ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

EPA-ROS-OAR-2012-0958; FRLApproval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Utah; Maintenance 

Plan for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone Standard for Salt Lake County and Davis County 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is partially approving and partially disapproving State Implementation Plan 

(SIP) revisions submitted by the Governor of Utah on March 22, 2007. The SIP revision is the 

State of Utah's maintenance plan for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard for Salt Lake County and 

Davis County, along with associated rules: R307-101-2, ''Definitions;" R307-110-13, ··section 

IX, Control Measures for Area and Point Sources, Part D, Ozone:" R307-320, ''Ozone 

Maintenance Areas and Ogden City: Employer-Based Trip Reduction Program;" R307-325, 

''Ozone Nonattaimnent and Maintenance Areas: General Requirements;" R307-326, "Ozone 

Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas: Control of Hydrocarbon Emissions in Petroleum 

Refineries;" R307-327, "Ozone Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas: Petroleum Liquid 

Storage;" R307-328, ·'Ozone Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas and Utah and Weber 

Counties: Gasoline Transfer and Storage;" R307-335, "Ozone Nonattainment and Maintenance 

Areas: Degreasing and Solvent Cleaning Operations;" R307-340, "Ozone Nonattainment and 

Maintenance Areas: Surface Coating Processes;" R307-341, ·'Ozone Nonattainment and 

Maintenance Areas: Cutback Asphalt;" and R307-342, "Ozone Nonattainment and Maintenance 

Areas: Qualification of Con tractors and Test Procedures for Vapor Recovery Systems for 

Gasoline Delivery Tanks." This action is being taken under sections 107 and 1 10 of the Clean 
Air Act (Act or CAA). 

DATES: 'I his action is effective on [insert date 30 days after date of publication in the Federal 

Register]. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket Identification No. 

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 Infonnation or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the 

Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy fom1. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either electronically 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 if at all possible, you contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER 

INFORMATION CONTACT section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Oflice's 

official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jody Ostendorf. Air Program, Mailcode 8PAR, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop St., Denver, Colorado 

80202-1129, (303) 312-78 I 4, ostendorfjodyrcl2epa.gov 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Background of State Submittals 

A. Regulatory Context 

B. Ambient Ozone Conditions 

2 

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Regional Administrator, James Martin on 2/13/2013. We have 

taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.
C. Our Proposal 

D. Public Participation 

E. Alternative Methods of Control (AMOC) and EPA's Concurrence Requirement 

II. Final Action 

A. Maintenance Plan 

B. Rules 

III. Issues Raised by Commenters and EPA's Responses 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

Definitions 

For the purpose of this document, we are giving meaning to certain words as follows: 

(i) The words or initials Act or CAA mean or refer to the Clean Air Act, unless the context 

indicates olhcrwise. 

(ii) The \vords EPA. we, us or our mean or refer to the United States Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

(iii) The initials SIP mean or refer to State Implementation Plan. 

(iv) The words State or Utah mean the State of Utah, unless the context indicates otherwise. 

I. Background of State Submittals 

A. Regulatory Context 

Under the CAA enacted in 1970, EPA established national ambient air quality standards 

(NAAQS) for certain pervasive air pollutants, such as photochemical oxidant, carbon monoxide. 

and particulate matter. The NAAQS represent concentration levels below which public health 

and welfare are protected. The 1970 Act also required states to adopt and submit SIPs to 

3 

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Regional Administrator, James Martin on 2/13/2013. We have 

taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.
implement, maintain, and enforce the NAAQS. 

From time-to-time, the CAA requires SIP revisions to account for new or amended 

NAAQS or to meet other changed circumstances. The CAA was significantly amended in 1977, 

and under the 1977 Amendments, EPA promulgated attainment status designations for all areas 

of the country with respect to the NAAQS. 

The CAA requires EPA to periodically review and revise the NAAQS, and in 1979. EPA 

established a new NAAQS of0.12 parts per million (ppm) for ozone, averaged over 1 hour. This 

new NAAQS replaced the oxidant standard of 0.08 ppm. See 44 FR 8202 (February 8, 1979). 

Areas designated nonattainmcnt for oxidant were considered to be nonattainment for ozone as 

well. Part D of CAA Title I requires special measures for areas designated nonattainment. On 

August IS, 1984, EPA approved Utah's SIP for the 1-hour ozone standard for the Salt Lake 

County and Davis County nonattainment area (49 FR 32575). 

Congress significantly amended the CAA again in 1990. Under the 1990 Amendments, 

each area of the country that was designated nonattainment for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS, 

including Salt Lake County and Davis County, was classified by operation of law as marginal, 

moderate, serious. severe, or extreme nonattainment depending on the severity of the area's air 

quality problem. The ozone nonattainment designation for Salt Lake County and Davis County 

continued by operation of law according to section 1 07( d)( 1 )(C)(i) of the CAA, as amended in 

1990. Furthermore, the area was classified by operation of law as moderate for ozone under 

CAA section 181 (a)( 1 ). 

Under CAA section l75A, states may request redesignation of a nonattainment area to 

attainment if monitoring data showed that the area has met the NAAQS and ifthe area meets 

4 

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Regional Administrator, James Martin on 2/13/2013. We have 

taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.
certain other requirements. On July 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-hour ozone 

standard. As part of that action. EPA approved the State's 1-hour ozone maintenance plan (62 

FR 38213). 

On July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated an 8-hour ozone NAAQS of 0.08 ppm (62 FR 

38894). This standard was intended to replace the 1-hour ozone standard. On April 30, 2004, 

EPA designated areas ofthe country for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard (69 FR 23857). EPA 

designated all areas in Utah, including Salt Lake County and Davis County, as 

unclassifiable/attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS (69 FR 23940). 

Also, on April 30, 2004, EPA revoked the pre-existing 1-hour NAAQS (69 FR 23951, 

23996; 40 CFR 50.9(b)). As part of this rulemaking, EPA established certain requirements to 

prevent backsliding in those areas that were designated as nonattainmcnt for the 1-hour ozone 

standard at the time of designation for the 8-hour ozone standard, or that were redesignated to 

''attainment" but subject to a maintenance plan, as is the case for Salt Lake County and Davis 

County. These requirements are codified at 40 CFR 51.905. 

In the case of Utah, one of these requirements was to submit a maintenance plan for the 

1997 8-hour ozone standard. On March 22,2007, the Governor of Utah submitted a 

maintenance plan for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard for Salt Lake County and Davis County, 

and associated rule revisions. ln this notice, EPA is acting on the March 22, 2007 maintenance 

plan and rule revisions. 

In 2008, EPA promulgated a lower 8-hour ozone standard - 0.075 ppm (73 FR 16436; 

5 

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Regional Administrator, James Martin on 2/13/2013. We have 

taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.
March 27, 2008). The 2008 ozone standard retains the same general form and averaging time as 

the 0.08 ppm standard set in 1997. Etlective July 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 of the annual fourthhighest daily maximum 8-hour average ambient ozone concentration (also referred to as the 

''design value") is less than or equal to 0.08 ppm at all monitoring sites within an air quality 

planning area. 40 CfR part 50. Appendix I, section 2.3, directs that the third decimal place of 

the computed three-year average be rounded; values equal to or greater than 0.005 are rounded 

up. Thus, under our regulations, a computed three-year ozone concentration of 0.085 ppm is the 

smallest value that is considered to be greater than 0;08 ppm and, thus, a violation of the 

standard. 

A review of the data gathered at the ozone monitoring sites in Salt Lake County and 

Davis County from 2000-2011 1 shows the area has been attaining the 8-hour ozone NAAQS 

except for the 2005-2007 period, which had a design value of0.085 ppm. As noted above, EPA 

designated Salt Lake County and Davis County unclassifiable/attainmcnt tor the lower 2008 

ozone standard (0.075 ppm) based on monitored values for 2008-2010. The following table 

shows design values for each year from 2000 through 2011: 

Table 1. Salt Lake and Davis Counties Three-Year Average of the 4th Highest Ozone Value 

(ppm) 

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 certified yet 

6 

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Regional Administrator, James Martin on 2/13/2013. We have 

taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.
West '0.079 p.080 r.076 .078 p.078 '0.081 ~a2 !nla n/a ~a Valley (Salt : : · 

~.ake) : J . l "~[ ~ · 

C. Our Proposal 

Our notice of proposed rulemaking was published in the Federal Register on January 2, 

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

March 22, 2007 submittal: 

1. We proposed to approve the State's maintenance demonstration for the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS for Salt Lake and Davis Counties, but, in the alternative, to disapprove the 

maintenance demonstration if comments were to convince us that approval would not be 

consistent with the Clean Air Act. 

2. We proposed to approve the rest of the State's 1997 8-hour ozone maintenance plan for 

Salt Lake and Davis Counties, except for the following aspects, which we proposed to 

disapprove: 

a. Those contingency measures listed in the State's maintenance plan that are 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 

7 

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Regional Administrator, James Martin on 2/13/2013. We have 

taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.
Air Force Base. 

c. The State's proposal to remove from the SIP the NOx RACT limits for the Paci11Corp 

Gadsby Power Plant. 

d. Section 5.g of the maintenance plan, which indicates that the employer based trip 

reduction program is included as part of the plan. 

3. We proposed to take no action on R307-101-2 because we already acted on a later 

version 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 proposed to disapprove R307-320, the employer-based trip reduction program. 

6. We proposed to approve R307-325, R307-326, R307-327, R307-328, R307-335, 

R307-340, R307--341, and R307-342, subject to our interpretation of these mles. 

For further detail regarding the bases for our proposed actions, please sec our notice of proposed 

rulcmaking at 78 FR 37. 

D. Public Participation 

We requested comments on our proposed action and provided a 30-day comment period, 

\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 of Control (AMOC) and EPA's Concurrence Requirement 

In our proposal, we noted our interpretation of certain Utah rules~ we are repeating that 

interpretation here. The State's March 22, 2007 submittal included revisions to rules R307-326, 

R307-327, RJ07-328, R307-335, R307-340, and R307-342. For each ofthese rules, the State 

8 

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Regional Administrator, James Martin on 2/13/2013. We have 

taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.
included AMOC language that was previously included in R307-325. That language states: 

''Any person may apply to the executive secretary for approval of an alternate test method, an 

alternate method of control, an alternate compliance period, an alternate emission limit, or an 

alternate monitoring schedule. The application must include a demonstration that the proposed 

alternate produces an equal or greater air quality benefit than that required by !this rule], or that 

the alternate test method is equivalent to that required by these rules. The executive secretary 

shall obtain concurrence from EPA when approving an alternate test method, an alternate method 

of control, an alternate compliance period, an alternate emission limit, or an alternate monitoring 

schedule." 

The Utah Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) confirn1ed that this regulatory 

language requiring concurrence from EPA on any AMOC applies to all the provisions in the 

rules that allow for DEQ to alter the compliance requirements of the rules. As more fully 

explained below, our interpretation is that our concurrence on an alternative compliance 

requirement must occur through approval of a SIP revision. 

Section 11 O(i) of the CAA specifically precludes states from changing the requirements 

of the SIP that apply to any stationary source except through SIP revisions approved by EPA. 

S l P revisions will be approved by EPA only if they meet all requirements of section II 0 of the 

Act and the implementing regulations at 40 CFR Part 51. See, e.g., CAA section 11 0(1); 40 CFR 

51.104. Section 51.1 04(d) specifically states that in order for a variance to be considered for 

approval as a SIP revision, the state must submit it in accordance with the requirements of 40 

CFR 51.104, which includes the public notice, comment and hearing provisions of 40 CFR 

51.102. 

9 

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Regional Administrator, James Martin on 2/13/2013. We have 

taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.
Furthennore, the AMOC provision in the State's rules does not contain specific, 

objective, and replicable criteria tor detennining if such •·alternate methods" are in fact at least as 

effective as the required methods in terms of emission rates and ambient impacts. For purposes 

of meeting CAA requirements, EPA concurrence in the fonn of a SIP approval is required for 

any of the alternate compliance provisions throughout R307-326, R307-327, R307-328, R307-

335. R307-340, and R307-342. This includes approval of an altemate method of control, an 

alternate test method, an alternate compliance period, an alternate emission limit, a variance, or 

an alternate monitoring schedule. The public notice process of a SIP approval will allow EPA 

and the public to determine whether any new compliance tenns approved by the executive 

secretary continue to assure maintenance of the ambient standard.2 

II. Final Action 

A. Maintcn~mce Plan. 

For the reasons described in our notice of proposed rulemaking (78 FR 37) and in our 

response to public comments in section III, below. we are taking the following actions with 

rl!spect to the maintenance plan!or the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS for Salt Lake and Davis 

Counties that the State submitted on March 22, 2007: 

1. We are approving the State's maintenance demonstration for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS tor Salt Lake and Davis Counties. 

2. We are approving the rest of the State's 1997 8-hour ozone maintenance plan for Salt 

Lake and Davis Counties. except for the following aspects, which we are disapproving: 

2 By adopting a generic SIP provision consistent with the EPA guidance known as White Paper Number 2, a state 

may be able to streamline EPA's SIP approval process for an AMOC. White Paper Number 2, Attachment B, 

envisions the use of the Title V permit process to establish altemativc requirements. 

10 

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Regional Administrator, James Martin on 2/13/2013. We have 

taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.
a. Those contingency measures listed in section 6.d of the State's maintenance plan that 

are voluntary in nature, as follows: 

1. "Alert Day Enhancements;" 

2. "Heavy Equipment Emission Control Program:'' 

3. "Reduce Emission of VOCs." to the extent the State would adopt and implement 

the measure as a volw1tary commitment rather than a regulatory measure; 

4. "Identification of High-Polluting Vehicles;" and 

5. "Other VOC and NOx emission control measures as appropriate," to the extent 

such measures \vould be voluntary. 

b. The contingency measure listed in section 6.d of the State's maintenance plan as 

·'Establish an Offset Ratio for NOx." 

c. The State's proposal in section 5.a.(3)(b) of the maintenance plan to remove from the 

SIP the VOC RACT approval orders for Hill Air Force Base. 

d. ·rhe State's proposal in section S.b.(l) of the maintenance plan to remove from the SIP 

the NOx RACT limits for the PacifiCorp Gadsby Power Plant. 

e. Section 5.g of the maintenance plan, which indicates that the employer-based trip 

reduction program is included as part of the plan. 

For the reasons stated in our notice of proposed rulemaking (78 FR 41-42), our 

disapproval of various aspects of the maintenance plan docs not trigger an obligation under CAA 

section 110(c) to promulgate a federal implementation plan. 

B. Rules. 

11 

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Regional Administrator, James Martin on 2/13/2013. We have 

taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.
For the reasons described in our notice of proposed rulemaking (78 FR 3 7), 3 

we are 

taking the following actions with respect to the rule revisions that the State submitted on March 

22,2007. 

1. We arc taking no action on R307-101-2 because we have already acted on a later version 

of the definitions. 

2. We are approving R307-11 0-13, but only to the extent we are approving the 1997 8-hour 

ozone maintenance plan. 

3. We are disapproving R307-320, the employer-based trip reduction program. For the 

reasons stated in our notice of proposed rulemaking (78 FR 42), our disapproval of R307-320 

docs not trigger an obligation under CAA section llO(c) to promulgate a federal implementation 

plan. 

4. We are approving R307-325. 

5. We are approving R307-326, subject to the following: We interpret the following 

provisions in R307-326 (in addition to any other request for an alternate method of control under 

R307-326 that may arise outside of these provisions) as being subject to the requirement in 

R307-326-10(1) f()r EPA concurrence: 

a. R307-326-4(3). 

b. R307-326-6(3). 

c. In R307-326-7, the provision that reads, "or controlled by other methods, provided the 

design and efTcctivcncss of such methods are documented, submitted to, and approved by the 

executive secretary." 

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

12 

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Regional Administrator, James Martin on 2/13/2013. We have 

taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.
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 of proposed rulemaking (78 FR 42) and reiterated in section I.E. above, 

EPA concurrence under R307-326-10(1) must occur through EPA approval of a SIP revision. 

In addition to the foregoing, we interpret R307-326-1 0(2), which requires an owner or 

operator to repair a malfunctioning control device within 15 days or other period approved by the 

executive secretary, as not excusing any period of violation of the control requirements in R307-

326. 

6. We arc approving R307-327, subject to the following: We interpret the follo\\ring 

provisions in R307-327 (in addition to any other request for an alternate method of control under 

R307-327 that may arise outside ofthesc provisions) as being subject to the requirement in 

R307-327-7{1) for EPA concurrence: 

a. In R307-327-4(1), the provision that reads, "or alternative equivalent controls, 

provided the design and effectiveness of such equipment is documented and submitted to and 

approved by the executive secretary." 

b. R307-327-6(3)(d). 

c. In R307-327-7(3), the provision that reads, '·or approved by the executive secretary:· 

As stated in our notice of proposed mlemaking and reiterated in section I.E. above, EPA 

concurrence under R307-327-7(1) must occur through EPA approval of a SIP revision. 

In addition to the foregoing, we interpret R307-327-7(2), which requires an owner or 

operator to repair a malfunctioning control device within 15 days or other period approved by the 

executive secretary. as not excusing any period of violation of the control requirements in R307-

13 

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Regional Administrator, James Martin on 2/13/2013. We have 

taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.
327. 

7. We are approving R307-328, subject to the following: We interpret the following 

provisions in R307-328 (in addition to any other request for an alternate method of control under 

R307-328 that may arise outside of these provisions) as being subject to the requirement in 

R307-328-8(1) for EPA concurrence: 

a. In R307-328-4(6), the provision that reads, "or alternate equivalent methods***. The 

design effectiveness of such equipment and the operating procedures must be documented and 

submitted to and approved by the executive secretary." 

b. In R307-328-4(9), the provision that reads, "The frequency of tests may be altered by 

the executive secretary upon submittal of documentation which would justify a change." 

c. In R307-328-5(1)(c), the provision that reads, "or their equivalent which have been 

approved by the executive secretary." 

d. In R307-328-6(4), the provision that reads, ''or equivalent equipment provided the 

design and effectiveness of such equipment are documt.'Tlted and submitted to and approved by 

the executive secretary.'' 

c. In R307-328-8(3), the provision that reads, '·or approved by the executive secretary." 

As stated in our notice of proposed rulemaking and reiterated in section I.E. above, EPA 

concurrence under R307-328~8(1) must occur through EPA approval of a SIP revision. 

In addition, we interpret R307-328-8(2), which requires an owner or operator to repair a 

malfunctioning control device within 15 days or other period approved by the executive 

secretary. a') not excusing any period of violation of the control requirements in R307-328. 

8. We are approving R307-335. subject to the follo\\ing: We interpret the lollowing 

14 

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Regional Administrator, James Martin on 2/13/2013. We have 

taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.
provisions in R307-335 (in addition to any other request for an alternate method of control under 

R307-335 that may arise outside of these provisions) as being subject to the requirement in 

R307-335-7(1) for EPA concurrence: 

a. In R307-335-4(3), the provision that reads, ''or by an alternate means approved by the 

executive secretary." 

b. In R307-335-7(3), the provision that reads. "or approved by the executive secretary:· 

As stated in our notice of proposed rulemaking and reiterated in section I.E. above, EPA 

concurrence under R307-335-7(1) must occur through EPA approval of a SIP revision. 

In addition, we interpret R307-335-7(2), which requires an owner or operator to repair a 

malfunctioning control device within 15 days or other period approved by the executive 

secretary. as not excusing any period of violation ofthe control requirements in R307-335. 

9. We are approving R307-340, subject to the following: We interpret the following 

provisions in R307-340 (in addition to any other request for an alternate method of control under 

R307-340 that may arise outside of these provisions) as being subject to the requirement in 

R307-340-l6(1) for EPA concurrence: 

a. In R307-340-4(4). the provision that reads. "or by an alternate means approved by the 

executive secretary.'' 

b. In R307-340-4(5)(a), the provision that reads. ··sources may request approval tor 

Longer times 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 

15 

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Regional Administrator, James Martin on 2/13/2013. We have 

taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.
executive secretary or equivalent method.'' 

e. In R307-340-16(3), the provision that reads, "or approved by the executive secretary.'' 

As stated in our notice of proposed rulemaking and reiterated in section I.E. above, EPA 

concurrence under R307-340-16(1) must occur through EPA approval of a SIP revision. 

In addition, we interpret R307-340-16(2), which requires an owner or operator to repair a 

malfunctioning control device within 15 days or other period approved by the executive 

secretary, as not excusing any period of violation ofthe control requirements 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 other request for an alternate method of control under 

R307-342 that may arise outside of this provision) ac; being subject to the requirement in R307-

342-7(1) for EPA concurrence: 

a. In R307-342-7(3), the provision that reads, ''or approved by the executive secretary." 

As stated in our notice of proposed rulemaking and reiterated in section I.E. above, EPA 

concurrence under R307-342-7(1) must occur through EPA approval of a SIP revision. 

In addition, we interpret R307-342-7(2). which requires an owner or operator to repair a 

malfunctioning control device within 15 days or other period approved by the executive 

secretary. as not excusing any period of violation of the control requirements in R307-342. 

III. Issues Raised by Commentcrs and EPA's Responses 

We received comments from a single commenter. We summarize the comments and 

provide our responses below. 

Comment: Utah should not be allowed to rely on 2002 emission inventories to show 

16 

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Regional Administrator, James Martin on 2/13/2013. We have 

taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.
maintenance of the ozone standard when there was a violation of that standard for the 2005 to 

2007 season. Such an approach does not provide the citizens of Utah with a sound 

demonstration that the ozone standard will be met and that their health will correspondingly be 

protected. EPA itself noted in its notice of proposed rulemaking that the violation ca..<;ts doubt on 

the use of the 2002 emissions inventories as representative of the levels of emissions that are 

consistent with maintaining the standard. But then EPA lists several factors which it suggests 

support the usc of the 2002 inventories as representative of levels consistent with compliance 

with the standard. For example, EPA noted that the violation was at 0.085 ppm. only slightly 

above the standard. However. any violation of the standard is unacceptable and reliance on an 

inventory that results in a violation is inconsistent with the purpose of the NAAQS to protect 

human health and the environment. EPA also suggests that 2005 was an anomaly and thus 

should be discounted. However, hot weather like that experienced during 2005 is likely to be the 

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 summer on record, indicates a troubling trend 

toward higher ozone levels in Utah's urban areas. 

Response: In the unique circumstances involved here, \Ve conclude that approval of the 

maintenance demonstration is appropriate. As stated in our proposal, our conclusion is based on 

a combination of factors, and is not focused only on the 2002 inventories as the benchmark for 

ongoing maintenance. These factors are the following: 

1. Since the time of the area's designation to attainment in 2004, the only monitored 

violation occurred during 2005-2007. As stated above, the 1997 8-hour ozone standard is 

attained at a design value of 0.084, and the design value for 2005-2007 was 0.085 ppm-the 

17 

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Regional Administrator, James Martin on 2/13/2013. We have 

taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.
lowest value that can represent a violation. 

2. In 2005, th~ area monitored significantly higher 41h high maximum values than it had 

monitored in the previous four years and than it has monitored since 2005 to the present. 

3. In 2006-2008, the area immediately returned to attainment and has continued to attain the 

standard. Complete quality-assured data for 2007- 2009, 2008-2010, 2009-2011, and 

preliminary data for 2012, show that the area has continuously maintained the standard. 

4. Under the applicable regulatory requirement, 40 CFR 51.905(a)(4), the State must 

demonstrate maintenance tbr ten years after designation, or until 2014. 

5. In evaluating the potential for the area to continue to maintain through 2014, given its 

continued maintenance during and subsequent to 2008, EPA takes into consideration the fact 

that, in order for the area to violate the standard in 2013-2014, the area would have to experience 

signiiicantly higher 4th high maximums than it experienced in 2005. We find this prospect to be 

highly unlikely, particularly given the State's projected lowering emissions trends, as retlected in 

the maintenance plan. 

6. Mobile source emissions accow1t tbr a very large pot1ion of the 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 Salt Lake County and Davis 

County unclassifiable/attainment for the lower 2008 ozone standard (0.075 ppm) based on 

monitored values for 2008-2010. 

Contrary to the commenter's suggestion, our reference to the 2005-2007 design value of 

0.085 \Va<; not intended to suggest that a lower violation is not a violation or that it should be 

18 

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Regional Administrator, James Martin on 2/13/2013. We have 

taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.
ignored. However. we do think the magnitude of the value is relevant, along with the other 

factors noted above, to our assessment of the maintenance demonstration. In particular, the 

maintenance plan projects substantial reductions ofVOC and NOx emissions after 2005. The 

following tables show these projections. 

Table 2. Salt Lake and Davis Counties Source Category Totals for VOCs (tons/day) 

2002 2005 2008 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-------~-----~~--------· 

Table 3. 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 

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Regional Administrator, James Martin on 2/13/2013. We have 

taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.
IR 

.... ~, '""---r--·· .. oad i 

~ """ 

!M obilc 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 assertion that data from the summer of2012 indicate 

''a troubling trend toward higher levels of ozone in Utah's urban areas" and undermine our 

statements about the 2005 data. While we note that the 2012 data are not yet certified, the 

preliminary data reflect values that are significantly below those experienced in 2005, even with 

the high temperatures experienced at that time. If anything, these data appear to support our 

overall conclusion that ongoing reductions in emissions, largely due to federal motor vehicle 

control standards, will result in ongoing maintenance ofthe 1997 ozone NAAQS. 

Comment: EPA points out that .. [ u ]nder the applicable regulatory requirement. 40 CFR 

51.905(a)( 4), the State must demonstrate maintenance for ten years after designation, or until 2014.'' 

110\vcver, this statement seems to disregard the fact that Salt Lake and Davis counties violated the 8-

hour ozone standard during the 2005 to 2007 season. Therefore, this observation does not seem to 

bolster the case for using the 2002 inventories as representative of what is necessary to maintain the 

standard. Moreover, it suggests that Utah cannot show maintenance for ten years after 2004. 

Response: As stated in our prior response, in the unique circumstances in this case, our conclusion 

is based on a combination of factors. and is not focused solely on the 2002 inventories as the 

benchmark for ongoing maintenance. We do not cite the proximity of2014, the end of the 

maintenance period. to bolster the validity of the 2002 inventories as a maintenance benchmark. 

20 

' 

I 

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Regional Administrator, James Martin on 2/13/2013. We have 

taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.
Instead, we find it relevant to our assessment of the likelihood that the area v.rill continue to attain 

the standard through the end of the maintenance period, considering the other factors involved. 

As to the assertion that Utah cannot show maintenance tor ten years after 2004, this is not 

an instance in which the area has experienced repeated violations; it experienced a single 

violation in the 2005-2007 period, largely based on unusually high values experienced in 2005. 

It did not experience a violation in the relevant periods before then and has not experienced a 

violation since. It is highly unlikely the area will experience a violation before 2014, the end of 

the maintenance period, given the air quality values in recent years. Furthermore, even if we 

concluded that the maintenance demonstration should extend until 2015, the relevant factors 

similarly indicate the area will continue to maintain the standard w1til then. 

Comment: The State of Utah has failed to meet its SIP obligations relative to its Title V permit 

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

Title V 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 V program. 

Response: The commentcrs' assertions do not require disapproval of the maintenance plan. We 

note that the Title V permit program is not a SIP program or requirement; it is separate from the 

SIP. Thus, there are no SIP obligations relative to the Title V permit program. Moreover, 

applicable CAA requirements are State and federally enforceable whether or not they are 

contained in a Title V permit. This includes SIP requirements and major and minor source 

21 

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Regional Administrator, James Martin on 2/13/2013. We have 

taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.
construction pennit requirements. Here, the specific measures for major stationary sources that 

arc relevant to ongoing maintenance are contained in the EPA~approved ozone SIP and remain 

federally enforceable. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find the absence of Title V permits 

to be a basis to undermine or disapprove the maintenance plan. 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies 

with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 

52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided 

that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this action merely approves some 

state law as meeting Federal requirements and disapproves some state law as not meeting Federal 

requirements: it does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. 

For that reason. this action: 

• is not a "significant regulatory action" subject to review by the Office of Management 

and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993); 

• does not impose an infom1ation collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork 

Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 el seq.); 

• is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 

entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Refon11 Act of 1995 (Public Law 

1 04·4 ): 

22 

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Regional Administrator, James Martin on 2/13/2013. We have 

taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.
• does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 1313 2 ( 64 FR 

43255, August 10, 1999): 

• is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject 

to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997): 

• is not a signiticant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, 

May 22, 2001 ); 

• is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application ofthose 

requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; and 

• docs not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, 

disproportionate human health or environmental effects. using practicable and legally 

pem1issible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 

13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian 

country located in the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on 

tribal governments or preempt tribal law. 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business 

Regulatory Enforcement 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 of the 

rule. to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA 

will submit a report containing this action and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the 

U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to 

23 

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Regional Administrator, James Martin on 2/13/2013. We have 

taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.
publication of the 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 "major rule" as defined by 5 

u.s.c. 804(2). 

Under section 307(b)(l) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action 

must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by !FEDERAL 

REGISTER OFFICE: insert date 60 days from date of publication of this document in the 

Federal Register). Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this tina! rule 

does not atTect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the 

time within which a petition for judicial review may be tiled, and shall not postpone the 

etTectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2) of the CAA.) 

24 

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Regional Administrator, James Martin on 2/13/2013. We have 

taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 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: 

~' 

( -'":~<) .........,c, ___ ....... 

.~ .-::::::..,_~..:=- "\~J~~ ' 

, J~s B. Martin 

Regional Administrator 

Region 8 

25 

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Regional Administrator, James Martin on 2/13/2013. We have 

taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.
40 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 of plan. 

* * * * * 

* * * (c) 

(74) On March 22,2007, the Governor submitted revisions to Section IX, Part D of the Utah 

State Implementation Plan (SIP) in the fom1 of a 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 associated rules: UAC R307-101-2, 

R307-110-13, R307-320, R307-325, R307-326, R307-327, R307-328, R307-335. R307-340, 

R307-341, and R307-342. EPA is approving the maintenance plan, except for the following 

aspects, \Vhich EPA is disapproving: those contingency measures listed in section 6.d of the 

State's maintenance plan that are voluntary in nature, which consist of "Alert Day 

Enhancements,'' "Heavy Equipment Emission Control Program," "Reduce Emissions ofVOCs" 

(to the extent the State would adopt and implement the measure as a voluntary commitment 

rather than a regulatory measure), "Identification of High-Polluting Vehicles," and "Other VOC 

or NOx emissions control measures as appropriate" (to the extent such measures would be 

voluntary); the contingency measure listed in section 6.d of the State's maintenance plan as 

26 

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Regional Administrator, James Martin on 2/13/2013. We have 

taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.
"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) of the maintenance plan to remove from the SIP the NOx RACT 

limits for the PacifiCorp Gadsby Power Plant~ and section S.g of the maintenance plan, which 

indicates that the employer-based trip reduction program is included as part of the plan. EPA is 

approving the revisions to UAC R307-ll 0-13. which incorporates the maintenance plan into 

Utah's rules, but only to the extent we are approving the 1997 8-hour ozone maintenance plan. 

EPA is disapproving UAC R307-320. the employer-based trip reduction program. EPA is 

approving the revisions to UAC R307-325. R307-326, R307-327, R307-328, R307-335. R307-

340. R307-341, and R307-342, subject to our interpretation of these rules expressed in the 

preamble to our rulemaking action. EPA is not acting on the revisions to UAC R307-101-2 

because the revisions have been superseded by later revisions to the rule, which EPA approved at 

§ 52.2320(c)(67). 

(i) Incorporation by reference. 

(A) 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 of such maintenance plan that we are approving and excludes those 

aspects of the maintenance plan 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 of Hydrocarbon 

27 

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Regional Administrator, James Martin on 2/13/2013. We have 

taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.
Emissions 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, "Ozone Nonattainmcnt and Maintenance Areas and Utah and Weber 

Counties: Gasoline Transfer and Storage:" UAC R307-335. "Ozone Nonattaimnent 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 of Contractors and Test Procedures for 

Vapor Recovery Systems for Gasoline Delivery Tanks;" all effective January 16, 2007. 

28 

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Regional Administrator, James Martin on 2/13/2013. We have 

taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.