ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 EPA-ROS-OAR-2012-0958; FRLApprovaland Promulgation ofAirQuality Implementation Plans; Utah; Maintenance Plan for the 1997 8-HourOzone Standard for Salt Lake County and Davis County AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: EPA is partially approving and partially disapproving State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the Governor ofUtah on March 22, 2007. The SIP revision is the State ofUtah's maintenance plan for the 1997 8-hourozone standard for Salt Lake County and Davis County, along with associated rules: R307-101-2, ''Definitions;" R307-110-13, ··section IX, Control Measures for Area and Point Sources, Part D, Ozone:" R307-320, ''Ozone Maintenance Areas and Ogden City: Employer-Based Trip Reduction Program;" R307-325, ''Ozone Nonattaimnent and Maintenance Areas: General Requirements;" R307-326, "Ozone Nonattainment and MaintenanceAreas: Control ofHydrocarbon Emissions in Petroleum Refineries;" R307-327, "OzoneNonattainment and Maintenance Areas: Petroleum Liquid Storage;" R307-328, ·'OzoneNonattainment and Maintenance Areas and Utah and Weber Counties: GasolineTransfer and Storage;" R307-335, "OzoneNonattainment and Maintenance Areas: Degreasing and Solvent Cleaning Operations;" R307-340, "Ozone Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas: Surface Coating Processes;" R307-341, ·'Ozone Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas: Cutback Asphalt;" and R307-342, "OzoneNonattainment and Maintenance Areas: Qualification ofCon tractors and Test Procedures for Vapor Recovery Systems for Gasoline Delivery Tanks." This action is being taken under sections 107 and 110 ofthe CleanAir Act (Act orCAA). DATES: 

### 'Ihis action is effectiveon [insert date 

### 30 days afterdate ofpublication in the Federal Register]. ADDRESSES: EPA has established 

### a docket for this action underDocketIdentificationNo. EPA-ROS-OAR-2012-0958. All documents in the docket are listed at**http://www.r~gulations.gov.** Although listed in the index, some information may not be publicly available, i.e
.. Confidential Business Infonnationorother informationwhose disclosure is restricted 

### by statute. Certain othermaterial, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will 

### be publicly available only in hard copy fom1. Publicly available docket materials are available eitherelectronically through http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at EPA Region 

### 8, Air Quality Planning Unit (8P-AR), 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado, 80202. EPA requests that ifat all possible, you contactthe person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Oflice's officialhours ofbusiness are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jody Ostendorf. AirProgram, Mailcode 8PAR, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop St., Denver, Colorado 80202-1129, 

### (303) 312-78

### I4, ostendorfjodyrcl2epa.gov SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Table ofContents I. Background ofState Submittals A. Regulatory Context B. Ambient Ozone Conditions

2C. OurProposal D. Public Participation E. Alternative Methods ofControl (AMOC) and EPA's Concurrence Requirement II. Final Action A. Maintenance Plan B. Rules III. Issues Raised by Commenters and EPA'sResponses IV. Statutory and Executive OrderReviews 

### Definitions For the purpose ofthis document, we are giving meaning to certain words as follows: (i) The words or initials Act orCAA mean or refer to the Clean Air Act, unless the context indicates olhcrwise. (ii) The \vords EPA. we, us orourmean or referto the United States Environmental Protection Agency. 

### (iii) The initials SIP mean orreferto State Implementation Plan. (iv) The words State orUtah meanthe State ofUtah, unless the context indicates otherwise. 

### I. Background ofState Submittals A. Regulatory Context Underthe CAA enacted in 1970, EPA established national ambient airquality standards (NAAQS) for certain pervasive air pollutants, such as photochemical oxidant, carbonmonoxide. and particulate matter. The NAAQS represent concentration levels below which public health and welfare are protected. The 1970 Act also required statesto adopt and submit SIPs to



### 3

### implement, maintain, and enforce the NAAQS. From time-to-time, the CAA requires SIPrevisions to account for new or amended NAAQS orto meet other changed circumstances. The CAA was significantly amended in 1977, and under the 1977 Amendments, EPA promulgated attainment status designations for all areas ofthe country with respect to the NAAQS. The CAA requires EPA to periodically review and revise the NAAQS, and in 1979. EPA established anew NAAQS of0.12 parts per million (ppm) for ozone, averaged over 1hour. This
new NAAQS replaced the oxidant standard of0.08 ppm. See 44 FR 8202 (February 8, 1979). Areas designated nonattainmcnt for oxidant were considered to be nonattainment for ozone as well. Part 

### DofCAA 

### Title Irequires special measures for areas designated nonattainment. On August IS, 1984, EPA approved Utah's SIP for the 1-hourozone standard for the Salt Lake County and Davis County nonattainment area (49 FR 32575). Congress significantly amended the CAA again in 1990. Under the 1990 

### Amendments, each area ofthe country that was designated nonattainment for the 1-hourozoneNAAQS, including Salt Lake County and Davis County, was classified by operation oflaw as marginal, moderate, serious. severe, orextreme nonattainment depending on the severity ofthe area's air quality problem. The ozone nonattainment designation for Salt Lake County and Davis County continued by operation oflaw according to section 1 07(d)( 1 )(C)(i) ofthe CAA, as amended in 1990. 

### Furthermore, the area was classified by operation oflaw as moderate for ozone under CAA section 181(a)(1). Under CAA section l75A, states may request redesignation ofanonattainment area to attainment ifmonitoring data showed that the area has met the NAAQS and ifthe area meets

4

### certain other requirements. OnJuly 18, 1995, both Salt Lake and Davis Counties were found to be attaining the l-hour ozone standard (60 FR 36723). On July 17, 1997, EPA approved the State's request to redesignate Salt Lake and Davis Counties to attainment for the 1-hourozone standard. As part ofthat action. EPA approved the State's 1-hourozone maintenance plan (62 FR 38213). On July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated an 8-hourozone NAAQS of0.08 ppm (62 FR 38894). This standard was intended to replace the 1-hourozone standard. On April 30, 2004, EPA designated areas ofthecountry for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard (69 FR 23857). EPA designated all areas in Utah, including Salt Lake County and Davis County, as unclassifiable/attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS (69 FR 23940). Also, on April 30, 2004, EPA revoked the pre-existing 1-hourNAAQS (69 FR 23951, 23996; 40 CFR 50.9(b)). As part ofthis rulemaking, EPA established certain requirements to prevent backsliding in those areas that were designated as nonattainmcnt for the 1-hourozone standard at the time ofdesignation for the 8-hourozone standard, or that were redesignated to ''attainment" but subject to a maintenance plan, as is the case for Salt Lake County and Davis County. These requirements are codified at 40 CFR 51.905. In the case ofUtah, one ofthese requirements was to submit amaintenance plan for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard. On March 22,2007, the Governor ofUtah submitted a maintenance plan for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard for Salt Lake County and Davis County, and associated rule revisions. ln this notice, EPA is acting on the March 22, 2007 maintenance plan and rule revisions. In 2008, EPA promulgated alower 8-hourozone standard

- 0.075 ppm (73 FR 16436;

5March 27, 2008). The 2008 ozone standard retains the same general form and averagingtime as the 0.08 ppm standard set in 1997. EtlectiveJuly 20,2012, Salt Lake County and Davis County
were designated Unclassifiable/Attainment tor this lower standard (77 FR 30088, 30151). B. Ambient Ozone Conditions The 1997 ozone NAAQS is attained when the three-year average ofthe annual fourthhighest daily maximum 8-hour average ambient ozone concentration (also referred to as the ''design value") is less than orequal to 0.08 ppm at all monitoring sites within an air quality planning area. 40 CfRpart 50. Appendix I, section 2.3, directs that the third decimal place of the computed three-year average be rounded; values equal to orgreater than 0.005 are rounded up. Thus, under ourregulations, a computed three-year ozone concentration of0.085 ppm is the smallest value that is consideredto be greater than 0;08 ppm and, thus, a violation ofthe standard. A review ofthe data gathered at the ozone monitoring sites in SaltLake County and Davis County from 2000-2011 1shows the areahas been attaining the 8-hour ozone NAAQS except for the 2005-2007 period, which had a designvalue of0.085 ppm. As noted above, EPA designated Salt Lake County and Davis County unclassifiable/attainmcnt torthe lower 2008
ozone standard (0.075 ppm) basedon monitored values for 2008-2010. The following table shows design values for each year from 2000 through 2011: Table 

### 1. Salt Lake and Davis Counties Three-YearAverage ofthe 4th 

### Highest Ozone Value (ppm)

### Mo~itoring~ooo=-zoo

## t=**~002~ ~ooj:** **~oo4=-~oos-** 

# rzoo6-**~o()7:-ioos:~009-**

### S~t:un 

## poo2**~003** 

## f004 roos f006 poo7 f008 F009**~010** FOll I 

### ( -------- ___!}.') ----l - -------- • -- - --------•-- -- .,__ ----"------------.,----' ---------------- -- ---- --------------• -- ---1----
____,____ --'-------------'
1 Data for 2012 have not been certifiedyet 

### 6

### West '0.079 p.080 r.076 .078 p.078 '0.081

## ~a**2** 

### !nla n/a

## ~a Valley (Salt : : ·

# ~.ake) : 

# J
.l

# "~[**~** · C. Our Proposal Our notice ofproposed rulemaking was published in the Federal Register 

### on January 

### 2, 2013 (78 FR 37). In that notice, we proposed the following actions with respect to the State·s March 22, 

### 2007 submittal: 1. We proposed to approve the State's maintenance demonstration for the 1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS for Salt Lake 

### and Davis Counties, but, in the 

### alternative, to disapprove the maintenance demonstration ifcomments were to convince us that approval would not be consistent with the Clean Air Act. 2. We proposed to approve the rest ofthe State's 1997 8-hourozone maintenance plan for Salt Lake and Davis Counties, except for the following aspects, which we proposed to disapprove:
a. Those contingency measures listed in the State's maintenance plan that are vohmtary in nature, and the contingency measure described in the maintenance plan as .;Establish an Offset Ratio for NOx:• b. The State's proposal to remove from the SIP the VOC RACT approval orders for Hill
7Air Force Base.
c. The State's proposal to removefrom the SIP the NOx RACT limits for the Paci11Corp Gadsby Power Plant. d. Section 5.g ofthe maintenance plan, which indicates that the employerbased trip reduction program is included as part ofthe plan. 3. We proposed to take no action on R307-101-2 because we already acted on a later version ofthe de11nitions. 4. We proposed to approve R307-110-13, but only to the extent we were proposing to approve the 1997 8-hour ozone maintenance plan. 5. We proposedto disapprove R307-320, the employer-based trip reduction program. 6. We proposed to approve R307-325, R307-326, R307-327, R307-328, R307-335, R307-340, R307--341, and R307-342, subject to ourinterpretation ofthese mles. For further detail regarding the bases for our proposed actions, please sec ournotice ofproposed rulcmaking at 78 FR 37. D. Public Participation We requested comments on our proposed action and provided a 30-day commentperiod, \Vhich closed on Febmary 1, 2013. In this action, we are responding to the comments we received and taking final mlemaking action. F' Alternative Methods ofControl (AMOC) and EPA's Concurrence Requirement In our proposal, we noted our interpretation ofcertain Utah**rules~** we are repeating that interpretation here. The State's March 22, 2007 submittal included revisions to rules R307-326, R307-327, RJ07-328, R307-335, R307-340, and R307-342. For each oftheserules, the State

8included AMOC language that was previously included in R307-325. That language states: ''Any person may apply to the executive secretary for approval ofan alternate test method, an alternate method ofcontrol, an alternate complianceperiod, analternate emission limit, or an alternate monitoring schedule. The application must include a demonstration thatthe proposed alternate produces an equal orgreaterair quality benefit

### than thatrequired by !thisrule], orthat the alternate test method is equivalent to that required by these rules. The executive secretary shall obtain concurrence from EPA when approving

### an alternate testmethod, 

### an alternate method ofcontrol, an alternate complianceperiod, an alternate emission limit, or an alternatemonitoring schedule." The Utah Department ofEnvironmental Quality (DEQ) confirn1ed that this regulatory language requiring concurrencefrom EPA on any AMOC applies to all the provisions in the rules that allow for DEQ to alter the compliancerequirements ofthe rules. As more fully explained below, ourinterpretation is that our concurrence on an alternative compliance requirement must occurthrough approval ofa SIPrevision. Section 

### 11O(i) ofthe 

### CAA specificallyprecludes states from changing

### the requirements ofthe SIP that apply to any stationary source except through SIP revisions approved by EPA. 

### SlP revisions will be approved by EPA only 

### ifthey meet all requirements ofsection 

### II0 ofthe Act and the implementingregulations at 40 

### CFR Part 51. See, e.g., CAA section 

### 110(1); 40 

### CFR 51.104. Section 51.104(d) specifically states that in order for a variance to be considered for approval as a SIP revision, the state must submitit in accordance with the requirements of40 CFR 51.104, which includes the public notice, comment and hearing provisions of40 CFR 51.102.

9Furthennore, the AMOC provision in the State'srules does not contain specific, objective, and replicable criteria tor detennining 

### ifsuch •·alternatemethods" are in fact at least as effective as the required methods in terms ofemission rates and ambient impacts. For purposes ofmeeting CAA requirements, EPAconcurrence in the fonn ofa SIP approval is required for any ofthe alternate compliance provisions throughout R307-326, R307-327, R307-328, R307- 335. R307-340, and R307-342. This includes approval ofan altemate method ofcontrol, an alternate test method, an alternate compliance period, an alternate emission limit, a variance, or
an alternate monitoring schedule. Thepublicnotice process ofa SIP approval will allow EPA and the public to determine whether any new compliance tenns approved by the executive secretary continue to assure maintenance ofthe ambient standard.2 II. Final Action A.**Maintcn~mce** Plan. For the reasons described in ournotice ofproposed rulemaking (78 FR 37) and in our response to public commentsin section III, below. we are taking the following actions with rl!spect to the maintenance plan!orthe 1997 8-hour ozoneNAAQS for Salt Lake and Davis Counties that the State submitted on March 22, 2007: 1. We are approving the State's maintenance demonstration for the 1997 8-hourozone NAAQS tor Salt Lake and Davis Counties. 2. We are approving therest ofthe State's 1997 8-hour ozone maintenance plan for Salt Lake and Davis Counties. except for the following aspects, which we are disapproving:

2 By adopting ageneric SIP provision consistent with the EPA guidance known as White Paper Number 2, a state may be able to streamline EPA's SIP approval process for an AMOC. White PaperNumber 2, Attachment B, envisions the use ofthe Title Vpermit process to establish altemativc requirements. 10a. Those contingency measures listed in section 6.d ofthe State's maintenance plan that
are voluntary in nature, as follows: 1. "Alert Day Enhancements;" 2. "Heavy Equipment Emission Control Program:'' 3. "Reduce Emission ofVOCs." to the extent the State would adopt and implement the measure as a volw1tary commitmentrather than a regulatory measure; 4. "Identification ofHigh-Polluting Vehicles;" and 5. "OtherVOC and NOxemission control measures as appropriate," to the extent such measures \vould be voluntary. b. The contingency measure listed in section 6.d ofthe State'smaintenance plan as ·'Establish an Offset Ratio for NOx."
c. The State's proposal in section 5.a.(3)(b) ofthe maintenance plan to remove from the SIP the VOC RACT approval orders for Hill AirForce Base. d. ·rhe State's proposal in section S.b.(l) ofthe maintenance plan to remove from the SIP the NOx RACT limits for the PacifiCorp Gadsby Power Plant.
e. Section 5.g ofthe maintenanceplan, which indicatesthat the employer-based trip reduction program is included as part ofthe plan. For the reasons stated in ournotice ofproposed rulemaking (78 FR41-42), our disapproval ofvarious aspects ofthe maintenance plan docs not trigger an obligation under CAA section 110(c) to promulgate a federal implementation plan. B. Rules.

11For the reasons described in ournotice ofproposedrulemaking (78 FR 37),3 we are taking the following actions withrespect to therule revisions that the State submitted on March 22,2007. 1. We arc taking no action on R307-101-2 becausewe havealready acted on a later version 

### ofthe definitions. 2. We are approving R307-110-13, butonly to the extent we are approving the 1997 8-hour
ozone maintenance plan. 3. We are disapproving R307-320, the employer-based trip reduction program. Forthe
reasons stated in ournotice ofproposed rulemaking (78 FR42), our disapproval ofR307-320 docs not trigger 

### an obligation under CAA section llO(c) to promulgate 

### afederal implementation plan. 4. We are approving R307-325. 

### 5. We are approving R307-326, subject to the following: We interpret the following provisions in R307-326 (in addition to 

### any otherrequestfor an alternate method ofcontrol under R307-326 that may arise outside oftheseprovisions)

### as being subject to the requirement in R307-326-10(1) f()r 

### EPA concurrence:
a. R307-326-4(3). 

### b. R307-326-6(3).
c. In R307-326-7, the provision that reads, "orcontrolled by other methods, provided the design and efTcctivcncss ofsuch methods are documented, submitted to, and approved by the executive secretary."

3 We received no adverse comments on our proposal to approve the State'srule revisions.
12

### d. R307·326·9(5)(a).
c. In R307-326-10(3), the provision that reads, "or approved by the executive secretary." As stated in our notice ofproposedrulemaking (78 FR 42) and reiterated in section 

### I.E. above, EPA concurrence under R307-326-10(1) must occur through EPA approval of

### a SIP revision. In addition to the foregoing, we interpret R307-326-10(2), which requires an owneror operator to repair a malfunctioning control device within 15 

### days or otherperiod approved by the executive secretary, as 

### not excusing any period ofviolation of

### the control requirements in R307- 326. 6. We arc approving R307-327, subject to the following: We interpretthe follo\\ring provisions in R307-327 (in additionto any otherrequest for an alternate method ofcontrol under R307-327 that may arise outside ofthesc provisions) as being subjectto the requirement in R307-327-7{1) for EPA concurrence: 

### a. In R307-327-4(1), the provision that reads, "or alternative equivalent controls, provided the design and effectiveness ofsuch equipment is documented and submitted to and approved by the executive secretary." b. R307-327-6(3)(d).
c. In R307-327-7(3), the provision that reads, '·or approved by the executive secretary:· As stated in our notice ofproposed mlemaking and reiterated in section I.E. above, EPA
concurrence under R307-327-7(1) must occur through EPA approval ofa

### SIP revision. In 

### addition to the foregoing, we 

### interpret R307-327-7(2), which requires an owneror operatorto repair amalfunctioning control device within 15 

### days orotherperiod approved by the executive secretary. as not excusing any period ofviolation ofthe control requirements in R307-

13327. 7. We are approving R307-328, subjectto the following: We interpret the following provisions in R307-328 (in addition to any otherrequest for an alternate method ofcontrol under R307-328 that may arise outside ofthese provisions) as being subject to the requirement in R307-328-8(1) for EPA concurrence:
a. In R307-328-4(6), the provision that reads, "oralternate equivalentmethods***. The design effectiveness ofsuch equipment and the operating procedures must be documented and submitted to and approved by the executive secretary." b. In R307-328-4(9), the provision that reads, "The frequency oftests maybe altered by the executive secretary upon submittal ofdocumentation which wouldjustify a change."
c. In R307-328-5(1)(c), the provision that reads, "ortheir equivalentwhich have been approved by the executive secretary." d. In R307-328-6(4), the provisionthat reads, ''orequivalent equipment provided the design and effectivenessofsuch equipment are documt.'Tlted and submitted to and approved by the executive secretary.''
c. In R307-328-8(3), the provision that reads, '·orapproved by the executive secretary." As stated in our notice ofproposed rulemaking and reiterated in section I.E. above, EPA
concurrence under**R307-328~8(1)** must occur through EPA approval ofa SIP revision. In addition, we interpret R307-328-8(2), which requires an owneroroperatorto repair a malfunctioning control device within 15 days orotherperiod approvedbythe executive secretary. a') not excusing any periodofviolation ofthe control requirements in R307-328. 8. We are approving R307-335. subject to the follo\\ing: We interpret the lollowing

14

### provisions in R307-335 (in addition to any other request for an alternate method ofcontrol under R307-335 that may arise outside ofthese provisions) as being subjectto the requirement in R307-335-7(1) for EPA concurrence: a. In R307-335-4(3), the provision thatreads, ''orby an alternate means approved by the executive secretary." b. In R307-335-7(3), the provision that reads. "or approved by the executive secretary:· As stated in ournotice ofproposed rulemaking and reiterated in section 

### I.E. above, EPA
concurrence underR307-335-7(1) must occurthrough EPA approval ofa 

### SIP revision. In addition, we interpret R307-335-7(2), which requires an owner or operatorto repair a malfunctioning control device within 15 days orotherperiod approved by the executive secretary. as not excusing any period ofviolation ofthecontrol requirements in R307-335. 9. 

### We are approving R307-340, subject to the following: We 

### interpret the following provisions in R307-340 (in addition to any otherrequest for an alternate method ofcontrol under R307-340 that may arise outside ofthese provisions) as being subject to the requirement in R307-340-l6(1) for EPA concurrence: a. 

### In R307-340-4(4). the provision that reads. "orby an alternate means approved by the executive secretary.'' b. 

### In R307-340-4(5)(a), the provision that reads. ··sources may request approval tor Longertimes for compliance determination from the executive secretary:·
c. In 

### R307-340-15( 1 ), 

### the provision that reads, "or an alternative method approved by 

### the cxe<:utive secretary.·· d. In R307-340-l5(2), the provision that reads, •·or an alternative method approved 

### by the

15executive secretary orequivalent method.''
e. In R307-340-16(3), the provision that reads, "or approved by the executive secretary.'' As stated in our notice ofproposed rulemaking and reiterated in section I.E. above, EPA
concurrence under R307-340-16(1) must occur through EPA approval ofa SIP revision. In addition, we interpret R307-340-16(2), which requires an owneroroperator to repair a malfunctioning control device within 15 days or other period approved bythe executive secretary, as not excusing any period ofviolation ofthecontrolrequirements in R307-340. 10. We arc approving R307-341. II. We are approving R307-342, subject to the following: We interpret the following provision in R307-342 (in addition to any otherrequest for an alternate method ofcontrol under R307-342 that may arise outside ofthis provision) ac; being subject to the requirement in R307- 342-7(1) for EPA concurrence:
a. 

### In R307-342-7(3), the provisionthat reads, ''orapproved by the executive secretary." As stated in our notice ofproposed rulemaking andreiterated in section I.E. above, EPA
concurrence under R307-342-7(1) must occur through 

### EPA approval ofa 

### SIP revision. 

### In addition, 

### we interpret R307-342-7(2). which requires an owneror operator 

### to repair a malfunctioning control device within 15 days or otherperiod approved bythe executive secretary. as not excusing any period ofviolation ofthe control requirements in R307-342. III. Issues Raised by Commentcrs and EPA's Responses We received comments from a single commenter. We summarizethe comments and provide our responses below. Comment: Utah should not be allowed to rely on 2002 emission inventories to show

16maintenance ofthe ozone standard whenthere was a violation ofthat standard for the 2005 to 2007 season. Such an approach does not provide 

### the citizens ofUtah with 

### a sound demonstration that the ozone standard will be met and that their health will correspondingly be protected. 

### EPA itselfnoted in its notice ofproposed rulemaking that the violation ca..<;ts doubt on the use ofthe 2002 emissions inventories as representative ofthe levels ofemissions that are consistent withmaintaining the standard. Butthen 

### EPA lists several factors which it suggests support the usc ofthe 2002 inventories as representative oflevels consistent with compliance with the standard. For example, 

### EPA noted that the violation was at 0.085 ppm. only slightly above the standard. However. any violation ofthe standard is unacceptable and reliance on an inventory that results in a violation is inconsistent with the purpose ofthe NAAQS to protect human health andthe environment. 

### EPA also suggests that 2005 was an anomaly and thus should be discounted. However, hot weather like that experienced during 2005 is likely to 

### be the nom1 in coming years. 1bus,

### it is likely that the ozone levels experienced in 2005 will recur. Monitoring data for 2012, vvhich had the hottest summeron record, indicates a troubling trend toward higher ozone levels inUtah's urban areas. Response: Inthe unique circumstancesinvolved here, \Ve concludethat approval ofthe maintenance demonstration is appropriate. As stated in ourproposal, ourconclusion is based on
a combination offactors, and is not focused only on the 2002 inventories as the benchmark for ongoing maintenance. These factors are the following: 1. Since the time ofthe area's designation to attainment in 2004,the only monitored violation occurred during 2005-2007. As stated above, the 1997 8-hour ozone standard is attained at a design value of0.084, and the design value for 2005-2007 was 0.085 ppm-the

17lowest value that can represent a violation. 2. In 2005,**th~** area monitored significantly higher41 h high maximum values than 

### it had monitored in the previous four years and than it has monitored since 2005 to the present. 3. In 2006-2008, the area immediately returned to attainment and hascontinuedto attain the standard. Complete quality-assured data for 2007- 2009, 2008-2010, 2009-2011, and preliminary data for 2012, showthat the area has continuously maintained the standard. 4. Under the applicable regulatory requirement, 40 CFR51.905(a)(4), the State must demonstrate maintenance tbrten years after designation, oruntil 2014. 5. In evaluating the potential for the area to continue to maintainthrough 2014, givenits continued maintenance during and subsequent to 2008, EPAtakes into considerationthe 

### fact that, in order for the area to violate the standard in 2013-2014, the areawould have to experience signiiicantly higher 4th high maximumsthan 

### itexperienced in 2005. We find this prospect to be highly unlikely, particularly given the State'sprojected lowering emissions trends, as retlected in the maintenance plan. 6. Mobile source emissions accow1t tbr a very large pot1ion ofthe overall emissions inventory, and federal motor vehicle control standards, combined with fleet turnover, will continue to fi.u1her reduce relevant mobile source emissions through 2014. In addition, as we noted in our proposal, EPA designated SaltLake County and Davis County unclassifiable/attainment for the lower 2008 ozone standard (0.075 ppm) based on monitored values for 2008-2010. Contrary to the commenter's suggestion, our reference to the 2005-2007 design value of 0.085 \Va<; not intended to suggest that a lower violation is not a violation orthat it should be



### 18

### ignored. However. we do think the magnitude ofthe value is relevant, along withthe other factors noted above, to our assessment ofthe maintenance demonstration. In particular, the maintenance plan projects substantial reductions ofVOC and NOx emissions after 

### 2005. The following tables show these projections. Table2. Salt Lake and Davis Counties Source Category Totals for VOCs (tons/day) 

### 2002 2005 2008 201l

I 

# i::::t

# ::u::

# ::-:::-::-----!l:-:::-:~-·:-~----+-::-:~-::-:-:---+-:-~-1**:6 ·---~~':5** 

# -

# -j

Biogenic 

### 120.26**·-p2o.26----~·--2-=-o.-:-2·6-:------r·:-12=-o-.2=-6:------** 

### 120.26 1 

### Source 

# I r-M-ob-i-le_O_n--

### ---l-5-7-.6-6---+,-4-4.-70-- 35.36 

### 29.11

Road i 

# I I

# ~~ Mobile Non- 

### 129-.5-5---+l-2_5_.4_7---r-2-0-.9-0-·--·-+-1-8_.4_2·--·--·16.57 ·-- 1 

### l Road , 

### 24.52

! r-:;···-------+--------.. 

### l--··------+--------i-------+------1 1

### Total 

### 308.03 294.06 284.48 i 

### 281.61 281.46 I 

# I I**L-------~---------~-----_J-------~-----~~--------·**

Table3. Salt Lake and Davis Counties Source Category Totals for NOx (tons/day)



### Po 

## -- ·--· 

### 2002 2005

# ~008 2011 2014
·-"-··-- 

### ·-------...**"----·•"u~** 

### int Source 39.27 38.09 

### 8 36.75 

### 36.82 I ! 

## __..

# ____ 1-----
..---- 1----""'" I 

### -- _,,, 

### ea Source 11.36 

### 10.08 10.79 ! 

### 11.82 

### 12.82 r··-- : Ar



### - _,_. 

### obile On- 98.89 

### 85.52 65.47 49.45 

### 35.92 j

19

### IR ....**~,** 

# '""---r--··
..

oad i**~** """ !Mobilc Non- 83.87 iR oad 

## 1-

# ______, ·-· 80.35 

# l i 'I'otal 233.39 : 214.04 

### ····--···'--·-·---·_[__· 

# L - -



## -- 72.56 63.48 51.30 ' 

# I ....

### - .... - 186.60 161.50 136.86


### -· 

# __.... We disagree with the commenter's assertionthat data from the summer of2012 indicate ''a troubling trend toward higher levels ofozone in Utah's urban areas" and undermine our statements about the 2005 data. While we note thatthe 2012 dataare not yet certified, the preliminary data reflect values that are significantlybelowthose experienced in 2005, even with the high temperatures experienced at that time. 

### Ifanything,these data appearto support our overall conclusion that ongoing reductions in emissions, largely due to federal motor vehicle control standards, will result in ongoing maintenance ofthe 

### 1997 ozone

### NAAQS. Comment: EPA points out that
..[ u]nderthe applicableregulatory requirement. 40 CFR 51.905(a)(4), the State must demonstrate maintenance for ten years afterdesignation, or until 2014.'' 110\vcver, this statement seemsto disregard the fact that Salt Lake and Davis counties violated the 8- hour ozone standard during the 2005 to 2007 season. Therefore, this observation does not seem to bolster the case for using the 2002 inventories as representative ofwhat is necessary to maintain the standard. Moreover, it suggests that Utah cannot show maintenance forten years after 2004. 

### Response: As stated 

### in ourpriorresponse, in 

### the unique circumstances 

### in this case, ourconclusion is based on a combination offactors. and is not focused solely onthe 2002 inventories as the benchmark for ongoing maintenance. We do not cite the proximity of2014, the end ofthe maintenance period. to bolster the validity of

### the 2002 inventories 

### as a maintenancebenchmark.

20 

### ' 

# I

### Instead, we find it relevantto our assessment ofthe likelihood thatthe area 

### v.rill continue to attain the standard through the end ofthe maintenance period, considering the other factors involved. As to the assertion that Utah cannot showmaintenance tor ten years after 2004, this is not
an instance in which the areahas experienced repeated violations; it experienced a single violation in the 2005-2007 period, largely based on unusually high values experienced in 2005. It 

### did not experience a violation in the relevant periods before then andhas not experienced 

### a violation since. It

### is highly unlikely the areawill experience a violation before 2014, the end of the maintenance period, given the air quality values in recent years. Furthermore, even ifwe concluded that the maintenance demonstration should extend until 2015, the relevant factors similarly indicate the area will continue to maintain the standard w1til then. Comment: 

### The State ofUtah has failed to meet its SIP obligations relative to its Title 

### Vpermit program. Several major sources in Salt Lake and Davis counties do not have and have never had Title V 

### pennits. This casts 

### substantial doubt on any claim Utah may make that it is able to


### ensure compliance with air quality pennit terms and conditions, to accurately monitor emissions from stationary sources and to guarantee that emissions from these sources will actually conform to the various projections on which the state relies to show· maintenance. EPA should disapprove the maintenance plan 

### because the State of

### Utah is failing 

### to implement an adequate 

### Title Vprogram. Response: 

### The commentcrs' assertions do not require disapproval ofthe maintenance plan. We note that the Title Vpermitprogram is not a SIP program or requirement; it is separate from the SIP. Thus, there are no SIP obligations relative to the Title Vpermit program. Moreover, applicable CAA requirements are State and federally enforceable whether or not they are contained in aTitle Vpermit. This includes SIP requirements and major and minor source

21construction pennit requirements. Here, the specific measures for major stationary sources that
arc relevant to ongoingmaintenance are contained in the**EPA~approved** ozone SIP and remain federally enforceable. Forthe foregoing reasons, we do not find the absence ofTitle V permits to be a basis to undermine or disapprove the maintenance plan. IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions ofthe Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria ofthe Clean AirAct. Accordingly, this actionmerely approves some state law as meeting Federal requirements and disapproves some state law as notmeeting Federal requirements: it does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason. this action:
• is not a "significant regulatory action" subject to reviewbythe Office ofManagement and Budgetunder Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October4, 1993);
• does not impose an infom1ation collection burden underthe provisions ofthe Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 el seq.);
• is certified as not having a significant economicimpact on a substantial numberofsmall entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
• does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly oruniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Refon11 Act of 1995 (Public Law 

### 1 04·4):

22• does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999):
• is not an economically significant regulatory action based onhealth or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997):
• is not a signiticant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001 );
• is not subject to requirements ofSection 12(d) ofthe National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application ofthose requirements would beinconsistentwith the Clean AirAct; and
• docs not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health orenvironmental effects. using practicable and legally pem1issible methods, underExecutive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). In addition, this rule does nothave tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state, and EPAnotes that itwill not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments orpreempttribal law. The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Faimess Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the mle must submit a rule report which includes a copy ofthe rule. to each House ofthe Congress and to the Comptroller General ofthe United States. EPA will submit a report containingthis action and otherrequired information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House ofRepresentatives, and the Comptroller General ofthe United States prior to

23publication ofthe rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot take effect until60 days after 

### it is published in the Federal Register. This action is not a "majorrule" as defined by 5 

## u.s.c. 804(2). Under section 307(b)(l) ofthe Clean Air Act, petitions forjudicialreview ofthis action must be filed in the United States Court ofAppeals for the appropriate circuit by !FEDERAL REGISTER OFFICE: insert date 60 days from date ofpublication ofthis document in the Federal Register). Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administratorofthis tina! rule does not atTect the finality ofthis action for the purposes of judicial review nordoes it extend the time within which a petition forjudicial reviewmay be tiled, and shall notpostpone the etTectiveness ofsuch rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2) ofthe CAA.)

24List ofSubjects in 40 CFRPart 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds. Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq

Dated:**~'**

# -'":~<)**.~ "\~J~~**  ( .........,c,___ .......**.-::::::..,_~..:=-** ' 

# ,**J~s** B. Martin

Regional Administrator Region 8



### 2540 CFR part 52 is amended to read as follows: PART 

### 52· (AMENDED! 

### I. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. Subpart TT · Utah 2. Section 52.2320 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(74) to read as follows: § 52.2320 Identification ofplan. 

## * * 

## * * 

## * * * 

## * (c) (74) On March 22,2007, the Governor submittedrevisions to Section IX, Part 

### D ofthe Utah State Implementation Plan (SIP) in the fom1 ofa maintenance plan for the 1997 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) tor Salt Lake County and Davis County. On March 22,2007, the Governor also submitted revisions to associatedrules: UAC R307-101-2, R307-110-13, R307-320, R307-325, R307-326, R307-327, R307-328, R307-335. R307-340, R307-341, and R307-342. EPA is approving the maintenanceplan, except for the following aspects, \Vhich 

### EPA is disapproving: those contingency measures listed in section 6.d ofthe State's maintenance plan that are voluntary in nature, which consist of "Alert Day Enhancements,'' "Heavy Equipment Emission Control Program," "Reduce Emissions ofVOCs" (to the extent the State would adopt and implementthe measure as a voluntary commitment rather than a regulatory measure), "Identification ofHigh-Polluting Vehicles," and "OtherVOC
orNOx emissions control measures as appropriate" (to the extent such measures would be voluntary); the contingency measure listed in section 6.d ofthe State'smaintenance plan as

26"Establish an OfTset Ratio for NOx;"the State's proposal in section 5.a.(3)(b)ofthe maintenance plan to remove from the SIP the VOC RACT approval orders for Hill Air Force Base: the State's proposal in section S.b.(l)ofthe maintenance plan to remove from the SIP the NOx RACT limits for the PacifiCorp Gadsby Power**Plant~** and section S.g ofthe maintenance plan, which indicates that the employer-based trip reduction program is included as part ofthe plan. EPA is approving the revisions to UAC R307-ll0-13. which incorporatesthe maintenance plan into Utah's rules, but only to the extent we are approving the 1997 8-hour ozone maintenance plan. EPA is disapproving UAC R307-320. the employer-based trip reduction program. EPA is approving the revisions to UAC R307-325. R307-326, R307-327, R307-328, R307-335. R307- 340. R307-341, and R307-342, subjectto our interpretation ofthese rules expressed in the preamble to our rulemaking action. EPA is not acting on therevisions to UAC R307-101-2 because the revisions have been superseded by laterrevisions to the rule, which EPA approved at 

### § 52.2320(c)(67). (i) Incorporation by reference. (A) UAC R307-ll0-13. "Section 

### IX, Control Measures for Area and Point Sources, Part D. Ozone.'' effective March 9. 2007. which incorporates into Utah's rules the maintenance plan that the Utah Air Quality Board adopted on January 3, 2007 for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS 

### for Salt Lake County and Davis County. This incorporation by reference ofUAC R307-110-l3 only extends to the aspects ofsuch maintenance plan that we are approving and excludes those aspects ofthe maintenanceplan that 

### we are disapproving, as described in§ 52.2320(c)(74). (B) UAC R307-325. '"Ozone Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas: General Requirements;'' UAC R307-326, "'Ozone Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas: Control ofHydrocarbon

27Emissions in Petroleum Refineries;" UAC R307-327, "Ozone Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas: Petroleum Liquid Storage;'' and UAC R307-340, "Ozone Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas: Surface Coating Processes;" all cfTective March 

### 9, 2007. (C) UAC R307-328, "OzoneNonattainmcnt and Maintenance Areas and Utah and Weber Counties: Gasoline Transfer and Storage:" UAC R307-335. "OzoneNonattaimnent and Maintenance Areas: Degreasing and Solvent Cleaning Operations;" UAC R307-341, "Ozone Nonattaimnent and Maintenance Areas: Cutback Asphalt;" and UAC R307-342, "Ozone Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas: Qualification ofContractors and Test Procedures for Vapor Recovery Systems for Gasoline Delivery Tanks;" all effective January 16, 2007.

28