Document ID: EPA-R08-OAR-2019-0696-0001
Agency: epa
Document Type: Proposed Rule
Title: Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: Provo, Utah Second 10-Year Carbon Monoxide Maintenance Plan
Posted Date: 2020-03-02T05:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 41 (Monday, March 2, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 12241-12244]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-04230]

[[Page 12241]]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R08-OAR-2019-0696; FRL-10005-71-Region 8]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality State Implementation 
Plans; Provo, Utah Second 10-Year Carbon Monoxide Maintenance Plan

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to 
approve a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the 
State of Utah. On January 14, 2019, the Governor of Utah submitted to 
the EPA a Clean Air Act (CAA) section 175A(b) second 10-year 
maintenance plan for the Provo area for the carbon monoxide (CO) 
National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). This limited maintenance 
plan (LMP) addresses maintenance of the CO NAAQS for a second 10-year 
period beyond the original redesignation. This action is being taken 
under sections 110 and 175A of the CAA.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before April 1, 2020.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R08-
OAR-2019-0696, to the Federal Rulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting 
comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from 
www.regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any comment received to its 
public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you 
consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other 
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia 
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written 
comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and 
should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will 
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of 
the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing 
system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment 
policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general 
guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
    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 Street, 
Denver, Colorado 80202-1129. The EPA requests that if at all possible, 
you contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 
CONTACT section to view the hard copy of the docket. You may view the 
hard copy of the docket Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., 
excluding federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Amrita Singh, Air and Radiation 
Division, EPA, Region 8, Mailcode 8ARD-QP, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, 
Colorado 80202-1129, (303) 312-6103, singh.amrita@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document wherever ``we,'' 
``us'' or ``our'' is used, we mean the EPA.

I. Background

    Under the CAA Amendments of 1990, the Provo area was designated as 
nonattainment and classified as a ``moderate >12.7 ppm'' CO area (56 FR 
56839, November 6, 1991). On April 1, 2004, the Governor of Utah 
submitted to the EPA a request to redesignate the Provo CO 
nonattainment area to attainment for the CO NAAQS. Along with this 
request, the Governor submitted a CAA section 175A(a) maintenance plan 
which demonstrated that the area would maintain the CO NAAQS for the 
first 10 years following our approval of the redesignation request. We 
approved the State's redesignation request and 10-year maintenance plan 
on November 2, 2005 (70 FR 66264).
    Eight years after an area is redesignated to attainment, CAA 
section 175A(b) requires the state to submit a subsequent maintenance 
plan to the EPA, covering a second 10-year period.\1\ This second 10-
year maintenance plan must demonstrate continued compliance with the 
NAAQS during this second 10-year period. To fulfill this requirement of 
the CAA, the Governor of Utah submitted the second 10-year update of 
the Provo CO maintenance plan (hereafter; ``revised Provo Maintenance 
Plan'') to us on January 14, 2019. With this action, we are proposing 
approval of the revised Provo Maintenance Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ In this case, the initial maintenance period extended 
through 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The 8-hour CO NAAQS--9.0 parts per million (ppm)--is attained when 
such value is not exceeded more than once a year. 40 CFR 50.8(a)(1). 
The Provo area has attained the 8-hour CO NAAQS from 1994 to the 
present.\2\ In October 1995, the EPA issued guidance that provided CO 
nonattainment areas the option of using a less rigorous ``limited 
maintenance plan'' (LMP) option to demonstrate continued attainment and 
maintenance of the CO NAAQS.\3\ According to this ``LMP Guidance,'' 
areas that can demonstrate design values (2nd highest max) at or below 
7.65 ppm (85% of exceedance levels of the 8-hour CO NAAQS) for eight 
consecutive quarters qualify to use an LMP. For the revised Provo 
Maintenance Plan, the State used the LMP option to demonstrate 
continued maintenance of the CO NAAQS in the Provo area. We have 
determined that the Provo area qualifies for the LMP option because the 
maximum design value for the most recent eight consecutive quarters 
with certified data at the time the State adopted the plan (years 2016 
and 2017) was 1.6 ppm.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ In a direct final rulemaking published September 20, 2002, 
the EPA determined that the Provo area had attained the CO NAAQS 
from 1994 through 2001. (67 FR 59165). The measures taken by the 
State to achieve attainment of the CO NAAQS are also detailed in 
this rulemaking action.
    \3\ Memorandum ``Limited Maintenance Plan Option for 
Nonclassifiable CO Nonattainment Areas'' from Joseph W. Paisie, 
Group Leader, EPA Integrated Policy and Strategies Group, to Air 
Branch Chiefs, October 6, 1995.
    \4\ See Table 4 below. Additionally, according to the LMP 
guidance, an area using the LMP option must continue to have a 
design value ``at or below 7.65 ppm until the time of final EPA 
action on the redesignation.'' Table 4, below, demonstrates that the 
area meets this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. The EPA's Evaluation of the Provo Second 10-Year CO Maintenance 
Plan

    The following are the key elements of an LMP for CO: Emission 
Inventory, Maintenance Demonstration, Monitoring Network/Verification 
of Continued Attainment, Contingency Plan, and Conformity 
Determinations. Below, we describe our evaluation of each of these 
elements as it pertains to the revised Provo Maintenance Plan.

A. Emission Inventory

    The revised Provo Maintenance Plan contains an emissions inventory 
for 2016. The emission inventory is a list, by source category, of the 
tons per day

[[Page 12242]]

of CO directly emitted in Utah County (in which the Provo CO 
maintenance area is located) on a typical winter day in 2016.\5\ This 
inventory is shown in Table 1, below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Violations of the CO NAAQS are most likely to occur on 
winter weekdays.

  Table 1--Utah County Emissions Inventory for a Typical Winter Day in
                                  2016
------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Emission inventory summary                  CO (tons/day)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point Sources...........................................           0.901
Onroad Mobile...........................................          94.827
Nonroad Mobile..........................................          27.769
Railroads...............................................           0.255
Wood Burning............................................           6.454
Commercial Cooking......................................           0.137
Nat. Gas Fuel Combustion................................           3.144
                                                         ---------------
    Total...............................................         133.488
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The State noted that 92% of the CO in the 2016 emissions inventory 
were from mobile sources. For that reason, the State also calculated 
mobile source emissions data for the city of Provo on a typical winter 
day in 2011, 2014 and 2016 using EPA-recommended mobile sources 
emissions modeling methods (MOVES2014a).\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Motor Vehicle Emissions Simulator (MOVES) model; version 
2014a.

     Table 2--Provo Vehicle Miles Traveled on an Average Winter Day
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Vehicle miles
                                             traveled/      Average CO
                  Year                     winter day in    tons/day in
                                            Provo city      Provo city
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2011....................................       1,255,778           16.53
2014....................................       1,312,491           14.46
2016....................................       1,497,156              13
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As shown in Table 2 (and as noted in the revised Provo Maintenance 
Plan), modeled average CO emissions declined from 2011 to 2014, and 
again from 2014 to 2016, despite an increase in vehicle miles traveled 
in each of these periods, which the State attributed to vehicles 
growing continuously cleaner over time. The Provo LMP contains a 
detailed emission inventory that was prepared in accordance with EPA 
guidance and is acceptable to the EPA.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ ``Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to 
Attainment,'' from John Calcagni, September 4, 1992.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Maintenance Demonstration

    We consider the maintenance demonstration requirement to be 
satisfied for areas that qualify for and use the LMP option. As 
mentioned above, a maintenance area is qualified to use the LMP option 
if that area's maximum 8-hour CO design value for eight consecutive 
quarters does not exceed 7.65 ppm (85% of the CO NAAQS). The EPA 
maintains that if an area begins the maintenance period with a design 
value no greater than 7.65 ppm, the applicability of prevention of 
significant deterioration requirements, the control measures already in 
the SIP, and federal measures should provide adequate assurance of 
maintenance over the 10-year maintenance period. Therefore, the EPA 
does not require areas using the LMP option to project emissions over 
the maintenance period. Because CO design values in the Provo area are 
consistently well below the LMP threshold (see Table 4), the State has 
adequately demonstrated that the Provo area will maintain the CO NAAQS 
into the future.

C. Monitoring Network/Verification of Continued Attainment

    Per the EPA's LMP Guidance, ``to verify the attainment status of 
the area over the maintenance period, the maintenance plan should 
contain provisions for continued operation of an appropriate, EPA-
approved air quality monitoring network.'' \8\ In instances where a 
state has used the LMP option for a second ten-year CO maintenance plan 
in an area whose monitoring values have consistently been well below 
the NAAQS, the EPA has allowed the state to monitor CO in the 
maintenance area using average daily traffic (ADT) counts in lieu of 
ambient air quality monitoring.\9\ For the revised Provo Maintenance 
Plan, the State has elected to use a similar alternative monitoring 
method which does not rely on ambient monitoring to verify continued 
attainment of the CO NAAQS. This method utilizes ADT counts that are 
collected by a Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) traffic counter 
located along a major thoroughfare (North University Avenue) in Provo, 
by comparing ongoing ADT counts to those collected when monitoring data 
in the area showed design values well below the CO NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See LMP Guidance, October 6, 1995, at 4.
    \9\ See, e.g., ``Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality 
Implementation Plans; State of Montana Second 10-Year Carbon 
Monoxide Maintenance Plan for Billings,'' 80 FR 16571, March 30, 
2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Since 2007, no Provo CO monitor has registered a design value 
greater than 2.6 ppm, which is below one-third of the NAAQS.\10\ Citing 
these consistently low monitor values, and expressing a desire to 
reallocate monitoring resources, the State has requested to discontinue 
CO monitoring in Provo and instead use an alternative strategy for 
monitoring maintenance of the CO NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Table 4 below. Design values were derived from the EPA 
Air Data (https://www.epa.gov/outdoor-air-quality-data) website.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The State's alternative monitoring method utilizes ADT vehicle 
counts collected from a permanent automatic traffic counter in the 
Provo CO maintenance area to determine average monthly traffic during 
the traditional high CO concentration season of November through 
February. The State will compare the latest rolling 3-years of monthly 
ADT volumes to the 2013-2016 baseline ADT volumes (see Table 3) that 
correlate to the low CO monitored values during that period (see Table 
4). Because mobile sources are the biggest driver of CO levels (as 
demonstrated in the ``Emission Inventory'' section), the State reasoned 
that any significant increase in CO emissions would have to be 
accompanied by a significant increase in ADT.\11\ The EPA agrees with 
the State's reasoning.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See ``Review of National Ambient Air Quality Standards for 
Carbon Monoxide,'' 76 FR 54294, August 31, 2011.

                Table 3--Traffic Volumes for Provo, Utah
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Rolling 2013-2016 ADT: November to  February
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         Month-year                             Provo
------------------------------------------------------------------------
November 2013..............................................       27,223
December 2013..............................................       24,881
January 2014...............................................       27,361
February 2014..............................................       28,679
November 2014..............................................       28,453
December 2014..............................................       27,156
January 2015...............................................       29,056
February 2015..............................................       30,682
November 2015..............................................       29,582
December 2015..............................................       27,518
January 2016...............................................       30,452
February 2016..............................................       32,301
                                                            ------------
    Average................................................       28,612
------------------------------------------------------------------------

            Table 4--8-Hour CO Design Values for Provo, Utah
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Design value (ppm) \12\                        Year
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.6........................................................         2007
1.8........................................................         2008
2.5........................................................         2009
1.9........................................................         2010
2.0........................................................         2011
1.8........................................................         2012
2.1........................................................         2013
1.9........................................................         2014
2.1........................................................         2015
1.3........................................................         2016
1.6........................................................         2017
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 12243]]

    If the rolling 3-year ADT value is 25% higher than the average 
value of 28,612 from the 2013-2016 baseline period, the State will 
reestablish CO ambient monitoring in Provo the following high season 
(November-February). If the CO design value in that season has not 
increased from the baseline mean by an equal or greater rate at which 
ADT has increased, and the monitor values remain at or below 50% of the 
CO NAAQS (2nd max concentration <=4.5 ppm), the monitor may again be 
removed and the ADT counts will continue to be relied upon to determine 
compliance with the NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Design values were derived from the EPA Air Data (https://www.epa.gov/outdoor-air-quality-data) website.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    40 CFR 58.14(c) allows approval of requests to discontinue ambient 
monitors ``on a case-by-case basis if discontinuance does not 
compromise data collection needed for implementation of a NAAQS and if 
the requirements of appendix D to this part, if any, continue to be 
met.'' The EPA finds that Utah's alternative monitoring method meets 
the criteria of 40 CFR 58.14(c) for the Provo CO maintenance area. 
Given the long history of low CO concentrations in the Provo area, and 
the adequacy of the State's alternative monitoring method at ensuring 
continued attainment of the CO NAAQS, the EPA finds it appropriate to 
approve the State's request to discontinue the Provo monitor and use 
their alternative monitoring method in its place.

D. Contingency Plan

    Section 175A(d) of the CAA requires that a maintenance plan include 
contingency provisions to promptly correct any violation of the NAAQS 
that occurs after redesignation of an area. To meet this requirement, 
the State has identified appropriate contingency measures along with a 
schedule for the development and implementation of such measures.
    The revised Provo Maintenance Plan stated that Utah will use an 
exceedance of the CO NAAQS as the trigger for adopting specific 
contingency measures for the Provo area. As noted, the State's 
alternative monitoring method requires reinstitution of a CO monitor in 
Provo if traffic levels increase from the 2013-2016 baseline by a 
factor of 25%. Therefore, the EPA finds that CO emissions in Provo are 
very unlikely to increase to the point of an exceedance without that 
exceedance being observed by a gaseous monitor.
    The revised Provo Maintenance Plan indicates that, once monitoring 
is reinstated, a measured 8-hour CO concentration in a given year which 
exceeds the LMP eligibility requirement of 7.65 ppm would require the 
State to evaluate the cause of the CO increase. Within 6 months of 
validation of the concentration above 7.65 ppm, the State must present 
the Utah Air Quality Board (UAQB) with a recommended strategy to either 
prevent or correct any violation of the 8-hour CO standard. The revised 
Provo Maintenance Plan also states that, if a violation of the CO NAAQS 
occurs, the UAQB will hold a public meeting to consider the prior 
contingency measures that helped bring the Provo area into attainment, 
including the mandatory 2.7% oxygen fuels program and annual inspection 
and maintenance tests for mobile sources, in addition to any measures 
that could help the area reduce CO emissions. Selected contingency 
measures would then be adopted and required by November 1st of the next 
winter season.
    We find that the contingency measures provided in the revised Provo 
Maintenance Plan are sufficient and meet the requirements of section 
175A(d) of the CAA.

E. Transportation Conformity

    Transportation conformity is required by section 176(c) of the CAA. 
Conformity to a SIP means that transportation activities will not 
produce new air quality violations, worsen existing violations, or 
delay timely attainment of the NAAQS (CAA 176(c)(B)). The EPA's 
conformity rule provisions in 40 CFR part 93, subpart A require that 
transportation plans, programs and projects conform to SIPs and 
establish the criteria and procedures for determining whether or not 
they demonstrate conformity. The EPA's conformity rule provisions 
include requirements for a demonstration that emissions from the 
Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and the Transportation Improvement 
Program (TIP) are consistent with the motor vehicle emission budget 
(MVEB) contained in the SIP revision (40 CFR 93.118 and 93.124). The 
MVEB 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.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ The EPA's transportation conformity requirements and policy 
on MVEBs are found in the preamble to the November 24, 1993, 
transportation conformity rule (see 58 FR 62193-62196) and in the 
sections of 40 CFR part 93 referenced above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the LMP policy, emissions budgets are treated as essentially 
not constraining for the length of the maintenance period. While the 
EPA's LMP policy does not exempt an area from the need to affirm 
conformity, it explains that the area may demonstrate conformity 
without submitting a MVEB. This is because it is unreasonable to expect 
that an LMP area will experience so much growth in that period that a 
violation of the CO NAAQS would result.\14\ Therefore, for the Provo CO 
maintenance area, all actions that require conformity determinations 
for CO under our conformity rule provisions are considered to have 
already satisfied the regional emissions analysis and ``budget test'' 
requirements in 40 CFR 93.118.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See LMP Guidance, October 6, 1995, at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Since LMP areas are still maintenance areas, certain aspects of 
transportation conformity determinations are still required for 
transportation plans, programs and projects. Specifically, for such 
determinations, RTPs, TIPs and projects must still demonstrate that 
they are fiscally constrained (40 CFR 93.108) and must meet the 
criteria for consultation (40 CFR 93.105 and 40 CFR 93.112) and 
Transportation Control Measure implementation in the conformity rule 
provisions (40 CFR 93.113). In addition, projects in LMP areas will 
still be required to meet the applicable criteria for CO hot spot 
analyses to satisfy ``project level'' conformity determinations (40 CFR 
93.116 and 40 CFR 93.123) which must also incorporate the latest 
planning assumptions and models available (40 CFR 93.110 and 40 CFR 
93.111 respectively).
    In view of the CO LMP policy, the effect of this proposed approval 
will be that no regional emissions analyses for future transportation 
CO conformity determinations will be required of the Mountainland 
Association of Governments, who is the Metropolitan Planning 
Organization for Utah County, for the CO LMP period (as per the EPA's 
CO LMP policy and 40 CFR 93.109(e)).

III. Proposed Action

    The EPA is proposing to approve the revised Provo Maintenance Plan 
submitted on January 14, 2019. This maintenance plan meets the 
applicable CAA requirements and the EPA has determined it is sufficient 
to provide for maintenance of the CO NAAQS over the course of the 
second 10-year maintenance period out to 2025.

IV. Statutory and Executive Orders Review

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP 
submission that complies with the provisions of the

[[Page 12244]]

Act and applicable federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 
52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to 
approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. 
Accordingly, this action merely proposes to approve state law as 
meeting federal requirements and does not impose additional 
requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this 
action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to 
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 
2011);
     Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2, 
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under 
Executive Order 12866;
     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 the 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, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian 
reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe 
has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of 
Indian country, the proposed rule does not have tribal implications and 
will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or 
preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 
November 9, 2000).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by 
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, 
Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur 
dioxide, Volatile organic compounds.

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

    Dated: February 25, 2020.
Gregory Sopkin,
Regional Administrator, Region 8.
[FR Doc. 2020-04230 Filed 2-28-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P