![[logo] US EPA](http://www.epa.gov/epafiles/images/logo_epaseal.gif){kind=logo}
Determination of Attainment for the Carbon Monoxide National Ambient Air Quality Standard for Metropolitan Provo; State of Utah, and Approval of Revisions to the Oxygenated Gasoline Program
Note: EPA no longer updates this information, but it may be useful as a reference or resource.
[Federal Register: September 20, 2002 (Volume 67, Number 183)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 59165-59169]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr20se02-10]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[UT-001-0045a, UT-001-0046a; FRL-7377-9]
Determination of Attainment for the Carbon Monoxide National
Ambient Air Quality Standard for Metropolitan Provo; State of Utah, and
Approval of Revisions to the Oxygenated Gasoline Program
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Direct final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This action makes a determination of attainment for the carbon
monoxide (CO) National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for the
metropolitan Provo CO nonattainment area (hereafter Provo area) which
was classified as ``moderate''. The Provo area was required by the
Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 to attain the CO NAAQS by December 31,
1995. This determination is based on complete, quality assured ambient
air quality monitoring data for the years 1994 and 1995. In addition,
on September 27, 2001, the Governor submitted revisions to Utah's rule
R307-301 ``Utah and Weber Counties: Oxygenated Gasoline Program''. In
this action, EPA is determining that the Provo area attained the CO
NAAQS and EPA is approving the revisions to rule R307-301.
DATES: This direct final rule is effective on November 19, 2002,
without further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comments by October
21, 2002. If adverse comment is received, EPA will publish a timely
withdrawal of the direct final rule in the Federal Register and inform
the public that the rule will not take effect.
ADDRESSES: Written comments may be mailed to: Richard R. Long,
Director, Air and Radiation Program, Mailcode 8P-AR, United States
Environmental Protection Agency, Region VIII, 999 18th Street, Suite
300, Denver, Colorado 80202-2466.
Copies of the documents relevant to this action are available for
public inspection during normal business hours at the following
offices:
United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region VIII, Air and
Radiation Program, 999 18th Street, Suite 300, Denver, Colorado
80202-2466; and,
Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center, United States
Environmental Protection Agency, Room B-108, 1301 Constitution
Avenue (Mail Code 6102T) NW., Washington, DC 20460.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tim Russ, Air and Radiation Program,
Mailcode 8P-AR, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region
VIII, 999 18th Street, Suite 300, Denver, Colorado 80202-2466,
Telephone number: (303) 312-6479.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document wherever ``we'',
``us'', or ``our'' are used we mean the Environmental Protection
Agency.
I. Determination of Attainment for the CO NAAQS for the Provo Area
In this action, we are determining that the metropolitan Provo CO
nonattainment area, as described in 40 CFR 81.345, attained the 8-hour
CO NAAQS by December 31, 1995, based on quality assured ambient air
monitoring data for the years 1994 and 1995. In addition, ambient air
quality data show that the area continued to attain the CO NAAQS from
1995 through 2001 (the most recent year for which complete data are
available.) This action is being taken pursuant to sections 179 (c)(1)
and 186(b)(2) of the Clean Air Act (CAA). This determination of
attainment does not redesignate the Provo area to attainment for the CO
NAAQS. The CAA requires that for an area to be redesignated to
attainment the five criteria in section 107(d)(3)(E) must first be
satisfied and EPA must fully approve a maintenance plan for the area.
(a) Background
On November 15, 1990, the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 were
enacted (Pub. L. 101-549, 104 Stat. 2399, codified at 42 U.S.C. 7401-
7671q). Under section 107(d)(1)(C) of the CAA, we designated the Provo
area as nonattainment for CO because the area had been designated as
nonattainment before November 15, 1990. We originally designated the
Provo area as nonattainment for CO under the provisions of the 1977 CAA
Amendments (see 43 FR 8962, March 3, 1978). This designation was
reaffirmed by the 1990 CAA Amendments and the Provo area was classified
as ``moderate'' CO nonattainment area with a design value greater than
or equal to 12.7 parts per million (ppm). See 56 FR 56694, November 6,
1991. CO nonattainment areas classified as ``moderate'' were expected
to attain the CO NAAQS as expeditiously as practical, but no later than
December 31, 1995. Further information regarding this CO classification
and the accompanying requirements are described in section 187 of the
CAA and in the ``General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of
the Clean Air Act Amendments
[[Page 59166]]
of 1990.'' (See 57 FR 13498, April 16, 1992.)
(b) Analysis of Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Data and Determination
of Attainment
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. Attainment of the CO standard is not a
momentary phenomenon based on short-term data. Instead, we consider an
area to be in attainment if each of the CO ambient air quality monitors
in the area doesn't have more than one exceedance of the CO standard
over a one-year period. 40 CFR 50.8 and 40 CFR part 50, appendix C. If
any monitor in the area's CO monitoring network records more than one
exceedance of the CO standard during a one-year calendar period, then
the area is in violation of the CO NAAQS. In addition, our
interpretation of the CAA has been that to be considered in attainment
for the CO NAAQS, an area must attain the CO NAAQS for at least a
continuous two-year calendar period.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ June 18, 1990, Memorandum from William G. Laxton, Director
Technical Support Division, entitled ``Ozone and Carbon Monoxide
Design Value Calculations.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our determination that the Provo area attained the CO NAAQS by
December 31, 1995, is based on an analysis of quality assured ambient
air quality monitoring data that have been entered into EPA's
Aerometric Information and Retrieval System (AIRS) and are relevant to
this action. State annual-certified ambient air quality monitoring data
for calendar years 1994 and 1995 show a measured design value of 8.2
ppm with an exceedance rate of the CO NAAQS of 1.0 or less per year,
per monitor, in the Provo nonattainment area. In addition, we note that
ambient data in AIRS show continuous attainment of the CO NAAQS in the
Provo area from 1995 through the latest complete data year of record
which is 2001. Further, preliminary data for 2002 also show attainment.
All of the data discussed above were collected and analyzed as
required by EPA (see 40 CFR 50.8 and 40 CFR part 50, appendix C) and in
accordance with EPA policy and guidance. The data have been archived by
the State in our AIRS national database. We have evaluated the ambient
air quality data and have determined that the Provo area has not
violated the CO standard. Therefore, the Provo area has met its CAA
requirement and attained the CO NAAQS by December 31, 1995.
II. Revisions to R307-301 for the Oxygenated Gasoline Program for Utah
and Weber Counties
(a) Background
Section 211(m) of the 1990 CAA Amendments required the
implementation of an oxygenated gasoline program in CO nonattainment
areas with a CO design value greater than 9.5 ppm. As both the Provo
area (Utah County) and Ogden City (Weber County) were nonattainment for
CO and had design values greater than 9.5 ppm, this provision of the
CAA applied to both Weber and Utah Counties. CAA section 211(m)(2)(B)
set the Federally required oxygenate level at 2.7% oxygen by weight. In
response to this CAA requirement, the Governor submitted final
revisions to the State's rule R307-8\2\ ``Oxygenated Gasoline Program''
on May 14, 1994, for the implementation of a 2.7% program. We approved
the revisions to R307-8 on November 8, 1994 (see 59 FR 55585).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The State rule R307-8 ``Oxygenated Gasoline Program'' was
re-numbered by the State to R307-301 and the title was changed to
``Utah and Weber Counties: Oxygenated Gasoline Program.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On July 11, 1994, the Governor submitted a revision to the Utah SIP
that included a CO attainment demonstration for the Provo area. Two
components of this attainment demonstration were the implementation of
an enhanced motor vehicle inspection and maintenance (I/M) program, to
be implemented by January 1, 1996, and the 2.7% oxygenated gasoline
program. (We note that the State had actually implemented the 2.7%
oxygenated gasoline program in the Provo area even prior to our
November 8, 1994, approval of R307-8 and has continued the
implementation of this 2.7% program to date.) However, the commitment
to implement an enhanced I/M program was not definite. Thus, as part of
the July 11, 1994, submittal the State revised R307-8-3.1.B ``Average
Oxygen Content Standard'' to require an increase in the oxygen content
of gasoline fuels in the Provo-Orem Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA)
from 2.7% to 3.1% oxygen by weight in the event the enhanced I/M
program (or a substitute I/M program) was not implemented by January 1,
1996.
The State did not implement the enhanced I/M program in Utah
County. Instead, on March 15, 1996, the Governor submitted a revision
to the SIP that involved an improved basic I/M program for Utah County.
This revision was submitted to satisfy the applicable requirements of
both the CAA and section 348 of the National Highway Safety Designation
Act (NHSDA) of 1995. We granted interim final approval of this SIP
revision on June 9, 1997 (see 62 FR 31349) and we anticipate publishing
a final rule fully approving this improved basic I/M program in the
near future.
After our November 8, 1994, initial approval of the State's
oxygenated gasoline program, the State submitted several revisions to
R307-8 which culminated in a submittal by the Governor on July 8, 1998,
that superceded and replaced all prior versions. This July 8, 1998,
version of R307-8 still retained the language in R307-8-3.1.B requiring
the implementation of a 3.1% oxygen content by weight program in Utah
County if the enhanced I/M program was not implemented in Utah County
by January 1, 1996. We approved the July 8, 1998, revision of R307-8 in
conjunction with our March 9, 2001, approval of the Ogden City carbon
monoxide redesignation to attainment (see 66 FR 14078), thus making the
3.1% program both State and Federally enforceable for Utah County and
the Provo area. (We note that R307-8 never applied the 3.1% program in
Ogden City.)
(b) Analysis the Governor's September 27, 2001, Revisions to R307-301
Utah's rule R307-301 is entitled ``Utah and Weber Counties:
Oxygenated Gasoline Program.'' It is intended to replace R307-8. The
Governor's September 27, 2001, SIP submittal made specific changes to
R307-301-3 which is entitled ``Average Oxygen Content Standard.''
Section 110(k) of the CAA addresses our actions on submissions of
revisions to a SIP. The CAA requires States to observe certain
procedural requirements in developing SIP revisions for submittal to
us. Section 110(a)(2) of the CAA requires that each SIP revision be
adopted after reasonable notice and public hearing. This public process
must occur prior to the State submitting its final revisions to us.
At the July 11, 2001, Utah Air Quality Board (UAQB) meeting, the
UAQB proposed for public comment revisions to rule R307-301-3. The SIP
revisions
[[Page 59167]]
were subject to a 30-day State public comment period that began on
August 1, 2001, and ended on August 31, 2001. The State conducted a
public hearing on August 22, 2001. The UAQB approved the SIP revisions
on September 5, 2001. Rule R307-301-3 became State-effective on
September 10, 2001. The Governor submitted these SIP revisions to EPA
on September 27, 2001. In a letter dated October 18, 2001, from Pat D.
Hull, Acting Regional Administrator, to Governor Leavitt, we determined
the submittal was administratively and technically complete pursuant to
40 CFR part 51, appendix V.
The revisions to R307-301-3 that the Governor submitted on
September 27, 2001, remove the requirement for a 3.1% oxygen content by
weight program and require only a 2.7% oxygen by weight program. We
find the revisions acceptable for the following reasons:
The revisions will not interfere with the attainment of the CO
NAAQS or any other requirement of the CAA. As noted above, the Provo
area has been continuously attaining the CO NAAQS since 1994. During
this period, the Provo area has never implemented a 3.1% oxygenated
gasoline program and has only implemented a 2.7% oxygenated gasoline
program. Only three exceedances of the CO NAAQS have been recorded in
the Provo area since 1994 and none have been recorded since 1996. Also,
the CO values since 1996 have generally been considerably below the CO
NAAQS and trending downward. Thus, we believe a 2.7% oxygenated
gasoline program will continue to be adequate for the Provo area to
attain the 8-hour CO NAAQS. Any additional CO emission reductions that
a 3.1% oxygenated gasoline program would achieve appear to be
unnecessary.
Based on the above analysis and the ambient air quality data that
is archived in our AIRS national database for the Provo area, we have
concluded that a 2.7% oxygenated gasoline program is sufficient for the
Provo area to attain and maintain the CO NAAQS. Therefore, the
Governor's September 27, 2001, revisions to R307-301-3 are acceptable.
III. Final Action
In this action, EPA is determining that the Provo carbon monoxide
``moderate'' nonattainment area attained the CO NAAQS by December 31,
1995. We are also approving the Governor's September 27, 2001,
revisions to Utah's rule R307-301-3 ``Average Oxygen Content
Standard.''
EPA is publishing this action without prior proposal because the
Agency views this as a noncontroversial action and anticipates no
adverse comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this
Federal Register publication, we are publishing a separate document
that will serve as the proposal should adverse comments be filed. This
rule will be effective November 19, 2002, without further notice unless
the Agency receives adverse comments by October 21, 2002.
If EPA receives such comments, then we will publish a timely
withdrawal of the direct final rule informing the public that the rule
will not take effect. All public comments received will then be
addressed in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. The
EPA will not institute a second comment period on this rule. Any
parties interested in commenting on this rule should do so at this
time. If no such comments are received, the public is advised that this
rule will be effective on November 19, 2002, and no further action will
be taken on the proposed rule.
Administrative Requirements
(a) Executive Order 12866
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this
regulatory action from Executive Order 12866, entitled ``Regulatory
Planning and Review.''
(b) Executive Order 13045
Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), applies to any rule that: (1) Is
determined to be ``economically significant'' as defined under
Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health or
safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate
effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the
Agency must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the
planned rule on children, and explain why the planned regulation is
preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible
alternatives considered by the Agency.
This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is not
economically significant and EPA does not have the discretion to engage
in a risk assessment or alternatives analysis in acting on SIP
revisions.
(c) Executive Order 13132
Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) revokes and replaces
Executive Orders 12612 (Federalism) and 12875 (Enhancing the
Intergovernmental Partnership). Executive Order 13132 requires EPA to
develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely input
by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies
that have federalism implications.'' ``Policies that have federalism
implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations
that have ``substantial direct effects on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government.'' Under Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a
regulation that has federalism implications, that imposes substantial
direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless
the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct
compliance costs incurred by State and local governments, or EPA
consults with State and local officials early in the process of
developing the regulation. EPA also may not issue a regulation that has
federalism implications and that preempts State law unless the Agency
consults with State and local officials early in the process of
developing the regulation.
This rule will not have substantial direct effects on the States,
on the relationship between the national government and the States, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various
levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132, because it
merely approves state rules implementing a federal standard, and does
not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and
responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. Thus, the
requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply to this
rule.
(d) Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments)
Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (59 FR 22951, November 6, 2000),
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful
and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory
policies that have tribal implications.''
This final rule does not have tribal implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the relationship
between the Federal government and Indian tribes, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
government and Indian tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175.
[[Page 59168]]
Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule.
(e) Executive Order 13211 (Energy Effects)
This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211 ``Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)) because it is not a
significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
(f) Regulatory Flexibility
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies
that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small
businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental
jurisdictions.
This final approval will not have a significant impact on a
substantial number of small entities because SIP approvals under
section 110 and subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air Act do not create
any new requirements, but simply approve requirements that the State is
already imposing. Therefore, because the SIP final approval does not
create any new requirements, I certify that this action will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Moreover, due to the nature of the Federal-State relationship under the
Clean Air Act, preparation of flexibility analysis would constitute
Federal inquiry into the economic reasonableness of state action. The
Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base its actions concerning SIPs on such
grounds. Union Electric Co., v. U.S. EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255-66 (1976);
42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2). Therefore, because the final rule does not create
any new requirements, I certify that the final rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
(g) Unfunded Mandates
Under section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(``Unfunded Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA
must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or
final rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in estimated
costs to State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate; or to
the private sector, of $100 million or more. Under section 205, EPA
must select the most cost-effective and least burdensome alternative
that achieves the objectives of the rule and is consistent with
statutory requirements. Section 203 requires EPA to establish a plan
for informing and advising any small governments that may be
significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule.
EPA has determined that this final approval action does not include
a Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs of $100 million or
more to either State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate, or
to the private sector. This Federal action approves pre-existing
requirements under State or local law, and imposes no new requirements.
Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local, or tribal
governments, or to the private sector, result from this action.
(h) Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 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 ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2). This rule will be effective November 19, 2002.
(i) National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
Section 12 of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
(NTTAA) of 1995 requires Federal agencies to evaluate existing
technical standards when developing a new regulation. To comply with
NTTAA, EPA must consider and use ``voluntary consensus standards''
(VCS) if available and applicable when developing programs and policies
unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise
impractical.
The EPA believes that VCS are inapplicable to this action. Today's
action does not require the public to perform activities conducive to
the use of VCS.
(j) Petitions for Judicial Review
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by November 19, 2002. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial
review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial
review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such
rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings
to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)
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: September 6, 2002.
Robert E. Roberts,
Regional Administrator, Region VIII.
Title 40, chapter I, part 52 of the Code of Federal Regulations is
amended as follows:
PART 52--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart TT--Utah
2. Section 52.2320 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(53) to read
as follows:
Sec. 52.2320 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(53) On September 27, 2001, the Governor of Utah submitted a
revision to Utah's SIP involving R307-301 ``Utah and Weber Counties:
Oxygenated Gasoline Program.'' Specifically, the State revised R307-
301-3 ``Average Oxygen Content Standard'' to only require the
implementation of a 2.7% oxygen by weight program and not a 3.1%
program that the State had mandated in a 1998 revision.
(i) Incorporation by reference.
(A) Rule R307-301-3 ``Average Oxygen Content Standard'', as adopted
on September 5, 2001, by the Utah Air Quality Board, and State
effective on September 10, 2001. This rule supersedes and replaces
R307-8-3.1.B.
3. New Sec. 52.2353 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 52.2353 Control strategy: Carbon monoxide.
Determination. EPA has determined that the Provo carbon monoxide
``moderate'' nonattainment area attained
[[Page 59169]]
the carbon monoxide national ambient air quality standard by December
31, 1995. This determination is based on air quality monitoring data
from 1994 and 1995.
[FR Doc. 02-23816 Filed 9-19-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P