Document ID: EPA-R08-OAR-2011-0719-0001
Agency: epa
Document Type: Proposed Rule
Title: Approvals, Disapprovals and Promulgations of Air Quality Implementation Plans: Utah; Maintenance Plan for 1-Hour Ozone Standard for Salt Lake and Davis Counties
Posted Date: 2012-04-10T04:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 69 (Tuesday, April 10, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 21512-21516]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-8565]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R08-OAR-2011-0719; FRL-9658-1]

Approval, Disapproval and Promulgation of Air Quality 
Implementation Plan; Utah; Maintenance Plan for the 1-Hour Ozone 
Standard for Salt Lake and Davis Counties

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to partially approve and partially disapprove 
State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the Governor of 
Utah on February 22, 1999. These revisions updated the State of Utah's 
maintenance plan for the 1-hour ozone standard for Salt Lake County and 
Davis County. As part of this action, EPA is also addressing certain 
actions it took in 2003 concerning such maintenance plan. This action 
is being taken under section 110 of the Clean Air Act (CAA).

DATES: Written comments must be received at the address below on or 
before May 10, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R08-
OAR-2011-0719, by one of the following methods:
     www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for 
submitting comments.
     Email: ostendorf.jody@epa.gov.
     Fax: (303) 312-6064 (please alert the individual listed in 
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT if you are faxing comments).
     Mail: Carl Daly, Director, Air Program, Environmental 
Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop St., 
Denver, Colorado 80202-1129.
     Hand Delivery: Carl Daly, Director, Air Program, 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595 
Wynkoop St., Denver, Colorado 80202-1129. Such deliveries are only 
accepted Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding Federal 
holidays. Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed 
information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R08-OAR-
2011-0719. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included 
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at 
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, 
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential 
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is 
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to 
be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or email. The 
www.regulations.gov Web site is an anonymous access system, which means 
EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you 
provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment 
directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov, your email 
address will be automatically captured and included as part of the 
comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the 
Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you 
include your name and other contact information in the body of your 
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your 
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for 
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic 
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of 
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional 
information about EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket Center 
homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. For additional 
instructions on submitting comments, go to Section I. General 
Information of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the 
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some 
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information 
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such 
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. 
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically 
in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air Program, 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop St., 
Denver, Colorado 80202-1129. EPA requests that if at all possible, you 
contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT 
section to view the hard copy of the docket. You may view the hard copy 
of the docket Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., excluding 
Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jody Ostendorf, Air Program, Mailcode 
8P-AR, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop 
St., Denver, Colorado 80202-1129, (303) 312-7814, 
ostendorf.jody@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Information is organized as follows:

Table of Contents

I. General Information
II. Background of State Submittal
III. EPA's Analysis of the Revisions to the Maintenance Plan for the 
1-Hour Ozone Standard for Salt Lake County and Davis County
IV. Proposed Action
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

Definitions

    For the purpose of this document, we are giving meaning to certain 
words as follows:

    (i) The words or initials Act or CAA mean or refer to the Clean 
Air Act, unless the context indicates otherwise.
    (ii) The initials ACT mean or refer to Alternative Control 
Guidance Document.
    (iii) The initials CO mean or refer to carbon monoxide.
    (iv) The words EPA, we, us or our mean or refer to the United 
States Environmental Protection Agency.
    (v) The initials NAAQS mean or refer to national ambient air 
quality standards.

[[Page 21513]]

    (vi) The initials RACT mean or refer to reasonably available 
control technology.
    (vii) The initials SIP mean or refer to State Implementation 
Plan.
    (viii) The words State or Utah mean the State of Utah, unless 
the context indicates otherwise.

I. General Information

A. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through 
www.regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the 
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or 
CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as 
CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the 
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one 
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as 
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information 
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. 
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with 
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. When submitting comments, 
remember to:
    a. Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying 
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
    b. Follow directions--The agency may ask you to respond to specific 
questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal 
Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
    c. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and 
substitute language for your requested changes.
    d. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information 
and/or data that you used.
    e. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you 
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be 
reproduced.
    f. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and 
suggest alternatives.
    g. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of 
profanity or personal threats.
    h. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline 
identified.

II. Background of State Submittal

    Under the CAA enacted in 1970, EPA established national ambient air 
quality standards (NAAQS) for certain pervasive air pollutants, such as 
photochemical oxidant, carbon monoxide (CO), and particulate matter. 
The NAAQS represent concentration levels below which public health and 
welfare are protected. The 1970 Act also required states to adopt and 
submit SIPs to implement, maintain, and enforce the NAAQS.
    SIP revisions are required from time-to-time to account for new or 
amended NAAQS or to meet other changed circumstances. The CAA was 
significantly amended in 1977, and under the 1977 Amendments, EPA 
promulgated attainment status designations for all areas of the country 
with respect to the NAAQS.
    The CAA requires EPA to periodically review and revise the NAAQS, 
and in 1979, EPA established a new NAAQS of 0.12 ppm for ozone, 
averaged over 1 hour. This new NAAQS replaced the oxidant standard of 
0.08 ppm. See 44 FR 8202 (February 8, 1979). Areas designated 
nonattainment for oxidant were considered to be nonattainment for ozone 
as well. The CAA requires that states submit revised SIPs to address 
new or revised NAAQS. Part D of CAA Title I requires special measures 
for areas designated nonattainment. In 1984, EPA approved Utah's SIP 
for the 1-hour ozone standard for the Salt Lake County and Davis County 
nonattainment area (49 FR 32575).
    Congress significantly amended the CAA again in 1990. Under the 
1990 Amendments, each area of the country that was designated 
nonattainment for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS, including Salt Lake County 
and Davis County, was classified by operation of law as marginal, 
moderate, serious, severe, or extreme nonattainment depending on the 
severity of the area's air quality problem. The ozone nonattainment 
designation for Salt Lake County and Davis County continued by 
operation of law according to section 107(d)(1)(C)(i) of the CAA, as 
amended in 1990. Furthermore, the area was classified by operation of 
law as moderate for ozone under CAA section 181(a)(1).
    Under CAA section 175A, states may request redesignation of a 
nonattainment area to attainment if monitoring data showed that the 
area has met the NAAQS and certain other requirements. On July 18, 
1995, both Salt Lake and Davis Counties were found to be attaining the 
1-hour ozone standard (60 FR 36723). On July 17, 1997, EPA approved the 
State's request to redesignate Salt Lake and Davis County to attainment 
for the 1-hour ozone standard. As part of that action, EPA approved the 
State's 1-hour ozone maintenance plan (62 FR 38213).
    On July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated an 8-hour ozone NAAQS (62 FR 
38894). This standard was intended to replace the 1-hour ozone 
standard.
    On February 22, 1999, partially in response to EPA's promulgation 
of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS, but for other purposes as well, Utah 
submitted six revisions to its approved 1-hour maintenance plan. These 
revisions consisted of the following: (1) Changes to the nitrogen 
oxides (NOX) Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) 
provisions; (2) clarification of the transportation conformity 
provisions; (3) removal of budgets for sources other than on-road 
mobile sources; (4) changes to the trigger for contingency measures; 
(5) removal of the commitment to develop an annual inventory for point 
sources; and (6) removal of references to CO in various sections of the 
maintenance plan. EPA did not act on the revisions at the time, in part 
because of a 1999 legal challenge to the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
    On December 31, 2002, Utah submitted what it characterized as non-
substantive changes to the 1-hour ozone maintenance plan. The primary 
purpose of the changes was to revise cross-references in the 1-hour 
maintenance plan to Utah air rules whose numbering Utah had changed. 
EPA approved these changes in 2003 (68 FR 37744, June 25, 2003). 
Subsequently, EPA discovered that in the June 25, 2003 action it had 
inadvertently incorporated by reference certain changes to the 
contingency measures provision in the 1-hour ozone maintenance plan 
that were substantive in nature and had not been previously approved--
i.e., the proposed changes to the contingency measures that Utah had 
submitted on February 22, 1999. On October 15, 2003, EPA issued a 
technical correction to delete the changes to the contingency measures 
provision from the approved SIP (68 FR 59327).
    We have since discovered that Utah's December 31, 2002 submittal 
included other revisions from its February 22, 1999 submittal that were 
substantive in nature. These revisions included the (1) changes to the 
NOX RACT provisions, (2) removal of the commitment to 
develop an annual inventory for point sources, and (3) removal of 
references to CO in some sections of the maintenance plan. Because we 
were not aware that we had inadvertently approved these revisions in 
2003, we did not issue a technical correction to reverse our approval. 
As we explain more fully below, in this action we are proposing to 
ratify our 2003 inadvertent approval of these revisions.
    On April 30, 2004, EPA designated areas of the country for the 1997 
8-hour ozone standard (69 FR 23857). EPA

[[Page 21514]]

designated all areas in Utah, including Salt Lake County and Davis 
County, as unclassifiable/attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS 
(69 FR 23940).
    Also, on April 30, 2004, EPA revoked the pre-existing 1-hour NAAQS 
(69 FR 23951, 23996; 40 CFR 50.9(b)). As part of this rulemaking, EPA 
also established certain requirements to prevent backsliding in those 
areas that were designated as nonattainment for the 1-hour ozone 
standard at the time of designation for the 8-hour ozone standard, or 
that were redesignated to ``attainment'' but subject to a maintenance 
plan, as is the case for Salt Lake County and Davis County. These 
requirements are codified at 40 CFR 51.905.
    In the case of Utah, one of these requirements was to submit a 
maintenance plan for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard. Also, the rule 
clarifies that revisions to pre-existing 1-hour ozone maintenance plans 
must be approved by EPA and must meet the requirements of CAA sections 
110(l) and 193. It also clarifies that EPA will not approve certain 
changes to the 1-hour ozone maintenance plan until a state in Utah's 
position has submitted and EPA has approved the maintenance plan for 
the 1997 8-hour ozone standard. We have not approved a maintenance plan 
for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard for Salt Lake County or Davis 
County.
    On March 22, 2007, the Governor of Utah submitted a maintenance 
plan for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard for Salt Lake County and Davis 
County, and associated rule revisions. EPA is not taking action on that 
submittal at this time.\1\ Rather, EPA is only acting on the revisions 
to the maintenance plan submitted on February 22, 1999.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The area violated the 1997 8-hour ozone standard based on 
monitored data for 2005-2007. Thus, we have suggested that Utah 
withdraw and revise its maintenance plan for the 1997 8-hour ozone 
standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. EPA's Analysis of the Revisions to the Maintenance Plan for the 1-
Hour Ozone Standard for Salt Lake County and Davis County

    The State's February 22, 1999 submittal included six revisions to 
the 1-hour ozone maintenance plan. As noted above, the State's December 
31, 2002 submittal included some of the same revisions, and we 
inadvertently approved some of those revisions. We describe the various 
revisions and our analysis of them in the following paragraphs.

A. Section IX.D.2.b(4)(a), ``NOX RACT''

    The State's 1999 submittal proposed to remove from the maintenance 
plan a commitment to address new ``Alternative Control Guidance 
Documents (ACTs)'' for NOX issued by EPA. That commitment 
read as follows:

    As the EPA publishes ACT documents containing new determinations 
of what constitutes RACT for various source categories of 
NOX located within nonattainment areas for ozone, the 
State will either make a negative declaration for that source 
category in Salt Lake and Davis Counties, or will revise the Air 
Conservation Rules to reflect such determinations. This 
documentation will then be submitted to EPA for approval as a 
specific SIP revision according to the schedule included in the 
final guidance. In the absence of such an implementation schedule 
the State will act as expeditiously as practicable.

As noted, we inadvertently approved the removal of this commitment and 
accompanying introductory language in our 2003 action, in which we only 
intended to approve non-substantive changes to numbering and cross-
references.
    In this action, we are proposing to ratify our 2003 approval for 
the following reasons. First, when we approved the maintenance plan in 
1997, we simultaneously approved Utah's NOX RACT exemption 
request for major stationary sources in the 1-hour ozone nonattainment 
area, except to the extent the SIP already included specific 
NOX RACT requirements (62 FR 28403, May 23, 1997; 62 FR 
38213, July 17, 1997). The basis for our approval was that ambient air 
quality monitoring data showed that the area met the 1-hour ozone 
standard of 0.12 ppm without additional RACT measures. Thus, if the 
maintenance plan had omitted the commitment regarding future 
NOX ACTs, we would have approved it; the commitment was not 
required or necessary, and the purpose of Utah's revision to the 
maintenance plan was to align the plan with the NOX RACT 
exemption request. In light of our approval of that exemption request, 
the removal of the commitment in the maintenance plan is reasonable, 
since it is not needed to ensure maintenance of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS.
    Second, ACTs do not determine what constitutes RACT; instead they 
evaluate a range of potential control options. EPA has updated only two 
NOX ACTs since we approved the maintenance plan in 1997--one 
for cement manufacturing and one for internal combustion engines--and 
we do not read those updates as being ``new determinations of what 
constitutes RACT.'' In other words, we conclude that the commitment has 
not been triggered, even if there are sources in the maintenance area 
for which the updated ACTs would be relevant. We also conclude that the 
commitment will not be triggered in the future because EPA does not 
determine RACT in ACTs. Thus, we conclude that the removal of the 
commitment from the maintenance plan will not interfere with attainment 
of any NAAQS or any other applicable requirement of the CAA. See CAA 
section 110(l).

B. Section IX.D.2.f(3), ``Safety Margin,'' and Table 9, ``Safety 
Margin''

    The State's 1999 submittal proposed to modify the maintenance 
plan's language regarding the use of any safety margin for 
transportation conformity determinations and to add new Table 9, which 
specifies the safety margin available for various years. For a 
maintenance plan, our regulations define safety margin as the amount by 
which the total projected emissions from all sources of a given 
pollutant are less than the total emissions that would satisfy the 
maintenance requirement. 40 CFR 93.101. The existing language in Utah's 
1-hour ozone maintenance plan uses the term ``emissions credit'' rather 
than ``safety margin.'' Also, the existing language doesn't identify 
the available safety margin. The revised language uses the term 
``safety margin,'' which is consistent with EPA's regulations, and 
indicates that the safety margin is defined in Table 9 of the 
maintenance plan. Our regulations require that the safety margin be 
explicitly quantified in the SIP before it may be used for conformity 
purposes. 40 CFR 93.124. The revised language also clarifies and 
strengthens the procedures for use of the safety margin for 
transportation or general conformity determinations. Use of all or a 
portion of the safety margin for general conformity purposes would 
require EPA approval of a SIP revision. Also, the Utah Board would need 
to approve the use of any part of the safety margin for either 
transportation or general conformity purposes. We find that the 
revisions to Section IX.D.2.f(3) and the addition of Table 9 are 
consistent with our conformity regulations and will not interfere with 
maintenance of the 1-hour ozone standard, attainment or maintenance of 
any other NAAQS, or any other CAA requirement.

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

    The State's 1999 submittal proposed to remove from Table 8 of the 
maintenance plan the budgets for sources other than on-road mobile 
sources. The previously approved maintenance plan contains budgets for 
area sources, non-road mobile sources, and point sources, in addition 
to the

[[Page 21515]]

budgets for on-road mobile sources. These budgets are specified for 
years 1994 through 2006, 2007 (the end of the maintenance period), 
2015, and 2020. The 2007 budgets are identical to the inventory values 
used to demonstrate maintenance in 2007. Under our general conformity 
regulations, these 2007 inventory values for sources other than on-road 
mobile sources are defined as budgets for general conformity regardless 
of whether they are explicitly stated in the maintenance plan. We also 
note that the 2007 budgets are more stringent than the 2015 and 2020 
budgets (except for two instances in which the differences are very 
slight). Thus, we find that the removal of the 2015 and 2020 budgets 
for sources other than on-road mobile sources will make it more 
difficult to show general conformity. In this sense, removal of such 
budgets will make the SIP more stringent. In addition, we have 
confirmed with the State that the State has never allowed reliance on 
such budgets for a general conformity showing. Finally, such budgets 
are not needed to ensure ongoing maintenance of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS; 
nor will their removal from the maintenance plan interfere with the 
attainment or maintenance of other NAAQS or compliance with other CAA 
requirements. Thus, we are proposing to approve the removal from the 
maintenance plan of the budgets for area, on-road mobile, and point 
sources.

D. Section IX.D.2.h(2), ``Determination of Contingency Action Level''

    The State's 1999 submittal proposed to change the maintenance 
plan's trigger for contingency measures. Instead of a defined trigger, 
the revised plan would allow the State to consider several factors in 
deciding whether contingency measures should be implemented to attain 
or maintain the 8-hour ozone standard. The revision would also redefine 
the contingency trigger date to be the date the State determines that 
one or more contingency measures should be implemented. EPA is 
proposing to disapprove these changes.
    Our consistent interpretation has been that contingency measures in 
a maintenance plan must include a pre-defined trigger, such as a 
violation of the standard. In the maintenance plan, the State must 
commit to implement one or more contingency measures within a set 
period after the violation. The revised SIP does not include a pre-
defined trigger, and, thus, we are proposing to disapprove the State's 
revisions to Section IX.D.2.h(2) of the maintenance plan.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ We note that one of the potential contingency measures 
(stage two vapor recovery) has not been approved by EPA as a stand-
alone SIP measure; however it is part of the maintenance plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While 40 CFR 51.905(e) discusses modifications that may be 
implemented upon revocation of the 1-hour standard, including removal 
of the obligation to implement contingency measures upon a violation of 
the 1-hour NAAQS, the modifications only apply to areas with an 
approved maintenance plan for the 8-hour ozone standard. The State does 
not have an approved 8-hour ozone maintenance plan.

E. Section IX.D.2.j(1), ``Tracking System for Verification of Emission 
Inventory''

    The State's 1999 submittal proposed to remove the maintenance 
plan's reference to an annual inventory for point sources. 
Specifically, section IX.D.2.j(1)(b) of the previously approved 
maintenance plan includes the State's commitment to develop an annual 
inventory for point sources in the area. A separate section of the 
previously approved maintenance plan--section IX.D.2.j(1)(a)--includes 
a commitment to update the inventory for all source categories every 
three years. The State's 1999 submittal did not propose to change this 
latter commitment.
    As noted, in our 2003 action we inadvertently approved the removal 
of the State's commitment to develop an annual inventory for point 
sources. In that 2003 action, we only intended to approve non-
substantive changes to numbering and cross-references. In this action, 
we are proposing to ratify our 2003 approval of the State's removal of 
the commitment to develop an annual inventory for point sources. 
Approval is warranted because such an inventory is not needed to ensure 
maintenance of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. Nor will removal of the 
commitment to submit an annual inventory for point sources interfere 
with attainment or maintenance of any other NAAQS or compliance with 
any other CAA requirement. The maintenance plan retains the requirement 
that the State update its inventory of all source categories every 
three years. This is consistent with EPA's regulatory requirements for 
inventories, and we find that a three-year frequency is adequate to 
track emissions relevant to the maintenance plan.

F. Various Sections

    The State's 1999 submittal proposed to remove all references to CO 
because CO is not a significant contributor to ozone formation. These 
references occur in a variety of locations in the 1-hour ozone 
maintenance plan. For example, the maintenance plan includes 
inventories for CO, transportation conformity budgets for CO, budgets 
for CO for sources other than on-road mobile sources, and references to 
inspection and maintenance provisions for CO.
    As noted, we inadvertently approved the removal of some of these 
references to CO in our 2003 action, in which we only intended to 
approve non-substantive changes to numbering and cross-references. In 
this action, we are proposing to ratify our 2003 approval of the 
State's removal of some of the references to CO and to also approve the 
State's removal of all other references to CO in the 1-hour ozone 
maintenance plan.
    First, we agree with the State that CO is not a significant 
contributor to ozone formation. Thus, there is no need for CO measures 
to ensure maintenance of the 1-hour ozone standard or any other ozone 
standard. Second, the removal of the CO measures in the 1-hour ozone 
maintenance plan will not interfere with attainment or maintenance of 
any other NAAQS or compliance with any other CAA requirement. In 
particular, there are no CO nonattainment areas in Utah. Within Salt 
Lake and Davis Counties, the only maintenance area for CO is Salt Lake 
City. It has its own maintenance plan, with its own motor vehicle 
emissions budgets and CO measures. In addition, recent monitored 
ambient CO values for Salt Lake City and other areas in Utah are well 
below the level of the CO NAAQS.
    Thus, the removal of CO measures in the 1-hour ozone maintenance 
plan is consistent with continued maintenance of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS 
and with CAA section 110(l).

G. Miscellaneous

    As noted above, we previously approved revisions to the 1-hour 
ozone maintenance plan that the State submitted on December 31, 2002, a 
date that post-dates the date of the revisions we are proposing to act 
on today. In particular, in our June 25, 2003 action on the December 
31, 2002 submittal, we approved Utah's updating of references in the 1-
hour ozone maintenance plan to Utah air rules whose numbering Utah had 
changed after it submitted revisions to the 1-hour ozone maintenance 
plan in 1999. See 68 FR 37744. We are proposing to retain the updated 
references to Utah air rules as we approved them in our June 25, 2003 
action. We are not proposing to replace these updated references with 
the older references contained in the 1-hour

[[Page 21516]]

ozone maintenance plan that Utah submitted in 1999.

IV. Proposed Action

    For the reasons described above, we are proposing the following 
actions concerning Utah's revisions to the 1-hour ozone maintenance 
plan for Salt Lake and Davis Counties that Utah submitted on February 
22, 1999:\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ All section and table references are to sections and tables 
in the 1-hour ozone maintenance plan for Salt Lake and Davis 
Counties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     We are proposing to ratify our 2003 approval of Utah's 
revisions to Section IX.D.2.b(4)(a), ``NOX RACT.''
     We are proposing to approve Utah's revisions to Section 
IX.D.2.f(3), ``Safety Margin,'' and Utah's addition of Table 9, 
``Safety Margin.''
     We are proposing to approve Utah's revisions to Section 
IX.D.2.f, Table 8.
     We are proposing to disapprove Utah's revisions to Section 
IX.D.2.h(2), ``Determination of Contingency Action Level.''
     We are proposing to ratify our 2003 approval of Utah's 
revisions to subsection IX.D.2.j(1)(b) of Section IX.D.2.j(1), 
``Tracking System for Verification of Emission Inventory.''
     We are proposing to ratify our 2003 approval of Utah's 
removal of some references to CO in the plan and to approve Utah's 
removal of all other references to CO in the plan.
    EPA is soliciting public comments on its proposed rulemaking as 
discussed in this document. EPA will consider these comments before 
taking final action. Interested parties may participate in the Federal 
rulemaking procedure by submitting written comments to EPA as discussed 
in this notice.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP 
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable 
Federal regulations (42 U.S.C. 7410(k), 40 CFR 52.02(a)). Thus, in 
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, 
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this 
proposed action merely approves some state law as meeting Federal 
requirements and disapproves other state law because it does not meet 
Federal requirements; this proposed action does not impose additional 
requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this 
proposed action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to 
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based 
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the 
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent 
with the CAA; and,
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to 
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental 
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under 
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this rule does not have Tribal implications as 
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), 
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in 
the State, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct 
costs on Tribal governments or preempt Tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Environmental protection, 
Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

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

    Dated: March 28, 2012.
James B. Martin,
Regional Administrator, Region 8.
[FR Doc. 2012-8565 Filed 4-9-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P