter dated November 15,

. 1991

. This submittal wasiri.tended to satisfy those moderate PMao nonattainment area SIP requirements due November 15,1991. EPA proposed to approve the submittal onDecember 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 proceduralrequirements in developing implementation plans and plan revisions for submission to EPA

. <;ection 110(a)(2) ofthe Act provides

;at eacliimplementationplan

· 4



### .ubmitted by a State must be 

### adopted after reasonable notice and public hearing

. (Also, Section 172(c)(7) ofthe Act requires thatplanprovisions for nonattainment areas meet the applicable provisions ofSection 110(a)(2)

.) Section 110(1) ofthe Act similarlyprovides that each revision to an implementation plan submitted by a State underthe Act must be adopted by such State after reasonable notice and publichearing: Utah held severalpublichearings after reasonable notice, evaluated the hearing comments, made changes to the SIPs and regulations as needed, and provided EPA with documentation ofthis process. The state documentation canbe found in the State's Technical Support Document (TSD), Evaluation ofthe PM 10 

### SIPs Compliance with 40 CFR 51, Appendix V Requirements

.

The EPA also must determine whether a submittal iscomplete and therefore warrants further EPA review and action. (See Section 110{k)(1) and 57FR 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 oflaw ifa completeness determination isnot made by EP.J\ six months afterreceipt ofthe submission

.

The Utah PM 10 

### SIP revision was reviewed by EPA to determine completeness shortly afterits 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 andthe next steps to be taken in the review process

. ·

The reader is

### referred tothe Federal Register datedDecember 18, 1992,57 FR 60149, for the 

### detailed discussion on the Utah PM10 SIP and corresponding regulatory requirements. In 

### summary, the Utah PM 10

### SIP must address various elements such as: emissions inventory, RACM (including RACf), demonstration ofattainment, 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 ofwhich recorded violations ofthePM10 NAAQS. The Lindon.site had 666 total number ofdays ofavailable data; the second highest value is 254 J181m3

, 

### measured in February 1989. TheNorth Provo site had 226 days ofavailable data; the first high is 191 JJ.g/m3 

### measured in January 1988. The West Orem sitehad 339 days ofavailable data; the first high is 263 JJ.g/ mJ

.These high/secondhigh 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 (EPA--450/2-86--{)01).

The Utah County monitoring network

·recorded additional data otherthan those stated above

. However, to ensure that each season ofthe yearis represented by the data used in 

### determining the design value, EPA requires the 

### use ofa complete discrete 12-month data set, or sets which are multiples of 12-month periods

. The use ofthe most recent data sets which represents the area is also encouraged

. -

The Utah County area had a unique data base involving the operationshutdown-startup ofGeneva 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 PM 10 

### violations. The days ofviolations, the average winter concentration, and average iron content on the filters were significantly greater during the operation ofthe facility than during the-down period.



### • tPA recommends the use ofcertain 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 ofthe nimlitoring network, Chemical Mass Balance {Q.ffi) 

### filters, and the emission inventory (CMB is a receptor modeling effort which canbe used to define PMa o emissions). EPA determined that, with the information available from the detailed emission inventory (supported by a micro inventory) and CMB analyses, the SIP wouldnot result in additional or different control strategies ifthere 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 PM 10

### 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, inadequatedata 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 policyrecommends that a modified demonstration be**accompanie~** 

### with the following: (1) documentationofthe procedures or analyses used 

### in the modified method; {2) an explanation why alternative methods identified in EPA guidance were not used; (3) a

. description ofhow 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 ofadequate data for an approved network, a review ofthe 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 theState 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 ofthese inventories, as well as the attainment year inventory, are provided in Table 9

.A

.3 ofthe SIP

. Specific details ofthe 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 ofthe source apportionment ofthe 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 coalburning, 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 ofthe NAAQS), the SIP provided for implementation ofthe following control measures (the SIP shows attainmentby 1993 and maintenance to 2003):

(1) New operating parameters and emission limitations for PMao. S02, and NO. for existing sources ofprimary and secondary PMao impacting the ambient concentrations at the monitoring sites
are detailed in Appendix A.l. ofthe Utah AirConservation 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 requirementsspecified in Appendix A.1

.2.F ofthe SIP;

{b) fourteen other sources, which

include 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 orto 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 ofconsUmption/ 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) ofthe SIP):

(a) area coverage is north ofthe southernmost border ofPayson City and east of State Route 68 (this covers virtually all the populated areas in Utah County; the areas not covered are mountainous areas andUtah Lake);

(b) program is triggered when ambient PMao concentrations reach 120 11g/m3 as measured by the real-time monitor · located atthe 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 nobum periods and inspections to include investigation of calls made 

### by private citizens;

(e) a regulation which specifically prohibits any visible emissions during the mandatory nobum period, except for tliose residences with burning as the sole source ofheat 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 ofpenalty 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) ofthe SIP)

. In

addition, a study is to be conducted to confirm 20% reduction. Within six

- months from completion ofthe 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 operatortraining programs,a solid fuel : burner inspectiOn program, weatherization requirements for homes. and banningofcoal burning

. EPA notes that when implemented, this program should help ensure maintenance ofthe NAAQS in the area

. Plan'must be implementedby" 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 PM 10 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 ofthe 

### 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 ofthe 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 ofthe**2~-hour** design value results in an emission reduction of43% in Utah County, the 24-hour emission limits are the more restrictive and will

. ensure attainment ofthe annual

standard (as summarized in Table 9.A.24 ofthe 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 ofthe 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 ofmechanics 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 ofthe 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 ofthis program has slipped due to delays inthe 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 PM 1

### oproblems 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 ofthe tailings pond during current operation, and temporary or permanent shutdown ofthe mine, smelter and/or associated tailings pond operations.

The control measures (which included slurry distribution throughout the periphery and surface top ofthe 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 ofthe control
measure and no exceedances were recorded. The control measures are defined in Section 9.A.6(1) ofthe SIP and Appendix A.2

.2

.BB.B ofthe Utah Air Conservation Regulation. b. Salt Lake County

The Salt uike County exceedances, with the exception ofthe 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 ofthe 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 ofmajor 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 ofthe 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 ofthe 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 ofthe

.PM 10 · 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 ofthese inventories, as well as the attainment year inventory, are provided in Table 9.A

. 13 ofthe SIP. Specific details ofthe 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 ofthe PM 10 

### NAAQS ' in Salt Lake County. The

. categories ofsource 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 Kennecottsource contributions
were 4 to 6% for primary PM 10 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 ofthe NAAQS), the SIP provides for implementation ofthe following control measures (the SIP shows attainment by 1993 and maintenance to at least 2000):

(1) New operating parameters and emission limitations for PM 11"**S~.** 

### and NO, for existing sources ofprimary and secondary PM10 impacting the ambient concentrations at the monitoring sites
are detailed in Appendix A.2. ofthe 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 of98,400 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 ofa 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) ofthe CAA. The wintertime (November through believes the 20% reduction estimatedby 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 ofnatural 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 ofthe PM1o SIP, the State

· City Power;

. sufficiency ofany new measures in light reviewed and updated its State-wide Sl (d) sources are considered major if ofthe 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 ofthethree sufficiency ofthe area's attainment PM 10 SIP. The State-wide SIP, excludin pollutants. demonstration in light ofsuch new Section 9 (pollutant-specific

(e) general provisions relating to stack information

. See Section 110(k)(6) ofthe nonattainment area plans), and Section testing, opacity, compliance with Act. ·. 8 (Prevention ofSignificant annual limitations, recordkeeping The control strategies discussed above Deterioration), was revised to address requirements ofconsumption!

. are necessary to demonstrate attainment changes inEPA 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 ofa 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 PM 10 made effective on March 31, 1992 and

_ implementation and enforcement NAAQS at each ofthe monitoring sites officially submitted to EPA on October provisions were revised or added, such (North Salt Lake, AirMonitoring 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 orsource 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 emissionsbetween 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 whichjustified the "rearranging" ofthe

(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 alwaysbeen incorporatedby SO% from woodstoves (Section emissions and exceedances during the reference into the regulations, as stated 9.A.6(4)(b) ofthe SIP): winter months, the control measures

- in UACR R446-2. Past inclusion ofthe

(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 ofthe 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 ofthe 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 ofthe annual revisions to Chapter 1-7 and 1Q-15; the hours; standard (as sUmmarized in Table State's internal memorandum ofits

(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 datedDecember 23, 1991, and is mandatory no burn periods and · diesel UM program to reduce diesel included inthe 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) ofthe

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

the mandatory no burn period, except notice, EPA described in broad terms for those residences withburning as the the program elements and associated sole source ofheat for the entire · schedules committed to by the State. residence andregistered with the The prior discussion ofthe commitment Executive Secretary orthe 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 ofpenalty for also the same as that described in the violation ofthe no burn regulation Utah County discussion above and is (UACR 9.A.6.(4)(c)(viill) incorporatedhere 

### 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 thattime, the described above in the discussion ofthe 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 determinedthe package as administratively and technically complete. This finding was documented in a letter to the Governor ofUtah 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 inthe SIP and specified in the

permits was needed. EPA has since · . received a majorityofthe

-- documentationrequested 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 ofthe Pacific States Cast Iron

1 city 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 lowest

opacity 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 ofthe Pacific States Cast Iron emission limitations. In a letter dated October 23 , 1992, the Director ofthe Utah Division ofAir 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 mustbe completed by the State.

When the Utah PM1o SIP was

. finalized, Method 202 hadnot been promulgated by EPA. Therefore, the

'

· •mce ofMethod 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 andhas agreed to address this issue as part ofits 5tate/EPA Agreemenffor fiscal year 1994. ·

During the review ofthe November 15, 1991 submittal, EPA and the State identified typographical errors in the final printing ofthe 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 ofthe 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 ofthis PM 1 o 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 emissionlimitations exist, EPA will enforce the more stringent ofthe two (or more) emission limitations. EPA must have assurance that the attainment demonstration ofa nonattainment area plan is maintained

. The less stringent emission limitation may not provide that assurance without
a reanalysis ofthe 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 ofthe SIP
once a year, i.e., by September ofeach yearbeginning 1993. The tracking of this effort willbe docum

_ ented annually · inlhe EPA/State Agreement. III. Public Comment

. EPA proposed to approve the Utah PM 10 SIP on December 18, 1992, 57 FR 60149. Comments.were received from Geneva Steel and Kennecott Utah Copper Corporation

. The Geneva comments consisted oftwo parts: general comments in support ofthe 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 ofits control measures on its tailings pond and the beliefthat the Federal approval ofthe PM1o SIP, which

. includes sulfur emission limitations for the smelter, would automatically imply resolution ofthe stack-height issues at

_ the smelter. (The Kennecott smelter has
a long history ofissues 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 ofwhich 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 ofnew data

. EPA believes the State made the best decision with the data available at the time ofthe 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. 

### Ifthe 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 ortime 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 andbelieved 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 hadbeen discussed

. between EPA, the State and Geneva priorto 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 ofPM 10 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 

### inthe 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 PM 10 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 ofthe 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 PM 10 SIP did not and could not · have anticipated the impact of other future CAA requirements. EPAbelieves 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 ofthe 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 PM 10 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 ofthe Kennecott PM 10 tracer study differed from the Geneva CO study. The Kennecott study was to determine ifthere was an impact from Kennecott in the Salt Lake or Utah County PM10 nonattainment area. The Kennecott emission limitations were then set using emission rollback and CMB analyses. The Geneva study was to determine Geneva's impactin downtown Provo, but EPA has questioned the e· mission rates used during the study andthe length ofthe 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 ofthe Utah County PM1o SIP. ·

In summary, the Geneva comments raised interesting issues, some ofwhich have been raised previously, and others which are more appropriate for the State to address during the PM10 contingency SIP revision or for the CO SIP revision. B. Kennecott Comments

Kennecott made two specific comments. The first is the status ofthe vegetation cover around the tailings pond and its success in attaining the standard in the Magna area in

· the past four and a halfyears. In the second comment, Kennecott indicates that for PM1o. attainment was demonstrated using receptor modeling and ambient monitoring data. Kennecott states that "Ifthe smokestacks used by one or more ofthe PM10 sources had been taller or shorter than they actually are, the ambient data would have been different and the results ofthe CMB analysis would have been different. Therefore, if any ofthe stacks were taller than GEP. credit could not be given for the height above GEP and an attainment demonstrationbased on CMB would not be valid." Kennecott reiterates its commitment to install a double contact acid plan and asserts that EPA's approval ofthe PM 10 SIP implies approval ofthe GEP SIP.

Response: EPA acknowledges the good faith effortKennecott has made in successfully implementing the control
measures for the tailings pond. The comment on GEP, however, is not applicable here. The PM 10 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 ofthe stationary sources emitted greater than 5000 tpy total suspended particulates. Such sources did not exist in these PM10 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 ofPM 10

. To demonstrate attainment for the Utili SIP, "major" PM 1 o sources and their precursors must demonstrate 

### RACT. Forthe 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 ofother contror
measures. Emissions rollback was used to determine the level necessary for

- PM10 attainment ofthe 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 ofthe Utah PM 1 oSIP, 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 ofthe 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) havebeen revised
numerous times since the early 1970's. The regulations have been renumbered and new requirements added. EPA is today approving the replacement ofthe 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 PM 10 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

### byJune 30. 1992. (see Section 189(a) of

### theAct) 

### and contingency
measures. 

### v.·bich WC"e 

### required to be .mbmittedbyNovemberlS, 1993 (see Section 112(c}{9) oftheAct and 57 FR 13543}. The E?A 

### will determinethe adequacy ofany 

### such submittal as appropriate.

The approval ofthe PM 10 plans for the SaltLake and 

### Utah Counties has benefitsthatmendtoother criteria poilutant efforts. 

### The approval of 

### these**PM~** plans, however. does not automatically resolve

### theother criteria pollutant 

### issues, such as GEP 

### and the · S02 SIP. The GEP issue and the SOl SIP for SaltLake County 

### will

### be addressed in a separateFederalRegister notice.

The approval ofthis PMro plan for

·Salt Lake andUtah Countiesestablishes emission limitations

### and implementationmilestones. The State must updateits SIP for changes tothese emission limitations.especially for stationary sources. EPA and the State agreethat 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. FinalAction

This document makes final the action roposed

# at 57 FR 60149, December tB, 1992, 

### lndudingtheclarifications discussedabove. As noted elsewhere in this notice. EPA received public comments in support ofits proposed approval and on comments more applicable to otherpollutant (SDJ and CO) issues; noadverse publiccomments
were believed 

### tohavebeen submitted
on the proposed action.As 

### a direct result,


### · the RegionalAdministrator

### has reclassified this action from Table I to 

### a Table Ill under

### theprocessing 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 assessingthe impact of any proposed or final rule on smallentities. 5 U.S.C. 60:J and 604. Ah.ematively.EPA may certify that the 

### rule will nothave a significant impact on a substantialnumber ofsmall entities

. Small entities include small businesses. 

### small not-for-profit" enterprises, and government entities

. withjurisdiction over population of less n50,000- IP approvals Wlder-Section llOand

..x:hapta- 1,.Part D ofthe CAA donot creale an:y new**~uirements.**but simply approve requirements

### that the State is

### already imposiug. Therefore. 

### because the federal SIP-epproval 

### does not impose anynewrequirements, 

### 1 certify that it doesnot have a significant impact on 

### a substantial number

### ofsmall entities

. affected. Moreover, dueto

### the nature ofthe federal-state relationship under

### thl' CAA, preparation ofa

. regulatory fltmbility 

### analysis would constitute federal inqliliy intothe economicreasonableness ofstate action. The CAA forbids EPA tobase 

### itsactions 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 ofthis action mUst be filed in the United States Court ofAppeals 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

### thisrule.for the purposes ofjudicialreview nor does it 

### exte11d the 

### time within 

### which a petition for judicialreview 

### may be filed, and shallnot postpone the effectiveness of such rule or a.ctioa 

### Thi& action may not be challengedlater inproceedings tG enforce itsrequirements (see Section 307(bl(2)).
Executive Order 12866

OMB has exempted

### this action from Executive Order 12866.review.



## . . List ofSubjects in 40 CFRPart 52

Airpollution coritrol.Environmental protection, Incorporation

### byreference, hydrocarbons, intergovernmental relaticms. nitrogen dioXide, particulate matter, reporting and record1ceeping requirements, and sulfurdioxide.

Note: Incorporation by reference ofthe StateImplementation Plan farthtr State of Utah was approYed bythe Director afthe Federal 

### Register anJuly t, 1982.

Dated; April 26, 1994

. William Yellowtail, RegionalAdminist.-war.

Chapter I. title 40 ofthe Code of Federal Regulations**~s** amended as follows:
PART 52-{AMENOED}

-

1. The authoritycitation for

### part 52 continuestoreadas follows:

Authority: 42 U

.S.C.

- 740"t-7671q

. 

### SubpartTT-Utah ·

2. Section 52...2320 is

### amended by adding paragraph (c)(25

### Jtoreed as follows: § 52.2320 Jdentlfk:atJols oS plan. 

## " 

## • • 

## • •

(c} • .-" 

### tzs} The Governor

### of Utah submitted
a PMro State-ImplementationPlan (SIPJ for Salt 

### Lake 

### a:nd

.Utah Counties, 

### Utah with a letter dated November 15, 1991. 

### The submittals 

### were 

### made tG

### scrtisfy those moderate PM10nonattainment
area SIPrequirements 

### due for Salt Lake and Utah Counties as outlined inthe Clean AirAct of 199ft. The Governor's submittalalso includedrevisions to 

### the Utah Air Quality Rules and to other sections of

### the State-wide 

### SIP. The Utah AirConservation Regulations have been revised 

### and renumbered over

### the past decade and are. beingreplacedin its

· entirely with 

### this Governor's submittal.

(i) Incorporation

### by reference. (A} 

### UtahAir Conservation Regulations, printedJanuary 21,1992.

(B} Utah State ImplementationPlan. Section 1-7 and 10-15,effective March 31, 199Z.

(C) Utah State Implementation Plan, Section 9, PartA 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:rDesignation of Areas for AirQua!Uy 

### Planning Purposes; State ot fndlana
AGENCY: Environritental Protection Agency. ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: 

### The United States Environmental ProtediortAgency (USEPA) is approving 

### threen:quests to redesignate marginal ozone nonattainment areas in

### the- Stare 

### of Indiana to attaimnent. Ths 

### USEPA is also approving

### theiraccompanying maintenanceplans.

### as State Implementation Plan (SIP}revisions.. The redesignation

### requests and

- maintenance plans weie submitted

### by

_

the Indiana Depamnent of EnvironmentalManagement (IDEM) for the following ozonenonattaimnent · areas: St. Joseph 

### ami

### El.khart.. Vanderburgh..: andMarlon. Counties. 

### The State has met

### the: requirementsfor · redesignation cmrtained

### mtheCleanAir Act (the Act), as amended

### in 1900. The

·redesignation requesaare

### based on ambient monitoring 

### data that show no violations oftheozoneNational Ambient AirQuality

- Standard 

### INAAQS} duringthe**~year**pftiod from 1900