[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 126 (Monday, July 1, 2002)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 44065-44069]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-16458]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[UT-001-0042; FRL-7238-5]


Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; 
State of Utah; Salt Lake County--Trading of Emission Budgets for 
PM10 Transportation Conformity

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is finalizing approval of the State of Utah's revision to 
the Utah State Implementation Plan (SIP) that was submitted by the 
Governor on May 13, 2002. This SIP revision allows trading from the 
motor vehicle emissions budget for primary Particulate Matter of 10 
microns or less in diameter (PM10) to the motor vehicle 
emissions budget for Nitrogen Oxides (NOX) which is a 
PM10 precursor. EPA's approval of this SIP revision allows 
Salt Lake County to increase their NOX budget in the Salt 
Lake County PM10 SIP by decreasing their PM10 
budget in the Salt Lake County PM10 SIP by an equivalent 
amount, and use these adjusted motor vehicle emissions budgets for 
NOX and PM10 to demonstrate transportation 
conformity with the Salt Lake County PM10 SIP. Trading 
between emissions budgets for transportation conformity is allowable as 
long as a trading mechanism is approved into the SIP.
    On May 1, 2002, EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR) 
that used EPA's parallel processing procedure to propose approval of 
this SIP revision (67 FR 21607). EPA's NPR was in response to a letter 
of March 15, 2002, in which the Governor asked that EPA parallel 
process a proposed revision to the Salt Lake County PM10 SIP 
consisting of a new rule, R307-310 ``Salt Lake County: Trading of 
Emission Budgets for Transportation Conformity.'' On May 13, 2002, the 
Governor submitted the final version of R307-310 for EPA's approval.
    EPA's 30-day comment period concluded on May 31, 2002. During this 
comment period, EPA received one comment letter in response to the May 
1, 2002, NPR.
    In this final rule action, EPA summarizes all comments and EPA's 
responses, and approves the Governor's May 13, 2002, final SIP 
revision, involving Utah's new rule R307-310.

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 31, 2002.

ADDRESSES: Richard R. Long, Director, Air and Radiation Program, 
Mailcode 8P-AR, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 
VIII, 999 18th Street, Suite 300, 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: United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region VIII, 
Air and Radiation Program, 999 18th Street, Suite 300, Denver, Colorado 
80202-2466.
    Copies of the State documents relevant to this action are available 
for public inspection at: Utah Department of Environmental Quality, 
Division of Air 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 300, Denver, Colorado 80202-2466. 
Telephone number: (303) 312-6479.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document wherever ``we'', 
``us'', or ``our'' are used we mean the Environmental Protection 
Agency.

I. What Is the Purpose of This Action?

    In this final rulemaking action, we are addressing comments 
received regarding our NPR and we are approving R307-310 as a revision 
to the Utah SIP.
    With the publication of our NPR on May 1, 2002, (67 FR 21607), we 
utilized our parallel processing procedure \1\ that allows EPA to 
propose rulemaking on a SIP revision, and solicit public comment, at 
the same time the State is processing the SIP revision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ For further information regarding parallel processing, 
please see Title 40 of the Code Of Federal Regulations, part 51, 
appendix V, section 2.3.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Utah Air Quality Board (UAQB) proposed the SIP revision for a 
30-day State public comment period that began on April 1, 2002, and 
ended on April 30, 2002. The State conducted a public hearing on April 
22, 2002. Final action and approval was taken by the UAQB on May 13, 
2002. Rule R307-310 became State-effective on May 13, 2002.
    On May 13, 2002, the Governor submitted the final version of rule 
R307-310 to us for approval into the Utah SIP.

II. What Is the State's Process To Submit These Materials to EPA?

    Section 110(k) of the CAA addresses our actions on submissions of 
revisions to a SIP. The CAA requires States to observe certain 
procedural requirements in developing SIP revisions for submittal to 
us. Section 110(a)(2) of the CAA requires that each SIP revision be 
adopted after reasonable notice and public hearing. This public process 
must occur prior to the State submitting its final revisions to us.
    At the March 13, 2002, UAQB meeting, the UAQB proposed for public 
comment the new rule R307-310. The Utah Air Quality Board (UAQB) 
proposed the SIP revision for a 30-day State public comment period that 
began on April 1, 2002, and ended on April 30, 2002. The State 
conducted a public hearing on April 22, 2002. Final action and approval 
was taken by the UAQB on May 13, 2002. Rule R307-310 became State-
effective on May 13, 2002.
    On May 13, 2002, the Governor submitted the final rule R307-310 to 
us for approval into the Utah SIP. In a letter dated June 6, 2002, from 
Robert E.

[[Page 44066]]

Roberts, EPA Regional Administrator for Region VIII, to Governor 
Leavitt of Utah, we determined that the Governor's May 13, 2002, SIP 
submittal met the completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51, Appendix V, 
and therefore the submittal was considered administratively and 
technically complete.

III. Supplementary Information

    The Governor's May 13, 2002, final submittal of rule R307-310 and 
technical justification did not change from the proposed version on 
which we based our May 1, 2002, NPR. Therefore, our review and 
discussion of Utah's rule R307-310 and accompanying technical 
justification will not be restated here. The reader is referred to our 
May 1, 2002, NPR (see 67 FR 21607) for any further information.

IV. Public Comments and EPA's Responses

    In response to our May 1, 2002, NPR (67 FR 21607), we received a 
comment letter from the Utah Chapter of the Sierra Club. The following 
discussion summarizes and responds to those comments.
    Comment 1: The Sierra Club states there is a need to reduce 
PM2.5 in Salt Lake County. The Sierra Club states that based 
on Utah air monitoring data, the area exceeded the PM2.5 
National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) seven times in 2001 and 
to date, twice in 2002. The Sierra Club asserts that reducing 
PM2.5 and its precursors in Salt Lake County must be taken 
seriously in order to prevent a violation of the PM2.5 
NAAQS. Sierra Club further states the area is in danger of violating 
the current PM2.5 NAAQS, which itself could be strengthened 
after the current review process.
    Response to Comment 1: EPA is aware of the PM2.5 NAAQS 
exceedances that have been recorded in Salt Lake County. However, we 
also note the current levels of emissions have not caused the area to 
violate the PM2.5 NAAQS. In addition, many areas across the 
nation are like Salt Lake County in that data is still being gathered 
for future PM2.5 NAAQS designations. To date, EPA has not 
designated areas attainment or nonattainment for the PM2.5 
NAAQS under section 107 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) and we have also not 
established an implementation policy for the PM2.5 NAAQS. 
EPA is currently in the process of developing a PM2.5 
implementation policy. Finally, the PM standards, as correctly noted by 
Sierra Club, are currently undergoing review by EPA. A target for 
completion for this review is 2004. At this point in time, prior to the 
designation of areas for PM2.5, no obligations to submit 
SIPs requiring emission reductions or controls for PM2.5 
apply to the State or the Salt Lake County area. Consequently, we are 
not in a position to disapprove this trading mechanism based on 
potential impacts on PM2.5.
    Comment 2: The Sierra Club states that the CAA section 176(c 
)(1)(B) specifies that conformity to an implementation plan means that 
such activities will not (I) ``cause or contribute to any new violation 
of any standard in any area''. Sierra Club asserts it is clear from 
this section that transportation plans must not cause or contribute to 
a violation of PM2.5 NAAQS, as well as NAAQS for 
PM10, ozone (eight hour as well as 1 hour), carbon monoxide 
and other pollutants for which there is a standard.
    Response to Comment 2: We disagree with the conclusions that Sierra 
Club has expressed regarding the intentions of section 176 of the CAA. 
Section 176(c)(5) of the CAA as well as Title 40 of the Code of Federal 
Regulations (CFR) 93.102(b) specifically state that conformity only 
applies to nonattainment and maintenance areas, and only to the 
specific pollutant for which the area was designated nonattainment. 
Conformity does not apply with respect to either the new 
PM2.5 or the new 8-hour ozone standard until one year after 
an area is designated as nonattainment for one of those standards, 
according to Clean Air Act Section 176(c)(6). As EPA has not yet 
designated any areas nonattainment for either the PM2.5 
NAAQS or the 8-hour ozone NAAQS, conformity determinations for the 
PM2.5 and the 8-hour ozone standards are currently not 
required. Furthermore, section 176 of the CAA contains no requirement 
that we consider the PM2.5 and the 8-hour ozone standards in 
deciding whether to approve this SIP revision.
    Comment 3: Sierra Club stated the following: ``All NOX 
that becomes PM10 is PM2.5, whereas not all 
direct PM10 is PM2.5. The proposed rule should, 
but does not, make this distinction. The proposed rule does not compare 
the portion of direct PM10 that is PM2.5 with the 
portion of NOX that becomes PM2.5 when asserting 
that there is a benefit in moving part of the direct PM10 
budget to the NOX budget in the PM10 SIP. There 
is a difference in health effects between breathing PM2.5 
nitrates and breathing coarse PM10 road dust.''
    Response to Comment 3: As we noted in our response to comment 1 
above, EPA has not designated areas attainment or nonattainment for the 
PM2.5 NAAQS under section 107 of the CAA and we have not 
established an implementation policy for the PM2.5 NAAQS. If 
Salt Lake County is ultimately designated nonattainment for 
PM2.5, the State will then need to submit a SIP revision to 
address PM2.5 pursuant to applicable deadlines. At that 
time, the State may need to reevaluate the budget trading rule, R307-
310, in relation to a PM2.5 attainment demonstration. At 
this time, we are not in a position to require a rigorous analysis of 
impacts on PM2.5 attainment.
    However, we have reviewed the ambient air quality data for 
PM2.5 for Salt Lake County that has been archived by the 
State in our Aerometric Information and Retrieval System (AIRS) 
national database. Based on the information in AIRS, we have determined 
that were we to do designations at this point in time, Salt Lake County 
would be attainment for PM2.5. Further, using the maximum 
concentration monitor for Salt Lake County, the preliminary design 
value for PM2.5 would be 55 micro grams per cubic meter (ug/
m\3\) and would correlate to only 85% of the PM2.5 24-hour 
standard of 65 ug/m\3\. Therefore, we do not believe that our approval 
of R307-310, which does not involve trading of PM10 or 
NOX emissions from any source category other than motor 
vehicles, will lead to a violation of the PM2.5 NAAQS. We 
also note that motor vehicle NOX emissions will decline 
significantly starting in 2004 based on new Federal tailpipe emission 
standards for vehicles and the local controls (Inspection and 
Maintenance along with On-Board Diagnostics) as are described further 
in our response to comment 5 below.
    An additional point we would like to make is that not all 
NOX forms particles. Of the NOX that does form 
particles, initially it may be all PM fines, but over time particles 
may aggregate to form larger particles. We noted this aspect in our NPR 
at 67 FR 21609: ``After this initial conversion, only a fraction of the 
gaseous nitric acid will condense as ammonium nitrate PM10 
depending on the equilibrium considerations. Finally, during the gas-
to-particle conversion process, deposition will remove a significant 
amount of material.''
    Comment 4: Sierra Club states: ``There is a discussion of general 
NOX conversion rates to nitric acid and PM10 in 
columns 1 and 2 on p. 21609. Does this general formula relate to 
NOX conversion rates during the type of inversions we have 
during the winter in Salt Lake County? Our high levels of ambient 
PM2.5 occur during these inversions. There is also the 
statement that ``Another concern is that the rate of conversion to 
PM10 may be so long that the precursor may not entirely 
convert

[[Page 44067]]

to PM10 within the same nonattainment area.'' Is this 
statement true of what happens to NOX conversion to 
PM10 in our inversions? To what extent is it possible for 
the conversion to occur outside the area of the inversion?''
    Response to Comment 4: With respect to the questions regarding 
conversion rates, we have discussed this with the State. Based on the 
State's use of our air dispersion model, UAM-AERO, to perform 
preliminary modeling efforts, we believe that the general formula 
stated in our NPR would apply to the Salt Lake County area. The general 
statement in our NPR regarding length of time for conversion may also 
be applicable to the Salt Lake County area, but we can not specifically 
quantify the extent to which conversion would occur outside the area of 
an inversion in the Salt Lake area.
    Comment 5: Sierra Club stated there was a lack of consideration of 
alternatives to reduce NOX emissions; ``The proposed rule 
appears to be an example of the emphasis of many MPO's, state and some 
federal agencies on moving numbers around to show conformity of 
transportation plans with the SIPs, rather than expending effort on 
developing effective measures to reduce Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) 
and mobile source emissions. This is a major concern for us. To us, the 
excessive NOX emissions show that we must seek alternatives 
that would reduce mobile NOX.''
    Response to Comment 5.: We are not required to consider 
alternatives to reduce NOX emissions. Our obligation under 
the CAA is to evaluate submitted SIP revisions against the requirements 
of the CAA; if a submission meets the CAA's requirements, we are 
required to approve it, even if there might be other alternatives that 
would reduce emissions more. As we have noted in our NPR, the 
transportation conformity rule at 40 CFR 93.124(c) allows for trading 
between budgets if the SIP established a mechanism for doing so. We 
have evaluated Utah's trading rule and have concluded it will not cause 
violations of the NAAQS. This SIP revision meets the requirements of 
the CAA and we are approving it.
    Furthermore, we believe NOX emissions will continue to 
decrease in Salt Lake County over time. First, on February 10, 2000, 
EPA published a final rule in the Federal Register (see 65 FR 6698) 
that set specific Tier II on-road motor vehicle emission specifications 
for new-manufactured vehicles. Starting in 2004, new vehicles will have 
to meet more stringent tailpipe emission standards including a standard 
for NOX. As these new vehicles enter the fleets of 
metropolitan areas, such as Salt Lake County, significant reductions in 
NOX emissions will be realized. Additional NOX 
reductions were realized beginning in 2001 from our National Low 
Emitting Vehicle (NLEV) agreement with automakers and our Heavy Duty 
Diesel (HDD) emission requirements (see 65 FR 59895). Second, Salt Lake 
County continues to operate a motor vehicle emissions inspection and 
maintenance (I/M) program which identifies vehicles that do not pass 
required emission specifications and must be repaired. This I/M program 
includes emission specifications for NOX. In addition to the 
County's existing I/M program, the State has also required all four 
Wasatch Front Counties (Weber, Davis, Salt Lake, and Utah) to implement 
EPA's On-Board Diagnostics II (OBD II) program. OBD II uses information 
from the vehicle's on-board computer system to determine if there are 
faults in the emissions control systems, detect an engine malfunction 
or deterioration, and provide information that allows for early 
diagnosis of emission control equipment malfunction. The Governor 
submitted the State's OBD II rule to EPA for approval into the SIP. We 
have published a notice proposing to approve the State's OBD II rule 
(see 67 FR 9425, March 1, 2002) and are currently preparing a final 
rule for the approval of the OBD II program.
    The WFRC's conformity determination for the Long Range 
Transportation Plan (LRTP), that was approved on January 11, 2002, by 
the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), reflects the benefits of the 
above programs in the projected future year emissions from motor 
vehicles. WFRC's conformity determination shows that starting with 
2012, there would be no need to trade from the PM10 emission 
budget to the NOX emission budget to show conformity, as the 
projected 2012 NOX emissions of 31.56 tons per day would be 
below the PM10 SIP's NOX budget of 32.30 tons per 
day. Information from the WFRC's conformity determination, that was 
approved by the FHWA, is provided below:
    Budgets for 2002 (derived from the PM10 SIP): 
NOX = 38.84 tons per day (tpd), PM10 = 39.91 tons 
per day.
    Budgets for 2003 and beyond (derived from the PM10 SIP): 
NOX = 32.30 tpd, PM10 = 40.30 tpd.
    Excerpts from the WFRC's LRTP Table 10 are as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Projected
                  Year                     Projected NOX   Particulates
                                               (tpd)           (tpd)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2002....................................           54.21           18.19
2003....................................           52.99           18.36
2006....................................           43.70           19.53
2012....................................           31.56           22.37
2022....................................           24.30           26.21
2030....................................           26.83           29.71
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment 6: Sierra Club stated they believe the rule should not have 
been exempted from review under Executive Order 13045 Protection of 
Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks (They 
reference Executive Order 13040). ``Complying with the Executive Order 
would mean that there would have to be an explanation of why the 
planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and 
reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency. The Agency 
did not consider other alternatives. We wish to point out that children 
are especially susceptible to the dangers of PM2.5 pollution. Children 
in Salt Lake County were subjected to 24 days of PM2.5 pollution above 
the 40.5 ug/m3 level at which EPA requires health alerts to be issued 
to the susceptible population. Those 24 days were within a 62 day time 
period from December 18, 2001 through February 17, 2002.''
    Response to Comment 6: We are not permitted to consider health and 
safety risks or require or engage in an alternatives analysis in acting 
on SIPs. Under the CAA, we must approve SIPs if they meet the 
requirements of the CAA. The State's SIP revision meets the CAA's 
requirements, and thus, we are required to approve it, even though 
there might be other alternatives the State could have adopted that 
would have resulted in less risk to children. Furthermore, the 
Executive Order applies only to rules that are considered economically 
significant under Executive Order 12866 which this rule is not. 
Consequently, Executive Order 13045 does not apply to this action.
    Comment 7: Sierra Club stated: ``It is very important for EPA to be 
able to perform evaluation analyses of unintended effects of the 
proposed trading rule at any time deemed appropriate and to be able to 
issue a SIP call to remedy the adverse effects if the State does not 
pursue remedy.''
    Response to Comment 7: We agree with the Sierra Club that, as this 
is the first use of the provisions of 40 CFR 93.124(c), the State and 
EPA must be alert to unintended adverse impacts. In addition, we wish 
to reiterate that if we determine there are adverse air quality effects 
associated with the implementation of the new rule, R307-310, or if we 
determine that the State

[[Page 44068]]

has failed to make the necessary SIP revisions to remedy identified 
adverse effects, EPA may exercise our authority to issue a SIP call 
consistent with the provisions of section 110(k)(5) of the Clean Air 
Act (CAA) as amended in 1990.

V. Final Action

    In this action, we are approving the Governor's May 13, 2002, 
submittal of a revision to the Utah State Implementation Plan--namely, 
new rule R307-310--that would allow the trading of a portion of the 
PM10 motor vehicle emissions budget to the NOX 
motor vehicle emissions budget in the Salt Lake County PM10 
SIP. This trading mechanism will allow a portion of the PM10 
motor vehicle emissions budget to be applied instead to the 
NOX motor vehicle emissions budget on a 1:1 ratio, thus 
increasing the NOX motor vehicle emissions budget and 
decreasing the PM10 motor vehicle emissions budget in the Salt Lake 
County PM10 SIP by an equivalent amount. These adjusted budgets would 
then be used for transportation conformity purposes. This final action 
will become effective on July 31, 2002.

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 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 
Executive Order 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 Executive Order 13045 because it is not 
economically significant and EPA does not have the discretion to engage 
in a risk assessment or alternatives analysis in acting on SIP 
revisions.

(c) Executive Order 13132

    Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) revokes and replaces 
Executive Orders 12612 (Federalism) and 12875 (Enhancing the 
Intergovernmental Partnership). Executive Order 13132 requires EPA to 
develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely input 
by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies 
that have federalism implications.'' ``Policies that have federalism 
implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations 
that have ``substantial direct effects on the States, on the 
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the 
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of 
government.'' Under Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a 
regulation that has federalism implications, that imposes substantial 
direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless 
the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct 
compliance costs incurred by State and local governments, or EPA 
consults with State and local officials early in the process of 
developing the regulation. EPA also may not issue a regulation that has 
federalism implications and that preempts State law unless the Agency 
consults with State and local officials early in the process of 
developing the regulation.
    This rule will not have substantial direct effects on the States, 
on the relationship between the national government and the States, or 
on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various 
levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132, because it 
merely approves state rules implementing a federal standard, and does 
not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and 
responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. Thus, the 
requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply to this 
rule.

(d) Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and Coordination With Indian 
Tribal Governments)

    Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination 
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000), 
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful 
and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory 
policies that have tribal implications.''
    This final rule does not have tribal implications. It will not have 
substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the relationship 
between the Federal government and Indian tribes, or on the 
distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal 
government and Indian tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175. 
Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule.

(e) Executive Order 13211 (Energy Effects)

    This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211 ``Actions 
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 
Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)) because it is not a 
significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

(f) Regulatory Flexibility

    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 approval 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 SIP final 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). Therefore, because the final rule does not create 
any new requirements, I certify that the final rule will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

(g) 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

[[Page 44069]]

$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 this final approval action 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.

(h) 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 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 31, 2002.

(i) National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12 of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act 
(NTTAA) of 1995 requires Federal agencies to evaluate existing 
technical standards when developing a new regulation. To comply with 
NTTAA, EPA must consider and use ``voluntary consensus standards'' 
(VCS) if available and applicable when developing programs and policies 
unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise 
impractical.
    The EPA believes that VCS are inapplicable to this action. Today's 
action does not require the public to perform activities conducive to 
the use of VCS.

(j) 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 July 31, 2002. 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) of the Clean Air 
Act.)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen 
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements.

    Dated: June 20, 2002.
Jack McGraw,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region VIII.

    Title 40, chapter I, part 52 of the Code of Federal Regulations 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)(51 ) to read 
as follows:


Sec. 52.2320  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (51 ) On May 13, 2002, the Governor of Utah submitted a revision to 
Utah's SIP involving a new rule R307-310 ``Salt Lake County: Trading of 
Emission Budgets for Transportation Conformity.'' R307-310 allows 
trading from the motor vehicle emissions budget for primary Particulate 
Matter of 10 microns or less in diameter (PM10) in the Salt 
Lake County PM10 SIP to the motor vehicle emissions budget 
for Nitrogen Oxides (NOX) in the Salt Lake County 
PM10 SIP. This trading mechanism allows Salt Lake County to 
increase their NOX budget in the Salt Lake County 
PM10 SIP by decreasing their PM10 budget by an 
equivalent amount. These adjusted budgets in the Salt Lake County 
PM10 SIP would then be used for transportation conformity 
purposes.
    (i) Incorporation by reference.
    (A) Rule R307-310 ``Salt Lake County: Trading of Emission Budgets 
for Transportation Conformity'', as adopted on May 13, 2002, by the 
Utah Air Quality Board, and State effective on May 13, 2002.
[FR Doc. 02-16458 Filed 6-28-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P