[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 246 (Monday, December 23, 2002)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 78181-78191]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-32259]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[UT-001-0047; FRL-7422-9]


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

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is finalizing approval of the State of Utah's revision to 
the Utah State Implementation Plan (SIP) that was submitted by the 
Governor on July 3, 2002, revising the SIP for the Utah County 
nonattainment area for particulates of 10 microns in size or smaller 
(PM10). The Governor's 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.
    On September 10, 2002 EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking 
(NPR) (67 FR 57357). EPA's comment period concluded on October 10, 
2002. During this comment period, EPA received ten letters from various 
local governments within the Utah County area supporting EPA's approval 
of this SIP revision and two letters with specific comments regarding 
the approval of this action. The comments received and EPA's responses 
are addressed below.
    In this final rule action, EPA approves the Governor's July 3, 2002 
submittal adopting rule R307-110-10 which incorporates revisions to 
portions of Utah's SIP Section IX, Part A and rule R307-110-17 which 
incorporates revisions to portions of Utah's SIP Section IX, Part H. 
This action is being taken under sections 107, 110, and 189 of the 
Clean Air Act (Act).

EFFECTIVE DATE: This final rule is effective January 22, 2003.

ADDRESSES: 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 and copies of 
the Incorporation by Reference material are available at the Air and 
Radiation Docket and Information Center, Environmental Protection 
Agency, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW Room B108, Mail Code 6102T 
Washington D.C. 20460. 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: On September 10, 2002 EPA published a

[[Page 78182]]

notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR) for approval of the Utah County 
PM10 SIP revision (67 FR 57357). In this final rule action, 
EPA summarizes all comments and EPA's responses and approves the 
Governor's July 3, 2002, final SIP revision. Throughout this document, 
wherever ``we'', ``us'', or ``our'' are used, we mean the Environmental 
Protection Agency (EPA).

Table of Contents

I. Background Information
    A. What Is the Purpose of This Action?
    B. What Changes to the SIP is EPA Approving?
    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
    C. What Is the State's Process To Submit These Materials to EPA?
II. UDAQ's Commitment for Future SIP Revisions
III. Summary of Public Comments and EPA's Responses
IV. EPA's Final Action
V. Administrative Requirements

I. Background Information

A. What Is the Purpose of This action?

    We are approving 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 and that 
became State effective on September 5, 2002. With this 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'' of the SIP. 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 approving this request and its accompanying regulation 
revisions because the SIP revision meets the applicable requirements of 
the Act. For additional information on the Utah County PM10 
SIP revision, please refer to our notice of proposed rulemaking (67 FR 
57357).

B. What Changes to the SIP Is EPA Approving?

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.\1\ Utah County could not meet the established 
motor vehicle emission budgets because the budgets were based on an 
outdated mobile source emissions model (Mobile4) \2\ and the area 
exceeded its growth projections.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ EPA approved the PM10 SIP on July 8, 1994 (59 FR 
35036).
    \2\ 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 (Mobile6), 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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Year            Primary PM (tons/day)       NOX (tons/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/
m3; even using the expanded 2020 motor vehicle emissions 
budget for PM10 reflected in the table above, the CMB 
projections for 2020 show a maximum concentration of 146.4 [mu]g/
m3, still below the 150 [mu]g/m3 standard.
    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, upon the effective date of this 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

[[Page 78183]]

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 on March 2, 
1999 Conformity Court Decision,'' also available on our Web site at: 
www.epa.gov/oms/transp/traqconf.htm.
    Because they extend beyond the time-frame of the previously 
approved Utah County PM10 SIP, we reviewed 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 replace the previously approved 2003 budgets in the Utah County 
PM710 SIP revision and can't be used for purposes of 
demonstrating conformity until the effective date approving this Utah 
County PM10 SIP revision. The 2010 and 2020 motor vehicle 
emission budgets were posted to our Web site at: http://www.epa.gov/oms/transp/conform/adequacy.htm and were made available for public 
comment from August 1, 2002 through August 30, 2002. No comments were 
received. The 2010 and 2020 motor vehicle emission budgets were found 
to be adequate, effective October 16, 2002. The Utah Department of 
Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration must use these 
budgets in future conformity analyses.
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/m3 at Highest Concentration Monitor
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                   2010  (North    2020  (North
                     Sources                      2002  (Lindon)  2003  (Lindon)      Provo)          Provo)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Geneva Steel....................................            51.5            51.5            38.7            38.7
Point Sources\*\................................            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
                                                 -----------------
  Total Concentration...........................           138.9           138.4           130.0          131.7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\*\ 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

[[Page 78184]]

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

                     Table IV.--Emission Limits for Geneva Steel in Tons/Day (September-May)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       Geneva steel source                         Primary PM10         NOX             SO2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coke Plant\*\...................................................             0.1  ..............             0.0
Sinter Plant\**\................................................  ..............  ..............  ..............
Blast Furnace...................................................             1.3  ..............  ..............
Q-BOP...........................................................             0.5  ..............  ..............
Geneva Other\***\...............................................             1.2  ..............  ..............
Secondary Sulfate...............................................  ..............  ..............             1.0
Secondary Nitrate...............................................  ..............             7.7  ..............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\*\ 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.
\**\ All emissions of PM10, SO2, and NOX from the sinter plant have been banked.
\***\ 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)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       Geneva steel source                         Primary PM10         NOX             SO2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coke Plant\*\...................................................             0.1  ..............             0.0
Sinter Plant\**\................................................  ..............  ..............  ..............
Blast Furnace...................................................             1.3  ..............  ..............
Q-BOP...........................................................             0.5  ..............  ..............
Geneva Other....................................................             1.4  ..............  ..............
Secondary Sulfate...............................................  ..............  ..............             3.4
Secondary Nitrate...............................................  ..............             9.6  ..............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\*\ 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.
\**\ 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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       Geneva steel source                         Primary PM10         NOX             SO2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coke Plant\*\...................................................            29.6  ..............             0.0
Sinter Plant\**\................................................  ..............  ..............  ..............
Blast Furnace...................................................           454.4  ..............  ..............
Q-BOP...........................................................           178.2  ..............  ..............
Geneva Other....................................................           448.1  ..............  ..............
Secondary Sulfate...............................................  ..............  ..............           560.2
Secondary Nitrate...............................................  ..............          2971.8  ..............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\*\ 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.
\**\ 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 or has banked a significant amount of its emissions from the 
coke plant, sinter plant, Q-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

[[Page 78185]]

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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       Geneva steel source                         Primary 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 original 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 thatUtah'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.

C. What Is the State's Process To Submit These Materials to EPA?

    Section 110(k) of the CAA addresses our actions on submissions of 
revisions to a SIP. The CAA requires States to observe certain 
procedural requirements in developing SIP revisions for submittal to 
us. Section 110(a)(2) of the CAA requires that each SIP revision be 
adopted after reasonable notice and public hearing. This public process 
must occur prior to the State submitting its final revision to us.
    At the March 13, 2002 Utah Air Quality Board (UAQB) meeting, the 
UAQB proposed for public comment revisions to R307-110-10, SIP Section 
IX.A, R307-110-17, and SIP Section IX.H.1. The UAQB proposed the SIP 
revision for a 30-day State public comment period that began on April 
1, 2002. However, due to problems with copies of the amendment to the 
Utah County PM10 Plan, the State made revised copies 
available beginning April 4, 2002 and extended the public comment 
period to May 4, 2002. The State conducted public hearings on April 23 
and 24, 2002. Final action and approval was taken by the UAQB on June 
5, 2002 and July 3, 2002 and rule R307-110-10 incorporating revised 
Section IX.A, and rule R307-110-17 incorporating revised Section 
IX.H.1, into Utah's SIP became State effective on September 5, 2002.
    On July 3, 2002, the Governor submitted final rule R307-110-10, SIP 
Section IX.A, R307-110-17, and SIP Section IX.H.1 to us for approval 
into the Utah SIP. In a letter dated August 15, 2002, from Robert E. 
Roberts, EPA Region Administrator for Region VIII, to Governor Leavitt 
of Utah, we determined that the Governor's July 3, 2002, SIP submittal 
met the completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51, Appendix V, and 
therefore the submittal was considered administratively and technically 
complete.

II. 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 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.

[[Page 78186]]

    The above issues aren't addressed in this SIP revision for Utah 
County and therefore, these issues will continue after our final 
approval of this SIP revision.

III. Summary of Public Comments and EPA's Responses

    A number of the comments we received are more properly directed to 
the State of Utah. For instance, several comments complained that the 
State adopted additional controls for stationary sources in this SIP 
revision. Others complained that the State should've changed parts of 
the existing SIP that we have previously approved. We note that EPA's 
role in reviewing and acting on SIP revisions is limited. We take SIP 
revisions as they are submitted to us by a state. We must approve a SIP 
revision if it meets the applicable requirements of the Clean Air Act; 
we must disapprove it if it does not meet these requirements. We may 
not change the provisions that a state has adopted. As we describe in 
greater detail below, we do not view the negative comments we received 
as a basis to disapprove the SIP revision. We believe the SIP revision 
meets the applicable requirements of the CAA, and we are approving it.
    (1) Comment: One commenter suggests that the correct way to address 
a conformity problem is through mobile source control measures rather 
than revision to the entire SIP. Another commenter states that 
throughout the SIP revision process, not enough effort was made to 
control mobile source emissions which are the real source of the 
conformity problem.
    Response: The commenters' policy concerns are more properly 
directed to the State. The State has exercised its discretion in 
adopting changes to the SIP and allocating any burden of those changes 
among various source categories. Our role is limited; we must either 
approve or disapprove the changes the State has submitted depending on 
whether those changes meet the applicable requirements of the Clean Air 
Act. We are not authorized to disapprove the SIP based on the State's 
decision to allocate some or all of the control burden to stationary 
sources. We have evaluated the State's SIP revision; because it meets 
applicable requirements of the CAA, including the requirement to 
demonstrate attainment, we are approving it.
    (2) Comment: One commenter states that EPA encouraged a revision to 
the entire SIP rather than focus on mobile source emissions because EPA 
suggested it would not approve the conformity demonstration/SIP 
revision without satisfactory changes to stationary source portions of 
the SIP. The commenter suggests we took this ``indirect approach'' 
because the CAA clearly does not authorize the agency to make a SIP 
call under the circumstances.
    Response: This commenter's concerns do not present a basis for us 
to disapprove the SIP revision. Please see our response to the previous 
comment. As a point of clarification, we note that the State chose to 
revise the SIP to address the conformity lapse in Utah County. While 
the State was developing the SIP revision, we identified a number of 
concerns with the existing Utah County PM10 SIP, some of 
which related to stationary source provisions. Consistent with our 
obligations under the Clean Air Act, we advised the State of changes we 
thought necessary to ensure that the SIP revision would meet applicable 
Clean Air Act requirements. Whether we had authority to issue a SIP 
call is not a question that is before us today. We'd also like to 
clarify that EPA does not approve conformity demonstrations; instead, 
the Department of Transportation has the authority for such decisions.
    (3) Comment: One commenter, despite reservations, asks that EPA 
approve the SIP revision as soon as possible.
    Response: We acknowledge the supportive comment. We disagree with 
the commenter's suggestion that the revision is not legally or 
technically justified; even if the commenter is correct that the SIP 
revision is more stringent than minimally necessary to meet the Clean 
Air Act's requirements, this would not form a basis for us to 
disapprove the SIP. If a SIP revision meets the minimum requirements of 
the Clean Air Act, we are bound to approve it, even if it exceeds the 
minimum requirements. See Union Electric Co. v. Environmental 
Protection Agency, 427 U.S. 246, 263-264 (1976).
    (4) Comment: One commenter believes the Utah Division of Air 
Quality (DAQ) and Mountainland Association of Governments (MAG) have 
demonstrated conformity with the PM10 SIP and that EPA 
should approve the SIP revision as soon as possible so as not to stand 
in the way of Utah County receiving its federal highway funds.
    Response: We are approving the SIP, including the new budgets. Upon 
the effective date of this action, the new budgets will apply for 
purposes of determining conformity. It will then be up to the 
metropolitan planning organization (MAG) and the Department of 
Transportation to determine conformity with the new budgets.
    (5) Comment: One commenter believes that when the problem being 
addressed is growing mobile source emissions, it is bad policy to do 
anything other than address mobile source emissions exclusively. 
According to the commenter, EPA and DAQ should not use a conformity 
lapse situation as justification for demanding changes to the 
stationary source portion of the SIP. This sets a bad precedent.
    Response: The commenter's policy concerns are more properly 
directed to the State. The State has considerable latitude to determine 
the best way to address a conformity lapse. In revising the SIP to 
remedy such a lapse, the State has discretion to choose which sources 
to regulate and to what degree, so long as the SIP demonstrates 
attainment and meets other requirements of the CAA. Put another way, it 
is not our place to dictate where the State should find emissions 
reductions if emissions reductions are needed. Instead, our concern is 
that any SIP revision submitted by the State meet the requirements of 
the CAA and our regulations; to the extent we offered input to the 
State during the State's development of the Utah County PM10 
SIP revision, our input was intended to help the State adopt a SIP that 
would meet these criteria. Also, our conformity regulation at 40 CFR 
93.118(e)(4)(iv) indicates that emissions from all source categories 
must be considered when we determine whether motor vehicle budgets are 
consistent with attainment of the NAAQS. In determining adequacy or 
approvability of motor vehicle emissions budgets we cannot look at 
mobile sources in isolation.
    (6) Comment: One commenter asserts that the Utah PM10 
SIP should be further revised during the maintenance plan process to 
allow for plant modifications without requiring SIP revisions. The 
commenter expresses his opinions regarding the way in which the permit 
and SIP process should interact to allow source flexibility.
    Response: The issues raised by the commenter are not relevant to 
the submission made by the State and thus do not affect our approval of 
it.
    (7) Comment: One commenter suggests that any commitments or 
comments contained in an April 18, 2002 letter from DAQ to EPA 
regarding future SIP revisions are independent from this SIP revision 
and should not affect its approval.
    Response: While we noted the April 18, 2002 letter in our notice of 
proposed rulemaking, we proposed to approve the Utah County SIP 
revision. We are

[[Page 78187]]

approving the SIP revision with this rulemaking and the budgets 
contained in the SIP revision must be used for conformity 
determinations once our rulemaking is effective. We will address the 
commitments contained in the April 18, 2002, letter in future 
rulemaking.
    (8) Comment: We received numerous comments asking that we approve 
the SIP revision.
    Response: We acknowledge the supportive comments.
    (9) Comment: One commenter submitted a copy of the comments it 
submitted to the State during its hearing process. The commenter 
indicates that the comments raise some ``fundamental policy issues 
concerning the approach taken both by EPA and DAQ with regard to 
proposed SIP revisions,'' and asks that EPA consider the comments 
during its deliberations on the Utah County PM10 SIP 
revisions.
    Response: The commenter has not specified whether it is seeking EPA 
disapproval of the Utah County SIP revisions. However, for purposes of 
responding, we will assume that the commenter believes the SIP 
revisions should be disapproved. The following are summaries of 
comments submitted by this commenter and our responses.
    (10) Comment: The commenter complains that State changes to the 
proposed SIP revision were made without ample opportunity for comment 
by affected businesses. The commenter asks that all future changes 
allow stationary sources to provide input to the decision making 
process.
    Response: The commenter does not specify the changes that the State 
made to the proposed SIP revision; thus, we lack sufficient information 
to evaluate the commenter's complaint. We are not aware of changes the 
State made to the proposed SIP revision that would require a restart of 
the public participation process. Information submitted by the State 
indicates that the State conducted public hearings on the SIP revisions 
on April 23 and 24, 2002 and provided published notice of the hearings 
on March 23 and April 9, 2002. The State also provided a 30-day period 
for public comment and met with various stakeholders, including 
industrial sources, during the development of the SIP revisions. 
Section 110(a)(2) of the CAA requires states to adopt SIPs after 
reasonable notice and public hearing. We believe the State met these 
requirements.
    (11) Comment: The commenter seems to be asserting that we are 
holding or have held approval of the Utah County SIP revisions hostage 
until the State addresses our concerns. The commenter cites a case 
titled Snowbird Corporation v. U.S. Department of Agriculture for the 
proposition that such behavior is illegal.
    Response: We provided input to the State while the State developed 
revisions to the Utah County SIP revision and identified issues we felt 
the State would need to address in order for us to approve a revision 
to the SIP. The issues we raised were based on our interpretation of 
requirements of the Clean Air Act, and we believe our actions were 
completely within our authority under the Clean Air Act. If the State 
disagreed with our interpretations, it was free to disregard our input, 
submit a SIP revision, and exercise its legal rights under the Clean 
Air Act in the event we disapproved the submitted revision. There is no 
entitlement to approval of a SIP revision under the Clean Air Act 
unless the revision meets the requirements of the CAA and EPA 
regulations. Since receiving the SIP submittal from the State, we have 
acted expeditiously to propose it for approval and approve it. We have 
not held the SIP revision ``hostage.''
    (12) Comment: The commenter indicates that increases in mobile 
source emissions should not be used to justify reductions in allowable 
emission limits currently applicable to stationary sources. The 
commenter wants reasonably stringent budgets for mobile sources and 
wants mobile sources to stay within budget. The commenter wants any 
reductions in the inventory from use of MOBILE 6 modeling to be 
allocated to stationary sources.
    Response: These decisions are within the State's discretion in the 
first instance, and EPA may not consider these comments in determining 
whether the SIP revision meets the requirements of the CAA. See our 
response to previous comments. Also, see Union Electric Co. v. 
Environmental Protection Agency, 427 U.S. 246, 266 (1976), in which the 
Supreme Court held that a state ``may select whatever mix of control 
devices it desires'' as long as the NAAQS are met.
    (13) Comment: The commenter argues that the SIP revision contains 
emissions caps that will preclude plant production increases and 
growth. The commenter was concerned that these emissions caps may only 
be changed through an EPA-approved SIP revision. According to the 
commenter, such an approach is unrealistic and unworkable because the 
revision and approval process can take as long as 5 to 10 years. The 
commenter expressed concern that this will result in functionally 
prohibiting industrial and business expansion. The commenter suggests a 
countywide cap be implemented that allows emissions trading under the 
cap.
    Response: The commenter's concerns are more properly directed to 
the State because they raise issues with the State's chosen approach, 
not matters that are within the scope of EPA's approval or disapproval 
of this action. EPA's decision to approve the revision is limited to 
whether it complies with the applicable requirements of the CAA. We 
believe that the emissions limits meet the requirements of the Clean 
Air Act because they are practically enforceable and will ensure 
attainment of the NAAQS. The fact that the limits may only be changed 
through a SIP revision is not a basis for us to disapprove the SIP 
revision. In addition, we believe the commenter's assumptions are 
unfounded in certain respects. First, it is our understanding that many 
of the allowable limits in the SIP allow for considerable growth in 
emissions. (Whether such increases would trigger new source review 
requirements is a separate question.) Second, we have a responsibility 
under the Clean Air Act to ensure that emissions limits that form the 
basis for an attainment demonstration are enforceable and permanent. 
Permanent in this instance means that they may not be changed without 
EPA's approval through a SIP revision. See section 110(i) of the Act 
and 40 CFR 51.105. Third, this approach has proven workable throughout 
Region 8. Industrial and business expansion has continued, despite firm 
emissions limits in SIPs.
    (14) Comment: The commenter is concerned that language in the Utah 
SIP that relates to New Source Review negates one of the stated goals 
of the SIP revision--to remove smaller sources from the SIP and thus 
allow those smaller sources to change their Approval Orders without EPA 
review. The commenter mentions language stating that diffusion modeling 
will be performed to predict the source's effect on air quality in the 
area, and requiring issuance of an Approval Order. The commenter is 
concerned that this language could be interpreted to require EPA 
approval of changes to Approval Orders as SIP revisions.
    Response: The commenter's concerns are more properly directed to 
the State, rather than to EPA. The State did not adopt the changes the 
commenter requested and has not submitted changes to Section 2 of the 
Utah SIP. The absence of such changes does not render the Utah County 
PM10 SIP revision inadequate, and we are approving the SIP 
revision as submitted. However, we believe the commenter's

[[Page 78188]]

fears are unfounded. Requirements for New Source Review are intended to 
complement the SIP; see our response to comment 18, below. But, there 
is no requirement in the State's regulations or in our regulations that 
the State seek or gain prior EPA approval of changes to Approval 
Orders. This does not mean a state is free to ignore state or federal 
regulatory requirements in implementing its New Source Review 
requirements; if a state fails to implement those requirements, we may 
take a variety of actions under the Clean Air Act to correct the 
state's failure.
    (15) Comment: The commenter questions the addition of Geneva Rock 
asphalt plant to the SIP ``when it is not in the same category as the 
large stationary sources.'' The commenter also wonders why Geneva Rock 
has no annual emission limitations like other sources in the SIP.
    Response: We asked the State to include Geneva Rock in the SIP 
because Geneva Rock's allowables (i.e., permitted levels) for 
PM10 exceed 100 tons per year. This is the threshold for 
PM10 that the State and EPA settled on to define which 
sources to include in the SIP. We note that the inclusion in the SIP of 
emission limits for Geneva Rock is not a basis for us to disapprove the 
SIP revision. We don't know why the State did not include annual 
emission limits in the SIP for Geneva Rock. However, given Geneva 
Rock's size and the daily limits that apply November through February, 
we don't believe the lack of annual emission limits for this one source 
threatens the annual PM10 NAAQS.
    (16) Comment: The commenter suggests that other states, such as 
California and Texas, allow changes in equipment and/or facility 
modifications that do not require a SIP revision and asks the State to 
evaluate these approaches.
    Response: The commenter directed this comment to the State, but the 
State did not elect to adopt the suggested approach. Because the State 
has not submitted such mechanisms as part of this SIP revision, the 
comment is not relevant to our approval. The absence of such mechanisms 
does not form a basis for us to disapprove the SIP revision.
    (17) Comment: The commenter says that the provision in the SIP that 
requires offsets for emissions increases greater than 25 tons has never 
been adequately justified or considered and that it should be removed 
from the SIP.
    Response: The commenter directed this comment to the State, but the 
State did not elect to modify this provision of the SIP. The continued 
presence of this offset provision in the SIP does not render the 
submitted SIP revision inadequate or form a basis for us to disapprove 
the SIP revision.
    (18) Comment: The commenter indicates that for many companies 
regulated under the pre-existing Utah County PM10 SIP, 
details such as hours of operation and specific emission limitations 
have been added to their Approval Orders solely for the purpose of 
having the Approval Orders be consistent with the SIP. Now that the 
revised SIP no longer contains such limitations for many sources, the 
commenter argues that the Approval Orders for those sources should be 
revised to eliminate such limitations as well.
    Response: This comment does not pertain to the validity of the SIP 
revision itself. However, we do not believe it would be appropriate for 
the State to engage in wholesale changes to existing Approval Orders. 
The idea behind taking specific emissions limitations out of the SIP 
for some sources was to provide the type of flexibility the commenter 
is seeking--namely to make source changes without the need for a SIP 
revision. However, removal of these specific SIP provisions does not 
mean that such sources would be exempt from emissions limitations 
entirely, or that changes to their Approval Orders would be made 
without complying with the permitting requirements in the Utah SIP. 
Those permitting requirements, which EPA has approved and which are 
intended to meet the requirements of 40 CFR 51.160 through 51.166, are 
designed to ensure that permit changes are carefully evaluated for 
possible impacts on the relevant SIPs and on attainment and maintenance 
of the NAAQS. Neither the State nor sources can assume that removal of 
emissions limitations and other requirements from the Utah County SIP 
justifies their removal from Approval Orders.
    (19) Comment: The commenter suggests that EPA Method 5 should be 
added as an alternative to Method 201a for compliance testing, at a 
source's option. According to the commenter, the Executive Secretary 
should have the discretion to change other details specified in Section 
1.a.A without having to go through a full SIP revision, because this is 
a relatively minor aspect of the SIP.
    Response: The commenter's concern is directed at the State. We note 
that the SIP permits the use of EPA Method 5 under certain 
circumstances, depending on the characteristics of the gas stream in 
the stack. Beyond that, it is not within our authority to change the 
SIP that has been submitted to us. The lack of source or Executive 
Secretary discretion to change the test method is not a basis for 
disapproval of the submitted SIP. The inclusion of the discretion 
requested by the commenter would be a basis for disapproval. We note 
that the State has committed to address some issues we have with 
compliance testing in a future SIP revision, but these issues do not 
relate to the commenter's comment.
    (20) Comment: The commenter wonders whether incorporating the 
definitions of R307-101-2 into section 1.a.E of the SIP will limit 
DAQ's ability to modify its definitions without EPA approval of a SIP 
revision.
    Response: The requirement for EPA approval of changes to an element 
of the SIP is not a flaw in the submitted SIP, and we are approving the 
SIP as submitted. Our approval means that State changes to the SIP 
revision, including incorporated definitions, will not be federally 
effective until we approve them. This is because the Clean Air Act and 
our regulations provide that no changes to an applicable implementation 
plan are effective unless and until they are approved by us as a SIP 
revision. See section 110(i) of the CAA and 40 CFR 51.105.
    (21) Comment: The commenter indicates that the opacity measurement 
requirement of section 1.a.G of the SIP is more stringent than the 
federal Method 9 and that Method 9 opacity observations without 
modification should be used instead.
    Response: This comment was addressed to the State. The State did 
not adopt the change the commenter suggested. The State's adoption of a 
standard that is more stringent than applicable federal requirements is 
not a basis for disapproval.
    (22) Comment: The commenter states that section 1.a.H of the SIP 
should state that facilities with a required site-specific fugitive 
dust control plan are exempted from the requirements of this section.
    Response: The State did not adopt the change the commenter 
suggested. We believe the provision is adequate as written and are 
approving this provision of the SIP.

IV. EPA's Final Action

    In this action EPA is finalizing approval of the State of Utah's 
revision to the Utah State Implementation Plan (SIP) that was submitted 
by the Governor on July 3, 2002, revising the SIP for the Utah County 
nonattainment area for particulates of 10 microns in size or smaller 
(PM10). The Governor's submittal contains rule R307-110-10 
which incorporates revisions to portions

[[Page 78189]]

of Utah's SIP Section IX, Part A and rule R307-110-17 which 
incorporates revisions to portions of Utah's SIP Section IX, Part H. 
The Governor's 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.
    We note that Section IX, Part H of the SIP revision indicates that 
definitions contained in rule R307-101-2 apply to Section IX, Part H. 
Rule R307-101-2 is a recodification of rule R307-1-1. We have approved 
R307-1-1 into the SIP but not R307-101-2. For purposes of this action 
only, we have reviewed R307-101-2. We find that the definitions in 
R307-101-2 are generally the same as those contained in R307-1-1 and 
that they are acceptable as they apply to Section IX, Part H of the SIP 
revision. Therefore, we are listing under the additional materials 
section of this rulemaking (section C(54)(ii)(E) below) rule R307-101-2 
as in effect at the time Utah adopted the revisions to Section IX, Part 
H of the SIP and are placing a copy of the rule in the docket for this 
action. We will evaluate rule R307-101-2 as it applies to the Utah SIP 
generally in a future rulemaking action.
    This final action will become effective on January 22, 2003.

V. Administrative Requirements

(a) Executive Order 12866

    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this 
regulatory action from Executive Order 12866, entitled ``Regulatory 
Planning and Review.''
    (b) Executive Order 13045
    Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety 
Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), applies to any rule that: (1) Is 
determined to be ``economically significant'' as defined under 
Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health or 
safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate 
effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the 
Agency must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the 
planned rule on children, and explain why the planned regulation is 
preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible 
alternatives considered by the Agency.
    This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is not 
economically significant and EPA does not have the discretion to engage 
in a risk assessment or alternatives analysis in acting on SIP 
revisions.

(c) Executive Order 13132

    Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) revokes and replaces 
Executive Orders 12612 (Federalism) and 12875 (Enhancing the 
Intergovernmental Partnership). Executive Order 13132 requires EPA to 
develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely input 
by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies 
that have federalism implications.'' ``Policies that have federalism 
implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations 
that 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.'' Under Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a 
regulation that has federalism implications, that imposes substantial 
direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless 
the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct 
compliance costs incurred by State and local governments, or EPA 
consults with State and local officials early in the process of 
developing the regulation. EPA also may not issue a regulation that has 
federalism implications and that preempts State law unless the Agency 
consults with State and local officials early in the process of 
developing the regulation.
    This rule will 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, because it 
merely approves state rules implementing a federal standard, and does 
not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and 
responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. Thus, the 
requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply to this 
rule.

(d) Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and Coordination with Indian 
Tribal Governments)

    Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination 
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000), 
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful 
and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory 
policies that have tribal implications.''
    This final rule does not have tribal implications. It will not have 
substantial direct effects on tribal governments, 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 in Executive Order 13175. 
Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule.

(e) Executive Order 13211 (Energy Effects)

    This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211 ``Actions 
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 
Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)) because it is not a 
significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

(f) Regulatory Flexibility

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency 
to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to 
notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies 
that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small 
businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental 
jurisdictions.
    This final approval will not have a significant impact on a 
substantial number of small entities because 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 SIP final approval does not 
create any new requirements, I certify that this action will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
Moreover, due to the nature of the Federal-State relationship under the 
Clean Air Act, preparation of 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). Therefore, because the final rule does not create 
any new requirements, I certify that the final rule will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

[[Page 78190]]

(g) 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 this final approval 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 approves pre-existing 
requirements under State or local law, and imposes no new requirements. 
Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local, or tribal 
governments, or to the private sector, result from this action.

(h) Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. section 801 et seq., as 
added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 
1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency 
promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy 
of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller 
General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this 
rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House 
of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States 
prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule 
cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal 
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 
section 804(2). This rule will be effective January 22, 2003.

(i) National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12 of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act 
(NTTAA) of 1995 requires Federal agencies to evaluate existing 
technical standards when developing a new regulation. To comply with 
NTTAA, EPA must consider and use ``voluntary consensus standards'' 
(VCS) if available and applicable when developing programs and policies 
unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise 
impractical.
    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.

(j) Petitions for Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for 
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court 
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by February 21, 2003. Filing a 
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule 
does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial 
review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial 
review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such 
rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings 
to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2) of the Clean Air 
Act.)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen 
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements.

    Dated: December 12, 2002.
Robert E. Roberts,
Regional Administrator.

    Title 40, chapter I, part 52 of the Code of Federal Regulations is 
amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart TT--UTAH

    2. Section 52.2320 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(54) to read 
as follows:


Sec.  52.2320  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (54) On July 3, 2002, the Governor of Utah submitted a SIP revision 
revising the SIP for the Utah County nonattainment area for 
particulates of 10 microns in size or smaller (PM10). The 
Governor's 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.
    (i) Incorporation by reference.
    (A) Rule R307-110-10, which incorporates revisions to portions of 
the Utah State Implementation Plan, Section IX, ``Control Measures for 
Area and Point Sources,'' Part A, ``Fine Particulate Matter'' as 
adopted on July 3, 2002, by the Utah Air Quality Board, and State 
effective on September 5, 2002. (Section IX of the Utah SIP was 
formerly designated Section 9. The revisions to Section IX, Part A we 
are incorporating by reference with this action do not replace Section 
9, Part A entirely, but revise portions of Section 9.A.3., 9.A.6, 
9.A.7, 9.A.8, 9.A.9 of the previously approved Utah SIP and add a new 
Section IX.A.10.)
    (B) Rule R307-110-17, which incorporates revisions to portions of 
the Utah State Implementation Plan, Section IX, ``Control Measures for 
Area and Point Sources,'' Part H, ``Emission Limits,'' as adopted on 
June 5, 2002, by the Utah Air Quality, and State effective on September 
5, 2002. (Section IX, Part H of the Utah SIP was formerly designated 
Section 9, Appendix A. The revisions to Section IX, Part H we are 
incorporating by reference with this action replace the following 
sections of Section 9, Appendix A of the previously approved Utah SIP: 
Section 1.1 (General Requirements (Utah County)) and all subsections 
thereof; Section 1.2 (Particulate Emission Limitations (company 
specific)) and all subsections thereof.)
    (ii) Additional material.
    (A) Letter dated August 9, 2002 from Richard Sprott, Director, Utah 
Division of Air Quality, to Richard Long, Director, Air and Radiation 
Program, EPA Region 8, transmitting the

[[Page 78191]]

chronology of how the Utah County PM10 SIP revision was 
adopted over two Utah Air Quality Board meetings (June 5, 2002 and July 
3, 2002) and the justification for the nonsubstantive revisions made 
between the two adoption dates.
    (B) Letter dated July 3, 2002 from Governor Michael O. Leavitt, 
State of Utah, to Robert E. Roberts, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 
8, requesting EPA's approval of the Utah State Implementation Plan for 
PM10 in Utah County.
    (C) Commitment letter dated April 18, 2002 from Richard Sprott, 
Director, Utah Division of Air Quality, to Richard Long, Director, Air 
and Radiation Program, EPA Region 8, committing 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 in 
general. 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.
    (D) Letter dated March 15, 2002 from, Richard Sprott, Director, 
Utah Division of Air Quality, to Richard Long, Director, Air and 
Radiation Program, EPA Region 8, accompanied by three volumes of 
Technical Support Documentation titled ``Supplement II-02 to the 
Technical Support Documentation for the State Implementation Plan for 
PM10'' for the Utah County PM10 SIP revision.
    (E) Utah's General Definition rule R307-101-2 as in effect at the 
time Utah adopted Section IX, Part H of the SIP revision on June 5, 
2002.
    (F) All portions of the July 3, 2002 Utah PM10 SIP 
revision submittal, other than any documents or provisions mentioned in 
paragraph (c)(54)(i) of this section.

[FR Doc. 02-32259 Filed 12-20-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P