66264 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 211 / Wednesday, November 2, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

under state law and does not impose 

any additional enforceable duty beyond 

that required by state law, it does not 

contain any unfunded mandate or 

significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments, as described in the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

(Pub. L. 104–4). This rule also does not 

have tribal implications because it will 

not have a substantial direct effect on 

one or more Indian tribes, on the 

relationship between the Federal 

Government and Indian tribes, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities between the Federal 

Government and Indian tribes, as 

specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 

FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This 

action also does not have federalism 

implications because it does not have 

substantial direct effects on the States, 

on the relationship between the 

National Government and the States, or 

on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, 

August 10, 1999). This action merely 

approves a state rule implementing a 

Federal requirement, and does not alter 

the relationship or the distribution of 

power and responsibilities established 

in the Clean Air Act. This rule also is 

not subject to Executive Order 13045 

‘‘Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety 

Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), 

because it is not economically 

significant. 

In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA’s 

role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the 

absence of a prior existing requirement 

for the State to use voluntary consensus 

standards (VCS), EPA has no authority 

to disapprove a SIP submission for 

failure to use VCS. It would thus be 

inconsistent with applicable law for 

EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission, 

to use VCS in place of a SIP submission 

that otherwise satisfies the provisions of 

the Clean Air Act. Thus, the 

requirements of section 12(d) of the 

National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 

272 note) do not apply. This rule does 

not impose an information collection 

burden under the provisions of the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

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

B. Submission to Congress and the 

Comptroller General 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. EPA will submit a 

report containing this rule and other 

required information to the U.S. Senate, 

the U.S. House of Representatives, and 

the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. This rule is not a 

‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 

804(2). 

C. Petitions for Judicial Review 

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 January 3, 2006. 

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 to 

approve the repeal Maryland’s NOX

Budget Trading Program under COMAR 

29.11.27 and 29.11.28 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, Nitrogen dioxide, 

Ozone. 

Dated: October 24, 2005. 

Donald S. Welsh, 

Regional Administrator, Region III. 

■ 40 CFR part 52 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 et seq. 

Subpart V—Maryland 

§ 52.1070 [Amended] 

■ 2. In § 52.1070, the table in paragraph 

(c) is amended by removing the entries 

for COMAR 26.11.27 (26.11.27.01 

through 26.11.27.14) and 26.11.28 

(26.11.28.01 through 26.11.28.13). 

[FR Doc. 05–21753 Filed 11–1–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 

[RME Docket Number R08–OAR–2005–UT–

0006; FRL–7992–6] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; State of 

Utah; Provo Attainment Demonstration 

of the Carbon Monoxide Standard, 

Redesignation to Attainment, 

Designation of Areas for Air Quality 

Planning Purposes, and Approval of 

Related Revisions 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final 

action approving State Implementation 

Plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the 

State of Utah. On April 1, 2004, the 

Governor of Utah submitted an 

attainment demonstration and plan for 

the Provo metropolitan area (hereafter, 

Provo area) for the carbon monoxide 

(CO) National Ambient Air Quality 

Standard (NAAQS) to replace the 

demonstration and plan that were 

submitted by Governor Leavitt on July 

11, 1994. The Governor’s submittal also 

contained a request to redesignate the 

Provo area to attainment for the CO 

NAAQS and a maintenance plan which 

includes transportation conformity 

motor vehicle emission budgets (MVEB) 

for 2014 and 2015. The Governor also 

submitted revisions to: Utah’s Rule 

R307–110–12, ‘‘Section IX, Control 

Measures for Area and Point Sources, 

Part C, Carbon Monoxide,’’ which 

incorporates the attainment 

demonstration, plan, and maintenance 

plan; Utah’s Rule R307–110–31, 

‘‘Section X , Vehicle Inspection and 

Maintenance Program, Part A,’’ which 

incorporates general requirements and 

applicability for motor vehicle 

emissions inspections; and Utah’s Rule 

R307–110–34, ‘‘Section X, Vehicle 

Inspection and Maintenance Program, 

Part D, Utah County,’’ which 

incorporates a revised vehicle 

inspection and maintenance program for 

Utah County. The Governor’s April 1, 

2004 submittal also stated that the prior 

July 11, 1994 submittal of Utah’s Rule 

R307–1–4.12, ‘‘Emissions Standards for 

Residential Solid Fuel Burning Devices 

and Fireplaces’’ to restrict woodburning 

in Utah County, remains part of her 

April 1, 2004 submittal and requested 

that Utah’s Rule R307–301, 

‘‘Oxygenated Gasoline Program,’’ be 

eliminated from the Federally-approved 

SIP. We note that on September 20, 

1999, the Governor submitted Utah 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 211 / Wednesday, November 2, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 66265 

Rules R307–302–3 and –4, which 

together comprise a re-numbered and retitled version of R307–1–4.12. The text 

of Rules R307–302–3 and –4 is identical 

to the text of Rule R307–1–4.12 that the 

Governor submitted on July 11, 1994. In 

this action, we are approving and 

incorporating by reference Rules R307–

302–3 and –4, because these comprise 

the current version of the State rule. 

Approving these rules rather than the 

earlier version will avoid confusion to 

the public and will obviate the need for 

a future SIP revision merely to renumber the SIP. In the remainder of this 

notice, we will refer to the rule by its 

current numbers, unless the context 

dictates otherwise. 

In this action, EPA is approving the 

Provo area’s attainment demonstration 

and plan, the request for redesignation 

to attainment for the Provo area, the 

maintenance plan, the transportation 

conformity MVEBs for 2014 and 2015, 

the revisions to Part A of the Vehicle 

Inspection and Maintenance Program 

pertaining to general requirements and 

applicability, the revisions to Part D of 

the Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance 

Program pertaining to the program for 

Utah County, the revisions to Rule 

R307–110–12, the revisions to Rule 

R307–110–31, the revisions to Rule 

R307–110–34, Rules R307–302–3 and 

–4, and the request to remove Rule 

R307–301 from the Federally-approved 

SIP. EPA is also identifying the 

transportation conformity MVEB for the 

year 2000, which is derived from the 

attainment year emission inventory in 

the attainment plan. This action is being 

taken under section 110 of the Clean Air 

Act. 

DATES: This rule is effective on January 

3, 2006 without further notice, unless 

EPA receives adverse comment by 

December 2, 2005. If adverse comment 

is received, EPA will publish a timely 

withdrawal of the direct final rule in the 

Federal Register informing the public 

that the rule will not take effect. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by RME Docket Number R08–

OAR–2005–UT–0006, by one of the 

following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Agency Web site: http:// 

docket.epa.gov/rmepub/index.jsp. 

Regional Materials in EDOCKET (RME), 

EPA’s electronic public docket and 

comment system for regional actions, is 

EPA’s preferred method for receiving 

comments. Follow the on-line 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• E-mail: long.richard@epa.gov and 

russ.tim@epa.gov. 

• Fax: (303) 312–6064 (please alert 

the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT if you are faxing 

comments). 

• Mail: Richard R. Long, Director, Air 

and Radiation Program, Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, 

Mailcode 8P–AR, 999 18th Street, Suite 

200, Denver, Colorado 80202–2466. 

• Hand Delivery: Richard R. Long, 

Director, Air and Radiation Program, 

Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P–AR, 999 

18th Street, Suite 200, Denver, Colorado 

80202–2466. Such deliveries are only 

accepted Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. 

to 4:55 p.m., excluding federal holidays. 

Special arrangements should be made 

for deliveries of boxed information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

RME Docket Number R08–OAR–2005–

UT–0006. EPA’s policy is that all 

comments received will be included in 

the public docket without change and 

may be made available at http:// 

docket.epa.gov/rmepub/index.jsp, 

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 

EDOCKET, regulations.gov, or e-mail. 

EPA’s Regional Materials in EDOCKET 

and federal regulations.gov website are 

‘‘nonymous access’’ systems, 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 e-mail comment directly 

to EPA, without going through 

EDOCKET or 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 

EDOCKET online or see the Federal 

Register of May 31, 2002 (67 FR 38102). 

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 Regional Materials in 

EDOCKET index at http:// 

docket.epa.gov/rmepub/index.jsp. 

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 

Regional Materials in EDOCKET or in 

hard copy at the Air and Radiation 

Program, Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA), Region 8, 999 18th 

Street, Suite 200, Denver, Colorado 

80202–2466. EPA requests that if at all 

possible, you contact the individual 

listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section to view the hard copy 

of the docket. You may view the hard 

copy of the docket Monday through 

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

federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tim 

Russ, Air and Radiation Program, 

Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P–AR, 999 

18th Street, Suite 200, Denver, Colorado 

80202–2466, phone (303) 312–6479, and 

e-mail at: russ.tim@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. General Information 

II. What is the purpose of this action? 

III. What is the State’s process to submit 

these materials to EPA? 

IV. Brief History of the Provo Area and the 

CO NAAQS 

V. The Provo Area’s Attainment/Maintenance 

Plan (Provo CO Plan): Contents 

VI. EPA’s Evaluation of the Introduction and 

Monitoring Sections of the Provo CO 

Plan 

VII. EPA’s evaluation of the Clean Air Act 

Requirements Relevant to the Provo Area 

VIII. EPA’s Evaluation of the Provo Area’s 

2000 Attainment Demonstration & 

Maintenance Plan Modeling 

IX. EPA’s evaluation of the Provo Area’s 2000 

Attainment Demonstration and Plan 

X. EPA’s evaluation of the Provo Area’s 

Redesignation Request and Maintenance 

Plan 

XI. EPA’s evaluation of the Transportation 

Conformity Requirements 

XII. EPA’s evaluation of the Rule R307–110–

31 Revisions 

XIII. EPA’s evaluation of the Rule R307–110–

34 Revisions 

XIV. EPA’s evaluation of Rules R307–302–3 

and –4 

XV. EPA’s evaluation of the removal of Rule 

R307–301 

XVI. Consideration of Section 110(l) of the 

CAA 

XVII. Final Action 

66266 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 211 / Wednesday, November 2, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

XVIII. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Definitions 

For the purpose of this document, we 

are giving meaning to certain words or 

initials 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 NAAQS mean 

National Ambient Air Quality Standard. 

(iv) The initials SIP mean or refer to 

State Implementation Plan. 

(v) The word State means the State of 

Utah, unless the context indicates 

otherwise. 

I. General Information 

A. What Should I Consider as I Prepare 

My Comments for EPA? 

1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this 

information to EPA through 

regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark 

the part or all of the information that 

you claim to be CBI. For CBI 

information in a disk or CD ROM that 

you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the 

disk or CD ROM as CBI and then 

identify electronically within the disk or 

CD ROM the specific information that is 

claimed as CBI. In addition to one 

complete version of the comment that 

includes information claimed as CBI, a 

copy of the comment that does not 

contain the information claimed as CBI 

must be submitted for inclusion in the 

public docket. Information so marked 

will not be disclosed except in 

accordance with procedures set forth in 

40 CFR part 2. 

2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. 

When submitting comments, remember 

to: 

i. Identify the rulemaking by docket 

number and other identifying 

information (subject heading, Federal 

Register date and page number). 

ii. 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. 

iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; 

suggest alternatives and substitute 

language for your requested changes. 

iv. Describe any assumptions and 

provide any technical information and/ 

or data that you used. 

v. If you estimate potential costs or 

burdens, explain how you arrived at 

your estimate in sufficient detail to 

allow for it to be reproduced. 

vi. Provide specific examples to 

illustrate your concerns, and suggest 

alternatives. 

vii. Explain your views as clearly as 

possible, avoiding the use of profanity 

or personal threats. 

viii. Make sure to submit your 

comments by the comment period 

deadline identified. 

II. What is the purpose of this action? 

In this action, we are approving an 

attainment demonstration and plan for 

the year 2000 for the Provo area for the 

CO NAAQS to replace the 

demonstration and plan that were 

submitted by Governor Leavitt on July 

11, 1994. As part of our action on the 

attainment demonstration and plan, we 

are identifying the transportation 

conformity MVEB for the year 2000. We 

are also approving a change in the legal 

designation of the Provo area from 

nonattainment for CO to attainment, 

we’re approving the maintenance plan 

that is designed to keep the Provo area 

in attainment for CO for the next 10 

years, we’re approving the maintenance 

demonstration, and we’re approving the 

maintenance plan’s transportation 

conformity MVEBs for 2014 and 2015. 

All the above are addressed in the 

State’s document entitled ‘‘Carbon 

Monoxide Provisions For Provo, Section 

IX, Part C.6’’ (hereafter, Provo CO Plan) 

which contains the Provo area’s 

attainment plan and the maintenance 

plan and was included with the 

Governor’s April 1, 2004 submittal. 

In addition, we’re approving revisions 

to Utah’s Rule R307–110–12, that 

incorporates revisions to ‘‘Section IX, 

Control Measures for Area and Point 

Sources, Part C, Carbon Monoxide,’’ that 

incorporates the Provo CO Plan 

(‘‘Carbon Monoxide Provisions For 

Provo, Section IX, Part C.6’’), revisions 

to Utah’s Rule R307–110–31, that 

incorporates revisions to ‘‘Section X, 

Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance 

Program, Part A, General Requirements 

and Applicability,’’ and revisions to 

Utah’s Rule R307–110–34, that 

incorporates revisions to ‘‘Section X, 

Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance 

Program, Part D, Utah County.’’ We are 

also approving Utah’s Rules R307–302–

3 and –4, ‘‘No Burn Periods for Carbon 

Monoxide’’ and ‘‘Violations,’’

respectively, to restrict woodburning in 

Utah County, and we’re approving the 

elimination of Utah’s Rule R307–301, 

‘‘Oxygenated Gasoline Program,’’ from 

the Federally-approved SIP. 

III. What is the State’s process to 

submit these materials to EPA? 

The CAA requires States to observe 

certain procedural requirements in 

developing SIP revisions. Section 

110(a)(2) of the CAA requires that each 

SIP revision be adopted after reasonable 

notice and public hearing. This must 

occur before the State submits the 

revision to us. 

A. On February 19, 2004, the Utah Air 

Quality Board (UAQB) held a public 

hearing on the Provo year 2000 

attainment demonstration and plan for 

the CO NAAQS, the request to 

redesignate the Provo area to attainment 

for the CO NAAQS, the maintenance 

plan, the MVEBs for 2014 and 2015, and 

the revisions to Utah’s Rule R307–110–

12, Utah’s Rule R307–110–31, and 

Utah’s Rule R307–110–34. The UAQB 

adopted these SIP revisions on March 

31, 2004, they became State effective on 

May 18, 2004, and the Governor 

submitted them to us on April 1, 2004. 

We evaluated the Governor’s 

submittal and concluded that the State 

met the requirements for reasonable 

notice and public hearing under section 

110(a)(2) of the CAA. Pursuant to 

section 110(k)(1)(B) of the CAA, we 

reviewed these SIP materials for 

conformance with the completeness 

criteria in 40 CFR part 51, Appendix V 

and determined that the Governor’s 

April 1, 2004, submittal was 

administratively and technically 

complete. We sent our completeness 

determination on July 2, 2004, in a letter 

from Robert E. Roberts, Regional 

Administrator, to Governor Olene 

Walker. 

B. On June 23, 1998, the UAQB held 

a public hearing for the revisions to 

Utah’s Rules R307–302–3 and 4, to 

restrict woodburning in Utah County. 

The UAQB adopted these SIP revisions 

on August 13, 1998, they became State 

effective on September 15, 1998, and the 

Governor submitted them to us on 

September 20, 1999. 

We evaluated the Governor’s 

submittal of Utah’s Rules R307–302–3 

and –4, and determined that the State 

met the requirements for reasonable 

notice and public hearing under section 

110(a)(2) of the CAA. By operation of 

law under the provisions of section 

110(k)(1)(B) of the CAA, the Governor’s 

September 20, 1999, submittal was 

deemed complete on March 20, 2000. 

IV. Brief History of the Provo Area and 

the CO NAAQS 

The Provo area was first designated 

nonattainment for the CO NAAQS on 

March 3, 1978 (43 FR 8964.) This 

designation was assigned by EPA 

pursuant to the requirements of the 

1977 amendments to the Clean Air Act 

(CAA). On November 15, 1990, the 

Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 

were enacted (Pub. L. 101–549, 104 Stat. 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 211 / Wednesday, November 2, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 66267 

1 In 1998, the State re-numbered rule R307–8 

‘‘Oxygenated Gasoline Program’’ as R307–301 and 

changed the title to ‘‘Utah and Weber Counties: 

Oxygenated Gasoline Program.’’

2399, codified at 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q). 

In response to Clean Air Act 

Amendments of 1990, we designated the 

Provo area as nonattainment for CO 

under section 107(d)(1)(C) of the CAA, 

because the area had been designated as 

nonattainment before November 15, 

1990. The Provo area was classified as 

a ‘‘moderate’’ CO nonattainment area 

with a design value greater than 12.7 

parts per million (ppm). See 56 FR 

56694, November 6, 1991. CO 

nonattainment areas classified as 

‘‘moderate’’ were expected to attain the 

CO NAAQS as expeditiously as 

practical, but no later than December 31, 

1995. Further information regarding this 

classification and the accompanying 

requirements are described in section 

187 of the CAA and in the ‘‘General 

Preamble for the Implementation of 

Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments 

of 1990.’’ See 57 FR 13498, April 16, 

1992. 

The provisions of section 187 of the 

CAA applicable to areas classified as 

‘‘moderate’’ with a design value greater 

than 12.7 ppm, such as the Provo area, 

required that a SIP revision be 

submitted to EPA by November 15, 1992 

that included: (1) A 1990 base year 

emission inventory, (2) a vehicle miles 

traveled (VMT) forecast, (3) contingency 

provisions that would go into place if 

the VMT forecast was exceeded or if the 

area failed to attain the CO NAAQS by 

December 31, 1995, (4) a motor vehicle 

inspection and maintenance (I/M) 

program, (5) periodic emission 

inventories beginning in September, 

1995, continuing until the area is 

redesignated to attainment, and, (6) an 

attainment demonstration. In addition, 

section 211(m) of the CAA also required 

the implementation of an oxygenated 

fuels program. With respect to the 

oxygenated fuels requirement, section 

211(m)(2)(B) of the CAA set the 

Federally-required oxygenate level at 

2.7% oxygen by weight. 

On July 11, 1994, the Governor 

submitted a revision to the Utah SIP 

(hereafter, July 11, 1994 submittal) that 

included a CO attainment 

demonstration, plan, and several other 

SIP revisions applicable to the Provo 

area. Among other provisions, the 

attainment plan relied on an enhanced 

motor vehicle inspection and 

maintenance (I/M) program, that was to 

be implemented by January 1, 1996, and 

the 2.7% oxygenated gasoline program. 

However, the commitment to implement 

an enhanced I/M program was not 

definite. Due to several technical and 

legal issues with the attainment 

demonstration (notably the State’s 

failure to implement the enhanced I/M 

program and miscalculation of credit for 

woodburning emission reductions), EPA 

never took action on the July 11, 1994 

submittal’s attainment demonstration, 

enhanced I/M program, contingency 

measures, VMT forecasting provisions, 

or woodburning requirements (Utah’s 

Rule R307–1–4.12.) 

Over time, however, we did approve 

certain SIP revisions or materials 

relevant to the Provo area. These were 

the 1990 base year emission inventory 

(see 60 FR 33745, June 29, 1995) the 

1993 periodic emission inventory (see 

63 FR 18122, April 14, 1998) the 1996 

periodic emission inventory (see 65 FR 

63546, October 24, 2000) revisions to 

the State’s rule R307–8 1 ‘‘Oxygenated 

Gasoline Program’’ for the 

implementation of a 2.7% program (59 

FR 55585, November 8, 1994) the 3.1% 

oxygen by weight gasoline program for 

Utah County (66 FR 14078, March 9, 

2001) the improved basic I/M program 

for Utah County that was designed to 

satisfy the applicable requirements of 

both the CAA and section 348 of the 

National Highway Safety Designation 

Act (NHSDA) of 1995 (interim final 

approval 62 FR 31349, June 9, 1997; 

final approval 67 FR 57744, September 

12, 2002), and the determination of 

attainment of the CO NAAQS for the 

Provo area along with the change from 

a 3.1% to a 2.7% by weight oxygenated 

gasoline program (67 FR 59165, 

September 20, 2002). 

Additional historical information is 

also provided in section IX.C.6.a of the 

Provo CO Plan. 

V. The Provo Area’s Attainment/ 

Maintenance Plan (Provo CO Plan): 

Contents 

As noted above, the Provo CO Plan 

contains both an attainment plan and a 

maintenance plan and is divided into 

six sections: an introduction section 

(IX.C.6.a), a CO monitoring section 

(IX.C.6.b), the attainment plan section 

with the attainment demonstration 

(IX.C.6.c), the maintenance plan section 

(IX.C.6.d), the maintenance 

demonstration (IX.C.6.e), and a section 

addressing transportation conformity 

(IX.C.6.f). We have reviewed the Provo 

CO Plan with respect to the relevant 

requirements of sections 107, 110, 175A, 

176, 187, and 211 of the CAA and EPA 

policy and guidance and believe that 

approval of the Provo CO Plan is 

warranted. Below are our descriptions 

and analysis of how the Provo CO Plan 

meets the necessary provisions 

referenced above. 

VI. EPA’s Evaluation of the 

Introduction and Monitoring Sections 

of the Provo CO Plan 

A. Introduction Section (IX.C.6.a) 

This section of the Provo CO Plan 

provides a discussion of the CO 

NAAQS, the Provo area’s geographic 

setting and basic demographic 

information, and a brief history of the 

Provo designation history similar to that 

provided in our section IV above. 

B. CO Monitoring Network Section 

(IX.C.6.b) 

As described in 40 CFR § 50.8, the 

national primary ambient air quality 

standard for carbon monoxide is 9 parts 

per million (10 milligrams per cubic 

meter) for an 8-hour average 

concentration not to be exceeded more 

than once per year. 40 CFR 50.8 

continues by stating that the levels of 

CO in the ambient air shall be measured 

by a reference method based on 40 CFR 

part 50, Appendix C and designated in 

accordance with 40 CFR part 53 or an 

equivalent method designated in 

accordance with 40 CFR part 53. 

Attainment of the CO standard is not a 

momentary phenomenon based on 

short-term data. Instead, we consider an 

area to be in attainment if each of the 

CO ambient air quality monitors in the 

area doesn’t have more than one 

exceedance of the CO standard over a 

one-year period. 40 CFR § 50.8 and 40 

CFR part 50, Appendix C. If any monitor 

in the area’s CO monitoring network 

records more than one exceedance of 

the CO standard during a one-year 

calendar period, then the area is in 

violation of the CO NAAQS. 

As described in section IX.C.6.b, the 

Provo CO Plan is based on an analysis 

of quality assured ambient air quality 

monitoring data that are relevant to the 

attainment demonstration and the 

maintenance demonstration. As 

presented in section IX.C.6.b of the 

Provo CO plan, ambient air quality 

monitoring data for calendar years 1994 

through 2003 show a measured 

exceedance rate of the CO NAAQS of 

1.0 or less per year, per monitor, in the 

Provo nonattainment area. Further, we 

have reviewed ambient air quality data 

from 2004 and the first calendar quarter 

of 2005 and the Provo area shows 

continuous attainment of the CO 

NAAQS from 1994 to present. 

All of the data discussed above were 

collected and analyzed as required by 

EPA (see 40 CFR § 50.8 and 40 CFR part 

50, Appendix C) and have been 

archived by the State in our Air Quality 

System (AQS) national database. 

66268 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 211 / Wednesday, November 2, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

VII. EPA’s Evaluation of the Clean Air 

Act Requirements Relevant to the Provo 

Area 

Section IX.C.6.c.1 of the Provo CO 

Plan includes Table 3 which presents 

certain requirements that the State has 

referenced from sections 172 and 187 of 

the CAA for a ‘‘moderate’’ CO 

nonattainment area with a design value 

greater than 12.7 ppm. Our evaluation of 

how the Provo area met the relevant 

CAA requirements is as follows: 

A. Base year emission inventory. The 

State submitted a 1990 base year CO 

emissions inventory for the Provo area 

on July 11, 1994 which met the 

requirements of sections 172(c)(3) and 

187(a)(1) of the CAA. We approved this 

inventory on June 29, 1995 (60 FR 

33745). The Governor’s April 1, 2004 

submittal contains a new base year 

emission inventory for the year 2000 

that we are approving with this action. 

A further description of this inventory 

is provided below in section IX. 

B. Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT). 

Section 187(a)(2)(A) of the CAA requires 

a forecast of VMT in the nonattainment 

area for each year before the year in 

which the plan projects the NAAQS for 

CO to be attained in the area. The July 

11, 1994 submittal projected attainment 

of the CO NAAQS by December 31, 

1995 and the State met this CAA 

requirement with its submittal of 

projected VMT, for 1994, 1995, and 

1996, in a letter dated March 28, 1995. 

As noted earlier, we determined the 

Provo area attained the CO NAAQS by 

December 31, 1995, in our action of 

September 20, 2002 (67 FR 59165). 

C. Contingency provisions. Section 

187(a)(3) requires the submittal of 

measures to be implemented in the 

event that the forecasted VMT, required 

by CAA section 187(a)(2)(A), is 

exceeded or the area does not attain the 

CO NAAQS by the applicable 

attainment date, which in this case was 

December 31, 1995. In the event these 

contingency provisions are triggered, 

they are to be implemented without any 

further action by the State. With the July 

11, 1994 submittal, the State adopted as 

a contingency measure an increase in 

the oxygen content of gasoline, for the 

Provo area, from 2.7% by weight to 

3.1% by weight. The State’s oxygenated 

gasoline rule stated that the 3.1% by 

weight program would be triggered by 

either the actual VMT exceeding the 

forecasted VMT or if an enhanced I/M 

program was not implemented by 

January 1, 1996. In actuality, both 

conditions arose; the State did not 

implement an enhanced I/M program in 

the Provo area by January 1, 1996 (or for 

that matter, at all) and the Provo area 

exceeded the forecasted VMT levels. 

Based on the above, the Provo area 

began a 3.1% by weight program in 

1996. However, as we noted earlier, the 

Provo area attained the CO NAAQS by 

December 31, 1995 with only the benefit 

of a 2.7% program (see 67 FR 59165, 

September 20, 2002). 

Generally, EPA does not insist on 

CAA section 187(a)(3) contingency 

measures for an area being redesignated 

to attainment. See 57 FR 13564, April 

16, 1992. This is because the area must 

have already attained the standard to be 

redesignated, and section 175A of the 

Act requires that the maintenance plan 

have its own set of contingency 

measures. 

D. Basic I/M. Section 187(a)(4) of the 

CAA includes a ‘‘Savings Clause for 

Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance 

Provisions of the State Implementation 

Plan.’’ The reference in this section of 

the CAA relates back to section 

182(a)(2)(B) which essentially directs 

States to the implementation of a twospeed idle check Basic I/M program that 

is at least as effective as the Federal 

Basic I/M performance standard as 

specified in 40 CFR 51.352. The State 

met this CAA obligation by submitting 

an improved I/M program revision, on 

March 15, 1996, that addressed both the 

requirements of the CAA and the 

National Highway System Designation 

Act (NHSDA) of 1995. As noted in our 

2002 final rule approval for this 

program (67 FR 5774, September 12, 

2002), Utah County’s improved vehicle 

I/M program exceeds the Federal Basic 

I/M performance standard established in 

40 CFR 51, subpart S (‘‘Inspection/ 

Maintenance Program Requirements for 

CO non-attainment areas.’’) We gave 

interim final approval of this I/M 

program SIP revision on June 9, 1997 

(62 FR 31349) and final approval on 

September 12, 2002 (67 FR 5774). 

E. Periodic inventory. Section 

187(a)(5) requires the submittal of a 

periodic emission inventory, for the 

nonattainment area, every three years 

until the area is redesignated to 

attainment. The State submitted a 1993 

periodic CO emission inventory for the 

Provo area on November 12, 1997. We 

approved the 1993 periodic inventory 

on April 14, 1998 (63 FR 18122). The 

State submitted a 1996 periodic CO 

emission inventory for the Provo area on 

June 14, 1999. We approved the 1996 

periodic CO emission inventory on 

October 24, 2000 (65 FR 63546). The 

Governor’s April 1, 2004 SIP submittal 

included a CO emission inventory for 

2000 as a component of the year 2000 

attainment demonstration. We consider 

this inventory sufficient to address the 

1999 periodic inventory requirement. 

F. Enhanced Vehicle Inspection and 

Maintenance. Section 187(a)(6) of the 

CAA requires ‘‘moderate’’ CO 

nonattainment areas to implement an 

enhanced I/M program as is provided in 

section 182(c)(3) of the CAA. The 

provisions of section 182(c)(3), however, 

only apply to nonattainment areas 

located in urbanized areas with a 1980 

census of 200,000 or more. Because the 

1980 census for the Provo (and Orem) 

urbanized area was 169,699, an 

enhanced I/M program was not required 

for the Provo area. 

G. Attainment Demonstration and 

Specific Annual Emission Reductions. 

Section 187(a)(7) of the CAA requires 

‘‘moderate’’ CO nonattainment areas to 

submit ‘‘* * * a demonstration that the 

plan as revised will provide, for 

attainment of the carbon monoxide 

NAAQS by the applicable attainment 

date and provisions for such specific 

annual emission reductions as are 

necessary to attain the standard by that 

date.’’ To address this CAA 

requirement, the Governor’s July 11, 

1994 submittal contained an attainment 

demonstration that was based on 

dispersion modeling using the Urban 

Airshed Model (UAM) and the 

CAL3QHC intersection ‘‘hotspot’’

model. As we noted in section IV above, 

the July 11, 1994 submittal’s attainment 

plan was not Federally-approvable due 

to both legal and technical issues. 

However, to address this outstanding 

CAA requirement, on April 1, 2004, the 

Governor submitted a new attainment 

plan that demonstrates attainment in the 

year 2000. This new attainment plan is 

described in sections VIII and IX below. 

Its attainment demonstration is based on 

UAM–AERO and CAL3QHC–R 

modeling. 

H. Oxygenated fuels. Section 211(m) 

of the CAA requires the implementation 

of an oxygenated gasoline program in 

any CO area designated as 

nonattainment and with a design value 

of 9.5 ppm or greater. As this CAA 

requirement applied to the Provo area, 

the State submitted a SIP revision on 

November 9, 1992 for the 

implementation of an oxygenated 

gasoline program in the Provo area. We 

approved this SIP revision on November 

8, 1994 (59 FR 55585). In addition, we 

also approved revisions to the State’s 

oxygenated gasoline program that 

involved several definition changes, 

average and maximum oxygen content, 

and recordkeeping, with our action of 

March 9, 2001 (66 FR 14078). We 

approved the most recent revisions on 

September 20, 2002 (67 FR 59165). 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 211 / Wednesday, November 2, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 66269 

2The State also prepared and modeled emission 

inventories for 2004 (to consider the elimination of 

the oxygenated gasoline program) and 2007 (at the specific request of Mountainland Association of 

Governments.) 

VIII. EPA’s Evaluation of the Provo 

Area’s 2000 Attainment Demonstration 

and Maintenance Plan Modeling 

Section IX.C.6.c and section IX.c.6.e 

of the Provo CO Plan along with Volume 

12, Section 4 of the State’s TSD contain 

thorough descriptions of the attainment 

demonstration and maintenance plan 

dispersion modeling. Major components 

of these activities are briefly described 

below. 

A. Dispersion Modeling 

1. Model Approach Selected. The 

State selected the EPA-approved 

photochemical model Urban Airshed 

Model with Aerosol (UAM–AERO) 

chemistry to estimate the background 

CO concentrations for the modeling 

domain. Meteorological fields for input 

into the UAM–AERO model were 

produced with the Diagnostic Wind 

Model (DWM). Emissions data were 

processed with the Sparse Matrix 

Operator Kernel Emissions (SMOKE) 

modeling system. The UAM–AERO 

dispersion modeling for carbon 

monoxide was performed in accordance 

with EPA’s June, 1992 modeling 

guidance entitled ‘‘Guideline for 

Regulatory Application of the Urban 

Airshed Model for Areawide Carbon 

Monoxide.’’ To evaluate the impacts at 

high volume/congested intersections, 

the State used the CAL3QHC–R model. 

The incremental CO concentration 

impact results from the application of 

the CAL3QHC–R model (a more 

thorough discussion of the CAL3QHC–

R model is included in section 4.a.5 of 

Volume 12 of the State’s TSD) were then 

added to the UAM–AERO background 

concentration for a total predicted CO 

concentration at a selected intersection. 

The above modeling effort was 

performed by the State in accordance 

with the State’s modeling protocol, that 

was approved by EPA, which is located 

in Volume 12, section 4.b.i of the State’s 

TSD. 

2. Modeling Domain. Section 4.a.3.2 

of Volume 12, of the State’s TSD 

discusses the UAM–AERO modeling 

domain. The domain covers portions of 

13 counties in northern Utah and is 134 

kilometers (km) east to west by 226 km 

north to south. This is the same 

modeling domain that was developed by 

the State for the UAM–AERO 

application for the development of the 

Utah PM10 SIP revision. The State 

determined that using the same 

modeling domain for both SIP revisions 

was a simpler task rather than 

developing a smaller, specific domain 

for the CO modeling for the Provo area. 

EPA agreed with this approach after our 

review of the State’s modeling protocol 

which is included in section 4.b.i of 

Volume 12 of the State’s TSD. For both 

the SMOKE emissions preprocessor and 

UAM–AERO, the modeling resolution 

was at a 2 km by 2km grid. A more indepth discussion of the modeling 

domain is located in Section 4.a.3.2 of 

Volume 12, of the State’s TSD. 

3. Episode Selection. Initially, the 

State evaluated six episodes from 1990 

to 2001. As explained in the modeling 

protocol, in section 4.b.i of Volume 12 

of the State’s TSD, and in section 4.a.2 

of Volume 12 of the State’s TSD, two CO 

episodes were selected that met the 

overall requirements for necessary 

meteorological data, recent emission 

inventory data, and our modeling 

guidance. These episodes were January 

12th to January 15th of 2000 and 

January 6th to January 9th of 2001. 

Additional discussion on episode 

selection can be found in sections 4.a.2 

and 4.b.i of Volume 12 of the State’s 

TSD. 

4. Modeling Emission Inventories. 

The State prepared modeling emission 

inventories for the 2000 and 2001 

episodes and for the maintenance 

demonstration years of 2005, 2006, 

2008, 2011, 2014, and 2015 2. Emission 

totals by category for each of these years 

are presented in sections IX.C.6.c.(3), 

IX.C.6.e.(1) Table 12, and IX.C.6.e.(2) 

Table 13 of the Provo CO Plan and in 

Table VIII–1 below. 

TABLE VIII–1.—SPECIFIC CO EMISSION INVENTORIES FOR THE PROVO AREA OF THE MODELING DOMAIN

[All in tons per day of CO] 

Source category 2000 2001 2005 2006 2008 2011 2014 2015 

Point Sources ................................................... 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.05 0.05 

Area Sources ................................................... 1.28 1.28 1.18 1.17 1.10 1.03 0.97 0.96 

On-road Mobile Sources .................................. 59.44 65.38 70.44 72.10 59.69 55.75 52.88 52.46 

Non-road Sources ............................................ 3.05 3.05 3.05 3.03 2.97 2.90 2.86 2.87 

Totals ........................................................ 63.80 69.74 74.71 76.34 63.80 59.72 56.76 56.34 

Our review of the 2000 episode and 

2000 attainment demonstration 

modeling shows that it should be 

approved. We have also reviewed the 

2001 episode modeling and the 

maintenance demonstration modeling 

(for 2005, 2006, 2008, 2011, 2014, and 

2015) and have concluded this 

modeling should also be approved. The 

State has adopted acceptable control 

strategies and has performed modeling 

that meets our modeling guidance 

requirements for the CO NAAQS. 

Modeling based on adopted and existing 

control measures demonstrates 

attainment of the CO NAAQS in 2000 

and maintenance through 2015. Our 

evaluation of the 2000 attainment plan 

appears in section IX below and our 

evaluation of the maintenance 

demonstration appears in section X 

below. 

IX. EPA’s Evaluation of the Provo 

Area’s 2000 Attainment Demonstration 

and Plan 

The State’s 2000 attainment plan for 

the Provo area is based on relevant data 

for the calendar year 2000; specifically 

for a winter-time episode. The 

monitoring data and episode selection 

are described further above in section 

VIII and in Volume 12, Section 4.b.ii of 

the State’s TSD. Components of the 

attainment plan discussed here involve 

the base case emission inventory for 

2000, the control measures in place in 

2000, and the results of the attainment 

demonstration episode modeling. 

A. Base Case Emission Inventory for 

2000 

As described in section IX.C.6.c.(3) of 

the Provo CO Plan, the State prepared 

a winter-time episode CO emission 

inventory that would serve both the 

purpose of a base case inventory for the 

2000 attainment plan and as the 

attainment year inventory for the 

maintenance plan. The State used 

demographic data that was provided by 

66270 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 211 / Wednesday, November 2, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

the metropolitan planning organization 

(MPO): the Mountainland Association of 

Governments (MAG). MAG provided the 

necessary demographic data, the 

applicable transportation data, and 

prepared the on-road mobile sources 

portion of the inventory. This 

information and associated analyses are 

provided in Volume 10, Section 3.b.i of 

the State’s TSD. Area source emissions 

and non-road source emissions are 

discussed in Volume 10 and Volume 11 

of the State’s TSD. Section 

IX.C.6.c.(3)(a) of the Provo CO Plan 

states there are no major point sources 

of CO within the Provo City limits (the 

non-major point source CO emissions 

were included with the area sources). 

The State notes that with the 

development of the 1994 SIP submittal, 

two major point sources of CO 

emissions existed in Utah County, but 

outside the Provo City municipal 

boundary. With the development of the 

1994 SIP submittal, the State performed 

an analysis that indicated these two 

major point sources did not have a 

significant impact on the Provo 

nonattainment area. This particular 

analysis is further described in Volume 

1, Section 2 of the State’s TSD. The 

State indicates in section IX.C.6.c.(3)(a) 

that emissions from these two major 

point sources were input into the UAM–

AERO modeling domain and that the 

intersection modeling analyses with 

CAL3QHC–R were paired in time and 

space with the output from UAM–

AERO. 

The 2000 base-year episode inventory 

is presented in section IX.C.6.c(3) 

‘‘Table 4. 2000 Provo AttainmentEpisode Inventory’’ of the Provo CO 

Plan and the emissions are: Point 

sources = 0.03 tons per day (tpd) of CO, 

Area sources = 1.28 tpd of CO, Non-road 

= 3.05 tpd of CO, On-road mobile = 

59.44 tpd of CO. The total is 63.80 tpd 

of CO. 

B. Control Strategies To Attain the CO 

NAAQS 

The 2000 base case inventory 

accounts for control measures that were 

in place for the Provo area at that time. 

These State control measures, that are 

described below and in section 

IX.C.6.c.(4)(c) of the Provo CO Plan, 

were: (1) Oxygenated gasoline, (2) motor 

vehicle I/M, and (3) residential 

woodburning controls. These State 

control measures were in addition to the 

Federally-mandated regulations for 

motor vehicle exhaust (or tailpipe) 

emissions and the Federally-mandated 

regulations for exhaust emissions from 

non-road engines. 

1. Oxygenated Gasoline Program. As 

described in section IX.C.6.c.(4)(c)(i) of 

the Provo CO Plan, the oxygenated 

gasoline program for 2000 involved a 

winter season control period of 

November through February, with a 

minimum requirement for 3.1% by 

weight oxygen content for gasoline sold 

in Utah County. 

2. Gasoline Vehicle Emissions 

Inspection and Maintenance (I/M) 

Program. As described in section 

IX.C.6.c.(4)(c)(ii) of the Provo CO Plan, 

model year 1968 through 1995 cars and 

trucks fueled with gasoline, propane, or 

natural gas, owned by residents of Utah 

County, including the Provo area, were 

subject to an annual two-speed idle test 

program. Vehicles of model year 1996 

and newer underwent an On-Board 

Diagnostics (OBD) inspection. The I/M 

program was primarily a de-centralized 

test-and-repair program. We gave 

interim final approval to this I/M 

program on June 9, 1997 (62 FR 31349). 

Based on the NHSDA, we determined 

that Utah County’s I/M program was 

equivalent to a test-only program with 

our final approval on September 12, 

2002 (67 FR 57744). 

3. Residential Wood-burning Controls. 

As described in section 

IX.C.6.c.(4)(c)(iii) of the Provo CO Plan, 

the State initiated controls on 

residential woodburning stoves and 

fireplaces with the adoption of Rule 

R307–1–4.12, which was included with 

the July 11, 1994 submittal. Further 

information on this particular rule (now 

re-numbered R307–302–3 and –4) is 

provided in section XIV below and in 

Volume 1, Section 2 of the State’s TSD. 

The rule provided for a ‘‘Red’’ status, or 

mandatory no-burn, when ambient CO 

concentrations reached 6.0 ppm and the 

forecasted meteorological conditions 

were such that carbon monoxide levels 

might continue to increase. 

C. Attainment Demonstration Episode 

Modeling for 2000 

As described in section IX.C.6.c.(4) of 

the Provo CO Plan, the attainment 

demonstration modeling for 2000 was 

performed using UAM–AERO 

dispersion model along with the 

CAL3QHC–R intersection model. The 

modeling was performed according to 

the Modeling Protocol, which is 

contained in Volume 12, Section 4.b.i of 

the State’s TSD. 

1. Modeling Analysis. In section 

IX.C.6.c.(4)(a) of the Provo CO Plan, the 

State indicates that the technical 

evaluation of the CO concentrations in 

the Provo area was completed in 1994 

and concluded that the CO problem was 

occurring primarily at one intersection 

on University Avenue in Provo (see 

Volume 1, Section 2 of the State’s TSD.) 

The 1994 analysis also considered the 

potential influence of two large point 

sources of CO (Geneva Steel and Pacific 

States Cast Iron Pipe), but concluded 

that intersections in the Provo area were 

not being significantly affected by 

emissions from these sources. The State 

also states that detailed meteorological 

analysis of both the observation record 

and prognostic modeling (for use with 

UAM–AERO) showed that specific 

meteorological conditions accompanied 

the elevated CO concentrations. The 

State indicates that analysis of the CO 

ambient air quality monitoring database 

for the Provo area, along with the 

meteorological record over the last 

decade, essentially reaches the same 

conclusions as the original 1994 

analysis: the elevated CO concentrations 

at specific intersections are locally 

produced by traffic and not influenced 

by emissions from point sources. We 

note that Section 2 of the Episode 

Selection Document (Volume 12, 

Section 4.b.ii of the State’s TSD) 

describes in detail the analysis used to 

select the episode for the year 2000 

attainment demonstration. 

2. Episode Modeling and Attainment 

Demonstration for 2000. Volume 12, 

Section 4.a, ‘‘UAM–CAL3QHC 

Modeling’’ of the State’s TSD describes 

in detail the use of the UAM–AERO 

dispersion model to generate the 

background, gridded CO values. This 

section of the TSD also describes the use 

of the CAL3QHC–R intersection model 

to calculate the contribution of CO 

emissions from automobiles at 

particular intersections. The predicted 

CO concentrations from these two 

models are summed to derive an 

estimate of the total CO concentrations 

that can be expected at specific 

intersections. 

As required by us, the State evaluated 

the three intersections with the highest 

VMT counts and the three intersections 

with the lowest Level Of Service (LOS) 

in the Provo area. These intersections 

are: (1) University Avenue and 

University Parkway, (2) 1230 North 

(West Bulldog Boulevard) and 

University Avenue, (3) 1230 North 

(West Bulldog Boulevard) and 500 West 

(State Street), (4) 500 West and Center 

Street, and (5) 500 North and University 

Avenue with University Avenue and 

Center Street. The last entry is actually 

two intersections—these two 

intersections are the nearest major 

intersections to the ambient CO air 

quality monitor located at 363 North 

University Avenue. These intersections 

and the modeling results are presented 

in Table 5 in the Provo CO Plan and in 

Table IX–1 below. 

The State modeled the 2000 episode 

with control strategies that were in 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 211 / Wednesday, November 2, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 66271 

place at that time. Results of the 

modeling are presented in Table 5 of the 

Provo CO Plan and in our Table IX–1 

below and indicate there were no 

modeled exceedances of the CO NAAQS 

(values are less than 9.0 ppm) at the 

specified intersections. The State also 

states in section IX.C.6.c.(4)(a) of the 

Provo CO Plan that there were no 

modeled exceedances of the CO NAAQS 

throughout the modeling domain. 

Therefore, the State has satisfactorily 

demonstrated attainment of the CO 

NAAQS for 2000 for the Provo area. 

Additional information about the 2000 

episode modeling is provided in section 

VIII above and in Volume 12, Section 

4.b.i of the State’s TSD. 

TABLE IX–1.—2000 EPISODE PREDICTED 8-HOUR CO CONCENTRATIONS

Intersection location 

Concentration 

in ppm 

(UAM & 

CAL3QHC–R) 

University Ave. & University Parkway ........................................................................................................................................... 8.3 

1230 North & University Ave ......................................................................................................................................................... 7.1 

1230 North & 500 West ................................................................................................................................................................. 7.7 

500 West & Center St ................................................................................................................................................................... 8.5 

500 North & University Ave. & Center St ...................................................................................................................................... 8.6 

X. EPA’s Evaluation of the Provo Area’s 

Redesignation Request and 

Maintenance Plan 

We have reviewed the Provo area’s 

redesignation request and maintenance 

plan (section IX.C.6.d of the Provo CO 

Plan) and believe that approval of the 

request is warranted, consistent with the 

requirements of CAA section 

107(d)(3)(E). Under the CAA, we can 

change designations if acceptable data 

are available and if certain other 

requirements are met. See CAA section 

107(d)(3)(D). Section 107(d)(3)(E) of the 

CAA provides that the Administrator 

may not promulgate a redesignation of 

a nonattainment area to attainment 

unless: 

(i) The Administrator determines that 

the area has attained the national 

ambient air quality standard; 

(ii) The Administrator has fully 

approved the applicable 

implementation plan for the area under 

CAA section 110(k); 

(iii) The Administrator determines 

that the improvement in air quality is 

due to permanent and enforceable 

reductions in emissions resulting from 

implementation of the applicable 

implementation plan and applicable 

Federal air pollutant control regulations 

and other permanent and enforceable 

reductions; 

(iv) The Administrator has fully 

approved a maintenance plan for the 

area as meeting the requirements of 

CAA section 175A; and, 

(v) The State containing such area has 

met all requirements applicable to the 

area under section 110 and part D of the 

CAA. 

Before we can approve the 

redesignation request, we must decide 

that all applicable SIP elements have 

been fully approved. Approval of the 

applicable SIP elements may occur 

simultaneously with final approval of 

the redesignation request. That’s why 

we are also approving the 2000 

attainment demonstration and plan, and 

the revisions to Utah’s Rule R307–110–

12, Rule R307–110–31, Rule R307–110–

34, and R307–1–4.12 (now re-numbered 

R307–302–3 and –4). The following are 

descriptions of how the section 

107(d)(3)(E) requirements are being 

addressed. 

A. Redesignation Criterion: The Area 

Must Have Attained the Carbon 

Monoxide (CO) NAAQS 

Section 107(d)(3)(E)(i) of the CAA 

states that for an area to be redesignated 

to attainment, the Administrator must 

determine that the area has attained the 

applicable NAAQS. As described in 40 

CFR 50.8, the national primary ambient 

air quality standard for carbon 

monoxide is 9 parts per million (10 

milligrams per cubic meter) for an 8- 

hour average concentration not to be 

exceeded more than once per year. 40 

CFR 50.8 continues by stating that the 

levels of CO in the ambient air shall be 

measured by a reference method based 

on 40 CFR part 50, Appendix C and 

designated in accordance with 40 CFR 

part 53 or an equivalent method 

designated in accordance with 40 CFR 

part 53. As stated above in section VI 

and as described in section IX.C.6.b of 

the Provo CO Plan, ambient air quality 

monitoring data for calendar years 1994 

through 2003 show a measured 

exceedance rate of the CO NAAQS of 

1.0 or less per year, per monitor, in the 

Provo nonattainment area. Further, we 

have reviewed ambient air quality data 

from 2004 and the first calendar quarter 

of 2005 and the Provo area shows 

continuous attainment of the CO 

NAAQS from 1994 to present. All of the 

data discussed above were collected and 

analyzed as required by EPA (see 40 

CFR 50.8 and 40 CFR part 50, Appendix 

C) and have been archived by the State 

in our Air Quality System (AQS) 

national database. Therefore, we believe 

the Provo area has met the first 

component for redesignation: 

demonstration of attainment of the CO 

NAAQS. We note that the State of Utah 

has also committed, in the maintenance 

plan, to continue the necessary 

operation of the CO monitors in 

compliance with all applicable federal 

regulations and guidelines. 

B. Redesignation Criterion: The Area 

Must Have Met All Applicable 

Requirements Under Section 110 and 

Part D of the CAA 

To be redesignated to attainment, 

section 107(d)(3)(E)(v) requires that an 

area must meet all applicable 

requirements under section 110 and part 

D of the CAA. We interpret section 

107(d)(3)(E)(v) to mean that for a 

redesignation to be approved by us, the 

State must meet all requirements that 

applied to the subject area prior to or at 

the time of submission of a complete 

redesignation request. In our evaluation 

of a redesignation request, we don’t 

need to consider other requirements of 

the CAA that became due after the date 

of submission of a complete 

redesignation request. 

1. CAA Section 110 Requirements 

On August 15, 1984, we approved 

revisions to Utah’s SIP as meeting the 

requirements of section 110(a)(2) of the 

CAA (see 45 FR 32575). Although 

section 110 of the CAA was amended in 

1990, most of the changes were not 

substantial. Thus, we have determined 

that the SIP revisions approved in 1984 

continue to satisfy the requirements of 

section 110(a)(2). In addition, we have 

analyzed the SIP elements we are 

approving as part of this action, and we 

have determined they comply with the 

relevant requirements of section 

110(a)(2). 

66272 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 211 / Wednesday, November 2, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

2. Part D Requirements 

Before the Provo ‘‘moderate’’ CO 

nonattainment area may be redesignated 

to attainment, the State must have 

fulfilled the applicable requirements of 

part D. Under part D, an area’s 

classification indicates the requirements 

to which it will be subject. Subpart 1 of 

part D sets forth the basic nonattainment 

requirements applicable to all 

nonattainment areas, whether classified 

or nonclassifiable. Subpart 3 of part D 

contains specific provisions for 

‘‘moderate’’ CO nonattainment areas. 

The relevant subpart 1 requirements 

are contained in sections 172(c) and 

176. Our General Preamble (see 57 FR 

13529, 13533, April 16, 1992) provides 

EPA’s interpretations of the CAA 

requirements for ‘‘moderate’’ CO areas. 

The General Preamble (see 57 FR 

13530, et seq.) provides that the 

applicable requirements of CAA section 

172 are 172(c)(3) (emissions inventory), 

172(c)(5) (new source review permitting 

program), 172(c)(7) (the section 

110(a)(2) air quality monitoring 

requirements), and 172(c)(9) 

(contingency measures). It is also worth 

noting that we interpreted the 

requirements of sections 172(c)(2) 

(reasonable further progress—RFP) and 

172(c)(6) (other measures) as being 

irrelevant to a redesignation request 

because they only have meaning for an 

area that is not attaining the standard. 

See EPA’s September 4, 1992, 

memorandum entitled, ‘‘Procedures for 

Processing Requests to Redesignate 

Areas to Attainment’’, and the General 

Preamble, 57 FR at 13564, dated April 

16, 1992. Finally, the State has not 

sought to exercise the options that 

would trigger sections 172(c)(4) 

(identification of certain emissions 

increases) and 172(c)(8) (equivalent 

techniques). Thus, these provisions are 

also not relevant to this redesignation 

request. 

Regarding the requirements of 

sections 172(c)(3) (inventory) and 

172(c)(9) (contingency measures) and 

how the Provo area met these 

requirements, please refer to our 

discussions above in section VII. A., 

‘‘Base year inventory,’’ concerning 

section 187(a)(1) of the CAA, and 

section VII. C., ‘‘Contingency 

provisions,’’ concerning section 

187(a)(3) of the CAA, which are 

provisions of subpart 3 of Part D of the 

CAA that establish the same 

requirements as sections 172(c)(3) and 

172(c)(9). 

For the section 172(c)(5) New Source 

Review (NSR) requirements, the CAA 

requires all nonattainment areas to meet 

several requirements regarding NSR, 

including provisions to ensure that 

increased emissions will not result from 

any new or modified stationary major 

sources and a general offset rule. The 

State of Utah has a fully-approved NSR 

program (60 FR 22277, May 5, 1995.) 

The State also has a fully approved 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

(PSD) program (56 FR 29436, June 27, 

1991) that will apply, instead of 

nonattainment NSR, if we approve the 

redesignation to attainment. 

For the CAA section 172(c)(7) 

provisions (compliance with the CAA 

section 110(a)(2) Air Quality Monitoring 

Requirements), our interpretations are 

presented in the General Preamble (57 

FR 13535). CO nonattainment areas are 

to meet the ‘‘applicable’’ air quality 

monitoring requirements of section 

110(a)(2) of the CAA. We have 

determined that the Provo area has met 

the applicable air quality monitoring 

requirements of section 110(a)(2) of the 

CAA. See our descriptions in section VI 

above. 

Section 176 of the CAA contains 

requirements related to conformity. 

Although EPA’s regulations (see 40 CFR 

51.390) require that states adopt 

transportation conformity provisions in 

their SIPs for areas designated 

nonattainment or subject to an EPAapproved maintenance plan, we have 

decided that a transportation conformity 

SIP is not an applicable requirement for 

purposes of evaluating a redesignation 

request under section 107(d) of the 

CAA. This decision is reflected in EPA’s 

1996 approval of the Boston carbon 

monoxide redesignation. (See 61 FR 

2918, January 30, 1996.) 

The relevant Subpart 3 provisions 

were created when the CAA was 

amended on November 15, 1990. The 

new CAA requirements for ‘‘moderate’’

CO areas, such as Provo, required that 

the SIP be revised to include a 1990 

base year emissions inventory (CAA 

section 187(a)(1)), vehicle miles traveled 

tracking (CAA section 187(a)(2)(A)), 

contingency provisions (CAA section 

187(a)(3)), corrections to existing motor 

vehicle inspection and maintenance 

(I/M) programs (CAA section 187(a)(4)), 

periodic emission inventories (CAA 

section 187(a)(5)), enhanced motor 

vehicle I/M program (CAA section 

187(a)(6)), and a modeled attainment 

demonstration with specific annual 

emissions reductions (CAA section 

187(a)(7)). Title II, Part A of the CAA 

also requires the implementation of an 

oxygenated fuels program (CAA section 

211(m)(1)). 

These CAA Subpart 3 provisions have 

been met for the Provo area. Our 

discussions appear earlier in this action. 

Please refer to the sections of our action 

listed as follows for the appropriate 

discussion: (a) 1990 base year emissions 

inventory requirement of section 

187(a)(1) of the CAA, see section VII.A., 

(b) vehicle miles traveled tracking 

requirement of section 187(a)(2)(A) of 

the CAA, see section VII.B, (c) 

contingency provisions of section 

187(a)(3) of the CAA, see section VII.C, 

(d) corrections to existing motor vehicle 

inspection and maintenance (I/M) 

programs as required by section 

187(a)(4) of the CAA, see section VII.D, 

(e) periodic emission inventory 

requirement of section 187(a)(5) of the 

CAA, see section VII.E, (f) enhanced 

motor vehicle I/M program requirement 

of section 187(a)(6) of the CAA, see 

section VII.F, and (g) the requirement of 

section 187(a)(7) of the CAA for a 

modeled attainment demonstration with 

specific annual emissions reductions, 

see section VII.G. Regarding the CAA 

Title II, Part A requirement for the 

implementation of an oxygenated fuels 

program to meet the requirements of 

section 211(m)(1) of the CAA, see 

section VII.H. 

C. Redesignation Criterion: The Area 

Must Have a Fully Approved SIP Under 

Section 110(k) of the CAA 

Section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii) of the CAA 

states that for an area to be redesignated 

to attainment, it must be determined 

that the Administrator has fully 

approved the applicable 

implementation plan for the area under 

section 110(k). 

As noted above, EPA previously 

approved (or sufficiently explained 

otherwise) SIP revisions based on the 

pre-1990 CAA as well as SIP revisions 

required under the 1990 amendments to 

the CAA. In this action, EPA is 

approving the Provo area’s 2000 

attainment demonstration and plan, the 

revisions to Rule R307–110–12, the 

revisions to Rule R307–110–31, the 

revisions to Rule R307–110–34, Rules 

R307–302–3 and –4, and the request to 

eliminate the Federal applicability of 

Rule R307–301. Thus, with our final 

approval of these SIP revisions, we will 

have fully approved the Provo area’s CO 

element of the SIP under section 110(k) 

of the CAA. 

D. Redesignation Criterion: The Area 

Must Show That the Improvement in Air 

Quality Is Due to Permanent and 

Enforceable Emissions Reductions 

Section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii) of the CAA 

provides that for an area to be 

redesignated to attainment, the 

Administrator must determine that the 

improvement in air quality is due to 

permanent and enforceable reductions 

in emissions resulting from 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 211 / Wednesday, November 2, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 66273 

implementation of the applicable 

implementation plan, implementation 

of applicable Federal air pollutant 

control regulations, and other 

permanent and enforceable reductions. 

The CO emissions reductions for the 

Provo area, that are further described in 

section IX.C.6.c(4)(c) ‘‘Control Strategies 

to Attain the NAAQS’’ of the attainment 

plan, were achieved primarily through 

the State’s basic I/M program, improved 

I/M program, woodburning controls, 

oxygenated gasoline program, and the 

Federal Motor Vehicle Control Program 

(FMVCP). 

The four State control strategies listed 

above are fully discussed in section 

VIII.B above. Regarding FMVCP, these 

are Federal provisions that require 

vehicle manufacturers to meet more 

stringent vehicle emission limitations 

for new vehicles in future years. These 

emission limitations are phased in (as a 

percentage of new vehicles 

manufactured) over a period of years. As 

new, lower emitting vehicles replace 

older, higher emitting vehicles (‘‘fleet 

turnover’’), emission reductions are 

realized for a particular area such as 

Provo. 

We have evaluated the various State 

and Federal control measures, the 

original 1990 base year emission 

inventory (60 FR 33745, June 29, 1995), 

the 1993 periodic emission inventory 

(63 FR 18122, April 14, 1998), the 1996 

periodic emission inventory (65 FR 

63546, October 24, 2000), and the 2000 

attainment year inventory provided 

with the State’s April 1, 2004 submittal 

and have concluded that the 

improvement in air quality in the Provo 

nonattainment area has resulted from 

emission reductions that are permanent 

and enforceable. 

E. Redesignation Criterion: The Area 

Must Have a Fully Approved 

Maintenance Plan Under CAA Section 

175A 

Section 107(d)(3)(E)(iv) of the CAA 

provides that for an area to be 

redesignated to attainment, the 

Administrator must have fully approved 

a maintenance plan for the area meeting 

the requirements of section 175A of the 

CAA. 

Section 175A of the CAA sets forth 

the elements of a maintenance plan for 

areas seeking redesignation from 

nonattainment to attainment. The 

maintenance plan must demonstrate 

continued attainment of the applicable 

NAAQS for at least ten years after the 

Administrator approves a redesignation 

to attainment. Eight years after the 

promulgation of the redesignation, the 

State must submit a revised 

maintenance plan that demonstrates 

continued attainment for the subsequent 

ten-year period following the initial tenyear maintenance period. To address the 

possibility of future NAAQS violations, 

the maintenance plan must contain 

contingency measures, with a schedule 

for adoption and implementation, that 

are adequate to assure prompt 

correction of a violation. In addition, we 

issued further maintenance plan 

interpretations in the ‘‘General Preamble 

for the Implementation of Title I of the 

Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990’’ (57 

FR 13498, April 16, 1992), ‘‘General 

Preamble for the Implementation of 

Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments 

of 1990; Supplemental’’ (57 FR 18070, 

April 28, 1992), and the EPA guidance 

memorandum entitled ‘‘Procedures for 

Processing Requests to Redesignate 

Areas to Attainment’’ from John 

Calcagni, Director, Air Quality 

Management Division, Office of Air 

Quality and Planning Standards, to 

Regional Air Division Directors, dated 

September 4, 1992. 

In this Federal Register action, EPA is 

approving the maintenance plan for the 

Provo nonattainment area because we 

have determined, as detailed below, that 

the State’s maintenance plan meets the 

requirements of section 175A and is 

consistent with the documents 

referenced above. Our analysis of the 

pertinent maintenance plan 

requirements, with reference to the 

Governor’s April 1, 2004, submittal, is 

provided as follows: 

1. Emissions Inventories—Attainment 

Year and Projections 

EPA’s interpretations of the CAA 

section 175A maintenance plan 

requirements are generally provided in 

the General Preamble (see 57 FR 13498, 

April 16, 1992) and the September 4, 

1992, Calcagni Memorandum referenced 

above. Under our interpretations, areas 

seeking to redesignate to attainment for 

CO may demonstrate future 

maintenance of the CO NAAQS either 

by showing that future CO emissions 

will be equal to or less than the 

attainment year emissions or by 

providing a modeling demonstration. 

However, under the CAA, many areas 

(such as Provo) were required to submit 

a modeled attainment demonstration to 

show that reductions in emissions 

would be sufficient to attain the 

applicable NAAQS. For these areas, the 

maintenance demonstration is to be 

based on the same level of modeling 

(see the September 4, 1992, Calcagni 

Memorandum). As noted above in 

section IX, for the Provo area, this 

involved the use of UAM–AERO in 

conjunction with intersection modeling 

using the CAL3QHC–R model. 

The maintenance plan that the 

Governor submitted on April 1, 2004, 

included comprehensive inventories of 

CO emissions for the Provo area. These 

inventories include emissions from 

stationary point sources, area sources, 

non-road mobile sources, and on-road 

mobile sources. The State used the 2000 

attainment year inventory and included 

interim-year projections with a final 

maintenance year of 2015. More 

detailed descriptions of the 2000 

attainment year inventory and the 

projected inventories are documented in 

the maintenance plan in section 

IX.C.6.e. and in Volumes 9, 10, 11, and 

12 of the State’s TSD. The State’s 

submittal contains detailed emission 

inventory information that was prepared 

in accordance with EPA guidance. 

Summary emission figures from the 

2000 attainment year and the projected 

years are provided in Table X–1 below. 

TABLE X–1.—CO EMISSION INVENTORIES FOR THE PROVO AREA PORTION OF THE MODELING DOMAIN

[All in tons per day of CO] 

Source category 2000 2001 2005 2006 2008 2011 2014 2015 

Point Sources ................................................... 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.05 0.05 

Area Sources ................................................... 1.28 1.28 1.18 1.17 1.10 1.03 0.97 0.96 

On-road Mobile Sources .................................. 59.44 65.38 70.44 72.10 59.69 55.75 52.88 52.46 

Non-road Sources ............................................ 3.05 3.05 3.05 3.03 2.97 2.90 2.86 2.87 

Totals ........................................................ 63.80 69.74 74.71 76.34 63.80 59.72 56.76 56.34 

66274 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 211 / Wednesday, November 2, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

2. Demonstration of Maintenance 

The September 4, 1992, Calcagni 

Memorandum states that where 

modeling was relied on to demonstrate 

maintenance, the plan is to contain a 

summary of the air quality 

concentrations expected to result from 

the application of the control strategies. 

Also, the plan is to identify and describe 

the dispersion model or other air quality 

model used to project ambient 

concentrations. 

For the Provo CO maintenance 

demonstration, the State used UAM–

AERO in conjunction with 

concentrations derived from the 

CAL3QHC–R intersection model. This 

was the same level of modeling the State 

used for the 2000 Provo CO SIP 

attainment demonstration, discussed in 

section IX.C.6.c of the Provo CO Plan 

and in section IX above, to meet the 

requirements of section 187(a)(7) of the 

CAA. The UAM–AERO and CAL3QHC–

R models were applied to both the 2000 

and 2001 episodes and were used to 

predict concentrations in 2000, 2001, 

2005, 2006, 2008, 2011, 2014, and 2015 

for the intersections identified for the 

2000 attainment demonstration (see 

section IX.C.6.c of the Provo CO Plan 

and section IX above.) This modeling 

effort was performed consistently with 

our modeling guidance. 

The results of the State’s modeling for 

the 2000 and 2001 episodes and 

projections for 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 

2008, 2011, 2014 and 2015 are 

presented in section IX.C.6.e.2 of the 

maintenance plan and in the Volume 12 

of the State’s TSD, and are reproduced 

in Table X–2 and Table X–3 below. We 

note that the State also modeled 

emissions for 2004 and 2007. The 2004 

modeling was performed to confirm 

there would be no adverse impacts from 

eliminating the oxygenated gasoline 

program in that year and the 2007 

modeling was performed at the specific 

request of Mountainland Association of 

Governments (MAG), which is the 

metropolitan planning organization 

(MPO) for the Provo area. 

TABLE X–2.—2000 EPISODE AND PROJECTIONS, 8-HOUR MAXIMUM CO CONCENTRATIONS IN PPM

[UAM–AERO and CAL3QHC–R combined results] 

Intersection location 2000 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2011 2014 2015 

University Ave. & University Parkway ........................................... 8.3 7.9 7.9 8.1 6.5 6.5 6.0 5.6 5.5 

1230 North & University Ave ....... 7.1 6.6 6.6 6.8 5.5 5.5 5.0 4.7 4.6 

1230 North & 500 West ............... 7.7 7.2 7.2 7.3 5.9 5.9 5.4 5.0 4.9 

500 West & Center St .................. 8.5 8.0 8.0 8.2 6.5 6.5 6.1 5.6 5.6 

500 North & University Ave. & 

Center St .................................. 8.6 8.4 8.3 8.5 6.9 6.9 6.3 5.9 5.8 

TABLE X–3.—2001 EPISODE AND PROJECTIONS, 8-HOUR MAXIMUM CO CONCENTRATIONS IN PPM

[UAM–AERO and CAL3QHC–R combined results] 

Intersection location 2001 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2011 2014 2015 

University Ave. & University Parkway ........................................... 7.5 8.7 8.7 7.3 5.8 5.8 5.4 4.9 4.9 

1230 North & University Ave ....... 6.7 5.8 5.8 5.8 4.7 4.7 4.3 4.0 3.9 

1230 North & 500 West ............... 5.8 5.2 5.2 5.2 4.2 4.2 3.8 3.5 3.4 

500 West & Center St .................. 8.3 8.2 8.1 8.2 6.7 6.7 6.1 5.7 5.7 

500 North & University Ave. & 

Center St .................................. 9.2 8.9 8.8 8.9 7.3 7.3 6.7 6.2 6.1 

As presented in Table 15 of the Provo 

CO Plan, and our Table X–3 above, the 

500 North and University Avenue and 

Center Street shows a modeled 

exceedance of the 8-hour CO NAAQS 

(9.0 ppm) in 2001 (predicted value of 

9.2 ppm). The State notes in section 

IX.C.6.e.(2)(b) of the Provo CO Plan that 

the highest actual monitored 8-hour CO 

value in 2001 was 7.5 ppm. The State 

also notes that this CO value was 

recorded at a monitor that is only three 

blocks from this particular intersection. 

The State concludes that, because the 

monitored data for 2001 indicate no 

exceedances of the CO NAAQS for the 

Provo area and the modeled CO values 

for all future years are less than the 8- 

hour CO NAAQS (9.0 ppm), 

maintenance of the CO NAAQS is 

demonstrated. 

We consider the State’s position to be 

reasonable regarding the 9.2 ppm value 

in 2001 and agree with the conclusion 

regarding the maintenance 

demonstration as it begins in 2004. As 

additional support, we note that an area 

is considered to be in attainment for the 

8-hour CO NAAQS when no more than 

one value above 9 ppm is recorded at 

any single monitor in the same calendar 

year. Further, to account for instrument 

uncertainties, data are rounded to the 

nearest 1 ppm before comparison to the 

NAAQS. Thus, measured values up to 

9.4 ppm are rounded to 9 ppm and not 

considered to exceed the CO NAAQS. 

Therefore, we accept the State’s 

modeling results, which predict no 8- 

hour CO values above 9 ppm after 2001 

for all projection years, as evaluated 

with both the 2000 and 2001 episodes, 

and find that maintenance of the CO 

NAAQS is satisfactorily demonstrated 

through 2015. Further information 

regarding the modeling strategy and 

results is included in Volume 12, 

section 4.b.ii of the State’s TSD. 

3. Monitoring Network and Verification 

of Continued Attainment 

Continued attainment of the CO 

NAAQS in the Provo area depends, in 

part, on the State’s efforts to track 

indicators throughout the maintenance 

period. This requirement is met in 

section IX.C.6.e.(5) of the Provo CO 

Plan. In section IX.C.6.e.(5)(a) the State 

commits to track emission inventory 

data and compare that information to 

the emission inventory data in the Provo 

CO Plan. In section IX.C.6.e.(5)(b) 

commits to continue the operation of 

the CO monitors in the Provo area and 

in section IX.C.6.e.(5)(c), to annually 

review this monitoring network and 

make changes as appropriate. 

Based on the above, we are approving 

these commitments as satisfying the 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 211 / Wednesday, November 2, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 66275 

3Section IX.C.6.e.(4)(b) of the maintenance plan 

indicates that implementation of either the 

oxygenated gasoline program or annual vehicle 

inspections will require some lead time. We do not 

view this statement as modifying the commitment 

to implement any contingency measures before 

November 1 of the beginning of the next winter 

season following a violation. Our decision to 

approve the maintenance plan is partially based on 

this commitment. 

relevant requirements and note that this 

approval will render the State’s 

commitments federally enforceable. 

4. Contingency Plan 

Section 175A(d) of the CAA requires 

that a maintenance plan include 

contingency provisions. To meet this 

requirement, the State has identified 

appropriate contingency measures along 

with a schedule for the development 

and implementation of such measures. 

As stated in section IX.C.6.e.(4)(a) of 

the Provo CO Plan, the contingency 

measures for the Provo area will be 

triggered by a violation of the CO 

NAAQS. 

The State, in coordination with the 

UAQB, will initiate a process to begin 

evaluating potential contingency 

measures no more than 30 days after 

being notified that a violation of the CO 

NAAQS has occurred. The State will 

present recommendations to the UAQB 

within 45 days of notification. The 

UAQB will then hold a public hearing 

to consider the contingency measures 

recommended by the State, along with 

any other contingency measures that the 

UAQB believes may be appropriate to 

effectively address the violation of the 

CO NAAQS. The necessary contingency 

measures will be adopted and 

implemented before November 1 of the 

beginning of the next winter season.3

The potential contingency measures 

that are identified in section 

IX.C.6.e.(4)(c) of the Provo CO Plan 

include (a) implementation of a 2.7% 

oxygenated fuels program in Utah 

County from November 1st through the 

end of February, and (b) a return to 

annual vehicle emissions inspections. A 

more complete description of the 

triggering mechanism and these 

contingency measures can be found in 

section IX.C.6.e.(4)(b) and (c) of the 

Provo CO Plan. 

Based on the above, we find that the 

contingency plan provided in the Provo 

CO Plan meets the requirements of 

section 175A(d) of the CAA. 

5. Subsequent Maintenance Plan 

Revisions 

In accordance with section 175A(b) of 

the CAA, Utah has committed to submit 

a revised maintenance plan eight years 

after our approval of the redesignation. 

This provision for revising the 

maintenance plan is contained in 

section IX.C.6.e.(5)(f) of the Provo CO 

Plan. 

6. Revisions to Existing Control 

Measures for the Maintenance Plan 

The Governor’s submittal letter of 

April 1, 2004, stated that because the 

maintenance demonstration showed the 

CO NAAQS could be maintained 

through the next 10 years (i.e., 2015), 

the Governor was requesting that EPA 

remove the Federal applicability of the 

oxygenated gasoline program for Utah 

County. This request was further 

described in section IX.C.6.e.(3) of the 

Provo CO Plan. There the State indicates 

that the UAM–AERO and CAL3QHC–R 

modeling did not include any emission 

reductions credits for an oxygenated 

gasoline program beginning in 2004 and 

extending through 2015. In addition, 

section IX.C.6.e.(3) states that due to 

better durability of emissions control 

equipment and a lower failure rate of 

newer vehicles, the State is switching 

from an annual to a biennial vehicle 

inspection requirement for vehicles less 

than six years old. The State’s modeling 

accounts for this change and still 

demonstrates maintenance. We agree 

with these revisions to the Provo area’s 

CO control measures. The modeling 

results presented in Tables 14 and 15 in 

the Provo CO Plan, and presented above 

in our Tables X–2 and X–3, demonstrate 

maintenance of the CO NAAQS from 

2004 through 2015, even with these 

changes. 

Based on our review and evaluation of 

the components of the Provo CO Plan, 

as discussed in our items X.A through 

X.E above, we have concluded that the 

State has met the necessary 

requirements in order for us to approve 

the Provo CO Plan’s redesignation 

request from nonattainment to 

attainment for CO, the maintenance 

demonstration, and the required 

maintenance plan components. 

XI. EPA’s Evaluation of the 

Transportation Conformity 

Requirements 

One key provision of our conformity 

regulation requires a demonstration that 

emissions from the transportation plan 

and Transportation Improvement 

Program are consistent with the 

emissions budget(s) in the SIP (40 CFR 

sections 93.118 and 93.124). The 

emissions budget is defined as the level 

of mobile source emissions relied upon 

in the attainment or maintenance 

demonstration to maintain compliance 

with the NAAQS in the nonattainment 

or maintenance area. The rule’s 

requirements and EPA’s policy on 

emissions budgets are found in the 

preamble to the November 24, 1993, 

transportation conformity rule (58 FR 

62193–96) and in the sections of the 

rule referenced above. In addition, 

section 93.118 of our conformity rule 

requires that motor vehicle emissions 

budgets (MVEB) must be established for 

the last year of a maintenance plan and 

may be established for any other years 

deemed appropriate by the State. 

Based on the above, for transportation 

plan analysis years after the last year of 

the maintenance plan (in this case 2015 

for the Provo CO Plan), a conformity 

determination must show that emissions 

are less than or equal to the 

maintenance plan’s specified MVEB for 

the last year of the maintenance plan. 

EPA’s conformity regulation (40 CFR 

93.124) also allows the implementation 

plan to quantify explicitly the amount 

by which motor vehicle emissions could 

be higher while still demonstrating 

compliance with the maintenance 

requirement. The implementation plan 

can then allocate some or all of this 

additional ‘‘safety margin’’ to the 

emissions budget(s) for transportation 

conformity purposes. 

Section IX.C.6.f of the Provo CO Plan 

briefly describes the applicable 

transportation conformity requirements, 

provides MVEB information for 2014 

and 2015, identifies ‘‘safety margin,’’

indicates that the UAQB allocated some 

of the ‘‘safety margin’’ to the 2014 and 

2015 MVEBs, and provides UAM–

AERO/CAL3QHC–R modeling that 

includes the 2014 and 2015 MVEBs for 

intersections noted above. 

A. MVEB for 2014 

In Table 13 of the Provo CO Plan, the 

State identified CO emissions from 

point sources of 0.05 tons per day (tpd), 

emissions from area sources of 0.97 tpd, 

emissions from non-road sources of 2.86 

tpd, and emissions from on-road mobile 

sources of 52.88 tpd for 2014. Modeling 

with UAM–AERO and CAL3QHC–R, as 

described above, predicted maintenance 

of the CO NAAQS at the evaluated 

intersections as presented in Tables 14 

and 15 of the Provo CO maintenance 

plan. For the 2014 MVEB, the State 

increased the on-road mobile source 

emissions from 52.88 tpd to 70.44 tpd, 

thus producing a ‘‘safety margin’’ of 

17.56 tpd. In section IX.C.6.f of the 

Provo CO Plan, this 17.56 tpd of ‘‘safety 

margin’’ is allocated to the 2014 MVEB 

producing the 70.44 tpd MVEB. The 

State then applied the UAM–AERO and 

CAL3QHC–R models to the above-noted 

intersections with point, area, non-road, 

and on-road mobile sources emissions 

discussed above and demonstrated there 

would be no exceedances of the 8-hour 

CO NAAQS. The modeling results for 

66276 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 211 / Wednesday, November 2, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

the 2014 MVEB appear in Table 16 

(2000 episode) and 17 (2001 episode) of 

the Provo CO Plan and are reproduced 

below in Table XI–1 and Table XI–2. 

B. MVEB for 2015 and Beyond 

In Table 13 of the Provo CO Plan, the 

State identified CO emissions from 

point sources of 0.05 tons per day (tpd), 

emissions from area sources of 0.96 tpd, 

emissions from non-road sources of 2.87 

tpd, and emissions from on-road mobile 

sources of 52.46 tpd in 2015. Modeling 

with UAM–AERO and CAL3QHC–R, as 

described above, predicted maintenance 

of the CO NAAQS at the evaluated 

intersections as presented in Tables 14 

and 15 of the Provo CO Plan. For the 

2015 and beyond MVEB, the State 

increased the on-road mobile source 

emissions from 52.46 tpd to 72.10 tpd, 

thus producing a ‘‘safety margin’’ of 

19.64 tpd. In section IX.C.6.f of the 

Provo CO Plan, this 19.64 tpd of ‘‘safety 

margin’’ is allocated to the 2015 and 

beyond MVEB producing the 72.10 tpd 

MVEB. The State then applied the 

UAM–AERO and CAL3QHC–R models 

to the above-noted intersections with 

point, area, non-road, and on-road 

mobile sources emissions discussed 

above and demonstrated there would be 

no exceedances of the 8-hour CO 

NAAQS. The modeling results for the 

2015 MVEB appear in Table 16 (2000 

episode) and 17 (2001 episode) of the 

Provo CO Plan and are reproduced 

below in Table XI–1 and Table XI–2. 

TABLE XI–1.—2000 EPISODE PREDICTED CONFORMITY MVEB 8-HOUR CO CONCENTRATIONS

Intersection location 

Concentration in 

ppm (UAM & 

CAL3QHC–R) for 

2014 

Concentration in 

ppm (UAM & 

CAL3QHC–R) for 

2015 and beyond 

University Ave. & University Parkway ......................................................................................................... 6.3 6.3 

1230 North & University Ave ....................................................................................................................... 5.4 5.4 

1230 North & 500 West ............................................................................................................................... 5.7 5.8 

500 West & Center St ................................................................................................................................. 6.3 6.3 

500 North & University Ave. & Center St .................................................................................................... 6.6 6.5 

TABLE XI–2.—2001 EPISODE PREDICTED CONFORMITY MVEB 8-HOUR CO CONCENTRATIONS

Intersection location 

Concentration in 

ppm (UAM & 

CAL3QHC–R) for 

2014 

Concentration in 

ppm (UAM & 

CAL3QHC–R) for 

2015 and beyond 

University Ave. & University Parkway ......................................................................................................... 5.2 5.3 

1230 North & University Ave ....................................................................................................................... 4.4 4.4 

1230 North & 500 West ............................................................................................................................... 3.8 3.8 

500 West & Center St ................................................................................................................................. 5.9 5.9 

500 North & University Ave. & Center St .................................................................................................... 6.6 6.6 

Pursuant to section 93.118(e)(4) of 

EPA’s transportation conformity rule, as 

amended, EPA must determine the 

adequacy of submitted mobile source 

emissions budgets. EPA reviewed the 

Provo CO Plan’s emission budgets for 

2014 and 2015 and beyond for adequacy 

using the criteria in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4), 

and determined that the budgets were 

adequate for conformity purposes. 

EPA’s adequacy determination was 

made in a letter to the Utah Division of 

Air Quality June 30, 2004, and was 

announced in the Federal Register on 

July 2, 2004 (69 FR 43412). As a result 

of this adequacy finding, the 2014 

budget and the 2015 and beyond budget 

took effect for conformity 

determinations in the Provo area on July 

17, 2004. However, we note that we are 

not bound by this determination in 

acting on the Provo CO Plan. 

We have concluded that the State has 

satisfactorily demonstrated continued 

maintenance of the CO NAAQS while 

using transportation conformity MVEBs 

of 70.44 tpd for 2014 and 72.10 tpd for 

2015 and beyond. Therefore, we are 

approving the transportation conformity 

MVEB of 70.44 tpd of CO, for the Provo 

attainment/maintenance area, for 2014 

and the transportation conformity 

MVEB of 72.10 tpd of CO for 2015 and 

beyond. 

C. Attainment Year MVEB 

In addition to the requirements 

relating to the maintenance plan MVEBs 

discussed above, EPA’s regulations at 40 

CFR 93.101 define the term ‘‘motor 

vehicle emissions budget’’ as ‘‘that 

portion of the total allowable emissions 

defined in the submitted or approved 

control strategy implementation plan 

revision * * * for a certain date for the 

purpose of * * * demonstrating 

attainment * * * of the NAAQS, for any 

criteria pollutant or its precursors, 

allocated to highway and transit vehicle 

use and emissions.’’ The State’s 

attainment plan for Provo CO falls 

within EPA’s definition of a control 

strategy implementation plan revision 

(see 40 CFR 93.101). By definition, the 

attainment year—in this case 2000—is a 

budget year under EPA’s conformity 

regulations. Because the Provo CO plan 

does not explicitly identify a MVEB for 

2000, the budget value defaults to the 

inventory value for on-road mobile 

sources for that year. That value, and 

thus the MVEB, for 2000 is 59.44 tpd of 

CO. This 2000 budget applies to 

conformity analysis years as specified in 

40 CFR 93.118. 

XII. EPA’s Evaluation of the Rule R307–

110–31 Revisions 

The revisions to Rule R307–110–31 

involve the incorporation into the Utah 

Rules revisions to Section X of the Utah 

SIP entitled ‘‘Vehicle Inspection and 

Maintenance Program, Part A, General 

Requirements and Applicability.’’ The 

revisions to Part A involve the removal 

of a historical statement in the ‘‘Utah 

I/M program history and general 

authority,’’ the reference to the 2002 

State legislative changes to Utah Code 

Annotated, Section 41–6–163.7 to allow 

I/M inspections to go from an annual to 

an every-other-year testing program for 

vehicles less than six years old, updated 

census figures for 1980, 1990, and 2000 

in section 2, ‘‘Applicability,’’ and an 

amendment to section 2, 

‘‘Applicability,’’ under ‘‘Test 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 211 / Wednesday, November 2, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 66277 

Frequency’’ to reflect the changes noted 

above to Section 41–6–163.7 of the Utah 

Code Annotated. Upon our approval, 

these revisions to Rule R307–110–31 

that were adopted by the UAQB on 

March 31, 2004 (State effective on May 

18, 2004, submitted by the Governor to 

us on April 1, 2004) will become part 

of the Federally-enforceable SIP. 

We have evaluated and determined 

that the revisions to Rule R307–110–31 

involving ‘‘Section X, Vehicle 

Inspection and Maintenance Program, 

Part A, General Requirements and 

Applicability’’ of the Utah SIP described 

above are acceptable and we are 

approving them. In particular, we note 

that the State accounted for the changes 

to the rule in its maintenance 

demonstration, and was still able to 

demonstrate maintenance of the CO 

NAAQS. Furthermore, we have 

concluded that the change from an 

annual to a biennial program for 

vehicles less than six years old will not 

impact attainment of any other NAAQS. 

We have based our conclusion on our 

evaluation of the State-submitted 

supplemental document to the TSD 

entitled ‘‘Technical Support Document 

for the Utah SIP, Section X, Vehicle 

Inspection & Maintenance Program, Part 

A, General Requirements, April, 2004 

Final’’ and on our own analysis which 

is included in the docket for this action. 

The program change will not interfere 

with any other applicable requirements 

of the CAA. Thus, the requirements of 

section 110(l) of the CAA are met. 

XIII. EPA’s Evaluation of the Rule 

R307–110–34 Revisions 

The revisions to Rule R307–110–34 

involve the incorporation into the Utah 

Rules of revisions to Section X of the 

Utah SIP entitled ‘‘Vehicle Inspection 

and Maintenance Program, Part D, Utah 

County.’’ The revisions to Part D section 

1. ‘‘I/M performance standard’’ involve 

the removal of certain historical 

statements, the removal of references to 

EPA’s MOBILE5a emission factor 

model, and the addition of new 

language reflecting EPA’s September 12, 

2002 approval (67 FR 57744) of Utah 

County’s ‘‘National Highway System 

Designation Act (NHSDA) of 1995’’

improved I/M program. Revisions to 

Part D also involve the removal of the 

obsolete language in section 2, 

‘‘Network type,’’ that dealt with 

enhanced I/M provisions for Utah 

County and changes to section 5, 

‘‘Vehicle Coverage,’’ to go from an 

annual to an every-other-year testing 

program for vehicles less than six years 

old. In addition, revisions to Part D 

include the ‘‘Vehicle Emission 

Inspection/Maintenance Program’’

ordinance and appendices for Utah 

County as adopted by the Utah County 

Board of County Commissioners on June 

10, 2003, to replace the Utah County 

I/M ordinance and appendices that were 

in Part D dated December 29, 1999. 

Upon our approval, these revisions to 

Rule R307–110–34 that were adopted by 

the UAQB on March 31, 2004 (State 

effective on May 18, 2004, submitted by 

the Governor to us on April 1, 2004) 

will become part of the Federallyenforceable SIP. 

We note that in section 12.2 of 

Appendix 1 and in section 7.0 of 

Appendix 4 of the June 10, 2003 Utah 

County I/M ordinance it is stated that 

the adopted cut-points for motor vehicle 

emissions inspections contained in 

Appendix C to Appendix 1 (of the 

ordinance) shall remain in effect until 

changed by the Utah County 

Commission or Director. In addition, 

section 12.2 of Appendix 1 and section 

7.1 of Appendix 4 also state that the 

maximum concentration of cut-points 

shall be determined by the County 

Commission or the Director to meet the 

NAAQS established by EPA. The 

maintenance demonstration, however, is 

based on the cut-points contained in 

Appendix C to Appendix 1 of the 

County’s I/M ordinance. Given this, any 

decision by the County Commission or 

the Director to change the cut-points in 

Appendix C to Appendix 1 shall only be 

Federally-effective upon EPA’s approval 

of such change as a revision to the SIP. 

This is consistent with the 

interpretation of the Utah Division of 

Air Quality as expressed in an August 

2, 2005 letter from Richard W. Sprott, 

Director, Utah Division of Air Quality, 

to Jerry Grover of the Utah County 

Commission. 

We have evaluated and determined 

that the revisions to Rule R307–110–34 

involving ‘‘Section X, Vehicle 

Inspection and Maintenance Program, 

Part D, Utah County’’ of the Utah SIP 

described above are acceptable and we 

are approving them. As discussed in 

section XII above, we note that the State 

accounted for the changes to the rule in 

its maintenance demonstration, and was 

still able to demonstrate maintenance of 

the CO NAAQS. Furthermore, we have 

concluded that the change from an 

annual to a biennial program for 

vehicles less than six years old will not 

impact attainment of any other NAAQS. 

We have based our conclusion on our 

evaluation of the State-submitted 

supplemental document to the TSD 

entitled ‘‘Technical Support Document 

for the Utah SIP, Section X, Vehicle 

Inspection & Maintenance Program, Part 

A, General Requirements, April, 2004 

Final’’ and on our own analysis which 

is included in the docket for this action. 

The program change will not interfere 

with any other applicable requirements 

of the CAA. Thus, the requirements of 

section 110(l) of the CAA are met. 

XIV. EPA’s Evaluation of Rules R307–

302–3 and –4 

Utah’s Rules R307–302–3 and –4 are 

entitled ‘‘No-Burn Periods for Carbon 

Monoxide’’ and ‘‘Violations’’

respectively. The UAQB held a public 

hearing on the revisions to Utah’s Rule 

R307–302–3 and –4, to restrict 

woodburning in Utah County, on June 

23, 1998. The UAQB adopted these SIP 

revisions on August 13, 1998, they 

became State effective on September 15, 

1998, and the Governor submitted them 

to us on September 20, 1999. These 

revisions to Rules R307–302–3 and –4 

address the requirements and 

mechanism for implementing 

mandatory ‘‘no-burn’’ periods, for 

residential solid fuel devices and 

fireplaces, when specified conditions 

occur which could lead to formation of 

elevated levels of carbon monoxide. 

We note the Governor’s submittal 

letter of April 1, 2004, requested that 

EPA approve the July 11, 1994, 

woodburning rule revisions contained 

in Utah’s prior Rule R307–1–4.12 in 

conjunction with our action on the 

Provo CO Plan. As stated earlier in this 

action, the Governor’s September 20, 

1999 submittal of Utah Rules R307–

302–3 and –4, comprises a re-numbered 

and re-titled version of R307–1–4.12. 

The text of Rules R307–302–3 and –4 is 

identical to the text of Rule R307–1–

4.12 that the Governor submitted on 

July 11, 1994. 

We have evaluated these revisions to 

Utah’s Rules R307–302–3 and –4. We 

find them acceptable and are approving 

them. 

XV. EPA’s Evaluation of the Removal of 

Rule R307–301 

As stated in the Governor’s April 1, 

2004 submittal letter, because the Provo 

CO maintenance plan was able to 

demonstrate maintenance of the CO 

NAAQS for the next 10 years (i.e., 2015) 

without the use of an oxygenated 

gasoline program, the Governor 

requested that EPA remove the State’s 

Rule R307–301 from the Federallyapproved SIP. Utah’s Rule R307–301 

will, however, remain as a contingency 

measure as noted in section IX.C.6.e.(4) 

of the Provo CO Plan. 

EPA is allowed to approve this 

elimination of the Federally-approved 

oxygenated gasoline program for Utah 

County and the Provo area based on 

section 211(m)(6) of the CAA which 

states: 

66278 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 211 / Wednesday, November 2, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

4Please note the condition EPA expresses in 

section XIII of this action, that any decision by the 

Utah County Board of Commissioners to change 

cut-points will not be effective to change the cutpoints EPA is approving in Section X, Part D, 

Appendix C to Appendix 1 of the SIP absent EPA 

approval as a SIP revision. 

‘‘ATTAINMENT AREAS—Nothing in this 

subsection shall be interpreted as requiring 

an oxygenated gasoline program in an area 

which is in attainment for carbon monoxide, 

except that in a carbon monoxide 

nonattainment area which is redesignated as 

attainment for carbon monoxide, the 

requirements of this subsection shall remain 

in effect to the extent such program is 

necessary to maintain such standard 

thereafter in the area.’’

The State has satisfied the above 

requirements of section 211(m)(6) as 

follows: 

A. The Provo area is in attainment for 

the CO NAAQS. EPA made a 

determination of attainment for the CO 

NAAQS for the Provo area on 

September 20, 2002 (67 FR 59165.) In 

addition, as is presented in the Provo 

CO Plan, ambient air quality data have 

been archived in AQS that show the 

Provo area has been in attainment for 

the CO NAAQS for the period of 1994–

2003. We have evaluated the ambient air 

quality data in AQS and have concluded 

the Provo area continued to attain the 

CO NAAQS in 2004 and the first 

calendar quarter of 2005. Therefore, the 

area has been in continuous attainment 

for the CO NAAQS from 1994 to the 

present. Further information on relevant 

ambient air quality data is presented in 

section VI.B and X.A above and in 

section IX.C.6.a of the Provo CO Plan. 

B. The State has provided an adequate 

demonstration that shows, beginning in 

2004, the oxygenated gasoline program 

is not needed to maintain the CO 

NAAQS in the Provo area. The State’s 

CO maintenance plan for the Provo area 

addresses this requirement. As 

described in section IX.C.6.e of the 

Provo CO Plan, the State used EPA’s 

MOBILE6.2 emission factor model to 

calculate on-road mobile source 

emissions, without any emission 

reduction benefits from an oxygenated 

gasoline program, for 2004, 2005, 2006, 

2007, 2008, 2011, 2014 and 2015. These 

on-road mobile source emissions, along 

with projected point, area, and non-road 

emissions were then modeled with 

UAM–AERO and CAL3QHC–R. As 

discussed in section IX.C.6.e of the 

Provo CO Plan and in section X above, 

maintenance of the CO NAAQS is 

demonstrated for the time period 2004 

through 2015 with the elimination of 

the oxygenated gasoline program 

beginning in 2004. Therefore, 

elimination of the oxygenated gasoline 

program will not interfere with 

continued maintenance of the CO 

NAAQS. In addition, in accordance 

with section 110(l) of the CAA, we find 

that elimination of the oxygenated 

gasoline program will not interfere with 

attainment of any other NAAQS or any 

other applicable requirement of the 

CAA. Because the oxygenated gasoline 

program is a wintertime program, its 

elimination will have no impact on 

attainment/maintenance of the ozone 

NAAQS, which in Utah is a 

summertime concern. Regarding 

particulate matter, relevant information 

and data indicate that the elimination of 

the oxygenated gasoline program will 

have no impact on attainment/ 

maintenance of either the PM10 or the 

PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Consistent with the foregoing, we are 

approving the elimination of Utah’s 

Rule R307–301 from the Federallyapproved SIP. 

XVI. Consideration of Section 110(l) of 

the CAA 

Section 110(l) of the CAA states that 

a SIP revision cannot be approved if the 

revision would interfere with any 

applicable requirement concerning 

attainment and reasonable further 

progress towards attainment of a 

NAAQS or any other applicable 

requirement of the CAA. The Provo CO 

Plan’s attainment demonstration and 

plan, the maintenance plan, the 

revisions to the general requirements 

and applicability for automotive I/M, 

the revisions to the automotive I/M 

provisions for Utah County, the 

revisions addressing woodburning 

restrictions, and the elimination of the 

Federal applicability of the oxygenated 

gasoline program for Utah County will 

not interfere with attainment, 

reasonable further progress, or any other 

applicable requirement of the CAA. 

Further detail is provided in sections 

XII, XIII, and XV of this action. 

XVII. Final Action 

In this action, EPA is approving the 

Provo area’s CO attainment 

demonstration and plan for 2000, the 

request for redesignation from 

nonattainment to attainment for CO for 

the Provo area, the Provo area’s 

maintenance plan, the transportation 

conformity CO motor vehicle emission 

budgets for the years 2014 and 2015, the 

revisions to Rule R307–110–12 (which 

incorporates the Provo CO Plan into the 

Utah Rules,) the revisions to Rule R307–

110–31 (which incorporates the 

revisions to ‘‘Section X, Vehicle 

Inspection and Maintenance Program, 

Part A, General Requirements and 

Applicability’’ into the Utah Rules), the 

revisions to Rule R307–110–34 (which 

incorporates the revisions to ‘‘Section X, 

Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance 

Program, Part D, Utah County’’ into the 

Utah Rules) 4, and the request to 

eliminate the Federal applicability of 

Rule R307–301, all as submitted by the 

Governor on April 1, 2004. We are also 

approving Rules R307–302–3 and –4 

which were submitted by the Governor 

on September 20, 1999. As part of this 

action, EPA is also identifying the Provo 

CO area motor vehicle emission budget 

of 59.44 tpd of CO for the year 2000. 

EPA is publishing this rule without 

prior proposal because the Agency 

views this as a noncontroversial 

amendment and anticipates no adverse 

comments. However, in the ‘‘Proposed 

Rules’’ section of today’s Federal 

Register publication, EPA is publishing 

a separate document that will serve as 

the proposal to approve the SIP revision 

if adverse comments are filed. This rule 

will be effective January 3, 2006 without 

further notice unless the Agency 

receives adverse comments by 

December 2, 2005. If the EPA receives 

adverse comments, EPA will publish a 

timely withdrawal in the Federal 

Register informing the public that the 

rule will not take effect. EPA will 

address all public comments in a 

subsequent final rule based on the 

proposed rule. The EPA will not 

institute a second comment period on 

this action. Any parties interested in 

commenting must do so at this time. 

Please note that if EPA receives adverse 

comment on an amendment, paragraph, 

or section of this rule and if that 

provision may be severed from the 

remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt 

as final those provisions of the rule that 

are not the subject of an adverse 

comment. 

XVIII. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 

51735, October 4, 1993), this action is 

not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ and 

therefore is not subject to review by the 

Office of Management and Budget. For 

this reason, this action is also not 

subject to Executive Order 13211, 

‘‘Actions Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355, May 

22, 2001). This action merely approves 

state law as meeting Federal 

requirements and imposes no additional 

requirements beyond those imposed by 

state law. Accordingly, the 

Administrator certifies that this rule 

will not have a significant economic 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 211 / Wednesday, November 2, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 66279 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities under the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this 

rule approves pre-existing requirements 

under state law and does not impose 

any additional enforceable duty beyond 

that required by state law, it does not 

contain any unfunded mandate or 

significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments, as described in the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

(Pub. L. 104–4). 

This rule also does not have tribal 

implications because it will not have a 

substantial direct effect on one or more 

Indian tribes, on the relationship 

between the Federal Government and 

Indian tribes, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities between the 

Federal Government and Indian tribes, 

as specified by Executive Order 13175 

(65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This 

action also does not have Federalism 

implications because it does not have 

substantial direct effects on the States, 

on the relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, 

August 10, 1999). This action merely 

approves a state rule implementing a 

Federal standard, and does not alter the 

relationship or the distribution of power 

and responsibilities established in the 

Clean Air Act. This rule also is not 

subject to Executive Order 13045 

‘‘Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety 

Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), 

because it is not economically 

significant. 

In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA’s 

role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the 

absence of a prior existing requirement 

for the State to use voluntary consensus 

standards (VCS), EPA has no authority 

to disapprove a SIP submission for 

failure to use VCS. It would thus be 

inconsistent with applicable law for 

EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission, 

to use VCS in place of a SIP submission 

that otherwise satisfies the provisions of 

the Clean Air Act. Thus, the 

requirements of section 12(d) of the 

National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 

272 note) do not apply. This rule does 

not impose an information collection 

burden under the provisions of the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

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

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. section 801 et seq., as added by 

the Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, 

generally provides that before a rule 

may take effect, the agency 

promulgating the rule must submit a 

rule report, which includes a copy of 

the rule, to each House of the Congress 

and to the Comptroller General of the 

United States. EPA will submit a report 

containing this rule and other required 

information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. 

House of Representatives, and the 

Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. A major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as 

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(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 January 3, 2006. 

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 

40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Carbon Monoxide, 

Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements. 

40 CFR Part 81 

Air pollution control, National parks, 

Wilderness areas. 

Dated: October 24, 2005. 

Robert E. Roberts, 

Regional Administrator, Region VIII. 

■ 40 CFR parts 52 and 81 are amended 

as follows: 

PART 52—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart TT—Utah 

■ 2. Section 52.2320 is amended by 

adding paragraph (c)(62) to read as 

follows: 

§ 52.2320 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(62) Revisions to the Utah State 

Implementation Plan, ‘‘Section IX, Part 

C.6, Carbon Monoxide Provisions for 

Provo,’’ as submitted by the Governor 

on April 1, 2004; revisions to UAC 

R307–110–12, ‘‘Section IX, Control 

Measures for Area and Point Sources, 

Part C, Carbon Monoxide,’’ as submitted 

by the Governor on April 1, 2004; 

revisions to the Utah State 

Implementation Plan, ‘‘Section X, 

Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance 

Program, Part A, General Requirements 

and Applicability,’’ as submitted by the 

Governor on April 1, 2004; revisions to 

UAC R307–110–31, ‘‘Section X, Vehicle 

Inspection and Maintenance Program, 

Part A, General Requirements and 

Applicability,’’ as submitted by the 

Governor on April 1, 2004; revisions to 

the Utah State Implementation Plan, 

‘‘Section X, Vehicle Inspection and 

Maintenance Program, Part D, Utah 

County,’’ as submitted by the Governor 

on April 1, 2004; revisions to UAC 

R307–110–34, ‘‘Section X, Vehicle 

Inspection and Maintenance Program, 

Part D, Utah County,’’ as submitted by 

the Governor on April 1, 2004; the 

removal of UAC R307–301 from the 

Federally-approved SIP as requested by 

the Governor on April 1, 2004; and UAC 

R307–302–3, and UAC R307–302–4, 

‘‘No-Burn Periods for Carbon 

Monoxide’’ and ‘‘Violations,’’

respectively, as submitted by the 

Governor on September 20, 1999. 

(i) Incorporation by reference. 

(A) UAC R307–110–12, as adopted by 

the Utah Air Quality Board on March 

31, 2004, effective May 18, 2004. This 

incorporation by reference of UAC 

R307–110–12 only extends to the 

following Utah SIP provisions and 

excludes any other provisions that UAC 

R307–110–12 incorporates by reference: 

‘‘Section IX, Part C.6, Carbon Monoxide 

Provisions for Provo,’’ adopted by the 

Utah Air Quality Board on March 31, 

2004, effective May 18, 2004. 

(B) UAC R307–110–31, ‘‘Section X, 

Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance 

Program, Part A, General Requirements 

and Applicability,’’ as adopted by the 

Utah Air Quality Board on March 31, 

2004, effective May 18, 2004. 

(C) UAC R307–110–34, ‘‘Section X, 

Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance 

Program, Part D, Utah County,’’ as 

adopted by the Utah Air Quality Board 

on March 31, 2004, effective May 18, 

2004. 

(D) UAC R307–302–3, ‘‘No-Burn 

Periods for Carbon Monoxide,’’ as 

adopted by the Utah Air Quality Board 

on August 13, 1998, effective September 

15, 1998. 

(E) UAC R307–302–4, ‘‘Violations,’’ as 

adopted by the Utah Air Quality Board 

on August 13, 1998, effective September 

15, 1998. 

66280 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 211 / Wednesday, November 2, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

(ii) Additional materials. 

(A) An August 2, 2005 letter from 

Richard Sprott, Utah Department of 

Environmental Quality, to Jerry Grover, 

Utah County Commission, addressing 

limits on Utah County authority to 

revise vehicle emission cut-points. 

(B) An August 19, 2005 letter from 

Richard Sprott, Utah Department of 

Environmental Quality, to Richard 

Long, EPA Region VIII, providing 

supplemental Technical Support 

Documentation to Volumes 11 and 12 of 

the State’s Technical Support Document 

for the Provo area’s carbon monoxide 

attainment demonstration and 

maintenance plan that was submitted by 

Governor Walker on April 1, 2004. 

(C) A September 8, 2005 letter from 

Jan Miller, Utah Department of 

Environmental Quality, to Kerri Fiedler, 

EPA Region VIII, to address 

typographical errors in ‘‘Section X, Part 

D, Utah County Vehicle Emissions 

Inspection and Maintenance Program’’

that was submitted by Governor Walker 

on April 1, 2004. 

PART 81—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 81 

continues to read as follows: 

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

■ 2. In § 81.345, the table entitled 

‘‘Utah-Carbon Monoxide’’ is amended 

by revising the entry for ‘‘Provo Area’’

to read as follows: 

§ 81.345 Utah. 

* * * * * 

UTAH—CARBON MONOXIDE

Designated area 

Designation Classification 

Date 1 Type Date 1 Type 

* * * * * * * 

Provo Area 

Utah County (part) city of Provo ...................................... 1/3/06 Attainment.

* * * * * * * 

1This date is November 15, 1990, unless otherwise noted. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 05–21837 Filed 11–1–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 63 

[OAR–2002–0031; FRL–7992–8] 

RIN 2060–AK50 

National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants for Primary 

Aluminum Reduction Plants 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule; amendments. 

SUMMARY: EPA is amending the national 

emission standards for hazardous air 

pollutants (NESHAP) for primary 

aluminum reduction plants. The 

amendments will revise the emission 

limit for polycyclic organic matter 

(POM) applicable to one potline 

subcategory. The amendments will 

revise the compliance provisions to 

clarify the dates by which all plants 

must meet the NESHAP requirements, 

and to specify the time allowed to 

demonstrate initial compliance for a 

new or reconstructed potline, anode 

bake furnace, or pitch storage tank as 

well as an existing potline or anode 

bake furnace that has been shutdown 

and subsequently restarted. We are 

making these amendments to reduce 

compliance uncertainties and improve 

understanding of the NESHAP 

requirements. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: November 2, 2005. 

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. OAR–2002–0031. All documents in 

the docket at listed in the EDOCKET 

index at http://docket.epa.gov/edkpub/ 

index.jsp. Although listed in the index, 

some information is not publicly 

available, i.e., confidential business 

information 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 

EDOCKET or in hard copy at the EPA 

Docket Center, Docket ID Number OAR–

2002–0031, EPA West Building, Room 

B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., 

Washington, DC. The Public Reading 

Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 

p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding 

legal holidays. The telephone number 

for the Public Reading Room is (202) 

566–1744, and the telephone number for 

the EPA Docket Center is (202) 566–

1742. A reasonable fee may be charged 

for copying docket materials. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. 

Donna Lee Jones, EPA, Office of Air 

Quality Planning and Standards, 

Emission Standards Division, Metals 

Group (C439–02), Research Triangle 

Park, NC 27711, telephone number (919) 

541–5251, fax number (919) 541–3207, 

e-mail address: 

Jones.DonnaLee@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Regulated Entities. The regulated 

categories and entities affected by the 

NESHAP include: 

Category NAICS code 1 Examples of regulated entities 

Industry ..................................................... 331312 Establishments primarily engaged in producing primary aluminum by electrolytically 

reducing alumina. 

Federal government .................................. ........................ Not affected. 

State/local/tribal government .................... ........................ Not affected. 

1 North American Industry Classification System.