21512 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 69 / Tuesday, April 10, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

dated August 9, 2011, effective 

September 15, 2011, is amended as 

follows: 

Paragraph 5000 Class D airspace. 

* * * * * 

ASO AL D Andalusia, AL [Removed] 

Paragraph 6005 Class E airspace. 

* * * * * 

ASO AL E5 Fort Rucker, AL [Amended] 

Fort Rucker, Cairns AAF, AL 

(Lat. 31°16′33′′ N., long. 85°42′48′′ W.) 

South Alabama Regional Airport at Bill 

Benton Field, Andalusia, AL 

(Lat. 31°18′30′′ N., long. 86°23′32′′ W.) 

Florala Municipal Airport, AL 

(Lat. 31°02′33′′ N., long. 86°18′42′′ W.) 

That airspace extending upward from 700 

feet or more above the surface within the area 

bounded by a line beginning at lat. 31°38′01′′ 

N., long. 86°23′30′′ W.; to lat. 31°45′01′′ N., 

long. 85°38′00′′ W.; to lat. 31°17′01′′ N., long. 

85°26′00′′ W.; thence to lat. 31°04′01′′ N., 

long. 85°52′00′′ W.; to lat. 31°03′02′′ N., long. 

86°11′04′′ W.; to and clockwise along the arc 

of a 6.5-mile radius circle of Florala 

Municipal Airport to lat. 31°02′14′′ N., long. 

86°26′10′′ W.; thence to the point of 

beginning and within a 7-mile radius of 

South Alabama Regional Airport at Bill 

Benton Field. 

Issued in College Park, Georgia, on March 

30, 2012. 

Barry A. Knight, 

Manager, Operations Support Group, Eastern 

Service Center, Air Traffic Organization. 

[FR Doc. 2012–8560 Filed 4–9–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R08–OAR–2011–0719; FRL–9658–1] 

Approval, Disapproval and 

Promulgation of Air Quality 

Implementation Plan; Utah; 

Maintenance Plan for the 1-Hour Ozone 

Standard for Salt Lake and Davis 

Counties 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to partially 

approve and partially disapprove State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions 

submitted by the Governor of Utah on 

February 22, 1999. These revisions 

updated the State of Utah’s maintenance 

plan for the 1-hour ozone standard for 

Salt Lake County and Davis County. As 

part of this action, EPA is also 

addressing certain actions it took in 

2003 concerning such maintenance 

plan. This action is being taken under 

section 110 of the Clean Air Act (CAA). 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received at the address below on or 

before May 10, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R08– 

OAR–2011–0719, by one of the 

following methods: 

• www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Email: ostendorf.jody@epa.gov. 

• Fax: (303) 312–6064 (please alert 

the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT if you are faxing 

comments). 

• Mail: Carl Daly, Director, Air 

Program, Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P– 

AR, 1595 Wynkoop St., Denver, 

Colorado 80202–1129. 

• Hand Delivery: Carl Daly, Director, 

Air Program, Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P– 

AR, 1595 Wynkoop St., Denver, 

Colorado 80202–1129. Such deliveries 

are only accepted Monday through 

Friday, 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding 

Federal holidays. Special arrangements 

should be made for deliveries of boxed 

information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R08–OAR–2011– 

0719. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through www.regulations.gov 

or email. The www.regulations.gov Web 

site is an anonymous access system, 

which means EPA will not know your 

identity or contact information unless 

you provide it in the body of your 

comment. If you send an email 

comment directly to EPA without going 

through www.regulations.gov, your 

email address will be automatically 

captured and included as part of the 

comment that is placed in the public 

docket and made available on the 

Internet. If you submit an electronic 

comment, EPA recommends that you 

include your name and other contact 

information in the body of your 

comment and with any disk or CD–ROM 

you submit. If EPA cannot read your 

comment due to technical difficulties 

and cannot contact you for clarification, 

EPA may not be able to consider your 

comment. Electronic files should avoid 

the use of special characters, any form 

of encryption, and be free of any defects 

or viruses. For additional information 

about EPA’s public docket visit the EPA 

Docket Center homepage at http:// 

www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. 

For additional instructions on 

submitting comments, go to Section I. 

General Information of the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

this document. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the www.regulations.gov 

index. Although listed in the index, 

some information is not publicly 

available, e.g., CBI or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, will be publicly 

available only in hard copy. Publicly 

available docket materials are available 

either electronically in 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Air Program, Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, 

1595 Wynkoop St., Denver, Colorado 

80202–1129. EPA requests that if at all 

possible, you contact the individual 

listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section to view the hard copy 

of the docket. You may view the hard 

copy of the docket Monday through 

Friday, 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., excluding 

Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jody 

Ostendorf, Air Program, Mailcode 8P– 

AR, Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA), Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop St., 

Denver, Colorado 80202–1129, (303) 

312–7814, ostendorf.jody@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Information is organized as follows: 

Table of Contents 

I. General Information 

II. Background of State Submittal 

III. EPA’s Analysis of the Revisions to the 

Maintenance Plan for the 1-Hour Ozone 

Standard for Salt Lake County and Davis 

County 

IV. Proposed Action 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

Definitions 

For the purpose of this document, we 

are giving meaning to certain words as 

follows: 

(i) The words or initials Act or CAA mean 

or refer to the Clean Air Act, unless the 

context indicates otherwise. 

(ii) The initials ACT mean or refer to 

Alternative Control Guidance Document. 

(iii) The initials CO mean or refer to carbon 

monoxide. 

(iv) The words EPA, we, us or our mean or 

refer to the United States Environmental 

Protection Agency. 

(v) The initials NAAQS mean or refer to 

national ambient air quality standards. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 69 / Tuesday, April 10, 2012 / Proposed Rules 21513 

(vi) The initials RACT mean or refer to 

reasonably available control technology. 

(vii) The initials SIP mean or refer to State 

Implementation Plan. 

(viii) The words State or Utah mean the 

State of Utah, unless the context indicates 

otherwise. 

I. General Information 

A. What should I consider as I prepare 

my comments for EPA? 

1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this 

information to EPA through 

www.regulations.gov or email. Clearly 

mark the part or all of the information 

that you claim to be CBI. For CBI 

information in a disk or CD–ROM that 

you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the 

disk or CD–ROM as CBI and then 

identify electronically within the disk or 

CD–ROM the specific information that 

is claimed as CBI. In addition to one 

complete version of the comment that 

includes information claimed as CBI, a 

copy of the comment that does not 

contain the information claimed as CBI 

must be submitted for inclusion in the 

public docket. Information so marked 

will not be disclosed except in 

accordance with procedures set forth in 

40 CFR part 2. 

2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. 

When submitting comments, remember 

to: 

a. Identify the rulemaking by docket 

number and other identifying 

information (subject heading, Federal 

Register date and page number). 

b. Follow directions—The agency may 

ask you to respond to specific questions 

or organize comments by referencing a 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 

or section number. 

c. Explain why you agree or disagree; 

suggest alternatives and substitute 

language for your requested changes. 

d. Describe any assumptions and 

provide any technical information and/ 

or data that you used. 

e. If you estimate potential costs or 

burdens, explain how you arrived at 

your estimate in sufficient detail to 

allow for it to be reproduced. 

f. Provide specific examples to 

illustrate your concerns, and suggest 

alternatives. 

g. Explain your views as clearly as 

possible, avoiding the use of profanity 

or personal threats. 

h. Make sure to submit your 

comments by the comment period 

deadline identified. 

II. Background of State Submittal 

Under the CAA enacted in 1970, EPA 

established national ambient air quality 

standards (NAAQS) for certain 

pervasive air pollutants, such as 

photochemical oxidant, carbon 

monoxide (CO), and particulate matter. 

The NAAQS represent concentration 

levels below which public health and 

welfare are protected. The 1970 Act also 

required states to adopt and submit SIPs 

to implement, maintain, and enforce the 

NAAQS. 

SIP revisions are required from timeto-time to account for new or amended 

NAAQS or to meet other changed 

circumstances. The CAA was 

significantly amended in 1977, and 

under the 1977 Amendments, EPA 

promulgated attainment status 

designations for all areas of the country 

with respect to the NAAQS. 

The CAA requires EPA to periodically 

review and revise the NAAQS, and in 

1979, EPA established a new NAAQS of 

0.12 ppm for ozone, averaged over 1 

hour. This new NAAQS replaced the 

oxidant standard of 0.08 ppm. See 44 FR 

8202 (February 8, 1979). Areas 

designated nonattainment for oxidant 

were considered to be nonattainment for 

ozone as well. The CAA requires that 

states submit revised SIPs to address 

new or revised NAAQS. Part D of CAA 

Title I requires special measures for 

areas designated nonattainment. In 

1984, EPA approved Utah’s SIP for the 

1-hour ozone standard for the Salt Lake 

County and Davis County 

nonattainment area (49 FR 32575). 

Congress significantly amended the 

CAA again in 1990. Under the 1990 

Amendments, each area of the country 

that was designated nonattainment for 

the 1-hour ozone NAAQS, including 

Salt Lake County and Davis County, was 

classified by operation of law as 

marginal, moderate, serious, severe, or 

extreme nonattainment depending on 

the severity of the area’s air quality 

problem. The ozone nonattainment 

designation for Salt Lake County and 

Davis County continued by operation of 

law according to section 107(d)(1)(C)(i) 

of the CAA, as amended in 1990. 

Furthermore, the area was classified by 

operation of law as moderate for ozone 

under CAA section 181(a)(1). 

Under CAA section 175A, states may 

request redesignation of a 

nonattainment area to attainment if 

monitoring data showed that the area 

has met the NAAQS and certain other 

requirements. On July 18, 1995, both 

Salt Lake and Davis Counties were 

found to be attaining the 1-hour ozone 

standard (60 FR 36723). On July 17, 

1997, EPA approved the State’s request 

to redesignate Salt Lake and Davis 

County to attainment for the 1-hour 

ozone standard. As part of that action, 

EPA approved the State’s 1-hour ozone 

maintenance plan (62 FR 38213). 

On July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated 

an 8-hour ozone NAAQS (62 FR 38894). 

This standard was intended to replace 

the 1-hour ozone standard. 

On February 22, 1999, partially in 

response to EPA’s promulgation of the 

8-hour ozone NAAQS, but for other 

purposes as well, Utah submitted six 

revisions to its approved 1-hour 

maintenance plan. These revisions 

consisted of the following: (1) Changes 

to the nitrogen oxides (NOX) Reasonably 

Available Control Technology (RACT) 

provisions; (2) clarification of the 

transportation conformity provisions; 

(3) removal of budgets for sources other 

than on-road mobile sources; (4) 

changes to the trigger for contingency 

measures; (5) removal of the 

commitment to develop an annual 

inventory for point sources; and (6) 

removal of references to CO in various 

sections of the maintenance plan. EPA 

did not act on the revisions at the time, 

in part because of a 1999 legal challenge 

to the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. 

On December 31, 2002, Utah 

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

maintenance plan. The primary purpose 

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

plan to Utah air rules whose numbering 

Utah had changed. EPA approved these 

changes in 2003 (68 FR 37744, June 25, 

2003). Subsequently, EPA discovered 

that in the June 25, 2003 action it had 

inadvertently incorporated by reference 

certain changes to the contingency 

measures provision in the 1-hour ozone 

maintenance plan that were substantive 

in nature and had not been previously 

approved—i.e., the proposed changes to 

the contingency measures that Utah had 

submitted on February 22, 1999. On 

October 15, 2003, EPA issued a 

technical correction to delete the 

changes to the contingency measures 

provision from the approved SIP (68 FR 

59327). 

We have since discovered that Utah’s 

December 31, 2002 submittal included 

other revisions from its February 22, 

1999 submittal that were substantive in 

nature. These revisions included the (1) 

changes to the NOX RACT provisions, 

(2) removal of the commitment to 

develop an annual inventory for point 

sources, and (3) removal of references to 

CO in some sections of the maintenance 

plan. Because we were not aware that 

we had inadvertently approved these 

revisions in 2003, we did not issue a 

technical correction to reverse our 

approval. As we explain more fully 

below, in this action we are proposing 

to ratify our 2003 inadvertent approval 

of these revisions. 

On April 30, 2004, EPA designated 

areas of the country for the 1997 8-hour 

ozone standard (69 FR 23857). EPA 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
21514 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 69 / Tuesday, April 10, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

1The area violated the 1997 8-hour ozone 

standard based on monitored data for 2005–2007. 

Thus, we have suggested that Utah withdraw and 

revise its maintenance plan for the 1997 8-hour 

ozone standard. 

designated all areas in Utah, including 

Salt Lake County and Davis County, as 

unclassifiable/attainment for the 1997 8- 

hour ozone NAAQS (69 FR 23940). 

Also, on April 30, 2004, EPA revoked 

the pre-existing 1-hour NAAQS (69 FR 

23951, 23996; 40 CFR 50.9(b)). As part 

of this rulemaking, EPA also established 

certain requirements to prevent 

backsliding in those areas that were 

designated as nonattainment for the 1- 

hour ozone standard at the time of 

designation for the 8-hour ozone 

standard, or that were redesignated to 

‘‘attainment’’ but subject to a 

maintenance plan, as is the case for Salt 

Lake County and Davis County. These 

requirements are codified at 40 CFR 

51.905. 

In the case of Utah, one of these 

requirements was to submit a 

maintenance plan for the 1997 8-hour 

ozone standard. Also, the rule clarifies 

that revisions to pre-existing 1-hour 

ozone maintenance plans must be 

approved by EPA and must meet the 

requirements of CAA sections 110(l) and 

193. It also clarifies that EPA will not 

approve certain changes to the 1-hour 

ozone maintenance plan until a state in 

Utah’s position has submitted and EPA 

has approved the maintenance plan for 

the 1997 8-hour ozone standard. We 

have not approved a maintenance plan 

for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard for 

Salt Lake County or Davis County. 

On March 22, 2007, the Governor of 

Utah submitted a maintenance plan for 

the 1997 8-hour ozone standard for Salt 

Lake County and Davis County, and 

associated rule revisions. EPA is not 

taking action on that submittal at this 

time.1 Rather, EPA is only acting on the 

revisions to the maintenance plan 

submitted on February 22, 1999. 

III. EPA’s Analysis of the Revisions to 

the Maintenance Plan for the 1-Hour 

Ozone Standard for Salt Lake County 

and Davis County 

The State’s February 22, 1999 

submittal included six revisions to the 

1-hour ozone maintenance plan. As 

noted above, the State’s December 31, 

2002 submittal included some of the 

same revisions, and we inadvertently 

approved some of those revisions. We 

describe the various revisions and our 

analysis of them in the following 

paragraphs. 

A. Section IX.D.2.b(4)(a), ‘‘NOX RACT’’ 

The State’s 1999 submittal proposed 

to remove from the maintenance plan a 

commitment to address new 

‘‘Alternative Control Guidance 

Documents (ACTs)’’ for NOX issued by 

EPA. That commitment read as follows: 

As the EPA publishes ACT documents 

containing new determinations of what 

constitutes RACT for various source 

categories of NOX located within 

nonattainment areas for ozone, the State will 

either make a negative declaration for that 

source category in Salt Lake and Davis 

Counties, or will revise the Air Conservation 

Rules to reflect such determinations. This 

documentation will then be submitted to 

EPA for approval as a specific SIP revision 

according to the schedule included in the 

final guidance. In the absence of such an 

implementation schedule the State will act as 

expeditiously as practicable. 

As noted, we inadvertently approved 

the removal of this commitment and 

accompanying introductory language in 

our 2003 action, in which we only 

intended to approve non-substantive 

changes to numbering and crossreferences. 

In this action, we are proposing to 

ratify our 2003 approval for the 

following reasons. First, when we 

approved the maintenance plan in 1997, 

we simultaneously approved Utah’s 

NOX RACT exemption request for major 

stationary sources in the 1-hour ozone 

nonattainment area, except to the extent 

the SIP already included specific NOX

RACT requirements (62 FR 28403, May 

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

The basis for our approval was that 

ambient air quality monitoring data 

showed that the area met the 1-hour 

ozone standard of 0.12 ppm without 

additional RACT measures. Thus, if the 

maintenance plan had omitted the 

commitment regarding future NOX

ACTs, we would have approved it; the 

commitment was not required or 

necessary, and the purpose of Utah’s 

revision to the maintenance plan was to 

align the plan with the NOX RACT 

exemption request. In light of our 

approval of that exemption request, the 

removal of the commitment in the 

maintenance plan is reasonable, since it 

is not needed to ensure maintenance of 

the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. 

Second, ACTs do not determine what 

constitutes RACT; instead they evaluate 

a range of potential control options. EPA 

has updated only two NOX ACTs since 

we approved the maintenance plan in 

1997—one for cement manufacturing 

and one for internal combustion 

engines—and we do not read those 

updates as being ‘‘new determinations 

of what constitutes RACT.’’ In other 

words, we conclude that the 

commitment has not been triggered, 

even if there are sources in the 

maintenance area for which the updated 

ACTs would be relevant. We also 

conclude that the commitment will not 

be triggered in the future because EPA 

does not determine RACT in ACTs. 

Thus, we conclude that the removal of 

the commitment from the maintenance 

plan will not interfere with attainment 

of any NAAQS or any other applicable 

requirement of the CAA. See CAA 

section 110(l). 

B. Section IX.D.2.f(3), ‘‘Safety Margin,’’ 

and Table 9, ‘‘Safety Margin’’ 

The State’s 1999 submittal proposed 

to modify the maintenance plan’s 

language regarding the use of any safety 

margin for transportation conformity 

determinations and to add new Table 9, 

which specifies the safety margin 

available for various years. For a 

maintenance plan, our regulations 

define safety margin as the amount by 

which the total projected emissions 

from all sources of a given pollutant are 

less than the total emissions that would 

satisfy the maintenance requirement. 40 

CFR 93.101. The existing language in 

Utah’s 1-hour ozone maintenance plan 

uses the term ‘‘emissions credit’’ rather 

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

language doesn’t identify the available 

safety margin. The revised language 

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

consistent with EPA’s regulations, and 

indicates that the safety margin is 

defined in Table 9 of the maintenance 

plan. Our regulations require that the 

safety margin be explicitly quantified in 

the SIP before it may be used for 

conformity purposes. 40 CFR 93.124. 

The revised language also clarifies and 

strengthens the procedures for use of the 

safety margin for transportation or 

general conformity determinations. Use 

of all or a portion of the safety margin 

for general conformity purposes would 

require EPA approval of a SIP revision. 

Also, the Utah Board would need to 

approve the use of any part of the safety 

margin for either transportation or 

general conformity purposes. We find 

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

and the addition of Table 9 are 

consistent with our conformity 

regulations and will not interfere with 

maintenance of the 1-hour ozone 

standard, attainment or maintenance of 

any other NAAQS, or any other CAA 

requirement. 

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

The State’s 1999 submittal proposed 

to remove from Table 8 of the 

maintenance plan the budgets for 

sources other than on-road mobile 

sources. The previously approved 

maintenance plan contains budgets for 

area sources, non-road mobile sources, 

and point sources, in addition to the 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 69 / Tuesday, April 10, 2012 / Proposed Rules 21515 

2We note that one of the potential contingency 

measures (stage two vapor recovery) has not been 

approved by EPA as a stand-alone SIP measure; 

however it is part of the maintenance plan. 

budgets for on-road mobile sources. 

These budgets are specified for years 

1994 through 2006, 2007 (the end of the 

maintenance period), 2015, and 2020. 

The 2007 budgets are identical to the 

inventory values used to demonstrate 

maintenance in 2007. Under our general 

conformity regulations, these 2007 

inventory values for sources other than 

on-road mobile sources are defined as 

budgets for general conformity 

regardless of whether they are explicitly 

stated in the maintenance plan. We also 

note that the 2007 budgets are more 

stringent than the 2015 and 2020 

budgets (except for two instances in 

which the differences are very slight). 

Thus, we find that the removal of the 

2015 and 2020 budgets for sources other 

than on-road mobile sources will make 

it more difficult to show general 

conformity. In this sense, removal of 

such budgets will make the SIP more 

stringent. In addition, we have 

confirmed with the State that the State 

has never allowed reliance on such 

budgets for a general conformity 

showing. Finally, such budgets are not 

needed to ensure ongoing maintenance 

of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS; nor will 

their removal from the maintenance 

plan interfere with the attainment or 

maintenance of other NAAQS or 

compliance with other CAA 

requirements. Thus, we are proposing to 

approve the removal from the 

maintenance plan of the budgets for 

area, on-road mobile, and point sources. 

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

of Contingency Action Level’’ 

The State’s 1999 submittal proposed 

to change the maintenance plan’s trigger 

for contingency measures. Instead of a 

defined trigger, the revised plan would 

allow the State to consider several 

factors in deciding whether contingency 

measures should be implemented to 

attain or maintain the 8-hour ozone 

standard. The revision would also 

redefine the contingency trigger date to 

be the date the State determines that one 

or more contingency measures should 

be implemented. EPA is proposing to 

disapprove these changes. 

Our consistent interpretation has been 

that contingency measures in a 

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

the standard. In the maintenance plan, 

the State must commit to implement 

one or more contingency measures 

within a set period after the violation. 

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

proposing to disapprove the State’s 

revisions to Section IX.D.2.h(2) of the 

maintenance plan.2

While 40 CFR 51.905(e) discusses 

modifications that may be implemented 

upon revocation of the 1-hour standard, 

including removal of the obligation to 

implement contingency measures upon 

a violation of the 1-hour NAAQS, the 

modifications only apply to areas with 

an approved maintenance plan for the 8- 

hour ozone standard. The State does not 

have an approved 8-hour ozone 

maintenance plan. 

E. Section IX.D.2.j(1), ‘‘Tracking System 

for Verification of Emission Inventory’’ 

The State’s 1999 submittal proposed 

to remove the maintenance plan’s 

reference to an annual inventory for 

point sources. Specifically, section 

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

maintenance plan includes the State’s 

commitment to develop an annual 

inventory for point sources in the area. 

A separate section of the previously 

approved maintenance plan—section 

IX.D.2.j(1)(a)—includes a commitment 

to update the inventory for all source 

categories every three years. The State’s 

1999 submittal did not propose to 

change this latter commitment. 

As noted, in our 2003 action we 

inadvertently approved the removal of 

the State’s commitment to develop an 

annual inventory for point sources. In 

that 2003 action, we only intended to 

approve non-substantive changes to 

numbering and cross-references. In this 

action, we are proposing to ratify our 

2003 approval of the State’s removal of 

the commitment to develop an annual 

inventory for point sources. Approval is 

warranted because such an inventory is 

not needed to ensure maintenance of the 

1-hour ozone NAAQS. Nor will removal 

of the commitment to submit an annual 

inventory for point sources interfere 

with attainment or maintenance of any 

other NAAQS or compliance with any 

other CAA requirement. The 

maintenance plan retains the 

requirement that the State update its 

inventory of all source categories every 

three years. This is consistent with 

EPA’s regulatory requirements for 

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

emissions relevant to the maintenance 

plan. 

F. Various Sections 

The State’s 1999 submittal proposed 

to remove all references to CO because 

CO is not a significant contributor to 

ozone formation. These references occur 

in a variety of locations in the 1-hour 

ozone maintenance plan. For example, 

the maintenance plan includes 

inventories for CO, transportation 

conformity budgets for CO, budgets for 

CO for sources other than on-road 

mobile sources, and references to 

inspection and maintenance provisions 

for CO. 

As noted, we inadvertently approved 

the removal of some of these references 

to CO in our 2003 action, in which we 

only intended to approve nonsubstantive changes to numbering and 

cross-references. In this action, we are 

proposing to ratify our 2003 approval of 

the State’s removal of some of the 

references to CO and to also approve the 

State’s removal of all other references to 

CO in the 1-hour ozone maintenance 

plan. 

First, we agree with the State that CO 

is not a significant contributor to ozone 

formation. Thus, there is no need for CO 

measures to ensure maintenance of the 

1-hour ozone standard or any other 

ozone standard. Second, the removal of 

the CO measures in the 1-hour ozone 

maintenance plan will not interfere with 

attainment or maintenance of any other 

NAAQS or compliance with any other 

CAA requirement. In particular, there 

are no CO nonattainment areas in Utah. 

Within Salt Lake and Davis Counties, 

the only maintenance area for CO is Salt 

Lake City. It has its own maintenance 

plan, with its own motor vehicle 

emissions budgets and CO measures. In 

addition, recent monitored ambient CO 

values for Salt Lake City and other areas 

in Utah are well below the level of the 

CO NAAQS. 

Thus, the removal of CO measures in 

the 1-hour ozone maintenance plan is 

consistent with continued maintenance 

of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS and with 

CAA section 110(l). 

G. Miscellaneous 

As noted above, we previously 

approved revisions to the 1-hour ozone 

maintenance plan that the State 

submitted on December 31, 2002, a date 

that post-dates the date of the revisions 

we are proposing to act on today. In 

particular, in our June 25, 2003 action 

on the December 31, 2002 submittal, we 

approved Utah’s updating of references 

in the 1-hour ozone maintenance plan to 

Utah air rules whose numbering Utah 

had changed after it submitted revisions 

to the 1-hour ozone maintenance plan in 

1999. See 68 FR 37744. We are 

proposing to retain the updated 

references to Utah air rules as we 

approved them in our June 25, 2003 

action. We are not proposing to replace 

these updated references with the older 

references contained in the 1-hour 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
21516 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 69 / Tuesday, April 10, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

3All section and table references are to sections 

and tables in the 1-hour ozone maintenance plan for 

Salt Lake and Davis Counties. 

ozone maintenance plan that Utah 

submitted in 1999. 

IV. Proposed Action 

For the reasons described above, we 

are proposing the following actions 

concerning Utah’s revisions to the 1- 

hour ozone maintenance plan for Salt 

Lake and Davis Counties that Utah 

submitted on February 22, 1999:3

• We are proposing to ratify our 2003 

approval of Utah’s revisions to Section 

IX.D.2.b(4)(a), ‘‘NOX RACT.’’ 

• We are proposing to approve Utah’s 

revisions to Section IX.D.2.f(3), ‘‘Safety 

Margin,’’ and Utah’s addition of Table 9, 

‘‘Safety Margin.’’ 

• We are proposing to approve Utah’s 

revisions to Section IX.D.2.f, Table 8. 

• We are proposing to disapprove 

Utah’s revisions to Section IX.D.2.h(2), 

‘‘Determination of Contingency Action 

Level.’’ 

• We are proposing to ratify our 2003 

approval of Utah’s revisions to 

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

IX.D.2.j(1), ‘‘Tracking System for 

Verification of Emission Inventory.’’ 

• We are proposing to ratify our 2003 

approval of Utah’s removal of some 

references to CO in the plan and to 

approve Utah’s removal of all other 

references to CO in the plan. 

EPA is soliciting public comments on 

its proposed rulemaking as discussed in 

this document. EPA will consider these 

comments before taking final action. 

Interested parties may participate in the 

Federal rulemaking procedure by 

submitting written comments to EPA as 

discussed in this notice. 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

Act and applicable Federal regulations 

(42 U.S.C. 7410(k), 40 CFR 52.02(a)). 

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this proposed 

action merely approves some state law 

as meeting Federal requirements and 

disapproves other state law because it 

does not meet Federal requirements; 

this proposed action does not impose 

additional requirements beyond those 

imposed by state law. For that reason, 

this proposed action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

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

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

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

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and, 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this rule does not have 

Tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the State, and EPA notes that 

it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on Tribal governments or preempt 

Tribal law. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Air pollution control, Carbon 

monoxide, Environmental protection, 

Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen 

dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

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

Dated: March 28, 2012. 

James B. Martin, 

Regional Administrator, Region 8. 

[FR Doc. 2012–8565 Filed 4–9–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Federal Emergency Management 

Agency 

44 CFR Part 67 

[Docket ID FEMA–2011–0002; Internal 

Agency Docket Nos. FEMA–B–7749 and 

FEMA–B–7775] 

Proposed Flood Elevation 

Determinations; Correction 

AGENCY: Federal Emergency 

Management Agency, DHS. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; correction. 

SUMMARY: On December 6, 2007, and on 

May 8, 2008, FEMA published in the 

Federal Register proposed rules that 

contained erroneous tables affecting 

Washington County, Oregon, and 

Incorporated Areas. This notice 

provides corrections to those tables, to 

be used in lieu of the information 

published at 72 FR 68769 and 73 FR 

26060. The table provided in this notice 

represents the flooding sources, location 

of referenced elevations, effective and 

modified elevations, and communities 

affected for Washington County, 

Oregon, and Incorporated Areas. 

Specifically, it addresses the following 

flooding sources: Beal Creek, Beaverton 

Creek, Bethany Creek, Bronson Creek, 

Butternut Creek, Cedar Creek, Cedar 

Mill Creek, Cedar Mill Creek—North 

Overflow, Cedar Mill Creek—South 

Overflow, Cedar Mill Creek—Upper 

North Overflow, Celebrity Creek, 

Chicken Creek, Chicken Creek—West 

Tributary, Council Creek, Dairy Creek, 

Dawson Creek, Deer Creek, Erickson 

Creek, Fanno Creek, Glencoe Swale, 

Golf Creek, Gordon Creek, Hall Creek, 

Hall Creek—106th Tributary, Hall Creek 

South Fork, Hedges Creek, Holcomb 

Creek, McKay Creek, North Fork Hall 

Creek, North Johnson Creek, North 

Johnson Creek—East Tributary, North 

Johnson Creek—North Tributary, Rock 

Creek North, Rock Creek South, South 

Johnson Creek, Storey Creek, Storey 

Creek—East Tributary, Storey Creek— 

Middle Tributary, Tualatin River, 

Tualatin River—Golf Overflow, Tualatin 

River—LaFollett Overflow, Tualatin 

River Overflow to Nyberg Slough, 

Turner Creek, Waible Creek, Waible 

Creek—North Tributary, Waible Creek— 

South Tributary, West Fork Dairy Creek, 

and Willow Creek. 

DATES: Comments are to be submitted 

on or before July 9, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by Docket Nos. FEMA–B– 

7749 and FEMA–B–7775, to Luis 

Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS