DAQ-2024-010199

30192 Federal Register /Vol. 60, No. 110 /Thursday, June 8, 1995 /Rules and Regulations
section 172(c)(9) contingency measures,
is hereby stopped as the deficiencies for
which the clock was started no longer
exist.
Nothing in this action shall be
construed as permitting or allowing or
establishing a precedent for any future
request for a revision to any SIP. Each
request for revision to the SIP shall be
considered separately in light of specific
technical, economic, and environmental
factors and in relation to relevant
statutory and regulatory requirements.
This action will become effective on
July 24, 1995. However, if the EPA
receives adverse comments by July 10,
1995, then the EPA will publish a notice
that withdraws the action, and will
address those comments in the final rule
on this action which has been proposed
for approval in the proposed rules
section of this Federal Register.
This action has been classified as a
Table 2 action by the Regional
Administrator under the procedures
published in the Federal Register on
January 19, 1989 (54 FR 2214±2225), as
revised by an October 4, 1993,
memorandum from Michael H. Shapiro,
Acting Assistant Administrator for Air
and Radiation. The Office of
Management and Budget exempted this
regulatory action from Executive Order
12866 review.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act,
5 U.S.C. 600 et. seq., EPA must prepare
a regulatory flexibility analysis
assessing the impact of any proposed or
final rule on small entities (5 U.S.C. 603
and 604). Alternatively, EPA may certify
that the rule will not have a significant
impact on a substantial number of small
entities. Small entities include small
businesses, small not-for-profit
enterprises, and government entities
with jurisdiction over populations of
less than 50,000. Today's determination
does not create any new requirements,
but allows suspension of the indicated
requirements. Therefore, because the
approval does not impose any new
requirements, I certify that it does not
have a significant impact on any small
entities affected.
Under Sections 202, 203 and 205 of
the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of
1995 (``Unfunded Mandates Act''),
signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA
must undertake various actions in
association with proposed or final rules
that include a Federal mandate that may
result in estimated costs of $100 million
or more to the private sector, or to State,
local, or tribal governments in the
aggregate.
EPA's final action does not impose
any federal intergovernmental mandate,
as defined in section 101 of the
Unfunded Mandates Act, upon the
State. No additional costs to State, local,
or tribal governments, or to the private
sector, result from this action, which
suspends the indicated requirements.
Thus, EPA has determined that this
final action does not include a 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.
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 August 7, 1995.
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)).
Executive Order 12866
The Office of Management and Budget
has exempted this rule from the
requirements of Section 6 of Executive
Order 12866.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Nitrogen oxides,
Ozone, Volatile organic compounds,
Intergovernmental relations, Reporting
and record keeping requirements.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401±7671q.
Dated: May 31, 1995.
William P. Yellowtail,
Regional Administrator.
40 CFR part 52, Subpart TT, 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±7671q
Subpart TT—Utah
2. Section 52.2332 is added to read as
follows:
§52.2332 Control strategy: Ozone.
DeterminationÐEPA is determining
that, as of May 17, 1995, the Salt Lake
and Davis Counties ozone
nonattainment area has attained the
ozone standard based on air quality
monitoring data from 1992, 1993, and
1994, and that the reasonable further
progress and attainment demonstration
requirements of section 182(b)(1) and
related requirements of section 172(c)(9)
of the Clean Air Act do not apply to the
area for so long as the area does not
monitor any violations of the ozone
standard. If a violation of the ozone
NAAQS is monitored in the Salt Lake
and Davis Counties ozone
nonattainment area, these
determinations shall no longer apply.
[FR Doc. 95±14067 Filed 6±7±95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
40 CFR Part 70
[UT–001; FRL–5217–8]
Clean Air Act Final Full Approval of
Operating Permits Program; Approval
of Construction Permit Program Under
Section 112(l); State of Utah
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final full approval.
SUMMARY: The EPA is promulgating full
approval of the Operating Permits
Program submitted by the State of Utah
for the purpose of complying with
Federal requirements for an approvable
State Program to issue operating permits
to all major stationary sources, and to
certain other sources. EPA is also
approving the Utah Construction Permit
Program under section 112(l) of the
Clean Air Act for the purpose of creating
Federally enforceable permit conditions
for sources of hazardous air pollutants
listed pursuant to section 112(b) of the
Clean Air Act.
EFFECTIVE DATE: July 10, 1995.
ADDRESSES: Copies of the State's
submittal and other supporting
information used in developing the final
full approval are available for inspection
during normal business hours at the
following location: U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 8, 999 18th
Street, suite 500, Denver, Colorado
80202.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Laura Farris, 8ART±AP, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 8, 999 18th Street, suite 500,
Denver, Colorado 80202, (303) 294±
7539.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background and Purpose
Title V of the 1990 Clean Air Act
Amendments (sections 501±507 of the
Clean Air Act (``the Act'')), and
implementing regulations at 40 Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) part 70 (part
70) require that States develop and
submit operating permits programs to
EPA by November 15, 1993, and that
EPA act to approve or disapprove each
program within one year after receiving
the submittal. The EPA's program
30193Federal Register /Vol. 60, No. 110 /Thursday, June 8, 1995 /Rules and Regulations
review occurs pursuant to section 502 of
the Act and the part 70 regulations,
which together outline criteria for
approval or disapproval. Where a
program substantially, but not fully,
meets the requirements of part 70, EPA
may grant the program interim approval
for a period of up to two years. If EPA
has not fully approved a program by two
years after the November 15, 1993 date,
or by the end of an interim program, it
must establish and implement a Federal
program.
On March 22, 1995, EPA proposed
full approval of the Operating Permits
Program for the State of Utah
(PROGRAM). See 60 FR 15105. EPA
received public comments on the
proposal, and is taking final action to
promulgate full approval of the Utah
PROGRAM.
II. Final Action and Implications
A. Analysis of State Submission
The Governor of Utah submitted an
administratively complete title V
Operating Permit Program (PROGRAM)
for the State of Utah on April 14, 1994.
The Utah PROGRAM, including the
operating permit regulations (Utah
Administrative Code Rule R307±15,
Operating Permit Requirements), fully
meets the requirements of 40 CFR parts
70.2 and 70.3 with respect to
applicability; parts 70.4, 70.5, and 70.6
with respect to permit content including
operational flexibility; part 70.5 with
respect to complete application forms
and criteria which define insignificant
activities; part 70.7 with respect to
public participation and minor permit
modifications; and part 70.11 with
respect to requirements for enforcement
authority.
R307±15±3 contains the PROGRAM
definitions. EPA is aware that other
Utah regulations may contain similar,
but not identical, definitions as those
contained in R307±15±3. For purposes
of this PROGRAM approval, EPA wishes
to clarify that the binding definitions are
those contained in R307±15±3.
R307±15±5(5) of the State's permitting
regulation lists the insignificant
activities that sources do not have to
include in their operating permit
application. This list includes specific
activities and sources which are
considered to be insignificant. This
provision states that the source's
application may not omit information
needed to determine applicable
requirements or to evaluate the fee
amount required.
Utah has the authority to issue a
variance from requirements imposed by
State law. Section 16±2±113, Utah Code
Ann., provides that any person may
apply to the board for a variance from
its rules. The board may grant the
requested variance, ``if it determines
that the hardship imposed by
compliance would outweigh the benefit
to the public.'' This authority is limited
by regulation: Utah Administrative Code
section R307±1±2.3 provides that the
board may grant variances to the extent
provided under law, unless prohibited
by the Act. Other statutory provisions of
State law require that the operating
permit program must meet the
requirements of title V of the Act. See,
section 19±2±104(1)(f) and 19±1±
109.1(c)±(d), Utah Code Ann.
In addition to these limitations, EPA
regards Utah's variance provision as
wholly external to the PROGRAM
submitted for approval under part 70,
and consequently is proposing to take
no action on this provision of State law.
EPA has no authority to approve
provisions of State law, such as the
variance provision referred to, which
are inconsistent with part 70. EPA does
not recognize the ability of a permitting
authority to grant relief from the duty to
comply with a Federally enforceable
part 70 permit, except where such relief
is granted through procedures allowed
by part 70. If the State uses its variance
provision strictly to establish a
compliance schedule for a source that
will be incorporated into a title V
permit, then EPA would consider this
an acceptable use of a variance
provision. However, the routine process
for establishing a compliance schedule
is through appropriate enforcement
action. EPA reserves the right to enforce
the terms of the part 70 permit where
the permitting authority purports to
grant relief from the duty to comply
with a part 70 permit in a manner
inconsistent with part 70 procedures.
Part 70 of the Federal operating
permit regulation requires prompt
reporting of deviations from the permit
requirements. Section 70.6(a)(3)(iii)(B)
of that regulation requires the
permitting authority to define prompt in
relation to the degree and type of
deviation likely to occur and the
applicable requirements. Although the
permit program regulations should
define prompt for purposes of
administrative efficiency and clarity, an
acceptable alternative is to define
prompt in each individual permit. The
EPA believes that prompt should
generally be defined as requiring
reporting within two to ten days of the
deviation. Two to ten days is sufficient
time in most cases to protect public
health and safety as well as to provide
a forewarning of potential problems. For
sources with a low level of excess
emissions, a longer time period may be
acceptable. However, prompt reporting
must be more frequent than the
semiannual reporting requirement,
given this is a distinct reporting
obligation under section
70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) of the Federal operating
permit regulation. Where ``prompt'' is
defined in the individual permit but not
in the program regulations, EPA may
veto permits that do not contain
sufficiently prompt reporting of
deviations. The Utah PROGRAM will
define prompt reporting of deviations in
each permit consistent with the degree
and type of deviation likely and the
applicable requirements (see subsection
R307±15±6(1)(c)(iii)(B) of the Utah
permitting rule). Deviations from permit
requirements due to unavoidable
breakdowns shall be reported according
to the unavoidable breakdown
provisions of the Utah Administrative
Code section R307±1±4.7.
R307±15±7(5)(a)(v) correctly allows
the State to incorporate the terms of a
construction permit (i.e., an ``approval
order'') into an operating permit using
the administrative permit amendment
process. This process will be available
when a source requests enhanced
procedures in the issuance of its
construction permit that are
``substantially equivalent'' to the
operating permit issuance or
modification procedures. ``Substantial
equivalence'' between the construction
permit and operating permit issuance
procedures necessarily includes, among
other things, public and affected state
review as well as EPA's 45-day review
period and veto authority.
B. Response to Comments
The comments received on the March
22, 1995 Federal Register notice
proposing full approval of the Utah
PROGRAM, and EPA's response to those
comments, are as follows:
Comment #1: One commenter
objected to EPA's statement that the
Utah SIP currently does not allow for
emission trading within a permitted
facility without requiring a permit
revision. The commenter stated that the
federally-approved PM10 SIP for Utah
currently contains a plant-wide
emissions limitation for their specific
source for the purposes of providing
operational flexibility and further stated
that they do not need to request
operational flexibility under R307±15±
7(a)(ii) since their specific source has
existing operational flexibility that is
provided in this SIP limit. The
commenter stated that R307±15±7(a)(ii)
is not applicable to their plant-wide
annual emissions limitation.
EPA Response: EPA would like to
clarify its statement that ``the approved
30194 Federal Register /Vol. 60, No. 110 /Thursday, June 8, 1995 /Rules and Regulations
Utah SIP does not provide for such
trading [as allowed in 40 CFR
70.4(b)(12)(ii)] at this time.'' When it
made this statement, EPA was thinking
only in terms of a generic trading
program. EPA was not addressing
whether or not the SIP includes
operational flexibility for an individual
source. Furthermore, EPA only included
the statement for informational
purposes. Given that the presence or
absence of an emissions trading program
in the SIP, whether generic or plant-
specific, has no bearing on the
approvability of the part 70 PROGRAM,
EPA has deleted from this notice the
language related to 40 CFR
70.4(b)(12)(ii) which appeared in the
notice of proposed rulemaking. Finally,
if the Utah SIP includes plant-specific
operational flexibility as the commenter
suggests, the determination of the
applicability of specific part 70
provisions to the exercise of such
flexibility is not an approval issue, but
an implementation issue. Because
Utah's PROGRAM meets all of the
requirements of part 70 and Title V of
the Act, the commenter's assertions
have no bearing on EPA's decision to
approve Utah's PROGRAM. Questions
pertaining to applicability of specific
provisions of Utah's PROGRAM will be
addressed during State implementation
of the PROGRAM.
Comment #2: One commenter
suggested that Utah does not have the
authority to impose case-by-case
maximum achievable control
technology (MACT) limitations under
307±1±3, unless the final section 112(g)
rule imposes National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
(NESHAP). The commenter also stated
that the only conditions applicable to
hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) under
Utah's construction review program are
best available control technology and
NESHAPs, but not MACT.
EPA Response: The EPA is aware that
Utah lacks a program designed
specifically to implement section 112(g).
However, Utah does have a construction
review program that can serve as a
procedural vehicle for establishing a
case-by-case MACT or offset
determination and making these
requirements federally enforceable. The
EPA approval of Utah's construction
review program clarifies that it may be
used for this purpose during any
transition period to meet the
requirements of section 112(g). An
alternative would be for Utah to
disallow construction and modifications
subject to 112(g) during any transition
period if the States are not given a grace
period in the final 112(g) rule. See also
EPA's response to comment #4.
Comment #3: One commenter
indicated that Utah's construction
review program, as approved under
section 112(l), is an appropriate
mechanism for establishing limits on
the potential-to-emit hazardous air
pollutants. However, this mechanism
may only be used if a source voluntarily
requests a limit on their potential-to-
emit hazardous air pollutants.
EPA Response: EPA agrees with the
commenter and does not consider this
an adverse comment.
Comment #4: One commenter stated
that EPA is proposing to approve Utah's
construction review program, found in
R307±1±3 of the State's regulations,
solely for the purpose of implementing
section 112(g) during the transition
period between federal promulgation of
a section 112(g) rule and the adoption
of State implementing regulations.
However, the commenter continued on
to indicate objection to EPA's proposed
approval of the Utah construction
review program to implement section
112(g) because (a) Utah's PROGRAM
may not conform to the section 112(g)
requirements once they have been
issued by EPA; and (b) EPA is proposing
to approve the PROGRAM without
clarifying whether Utah's PROGRAM
addresses the critical threshold
questions of how a source is to
determine if an emissions increase is or
is not greater than de minimis, and
whether or not it has been offset
satisfactorily. The commenter also
stated that, until the Agency completes
its 112(g) rulemaking, there is no legal
basis for allowing Utah to implement
section 112(g).
EPA Response: EPA agrees with the
commenter's first statement that EPA is
proposing to approve Utah's
construction review program, found in
R307±1±3 of the State's regulations,
solely for the purpose of implementing
section 112(g) during the transition
period between federal promulgation of
the section 112(g) rule and the adoption
of State implementing regulations.
However, EPA disagrees with the
remaining comments. The Federal
Register notice dated March 22, 1995
(60 FR 15107) proposing full approval of
the Utah Operating Permits PROGRAM,
under ``b. Implementation of Section
112(g),'' clearly stated that ``On
February 14, 1995 EPA published an
interpretive notice (see 60 FR 8333) that
postpones the effective date of section
112(g) until after EPA has promulgated
a rule addressing that provision.''
Questions regarding the threshold for
determining when an emission increase
is greater than de minimis and when it
has been offset satisfactorily will be
addressed in the final section 112(g)
rule. The 112(g) interpretive notice
explains that EPA is still considering
whether the effective date of section
112(g) should be delayed beyond the
date of promulgation of the Federal rule
so as to allow States time to adopt rules
implementing the Federal rule, and that
EPA will provide for any such
additional delay in the final section
112(g) rulemaking. However, unless and
until EPA provides for such an
additional postponement of section
112(g), Utah must be able to implement
section 112(g) during the period
between promulgation of the Federal
section 112(g) rule and adoption of
implementing State regulations. EPA
believes that, if necessary, Utah can
utilize its construction review program
to serve as a procedural vehicle for
implementing Section 112(g) and
making these requirements federally
enforceable between promulgation of
the Federal section 112(g) rule and
adoption of implementing State
regulations. EPA's approval of Utah's
construction review program may be
used solely for the purpose of
implementing section 112(g) during the
transition period to meet the
requirements of section 112(g). EPA is
limiting the duration of the approval to
12 months following promulgation by
EPA of its section 112(g) rule and this
approval will be without effect if EPA
decides in the final section 112(g) rule
that sources are not subject to the
requirements of the rule until State
regulations are adopted.
C. Final Action
The EPA is promulgating full
approval of the Operating Permits
Program submitted by the State of Utah
on April 14, 1994. Among other things,
Utah has demonstrated that the
PROGRAM will be adequate to meet the
minimum elements of a State operating
permits program as specified in 40 CFR
part 70. EPA is also approving the Utah
Construction Permit Program found in
section R307±1±3 of the State's
regulations under section 112(l) of the
Act for the purpose of creating Federally
enforceable permit conditions for
sources of hazardous air pollutants
listed pursuant to section 112(b) of the
Act, and, under the authority of title V
and 40 CFR part 70, for the purpose of
providing a mechanism to implement
section 112(g) of the Act during any
transition period between EPA's
promulgation of a section 112(g) rule
and adoption by the State of rules to
implement section 112(g).
Since EPA proposed full approval of
Utah's PROGRAM, EPA has learned that
the Utah Legislature adopted two laws
which provide a privilege related to
30195Federal Register /Vol. 60, No. 110 /Thursday, June 8, 1995 /Rules and Regulations
Environmental Self-EvaluationsÐS.B.
84 and S.J.R. 6, codified at 19±7±101Ð
19±7±108, Utah Code Annotated, and
Rule 508 of the Utah Rules of Evidence.
It is not clear at this time what effect,
if any, this privilege might have on title
V enforcement actions. However, EPA
regards these bills as being wholly
external to the PROGRAM submitted for
approval under part 70, and
consequently is taking no action in this
approval on these provisions of State
law. If, during PROGRAM
implementation, EPA determines that
these provisions interfere with Utah's
enforcement responsibilities under part
70, EPA will consider this grounds for
withdrawing PROGRAM approval in
accordance with 40 CFR 70.10(c).
In Utah's part 70 program submission,
the State indicated that it is not seeking
approval from EPA to administer the
State's part 70 PROGRAM within the
exterior boundaries of Indian
Reservations in Utah. In this notice,
EPA is approving Utah's part 70
PROGRAM for all areas within the State
except the following: lands within the
exterior boundaries of Indian
Reservations (including the Uintah and
Ouray, Skull Valley, Paiute, Navajo,
Goshute, White Mesa, and Northwestern
Shoshoni Indian Reservations) and any
other areas which are ``Indian Country''
within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. 1151
(excepted areas).
In not extending the scope of Utah's
part 70 PROGRAM to sources located in
the excepted areas, EPA is not making
a determination that the State either has
adequate jurisdiction or lacks
jurisdiction over such sources. Should
the State of Utah choose to seek program
approval within these areas, it may do
so without prejudice. Before EPA would
approve the State's part 70 PROGRAM
for any portion of the excepted areas,
EPA would have to be satisfied that the
State has authority, either pursuant to
explicit Congressional authorization or
applicable principles of Federal Indian
law, to enforce its laws against existing
and potential pollution sources within
any geographical area for which it seeks
program approval and that such
approval would constitute sound
administrative practice.
Requirements for approval, specified
in 40 CFR 70.4(b), encompass section
112(l)(5) requirements for approval of a
program for delegation of section 112
standards as promulgated by EPA as
they apply to part 70 sources. Section
112(l)(5) requires that the State's
program contain adequate authorities,
adequate resources for implementation,
and an expeditious compliance
schedule, which are also requirements
under part 70. Therefore, the EPA is
promulgating approval under section
112(l)(5) and 40 CFR 63.91 of the State's
PROGRAM for receiving delegation of
section 112 standards that are
unchanged from Federal standards as
promulgated. This program for
delegations applies to sources covered
by the part 70 program, as well as non-
part 70 sources.
III. Administrative Requirements
A. Docket
Copies of the State's submittal and
other information relied upon for the
final full approval, including public
comments received and reviewed by
EPA on the proposal, are maintained in
a docket at the EPA Regional Office. The
docket is an organized and complete file
of all the information submitted to, or
otherwise considered by, EPA in the
development of this final full approval.
The docket is available for public
inspection at the location listed under
the ADDRESSES section of this document.
B. Executive Order 12866
The Office of Management and Budget
has exempted this action from Executive
Order 12866 review.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The EPA's actions under section 502
of the Act do not create any new
requirements, but simply address
operating permits programs submitted
to satisfy the requirements of 40 CFR
part 70. Because this action does not
impose any new requirements, it does
not have a significant impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 70
Environmental protection,
Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Intergovernmental
relations, Operating permits, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: May 26, 1995.
Jack W. McGraw,
Acting Regional Administrator.
Part 70, chapter I, title 40 of the Code
of Federal Regulations is amended as
follows:
PART 70—[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 70
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.
2. Appendix A to part 70 is amended
by adding the entry for Utah in
alphabetical order to read as follows:
Appendix A to Part 70ÐApproval
Status of State and Local Operating
Permits Programs
* * * * *
Utah.
(a) Utah Department of Environmental
QualityÐDivision of Air Quality: submitted
on April 14, 1994; effective on July 10, 1995.
(b) [Reserved]
[FR Doc. 95±13927 Filed 6±7±95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Office of the Secretary
49 CFR Part 1
[OST Docket No. 1; Amdt. 1–270]
Organization and Delegation of Powers
and Duties Transfer of Delegations
From the Administrator of the
Research and Special Programs
Administration to the Director of the
Bureau of Transportation Statistics
AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: Responsibility for the
Department's aviation information
program has been transferred from the
Administrator of the Research and
Special Programs Administration to the
Director of the Bureau of Transportation
Statistics. This rule amends the
delegations to be in accordance with the
changed responsibilities. The rule is
necessary to reflect the delegations in
the Code of Federal Regulations.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule is effective on
May 28, 1995.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Steven B. Farbman, Office of the
Assistant General Counsel for
Regulation and Enforcement (202) 366±
9306, United States Department of
Transportation, 400 7th Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20590.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Responsibility for the Department's
aviation information program is being
transferred from the Administrator of
the Research and Special Programs
Administration (RSPA) to the Director
of the Bureau of Transportation
Statistics (BTS). The office within RSPA
that has had this responsibility is the
Office of Airline Statistics (OAS),
formerly known as the Office of
Aviation Information Management
(OAIM). The name change occurred as
part of a 1990 reorganization of RSPA.
Although the Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) was not revised to
reflect the name change, the industry
was informed of the change by a
directive issued by RSPA.
The office within BTS that is
receiving the responsibility is the Office
of Airline Information. This rule