Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 1 / Wednesday, January 2, 2013 / Proposed Rules 37 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R08–OAR–2012–0958; FRL–9765–8] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; Utah; 

Maintenance Plan for the 1997 8-Hour 

Ozone Standard for Salt Lake County 

and Davis County 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to partially 

approve and partially disapprove State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions 

submitted by the Governor of Utah on 

March 22, 2007. The SIP revision is the 

State of Utah’s maintenance plan for the 

1997 8-hour ozone standard for Salt 

Lake County and Davis County, along 

with associated rules: R307–101–2, 

‘‘Definitions;’’ R307–110–13, ‘‘Section 

IX, Control Measures for Area and Point 

Sources, Part D, Ozone;’’ R307–320, 

‘‘Ozone Maintenance Areas and Ogden 

City: Employer-Based Trip Reduction 

Program;’’ R307–325, ‘‘Ozone 

Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas: 

General Requirements;’’ R307–326, 

‘‘Ozone Nonattainment and 

Maintenance Areas: Control of 

Hydrocarbon Emissions in Petroleum 

Refineries;’’ R307–327, ‘‘Ozone 

Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas: 

Petroleum Liquid Storage;’’ R307–328, 

‘‘Ozone Nonattainment and 

Maintenance Areas and Utah and Weber 

Counties: Gasoline Transfer and 

Storage;’’ R307–335, ‘‘Ozone 

Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas: 

Degreasing and Solvent Cleaning 

Operations;’’ R307–340, ‘‘Ozone 

Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas: 

Surface Coating Processes;’’ R307–341, 

‘‘Ozone Nonattainment and 

Maintenance Areas: Cutback Asphalt;’’ 

and R307–342, ‘‘Ozone Nonattainment 

and Maintenance Areas: Qualification of 

Contractors and Test Procedures for 

Vapor Recovery Systems for Gasoline 

Delivery Tanks.’’ This action is being 

taken under sections 107 and 110 of the 

Clean Air Act (Act). 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before February 1, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R08– 

OAR–2012–0958, 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, 8:00 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–2012– 

0958. 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, 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 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: 

Table of Contents 

I. General Information 

II. Background of State Submittals 

III. EPA Analysis of the Maintenance Plan for 

the 1997 8-Hour Ozone Standard for Salt 

Lake County and Davis County 

IV. EPA Analysis of the Associated Rule 

Revisions 

V. Proposed Action 

VI. 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 words EPA, we, us or our 

mean or refer to the United States 

Environmental Protection Agency. 

(iii) The initials SIP mean or refer to 

State Implementation Plan. 

(iv) The words State or Utah mean the 

State of Utah, unless the context 

indicates otherwise. 

I. General Information 

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 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with 
38 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 1 / Wednesday, January 2, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

1 Data for 2012 have not been certified yet. 

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 Submittals 

A. Regulatory Context 

Under the Clean Air Act (CAA) 

enacted in 1970, EPA established 

national ambient air quality standards 

(NAAQS) for certain pervasive air 

pollutants, such as photochemical 

oxidant, carbon monoxide, and 

particulate matter. The NAAQS 

represent concentration levels below 

which public health and welfare are 

protected. The 1970 Act also required 

states to adopt and submit State 

Implementation Plans (SIPs) to 

implement, maintain, and enforce the 

NAAQS. 

From time-to-time, the CAA requires 

SIP revisions to account for new or 

amended NAAQS or to meet other 

changed circumstances. The CAA was 

significantly amended in 1977, and 

under the 1977 Amendments, EPA 

promulgated attainment status 

designations for all areas of the country 

with respect to the NAAQS. 

The CAA requires EPA to periodically 

review and revise the NAAQS, and in 

1979, EPA established a new NAAQS of 

0.12 ppm for ozone, averaged over 1 

hour. This new NAAQS replaced the 

oxidant standard of 0.08 ppm. See 44 FR 

8202 (February 8, 1979). Areas 

designated nonattainment for oxidant 

were considered to be nonattainment for 

ozone as well. Part D of CAA Title I 

requires special measures for areas 

designated nonattainment. In 1984, EPA 

approved Utah’s SIP for the 1-hour 

ozone standard for the Salt Lake County 

and Davis County nonattainment area 

(49 FR 32575). 

Congress significantly amended the 

CAA again in 1990. Under the 1990 

Amendments, each area of the country 

that was designated nonattainment for 

the 1-hour ozone NAAQS, including 

Salt Lake County and Davis County, was 

classified by operation of law as 

marginal, moderate, serious, severe, or 

extreme nonattainment depending on 

the severity of the area’s air quality 

problem. The ozone nonattainment 

designation for Salt Lake County and 

Davis County continued by operation of 

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

of the CAA, as amended in 1990. 

Furthermore, the area was classified by 

operation of law as moderate for ozone 

under CAA section 181(a)(1). 

Under CAA section 175A, states may 

request redesignation of a 

nonattainment area to attainment if 

monitoring data showed that the area 

has met the NAAQS and if the area 

meets 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 Counties to attainment for the 

1-hour ozone standard. As part of that 

action, EPA approved the State’s 1-hour 

ozone maintenance plan (62 FR 38213). 

On July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated 

an 8-hour ozone NAAQS of 0.08 ppm 

(62 FR 38894). This standard was 

intended to replace the 1-hour ozone 

standard. On April 30, 2004, EPA 

designated areas of the country for the 

1997 8-hour ozone standard (69 FR 

23857). EPA designated all areas in 

Utah, including Salt Lake County and 

Davis County, as unclassifiable/ 

attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS (69 FR 23940). 

Also, on April 30, 2004, EPA revoked 

the pre-existing 1-hour NAAQS (69 FR 

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

of this rulemaking, EPA established 

certain requirements to prevent 

backsliding in those areas that were 

designated as 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. 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. In this notice, EPA is 

proposing to act on this March 22, 2007 

maintenance plan and rule revisions. 

In 2008, EPA promulgated a lower 8- 

hour ozone standard—0.075 ppm. 73 FR 

16436. The 2008 ozone standard retains 

the same general form and averaging 

time as the 0.08 ppm standard set in 

1997. Effective July 20, 2012, Salt Lake 

County and Davis County were 

designated Unclassifiable/Attainment 

for this lower standard. 77 FR 30088, 

30151. 

B. Ambient Ozone Conditions 

The 1997 ozone NAAQS is attained 

when the three-year average of the 

annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8- 

hour average ambient ozone 

concentration (also referred to as the 

‘‘design value’’) is less than or equal to 

0.08 ppm at all monitoring sites within 

an air quality planning area. Forty CFR 

part 50, Appendix I, section 2.3, directs 

that the third decimal place of the 

computed three-year average be 

rounded; values equal to or greater than 

0.005 are rounded up. Thus, under our 

regulations, a computed three-year 

ozone concentration of 0.085 ppm is the 

smallest value that is considered to be 

greater than 0.08 ppm and, thus, a 

violation of the standard. 

A review of the data gathered at the 

ozone monitoring sites in Salt Lake 

County and Davis County from 2000– 

2011 1 shows the area has been attaining 

the 8-hour ozone NAAQS except for the 

2005–2007 period, which had a design 

value of 0.085 ppm. As noted above, 

EPA designated Salt Lake County and 

Davis County unclassifiable/attainment 

for the lower 2008 ozone standard 

(0.075 ppm) based on monitored values 

for 2008–2010. The following table 

shows design values for each year from 

2000 through 2011: 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with 
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 1 / Wednesday, January 2, 2013 / Proposed Rules 39 

2These two monitors were shut down in Sept. 

2007. 

TABLE 1—SALT LAKE AND DAVIS COUNTIES THREE-YEAR AVERAGE OF THE 4TH HIGHEST OZONE VALUE (PPM) 

Monitoring site (county) 2000–2002 2001–2003 2002–2004 2003–2005 2004–2006 2005–2007 2006–2008 2007–2009 2008–2010 2009–2011 

Beach (Salt Lake) ................. 0.081 0.081 0.078 0.079 0.081 0.083 0.079 0.076 0.072 0.072 

Bountiful (Davis) .................... 0.082 0.083 0.078 0.079 0.080 0.085 0.080 0.077 0.074 0.071 

Cottonwood (Salt Lake) ........ 0.076 0.080 0.079 0.080 0.080 0.083 0.082 0.077 0.075 0.073 

Hawthorne (Salt Lake) .......... 0.077 0.080 0.078 0.077 0.077 0.081 0.078 0.076 0.074 0.074 

Herriman (Salt Lake) ............. 0.078 0.076 0.076 0.076 0.078 0.080 2 n/a n/a n/a n/a 

West Valley (Salt Lake) ........ 0.079 0.080 0.076 0.078 0.078 0.081 2 n/a n/a n/a n/a 

III. EPA Analysis of the Maintenance 

Plan for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone 

Standard for Salt Lake County and 

Davis County 

As noted above, 40 CFR 51.905 

requires a maintenance plan for the 

1997 8-hour ozone standard, pursuant to 

section 110(a)(1) of the CAA. In the case 

of areas like Salt Lake County and Davis 

County, that have an approved 

maintenance plan for the 1-hour ozone 

standard and are unclassifiable/ 

attainment for the 8-hour standard, 40 

CFR 51.905(a)(4)(ii) specifies that the 

maintenance plan must provide for 

continued maintenance of the 8-hour 

standard for 10 years following 

designation—i.e., until 2014—and must 

include contingency measures. In May 

20, 2005 guidance entitled 

‘‘Maintenance Plan Guidance Document 

for Certain 8-hour Ozone Areas Under 

Section 110(a)(1) of the Clean Air Act’’ 

(‘‘2005 guidance’’), EPA provided its 

interpretations of the components that 

40 CFR 51.905 maintenance plans 

should include. These components are: 

(1) An attainment inventory, (2) a 

maintenance demonstration, (3) ambient 

air quality monitoring, (4) a contingency 

plan, and (5) verification of continued 

attainment. 

In addition, 40 CFR 51.905(a)(4)(i) 

restricts states from removing certain 

‘‘applicable requirements,’’ as defined 

in 40 CFR 51.900(f), from the SIP. States 

may shift applicable requirements to 

contingency measures if such a shift is 

consistent with CAA sections 110(l) and 

193. As a general proposition, EPA may 

not approve a SIP revision that is 

inconsistent with CAA section 110(l) or 

CAA section 193. 

Below, we evaluate whether the Utah 

maintenance plan is consistent with the 

relevant statutory and regulatory 

requirements, as we have interpreted 

them. 

A. Attainment Emission Inventory 

As recommended by EPA, the State 

used 2002 as the year for the 

maintenance plan’s attainment 

inventory, and the inventory reflects 

typical summer day emissions of 

volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and 

oxides of nitrogen (NOX). The emission 

inventory is divided into four major 

source categories: point sources, area 

sources, mobile sources, and naturally 

occurring biogenic sources. Mobile 

sources are further divided into on-road 

and non-road categories. The following 

tables present the 2002 attainment 

inventory, as well as the State’s 

projected inventories through 2014. 

TABLE 2—SALT LAKE AND DAVIS COUNTIES SOURCE CATEGORY TOTALS FOR VOCS (TONS/DAY) 

2002 2005 2008 2011 2014 

Point Source ............................................................................................ 11.24 11.21 11.66 11.96 12.36 

Area Source ............................................................................................. 89.32 92.42 96.30 101.86 107.75 

Biogenic Source ....................................................................................... 120.26 120.26 120.26 120.26 120.26 

Mobile On-Road ....................................................................................... 57.66 44.70 35.36 29.11 24.52 

Mobile Non-Road ..................................................................................... 29.55 25.47 20.90 18.42 16.57 

Total .................................................................................................. 308.03 294.06 284.48 281.61 281.46 

Attainment ................................................................................................ 308.03 308.03 308.03 308.03 308.03 

TABLE 3—SALT LAKE AND DAVIS COUNTIES SOURCE CATEGORY TOTALS FOR NOX (TONS/DAY) 

2002 2005 2008 2011 2014 

Point Source ............................................................................................ 39.27 38.09 37.78 36.75 36.82 

Area Source ............................................................................................. 11.36 10.08 10.79 11.82 12.82 

Mobile On-Road ....................................................................................... 98.89 85.52 65.47 49.45 35.92 

Mobile Non-Road ..................................................................................... 83.87 80.35 72.56 63.48 51.30 

Total .................................................................................................. 233.39 214.04 186.60 161.50 136.86 

Attainment ................................................................................................ 233.39 233.39 233.39 233.39 233.39 

The attainment inventory was 

prepared in accordance with EPA 

guidance and we find that it accurately 

portrays typical summer day emissions 

during the 2002 ozone season (June– 

August). 

B. Maintenance Demonstration 

Under EPA’s interpretation of the 

CAA and its regulations, maintenance of 

an ozone standard generally may be 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with 
40 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 1 / Wednesday, January 2, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

demonstrated through modeling or 

through an emissions inventory 

approach. Utah chose the latter 

approach, which involves a showing 

that future emissions of ozone 

precursors will not exceed the level of 

such precursors in the attainment year 

inventory. 

The maintenance plan’s projections, 

as reflected in Tables 2 and 3 above, 

show that future emissions of VOCs and 

NOX will not exceed the 2002 inventory 

values. However, primarily due to high 

monitored ambient ozone 

concentrations in the 2005 ozone 

season, the area recorded a violation of 

the 1997 8-hour ozone standard for the 

2005–2007 seasons. This violation casts 

doubt on the use of the 2002 emissions 

inventories as representative of the 

levels of emissions that are consistent 

with maintaining the standard. 

However, the circumstances presented 

here provide countervailing 

considerations: 

1. Since the time of the area’s 

designation to attainment in 2004, the 

only monitored violation occurred 

during 2005–2007. As stated above, the 

1997 8-hour ozone standard is attained 

at a design value of 0.084, and the 

design value for 2005–2007 was 0.085 

ppm—the lowest value that can 

represent a violation. 

2. In 2005, the area monitored 

significantly higher 4th high maximum 

values than it had monitored in the 

previous four years and than it has 

monitored since. 

3. In 2006–2008, the area immediately 

returned to attainment and has 

continued to attain the standard. 

Complete quality-assured data for 2007– 

2009, 2008–2010, 2009–2011, and 

preliminary data for 2012, show that the 

area has continuously maintained the 

standard. 

4. Under the applicable regulatory 

requirement, 40 CFR 51.905(a)(4), the 

State must demonstrate maintenance for 

ten years after designation, or until 

2014. 

5. In evaluating the potential for the 

area, given its continued maintenance 

during and subsequent to 2008, EPA 

takes into consideration the fact that, in 

order for the area to violate the standard 

in 2013–2014, the area would have to 

experience significantly higher 4th high 

maximums than it experienced in 2005. 

We find this prospect to be highly 

unlikely, particularly given the State’s 

projected emissions trends, as reflected 

in Tables 2 and 3 above. 

6. Mobile source emissions account 

for a very large portion of the overall 

emissions inventory, and federal motor 

vehicle control standards, combined 

with fleet turnover, will continue to 

reduce relevant emissions through 2014. 

Based on this unique combination of 

factors, we are proposing to approve the 

maintenance demonstration. However, 

we are also proposing disapproval in the 

alternative should comments convince 

us that approval is not consistent with 

the CAA. 

C. Ambient Air Quality Monitoring/ 

Verification of Continued Attainment 

EPA’s 2005 guidance indicates that, 

‘‘The State should continue to operate 

air quality monitors in accordance with 

40 CFR 58 to verify maintenance of the 

8-hour ozone standard in the area.’’ The 

maintenance plan (section 4) describes 

the ozone monitoring network, presents 

monitoring data, and includes the 

State’s commitment to continue to 

operate and maintain an adequate 

monitoring network in accordance with 

40 CFR 58. For the period 1999 through 

2005, there were six ozone monitors in 

Salt Lake and Davis Counties. The plan 

indicates that the State will continue to 

conduct annual reviews of the network 

and gain EPA approval before making 

any changes to the existing network. 

Regarding verification of continued 

attainment, our guidance indicates that 

the plan should indicate how the State 

will track the progress of the 

maintenance plan. One option 

mentioned is to periodically update the 

emission inventory. In the maintenance 

plan, the State includes a section 7 

entitled, ‘‘Verification of Continued 

Ozone Maintenance.’’ In it, the State 

commits to update the VOC and NOX

emission inventories for Salt Lake and 

Davis Counties at least once every three 

years, and to compare the updated 

inventories to the plan’s projections to 

verify that emissions are within 

acceptable limits to maintain the 

standard. EPA is proposing to approve 

this section of the maintenance plan. 

D. Contingency Measures 

EPA’s 2005 guidance states that the 

contingency plan should include 

measures to ensure that a violation of 

the 8-hour ozone NAAQS is promptly 

corrected. EPA’s interpretation of the 

section 51.905 contingency measures 

requirement is consistent with its 

interpretation of the CAA section 175A 

contingency plan requirement. Thus, 

the plan must include the State’s 

enforceable commitment to adopt and 

implement the contingency measures in 

a timely fashion once they’re triggered. 

The plan must identify the measures to 

be adopted, a schedule and procedure 

for adoption and implementation, and a 

specific time limit for action by the 

State. 

A pre-adopted contingency measure is 

not required; rather, the plan may 

include a list of potential measures from 

which the State could choose should a 

violation occur. The purpose of the 

contingency measures is to achieve VOC 

and/or NOX emission reductions to 

correct a violation. 

The State’s maintenance plan 

provides that the contingency trigger 

date is the date that certified data show 

that a monitored violation of the 1997 

ozone standard has occurred. The 

maintenance plan describes the State’s 

timeline to implement contingency 

measures. Within 60 days of the 

contingency trigger date, the Utah 

Division of Air Quality will begin 

evaluation of potential contingency 

measures. Within 180 days of the 

contingency trigger date, the Division of 

Air Quality will present the 

recommended contingency measures to 

the Utah Air Quality Board. The Air 

Quality Board will then hold public 

hearings to consider the recommended 

contingency measures along with any 

other contingency measures the Air 

Quality Board deems appropriate. The 

plan indicates that the necessary 

contingency measures will be adopted 

and implemented within 24 months of 

the contingency trigger date. 

Possible contingency measures 

include: 

1. Alert Day Enhancements—A public 

outreach campaign to educate 

individuals of smart choices, such as 

discouraging refueling vehicles or 

mowing lawns during peak ozone 

periods. 

2. Reduction of Truck Stop Idling— 

The plan indicates that Utah could 

adopt a rule limiting vehicle idling time 

while vehicles are not actually moving. 

3. Heavy Equipment Emission Control 

Program—According to the plan, this 

‘‘could include incentives to encourage 

after-market retrofit of heavy-duty diesel 

construction equipment and increased 

use of compressed natural gas-fueled 

school and [Utah Transit Authority] 

buses.’’ 

4. Reduce Emissions of VOCs— 

Voluntary commitments or regulatory 

measures to reduce VOC emissions from 

major sources. 

5. Identification of High-Polluting 

Vehicles—Use of remote sensing 

technology to identify smoking or highpolluting vehicles and provide 

incentives for repair of these vehicles. 

6. Establish an Offset Ratio for NOX— 

Lower the threshold at which offsets are 

required for new NOX sources. 

7. Implement More Effective LowNOX Burner Controls—Require sources 

to replace existing burners with lowNOX burners. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with 
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 1 / Wednesday, January 2, 2013 / Proposed Rules 41 

3 In our 1997 action, we incorporated by reference 

Utah’s February 3, 1994 approval order for 

PacifiCorp Gadsby that specified hourly NOX limits 

of 179, 204, and 203 pounds per hour for boilers 

1, 2, and 3 individually. 

8. Other VOC or NOX emission 

control measures as appropriate. 

On November 2, 2006, during the 

State’s public comment period on its 

draft maintenance plan, we provided 

comments to the State on the proposed 

contingency measure portion of the 

plan. We noted that several of the 

contingency measures included on the 

State’s list of potential measures were 

voluntary measures. We advised the 

State that voluntary measures do not 

function or qualify as contingency 

measures. The State disagreed and 

retained the voluntary measures in its 

list of contingency measures. 

In today’s notice, we are proposing to 

approve contingency measure numbers 

2 and 7 on the list above, because these 

measures would impose regulatory 

requirements. We are proposing to 

approve measure number 4 to the extent 

it prescribes measures that are 

enforceable and regulatory, as opposed 

to voluntary measures. We also are 

proposing to approve measure number 

8, with the understanding that any 

contingency measure under this 

category must be enforceable, not 

voluntary, to be considered valid under 

our proposed approval. 

We are proposing to disapprove those 

measures on the list above that are 

voluntary: Measure numbers 1 and 2, 

the portion of measure number 4 that 

includes voluntary measures, and 

measure number 5. While we have not 

required that potential contingency 

measures be effective without further 

action by the state, we interpret the 

CAA as requiring measures that will be 

enforceable. Voluntary measures may 

not be widely implemented and, thus, 

cannot be relied on to ensure prompt 

emission reductions to correct a 

violation. We also are proposing to 

disapprove measure number 6 on the 

list of contingency measures because it 

will achieve emissions reductions only 

if new source construction occurs. Thus, 

it is not a measure that will ensure 

prompt correction of a violation. 

Because we consider those regulatory 

contingency measures that we are 

proposing to approve to be sufficient to 

satisfy the contingency measure 

requirements for this maintenance plan, 

our disapproval of the other 

contingency measures would not trigger 

a deadline for EPA to promulgate a 

federal implementation plan under CAA 

section 110(c). 

E. Other Aspects of the Maintenance 

Plan 

1. VOC Reasonably Available Control 

Technology (RACT) 

40 CFR 51.904(a)(4) provides that 

applicable requirements in a 1-hour 

ozone plan, as defined in 40 CFR 

51.900(f), may not be removed from the 

SIP. It allows a state to move such 

requirements to contingency measures, 

but only if the requirements of CAA 

sections 110(l) and 193 are met. 

In the 8-hour ozone maintenance 

plan, the State indicates that all RACT 

requirements from the 1-hour ozone SIP 

will remain in place. However, later in 

the 8-hour ozone maintenance plan, 

Utah proposes to remove the approval 

orders for Hill Air Force Base from the 

SIP. When we approved Utah’s 1-hour 

maintenance plan and redesignation 

request, we approved and incorporated 

these orders to satisfy applicable CAA 

RACT requirements. 62 FR 28399; 62 FR 

38214–38215. In place of these approval 

orders, the State claims that Maximum 

Achievable Control Technology (MACT) 

requirements, New Source Performance 

Standards (NSPS), and generic State 

rules will provide a more stringent 

substitute to ‘‘regulate over eighty-six 

percent of the total VOC emissions 

originating from Hill Air Force Base.’’ 

According to the State, the ‘‘remaining 

fourteen percent’’ will be regulated by 

‘‘the forthcoming Military MACT.’’ The 

State did not propose to move the 

approval orders to the contingency 

measures. 

We find that the State’s generic 

statements regarding equivalency, 

without a specific, comparative analysis 

of the units and pollutants involved, are 

not sufficient to satisfy the requirements 

of CAA sections 110(l) and 193. We are 

unable to conclude that the various 

MACT, NSPS, and generic State rules 

are as or more stringent than the 

approval orders. Furthermore, we are 

unclear what the State is referring to 

when it mentions a forthcoming 

Military MACT. Thus, we are proposing 

to disapprove the State’s proposal to 

remove the approval orders for Hill Air 

Force Base from the SIP. 

Because these approval orders would 

remain a part of the federally 

enforceable SIP should we finalize our 

proposed disapproval, our disapproval 

of the State’s proposal to remove the 

approval orders would not trigger a FIP 

deadline. 

The State has also submitted revisions 

to the following generic VOC RACT 

rules that it relied on in the 1-hour 

maintenance plan: 

R307–325, General Requirements 

R307–326, Control of Hydrocarbon Emissions 

in Petroleum Refineries 

R307–327, Petroleum Liquid Storage 

R307–328, Gasoline Transfer and Storage 

R307–335, Degreasing and Solvent Cleaning 

Operations 

R307–340, Surface Coating Processes 

R307–341, Cutback Asphalt 

R307–342, Qualification of Contractors and 

Test Procedures for Vapor Recovery 

Systems for Gasoline Delivery Tanks 

These rules are further discussed in 

Section IV, ‘‘EPA Analysis of the 

Associated Rule Revisions,’’ of this 

notice. 

2. NOX RACT 

For the PacifiCorp Gadsby Power 

Plant, the State asserts in the 8-hour 

maintenance plan that ‘‘current’’ NOX

emission limitations in Section IX, Part 

H of the SIP are equivalent to the NOX

emission limitations that the State 

approved as RACT in conjunction with 

the 1-hour ozone maintenance plan. It 

appears that Utah is using the word 

‘‘current’’ to refer to the emission limit 

contained in Utah’s 2005 PM10

maintenance plan. We think this limit is 

a daily NOX limit for the entire plant of 

6.57 tons per day. However, Utah does 

not specify this in the 8-hour ozone 

maintenance plan and does not explain 

how this limit is equivalent to the NOX

RACT limits for boilers 1, 2, and 3 that 

EPA approved with the 1-hour ozone 

maintenance plan in 1997. See 62 FR 

28403; 62 FR 38215–38216.3

Furthermore, after we proposed to 

disapprove Utah’s 2005 PM10

maintenance plan, the Governor 

withdrew it. Thus, the version of 

Section IX, Part H that the State 

describes in the 8-hour ozone 

maintenance plan is not currently before 

us for consideration. As a result of these 

issues, we are proposing to disapprove 

the State’s proposal to remove the NOX

RACT limits that we approved for 

boilers 1, 2, and 3 in 1997. 

Because these NOX RACT limits 

would remain a part of the federally 

enforceable SIP, should we finalize our 

proposed disapproval, our disapproval 

of the State’s proposal to remove the 

NOX RACT limits would not trigger a 

FIP deadline. 

3. Employer-Based Trip Reduction 

Program 

The 8-hour maintenance plan states 

that the employer-based trip reduction 

program, contained in Utah rule R307– 

320, is included in the 1-hour 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with 
42 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 1 / Wednesday, January 2, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

4By adopting a generic SIP provision consistent 

with the EPA guidance known as White Paper 

Number 2, a state may be able to streamline EPA’s 

SIP approval process for an AMOC. White Paper 

Number 2, Attachment B, envisions the use of the 

Title V permit process to establish alternative 

requirements. 

maintenance plan, but that no reduction 

credit is claimed for it. The maintenance 

plan indicates that the program is 

retained as a control measure in the 8- 

hour plan. 

We note that we did not approve 

R307–320 when we acted on the 1-hour 

maintenance plan and that it is not 

currently part of the EPA-approved SIP. 

We also note that the State claimed no 

reduction credit for the employer-based 

trip reduction program in the 1-hour 

maintenance plan. Because the program 

only applies to governmental employers 

and does not apply to private employers 

of the same size, the program is 

inconsistent with CAA section 118. 

Specifically, Congress has only waived 

the sovereign immunity of the federal 

government for purposes of control and 

abatement of air pollution to the extent 

that nongovernmental entities are 

regulated. Thus, we are proposing to 

disapprove section 5.g of the 

maintenance plan and R307–320. 

Our disapproval of section 5.g of the 

maintenance plan and R307–320 would 

not trigger a FIP deadline because an 

employer-based trip reduction program 

is not required. 

IV. EPA Analysis of the Associated Rule 

Revisions 

Along with the maintenance plan for 

the 1997 8-hour ozone standard for Salt 

Lake and Davis Counties, the State also 

submitted associated rule revisions. 

Some of these are relied on in the 

maintenance plan to demonstrate 

maintenance of the 1997 8-hour ozone 

standard. We evaluate each of these 

rules below. 

A. R307–101–2. ‘‘Definitions.’’ The 

revisions to this rule that the State 

submitted with the maintenance plan 

were effective March 9, 2007. However, 

on April 17, 2008, the State submitted 

further revisions to the rule that were 

effective on February 8, 2008. Our 

review indicates that the 2008 version of 

the rule superseded the 2007 version. 

We approved the 2008 version of the 

rule on September 2, 2008 and 

incorporated it by reference into the 

Code of Federal Regulations. See 73 FR 

51222. Thus, in this proposed action we 

are not acting on the 2007 version of 

R307–101–2. 

B. R307–110–13. ‘‘Section IX, Control 

Measures for Area and Point Sources, 

Part D, Ozone.’’ This rule merely 

incorporates the maintenance plan into 

Utah’s rules. To the extent we are 

proposing to approve the maintenance 

plan, we are proposing to approve this 

rule. We do not intend to approve the 

incorporation of the parts of the 

maintenance plan that we are proposing 

to disapprove. 

C. R307–320. ‘‘Ozone Maintenance 

Areas and Ogden City: Employer-Based 

Trip Reduction Program.’’ As noted 

above, the program only applies to 

governmental employers and does not 

apply to private employers of the same 

size. Thus, the program is inconsistent 

with CAA section 118, and we are 

proposing to disapprove the rule. 

D. R307–325. ‘‘Ozone Nonattainment 

and Maintenance Areas: General 

Requirements.’’ Utah revised this rule to 

clarify the purpose, applicability, and 

compliance schedule. Utah moved 

language regarding alternate methods of 

control from this rule to individual VOC 

RACT rules, as described in section IV.E 

below. Additionally, Utah deleted 

language because it is not needed in this 

rule or any other rule, and Utah made 

minor grammatical corrections. Utah 

also made administrative revisions to 

the rule’s title to replace the reference 

to ‘‘Salt Lake and Davis Counties’’ with 

a reference to ‘‘Ozone Nonattainment 

and Maintenance Area.’’ Per section 

110(l) of the CAA, EPA, in November 2, 

2006 comments to Utah, requested that 

Utah demonstrate that deleting the 

generic RACT requirement from R307– 

325 would not interfere with 

attainment, maintenance, or any other 

requirement of the CAA. In our 

November 2, 2006 comments, we 

clarified that this demonstration could 

consist of a State certification that all 

sources potentially subject to the rule 

were controlled through adoption of 

specific RACT provisions. The State 

provided that certification in its 

response to comments (contained in the 

docket for this action), and further 

stated that any sources not controlled 

through source-specific RACT 

determinations would be addressed by 

the NOX RACT waiver that EPA 

approved in 1997 (See 62 FR 38215). 

Therefore, we are proposing to approve 

these changes. 

E. Alternate Methods of Control (AMOC) 

and EPA’s Concurrence Requirement 

The State is proposing revisions to 

R307–326, R307–327, R307–328, R307– 

335, R307–340, and R307–342, which 

are addressed individually below. For 

each of these rules, the State wishes to 

include AMOC language that was 

previously included in R307–325. That 

language states: 

‘‘Any person may apply to the executive 

secretary for approval of an alternate test 

method, an alternate method of control, an 

alternate compliance period, an alternate 

emission limit, or an alternate monitoring 

schedule. The application must include a 

demonstration that the proposed alternate 

produces an equal or greater air quality 

benefit than that required by [this rule], or 

that the alternate test method is equivalent to 

that required by these rules. The executive 

secretary shall obtain concurrence from EPA 

when approving an alternate test method, an 

alternate method of control, an alternate 

compliance period, an alternate emission 

limit, or an alternate monitoring schedule.’’ 

The Utah Department of 

Environmental Quality (DEQ) has 

confirmed that this regulatory language 

requiring concurrence from EPA on any 

AMOC applies to all the provisions in 

these rules that allow for DEQ to alter 

the compliance requirements of the rule. 

EPA would like to clarify its position on 

what is required for EPA to concur on 

such changes. 

Section 110(i) of the CAA specifically 

precludes states from changing the 

requirements of the SIP that apply to 

any stationary source except through 

SIP revisions approved by EPA. SIP 

revisions will be approved by EPA only 

if they meet all requirements of section 

110 of the Act and the implementing 

regulations at 40 CFR Part 51. See, e.g., 

CAA section 110(l); 40 CFR 51.104. 

Section 51.104(d) specifically states that 

in order for a variance to be considered 

for approval as a SIP revision, the state 

must submit it in accordance with the 

requirements of 40 CFR 51.104, which 

includes the public notice, comment 

and hearing provisions of 40 CFR 

51.102. 

Furthermore, the AMOC provision 

does not contain specific, objective, and 

replicable criteria for determining if 

such ‘‘alternate methods’’ are in fact at 

least as effective as the required 

methods in terms of emission rates and 

ambient impacts. For purposes of 

meeting CAA requirements, EPA 

concurrence in the form of a SIP 

approval is required for any of the 

alternate compliance provisions 

throughout R307–326, R307–327, R307– 

328, R307–335, R307–340, and R307– 

342. This includes approval of an 

alternate method of control, an alternate 

test method, an alternate compliance 

period, an alternate emission limit, a 

variance, or an alternate monitoring 

schedule. The public notice process of 

a SIP approval will allow EPA and the 

public to determine whether any new 

compliance terms approved by the 

executive secretary continue to assure 

maintenance of the ambient standard.4

F. R307–326. ‘‘Ozone Nonattainment 

and Maintenance Areas: Control of 

Hydrocarbon Emissions in Petroleum 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with 
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 1 / Wednesday, January 2, 2013 / Proposed Rules 43 

Refineries.’’ Utah made additions and 

modifications to clarify the purpose, 

applicability, definitions, monitoring 

requirements, alternative method of 

control provisions, and compliance 

schedule. Additionally, Utah deleted 

language because it is not needed in this 

rule or any other rule. Utah has made 

administrative revisions to the rule’s 

title where the reference to Salt Lake 

and Davis Counties was simply replaced 

with ‘‘ozone maintenance area.’’ EPA is 

proposing to approve these changes. 

However, for purposes of clarification, 

EPA interprets the following provisions 

in R307–326 (in addition to any other 

request for an AMOC that may arise 

outside of these provisions) as being 

subject to the requirement in R307–326– 

10(1) for EPA concurrence, and thus 

subject to EPA’s general statement about 

alternate methods of control, above: 

1. R307–326–4(3). 

2. R307–326–6(3). 

3. In R307–326–7, the provision that 

reads, ‘‘or controlled by other methods, 

provided the design and effectiveness of 

such methods are documented, 

submitted to, and approved by the 

executive secretary.’’ 

4. R307–326–9(5)(a). 

5. In R307–326–10(3), the provision 

that reads, ‘‘or approved by the 

executive secretary.’’ In addition, we 

interpret R307–326–10(2), which 

requires an owner or operator to repair 

a malfunctioning control device within 

15 days or other period approved by the 

executive secretary, as not excusing any 

period of violation of the control 

requirements in R307–326. 

G. R307–327. ‘‘Ozone Nonattainment 

and Maintenance Areas: Petroleum 

Liquid Storage.’’ Utah made additions 

and modifications to clarify the 

purpose, applicability, general 

requirements, alternate method of 

control provisions, and compliance 

schedule. Additionally, Utah deleted 

language because it is not needed in this 

rule or any other rule. Utah has made 

administrative revisions to the rule’s 

title where the reference to Salt Lake 

and Davis Counties was simply replaced 

with ‘‘ozone maintenance area.’’ EPA is 

proposing to approve these changes. 

However, for purposes of clarification, 

EPA interprets the following provisions 

in R307–327 (in addition to any other 

request for an AMOC that may arise 

outside of these provisions) as being 

subject to the requirement in R307–327– 

7(1) for EPA concurrence, and thus 

subject to EPA’s general statement about 

alternate methods of control, above: 

1. In R307–327–4(1), the provision 

that reads, ‘‘or alternative equivalent 

controls, provided the design and 

effectiveness of such equipment is 

documented and submitted to and 

approved by the executive secretary.’’ 

2. R307–327–6(3)(d). 

3. In R307–327–7(3), the provision 

that reads, ‘‘or approved by the 

executive secretary.’’ In addition, we 

interpret R307–327–7(2), which requires 

an owner or operator to repair a 

malfunctioning control device within 15 

days or other period approved by the 

executive secretary, as not excusing any 

period of violation of the control 

requirements in R307–327. 

H. R307–328. ‘‘Ozone Nonattainment 

and Maintenance Areas and Utah and 

Weber Counties: Gasoline Transfer and 

Storage.’’ Utah made additions and 

modifications to clarify the purpose, 

applicability, definitions, transport 

vehicle provisions, alternate method of 

control provisions, and compliance 

schedule. Additionally, Utah deleted 

language because it is not needed in this 

rule or any other rule. Utah has made 

administrative revisions to the rule’s 

title where the reference to Salt Lake 

and Davis Counties was simply replaced 

with ‘‘ozone maintenance area.’’ EPA is 

proposing to approve these changes. 

However, for purposes of clarification, 

EPA interprets the following provisions 

in R307–328 (in addition to any other 

request for an AMOC that may arise 

outside of these provisions) as being 

subject to the requirement in R307–328– 

8(1) for EPA concurrence, and thus 

subject to EPA’s general statement about 

alternate methods of control, above: 

1. In R307–328–4(6), the provision 

that reads, ‘‘or alternate equivalent 

methods * * *. The design 

effectiveness of such equipment and the 

operating procedures must be 

documented and submitted to and 

approved by the executive secretary.’’ 

2. In R307–328–4(9), the provision 

that reads, ‘‘The frequency of tests may 

be altered by the executive secretary 

upon submittal of documentation which 

would justify a change.’’ 

3. In R307–328–5(1)(c), the provision 

that reads, ‘‘or their equivalent which 

have been approved by the executive 

secretary.’’ 

4. In R307–328–6(4), the provision 

that reads, ‘‘or equivalent equipment 

provided the design and effectiveness of 

such equipment are documented and 

submitted to and approved by the 

executive secretary.’’ 

5. In R307–328–8(3), the provision 

that reads, ‘‘or approved by the 

executive secretary.’’ 

In addition, we interpret R307–328– 

8(2), which requires an owner or 

operator to repair a malfunctioning 

control device within 15 days or other 

period approved by the executive 

secretary, as not excusing any period of 

violation of the control requirements in 

R307–328. 

I. R307–335. ‘‘Ozone Nonattainment 

and Maintenance Areas: Degreasing and 

Solvent Cleaning Operations.’’ Utah 

made additions and modifications to 

clarify the purpose, applicability, 

definitions, alternate method of control 

provisions, and compliance schedule. 

Additionally, Utah deleted language 

because it is not needed in this rule or 

any other rule. Utah has made 

administrative revisions to the rule’s 

title where the reference to Salt Lake 

and Davis Counties was simply replaced 

with ‘‘ozone maintenance area.’’ EPA is 

proposing to approve these changes. 

However, for purposes of clarification, 

EPA interprets the following provisions 

in R307–335 (in addition to any other 

request for an AMOC that may arise 

outside of these provisions) as being 

subject to the requirement in R307–335– 

7(1) for EPA concurrence, and thus 

subject to EPA’s general statement about 

alternate methods of control, above: 

1. In R307–335–4(3), the provision 

that reads, ‘‘or by an alternate means 

approved by the executive secretary.’’ 

2. In R307–335–7(3), the provision 

that reads, ‘‘or approved by the 

executive secretary.’’ 

In addition, we interpret R307–335– 

8(2), which requires an owner or 

operator to repair a malfunctioning 

control device within 15 days or other 

period approved by the executive 

secretary, as not excusing any period of 

violation of the control requirements in 

R307–335. 

J. R307–340. ‘‘Ozone Nonattainment 

and Maintenance Areas: Surface Coating 

Processes.’’ Utah made additions and 

modifications to clarify the purpose, 

applicability, definitions, general 

provisions for volatile organic 

compounds, alternate method of control 

provisions, and compliance schedule. 

Additionally, Utah deleted language 

because it is not needed in this rule or 

any other rule. Utah has made 

administrative revisions to the rule’s 

title where the reference to Salt Lake 

and Davis Counties was simply replaced 

with ‘‘ozone maintenance area.’’ EPA is 

proposing to approve these changes. 

However, for purposes of clarification, 

EPA interprets the following provisions 

in R307–340 (in addition to any other 

request for an AMOC that may arise 

outside of these provisions) as being 

subject to the requirement in R307–340– 

16(1) for EPA concurrence, and thus 

subject to EPA’s general statement about 

alternate methods of control, above: 

1. In R307–340–4(4), the provision 

that reads, ‘‘or by an alternate means 

approved by the executive secretary.’’ 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with 
44 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 1 / Wednesday, January 2, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

2. In R307–340–4(5)(a), the provision 

that reads, ‘‘Sources may request 

approval for longer times for 

compliance determination from the 

executive secretary.’’ 

3. In R307–340–15(1), the provision 

that reads, ‘‘or an alternative method 

approved by the executive secretary.’’ 

4. In R307–340–15(2), the provision 

that reads, ‘‘or an alternative method 

approved by the executive secretary or 

equivalent method.’’ 

5. In R307–340–16(3), the provision 

that reads, ‘‘or approved by the 

executive secretary.’’ 

In addition, we interpret R307–340– 

16(2), which requires an owner or 

operator to repair a malfunctioning 

control device within 15 days or other 

period approved by the executive 

secretary, as not excusing any period of 

violation of the control requirements in 

R307–340. 

K. R307–341. ‘‘Ozone Nonattainment 

and Maintenance Areas: Cutback 

Asphalt.’’ Utah made additions and 

modifications to simply clarify the 

purpose, applicability, definitions, 

limitations on use of cutback asphalt, 

recordkeeping, and compliance 

schedule. Additionally, Utah deleted 

obsolete language because it is not 

needed in this rule or any other rule. 

Utah has made administrative revisions 

to the rule’s title where the reference to 

Salt Lake and Davis Counties was 

simply replaced with ‘‘ozone 

maintenance area.’’ EPA is proposing to 

approve the deletion of the obsolete 

language and other minor revisions. 

L. R307–342. ‘‘Ozone Nonattainment 

and Maintenance Areas: Qualification of 

Contractors and Test Procedures for 

Vapor Recovery Systems for Gasoline 

Delivery Tanks.’’ Utah made additions 

and modifications to clarify the 

purpose, applicability, general 

requirements, and alternate method of 

control provisions. Additionally, Utah 

deleted language because it is not 

needed in this rule or any other rule. 

Utah has made administrative revisions 

to the rule’s title where the reference to 

Salt Lake and Davis Counties was 

simply replaced with ‘‘ozone 

maintenance area.’’ EPA is proposing to 

approve these changes. However, for 

purposes of clarification, EPA interprets 

the following provision in R307–342 (in 

addition to any other request for an 

AMOC that may arise outside of this 

provision) as being subject to the 

requirement in R307–342–7(1) for EPA 

concurrence, and thus subject to EPA’s 

general statement about alternate 

methods of control, above: 

1. In R307–342–7(3), the provision 

that reads, ‘‘or approved by the 

executive secretary.’’ 

In addition, we interpret R307–342– 

7(2), which requires an owner or 

operator to repair a malfunctioning 

control device within 15 days or other 

period approved by the executive 

secretary, as not excusing any period of 

violation of the control requirements in 

R307–342. 

V. Proposed Action 

As described above, we are proposing 

the following with respect to the State’s 

March 22, 2007 submittal: 

1. We are proposing to approve the 

State’s maintenance demonstration for 

the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS for Salt 

Lake and Davis Counties, but, in the 

alternative, to disapprove the 

maintenance demonstration should 

comments convince us that approval is 

not consistent with the Clean Air Act. 

(See section III.B above.) 

2. We are proposing to approve the 

rest of the State’s 1997 8-hour ozone 

maintenance plan for Salt Lake and 

Davis Counties, except for the following 

aspects, which we are proposing to 

disapprove: 

a. Those contingency measures listed 

in the State’s maintenance plan that are 

voluntary in nature, and the 

contingency measure described in the 

maintenance plan as ‘‘Establish an 

Offset Ratio for NOX.’’ (See section III.D 

above.) 

b. The State’s proposal to remove 

from the SIP the VOC RACT approval 

orders for Hill Air Force Base. (See 

section III.E above.) 

c. The State’s proposal to remove from 

the SIP the NOX RACT limits for the 

PacifiCorp Gadsby Power Plant. (See 

section III.E above.) 

d. Section 5.g of the maintenance 

plan, which indicates that the employerbased trip reduction program is 

included as part of the plan. (See 

section III.E above.) 

3. We are proposing to take no action 

on R307–101–2 because we have 

already acted on a later version of the 

definitions. (See section IV.A above.) 

4. We are proposing to approve R307– 

110–13, but only to the extent we are 

proposing to approve the 1997 8-hour 

ozone maintenance plan. (See section 

IV.B above.) 

5. We are proposing to disapprove 

R307–320, the employer-based trip 

reduction program. (See section IV.C 

above.) 

6. We are proposing to approve R307– 

325, R307–326, R307–327, R307–328, 

R307–335, R307–340, R307–341, and 

R307–342, subject to our interpretation 

of these rules. (See sections IV.D 

through L above.) 

EPA is soliciting public comment on 

its proposed rulemaking as discussed in 

this document. These comments will be 

considered before taking final action. 

Interested parties may participate in the 

Federal rulemaking procedure by 

submitting written comments to EPA as 

discussed in this notice. 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

Act and applicable Federal regulations 

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

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this 

proposed action merely approves state 

law as meeting Federal requirements 

and disapproves state law that does not, 

and it does not impose additional 

requirements beyond those imposed by 

state law. For that reason, this action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• Does not impose an 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 (Public Law 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 Clean Air Act; 

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). 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with 
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 1 / Wednesday, January 2, 2013 / Proposed Rules 45 

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. 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; Utah; 

Maintenance Plan for the 1997 8-Hour 

Ozone Standard for Salt Lake County 

and Davis County, page 33 of 33 

This proposed rulemaking does not 

involve technical standards. Therefore, 

EPA is not considering the use of any 

voluntary consensus standards. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 

Incorportion by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen 

dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

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

Dated: December 13, 2012. 

James B. Martin, 

Regional Administrator, Region 8. 

[FR Doc. 2012–31562 Filed 12–31–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2012–0622; FRL–9767–2] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; Georgia: New 

Source Review—Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

portions of a revision to the Georgia 

State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

submitted by the State of Georgia, 

through the Georgia Department of 

Natural Resources’ Environmental 

Protection Division (EPD), on July 26, 

2012. The SIP submission includes 

changes to Georgia’s New Source 

Review (NSR), Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration (PSD) program to 

incorporate by reference (IBR) federal 

PSD requirements regarding fine 

particulate matter (PM2.5) increments, 

significant impact levels (SILs), 

significant monitoring concentration 

(SMC) and the deferral of, until July 21, 

2014, PSD applicability to biogenic 

carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from 

bioenergy and other biogenic stationary 

sources. EPA is proposing to approve 

portions of Georgia’s SIP submittal 

because the Agency has preliminarily 

determined that it is consistent with 

section 110 of the Clean Air Act (CAA 

or Act) and EPA regulations regarding 

NSR permitting. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before February 1, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04– 

OAR–2012–0622 by one of the following 

methods: 

1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. Email: R4-RDS@epa.gov. 

3. Fax: (404) 562–9019. 

4. Mail: EPA–R04–OAR–2012–0622, 

Regulatory Development Section, Air 

Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and 

Toxics Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. 

5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Ms. 

Lynorae Benjamin, Chief, Regulatory 

Development Section, Air Planning 

Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics 

Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. Such 

deliveries are only accepted during the 

Regional Office’s normal hours of 

operation. The Regional Office’s official 

hours of business are Monday through 

Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding federal 

holidays. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. ‘‘EPA–R04–OAR–2012– 

0622.’’ 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 through 

www.regulations.gov or email, 

information that you consider to be CBI 

or otherwise protected. 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. 

Docket: All documents in the 

electronic docket are listed in the 

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

is not placed on the Internet and will be 

publicly available only in hard copy 

form. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically in www.regulations.gov or 

in hard copy at the Regulatory 

Development Section, Air Planning 

Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics 

Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. EPA 

requests that if at all possible, you 

contact the person listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to 

schedule your inspection. The Regional 

Office’s official hours of business are 

Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, 

excluding federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

information regarding the Georgia SIP, 

contact Ms. Twunjala Bradley, 

Regulatory Development Section, Air 

Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and 

Toxics Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. Ms. 

Bradley’s telephone number is (404) 

562–9352; email address: 

bradley.twunjala@epa.gov. For 

information regarding NSR, contact Ms. 

Yolanda Adams, Air Permits Section, at 

the same address above. Ms. Adams’ 

telephone number is (404) 562–9241; 

email address: adams.yolanda@epa.gov. 

For information regarding the PM2.5

national ambient air quality standards 

(NAAQS), contact Mr. Joel Huey, 

Regulatory Development Section, at the 

same address above. Mr. Huey’s 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with