Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; State of Utah; Salt Lake City Carbon Monoxide Redesignation to Attainment, Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes, and Approval of Related Revisions

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

[UT-001-0002a; FRL-6201-8]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;

State of Utah; Salt Lake City Carbon Monoxide Redesignation to

Attainment, Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes, and

Approval of Related Revisions

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: On November 24, 1995, the Governor of Utah submitted a request

to redesignate the Salt Lake City (SLC) ``not classified'' carbon

monoxide (CO) nonattainment area to attainment for the CO National

Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). The Governor also submitted a CO

maintenance plan and revisions to Utah Administrative Code Rule (UACR)

R307-1-3.3 to ensure that rules applicable to the SLC CO nonattainment

area remain in effect after SLC is redesignated to attainment. On

December 9, 1996, the Governor submitted a revised SLC CO maintenance

plan that incorporated revised contingency measures, updated air

quality monitoring data, and other minor revisions to the maintenance

plan. In this action, EPA is approving the SLC redesignation request,

the revised maintenance plan, and the changes to UACR R307-1-3.3.

DATES: This direct final rule is effective on March 22, 1999 without

further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comments by February 22,

1999. If adverse comment is received, EPA will publish a timely

withdrawal of the direct final rule in the Federal Register and inform

the public that the rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Written comments may be mailed to: Richard R. Long,

Director, Air and Radiation Program, Mailcode 8P-AR, United States

Environmental Protection Agency, Region VIII, 999 18th Street, Suite

500, Denver, Colorado 80202-2466.

Copies of the documents relevant to this action are available for

public inspection during normal business hours at the following

offices:

[[Page 3217]]

United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region VIII, Air and

Radiation Program, 999 18th Street, Suite 500, Denver, Colorado 80202-

2466; and,

United States Environmental Protection Agency, Air and Radiation Docket

and Information Center, 401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460.

Copies of the State documents relevant to this action are available

for public inspection at: Utah Division of Air Quality, Department of

Environmental Quality, 150 North 1950 West, Salt Lake City Utah, 84114-

4820.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tim Russ, Air and Radiation Program,

Mailcode 8P-AR, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region

VIII, 999 18th Street, Suite 500, Denver, Colorado 80202-2466,

Telephone number: (303) 312-6479.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

On November 15, 1990, the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 were

enacted (Pub. L. 101-549, 104 Stat. 2399, codified at 42 U.S.C. 7401-

7671q). Under section 107(d)(1)(C) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), EPA

designated the SLC area as nonattainment for CO because the area had

been previously designated as nonattainment before November 15, 1990.

The SLC area was classified as a ``not classified'' CO nonattainment

area as the area had not violated the CO NAAQS in 1988 and

1989.1

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

\1\ The EPA describes areas as ``not classified'' if they were

designated nonattainment both prior to enactment and (pursuant to

CAA section 107(d)(1)(C)) at enactment, and if the area did not

violate the primary CO NAAQS in either year for the 2-year period of

1988 through 1989. Refer to the ``General Preamble for the

Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990'',

57 FR 13498, April 16, 1992. See specifically 57 FR 13535, April 16,

1992.

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

Under the CAA, designations can be changed if sufficient data are

available to warrant such changes and if certain other requirements are

met. See CAA section 107(d)(3)(D). Section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA

provides that the Administrator may not promulgate a redesignation of a

nonattainment area to attainment unless:

(i) The Administrator determines that the area has attained the

national ambient air quality standard;

(ii) The Administrator has fully approved the applicable

implementation plan for the area under CAA section 110(k);

(iii) The Administrator determines that the improvement in air

quality is due to permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions

resulting from implementation of the applicable implementation plan and

applicable Federal air pollutant control regulations and other

permanent and enforceable reductions;

(iv) The Administrator has fully approved a maintenance plan for

the area as meeting the requirements of CAA section 175A; and,

(v) The State containing such area has met all requirements

applicable to the area under section 110 and part D of the CAA.

Thus, before EPA can approve the redesignation request, EPA must

find, among other things, that all applicable SIP elements have been

fully approved. Approval of the applicable SIP elements may occur prior

to final approval of the redesignation request or simultaneously with

final approval of the redesignation request. EPA notes there are no

outstanding SIP elements necessary for the redesignation. However, the

Governor has requested approval of revisions to R307-1-3.3 to ensure

that new source review rules applicable to the SLC nonattainment area

remain in effect after SLC is redesignated to attainment. Therefore,

EPA is approving the revisions to R307-1-3.3 at the same time it

approves the redesignation.

EPA has reviewed the State's redesignation request, maintenance

plan, and related SIP revisions and believes that approval of the

request is warranted, consistent with the requirements of CAA section

107(d)(3)(E). Descriptions of how the section 107(d)(3)(E) requirements

are being addressed are provided below.

Section 1. Brief Administrative History of the SLC CO Redesignation

Request, Maintenance Plan, and Related SIP Submittal

On November 24, 1995, the Governor of Utah submitted a CO

redesignation request and maintenance plan for the SLC area along with

revisions to the Utah Administrative Code Rule (UACR) R307-1-3.3 to

ensure that new source review rules applicable to the SLC nonattainment

area remain in effect after SLC is redesignated to attainment. On

December 9, 1996, the Governor submitted a revised maintenance plan.

The purpose of the December 9, 1996, submittal was to provide revised

contingency measures, updated air quality monitoring data, and other

minor revisions to the maintenance plan.

Section 2. Redesignation Criterion: The Area Must Have Attained the

Carbon Monoxide (CO) NAAQS

Section 107(d)(3)(E)(i) of the CAA states that for an area to be

redesignated to attainment, the Administrator must determine that the

area has attained the applicable NAAQS. As described in 40 CFR 50.8,

the national primary ambient air quality standard for carbon monoxide

is 9 parts per million (10 milligrams per cubic meter) for an 8-hour

average concentration not to be exceeded more than once per year. 40

CFR 50.8 continues by stating that the levels of CO in the ambient air

shall be measured by a reference method based on 40 CFR part 50,

Appendix C and designated in accordance with 40 CFR part 53 or an

equivalent method designated in accordance with 40 CFR part 53.

Attainment of the CO standard is not a momentary phenomenon based on

short-term data. Rather, for an area to be considered attainment, each

of the CO ambient air quality monitors in the area are allowed to

record no more than one exceedance of the CO standard over a one-year

period. 40 CFR 50.8 and 40 CFR part 50, Appendix C. If a single monitor

in the CO monitoring network records more than one exceedance of the CO

standard during a one-year calendar period, then the area is in

violation of the CO NAAQS. In addition, EPA's interpretation of the CAA

and EPA national policy 2 has been that an area seeking

redesignation to attainment must show attainment of the CO NAAQS for a

continuous two-year calendar period and, additionally, at least through

the date that EPA promulgates the redesignation to attainment in the

Federal Register.

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

\2\ Refer to EPA's September 4, 1992, John Calcagni policy

memorandum entitled ``Procedures for Processing Requests to

Redesignate Areas to Attainment.''

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

Utah's CO redesignation request for the SLC area is based on an

analysis of quality assured ambient air quality monitoring data that

are relevant to the redesignation request. Ambient air quality

monitoring data for consecutive calendar years 1992 through 1997 show a

measured exceedance rate of 1.0 or less per year, per monitor, of the

CO NAAQS in the SLC nonattainment area. These data were collected and

analyzed as required by EPA (see 40 CFR 50.8 and 40 CFR part 50,

Appendix C) and have been archived by the State in EPA's Aerometric

Information and Retrieval System (AIRS) national database. Further

information on CO monitoring is presented in section IX.C.7.c of the

State's maintenance plan and in the State's TSD. Since 1988, only one

exceedance of the 9.0 ppm CO standard has been measured and this

occurred in 1994. EPA notes, however, that the SLC area has not

violated the CO standard and continues to demonstrate attainment.

[[Page 3218]]

Because the SLC nonattainment area has quality-assured data showing

no violations of the CO NAAQS for 1993 and 1994, the years the State

used to support the redesignation request, and additionally, over the

most recent consecutive two-calendar-year period, the SLC area has met

the first component for redesignation: demonstration of attainment of

the CO NAAQS. EPA notes that the State of Utah has also committed in

the maintenance plan to the necessary continued operation of the CO

monitoring network in compliance with all applicable federal

regulations and guidelines.

Section 3. Redesignation Criterion: The Area Must Have Met All

Applicable Requirements Under Section 110 and Part D of the CAA

Section 107(d)(3)(E)(v) requires that, to be redesignated to

attainment, an area must meet all applicable requirements under section

110 and part D of the CAA. EPA interprets section 107(d)(3)(E)(v) to

mean that for a redesignation to be approved, the State must meet all

requirements that applied to the subject area prior to or at the time

of the submission of a complete redesignation request. Requirements of

the CAA due after the submission of a complete redesignation request

need not be considered in evaluating the request.

A. CAA Section 110 Requirements

On August 15, 1984, EPA approved revisions to Utah's SIP (45 FR

32575) as meeting the requirements of section 110(a)(2) of the CAA.

Although section 110 of the CAA was amended in 1990, most of the

changes were not substantial. The only additional CAA requirement

assigned to the SLC area was the preparation and submittal of a 1990

base year CO emission inventory. The Governor submitted this base year

inventory on July 11, 1994. EPA approved this inventory on June 29,

1995 (60 FR 33745). Thus, EPA has determined that the SIP revisions

approved in 1984 continue to satisfy the requirements of section

110(a)(2). For further detail, please see 45 FR 32575.

B. Part D Requirements

Before the SLC not classified CO nonattainment area may be

redesignated to attainment, the State must have fulfilled the

applicable requirements of part D. Under part D, an area's

classification indicates the requirements to which it will be subject.

Subpart 1 of part D sets forth the basic nonattainment requirements

applicable to all nonattainment areas, whether classified or

nonclassifiable.

The relevant Subpart 1 requirements are contained in sections

172(c) and 176. The General Preamble (57 FR 13498, April 16, 1992)

provides EPA's interpretations of the CAA requirements for not

classified CO areas (see 57 FR 13535):

``Although it seems clear that the CO-specific requirements of

subpart 3 of part D do not apply to CO ``not classified'' areas, the

1990 CAAA are silent as to how the requirements of subpart 1 of part

D, which contains general SIP planning requirements for all

designated nonattainment areas, should be interpreted for such CO

areas. Nevertheless, because these areas are designated

nonattainment, some aspects of subpart 1 necessarily apply.''

Under section 172(b), the applicable section 172(c) requirements,

as determined by the Administrator, were due no later than three years

after an area was designated as nonattainment under section 107(d) of

the amended CAA (see 56 FR 56694). In the case of the SLC area, the due

date was November 15, 1993. As the SLC CO redesignation request and

maintenance plan were not submitted by the Governor until November 24,

1995, the General Preamble (57 FR 13535) provides that the applicable

requirements of CAA section 172 are 172(c)(3) (emissions inventory),

172(c)(5) (new source review permitting program), and 172(c)(7) (the

section 110(a)(2) air quality monitoring requirements)). EPA has

determined that Part D requirements for Reasonably Available Control

Measures (RACM), an attainment demonstration, reasonable further

progress (RFP), and contingency measures (CAA section 172(c)(9)) are

not applicable to not classified CO areas. See 57 FR 13535, April 16,

1992. It is also worth noting that EPA has interpreted the requirements

of sections 172(c)(1) (reasonable available control measures--RACM),

172(c)(2) (reasonable further progress--RFP), 172(c)(6) (other

measures), and 172(c)(9) (contingency measures) as being irrelevant to

a redesignation request because they only have meaning for an area that

is not attaining the standard. See EPA's September 4, 1992, John

Calcagni memorandum entitled, ``Procedures for Processing Requests to

Redesignate Areas to Attainment'', and the General Preamble, 57 FR at

13564, dated April 16, 1992. Finally, the State has not sought to

exercise the options that would trigger sections 172(c)(4)

(identification of certain emissions increases) and 172(c)(8)

(equivalent techniques). Thus, these provisions are also not relevant

to this redesignation request.

Section 176 of the CAA contains requirements related to conformity.

Although EPA's regulations (see 40 CFR Sec. 51.396) require that states

adopt transportation conformity provisions in their SIPs for areas

designated nonattainment or subject to an EPA-approved maintenance

plan, EPA has decided that a transportation conformity SIP is not an

applicable requirement for purposes of evaluating a redesignation

request under section 107(d) of the CAA. This decision is reflected in

EPA's 1996 approval of the Boston carbon monoxide redesignation. (See

61 FR 2918, January 30, 1996.)

In that action, EPA explained that its decision was based on a

combination of two factors. First, the requirement to submit SIP

revisions to comply with the conformity provisions of the CAA continues

to apply to areas after redesignation to attainment. Therefore, the

State remains obligated to adopt the transportation conformity rules

even after redesignation and would risk sanctions for failure to do so.

Unlike most requirements of section 110 and part D, which are linked to

the nonattainment status of an area, and are not required after

redesignation of an area to attainment, the conformity requirements

apply to both nonattainment and maintenance areas. Second, EPA's

federal conformity rules require the performance of conformity analyses

in the absence of State-adopted rules. Therefore, a delay in adopting

State rules does not relieve an area from the obligation to implement

conformity requirements.

Because areas are subject to the conformity requirements regardless

of whether they are redesignated to attainment and must implement

conformity under Federal rules if State rules are not yet adopted, EPA

believes it is reasonable to view these requirements as not being

applicable requirements for purposes of evaluating a redesignation

request. Further information regarding transportation conformity and

mobile source emission budgets are found below in section II

``Transportation Conformity''.

The applicable requirements of CAA section 172 are discussed below.

(1.) Section 172(c)(3)--Emissions Inventory. Section 172(c)(3) of

the CAA requires a comprehensive, accurate, current inventory of all

actual emissions from all sources in the SLC nonattainment area. EPA's

interpretation of the emission inventory requirement for ``not

classified'' CO nonattainment areas is detailed in the General Preamble

(57 FR 13535, April 16, 1992). EPA determined that an emissions

inventory is specifically

[[Page 3219]]

required under CAA section 172(c)(3) and is not tied to an area's

proximity to attainment. EPA concluded that an emissions inventory must

be included as a revision to the SIP and was due 3 years from the time

of the area's designation. For ``not classified'' CO areas, this date

became November 15, 1993. To address the section 172(c)(3) requirement

for a ``current'' inventory, EPA interpreted ``current'' to mean

calendar year 1990 (See 57 FR 13502, April 16, 1992).

On July 11, 1994, the Governor submitted the 1990 base year

inventory for the SLC CO nonattainment area. EPA approved this 1990

base year CO inventory on June 29, 1995 (60 FR 33745).

(2.) Section 172(c)(5) New Source Review (NSR). The CAA requires

all nonattainment areas to meet several requirements regarding NSR,

including provisions to ensure that increased emissions will not result

from any new or modified stationary major sources and a general offset

rule. The State of Utah has a fully-approved NSR program (60 FR 22277,

May 5, 1995) that meets the requirements of CAA section 172(c)(5).

(3.) Section 172(c)(7)--Compliance With CAA section 110(a)(2): Air

Quality Monitoring Requirements. According to EPA's interpretations

presented in the General Preamble (57 FR 13535), ``not classified'' CO

nonattainment areas should meet the ``applicable'' air quality

monitoring requirements of section 110(a)(2) of the CAA as explicitly

referenced by sections 172 (b) and (c) of the CAA. With respect to this

requirement, the State indicates in section IX, Part C.7.c. (``Carbon

Monoxide Monitoring'') of the maintenance plan, that ambient CO

monitoring data have been properly collected and uploaded to EPA's

Aerometric Information and Retrieval System (AIRS) since 1986 for the

SLC area. Air quality data through 1994 are included in section IX,

Part C.7.c. of the maintenance plan and Volume 1 of the State's TSD.

EPA has more recently polled the AIRS database and has verified that

the State has also uploaded additional ambient CO data through 1997.

The data in AIRS indicate that the SLC area has shown, and continues to

show, attainment of the CO NAAQS. The State also notes (section IX,

Part C.7.c.(1)) that information concerning CO monitoring in Utah is

included in the Monitoring Network Review (MNR) prepared by the State

and submitted to EPA. Since the early 1980's, the MNR has been updated

annually and submitted to EPA for approval. EPA personnel have

concurred with Utah's annual network reviews and have agreed that the

SLC network remains adequate. Finally, in section IX, Part C.7.c.(5) of

the maintenance plan, the State commits to the continued operation of

the existing CO monitors, according to all applicable Federal

regulations and guidelines, even after the SLC area is redesignated to

attainment for CO. The State also notes that it will reevaluate

monitoring site locations annually to determine whether new monitoring

sites are needed or if the existing monitors should be relocated or

removed.

Section 4. Redesignation Criterion: The Area Must Have A Fully

Approved SIP Under Section 110(k) Of The CAA. Section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii)

of the CAA states that for an area to be redesignated to attainment, it

must be determined that the Administrator has fully approved the

applicable implementation plan for the area under section 110(k).

Based on the approval into the SIP of provisions under the pre-1990

CAA and EPA's prior approval of SIP revisions required under the 1990

amendments to the CAA, EPA has determined that Utah has a fully

approved CO SIP under section 110(k) for the SLC CO nonattainment area.

Section 5. Redesignation Criterion: The Area Must Show That The

Improvement In Air Quality Is Due To Permanent And Enforceable

Emissions Reductions. Section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii) of the CAA provides

that for an area to be redesignated to attainment, the Administrator

must determine that the improvement in air quality is due to permanent

and enforceable reductions in emissions resulting from implementation

of the applicable implementation plan (SLC CO revision as approved on

August 15, 1984, 49 FR 32575), implementation of applicable Federal air

pollutant control regulations, and other permanent and enforceable

reductions.

The CO emissions reductions that were derived from the August 15,

1984, SIP revision, and as further described in section IX.C.7.b of the

December 9, 1996, SLC maintenance plan, were achieved primarily through

a Federal emission control measure and CAA-required improvements to the

basic vehicle inspection and maintenance (I/M) program. The Federal

measure involved CO emission reductions from fleet turnover, which is

regulated by the Federal Motor Vehicle Control Program (FMVCP).

In general, the FMVCP provisions require vehicle manufacturers to

meet more stringent vehicle emission limitations for new vehicles in

future years. These emission limitations are phased in (as a percentage

of new vehicles manufactured) over a period of years. As new, lower

emitting vehicles replace older, higher emitting vehicles (``fleet

turnover''), emission reductions are realized for a particular area

such as SLC. For example, EPA promulgated lower hydrocarbon (HC) and CO

exhaust emission standards in 1991, known as Tier I standards for new

motor vehicles (light-duty vehicles and light-duty trucks) in response

to the 1990 CAA amendments. These Tier I emissions standards were

phased in with 40% of the 1994 model year fleet, 80% of the 1995 model

year fleet, and 100% of the 1996 model year fleet.

As stated in section IX.C.7.b.(4) of the maintenance plan,

additional emission reductions from Salt Lake County's basic I/M

program resulted from a major revision that was fully implemented prior

to September 1, 1991. This revision was made in response to a 1990

State legislative mandate that Utah Counties administering the basic I/

M program use computerized analyzers, standardize their programs, and

provide reciprocity. These improvements involved the use of BAR90

technology emissions analyzers, the inclusion of vehicles owned by

federal agencies, federal employees, university and college employees

and students, an increased fail rate, the exclusive issuance of waivers

by I/M technical center staff, an increase in the dollar amount spent

on emission-related repairs to qualify for a waiver, automated data

management and audit functions, and coverage of more emission control

devices by the Salt Lake County anti-tampering program. Also, as a

result of separate State legislation, the number of vehicles qualifying

for exemption from the I/M program because of the ``farm truck''

classification was reduced.

EPA has evaluated the various State and Federal control measures,

the 1990 base year emission inventory, the 1993 attainment year

emission inventory, and the projected emissions described below, and

has concluded that the improvement in air quality in the SLC

nonattainment area has resulted from emission reductions that are

permanent and enforceable.

Section 6. Redesignation Criterion: The Area Must Have A Fully

Approved Maintenance Plan Under CAA Section 175A. Section

107(d)(3)(E)(iv) of the CAA provides that for an area to be

redesignated to attainment, the Administrator must have fully approved

a maintenance plan for the area meeting the requirements of section

175A of the CAA.

[[Page 3220]]

Section 175A of the CAA sets forth the elements of a maintenance

plan for areas seeking redesignation from nonattainment to attainment.

The maintenance plan must demonstrate continued attainment of the

applicable NAAQS for at least ten years after the Administrator

approves a redesignation to attainment. Eight years after the

promulgation of the redesignation, the State must submit a revised

maintenance plan that demonstrates continued attainment for the

subsequent ten-year period following the initial ten-year maintenance

period. To address the possibility of future NAAQS violations, the

maintenance plan must contain contingency measures, with a schedule for

adoption and implementation, that are adequate to assure prompt

correction of a violation. In addition, EPA issued further maintenance

plan interpretations in the ``General Preamble for the Implementation

of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990'' (57 FR 13498,

April 16, 1992), ``General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I

of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990; Supplemental'' (57 FR 18070,

April 28, 1992), and the EPA guidance memorandum entitled ``Procedures

for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment'' from John

Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management Division, Office of Air

Quality and Planning Standards, to Regional Air Division Directors,

dated September 4, 1992. In this Federal Register action, EPA is

approving the State of Utah's maintenance plan for the SLC

nonattainment area because EPA has determined, as detailed below, that

the State's maintenance plan submittal meets the requirements of

section 175A and is consistent with the documents referenced above.

EPA's analysis of the pertinent maintenance plan requirements, with

reference to the Governor's December 9, 1996, submittal, is provided as

follows:

A. Emissions Inventories--Attainment Year and Projections

EPA's interpretations of the CAA section 175A maintenance plan

requirements are generally provided in the General Preamble and the

September 4, 1992, policy memorandum referenced above. Under EPA's

interpretations, areas seeking to redesignate to attainment for CO may

demonstrate future maintenance of the NAAQS either by showing that

future CO emissions will be equal to or less than the attainment year

emissions or by providing a modeling demonstration. For the SLC area,

the State selected the emissions inventory approach for demonstrating

maintenance of the CO NAAQS.

The maintenance plan that the Governor submitted on December 9,

1996, included comprehensive inventories of CO emissions for the SLC

area. These inventories include emissions from stationary point

sources, area sources, non-road mobile sources, and on-road mobile

sources. The State selected 1993 as the year from which to develop the

attainment year inventory and included year-by-year projections out to

2006. More detailed descriptions of the 1993 attainment year inventory

and the projected inventories are documented in the maintenance plan,

sections IX.C.7.e and IX.C.7.f, and in the State's TSD. The State's

submittal contains detailed emission inventory information that was

prepared in accordance with EPA guidance. Summary emission figures from

the 1993 attainment year and a sampling of the projected years are

provided in the Table I.-1 below.

Table I.-1--Summary of CO Emissions in Tons per Day for SLC

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

1993 1997 2000 2003 2006

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

Point Sources.................................. 0.55 1.57 1.63 1.71 1.79

Area Sources................................... 14.65 14.93 15.12 15.32 15.53

Non-Road Mobile Sources........................ 8.29 9.37 10.10 10.91 11.79

On-Road Mobile Sources......................... 202.24 169.56 154.66 145.64 145.37

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

Total...................................... 225.73 195.43 181.51 173.58 174.48

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

B. Demonstration of Maintenance--Projected Inventories

As noted above, total CO emissions were projected by the State

year-by-year from 1994 through 2006. These projected inventories were

prepared in accordance with EPA guidance (further information is

provided in section IX.C.7.f of the maintenance plan). EPA notes,

however, that CAA section 175A(a) requires that the maintenance

demonstration ``* * * provide for the maintenance of the national

primary ambient air quality standard for such air pollutant in the area

concerned for at least 10 years after the redesignation.'' Therefore,

based on this CAA provision, the maintenance demonstration needed to

project emissions to at least 2008, not just 2006. To address this

issue, EPA consulted with the State to identify the specific materials

that were provided at the SLC CO redesignation public hearing and which

were subsequently adopted by the Utah Air Quality Board (UAQB). In a

letter dated February 19, 1998, from Ursula Trueman, Director, Utah

Division of Air Quality, to Richard Long, Director, Air Program, EPA

Region VIII, the State provided an excerpt from the SLC CO

redesignation Technical Support Document (TSD) that provided additional

projected CO daily emissions for all years from 1993 through 2016. As

indicated in the State's February 19, 1998, letter, these additional

projected CO emissions were part of the TSD that was provided with the

public hearing for the SLC CO redesignation and that was also adopted,

along with the redesignation request and maintenance plan, by the UAQB.

The projected inventories show that CO emissions are not estimated to

exceed the 1993 attainment level during the time period 1993 through

2008 and, therefore, the SLC area has satisfactorily demonstrated

maintenance. EPA has also extracted daily projected CO emissions for

2009 in the event that publication of this action in the Federal

Register is delayed until early 1999. The additional projected CO daily

emissions for 2007, 2008, and 2009 are provided in the Table I.-2

below:

Table I.-2--Summary of 1993 and Projected CO Emissions in Tons per Day for SLC

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

1993 2007 2008 2009

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

Point Sources............................................... 0.55 1.81 1.84 1.87

[[Page 3221]]

Area Sources................................................ 14.65 15.60 15.67 15.74

Non-Road Mobile Sources..................................... 8.29 12.10 12.43 12.76

On-Road Mobile Sources...................................... 202.24 147.24 150.05 152.35

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

Total................................................... 225.73 176.75 179.99 182.72

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

C. Monitoring Network and Verification of Continued Attainment

Continued attainment of the CO NAAQS in the SLC area depends, in

part, on the State's efforts to track indicators throughout the

maintenance period. This requirement is met in two sections of the SLC

maintenance plan. In section IX.C.7.c.(5) and section IX.C.7.i.(3), the

State commits to continue the operation of the CO monitors in the SLC

area and to annually review this monitoring network and make changes as

appropriate. Also, in section IX.C.7.i.(1), the State commits to

prepare a comprehensive emission inventory of CO emissions every three

years after the maintenance plan is approved by EPA. These inventories

will be based on the most current Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) data,

actual point source emissions, and area source emissions based on the

most current population and industry growth information. The above

commitments by the State, which will be enforceable by EPA following

the final approval of the SLC maintenance plan SIP revision, are deemed

adequate by EPA.

D. Contingency Plan

Section 175A(d) of the CAA requires that a maintenance plan include

contingency provisions. To meet this requirement, the State has

identified appropriate contingency measures along with a schedule for

the development and implementation of such measures. As stated in

Section IX.C.7.h of the maintenance plan, the contingency measures for

the SLC area will be triggered by any of the following situations: (a)

a future year verification emission inventory (see section

IX.C.7.i.(1)) of actual emissions indicates a level greater than the

1993 attainment emissions (225.73 tons of CO/peak season day), (b) a

second non-overlapping 8-hour average ambient CO measurement exceeds 9

ppm at a single monitoring site during a calendar year (i.e., a

violation of the 8-hour CO standard), or (c) a second one-hour average

ambient CO measurement exceeds 35 ppm at a single monitoring site

during a calendar year (i.e., a violation of the 1-hour CO standard).

The primary contingency measure is Alternative Commuting Options (ACO)

and the secondary is an enhanced motor vehicle inspection and

maintenance program (EI/M) or an equivalent I/M program. A more

complete description of the triggering mechanisms and these contingency

measures can be found in section IX.C.7.h of the maintenance plan.

EPA notes that both contingency measures have been partially

implemented as of the beginning of 1998. The ACO contingency measure

(UACR R307-11) was previously adopted by the State and was implemented

in 1995 for Federal, State, and local government agencies with 100 or

more employees at a worksite. The State has identified in the

maintenance plan that R307-11 could be expanded to include all

employers with 100 or more employees at a worksite. As a result of the

Salt Lake and Davis Counties' ozone maintenance plan, Salt Lake County

began implementing an improved I/M program for all of Salt Lake County

in early 1998. This improved I/M program is not the equivalent of an

enhanced I/M program, but it achieves greater reductions of CO

emissions than the basic I/M program identified in the SLC CO

maintenance plan. EPA notes that the additional CO emission reductions

realized from the partial pre-implementation of the ACO regulation and

the implementation of the improved I/M program were not included in the

December 9, 1996, maintenance plan's projected emissions to demonstrate

maintenance of the CO standard. The partial pre-implementation of

contingency measures is consistent with EPA's August 13, 1993, guidance

memorandum entitled ``Early Implementation of Contingency Measures for

Ozone and Carbon Monoxide (CO) Nonattainment Areas.''

Based on the above, EPA finds that the contingency measures

provided in the State's maintenance plan are sufficient and meet the

requirements of section 175A(d) of the CAA.

E. Subsequent Maintenance Plan Revisions

In accordance with section 175A(b) of the CAA, the State of Utah

has committed to submit a revised maintenance plan SIP revision eight

years after redesignation. This provision and other State-triggered

mechanisms (such as in response to revisions to the CO NAAQS or to take

advantage of improved or more expeditious methods of maintaining the CO

standard) for revising the maintenance plan are contained in section

IX.C.7.i.(4) of the SLC maintenance plan.

II. Transportation Conformity

One key provision of EPA's conformity regulation requires a

demonstration that emissions from the transportation plan and

Transportation Improvement Program are consistent with the emissions

budgets in the SIP (40 CFR sections 93.118 and 93.124). The emissions

budget is defined as the level of mobile source emissions relied upon

in the attainment or maintenance demonstration to maintain compliance

with the NAAQS in the nonattainment area. The rule's requirements and

EPA's policy on emissions budgets are found in the preambles to the

November 24, 1993, and August 15, 1997, transportation conformity rules

(58 FR 62193-96 and 62 FR 43780 et seq.) and in the sections of the

rule referenced above.

The maintenance plan defines emissions budgets for each year

between 1994 and 2006 (see Table IX.C.35 of the maintenance plan) and

for 2016 (see Section IX, Part C.7.f.(2), page 110, of the maintenance

plan) that the metropolitan planning organization (Wasatch Front

Regional Council--WFRC) will use to demonstrate conformity. These year-

by-year emissions budgets are presented below in Table II and EPA is

approving them in this action. The plan also describes a safety margin

(called the ``emissions credit'') for each year (1994 through 2006),

which is the difference between total emissions from all sources in the

attainment year and in each of those future years.

The State discusses the potential allocation of these identified

year-by-year emission credits for the 1994 through 2006 time period in

section (3), ``Emissions Credit Allocation'', on page 110, Section IX,

Part C.7, of the

[[Page 3222]]

maintenance plan. Section (3) states that ``The emissions credit or any

portion of it may be allocated to any source category contributing to

the inventory; i.e., area sources, non-road sources, or on-road sources

mobile sources. The allocation of emission credits shall be made by

order of the Utah Air Quality Board and shall not be inconsistent with

this plan.''

This language is inconsistent with EPA's requirements for

allocating the safety margin, and, thus, is not sufficient to allow the

safety margin to be used for transportation conformity determinations

or for other purposes. For example, EPA's longstanding interpretation

is that the SIP itself must include some or all of the safety margin in

the motor vehicle emissions budget before the safety margin may be used

in transportation conformity determinations. See 58 FR 62195, November

24, 1993. Similarly, EPA has taken the position that conformity

determinations may not trade emissions among SIP budgets for highway/

transit versus other sources unless a SIP revision for the specific

trade is submitted and approved by EPA or the SIP establishes

appropriate mechanisms for such trading. Id. EPA's transportation

conformity rule reflects these concepts at 40 CFR 93.124(a), (b), and

(c).

The maintenance plan does not explicitly include the safety margin

in the motor vehicle emissions budget or any other budget. (The one

exception is for the year 2016. The 2016 budget is described in detail

below.) Instead, the maintenance plan attempts to allow the Utah Air

Quality Board to make an allocation of the safety margin to one or more

of the budgets at some future date. This is not the explicit SIP

allocation contemplated by EPA's conformity rule. Nor does this

approach constitute an appropriate trading mechanism. Thus, under the

language of the maintenance plan as it now stands, the safety margin

may not be used for conformity determinations or any other purpose. All

conformity determinations must demonstrate conformity with the

emissions budgets in the maintenance plan as cited above and summarized

in Table II below. The State may seek EPA approval of a SIP revision to

allocate some or all of the available safety margin for transportation

conformity, general conformity, or other purposes.

Consistent with the foregoing, and to avoid confusion, EPA is

taking no action on Section IX, Part C.7.f.(3) of the maintenance plan.

For 2016, the State specifically included the safety margin in the

on-road mobile source CO emissions budget, and thus, for 2016, the

safety margin may be used for transportation conformity purposes.

However, in calculating the emission budget for the year 2016, the

State made mathematical errors. Section IX, Part C.7.f.(2) of the

maintenance plan indicates the emission budget is 192.22 tons of CO per

winter week day. The correct value is 192.06 tons of CO. To arrive at

the 2016 budget value, the State subtracted the 2016 emissions

projections for all source categories other than on-road mobile from

the 1993 CO attainment year emissions inventory for all sources. For

the 1993 CO total inventory value, the State used 225.42 tons of CO per

winter week day, when it should have used 225.73 tons per day as

reflected in Table IX.C.35 of the maintenance plan. For the 2016

emissions projections for all source categories other than on-road

mobile, the State used 33.20 tons per day, when it should have used

33.67 tons per day as reflected in Section 3 of Volume 3 of the State's

TSD. The Utah Division Air Quality corrected these mathematical errors

by making a non-substantive change to the maintenance plan on July 14,

1998. These corrections became effective on July 27, 1998, and were

received by EPA on August 12, 1998. As reflected in Table II below, EPA

hereby approves the State's corrected emission budget for 2016 of

192.06 tons of CO per day. This budget, which, as noted above,

specifically allocates the safety margin available in 2016 for

transportation conformity purposes, may be used for transportation

conformity determinations for the year 2016 and beyond.

The maintenance plan also states that, ``[a]n emission budget for

the period extending from 2007 to 2016 has been established. (See

TSD).'' As noted above, the maintenance plan clearly identifies

emission budgets for years 1994 through 2006 and 2016. However, the

maintenance plan does not clearly identify an emission budget for the

period 2007 to 2015. The reference to the TSD is not helpful for two

reasons. First, EPA's Transportation Conformity Rule requires that

budgets be established by the SIP (see 40 CFR 93.118(a), (b), and

(e)(4); 62 FR 43781, August 15, 1997), and EPA does not consider the

TSD to be part of the SIP. Second, the TSD does not contain language

that explicitly identifies an emission budget. It is not appropriate to

infer an emission budget beyond the maintenance year unless the SIP

explicitly identifies such an emission budget. See 58 FR 62195,

November 24, 1993. Therefore, EPA is not approving any emission budget

for the period 2007 through 2015, and any transportation conformity

determinations for such years must be based on the 2006 emission

budget. If the State wishes to establish an emission budget or budgets

for the years 2007 through 2015, it may revise the maintenance plan and

seek EPA's approval.

Table II.--On-Road Mobile Source CO Emissions Budgets for SLC

[In tons of CO per day]

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

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

Year............................................ 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000

Budget.......................................... 202.24 193.95 184.84 175.30 169.56 163.90 158.80 154.66

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

Year............................................ 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 ........... 2016

Budget.......................................... 149.13 148.45 145.64 143.79 144.66 145.37 ........... 192.06

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

III. UACR R307-1-3.3

In his November 24, 1995, submittal of the redesignation request

and maintenance plan for SLC, the Governor also included minor

revisions to UACR R307-1-3.3, which contains requirements for new

source review. These revisions made the rule's requirements applicable

in both nonattainment and maintenance areas instead of just

nonattainment areas. These revisions are acceptable to EPA and should

help foster continued attainment of the CO standard in the SLC area.

The above changes to UACR R307-1-3.3 were adopted by the UAQB October

4, 1995, and, with changes, December 6, 1995, and became State

effective January 31, 1996.

IV. Final Action

In this action, EPA is approving the SLC carbon monoxide

redesignation

[[Page 3223]]

request, maintenance plan, and the revisions to UACR R307-1-3.3.

However, as noted above, EPA is not taking any action on Section IX,

Part C.7.f.(3) of the maintenance plan, ``Emissions Credit

Allocation.''

EPA is publishing this action without prior proposal because the

Agency views this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipates no

adverse comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this

Federal Register publication, EPA is publishing a separate document

that will serve as the proposal to approve the SIP revision should

adverse comments be filed. This rule will be effective March 22, 1999

without further notice unless the Agency receives adverse comments by

February 22, 1999.

If EPA receives such comments, then EPA will publish a timely

withdrawal of the direct final rule informing the public that the rule

will not take effect. All public comments received will then be

addressed in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. The

EPA will not institute a second comment period on this rule. Any

parties interested in commenting on this rule should do so at this

time. If no such comments are received, the public is advised that this

rule will be effective on March 22, 1999 and no further action will be

taken on the proposed rule.

V. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this

regulatory action from Executive Order 12866, entitled ``Regulatory

Planning and Review.''

B. Executive Order 12875: Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnership

Under Executive Order 12875, EPA may not issue a regulation that is

not required by statute and that creates a mandate upon a state, local,

or tribal government, unless the Federal government provides the funds

necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by those

governments, or EPA consults with those governments. If EPA complies by

consulting, Executive Order 12875 requires EPA to provide to the Office

of Management and Budget a description of the extent of EPA's prior

consultation with representatives of affected state, local, and tribal

governments, the nature of their concerns, copies of any written

communications from the governments, and a statement supporting the

need to issue the regulation. In addition, Executive Order 12875

requires EPA to develop an effective process permitting elected

officials and other representatives of state, local, and tribal

governments ``to provide meaningful and timely input in the development

of regulatory proposals containing significant unfunded mandates.''

Today's rule does not create a mandate on state, local, or tribal

governments. Redesignation of an area to attainment under sections

107(d)(3)(D) and (E) of the Clean Air Act does not impose any new

requirements. Redesignation to attainment is an action that affects the

status of a geographical area and does not impose any regulatory

requirements on state, local, or tribal governments. Thus, the rule

does not impose any enforceable duties on state, local, or tribal

governments. Accordingly, the requirements of section 1(a) of Executive

Order 12875 do not apply to this rule.

C. Executive Order 13045

Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental

Health Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), applies to

any rule that: (1) Is determined to be ``economically significant'' as

defined under E. O. 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health or

safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate

effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the

Agency must evaluate the environmental health and safety effects of the

planned rule on children, and explain why the planned regulation is

preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible

alternatives considered by the Agency.

This rule is not subject to E. O. 13045 because it does not involve

decisions intended to mitigate environmental health or safety risks.

D. Executive Order 13084: Executive Order 13084: Consultation and

Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments

Under Executive Order 13084, EPA may not issue a regulation that is

not required by statute, that significantly affects or uniquely affects

the communities of Indian tribal governments, and that imposes

substantial direct compliance costs on those communities, unless the

Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct

compliance costs incurred by the tribal governments, or EPA consults

with those governments. If EPA complies by consulting, Executive Order

12084 requires EPA to provide to the Office of Management and Budget,

in a separately identified section of the preamble to the rule, a

description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation with

representatives of affected tribal governments, a summary of the nature

of their concerns, and a statement supporting the need to issue the

regulation. In addition, Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to develop

an effective process permitting elected officials and other

representatives of Indian tribal governments ``to provide meaningful

and timely input in the development of regulatory policies on matters

that significantly or uniquely affect their communities.''

Today's rule does not significantly or uniquely affect the

communities of Indian tribal governments. Redesignation of an area to

attainment under sections 107(d)(3)(D) and (E) of the Clean Air Act

does not impose any new requirements. Redesignation to attainment is an

action that affects the status of a geographical area and does not

impose any regulatory requirements. Accordingly, the requirements of

section 3(b) of Executive Order 13084 do not apply to this rule.

E. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency

to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to

notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies

that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small

businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental

jurisdictions. This final rule will not have a significant impact on a

substantial number of small entities because SIP approvals under

section 110 and subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air Act do not create

any new requirements, but simply approve requirements that the State is

already imposing. Therefore, because the Federal SIP approval does not

create any new requirements, I certify that this action will not have a

significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

Moreover, due to the nature of the Federal-State relationship under the

Clean Air Act, preparation of a flexibility analysis would constitute

Federal inquiry into the economic reasonableness of State action. The

Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base its actions concerning SIPs on such

grounds. Union Electric Co. v. U.S. EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255-66 (1976);

42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2). Redesignation of an area to attainment under

sections 107(d)(3)(D) and (E) of the Clean Air Act does not impose any

new requirements on small entities. Redesignation to attainment is an

action that affects the status of a geographical area and does

[[Page 3224]]

not impose any regulatory requirements on sources. Therefore, I certify

that the approval of the redesignation request will not affect a

substantial number of small entities.

F. Unfunded Mandates

Under Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

(``Unfunded Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA

must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or

final rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in estimated

costs to State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate, or to

the private sector, of $100 million or more. Under Section 205, EPA

must select the most cost-effective and least burdensome alternative

that achieves the objectives of the rule and is consistent with

statutory requirements. Section 203 requires EPA to establish a plan

for informing and advising any small governments that may be

significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule.

EPA has determined that the approval action promulgated does not

include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs of $100

million or more to either State, local, or tribal governments in the

aggregate or to the private sector. This Federal action approves a

redesignation to attainment and pre-existing requirements under State

or local law, and imposes no new requirements. Accordingly, no

additional costs to State, local, or tribal governments, or to the

private sector, will result from this action.

G. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. section 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 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 the publication of the rule in the Federal Register. This rule is

not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. section 804(2).

H. Petitions for Judicial Review

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for

judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court

of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by March 22, 1999. 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

40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon Monoxide,

Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements.

40 CFR Part 81

Air pollution control, National parks, Wilderness areas.

Dated: November 23, 1998.

Jack W. McGraw,

Acting Regional Administrator Region VIII.

Chapter I, title 40, parts 52 and 81 of the Code of Federal

Regulations are amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

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

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

Subpart TT--UTAH

2. Section 52.2320 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(39) to read

as follows:

Sec. 52.2320 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(39) Revisions to the Utah State Implementation Plan, Section IX,

Control Measures for Area and Point Sources, Part C, Carbon Monoxide as

submitted by the Governor on December 6, 1996 (with minor mathematical

corrections submitted by the Utah Division of Air Quality on August 12,

1998), excluding Section IX, Part C.7.f.(3) of the plan, ``Emissions

Credit Allocation,'' as EPA is not taking any action on that section of

the plan. UACR R307-1-3.3 Requirements for Nonattainment and

Maintenance Areas--New and Modified Sources; as submitted by the

Governor on November 24, 1995.

(i) Incorporation by reference.

(A) UACR R307-2-12, adopted by the Utah Air Quality Board on August

7, 1996 and September 4, 1996, effective November 1, 1996, as modified

through a notice of nonsubstantive rule change dated July 14, 1998,

effective July 27, 1998, to correct minor mathematical errors in

Section IX, Part C.7.f.(2) of the Utah State Implementation Plan (SIP).

UACR R307-2-12 incorporates by reference a number of provisions of the

Utah SIP, only some of which are relevant to this rulemaking action.

EPA's incorporation by reference of UACR R307-2-12 only extends to the

following Utah SIP provisions and excludes any other provisions that

UACR R307-2-12 incorporates by reference:

Section IX, Part C.7 (except for Section IX, Part C.7.f.(3)),

Carbon Monoxide Maintenance Provisions for Salt Lake City, adopted by

Utah Air Quality Board on August 7, 1996, and September 4, 1996,

effective November 1, 1996, as modified by the nonsubstantive rule

change noted above.

(B) UACR R307-1-3.3, a portion of Requirements for Nonattainment

and Maintenance Areas--New and Modified Sources, as adopted by the Utah

Air Quality Board on October 4, 1995, December 6, 1995, effective

January 31, 1996.

(ii) Additional material.

(A) February 19, 1998, letter from Ursula Trueman, Director, Utah

Division of Air Quality, Department of Environmental Quality to Richard

R. Long, Director, Air and Radiation Program, EPA Region VIII, entitled

``DAQS-0188-98; Technical Support Documents--Ogden City and Salt Lake

City CO Maintenance Plans.'' This letter confirmed that all the

emission projections, contained in the technical support documents for

both the Salt Lake City and Ogden City redesignation requests, were

properly adopted by the Utah Air Quality Board in accordance with the

Utah Air Quality Rules.

(B) Materials from Jan Miller, Utah Division of Air Quality,

Department of Environmental Quality, received by Tim Russ, Air and

Radiation Program, EPA Region VIII, displaying the minor mathematical

corrections to the on-road mobile source emission budgets in Section

IX, Part C. 7.f.(2) of the Salt Lake City CO Maintenance Plan. These

nonsubstantive changes were made in accordance with the Utah Air

Quality Rules and were effective July 27, 1998.

PART 81--[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 81 continues to read as follows:

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

2. In Sec. 81.345, the table entitled ``Utah-Carbon Monoxide'' is

amended by revising the entry for ``Salt Lake City Area'' to read as

follows:

[[Page 3225]]

Sec. 81.345 Utah.

* * * * *

Utah--Carbon Monoxide

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

Designation Classification

Designated area ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date \1\ Type Date \1\ Type

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

* * * * * * *

Salt Lake City Area: 3-22-99 Attainment...............................

Salt Lake County (part), Salt Lake

City.

* * * * * * *

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

\1\ This date is November 15, 1990, unless otherwise noted.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 99-1259 Filed 1-20-99; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P