[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 128 (Tuesday, July 6, 1999)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 36248-36252]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-16931]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[UT-001-0018; UT-001-0019; UT-001-0020; FRL-6368-8]


Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; 
Utah; Foreword and Definitions, Revision to Definition for Sole Source 
of Heat and Emissions Standards, Nonsubstantive Changes; General 
Requirements, Open Burning and Nonsubstantive Changes; and Foreword and 
Definitions, Addition of Definition for PM10 Nonattainment 
Area

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: On March 26, 1999, EPA published a direct final and proposed 
rulemaking approving State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions 
submitted by the Governor of the State of Utah. On July 11, 1994, the 
Governor submitted a SIP revision for the purpose of establishing a 
modification to the definition for ``Sole Source of Heat'' in UACR 
R307-1-1; this revision also made a change to UACR R307-1-4, 
``Emissions Standards.'' On February 6, 1996, a SIP revision to UACR 
R307-1-2 was submitted by the Governor of Utah which contains changes 
to Utah's open burning rules, requiring that the local county fire 
marshal has to establish a 30-day open burning window in order for open 
burning to be allowed in areas outside of nonattainment areas. Other 
minor changes are made in this revision to UACR R307-1-2.4, ``General 
Burning'' and R307-1-2.5, ``Confidentiality of Information.'' In 
addition, on July 9, 1998, SIP revisions were submitted that would add 
a definition for ``PM10 Nonattainment Area'' to UACR R307-1-
1. This action is being taken under section 110 of the Clean Air Act.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This final rule is effective August 5, 1999.


[[Page 36249]]


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 500, Denver, Colorado, 80202 and 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 Utah Department of Environmental Quality, Division of Air 
Quality, 150 North 1950 West, Salt Lake City, Utah.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 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
II. Summary of SIP Revision
    A. Review of Revisions
    1. Review of the changes to ``Foreword and Definitions'' 
concerning the definition for ``Sole Source of Heat.''
    2. Review of the changes to ``General Requirements'' concerning 
open burning regulations and minor changes to rules.
    3. Review of the changes to ``Foreword and Definitions'' 
concerning the addition of a definition for PM10 
nonattainment areas.
    B. Procedural Background
    1. July 11, 1994 submittal
    2. February 6, 1996 submittal
    3. July 9, 1998 submittal
III. EPA's Response to Public Comments
IV. Background for the Action
V. Administrative Requirements

I. EPA's Final Action

    We are approving the Governor's submittal of July 11, 1994, to 
revise the definition for ``Sole Source of Heat'' to define which 
households may continue burning during woodburning bans so that those 
households with small portable heaters still qualify under the 
definition of households for which wood or coal burning is the only 
source of heat. We are also approving a change made under ``Emissions 
Standards,'' which moves section 4.13.3 D to section 4.13.3.E. We are 
approving the submittal of February 6, 1996, which made changes to 
Utah's open burning regulations (in ``General Burning'') to require 
that the local county fire marshal establish a 30-day window during 
which open burning activities may occur in areas outside of 
nonattainment areas during the spring and fall closed burning seasons. 
This applies to all areas in the State outside of Salt Lake, Davis, 
Weber, and Utah Counties where the state forester has permitted the 
local county fire marshal to establish the open burning window. Minor 
changes were also made to R307-1-2.4, ``General Burning'' as well as 
R307-1-2.5, ``Confidentiality of Information.'' Lastly, we are 
approving the Governor's submittal of July 9, 1998, adding a definition 
for ``PM10 Nonattainment Area'' in R307-1-1.

II. Summary of SIP Revision

A. Review of Revisions

1. Review of the Changes to ``Foreword and Definitions'' Concerning the 
Definition for ``Sole Source of Heat''
    The residential woodburning regulation revision was developed by 
the Utah Division of Air Quality with input from local governments and 
the public. The Air Quality Board approved two changes to the 
woodburning rule at the December 9, 1993, hearing which were later 
submitted by the Governor on July 11, 1994. The revision to R307-1-1 
changes the definition for ``Sole Source of Heat.'' This change defines 
which households may continue burning during woodburning bans so that 
those households with small portable heaters still qualify under the 
definition of households for which wood or coal burning is the only 
source of heat. The second revision, which was made to the residential 
woodburning regulations under R307-1-4.13, specifies the actions which 
must be taken if contingency measures are implemented in the Salt Lake, 
Davis or Utah County nonattainment areas. These plans were requested to 
be withdrawn by the Governor in a November 9, 1998, letter to the 
Regional Administrator. We returned the portions of these plans with a 
letter to the Governor on January 29, 1999. However, a nonsubstantive 
change was made in this section as a result of the revision. This 
change moves section 4.13.3 D to section 4.13.3.E. For the purposes of 
ease and efficiency for the State, the revised sub-section number is 
being approved, and thus, there will be no section 4.13.3.D.
2. Review of the Changes to ``General Requirements'' Concerning Open 
Burning Regulations and Minor Changes to Rules
    On February 6, 1996, the State of Utah submitted its revised open 
burning regulations in order to make them more consistent with Utah 
Code 65A-8-9. Utah made revisions to its open burning regulations for 
areas outside of nonattainment areas because they were found to be in 
conflict with Utah Code 65A-8-9. The Code prohibits open burning 
between June 1 and October 31, unless a permit has been issued, whereas 
the open burning regulations allowed burning between March 30 and May 
30 and between September 15 and October 30 in areas outside of 
nonattainment areas. These changes were made under UACR R307-1-2.4.4.
    The following are requirements for open burning under Utah Code 
65A-8-9 which pertain to the rule change addressed by the SIP:
    1. June 1 through October 31 of each year is to be a closed fire 
season throughout the State.
    2. The state forester has jurisdiction over the types of open 
burning allowed with a permit during the closed fire season.
    The open burning requirement that was previously in the Utah SIP 
pertaining to this rule change is as follows:
    For areas outside of Salt Lake, Davis, Weber, and Utah Counties 
(nonattainment areas), open burning is allowed during the periods of 
March 30 through May 30 and September 15 through October 30 with a 
permit issued by the authorized local authority.
    The open burning requirement that was adopted by the Utah Air 
Quality Board on September 6, 1995 is as follows:
    For areas outside of the designated nonattainment areas, open 
burning is allowed during the March 30 through May 30 period and the 
September 15 through October 30 period if the local county fire marshal 
has established a 30-day window for such open burning to occur with a 
permit issued by the authorized local authority and the state forester 
has allowed for such permit to be issued.
    Other minor changes were made to the open burning regulations as 
well. Section R307-1-2.4, ``General Burning'' has had numbers added to 
it to make it more consistent with Utah Code 19-2-114. Section R307-1-
2.4.3.C is corrected to refer to Subsection R307-17-3 in place of 
section 4.13.3 of the regulations. More minor changes were also made 
throughout the open burning regulations to change capitalization and to 
correct references.
    Minor changes were also made under R307-1-2.5, ``Confidentiality of 
Information'' including a changed statutory reference in R307-1-
2.5.1.B. Additional changes were made to correct references and 
capitalization of section headings.

[[Page 36250]]

3. Review of the Changes to ``Foreword and Definitions'' Concerning the 
Addition of a Definition for PM10 nonattainment Areas
    On January 7, 1998, the Air Quality Board approved the addition of 
the definition for ``PM10 Nonattainment Area.'' This 
revision was made to ensure that the currently designated nonattainment 
areas within the State for PM10 would be held to the same 
requirements after the pre-existing PM10 NAAQS were revoked 
as they were prior to the revocation of the NAAQS. Since this revision 
was made, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of 
Columbia Circuit ruled on May 14, 1999, in American Trucking 
Associations, Inc. v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (Nos. 97-
1440 and 97-1441), to vacate our new standards for PM10. We 
are now unable to approve any revocations of the old PM10 
standard. Nonetheless, this definition can still be approved without a 
revocation of the PM10 standard because it reaffirms the 
designation status for the nonattainment areas, set forth in 40 CFR 
81.345.

B. Procedural Background

    The CAA requires States to observe certain procedural requirements 
in developing SIP revisions for submittal to EPA. Section 110(a)(2) of 
the CAA provides that each SIP revision be adopted after going through 
a reasonable notice and public hearing process prior to being submitted 
by a State. We have evaluated each of the above Governor's submittals 
and discuss them below.
1. July 11, 1994 Submittal
    Copies of the proposed changes were made available to the public 
and the State held public hearings for the changes to ``Foreword and 
Definitions'' and ``Emissions Standards'' on October 5, 1993, October 
6, 1993, October 7, 1993, and October 13, 1993. The changes to the 
State's rules were adopted by the Air Quality Board on December 9, 1993 
and became effective on January 31, 1994; the revision was formally 
submitted by the Governor on July 11, 1994. We determined the submittal 
was complete on September 22, 1994. A portion of this revision included 
PM10 contingency plans which were requested to be withdrawn 
by the Governor in a November 9, 1998, letter to the Regional 
Administrator. We returned this portion of the submittal with a letter 
to the Governor on January 29, 1999.
2. February 6, 1996 Submittal
    Copies of the proposed changes were made available to the public 
and the State held public hearings for the changes to ``General 
Requirements'' on July 14 (two separate hearings), 17, 18, and 19, 
1995. The changes to the State's rule were adopted by the Air Quality 
Board on September 6, 1995 and became effective on October 31, 1995; 
the new open burning regulations, along with the other nonsubstantive 
changes to ``General Requirements,'' were formally submitted by the 
Governor on February 6, 1996. We determined the submittal was complete 
on August 14, 1996.
3. July 9, 1998 Submittal
    Copies of the proposed changes were made available to the public 
and the State held public hearings for the changes to ``Foreword and 
Definitions'' on December 16, 1997 and January 5, 1998. The changes to 
the State's rule were adopted by the Air Quality Board on January 7, 
1998 and became effective on January 8, 1998; the new definition was 
formally submitted by the Governor on July 9, 1998. We determined the 
submittal was complete on October 16, 1998.

III. EPA's Response to Public Comments

    The following discussion responds to the adverse comments that we 
received concerning the Federal Register direct final rule approving 
Utah's definition of ``PM10 Nonattainment Area.''
    Comment: We received an adverse comment from the Utah Petroleum 
Association regarding the definition of ``PM10 Nonattainment 
Area.'' They believe that we had no reason to approve the new 
definition for ``PM10 Nonattainment Area'' unless we 
intended to revoke the pre-existing PM10 standard for the 
nonattainment areas in Utah (Salt Lake County, Utah County, and Ogden 
City). The Utah Petroleum Association believes that we should either 
revoke the standard for these nonattainment areas at the same time as 
we approve this new definition or provide Utah with a commitment for a 
date in the future when the revocation will occur. They believe that we 
have no legal basis for approving this definition if we do not follow 
the above. If we cannot take one of these two actions, they believe 
that we should wait to approve this definition until we are able to do 
so. They also believe that if we cannot revoke the PM10 
standard at the same time as we approve this definition or if we cannot 
commit to a date when the standard will be revoked, that the approval 
of the definition brings a result that is contrary to the intent of 
Utah in submitting the definition to us for approval into the SIP. The 
commentors cite Utah's explanation of this new definition to show that 
the State intended for the revocation to take place shortly after the 
approval of the definition. The State certified that adding the 
definition would enable them to guarantee that all rules that currently 
apply in the PM10 nonattainment areas would remain in place 
after the PM10 standard is revoked.
    EPA's Response: The State adopted this definition so that all 
requirements applying in the PM10 nonattainment areas would 
remain in place once we revoked the PM10 standard in those 
areas. But, this definition can also be approved without a revocation 
of the PM10 standard because it simply reaffirms the 
designation status for the nonattainment areas contained in 40 CFR 
81.345. With regard to the Utah Petroleum Association's assertion that 
we should only approve this definition at the same time as we revoke 
the standard, that action is not necessary for this definition to be 
effective. Furthermore, we were unable to revoke the PM10 
standard at the time that the previous direct final rule for this 
action was published because we had not yet approved State revisions to 
nonattainment SIPs for Salt Lake County and Utah County.
    Nor did the State intend for these two actions to occur at the same 
time. Contrary to the comment, the State did not request a simultaneous 
revocation and approval of this definition. The State has since 
requested a revocation for the nonattainment areas. However, after this 
action was published and the comment received, the United States Court 
of Appeals for the District of Columbia's Circuit ruled on May 14, 1999 
to vacate our new standards for PM10. We are now unable to 
approve any revocations of the old PM10 standard. Despite 
this, we have no reason not to act on the revision and believe we 
should not further delay the State's request for the ``PM10 
Nonattainment Area'' definition to be federally approved.
    The Utah Petroleum Association has asserted that we have no legal 
basis for approving the definition for ``PM10 Nonattainment 
Area'' absent a revocation for these areas. In truth, there are no 
legal requirements surrounding this definition because it does not 
impose any new requirements on the nonattainment areas. As already 
noted, this definition reaffirms the areas' designation status 
contained in 40 CFR 81.345.

IV. Background for the Action

    On March 26, 1999, we published notices of direct final (64 FR 
14620) and proposed rulemakings (64 FR 14665) for the State of Utah. 
The proposed

[[Page 36251]]

rulemaking specified that we would withdraw the direct final rule if 
adverse comments were filed on the rulemaking. The 30-day comment 
period concluded on April 26, 1999. During this comment period, we 
received a comment letter in response to rulemaking and the direct 
final rule was withdrawn in the Federal Register on May 11, 1999 (64 FR 
25214).

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

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. The rule does not impose any enforceable duties on these 
entities. 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 or safety effects of the 
planned rule on children, and explain why the planned regulation is 
preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible 
alternatives considered by the Agency.
    This rule is not subject to 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 E.O. 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 13084 
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. 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 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).

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 
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 pre-
existing requirements under State or local law, and imposes no new 
requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local, or 
tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from this action.

G. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the 
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally 
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating 
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, 
to each House of Congress and to the Comptroller General

[[Page 36252]]

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. This rule is not a 
``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 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 September 7, 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).)
    Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local, or tribal 
governments, or to the private sector, result from this action.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by 
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Particulate matter, Reporting 
and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: June 16, 1999.
Patricia D. Hull,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region VIII.

    40 CFR part 52, is amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

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

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

Subpart TT--Utah

    2. Section 52.2320 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(41) to read 
as follows:


Sec. 52.2320  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (41) On July 11, 1994 the Governor of Utah submitted revisions to 
the Utah State Implementation Plan (SIP) to revise the definition for 
``Sole Source of Heat'' under UACR R307-1-1, ``Foreword and 
Definitions,'' to allow the exemption of those households with small 
portable heating devices from mandatory no-burn periods. This revision 
also made changes to the residential woodburning regulations under UACR 
R307-1-4.13.3 ``No-Burn Periods,'' which specifies the actions which 
must be taken if contingency measures are implemented in the Salt Lake, 
Davis or Utah County nonattainment areas. These plans were requested to 
be withdrawn by the Governor in a November 9, 1998, letter to the 
Regional Administrator. EPA returned the portions of these plans with a 
letter to the Governor on January 29, 1999. A nonsubstantive change was 
made in this section as a result of the revision which moves section 
4.13.3 D to section 4.13.3.E; this change was also approved by EPA. On 
February 6, 1996 the Governor of Utah submitted revisions to the Utah 
State Implementation Plan to revise Utah's open burning regulations, 
under UACR R307-1-2.4, to require that the local county fire marshal 
establish 30-day open burning windows during the spring and fall closed 
burning seasons in areas outside of Salt Lake, Davis, Weber, and Utah 
Counties as granted by the state forester. There were also minor 
changes made to the open burning regulations under UACR R307-1-2.4, 
``General Burning'' and minor changes made to UACR R307-1-2.5 
``Confidentiality of Information.'' On July 9, 1998 the Governor of 
Utah submitted revisions to the Utah SIP to add a definition for 
``PM10 Nonattainment Area,'' under UACR R307-1-1, ``Foreword 
and Definitions.''
    (i) Incorporation by reference.
    (A) UACR R307-1-1, a portion of ``Foreword and Definitions,'' 
revision of definition for ``Sole Source of Heat,'' as adopted by Utah 
Air Quality Board on December 9, 1993, effective on January 31, 1994.
    (B) UACR R307-1-4, a portion of ``Emissions Standards,'' as adopted 
by Utah Air Quality Board on December 9, 1993, effective on January 31, 
1994.
    (C) UACR R307-1-2, a portion of ``General Requirements,'' open 
burning changes and nonsubstantive wording changes, as adopted by Utah 
Air Quality Board on September 6, 1995, effective on October 31, 1995.
    (D) UACR R307-1-1, a portion of ``Foreword and Definitions,'' 
addition of definition for ``PM10 Nonattainment Area,'' as 
adopted by Utah Air Quality Board on January 7, 1998, effective on 
January 8, 1998.
    (ii) Additional Material.
    (A) July 20, 1998, fax from Jan Miller, Utah Department of Air 
Quality, to Cindy Rosenberg, EPA Region VIII, transmitting Utah Code 
65A-8-9, regarding closed fire seasons.
    (B) October 21, 1998, letter from Richard R. Long, Director, EPA 
Air and Radiation Program, to Ursula Trueman, Director, Utah Division 
of Air Quality, requesting that Utah withdraw the submitted Salt Lake 
and Davis County PM10 Contingency Measure SIP revisions, the 
Utah County PM10 Contingency Measure SIP revisions, and the 
Residential Woodburning in Salt Lake, Davis and Utah Counties 
PM10 Contingency Measure SIP revision.
    (C) November 9, 1998, letter from the Governor of Utah, to William 
Yellowtail, EPA Region VIII Administrator, requesting that the 
submitted Salt Lake and Davis County and Utah County PM10 
Contingency Measure SIP revisions and the Residential Woodburning in 
Salt Lake, Davis and Utah Counties PM10 Contingency Measure 
SIP revision be withdrawn.
    (D) December 16, 1998, letter from Larry Svoboda, EPA Region VIII, 
to Ursula Trueman, Utah Department of Air Quality, clarifying revisions 
that were made to UACR R307-1-4.
    (E) January 5, 1999, letter from Ursula Trueman, Utah Department of 
Air Quality, to William Yellowtail, EPA Region VIII Administrator, 
concurring on EPA's clarification of revisions that were made to UACR 
R307-1-4.
    (F) January 29, 1999, letter from William Yellowtail, EPA Region 
VIII Administrator, to the Governor of Utah returning the Salt Lake and 
Davis County and Utah County PM10 Contingency Measure SIP 
revisions and the Residential Woodburning in Salt Lake, Davis and Utah 
Counties PM10 Contingency Measure SIP revision.

[FR Doc. 99-16931 Filed 7-2-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P