Daily Rules, Proposed Rules, and Notices of the Federal Government
Throughout this document, wherever “we”, “us”, or “our” are used, we mean the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
We are proposing to approve the Governor of Utah's submittal of July 3, 2002, that requests our approval of the Utah County PM
Section 110(k) of the CAA addresses our actions on submissions of revisions to a SIP. The Act also requires States to observe certain procedural requirements in developing implementation plans and plan revisions for submission. Section 110(a)(2) of the Act provides that each implementation plan submitted by a State must be adopted after reasonable notice and public hearing. Section 110(l) of the Act similarly provides that each revision to an implementation plan submitted by a State under the Act must be adopted by such State after reasonable notice and public hearing.
We also must determine whether a submittal is complete and therefore warrants further review and action [see section 110(k)(1) and 57 FR 13565, April 16, 1992]. Our completeness criteria for SIP submittals are set out at 40 CFR part 51, appendix V. We attempt to make completeness determinations within 60 days of receiving a submission. However, a submittal is deemed complete by operation of law under section 110(k)(1)(B) if a completeness determination is not made within six months after receipt of the submission.
On March 13, 2002 the Utah Air Quality Board agreed to propose the Utah County PM
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 PM
Utah County has been in a conformity lapse since August 2000 because transportation plans for the area could not meet the PM
This SIP revision establishes new motor vehicle emission budgets for PM
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 PM
If we approve them, the emissions budgets must be used for conformity determinations per 40 CFR 93.118. Specifically, the 2003 budgets will apply for years 2003 through 2009, the 2010 budgets will apply for years 2010 through 2019, and the 2020 budgets will apply for years 2020 and beyond. In addition, after our final approval of the motor vehicle emission budgets and upon the Federal Highway Administration's approval of a positive conformity determination, the present conformity lapse in Utah County will end.
On March 2, 1999, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issued a decision in
Because they extend beyond the time-frame of the previously approved Utah County PM
The emissions inventory for the Utah County PM
Utah updated the existing attainment demonstration from the original PM
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).
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.
The original Utah County PM
Table IV below provides the proposed 24-hour emission limits for the major emitting units at Geneva Steel for September through May, and Table V below provides the proposed 24-hour emission limits for the major emitting units at Geneva Steel for June through August. Table VI below provides the proposed annual emission limits for Geneva Steel's major emitting units.
It is important to note here that Geneva Steel is in the process of banking a significant amount of its emissions from the coke plant, sinter plant, Q-BOP, and sources in the “Geneva Other” category. This is due to the shutting down or reduction in emissions for the coke plant (some fugitive emissions remain from the coke piles), sinter plant, foundry and rolling mill scarfer facility. Emissions reductions are also due to fuel switching. Table VII below shows the banked emissions per process in tons per year of PM
The EPA-approved PM
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 PM
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 PM
(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
(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 PM
(12) General language clean up in the PM
(13) Diesel I/M revision or program withdrawal;
(14) Emission budgets for PM
(15) Emission inventory and modeling analysis for automobile emission inspection and maintenance program changes, if any such changes are made in the SIP or maintenance plan.
The above issues aren't addressed in this SIP revision for Utah County and therefore, these issues will continue after our potential final approval of this SIP revision.
On July 18, 1997, we promulgated new NAAQS for PM
The original Utah County and Salt Lake County nonattainment area PM
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this proposed action is not a “significant regulatory action” and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This proposed action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
This proposed rule also does not have tribal implications because it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have Federalism implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely proposes to approve a state rule implementing a Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. This proposed rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant.
In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This proposed rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.