[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 117 (Monday, June 18, 2001)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 32752-32760]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-15031]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[UT-001-0033; FRL-6996-9]


Clean Air Act Promulgation of Extension of Attainment Dates for 
PM<INF>10</INF> Nonattainment Areas; Utah

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is granting a one-year extension of the attainment date 
for the Salt Lake County, Utah nonattainment area for particulate 
matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to a nominal 10 
micrometers (PM<INF>10</INF>). EPA is also granting two one-year 
extensions of the attainment date for the Utah County, Utah PM<INF>10</INF> 
nonattainment area. Salt Lake and Utah Counties failed to attain the 
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for PM<INF>10</INF> by 
the applicable attainment date of December 31, 1994. The action is 
based on EPA's evaluation of air quality monitoring data and extension 
requests submitted by the State of Utah. EPA is also making the 
determination that Salt Lake County, Utah attained the PM<INF>10</INF> 
NAAQS as of December 31, 1995 and Utah County, Utah attained the 
PM<INF>10</INF> NAAQS as of December 31, 1996. The intended effect of 
this action is to approve requests from the Governor of Utah in 
accordance with section 188(d) of the Clean Air Act (CAA).

EFFECTIVE DATE: This final rule is effective July 18, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the documents relevant to this action are 
available for public inspection during normal business hours at the Air 
and Radiation Program, Environmental Protection Agency, Region VIII, 
999 18th Street, Suite 300, Denver, Colorado 80202-2466. Copies of the 
State documents relevant to this action are available for public 
inspection at the Utah Department of Environmental Quality, Division of 
Air Quality, 150 North 1950 West, Salt Lake City, Utah 84114.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cindy Rosenberg, EPA, Region VIII, 
(303) 312-6436.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On September 21, 2000 (65 FR 57127), EPA 
published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR) for Utah. The NPR 
proposed approval of a one-year extension of the attainment date for 
the Salt Lake County, Utah PM<INF>10</INF> nonattainment area and two 
one-year extensions of the attainment date for the

[[Page 32753]]

Utah County, Utah PM<INF>10</INF> nonattainment area.
    Throughout this document, wherever ``we'', ``us'', or ``our'' are 
used, we mean the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

Table of Contents

I. EPA's Final Action
    A. What Is EPA Approving?
    B. What Is the History Behind This Approval?
II. Basis for EPA's Action
    A. Salt Lake County
    1. Explanation of the Attainment Date Extension for the Salt 
Lake County PM<INF>10</INF> Nonattainment Area.
    2. Determination That the Salt Lake County PM<INF>10</INF> 
Nonattainment Area Attained the PM<INF>10</INF> NAAQS as of December 
31, 1995.
    B. Utah County
    1. Explanation of the Attainment Date Extension for the Utah 
County PM<INF>10</INF> Nonattainment Area.
    2. Determination That the Utah County PM<INF>10</INF> 
Nonattainment Area Attained the PM<INF>10</INF> NAAQS as of December 
31, 1996.
III. Summary of Public Comments and EPA's Responses
IV. Administrative Requirements

I. EPA's Final Action

A. What Is EPA Approving?

    In response to requests from the Governor of Utah, we are granting 
a one-year attainment date extension for the Salt Lake County, Utah 
PM<INF>10</INF> nonattainment area and two one-year attainment date 
extensions for the Utah County, Utah PM<INF>10</INF> nonattainment area 
in order to address CAA requirements. The effect of these actions is to 
extend the attainment date for the Salt Lake County, Utah 
PM<INF>10</INF> nonattainment area from December 31, 1994 to December 
31, 1995 and the attainment date for the Utah County, Utah 
PM<INF>10</INF> nonattainment area from December 31, 1994 to December 
31, 1995 and from December 31, 1995 to December 31, 1996. Our action to 
extend the attainment date for Salt Lake County is based on monitored 
air quality data for the national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) 
for PM<INF>10</INF> from the years 1992-94 and the action for Utah 
County is based on data from the years 1992-94 and 1993-1995. In 
addition, based on quality-assured data meeting the requirements of 40 
CFR part 50, appendix K, we are determining that, as of December 31, 
1995, Salt Lake County attained the PM<INF>10</INF> NAAQS, and that, as 
of December 31, 1996, Utah County attained the PM<INF>10</INF> NAAQS. 
With this final approval, consistent with CAA section 188, the areas 
will remain moderate PM<INF>10</INF> nonattainment areas and avoid the 
additional planning requirements that apply to serious PM<INF>10</INF> 
nonattainment areas.
    This action should not be confused with a redesignation to 
attainment under CAA section 107(d) because Utah hasn't submitted a 
maintenance plan under section 175(A) of the CAA or met the other CAA 
requirements for redesignation. The designation status in 40 CFR part 
81 will remain moderate nonattainment for both areas until such time as 
Utah requests, and meets the CAA requirements for, redesignations to 
attainment.

B. What Is the History Behind This Approval?

    As initial moderate PM<INF>10</INF> nonattainment areas, both Salt 
Lake and Utah Counties were required by CAA section 188(c)(1) to attain 
the PM<INF>10</INF> NAAQS by December 31, 1994. Section 188(b)(2) of 
the CAA requires EPA to determine whether such moderate areas have 
attained the NAAQS or not within six months of the attainment date. In 
the event an area doesn't attain the NAAQS by the attainment date, 
section 188(d) allows States to request and EPA to approve attainment 
date extensions if certain criteria are met. On May 11, 1995, the State 
of Utah requested a one-year extension of the attainment date for both 
Salt Lake and Utah Counties. On October 18, 1995, we indicated that we 
were granting the requested one-year extensions. We also indicated in a 
letter dated January 25, 1996 that we would publish a rulemaking action 
on the extension requests ``in the very near future,'' but we didn't do 
so. Nor did we publish determinations in the Federal Register that the 
areas had not attained the NAAQS as of December 31, 1994. On March 27, 
1996, the State of Utah requested a second one-year extension of the 
attainment date for Utah County. We didn't publish a determination in 
the Federal Register that Utah County had not attained the NAAQS as of 
December 31, 1995.
    We are now approving the requested extension of the attainment 
dates for the Salt Lake County PM<INF>10</INF> nonattainment area and 
the Utah County PM<INF>10</INF> nonattainment area from December 31, 
1994 to December 31, 1995. We are also approving the requested 
extension of the attainment date for the Utah County PM<INF>10</INF> 
nonattainment area for an additional year--until December 31, 1996. As 
we explain more fully below, we believe these extensions are warranted 
under CAA section 188(d). In addition, we are finding that the Salt 
Lake County PM<INF>10</INF> nonattainment area attained the 
PM<INF>10</INF> NAAQS as of December 31, 1995 and the Utah County 
PM<INF>10</INF> nonattainment area attained the PM<INF>10</INF> NAAQS 
as of December 31, 1996.

II. Basis for EPA's Action

A. Salt Lake County

1. Explanation of the Attainment Date Extension for the Salt Lake 
County PM<INF>10</INF> Nonattainment Area
    a. Air Quality Data. We are using data from calendar year 1994 to 
determine whether the area met the air quality criteria for granting a 
one-year extension of the attainment date under section 188(d) of the 
CAA.
    The Salt Lake County PM<INF>10</INF> nonattainment area includes 
the entire county. In 1994, Utah's Department of Air Quality (UDAQ or 
Utah) operated six PM<INF>10</INF> monitors, which were state and local 
air monitoring stations (SLAMS) and national air monitoring sites 
(NAMS), in Salt Lake County. We deemed the data from these sites valid 
and the data were submitted by Utah to be included in AIRS.
    In 1994, there were eight exceedances of the 24-hour 
PM<INF>10</INF> NAAQS at one monitor (North Salt Lake Site) and one 
exceedance of the 24-hour NAAQS at another monitor (AMC Site). Based on 
nearby construction activity, Utah requested that the eight exceedances 
recorded at the North Salt Lake Site in 1994 be excluded under our 
``Guideline on the Identification and Use of Air Quality Data Affected 
By Exceptional Events,'' (EPA-450/4-86-007). We determined that the 
North Salt Lake monitor was influenced by highly localized, fugitive 
dust events caused by the construction activity occurring in the 
immediate area. Because of those impacts from localized construction 
near the North Salt Lake site, all data from June 8 to November 23, 
1994 were excluded from the data set used in calculations for 
attainment/nonattainment purposes.
    With the exclusion of the above-mentioned block of data, there was 
only one exceedance recorded at one other monitor (AMC site). 
Therefore, with only one exceedance of the PM<INF>10</INF> NAAQS 
recorded in 1994, the area met one of the requirements to qualify for 
an attainment date extension under section 188(d).\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The Act states that no more than one exceedance may have 
occurred in the area (see section 188(d)(2)). The EPA interprets 
this to prohibit extensions if there is more than one measured 
exceedance of the 24-hour standard at any monitoring site in the 
nonattainment area. The number of exceedances will not be adjusted 
to expected exceedances as long as the minimum required sampling 
frequencies have been met.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    b. Compliance with the Applicable SIP. The State of Utah submitted 
the PM<INF>10</INF> SIP for Salt Lake County on November 14, 1991. On 
December 18, 1992 (57 FR 60149), EPA proposed to

[[Page 32754]]

approve the plan as satisfying those moderate PM<INF>10</INF> 
nonattainment area requirements that were due November 15, 1991. On 
July 8, 1994 (59 FR 35036), EPA took final action approving the Salt 
Lake County PM<INF>10</INF> SIP. The SIP control strategies consist of 
controls for stationary sources and area sources (including controls 
for woodburning, mobile sources, and road salting and sanding) of 
primary PM<INF>10</INF> emissions as well as sulfur oxide 
(SOPM<INF>X</INF>) and nitrogen oxide (NO<INF>X</INF>) emissions, which 
are secondary sources of particulate emissions.
    Based on information the State submitted in 1995, we believe that 
Utah was in substantial compliance with the requirements and 
commitments in the applicable implementation plan that pertained to the 
Salt Lake County PM<INF>10</INF> nonattainment area when the State 
submitted its extension request. The milestone report indicates that 
Utah had implemented most of its adopted control measures, and 
therefore we believe Utah substantially implemented the RACM/RACT 
requirements applicable to moderate PM<INF>10</INF> nonattainment 
areas.
    c. Emission Reduction Progress. With its May 11, 1995, request for 
a one-year attainment date extension for Salt Lake County, the State of 
Utah also submitted a milestone report as required by section 189(c)(2) 
of the Act that must, under section 171(1), demonstrate annual 
incremental emission reductions and reasonable further progress (RFP). 
On September 29, 1995, Utah submitted a revised version of the 
milestone report. The revised 1995 milestone report estimated current 
emissions from all source categories covered by the SIP and compared 
those estimates to 1988 actual emissions. These estimates of current 
emissions indicated that total emissions of PM<INF>10</INF>, 
SO<INF>2</INF>, and NO<INF>X</INF> had been reduced by approximately 
60,752 tons per year, from a 1988 value of 150,292 tons per year to a 
then current value of 89,540 tons per year.
    The effect of these emission reductions appears to be reflected in 
ambient measurements at the monitoring sites. Data from these sites 
show no violations of either the annual or the 24-hour PM<INF>10</INF> 
standard since the 1992-1994 period. Furthermore, in 1994 there was 
only one exceedance of the 24-hour standard and the highest monitored 
annual standard at any monitor was 47<greek-m>g/m\3\. This is evidence 
that the State's implementation of PM<INF>10</INF> SIP control measures 
resulted in emission reductions amounting to reasonable further 
progress in the Salt Lake County PM<INF>10</INF> nonattainment area.
2. Determination That the Salt Lake County PM<INF>10</INF> 
Nonattainment Area Attained the PM<INF>10</INF> NAAQS as of December 
31, 1995
    Whether an area has attained the PM<INF>10</INF> NAAQS is based 
exclusively upon measured air quality levels over the most recent and 
complete three calendar year period. See 40 CFR part 50 and 40 CFR 50, 
appendix K. With the effective date of this action, the extended 
attainment date for Salt Lake County will be December 31, 1995, and the 
three year period will cover calendar years 1993, 1994, and 1995.
    The PM<INF>10</INF> concentrations reported at six different 
monitoring sites showed one measured exceedance of the 24-hour 
PM<INF>10</INF> NAAQS between 1993 and 1995. Because data collection 
was less than 100% at these monitoring sites, the expected exceedance 
rate for 1994 was 1.03. For 1993 and 1995, it was 0.0. Thus, the three-
year average was less than 1.0, which indicates Salt Lake County 
attained the 24-hour PM<INF>10</INF> NAAQS as of December 31, 1995.
    Review of the annual standard for calendar years 1993, 1994 and 
1995 reveals that the area also attained the annual PM<INF>10</INF> 
NAAQS by December 31, 1995. There was no violation of the annual 
standard for the three year period from 1993 through 1995.

B. Utah County

1. Explanation of the Attainment Date Extension for the Utah County 
PM<INF>10</INF> Nonattainment Area
    a. Air Quality Data. The Utah County PM<INF>10</INF> nonattainment 
area includes the entire county. In 1994 and 1995, UDAQ operated four 
PM<INF>10</INF> monitoring sites, which were either SLAMS or NAMS, in 
Utah County. We deemed the data from these sites valid and the data was 
submitted by Utah to be included in AIRS.
    We are using data from calendar year 1994 to determine whether the 
area met the air quality criteria for granting a one-year extension of 
the attainment date, from December 31, 1994 to December 31, 1995, under 
section 188(d) of the CAA. We are using calendar year 1995 data to 
determine whether the Utah County area met the air quality criteria for 
granting an extension of the attainment date from December 31, 1995 to 
December 31, 1996.
    In 1994, there were no exceedances of the 24-hour or annual 
PM<INF>10</INF> NAAQS in Utah County. Since no exceedances of the 
PM<INF>10</INF> NAAQS were recorded in 1994, the area met one of the 
requirements to qualify for a one-year attainment date extension under 
section 188(d).\2\ In 1995, there were no exceedances of the 24-hour or 
annual PM<INF>10</INF> NAAQS in Utah County. Since no exceedances of 
the PM<INF>10</INF> NAAQS were recorded in 1995, the area met one of 
the requirements to qualify for a second one-year attainment date 
extension under section 188(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The Act states that no more than one exceedance may have 
occurred in the area (see section 188(d)(2)). The EPA interprets 
this to prohibit extensions if there is more than one measured 
exceedance of the 24-hour standard at any monitoring site in the 
nonattainment area. The number of exceedances will not be adjusted 
to expected exceedances as long as the minimum required sampling 
frequencies have been met.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    b. Compliance with the Applicable SIP. The State of Utah submitted 
the PM<INF>10</INF> SIP for Utah County on November 14, 1991. On 
December 18, 1992 (57 FR 60149), EPA proposed to approve the plan as 
satisfying those moderate PM<INF>10</INF> nonattainment area 
requirements due November 15, 1991. On July 8, 1994 (59 FR 35036), EPA 
took final action approving the Utah County PM<INF>10</INF> SIP. The 
SIP control strategies consist of controls for stationary sources and 
area sources (including controls for woodburning, mobile sources, and 
road salting and sanding) of primary PM<INF>10</INF> emissions as well 
as sulfur oxide (SO<INF>X</INF>) and nitrogen oxide (NO<INF>X</INF>) 
emissions, which are secondary sources of particulate emissions.
    Based on information the State submitted in 1995, we believe that 
Utah was in substantial compliance with the requirements and 
commitments in the applicable implementation plan that pertained to the 
Utah County PM<INF>10</INF> nonattainment area when Utah submitted its 
first extension request. The milestone report indicates that Utah 
County had implemented most of its adopted control measures, and 
therefore we believe Utah substantially implemented the RACM/RACT 
requirements applicable to moderate PM<INF>10</INF> nonattainment 
areas. Based on information the State submitted in 1996, we believe 
that Utah was in substantial compliance with the requirements and 
commitments in the applicable implementation plan that pertained to the 
Utah County PM<INF>10</INF> nonattainment area when the State submitted 
its second extension request. The milestone report indicates that the 
State continued to implement its adopted control measures, reducing 
PM<INF>10</INF> loadings even further, and therefore we believe Utah 
substantially implemented its RACM/RACT requirements.
    c. Emission Reduction Progress. With its May 11, 1995, request for 
a one-year attainment date extension for Utah County, the State of Utah 
also submitted

[[Page 32755]]

a milestone report as required by section 189(c)(2) of the Act that 
must under section 171(1), demonstrate annual incremental emission 
reductions and RFP. On September 29, 1995, Utah submitted a revised 
version of the milestone report. The revised 1995 milestone report 
estimated current emissions from all source categories covered by the 
SIP and compared those estimates to 1988 actual emissions. These 
estimates of current emissions indicated that total emissions of 
PM<INF>10</INF>, SO<INF>2</INF>, and NO<INF>X</INF> had been reduced by 
approximately 3,129 tons per year, from a 1988 value of 25,920 tons per 
year to a then current value of 22,791 tons per year.
    With its March 27, 1996 request for an additional one-year 
attainment date extension for Utah County, the State of Utah submitted 
another milestone report. Utah submitted a revised version of this 
milestone report on May 17, 1996. The March 27, 1996 milestone report 
estimated current emissions from all source categories covered by the 
SIP and compared those estimates to 1988 actual emissions. These 
estimates of current emissions indicated that total emissions of 
PM<INF>10</INF>, SO<INF>2</INF>, and NO<INF>X</INF> had been reduced 
from the 1988 total by approximately 8,391 tons per year.
    The effect of these emission reductions appears to be reflected in 
ambient measurements at the monitoring sites. Data from these sites 
show no exceedances of either the annual or the 24-hour PM<INF>10</INF> 
standard in 1994 or 1995. The vast majority of monitored values were 
well below the 24-hour standard. The highest annual value recorded at 
any monitor during 1994 and 1995 was 39<greek-m>g/m\3\. This is 
evidence that the State's implementation of PM<INF>10</INF> SIP control 
measures resulted in emission reductions amounting to RFP in the Utah 
County PM<INF>10</INF> nonattainment area.
2. Determination That the Utah County PM<INF>10</INF> Nonattainment 
Area Attained the PM<INF>10</INF> NAAQS as of December 31, 1996
    Whether an area has attained the PM<INF>10</INF> NAAQS is based 
exclusively upon measured air quality levels over the most recent and 
complete three calendar year period. See 40 CFR part 50 and 40 CFR part 
50, appendix K. With the effective date of this action, the extended 
attainment date for Utah County will be December 31, 1996, and the 
three year period will cover calendar years 1994, 1995, and 1996.
    The PM<INF>10</INF> concentrations reported at four different 
monitoring sites showed no measured exceedances of the 24-hour 
PM<INF>10</INF> NAAQS between 1994 and 1996, which indicates Utah 
County attained the 24-hour PM<INF>10</INF> NAAQS as of December 31, 
1996.
    Review of the annual standard for calendar years 1994, 1995 and 
1996 reveals that the area also attained the annual PM<INF>10</INF> 
NAAQS by December 31, 1996. No monitoring sites showed a violation of 
the annual standard in the three year period from 1994 through 1996.

III. Summary of Public Comments and EPA's Responses

    (1) Comment: Four commenters stated that they were in favor of 
EPA's proposed attainment date extensions for Salt Lake County and Utah 
County and that both nonattainment areas had met the requirements for 
receiving an attainment date extension. The commenters pointed out that 
both nonattainment areas have been attaining the PM<INF>10</INF> NAAQS 
since their proposed extended attainment dates.
    Response: We agree that both Salt Lake County and Utah County met 
all of the requirements to receive an extension of their attainment 
dates and that both counties attained the PM<INF>10</INF> NAAQS.
    (2) Comment: One commenter states that the granting of attainment 
date extensions after the attainment determination deadlines have 
passed is not allowed by the CAA. The commenter claims that because we 
didn't extend the attainment dates for Salt Lake and Utah Counties 
before the deadline for bumping up the areas, we were obligated to 
announce their reclassification to ``serious'' no later than June 31, 
[sic] 1995.
    Response: The commenter is correct that the Act required us to 
determine by June 30, 1995 whether the areas had attained or not. The 
commenter is also correct that we failed to make this determination by 
June 30, 1995. The commenter argues that reclassification to serious is 
the only permissible result from our failure to make an attainment 
determination by June 30, 1995. However, the Act does not require this 
result.
    Section 188(b)(2) of the Act reads, ``If the Administrator finds 
that any Moderate Area is not in attainment after the applicable 
attainment date--(A) the area shall be reclassified by operation of law 
as a Serious Area. * * *'' (emphasis added). We never made the 
requisite finding--that the areas had not attained by December 31, 
1994--to trigger a bump up to ``serious'' and therefore, a bump up had 
not occurred. The commenter is attempting to read the requirement for 
an EPA finding of nonattainment out of the Act.
    There is nothing in section 188 that states that EPA, having failed 
to meet the June 30, 1995 deadline for determining whether the areas 
had attained or not, is then bound to find that the areas did not 
attain. We believe that EPA retains discretion to avail itself of any 
of the options provided by the Act--find that the areas had attained, 
find that the areas had not attained, or find that an attainment date 
extension was warranted--if the criteria for such options are met. In 
this case, we believe that attainment date extensions were warranted, 
and we do not believe our delay in granting such extensions should form 
the basis for forcing a bump up of the areas to serious and the 
imposition of the stricter emission limits and controls that go along 
with such a bump up. It would indeed be odd, and in our view 
inconsistent with the statute, to ``penalize'' sources within the areas 
in question, due to our failure to act in a timely way.
    We note again that in an October 18, 1995 letter to Russell 
Roberts, the then director of the Utah Division of Air Quality, we 
stated that we were granting the extensions, and in a subsequent 
letter, we stated that we would publish the requisite notices in the 
Federal Register. We failed to follow through with these actions in a 
timely way, and we are now trying to correct our failure.
    Also, as indicated above, Salt Lake County and Utah County attained 
the PM<INF>10</INF> NAAQS as of the extended attainment dates under 
this action (December 31, 1995 and December 31, 1996, respectively). 
Under these circumstances, a bump up makes even less sense.
    (3) Comment: One commenter states that the attainment date 
extensions are contrary to our guidance, which requires states to 
submit requests for extensions under section 188(d) within 90 days 
after the attainment date, and requires resolution of such requests 
within 6 months after the attainment date. According to the commenter, 
the guidance clearly reads section 188(d) as applying only up to the 
point at which a bump up is required. The commenter argues that we have 
no basis for departing from our longstanding guidance in this matter.
    Response: Nothing in the Act specifies a particular deadline for a 
State request for an attainment date extension. In this case, the State 
of Utah submitted an attainment date extension request on May 11, 1995, 
before section 188's June 30, 1995 deadline for us to determine the 
areas' attainment status. In addition, as noted in Utah's May 11, 1995 
request, Utah had previously submitted a draft request to us. We think 
Utah initiated its request for attainment date extensions within a

[[Page 32756]]

reasonable period of time, and provided supplemental information to 
clarify the request in a timely way. Utah and EPA worked through issues 
with the request over the summer of 1995, and, in the fall of 1995, we 
indicated we were approving the extension requests. Under the 
circumstances, we think Utah's actions were reasonably consistent with 
our guidance. We don't believe the fact that Utah's formal request fell 
outside the 90-day period described in our guidance forms an adequate 
basis to ignore or deny Utah's request. Our guidance is just that--
guidance; it cannot be considered a binding document.
    We don't believe our guidance speaks to the issue of what should 
happen in a case where EPA fails to make an attainment determination by 
June 30, 1995, as required by the Act. If anything, our guidance 
clearly recognizes that we must first determine that the area has not 
timely demonstrated attainment of the NAAQS before the area is 
reclassified to serious under section 188(b). (See page 10 of our 
November 14, 1994 guidance memorandum, ``Criteria for Granting 1-Year 
Extensions of Moderate PM-10 Nonattainment Area Attainment Dates, 
Making Attainment Determinations, and Reporting on Quantitative 
Milestones,'' signed by Sally L. Shaver.) We believe our position is 
reasonable. The alternative position, expressed by the commenter, would 
impose the burden of EPA's failure to act in a timely way upon Utah 
(additional planning requirements) and sources within the areas (more 
stringent control requirements in the form of BACM/BACT), regardless of 
whether an extension of the attainment date is warranted. We don't 
believe this position is reasonable.
    If EPA is not allowed to exercise its discretion to grant an 
extension of the attainment date where the statutory criteria have been 
met--discretion Congress provided us alongside the requirement to 
determine whether areas timely attained--it would appear to frustrate 
Congress' obvious desire to provide States that are close to achieving 
attainment an alternative to undergoing reclassification.
    (4) Comment: One commenter refers to air quality data collected at 
an air monitoring station in Salt Lake County. The commenter asserts 
that the North Salt Lake monitoring station recorded a violation of the 
annual PM<INF>10</INF> standard and eight exceedances of the 24-hour 
standard in 1994 and that we may not exclude these data from regulatory 
use. Thus, according to the commenter, Salt Lake County doesn't meet 
one of the criteria for an attainment date extension--that the area 
recorded no exceedances of the annual PM<INF>10</INF> standard and no 
more than one exceedance of the 24-hour PM<INF>10</INF> standard in the 
year preceding the extension year. The commenter quotes from a letter 
dated October 18, 1995, from Richard Long, Director, Air Program, EPA 
Region VIII, to Russell Roberts, Director, Utah Division of Air 
Quality. In the letter, we agreed to exclude some PM<INF>10</INF> data 
collected at the North Salt Lake station in 1994 and agreed to grant a 
one-year extension of the attainment date. Attachment I of the letter 
elaborated our technical comments. Part of the attachment is quoted by 
the commenter and reads, ``The data collected at the North Salt Lake 
station in the summer and fall of 1994 should be regarded as ordinary 
data, unaffected by exceptional events.'' The commenter indicates that 
we had determined that the data had not met criteria for exclusion and 
we had concluded that there was no basis for excluding the data due to 
exceptional events. The commenter also points out that although we 
determined that the data didn't qualify as an exceptional event, we did 
decide that there were ``extenuating circumstances'' during the 1994 
construction episode and because of this, the exceedances from the 
North Salt Lake monitor should be excluded. The commenter cites the EPA 
document, Guideline on the Identification and Use of Air Quality Data 
Affected by Exceptional Events, EPA-450/4-86-007 (1986) and asserts 
that the criteria in the document are the sole basis upon which we may 
exclude exceedances that are allegedly due to construction activity. 
The commenter asserts that neither the Act nor EPA rules or guidance 
allow the exclusion of exceedance data based on a generalized claim of 
``extenuating circumstances.''
    Response: We disagree with both of the commenter's assertions, 
i.e., that there was no basis for deciding to exclude the data, and 
that EPA had determined that the data had not met EPA criteria for 
exclusion from regulatory use. The commenter erroneously believes that 
the statement in the October 18, 1995 letter to the Director of Utah's 
DAQ indicating that we were not inclined to treat the 1994 North Salt 
Lake station's data as data affected by exceptional events precluded us 
from excluding the data for regulatory use on any other grounds.
    Our regulations explaining the computations necessary for 
collecting and analyzing particulate matter data in order to make 
appropriate regulatory determinations, including attainment 
determinations, are found at appendix K of 40 CFR part 50. Section 1.0 
of appendix K explains that ambient PM<INF>10</INF> data must be 
measured by a reference method based on appendix J of part 50, and 
designated in accordance with 40 CFR part 53. Similarly, while 
expressly mentioning the required frequency of measurements, that 
section indicates, generally, that the data protocols to be followed in 
order to make determinations regarding attainment must be consistent 
with 40 CFR part 58. In addition to specifications regarding the 
frequency of ambient measurements, part 58 addresses other 
requirements, including proper siting of monitoring stations (to ensure 
that the data samples correctly reflect the regulatory goal for which 
monitoring is being undertaken--see 40 CFR part 58, appendix D), and 
pollutant-specific probe siting criteria (to ensure the uniform 
collection of compatible and comparable air quality data--see 40 CFR 
part 58, appendix E). It, therefore, follows logically that ambient 
data collected at sites not meeting the requirements of parts 50, 53, 
and 58 of 40 CFR (and their associated Appendices) may be determined by 
EPA to be inadequate, and, thus, be invalidated for purposes of 
regulatory decisionmaking.
    Under appendix K (and associated guidance), high ambient values of 
PM<INF>10</INF> that are determined to be due to exceptional events may 
be ``flagged'', i.e., marked for special treatment, when submitted to 
the AIRS database. This is because, when making required regulatory 
decisions, the use of such data --which may not be representative of 
typical ambient values-- could result in inappropriate estimates of the 
expected annual value. Consequently, the 1986 Exceptional Events 
Guideline, cited by the commenter, sets forth criteria for flagging 
ambient data considered to have been influenced by exceptional events. 
However, the flagging of data does not, by itself, result in the 
exclusion of data from regulatory decision-making. The 1986 Guideline 
document defines several types of activities that influence ambient 
data and may qualify for exceptional events treatment, including 
construction projects. The Guideline provides guidance for States 
regarding how to treat and report data submitted under an exceptional 
events claim. The reporting methodologies includes the various 
conventions to ``flag'' or highlight the data when placing it in AIRS. 
Focusing, as it does, on exceptional events, the 1986 Guideline does 
not address, therefore, all the various circumstances and conditions 
under which EPA may

[[Page 32757]]

make determinations regarding whether such data should be excluded for 
regulatory purposes; it only advises States concerning what procedures 
they need to follow in making data exclusion requests. The guidance 
expressly states that the policy ``carries no prior presumption towards 
use or non-use of flagged data.'' And, indeed, decisions on how flagged 
data are used for specific regulatory purposes, e.g., attainment 
designations or demonstrations, control strategy, etc., are made by EPA 
on a case-by-case basis.
    As noted earlier, the comments concern PM<INF>10</INF> data, 
including eight exceedances of the 24-hour National Ambient Air Quality 
Standard, that were collected at the North Salt Lake station between 
June 8 and November 23, 1994, resulting in an annual arithmetic mean 
value for 1994 of 58<greek-m>g/m\3\. Utah believed this data had been 
unduly affected by a construction project next to the air monitoring 
station, and advised us of its intention to flag the data. 
Consequently, when it transcribed the 1994 data onto computer files for 
submittal to AIRS, Utah included the letter ``J'' in a predetermined 
field associated with each PM<INF>10</INF> concentration observed 
during the affected period. According to a convention of AIRS, the data 
were thereby flagged as having been, in Utah's opinion, influenced by 
an exceptional event. On December 19, 1994, Utah sent a letter 
requesting that we approve the data from the North Salt Lake station 
from June 8 to November 23, 1994 as having been influenced by an 
exceptional event. A decision to exclude the flagged data would have 
reduced the annual arithmetic mean value for 1994 to 47<greek-m>g/m\3\. 
To show our concurrence, we could have added a ``J'' to a second field 
adjacent to each datum, according to the same AIRS convention. Utah's 
letter was accompanied by supporting material consistent with the 1986 
Guideline.
    In response to this request, we noted that a similar exceedance had 
occurred at the North Salt Lake station on September 30, 1993. The 
State had attached an exceptional events treatment flag when it 
reported the data in AIRS for the entire block of data recorded from 
August 28 through October 5, 1993, the life of the construction 
project. We had applied our concurrence flag only to the September 30 
exceedance, however, indicating our agreement that at least that 
exceedance could be considered the result of an exceptional event. 
After reviewing Utah's 1994 request, we decided not to apply our ``J'' 
flags to the data collected from June 8 to November 23, 1994 because we 
believed that the ambient event did not satisfy criteria in our 
regulations and the 1986 Guideline for treatment as an exceptional 
event. Primarily, we concluded that the construction near the 
monitoring station during the summer and fall of 1994 was a recurrence 
within one year of similar construction activity, i.e., the 1993 
construction project and its resultant exceedance, and exceptional 
events are defined, in part, as events that are not expected to recur 
at a given location. Also, the 1986 Guideline indicates that for 
consideration as an exceptional event certain activities must occur 
only over a ``short time period'', but, here, the 1994 construction 
project continued for longer than 30 days, (30 days being our general 
rule of thumb for what is meant by the term ``short time period'' as 
used in the 1986 Guideline). We advised Utah of our decision in a 
letter dated March 20, 1995. In the same letter we advised Utah that we 
``may have some latitude in how these data will be used in determining 
the attainment status' of Salt Lake County, and asked the State for 
additional information. As the letter further explained, ``[w]e will 
use the additional information when considering the attainment status 
of the area.''
    Our October 18, 1995 letter to Utah conveyed two determinations 
made by us regarding the data collected at the North Salt Lake station 
between June 8 and November 23, 1994: (1) That we did not consider the 
data to have been affected by exceptional events; and (2) that the data 
would, nonetheless, be excluded from the data set used in the 
calculations for attainment on other grounds. In deciding to exclude 
the data, we considered several factors that were subsequently brought 
to our attention by the State in support of their data exclusion 
request, in addition to the explanation of the construction event given 
in Utah's December 19, 1994 letter. These include the following:
    1. Photographs, tables of PM <INF>10</INF> concentrations, chemical 
analyses in support of mass balance estimations, and the results of 
computer modeling of chemical mass balance, all of which were revised 
analyses and/or elaborations or clarifications of supporting materials 
submitted with Utah's December 19, 1994 letter.
    2. More extensive explanations of information contained in a letter 
from the Salt Lake City Department of Public Utilities describing 
relevant conditions at the project site, and a labor dispute that 
disrupted the construction project, also submitted with Utah's December 
19, 1994 letter.
    3. The State's arguments emphasizing that the small size of the 
area disturbed during the construction project, that is to say, the 
localized character of the episode, tended to prove that conditions, 
and the consequent ambient values recorded at this single monitor, were 
not representative of ambient values throughout the nonattainment area, 
or with historically recorded values during summer/early fall months.
    4. Additional information in support of the State's attempt to 
distinguish the construction project in 1994 (the extension of a sewer 
line) as different from the 1993 construction project (the extension of 
a pipeline through a portion of roadway), as a basis for the assertion 
that the construction, although similar in type, was non-recurring.
    5. Additional materials providing further explanation of the 1994 
ambient events, given in Utah's letter to EPA of April 20, 1995 (mis-
dated March 24, 1995).
    6. Additional materials providing further explanation of the 1994 
ambient events, submitted with Utah's milestone report of September 29, 
1995.
    The letter from the Salt Lake City Department of Public Utilities 
mentioned in the above list explains that the construction project was 
contracted to a private individual and that, during the initial phase, 
a deep trench was dug about 40 feet east of the site, and the road 
proceeding north from the site was also trenched in the middle for 
about a \1/4\ of a mile. Along with gravel pit and hauling activities, 
the project involved frequent dirt spillage along the road. This dirt 
became airborne as a result of heavy vehicular traffic during commuter 
hours. Due to a dispute over the contract, work was stopped at the 
construction site between August 10 and September 26. EPA was also 
advised that, although the contract required dust control measures to 
be undertaken during the life of the project, it appears that this 
requirement of the contract was not being adhered to. During the month-
and-a-half long work-stoppage, the trench had been backfilled to the 
surface, but was not paved, so that dirt and sediment continued to 
escape. Moreover, the placement of barricades and ``closed'' signs on 
the road were apparently not successful in deterring vehicular traffic 
and dust re-entrainment also continued to occur. Again, it should be 
noted that this construction area was in extremely close proximity to 
the monitoring station in question (estimated as being within 20 feet 
of the monitor, which is located on a platform 4 meters above ground 
level).

[[Page 32758]]

    As described earlier, requirements that monitoring stations adhere 
to proper monitoring objectives and scale of representativeness are 
found in 40 CFR part 58, appendix D. In our letter to Utah dated March 
20, 1995, discussed earlier in this response, although we disapproved 
their request for exceptional events treatment, we asked the State to 
provide additional information on the events leading to the 
exceedances. In particular, we commented on and requested further 
information about the appropriateness of the monitoring station site. 
The letter stated:

    The site of the construction with respect to the monitoring 
station should have been evaluated by the State to ensure the 
reasonableness of continuing to monitor at this station * * * The 
State could have requested temporarily halting PM<INF>10</INF> 
monitoring or relocating the PM<INF>10</INF> monitor to help avoid 
the construction influence but still monitor the area per the 
PM<INF>10</INF> SIP. The State should explain why this was not done.

    Based on our review of the additional explanatory materials 
supplied by Utah at our request, we believed that during the period of 
construction activity in 1994 when eight PM<INF>10</INF> exceedances 
were recorded, the North Salt Lake station did not meet the approved 
monitoring objective or scale of representativeness required under 40 
CFR part 58. Subsequent to this, we did ask Utah to consider re-siting 
the monitor because of these episodes. In particular, the proximity of 
the earth-moving activities to the air monitoring station, and the 
failure of the construction company to effectively implement dust 
suppression control measures at the trenched areas on-site and along 
the roadway, and at the site in general, resulted in the station's 
effective noncompliance with the probe siting criteria and requirements 
of 40 CFR part 58, appendix E. The version of this regulation that was 
in effect in 1994 read, in part: ``Stations should not be located in an 
unpaved area unless there is vegetative ground cover year round, so 
that the impact of wind blown dusts [sic] will be kept to a minimum.'' 
For all of these reasons, we determined that it was appropriate to 
exclude the data collected at the North Salt Lake monitoring station as 
unrepresentative of ambient effects on the population exposed to the 
particulate matter generated during this period. Accordingly, because 
this data was deemed to be inappropriate for NAAQS purposes, we 
exercised our discretion under 40 CFR part 50, appendix K to exclude 
the data from regulatory use.
    (5) Comment: One commenter states that Utah has not met one of the 
prerequisites for an attainment date extension--section 188(d)'s 
requirement that the State has complied with all requirements and 
commitments pertaining to the area in the applicable implementation 
plan. The commenter cites to several EPA letters to Utah that 
identified concerns with State implementation of SIP measures. 
According to the commenter, there is no showing in the record that all 
our concerns were met and that Utah had fully implemented the SIP.
    Response: The commenter is correct that we had identified a number 
of concerns with SIP implementation during the summer of 1995. However, 
at our behest, the State revised its milestone report/extension request 
and re-submitted it to us on September 29, 1995. On October 18, 1995, 
we found that the revised report was sufficient to meet our concerns, 
and indicated that we would grant the State's request for a one-year 
extension for Salt Lake and Utah Counties. In that October 18, 1995 
letter, from Richard R. Long, to Russell Roberts, we stated the 
following:

    The State has addressed EPA's comments regarding additional 
support for the emission reductions from street salting. EPA's 
comments on diesel I/M implementation and growth rates have also 
been addressed. In addition, the State has addressed EPA's comments 
regarding documentation for woodburning program implementation. 
Finally, we are pleased to see that the State has also provided 
additional information regarding new source review and compliance 
for stationary sources.

    We believe the State's September 1995 revised milestone report/
extension request, and May 17, 1996 extension request for Utah County, 
are adequate to support this action.
    The language of section 188(d)(1) of the Act states that the 
Administrator may extend the attainment date if ``the State has 
complied with all requirements and commitments pertaining to the area 
in the applicable implementation plan * * *'' The commenter insists 
that we cannot redefine the word ``all'' to mean ``some'' or ``most'' 
and asserts that if there has not been 100% compliance with SIP 
requirements, the provisions of 188(d)(1) have not been met.
    Initially, we note that the language of section 188(d)(1) refers to 
SIP requirements and commitments that apply to the State, not 
individual sources. The State has an obligation under section 110 of 
the Act to enforce the requirements of the SIP, but it would be 
unreasonable to expect the State to take an enforcement action for 
every apparent violation of the SIP or to achieve 100% source 
compliance nor have we interpreted section 110 to require that level of 
enforceability. Furthermore, we believe that substantial compliance or 
compliance with most requirements and commitments on the part of the 
State is sufficient to support an extension where the State has 
demonstrated RFP toward attaining the NAAQS. We do not believe 
Congress' goal was to bump areas up to serious that didn't attain by 
their applicable deadline, but appeared likely to achieve attainment 
through further implementation of control measures in the SIP.
    The structure of our 1994 Guidance (``Attainment Determination and 
the Processing of Initial PM<INF>10</INF> Nonattainment Area SIPs,'' 
November 14, 1994, signed by Sally Shaver) further explains why we 
believe that substantial compliance is adequate to support an 
attainment date extension. Section III of the Guidance contains our 
criteria for obtaining an extension of the attainment date, and makes 
clear that we were prepared to grant extensions to PM<INF>10</INF> 
areas that had not yet received EPA approval of their nonattainment 
SIPs. In these cases, the Guidance clearly indicates that State 
compliance is to be measured against the latest federally-approved 
particulate matter SIP for the area, and in many instances, this would 
have been a SIP submitted in response to the pre-1990 Clean Air Act. To 
further address this issue, we provided in the Guidance that we 
expected States to demonstrate that (1) control measures had been 
submitted in the form of a SIP revision and substantially implemented 
to satisfy the RACM/RACT requirement for the area, and (2) the area had 
made emission reduction progress that represented reasonable further 
progress toward timely attainment of the PM<INF>10</INF> NAAQS. In 
addition, we did not state that we would not grant an extension if the 
State failed to meet these requirements, but rather that we would be 
``disinclined to grant an attainment date extension'' in such a case.
    In other words, our Guidance recognized the difficulties some areas 
were having submitting their PM<INF>10</INF> SIPs and gaining EPA 
approval within the time frames provided by the 1990 Amendments and 
indicated our belief that we had some flexibility under the Act to 
grant extensions of the attainment date even if all the measures 
required by the 1990 amendments were not fully implemented at the time 
the request was made. Pursuant to this approach, we approved a number 
of extension requests. Denver's PM<INF>10</INF> attainment date was 
extended in a Federal Register notice published on October 6, 1995 (60 
FR 52312) prior to the approval of a SIP

[[Page 32759]]

for the area. Likewise, the attainment dates were extended for Spokane, 
Washington and Wallula, Washington (60 FR 47276), and Power-Bannock 
Counties, Idaho and Sandpoint, Idaho (61 FR 20730), with a second one-
year extension granted for Power-Bannock Counties (61 FR 66602). Given 
our prior practice, we believe it would be unfair to demand more from 
the Salt Lake and Utah County areas especially since Utah submitted a 
nonattainment SIP for these areas by the November 15, 1991 statutory 
deadline and we approved the SIP before the December 31, 1994 statutory 
attainment date.
    So, in our view, substantial implementation is an appropriate 
benchmark. For both counties, the SIP includes four main types of 
measures: solid fuel burning provisions, road salting and sanding 
provisions, mobile source provisions, and stationary source provisions. 
The State's 1995 milestone report/extension request for both counties, 
and 1996 report/extension request for Utah County, indicate that the 
State substantially implemented the measures described in the SIP for 
these four categories. For example, the State implemented a mandatory 
no-burn program in both counties that was substantially similar to the 
program described in the SIP. The State adopted a rule for road salting 
and sanding that requires application of salt that is at least 92% 
sodium chloride, other material as clean as salt, or vacuum sweeping 
within three days of the storm. Although this wasn't identical to the 
federally approved measure in the SIP at the time, we believe it 
achieves substantially equivalent results. In fact, Utah submitted a 
SIP revision on February 1, 1995 that embodies the revised rule. We 
approved this SIP revision on February 6, 1999 (64 FR 68031) based on 
our belief that it achieves substantially equivalent results to the 
original provision.
    The SIP discusses the possibility of closing Provo Canyon to truck 
traffic. The State placed a monitor in Provo Canyon to evaluate the 
impact of diesel traffic on air quality. Because the monitoring showed 
no significant impact, the State concluded that there would be no 
benefit from restricting heavy duty truck traffic from Provo Canyon. 
Although Utah never implemented closure of Provo Canyon to truck 
traffic, the State did not actually commit to such a closure in the 
SIP.
    The State began implementing a diesel I/M program on December 1, 
1994 that is substantially similar to the program outlined in the SIP. 
We note that the SIP language provided for modification of the program 
in response to program experience and additional information.
    For stationary sources, the State substantially implemented the 
requirements contained in the SIP. In particular, the largest sources 
in the areas installed and implemented RACT as anticipated by the SIP. 
We note that in some cases, the State adopted and implemented changes 
to the emissions limitations contained in the SIP. Although we don't 
agree with them, we don't believe it is appropriate to penalize the 
State for making such changes because the language of the currently-
applicable SIP appears to allow the State such latitude (see UACR 307-
1-3.2.4; Appendix A to PM<INF>10</INF> SIP.) We have had ongoing 
discussions with the State regarding these ``director's discretion'' 
provisions in the context of the State's future development of 
redesignation requests and maintenance plans for the two counties, and 
have informed the State that we believe this apparent discretion to 
unilaterally change SIP terms is inconsistent with the SIP oversight 
role provided EPA under the Act, and would need to be removed if 
maintenance plan submissions for these areas are to be found 
approvable.
    The commenter is correct that our undated letter from Douglas Skie 
to Russell Roberts cited concerns with permit language that purported 
to replace SIP limits with emission limits in ``approval orders.'' 
Based on this letter and other elements of our comments at the time, it 
appears that we were evaluating the State's implementation based on our 
traditional view that SIP requirements may not be modified without EPA 
approval of a SIP revision. However, given the language referenced 
above, that is contained in the currently-applicable SIP authorizing 
such changes, we don't believe that insisting on this traditional view 
in response to past actions is appropriate. We believe SIP 
implementation must be evaluated against the SIP as written, even 
though we may not agree with all SIP terms.
    Also, the commenter characterizes some of the implementation issues 
as ``deficiencies in the state's NSR program'' and states that ``[a] 
fully adequate NSR program is a mandatory SIP requirement as well.'' We 
don't believe the commenter has accurately characterized the situation. 
Utah had and continues to have a fully approved NSR program. While 
there were issues with some permitting actions, our October 18, 1995 
letter indicated that most of these were resolved or were non-critical 
in nature. There were only two that we deemed time-critical, and we 
stated our satisfaction with the progress made with respect to these 
since the State was actively working to resolve our issues when we sent 
our October 18, 1995 letter.
    (6) Comment: One commenter refers to our October 18, 1995 letter 
and points out that this letter sets out four conditions that Utah 
would have to meet under the terms of the attainment date extensions 
and says that the agency has failed to demonstrate that those 
conditions have been fully met.
    Response: Although these four comments were referred to as 
conditions in our letter to Utah, these conditions are not required 
under the statute or in our policy in order for an area to receive an 
attainment date extension. Thus, we believe these ``conditions'' are 
irrelevant to our action here in granting such extensions. Nonetheless, 
we believe Utah substantially met these conditions as described 
elsewhere in this document.
    (7) Comment: One commenter states that we must announce that both 
nonattainment areas are reclassified to serious because they failed to 
attain the PM<INF>10</INF> NAAQS by the December 31, 1994 attainment 
date.
    Response: We are not reclassifying either Salt Lake County or Utah 
County to serious nonattainment because, as this action explains, these 
areas qualified for attainment date extensions and subsequently 
attained by the extended attainment dates. The action to extend the 
attainment dates for these areas is being finalized in this action.

IV. Administrative Requirements

    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. This action 
merely approves a state request as meeting federal requirements and 
imposes no requirements. 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 does not impose any enforceable duty, 
it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely 
affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform 
Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4). For the same reason, this rule also 
does not significantly or uniquely affect the communities of tribal 
governments, as specified by Executive Order 13084 (63 FR 27655, May 
10, 1998). This rule will not have substantial direct effects on the 
States, on the relationship between the national government and the 
States, or

[[Page 32760]]

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), because it merely approves a state request for 
an attainment date extension, 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 (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant.
    Because EPA's role concerning today's action is only to approve a 
state request for an attainment date extension, provided that such 
request meets the criteria of the Clean Air Act, and to make 
determinations required of EPA by the CAA, the requirements of section 
12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 
(15 U.S.C. 272 note), relating to the use of voluntary consensus 
standards, do not apply. As required by section 3 of Executive Order 
12988 (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in issuing this rule, EPA has 
taken the necessary steps to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, 
minimize potential litigation, and provide a clear legal standard for 
affected conduct. EPA has complied with Executive Order 12630 (53 FR 
8859, March 15, 1988) by examining the takings implications of the rule 
in accordance with the ``Attorney General's Supplemental Guidelines for 
the Evaluation of Risk and Avoidance of Unanticipated Takings' issued 
under the executive order. 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). This rule will be effective July 18, 2001.
    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 17, 2001. 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, Intergovernmental 
relations, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements.

    Dated: June 6, 2001.
Jack W. McGraw,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region VIII.

    40 CFR part 52, of chapter I, title 40 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 52.2322 is added to read as follows:


Sec. 52.2322  Extensions.

* * * * *
    (a) The Administrator, by authority delegated under section 188(d) 
of the Clean Air Act, as amended in 1990, extends for one year (until 
December 31, 1995) the attainment date for the Salt Lake County 
PM<INF>10</INF> nonattainment area. The Administrator, by authority 
delegated under section 188(d) of the Clean Air Act, as amended in 
1990, extends for two years (until December 31, 1996) the attainment 
date for the Utah County PM<INF>10</INF> nonattainment area.
    (b) [Reserved]

[FR Doc. 01-15031 Filed 6-15-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P