# .... Federal**R.egist~r** 

### I Vol. 57, No. 

### 244 

### I Friday, 

### December 18, 1992 

### I Proposed Rules 

### 6u149
PART 1301--{AMENDED] DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY ·

1. The authority citation fo**pa~** 130i1 31 CFR Part 10

.

· continues to read as follows·

. _ _ AuthDrity: 21 U.S

.C. 821, 822, 823, 824 , [tA-20-92]

. : · ·.**~** .. 8 l(b). 875. 877.

. 

# 1

. .- .. . :
. . .

. Sectl

. on 13il1

. 11ls pro osed to 

### be- : RIN**1~057** _,. ; :· 

### 'sed as follows: ·· .: -. , .. ·

# ~22-!J2~' wherever H 

### p{e"ars in 

### thet 1tam

### n~~**~** . . . , ., .. _ Cyuthia**E.G~** , . ·· · · Alternate Fecjefal**~6ter** Liai6on Officer,**.** ant**•'liefCoun~{(Corporate).** · (FR

. . . 92.:..30429 Fll&hs;:2; 8:45 am)**COOE~_.,** . ·-

£ 1 1.11 

### r:.. amounU. : · 

## . >. egulatlona GovemlnQithe Practice of

.. "' ·

. · :t • • · ' · . ·**tt~ya,** Cartifled Public ·. · ENViAONJ.!IENTAl**P~OTECTION**

### (e)~r**~ch reg~stratio!f:-.:**  · · ccountanta, Enrollear Agenta; end

.

### ~ AGENC'f

. - - rerogt tration to

### m~ufa':'r,'**0** controlled rolled Actuaries Before the Internal ·: ,., . · ·· ' subs. ces, the

### regtstran~hall**~ay** an , R 

### venue Service; Co ectlon 40 CFR Part 52

.. . . . •

### apph~on fee of$1,000.

. _ . . · · · · [UT3-

_ 1 , -MS2, · FRt..-4

_

54H)

_ ' ·._

.. (b) F each**registrati~** or
_. , raregi tion to distribu e controlled

. . . . . .. •
_ 

### Clean Air Act.·

# Approval and

. substan •**th~** registrut shall pay an
. - Acn N: Correction t**~~o n**  _ cf

. ·:. _.. Promulgation of PM-10 .· . · - . - - : · .. · . appllcati n fee**~f** $500. · · '·) ,. ·.· : : prop regulatio

. ·**~** • - ·. ·.- · · · : :**-~** ·· - i· lmplementalloil Plan

.for Utah •·. . . (c) For ach registrati n or ·. ... · - . . reregistra ·on to

### disp~**se,** or to conduct SUM Y: This

.doqunau't contains

.. AGE.-.cY: United States

### En~ronmental instructio al activiti with, controlled

. co - pns to the cbrrection to proposed Protection Agency (EPA)• . '. · . substance listed in hedules II · · · . ragulatiqns (IA-2ofQ2), which were _. .· ACnoN: Notite 

# ot proposed rulamaking. through 

### V, e regis t shall pay an . · publishdd Friday, embar

. 4, 1992, (57 .· . · - app!icatio fee of

### S~b for 

# athree-year · FR.

### 574~. The p posed regulations

. . SUMMARY.

### ~e EPA PI"?poses

### appro~al of registration r'luating o an annualized would end the regulations governing the**St.ateimple~entation** Plan (SIPJ fes of

### sao r annu . _ the

### practi~e of in ividuals before the

. subm1tted 

### by**~a** State ofUtah for the

(d) For eo regis tion or Internal R venue ServiCe

. These · · purpose of bn!'ging**~bout** the

. . reregistratio to

### co**~uct** research or . regulation woul affect individuals

. .. . aUa!?tment 

# o! the national nmb1ent e.tr instructional activi as with a controlled

. who are el:!' ble 0 prectice before the qua•. l y stanaards**(N~AQS)** for

. substance lis ed in hedule I, or to service

. . . . . p?-fficulata matter · wtth an aerodynaP;liC conduct rase**~th** a controlled

. . . . . · . . : . dtameter less than or equal to a nommal substance in Schlules II through V, the

. FOR FURTH 

# IN[RMATICH CONTACT: 10 micrometers-(PMlO). The registrant**sha~a** an application fee of David Meyer a 202-622-6232, (not a implementation plan was submitted by $ 80.

. . . . . toll-free call).

. · . · . . · · the Governor of Utah, to satisfy certain

(e) For each · trstion or .. . . . · · · • ·. · · Federalrequi:rements for an approvabls reregistration to *nduct chemical

### ~ · SUPPLEMENTA INFORMATION.

- · · · nonattainment area PM-10 SIP for Utah analysis with don oiled substances

. .Background · : ··. . - · ·: .. · .-. ' · and Salt 

### Lake Counties

. · . · listed in any . ule, the registrant · \ · · · EPA is also proposing to approve

shall pay an ap 'cation fee of$80. · · The co - · dn notice that is the revisions to tl;la

### S~ate-wide SIP, Chapters {0 For each istr3tion or subject of th's dorraction contains 1 through 7 and 10 through 15, which reregistration t ngaga in a ne.rcotic corrections o tile proposed was submitted by the Utah Air Quality treatment p , induding a emendmen to the regulations Division Diroctor as a supplement to the compounder, rsgist.'Clllt shall pay an governing ractice before the Internal Governor's submitt!ll. The State

-wide

. application fee f $80. Revenue

### rvice~57 FR 46356, October revisions pertain to air program

1

. The a:..tho y citation for part 1311 r. on tlnues to rooq as follows:

Autharity: 21 .S.C. 952, 956, 957, 958, unl ess mherwi n 1ted

.

2

. Section 1 11 11 is proposed to be revised 

### as foil w : §**~31** U1 Ftt.t e.ono •nu.

(a) For sa ragi tration or reregistration o ilrlport controlled substancss, e reg btrnnt shall p ay an &op l! catlon**~** of

## $-oo.

·lb) For ea regis ation or roragisll'atio to eXP,ort controlled substancas, e regi trant shall pay sn ap ::;lic:1tion f of $500

.

Dated: Novefubsr 20 .\1992

. Robert C. 

### Bomb, Administrator Drug Enf drrement i\dministrotioj. [FR Doc

. 92-30643 Filed 12-17-92 ; 8 :45am] 8, 1992). era lations are in subtitle elements newssary to implement A, part 1 , of titl 31 of the Code of

.**contro~ strategies**  to assu:tJ attainment Federal egulatio,ns and have been and maintenance oi the NA1\QS, such reprints as**Trea~ury** Department as resources, emergency episodes, Circular 230 ("Circular 230"}

. · monitoring program, legislative Need [I Correction autbority , public notification, ate. DATES: Comments on this proposed action must he received in writing by Febr.tary 16, 1993. As p blished, IA-20-92 contains an error

### ~-**hich** may prove to be misleading e.nd i in need of clarification. ion ofPubdcation A cordingly, the\ publication of the co 'on to proposed regulations (IA20. 92), which was the subject of FR D is

. 92-29351, is corrected as follows:

. On page 57400, column 1, under e heading FOR FURTiiER INFORMAT10.

. 

# r

ONTACT:, line 2, the telephone

_ number 202-622-7606" is corrected to read 202-622-6232". 2. On page 57400, column 2, item number 5, the telephone number "202- 622-7606" is corrected to read "202- ADDRt:SSES: Comments should be addressed to the contact indicated below.**Do !as**  Skia;Chisf, BART-A?, Air Pmg;ams Br!lllch. U.S

. EPA, Region VIII, 999 18th SL-eet, suite 5CO , Denver, Colorado 80202-2466

. ·

Copies of the State's submittal and other information a11:l svailable for inspection during normal business hours at the following location: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region VITI, Air PrO!;'J'a!DS Branch, 999 18th Street, suite 500 , Denver, Colorado 80202-2466

. FOR RJRlliER tNFORJ.IAnON CONTACT: Lee Hanley, BART-AP, U.S. EPA Region

### 60150 

### Federal Register 

### I Vol. 57, No. 244 

### I 

### Friday, December 18, 1992 

### I 

### Proposed Rules } 

# .. VUI, 999 18th Street, suite 500, Denver, Colorado 80202-2466, (303) 293-1760. SUPPUMEhTARY IHFOAUATIOH: I. Background A

. Utah PM10 

### Statutory and

### Regulatory**Hi~-tory** 1. 1977 Clean · Air Act (CAA)

- Requirements: Revision and · Implementation o(PM10 NAAQS ·

The CAA requires EPA to periodically review and, 

### ifappropriate, revise the • criteria on which the NAAQS for 

### each air pollutant are based, as well as revise the NAAQS themselves

. On July 1, 1987 (52 FR 24634), EPA 

### finalized its · decision to revise 

### the particulate matter NAAQS from "total suspanded

. . particulate" (TSP) to 

### particles with an · aerodynamic diameter less-than·or equal to 

### a nominal10 micrometers (PM10).

Toimplement the new particulate matter NAAQS, all areas in the country · were divided into 

### three groups, basad on the probability that each area would violate the new PM10 NAAQS

. "Group 

# r

: areas were those areas having

_ Violated the PM10 NAAQS or having 

### air quality data showing a 

### high (greater than 95%) probability ofviolating the NAAQS. These areas required substantial SIP adjustment. "Group II" areas were those 

### areas estimated at having 20-95% probability of violating the PM10 NAAQS and needing less adjustment to 

### their existing SIPs. "Group ill" areas were those areas estimated as having less than 20% probability of violating the PMlO NAAQS and, therefora, only neoding SIP adjust:-nent as required under the preconstruction review program. See 52 FR 24672, 2467s-82 (july 1, 1987).

In 

### ilia State of Utah, Salt Laks and Utab C:)unties were identified by EPA as Group I areas. The rest of the Stata wee; classified as Group ill (52 FR 29383, August 7, 1 987)

. The State, there{!:;re,

. under section 110(a)(1) of the 1977 CAA, was requ ired to scbmit e PM10 SIP. 2

. C itizen Laws uit In 1Sl3 8 , a lawsuit (Preser.rc:tion Cou,,sel v. Reilly, Civil Action No

. 89-**-~6 2-G,**  (D. Utah)) was filed by the Pr(! s('-rvaticn Counsel, Utah E

nvironment Canter and the Utah V

alley Citizens for Clean Air against EPA. The plaintiffs claimed that because tl: e State had failed to submit a PM10 SIP_within the timeframe provided una9 r the 1977 CAA that provided for attainment ofthe PM10 Nt\1-\QS, the duty ! o issue such a plan for Utah had devolved to EPA and that EPA was required to issue a plan for Utah pursuant to sOCtion 110(c)(1) ofthe 1977 B

. Mocferau; PM10 Nonattainment Area CAA. SIP Requirements

.. - ·. · . -

A settlement agreement was signed by the parties in 

### January 1990, which called for submittal of a SIP for Utah County and Salt Lake County and EPA approval, or EPA promulgation of a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) for these Counties, 

### ifneca888J)', signed by the EPA Administrator by December 31, 1991 : The settlement allowed the State

.to maintain the SIP development lead, but placed significant emphasis on EPA's

.involvement and technical oversight.

In mid-1990, 

### the State determined that the stationary 

### source issues in Utah County were significantly different from those of Salt Lake County and proposed to focus on one area plan at a time. The design values (levels 

### from which to reduce emissions to attain the standard) were also different in these two areas•
. The Utah County area plan was adopted in September 1990 and submitted to EPA in October 1990. On November 

### ts ·· 1990, the PreSident signed into law _' revisions to the CAA (Pub. 

### L. No. 101- 549,

_ 104 Stat. 2399)

. All former "Group I" areas and certain other areas were designated nonattainment for PM10 and classified as moderate by operation of law upon enactment of the 1.990 Amendments. (Sections 107(d)(4)(B) and 188(a) of the Act.) Thus, Utah and Salt Lake County became moderate PM10 nonattcinment 8lll8s (56 

### FR 56694, 56840, November 6, 1991) and were subject to the associated moderate

. PM10 nonattainment area SIP requirements

.



### Tne Sa.lt La.ke Co1mty araa plan was

· adopted 

### m June 1991, and submitted to EPA in November 1991

. EPA's egreement as to the appropriateness of rieveloping separate plans for the two area plans was based on its roview of the various complex source contributions in these areas, the effort by the State to address the issues in an equitable and timely manner (numerous scoping and public hearings were hald to obtain interested parties ' comments), a11d the differant areas' design values.

The State did consider control strategies for area and mobile sources which were common to both counties. The Utah County plc.n, therefore was modified in June 1991 to be con;istent with the Sait Lake County plan and resubmitted with the Salt La!ce County plan in November 1991.



### .Tn? parties voluntarily stipulated to d1sm1ssal of the lawsuit (agreeing to vacete the Settlement Agreement and dismiss the complaint) in August 1991

. The air quiility

### p~ing requirements for moderate PM-10 nonattainment areas are sat out in title I ofthe Act. The EPA has issued a "General

. Preamble" describing EPA's preliminary views on how EPA intends to review SIPs and SIP revisions submitted under titlel ofthe Act, including those State submittals containing moderate PM-10 nonattainment area SIP requirements. (See 

### 57 FR 13498 (April16, 1992) and

. 57 

### FR 18070 (April28, 1992).) The

reader should refer to the General Preamble for 

### a more detailed discussion of the interpretations of title I advanced in today's proposal and the supporting · rationllle. Today's rulemak:ing action will apply EPA's interpretations to the Utah PM-10 SIP taking into

. . , .. consideration the specific factual issues**prese~ted.** EPA will consider any timely · submitted comments before taking final action on today's proposal.

Part D of title I contains the provisions applicable to nonattainment areas. Moderate PM-10 nonattainment 

### areas must moot the applicable · requirements set out in subparts 1 and 

### 4 ofparfD. Subpart 1, contains provisions generally applicab_le to all nonattainment areas and subpart 4 contains provisions specifically

. applicable to PM-10 nonattainment

· areas . At times, subparts 1 and 4 ove· riap or conflict

. The EPA has attempted to clarify the relationship among these various provisions in the General Preamble and, as appropriate, L'l todsv 's notice

. · -

Those States containing initial moderate PM-10 nonattsinment areas w:ra required to submit, among other thu:gs, the follo't'ting provisions by November 15, 1991:

1._.A co

_ mprehensive, accurate, Cl.L'"T9nt invimtory of actual emissions which provides a sufficient basis for determining the adequacy of the attainment demonstration.

. 2. Provisions to assure that reasonably avaiiable control measurss (RAO.· f) (includir.g such reductions in emis& ions from existing sources in the arsa as mey 

### lxl obtained through the adoption, afa minimum, ofreasonably availab!e control technology-RACI') shall be implemented no later than December 10, 1993;

3. Either a demonstration (including air**q~ality** modeling) that the plan 

### will prov1de for attainment as expeditiously as prscticable, but no later than

. December 31, 1994, or a demonstration that attainment by that date is impracticable;

### Federal Register 

### I Vol. 57, No. 

### 244) Friday, 

### December 18, 1992 

### I
· Proposed 

### Rules 

### 60151
4. Quantitative milestones which are evaluated the hearing comments, made 3. RAc;:M ,(Ipciuding RA.Cf) to be achieved every 3 years and which · changes to the SIPs and regulations as The General PreSmble contains a demonstrate reasonable further progress needed, and provided EPA with

.... detailed di8CU88ion ofEPA's (RFP) toward attainment by Decamh9r documentation of this process. Tha interpretation · ofthe RACM (including 31, 1994; and

. State documentation can 

### be found in the RACf) requirement (see sections

.



### 5. Provisions to assure that control State TSD, Evaluation of the PMlO SIPs 172(c)(l) and 189{a){l)(C), 57 

### FR 13539- requirenients applicable to maim: ; . , : <;:ompliance with 40 CFR part 51, 45 and 1356{H)1; 57 FR 18072-74). The stationary sources ofPM-10 also apply ; ,· appendix V requirements. · . . EPA's interpretation of this requirement to major stationary SOW'C8S of

### PM~10 .-:. · The EPA also 

### must determme is set out here onl)' in broad terms
. . . · .. '

### p~rs, except

### wh~re the · · ..· o: whether a submittal is complete and · The State should 

### first identify

. . Aclmmlstrator detemunes that such

. ·. therefore 

### warrants further EPA review available control measures, evaluating · soUICes do not

### con~bute significantly .·. and action. (See section 1lO(X)(1) and 57 them for thsir reasonableness in light 

### of to PM-10 levels which exceed·the 

### FR 13565 .) The EPA's completeness · . the feasibility ofthe controls and 

## tba

. NAAQS in the 

### area. See sections l12(c), criteria for SIP submittals are 

### set out at attainment needs ofthe 

### area. A State

.

188, and 189 of the Act.

.. . · 40 CFR part 51 , appendix 

# v ( 1991 ), 

### as may reject

# an available control measure
· Some provisions 

### are due at a later ' ·

_ amended by 57 FR 42216 (August 26 , 

### ifthe m968UI'9 is technologically

. · date.

### State~ with initial moderate

### ~M- '_ 1991 ). The EPA attempts to make

.: . .

### ~ .- infeasible Or

.the cost 

### of the control is 10 nonattainment areas were required to completeness determinations within 60 unreasonahle

..

### ~e SIP must ·. · .. submit 8 permit/rogram for the .'

_ · -.. days of recaiving 8 submission.

. · · .

### demon~.te attainment

### ~f the NAAQS construction an operation of new and

. · b

. 

### 1i d d 

### as expeditiously 

### as practicable, but no

od 'fi d . tati s· ources of However, a su nutta s eeme . 

### 1 th '"'-- 

### be 31 1994 ( 

### 1 th m 1 e maJors onary complete by operation of law if a . . ater
. an ......,.,.,m r • . . un ess e PM-10 by June 30, 1992. (See section completeness determination is not made State

### demo~strates**~at** attainment by. 189{a).) Such States also must submit · by EPA six months after receipt of the that date is unpracticable)

..

### Th~refore, 1f contingency measures by November 15, b . . a State adopts less than all avatlable · hich bee ff, • 'th t SU IDlSSlOn. 

### d 1 1993, w orne e active Wl ou . . . . measures, but demonstrates, a equate y farther action by the State or EPA,**up~n** The Utah PM10 SIP**revts~on** was and appropriately, that RFP and

. a determination by EPA that the area reviewed by EPA to detenmne attainment ofthe**P~i-10** Nf.AQS is 

### has failed to echieve 

### RFP or to attain the**~ompleteness** shortly after its submittal. assured. and application of all such

. PM-10 NAAQS by the applicable m accordance with the completeness available measures would not result in statutory deadline ofDecember 1994. criteria**~et** out at 40 CFR part 51, attainment any faster, then a plan which (See soction 172(c)(9) and 57 FR 13543- appendiX V {1991), as amended by 57 requires implementation ofless than all 44.) FR 42216 {August 26. 1991). The available measures may 

### be approved as submittal was found to 

### be complete, and meeting the 

## RACM requirement. As a ll. 

### Today's Action

Section 110(lc) ofthe Act sets out provisions governing EPA's review

. of

.

· SIP submittals. (See 57 

### FR 13565-66

. .) In todey's action, EPA is proposing to grant
· approval of the plan revision submitted to EPA in a letter dated November 15, !991. Tnis submittal was intendad to satisfy thosa ruoderata PM-10 nonattair..m :mt area SIP requirements due November 15,1991. EPA proposes to d pprove tba submittal as meeting all of the .aplJ!icabie requirements of the · Act. A Hegu!ator,t Discussion 1

. Procedural Background

The Act requiras States to observe c9rtain procedural requirements in developing implementation plans a."ld plan revisions for sub:nission to 

### EPA. Section 110(a)(2) of the Act provides Lltat each implementation plan submitted by 

### a State must be adopted after reasonable notice and public haaring

. 1 Section 110(1) of the Act similarly provides that each revision to an implementation plan submitted by a State under tho Act must be adopted by such State efter reasonable notice and public hearing. Utah held several public hearings after reasonable notice,

'Alro &eetion 172(c)(7) of the Act requirea that plan provbloM for nonattalnmen! are.u meet the applicable provbl

. oru of &ectlon 110(a)(2)

. . a letter dated January 19, 1992, was suggested starting point for determining forwarded to th,e Governor indicating RAQ.I EPA 

### has identified available the completeness of the submittal**~d** · controi measure's 

### · far solll'C8s of fugiti\"6 the next steps to be taken in the revtew dust residential wood combustion,

_ and

. process. · · ·

### pres~bed burning (57 

### FR 18072-74). 2. Emissions Inventory

Section 172{cJ(3) of the Act requires thet nonattainment plan provisions include li comprehensive, aCC'Jl1ite, current inventory of actuai**~missions** from all sou."Ces of relevant poilutants in the nouattainment area. Section 1 !O(a)(2){K) generally euiliorizes EPA to request any data necessary to perform air quality modeling for the purp<:se of predicting, CU"...1ong other thir.gs, impacts on tho PM10 NAAQS

. 

### This would include, for example, 

### a comprehensive. accurate, 3Ild current inventory of ollowable emissions in the area. Because the submission cf such inventories is a necessary adj'.lllct to an area's attainment demonstration (or dsmonstr<ition that the area cannot practicably attain), the emissions inventories must be received with this submission. (Sea 5i FR 13539

.)

EPA describes the emission inventories for the Utah County and**~lt** Lake County plans in the- discussion of these SIPs sot out below. EPA proposes to approve the emission inventories as meeting the section 172(c)(3) statutory requirement. The State should add to the list of ave.ilable m68Sures in an arsa, any measures that public commenters demonstrate may well be re8SGn:ilily available in 11 particular circumstance.

The RACT for a particular source is sirnilariy determinad

. Tha EPA's longstanding definition of RACT is the lowest emission limitation that a particular source i$ capable of meeting by the application of control technology that is reasonably available considering teclmokgical and &eonomic feasibility (see 57 FR 13541). Thus, EPA recommends that available control technology 

### b9 applied to 

### those existing sources in the areas that are reasonabls to control in light 

### of tha attainment needs 

### of the area and the feasibility of controls.l

The State suboitted documentation on the available control measuras (including any availabl9 control technology) that explains whot constitutes RACM (or RACT) for Utah County and Salt !..aXe County. EPA

2 The EPA baa luued·guidance on the technological and economic paramelen that ahould be coxuidered In determining P.ACT for a paltlcular soU1C9 (57 FR 16073-74)

.

### 6015Z Federal Register 

### I Vol. 57, No. 244 

### I Friday, December 18, 1992 

### I Proposed 

### Rules generally describes the control measures in the Utah County and Salt Lake County plans in the discussion of these SIPs set out below. As indicated below, EPA. proposes to approve the control measures in these plans 

### as meeting the RACM (including RAcn requirement.

A more detailed discussion oftha individual source and source category contributions, their associated control measures (including available control

. technology) and an explanation as to why certain available control measures were not implemented, can be found in the State Technical Support DocUment (TSD). 4. Demonstration ofAttainment

As noted, the initial moderate PM-10 nonattainment areas must submit a demonstration (including air quality modeling) showing that the plan will provide for attainment as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than

. December 31,1994. (See section 189(a}(1)fB) of the Act; 57 

### FR 13538- · 39.) Alternatively, the State**~ust** show that attainment by December 31, 1994, is impracticable. In the General Preamble, EPA. indicated that the attainment demonstrations for the initial moderate areas must follow existing modeling guidelines for PM10 or, if appropriate, may be developed consistent with the supplemental attainment demonstration policy issued for initial areas (see 57 FR 13539).

The 24-hour PM-10 N.AAQS is 150 micrograms/cubic meter ij.Lg/m3), and the standard is attained when the expected number of days per calendar year with a 24-hour averag9 concent.rntion above 150**~g/m3** is equalto or less than one. (See 40 CFR 50.6.) The annual PM10 NAAQS is 50 Jig/m3, and the standard is attained when the expected annual arlthmetic mean
· concont:'!ltic.n is leSi! than or eq-.:al to 50

Jlglm3 (id.).

EPA**d~ecribes** the attainment demonst.rntions, including the air quality modeling utilized, for Utah County and Salt Lake County in the discussion ofthese SIPs set out b-elow. Both areas demonstr!lte attainment by the end of 1993 with the control measures adopted. EPA proposes to app;:ove the attainmsnt demonstrations for both of theSil areas. For a more**d~>tai!ed** dascription of tha attainment demonst."'Stion and the control strstegy 

### •1sed, see the TSD accompanying this notice

. 5. PM-10 Precursors

The control requirements applicable to major stationary sources of PM10 precursors must also apply to major stationary sources of.PM10 unless EPA determines that such sources do not 110(a)(2)(A.) and 57 FR 13556.) The EPA · contributes significantly to PM10 levels criteria·addressing the enforceability of which exceed the NAAQS in the area SIPs and SIP revisions were stated in a**(~ction** 189(e) ofthe Act). The General September 23,1987 memorandum (With Preamble contains a lengthy discussion attachments) from 

## J. Craig Potter,

. on control requirements for PM10 Assistant Administrator for Air and precursors in moderate nonattainment Radiation, 

### et al. (See 57 

### FR 13541.) The areas and the type of technical criteria include, for example, ensuring

· information which EPA will rely on in that the rules contained ln the SIP are

making any deten:t;linations under · . clearly worded and explicit in their section 189(e). (See 57 FR 13539--40 and applicability to the regulated sources, 13541-42.) compliance date(s} should 

### be clearly

. An analysis of air quality and specified, compliance periods and test

.emissions data for the nonattainment methods should 

### be cleerly noted,

. a:·ea of Utah demonstrates that recor(fi:eeping requirements should 

### be violations ofthe PM10 N.AAQS are commensurate with the substantive

. attributable to direct particulate matter requirements and failure to keep the

emissions from PM10 and to sources of required 

### records should constitute a . . particulate matter precursor emissions separate viqlation in itself, and any · of S02 and NOx. · ; . . · exemptions or variances should be clear 6. Quantitative Milestones and in their applicability and how they are Reasonable Further Progress (RFP) triggered. In addition to enforceable

. · · · requirements, nonattainment area plan The PM10 nonattainment area plan provisions must contain a program that revisions demonstrating attainment provides for enforcement of the control must contain quantitative milestones measures and other elements in the SIP. which are to be achieved every 

### three (See section 110(a)(2)(C).) The State of years until the area is redesignated Utah has a program that will enauro that attainment and which demonstrate RFP, the measures and other SIP elementa are as defined in section 171(1), toward adequately enforced. EPA's confidence attainment by December 31 ; 1994 (see 

### 1 th

- bT fth PM section 189(c) of the Act; 57 FR 13539). evel on e enlorcea 1 11Y 0 e 10 measures and ofcontinued enforcement 

### RFP is defined in section 171(1) as·such for stationary sources can be found in

. annual incremental reductions in the EPA staff evaluation report and in emissions of the relevant air pollutant as the py91 end-of-year EPA compliance are required by part D or may h' h 1 dedi th TSD reascnably 

### be

### ~uired by tb.e reP?rt w lC are inc u n e .

. Administrator for the purpose of 8. Contingency Measures

ensuring attainment of the applicable As provided in section 172(c)(9) of tha N.AAQS by the applicable date. · Act, all moderate nonattainment area

For the J.nitial moderate PMlO SIPs that demonstrate attainment muBt nonattainment areas, the emissions include contingency measu.--es. (See reductions progress made between tha 

### 11 FR ) Th S!P submittal due date ofNovember 15,

. genera Y 57 13543 -44

. e!W measures must be submitted by 1991 and the attainment date of · November 15, 1993, for the initial December 31, 1994, will satisfy the first moderate nonattainment areas. milestone requirement. '!'he de Ir...inimis Contingency measures should consist of timing differnntial makes it other available measures that are not administrativt)ly impracticable to part ofthe araa's control stratev. require separate milestone and Those measures must tllXe etfect attainment dt-monstrations. In without further action by the State or implementing 

### RFP for these initial EPA, upon a determination by 

### EPA that moderate areas, EPA has reviAwed the the area ba3 failed to make R..qJ or attsin attainment demonstration and control the PM 1 

## oNAAQS by the applicable strategy for the areas to determine statutory deadline. Since contingenC'J whether annual ii1cremental reductions measuras were net due with the different from those provided in the SIP November 15, 1991 moderate PMlO should be required in order to ensure nonattainment erna SIP requirements, attainment cfthe PM-10 NAAQS by EPA is not ta!dng any action on this December 31, 1994. (See section 171(1)

.) requirement in today's**propc~!al.** EPA is proposing to approve the submittals for both areas as satisfjing C. The Utal; PM10 SIP the quantitative milestone and Rl-t> 1 . Utah County requireme:Jt. 7. Enforcaability Issues

All measures and other elamonts in the SIP must be enforceable by the State and EPA. (See sections 172(c)(6), a. 

### Design value. The Utah County area has three monitoring sites, each of which recorded violations of the PM10 NAAQS. For the period April1988 through March 1990, the Undon site

# '- 1 

### Federal Register 

### I Vol. 57, No

. .244 

### I Friday, 

### December 18, 1992 

### I Proposed Rules 

### 60153
had 686 total number ofcays of available data: the second highest value is 254**~g/m3, m~**  in February 1989. For the period Apri11988 through March 1990, the North Provo site had 226 days of a•1ailable 

### d:tia: the first high

· is 191**~g/m3** m9asured in January 1988.

For the period Jannary 1989 tc

. December 1989, the West Orem site bad 339 days of availaQ!e data; the first high is 263 J1g/m3. These high/second high days represent 

### the design value for thesa sites; they were determined using the uloak-up table.'' Table 6-1, in the PM10 SIP Devewpment Guideline dClCUJilellt (EP A45012--86-001}. The Utah County monitoring network recor.ded ·additional data other than those stated above

. 

### HoW1W8r. to ensure that each season of the year is represented by the data used in determining the design value, EPA requ.il'es the use of

### a**comt~letB** discrete 12-month data 

### set, or sets which are multiples of 12-month periods. The 

### use of the most recent data sets which represents the area is also encolll'llged.

The Utah County 

### area bed a unique

. data base involving the operation- · shutdown-startup of Geneva SteeL The steel mill was down for the period from August 1986 to September 1987. Data comparison :;howed the facility as a · major contributor to the PM10 violations. The days of violations, the average winter concentration, and

. average iron contBnt on the filters were· significantly greater during the

. operation of the facility then during the**do~~period.** ·



### b. Methods used to demonstrate attainment. EPA recommends the use of certain methods to demonstrate whether a plan will provide for timely attainmer:t (57 

### FR 13538-39). Dis:tJersion**~d** raceptor modeling o.re among ihe recommsnded methods and**~'lese** methods were initially used by the State to define tb.e design vnlue(s) and control st1·ntegies. EPA's initial review of the State's effort identified significant problems.

Ths State's wind data for use in the dispersion model were in vector units; scaler units were required. The meteor:>logical conditions also affected modeling aCC1L."'BC'J; the area experienced winds less thnn two meters per. second. The EPA Gaussian (dispersion) modal results are suspect under these stagnation conditions. The receptor modsling (Chemical :Mass Balance (OviD), version 7.0) showed secondary conL-ibution of 40%+; the dispersion modal could address 20% soccndary contribution. (SocandarJ particles are those which form in the atmosphere from gases which are directly emitted by sources. Sulfates and nitrates are the most common secondary particles in this nonattainment area and result from sulfur dioxide and oxides of

. nitrogen emissions

.) Within the time constraints in meeting the settlement agreemB!lt imposed deadlinetoto complete 

### a SIP, there were extsnsive reanalyses 

### ofthe monitoring network, CMB filters, and the emission inventory. 

### Ths available time and 

### aofuwre to convert the vector data to scaler were also reviewed. EPA detenniood that, with the information available from**th~** detailed emission

. inwntory (supported by a micro

inventory) and new CMB 

### analyses., 

### the SIP 

### would not result in additional 

### or different 

### C!Jlltrol strategies 

### ifthere W&l'8 sufficient time to rerun a dispersion modeling analysis, adjusting for the

·concemfl regarding stagnation 

### and secondary contributions. · · ·.

A.3 indicated in the Genaral Preamble, 57 FR 13539, EPA has developed a supplemental attainment demonstration

. policy that applies to the initial moderate PM10 nonattainment areas. ("PMlO SIP Attainment Demonstration Policy for Initial Moderate Nonattainment Arsas" issued by 

### John

. Calcagni on March 4, 19!>1.) The policy inilicates that in certain circumstance (where time conStraints, inadequate resources, inadequate data bases, lack of a model for some unique situations, and other unavoidable circumstances would leave an area Lnable to submit an attainment demonstration by November 15 , 1991), "modified demonstrations" may be accepted on a
.case-by-case basis. The policy recommends that a modified demonstration be nccorr.i)anied with the following: (1) Docun.entation of the TJro::adurss or enalvees used in the modified method; (2) an explanation why alternative method<J identified in EPA guidance were not used; (3) 

### a description of how the modified method cemonstrates, adequately and appropriately, area-wide attainment; and (4) when the desiw vn.lue is based on monitoring data, a showing that the SIP is based on one full year of adequate data for an approved network. a review of the monitoring data and network; and provisicn for approprinte followup monitoring to address issues raised during the review. For the reasons stated previously, EPA believes it was appropriate for the St&ta to use a modified demonstration for Utah County. The State TSD describes how the Utah Ccunty analyses are consistent with this policy.

c. 

### Emission mventories. The base year emission inventory was for 1988. Since the e.iu:eedances are winter-time occurrences, the State focused on a winter-time (1988-89 season) inventory and 1m 

### aDDual inventory. Summaries of theso inventorl1ts, u 

### well as the attainment yeBr inventory, are provided in Table 9.A.3 ofthe SIP. Specific details ofthe 

### ba5e yeBr and attainment year (after controls) inventories are provided in Volume ll, Utah County, State Technical Support Document. The accurscy ofthe emission bmmtorywas

. verified tbrongb a micro inventory

effor.. The micro inventory effort is an analyses oftha emissions in a specifically defined area around a monitor. The 

### area is defined by looking

· at the somces1hat 

### may impact that monitor and the wind patterns for 

### a given 24-bouqM!riod arDUDd 

### that moilitor. The inventory analysis critically scrutinizes the source .. emissions in that ama. For example, in evaluating fuel burning emissions, a door-to-door survey asked questions

. about 

### what type 

### of fuel wasburned, bow much was burned, what type of

. device was used forburning, and when and for how long burning occurred. Tills type of analysis was carried out for all the source categories; itrelied·on specific data gathered, rather than on general calculntions such as those based on population. The results of this effort are provided in volume I, appendix D, Utah County, State Tochnical Support Document. The**di~ssion** comparing the results of the micro inventory to the primary PM10 average estimates for 

### tha CMB analyses is found in volume 

### I, General Dllta. section 7.0. Salt Lake · · County, Stata Technical Support

. . Document. EPA is proposing to epprove the emissions inveniory submitted by the State for Utah County as meeting the emissions inventory requirement of sectivn 172(c)(3) of the Act.

Although the design values varied by site, the source apportionments wera similar. The source apportionment at the-West Orem monitoring site, which had the County's highest design value, was representative of the source apportio!:ment of the Undon and North Provo monitoring sims. Thus , if attainment can 

### be demonstrated at Wsst Orem, attainment could also b9 asstl1'1ld at the other two sites. the categories of sources contributing to the design de.y include Geneva Steel (62.5%, primary and secandaro;). automobile (10.9%, primary nnd secondary), space heetin3 (including wood and IX'al burning, primary ::md secondary, 16.6o/o), and other point sourcru; (10%, primary and seccndary).



### d. RAG.\! (including RACT). To demonstrate attainment by December 1994 (and to show ongoing maintenance of the NAAQS), the SIP provided for implementation of the following control

### 60154 

### Federal Register 

### I Vol. 57, 

### No. 244 

### I Friday, December 18, 1992 

### I Proposed Rules

· measures (the SIP shows**attai~unent** 

### by (e) A**r~gulation** 

### which specifically (Lindon, North Provo, and West Dram) 1993 and maintenance to 2003):

.prohibits any visible emissions during thro\!gb. the ,year 2003 can be found in

(1) New operating parameters and the mandatory no burn period, except · Tables 9

.A.5, 9

.A.7 and 9

.A.9 of the SIP, · emission limitations for PM10, S02;and for those residences with burning as the respectively. Changes in emissions · , NOx for existing sources of primary and

- sole source of heat for the entire · between 1993 and 2003 show a'slight · . · secondary PM10 impaeting the ambient residence and registered with the

. . decrease in mobile source emissions, concentrations at the monitoring sites Executive Secretary or the local Health but a slight increase in residential space are detailed in appendix A.1. of the

.. ,· District (UACR 4.13.3); 3 

### and

. _ . - - heating (woodburning) emissions.

- _ · Utah Air Conservation Regulation .•**~** 

### ".

. . - (0 

### Guidelines established for · . · . . :. -· Although the State focused on the ·· .. (UACR)

. These cqntrol**measures ·--:..:;:** **:~.** 

# ".-:j·. assessing the amount ofpenalty for

- ;. :**-- ~**  

### emissions · and excee.dances during**~e.** 

# ·_ · " include: · .: : .. ':**~--** 

### · '·: ··:·"'· ·: ·; - ;., '

...-\·-:;:·violation of the no.!?urn regulation

- X-;- 

### _- winter months, the control measures · · (a) A 54.4% emission reduction for

. :. ' (UACR 9.A.6.(4)(c)(viii))

. . ·. :---';'"" ·:- · ':::·_-· ·: specific to the Stf!tionary sources are . •. Geneva Steel (priinarily

. from ·the**coke ··:.-·**  

### (3) Reducing**san~saltlslag** 

### applied to**year-roumj. The**  

### highest annual average

.oven stacks and open hearth), includes : -: roads during the winter time by 20% : .·,:··.in 

### Utah County occurred in 1988 at the

· facility-wide emission limitations, and :: ,. (section 9.A.6(7) ofthe SIP). In**addition. ~-**  

### Lindon site and was 54 ug/m3. Since · ·

reporting:an

_ d**~rdkeeping** ·_**~-** _. · .. :**;.~~ ~·-** **a** study is to 

### l;>e

_ conducted to confirm

..- / attainment of the 24-hour design

- value requirements**sp~cifi!Jd** in**~ppend!x :~** **_:~ .**  

### r20% reduction;· Within six months from ;_: results in an emission reduction of**43~ ·~**  

### · A.1.2.F of the SIP; 

### _-ri -::_·/'

.. ..**;_.:_~** 

### ..**::~**

### .. : ¢. completion ofthe study, agencies 

### w. .:-. - in 

### Utah Cotinty, the 24-hour emissi

. on · -: /.**·~**

.. (b) 

### Fourteen other 'soiu-ces ; whi«:h

.**-·;r~=;_: ·.**  

### responsible for application of these'**-~:i~ :~~-.**  

### limits are the more restrictive and will C• •**~·**


### , __ indude

_ 

# anitric·acid plant,**power :.~,~_-:';.**  

### materials on the road must submit a -:::-_ .::: ensure attainment

_ ofthe**annual :;·~.**  

### · plants_. and asphalt & 

### ·ce;nent plants ; · ,**~J** 

### ·: plan and implementation schedules to
. ·. standard (as summarized ln · Table

._. ·**~-** 

### : :

. have emission**li~itatiorui specified**  

### i

_ n ·. ·":_ reduce initial silt loading by 25% from -··i· 9,A.24 of the SIP) ; .:·. ··.' ;;. · . :**;~ ~**  

### :· · ·'-**:~** 

### ·

.. appendix·A.1.2.A through A."1

.2.0; ·. . ,_::: ·. the amount applied · during the 1990 :_**<· ~:**  In 

### sum, EPA**belie~es** 

### the methods, ·_ · - · (c) Provisions limiting**~el bi.I,J'Il~ng**  

### to· -base year. The methods included in the·. including modeling, that**~e** 

### State has :··

natural gas or to a.specific su.lfur 

### o: ':

.. · ·Plan must be implemented by 10/1/93. : employed to demonstrate attainment are content in the fuel, with specific :.. . Regulations specifying the requirements ·.adequate and appropriate. Those {

· permitting and re'cordkeeping

. ·for those who

-apply salt, slag or sand to methods demonstrate that tlle control ·

requirements, apply to all major fuel road are located in UACR 3.2.7.A & 

### B. ·. measures described above will provide burning units or facilities in the County;

. · EPA is proposing to approve the road

. .for attainment of the PM10 NAAQS in

(d) General provisions relating to salting and sanding rules contained in Utah County as expeditiously as . stack testing, opacity, compliance with the SIP. Further, based on the -·:· · practicable and no later than December annual limitations, recordkeeping

. ·. information currently available, EPA ' · · 31, 1994. Therefore, EPA is proposing to ·**require~ents** 

### of consumption/ · ·· : belieyes the 20% reduction estimated by ' approve the State's attainment

. · production, on-site fugitive dust control · the State is reasonable. However, the

- demonstrati'on

. Because the· State has

-requirements from unpaved operation

. State has committed to conduct a · study adopted thos' e available control

_**are~s.** 

### etc
. , are specifie.d in**ap p~~dix**  

### ·to confirm the appropriateness of this

. . measures, described above, that 

# will A.1

. 1; , .·. --·- · : . . -.· - reductionestimate. · ,_ . ,.. " _: ·· provideforattainmentofthePM10 (e) Regulations Jo ensure · : . . _ : · In 

### addition, the State has committed -. .NAAQS in Utah County as ·.' · ·.: ·· . implemeJ!tation and enforcement -. . 

### :to implement methods;described above,

. expeditiously

- as practicable and'no later provisions were revised or added, such in light of the study no later than than December 31, 1994, these measures as**d~finitions,** 

### general requirements ·october 1, 1993 ; and to submit the are "reasonably" available and EPA is**apphca~le** 

### to all_so.urces or**s~urce** 

### findings of the study and any. s;tch

. proposing to approve these control categones, perm1ttmg regulatwns, measures to EPA as a SIP rev1s10n. In measures as meeting the RACM emission standards, and emergency acting on any such SIP revision, EPA (including RACT) requirement for the episode**requirem~nts.** 

### . . · would review t.l-te sufficienc-; of any Utah County PM10 nonattainment area.

(2) 

### No burn peno. ds, be?mnmg new measures in light of the new 

## f

.Additional measures. The State has**Se~te~ber** 

### '! 992: w:ll ach1eve 60% information. EPA also may find it 

### also committed to adopt a diesel**~:m ss1** **n** 

### reducb::n from**fir~places** 

### ar.d necessary to assess the suffiCiency of the inspection and maintenance (I/M) 50% from

_ woc.istoves (sectwn · area's attainment demonstration in light progrqr.n to reduce diesel particulate 9.A

.6(4)(aJ of the**S~):** 

### of such new information

. See section emissions by 20%. The SIP contains a

(a) .A

.rea coverage lS north of**th~** 

### 110(k)(6) of the Act. detailed discussion of the program southernmost border ofPayson C1ty and 

### e. Attainment demonstration. EPA eleme:1ts, committed to by the State,**e~st** 

### of State Route 68. (Th1s**cov~rs** 

### requires that attainment be including, amcng other things, the virtually all the populated**ar~as** 

### m Utah demonstrated at all sites violating the following measures: County:_ the area not covered 1s PMlO standard. The control measures (a) Opacity inspections and mountamous**~nd ~tah**  

### Lake);

. discussed above are necessary for all the mandatory repair upon failure;

(b) Program IS 

### t

_ nggered when ambient sites to attain the standard, although the · (b) 

### Compliance monitored through PM10 concentrations r

_ each 120_ug/m3 as impact of a specific source category at diesel vehicle registration; measured by th? real-time**~o~1tor .**  

### a site may vary. The attainment (c) Certification of mechanics and locat

. A at the L111don momtormg Site; summary for the 24-hour PMlO NAAQS stations upon their demonstration of (r) 

### C1ty and**Cou~ty** Health ct each of the thrae monitoring sites adequate training, skill, and resources; Department comm1ts to adopt local (d) Opacity compliance test methods regulations**t~.;** 

### promulgate plan

. 'The SIP re<juires lhalthe County develop 

### and roadside opacity enforcement; consistent with the State regulatwns; regul a !ions/ordinances for fuopla ce and woods:ove 

### (e) Fleet self-certification; ·

(d) The State commits to eight

. installer and operalor training programs, a soiid fuel (0 

### Limited waiver provisions; inspectors round-the-clock during burner inspection program. wealhorization 

### (g) Public education on the program d b d d requirements for homes, and banning of coal · • d d · 1 h · 1 

### man atory no urn perio san burning

. EPA notes that when lmplemenled

. this 

### reqmrements proviae to 1ese ve IC tl 

### inspections to include investigation of program should ensure maintenance of 1he NMQS 

### owners and diesel industry calls made by private citizens; in the area . 

### organizations; .·• '

..**~** 

### ·'·

### Federal Register 

### I Vol. 57, No. 244 

### I Friday, December 18, 1992 

### I Proposed Rules 

### 60155 (h) Enforcement program, penalties was determined to be the third-high and annual program evaluation

. reading, 304 ug/m3. The exceedances

The SIP also contains 

### a detailed were specifically caused by blowing schedule of the State's action on the dust from the Kennecott tailings pond program that illdicates, among other while the 

### fuciliD' was shut down. things, the pro'gram provisions will Additional analyses to determine**~y** become effective on July 1,1993. IfEPA other source contribution were not takes final action approving the State's necessary. - commitment. the State must submit the 

### b. Magno-RACM (including RACT). pr<'_.gram to EPA as 

### a SIP revision.

- - IGmnecoti and the State agreed to

Based on information available at the · various control measures to ensure dust time the SIP was developed. 

### it :was control of the tailillgs ponq during believed that a 20% emission reduction current cperation, and temporary 

### cr could be achieved by a diesel 

### I1M permanent shutdown of the mine, program combining elements ofthe

_ - smelter and/or associated tailings pond California and Colorado diesel liM operations. · _. _ programs, and inclusion of the majority The control measures (which

_ of diesel vehicles operating in the

- included slurry distribution throughout Wasatch Front

### area. R.ece.ntly, EPA has the-periphery and surface top ofthe

.

·- examined the Colorado and California

.pond) were completed in July 1988.

programsbecause ofillcraasing interest Vegetation planting was also initiated. nationwide, and bas presented revised The meteorological conditions (winds at estimates oftheir effectiveness. This 15 mph or greater) which r.aused the

_ updated information suggests that more past exceedances have occurrod since work needs to be completed pn bath the · ·the implementation of the control technical design and administrative

__ measure and no exceedances were implementation elements of the Utah recorded. The control measures are program. · defined in section 9.A.6(1) ofthe SIP

EPA is proposing to approve the and·appendix A.2.2.BB.B of the Utah State's commitment to implement a AirConservation Regulation. diesel 

### I1M program as strengthening the c. 

### Salt Lake County-Design Value. SIP. The State 

### bas been holding working The Salt Lake County exceedances, with group meetings with the liM counties the exception ofthe Magna area and affected parties to draft regulations

-- problem, occurred only during the and technical specifications, and has winter season {November through consulted with EPA Region VIII and the

- February). The County has three EPA Offica ofMobile Sources (OMS) on monitoring sites {North Salt Lake, Air

· available technologies, experience with Monitoring Center, and Salt Lake), other programs. and program which recorded violations of the PM10 enforcement. While test procedures NAAQS. The North Salt Lake site had have not been finalized and vehicle data from 1987 to 1990; the design value applicability has not been defined, EPA is 169ug/m3

. The Air Monitoring Center believes that a 20% reduction may be had**d~ta** from 1989 and 1990; Li.e**~esign**

_ achievable under some program value IS 177ug/m3. The Salt Lake**SI~e** scenarios similar to those currently had**d~ta** from 1988 to 1990; the design under consideration by the St<.te of value IS 170ug/m3.

. Utah. The soUJ'CfJ apportiombents for these

In sum, E?A notes that ii is sites are fairly similar, showing unnecessary at this junctura to quantify significant**P~1~ contributi~m**  from the actual emi::sions reductions that will sec'Jndary**e~::usswns.** (In this bo realized from this program. EPA**no~at!ainment** area secondary intends to determine what emissions emiSSions, called precur.-;ors, are reductions should be assigned to this gaseous emissions of sulfur dioxide program when EPA takes rulemaking**(SO~) ~nd** **ni~rogen** oxides (NOx)**~at** action on the SIP revision containing**resu:~** m**~art1Lculates** due to ch?rrucal the program actually adopted 

### by the reac.wns m ti.e**-~ .trr.usphere** **)** 1 he Salt State. Lake area has different types of major 2

. Salt Lake County

Two distinct PM10 problems have beer. identifierl in Su !t 

# we County: (1) The**summer-ti~a** t:xceedances due to blowing dust frcrn the Kennecott tailings in Magna, and (2) the wi:-tter exceudances duri ag winter inversion periods in Salt Lal:.e and Davis Counties.



### a. Magna-design value. Based on 724 d .: servations in a three-year period, 1 987 through 1989, the design value stationary sources which emit S02 and NOx emissions induciing refineries, a copper smelter, power plants. and asphalt pla:1ts. Significant emissions were also identified from industrial vehicles, trains, and planes (Salt Lake has an international airport and a major railroad distribution center), woodburning, and from gascliue vehicles. The State conclud'3d that showing attainment at tha Air Monitoring Center, where the design value was 

### hig.lwst, would also show attainjllent.at the remaining two sites.

Analyses ofthe gridded emission

- inventory and the 

### CMB indicated that the Salt Lake monitors. especially the · North Salt Lake site, were impacted by PMlO and its precursors (S02 and NOx) in Davis County. Ther&fore, to adequately address the nonattainnient problem in Salt Lake County, sources . were evaluated and 

### coritrola required in Davis CoWlty, as 

### well as 

### in Salt Lake County.

_ - - .

d. SQlt

### Lake County-Methods Used 

### to Demonstrate Attainment. A1> with the Utah County effort. the Salt Lake

. modeling arialysis 

### was 1'9Ceptor modeling. orCMB. due 

### to difficulties with 

### using di&per$ian modeling. 

### I..ow wind speed (stagnation) and inversions were occurring meteorological

---. . conditions; they were not necessarily as severe !iS the conditions in Utah Cpunty. The area, however, had significant

_ mciuntain-valley-lake effects. (The Wasatch Mountains are to the

# east and the Great Salt Lake is to the west.) The State has only vector 

### wind data, which

_ could not be changed to scaler units in a timely manner. Therefore, to meet the deadlines of the Settlement Agreement, EPA and the State agreed to proceed with the Salt Lake analysis using CMB and emission inventory rollback. A micro inventory and critical review of the CMB provides an adequate and appropriate analyses-Ofthe PM10 contribution and the required emission reduction necessary for attainment in Salt Lake County. In addition, Kennecott Copper performed a tracar study in February 1990 to determine if its emissions impact the &It Lake monitorl •1g sites. That study confirmed that the 1,215 ft. stack and emissions from low heights at tho s<nelter do impact

. the monitoring sites. One of the factors that supported the decision to evaluate the area using Q.fB and

- -emission inventory data and not dispersion modeling was the acceptability of the ambient air monitoring network. The area has seven sites : (1) Bountiful is represen tative of the residential community to t!:Je north, (2) North Salt Lake is re

_ presentative of the refinery industrial area, (3) Salt Lake City is representative of downtown Salt Lake and vehicle related emissions, (4) Air Monitoring Canter also represented the do·wntown area. (5) Magna is representative of the Kennecott Tailings problem, (6) Breeze Drive is representative of the residential area in Magna and is not source oriented, 3nd (7) Cottonwood is southeast of downtown Salt Lake and is a residential area of maximum woodburning impact. The State provided gridded emissions6015G 

### Federal Register 

### I Vol. 57, 

### No. 244 

### I Friday, December 18, 1992 

### I Proposed Rules analyses for all stationary sources of · effort are provided in volume I, 

### (b) Emission reduction for the PMlO , SOx, and NOx emitting greater appendix D, Salt Lake County, State refineries (the major control

_ that 40 tons per year (tpy), area source · Technical Support Document. The requirements are the installation of a emissions (space heating emissions discussion comparing the results of the sulfur recovery unit, and emission based on the micro inventory and

. micro inventory to the primary PMlO limitations on the boilers, furnaces, population density information), and average estimates for the Q..1B analysis· flares, catalytic crackers, etc.): mobile source emissions (based on . is found in volume I, 

### General Data, · (c) Provisions allowing the burning of traffic counts, vehicle registration and sections 4.0, 5.0 and 7.0, Salt Lake only natural gas fuel during the winter population density information). The County, State Technical Support 0 

### time (November through February) at all adequacy of the monitoring network's Document. Thus, EPA is proposing to
.power plants: year-round burning o

_ f performance (i.e., quality assurance, . . .. approve the emissions inventory

. _ "

- natural gas fuel is required at Utah performance and accuracy, etc.) was - . information submitted by the State for Power and Light (Gadsby and 40 N. also evaluated as described in the .TSD.

.this area as meeting the requirement of

- 100\V.) and Murray City Power; As discussed in ll.C.l.b above, EPA's section 172(c)(3) of the Act. (d) Sources are consii:lered major if policy indicates that, in certain The Air Monitoring Center site, with they emit 50.tpy.ofPM10, S02,or NOx, circumstances, "modified the highest design

- value in the area, was . or any combmah!JD of the three demonstrations" may be accepted on a used as the "control" site for

0

. · 

### pollutants. · . 0

• - -.- • • 

### case-by-case basis. The policy is

-. · demonstrating attainment of the PM10

. · . (e)**Genera~** 

### provision.s**relati~g** 

### to stack

. applicable to the Salt Lake County

.. · .' NAAQS in Salt Lake County:The

.. .

:
_ - : . : testing,**~p~c1tf,** 

### comphance w1

. th ·:·. : - attainment demonstration due to the

. . categories of solirce · contribution

_ for the

.**ann~al** 

### limitations,**recor~eepmg** 

### meteorological and topographical highest design value site include

. ·· . reqmreT?ents**of ~onsu~:pti~n/**  

### :. . . . concerns, as well as the secondary , refi:1eries (5 .35 % primary), other point · prod:uction,-on-site fugitive dust**c~n~ol** 

### particulate contribution issues. These · sources (12.42% primary), · secondary

.. reqmrements from**unpave~** 

### operation issue' s were documented in the TSD. sulfates (12

.97%, p.rimitrily from

. . . _ areas, etc.
.

### . . ·.

. The State**~lso ad~quately** **addres~ed** 

### Kennecott smelter and refineries), 

### (0 Regulati.ons to ensure . ISSUeS ?SSOCiated**~1th** 

### the**~omple~ty** 

### of

. secondary nitrates (10

.42%, primarily**Impl?~entahon an~**  

### enforcement

_ collectmg, ana.lyzmg: and mterpretmg from'Kennecott mine and refineries),**provisio_n~** 

### were reVIse? or ?dded, such the CMB .data**1~cludmg:** 

### (1) Excess automobiles (29 .28 % primary and · as**d~fimhons,** 

### general reqwrements water or 1ce buildup on the filters, (2) secondary), space heating (including**apphca~le** 

### to all.so:urces or so.urce**qu~z ve~sus**  

### teflon filters, (3)

. wood and coal burning, 24 % primary**cat~g~nes,** 

### perm1ttmg regulations,

. refr1ger?hon versus room temperature and secondary), and other sources
_**emts~wn** 

### standards,**emerg~ncy** 

### episode for stormg of filters, (4)

### nu~ber.**~f** (trains a!ld planes, 3 .52 % primary and

### req~n;ments and malfunction samples to

### evaluat~, (5)

### ~vrulab1hty of

. secorid8.ry). The source contribution for provisions.

. . . . . . source profiles for Identified sourcs all the sources, except Kennecott, are (2) No bum peno.d, begmmng OJ. 

### types, (6) more source profile versus . . . 

### 1 t th th 't
. 't September. 1992, w1ll achieve 60 10 

### chemical measurements, and (7

. ) TsihmiKar a · etot er mom**otr~bngti~ 1**  

### es . emission ieduction from fireplaces and



### . . 1 h e enneco source con n u ons . .

. mterpretation of mass ass. T e

_ 4 t fi% 

### £ · • PM 10 t th

. . 50% from woodstoves (sectwn

potential uncertainties associated with were 0 · 

### or pnmary . a e .. 9.A.6(4)(b) of the SIP):

. the CMB were significant in Salt Lake North

### ~avo**a~d** s.all Lake Sites and O% (a) Area coverage is all of Salt Lake

-County

### du~ to the larger impact from a at the Au Momtonng Center. County and for areas in Davis County variety of source types in the area and

. 

## f

. Sal! Lake County-RACM · which are south ofthe southern-most the larger area, and stationary and 

### (mc!udmg RACT). To demonstrate border of Kaysville; the prohibition mobile source secondary emissions. attamment

### ~y**Dec~mber** 1994 (and to applies when the ambient concentration However, the State adequately show on-go:.ng

### mamte~ance of the ofPMlO l'baches 120

### ~g/m3 and the addressed this by conducting extensive

### ~AAQS),**th~** SIP p;ovides

### fo~ • . iorecasted weather indudes a analysis on additional filter m3dia ImplementatiOn of the !ollow.mg

### ~;oni.rol temperature inversion which is collected "in 1990 which considered all measures

### (th~ SIP shows attamment by predicted to continue for at least 21 the factcrs mentioned above

. The State's 1993 and**mamte~ance** 

### to at least 2000): hours; documentation oi this ml'deling**(~) ~ew** **P~ra~ng** 

### parameters and (b) The State commits to eight**ana ysis**  

### is fouud in volume I, Salt Lake e!"Ission**h~m.tahons** 

### for PM10.' S02, and**insp~ctors** 

### round-the-clock during Cm

.nty, General Data Technical Support NOx for eXlstmg**~ource~** 

### ofpnmary.and mandatory no bum periods and Document

. secondary**~M10 Impactm~**  

### th

_ e am.lnent**insp~ctions** 

### to include investigation of e. 

### Salt La.;.ke**County-Emi~si~n concen~atw~s**  

### at the**~omtonng** 

### sites calls made by 

### :private citizens; 

### !nventory. 1he bas13 year**~m1sswn** 

### are detmled m appendix A.2

. of_the (c) A regulatwn which specifically mvontory was for 1988. Smce tha UACR. These control measures mclude: nrohibits any visible emissions during exceedances were winter-time (a) Significant emission reduetion for the mandatory no bum

. period, except occurrences, the State focused on a Kennecott's facilities (conc(}ntrator, for those residences with burning as the winter-time (1988-89 season) inventory**po¥~er** 

### plant, refinery, gold mine, copper sole source of heat for the entire and a.I? annual_inventory. Summaries of rr.ine an?**smel~er) .**  

### Th3 smlllter's 1215 residence and registered with the these mventones, as well as the foot stacx prevJo>Jsly wss allowed to Executive Secretary or the local health attainment year inventory,

.are provided emit S02 emissions of 18 ,000 lbs/hr, department (UACR 4.13.3); and in Table 9

.A.13 of the SIP. Specific annual average and a maximum 3-hour (d) Guidelines established for details of the base year and attainment average of 98,400 lbs/hr. The new assessing the amount of penalty for year (after controls) inventories are emission limit which requires emission violation ofthe no bum regulation provided in volumes II through VI, 

### Salt reduction equivalent to that which (UACR 9.A.6(4)(c)(viii)). Lake County, State Technical Support would be realized from <a 

### double contact (3) Reducing sand/salt/slag applied to Document. The accuracy of the emission acid plant is 3,240 lbslhr, annua( roads during the winter-time by 20%, as inventory was verified through a micro average and 5,700 lbs/hr, 24-hour described above in the Utah County inventory effort

. The results of this average. plan, B

. 1.d

.3. EPA's position regarding

### Federal Register 

### I Vol. 57, No. 244 

### I Friday, December 18, 

### 1992 

### I Proposed Rules


### . 60157
this measure is also the same as · · "reasonably" available and EPA is**Prio~** 

### to this revision, the UACR were described above in the discussion of the proposing to approve these control incorporated into the State-wide SIP, Utah County plan and is incorporated measures as meeting the 

### RAOJ chapter 12. During the public hearing here by 

### reference. In 

### short, EPA is (including RACf) requirement for the process, the State Identified · proposing to approve the road salting Salt Lake County PM10 nonattainment

. administrative and publishing concerns and sanding rules contained in the SIP. area. which justified the "rearranging" of the Based ·on the Information currently

. h. 

### Additional Measures. The State's regulations and the document titled available, EPA believes the 20% · · · · . commitment to adopt a diesel 11M "SIP". The State clarified that the SIP reduction estimated by the State is

. - ..- · program to reduce diesel particulate · has always been incorporated by

.. ::

· reasonable. However, in acting on any emission by 20% appli9 

### s to Salt LaJce · reference into the regulations, as stated · SW revision following from the study ··· and Davis County as well as Utah in UACR R4.;6-2. P'ast inclusion of the described in 

### B.1

.d.3 above, EPA would County (section 9.A.6(6) of the SIP)

. In 

### regulations into the SIP creates a double review the sufficiency of any new ·. .. the Utah County portion of this notice, incorporation. The State clarified that measures in light of the new . EPA described in broad terms the the regulations and the revised "SIP" information. EPA also may find it 

### program elements 'and associated will continue to be federally enforceable**nec~sary** 

### to assess the**suffic~ency o~**  

### the · schedules committed to by the State. for the State-wide program. Clarification areas attaini?ent**de~onstratwn** 

### 1':1 hght

. The prior diseussion**ofthe ~ommitment**  

### of the State's position on this issue is of such new**~nformahon.** 

### See section

. :· ·· applies with equal force here. EPA's " .· , documented in the State's response to 110(k)(6) of tile Act.

. position regarding the State's· public hearing comments on the ·

g. 

### Salt**La~e** 

### Cpunty-Attrunment. commitment to adopt this program is revisions to chapter 1-7 and 10-15; the 

### D

. emonstratwn
. The control strateg1es also the same as that described in the State's internal memorandum of its · discussed above**~re** 

### necessary to Utah County discussion above and is

. response to public hearing comments is**dem?ns~rate ~ttamment**  

### at the**~ree** 

### incorporated }lere by reference

. In 

### short,

. dated Decembar 23, 1991, and is

.. · · : ·**momt~nng** 

### sttes, although the**1~pact** 

### of EPA is proposing to approve tlle Stata's

. incluued in the State TSD.

. - a specific

### sou~ category at a.stte may commitment to develop and implement 

### E

. Post SIP Submittal Issues vary. The attamment summaries for the the program as strengthening the SIP. 24-hour PM10 NAAQS at each of the 1 th

. . EPA reviewed the Utah PM10 monitoring sites (Nnrth Salt Lake, Air EPth'A;a sctonotest at ltt. 1 

### fysuthnnecetssaryl• at submittal dated November 15, 1991, and Monitoring Center, and Salt Lake City)**I~ J~n**  

### uredo**qt~anthl** 

### t**~lalcbua** 

### determined the package as through the year 2000 can be found in**em):OS ~n~**  

### re**~Ion** 

### a**w~PAe ,-**  

### d administratively and technically Tables 9.A.16 9.A

.a.and 9

.A.22

- rea IZe .om e**prog~a~.** 

### mte? s 

### completa. This finding was documented t. 1 

### Ch• . . . ' to determme what emissions reductions 1 ·n a letter to the Governor of Utah on respec 1ve y. anges m em1sswns h ld b · d h' between 1993 and 2000 show a slight s ou 6 

### assigne tot**~ progr~m**  

### . January 17, 1992

. EPA, however, had decrease in mobile source emissions."

- when EPA

### ~a.kes**rulema~ng** actiOn on several concerns on the approvability

_ of but an increase from residential space the SIP revision contalnmg the program . the SIP ·diie to missing documentation. heating (woodburning)

. . . · actually adopted by the State

. Documentation on the State's analyses

Although the State focused on the 

### D. Additional Section 110(a}(2] and on var:ous stationary source control emissions and excaedances during the 

### Section 172 CAA Requirements measures and how they were to be wintor months, the control measures · .revised in the SIP and specified in the s pecific to the stationary sources are**~he** 

### U:tah State-wid: SIP**~a3last** 

### permits was needed. EPA has since year-round. The highest annual average. revi sed m 1978**an~ .**  

### a.c:that _t!me, the received a maj ority of the 5 'iJ..lg/m3, in Salt Lake County occurred State addressed maJor ':'IP**e!em~nts _**  

### documentation requested or has in 1 988 at the North Salt Lake site

. such as resources, ambtent momtonng n;cei ved an adequate State response Since the 24-hour design value results**progr~~·** 

### emergency episodes, with respect to correctir.g a.1y stationary inn PM10 emission reduction of 19

.6% pernnttmg, etc. These-program elements source emission limitation clarity in Salt Lake County. the 24-hour are**~qui**red by section ' 110(a)(2) and issues. The State did not need a forn1al emission limits are more restrictive , and sechon 172 {Part D) of tha CAA. The SIP revision (i.e

. , that which has gone to will ensure attainment of the annual Utah SIP has been revised since 1978, the public hearing process) to correct standard (as summarized in Table but the revisions were only fo;: pollutant thtJse chang.;s (with the ex!:cption of the 9. A

.24 of the SIP)

. specific nonattainment areas. To ensure Pacific States Cast Iron opaCity and the

The methods, including modeling. adequate implementation and 202 tbst method, discussed below) that the State has employed to enforcement of the PM10 SIP, the State because the changes were not significant der :wnstrate attainment are adequate reviewed and updated its State-wide SIP substantive modifications. and appropriate. Those methods and reguhlti ons . The regulations were The Pacific States Cast Iron C ompuny demonstrate that the control measures . revi sed with ihe Pl-.110 SIP. The State

- (this source is located in Utah County) ir.c! uding the Magna measures. will wide SIP, excluding section 9 (pollutant op ac ;ty limit stated in· the SIP is**30 o/~** **.** 

### pro vide f or attainment of the PM10 specific nonattainment area plan s and**~n rally,**  

### EPA policy provides that , for NAAQS in Salt Laka County as section 8 (Prevention cf 

### Si gni ficant any major stationary source emitting expeditiously as practicable and no later Deterioration), was revised to address particul ates in a nonattainment area. the than December 31, 1994. Therefore , EPA changes in EPA guidance and uther opacity shuuid be restricted to 20% is proposing to approve**L~e** 

### State's Federal requirements. A publ ic hearing · un les s the source can demonstrate thnt attainment demonstration for Salt Lake was heid on these revisions on 20 % is not f easible. In that case, the CDunty. Because the State has adopted December 16, 1991. The revisions were source must demonstrate the lowest these available control measures, made effective on March 31, 1992, and opacity level that is feasible

. The 30 % described 

### above, that will provide for officially submitted to EPA on October op acity was a requirement that was attainment of the PM10 NAAQS in Salt 16, 1992

. These revisions are set out in stated in the public hearing document. uke County es expeditiously as chapters 1-7 and 10-16 of L'1e State- This opacity limit was an oversig ht in practicable and no later then December wide SIP. EPA is proposing to approve the reviow of the Pacific St1.:tes Cast Iron 31, 1994, these measures are these revisions in today's notice

. emiss ion limitations. In a letter dated

### 60158 

### Federal Register 

### I Vol. 57, No. 244 

### I Friday, December 18, 1992 

### I Proposed Rules
October 23, 1992, the Director of the Utah Division of Air Quality committed to review the emission limit (the 20% or feasible opacity level) for this sowce and to adopt a SIP revision. 

### if appropriate, by March 1993. The source permit requirements will be modified through the permit review process (as

· approved by EPA and which includes a

public hea.'ing). The SIP limitations 

### will be revised accordingly

. The actions proposed in today's notice do not appear tribe affected by the current emission limit for this source. However, review of the emission limit may, among other things, facilitate

- maintenanca of the PMlO NAAQS

. Whan the Utah PM10 SIP was finalized, Method 202 had not been ·· promulgated by EPA. Therefore, the · absenca ofMethod 202 is not a basis for disapproving any requirements or elements in the SIP submittal being acted on today. However, Method 202 is now available and should be specified in the future as appropriate in tl1e SIP and in the stationary source permits

. The State was aware of this potential requirement and did agree to address this in a futuro SIP revision. This issue was discussed during the public hearing process. '

.

During the review of the November 15, 1991 submittal, 

### EPA and the State identified typographical enors in the ·· final printing of the SIP. The State has committed to correct these errors in a letter dated July 1. 1992. The typographical errors are:

l1) page 42 of the SIP, section 9.A.6.(2)(a), fifth line incorrectly rEferences the monitor sito in the UACR. It should reference anoendix A, section 9 of the SIP. (2) page'

## 52 of the SlP, third paragraph, sixth line, the"* * 

### * 1998 base year * * *"should 

### b'3 "* " " 1990 base year* 

### * *" (3) page 185, section 9 of the SIP, appencix A.2.2.RR, Condition 6, needs to be deleted, this condition applies to tha Kennecott tailings pond, not the Salt Lake County Asphalt-Welby Pit. III. Implications ofTcday' s Action

The EPA is proposing to approve the plnn revision submitted to EPA for the Utah and Salt L&xe Counties,**U~ah,** in a letter from the Governor dated November 15, 1991. A:nong other things, the State of Utah**h~s** demonstrated that the Utah and Salt Luke Counties PM10 nonuttaiP.ment &reus will attain the PM-10 NAAQS by December 31, 1994. The Utah Air Quality R egulations have been revised numerous times since the early 1970's. The regulations have been renumbered and new requirements added. For that reason. EPA has proposed to replace, in its entirety, the existing UACR with that which was also submitted on November 15, 1991.

EPA is also proposing to approve the State-wide SIP revisions (chapters 1-7 and 1Q-15) submitted In a letter dated

· October 15, 1992, by the Director, Utah

Air Quality Division. The October 15, 1992 submittal 

### was referenced in the Governor's original November 15, 1991 letter. ·

As noted, additional submittals for the initial moderate PM-10 nm1attainment areas are due et later dates. The EPA 

### will determine the adequacy of any such submittal (i.e.,

· new source review, contingency

.

measures} as appropriate. 

# rv.**~equest** 

### for Public Comments

The EPA is requesting comments on all aspects of today's pro;msa!. As indicated at the outset of this notice, EPA will consider any comments received by February 16, 1993. V. Executive Order 12291

The OMB has exempted this rule from the requirement of section 3 of Executive Order 12291. VI : Regulatory Flexibility

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U

.S.C. 600 et. 

### seq., EPA must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis assessing the impact of any proposed 

### or final rula on small entities. 5 U.S

.C. 603 and 604. Alternatively, EPA may certify that the rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entit3es. Small entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and government entities with jurisdiction o·.-9r**populat~on** of less than 50,000.

.

SIP approvals**~nder** sectwn 110 and subcl : apter I, part D of tl1e CAA do not create any new requL·emer.ts, but simply approve requirements that the State is alreac!y imposin8. Therefore, because the federal SIP-approval does not impose any new requirements, I certil;f that it does not have a significant impact on any small entities aifected. Moreover, due to the nature of the federal-state relationship under the CAA, preparation of a regulatory fl exibility analysis would constitute federal inquiry into the economic reasonableness of state action. Tbe CAA forbids EPA to base its actions concerning SIPs on such grounds. Union Electric Co

. v. U.S. E.P

..A. 427 U

.S

. 246, 256-66 (S.Ct. 1976); 42 U

.S.C. 7410(o)(2). List ofSubjects i.a 40 CFR Part SZ

Air pollution control, hydroe>rbons, intergovernmental relations, nitrogen dioxide, pSrticulate matter, reporting and tecordkeeping requirements, and

. sulfur dioxide.

. .. . Authority: 42 U

.S.C. .7401-7671q

. Dated: December 7, 1992. 

### Jack McGraw, ·

. ActingRegionalAdministrator.

(FR Doc. 92-30659 Filed 12-11-92; 8:45 

### aml BIUIHG COO£ &810 &0 II

Com rclal

_ Rshlng Industry Regula ions