Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 116 / Friday, June 15, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 35873 

as specified by Executive Order 13175 

(59 FR 22951, November 9, 2000). 

Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

This action also does not have 

Federalism implications because it does 

not have substantial direct effects on the 

states, on the relationship between the 

national government and the states, or 

on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, 

August 10, 1999). This action merely 

disapproves a state rule implementing a 

Federal standard, and does not alter the 

relationship or the distribution of power 

and responsibilities established in the 

CAA. 

Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks 

This rule also is not subject to 

Executive Order 13045 ‘‘Protection of 

Children from Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, 

April 23, 1997), because it disapproves 

a state rule implementing a Federal 

Standard. 

National Technology Transfer 

Advancement Act 

In reviewing state submissions, EPA’s 

role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. In this context, in the absence 

of a prior existing requirement for the 

state to use voluntary consensus 

standards (VCS), EPA has no authority 

to disapprove a state submission for 

failure to use VCS. It would thus be 

inconsistent with applicable law for 

EPA, when it reviews a state 

submission, to use VCS in place of a 

state submission that otherwise satisfies 

the provisions of the CAA. Thus, the 

requirements of section 12(d) of the 

National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 

272 note) do not apply. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

This rule does not impose an 

information collection burden under the 

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction 

Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). 

Congressional Review Act 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule 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 rule 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 publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. A major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as 

defined by 5 U.S.C. section 804(2). 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, 

petitions for judicial review of this 

action must be filed in the United States 

Court of Appeals for the appropriate 

circuit by August 14, 2012. Filing a 

petition for reconsideration by the 

Administrator of this final rule does not 

affect the finality of this rule for the 

purposes of judicial review nor does it 

extend the time within which a petition 

for judicial review may be filed, and 

shall not postpone the effectiveness of 

such rule or action. This action may not 

be challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements. (See section 

307(b)(2).) 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements. 

Dated: May 30, 2012. 

Susan Hedman, 

Regional Administrator, Region 5. 

Therefore, 40 CFR part 52 is amended 

as follows: 

PART 52—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

■ 2. Amend § 52.2591 by adding 

paragraphs (c) and (d) to read as follows: 

§ 52.2591 Section 110(a)(2) infrastructure 

requirements. 

* * * * * 

(c) Disapproval. EPA is disapproving 

the portions of Wisconsin’s 

infrastructure SIP for the 1997 ozone 

NAAQS with respect to two narrow 

issues that relate to section 110(a)(2)(C): 

(1) The requirement for consideration 

of NOx as a precursor to ozone; and 

(2) The definition of ‘‘major 

modification’’ related to fuel changes for 

certain sources. 

(d) Disapproval. EPA is disapproving 

the portions of Wisconsin’s 

infrastructure SIP for the 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS with respect to two narrow 

issues that relate to section 110(a)(2)(C): 

(1) The requirement for consideration 

of NOx as a precursor to ozone; and 

(2) The definition of ‘‘major 

modification’’ related to fuel changes for 

certain sources. 

[FR Doc. 2012–14417 Filed 6–14–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R08–OAR–2011–0719; FRL–9683–1] 

Approval, Disapproval and 

Promulgation of Air Quality 

Implementation Plan; Utah; 

Maintenance Plan for the 1-Hour Ozone 

Standard for Salt Lake and Davis 

Counties 

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 

February 22, 1999. These revisions 

updated the State of Utah’s maintenance 

plan for the 1-hour ozone standard for 

Salt Lake County and Davis County. As 

part of this action, EPA is also 

addressing certain actions it took in 

2003 concerning such maintenance 

plan. This action is being taken under 

section 110 of the Clean Air Act (CAA). 

DATES: This action is effective on July 

16, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–R08–OAR–2011–0719. All 

documents in the docket are listed on 

the http://www.regulations.gov Web 

site. Although listed in the index, some 

information may not be publicly 

available, i.e., Confidential Business 

Information 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 form. 

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 

Office’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 8P– 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES
35874 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 116 / Friday, June 15, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

AR, Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, 

Colorado 80202–1129, (303) 312–7814, 

or ostendorf.jody@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Information is organized as follows: 

Table of Contents 

I. Background of State Submittal 

II. EPA’s Analysis of the Revisions to the 

Maintenance Plan for the 1-Hour Ozone 

Standard for Salt Lake County and Davis 

County 

III. Response to Comments 

IV. Final Action 

V. 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 otherwise. 

(ii) The initials ACT mean or refer to 

Alternative Control Guidance Document. 

(iii) The initials CO mean or refer to carbon 

monoxide. 

(iv) The initials EPA, and the words ‘‘we,’’ 

‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our,’’ mean or refer to the 

Environmental Protection Agency. 

(v) The initials NAAQS mean or refer to 

national ambient air quality standards. 

(vi) The initials NOX mean or refer to 

nitrogen oxides. 

(vii) The initials RACT mean or refer to 

reasonably available control technology. 

(viii) The initials SIP mean or refer to State 

Implementation Plan. 

(ix) The words State or Utah mean the 

State of Utah, unless the context indicates 

otherwise. 

I. Background of State Submittal 

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 (CO), 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 implement, maintain, and enforce the 

NAAQS. 

SIP revisions are required from timeto-time by the CAA 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 of 

0.12 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 nonattainment for oxidant 

were considered to be nonattainment for 

ozone as well. Part D of CAA Title I 

requires special measures for areas 

designated nonattainment. In 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 107(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 175A, states may 

request redesignation of a 

nonattainment area to attainment if 

monitoring data showed that the area 

has met the NAAQS and certain other 

requirements. On July 18, 1995, both 

Salt Lake and Davis Counties were 

found to be attaining the 1-hour ozone 

standard (60 FR 36722). On July 17, 

1997, EPA approved the State’s request 

to redesignate Salt Lake and Davis 

County 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 (62 FR 38856). 

This standard was intended to replace 

the 1-hour ozone standard. 

On February 22, 1999, partially in 

response to EPA’s promulgation of the 

8-hour ozone NAAQS, but for other 

purposes as well, Utah submitted six 

revisions to its approved 1-hour 

maintenance plan. These revisions 

consisted of the following: (1) Changes 

to the nitrogen oxides (NOX) Reasonably 

Available Control Technology (RACT) 

provisions; (2) clarification of the 

transportation conformity provisions; 

(3) removal of budgets for sources other 

than on-road mobile sources; (4) 

changes to the trigger for contingency 

measures; (5) removal of the 

commitment to develop an annual 

inventory for point sources; and (6) 

removal of references to CO in various 

sections of the maintenance plan. EPA 

did not act on the revisions at the time, 

in part because of a 1999 legal challenge 

to the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. 

On December 31, 2002, Utah 

submitted what it characterized as nonsubstantive changes to the 1-hour ozone 

maintenance plan. The primary purpose 

of the changes was to revise crossreferences in the 1-hour maintenance 

plan to Utah air rules whose numbering 

Utah had changed. EPA approved these 

changes in 2003 (68 FR 37744, June 25, 

2003). Subsequently, EPA discovered 

that in the June 25, 2003 action it had 

inadvertently incorporated by reference 

certain changes to the contingency 

measures provision in the 1-hour ozone 

maintenance plan that were substantive 

in nature and had not been previously 

approved—i.e., the proposed changes to 

the contingency measures that Utah had 

submitted on February 22, 1999. On 

October 15, 2003, EPA issued a 

technical correction to delete the 

changes to the contingency measures 

provision from the approved SIP (68 FR 

59327). 

We have since discovered that Utah’s 

December 31, 2002, submittal included 

other revisions from its February 22, 

1999, submittal that were substantive in 

nature. These revisions included the (1) 

Changes to the NOX RACT provisions, 

(2) removal of the commitment to 

develop an annual inventory for point 

sources, and (3) removal of references to 

CO in some sections of the maintenance 

plan. Because we were not aware that 

we had inadvertently approved these 

revisions in 2003, we did not issue a 

technical correction to reverse our 

approval. As we explain more fully 

below, in this action we are proposing 

to ratify our 2003 inadvertent approval 

of these revisions. 

On April 30, 2004, EPA designated 

areas of the country for the 1997 8-hour 

ozone standard. 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 23858, 

April 30, 2004). 

Also, on April 30, 2004, EPA revoked 

the pre-existing 1-hour NAAQS (69 FR 

23951; 40 CFR 50.9(b)). As part of this 

rulemaking, EPA also established 

certain requirements to prevent 

backsliding in those areas that were 

designated as nonattainment 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. Also, the rule clarifies 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 116 / Friday, June 15, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 35875 

1The area violated the 1997 8-hour ozone 

standard based on monitored data for 2005–2007. 

Thus, we have suggested that Utah withdraw and 

revise its maintenance plan for the 1997 8-hour 

ozone standard. 

that revisions to pre-existing 1-hour 

ozone maintenance plans must be 

approved by EPA and must meet the 

requirements of CAA sections 110(l) and 

193. It also clarifies that EPA will not 

approve certain changes to the 1-hour 

ozone maintenance plan until a state in 

Utah’s position has submitted and EPA 

has approved the maintenance plan for 

the 1997 8-hour ozone standard. We 

have not approved a maintenance plan 

for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard for 

Salt Lake County or Davis County. 

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. EPA is not 

taking action on that submittal at this 

time.1 Rather, EPA is only acting on the 

revisions to the maintenance plan 

submitted on February 22, 1999. 

II. EPA’s Analysis of the Revisions to 

the Maintenance Plan for the 1-Hour 

Ozone Standard for Salt Lake County 

and Davis County 

The State’s February 22, 1999, 

submittal included six revisions to the 

1-hour ozone maintenance plan. As 

noted above, the State’s December 31, 

2002, submittal included some of the 

same revisions, and we inadvertently 

approved some of those revisions. We 

describe the various revisions and our 

analysis of them in the following 

paragraphs. 

A. Section IX.D.2.b(4)(a), ‘‘NOX

RACT.’’ The State’s 1999 submittal 

proposed to remove from the 

maintenance plan a commitment to 

address new ‘‘Alternative Control 

Guidance Documents (ACTs)’’ for NOX

issued by EPA. That commitment read 

as follows: 

As the EPA publishes ACT documents 

containing new determinations of what 

constitutes RACT for various source 

categories of NOX located within 

nonattainment areas for ozone, the State will 

either make a negative declaration for that 

source category in Salt Lake and Davis 

Counties, or will revise the Air Conservation 

Rules to reflect such determinations. This 

documentation will then be submitted to 

EPA for approval as a specific SIP revision 

according to the schedule included in the 

final guidance. In the absence of such an 

implementation schedule the State will act as 

expeditiously as practicable. 

As noted, we inadvertently approved 

the removal of this commitment and 

accompanying introductory language in 

our 2003 action, in which we only 

intended to approve non-substantive 

changes to numbering and crossreferences. 

In this action, we are proposing to 

ratify our 2003 approval for the 

following reasons. First, when we 

approved the maintenance plan in 1997, 

we simultaneously approved Utah’s 

NOX RACT exemption request for major 

stationary sources in the 1-hour ozone 

nonattainment area, except to the extent 

the SIP already included specific NOX

RACT requirements (62 FR 28403, May 

23, 1997; 62 FR 38213, July 17, 1997). 

The basis for our approval was that 

ambient air quality monitoring data 

showed that the area met the 1-hour 

ozone standard of 0.12 ppm without 

additional RACT measures. Thus, if the 

maintenance plan had omitted the 

commitment regarding future NOX

ACTs, we would have approved it; the 

commitment was not required or 

necessary, and the purpose of Utah’s 

revision to the maintenance plan was to 

align the plan with the NOX RACT 

exemption request. In light of our 

approval of that exemption request, the 

removal of the commitment in the 

maintenance plan is reasonable, since it 

is not needed to ensure maintenance of 

the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. 

Second, ACTs do not determine what 

constitutes RACT; instead they evaluate 

a range of potential control options. EPA 

has updated only two NOX ACTs since 

we approved the maintenance plan in 

1997—one for cement manufacturing 

and one for internal combustion 

engines—and we do not read those 

updates as being ‘‘new determinations 

of what constitutes RACT.’’ In other 

words, we conclude that the 

commitment has not been triggered, 

even if there are sources in the 

maintenance area for which the updated 

ACTs would be relevant. We also 

conclude that the commitment will not 

be triggered in the future because EPA 

does not determine RACT in ACTs. 

Thus, we conclude that the removal of 

the commitment from the maintenance 

plan will not interfere with attainment 

of any NAAQS or any other applicable 

requirement of the CAA. See CAA 

section 110(l). 

B. Section IX.D.2.f(3), ‘‘Safety 

Margin,’’ and Table 9, ‘‘Safety Margin.’’ 

The State’s 1999 submittal proposed to 

modify the maintenance plan’s language 

regarding the use of any safety margin 

for transportation conformity 

determinations and to add new Table 9, 

which specifies the safety margin 

available for various years. For a 

maintenance plan, our regulations 

define safety margin as the amount by 

which the total projected emissions 

from all sources of a given pollutant are 

less than the total emissions that would 

satisfy the maintenance requirement. 40 

CFR 93.101. The existing language in 

Utah’s 1-hour ozone maintenance plan 

uses the term ‘‘emissions credit’’ rather 

than ‘‘safety margin.’’ Also, the existing 

language doesn’t identify the available 

safety margin. The revised language 

uses the term ‘‘safety margin,’’ which is 

consistent with EPA’s regulations, and 

indicates that the safety margin is 

defined in Table 9 of the maintenance 

plan. Our regulations require that the 

safety margin be explicitly quantified in 

the SIP before it may be used for 

conformity purposes. 40 CFR 93.124. 

The revised language also clarifies and 

strengthens the procedures for use of the 

safety margin for transportation or 

general conformity determinations. Use 

of all or a portion of the safety margin 

for general conformity purposes would 

require EPA approval of a SIP revision. 

Also, the Utah Board would need to 

approve the use of any part of the safety 

margin for either transportation or 

general conformity purposes. We find 

that the revisions to Section IX.D.2.f(3) 

and the addition of Table 9 are 

consistent with our conformity 

regulations and will not interfere with 

maintenance of the 1-hour ozone 

standard, attainment or maintenance of 

any other NAAQS, or any other CAA 

requirement. 

C. Section IX.D.2.f, Table 8. The 

State’s 1999 submittal proposed to 

remove from Table 8 of the maintenance 

plan the budgets for sources other than 

on-road mobile sources. The previously 

approved maintenance plan contains 

budgets for area sources, non-road 

mobile sources, and point sources, in 

addition to the budgets for on-road 

mobile sources. These budgets are 

specified for years 1994 through 2006, 

2007 (the end of the maintenance 

period), 2015, and 2020. The 2007 

budgets are identical to the inventory 

values used to demonstrate maintenance 

in 2007. Under our general conformity 

regulations, these 2007 inventory values 

for sources other than on-road mobile 

sources are defined as budgets for 

general conformity regardless of 

whether they are explicitly stated in the 

maintenance plan. We also note that the 

2007 budgets are more stringent than 

the 2015 and 2020 budgets (except for 

two instances in which the differences 

are very slight). Thus, we find that the 

removal of the 2015 and 2020 budgets 

for sources other than on-road mobile 

sources will make it more difficult to 

show general conformity. In this sense, 

removal of such budgets will make the 

SIP more stringent. In addition, we have 

confirmed with the State that the State 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES
35876 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 116 / Friday, June 15, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

2We note that one of the potential contingency 

measures (stage two vapor recovery) has not been 

approved by EPA as a stand-alone SIP measure; 

however it is part of the maintenance plan. 

has never allowed reliance on such 

budgets for a general conformity 

showing. Finally, such budgets are not 

needed to ensure ongoing maintenance 

of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS; nor will 

their removal from the maintenance 

plan interfere with the attainment or 

maintenance of other NAAQS or 

compliance with other CAA 

requirements. Thus, we approve the 

removal from the maintenance plan of 

the budgets for area, on-road mobile, 

and point sources. 

D. Section IX.D.2.h(2), 

‘‘Determination of Contingency Action 

Level.’’ The State’s 1999 submittal 

proposed to change the maintenance 

plan’s trigger for contingency measures. 

Instead of a defined trigger, the revised 

plan would allow the State to consider 

several factors in deciding whether 

contingency measures should be 

implemented to attain or maintain the 8- 

hour ozone standard. The revision 

would also redefine the contingency 

trigger date to be the date the State 

determines that one or more 

contingency measures should be 

implemented. EPA is disapproving 

these changes. 

Our consistent interpretation has been 

that contingency measures in a 

maintenance plan must include a predefined trigger, such as a violation of 

the standard. In the maintenance plan, 

the State must commit to implement 

one or more contingency measures 

within a set period after the violation. 

The revised SIP does not include a predefined trigger, and, thus, we 

disapprove the State’s revisions to 

Section IX.D.2.h(2) of the maintenance 

plan.2

While 40 CFR 51.905(e) discusses 

modifications that may be implemented 

upon revocation of the 1-hour standard, 

including removal of the obligation to 

implement contingency measures upon 

a violation of the 1-hour NAAQS, the 

modifications only apply to areas with 

an approved maintenance plan for the 8- 

hour ozone standard. The State does not 

have an approved 8-hour ozone 

maintenance plan. 

E. Section IX.D.2.j(1), ‘‘Tracking 

System for Verification of Emission 

Inventory.’’ The State’s 1999 submittal 

proposed to remove the maintenance 

plan’s reference to an annual inventory 

for point sources. Specifically, section 

IX.D.2.j(1)(b) of the previously approved 

maintenance plan includes the State’s 

commitment to develop an annual 

inventory for point sources in the area. 

A separate section of the previously 

approved maintenance plan—section 

IX.D.2.j(1)(a)—includes a commitment 

to update the inventory for all source 

categories every three years. The State’s 

1999 submittal did not propose to 

change this latter commitment. 

As noted, in our 2003 action we 

inadvertently approved the removal of 

the State’s commitment to develop an 

annual inventory for point sources. In 

that 2003 action, we only intended to 

approve non-substantive changes to 

numbering and cross-references. In this 

action, we are ratifying our 2003 

approval of the State’s removal of the 

commitment to develop an annual 

inventory for point sources. Approval is 

warranted because such an inventory is 

not needed to ensure maintenance of the 

1-hour ozone NAAQS. Nor will removal 

of the commitment to submit an annual 

inventory for point sources interfere 

with attainment or maintenance of any 

other NAAQS or compliance with any 

other CAA requirement. The 

maintenance plan retains the 

requirement that the State update its 

inventory of all source categories every 

three years. This is consistent with 

EPA’s regulatory requirements for 

inventories, and we find that a threeyear frequency is adequate to track 

emissions relevant to the maintenance 

plan. 

F. Various Sections. The State’s 1999 

submittal proposed to remove all 

references to CO because CO is not a 

significant contributor to ozone 

formation. These references occur in a 

variety of locations in the 1-hour ozone 

maintenance plan. For example, the 

maintenance plan includes inventories 

for CO, transportation conformity 

budgets for CO, budgets for CO for 

sources other than on-road mobile 

sources, and references to inspection 

and maintenance provisions for CO. 

As noted, we inadvertently approved 

the removal of some of these references 

to CO in our 2003 action, in which we 

only intended to approve nonsubstantive changes to numbering and 

cross-references. In this action, we are 

ratifying our 2003 approval of the 

State’s removal of some of the references 

to CO and approving the State’s removal 

of all other references to CO in the 1- 

hour ozone maintenance plan. 

First, we agree with the State that CO 

is not a significant contributor to ozone 

formation. Thus, there is no need for CO 

measures to ensure maintenance of the 

1-hour ozone standard or any other 

ozone standard. Second, the removal of 

the CO measures in the 1-hour ozone 

maintenance plan will not interfere with 

attainment or maintenance of any other 

NAAQS or compliance with any other 

CAA requirement. In particular, there 

are no CO nonattainment areas in Utah. 

Within Salt Lake and Davis Counties, 

the only maintenance area for CO is Salt 

Lake City. It has its own maintenance 

plan, with its own motor vehicle 

emissions budgets and CO measures. In 

addition, recent monitored ambient CO 

values for Salt Lake City and other areas 

in Utah are well below the level of the 

CO NAAQS. 

Thus, the removal of CO measures in 

the 1-hour ozone maintenance plan is 

consistent with continued maintenance 

of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS and with 

CAA section 110(l). 

G. Miscellaneous. As noted above, we 

previously approved revisions to the 1- 

hour ozone maintenance plan that the 

State submitted on December 31, 2002, 

a date that post-dates the date of the 

revisions we are proposing to act on 

today. In particular, in our June 25, 2003 

action on the December 31, 2002 

submittal, we approved Utah’s updating 

of references in the 1-hour ozone 

maintenance plan to Utah air rules 

whose numbering Utah had changed 

after it submitted revisions to the 1-hour 

ozone maintenance plan in 1999. See 68 

FR 37744. We are retaining the updated 

references to Utah air rules as we 

approved them in our June 25, 2003 

action. We are not replacing these 

updated references with the older 

references contained in the 1-hour 

ozone maintenance plan that Utah 

submitted in 1999. 

III. Response to Comments 

We received one comment letter on 

our April 10, 2012 notice of proposed 

rulemaking, from the Utah Division of 

Air Quality (UDAQ). Below we provide 

a summary of, and our response to, the 

State’s comment. 

Comment: UDAQ comments on EPA’s 

proposed disapproval of Utah’s 

revisions to the contingency measure 

provisions in the 1-hour ozone 

maintenance plan. UDAQ recommends 

that EPA approve the revisions. In the 

alternative, UDAQ asks that if partial 

disapproval is deemed necessary, EPA 

indicated that it will not require a 

revision of the plan or initiate work on 

a Federal Implementation Plan. UDAQ 

reasons that it would not be an 

acceptable use of limited state or EPA 

resources to prepare a revised plan for 

the 1-hour ozone standard, which has 

not been violated in the area since 1992 

and which was revoked in 2005. UDAQ 

also indicates that ozone levels have 

continued to drop and that Salt Lake 

and Davis Counties were declared 

attainment areas for both the 1997 and 

2008 ozone NAAQS. UDAQ asserts that 

it is not possible for Utah to revise the 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 116 / Friday, June 15, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 35877 

3The area violated the 1997 8-hour ozone 

standard based on monitored data for 2005–2007. 

Thus, we have previously suggested that Utah may 

want to withdraw and revise its maintenance plan 

for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard. 

4All section and table references are to sections 

and tables in the 1-hour ozone maintenance plan for 

Salt Lake and Davis Counties. 

1-hour ozone maintenance plan because 

any new regulatory requirements for 

ozone in Utah must reflect the current 

ozone standard, not the standard that 

was in effect 15 years ago and has been 

revoked in Utah. UDAQ also suggests 

that the contingency measure language 

in the federally-approved SIP is not 

practically enforceable by EPA. UDAQ 

states that it submitted a new 

maintenance plan in 2007 that 

addresses the 1997 ozone NAAQS and 

that contains an automatic trigger for 

contingency measures and a different 

set of contingency measures. UDAQ 

notes that EPA has not acted on the 

2007 maintenance plan. 

Response: The comments do not 

provide a basis for us to reverse our 

proposed disapproval of Utah’s 

revisions to the contingency measure 

provisions. As noted in our April 10, 

2012 proposal (77 FR 21515) and in 

section II, above, EPA’s consistent 

interpretation has been that contingency 

measures in a maintenance plan must 

include a pre-defined trigger, such as a 

violation of the standard. In the 

maintenance plan, the State must 

commit to implement one or more 

contingency measures within a set 

period after the violation. The revised 

maintenance plan does not include a 

pre-defined trigger. Therefore, we 

cannot approve the State’s revision. 

This disapproval does not trigger a 

FIP obligation because the approved SIP 

remains in place and, contrary to 

UDAQ’s assertion, remains federally 

enforceable. This is a well-established 

principle concerning SIPs—once 

approved, their provisions remain 

federally enforceable unless and until 

EPA approves a revision. As a practical 

matter, this may have little significance 

because Utah has been attaining the 1- 

hour ozone standard for many years and 

the relevant areas were designated 

unclassifiable/attainment for the 1997 

and 2008 ozone standards. Thus, a 

violation of the 1-hour standard is 

unlikely. Nonetheless, as noted in our 

proposal and in section I above, the 

revocation of the 1-hour ozone standard 

did not automatically eliminate existing 

1-hour ozone plan provisions from the 

SIP. Any changes require EPA approval, 

and EPA will not approve the removal 

of contingency measures for the 1-hour 

ozone standard until an area has an 

approved maintenance plan for the 8- 

hour ozone NAAQS. 77 FR 21514, 

21515; 40 CFR 51.905(e). We intend to 

address Utah’s 2007 maintenance plan 

for the 1997 ozone standard and any 

plans for the 2008 standard in separate 

actions, as necessary.3

IV. Final Action 

For the reasons described above, we 

are taking the following actions 

concerning Utah’s revisions to the 1- 

hour ozone maintenance plan for Salt 

Lake and Davis Counties:4

A. We are ratifying our June 25, 2003 

approval (at 68 FR 37744) of the 

following revisions to the 1-hour ozone 

maintenance plan that Utah submitted 

on December 31, 2002: 

1. The revisions to Section 

IX.D.2.b(4)(a), ‘‘NOx RACT;’’ 

2. The revisions to subsection 

IX.D.2.j(1)(b) of Section IX.D.2.j(1), 

‘‘Tracking System for Verification of 

Emission Inventory;’’ and 

3. The removal of references to CO in 

the sections of the plan that we 

approved on June 25, 2003. 

B. We are approving the revisions to 

the 1-hour ozone maintenance plan that 

Utah submitted on February 22, 1999 

except for the following: 

1. The revisions to Section 

IX.D.2.h(2), ‘‘Determination of 

Contingency Action Level,’’ which EPA 

is disapproving; 

2. The revisions to the remainder of 

Section IX.D.2.h, which were 

superseded by the revisions to the plan 

that EPA approved on June 25, 2003; 

3. The revisions to Sections IX.D.2.b, 

IX.D.2.d(1)(a), IX.D.2.e(1), IX.D.2.f(1)(a), 

IX.D.2.i, and IX.D.2.j, which were 

superseded by the revisions to the plan 

that EPA approved on June 25, 2003. 

V. 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 CAA. Accordingly, this final action 

merely approves some state law as 

meeting Federal requirements and 

disapproves other state law because it 

does not meet Federal requirements; 

this action 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 information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et 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 Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• 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 on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• Is not a significant 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 of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and, 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

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. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 

Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen 

dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

Dated: May 24, 2012. 

James B. Martin, 

Regional Administrator, Region 8. 

Part 52, Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code 

of Federal Regulations is amended as 

follows: 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES
35878 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 116 / Friday, June 15, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

PART 52—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

Subpart TT—Utah 

■ 2. Amend § 52.2320 by adding 

paragraph (c)(70) to read as follows: 

§ 52.2320 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(70) On February 22, 1999, the 

Governor submitted revisions to the 

Ozone Maintenance Provisions for Salt 

Lake and Davis Counties, Section IX, 

Part D.2 of the Utah State 

Implementation Plan (SIP). EPA is 

approving the revisions except for the 

following: the revisions to Section 

IX.D.2.h(2) of the SIP, ‘‘Determination of 

Contingency Action Level,’’ which EPA 

is disapproving; the revisions to the 

remainder of Section IX.D.2.h, which 

were superseded by revisions to the SIP 

that EPA approved at § 52.2320(c)(56); 

and the revisions to Sections IX.D.2.b, 

IX.D.2.d(1)(a), IX.D.2.e(1), IX.D.2.f(1)(a), 

IX.D.2.i, and IX.D.2.j, which were 

superseded by revisions to the SIP that 

EPA approved at § 52.2320(c)(56). 

(i) [Reserved] 

(ii) Additional material. 

(A) Ozone Maintenance Provisions for 

Salt Lake and Davis Counties, Section 

IX, Part D.2 that was adopted by the Air 

Quality Board on June 3, 1998 and 

submitted by the Governor on February 

22, 1999. 

[FR Doc. 2012–14668 Filed 6–14–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

42 CFR Part 71 

[Docket No. CDC–2012–0003] 

RIN 0920–AA47 

Establishment of User Fees for 

Filovirus Testing of Nonhuman Primate 

Liver Samples 

AGENCY: Centers for Disease Control and 

Prevention (HHS/CDC), Department of 

Health and Human Services (HHS). 

ACTION: Correcting amendment. 

SUMMARY: On February 10, 2012, the 

Centers for Disease Control and 

Prevention (CDC), within the 

Department of Health and Human 

Services (HHS) published a Direct Final 

Rule (DFR) that solicited public 

comment on the establishment of user 

fees for filovirus testing of all 

nonhuman primates that die during the 

HHS/CDC-required 31-day quarantine 

period for any reason other than trauma. 

That document incorrectly listed the 

effective date as March 12, 2012. On 

February 10, 2012, HHS/CDC also 

published in the Federal Register a 

companion Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking (NPRM) (77 FR 7109) that 

proposed identical filovirus testing and 

user fee requirements. In both the DFR 

and NPRM, HHS/CDC indicated that if 

it did not receive any significant adverse 

comments by April 10, 2012, it would 

publish a document in the Federal 

Register withdrawing the NPRM and 

confirming the effective date of the DFR 

within 30 days after the end of the 

comment period. 

Because of the error in effective date 

the DFR took effect prior to the 

expiration of the comment period. 

Because of this error and due to 

receiving significant adverse public 

comments, HHS/CDC is amending 42 

CFR 71.53 by removing paragraph (j) 

which will have the same effect as the 

withdrawal of the DFR. HHS/CDC will 

carefully review the comments received 

on the notice of proposed rulemaking 

published on February 10, 2012. 

DATES: This action is effective June 15, 

2012. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

questions concerning this document: 

Ashley A. Marrone, JD, Centers for 

Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 

Clifton Road NE., Mailstop E–03, 

Atlanta, Georgia 30333; telephone 404– 

498–1600. For information concerning 

program operations: Dr. Robert Mullan, 

Centers for Disease Control and 

Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE., 

Mailstop E–03, Atlanta, Georgia 30333; 

telephone 404–498–1600. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On 

February 10, 2012 HHS/CDC published 

a Direct Final Rule (DFR) (77 FR 6971) 

amending 42 CFR 71.53 by adding a 

new paragraph (j) to establish a user fee 

for filovirus testing of nonhuman 

primates. HHS/CDC took this action 

because (1) testing is no longer being 

offered by the only private, commercial 

laboratory that previously performed 

these tests and (2) we believed that 

these requirements were noncontroversial and unlikely to generate 

significant adverse comment. The DFR 

incorrectly listed the effective date as 

March 12, 2012. On February 10, 2012, 

HHS/CDC also published a companion 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) 

(77 FR 7109) that proposed identical 

filovirus testing and user fee 

requirements in the Federal Register. In 

both the DFR and NPRM, HHS/CDC 

indicated that if it did not receive any 

significant adverse comments by April 

10, 2012, it would publish a document 

in the Federal Register withdrawing the 

notice of proposed rulemaking and 

confirming the effective date of the 

direct final rule within 30 days after the 

end of the comment period. Because of 

the error in effective date the DFR took 

effect prior to the expiration of the 

comment period. 

HHS/CDC is now amending 42 CFR 

71.53 by removing paragraph (j) which 

will have the same effect as if HHS/CDC 

had withdrawn the DFR. HHS/CDC is 

taking this action because of the error in 

effective date and due to having 

received significant adverse public 

comments. HHS/CDC will carefully 

review the comments received on the 

notice of proposed rulemaking 

published on February 10, 2012. 

List of Subjects in 42 CFR Part 71 

Communicable diseases, Public 

health, Quarantine, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Testing, 

User fees. 

Accordingly, 42 CFR part 71 is 

corrected by making the following 

correcting amendment: 

PART 71—FOREIGN QUARANTINE 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 71 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: Secs. 215 and 311 of the Public 

Health Service (PHS) Act, as amended (42 

U.S.C. 216, 243); section 361–369, PHS Act, 

as amended (42 U.S.C. 264–272); 31 U.S.C. 

9701. 

§ 71.53 [Amended] 

■ 2. Effective June 15, 2012, amend 

§ 71.53 by removing paragraph (j). 

Dated: June 6, 2012. 

Kathleen Sebelius, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2012–14603 Filed 6–14–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4163–18–P 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES