FR Doc 05-18232

[Federal Register: September 14, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 177)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 54267-54275]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr14se05-10]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[R08-OAR-2005-UT-0003; FRL-7961-7]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
State of Utah; Ogden City Revised Carbon Monoxide Maintenance Plan and
Approval of Related Revisions

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final action approving State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the State of Utah. On
November 29, 2004, the Governor of Utah submitted revisions to Utah's
Rule R307-110-12, ``Section IX, Control Measures for Area and Point
Sources, Part C, Carbon Monoxide,'' which incorporates a revised
maintenance plan for the Ogden carbon monoxide (CO) maintenance area
for the CO National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). The revised
maintenance plan contains revised transportation conformity budgets for
the years 2005 and 2021. In addition, the Governor submitted revisions
to Utah's Rule R307-110-35, ``Section X, Vehicle Inspection and
Maintenance Program, Part E, Weber County,'' which incorporates a
revised vehicle inspection and maintenance program for Weber County. In
this action, EPA is approving the Ogden City CO revised maintenance
plan, the revised transportation conformity budgets, the revised
vehicle inspection and maintenance program for Weber County, and the
revisions to rules R307-110-12 and R307-110-35. This action is being
taken under section 110 of the Clean Air Act.

DATES: This rule is effective on November 14, 2005 without further
notice, unless EPA receives adverse comment by October 14, 2005. If
adverse comment is received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of
the direct final rule in the Federal Register informing the public that
the rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by RME Docket Number R08-
OAR-2005-UT-0003, by one of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.

Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
Agency Web site: http://docket.epa.gov/rmepub/index.jsp.

Regional Materials in EDOCKET (RME), EPA's electronic public docket and
comment system for regional actions, is EPA's preferred method for
receiving comments. Follow the on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
E-mail:
long.richard@epa.gov, russ.tim@epa.gov, and mastrangelo.domenico@epa.gov.

Fax: (303) 312-6064 (please alert the individual listed in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT if you are faxing comments).
Mail: Richard R. Long, Director, Air and Radiation
Program, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P-
AR, 999 18th Street, Suite 300, Denver, Colorado 80202-2466.
Hand Delivery: Richard R. Long, Director, Air and
Radiation Program, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8,
Mailcode 8P-AR, 999 18th Street, Suite 300, Denver, Colorado 80202-
2466. Such deliveries are only accepted Monday through Friday, 8 a.m.
to 4:55 p.m., excluding federal holidays. Special arrangements should
be made for deliveries of boxed information.
Instructions: Direct your comments to RME Docket Number R08-OAR-
2005-UT-0003. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be
included in the public docket without change and may be made available
at http://docket.epa.gov/rmepub/index.jsp, 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 EDOCKET,
regulations.gov, or e-mail. EPA's Regional Materials in EDOCKET and
federal regulations.gov website are ``anonymous access'' systems, 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 e-mail comment
directly to EPA, without going through EDOCKET or regulations.gov, your
e-mail 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

[[Page 54268]]

EDOCKET online or see the Federal Register of May 31, 2002 (67 FR
38102). 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 Regional
Materials in EDOCKET index at http://docket.epa.gov/rmepub/index.jsp.

Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly
available, i.e., CBI or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically in Regional Materials in EDOCKET or in
hard copy at the Air and Radiation Program, Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), Region 8, 999 18th Street, Suite 300, Denver, Colorado
80202-2466. 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: Domenico Mastrangelo, Air and
Radiation Program, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8,
Mailcode 8P-AR, 999 18th Street, Suite 300, Denver, Colorado 80202-
2466, phone (303) 312-6436, and e-mail at:
mastrangelo.domenico@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. General Information
II. What is the purpose of this action?
III. What is the State's process to submit these materials to EPA?
IV. EPA's evaluation of the Revised Maintenance Plan
V. EPA's evaluation of the Transportation Conformity Requirements
VI. EPA's evaluation of the Revised Vehicle Inspection and
Maintenance Program
VII. Consideration of Section 110(l) of the CAA
VIII. Final Action
IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

Definitions

For the purpose of this document, we are giving meaning to certain
words or initials 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 NAAQS mean National Ambient Air Quality
Standard.
(iv) The initials SIP mean or refer to State Implementation Plan.
(v) The word State means the State of Utah, unless the context
indicates otherwise.

I. General Information

A. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?

1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
Regional Materials in EDOCKET, regulations.gov or e-mail. 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 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:
Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other
identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register date and
page number).
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.
Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives
and substitute language for your requested changes.
Describe any assumptions and provide any technical
information and/or data that you used.
If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how
you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and
suggest alternatives.
Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the
use of profanity or personal threats.
Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.

II. What Is the Purpose of This Action?

In this action, we are approving a revised maintenance plan for the
Ogden CO attainment/maintenance area that is designed to keep the area
in attainment for CO through 2021, we're approving revised
transportation conformity motor vehicle emissions budgets (MVEBs), and
we're approving revisions to the vehicle inspection and maintenance
program for Weber County. We are also approving revisions to Utah's
Rule R307-110-12, ``Section IX, Control Measures for Area and Point
Sources, Part C, Carbon Monoxide,'' and Rule R307-110-35, ``Section X,
Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Program, Part E, Weber County,''
which merely incorporate the State's SIP revisions to the Ogden CO
maintenance plan and the vehicle inspection and maintenance program for
Weber County, respectively.
We approved the original CO redesignation to attainment and
maintenance plan for the Ogden area on March 9, 2001 (see 66 FR 14078).
The original Ogden CO maintenance plan that we approved on March 9,
2001 (hereafter March 9, 2001 maintenance plan) utilized the then
applicable EPA mobile sources emission factor model, MOBILE5a. On
January 18, 2002, we issued policy guidance for States and local areas
to use to develop SIP revisions using the new, updated version of the
model, MOBILE6. The policy guidance was entitled ``Policy Guidance on
the Use of MOBILE6 for SIP Development and Transportation Conformity''
(hereafter, January 18, 2002 MOBILE6 policy). On November 12, 2002,
EPA's Office of Transportation and Air Quality (OTAQ) issued an updated
version of the MOBILE6 model, MOBILE6.2, and notified Federal, State,
and Local agency users of the model's availability. MOBILE6.2 contained
additional updates for air toxics and particulate matter. However, the
CO emission factors were essentially the same as in the MOBILE6 version
of the model.
For the revised maintenance plan, the State recalculated the CO
emissions for the 1992 attainment year, projected emission inventories
for 2004, 2005, 2008, 2011, 2014, 2017, 2020, and 2021, and calculated
all the mobile source emissions using MOBILE6.2. Based on projected
significant mobile source emission reductions for the interim years
between 2005 and 2021, the State's revised maintenance demonstration is
also able to accommodate the relaxation of certain provisions for newer
vehicles in the Weber County Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance (I/M)
Program while continuing to demonstrate maintenance of the CO NAAQS.
Thus, the State has asked us to approve a revision to ``Vehicle
Inspection and Maintenance Program, Weber County'' (hereafter referred
to as ``Weber County I/M

[[Page 54269]]

program'' or ``I/M program'')that allows vehicles less than six years
old to be inspected every other year instead of annually. The State
calculated a CO MVEB for 2005 and applied a selected amount of the
available safety margin to the 2005 transportation conformity MVEB. The
State calculated a CO MVEB for 2021 and beyond and also applied a
selected amount of the available safety margin to the 2021 and beyond
transportation conformity MVEB. We have determined that all the
revisions noted above are Federally-approvable, as described further
below.

III. 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 must occur
prior to the revision being submitted by a State to us.
The Utah Air Quality Board (UAQB) held a public hearing for the
revised Ogden CO maintenance plan, the revised Weber County vehicle
inspection and maintenance program, and the revisions to Rule R307-110-
12 and Rule R307-110-35 on September 22, 2004. The revised plan
elements and rules were adopted by the UAQB on November 3, 2004. The
revised CO maintenance plan and Rule R307-110-12 became State effective
on January 4, 2005 and the revised vehicle inspection and maintenance
program and Rule R307-110-35 became State effective on November 4,
2004. The Governor submitted these SIP revisions to us on November 29,
2004. Additional administrative materials were submitted to us by the
State on March 3, 2005.
We have evaluated the Governor's submittal for these SIP revisions
and have determined that the State met the requirements for reasonable
notice and public hearing under section 110(a)(2) of the CAA. As
required by section 110(k)(1)(B) of the CAA, we reviewed these SIP
materials for conformance with the completeness criteria in 40 CFR part
51, appendix V and determined that the submittals were administratively
and technically complete. Our completeness determination was sent on
March 22, 2005, through a letter from Robert E. Roberts, Regional
Administrator, to Governor Jon Huntsman Jr.

IV. EPA's Evaluation of the Revised Maintenance Plan

EPA has reviewed the State's revised maintenance plan for the Ogden
attainment/maintenance area and believes that approval is warranted.
The following are the key aspects of this revision along with our
evaluation of each:
(a) The State has air quality data that show continuous attainment
of the CO NAAQS.
As described in 40 CFR 50.8, the national primary ambient air
quality standard for carbon monoxide is 9 parts per million (10
milligrams per cubic meter) for an 8-hour average concentration not to
be exceeded more than once per year. 40 CFR 50.8 continues by stating
that the levels of CO in the ambient air shall be measured by a
reference method based on 40 CFR part 50, appendix C and designated in
accordance with 40 CFR part 53 or an equivalent method designated in
accordance with 40 CFR part 53. The March 9, 2001 maintenance plan
relied on ambient air quality data from 1992 through 1999. In our
consideration of the revised Ogden maintenance plan, submitted by the
Governor on November 29, 2004, we reviewed ambient air quality data
from 1992 through 2004. The Ogden area shows continuous attainment of
the CO NAAQS from 1992 to present. All of the above-referenced air
quality data are archived in our Air Quality System (AQS).
(b) Using the MOBILE6.2 emission factor model, the State revised
the attainment year inventory (1992) and provided projected emissions
inventories for the years 2004, 2005, 2008, 2011, 2014, 2017, 2020, and
2021.
The revised maintenance plan that the Governor submitted on
November 29, 2004, includes comprehensive inventories of CO emissions
for the Ogden area. These inventories include emissions from stationary
point sources, area sources, non-road mobile sources, and on-road
mobile sources. More detailed descriptions of the revised 1992
attainment year inventory, and the projected emissions inventories for
2004, 2005, 2008, 2011, 2014, 2017, 2020, and 2021, are documented in
the maintenance plan in section IX.C.8.b entitled ``Emission
Inventories and Maintenance Demonstration,'' and in the State's
Technical Support Document (TSD). The State's submittal contains
emission inventory information that was prepared in accordance with EPA
guidance. Summary emission figures from the 1992 attainment year and
the projected years are provided in Table IV-1 below.

Table IV-1
[Summary of CO emissions in tons per day for the Ogden area]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source category 1992 2004 2005 2008
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point*...................... 0 0 0 0
Area........................ 6.28 3.15 3.14 3.14
Non-Road.................... 6.71 7.81 7.99 8.40
On-Road..................... 93.50 42.58 44.54 34.14
------------
Total................... 106.49 53.54 55.67 45.68
------------------------------------------------------------------------

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source category 2011 2014 2017 2020 2021
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point*................................................... 0 0 0 0 0
Area..................................................... 3.16 3.17 3.15 3.10 3.09
Non-Road................................................. 8.82 9.26 9.72 10.21 10.38
On-Road.................................................. 32.07 30.48 29.72 29.28 29.47
------------
Total................................................ 44.05 42.91 42.59 42.59 42.94
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* There were no major CO point sources in the Ogden maintenance area; the State included point source emissions
in the Area source category.

[[Page 54270]]

The revised mobile source emissions show that the largest change
from the original March 9, 2001 maintenance plan is primarily due to
the use of MOBILE6.2 instead of MOBILE5a. The MOBILE6.2 modeling
information is contained in the State's TSD (see ``Mobile Source 1992
Base Year Inventory Using MOBILE6.2,'' pages 3.b.v-1 through 3.b.v-5;
and ``Mobile Source Projection Year Inventories Using MOBILE6.2,''
pages 4.e-1 through 4.e-3) and on a compact disk produced by the State
(see ``Supplemental Mobile Source Data (CD-ROM),'' section 2.d.). A
copy of the State's compact disk is available upon request to EPA. The
compact disk contains much of the modeling data, MOBILE6.2 input-output
files, fleet makeup, MOBILE6.2 input parameters, and other information,
and is included with the docket for this action. Other revisions to the
mobile sources category resulted from revised vehicle miles traveled
(VMT) estimates provided to the State by the Wasatch Front Regional
Council (WFRC) which is the metropolitan planning organization (MPO)
for the Ogden area. In summary, the revised maintenance plan and State
TSD contain detailed emission inventory information that was prepared
in accordance with EPA guidance and is acceptable to EPA.
(c) The State revised the March 9, 2001 Ogden maintenance plan.
The March 9, 2001 CO maintenance plan utilized the then applicable
EPA mobile sources emission factor model, MOBILE5a. On January 18,
2002, we issued policy guidance for States and local areas to use to
develop SIP revisions using the updated version of the model, MOBILE6.
The policy guidance was entitled ``Policy Guidance on the Use of
MOBILE6 for SIP Development and Transportation Conformity'' (hereafter,
January 18, 2002 MOBILE6 policy). Additional policy guidance regarding
EPA's MOBILE model was issued on November 12, 2002, which notified
Federal, State, and Local agencies that the updated MOBILE6.2 model was
now available and was the recommended version of the model to be used.
We note that the State used the MOBILE6.2 model to revise the Ogden
maintenance plan.
Our January 18, 2002, MOBILE6 policy allows areas to revise their
motor vehicle emission inventories and transportation conformity MVEBs
using the MOBILE6 model without needing to revise the entire SIP or
completing additional modeling if: (1) The SIP continues to demonstrate
attainment or maintenance when the MOBILE5-based motor vehicle emission
inventories are replaced with MOBILE6 base year and attainment/
maintenance year inventories and, (2) the State can document that the
growth and control strategy assumptions for non-motor vehicle emission
sources continue to be valid and minor updates do not change the
overall conclusion of the SIP. Our January 18, 2002 MOBILE6 policy also
speaks specifically to CO maintenance plans on page 10 of the policy.
The first paragraph on page 10 of the policy states ``* * *if a carbon
monoxide (CO) maintenance plan relied on either a relative or absolute
demonstration, the first criterion could be satisfied by documenting
that the relative emission reductions between the base year and the
maintenance year are the same or greater using MOBILE6 as compared to
MOBILE5.''
The State could have used the streamlined approach described in our
January 18, 2002 MOBILE6 policy to update the Ogden carbon monoxide
MVEBs. However, the Governor's November 29, 2004 SIP submittal instead
contained a completely revised maintenance plan and maintenance
demonstration for the Ogden area. That is, all emission source
categories (point, area, non-road, and on-road mobile) were updated
using the latest versions of applicable models (including MOBILE6.2,)
transportation data sets, emissions data, emission factors, population
figures and other demographic information. We have determined that this
fully revised maintenance plan SIP submittal exceeds the requirements
of our January 18, 2002 MOBILE6 policy and, therefore, our January 18,
2002 MOBILE6 policy is not relevant to our approval of the revised
maintenance plan and its MVEBs.
As discussed above, the State prepared a revised attainment year
inventory for 1992, and new emission inventories for the years 2004,
2005, 2008, 2011, 2014, 2017, 2020 and 2021. The results of these
calculations are presented in Table 3 ``Emissions Projections for
Interim Years'' on page 5 of the revised Ogden maintenance plan (Utah
SIP Section IX, Part C.8) and are also summarized in our Table IV-1
above. In addition, we note that the State modified the Weber County I/
M program to specify that vehicles less than six years old are to have
their emissions tested every other year instead of annually (see our
discussion and evaluation in section VI below.)
The State performed an analysis of this relaxation of the Weber
County I/M program and determined that this change could be implemented
for Weber County, beginning in 2005, without jeopardizing maintenance
of the CO NAAQS. As noted below in section VI, we reviewed the State's
methodology and analysis and we have determined they are acceptable.
The effects of this I/M rule relaxation were incorporated into the
State's mobile sources modeling with MOBILE6.2, as applicable to the
years 2005, 2008, 2011, 2014, 2017, 2020, and 2021, and these results
are reflected in the Table 3 of the maintenance plan and in our Table
IV-1 above.
We have determined that the State has demonstrated, using
MOBILE6.2, that mobile source emissions continuously decline from 1992
to 2021 and that the total CO emissions from all source categories,
projected for years 2004, 2005, 2008, 2011, 2014, 2017, 2020 and 2021,
are all below the 1992 attainment year level of CO emissions.
Therefore, we are approving the revised maintenance plan as it
demonstrates maintenance of the CO NAAQS from 1992 through 2021, while
allowing the I/M relaxations from the revisions to the Weber County I/M
program.
(d) Monitoring Network and Verification of Continued Attainment.
Continued attainment of the CO NAAQS in the Ogden area depends, in
part, on the State's efforts to track indicators throughout the
maintenance period. This requirement is met in section IX.C.8.e:
``Monitoring Network/Verification of Continued Attainment'' of the
revised Ogden CO maintenance plan. In section IX.C.8.e, the State
commits to continue the operation of the CO monitor in the Ogden area,
in accordance with the provisions of 40 CFR 58, and to annually review
this monitoring network and gain EPA approval before making any
changes.
Also, in section IX.C.8.e and IX.C.8.f, the State commits to track
mobile sources' CO emissions (which are the largest component of the
inventories) through the ongoing regional transportation planning
process that is done by the WFRC. Since regular revisions to Ogden's
transportation improvement programs and long range transportation plans
must go through a transportation conformity finding, the State will use
this process to periodically review the Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT)
and mobile source emissions projections used in the revised maintenance
plan. This regional transportation conformity process is conducted by
WFRC in coordination with Utah's Division of Air Quality (UDAQ), the
UAQB, the Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) and EPA.
Based on the above, we are approving these commitments as
satisfying the relevant requirements. We note that our

[[Page 54271]]

final rulemaking approval renders the State's commitments federally
enforceable.
(e) Contingency Plan.
Section 175A(d) of the CAA requires that a maintenance plan include
contingency provisions. To meet this requirement, the State has
identified appropriate contingency measures along with a schedule for
the development and implementation of such measures.
As stated in section IX.C.8.f of the revised maintenance plan, the
contingency measures for the Ogden area will be triggered by a
violation of the CO NAAQS. However, the State approaches the
development and implementation of contingency measures from a two-step
process; first, upon an exceedance of the CO NAAQS and second, upon a
violation of the CO NAAQS.
The UDAQ will notify the Ogden City government and EPA of an
exceedance of the CO NAAQS generally within 30, but no more than 45
days. Upon notification of a CO exceedance, the UDAQ in coordination
with the WFRC, will begin evaluating and developing potential
contingency measures that are intended to correct a violation of the CO
NAAQS. This process will be completed within six months of the
notification that an exceedance of the CO NAAQS has occurred. If a
violation of the CO NAAQS has occurred, a public hearing process will
begin at the local and State levels. Should the UAQB conclude that the
implementation of local measures will prevent further exceedances or
violations of the CO NAAQS, the UAQB may approve or endorse local
measures without adopting State requirements. If, however, the UDAQ
decides locally-adopted contingency measures are inadequate, the UDAQ
will recommend to the UAQB that they instead adopt State-enforceable
measures as deemed necessary to address the current violation(s) and
prevent additional exceedances or violations. Regardless of whether the
selected contingency measures are local-or State-adopted, the necessary
contingency measures will be implemented within one year of a CO NAAQS
violation. The State also indicates in section IX.C.8.f that any State-
enforceable measure will become part of the next revised maintenance
plan submitted for EPA approval.
The potential contingency measures identified in section
IX.C.8.f(3) of the revised Ogden CO maintenance plan include: (1) A
return to annual inspections for all vehicles; (2) improvements to the
current I/M program in the Ogden area; (3) mandatory employer-based
travel reduction programs as allowed by statute; (4) implementation of
2.7% oxygenated gasoline in Weber County from November 1 through the
end of February; (5) and other emission control measures appropriate
for the area.
Based on the above, we find that the contingency measures provided
in the State's revised Ogden CO maintenance plan are sufficient and
continue to meet the requirements of section 175A(d) of the CAA.
(f) Subsequent Maintenance Plan Revisions.
Section IX.C.8.g of the State's revised maintenance plan states
that:

``No maintenance plan revision will be needed after 2021, as
that is the 20th year following EPA approval of the original
maintenance plan. No further maintenance plan is needed after
successful maintenance of the standard for 20 years. However, the
State will update the Plan if conditions warrant.''

This is essentially a correct interpretation of the length of time
that an area is required to demonstrate maintenance of the CO NAAQS as
provided in sections 175A(a) and 175A(b) of the CAA. Although this
language in section IX.C.8.g of the revised Ogden CO maintenance plan
does not address the specific requirements for the submittal of a
revised maintenance plan as stated in section 175A(b) of the CAA, we
have concluded it is sufficient to meet the intent of section 175A(b).
The requirement for a subsequent maintenance plan submittal appears
in section 175A(b) of the CAA which states ``8 years after
redesignation of any area as an attainment area under section 107(d),
the State shall submit to the Administrator an additional revision of
the applicable State implementation plan for maintaining the national
primary ambient air quality standard for 10 years after the expiration
of the 10-year period referred to in subsection (a).'' As EPA
redesignated the Ogden City CO nonattainment area to attainment on
March 9, 2001, a subsequent maintenance plan submittal from the State,
to address the requirements of section 175A(b) of the CAA, would
normally be submitted to us by March 9, 2009. However, as the
Governor's November 29, 2004 submittal of the revised Ogden CO
maintenance plan provides a sufficiently robust maintenance
demonstration through 2021, we find that this revised maintenance plan
addresses the requirements of section 175A(b) of the CAA.
Regardless of the requirements of section 175(A) of the CAA,
though, other sections of the CAA, presently in place or adopted in the
future, may require the State to revise the maintenance plan and/or
Utah SIP more generally, to ensure that the area continues to meet the
CO NAAQS. Section 110(a)(1) of the CAA is an example of such a
provision. Also, we interpret the quoted statement above as merely
indicating that section 175A does not require a further maintenance
plan revision after 2021; we do not interpret it to mean that the
maintenance plan will automatically terminate after 2021. EPA's
longstanding interpretation is that SIP provisions remain in place
until EPA approves a revision to such provisions. The only exception is
if the SIP contains explicit language that some or all of its
provisions will terminate upon a specific future date. The maintenance
plan does not contain such explicit language. Based on our
interpretation, section IX.C.8.g of the State's revised maintenance
plan is acceptable to us.
Based on our review and evaluation of the components of the revised
Ogden CO maintenance plan, as discussed in our items IV.(a) through
IV.(f) above, we have concluded that the State has met the necessary
requirements in order for us to approve the revised Ogden CO
maintenance plan.

V. EPA's Evaluation of the Transportation Conformity Requirements

One key provision of our conformity regulation (40 CFR part 93)
requires a demonstration that emissions from the long range
transportation plan and Transportation Improvement Program are
consistent with the emissions budget(s) in the SIP (40 CFR 93.118 and
93.124). The emissions budget is defined as the level of mobile source
emissions relied upon in the attainment or maintenance demonstration to
maintain compliance with the NAAQS in the nonattainment or maintenance
area. The rule's requirements and EPA's policy on emissions budgets are
found in the preamble to the November 24, 1993, transportation
conformity rule (58 FR 62193-96) and in the sections of the rule
referenced above.
With respect to maintenance plans, our conformity regulation
requires that MVEB(s) must be established for the last year of the
maintenance plan and may be established for any other years deemed
appropriate (40 CFR 93.118). For transportation plan analysis years
after the last year of the maintenance plan (in this case 2021), a
conformity determination must show that emissions are less than or
equal to the maintenance plan's motor vehicle emissions budget(s) for
the last year of the implementation plan. EPA's

[[Page 54272]]

conformity regulation (40 CFR 93.124) also allows the implementation
plan to quantify explicitly the amount by which motor vehicle emissions
could be higher while still demonstrating compliance with the
maintenance requirement. The implementation plan can then allocate some
or all of this additional ``safety margin'' to the emissions budget(s)
for transportation conformity purposes.
Section IX.C.8.d ``Mobile Source Carbon Monoxide Emissions Budgets
for Transportation Conformity'' of the revised Ogden CO maintenance
plan briefly describes the applicable transportation conformity
requirements, provides MVEB calculations, identifies ``safety margin,''
and indicates that the UAQB elected to apply some of the ``safety
margin'' to the MVEB(s) for 2005 and 2021.
In section IX.C.8.d of the revised maintenance plan, the State
evaluated two MVEBs: a budget for 2005, and a budget applicable to the
maintenance year 2021. For the 2021 MVEB, the State subtracted the
total estimated 2021 emissions (from all sources) of 42.94 Tons Per Day
(TPD) from the 1992 attainment year total emissions of 106.49 TPD. This
produced a ``safety margin'' of 63.55 TPD. The State then reduced this
``safety margin'' by 20 TPD. The identified ``safety margin'' of 43.55
TPD for 2021 was then added to the estimated 2021 mobile sources
emissions, 29.47 TPD, to produce a 2021 MVEB of 73.02 TPD. For the 2005
MVEB, the State subtracted the total estimated 2005 emissions (from all
sources) of 55.67 TPD from the 1992 attainment year total emissions of
106.49 TPD. This produced a ``safety margin'' of 50.82 TPD. The State
then reduced this ``safety margin'' by 20 TPD. The identified ``safety
margin'' of 30.82 TPD for 2005 was then added to the estimated 2005
mobile sources emissions, 44.54 TPD, to produce a 2005 MVEB of 75.36
TPD.
As noted above, the Governor submitted the original Ogden CO
maintenance plan to us on December 9, 1996 and we approved it on March
9, 2001 (see 66 FR 14078). This original maintenance plan demonstrated
maintenance of the CO NAAQS through 2007. While our conformity rule
(see 40 CFR 93) does not require a MVEB for years other than the last
year of the maintenance period, states have the option to establish
MVEBs for other years too. The State's December 9, 1996, maintenance
plan established MVEB(s) for 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998,
1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007 and the years 2008
through 2017. As noted in our March 9, 2001 action, the State
identified a 55 TPD MVEB for the years 2008 through 2017, and EPA
approved this 55 TPD MVBE for use in any transportation conformity
determinations for the years 2008 and beyond (see 66 FR 14078, pages
14083 and 14084).
The revised Ogden CO maintenance plan, that was submitted to us on
November 29, 2004, states, ``This plan retracts the emissions budgets
for 2005-2017 that were included in the original Ogden Carbon Monoxide
Maintenance Plan submitted to EPA in 1996.'' EPA interprets this
language to mean that the State is retracting the 1996 maintenance plan
budgets for years 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2008 through 2017. The November
29, 2004 maintenance plan establishes new MVEBs for 2005 and 2021 based
on MOBILE6.2. In part, the State chose these budget years and retracted
budgets for other years based on input from Region 8.
However, Region 8 recently discovered that we misinterpreted the
CAA requirements regarding initial maintenance plan MVEBs and
mistakenly advised the State that it could entirely remove a MVEB for
2007 from the maintenance plan. Instead, EPA's interpretation is that a
MVEB for the last year of the first maintenance period must be retained
as a specific MVEB year when a second maintenance plan is submitted to
meet the requirements of section 175A(b) of the CAA. We should have
advised the State to retain a MVEB for 2007.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ This doesn't mean the State would have had to retain the
same exact budget. With a proper demonstration, a state can revise
the budget for the last year of the first 10-year maintenance
period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

As described below, however, we believe the lack of a 2007 MVEB in
this case is not significant and that approval of the revised
maintenance plan and MVEBs is still warranted. In section IV of this
action, we describe how the revised Ogden CO maintenance plan meets our
criteria for approval and that the State has demonstrated maintenance
of the CO NAAQS for the entire maintenance period through 2021.
Essentially, the State demonstrated that total CO emissions in future
years through 2021 will be less than the 1992 attainment year level of
CO emissions. Table V-1 below, which is taken from Table 3 of section
IX.C.8.b of the State's revised maintenance plan, illustrates this
point. We have also included in this table the available safety margin
that the State could have applied to the MVEB in each projection year.

Table V-1
[All emissions are in tons per day of CO]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On-road Available
Year Area mobile Non-road Point Total safety
sources sources sources sources* emissions margin
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1992.............................. 6.28 93.50 6.71 0.00 106.49 ...........
2004.............................. 3.15 42.58 7.81 0.00 53.54 52.95
2005.............................. 3.14 44.54 7.99 0.00 55.67 50.82
2008.............................. 3.14 34.14 8.40 0.00 45.68 60.81
2011.............................. 3.16 32.07 8.82 0.00 44.05 62.44
2014.............................. 3.17 30.48 9.26 0.00 42.91 63.58
2017.............................. 3.15 29.72 9.72 0.00 42.59 63.90
2020.............................. 3.10 29.28 10.21 0.00 42.59 63.90
2021.............................. 3.09 29.47 10.38 0.00 42.94 63.55
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The State indicated there were no major point sources of CO and that point source emissions were included with
the Area Sources category.

Based on the information from Table V-1 above, Table V-2 below
illustrates the State-specified MVEBs for 2005 and 2021. It also shows
that, based on available safety margin, the State could have specified
the same 2005 budget of 75.36 TPD for any of the other projection
years. We note the emissions estimates for 2008, 2011, 2014, 2017,

[[Page 54273]]

and 2020 are provided in Table V-2 for illustrative purposes only;
emissions estimates for these years do not represent MVEBs.

Table V-2
[All emissions are in tons per day of CO.; MVEBs are shown in bold]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On-road
mobile
On-road source
mobile Available emissions Remaining
Year source safety with safety
emissions margin allocated margin
safety
margins
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2005 **.................................................... 44.54 50.82 75.36 20
2008....................................................... 34.14 60.81 75.36 19.59
2011....................................................... 32.07 62.44 75.36 19.15
2014....................................................... 30.48 63.58 75.36 18.70
2017....................................................... 29.72 63.90 75.36 18.26
2020....................................................... 29.28 63.90 75.36 17.82
2021 **.................................................... 29.47 63.55 73.02 20
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
** Emissions estimates for 2005 and 2021 represent MVEBs established in the CO maintenance plan.

It is evident from the emissions trends from 2005 forward, and from
the amount of remaining safety margin in 2005 and 2008, that the State
could have established 75.36 tons per day of CO as the 2007 MVEB too.
In other words, the 2005 MVEB is reasonably representative of 2007.
A 2007 MVEB would have applied for any conformity determination for
analysis years between 2007 and 2021. The 2005 MVEB must be used for
any conformity determination for analysis years between 2005 and 2021.
See 40 CFR 93.118(b)(2)(iv). In other words, the elimination of the
2007 MVEB has limited, if any, practical effect. For a conformity
analysis of any transportation plan or program, there will still be a
quantitative budget analysis for any analysis years between 2005 and
2021, as required by 40 CFR 93.118(b), and conformity will have to be
shown to a MVEB of 75.36 TPD of CO, the same MVEB the State could have
specified for 2007.
We also note that the 2005 MVEB is reasonably representative of
2011. This was the year for which EPA extracted data from the State's
TSD in its March 9, 2001 action to meet the 10-year maintenance
requirement in section 175A(a) of the CAA. See 66 FR 14078. Normally,
the initial maintenance plan would have established a MVEB for 2011,
and the current maintenance plan should then have included a MVEB for
2011. However, Table V-2 above shows that a budget identical to the
2005 MVEB of 75.36 tons per day of CO could have also been established
in 2008 and 2011. Based on our discussion above relative to MVEB for
2005 and 2007, and the information from Table V-2, it is evident that
the 2005 MVEB could have been established for 2011 as well. For the
same reasons that the lack of a 2007 MVEB has limited, if any,
practical effect, the lack of a 2011 MVEB also has limited, if any,
practical effect.
Pursuant to Sec. 93.118(e)(4) of EPA's transportation conformity
rule, as amended, EPA must determine the adequacy of submitted mobile
source emissions budgets. EPA reviewed the revised Ogden CO maintenance
plan's emission budget for 2021 for adequacy using the criteria in 40
CFR 93.118(e)(4), and determined that the budget was adequate for
conformity purposes. EPA's adequacy determination was made in a letter
to the Utah Division of Air Quality May 2, 2005, and was announced in
the Federal Register on May 26, 2005 (70 FR 30440). As a result of this
adequacy finding, the 2021 budget took effect for conformity
determinations in the Ogden area on June 10, 2005. However, we note
that we are not bound by this determination in acting on the revised
Ogden CO maintenance plan.
We have concluded that the State has satisfactorily demonstrated
continued maintenance of the CO NAAQS while using transportation
conformity MVEBs of 75.36 TPD for 2005 and 73.02 TPD for 2021.
Therefore, we are approving the transportation conformity MVEBs of
75.36 and 73.02 TPD of CO for the Ogden attainment/maintenance area,
for 2005 and 2021.

VI. EPA's Evaluation of the Revised Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance
Program

In developing the Ogden revised CO maintenance plan, the State
revised section X, part E, of the Utah State Implementation Plan,
``Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Program, Weber County,'' to go
from an annual to an every-other-year testing program for vehicles less
than six years old.
The Weber County I/M program revisions adopted by the UAQB on
November 3, 2004, State effective on November 4, 2004, and submitted by
the Governor on November 29, 2004, reflect the changes in State law,
section 41-6-163.4, Utah Code Annotated, for implementing the I/M
program in Weber County. After EPA approval, this State provision will
become part of the federally-enforceable SIP. The revised maintenance
plan reflects the changes in the Weber County I/M program in that
mobile source CO emissions were calculated for the Ogden area for the
years 2005, 2008, 2011, 2014, 2017, 2020, and 2021, assuming every-
other-year testing for vehicles less than six years old. Even with this
relaxation of the I/M requirements, the emission projections indicate
that the Ogden area will maintain the CO NAAQS from 2005 through 2021.
We note a discrepancy between the Weber County I/M program and
appendix 1, ``Weber-Morgan Health Department Regulation for Motor
Vehicle Inspection Maintenance Program'' (hereafter ``appendix 1'').
Appendix 1, section 6.0, ``General Provisions,'' indicates that the
Weber-Morgan Health Department can require either an annual or biennial
program. The maintenance demonstration is based on an annual program
for vehicles six years or older and a biennial program for vehicles
less than six years old. Any decision by the Weber-Morgan Health
Department to expand the biennial program to other vehicles will only
be federally effective upon EPA approval as a SIP revision.
Also, section 13.2 of appendix 1 indicates that the adopted cut-
points for

[[Page 54274]]

motor vehicle emission inspections contained in appendix C to appendix
1 shall remain in effect until changed by the Board of Health. However,
section 13.2 also states that the maximum concentration of cut-points
shall be adopted by the Board of Health to meet the NAAQS established
by EPA. As with the frequency of inspections described above, the
maintenance demonstration is based on the cut-points contained in
appendix C to appendix 1. Given this, any decision by the Board of
Health to change the cut-points in Appendix C to Appendix 1 shall only
be federally effective upon EPA approval of such change as a SIP
revision.
This is consistent with the interpretation of the Utah Division of
Air Quality expressed in an August 2, 2005 letter from Richard W.
Sprott to Gary House of the Weber-Morgan Board of Health.
We have evaluated and determined that the Weber County I/M program
revisions described above are acceptable to us and we are approving
them now in conjunction with this action.

VII. Consideration of Section 110(l) of the CAA

Section 110(l) of the CAA states that a SIP revision cannot be
approved if the revision would interfere with any applicable
requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress
towards attainment of a NAAQS or any other applicable requirement of
the CAA. The revised Ogden CO maintenance plan and Weber County I/M
program will not interfere with attainment, reasonable further
progress, or any other applicable requirement of the CAA.

VIII. Final Action

In this action, EPA is approving the revised Ogden CO maintenance
plan, the revisions to Utah's Rule R307-110-12 (which incorporates the
revised CO maintenance plan into the Utah Rules,) the revised
transportation conformity CO motor vehicle emission budget for the
years 2005 and 2021, the revised Weber County vehicle inspection and
maintenance program, and the revisions to Utah's Rule R307-110-35
(which incorporates the revised Weber County vehicle inspection and
maintenance program into the Utah Rules,) all as submitted by the
Governor on November 29, 2004.
EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal because the
Agency views this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipates no
adverse comments. However, in the ``Proposed Rules'' section of today's
Federal Register publication, EPA is publishing a separate document
that will serve as the proposal to approve the SIP revision if adverse
comments are filed. This rule will be effective November 14, 2005
without further notice unless the Agency receives adverse comments by
October 14, 2005. If the EPA receives adverse comments, EPA will
publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the
public that the rule will not take effect. EPA will address all public
comments in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. The EPA
will not institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties
interested in commenting must do so at this time. Please note that if
EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of
this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of
the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are
not the subject of an adverse comment.

IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
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 action
merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes
no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law.
Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because
this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does
not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by
state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4).
This 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 approves 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 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 rule does not
impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 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.
804(2).
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 November 14, 2005. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of

[[Page 54275]]

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).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

Dated: August 17, 2005.
Stephen S. Tuber,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region VIII.

0
40 CFR part 52 is amended to read as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart TT--UTAH

0
2. Section 52.2320 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(61) to read as
follows:

Sec. 52.2320 Identification of plan.

* * * * *
(c) * * *
(61) Revisions to the Utah State Implementation Plan, Section IX,
Part C.8, ``Carbon Monoxide Maintenance Provisions for Ogden,'' as
submitted by the Governor on November 29, 2004; revisions to UAC R307-
110-12, ``Section IX, Control Measures for Area and Point Sources, Part
C, Carbon Monoxide,'' as submitted by the Governor on November 29,
2004; revisions to the Utah State Implementation Plan, Section X,
``Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Program, Part E, Weber County,''
as submitted by the Governor on November 29, 2004; and revisions to UAC
R307-110-35, ``Section X, Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Program,
Part E, Weber County,'' as submitted by the Governor on November 29,
2004.
(i) Incorporation by reference.
(A) UAC R307-110-12, as adopted by the Utah Air Quality Board on
November 3, 2004, effective January 4, 2005. This incorporation by
reference of UAC R307-110-12 only extends to the following Utah SIP
provisions and excludes any other provisions that UAC R307-110-12
incorporates by reference:
Section IX, Part C.8, ``Carbon Monoxide Maintenance Provisions for
Ogden,'' adopted by the Utah Air Quality Board on November 3, 2004,
effective January 4, 2005.
(B) UAC R307-110-35, ``Section X, Vehicle Inspection and
Maintenance Program, Part E, Weber County,'' as adopted by the Utah Air
Quality Board on November 3, 2004, effective November 4, 2004.
(ii) Additional Materials
(A) A July 28, 2005 letter from Jan Miller, Utah Department of
Environmental Quality, to Kerri Fiedler, EPA Region VIII, to address
typographical errors in the November 29, 2004 submittal.
(B) An August 2, 2005 letter from Richard Sprott, Utah Department
of Environmental Quality, to Gary House, Weber-Morgan Board of Health,
addressing limits on Weber County authority to revise vehicle emission
cutpoints.

[FR Doc. 05-18232 Filed 9-13-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P