
[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 1 (Wednesday, January 2, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 37-45]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-31562]



[[Page 37]]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R08-OAR-2012-0958; FRL-9765-8]


Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; 
Utah; Maintenance Plan for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone Standard for Salt Lake 
County and Davis County

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to partially approve and partially disapprove 
State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the Governor of 
Utah on March 22, 2007. The SIP revision is the State of Utah's 
maintenance plan for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard for Salt Lake 
County and Davis County, along with associated rules: R307-101-2, 
``Definitions;'' R307-110-13, ``Section IX, Control Measures for Area 
and Point Sources, Part D, Ozone;'' R307-320, ``Ozone Maintenance Areas 
and Ogden City: Employer-Based Trip Reduction Program;'' R307-325, 
``Ozone Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas: General Requirements;'' 
R307-326, ``Ozone Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas: Control of 
Hydrocarbon Emissions in Petroleum Refineries;'' R307-327, ``Ozone 
Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas: Petroleum Liquid Storage;'' R307-
328, ``Ozone Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas and Utah and Weber 
Counties: Gasoline Transfer and Storage;'' R307-335, ``Ozone 
Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas: Degreasing and Solvent Cleaning 
Operations;'' R307-340, ``Ozone Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas: 
Surface Coating Processes;'' R307-341, ``Ozone Nonattainment and 
Maintenance Areas: Cutback Asphalt;'' and R307-342, ``Ozone 
Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas: Qualification of Contractors and 
Test Procedures for Vapor Recovery Systems for Gasoline Delivery 
Tanks.'' This action is being taken under sections 107 and 110 of the 
Clean Air Act (Act).

DATES: Comments must be received on or before February 1, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R08-
OAR-2012-0958, by one of the following methods:
     www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for 
submitting comments.
     Email: ostendorf.jody@epa.gov.
     Fax: (303) 312-6064 (please alert the individual listed in 
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT if you are faxing comments).
     Mail: Carl Daly, Director, Air Program, Environmental 
Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop St., 
Denver, Colorado 80202-1129.
     Hand Delivery: Carl Daly, Director, Air Program, 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595 
Wynkoop St., Denver, Colorado 80202-1129. Such deliveries are only 
accepted Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding 
Federal holidays. Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of 
boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R08-OAR-
2012-0958. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included 
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at 
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, 
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential 
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is 
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to 
be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or email. The 
www.regulations.gov Web site is an anonymous access system, which means 
EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you 
provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment 
directly to EPA, without going through www.regulations.gov your email 
address will be automatically captured and included as part of the 
comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the 
Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you 
include your name and other contact information in the body of your 
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your 
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for 
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic 
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of 
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional 
information about EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket Center 
homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. For additional 
instructions on submitting comments, go to Section I. General 
Information of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the 
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some 
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information 
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such 
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. 
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically 
in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air Program, 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop St., 
Denver, Colorado 80202-1129. EPA requests that if at all possible, you 
contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT 
section to view the hard copy of the docket. You may view the hard copy 
of the docket Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., excluding 
Federal holidays.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents

I. General Information
II. Background of State Submittals
III. EPA Analysis of the Maintenance Plan for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone 
Standard for Salt Lake County and Davis County
IV. EPA Analysis of the Associated Rule Revisions
V. Proposed Action
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

Definitions

    For the purpose of this document, we are giving meaning to certain 
words as follows:
    (i) The words or initials Act or CAA mean or refer to the Clean Air 
Act, unless the context indicates otherwise.
    (ii) The words EPA, we, us or our mean or refer to the United 
States Environmental Protection Agency.
    (iii) The initials SIP mean or refer to State Implementation Plan.
    (iv) The words State or Utah mean the State of Utah, unless the 
context indicates otherwise.

I. General Information

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

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through 
www.regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the 
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or 
CD ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as 
CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the 
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one 
complete version of the comment that

[[Page 38]]

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

II. Background of State Submittals

A. Regulatory Context

    Under the Clean Air Act (CAA) enacted in 1970, EPA established 
national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for certain pervasive 
air pollutants, such as photochemical oxidant, carbon monoxide, and 
particulate matter. The NAAQS represent concentration levels below 
which public health and welfare are protected. The 1970 Act also 
required states to adopt and submit State Implementation Plans (SIPs) 
to implement, maintain, and enforce the NAAQS.
    From time-to-time, the CAA requires SIP revisions to account for 
new or amended NAAQS or to meet other changed circumstances. The CAA 
was significantly amended in 1977, and under the 1977 Amendments, EPA 
promulgated attainment status designations for all areas of the country 
with respect to the NAAQS.
    The CAA requires EPA to periodically review and revise the NAAQS, 
and in 1979, EPA established a new NAAQS of 0.12 ppm for ozone, 
averaged over 1 hour. This new NAAQS replaced the oxidant standard of 
0.08 ppm. See 44 FR 8202 (February 8, 1979). Areas designated 
nonattainment for oxidant were considered to be nonattainment for ozone 
as well. Part D of CAA Title I requires special measures for areas 
designated nonattainment. In 1984, EPA approved Utah's SIP for the 1-
hour ozone standard for the Salt Lake County and Davis County 
nonattainment area (49 FR 32575).
    Congress significantly amended the CAA again in 1990. Under the 
1990 Amendments, each area of the country that was designated 
nonattainment for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS, including Salt Lake County 
and Davis County, was classified by operation of law as marginal, 
moderate, serious, severe, or extreme nonattainment depending on the 
severity of the area's air quality problem. The ozone nonattainment 
designation for Salt Lake County and Davis County continued by 
operation of law according to section 107(d)(1)(C)(i) of the CAA, as 
amended in 1990. Furthermore, the area was classified by operation of 
law as moderate for ozone under CAA section 181(a)(1).
    Under CAA section 175A, states may request redesignation of a 
nonattainment area to attainment if monitoring data showed that the 
area has met the NAAQS and if the area meets certain other 
requirements. On July 18, 1995, both Salt Lake and Davis Counties were 
found to be attaining the 1-hour ozone standard (60 FR 36723). On July 
17, 1997, EPA approved the State's request to redesignate Salt Lake and 
Davis Counties to attainment for the 1-hour ozone standard. As part of 
that action, EPA approved the State's 1-hour ozone maintenance plan (62 
FR 38213).
    On July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated an 8-hour ozone NAAQS of 0.08 ppm 
(62 FR 38894). This standard was intended to replace the 1-hour ozone 
standard. On April 30, 2004, EPA designated areas of the country for 
the 1997 8-hour ozone standard (69 FR 23857). EPA designated all areas 
in Utah, including Salt Lake County and Davis County, as 
unclassifiable/attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS (69 FR 
23940).
    Also, on April 30, 2004, EPA revoked the pre-existing 1-hour NAAQS 
(69 FR 23951, 23996; 40 CFR 50.9(b)). As part of this rulemaking, EPA 
established certain requirements to prevent backsliding in those areas 
that were designated as nonattainment for the 1-hour ozone standard at 
the time of designation for the 8-hour ozone standard, or that were 
redesignated to ``attainment'' but subject to a maintenance plan, as is 
the case for Salt Lake County and Davis County. These requirements are 
codified at 40 CFR 51.905.
    In the case of Utah, one of these requirements was to submit a 
maintenance plan for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard. On March 22, 2007, 
the Governor of Utah submitted a maintenance plan for the 1997 8-hour 
ozone standard for Salt Lake County and Davis County, and associated 
rule revisions. In this notice, EPA is proposing to act on this March 
22, 2007 maintenance plan and rule revisions.
    In 2008, EPA promulgated a lower 8-hour ozone standard--0.075 ppm. 
73 FR 16436. The 2008 ozone standard retains the same general form and 
averaging time as the 0.08 ppm standard set in 1997. Effective July 20, 
2012, Salt Lake County and Davis County were designated Unclassifiable/
Attainment for this lower standard. 77 FR 30088, 30151.

B. Ambient Ozone Conditions

    The 1997 ozone NAAQS is attained when the three-year average of the 
annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average ambient ozone 
concentration (also referred to as the ``design value'') is less than 
or equal to 0.08 ppm at all monitoring sites within an air quality 
planning area. Forty CFR part 50, Appendix I, section 2.3, directs that 
the third decimal place of the computed three-year average be rounded; 
values equal to or greater than 0.005 are rounded up. Thus, under our 
regulations, a computed three-year ozone concentration of 0.085 ppm is 
the smallest value that is considered to be greater than 0.08 ppm and, 
thus, a violation of the standard.
    A review of the data gathered at the ozone monitoring sites in Salt 
Lake County and Davis County from 2000-2011 \1\ shows the area has been 
attaining the 8-hour ozone NAAQS except for the 2005-2007 period, which 
had a design value of 0.085 ppm. As noted above, EPA designated Salt 
Lake County and Davis County unclassifiable/attainment for the lower 
2008 ozone standard (0.075 ppm) based on monitored values for 2008-
2010. The following table shows design values for each year from 2000 
through 2011:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Data for 2012 have not been certified yet.

[[Page 39]]



                              Table 1--Salt Lake and Davis Counties Three-Year Average of the 4th Highest Ozone Value (ppm)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Monitoring site (county)       2000-2002   2001-2003   2002-2004   2003-2005   2004-2006   2005-2007   2006-2008   2007-2009   2008-2010   2009-2011
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beach (Salt Lake)...............       0.081       0.081       0.078       0.079       0.081       0.083       0.079       0.076       0.072       0.072
Bountiful (Davis)...............       0.082       0.083       0.078       0.079       0.080       0.085       0.080       0.077       0.074       0.071
Cottonwood (Salt Lake)..........       0.076       0.080       0.079       0.080       0.080       0.083       0.082       0.077       0.075       0.073
Hawthorne (Salt Lake)...........       0.077       0.080       0.078       0.077       0.077       0.081       0.078       0.076       0.074       0.074
Herriman (Salt Lake)............       0.078       0.076       0.076       0.076       0.078       0.080     \2\ n/a         n/a         n/a         n/a
West Valley (Salt Lake).........       0.079       0.080       0.076       0.078       0.078       0.081     \2\ n/a         n/a         n/a         n/a
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. EPA Analysis of the Maintenance Plan for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone 
Standard for Salt Lake County and Davis County

    As noted above, 40 CFR 51.905 requires a maintenance plan for the 
1997 8-hour ozone standard, pursuant to section 110(a)(1) of the CAA. 
In the case of areas like Salt Lake County and Davis County, that have 
an approved maintenance plan for the 1-hour ozone standard and are 
unclassifiable/attainment for the 8-hour standard, 40 CFR 
51.905(a)(4)(ii) specifies that the maintenance plan must provide for 
continued maintenance of the 8-hour standard for 10 years following 
designation--i.e., until 2014--and must include contingency measures. 
In May 20, 2005 guidance entitled ``Maintenance Plan Guidance Document 
for Certain 8-hour Ozone Areas Under Section 110(a)(1) of the Clean Air 
Act'' (``2005 guidance''), EPA provided its interpretations of the 
components that 40 CFR 51.905 maintenance plans should include. These 
components are: (1) An attainment inventory, (2) a maintenance 
demonstration, (3) ambient air quality monitoring, (4) a contingency 
plan, and (5) verification of continued attainment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ These two monitors were shut down in Sept. 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, 40 CFR 51.905(a)(4)(i) restricts states from removing 
certain ``applicable requirements,'' as defined in 40 CFR 51.900(f), 
from the SIP. States may shift applicable requirements to contingency 
measures if such a shift is consistent with CAA sections 110(l) and 
193. As a general proposition, EPA may not approve a SIP revision that 
is inconsistent with CAA section 110(l) or CAA section 193.
    Below, we evaluate whether the Utah maintenance plan is consistent 
with the relevant statutory and regulatory requirements, as we have 
interpreted them.

A. Attainment Emission Inventory

    As recommended by EPA, the State used 2002 as the year for the 
maintenance plan's attainment inventory, and the inventory reflects 
typical summer day emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and 
oxides of nitrogen (NOX). The emission inventory is divided 
into four major source categories: point sources, area sources, mobile 
sources, and naturally occurring biogenic sources. Mobile sources are 
further divided into on-road and non-road categories. The following 
tables present the 2002 attainment inventory, as well as the State's 
projected inventories through 2014.

                Table 2--Salt Lake and Davis Counties Source Category Totals for VOCs (tons/day)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     2002         2005         2008         2011         2014
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point Source...................................        11.24        11.21        11.66        11.96        12.36
Area Source....................................        89.32        92.42        96.30       101.86       107.75
Biogenic Source................................       120.26       120.26       120.26       120.26       120.26
Mobile On-Road.................................        57.66        44.70        35.36        29.11        24.52
Mobile Non-Road................................        29.55        25.47        20.90        18.42        16.57
                                                ----------------------------------------------------------------
    Total......................................       308.03       294.06       284.48       281.61       281.46
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Attainment.....................................       308.03       308.03       308.03       308.03       308.03
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                 Table 3--Salt Lake and Davis Counties Source Category Totals for NOX (tons/day)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     2002         2005         2008         2011         2014
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point Source...................................        39.27        38.09        37.78        36.75        36.82
Area Source....................................        11.36        10.08        10.79        11.82        12.82
Mobile On-Road.................................        98.89        85.52        65.47        49.45        35.92
Mobile Non-Road................................        83.87        80.35        72.56        63.48        51.30
                                                ----------------------------------------------------------------
    Total......................................       233.39       214.04       186.60       161.50       136.86
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Attainment.....................................       233.39       233.39       233.39       233.39       233.39
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The attainment inventory was prepared in accordance with EPA 
guidance and we find that it accurately portrays typical summer day 
emissions during the 2002 ozone season (June-August).

B. Maintenance Demonstration

    Under EPA's interpretation of the CAA and its regulations, 
maintenance of an ozone standard generally may be

[[Page 40]]

demonstrated through modeling or through an emissions inventory 
approach. Utah chose the latter approach, which involves a showing that 
future emissions of ozone precursors will not exceed the level of such 
precursors in the attainment year inventory.
    The maintenance plan's projections, as reflected in Tables 2 and 3 
above, show that future emissions of VOCs and NOX will not 
exceed the 2002 inventory values. However, primarily due to high 
monitored ambient ozone concentrations in the 2005 ozone season, the 
area recorded a violation of the 1997 8-hour ozone standard for the 
2005-2007 seasons. This violation casts doubt on the use of the 2002 
emissions inventories as representative of the levels of emissions that 
are consistent with maintaining the standard. However, the 
circumstances presented here provide countervailing considerations:
    1. Since the time of the area's designation to attainment in 2004, 
the only monitored violation occurred during 2005-2007. As stated 
above, the 1997 8-hour ozone standard is attained at a design value of 
0.084, and the design value for 2005-2007 was 0.085 ppm--the lowest 
value that can represent a violation.
    2. In 2005, the area monitored significantly higher 4th high 
maximum values than it had monitored in the previous four years and 
than it has monitored since.
    3. In 2006-2008, the area immediately returned to attainment and 
has continued to attain the standard. Complete quality-assured data for 
2007-2009, 2008-2010, 2009-2011, and preliminary data for 2012, show 
that the area has continuously maintained the standard.
    4. Under the applicable regulatory requirement, 40 CFR 
51.905(a)(4), the State must demonstrate maintenance for ten years 
after designation, or until 2014.
    5. In evaluating the potential for the area, given its continued 
maintenance during and subsequent to 2008, EPA takes into consideration 
the fact that, in order for the area to violate the standard in 2013-
2014, the area would have to experience significantly higher 4th high 
maximums than it experienced in 2005. We find this prospect to be 
highly unlikely, particularly given the State's projected emissions 
trends, as reflected in Tables 2 and 3 above.
    6. Mobile source emissions account for a very large portion of the 
overall emissions inventory, and federal motor vehicle control 
standards, combined with fleet turnover, will continue to reduce 
relevant emissions through 2014.
    Based on this unique combination of factors, we are proposing to 
approve the maintenance demonstration. However, we are also proposing 
disapproval in the alternative should comments convince us that 
approval is not consistent with the CAA.

C. Ambient Air Quality Monitoring/Verification of Continued Attainment

    EPA's 2005 guidance indicates that, ``The State should continue to 
operate air quality monitors in accordance with 40 CFR 58 to verify 
maintenance of the 8-hour ozone standard in the area.'' The maintenance 
plan (section 4) describes the ozone monitoring network, presents 
monitoring data, and includes the State's commitment to continue to 
operate and maintain an adequate monitoring network in accordance with 
40 CFR 58. For the period 1999 through 2005, there were six ozone 
monitors in Salt Lake and Davis Counties. The plan indicates that the 
State will continue to conduct annual reviews of the network and gain 
EPA approval before making any changes to the existing network.
    Regarding verification of continued attainment, our guidance 
indicates that the plan should indicate how the State will track the 
progress of the maintenance plan. One option mentioned is to 
periodically update the emission inventory. In the maintenance plan, 
the State includes a section 7 entitled, ``Verification of Continued 
Ozone Maintenance.'' In it, the State commits to update the VOC and 
NOX emission inventories for Salt Lake and Davis Counties at 
least once every three years, and to compare the updated inventories to 
the plan's projections to verify that emissions are within acceptable 
limits to maintain the standard. EPA is proposing to approve this 
section of the maintenance plan.

D. Contingency Measures

    EPA's 2005 guidance states that the contingency plan should include 
measures to ensure that a violation of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS is 
promptly corrected. EPA's interpretation of the section 51.905 
contingency measures requirement is consistent with its interpretation 
of the CAA section 175A contingency plan requirement. Thus, the plan 
must include the State's enforceable commitment to adopt and implement 
the contingency measures in a timely fashion once they're triggered. 
The plan must identify the measures to be adopted, a schedule and 
procedure for adoption and implementation, and a specific time limit 
for action by the State.
    A pre-adopted contingency measure is not required; rather, the plan 
may include a list of potential measures from which the State could 
choose should a violation occur. The purpose of the contingency 
measures is to achieve VOC and/or NOX emission reductions to 
correct a violation.
    The State's maintenance plan provides that the contingency trigger 
date is the date that certified data show that a monitored violation of 
the 1997 ozone standard has occurred. The maintenance plan describes 
the State's timeline to implement contingency measures. Within 60 days 
of the contingency trigger date, the Utah Division of Air Quality will 
begin evaluation of potential contingency measures. Within 180 days of 
the contingency trigger date, the Division of Air Quality will present 
the recommended contingency measures to the Utah Air Quality Board. The 
Air Quality Board will then hold public hearings to consider the 
recommended contingency measures along with any other contingency 
measures the Air Quality Board deems appropriate. The plan indicates 
that the necessary contingency measures will be adopted and implemented 
within 24 months of the contingency trigger date.
    Possible contingency measures include:
    1. Alert Day Enhancements--A public outreach campaign to educate 
individuals of smart choices, such as discouraging refueling vehicles 
or mowing lawns during peak ozone periods.
    2. Reduction of Truck Stop Idling--The plan indicates that Utah 
could adopt a rule limiting vehicle idling time while vehicles are not 
actually moving.
    3. Heavy Equipment Emission Control Program--According to the plan, 
this ``could include incentives to encourage after-market retrofit of 
heavy-duty diesel construction equipment and increased use of 
compressed natural gas-fueled school and [Utah Transit Authority] 
buses.''
    4. Reduce Emissions of VOCs--Voluntary commitments or regulatory 
measures to reduce VOC emissions from major sources.
    5. Identification of High-Polluting Vehicles--Use of remote sensing 
technology to identify smoking or high-polluting vehicles and provide 
incentives for repair of these vehicles.
    6. Establish an Offset Ratio for NOX--Lower the 
threshold at which offsets are required for new NOX sources.
    7. Implement More Effective Low-NOX Burner Controls--
Require sources to replace existing burners with low-NOX 
burners.

[[Page 41]]

    8. Other VOC or NOX emission control measures as 
appropriate.
    On November 2, 2006, during the State's public comment period on 
its draft maintenance plan, we provided comments to the State on the 
proposed contingency measure portion of the plan. We noted that several 
of the contingency measures included on the State's list of potential 
measures were voluntary measures. We advised the State that voluntary 
measures do not function or qualify as contingency measures. The State 
disagreed and retained the voluntary measures in its list of 
contingency measures.
    In today's notice, we are proposing to approve contingency measure 
numbers 2 and 7 on the list above, because these measures would impose 
regulatory requirements. We are proposing to approve measure number 4 
to the extent it prescribes measures that are enforceable and 
regulatory, as opposed to voluntary measures. We also are proposing to 
approve measure number 8, with the understanding that any contingency 
measure under this category must be enforceable, not voluntary, to be 
considered valid under our proposed approval.
    We are proposing to disapprove those measures on the list above 
that are voluntary: Measure numbers 1 and 2, the portion of measure 
number 4 that includes voluntary measures, and measure number 5. While 
we have not required that potential contingency measures be effective 
without further action by the state, we interpret the CAA as requiring 
measures that will be enforceable. Voluntary measures may not be widely 
implemented and, thus, cannot be relied on to ensure prompt emission 
reductions to correct a violation. We also are proposing to disapprove 
measure number 6 on the list of contingency measures because it will 
achieve emissions reductions only if new source construction occurs. 
Thus, it is not a measure that will ensure prompt correction of a 
violation.
    Because we consider those regulatory contingency measures that we 
are proposing to approve to be sufficient to satisfy the contingency 
measure requirements for this maintenance plan, our disapproval of the 
other contingency measures would not trigger a deadline for EPA to 
promulgate a federal implementation plan under CAA section 110(c).

E. Other Aspects of the Maintenance Plan

1. VOC Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT)
    40 CFR 51.904(a)(4) provides that applicable requirements in a 1-
hour ozone plan, as defined in 40 CFR 51.900(f), may not be removed 
from the SIP. It allows a state to move such requirements to 
contingency measures, but only if the requirements of CAA sections 
110(l) and 193 are met.
    In the 8-hour ozone maintenance plan, the State indicates that all 
RACT requirements from the 1-hour ozone SIP will remain in place. 
However, later in the 8-hour ozone maintenance plan, Utah proposes to 
remove the approval orders for Hill Air Force Base from the SIP. When 
we approved Utah's 1-hour maintenance plan and redesignation request, 
we approved and incorporated these orders to satisfy applicable CAA 
RACT requirements. 62 FR 28399; 62 FR 38214-38215. In place of these 
approval orders, the State claims that Maximum Achievable Control 
Technology (MACT) requirements, New Source Performance Standards 
(NSPS), and generic State rules will provide a more stringent 
substitute to ``regulate over eighty-six percent of the total VOC 
emissions originating from Hill Air Force Base.'' According to the 
State, the ``remaining fourteen percent'' will be regulated by ``the 
forthcoming Military MACT.'' The State did not propose to move the 
approval orders to the contingency measures.
    We find that the State's generic statements regarding equivalency, 
without a specific, comparative analysis of the units and pollutants 
involved, are not sufficient to satisfy the requirements of CAA 
sections 110(l) and 193. We are unable to conclude that the various 
MACT, NSPS, and generic State rules are as or more stringent than the 
approval orders. Furthermore, we are unclear what the State is 
referring to when it mentions a forthcoming Military MACT. Thus, we are 
proposing to disapprove the State's proposal to remove the approval 
orders for Hill Air Force Base from the SIP.
    Because these approval orders would remain a part of the federally 
enforceable SIP should we finalize our proposed disapproval, our 
disapproval of the State's proposal to remove the approval orders would 
not trigger a FIP deadline.
    The State has also submitted revisions to the following generic VOC 
RACT rules that it relied on in the 1-hour maintenance plan:

R307-325, General Requirements
R307-326, Control of Hydrocarbon Emissions in Petroleum Refineries
R307-327, Petroleum Liquid Storage
R307-328, Gasoline Transfer and Storage
R307-335, Degreasing and Solvent Cleaning Operations
R307-340, Surface Coating Processes
R307-341, Cutback Asphalt
R307-342, Qualification of Contractors and Test Procedures for Vapor 
Recovery Systems for Gasoline Delivery Tanks

    These rules are further discussed in Section IV, ``EPA Analysis of 
the Associated Rule Revisions,'' of this notice.
2. NOX RACT
    For the PacifiCorp Gadsby Power Plant, the State asserts in the 8-
hour maintenance plan that ``current'' NOX emission 
limitations in Section IX, Part H of the SIP are equivalent to the 
NOX emission limitations that the State approved as RACT in 
conjunction with the 1-hour ozone maintenance plan. It appears that 
Utah is using the word ``current'' to refer to the emission limit 
contained in Utah's 2005 PM10 maintenance plan. We think 
this limit is a daily NOX limit for the entire plant of 6.57 
tons per day. However, Utah does not specify this in the 8-hour ozone 
maintenance plan and does not explain how this limit is equivalent to 
the NOX RACT limits for boilers 1, 2, and 3 that EPA 
approved with the 1-hour ozone maintenance plan in 1997. See 62 FR 
28403; 62 FR 38215-38216.\3\ Furthermore, after we proposed to 
disapprove Utah's 2005 PM10 maintenance plan, the Governor 
withdrew it. Thus, the version of Section IX, Part H that the State 
describes in the 8-hour ozone maintenance plan is not currently before 
us for consideration. As a result of these issues, we are proposing to 
disapprove the State's proposal to remove the NOX RACT 
limits that we approved for boilers 1, 2, and 3 in 1997.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ In our 1997 action, we incorporated by reference Utah's 
February 3, 1994 approval order for PacifiCorp Gadsby that specified 
hourly NOX limits of 179, 204, and 203 pounds per hour 
for boilers 1, 2, and 3 individually.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because these NOX RACT limits would remain a part of the 
federally enforceable SIP, should we finalize our proposed disapproval, 
our disapproval of the State's proposal to remove the NOX 
RACT limits would not trigger a FIP deadline.
3. Employer-Based Trip Reduction Program
    The 8-hour maintenance plan states that the employer-based trip 
reduction program, contained in Utah rule R307-320, is included in the 
1-hour

[[Page 42]]

maintenance plan, but that no reduction credit is claimed for it. The 
maintenance plan indicates that the program is retained as a control 
measure in the 8-hour plan.
    We note that we did not approve R307-320 when we acted on the 1-
hour maintenance plan and that it is not currently part of the EPA-
approved SIP. We also note that the State claimed no reduction credit 
for the employer-based trip reduction program in the 1-hour maintenance 
plan. Because the program only applies to governmental employers and 
does not apply to private employers of the same size, the program is 
inconsistent with CAA section 118. Specifically, Congress has only 
waived the sovereign immunity of the federal government for purposes of 
control and abatement of air pollution to the extent that 
nongovernmental entities are regulated. Thus, we are proposing to 
disapprove section 5.g of the maintenance plan and R307-320.
    Our disapproval of section 5.g of the maintenance plan and R307-320 
would not trigger a FIP deadline because an employer-based trip 
reduction program is not required.

IV. EPA Analysis of the Associated Rule Revisions

    Along with the maintenance plan for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard 
for Salt Lake and Davis Counties, the State also submitted associated 
rule revisions. Some of these are relied on in the maintenance plan to 
demonstrate maintenance of the 1997 8-hour ozone standard. We evaluate 
each of these rules below.
    A. R307-101-2. ``Definitions.'' The revisions to this rule that the 
State submitted with the maintenance plan were effective March 9, 2007. 
However, on April 17, 2008, the State submitted further revisions to 
the rule that were effective on February 8, 2008. Our review indicates 
that the 2008 version of the rule superseded the 2007 version. We 
approved the 2008 version of the rule on September 2, 2008 and 
incorporated it by reference into the Code of Federal Regulations. See 
73 FR 51222. Thus, in this proposed action we are not acting on the 
2007 version of R307-101-2.
    B. R307-110-13. ``Section IX, Control Measures for Area and Point 
Sources, Part D, Ozone.'' This rule merely incorporates the maintenance 
plan into Utah's rules. To the extent we are proposing to approve the 
maintenance plan, we are proposing to approve this rule. We do not 
intend to approve the incorporation of the parts of the maintenance 
plan that we are proposing to disapprove.
    C. R307-320. ``Ozone Maintenance Areas and Ogden City: Employer-
Based Trip Reduction Program.'' As noted above, the program only 
applies to governmental employers and does not apply to private 
employers of the same size. Thus, the program is inconsistent with CAA 
section 118, and we are proposing to disapprove the rule.
    D. R307-325. ``Ozone Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas: General 
Requirements.'' Utah revised this rule to clarify the purpose, 
applicability, and compliance schedule. Utah moved language regarding 
alternate methods of control from this rule to individual VOC RACT 
rules, as described in section IV.E below. Additionally, Utah deleted 
language because it is not needed in this rule or any other rule, and 
Utah made minor grammatical corrections. Utah also made administrative 
revisions to the rule's title to replace the reference to ``Salt Lake 
and Davis Counties'' with a reference to ``Ozone Nonattainment and 
Maintenance Area.'' Per section 110(l) of the CAA, EPA, in November 2, 
2006 comments to Utah, requested that Utah demonstrate that deleting 
the generic RACT requirement from R307-325 would not interfere with 
attainment, maintenance, or any other requirement of the CAA. In our 
November 2, 2006 comments, we clarified that this demonstration could 
consist of a State certification that all sources potentially subject 
to the rule were controlled through adoption of specific RACT 
provisions. The State provided that certification in its response to 
comments (contained in the docket for this action), and further stated 
that any sources not controlled through source-specific RACT 
determinations would be addressed by the NOX RACT waiver 
that EPA approved in 1997 (See 62 FR 38215). Therefore, we are 
proposing to approve these changes.

E. Alternate Methods of Control (AMOC) and EPA's Concurrence 
Requirement

    The State is proposing revisions to R307-326, R307-327, R307-328, 
R307-335, R307-340, and R307-342, which are addressed individually 
below. For each of these rules, the State wishes to include AMOC 
language that was previously included in R307-325. That language 
states:

    ``Any person may apply to the executive secretary for approval 
of an alternate test method, an alternate method of control, an 
alternate compliance period, an alternate emission limit, or an 
alternate monitoring schedule. The application must include a 
demonstration that the proposed alternate produces an equal or 
greater air quality benefit than that required by [this rule], or 
that the alternate test method is equivalent to that required by 
these rules. The executive secretary shall obtain concurrence from 
EPA when approving an alternate test method, an alternate method of 
control, an alternate compliance period, an alternate emission 
limit, or an alternate monitoring schedule.''

    The Utah Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) has confirmed 
that this regulatory language requiring concurrence from EPA on any 
AMOC applies to all the provisions in these rules that allow for DEQ to 
alter the compliance requirements of the rule. EPA would like to 
clarify its position on what is required for EPA to concur on such 
changes.
    Section 110(i) of the CAA specifically precludes states from 
changing the requirements of the SIP that apply to any stationary 
source except through SIP revisions approved by EPA. SIP revisions will 
be approved by EPA only if they meet all requirements of section 110 of 
the Act and the implementing regulations at 40 CFR Part 51. See, e.g., 
CAA section 110(l); 40 CFR 51.104. Section 51.104(d) specifically 
states that in order for a variance to be considered for approval as a 
SIP revision, the state must submit it in accordance with the 
requirements of 40 CFR 51.104, which includes the public notice, 
comment and hearing provisions of 40 CFR 51.102.
    Furthermore, the AMOC provision does not contain specific, 
objective, and replicable criteria for determining if such ``alternate 
methods'' are in fact at least as effective as the required methods in 
terms of emission rates and ambient impacts. For purposes of meeting 
CAA requirements, EPA concurrence in the form of a SIP approval is 
required for any of the alternate compliance provisions throughout 
R307-326, R307-327, R307-328, R307-335, R307-340, and R307-342. This 
includes approval of an alternate method of control, an alternate test 
method, an alternate compliance period, an alternate emission limit, a 
variance, or an alternate monitoring schedule. The public notice 
process of a SIP approval will allow EPA and the public to determine 
whether any new compliance terms approved by the executive secretary 
continue to assure maintenance of the ambient standard.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ By adopting a generic SIP provision consistent with the EPA 
guidance known as White Paper Number 2, a state may be able to 
streamline EPA's SIP approval process for an AMOC. White Paper 
Number 2, Attachment B, envisions the use of the Title V permit 
process to establish alternative requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    F. R307-326. ``Ozone Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas: Control 
of Hydrocarbon Emissions in Petroleum

[[Page 43]]

Refineries.'' Utah made additions and modifications to clarify the 
purpose, applicability, definitions, monitoring requirements, 
alternative method of control provisions, and compliance schedule. 
Additionally, Utah deleted language because it is not needed in this 
rule or any other rule. Utah has made administrative revisions to the 
rule's title where the reference to Salt Lake and Davis Counties was 
simply replaced with ``ozone maintenance area.'' EPA is proposing to 
approve these changes. However, for purposes of clarification, EPA 
interprets the following provisions in R307-326 (in addition to any 
other request for an AMOC that may arise outside of these provisions) 
as being subject to the requirement in R307-326-10(1) for EPA 
concurrence, and thus subject to EPA's general statement about 
alternate methods of control, above:
    1. R307-326-4(3).
    2. R307-326-6(3).
    3. In R307-326-7, the provision that reads, ``or controlled by 
other methods, provided the design and effectiveness of such methods 
are documented, submitted to, and approved by the executive 
secretary.''
    4. R307-326-9(5)(a).
    5. In R307-326-10(3), the provision that reads, ``or approved by 
the executive secretary.'' In addition, we interpret R307-326-10(2), 
which requires an owner or operator to repair a malfunctioning control 
device within 15 days or other period approved by the executive 
secretary, as not excusing any period of violation of the control 
requirements in R307-326.
    G. R307-327. ``Ozone Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas: Petroleum 
Liquid Storage.'' Utah made additions and modifications to clarify the 
purpose, applicability, general requirements, alternate method of 
control provisions, and compliance schedule. Additionally, Utah deleted 
language because it is not needed in this rule or any other rule. Utah 
has made administrative revisions to the rule's title where the 
reference to Salt Lake and Davis Counties was simply replaced with 
``ozone maintenance area.'' EPA is proposing to approve these changes. 
However, for purposes of clarification, EPA interprets the following 
provisions in R307-327 (in addition to any other request for an AMOC 
that may arise outside of these provisions) as being subject to the 
requirement in R307-327-7(1) for EPA concurrence, and thus subject to 
EPA's general statement about alternate methods of control, above:
    1. In R307-327-4(1), the provision that reads, ``or alternative 
equivalent controls, provided the design and effectiveness of such 
equipment is documented and submitted to and approved by the executive 
secretary.''
    2. R307-327-6(3)(d).
    3. In R307-327-7(3), the provision that reads, ``or approved by the 
executive secretary.'' In addition, we interpret R307-327-7(2), which 
requires an owner or operator to repair a malfunctioning control device 
within 15 days or other period approved by the executive secretary, as 
not excusing any period of violation of the control requirements in 
R307-327.
    H. R307-328. ``Ozone Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas and Utah 
and Weber Counties: Gasoline Transfer and Storage.'' Utah made 
additions and modifications to clarify the purpose, applicability, 
definitions, transport vehicle provisions, alternate method of control 
provisions, and compliance schedule. Additionally, Utah deleted 
language because it is not needed in this rule or any other rule. Utah 
has made administrative revisions to the rule's title where the 
reference to Salt Lake and Davis Counties was simply replaced with 
``ozone maintenance area.'' EPA is proposing to approve these changes. 
However, for purposes of clarification, EPA interprets the following 
provisions in R307-328 (in addition to any other request for an AMOC 
that may arise outside of these provisions) as being subject to the 
requirement in R307-328-8(1) for EPA concurrence, and thus subject to 
EPA's general statement about alternate methods of control, above:
    1. In R307-328-4(6), the provision that reads, ``or alternate 
equivalent methods * * *. The design effectiveness of such equipment 
and the operating procedures must be documented and submitted to and 
approved by the executive secretary.''
    2. In R307-328-4(9), the provision that reads, ``The frequency of 
tests may be altered by the executive secretary upon submittal of 
documentation which would justify a change.''
    3. In R307-328-5(1)(c), the provision that reads, ``or their 
equivalent which have been approved by the executive secretary.''
    4. In R307-328-6(4), the provision that reads, ``or equivalent 
equipment provided the design and effectiveness of such equipment are 
documented and submitted to and approved by the executive secretary.''
    5. In R307-328-8(3), the provision that reads, ``or approved by the 
executive secretary.''

In addition, we interpret R307-328-8(2), which requires an owner or 
operator to repair a malfunctioning control device within 15 days or 
other period approved by the executive secretary, as not excusing any 
period of violation of the control requirements in R307-328.
    I. R307-335. ``Ozone Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas: 
Degreasing and Solvent Cleaning Operations.'' Utah made additions and 
modifications to clarify the purpose, applicability, definitions, 
alternate method of control provisions, and compliance schedule. 
Additionally, Utah deleted language because it is not needed in this 
rule or any other rule. Utah has made administrative revisions to the 
rule's title where the reference to Salt Lake and Davis Counties was 
simply replaced with ``ozone maintenance area.'' EPA is proposing to 
approve these changes. However, for purposes of clarification, EPA 
interprets the following provisions in R307-335 (in addition to any 
other request for an AMOC that may arise outside of these provisions) 
as being subject to the requirement in R307-335-7(1) for EPA 
concurrence, and thus subject to EPA's general statement about 
alternate methods of control, above:
    1. In R307-335-4(3), the provision that reads, ``or by an alternate 
means approved by the executive secretary.''
    2. In R307-335-7(3), the provision that reads, ``or approved by the 
executive secretary.''

In addition, we interpret R307-335-8(2), which requires an owner or 
operator to repair a malfunctioning control device within 15 days or 
other period approved by the executive secretary, as not excusing any 
period of violation of the control requirements in R307-335.
    J. R307-340. ``Ozone Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas: Surface 
Coating Processes.'' Utah made additions and modifications to clarify 
the purpose, applicability, definitions, general provisions for 
volatile organic compounds, alternate method of control provisions, and 
compliance schedule. Additionally, Utah deleted language because it is 
not needed in this rule or any other rule. Utah has made administrative 
revisions to the rule's title where the reference to Salt Lake and 
Davis Counties was simply replaced with ``ozone maintenance area.'' EPA 
is proposing to approve these changes. However, for purposes of 
clarification, EPA interprets the following provisions in R307-340 (in 
addition to any other request for an AMOC that may arise outside of 
these provisions) as being subject to the requirement in R307-340-16(1) 
for EPA concurrence, and thus subject to EPA's general statement about 
alternate methods of control, above:
    1. In R307-340-4(4), the provision that reads, ``or by an alternate 
means approved by the executive secretary.''

[[Page 44]]

    2. In R307-340-4(5)(a), the provision that reads, ``Sources may 
request approval for longer times for compliance determination from the 
executive secretary.''
    3. In R307-340-15(1), the provision that reads, ``or an alternative 
method approved by the executive secretary.''
    4. In R307-340-15(2), the provision that reads, ``or an alternative 
method approved by the executive secretary or equivalent method.''
    5. In R307-340-16(3), the provision that reads, ``or approved by 
the executive secretary.''

In addition, we interpret R307-340-16(2), which requires an owner or 
operator to repair a malfunctioning control device within 15 days or 
other period approved by the executive secretary, as not excusing any 
period of violation of the control requirements in R307-340.
    K. R307-341. ``Ozone Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas: Cutback 
Asphalt.'' Utah made additions and modifications to simply clarify the 
purpose, applicability, definitions, limitations on use of cutback 
asphalt, recordkeeping, and compliance schedule. Additionally, Utah 
deleted obsolete language because it is not needed in this rule or any 
other rule. Utah has made administrative revisions to the rule's title 
where the reference to Salt Lake and Davis Counties was simply replaced 
with ``ozone maintenance area.'' EPA is proposing to approve the 
deletion of the obsolete language and other minor revisions.
    L. R307-342. ``Ozone Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas: 
Qualification of Contractors and Test Procedures for Vapor Recovery 
Systems for Gasoline Delivery Tanks.'' Utah made additions and 
modifications to clarify the purpose, applicability, general 
requirements, and alternate method of control provisions. Additionally, 
Utah deleted language because it is not needed in this rule or any 
other rule. Utah has made administrative revisions to the rule's title 
where the reference to Salt Lake and Davis Counties was simply replaced 
with ``ozone maintenance area.'' EPA is proposing to approve these 
changes. However, for purposes of clarification, EPA interprets the 
following provision in R307-342 (in addition to any other request for 
an AMOC that may arise outside of this provision) as being subject to 
the requirement in R307-342-7(1) for EPA concurrence, and thus subject 
to EPA's general statement about alternate methods of control, above:
    1. In R307-342-7(3), the provision that reads, ``or approved by the 
executive secretary.''
    In addition, we interpret R307-342-7(2), which requires an owner or 
operator to repair a malfunctioning control device within 15 days or 
other period approved by the executive secretary, as not excusing any 
period of violation of the control requirements in R307-342.

V. Proposed Action

    As described above, we are proposing the following with respect to 
the State's March 22, 2007 submittal:
    1. We are proposing to approve the State's maintenance 
demonstration for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS for Salt Lake and Davis 
Counties, but, in the alternative, to disapprove the maintenance 
demonstration should comments convince us that approval is not 
consistent with the Clean Air Act. (See section III.B above.)
    2. We are proposing to approve the rest of the State's 1997 8-hour 
ozone maintenance plan for Salt Lake and Davis Counties, except for the 
following aspects, which we are proposing to disapprove:
    a. Those contingency measures listed in the State's maintenance 
plan that are voluntary in nature, and the contingency measure 
described in the maintenance plan as ``Establish an Offset Ratio for 
NOX.'' (See section III.D above.)
    b. The State's proposal to remove from the SIP the VOC RACT 
approval orders for Hill Air Force Base. (See section III.E above.)
    c. The State's proposal to remove from the SIP the NOX 
RACT limits for the PacifiCorp Gadsby Power Plant. (See section III.E 
above.)
    d. Section 5.g of the maintenance plan, which indicates that the 
employer-based trip reduction program is included as part of the plan. 
(See section III.E above.)
    3. We are proposing to take no action on R307-101-2 because we have 
already acted on a later version of the definitions. (See section IV.A 
above.)
    4. We are proposing to approve R307-110-13, but only to the extent 
we are proposing to approve the 1997 8-hour ozone maintenance plan. 
(See section IV.B above.)
    5. We are proposing to disapprove R307-320, the employer-based trip 
reduction program. (See section IV.C above.)
    6. We are proposing to approve R307-325, R307-326, R307-327, R307-
328, R307-335, R307-340, R307-341, and R307-342, subject to our 
interpretation of these rules. (See sections IV.D through L above.)
    EPA is soliciting public comment on its proposed rulemaking as 
discussed in this document. These comments will be considered before 
taking final action. Interested parties may participate in the Federal 
rulemaking procedure by submitting written comments to EPA as discussed 
in this notice.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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


[[Page 45]]


In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified 
by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the 
SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state, 
and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on 
tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Utah; 
Maintenance Plan for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone Standard for Salt Lake 
County and Davis County, page 33 of 33

    This proposed rulemaking does not involve technical standards. 
Therefore, EPA is not considering the use of any voluntary consensus 
standards.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

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

    Dated: December 13, 2012.
James B. Martin,
Regional Administrator, Region 8.
[FR Doc. 2012-31562 Filed 12-31-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


