.... 

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.!IENT Al P~OTECTION 

(e)~r ~ch reg~stratio!f:-.: · · ccountanta, EnrollearAgenta; 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 ~~on _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 a three-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 of Utah 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 ~ · SUPPLEMENT A 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.ontlnues to rooq as follows: 

Autharity: 21 .S.C. 952, 956, 957, 958, 

unless mherwi n 1 ted. 

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 regbtrnnt shall pay 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 Enfdrrement 

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 

Dis. 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, if appropriate, 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). 

To implement 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, 1987). The State, there{!:;re, . 

under section 110(a)(1) of the 1977 

CAA, was requ ired to scbmit e PM10 

SIP. 

2. Citizen Lawsuit 

In 1 Sl38, a lawsuit (Preser.rc:tion 

Cou,,sel v. Reilly, Civil Action No. 89-

-~62-G, (D. Utah)) was filed by the 

Pr(!s('-rvaticn Counsel, Utah 

Environment Canter and the Utah 

Valley 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 

una9r the 1977 CAA that provided for 

attainment of the 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) of the 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, if neca888J)', 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 of the 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 of the 

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, of reasonably 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 of EPA's 

(RFP) toward attainment by Decamh9r documentation of this process. Tha interpretation ·of the 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 of PM-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 of the controls and tba . NAAQS in the area. See sections l12(c), criteria for SIP submittals are set out at attainment needs of the 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, if the 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 . 1 i 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 of the 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 of December 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) of the 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 of tha 

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 of Attainment 

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 of these 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) of the 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 of the 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 of continued 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 of November 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 PM1o NAAQS 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 of cays 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 mods ling (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 of the 

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 if there 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 of the SIP. Specific 

details of the ba5e yeBr and attainment 

year (after controls) inventories are 

provided in Volume ll, Utah County, 

State Technical Support Document. The 

accurscy of the emission bmmtorywas 

. verified tbrongb a micro inventory 

effor.. The micro inventory effort is an 

analyses of tha 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 was burned, 

bow much was burned, what type of . 

device was used for burning, and when 

and for how long burning occurred. Tills 

type of analysis was carried out for all 

the source categories; it relied· 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 of penalty 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) of the 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 of the 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_ a nitric· 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 app~~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 of Payson 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; regula! 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. If EPA 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 of the _ -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 of the . 

·- examined the Colorado and California . pond) were completed in July 1988. 

programs because of illcraasing interest Vegetation planting was also initiated. 

nationwide, and bas presented revised The meteorological conditions (winds at 

estimates of their 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) of the SIP 

EPA is proposing to approve the and· appendix A.2.2.BB.B of the Utah 

State's commitment to implement a Air Conservation 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 of the 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 of Mobile 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, 

1987 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 of the 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. or CMB. 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-Of the 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 emissions 
6015G 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% £ · • PM10 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 of the 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 of the 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 scto notest at ltt.1

fys uthnnecetssaryl • 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. revised m 1978 an~. a.c:that _t!me, the received a majority of the 

5'iJ..lg/m3, in Salt Lake County occurred State addressed maJor ':'IP e!em~nts_ documentation requested or has 

in 1988 at the North Salt Lake site. such as resources, ambtent momtonng n;ceived 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 Com puny 

demonstrate that the control measures. revised 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 opac;ty limit stated in· the SIP is 30 o/~ . 

provide for attainment of the PM10 specific nonattainment area plans and ~n rally, EPA policy provides that, for 

NAAQS in Salt Laka County as section 8 (Prevention cf Significant any major stationary source emitting 

expeditiously as practicable and no later Deterioration), was revised to address particulates 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 public hearing ·unless the source can demonstrate thnt 

attainment demonstration for Salt Lake was heid on these revisions on 20% is not feasible. 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 opacity 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 oversight 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. emission 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 of Method 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 Regulations 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 of Subjects 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, · 

. Acting Regional Administrator. 

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

BIUIHG COO£ &810 &0 II 

Com rclal _Rshlng Industry 

Regula ions