Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 87 / Friday, May 5, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 22277

approve the SIP revision should adverse

or critical comments be filed.

If the EPA receives such comments,

this action will be withdrawn before the

effective date by publishing a

subsequent document that will

withdraw the final action. All public

comments received will then be

addressed in a subsequent final rule

based on this action serving as a

proposed rule. The EPA will not

institute a second comment period on

this action. Any parties interested in

commenting on this action should do so

at this time.

Nothing in this action should be

construed as permitting or allowing or

establishing a precedent for any future

request for revision to any SIP. Each

request for revision to the SIP shall be

considered separately in light of specific

technical, economic, and environmental

factors and in relation to relevant

statutory and regulatory requirements.

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act,

5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., EPA must prepare

a regulatory flexibility analysis

assessing the impact of any proposed or

final rule on small entities (5 U.S.C. 603

and 604). Alternatively, EPA may certify

that the rule will not have a significant

impact on a substantial number of small

entities. Small entities include small

businesses, small not-for-profit

enterprises, and government entities

with jurisdiction over populations of

less than 50,000.

SIP approvals under section 110 and

subchapter I, part D of the CAA do not

create any new requirements, but

simply approve requirements that the

state is already imposing. Therefore,

because the federal SIP approval does

not impose any new requirements, EPA

certifies that it does not have a

significant impact on any small entities

affected. Moreover, due to the nature of

the federal-state relationship under the

CAA, preparation of a regulatory

flexibility analysis would constitute

federal inquiry into the economic

reasonableness of state action. The CAA

forbids EPA to base its actions

concerning SIPs on such grounds

(Union Electric Co. v. U.S. E.P.A., 427

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

7410(a)(2)).

The Office of Management and Budget

has exempted these actions from review

under Executive Order 12866.

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

petitions for judicial review of this

action must be filed in the United States

Court of Appeals for the appropriate

circuit by July 5, 1995. Filing a petition

for reconsideration by the Administrator

of this final rule does not affect the

finality of this rule for the purposes of

judicial review, nor does it extend the

time within which a petition for judicial

review may be filed, and shall not

postpone the effectiveness of such rule

or action. This action may not be

challenged later in proceedings to

enforce its requirements. (See section

307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Incorporation by

reference, Intergovernmental relations,

Lead, Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

Dated: April 12, 1995.

Dennis Grams,

Regional Administrator.

Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code

of Federal Regulations is amended as

follows:

PART 52—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 52

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q.

Subpart AA—Missouri

2. Section 52.1320 is amended by

adding paragraph (c)(87) to read as

follows:

§ 52.1320 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(87) In submittals dated July 2, 1993;

June 30, 1994; and November 23, 1994,

MDNR submitted an SIP to satisfy

Federal requirements for an approvable

nonattainment area lead SIP for the Doe

Run primary smelter in Herculaneum,

Missouri. Although Missouri rule 10

CSR 10–6.120 contains requirements

which apply statewide to primary lead

smelting operations, EPA takes action

on this rule only insofar as it pertains

to the Doe Run Herculaneum facility.

Plan revisions to address the other lead

smelters in the state are under

development.

(i) Incorporation by reference.

(A) Revised regulation 10 CSR 10–

6.120 (section (1), section (2)(B), section

(3)) entitled Restriction of Emissions of

Lead From Primary Lead SmelterRefinery Installations, effective August

28, 1994.

(B) Consent Order, entered into

between the Doe Run Company and

MDNR, dated July 2, 1993.

(C) Consent Order amendment, signed

by the Doe Run Company on March 31,

1994, and by MDNR on April 28, 1994.

(D) Consent Order amendment, signed

by the Doe Run Company on September

6, 1994, and by MDNR on November 23,

1994.

(ii) Additional material.

(A) Revisions to the Doe Run

Herculaneum Work Practice Manual

submitted on July 2, 1993.

(B) Revisions to the Doe Run

Herculaneum Work Practice Manual

submitted on June 30, 1994.

§ 52.1323 [Amended]

3. Section 52.1323 is amended by

removing paragraph (g) and

redesignating paragraph (h) as

paragraph (g).

[FR Doc. 95–10976 Filed 5–4–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

40 CFR Part 52

[UT11–1–6726a, UT12–1–6727a, and UT13–

1–6746a; FRL–5184–5]

Approval and Promulgation of Air

Quality Implementation Plans; Utah;

New Source Review

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: In this document, EPA is

approving revisions to the State

Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by

the Governor of Utah on November 12,

1993 and on May 20, 1994. The

November 12, 1993 submittal included

revisions to the State’s new source

review (NSR) permitting regulations to

meet the new NSR requirements of the

amended Clean Air Act (Act) for all of

its nonattainment areas. The May 20,

1994 submittal included a revision to

the State’s definition of volatile organic

compounds. The Governor submitted

the nonattainment NSR rules with

numerous other ozone SIP revisions and

an ozone redesignation request for the

Salt Lake and Davis County

nonattainment areas. EPA will be acting

on the other portions of the Governor’s

November 12, 1993 submittal in

separate notices. EPA finds that the

State’s NSR rules meet the Federal

nonattainment NSR permitting

requirements of the Act for all of its

nonattainment areas, and that the State’s

revised definition of volatile organic

compounds is consistent with the

federal definition.

DATES: This final rule is effective on July

5, 1995 unless adverse or critical

comments are received by June 5, 1995.

If the effective date is delayed, timely

notice will be published in the Federal

Register.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be

addressed to Vicki Stamper, 8ART–AP,

at the EPA Regional Office listed. Copies

of the State’s submittal and other

relevant information are available for
22278 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 87 / Friday, May 5, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

1Section 172(c)(7) of the Act provides that plan

provisions for nonattainment areas shall meet the

applicable provisions of Section 110(a)(2).

inspection during normal business

hours at the following locations: Air

Programs Branch, U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Region VIII, 999

18th Street, suite 500, Denver, Colorado

80202–2466; and Division of Air

Quality, Utah Department of

Environmental Quality, P.O. Box 44820,

150 North 1950 West, Salt Lake City,

Utah 84114–4820.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Vicki Stamper, 8ART–AP, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region VIII, 999 18th Street, suite 500,

Denver, Colorado 80202–2466, (303)

293–1765.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

A. Nonattainment NSR Requirements of

the Amended Act

The air quality planning requirements

for nonattainment NSR are set out in

part D of title I of the Act. The EPA has

issued a ‘‘General Preamble’’ describing

EPA’s preliminary views on how EPA

intends to review SIPs and SIP revisions

submitted under part D, including those

State submittals containing

nonattainment area NSR SIP

requirements (see 57 FR 13498 (April

16, 1992) and 57 FR 18070 (April 28,

1992)). Because EPA is describing its

interpretations here only in broad terms,

the reader should refer to the General

Preamble for a more detailed discussion

of the interpretations of part D advanced

in this notice and the supporting

rationale. A brief discussion of the

specific elements required in a State’s

nonattainment NSR program is also

included in Section II.B. of this notice.

EPA is currently developing rule

revisions to implement the changes

under the 1990 Clean Air Act

Amendments in the NSR provisions of

parts C and D of title I of the Act. The

EPA anticipates that the proposed rule

will be published for public comment in

early 1995. If EPA has not taken final

action on States’ NSR submittals by that

time, EPA may generally refer to the

proposed rule as the most authoritative

guidance available regarding the

approvability of the submittals. EPA

expects to take final action to

promulgate the rule revisions to

implement the part C and D changes in

early 1996. Upon promulgation of those

revised regulations, EPA will review

NSR SIPs to determine whether

additional SIP revisions are necessary to

satisfy the requirements of the

rulemaking.

Prior to EPA approval of a State’s NSR

SIP submission, the State may continue

permitting only in accordance with the

new statutory requirements for permit

applications completed after the

relevant SIP submittal date. This policy

was explained in transition guidance

memoranda from John Seitz dated

March 11, 1991 and September 3, 1992.

As explained in the March 11

memorandum, EPA does not believe

Congress intended to mandate the more

stringent title I NSR requirements

during the time provided for SIP

development. States were thus allowed

to continue to issue permits consistent

with requirements in their current NSR

SIPs during that period, or to apply 40

CFR 51, Appendix S for newly

designated areas that did not previously

have NSR SIP requirements.

The September 3, 1992 memorandum

also addressed the situation where

States did not submit the part D NSR

SIP revisions by the applicable statutory

deadline. For permit applications

complete by the SIP submittal deadline,

States may issue final permits under the

prior NSR rules, assuming certain

conditions in the September 3

memorandum are met. However, for

applications completed after the SIP

submittal deadline, EPA will consider

the source to be in compliance with the

Act where the source obtains from the

State a permit that is consistent with the

substantive new NSR part D provisions

in the amended Act. EPA believes this

guidance continues to apply to

permitting pending final action on

Utah’s NSR SIP submittal.

B. Volatile Organic Compound

Definition

On February 3, 1992, EPA

promulgated a definition of volatile

organic compounds (VOCs) in 40 CFR

51.100(s). See 57 FR 3941–3946.

Therefore, Utah updated its definition of

VOCs in its regulations to reflect the

federal definition. That revised

definition was submitted by the State on

June 10, 1994.

II. Analysis of State Submission

Section 110(k) of the Act sets out

provisions governing EPA’s review of

SIP submittals (see 57 FR 13565–13566).

A. Procedural Background

1. New Source Review Rules

The Act requires States to observe

certain procedural requirements in

developing implementation plans and

plan revisions for submission to EPA.

Section 110(a)(2) of the Act provides

that each implementation plan

submitted by a State must be adopted

after reasonable notice and public

hearing.1 Section 110(l) of the Act

similarly provides that each revision to

an implementation plan submitted by a

State under the Act must be adopted by

such State after reasonable notice and

public hearing.

The EPA also must determine

whether a submittal is complete and

therefore warrants further EPA review

and action (see section 110(k)(1) and 57

FR 13565, April 16, 1992). The EPA’s

completeness criteria for SIP submittals

are set out at 40 CFR part 51, appendix

V. The EPA attempts to make

completeness determinations within 60

days of receiving a submission.

However, a submittal is deemed

complete by operation of law under

section 110(k)(a)(B) if a completeness

determination is not made by EPA

within 6 months after receipt of the

submission.

The State of Utah held public

hearings on June 2, 1993 for the VOC/

nitrogen oxides (NOX) offset provisions

and on August 4, 1993 for the other NSR

revisions to entertain public comment

on these SIP revisions. Following the

public hearings, the VOC/NOX offset

rule was adopted by the State on June

17, 1993 and the other NSR revisions

were adopted on September 30, 1993.

These rule revisions were submitted to

EPA on November 12, 1993 as a

proposed revision to the SIP, along with

other ozone SIP revisions and the ozone

redesignation request for the Salt Lake

and Davis County nonattainment areas.

Specifically, the State submitted

revisions to its NSR permitting

regulations in Utah Air Conservation

Regulation (UACR) R307–1–1 and

R307–1–3. The revisions to the State’s

NSR regulations were made to bring the

State’s NSR rules for all of its

nonattainment areas up-to-date with the

amended Act.

The SIP revisions were reviewed by

EPA to determine completeness shortly

after its submittal, in accordance with

the completeness criteria referenced

above. The initial submittal was found

to be incomplete, and a letter dated

January 19, 1994 was forwarded to the

Governor indicating the administrative

and technical deficiencies in the

submittal. The State of Utah sued EPA

on March 18, 1994 regarding EPA’s

incompleteness finding (State of Utah v.

EPA, Case No. 94–9520). As part of the

lawsuit settlement, EPA agreed to allow

the State to repackage its submittal and

request parallel processing of the ozone

redesignation request for Salt Lake and

Davis Counties. Therefore, on June 27,
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 87 / Friday, May 5, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 22279

1994, the State submitted a request for

parallel processing of the ozone

maintenance plan and resubmitted a

reorganized ozone redesignation request

which included, among other things,

NSR rule revisions for all of the State’s

nonattainment areas. On the basis of the

State’s reorganized redesignation

request and request for parallel

processing, EPA withdrew the January

19, 1994 finding of incompleteness in a

July 7, 1994 letter to the Governor and

deemed the State to have submitted a

complete ozone redesignation request,

including a complete nonattainment

area NSR submittal, on November 12,

1993.

Since the increased emission offset

ratio requirements for new and modified

sources of VOCs and NOX in the State’s

moderate ozone nonattainment areas

were not submitted by November 15,

1992, EPA made a finding, pursuant to

section 179 of the Act, that the State

failed to submit that SIP element and

notified the Governor in a letter dated

January 15, 1993. After the VOC/NOX

emission offset rules for the State’s

ozone nonattainment areas were

resubmitted on June 27, 1994 along with

the reorganized ozone redesignation

request, EPA determined that the State’s

submittal was administratively and

technically complete on July 7, 1994 as

stated above. This completeness

determination corrected the State’s

deficiency and, therefore, terminated

the 18-month sanctions clock under

section 179 of the Act.

Promulgation of full approval of

Utah’s ozone NSR rules will fulfill

EPA’s obligation under section 110(c)(1)

of the Act, which requires that EPA

either approve the State’s submittal or

promulgate a NSR Federal

implementation plan (FIP) within 24

months of EPA’s finding that the State

failed to submit the NSR rules (i.e, by

January 15, 1995).

2. Volatile Organic Compound

Definition

The State of Utah held a public

hearing on March 9, 1993 for the

revisions to the definition of VOCs in

UACR R307–1–1 to entertain public

comment on this SIP revision.

Following the public hearing, the

revised VOC definition was adopted by

the State on March 26, 1993. This

revision was submitted to EPA on May

20, 1994 as a proposed revision to the

SIP.

The SIP revision was reviewed by

EPA to determine completeness shortly

after its submittal, in accordance with

the completeness criteria referenced

above. The submittal was found to be

complete, and a letter dated October 20,

1994 was forwarded to the Governor

indicating the completeness of the

submittal and the next steps to be taken

in the processing of the submittal.

B. Review of Submittal for Meeting the

Nonattainment NSR Requirements of

the Act

1. General Nonattainment NSR

Requirements

The general statutory requirements for

nonattainment NSR SIPs and permitting

as amended by the 1990 Amendments

are found in sections 172 and 173 of the

Act. These requirements apply in all

nonattainment areas. The following

represents EPA’s review of the State’s

regulation in meeting the NSR

requirements of the amended Act:

(1) The amended Act repealed the

construction ban provisions previously

found in section 110(a)(2)(I) with certain

exceptions.

No construction bans are currently

imposed in Utah, so this requirement is

inapplicable.

(2) Section 173(a)(1)(A) of the Act

requires a demonstration for permit

issuance that the new source growth

does not interfere with reasonable

further progress (RFP) for the area. In

addition, calculations of emissions

offsets must be based on the same

emissions baseline used in the

demonstration of RFP.

In UACR R307–1–3.3.2.C.(3), R307–1–

3.3.3.A.(2), and R307–1–3.3.5, the State

has established provisions which

adequately address section 173(a)(1).

(3) Section 173(c)(1) of the Act

requires that offsets must generally be

obtained by the same source or other

sources in the same nonattainment area.

However, offsets may be obtained from

other nonattainment areas if: The area in

which the offsets are obtained has an

equal or higher nonattainment

classification; and emissions from the

nonattainment area in which the offsets

are obtained contribute to a National

Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS)

violation in the area in which the source

would construct.

In UACR R307–1–3.3.3.A.(1), the

State has established provisions that

adequately meet this requirement of

section 173(c)(1).

(4) Section 173(c)(1) of the Act

requires that any emissions offsets

obtained in conjunction with the

issuance of a permit to a new or

modified source must be in effect and

enforceable by the time the new or

modified source commences operation.

In UACR R307.1.3.3.3.A.(2), the State

has established provisions that

adequately meet this requirement of

section 173(c)(1).

(5) Section 173(c)(1) of the Act

requires that emissions increases from

new or modified major stationary

sources are offset by real reductions in

actual emissions.

In UACR R307–1–3.3.3.A.(2), the

State has established provisions that

adequately meet this requirement of

section 173(c)(1).

(6) Section 173(c)(2) of the Act

prohibits emissions reductions

otherwise required by the Act from

being credited for purposes of satisfying

the part D offset requirements.

In UACR R307–1–3.3.3.A.(3), the

State has established provisions that

adequately meet the requirements of

section 173(c)(2).

(7) Section 173(a)(3) provides that, as

a condition of permit issuance, states

must require the owner or operator of a

proposed new or modified source to

demonstrate that all major stationary

sources under the same ownership or

control are in compliance or are on a

schedule for compliance with all

applicable emission limitations and

standards.

In UACR R307–1–3.3.2.C.(2), the State

has established provisions that

adequately meet the requirements of

section 173(a)(3).

(8) Section 173(a)(2) requires a new or

modified major stationary source to

comply with the lowest achievable

emission rate (LAER).

In UACR R307–1–3.3.2.C.(1), the State

has established provisions that

adequately meet the requirements of

section 173(a)(2).

(9) Revised sections 172(c)(4),

173(a)(1)(B), and 173(b) of the Act limit

and invalidate use of certain growth

allowances in nonattainment areas.

This requirement is inapplicable

because the State of Utah has not

established any growth allowances in its

nonattainment area SIPs.

(10) Revised section 173(a)(5) of the

Act requires that, as a prerequisite to

issuing any part D permit, an analysis of

alternative sites, sizes, production

processes, and environmental control

techniques for a proposed source must

be completed which demonstrates that

the benefits of the proposed source

significantly outweigh the

environmental and social costs imposed

as a result of its location, construction,

or modification.

In UACR R307–1–3.1.10, the State has

established provisions which

adequately address the requirements of

section 173(a)(5).

(11) Section 173(d) of the Act requires

States to submit control technology

information from permits to EPA for the

purposes of making such information
22280 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 87 / Friday, May 5, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

available through the RACT/BACT/

LAER clearinghouse.

Utah and EPA have established

provisions in the annual State-EPA

agreement requiring the State to submit

information from nonattainment NSR

permits to EPA’s RACT/BACT/LAER

clearinghouse. Thus, a process has been

established to meet this requirement.

(12) Section 173(e) of the Act provides

that States may allow any existing or

modified source that tests rocket

engines or motors to use alternative or

innovative means to offset emissions

increases from firing and related

cleaning, under certain conditions.

In lieu of imposing any alternative

offset measures the permitting authority

may impose an emission limit

amounting to no more than 1.5 times the

average cost of stationary control

measures adopted in that area during

the previous three years.

In UACR R307–1–3.3.3.A.(4), the

State has adopted provisions for

innovative offsetting for rocket engine

and motor firing consistent with

sections 173(e)(1) through (e)(4) of the

Act.

(13) Section 328 requires that sources

located on the outer continental shelf

(OCS) must be subject to the same

requirements as would be applicable if

the source were located in the

corresponding onshore area.

Since the State of Utah is landlocked

and not adjacent to any oceans, this

requirement is inapplicable.

(14) Revised section 302(z) of the Act

sets forth a new definition of ‘‘stationary

source’’ reflecting Congressional intent

that certain stationary internal

combustion engines are subject to State

regulation under stationary source

permitting programs, while certain

‘‘nonroad engines,’’ defined in section

216(10), are generally excluded. On June

17, 1994, the EPA published regulations

in 40 CFR Part 89 regarding new

nonroad engines and vehicles, including

a definition of nonroad engine (59 FR

31306).

EPA’s action to approve this SIP

revision is limited in that the action

does not approve any regulation of

nonroad engines in a manner

inconsistent with section 209 of the Act

and EPA regulations implementing

section 209.

2. Applicability of Utah’s

Nonattainment NSR Provisions

EPA’s initial review of the State’s

nonattainment NSR rules found that the

applicability of the rules was unclear.

Specifically, UACR R307–1–3.3.2.C.

states that the nonattainment NSR

provisions apply to a new or modified

source if the Executive Secretary of the

Utah Air Quality Board finds that the

emissions from the proposed source

would contribute to an existing

violation of the NAAQS. EPA identified

concerns with this language in an

August 25, 1994 letter to the State, since

applicability of the Federal

nonattainment NSR requirements is

based on the fact that a new or modified

major source proposes to locate in a

nonattainment area. In an October 18,

1994 letter, the State Air Director

provided clarification that, under the

State’s rules, any new major source or

major modification proposing to

construct in a nonattainment area would

be considered to contribute to an

existing violation of the NAAQS and

would therefore be subject to all of the

State’s nonattainment NSR

requirements. In addition, the State’s

letter further explained that there is a

more general requirement in UACR

R307–1–3.1.8.B. which specifically

provides that the Executive Secretary

may only issue a permit if it is

determined to be in accord with the

‘‘new source review requirements for

nonattainment areas under the Federal

Clean Air Act.’’ Thus, the State’s

regulations require the State to comply

with the Federal nonattainment NSR

requirements in approving any

construction permit.

3. Nonattainment Area-Specific NSR

Requirements

In addition to all of the general

nonattainment NSR provisions

mentioned above, there are also

nonattainment area-specific NSR

provisions in subparts 2, 3, and 4 of part

D of the Act, some of which supersede

these general NSR provisions because

they are more stringent. The following

provisions are the additional NSR

provisions that apply in Utah’s

nonattainment areas and represent

EPA’s review of the State’s regulation in

meeting these requirements:

1. Ozone Nonattainment Areas

The general nonattainment NSR

requirements discussed above are found

in sections 172 and 173 of part D of title

I of the Act and must be met in all

nonattainment areas. Requirements for

ozone that supplement or supersede

these requirements are found in subpart

2 of part D. In addition, section 182(f)

of subpart 2 states that the requirements

for major stationary sources of VOCs

shall apply to major stationary sources

of NOX unless the Administrator makes

certain determinations related to the

benefits or contribution of NOX control

to air quality.

Utah currently has two ozone

nonattainment areas: Davis County and

Salt Lake County, both of which are

currently classified as moderate. (See 40

CFR 81.345 for Utah’s ozone

nonattainment area designations.) For

moderate ozone nonattainment areas,

States must submit the following NSR

provisions, in addition to provisions

meeting the general NSR requirements

in sections 172 and 173 of the Act

discussed above:

a. Definition of the term ‘‘major

stationary source’’ that reflects the

section 302(j) 100 tons per year (tpy)

VOC and, presumptively, the 100 tpy

NOX thresholds for determination of

whether a source is subject to the part

D NSR requirements as a major source.

In addition, a 40 tpy significance level

for defining major modifications of both

VOCs and NOX must be established

consistent with the significance level in

40 CFR 51.165(a)(1)(x).

b. Provisions to ensure that new or

modified major stationary sources

obtain offsets under section 182(a)(4) of

the Act at a ratio of at least 1.15:1 in

order to obtain an NSR permit.

In the applicable definition of ‘‘major

source’’ in UACR R307–1–1, the State

has established a 100 tpy threshold for

any source of VOCs or NOX located in

an ozone nonattainment area or a lesser

amount if required in part D of the Act.

In addition, the definition of ‘‘major

modification’’ in R307–1–1 provides

that a modification that is significant for

VOCs or NOX shall be considered

significant for ozone. The State has

established a 40 tpy significance

threshold for both VOCs and NOX in the

definition of ‘‘significant’’ in R307–1–1.

Lastly, UACR R307–1–3.3.3.C. requires

an offset ratio of at least 1.15:1 be met

by new and modified sources proposing

to locate in ozone nonattainment areas.

Therefore, EPA finds that the State’s

NSR program meets the requirements

for all of its ozone nonattainment areas.

In addition to meeting the NSR

requirements for ozone nonattainment

areas, the State has written the

alternative siting analysis requirement

in R307–1–3.1.10 and the 1.15:1 offset

requirement in R307–1–3.3.3.C. to apply

to new or modified major sources of

VOCs or NOX proposing to locate in the

Salt Lake or Davis County area. In

addition, the State has retained the

nonattainment NSR thresholds for VOCs

and NOX for defining a major source

proposing to locate in Salt Lake or Davis

Counties (i.e., 100 tpy). Thus, the State

intends these two nonattainment NSR

provisions to apply in the Salt Lake and

Davis County areas even after such areas

are no longer designated nonattainment

areas.
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 87 / Friday, May 5, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 22281

2. Carbon Monoxide Nonattainment

Areas

The State of Utah has three CO

nonattainment areas: Salt Lake City,

currently not classified, Ogden,

currently classified as moderate with a

design value less than 12.7 parts per

million (ppm), and Provo, currently

classified as moderate with a design

value greater than 12.7 ppm. (See 40

CFR 81.345 for Utah’s CO

nonattainment area designations.)

For both not classified and moderate

CO nonattainment areas, States must

submit the following NSR provisions, in

addition to provisions meeting the

general NSR requirements in sections

172 and 173 of the Act discussed above:

A definition of the term ‘‘major

stationary source’’ that reflects the

section 302(j) 100 tpy CO threshold, and

a 100 tpy significance level for defining

major modifications of CO consistent

with the significance level in 40 CFR

51.165(a)(1)(x).

In the applicable definition of ‘‘major

source’’ in UACR R307–1–1, the State

has established a 100 tpy threshold for

sources of CO locating in a CO

nonattainment area. In addition, the

State has established a 100 tpy

significance threshold for CO in the

definition of ‘‘significant’’ in R307–1–1.

Therefore, EPA finds that the State’s

NSR rules meets the requirements for all

of its CO nonattainment areas.

3. PM–10 Nonattainment Areas

The State of Utah has two PM–10

nonattainment areas, both of which are

currently classified as moderate: Salt

Lake County and Utah County. (See 40

CFR 81.345 for Utah’s PM–10

nonattainment area designations.) For

moderate PM–10 nonattainment areas,

States must submit the following NSR

provisions, in addition to provisions

meeting the general NSR requirements

in sections 172 and 173 of the Act

discussed above:

a. A definition of the term ‘‘major

stationary source’’ that reflects the

section 302(j) 100 tpy PM–10 threshold,

and a 15 tpy significance level for

defining major modifications of PM–10,

consistent with the significance level in

40 CFR part 51.

b. Section 189(e) of the amended Act

requires that the control requirements

applicable to major stationary sources of

PM–10 must also apply to major

stationary sources of PM–10 precursors,

except where the Administrator of EPA

has determined that such sources do not

contribute significantly to PM–10 levels

which exceed the standard in the area.

PM–10 precursors may include VOCs,

which form secondary organic

compounds, sulfur dioxide (SO2), which

forms sulfate compounds, and NOX,

which form nitrate compounds. Thus,

unless the EPA Administrator finds

otherwise, States must submit rules

applying all of the NSR provisions

mentioned above to sources of PM–10

precursors, including the 100 tpy

threshold for defining major stationary

sources and the current significance

level thresholds in 40 CFR

51.165(a)(1)(x) for each PM–10

precursor pollutant for defining major

modifications.

EPA has not made a finding under

section 189(e) that sources of PM–10

precursors do not contribute

significantly in Utah’s PM–10

nonattainment areas. In EPA’s notice of

proposed approval of the Salt Lake and

Utah County PM–10 SIPs, EPA stated

that PM–10 violations in both counties

were attributable to sources of both SO2

and NOX (see 57 FR 60152, December

18, 1992). Approval of these PM–10

SIPs was promulgated on July 8, 1994

(59 FR 35036). Thus, in accordance with

section 189(e), Utah is required to

regulate new and modified major

sources of SO2 and NOX as precursors

to PM–10 in its NSR permitting rules.

In the applicable definition of ‘‘major

source’’ in UACR R307–1–1, the State

has established a 100 tpy threshold for

any source of PM–10 or a PM–10

precursor located in a PM–10

nonattainment area or a lesser amount if

required in part D of the Act. ‘‘PM–10

precursor’’ is defined in UACR R307–1–

1 as including SO2 and NOX. In

addition, the definition of ‘‘major

modification’’ in UACR R307–1–1

provides that a modification that is

significant for a PM–10 precursor shall

be considered significant for PM–10.

The State has established a 15 tpy

significance level for PM–10 and 40 tpy

significance levels for both SO2 and

NOX in the definition of ‘‘significant’’ in

R307–1–1.

In UACR R307–1–3.3.3.B., the State

has adopted an additional provision

requiring emission offsets for new and

modified sources of PM–10 and PM–10

precursors that may not normally be

subject to the nonattainment NSR

permitting requirements. Specifically,

this provision requires new sources or

modifications to existing sources with

total combined net emissions increases

of PM–10, SO2, and NOX of greater than

or equal to 25 tpy to obtain emission

offsets. For sources or modifications

between 25 and 50 tpy, the emission

offset ratio required is 1:1, and for

sources or modifications equal to or

greater than 50 tpy, the emission offset

ratio required is 1.2:1. For these offset

determinations, the State rule provides

that PM–10, SO2, and NOX will be

treated on an equal basis.

This provision was originally

submitted as a Group I PM–10 control

measure for these areas before

nonattainment NSR rules for PM–10

were required. This measure was

continued as a control measure in the

PM–10 SIP submittal for the Salt Lake

and Utah County nonattainment areas,

which EPA approved on July 8, 1994 (59

FR 35036). The basis for this measure,

according to Section 9.A.7. of the Utah

SIP, was to ensure new growth did not

increase the cap on industrial

emissions. Since the State now has

adopted nonattainment NSR rules for

new and modified major sources of PM–

10 or PM–10 precursors (i.e., new

sources greater than 100 tpy of PM–10

or a PM–10 precursor) in accordance

with the requirements of the amended

Act, EPA interprets UACR R307–1–

3.3.3.B. to apply only to those new and

modified sources which would not

otherwise be subject to the major

source/major modification

nonattainment NSR provisions in R307–

1–3.

It is necessary to make this distinction

because, in determining applicability to

the major source nonattainment NSR

requirements, EPA only allows a source

to consider reductions in the same

pollutant when calculating the potential

to emit of a new source or the net

emissions increase from a modification.

Also, in meeting the emission offset

requirement of the nonattainment NSR

provisions once it is determined that a

source is subject to the nonattainment

NSR provisions, EPA currently only

allows restricted interpollutant trading

between PM–10 and PM–10 precursors.

Specifically, new major sources or major

modifications of a PM–10 precursor are

allowed to obtain offsets from

reductions in PM–10. Otherwise, new

major sources and major modifications

must obtain offsets from reductions in

the same pollutant.

As discussed above under

‘‘Applicability of Utah’s Nonattainment

NSR Provisions,’’ UACR R307–1–

3.1.8.B. specifically provides that the

Executive Secretary may only issue a

permit if it is determined to be in accord

with the ‘‘new source review

requirements for nonattainment areas

under the Federal Clean Air Act.’’ Thus,

in order for the State to comply with

this provision, the State must interpret

its regulations as stated in the above

paragraph. Consequently, the State’s

provision in UACR R307–1–3.3.3.B.

applies to new sources or modifications

which would have combined emissions

of PM–10 and PM–10 precursors greater

than or equal to 25 tpy, but this
22282 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 87 / Friday, May 5, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

provision does not apply to any new

source or modification considered to be

major based on the emissions of a single

pollutant. In the case of a new major

source or major modification, the

nonattainment NSR provisions for major

sources of UACR R307–1–3, including

the general offset requirements in R307–

1–3.3.3.A., and the nonattainment NSR

requirements under the Clean Air Act

would apply to such source or

modification in accordance with UACR

R307–1–3.1.8.B.

Because the State has adequately

addressed all of the other general NSR

requirements, EPA finds that the State’s

NSR program meets all of the

requirements for all of its PM–10

nonattainment areas.

4. Sulfur Dioxide Nonattainment Areas

The State of Utah has two SO2

nonattainment areas, which are defined

as Salt Lake County and portions of

Tooele County. (See 40 CFR 81.345 for

Utah’s SO2 nonattainment area

designations.) For SO2 nonattainment

areas, States must submit the following

NSR provisions, in addition to

provisions meeting the general NSR

requirements in sections 172 and 173 of

the Act discussed above:

A definition of the term ‘‘major

stationary source’’ that reflects the

section 302(j) 100 tpy SO2 threshold,

and a 40 tpy significance level for

defining major modifications of SO2,

consistent with the significance level in

40 CFR 51.165(a)(1)(x).

In the definition of ‘‘major source’’ in

UACR R307–1–1, the State has

established a 100 tpy threshold for SO2.

In addition, the State has established a

40 tpy significance threshold for SO2 in

the definition of ‘‘significant’’ in R307–

1–1. Therefore, EPA finds that the

State’s NSR rules meets the

requirements for all of its SO2

nonattainment areas.

For further information on these

requirements and the State’s provisions

which meet these requirements, please

see the Technical Support Document

(TSD) accompanying this notice.

C. Review of VOC Definition Submittal

EPA has reviewed the State’s

definition of VOC in UACR R307–1–1

and finds that it is consistent with the

federal definition in 40 CFR 51.100(s).

For further information, see the TSD.

Final Action

EPA is approving the revisions to

Utah’s nonattainment NSR rules in

UACR R307–1–1 and R307–1–3, which

were submitted by the Governor on

November 12, 1993 and May 20, 1994

for approval in the SIP. The State of

Utah has submitted an approvable plan

to implement the NSR provisions of part

D of the Act. Each of the NSR program

elements discussed above have been

adequately addressed in the State’s

regulations for all of the State’s

nonattainment areas.

EPA’s approval includes the following

sections of the Utah Air Conservation

Regulations: (1) The forward of R307–1–

1 and the following definitions in R307–

1–1 that have been revised since EPA’s

last approval of R307–1–1 (July 8, 1994,

59 FR 35036) and which apply to the

State’s NSR permitting program in

R307–1–3: ‘‘air contaminant,’’ ‘‘air

contaminant source,’’ ‘‘air pollution,’’

‘‘allowable emissions,’’ ‘‘ambient air,’’

‘‘best available control technology

(BACT),’’ ‘‘board,’’ ‘‘department,’’

‘‘dispersion technique,’’ ‘‘emission

limitation,’’ ‘‘executive director,’’

‘‘executive secretary,’’ ‘‘major

modification,’’ ‘‘major source,’’ ‘‘PM–10

precursor,’’ ‘‘person,’’ ‘‘temporary,’’ and

‘‘volatile organic compound (VOC);’’ (2)

R307–1–3.1.8; 3) R307–1–3.1.10; and 4)

R307–1–3.3.

The EPA is publishing this action

without prior proposal because the

Agency views this as a noncontroversial

action and anticipates no adverse

comments. However, in a separate

document in this Federal Register

publication, the EPA is proposing to

approve the SIP revision should adverse

or critical comments be filed. Under the

procedures established in the May 10,

1994 Federal Register (59 FR 24054),

this action will be effective on July 5,

1995 unless, by June 5, 1995, adverse or

critical comments are received.

If the EPA receives such comments,

this action will be withdrawn before the

effective date by publishing a

subsequent document that will

withdraw the final action. All public

comments received will then be

addressed in a subsequent final rule

based on this action serving as a

proposed rule. The EPA will not

institute a second comment period on

this action. Any parties interested in

commenting on this action should do so

at this time. If no such comments are

received, the public is advised that this

action will be effective on July 5, 1995.

Nothing in this action should be

construed as permitting or allowing or

establishing a precedent for any future

request for revision to any SIP. Each

request for revision to any SIP shall be

considered separately in light of specific

technical, economic, and environmental

factors and in relation to relevant

statutory and regulatory requirements.

The Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) has exempted this regulatory

action from Executive Order 12866

review.

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act,

5 U.S.C. 600 et. seq., EPA must prepare

a regulatory flexibility analysis

assessing the impact of any proposed or

final rule on small entities. 5 U.S.C. 603

and 604. Alternatively, EPA may certify

that the rule will not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities. Small entities

include small businesses, small not-forprofit enterprises, and government

entities with jurisdiction over

populations of less than 50,000.

SIP approvals under section 110 and

subchapter I, part D of the Act do not

create any new requirements, but

simply approve requirements that the

State is already imposing. Therefore,

because the Federal SIP-approval does

not impose any new requirements, I

certify that it does not have a significant

impact on any small entities affected.

Moreover, due to the nature of the

Federal-state relationship under the Act,

preparation of a regulatory flexibility

analysis would constitute Federal

inquiry into the economic

reasonableness of state action. The Act

forbids EPA to base its actions

concerning SIPs on such grounds.

Union Electric Co. v. U.S. E.P.A., 427

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

7410(a)(2).

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean

Air Act, petitions for judicial review of

this action must be filed in the United

States Court of Appeals for the

appropriate circuit by July 5, 1995.

Filing a petition for reconsideration by

the Administrator of this final rule does

not affect the finality of this rule for the

purposes of judicial review nor does it

extend the time within which a petition

for judicial review may be filed, and

shall not postpone the effectiveness of

such rule or action. This action may not

be challenged later in proceedings to

enforce its requirements. (See section

307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Carbon monoxide,

Hydrocarbons, Incorporation by

reference, Intergovernmental relations,

Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,

Particulate matter, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur

oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

Dated: March 24, 1995.

Robert L. Duprey,

Acting Regional Administrator.

Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code

of Federal Regulations is amended as

follows:
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 87 / Friday, May 5, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 22283

PART 52—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 52

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q.

Subpart TT—Utah

2. Section 52.2320 is amended by

adding paragraph (c)(28) to read as

follows:

§ 52.2320 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(28) On November 12, 1993, the

Governor of Utah submitted revisions to

its permitting requirements to satisfy the

nonattainment new source review

provisions in the amended Clean Air

Act for all of its nonattainment areas.

On May 20, 1994, the Governor of Utah

submitted a revision to Utah’s definition

of volatile organic compounds.

(i) Incorporation by reference.

(A) Utah Air Conservation

Regulations, R307–1–1, the forward and

the following definitions: ‘‘air

contaminant,’’ ‘‘air contaminant

source,’’ ‘‘air pollution,’’ ‘‘allowable

emissions,’’ ‘‘ambient air,’’ ‘‘best

available control technology (BACT),’’

‘‘board,’’ ‘‘department,’’ ‘‘dispersion

technique,’’ ‘‘emission limitation,’’

‘‘executive director,’’ ‘‘executive

secretary,’’ ‘‘major modification,’’

‘‘major source,’’ ‘‘PM–10 precursor,’’

‘‘person,’’ ‘‘temporary,’’ and ‘‘volatile

organic compound (VOC);’’ effective

November 15, 1993, printed June 24,

1994.

(B) Utah Air Conservation

Regulations, R307–1–3.1.8, R307–1–

3.1.10, and R307–1–3.3; effective

August 16, 1993, printed May 26, 1994.

(ii) Additional material.

(A) Letter dated October 18, 1994

from Russell A. Roberts to Douglas M.

Skie clarifying applicability of Utah’s

nonattainment new source review

permitting requirements.

[FR Doc. 95–10821 Filed 5–4–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

40 CFR Part 52

[NC70–2–6861a: NC63–1–6394a; FRL–5189–

3]

Clean Air Act Approval and

Promulgation of Emission Statement

Implementation Plan for North Carolina

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: The EPA is approving a

revision to the State Implementation

Plan (SIP) submitted by the State of

North Carolina through the North

Carolina Department of Environment,

Health and Natural Resources

(NCDEHNR) for the purpose of

implementing an emission statement

program for stationary sources within

the North Carolina ozone

nonattainment/maintenance areas:

Davidson County, Durham County,

Forsyth County, Gaston County,

Guilford County, Mecklenburg County,

Wake County, the Dutchville Township

portion of Granville County, and that

part of Davie County bounded by the

Yadkin River, Dutchman’s Creek, North

Carolina Highway 801, Fulton Creek,

and back to the Yadkin River. The SIP

was submitted on August 15, 1994, by

the State to satisfy the Federal

requirements for an emission statement

program as part of the SIP for North

Carolina.

DATES: This final rule is effective July 5,

1995, unless someone submits adverse

or critical comments by June 5, 1995. If

the effective date is delayed, timely

notice will be published in the Federal

Register.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should

be addressed to: Joey LeVasseur,

Regulatory Planning and Development

Section, Air Programs Branch, Air,

Pesticides & Toxics Management

Division, Region 4 Environmental

Protection Agency, 345 Courtland

Street, NE., Atlanta, Georgia 30365.

Copies of the material submitted by

the State of North Carolina may be

examined during normal business hours

at the following locations:

Air and Radiation Docket and

Information Center (Air Docket 6102),

U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, 401 M Street, SW.,

Washington, DC 20460.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region 4 Air Programs Branch, 345

Courtland Street, NE, Atlanta, Georgia

30365.

North Carolina Department of

Environment, Health and Natural

Resources, 512 North Salisbury Street,

Raleigh, North Carolina 27604.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joey

LeVasseur, Regulatory Planning and

Development Section, Air Programs

Branch, Air, Pesticides & Toxics

Management Division, Region 4

Environmental Protection Agency, 345

Courtland Street, NE., Atlanta, Georgia

30365. The telephone number is 404/

347–3555 ext. 4215. Reference file

NC70–2–6861.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A SIP

revision was submitted by the State of

North Carolina on December 17, 1993,

to satisfy the requirements of section

182(a)(B) of the Clean Air Act

Amendments of 1990 (CAA) (November

15, 1990). This revision was submitted

as a temporary rule and EPA held off

action until the State submitted a

permanent rule on August 15, 1994. The

SIP revision was reviewed by EPA to

determine completeness shortly after its

submittal, in accordance with the

completeness criteria set out at 40 CFR

part 51, appendix V (1991), as amended

by 57 FR 42216 (August 26, 1991). The

submittal was found to be complete and

a letter dated December 5, 1994,

addressed to Mr. A. Preston Howard,

Director, NCDEHNR, was sent to

NCDEHNR indicating the submittal was

administratively complete.

There are several key general and

specific components of an acceptable

emission statement program.

Specifically, the state must submit a

revision to its SIP and the emission

statement program must meet the

minimum requirements for reporting. In

general, the program must include, at a

minimum, provisions for applicability,

compliance, and specific source

requirements detailed below.

A. SIP Revision Submission

The NCDEHNR submitted the North

Carolina emission statement regulation

on August 15, 1994, which meets the

emission statement requirement.

B. Program Elements

The State emission statement program

must, at a minimum, include provisions

covering applicability of the regulations,

a compliance schedule for sources

covered by the regulations, and the

specific reporting requirements for

sources. The emission statement

submitted by the source should contain,

at a minimum, a certification that the

information is accurate to the best

knowledge of the individual certifying

the statement. The North Carolina

submittal meets these requirements.

C. Applicability

Section 182(a)(3)(B) requires that

states with areas designated as

nonattainment for ozone require

emission statement data from sources of

volatile organic compounds (VOC) and

oxides of nitrogen (NOX) in the

nonattainment areas. This requirement

applies to all ozone nonattainment

areas, regardless of the classification

(Marginal, Moderate, etc.).

The states may waive, with EPA

approval, the requirement for emission

statements for classes or categories of

sources with less than 25 tons per year

of actual plant-wide NOX or VOC

emissions in nonattainment areas if the

class or category is included in the base