[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 100 (Friday, May 23, 1997)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 28396-28407]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-13649]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

[UT15-1-6775, UT12-2-6728, UT16-1-6776; FRL-5829-6]


Proposed Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation 
Plans; State of Utah; Salt Lake and Davis Counties Ozone Redesignation 
to Attainment, Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes, 
Proposed Approval of Related Elements, Proposed Approval of Partial 
NOX RACT Exemption, and Proposed Approval of Weber County I/
M Program

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: On February 19, 1997, the Governor of Utah submitted revisions 
to the Utah State Implementation Plan (SIP) that included a maintenance 
plan. He also submitted a request to redesignate the Salt Lake and 
Davis Counties (SLDC) moderate nonattainment area to attainment for the 
current 0.12 parts per million (ppm) ozone National Ambient Air Quality 
Standard (NAAQS). Included with this submittal were improved motor 
vehicle inspection and maintenance provisions for Salt Lake and Davis 
Counties. This February 19, 1997, submittal provided revised and 
updated emission inventory figures, revised contingency measure 
triggering mechanisms, updated air quality monitoring data, and other 
minor revisions to the maintenance plan. In this action, EPA is 
proposing to approve the SLDC redesignation request, maintenance plan, 
and other related SIP elements including the 1990 base year emissions 
inventory, Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) for Volatile 
Organic Compounds (VOC), NOX RACT for Kennecott's Utah Power 
Plant and for the Pacificorp Gadsby Power Plant, and the Basic 
Inspection and Maintenance (I/M) and Improved I/M provisions for Salt 
Lake and Davis Counties. EPA is also proposing to approve a partial 
Nitrogen Oxides (NOX) RACT exemption request and to give 
limited approval to the State's generic VOC RACT and generic 
NOX RACT rules. Finally, EPA is proposing to approve the I/M 
provisions for Weber County, which are unrelated to the redesignation 
request for Salt Lake and Davis Counties.

DATES: To be considered, comments must be received by June 23, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Written comments on this action should be addressed to: 
Richard R. Long, Director, Air Program (8P2-A), United States 
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8, 999 18th Street, Suite 500, 
Denver, Colorado 80202-2466.
    Copies of the documents relevant to this action are available for 
public inspection between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Monday through 
Friday at the following office: United States Environmental Protection 
Agency, Region 8, Air Program, 999 18th Street, Suite 500, Denver, 
Colorado 80202-2466.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tim Russ, Air Program (8P2-A), United 
States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8, 999 18th Street, 
Suite 500, Denver, Colorado 80202-2466
Telephone number: (303) 312-6479

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On November 15, 1990, the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 were 
enacted (Pub. L. 101-549, 104 Stat. 2399, codified at 42 U.S.C. 7401-
7671q). Under section 107(d)(1)(C) of the CAA, EPA designated the SLDC 
area as nonattainment for ozone because the area had been designated as 
nonattainment before November 15, 1990. The SLDC area was classified as 
a moderate nonattainment area (see section 181 of the CAA for further 
information regarding classifications and attainment dates for ozone 
nonattainment areas).
    Under the Clean Air Act (CAA), designations can be changed if 
sufficient data are available to warrant such changes 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

[[Page 28397]]

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.
    Thus, before EPA can approve the redesignation request, EPA must 
find, among other things, that all applicable SIP elements have been 
fully approved. Approval of the applicable SIP elements may occur prior 
to final approval of the redesignation request or simultaneously with 
final approval of the redesignation request. EPA is proposing to 
approve several SIP elements, that are necessary to the redesignation, 
at the same time it approves the redesignation.
    EPA has reviewed the State's redesignation request, maintenance 
plan, and related SIP elements and believes that approval of the 
request is warranted, consistent with the requirements of CAA section 
107(d)(3)(E). Descriptions of how the section 107(d)(3)(E) requirements 
are being addressed are provided below in the supplementary information 
section of this action.

Section 1. Brief Administrative History of the SLDC Ozone Redesignation 
Request, Maintenance Plan, and Related Submittals

    On November 12, 1993, the Governor of Utah submitted a 
redesignation request and maintenance plan for the SLDC area along with 
revisions to the SIP for offset ratios for VOCs and NOx, 
RACT for VOCs and NOx, New Source Review (NSR), 
Emission Statements, and Basic I/M. Following several intervening 
steps, including litigation by the State, EPA issued a letter dated 
July 29, 1994, that deemed the redesignation request, maintenance plan, 
and ozone SIP elements complete as of November 12, 1993.
    The State submitted a number of updates and revisions to the 
maintenance plan and ozone SIP elements after November 12, 1993, in an 
effort to address several substantive concerns identified by EPA. The 
latest revisions to the maintenance plan were submitted on February 19, 
1997, along with improved motor vehicle inspection and maintenance 
provisions for Salt Lake and Davis Counties. The maintenance plan 
references the various SIP elements that are pertinent to the 
redesignation. On May 2, 1997, the State submitted a request for a 
partial NOx RACT exemption. With this partial NOx 
RACT exemption request, the State has now addressed all of EPA's 
concerns.

Section 2. Redesignation Criterion: The Area Must Have Attained the 
Ozone 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 
Sec. 50.9, ``The standard is attained when the expected number of days 
per calendar year with maximum hourly average concentrations above 0.12 
part per million (235u/m3) is equal to or less than 1, as 
determined by appendix H.'' Attainment of the ozone standard is not a 
momentary phenomenon based on short-term data. Rather, for an area to 
be considered attainment, each of the ozone ambient air quality 
monitors in the area are allowed to record three or fewer exceedances 
of the ozone standard over a continuous three-year period. 40 CFR 
Sec. 50.9 and 40 CFR Part 50, Appendix H. If a single monitor in the 
ozone monitoring network records more than three expected exceedances 
of the standard over a three-year period as based on the expected 
exceedance calculation method in Appendix H, or as actual measured 
values, then the area is in violation of the ozone NAAQS. In addition, 
EPA's interpretation of the CAA and EPA national policy has been that 
an area seeking redesignation to attainment must not only show 
attainment of the ozone NAAQS for a continuous three-year period, but 
at least through the date that EPA promulgates the redesignation to 
attainment in the Federal Register.
    Utah's ozone redesignation request is based on an analysis of 
quality assured ambient air quality monitoring data that are relevant 
to the redesignation request. Most recent ambient air quality 
monitoring data for consecutive calendar years 1992 through 1996 show 
an expected exceedance rate of less than 1.0 per year, per monitor, of 
the ozone NAAQS in the SLDC nonattainment area. These data were 
collected and analyzed as required by EPA (see 40 CFR Sec. 50.9 and 40 
CFR Part 50, Appendix H) and have been archived by the State in EPA's 
Aerometric Information and Retrieval System (AIRS) national database. 
Further information on ozone monitoring is presented in section 
IX.D.2.c of the State's maintenance plan and in the State's TSD. Since 
1992, exceedances of the 0.12 ppm ozone standard were measured at three 
separate monitors in 1995, and one exceedance was measured in 1996. EPA 
notes, however, that the SLDC area has not violated the ozone standard 
and continues to demonstrate attainment.
    Because the SLDC nonattainment area has complete quality-assured 
data showing no violations of the ozone NAAQS over the most recent 
consecutive three-calendar-year period, the SLDC area has met the first 
component for redesignation; demonstration of attainment of the ozone 
NAAQS. EPA notes that the State of Utah has also committed in the 
maintenance plan to the necessary continued operation of the ozone 
monitoring network in compliance with 40 CFR part 58.

Section 3. Redesignation Criterion: The Area Must Have Met All 
Applicable Requirements Under Section 110 and Part D of the CAA

    Section 107(d)(3)(E)(v) requires that, to be redesignated to 
attainment, an area must meet all applicable requirements under section 
110 and part D of the CAA. EPA interprets section 107(d)(3)(E)(v) to 
mean that for a redesignation to be approved, the State must meet all 
requirements that applied to the subject area prior to or at the time 
of the submission of a complete redesignation request. Requirements of 
the CAA due after the submission of a complete redesignation request 
need not be considered in evaluating the request.
A. CAA Section 110 Requirements
    On August 15, 1984, EPA approved revisions to Utah's SIP as meeting 
the requirements of section 110(a)(2) of the CAA (45 FR 32575). 
Although section 110 of the CAA was amended in 1990, most of the 
changes were not substantial. Thus, EPA has determined that the SIP 
revisions approved in 1984 continue to satisfy the requirements of 
section 110(a)(2). For further detail, please see 45 FR 32575. In 
addition, EPA has analyzed the SIP elements that it is proposing to 
approve as part of this action and has determined they comply with the 
relevant requirements of section 110(a)(2) of the CAA.

[[Page 28398]]

B. Part D Requirements
    Before the SLDC moderate ozone 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 2 of part D establishes additional 
requirements for ozone nonattainment areas classified under table 1 of 
section 181(a).
    The relevant Subpart 1 requirements are contained in sections 
172(c) and 176. However, under section 172(b), the section 172(c) 
requirements are applicable as determined by the Administrator, but no 
later than three years after an area has been designated as 
nonattainment under the amended CAA. EPA has not determined that the 
section 172(c) requirements were due on or before November 12, 1993, 
the date the SLDC redesignation request was deemed complete. And, the 
three-year period under section 172(b) would have ended November 15, 
1993 for the SLDC nonattainment area. Thus, the State was not required 
to meet the section 172(c) requirements for redesignation purposes.
    Nonetheless, it is worth noting that the provisions of sections 
172(c)(1)(RACT), 172(c)(3) (emissions inventory), and 172(c)(5) (new 
source review permitting program) are subsumed or superseded by 
provisions in sections 182 (a) and (b) of the CAA. Also, EPA has 
interpreted the requirements of sections 172(c)(2) (reasonable further 
progress), 172(c)(6) (other measures), and 172(c)(9) (contingency 
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, John Calcagni memorandum entitled, 
``Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to 
Attainment'; General Preamble, 57 FR at 13564, 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.
    Requirements under section 176, relating to conformity, were not 
due until November 25, 1994 (transportation conformity) and November 
30, 1994 (general conformity). See 40 CFR sections 51.396 and 51.851. 
Because these requirements were not yet due when a complete 
redesignation request was submitted (November 12, 1993), they are not 
necessary SIP elements for the area to be redesignated.
    The SLDC nonattainment area was classified as moderate for ozone. 
Therefore, to be redesignated to attainment, the area must meet the 
applicable requirements of subpart 2 of part D which include sections 
182(a), 182(b), and 182(f). These requirements are discussed below.
    (1.) Section 182(a)(1)--Emissions inventory. Section 182(a)(1) of 
the CAA requires a comprehensive, accurate, current inventory of all 
actual emissions from all sources in the SLDC nonattainment area, as 
described in section 172(c)(3). This was due by November 15, 1992. EPA 
has interpreted ``current'' to mean calendar year 1990 (See 57 FR 
13502, April 16, 1992). On November 12, 1993, the State submitted a 
1990 base year inventory. This initial submittal of the 1990 base year 
inventory was intended to fulfill two purposes: to meet the section 
182(a)(1) emissions inventory requirement and to serve as the 
attainment year emissions inventory for the SLDC ozone redesignation 
maintenance plan. The State subsequently decided to use 1994 as the 
attainment year. The maintenance plan that the Governor submitted on 
February 19, 1997, incorporates a revised 1990 base year inventory as 
background material in order to fulfill the requirements of section 
182(a)(1) and includes a separate 1994 attainment year inventory. The 
revised 1990 base year inventory meets the requirements of section 
182(a)(1) and EPA is proposing to approve it.
    Summaries of the 1990 VOC, NOX, and CO daily seasonal 
emissions are provided in the tables below. Salt Lake and Davis 
Counties Summary of Ozone Seasonal Emissions:

                                          Summary of 1990 VOC Emissions                                         
                                                 [Tons per day]                                                 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Point sources       Area sources     On-road  mobile    Non-road  mobile       Biogenic            Total      
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
18.22............           46.56              32.00              30.39              38.94             166.12   
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                      Summary of 1990 NOX Emissions                     
                             [Tons per day]                             
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 On-road        Non-road                
Point sources   Area sources      mobile         mobile         Total   
------------------------------------------------------------------------
26.01........          5.41          26.98          44.69        103.10 
------------------------------------------------------------------------


                      Summary of 1990 CO Emissions                      
                             [Tons per day]                             
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 On-road        Non-road                
Point sources   Area sources      mobile         mobile         Total   
------------------------------------------------------------------------
12.91........         45.60         271.64         265.53        595.68 
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    All supporting calculations and documentation for this 1990 ozone 
base year inventory are contained in the State's Technical Support 
Document (TSD) which supports this action.
    (2.) Section 182(a)(2)(A) and 182(b)(2)--Reasonably Available 
Control Technology (RACT) for VOCs. Section 182(a)(2)(A) of the CAA 
requires that ozone nonattainment areas correct their deficient RACT 
rules for VOCs

[[Page 28399]]

(known as the ``RACT fix-up'' requirement). Areas designated 
nonattainment before the 1990 amendments to the CAA, which retained 
that designation after the 1990 amendments and were classified as 
marginal or above as of November 15, 1990, were required to meet the 
RACT fix-up requirement. The SLDC ozone nonattainment area falls within 
this category. Under section 182(a)(2)(A), those areas were required, 
by May 15, 1991, to correct RACT regulations to comply with pre-
amendment guidance.1 To address this requirement, the 
Governor submitted VOC RACT rule revisions to the SIP dated May 4, 
1990, and July 25, 1991. EPA approved these VOC RACT fix-up revisions 
on June 26, 1992 (57 FR 28621).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Among other things, the pre-amendment guidance consists of 
the VOC RACT portions of the Post-87 policy (52 FR 45044, November 
24, 1987); the ``Blue Book'' (``Issues Relating to VOC Regulation 
Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and Deviations; Clarification to Appendix D 
of the November 24, 1987 Federal Register Notice'' of which notice 
of availability was published in the Federal Register on May 25, 
1998); and the existing Control Technology Guidelines (CTG).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 182(b)(2) of the CAA contains the VOC RACT ``catch-up'' 
requirements. For ozone nonattainment areas designated moderate and 
above, section 182(b)(2) requires SIP revisions to address three source 
categories.
    Section 182(b)(2)(A) requires RACT for each category of VOC sources 
in the nonattainment area covered by a CTG document issued between the 
enactment of the 1990 CAA amendments and the date of attainment. 
Section 182(b)(2)(B) requires RACT for all VOC sources in the 
nonattainment area covered by a CTG that was issued before the date of 
enactment of the 1990 CAA amendments. Section 182(b)(2)(C) requires 
RACT for all other major stationary sources of VOCs that are located in 
the nonattainment area. SIP revisions described in section 182(b)(2)(A) 
are due by the date specified in the CTG document. Revisions described 
in section 182(b)(2)(B) and (C) were due November 15, 1992.
    For the section 182(b)(2)(A) requirement, EPA issued a CTG document 
which appeared as Appendix E in the ``Supplement to the General 
Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act 
Amendments of 1990'' (57 FR 18070, April 28, 1992). This CTG document 
listed the eleven CTGs that EPA anticipated publishing in accordance 
with section 183(a) and established timetables for the submittal of 
RACT rules for sources that were not ultimately covered by a CTG issued 
by November 15, 1993. Appendix E stated that for any of the eleven 
source categories for which EPA did not issue CTGs by November 15, 
1993, the States were required to develop RACT rules and submit them to 
EPA by November 15, 1994. It should be noted that section 183(b) of the 
CAA also required EPA to issue CTGs for two additional source 
categories by November 15, 1993.
    Due to budgetary constraints, EPA only issued one CTG, which 
covered two source categories, prior to November 15, 1993. This CTG was 
entitled ``Control of Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Reactor 
Processes and Distillation Operations Processed in the Synthetic 
Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry'' (SOCMI) (reference EPA-450/4-
91-031, August, 1993). In section IX.D.2.b(3)(a) of the SLDC 
maintenance plan, the State indicates there are no SOCMI sources in the 
SLDC nonattainment area. Therefore, no SIP revision was needed to 
address SOCMI sources.
    For the remaining nine source categories, the State was either 
required to make a negative declaration or submit a RACT rule for major 
sources by November 15, 1994, that required implementation of RACT by 
May 15, 1995. In the SLDC maintenance plan, the State provides negative 
declarations for seven of the nine source categories. The State also 
makes a negative declaration for one of the two section 183(b) source 
categories. For the two remaining section 183(a) source categories and 
the one remaining section 183(b) source category, the State submitted 
VOC RACT provisions for all major sources in the nonattainment area. 
These sources are the Amoco, Chevron, Crysen, Flying J, and Phillips 
refineries, Olympia Sales, and Hill Air Force Base. EPA has evaluated 
the VOC limits and requirements for these sources and has determined 
that they satisfy the requirements for VOC RACT. Based on the negative 
declarations and the adoption of VOC RACT for identified sources, EPA 
has determined that the State has met the requirements of section 
182(b)(2)(A) of the CAA.
    In addition, in section IX.D.2.b(3)(a) of the SLDC maintenance plan 
the State makes the following commitment to adopt CTGs issued in the 
future by EPA: ``As each CTG is issued, the State will review the 
sources in the nonattainment area, and either issue a negative 
declaration for that particular source category, meaning there are no 
sources for which the CTG is applicable or revise its rules in a manner 
consistent with a SIP revision to incorporate RACT (in the context of 
Section 182(b)(1)(A) of the Act)) for the following categories: (1) 
those source categories of VOC for which EPA issues a CTG document 
during the time between the submittal of the redesignation request, and 
the time when the area is officially redesignated to attainment in the 
Federal Register; and (2) at any time thereafter as CTGs are published 
by the EPA.''
    For the section 182(b)(2)(B) requirement, EPA has determined that 
the Governor's submittals of May 4, 1990, and July 25, 1991, that were 
approved by EPA on June 26, 1992 (57 FR 28621), addressed RACT for all 
VOC sources in the SLDC nonattainment area covered by a CTG that was 
issued before the date of enactment of the 1990 CAA amendments.
    Regarding the section 182(b)(2)(C) requirement for VOC RACT for 
major non-CTG sources, the SLDC maintenance plan addresses the same 
seven sources that it addresses for the 182(b)(2)(A) requirements. As 
noted above, EPA is satisfied that the limits and requirements for 
these sources represent VOC RACT. Although Utah submitted a ``generic'' 
RACT rule (contained in R307-14-1., UACR) for any other unidentified 
major sources of VOCs in the nonattainment area, EPA is satisfied that 
the State has identified all major sources of VOCs in the area. In 
reaching this conclusion, EPA is relying on the negative declarations 
by the State as well as EPA's review of sources in the national 
Aerometic Information and Retrieval System (AIRS) and of the 1994 
attainment year emission inventory for the SLDC maintenance plan. Thus, 
Utah's generic VOC RACT rule is not needed to fulfill the requirements 
of section 182(b)(2)(C) of the CAA.
    Also, R307-14-1. contains provisions that prevent EPA from fully 
approving it as meeting EPA's requirements for a generic RACT rule. In 
particular, R307-14-1. defines RACT in several places by reference to 
40 CFR 51.100(o). This federal definition is limited by its own terms 
to circumstances that do not apply to a RACT determination under 
section 182(b) of the Act. In fact, this definition is at odds with 
EPA's longstanding definition of RACT as the lowest emission limitation 
that a particular source is capable of meeting by the application of 
control technology that is reasonably available considering 
technological and economic feasibility (44 FR 53762, September 17, 
1979). Although R307-14-1. does require any unidentified sources to 
meet RACT requirements and thus strengthens the SIP, it does not meet 
the CAA's requirements for VOC RACT. In addition, R307-14-1.F. could be 
construed to allow the executive secretary of Utah's Department of

[[Page 28400]]

Environmental Quality to approve alternative test methods without EPA 
approval. This type of director's discretion provision is not 
consistent with EPA's requirements. Accordingly, EPA is only proposing 
limited approval of R307-14-1. for its strengthening effect on the SIP, 
but not as meeting the CAA's requirements for VOC RACT.
    EPA also notes that in Section IX, Part D.2, pages 10--12 of the 
maintenance plan the State includes references to 40 CFR 51.100(o) and 
lists factors considered in determining RACT for sources that suggest 
that VOC RACT may vary depending on whether or not the area is 
attaining the standard. It is EPA's position that VOC RACT is not 
dependent on whether or not the area is attaining the standard. Thus, 
although the language in the maintenance plan did not result in 
inappropriate RACT determinations, EPA wants to make clear that use of 
the RACT definition in 40 CFR 51.100(o) and factors that suggest that 
RACT is dependent on whether or not an area is attaining the standard 
is inappropriate for VOC RACT determinations under section 182(b)(2) of 
the CAA. EPA would expect the State to use the proper RACT definition 
in making any future RACT determinations.
    (3.) Section 182(a)(2)(C) New Source Review (NSR). The CAA requires 
all classified ozone nonattainment areas to meet several requirements 
regarding NSR including provisions to ensure that increased emissions 
of VOC compounds 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) that meets the 
requirements of section 182(a)(2)(C). This NSR program also meets the 
requirements of section 172(c)(5).
    (4.) Section 182(a)(3)(B)--Emissions Statements. Section 
182(a)(3)(B) of the CAA required a revision to the SIP, by November 15, 
1992, to require sources of NOX and VOCs to provide the 
State with a statement detailing actual emissions each calendar year. 
The Governor of Utah submitted a revision to the SIP on November 12, 
1993, for the purpose of implementing an emission statement program for 
stationary sources within the Salt Lake/Davis County nonattainment 
area. EPA determined that this submittal adequately addressed the 
requirements of section 182(a)(3)(B) and fully approved this SIP 
revision on May 6, 1996 (61 FR 20142).
    (5.) Section 182(b)(1)--15% Reasonable further progress plan, and 
attainment demonstration. The SIP elements required by CAA section 
182(b)(1) of the CAA--a 15% VOC reduction plan and an attainment 
demonstration--were not due until November 15, 1993, after the 
redesignation request was deemed complete. Therefore, these SIP 
elements are not necessary for the area to be redesignated to 
attainment. In addition, EPA has interpreted section 182(b)(1) to not 
require these SIP elements for areas that are attaining the ozone 
standard. See May 10, 1995, memorandum from John S. Seitz, entitled 
``Reasonable Further Progress, Attainment Demonstration, and Related 
Requirements for Ozone Nonattainment Areas Meeting the Ozone National 
Ambient Air Quality Standard.'' The Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund 
challenged the application of this interpretation to the SLDC 
nonattainment area, and the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld EPA's 
interpretation.
    (6.) Section 182(b)(3)--Stage II. For ozone nonattainment areas 
classified as moderate and above, section 182(b)(3) required States to 
submit SIP revisions by November 15, 1992, to require the installation 
and operation of gasoline refueling vapor recovery systems (``Stage 
II''). However, pursuant to CAA section 202(a)(6), this requirement was 
superseded for moderate ozone nonattainment areas when EPA promulgated 
onboard vapor recovery regulations (59 FR 16262, April 6, 1994). Thus, 
the SLDC nonattainment area is not required to meet the requirements of 
section 182(b)(3).
    (7.) Section 182(b)(4)--Motor Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance 
(I/M). Section 182(b)(4) of the CAA requires a SIP revision for all 
moderate ozone nonattainment areas that provides for the implementation 
of a basic vehicle inspection and maintenance program. In addition, 
Congress directed EPA in section 182(a)(2)(B) to publish updated 
guidance for state I/M programs, taking into consideration findings of 
the Administrator's audits and investigations of these programs. The 
states were to incorporate this guidance into the SIP for all areas 
required by the CAA to have an I/M program.
    On November 5, 1992, the EPA published a final regulation 
establishing the I/M requirements, pursuant to sections 182 and 187 of 
the CAA (57 FR 52950). The I/M regulation was codified at 40 CFR Part 
51, subpart S, and required states to submit an I/M SIP revision which 
includes all necessary legal authority and the items specified in 40 
CFR 51.372 (a)(1) through (a)(8) by November 15, 1993.
    The State of Utah submitted a SIP revision in November 1993 which 
upgraded the then existing County-run I/M programs to meet the CAA 
requirements for basic I/M programs in the Salt Lake (Davis and Salt 
Lake Counties), Ogden (Weber County), and Provo-Orem (Utah County) 
metropolitan statistical areas (MSA) beginning on July 1, 1994. On 
February 19, 1997, the State submitted a SIP revision that provides for 
improved basic I/M programs in Salt Lake and Davis Counties to be 
implemented beginning January 1, 1998. The improved basic I/M programs 
in Salt Lake and Davis Counties provide additional VOC and 
NOX reductions necessary for the ozone maintenance 
demonstration.
    The Weber County basic I/M program is required by the CAA as a SIP 
element unrelated to the SLDC ozone nonattainment area requirements. 
Therefore, EPA is proposing approval of the Weber County program in 
this notice as an action separate from the SLDC ozone redesignation 
request and maintenance plan. The Utah County I/M program is not being 
proposed for approval in this notice, but instead will be addressed in 
a future notice.
    Utah is currently implementing annual test-and-repair I/M programs 
(Davis, Salt Lake, and Weber Counties) which meet the requirements of 
EPA's performance standard and other requirements contained in the 
Federal I/M rule. Testing is being performed by independent inspection 
stations with State/County oversight. Other aspects of Utah's I/M 
programs include: testing of all 1968 and newer vehicles, a test fee to 
ensure the State/Counties have adequate resources to implement the 
program, enforcement by registration denial, a repair effectiveness 
program, a commitment to testing convenience, quality assurance, data 
collection, a specified waiver rate, reporting, test equipment and test 
procedure specifications, a commitment to ongoing public information 
and consumer protection programs, inspector training and certification, 
and penalties for inspector incompetence. EPA has reviewed the 
submittals against the CAA statutory requirements and for consistency 
with Federal I/M regulations as codified in 40 CFR Sec. 51.350 through 
Sec. 51.373. EPA summarizes the Federal requirements and how the State/
Counties have satisfied the requirements below.
    (7.)a. 40 CFR 51.350--Applicability. The SIP needs to describe the 
applicable areas in detail and must also include the legal authority or 
rules necessary to establish program boundaries. Utah's County-run I/M 
programs, as authorized by Sections 41-6-163.6 thru 41-6-163.7 of the 
Utah Code Unannotated, are to be implemented county-wide in Davis, Salt

[[Page 28401]]

Lake, and Weber Counties, as described in the Utah SIP, Section X, 
Basic Automotive Inspection and Maintenance (I/M).
    (7.)b. 40 CFR 51.352--Basic I/M performance standard. The I/M 
programs provided for in the SIP are required to meet a performance 
standard for basic I/M for the pollutants that caused the affected area 
to come under I/M requirements. The performance standard sets an 
emission reduction target that must be met by a program in order for 
the SIP to be approvable. The SIP must also provide that the program 
will meet the performance standard in actual operation, with provisions 
for appropriate adjustments if the standard is not met.
    The State/Counties have submitted a modeling demonstration using 
the EPA's emissions factor model showing that the basic performance 
standard is met in all of the affected Counties. Additional modeling 
was submitted for the improved basic programs which will be implemented 
in Salt Lake and Davis Counties beginning January 1, 1998. The State/
Counties used EPA's MOBILE5a emission factor model to conservatively 
estimate future reductions for these improved basic programs. EPA 
believes the conservative methodology employed by the State/Counties 
provides the VOC and NOx reductions necessary to demonstrate 
maintenance of the ozone NAAQs without further demonstration/program 
evaluation.
    The State/Counties may choose to perform future program evaluations 
to quantify emissions reductions beyond those claimed using the 
conservative approach employed for this submittal.
    (7.)c. 40 CFR 51.353--Network type. The SIP includes a description 
of the network to be employed, and the required legal authority. Salt 
Lake and Weber Counties have chosen to implement decentralized, I/M 
programs, which are comprised of independently operated facilities. 
Davis County provides for a decentralized network of independently 
operated facilities through January 1, 1998, at which time the County 
will operate centralized testing facilities performing the IM240 test 
procedure in addition to independently operated facilities performing 
two-speed idle testing.
    The Utah I/M programs, in each of the affected Counties, allow 
fleet self-testing programs with oversight by County Health Department 
employees. Legal authority contained in Sections 41-6-163.6 thru 41-6-
163.7, Utah Code Unannotated, authorizes the Counties to implement 
these programs.
    (7.)d. 40 CFR 51.354--Adequate tools and resources. The SIP needs 
to include a description of the resources that will be used for program 
operation, which include: (1) A detailed budget plan which describes 
the source of funds for personnel, program administration, program 
enforcement, purchase of necessary equipment, and any other 
requirements discussed throughout, for the period prior to the next 
biennial self-evaluation required in Federal I/M rule; and (2) a 
description of personnel resources, the number of personnel dedicated 
to overt and covert auditing, data analysis, program administration, 
enforcement, and other necessary functions and the training attendant 
to each function.
    The SIP narrative and County Ordinances contained in the SIP 
submittal detail that adequate budget resources, staffing support, and 
equipment and resources are dedicated to the program. Thus, the 
submittal meets the requirements of the Federal Rule.
    (7.)e. 40 CFR 51.355--Test frequency and convenience. The SIP needs 
to include the test schedule in detail, including the test year 
selection scheme if testing is other than annual.
    The County I/M Ordinances require annual inspections for all 
subject motor vehicles in the basic I/M programs. For new vehicles the 
first test is required for re-registration two years after initial 
registration.
    The improved basic program in Salt Lake County requires annual 
testing of all 1968 and newer vehicles, with an option to perform 
biennial testing if legislative authority is changed to allow biennial 
testing. If the County seeks to switch to biennial testing, EPA would 
require the State/Salt Lake County to demonstrate that the necessary 
emission reductions can still be provided to demonstrate maintenance of 
the ozone standard.
    The Davis County improved basic I/M program ordinance requires all 
3, 6, and 9 year-old vehicles to be inspected at the County-run 
centralized facilities. All other vehicles are required to obtain 
annual inspections in independent testing facilities.
    All motor vehicles registered as government-owned vehicles or 
gasoline-powered heavy-duty trucks are required to be certified 
annually in both the basic and improved basic programs.
    (7.)f. 40 CFR 51.356--Vehicle coverage. The SIP includes a detailed 
description of the number and types of vehicles covered by the County-
run programs, and a plan for how those vehicles are to be identified.
    The County-run programs' vehicle coverage includes all 1968 and 
newer model year light-duty cars and trucks and heavy-duty gasoline-
powered trucks, registered or required to be registered within the MSA, 
and fleets primarily operated within the I/M program areas, including 
government-owned and operated vehicles. Vehicles are identified through 
the State of Utah's Tax Commission Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV) 
database.
    Vehicles exempted from the program include: motorcycles, farm 
trucks and diesel vehicles. Diesel vehicles are required to be 
inspected in County-run diesel I/M lanes. The exempted vehicles are 
accounted for in the modeling submitted by the State/Counties and 
documented in the SIP narrative as required.
    (7.)g. 40 CFR 51.357--Test procedures and standards. The SIP 
includes a description of each test procedure used, and a rule, 
ordinance, or law describing and establishing the test procedures.
    Davis and Weber Counties' I/M programs incorporate by reference 
EPA's preconditioned two-speed idle test as specified in EPA-AA-TSA-I/
M-90-3 March 1990, Technical Report, ``Recommended I/M Short Test 
Procedures for the 1990's: Six Alternatives.'' Additionally, Davis 
County incorporates by reference the IM240 test procedure specified in 
EPA-AA-RSPD-IM-96-1 to be administered on 3, 6, and 9 year-old vehicles 
beginning January 1, 1998.
    Salt Lake County's I/M program currently uses EPA's Preconditioned 
two-speed idle test as specified in EPA-AA-TSA-I/M-90-3 March 1990, 
Technical Report. Beginning January 1, 1998, the County will implement 
the 2-mode Acceleration Simulation Mode (ASM2) test in accordance with 
E0PA-AA-RSPD-IM-96-2.
    The calibration specifications and emissions test procedures meet 
the minimum standard established in Appendix A of 40 CFR Part 51, 
Subpart S. Test procedures are established in each of the County Rules, 
which are incorporated into the SIP.
    (7.)h. 40 CFR 51.358--Test equipment. The SIP needs to include 
written technical specifications for all test equipment used in the 
program and shall address each of the requirements in 40 CFR 51.358. 
The specifications need to describe the emission analysis process, the 
necessary test equipment, the required features, and written acceptance 
testing criteria and procedures.
    The Utah I/M SIP provides that the program equipment will meet the 
California BAR 90/BAR97 accuracy standards at a minimum for the two-
speed idle and ASM2 testing equipment. Also, Utah's SIP for Davis

[[Page 28402]]

County provides that the program equipment will meet the IM240 
equipment specifications contained in EPA-AA-RSPD-IM-96-1.
    The Utah SIP narrative addresses the requirements in 40 CFR 51.358 
and includes descriptions of performance features and functional 
characteristics of the computerized test systems. The necessary test 
equipment, required features, and acceptance testing criteria are also 
contained in the SIP.
    (7.)i. 40 CFR 51.359--Quality control. The SIP needs to include a 
description of quality control and recordkeeping procedures. The SIP 
also needs to include the procedures manual, rule, and ordinance or law 
describing and establishing the quality control procedures and 
requirements.
    The Utah I/M SIP narrative contains descriptions and requirements 
establishing the quality control procedures in accordance with the 
Federal I/M rule. These requirements will help ensure that equipment 
calibrations are properly performed and recorded, and that compliance 
certificates are properly maintained and secured. Additional quality 
control procedures are documented in individual County Ordinances.
    (7.)j. 40 CFR 51.360--Waivers and Compliance Via Diagnostic 
Inspection
    The SIP needs to include a maximum waiver rate expressed as a 
percentage of initially failed vehicles. This waiver rate needs to be 
used for estimating emission reduction benefits in the modeling 
analysis. Also, the State needs to take corrective action if the waiver 
rate exceeds that estimated in the SIP or revise the SIP and the 
emission reductions claimed accordingly. In addition, the SIP needs to 
describe the waiver criteria and procedures, including cost limits, 
quality assurance methods and measures, and administration. Lastly, the 
SIP shall include the necessary legal authority, ordinance, or rules to 
issue waivers, set and adjust cost limits as required, and carry out 
any other functions necessary to administer the waiver system, 
including enforcement of the waiver provisions.
    The Salt Lake and Davis County I/M programs commit to a waiver rate 
of 1 percent or less. The Weber County I/M program commits to a waiver 
rate of 5 percent or less. Waiver procedures are detailed in individual 
County ordinances, which are incorporated into the SIP. Legal authority 
for waivers is delegated to the Counties in section 41-6-163, Utah Code 
Unannotated.
    (7.)k. 40 CFR 51.361--Motorist compliance enforcement. The SIP 
needs to provide information concerning the enforcement process, 
including: (1) A description of the existing compliance mechanism if it 
is to be used in the future and the demonstration that it is as 
effective or more effective than registration-denial enforcement; (2) 
an identification of the agencies responsible for performing each of 
the applicable activities in this section; (3) a description of and 
accounting for all classes of exempt vehicles; and (4) a description of 
the plan for testing fleet vehicles, rental car fleets, leased 
vehicles, and any other special classes of subject vehicles, e.g. those 
operated in (but not necessarily registered in) the program area. Also, 
the SIP needs to include a determination of the current compliance rate 
based on a study of the system that includes an estimate of compliance 
losses due to loopholes, counterfeiting, and unregistered vehicles. 
Estimates of the effect of closing such loopholes and otherwise 
improving the enforcement mechanism need to be supported with detailed 
analyses. In addition, the SIP needs to include the legal authority to 
implement and enforce the program. Lastly, the SIP needs to include a 
commitment to an enforcement level to be used for modeling purposes and 
to be maintained, at a minimum, in practice.
    The motorist compliance enforcement program provisions are 
contained in the SIP narrative and in the individual County Ordinances. 
The motorist compliance enforcement program will be implemented, in 
part, by the Utah Tax Commission Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV), 
which will take the lead in ensuring that owners of all subject 
vehicles are denied registration unless they provide valid proof of 
having received a certificate indicating they passed an emissions test 
or were granted a compliance waiver. State and local police agencies 
have the authority to cite motorists with expired registration tags. 
Authority for these provisions is contained in Section 41-6-163 of the 
Utah Code Unannotated.
    Current compliance rates are estimated at greater than 95 percent 
in each of the County areas. The SIP commits to a level of motorist 
enforcement necessary to ensure a compliance rate of no less than 96 
percent among subject vehicles.
    (7.)l. 40 CFR 51.362--Motorist Compliance Enforcement Program 
oversight. The SIP narrative includes a description of the enforcement 
program oversight and information management activities. The State/
Counties will periodically review the compliance rates of area I/M 
programs to ensure the 96 percent commitment is being met. The DMV, 
Utah Division of Air Quality, Utah highway patrol, and County I/M 
program staff meet twice a month to ensure on-going high quality 
oversight of a joint motorist compliance program.
    (7.)m. 40 CFR 51.363--Quality assurance. The SIP needs to include a 
description of the quality assurance program, and written procedures 
manuals covering both overt and covert performance audits, record 
audits, and equipment audits. This requirement does not include 
materials or discussion of details of enforcement strategies that would 
ultimately hamper the enforcement process.
    The Utah I/M SIP narrative and appendices to the County I/M 
ordinances include descriptions of the quality assurance programs and 
procedures. The quality assurance programs include operation progress 
reports, and overt and covert audits of all emission inspectors and 
emission inspections. Overt and covert audits are conducted by the 
County I/M staff. In addition, remote inspector audits are performed by 
the County I/M personnel. Procedures and techniques for overt and 
covert performance, recordkeeping, and equipment audits are given to 
auditors and updated as needed.
    (7.)n. 40 CFR 51.364--Enforcement Against Contractors, Stations and 
Inspectors
    The SIP needs to include the penalty schedule and the legal 
authority for establishing and imposing penalties, civil fines, license 
suspension, and revocations. Also, the SIP needs to describe the 
administrative and judicial procedures and responsibilities relevant to 
the enforcement process, including which agencies, courts, and 
jurisdictions are involved; who will prosecute and adjudicate cases; 
and other aspects of the enforcement of the program requirements, the 
resources to be allocated to this function, and the source of those 
funds.
    The individual Counties are responsible for enforcement actions 
against incompetent or dishonest stations and inspectors. Each County 
I/M ordinance or regulation includes a penalty schedule. For repeat or 
serious offenses, auditors are authorized to immediately suspend the 
station or inspector by locking out the analyzer(s). A station permit 
may be suspended or revoked even if the owner/operator had no direct 
knowledge of the violation. In the case of incompetence, re-training is 
required before a permit is restored.
    (7.)o. 40 CFR 51.366--Data analysis and reporting. The Utah I/M SIP 
narrative provides that the State/County programs will report summary 
data based upon program activities taking place in the previous year. 
The report

[[Page 28403]]

will provide statistics for the testing program, the quality control 
program, the quality assurance program, and the enforcement program. At 
a minimum, Utah commits to address all of the data elements listed in 
section 51.366 of the Federal I/M rule.
    (7.)p. 40 CFR 51.367--Inspector training and licensing or 
certification. The SIP needs to include a description of the training 
program, the written and hands-on tests, and the licensing or 
certification process.
    The Utah I/M SIP provides for the implementation of training, 
certification, and refresher programs for emission inspectors. Training 
includes all elements required by 40 CFR 51.367(a). All inspectors are 
required to pass a written test in order to become certified to inspect 
vehicles in the Utah I/M program.
    (7.)q. 40 CFR 51.369--Improving repair effectiveness. The SIP needs 
to include a description of the technical assistance program to be 
implemented, and a description of the repair technician training 
resources available in the community.
    The Utah I/M SIP commits the program technical and supervisory 
staff to continue to work with both motor vehicle owners and the 
automotive service industry regarding their vehicles failing to meet 
the exhaust emission levels. These direct contacts are normally either 
by telephone or person-to-person. Customers with vehicles that present 
unusual testing problems or situations are referred to a County-run 
Technical Center for further testing and diagnostics.
    The Utah Air Quality Board (UAQB) formally adopted the above-
described I/M programs for Salt Lake County and Davis County on 
February 5, 1997. The Weber County I/M program was re-numbered and also 
re-adopted by the UAQB on February 5, 1997. Based on the above analysis 
of each of the three County programs, EPA is proposing approval of the 
I/M programs for Salt Lake, Davis, and Weber Counties as a revision to 
Utah's SIP.
    (8.) Section 182(f)--Oxides of Nitrogen (NOX) 
requirements. Section 182(f) of the CAA requires States with ozone 
nonattainment areas to impose the same control requirements for major 
stationary sources of NOX as apply to major stationary 
sources of VOCs. These NOX requirements, NOX RACT 
and NOX NSR, were to be submitted to EPA in a SIP revision 
by November 15, 1992. Section 182(f) also specifies circumstances under 
which these NOX requirements would be limited or would not 
apply.
    (8.)a. NSR for NOX. For the NOX NSR 
requirement, the State of Utah has a fully-approved NSR program (60 FR 
22277, May 5, 1995) that meets the requirements of section 182(a)(2)(C) 
and applies to sources of NOX. This program also meets the 
requirements of section 172(c)(5).
    (8.)b. Section 182(f)--.NOX RACT For the purposes of 
addressing the NOX RACT requirement of section 182(f), 
sources within the SLDC ozone nonattainment area with NOX 
emissions of greater than or equal to 100 tons per year are required to 
employ RACT. The NOX RACT requirements are defined by 
reference to section 182(b)(2) of the CAA. As EPA has not issued any 
CTGs for NOX sources, the provisions of sections 
182(b)(2)(A) and (B) are not applicable. Section 182(b)(2)(C), as 
applied to NOX, required the submittal of RACT rules for 
major stationary sources of NOX by November 15, 1992.
    The State has established NOX RACT for the Gadsby Power 
Plant, owned by PacifiCorp, and the Utah Power Plant, owned by 
Kennecott Utah Copper (KUC). As part of the Utah PM10 SIP 
revision that EPA approved on July 8, 1994 (59 FR 35036), the Gadsby 
Power Plant was required to switch from coal to natural gas on a year-
round basis and to meet NOX limits based on the use of low-
NOX burners. These NOX limits are contained in 
section IX, Part H of the Utah SIP.
    For the Utah Power Plant, the State established NOX 
limits for boilers numbered 1 through 4. For boiler number 4, a 
tangentially fired coal-burning boiler, the State established a 
NOX limit of 384 ppm and 377 lbs. per hour (equivalent to 
0.45 lbs. of NOX per million Btu.) This is consistent with 
EPA's presumptive NOX RACT limit for tangentially fired 
coal-burning boilers (see 57 FR 55620, November 25, 1992).
    Boilers numbered 1 through 3 are older, coal-burning wet bottom 
units. Through testing, Kennecott determined that these boilers could 
be retrofitted with low-NOX burners. Based on the use of 
low-NOX burners, the State set NOX limits for 
boilers numbered 1 through 3 at 216 lbs. of NOX per hour and 
426.5 ppmdv (parts per million dry by volume) measured at 3% oxygen. 
These emission limits are specified in an approval order for the Utah 
Power Plant and in the maintenance plan.
    EPA has evaluated the NOX limits for the Gadsby and Utah 
Power Plants and has determined they satisfy the NOX RACT 
requirement for these sources.
    (8.)c. Partial NOX RACT Exemption request. Although the 
State required some NOX reductions at other major stationary 
sources of NOX as part of the PM10 SIP for Salt 
Lake County and southern Davis County, the State did not perform a 
NOX RACT evaluation or require NOX RACT for these 
other sources. However, the State has submitted a request pursuant to 
CAA section 182(f)(2) for a NOX RACT exemption for major 
stationary sources of NOX in the SLDC nonattainment area 
other than the Gadsby and Utah Power Plants.
    Under section 182(f)(2)(A), the Administrator may limit the 
application of the NOX RACT requirement to the extent 
necessary to avoid excess reductions of NOX. Section 
182(f)(2)(B)(i) defines excess NOX reductions as reductions 
the Administrator determines would not contribute to attainment of the 
ozone NAAQS in the area. EPA has indicated that in cases where a 
nonattainment area is demonstrating attainment with 3 consecutive years 
of air quality monitoring data, without having implemented all or a 
portion of the section 182(f) NOX provisions, it is clear 
that this test is met since ``additional reductions of [NOX] 
would not contribute to attainment'' of the NAAQS in that area. EPA 
issued guidance memorandums addressing this NOX exemption 
issue; of particular importance to the Utah situation are a May 27, 
1994, John S. Seitz memorandum entitled ``Section 182(f) Nitrogen 
Oxides (NOX) Exemptions--Revised Process and Criteria'' and 
a January 12, 1995, G. T. Helms memorandum entitled ``Scope of Nitrogen 
Oxides (NOX) Exemptions.''
    The State met this NOX exemption threshold in 1992 as 
ambient air quality monitoring data from 1990, 1991, and 1992 showed 
that the SLDC area had attained the ozone NAAQS. In addition, 
monitoring data show that the SLDC area has continued to maintain the 
ozone NAAQS.
    The ambient air quality monitoring data for the years 1990, 1991, 
and 1992, as provided with the State's May 2, 1997, letter, have been 
quality assured and archived in EPA's Aerometric Information and 
Retrieval System (AIRS) by the State in accordance with 40 CFR Part 58. 
These data were then evaluated by EPA according to the procedures in 40 
CFR Part 50, Appendix H. The results of this analysis indicate that the 
SLDC area attained the current ozone NAAQS as of 1992. Additional 
quality assured data were provided with the State's May 2, 1997, 
letter, and are also included in the maintenance plan and the State's 
TSD for the redesignation request. These data were also archived in 
AIRS by the State, in accordance with 40 CFR part 58, and

[[Page 28404]]

include the years 1993, 1994, 1995, and 1996. Based on EPA's review of 
all the air monitoring data from 1990 through 1996, EPA has determined 
that the SLDC area attained the ozone NAAQS in 1992 and has continued 
to demonstrate attainment of the ozone NAAQS through 1996. Therefore, 
EPA has determined that the State's May 2, 1997, partial NOX 
RACT exemption request for the SLDC area meets the applicable 
requirements of section 182(f)(2) of the CAA and is consistent with EPA 
guidance.
    It is important to note that EPA is only proposing to approve an 
exemption from the NOX RACT requirements for those major 
stationary sources of NOX in the SLDC nonattainment area 
other than the Gadsby Power Plant and the Utah Power Plant. EPA is not 
proposing an exemption from the NOX NSR requirements, 
NOX conformity requirements, or the motor vehicle I/M 
requirements related to NOX. Furthermore, EPA notes that 
NOX limits for some or all of the major stationary sources 
of NOX other than the Gadsby and Utah Power Plants are 
necessary for the SLDC nonattainment area to demonstrate maintenance of 
the ozone NAAQS through 2007 (2020 for conformity purposes).
    (8.)d. R307-14-1 Generic NOX RACT. The State also has a 
generic NOX RACT rule, contained in R307-14-1, UACR, which 
requires RACT for existing major sources of NOX for which no 
specific emission limits or other control requirements have been 
established in R307-14. EPA is proposing limited approval of the 
generic NOX RACT provisions for their strengthening effect 
on the SIP. EPA is not making a finding that these provisions meet the 
requirements to be considered RACT. As noted above with respect to the 
State's generic VOC RACT provisions, which are also contained in R307-
14-1 and which overlap to a significant degree, the State's reference 
to 40 CFR 51.100(o) to define RACT is inappropriate. In addition, R307-
14-1.D.(2) suggests that prior applications of RACT under other Federal 
or State requirements might be deemed adequate to satisfy the 
NOX RACT requirements of CAA section 182(f) even if they do 
not meet presumptive NOX RACT levels. EPA believes the State 
may be referring to limits set for the PM10 SIP. It is EPA's 
position that the State's suggested approach is not allowed under 
section 182(f) of the CAA. NOX RACT for section 182(f) 
purposes must be evaluated independently of NOX limits set 
for purposes of a PM10 SIP or other State or Federal 
requirement. Finally, EPA notes that R307-14-1.F applies to 
NOX as well as VOCs and leaves discretion in the Executive 
Secretary of the Utah Department of Environmental Quality to change 
test methods without EPA approval. As discussed above with respect to 
VOC RACT, this type of provision is not consistent with EPA's 
requirements.
    For these reasons, EPA cannot fully approve Utah's generic 
NOX RACT rule as meeting section 182(f) and other SIP 
requirements. However, EPA believes this generic NOX RACT 
rule strengthens the SIP and is proposing limited approval of the rule 
provisions for their strengthening effect only. The State's generic 
NOX RACT rule is not necessary to the redesignation request 
because the State has adopted NOX RACT for the Gadsby and 
Utah Power Plants and the SLDC area qualifies for a NOX RACT 
exemption for any other major stationary sources of NOX.

Section 4. 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).
    Based on the approval into the SIP of provisions under the pre-1990 
CAA and EPA's prior approval of SIP revisions required under the 1990 
amendments to the CAA, EPA has determined that Utah will have a fully 
approved ozone SIP under section 110(k) for the SLDC ozone 
nonattainment area if EPA takes final action to approve the 1990 base 
year emissions inventory, the State's VOC and NOX RACT 
requirements (with the exceptions noted above), the State's partial 
NOX RACT exemption request, the Basic I/M program, and the 
Salt Lake and Davis Counties Improved I/M rules as described above. EPA 
intends to take final action approving the above SIP elements at the 
same time that EPA takes final action to approve the SLDC ozone 
redesignation request.

Section 5. 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 implementation of the applicable 
implementation plan, implementation of applicable Federal air pollutant 
control regulations, and other permanent and enforceable reductions.
    In addition to the reduction of emissions from the revisions to the 
SIP described above (VOC RACT, NOX RACT for the Utah Power 
Plant and Gadsby Power Plant, the PM10 SIP revision, VOC/
NOX NSR) and in section IX.D.2.b of the SLDC maintenance 
plan, other Federal emission control measures have come into place 
since the SLDC area last violated the current ozone standard. These 
control measures include the reduction in summertime fuel volatility to 
7.8 psi (beginning in 1992), as measured by Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP), 
and fleet turnover due to the Federal Motor Vehicle Control Program 
(FMVCP). Both of these control measures provided significant VOC 
emission reductions.
    EPA has evaluated the various State and Federal control measures, 
the 1990 base year emission inventory, the 1994 attainment year 
emission inventory, and the projected emissions described below, and 
has concluded that the improvement in air quality in the SLDC 
nonattainment area has resulted from emission reductions that are 
permanent and enforceable.

Section 6. Redesignation Criterion: The Area Must Have A Fully Approved 
Maintenance Plan Under 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 ten-year 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, EPA 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

[[Page 28405]]

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 proposing approval of the State of Utah's maintenance 
plan for the SLDC nonattainment area because EPA has determined, as 
detailed below, that the State's maintenance plan submittal meets the 
requirements of section 175A and is consistent with the documents 
referenced above. EPA's analysis of the pertinent maintenance plan 
requirements, with reference to the Governor's February 19, 1997, 
submittal, is provided as follows:
A. Emissions Inventories--Attainment Year and Projections
    EPA's interpretations of the CAA section 175A maintenance plan 
requirements are generally provided in the General Preamble and 
September 4, 1992, policy memorandum referenced above. Under EPA's 
interpretations, areas seeking to redesignate to attainment for ozone 
may demonstrate future maintenance of the NAAQS either by showing that 
future ozone precursor emissions will be equal to or less than the 
attainment year emissions or by providing a modeling demonstration. For 
the SLDC area, the State selected the emissions inventory approach for 
demonstrating maintenance of the ozone NAAQS.
    The maintenance plan that the Governor submitted on February 19, 
1997, included comprehensive inventories of the VOC, NOX, 
and CO emissions from the SLDC area. These inventories include 
emissions from stationary point sources, area sources, non-road mobile 
sources, on-road mobile sources, and biogenics. The State selected 1994 
as the year from which to develop the attainment year inventory and 
included year-by-year projections out to 2007. More detailed 
descriptions of the 1994 attainment year inventory and the projected 
inventories are documented in the maintenance plan, sections IX.D.2.e 
and IX.D.2.f, and in 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 1994 attainment 
year and a sampling of the projected years are provided in the tables 
below.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     1994         1997         2000         2003         2007   
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Summary of VOC Emissions in Tons Per Day                                    
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point Sources..................................        11.81        12.79        13.42        14.13        15.04
Area Sources...................................        40.81        45.24        48.50        51.81        56.59
Non-Road Mobile Sources........................        33.16        32.12        30.91        28.35        22.81
On-Road Mobile Sources.........................        75.40        70.66        62.96        60.46        58.47
Biogenics......................................        38.94        38.94        38.94        38.94        38.94
                                                ----------------------------------------------------------------
      Total....................................       200.13       199.75       194.73       193.69       191.84
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Summary of NOX Emissions in Tons Per Day                                    
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point Sources..................................        27.74        24.97        26.15        27.57        29.47
Area Sources...................................         7.32         7.95         8.38         8.85         9.57
Non-Road Mobile Sources........................        50.17        51.04        49.34        48.44        48.06
On-Road Mobile Sources.........................        73.66        73.11        65.87        65.24        67.31
                                                ----------------------------------------------------------------
      Total....................................       158.89       157.08       149.74       150.10       154.39
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Summary of CO Emissions in Tons Per Day                                    
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point Sources..................................         3.83         3.99         4.18         4.40         4.67
Area Sources...................................         4.88        10.19        10.45        10.72        11.15
Non-Road Mobile Sources........................       292.86       308.05       322.65       339.76       366.63
On-Road Mobile Sources.........................       634.95       557.84       451.89       413.22       393.23
                                                ----------------------------------------------------------------
      Total....................................       936.51       880.07       789.17       768.10       775.68
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Demonstration of Maintenance--Projected Inventories
    Total ozone precursor emissions of VOCs and NOX were 
projected by the State year-by-year from 1995 through 2007.2 
These projected inventories were prepared in accordance with EPA 
guidance (further information is provided in section IX.D.2.f of the 
maintenance plan). The projected inventories show that VOC and 
NOX emissions are not expected to exceed the 1994 attainment 
level during this time period and, therefore, the SLDC area has 
satisfactorily demonstrated maintenance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ EPA notes that in developing the 1990 base year inventory, 
the State provided CO emission data as required by EPA for 1990 base 
year emission inventories. As the initial November 12, 1993, 
maintenance plan submittal used 1990 as the attainment year 
inventory, these CO emissions were projected by the State along with 
VOC and NOX emissions. The State continued to carry CO 
emission data through each subsequent revision to the maintenance 
plan up through, and including, the February 19, 1997 version. EPA 
is acknowledging and archiving these CO emission projections with 
this Federal Register action. However, these CO emission projections 
are not necessary for the SLDC redesignation to attainment and will 
not be discussed further.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Monitoring Network and Verification of Continued Attainment
    Continued attainment of the ozone NAAQS in the SLDC area depends, 
in part, on the State's efforts to track indicators throughout the 
maintenance period. This requirement is met in two sections of the SLDC 
maintenance plan. In section IX.D.2.c.(4) and section IX.D.2.j.(2) the 
State commits to continue the operation of the ozone monitors in the 
SLDC area and to annually review this monitoring

[[Page 28406]]

network and make changes as appropriate. Also, in section 
IX.D.2.j.(1)(a) the State commits to prepare a comprehensive emission 
inventory of VOC, NOX, and CO emissions every three years 
beginning with 1996. These inventories will be based on the most 
current Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) data, actual point source 
emissions, and area source emissions based on the most current 
population and industry growth information. The above commitments by 
the State, which will be enforceable by EPA following the final 
approval of the SLDC maintenance plan SIP revision, are deemed adequate 
by EPA.
D. 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.D.2.h of the maintenance plan, the contingency measures for 
the SLDC area will be triggered by a violation of the ozone standard. 
The contingency measures identified are: (1) increase the VOC and 
NOX offset levels from 1.15 to 1 to 1.20 to 1, (2) decrease 
the threshold level for requiring offsets from 100 tons per year to 50 
tons per year, (3) implement Stage II vapor recovery, and (4) require 
more stringent low-NOX burner controls. A more complete 
description of the triggering mechanism and these contingency measures 
can be found in section IX.D.2.h of the maintenance plan SIP submittal. 
EPA finds that the contingency measures provided in the State's 
maintenance plan meet the requirements of section 175A(d) of the CAA.
E. Subsequent Maintenance Plan Revisions
    In accordance with section 175A(b) of the CAA, the State of Utah 
has committed to submit a revised maintenance plan SIP revision eight 
years after redesignation. This provision and other State-triggered 
mechanisms (such as in response to revisions to the ozone NAAQS or to 
take advantage of improved or more expeditious methods of maintaining 
the ozone standard) for revising the maintenance plan are contained in 
section IX.D.2.h.(3) of the SLDC maintenance plan.
F. Transportation Conformity
    One key provision of the conformity regulations requires a 
demonstration that emissions from the transportation plan and 
Transportation Improvement Program are consistent with the emissions 
budgets in the SIP (40 CFR sections 93.118 and 93.119). 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 area. The rule's requirements and 
EPA's policy on emissions budgets are found in the Preamble to the 
transportation conformity rule (58 FR 62193-96) and in the sections of 
the rule referenced above.
    The maintenance plan defines emissions budgets for each year 
between 1994 and 2007, and for 2015 and 2020. (See Table 8 of the 
maintenance plan). The 1994-2007 emissions budgets are based on the 
maintenance plan's emission inventory projections, while the 2015 and 
2020 budgets are based on EKMA modeling. The maintenance plan lists 
budgets for Salt Lake County and Davis County separately, and for the 
entire nonattainment area (both Counties combined). The plan provides 
that the metropolitan planning organization (Wasatch Front Regional 
Council) may demonstrate conformity with the budgets for each County 
individually or for the entire nonattainment area at its option. The 
plan also identifies a safety margin (called the ``emissions credit'') 
for each year, which is the difference between total emissions from all 
sources in the attainment year and in each future year. The plan 
provides that this safety margin may be used for conformity purposes if 
authorized by the Utah Air Quality Board.

Proposed Action

    In this action, EPA is proposing to approve the SLDC redesignation 
request, maintenance plan, and other related SIP elements, including 
the 1990 base year emissions inventory, Reasonably Available Control 
Technology (RACT) for Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC), NOX 
RACT for Kennecott's Utah Power Plant and for the Gadsby Power Plant, 
and the Basic Inspection and Maintenance (I/M) and Improved I/M 
provisions for Salt Lake and Davis Counties. EPA is also proposing to 
approve a partial Nitrogen Oxides (NOX) RACT exemption 
request. EPA will not proceed with approval of the redesignation 
request unless EPA also proceeds with the final full approval of the 
maintenance plan, all applicable SIP elements, and the partial 
NOX RACT exemption.
    In this action, EPA is also proposing to give limited approval to 
the State's generic VOC RACT and generic NOX RACT rules, and 
to fully approve the I/M provisions for Weber County. These SIP 
elements are either not necessary or not relevant to the SLDC 
redesignation request.
    EPA is requesting comments on all aspects of this proposal. As 
indicated elsewhere in this document, to be considered, comments must 
be received by June 23, 1997.
    Nothing in this action should be construed as permitting or 
allowing or establishing a precedent for any future request for 
revision to any State Implementation Plan. Each request for revision to 
any State Implementation Plan shall be considered separately in light 
of specific technical, economic, and environmental factors and in 
relation to relevant statutory and regulatory requirements.

Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

    This action has been classified as a Table 3 action for signature 
by the Regional Administrator under the procedures published in the 
Federal Register on January 19, 1989 (54 FR 2214-2225), as revised by a 
July 10, 1995 memorandum from Mary Nichols, Assistant Administrator for 
Air and Radiation. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has 
exempted this regulatory action from E.O. 12866 review.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 600 et. seq., EPA 
must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis assessing the impact of 
any proposed or final rule on small entities. 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604. 
Alternatively, EPA may certify that the rule will not have a 
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small 
entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, 
and government entities with jurisdiction over populations of less than 
50,000.
    Redesignation of an area to attainment under sections 107(d)(3) (D) 
and (E) of the CAA does not impose any new requirements on small 
entities. Redesignation to attainment is an action that affects the 
status of a geographical area and does not impose any regulatory 
requirements on sources. Therefore, I certify that the approval of the 
redesignation request will not affect a substantial number of small 
entities.
    SIP approvals under section 110 and subchapter I, part D of the 
Clean Air Act do not create any new requirements but simply approve 
requirements that the State is already imposing. Therefore, because the 
Federal SIP approval does not impose any new requirements, I

[[Page 28407]]

certify that it does not have a significant impact on any small 
entities affected. Moreover, due to the nature of the Federal-State 
relationship under the CAA, preparation of a flexibility analysis would 
constitute Federal inquiry into the economic reasonableness of State 
action. The Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base its actions concerning 
SIPs on such grounds. Union Electric Co. v. U.S. EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 
255-66 (1976); 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).
    Approvals of NOX exemption requests under section 182(f) 
of the CAA do not create any new requirements. Therefore, I certify 
that approval of the State's partial NOX RACT exemption 
request will not have a significant impact on any small entities 
affected.

C. Unfunded Mandates

    Under Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 
(``Unfunded Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA 
must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or 
final rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in estimated 
costs to State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate, or to 
the private sector, of $100 million or more. Under Section 205, EPA 
must select the most cost-effective and least burdensome alternative 
that achieves the objectives of the rule and is consistent with 
statutory requirements. Section 203 requires EPA to establish a plan 
for informing and advising any small governments that may be 
significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule.
    EPA has determined that the proposed action does not include a 
Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs of $100 million or 
more to either State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate or 
to the private sector. This Federal action will approve a redesignation 
to attainment, pre-existing requirements under State or local law, and 
an exemption from requirements otherwise imposed under the CAA; this 
action will impose no new requirements. Accordingly, no additional 
costs to State, local, or tribal governments, or to the private sector, 
will result from this action.

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 52

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

40 CFR Part 81

    Air pollution control, National parks, Wilderness areas.

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.

    Dated: May 14, 1997.
Jack W. McGraw,
Acting Regional Administrator.
[FR Doc. 97-13649 Filed 5-22-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P