32752 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 117 / Monday, June 18, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

populations. A Section 810 analysis was

completed as part of the FEIS process.

The final Section 810 analysis

determination appeared in the April 6,

1992, ROD which concluded that the

Federal Subsistence Management

Program, under Alternative IV with an

annual process for setting hunting and

fishing regulations, may have some local

impacts on subsistence uses, but the

program is not likely to significantly

restrict subsistence uses.

Paperwork Reduction Act

The adjustment and emergency

closures do not contain information

collection requirements subject to Office

of Management and Budget (OMB)

approval under the Paperwork

Reduction Act of 1995.

Other Requirements

The adjustment and emergency

closures have been exempted from OMB

review under Executive Order 12866.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980

(5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires

preparation of flexibility analyses for

rules that will have a significant effect

on a substantial number of small

entities, which include small

businesses, organizations, or

governmental jurisdictions. The exact

number of businesses and the amount of

trade that will result from this Federal

land-related activity is unknown. The

aggregate effect is an insignificant

economic effect (both positive and

negative) on a small number of small

entities supporting subsistence

activities, such as boat, fishing tackle,

and gasoline dealers. The number of

small entities affected is unknown; but,

the effects will be seasonally and

geographically-limited in nature and

will likely not be significant under the

definition in this Act . The Departments

certify that the adjustment and

emergency closures will not have a

significant economic effect on a

substantial number of small entities

within the meaning of the Regulatory

Flexibility Act.

Title VIII of ANILCA requires the

Secretaries to administer a subsistence

preference on public lands. The scope of

this program is limited by definition to

certain public lands. Likewise, the

adjustment and emergency closures

have no potential takings of private

property implications as defined by

Executive Order 12630.

The Service has determined and

certifies pursuant to the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act, 2 U.S.C. 1502 et

seq., that the adjustment and emergency

closures will not impose a cost of $100

million or more in any given year on

local or State governments or private

entities. The implementation is by

Federal agencies, and no cost is

involved to any State or local entities or

Tribal governments.

The Service has determined that the

adjustment and emergency closures

meet the applicable standards provided

in Sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive

Order 12988, regarding civil justice

reform.

In accordance with Executive Order

13132, the adjustment and emergency

closures do not have sufficient

federalism implications to warrant the

preparation of a Federalism Assessment.

Title VIII of ANILCA precludes the State

from exercising management authority

over fish and wildlife resources on

Federal lands. Cooperative salmon run

assessment efforts with ADF&G will

continue.

In accordance with the President’s

memorandum of April 29, 1994,

‘‘Government-to-Government Relations

with Native American Tribal

Governments’’ (59 FR 22951), E.O.

13175, and 512 DM 2, we have

evaluated possible effects on Federally

recognized Indian tribes and have

determined that there are no effects. The

Bureau of Indian Affairs is a

participating agency in this rulemaking.

Drafting Information

William Knauer drafted this

document under the guidance of

Thomas H. Boyd, of the Office of

Subsistence Management, Alaska

Regional Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, Anchorage, Alaska. Taylor

Brelsford, Alaska State Office, Bureau of

Land Management; Rod Simmons,

Alaska Regional Office, U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service; Bob Gerhard, Alaska

Regional Office, National Park Service;

Ida Hildebrand, Alaska Regional Office,

Bureau of Indian Affairs; and Ken

Thompson, USDA-Forest Service,

provided additional guidance.

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 3, 472, 551, 668dd,

3101–3126; 18 U.S.C. 3551–3586; 43 U.S.C.

1733.

Dated: May 30, 2001.

Kenneth E. Thompson,

Subsistence Program Leader, USDA-Forest

Service.

Thomas H. Boyd,

Acting Chair, Federal Subsistence Board.

[FR Doc. 01–15284 Filed 6–15–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–11–P; 4310–55–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[UT–001–0033; FRL–6996–9]

Clean Air Act Promulgation of

Extension of Attainment Dates for PM10

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 (PM10).

EPA is also granting two one-year

extensions of the attainment date for the

Utah County, Utah PM10 nonattainment

area. Salt Lake and Utah Counties failed

to attain the National Ambient Air

Quality Standards (NAAQS) for PM10 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 PM10

NAAQS as of December 31, 1995 and

Utah County, Utah attained the PM10

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 PM10

nonattainment area and two one-year

extensions of the attainment date for the

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 117 / Monday, June 18, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 32753

1The 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.

Utah County, Utah PM10 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 PM10

Nonattainment Area.

2. Determination That the Salt Lake County

PM10 Nonattainment Area Attained the

PM10 NAAQS as of December 31, 1995.

B. Utah County

1. Explanation of the Attainment Date

Extension for the Utah County PM10

Nonattainment Area.

2. Determination That the Utah County

PM10 Nonattainment Area Attained the

PM10 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 oneyear attainment date extension for the

Salt Lake County, Utah PM10

nonattainment area and two one-year

attainment date extensions for the Utah

County, Utah PM10 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 PM10 nonattainment area

from December 31, 1994 to December

31, 1995 and the attainment date for the

Utah County, Utah PM10 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 PM10

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 PM10 NAAQS, and

that, as of December 31, 1996, Utah

County attained the PM10 NAAQS. With

this final approval, consistent with CAA

section 188, the areas will remain

moderate PM10 nonattainment areas and

avoid the additional planning

requirements that apply to serious PM10

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 PM10

nonattainment areas, both Salt Lake and

Utah Counties were required by CAA

section 188(c)(1) to attain the PM10

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 oneyear 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 PM10 nonattainment

area and the Utah County PM10

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

PM10 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 PM10 nonattainment area

attained the PM10 NAAQS as of

December 31, 1995 and the Utah County

PM10 nonattainment area attained the

PM10 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 PM10

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 PM10

nonattainment area includes the entire

county. In 1994, Utah’s Department of

Air Quality (UDAQ or Utah) operated

six PM10 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 PM10 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 abovementioned block of data, there was only

one exceedance recorded at one other

monitor (AMC site). Therefore, with

only one exceedance of the PM10

NAAQS recorded in 1994, the area met

one of the requirements to qualify for an

attainment date extension under section

188(d).1

b. Compliance with the Applicable

SIP. The State of Utah submitted the

PM10 SIP for Salt Lake County on

November 14, 1991. On December 18,

1992 (57 FR 60149), EPA proposed to

32754 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 117 / Monday, June 18, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

2The 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.

approve the plan as satisfying those

moderate PM10 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 PM10 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 PM10 emissions as

well as sulfur oxide (SOPMX) and

nitrogen oxide (NOX) 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 PM10

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 PM10

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 PM10, SO2, and NOX 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 PM10 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 47μg/m3. This is evidence

that the State’s implementation of PM10

SIP control measures resulted in

emission reductions amounting to

reasonable further progress in the Salt

Lake County PM10 nonattainment area.

2. Determination That the Salt Lake

County PM10 Nonattainment Area

Attained the PM10 NAAQS as of

December 31, 1995

Whether an area has attained the PM10

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 PM10 concentrations reported at

six different monitoring sites showed

one measured exceedance of the 24-

hour PM10 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 PM10

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 PM10 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 PM10

Nonattainment Area

a. Air Quality Data. The Utah County

PM10 nonattainment area includes the

entire county. In 1994 and 1995, UDAQ

operated four PM10 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 oneyear 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 PM10 NAAQS in

Utah County. Since no exceedances of

the PM10 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

PM10 NAAQS in Utah County. Since no

exceedances of the PM10 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).

b. Compliance with the Applicable

SIP. The State of Utah submitted the

PM10 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 PM10

nonattainment area requirements due

November 15, 1991. On July 8, 1994 (59

FR 35036), EPA took final action

approving the Utah County PM10 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 PM10

emissions as well as sulfur oxide (SOX)

and nitrogen oxide (NOX) 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 PM10

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

PM10 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 PM10 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 PM10 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

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 117 / Monday, June 18, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 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 PM10,

SO2, and NOX 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 PM10, SO2, and NOX 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 PM10 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 39μg/m3. This is

evidence that the State’s

implementation of PM10 SIP control

measures resulted in emission

reductions amounting to RFP in the

Utah County PM10 nonattainment area.

2. Determination That the Utah County

PM10 Nonattainment Area Attained the

PM10 NAAQS as of December 31, 1996

Whether an area has attained the PM10

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 PM10 concentrations reported at

four different monitoring sites showed

no measured exceedances of the 24-hour

PM10 NAAQS between 1994 and 1996,

which indicates Utah County attained

the 24-hour PM10 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 PM10 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 PM10 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 PM10 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

PM10 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

32756 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 117 / Monday, June 18, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

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 PM10 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 PM10

standard and no more than one

exceedance of the 24-hour PM10

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 PM10 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 PM10

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 PM10

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

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 117 / Monday, June 18, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 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 PM10 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 58μg/

m3. 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 PM10 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 47μg/m3. 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 10

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 workstoppage, 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 reentrainment 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).

32758 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 117 / Monday, June 18, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

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 PM10

monitoring or relocating the PM10 monitor to

help avoid the construction influence but

still monitor the area per the PM10 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 PM10 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 earthmoving 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 PM10

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 PM10

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 federallyapproved 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 PM10

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 PM10 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 PM10 attainment date

was extended in a Federal Register

notice published on October 6, 1995 (60

FR 52312) prior to the approval of a SIP

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 117 / Monday, June 18, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 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 PM10 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

PM10 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

32760 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 117 / Monday, June 18, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

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:

§ 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 PM10 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 PM10 nonattainment area.

(b) [Reserved]

[FR Doc. 01–15031 Filed 6–15–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[MT–001–0024, MT–001–0025, MT–001–

0026; FRL–6986–1]

Clean Air Act Approval and

Promulgation of Air Quality

Implementation Plan; Montana; East

Helena Lead State Implementation Plan

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The EPA is partially

approving and partially disapproving

the East Helena Lead (Pb) State

Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions

submitted by the Governor of Montana

on August 16, 1995, July 2, 1996, and

October 20, 1998. The EPA is partially

approving and partially disapproving

these SIP revisions because, while they

strengthen the SIP, they also do not

fully meet the Act’s provisions

regarding plan requirements for

nonattainment areas. The intended

effect of this action is to make federally

enforceable those provisions that EPA is

partially approving, and not make

federally enforceable those provisions

that EPA is partially disapproving. The

EPA is taking this action under sections

110, 179, and 301 of the Clean Air Act

(Act).

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 and

copies of the Incorporation by Reference

material at the Air and Radiation Docket

and Information Center, Environmental

Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW.,

Washington, DC 20460. Copies of the

State documents relevant to this action

are available for public inspection at the

Montana Department of Environmental

Quality, Air and Waste Management

Bureau, 1520 E. 6th Avenue, Helena,

Montana 59620.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Kerri Fiedler, EPA, Region VIII, (303)

312–6493 or Laurie Ostrand, EPA,

Region VIII, (303) 312–6437.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

Definitions

I. Background

II. EPA’s Action on the State of Montana’s

Submittal

A. Why Is EPA Partially Approving Parts

of the State of Montana’s Plan?

B. Why Is EPA Partially Disapproving Parts

of the State of Montana’s Plan?

C. What Happens When EPA Partially

Approves and Partially Disapproves the

State of Montana’s Plan?

D. Miscellaneous

E. Why Is EPA Completing a Separate

Direct Final Rulemaking on the East

Helena Lead SIP?

III. What Comments Were Received on EPA’s

Proposed Action and How Is EPA

Responding to Those Comments?

IV. Summary of EPA’s Final Action.

IV. Administrative Requirements.