[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 175 (Tuesday, September 10, 2002)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 57357-57362]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-22986]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[UT-001-0047; FRL-7373-5]


Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; 
State of Utah; Utah County PM10 State Implementation Plan 
Revisions

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: On July 3, 2002, the Governor of Utah submitted a State 
Implementation Plan (SIP) revision for the Utah County nonattainment 
area for particulates of 10 microns in size or smaller 
(PM10). The Utah Department of Air Quality's (UDAQ) 
submittal, among other things, revises the existing attainment 
demonstration in the approved PM10 SIP based on a short-term 
emissions inventory, establishes 24-hour emission limits for the major 
stationary sources in the Utah County PM10 nonattainment 
area and establishes motor vehicle emission budgets based on EPA's most 
recent mobile source emissions model, Mobile6. In this action, EPA is 
proposing approval and soliciting public comment on the SIP revision. 
This action is being taken under sections 107, 110, and 189 of the 
Clean Air Act (Act).

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before October 10, 2002.

ADDRESSES: Written comments may be mailed to Richard R. Long, Director, 
Air and Radiation Program, Mailcode 8P-AR, Environmental Protection 
Agency (EPA), Region VIII, 999 18th Street, Suite 300, Denver, 
Colorado, 80202-2466. Copies of the documents relevant to this action 
are available for public inspection during normal business hours at the 
Air and Radiation Program, Environmental Protection Agency, Region 
VIII, 999 18th Street, Suite 300, Denver, Colorado, 80202-2466. Copies 
of the State documents relevant to this action are available for public 
inspection at the Utah Department of Environmental Quality, Division of 
Air Quality, 150 North 1950 West, Salt Lake City, Utah 84114-4820.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Libby Faulk, EPA, Region VIII, (303) 
312-6083.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, wherever ``we'', 
``us'', or ``our'' are used, we mean the Environmental Protection 
Agency (EPA).

Table of Contents

I. EPA's Proposed Action
    A. What Action Is EPA Proposing To Take?
II. Summary of SIP Revision
    A. Did Utah Follow the Proper Procedures for Adopting this 
Action?
    B. What Changes to the SIP Is EPA Proposing to Approve?
    1. Transportation Conformity Requirements
    2. Updated Emissions Inventory and Attainment Demonstration
    3. Establishment of Enforceable Short-Term Emission Limits for 
Major Stationary Sources
    4. Director's Discretion Provisions
III. UDAQ's Commitment for Future SIP Revisions
IV. Background
IV. Administrative Requirements

[[Page 57358]]

I. EPA's Proposed Action

A. What Action Is EPA Proposing To Take?

    We are proposing to approve the Governor of Utah's submittal of 
July 3, 2002, that requests our approval of the Utah County 
PM10 SIP revision that Utah adopted on June 5, 2002 and July 
3, 2002.\1\ With the SIP revision, Utah has revised Section IX (Section 
9 under our current approved version of the Utah SIP), ``Control 
Measures for Area and Point Sources,'' Part A, ``Fine Particulate 
Matter'' and Part H, ``Emission Limits.'' In addition, Utah revised its 
regulation R307-110-10 (R307-2-10 under our current approved version of 
the Utah SIP) to incorporate by reference its July 3, 2002 revision of 
the Utah County portion of the Utah SIP, Section IX, Part A. In 
addition, Utah revised its regulation R307-110-117 (R307-2-17 under our 
current approved version of the Utah SIP) to incorporate by reference 
its June 5, 2002 revision of the Utah County portion of the Utah SIP, 
Section IX, Part H. We are soliciting public comment on all aspects of 
this proposed SIP rulemaking action. Any comments received by the 
deadline stated in the Dates section of this document will be 
considered before taking final action. Interested parties may 
participate in the Federal rulemaking procedure by submitting written 
comments to the EPA Regional office listed in the ADDRESSES section of 
this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Although Utah adopted the SIP revision on June 5 and July 3, 
2002, the revision will not be State-effective until September 1, 
2002. We will not take final action on the SIP revision until after 
it has become effective. Because the Governor submitted the SIP 
revision to us for approval before its effective date, our proposal 
may be viewed as a limited use of our parallel processing procedures 
under 40 CFR part 51, appendix V.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Summary of SIP Revision

A. Did Utah Follow the Proper Procedures for Adopting This Action?

    Section 110(k) of the CAA addresses our actions on submissions of 
revisions to a SIP. The Act also requires States to observe certain 
procedural requirements in developing implementation plans and plan 
revisions for submission. Section 110(a)(2) of the Act provides that 
each implementation plan submitted by a State must be adopted after 
reasonable notice and public hearing. Section 110(l) of the Act 
similarly provides that each revision to an implementation plan 
submitted by a State under the Act must be adopted by such State after 
reasonable notice and public hearing.
    We also must determine whether a submittal is complete and 
therefore warrants further review and action [see section 110(k)(1) and 
57 FR 13565, April 16, 1992]. Our completeness criteria for SIP 
submittals are set out at 40 CFR part 51, appendix V. We attempt to 
make completeness determinations within 60 days of receiving a 
submission. However, a submittal is deemed complete by operation of law 
under section 110(k)(1)(B) if a completeness determination is not made 
within six months after receipt of the submission.
    On March 13, 2002 the Utah Air Quality Board agreed to propose the 
Utah County PM10 SIP revision for public comment. Copies of 
the proposed changes were made available to the public and the Air 
Quality Board held public hearings on April 23, 2002 and April 24, 2002 
to consider public comment on the above SIP revision. Utah addressed 
comments received before the final adoption of the revision. The Utah 
County SIP revision was subsequently adopted by the Utah Air Quality 
Board on June 5 and July 3, 2002. The revision was formally submitted 
to us for approval with a Governor's letter dated July 3, 2002. Utah's 
SIP revision will be state-effective on September 1, 2002. We reviewed 
these SIP materials for conformance with the completeness criteria in 
40 CFR part 51, appendix V and determined that Utah's submittal was 
administratively and technically complete for purposes of parallel 
processing. Pursuant to section 110(k)(1)(B), we informed Utah of our 
completeness determination with a August 15, 2002 letter from Robert E. 
Roberts, Regional Administrator to Governor Michael Levitt.

B. What Changes to the SIP Is EPA Proposing To Approve?

1. Transportation Conformity Requirements
    This SIP revision establishes motor vehicle emission budgets and 
includes an analysis of those budgets. Under EPA's regulations at 40 
CFR part 93, the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) is required 
to determine conformity of transportation plans and projects to the 
motor vehicle emission budgets as approved in the PM10 SIP. 
The MPO in Utah County is the Mountainland Association of Governments 
(MAG).
    Utah County has been in a conformity lapse since August 2000 
because transportation plans for the area could not meet the 
PM10 and NOX motor vehicle emission budgets that 
were derived from the emissions inventory in the approved 
PM10 SIP.\2\ Utah County could not meet the established 
motor vehicle emission budgets because the budgets were based on an 
outdated mobile source emissions model (Mobile 4) \3\ and the area 
exceeded its growth projections.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ EPA approved the PM10 SIP on July 8, 1994 (59 FR 
35036).
    \3\ Sections 40 CFR 93.110 and 93.111 require areas to use the 
latest planning assumptions and the latest emissions model for 
conformity determinations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This SIP revision establishes new motor vehicle emission budgets 
for PM10 and NOX which are based on the latest 
planning assumptions, including the latest growth projections, and the 
latest emissions model (Mobile 6), released on January 29, 2002 (67 FR 
4254). The new motor vehicle emission budgets are established for years 
2003, 2010, and 2020 and take into account growth in all other source 
categories. Please refer to Table 1: Transportation Conformity Motor 
Vehicle Emission Budgets.

   Table I.--Transportation Conformity Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Primary
                       Year                         PM (tons/  NOX (tons/
                                                       day)       day)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2003..............................................       6.57      20.35
2010..............................................       7.74      12.75
2020..............................................      10.34       5.12
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The values for 2003 reflect the inventory values for motor vehicles 
that were used in the CMB modeling. The CMB modeling, based on these 
inventory values, and inventory values for other source categories, 
demonstrates attainment in 2003. For 2010 and 2020, inventory values 
for all source categories were projected forward. The 2010 and 2020 
motor vehicle emissions budgets reflect the motor vehicle inventory 
values in 2010 and 2020, except that ``road dust'' and ``brake wear'' 
portions of the 2020 motor vehicle inventory for PM10 were 
expanded by 7 percent to take advantage of part of the available safety 
margin in that year. Per 40 CFR 93.101, the safety margin is the amount 
by which the total projected emissions from all sources of a given 
pollutant are less than the total emissions that would satisfy the 
applicable requirement for reasonable further progress, attainment or 
maintenance. The applicable standard for PM10 is 150 [mu]g/
m;\3\ even using the expanded 2020 motor vehicle emissions budget for 
PM10 reflected in the table above, the CMB projections for 
2020

[[Page 57359]]

show a maximum concentration of 146.4 [mu]g/m\3\, still below the 150 
[mu]g/m\3\ standard.
    If we approve them, the emissions budgets must be used for 
conformity determinations per 40 CFR 93.118. Specifically, the 2003 
budgets will apply for years 2003 through 2009, the 2010 budgets will 
apply for years 2010 through 2019, and the 2020 budgets will apply for 
years 2020 and beyond. In addition, after our final approval of the 
motor vehicle emission budgets and upon the Federal Highway 
Administration's approval of a positive conformity determination, the 
present conformity lapse in Utah County will end.
    On March 2, 1999, the United States Court of Appeals for the 
District of Columbia Circuit issued a decision in Environmental Defense 
Fund vs. the Environmental Protection Agency, No. 97-1637, that we must 
make an affirmative determination that the submitted motor vehicle 
emission budgets contained in SIPs are adequate before they are used to 
determine the conformity of Transportation Improvement Programs or Long 
Range Transportation Plans. In response to the court decision, we are 
making most submitted SIP revisions containing a control strategy plan 
available for public comment and responding to these comments before 
announcing our adequacy determination. (We do not perform adequacy 
determinations for SIP revisions that only create new emission budgets 
for years in which an EPA-approved SIP already establishes a budget, 
because these new budgets cannot be used for conformity until they are 
approved by EPA.) We make the motor vehicle emission budgets in SIP 
revisions available for comment by posting notification of their 
availability on our Web site (currently, these notifications are posted 
at www.epa.gov/oms/transp/conform/adequacy.htm). The adequacy process 
is discussed in greater detail in a May 14, 1999 memorandum from Gay 
MacGregor entitled ``Conformity Guidance on Implementation of March 2, 
1999 Conformity Court Decision,'' also available on our Web site at: 
http://www.epa.gov/oms/transp/traqconf.htm.
    Because they extend beyond the time-frame of the previously 
approved Utah County PM10 SIP, we are reviewing the 2010 and 
2020 motor vehicle emission budgets in this plan for adequacy using the 
criteria located at 40 CFR 93.118(e). The 2003 motor vehicle emission 
budgets would replace the previously approved 2003 budgets in the Utah 
County PM10 SIP revision and can't be used for purposes of 
demonstrating conformity unless and until we finally approve the Utah 
County PM10 SIP revision. The 2010 and 2020 motor vehicle 
emission budgets have been posted to our Web site at: http://www.epa.gov/oms/transp/conform/adequacy.htm and are available for 
public comment. If and when the 2010 and 2020 motor vehicle emission 
budgets are found to be adequate, the Utah Department of Transportation 
and the Federal Highway Administration must use these budgets in future 
conformity analyses, even if we do not publish a final rule approving 
the Utah County PM10 SIP revision.
2. Updated Emissions Inventory and Attainment Demonstration
    The emissions inventory for the Utah County PM10 
nonattainment area covers emissions from all sources of both primary 
and secondary PM10 inside Provo and Orem. The SIP revision 
uses a 1988 and 1989 base year emissions inventory, as well as a 2003 
projected emissions inventory for all sources in the inventory domain. 
The 1988/89 base year inventory was updated for purposes of this SIP 
revision to create a 24-hour inventory in order to be protective of the 
24-hour PM10 National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). 
The 1994 approved version of the PM10 SIP includes an 
emissions inventory based on monthly and annual PM10 values. 
The 2003 projected emissions inventory, which also contains 24-hour 
values, has been updated to reflect stationary source shut-downs and 
other changes affecting PM10, NOX, and 
SO2 emissions that have occurred since the development of 
the original PM10 SIP. The mobile source portion of both the 
base year and projected inventories were updated to include the use of 
the new Mobile6 emissions model.
    Utah updated the existing attainment demonstration from the 
original PM10 SIP to again create an analysis based on 24-
hour averages instead of annual values. Utah used the existing chemical 
mass balance (CMB) methodology for the 24-hour attainment 
demonstration. The CMB analysis was also updated to account for changes 
that have occurred since the development of the original 
PM10 SIP. One such change to the attainment demonstration is 
that Utah increased the wood burning control strategy effectiveness to 
90%, meaning that additional reductions in woodburning emissions are 
calculated into the attainment demonstration. In addition, since the 
development of the original PM10 SIP, some sources in the 
Utah County nonattainment area have banked emissions. Although these 
emissions are banked, the potential exists for the purchase and use of 
part or all of such banked emissions. Because of this, Utah has 
accounted for these banked emissions in the attainment demonstration by 
assessing the emissions to the source from which they came.
    Utah's revised attainment demonstration for Utah County projects 
attainment for 2002 and 2003 for SIP purposes, and for 2010 and 2020 
for conformity purposes only. In this revised SIP, the CMB analysis is 
based on 1988 and 1989 recorded monitoring data, which is the same data 
used in the original SIP. Table II below shows the results of the CMB 
analysis on the projected attainment years using only the highest 
concentration site for each year. Please refer to the Utah County SIP 
revision and technical support document (TSD) for more detailed 
information. Utah used three monitoring sites to demonstrate attainment 
on numerous high concentration days, although a demonstration of 
attainment is only required for the design day. In the table below, we 
only present results from the established design day (this is the same 
design day as in the original SIP revision).

         Table II.--Utah County PM10 CMB Analysis Results in [mu]g/m\3\ at Highest Concentration Monitor
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                           2020
                       Sources                          2002  (Lindon)   2003  (Lindon)    2010  (North   (North
                                                                                              Provo)      Provo)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Geneva Steel.........................................             51.5             51.5             38.7  38.7
Point Sources \4\....................................             23.5             23.5             18.5  18.5
Mobile Sources.......................................             46.5             45.8             56.1  55.4
Area Sources.........................................             17.4             17.7             16.8  19.1
                                                      ------------------

[[Page 57360]]

 
    Total Concentration..............................            138.9            138.4            130.0  131.7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ All point sources in Provo and Orem, excluding Geneva Steel. Includes secondary sulfates and nitrates.

    In the original SIP as well as in this SIP revision, Utah uses 
three monitoring sites to demonstrate attainment: Lindon, North Provo 
and West Orem. The West Orem monitoring site has been shut down since 
December 31, 1997.
3. Establishment of Enforceable Short-Term Emission Limits for Major 
Stationary Sources
    The original Utah County PM10 SIP includes the entire 
permit (circa 1988-1991) for most of the stationary sources in Provo 
and Orem. We only require that the major stationary sources of 
PM10 and its precursors have specific limits in SIPs. For 
these majors sources, it is important to include their appropriate 
emission limits and the enforceable provisions for those limits, but 
it's usually not essential to include their entire permit. Because Utah 
County is designated nonattainment for the 24-hour PM10 
NAAQS, the SIP limits must include short-term limits with an averaging 
time of 24 hours or less. To determine which sources should be treated 
as major sources for purposes of the PM10 SIP, threshold 
limits were chosen of 100 tons per year of primary PM10 
emissions, 200 tons per year of NOX emissions, and 250 tons 
per year of SO2 emissions. UDAQ's and EPA's analysis of the 
sources in Provo and Orem showed that sources above these levels 
account for a high percentage of stationary source emissions in the 
area. The five sources with explicit emission limits in the Utah County 
PM10 SIP revision are, Geneva Steel, Geneva Nitrogen, Inc., 
Provo City Power, Springville City Corporation and Geneva Rock 
Product's Asphalt Plant Baghouse Stack. Table III below shows the 
emission limits established through this SIP revision for the major 
sources, except Geneva Steel.

                         Table III.--Emission Limits for Stationary Sources in Tons/Day
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                Sources                                  Primary PM10       NOX          SO2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Geneva Nitrogen, Inc.--Montecantini Acid Plant Vent....................  ............         0.389  ...........
Geneva Nitrogen, Inc.--Weatherly Acid Plant Vent.......................  ............         0.233  ...........
Geneva Nitrogen, Inc.--Prill Tower.....................................         0.24   ............  ...........
Geneva Rock Products Asphalt Plant Baghouse Stack......................         0.103         0.568        0.484
Provo City Power.......................................................  ............         2.45   ...........
Springville City Corporation...........................................  ............         1.68   ...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table IV below provides the proposed 24-hour emission limits for 
the major emitting units at Geneva Steel for September through May, and 
Table V below provides the proposed 24-hour emission limits for the 
major emitting units at Geneva Steel for June through August. Table VI 
below provides the proposed annual emission limits for Geneva Steel's 
major emitting units.

 Table IV.--Emission Limits for Geneva Steel in Tons/Day (September-May)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Primary
       Geneva steel source             PM10         NOX          SO2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coke Plant \5\...................          0.1  ...........          0.0
Sinter Plant \6\.................  ...........  ...........  ...........
Blast Furnace....................          1.3  ...........  ...........
Q-BOP............................          0.5  ...........  ...........
Geneva Other \7\.................          1.2  ...........  ...........
Secondary Sulfate................  ...........  ...........          1.0
Secondary Nitrate................  ...........          7.7  ...........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ All NOX emissions from coke plant ovens have been banked. Emissions
  of NOX associated with continuing operations in the vicinity of the
  coke plant (coke pile handling) are accounted for in the secondary
  nitrate limit.
\6\ All emissions of PM10, SO2, and NOX from the sinter plant have been
  banked.
\7\ The ``Geneva Other'' category includes the power house, rolling mill
  and fugitive emissions.


  Table V.--Emission Limits for Geneva Steel in Tons/Day (June-August)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Primary
       Geneva steel source             PM10         NOX          SO2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coke Plant \8\...................          0.1  ...........          0.0
Sinter Plant \9\.................  ...........  ...........  ...........
Blast Furnace....................          1.3  ...........  ...........
Q-BOP............................          0.5  ...........  ...........
Geneva Other.....................          1.4  ...........  ...........
Secondary Sulfate................  ...........  ...........          3.4

[[Page 57361]]

 
Secondary Nitrate................  ...........          9.6  ...........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ All NOX emissions from coke plant ovens have been banked. Emissions
  of NOX associated with continuing operations in the vicinity of the
  coke plant (coke pile handling) are accounted for in the secondary
  nitrate limit.
\9\ All emissions of PM10, SO2, and NOX from the sinter plant have been
  banked.


     Table VI.--Annual Emission Limits for Geneva Steel in Tons/Year
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Primary
       Geneva steel source             PM10         NOX          SO2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coke Plant \8\...................         29.6  ...........          0.0
Sinter Plant \9\.................  ...........  ...........  ...........
Blast Furnace....................        454.4  ...........  ...........
Q-BOP............................        178.2  ...........  ...........
Geneva Other.....................        448.1  ...........  ...........
Secondary Sulfate................  ...........  ...........        560.2
Secondary Nitrate................  ...........       2971.8  ...........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ All NOX emissions from coke plant ovens have been banked. Emissions
  of NOX associated with continuing operations in the vicinity of the
  coke plant (coke pile handling) are accounted for in the secondary
  nitrate limit.
\9\ All emissions of PM10, SO2, and NOX from the sinter plant have been
  banked.

    It is important to note here that Geneva Steel is in the process of 
banking a significant amount of its emissions from the coke plant, 
sinter plant, Q-BOP, and sources in the ``Geneva Other'' category. This 
is due to the shutting down or reduction in emissions for the coke 
plant (some fugitive emissions remain from the coke piles), sinter 
plant, foundry and rolling mill scarfer facility. Emissions reductions 
are also due to fuel switching. Table VII below shows the banked 
emissions per process in tons per year of PM10, 
NOX, and SO2. Where Tables IV, V and VI reflect 
that all process emissions have been banked, no emissions from such 
process will occur under the SIP revision.

       Table VII.--Banked Emissions for Geneva Steel in Tons/Year
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Primary
       Geneva steel source             PM10         NOX          SO2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coke Plant.......................        461.8        557.2        454.9
Sinter Plant.....................        101.0        705.2        434.2
Q-BOP............................         27.2  ...........  ...........
Geneva Other.....................         51.0  ...........  ...........
                                  --------------
    Total........................          641       1262.4        889.1
------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Director's Discretion Provisions
    The EPA-approved PM10 SIPs for Utah County and Salt Lake 
County contain provisions that some would argue allow the Executive 
Secretary of the State of Utah to make changes effective to the SIP 
without first obtaining EPA approval. We believe these ``director's 
discretion'' provisions are contrary to the CAA and should not have 
been approved into the SIP.
    At the very least, these provisions have led to uncertainty 
regarding the content of the federally enforceable SIP. In order to 
address these concerns, Utah has inserted the following language into 
the SIP: ``Notwithstanding any other provision in the Utah SIP, no 
change to this SIP revision shall be effective to change the federal 
enforceability of the emission limits or other requirements of the Utah 
County PM10 SIP without EPA approval of such change as a SIP 
revision.'' This language makes clear that Utah may not unilaterally 
change the limits and requirements of the federally enforceable SIP, 
and that Utah's changes to elements of the SIP will not be federally 
effective without EPA's approval. As explained further below, Utah has 
also committed to work with us in order to permanently resolve the 
director's discretion issues in the Salt Lake County and Utah County 
PM10 SIPs.

III. UDAQ's Commitment for Future SIP Revisions

    With an April 18, 2002 letter from Richard Sprott, Director of 
Utah's Division of Air Quality to Richard Long, Director of the Air and 
Radiation Program in EPA Region 8, UDAQ committed to work with us to 
address remaining issues with the PM10 SIPs for both the 
Utah and Salt Lake County nonattainment areas and with the Utah SIP 
generally. Utah will address these ongoing issues in a SIP revision 
(which may be in the form of a maintenance plan) that will be submitted 
by March 1, 2004. Utah has committed to address the following issues 
with the existing SIP:
    (1) State authority as it relates to the discretion granted to the 
Executive Secretary of the Utah Air Quality Board (EPA uses the term 
``director's discretion'' for these provisions);
    (2) Variance provisions as provided in Utah law, Air Quality 
regulations and the SIP;
    (3) UAM-AERO based modeling and analysis to address pollutants of 
concern in the SIP or maintenance plan;
    (4) Stationary source modeling for major sources and appropriate 
non-major sources to determine predicted impacts of emission limits 
established in the SIP or maintenance plan;
    (5) Enforceable emission limits for sources in the SIP or 
maintenance plan, including enforceable 24-hour emission limits for 
major sources in both Salt Lake and Utah Counties and emission

[[Page 57362]]

limits (or surrogates for emission limits) for refinery process flaring 
and SRU maintenance downtime;
    (6) Emissions inventory and modeling analysis for the nonattainment 
areas in Salt Lake and Utah Counties;
    (7) New source review, emissions banking, and interpollutant 
trading (EPA's issues with these programs were explained in a May 10, 
2001 letter from Region 8 to UDAQ);
    (8) Unavoidable breakdown rules and consistency with the EPA 
September 20, 1999 policy regarding such breakdowns;
    (9) Inclusion of annual growth rates in the SIP or maintenance 
plans;
    (10) Justification for credits and growth rates for wood and coal 
burning in Utah County;
    (11) Backhalf emissions measuring for PM10 emissions 
limit stack testing;
    (12) General language clean up in the PM10 SIP to assure 
SIP is consistent and reads appropriately;
    (13) Diesel I/M revision or program withdrawal;
    (14) Emission budgets for PM10 and NOX in 
Salt Lake portion of PM10 SIP;
    (15) Emission inventory and modeling analysis for automobile 
emission inspection and maintenance program changes, if any such 
changes are made in the SIP or maintenance plan.
    The above issues aren't addressed in this SIP revision for Utah 
County and therefore, these issues will continue after our potential 
final approval of this SIP revision.

IV. Background

    On July 18, 1997, we promulgated new NAAQS for PM10 and 
PM2.5. However, on May 18, 1999, the United States Court of 
Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in American Trucking Associations, Inc. et 
al., v. United States Environmental Protection Agency vacated the 1997 
PM10 standard. Because of the Court ruling, we are 
continuing to implement the pre-existing PM10 standard, and 
are therefore taking actions on SIP revisions for PM10 
nonattainment areas.
    The original Utah County and Salt Lake County nonattainment area 
PM10 SIPs were approved on July 8, 1994 (59 FR 35036).

IV. Administrative Requirements

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this 
proposed action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and 
therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and 
Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive 
Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect 
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This 
proposed action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal 
requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those 
imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that 
this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility 
Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this rule proposes to approve pre-
existing requirements under state law and does not impose any 
additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it does 
not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect 
small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 
1995 (Pub. L. 104-4).
    This proposed rule also does not have tribal implications because 
it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian 
tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian 
tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between 
the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive 
Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not 
have Federalism implications because it does not have substantial 
direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national 
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and 
responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified 
in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action 
merely proposes to approve a state rule implementing a Federal 
standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of 
power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. This 
proposed rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 ``Protection 
of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant.
    In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state 
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In 
this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the 
State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority 
to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be 
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP 
submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise 
satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements 
of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This proposed rule does 
not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the 
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental 
relations, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements.

    Dated: August 27, 2002.
Jack W. McGraw,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region VIII.
[FR Doc. 02-22986 Filed 9-9-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P