Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes: State of Idaho and the Fort Hall Indian Reservation
Federal RegisterJun 19, 1998
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 81
[ID 21-7001; FRL-6113-4]
Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes: State of
Idaho and the Fort Hall Indian Reservation
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this action, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
proposes to revise the designation for particulate matter with an
aerodynamic diameter of less than a nominal 10 microns (PM-10) for the
Power-Bannock Counties PM-10 nonattainment area by creating two
distinct nonattainment areas that together cover the identical
geographic area as the original nonattainment area. The revised areas
would be divided at the boundary between State lands and the Fort Hall
Indian Reservation, with one revised area comprised of State lands and
the other revised area comprised of lands within the exterior boundary
of the Fort Hall Indian Reservation. The redesignation is based upon a
request from the State of Idaho, which is supported by monitoring and
modeling information. Both areas would retain PM-10 nonattainment
designations and classification as moderate PM-10 nonattainment areas
as a result of this proposed action.
In a concurrent notice of proposed rulemaking published today, EPA
is proposing to make a finding that the proposed PM-10 nonattainment
area within the exterior boundary of the Fort Hall Indian Reservation
failed to attain the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for
PM-10 by the applicable attainment date. Such a finding would, by
operation of law, result in the reclassification of the proposed PM-10
nonattainment area within the Fort Hall Indian Reservation to a serious
PM-10 nonattainment area.
EPA recently established a new standard for particulate matter with
a diameter equal to or less than 2.5 microns and also revised the
existing PM-10 standards. Today's proposal,
[[Page 33598]]
however, does not address these new and revised standards.
DATES: All written comments should be submitted to Steven K. Body, EPA
Region 10, [Docket #ID 21-7001], at the address indicated below by July
20, 1998.
ADDRESSES: Information supporting this action can be found in Public
Docket No. [#ID 21-7001]. The docket is located at EPA, Region 10, 1200
Sixth Avenue, Seattle WA 98101. The docket may be inspected from 9:00
am to 4:30 pm on weekdays, except for legal holidays. A reasonable fee
may be charged for copying.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steven K. Body, EPA Region 10, Office
of Air Quality (OAQ-107), EPA, Seattle, Washington, (206) 553-0782.
I. Background
A portion of Power and Bannock Counties in Idaho is designated
nonattainment for PM-10 \1\ and classified as moderate under sections
107(d)(4)(B) and 188(a) of the Clean Air Act upon enactment of the
Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (Act or CAA). See 40 CFR 81.313 (PM-10
Initial Nonattainment Areas); see also 55 FR 45799 (October 31, 1990);
56 FR 11101 (March 15, 1991); 56 FR 37654 (August 8, 1991); 56 FR 56694
(November 6, 1991).\2\ For an extensive discussion of the history of
the designation of the Power-Bannock Counties PM-10 nonattainment area,
please refer to the discussion at 61 FR 29667, 29668-29670 (June 12,
1996).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are two pre-existing PM-10 NAAQS, a 24-hour standard
and an annual standard. See 40 CFR 50.6. EPA promulgated these NAAQS
on July 1, 1987 (52 FR 24672), replacing standards for total
suspended particulate with new standards applying only to
particulate matter up to ten microns in diameter (PM-10). The annual
PM-10 standard is attained when the expected annual arthimetic
average of the 24-hour samples for a period of one year does not
exceed 50 micrograms per cubic meter (ug/m3). Attainment of the 24-
hour PM-10 standard is determined by calculating the expected number
of days in a year with PM-10 concentrations greater than 150 ug/m3.
The 24-hour PM-10 standard is attained when the expected number of
days with levels above the standard, averaged over a three year
period, is less than or equal to one. See 40 CFR 50.6 and 40 CFR
part 50, appendix K.
\2\ The 1990 Amendments to the CAA made significant changes to
the Act. See Public Law No. 101-549, 104 Stat. 2399. References
herein are to the CAA as amended. The CAA is codified, as amended,
in the United States Code at 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Power-Bannock Counties PM-10 nonattainment area covers
approximately 266 square miles in south central Idaho and comprises
both trust and fee lands within the exterior boundary of the Fort Hall
Indian Reservation and State lands in portions of Power and Bannock
Counties. Approximately 75,000 people live in the nonattainment area,
most of whom live in the cities of Pocatello and Chubbuck, which are
located near the center of the nonattainment area on State lands.
Approximately 15 miles northwest of downtown Pocatello is an area known
as the ``industrial complex,'' which includes the two major stationary
sources of PM-10 in the nonattainment area. The boundary between the
Fort Hall Indian Reservation and State lands runs through the
industrial complex. One of the major stationary sources of PM-10, FMC
Corporation (FMC), is located primarily on fee lands within the
exterior boundary of the Fort Hall Indian Reservation.\3\ The other
major stationary source of PM-10 in the nonattainment area, J.R.
Simplot Corporation (Simplot), is located on State lands immediately
adjacent to the Reservation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ EPA has learned that a portion of the FMC facility is
located on State lands. This issue is discussed in more detail
below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The State of Idaho has established and operates four PM-10 State
and Local Air Monitoring Stations (SLAMS) in the current Power-Bannock
Counties PM-10 nonattainment area, all of which are on State lands (the
State monitors). All of the State monitors meet EPA SLAMS network
design and siting requirements, set forth at 40 CFR part 58, appendices
D and E. There have been no violations of the annual PM-10 standard at
any of the State monitors since 1990. No levels above the 24-hour
standard have been recorded at any of the State monitors since January
of 1993.
The Shoshone-Bannock Tribes began operating a PM-10 monitor on the
portion of the nonattainment area within the exterior boundary of the
Reservation in February 1995. Prior to this time, the Tribes relied on
data from the State operated samplers for area designations and
classifications. This reliance was due to a lack of resources to
establish and operate their own Tribal monitoring stations. In 1994 the
Tribes requested and EPA granted the Tribes additional program support
grant funds to enable the Tribes to establish their own monitoring
stations to collect ambient air quality data representative of
conditions on the Reservation and to generate data to support Tribal
air quality planning efforts. This monitor, called the ``Sho-Ban
site,'' is located approximately 100 feet north of the FMC facility
across a frontage road. Due to operational problems with the sampler
and quality assurance problems, valid data were not reported for this
monitor until October 1, 1996. Also in October 1996, the Tribes
initiated monitoring at two new sites. The ``primary site'' is located
approximately 100 feet north of the FMC facility across the frontage
road, 600 feet east of the Sho-Ban site and approximately 600 feet from
the boundary between the Fort Hall Indian Reservation and State lands.
The ``Tribal background site'' is approximately one and one-half miles
southwest of the FMC facility upwind of the predominant wind direction
from the industrial complex. All three monitoring sites are owned by
the Tribes and operated by a contractor for the Tribes. The Tribal
monitoring sites meet EPA SLAMS network design and siting requirements,
set forth at 40 CFR part 58, appendices D and E. Both the Sho-Ban and
Primary sites on the Reservation portion of the nonattainment area have
recorded numerous PM-10 concentrations above the level of the 24-hour
PM-10 NAAQS since October 1996.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Private industry operated a seven station air monitoring
network, funded by FMC and Simplot, on and near the industrial
complex from October 1, 1993, through September 30, 1994 (EMF
monitors). There were no measured PM-10 concentrations above the
level of the 24-hour PM-10 NAAQS (150 ug/m3) at any of the EMF
stations. EMF Site #2, however, which was on the Fort Hall Indian
Reservation less than 300 yards east of where the primary site is
now located, reported several 24-hour concentrations of PM-10 at or
near the level of the NAAQS. EMF Site #2 also reported an annual
concentration of 55.1 ug/m3 for the one year period the network was
in operation. This is 10% greater than the 50 ug/m3 level of the
annual PM-10 NAAQS. Because the EMF network did not collect a
calendar year's worth of data, EPA concluded that data from EMF Site
#2 did not document a violation of the annual NAAQS. See 61 FR
66602, 66604 (December 18, 1996). EPA also stated, however, that the
number of the recorded 24-hour concentrations at or near the level
of the standard and the high annual concentration for the one-year
period EMF Site #2 was in operation indicated that a serious air
quality problem continued in the Power-Bannock Counties PM-10
nonattainment area. Id. This is confirmed by the more recent data
from the Tribal monitors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. This Action
A. Idaho's Request
Pursuant to section 107(d)(3)(D) of the Act, the Governor of any
State, on the Governor's own motion, is authorized to submit to the
Administrator a revised designation of any area or portions thereof
within the State. On April 16, 1998, the State of Idaho submitted to
EPA a request to revise the designation of the Power-Bannock Counties
PM-10 nonattainment area to split the nonattainment area into two
separate nonattainment areas at the boundary between the Fort Hall
Indian Reservation and State lands. Together, the two nonattainment
areas would cover the same geographic area as the
[[Page 33599]]
existing Power-Bannock Counties PM-10 nonattainment area.
In support of its request, the State of Idaho noted that the State
has the primary PM-10 planning responsibility under the Clean Air Act
for State lands within the nonattainment area, whereas EPA and the
Tribes have the primary PM-10 planning responsibility for the Tribal
lands within the nonattainment area. The State also noted that it has
largely completed the PM-10 planning and implementation of control
measures for the PM-10 sources located on State lands within the
nonattainment area whereas no controls have been proposed or imposed on
sources in the Tribal portion of the nonattainment area.
The State also supported its request with monitoring data which
shows that State monitors have not recorded any PM-10 concentrations
above the level of the 24-hour PM-10 NAAQS since January 1993 and that
the State lands within the nonattainment area have attained the PM-10
NAAQS. In addition, the State provided an analysis of pollution
concentrations recorded at the Tribal primary site and the Sho-Ban site
as a function of wind direction which shows that violations of the PM-
10 NAAQS at the Tribal sites are not the result of emissions from
sources located on State lands. The State also provided modeling
information to support its assertion that sources on State lands are
not contributing to the violations of the PM-10 NAAQS that have been
recorded at the Tribal monitors.
On May 21, 1998, the Shoshone-Bannocks Tribes and FMC submitted to
the State of Idaho documents opposing Idaho's request to EPA to split
the nonattainment area into two nonattainment areas. The Tribes and FMC
contend that the State failed to follow Idaho law in submitting the
request to EPA without first providing public notice and opportunity
for comment. The Tribes also expressed concern that splitting the area
into two PM-10 nonattainment areas at the State-Reservation boundary
could result in a less comprehensive approach to air quality planning
in the area. In addition to its contention that the State failed to
comply with State requirements for public notice and opportunity for
public comment, FMC further contends that the State failed to comply
with the Clean Air Act in making its request and noted that part of the
FMC facility is located on State lands.
On May 29, 1998, Idaho provided EPA with a letter from the Idaho
Attorney General's Office stating that public notice and opportunity to
comment were not required under State law. The letter also responded to
the other issues raised by FMC and asked EPA to move forward on the
State's request to split the nonattainment area. The State also
provided EPA with a copy of the State's letter responding to the issues
raised by the Tribes. Copies of the letters from FMC and the Tribes to
the State and from the State to EPA and the Tribes are in the Docket
for this proposal.
B. EPA's Proposed Action on Idaho's Request
In determining whether to approve or deny a State's request for a
revision to the designation of an area under section 107(d)(3)(D), EPA
believes it is appropriate to consider the same factors Congress
directed EPA to consider when EPA initiates a revision to a designation
of an area on its own motion under section 107(d)(3)(A). These factors
include ``air quality data, planning and control considerations, or any
other air quality-related considerations the Administrator deems
appropriate.'' Based on the information submitted by Idaho and other
information available to EPA, EPA believes that the air quality data,
planning and control considerations, and other air quality-related
considerations support the State's request to revise the Power-Bannock
Counties PM-10 nonattainment area into two PM-10 nonattainment areas at
the boundary between the Fort Hall Indian Reservation and State lands.
EPA therefore proposes to create two separate nonattainment areas in
place of the existing Power-Bannock Counties PM-10 nonattainment area.
One area, to be called the ``Portneuf Valley PM-10 Nonattainment
Area'', would consist of the existing portion of the Power-Bannock
Counties PM-10 nonattainment area outside of the exterior boundary of
the Fort Hall Indian Reservation and under the regulatory jurisdiction
of the State of Idaho. The other area, to be called the ``Fort Hall PM-
10 nonattainment area,'' would consist of the existing portion of the
nonattainment area within the exterior boundary of the Fort Hall
Reservation. Both areas would continue to be designated nonattainment
for PM-10 and classified as moderate should this proposal be finalized
by EPA.
Although the comments from the Tribes and FMC were directed to the
State in the context of the State proceeding, and not to EPA, EPA has
considered those issues in making this proposal, as is discussed in
more detail below. The Tribes and FMC will also have an opportunity to
raise those and other issues in the public comment period on this
proposal.
1. Air Quality Data and Other Air Quality-Related Considerations
As stated above, there have been no violations of the annual PM-10
standard at any of the four State monitoring sites since 1990 and no
levels above the 24-hour standard have been recorded at any of the
State sites since January of 1993. The data recorded at the State
monitors also show a decline in the yearly annual average at each State
monitoring station since 1993 and, with the exception of the Sewage
Treatment Plant (STP) monitoring station, a decline in the highest and
second highest 24-hour PM-10 readings for each year at each of the
State monitoring stations. The STP monitoring site did record a 24-hour
PM-10 concentration of 149 ug/m3, just below the level of the 24-hour
standard of 150 ug/m3. Even if that monitoring site had recorded one
PM-10 concentration above the standard, however, the 24-hour PM-10
standard would not have been violated because the site operates on an
everyday sampling schedule and the expected exceedence rate, averaged
over a three year period, would have been less than 1.1. Moreover, the
second highest 24-hour PM-10 readings for each year at the STP site
have remained fairly constant since 1993, and there has been a decline
in the yearly PM-10 annual average at the STP site since 1992. In
summary, the State monitors show attainment of the PM-10 standard in
the State portion of the nonattainment area, as well as a general
decline in the PM-10 values recorded on the State monitors.
In contrast, the monitors located within the Tribal portion of the
nonattainment area continue to show numerous levels above the standard.
Although the monitors did not begin recording valid data until October
1996, the number of PM-10 concentrations above the level of the 24-hour
PM-10 NAAQS between October and December 1996 resulted in a violation
of the 24-hour PM-10 NAAQS as of December 31, 1996, the attainment date
for the area.5 Appendix K of 40 CFR part 50, contains
``gapfilling'' techniques for situations where less than three complete
years of data are available. Using the gapfilling techniques of
appendix K, the number
[[Page 33600]]
of exceedences reported from the Sho-Ban and primary sites during the
last three months of 1996 represent a violation of the 24-hour PM-10
NAAQS. The expected exceedence rate of the 24-hour standard, averaged
over the years 1994, 1995, and 1996, from these two monitors is greater
than 1.1, even if the days during which the monitors did not operate or
collect valid data had reported zero PM-10 levels. Numerous levels
above the standard have been recorded since December 31, 1996, as well.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ The Power-Bannock Counties PM-10 nonattainment area
originally had an attainment date of December 31, 1994, see section
188(a) and (c)(1), but the area could not demonstrate attainment by
that date. At the request of the State of Idaho, EPA granted the
area two one-year extensions of the attainment date, in accordance
with section 188(d) of the CAA. See 60 FR 44452 (August 28, 1995)
(proposed action on first extension); 61 FR 20730 (May 8, 1996)
(final action on first extension); 61 FR 66602 (December 18,
1996)(direct final action on second extension).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to the monitoring data which document that the monitors
on State lands show attainment of the PM-10 standard, the State of
Idaho also provided monitoring and modeling information to support its
request to divide the current nonattainment area at the State-
Reservation boundary. The State first presented information to
demonstrate that there are two separate areas of air quality impacts
and sources within the current nonattainment area. One area, which the
State refers to as the ``urban complex,'' encompasses the City of
Pocatello and is solely on State lands. The other area is the
industrial complex, which includes FMC within the Fort Hall Indian
Reservation and J.R. Simplot on State lands. Based on chemical analysis
of the particulate collected on the filters from both State and Tribal
monitors and comparing these results to the chemical composition of
emissions from various sources, the State determined that the urban
area is impacted by PM-10 emissions from residential wood burning,
traffic, and commercial establishments. In contrast, the industrial
complex is impacted by industrial emissions.
Analysis of the 1993 dispersion modeling used by the State in
developing its SIP shows that the urban complex and the industrial
complex have different sources contributing to the high PM-10 levels
that have been recorded in each area. The modeling also shows that
there is no evidence of significant mixing of emissions between the
industrial complex and the urban complex. Appendix A to the State's
request contains a detailed discussion of these modeling results,
including an analysis of four specific days with worst case
meteorology. In general, this analysis consists of PM-10 concentration
isopleth graphs that demonstrate two separate areas of maximum
concentrations of PM-10, one located over the urban complex and the
second located over the FMC and J.R. Simplot industrial facilities.
The State also showed that, within the industrial complex, it is
possible to separate the impacts of sources on Tribal lands from
sources on State lands at the State-Reservation boundary. In the
process of developing the PM-10 plan for the Tribal portion of the
nonattainment area, EPA constructed ``pollution wind roses'' from the
ambient PM-10 monitoring data from two of the Tribal monitors (the Sho-
Ban site and the primary site) and the meteorological station at the
primary site. ``Pollution wind roses'' relate pollutant concentration
measurements (in this case PM-10 levels) and the wind direction that
occurred during that measurement. The State reviewed pollution wind
roses for the period from October 1996 and May 1997. The data show
that, on days when the primary site recorded values greater than the
24-hour standard (150 ug/m3), the wind was blowing from the FMC
facility toward the monitor, i.e., from the southwest. Similarly, on
days when the Sho-Ban site recorded values greater than the standard,
the wind was blowing from FMC facility toward the Sho-Ban monitor,
i.e., from the south. In contrast, on days when the wind was blowing
from State lands, particularly Simplot, toward the primary and Sho-Ban
monitors, high PM-10 values were not recorded on the monitors. The
State concludes from this information that sources on State lands,
particularly Simplot, are effectively controlled and do not contribute
to violations of the PM-10 NAAQS on State or Tribal lands.
EPA evaluated the information submitted by the State along with the
more recent information provided by FMC to the State that a portion of
the FMC facility is located on State lands. FMC property extends
approximately 7000 feet east-west along a frontage road of which 1100
feet appears to extend east onto State lands. The only PM-10 sources of
potential significance on this portion of FMC property (i.e., on State
lands) are a portion (approximately 1100 feet) of the north and south
main ore shale storage piles and a small number of unpaved access
roads. The piles are approximately 1500 feet long and 300 feet wide of
which two-thirds extend onto State lands. EPA estimates that PM-10
emissions from that portion of the FMC facility located on State lands
account for only 89 pounds of the 12,021 pounds per day of total PM-10
emissions from the facility, or less than 1% of total FMC emissions of
PM-10. When the ``pollution rose'' graphs relied on by the State are
laid over a map of the area, it is apparent that violations at the
primary site occur when winds are blowing from the south to west-
southwest, which is down wind of the FMC calcining operations, furnace
building, and slag pit operations. Violations occur at the Sho-Ban site
when the winds are blowing from the west-southeast to east-southwest,
which is again downwind from the FMC calcining operations, furnace
building, and slag pit operations. Violations have not occurred with a
wind direction blowing from the eastern portion of the FMC property,
which is the portion of the FMC facility located on State lands, or
from the Simplot facility, which is also located on State lands. Based
on the small percentage of emissions from the FMC PM-10 sources located
on State lands to total FMC PM-10 emissions and EPA's review of the
pollution and wind roses for the area, EPA does not believe that the
new information provided by FMC--that part of the FMC facility is
located on State lands--alters the analysis provided by the State to
support its request to split the existing nonattainment area into two
nonattainment areas at the State-Reservation boundary. In summary, EPA
agrees with the State's analysis and with the State's conclusion that
emissions from sources on State lands do not appear to be contributing
to the exceedences that have been recorded on the Tribal monitors. In
light of the recent information provided by FMC to the State, however,
EPA specifically requests comment on this issue.
2. Planning and Control Considerations
The current Power-Bannock Counties PM-10 nonattainment area
encompasses two different regulatory jurisdictions: the State of Idaho
for the State portion of the nonattainment area and the Shoshone-
Bannock Tribes and EPA for the Reservation portion of the nonattainment
area. Under the Clean Air Act, the State has the primary PM-10 planning
responsibilities for the State portion of the nonattainment area. See
CAA sections 110 and 189. In furtherance of those planning obligations,
the State of Idaho, along with several local agencies, developed and
implemented control measures on PM-10 sources located on State lands
within the Power-Bannock Counties PM-10 nonattainment area. The State
submitted these control measures in 1993 for the Power-Bannock Counties
PM-10 nonattainment area as part of its moderate PM-10 nonattainment
State Implementation Plan (SIP) under section 189(a) of the Act. These
control measures include a comprehensive residential wood combustion
program, including a mandatory woodstove curtailment program; stringent
controls on fugitive road dust, including controls on winter road
sanding and a limited
[[Page 33601]]
unpaved road paving program; and a revised operating permit that
represents reasonably available control technology (RACT) for the J.R.
Simplot facility, the only major stationary source of PM-10 on the
portion of the nonattainment area on State lands. Although EPA has not
yet taken final action to approve the State's moderate PM-10 SIP for
the area, EPA has previously stated (based on EPA's preliminary review
in the context of approving the State's requests for extensions of the
attainment date) that these control measures substantially meet EPA's
guidance for reasonably available control measures (RACM), including
RACT, for sources of primary particulate on the State portion of the
nonattainment area. See 61 FR 66602, 66604-66605 (December 18, 1996).
The effect of these control measures on air quality can be seen in
the reported ambient PM-10 measurements at the State monitoring sites.
As discussed above, there have been no violations of the annual PM-10
standard since 1990 at any of the State monitoring sites, no violations
or exceedences of the 24-hour PM-10 standard at any of the State sites
since January 1993, and a general decline in the reported ambient PM-10
concentrations at the State sites since 1993. The beginning of the
decline in the ambient concentrations roughly coincides with the period
when the State began to impose the PM-10 control measures discussed
above. These facts support the State's assertion that the State's PM-10
planning efforts have been effective.
In its request to split the nonattainment area, the State also
discusses how it is addressing the deficiencies that EPA had previously
identified in the State's SIP submission. The State has advised EPA
that it will submit a SIP revision in the near future that addresses
these deficiencies. The deficiencies previously identified by EPA
include the State's failure to address PM-10 precursors in the State's
emissions inventory and control strategy and the fact that the 1993 SIP
did not demonstrate attainment in the downtown Pocatello area due to
road dust emissions. The State also plans to address PM-10 emissions
from Bannock-Paving Company, Incorporated. A summary of the State's
plans with respect to addressing these deficiencies is presented below.
Section 189(e) of the Act states that the control requirements
applicable to major stationary sources of PM-10 shall also apply to
major stationary sources of PM-10 precursors, except where EPA
determines that major stationary sources of PM-10 precursors do not
contribute significantly to PM-10 levels which exceed the PM-10
standard in the area. At the time the State developed and submitted its
SIP, PM-10 precursors were not thought to contribute to PM-10 levels
which exceeded the PM-10 standard in the Power-Bannock Counties PM-10
nonattainment area. However, subsequent monitoring data and analysis of
the particulates collected on the filters by the State in January 1993
showed significant levels of secondary aerosol and necessitated a
reevaluation of the contribution of PM-10 precursors to the
nonattainment problem in the Power-Bannock Counties PM-10 nonattainment
area.6 Accordingly, in conjunction with EPA and the Tribes,
the State developed a work plan for analyzing and addressing the
contribution of PM-10 precursors to the nonattainment problem in the
Power-Bannock Counties PM-10 nonattainment area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Secondary aerosol particulates are small particles formed in
the atmosphere through chemical reactions from emissions of
precursor gases.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since PM-10 precursors were first identified in particulate samples
collected in January 1993 as a potential contributor to the
nonattainment problem in the nonattainment area, however, no levels
above the standard have been recorded at any of the State monitors.
Instead, it appears that PM-10 precursors represent a significant
fraction of the total PM-10 mass loading only during very specific
meteorological conditions--cold stagnant winter days with relative high
humidity. There have been only two days between 1986 and 1997 in which
violations of the PM-10 NAAQS in the Power-Bannock Counties PM-10
nonattainment area have been attributed to secondary aerosols. Based on
the fact that the State monitors have not recorded an exceedence since
January 1993, it does not appear that major stationary sources of PM-10
precursors contribute significantly to PM-10 levels which exceed the
standard within the portion of the Power-Bannock Counties PM-10
nonattainment area located on State lands. Although EPA reserves final
determination on this issue until the State submits its SIP revision
and EPA takes final action on that revision, EPA's preliminary
determination is that stationary sources of PM-10 precursors do not
appear to contribute significantly to PM-10 levels which exceed the
standard on the portion of the nonattainment area on State lands. Final
action on such a finding would mean that the State will not be required
to further address PM-10 precursors in completing its SIP planning
obligations for the State portion of the Power-Bannock Counties PM-10
nonattainment area.
EPA is aware that the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes and citizens in the
Power-Bannock counties PM-10 nonattainment area believe that
particulate precursors contribute to air quality problems in the area
and should be addressed. EPA shares this concern. On July 18, 1997, EPA
promulgated new, more stringent, air quality standards for particulate
matter with an aerodynamic diameter equal to or less than 2.5 microns
(PM-2.5). These standards were promulgated to address the serious
health effects associated with these very small particles, of which
secondary aerosol makes up a significant fraction. EPA, the State, and
the Tribes are just now in the process of establishing PM-2.5 air
monitoring stations to better define and characterize the nature and
extent of the fine particulate air quality problem in the Portneuf
Valley and Fort Hall area. EPA's preliminary determination that PM-10
precursors do not need to be addressed by the State in its current PM-
10 planning process for the Portneuf Valley area should not be
interpreted to imply that particulate precursors will not need to be
addressed under the new PM-2.5 standard. To the contrary, EPA believes
it is likely that particulate precursors will need to be addressed in
the Portneuf Valley and Fort Hall area under the new PM-2.5 standard.
Another deficiency previously identified by EPA in the State's PM-
10 planning process was the State's inability to model attainment of
the PM-10 standard in the Pocatello urban area due to projected
fugitive road dust emissions. The State has long suspected that the
emission factors it used to estimate road dust emissions in the
emissions inventory and attainment demonstration (AP-42 emission
factors) were far too high. Idaho therefore commissioned a study to
measure road dust emissions in the Pocatello area and to develop new
emission factors if appropriate. Preliminary results from the study,
which are included in the Docket for this rulemaking, indicate that the
emission factors derived from the study are, on average, 68% less than
the AP-42 emission factors used to develop the original emissions
inventory. The State therefore asserts that the modeled exceedences of
the PM-10 standard in the downtown Pocatello area appear to be due to
the erroneously high road dust emission factors and are not
representative of actual ambient conditions. Although EPA defers a
final
[[Page 33602]]
determination on this issue until it receives and reviews the State's
SIP revision, EPA tentatively agrees with the State that additional
controls on road dust emissions do not appear to be necessary to
demonstrate attainment in the State portion of the nonattainment area.
As discussed above, the State also intends to address emissions
from Bannock Paving Company, Incorporated (Bannock Paving), in its SIP
revision. Bannock Paving operates five portable facilities that operate
in attainment and nonattainment areas in the State of Idaho, each of
which is a minor source of PM-10.7 The State has submitted
the existing construction permits for the Bannock Paving facilities,
which were issued under a federally enforceable permit program. The
existing permits contain several emission limitations that control PM-
10, such as opacity limits, grain loading standards, and requirements
for controlling fugitive emissions, and the State asserts that the
level of controls currently imposed on Bannock Paving in these
construction permits represents RACT. The State has also advised EPA
that it intends to consolidate all of the existing construction permits
the State has issued for Bannock Paving into a new operating permit for
Bannock Paving and submit the revised permit and a demonstration that
the permit constitutes RACT in its SIP revision. EPA defers a final
determination on this issue until EPA has received the State's SIP
revision, but notes that Bannock Paving is currently subject to
controls on PM-10 emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ The State's request to split the nonattainment area states
that Bannock Paving is a major stationary source of PM-10. Based on
EPA's review of the five State permits for Bannock Paving and
conversations with the State, EPA understands that the statement in
the State's request was in error and that each of the Bannock Paving
facilities is a minor source of PM-10, even when the portable
facilities co-locate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on the controls that have been previously imposed by the
State on the sources of PM-10 on State lands within the nonattainment
area and the discussion by the State of its soon-to-be submitted SIP
revision in support of its request to split the nonattainment area, EPA
believes that the State has largely completed its PM-10 planning
obligations under the Clean Air Act. Indeed, on its portion of the
nonattainment area, the State is demonstrating and, in all likelihood
will continue to demonstrate, attainment of the PM-10 NAAQS. In light
of the information that some sources of PM-10 emissions at the FMC
facility are located on State lands, however, the State's SIP revision
will also need to address the PM-10 emissions from that portion of the
FMC facility located on State lands.
In contrast, the PM-10 requirements for the Tribal portion of the
nonattainment area are still under development.8 Because of
long-standing concerns about the air quality in the Power-Bannock
County PM-10 nonattainment area, EPA has been developing a Federal
Implementation Plan (FIP) for the portion of the nonattainment area
within the exterior boundary of the Fort Hall Indian Reservation. The
plan is being developed in close consultation with the Tribes and with
extensive public participation. EPA intends to propose the FIP by the
end of January 1999, and to finalize the FIP in the year 2000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ In developing its PM-10 control strategy and SIP, the State
did not seek to impose controls on any sources located on
Reservation lands, including fee lands within the exterior boundary
of the Reservation, or attempt to demonstrate to EPA that it had
authority to promulgate and enforce air controls on Reservation
lands.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 greatly expanded the role of
Indian Tribes in implementing the provisions of the Clean Air Act in
Indian country. Section 301(d) of the Act authorizes EPA to issue
regulations specifying the provisions of the Clean Air Act for which
Indian tribes may be treated in the same manner as States. See CAA
sections 301(d)(1) and (2). EPA promulgated the final rule under
section 301(d) of the Act, entitled ``Indian Tribes: Air Quality
Planning and Management,'' on February 12, 1998. 63 FR 7254. The rule
is generally referred to as the ``Tribal Authority Rule'' or ``TAR''.
The TAR implements the provisions of section 301(d) of the Act to
authorize eligible Tribes to implement their own Tribal air programs.
This includes a delegation of authority, to Tribes which meet certain
requirements and request delegation, to develop, adopt and submit PM-10
nonattainment area Tribal Implementation Plans for lands within the
exterior boundary of Indian Reservations, including fee lands. Until
promulgation of the TAR in February 1998, however, the Shoshone-Bannock
Tribes did not have authority under the Clean Air Act to carry out the
PM-10 planning responsibilities for the Tribal portion of the
nonattainment area.
The Shoshone-Bannock Tribes have expressed a strong interest in
seeking authority under the TAR to regulate sources of air pollution on
Tribal land under the Clean Air Act. Based on discussions with the
Tribes, however, EPA believes that it will be at least several months
before the Tribes will be ready to seek authority under the TAR to
assume Clean Air Act planning responsibilities and that, even should
they do so, the Tribes intend to build their capacity and seek
authority for the various Clean Air Act programs over time, rather than
all at once. EPA's understanding is that the Tribes continue to support
EPA's efforts to promulgate a PM-10 nonattainment FIP for the Tribal
portion of the nonattainment area notwithstanding the recent
promulgation of the TAR.
In summary, although the State has largely completed its PM-10
planning responsibilities for the portion of the Power-Bannock Counties
PM-10 nonattainment area on State lands, the planning responsibilities
for the Tribal portion of the nonattainment area, including the FMC
facility, are still under development.
3. Issues Raised by the Tribes and FMC to the State
As discussed above, on May 21, 1998, the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes
and FMC submitted to the State of Idaho documents opposing Idaho's
request to EPA to split the nonattainment area into two nonattainment
areas. Although the Tribes and FMC raised these issues in the State
proceeding and will have an opportunity to raise the issues in the
public comment period on this proposal, EPA has considered the issues
raised by the Tribes and FMC prior to this proposal.
The Tribes and FMC assert that the State failed to follow Idaho law
(Idaho Administrative Procedures Act (IDAPA) 16.01.01.578.04) by
submitting its request to EPA without first providing public notice and
opportunity for comment. FMC further asserts that the State's request
failed to comply with other provisions of IDAPA 16.01.01.578, as well,
such as the requirement to consider certain factors enumerated in IDAPA
16.01.01.578.02 for designating boundaries, and that public notice and
comment was also required by Idaho Code sections 67-5221 and 5222,
which govern rulemaking proceedings. The Idaho Attorney General's
Office has advised EPA that the State's request to EPA to split the
nonattainment area into two nonattainment areas is not subject to IDAPA
16.01.01.578, which is entitled ``Designation of Attainment,
Unclassifiable and Nonattainment Areas.'' The Attorney General's office
has also advised EPA that the State's request to EPA is not a
rulemaking under State law and is thus not subject to Idaho Code
sections 67-5221 and 67-5222. EPA defers to the Idaho Attorney
General's Office on these interpretations of Idaho law.
[[Page 33603]]
The Tribes and FMC also expressed concern that splitting the area
into two PM-10 nonattainment areas at the State-Reservation boundary
could result in a less comprehensive approach to air quality planning
in the area. EPA was previously aware of the Tribes concern on this
issue based on several meetings between the EPA and the Tribes
regarding the State's request. EPA has carefully considered this
concern, especially the interests of the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes, but
continues to believe that the proposed split is in the overall best
interest of the area as a whole. The State has largely completed its
PM-10 planning requirements for the area. Therefore, EPA does not
believe that splitting the nonattainment area will result in a less
comprehensive approach to PM-10 planning for the existing Power-Bannock
Counties PM-10 nonattainment area as a whole. If some area in or near
the City of Pocatello or the Fort Hall Indian Reservation is later
identified as a nonattainment area for PM-2.5, EPA will consider at the
time of such identification whether, based on air quality data,
planning and control considerations, or other air quality-related
considerations, the planning requirements for PM-2.5 are best carried
out by having a single nonattainment area or having two nonattainment
areas divided at the State-Reservation boundary or in some other way.
In addition to its contention that the State failed to comply with
State requirements for public notice and opportunity for public
comment, FMC further contends that the State failed to comply with the
Clean Air Act in making its request to EPA. FMC argues that sections
110(a)(2) and 110(l) of the CAA also require that the State's request
to EPA be subject to public notice and comment before submission to
EPA. EPA disagrees. Sections 110(a)(2) and 110(l) of the CAA require a
State to provide public notice and comment at the State level for State
Implementation Plans (SIPs) and SIP revisions. The State's request to
EPA to split the Power-Bannock Counties PM-10 nonattainment area is not
a SIP or SIP revision, and is therefore not subject to the requirements
of section 110 of the CAA. FMC further argues that the State's request
is incomplete as a matter of federal law because it does not address
the factors enumerated in section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA. That
section, however, by its terms applies only to requests to
redesignation of an area from nonattainment to attainment. The State
has not requested that the portion of the Power-Bannock Counties PM-10
nonattainment area located on State lands be redesignated from
nonattainment to attainment. As stated above, the proposed Portneuf
Valley PM-10 nonattainment area will retain its classification as a
moderate PM-10 nonattainment area as a result of this proposed action.
Therefore, section 107(d)(3)(E) is inapplicable to the State's request
and EPA's proposed action. Finally, FMC asserts that splitting the
nonattainment area into two nonattainment areas is inconsistent with
section 107(d)(1) of the CAA absent a showing that ``other sources in
the area are not collectively causing or contributing to a violation of
the NAAQS.'' As stated above, based on information currently available
to EPA, EPA believes the State has shown that sources located on State
lands are not causing or contributing to the violations of the PM-10
NAAQS that have been recorded on the Tribal monitors. Therefore, EPA
believes that splitting the Power-Bannock Counties PM-10 nonattainment
areas into two nonattainment areas at the State-Reservation boundary is
consistent with section 107(d)(1) of the CAA.
FMC also asserts that a portion of the FMC facility is located on
State lands. As discussed above, EPA has considered the impact of this
fact on the State's request, and continues to believe it is appropriate
to split the nonattainment area at the State-Reservation boundary.
Based on the fact that more of the FMC facility is located on State
lands than was previously understood by EPA, however, EPA specifically
invites comment on whether, as an alternative proposal, it would be
appropriate to split the current Power-Bannock Counties PM-10
nonattainment area at the State-Reservation boundary, except to include
in the proposed Fort Hall PM-10 nonattainment area that portion of the
FMC facility located within State lands.
4. Summary
Based on the information provided by the State in its request and
other information available to EPA, EPA proposes to grant the State's
request to split the Power-Bannock Counties PM-10 nonattainment area
into two nonattainment areas along the State-Reservation boundary. The
monitors located on State lands have not registered a violation or even
an exceedence of the PM-10 NAAQS for more than five years. In addition,
modeling and monitoring information shows that sources on State lands
within the nonattainment area are not contributing to the exceedences
of the PM-10 NAAQS that have been recorded on the Tribal monitors.
Finally, the State has imposed controls on major sources of PM-10
within the State portion of the nonattainment area and the monitors
sited on State lands have shown a general decline in the ambient PM-10
values recorded since the State first imposed these controls. In
contrast, the monitors situated on Tribal lands have recorded numerous
exceedences of the PM-10 NAAQS since they began operation in 1996, and
EPA has not yet completed rulemaking action that would impose controls
on the major sources of PM-10 in the Tribal portion of the
nonattainment area. EPA therefore believes that air quality data,
planning and control considerations, and other air quality-related
information support dividing the current Power-Bannock Counties PM-10
nonattainment area into two separate PM-10 nonattainment areas at the
State-Reservation boundary, as requested by the State.
III. Implications of this Proposed Action
A. Area Classifications and Designations
If EPA takes final action on this proposal, the current Power-
Bannock Counties PM-10 nonattainment area would be split into two
nonattainment areas that together cover the identical geographic area
of the current nonattainment area. The revised areas would be divided
at the boundary between State lands and the Fort Hall Indian
Reservation, with one revised area, to be referred to as the ``Portneuf
Valley PM-10 nonattainment area,'' comprised of State lands and the
other revised area, referred to as the ``Fort Hall PM-10 nonattainment
area,'' comprised of lands within the exterior boundary of the Fort
Hall Indian Reservation.
The table below indicates how EPA is proposing to revise the PM-10
designation for the current Power-Bannock Counties PM-10 nonattainment
area, for both Idaho and the Fort Hall Indian Reservation in 40 CFR
section 81.313.
[[Page 33604]]
Part 81.313--PM-10
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Designation Classification
Designated area ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date Type Date ype
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Idaho................................... ........... Nonattainment............................ ........... Moderate.
Portneuf Valley Area:
T.5S, R.34E Sections 25-36..........
T.5S, R.35E Section 31..............
T.6S, R.34E Sections 1-36...........
T.6S, R.35E Sections 5-9, 16-21, 28-
33.
Plus the West \1/2\ of Sections
10,15,22,27,34.
T.7S, R.34E Sections 1-4, 10-14, and
24.
T.7S, R.35E Sections 4-9, 16-21, 28-
33.
Plus the West \1/2\ of Sections
3,10,15,22,27,34.
T.8S, R.35E Section 4...............
Plus the West \1/2\ of Section 3....
Fort Hall Indian Reservation.......... ........... Nonattainment............................ ........... Moderate.
T.5S, R.34E Sections 15-23..........
T.5S, R.33E Sections 13-36..........
T.6S, R.33E Sections 1-36...........
T.7S, R.33E Sections 4,5,6..........
T.7S, R.34E Section 8...............
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Both the Portneuf Valley PM-10 nonattainment area and the Fort Hall
PM-10 nonattainment area would retain nonattainment designations as PM-
10 nonattainment areas as a result of this proposed action. In a
concurrent notice of proposed rulemaking published today, however, EPA
is proposing to make a finding that the proposed ``Fort Hall PM-10
nonattainment area'' has failed to attain the PM-10 NAAQS by the
applicable attainment date of December 31, 1996. If EPA makes a final
determination that the proposed ``Fort Hall PM-10 nonattainment area''
has failed to attain the standard, that area would be reclassified as a
serious PM-10 nonattainment area by operation of law under section
188(b) of the Act, whereas the Portneuf PM-10 nonattainment area would
remain classified as a moderate area.
B. New and Revised NAAQS for Particulate Matter
On July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated revisions to both the annual and
the 24-hour PM-10 standards and also established two new standards for
particulate matter, both of which apply only to particulate matter
equal to or less than 2.5 microns in diameter (PM-2.5). See 62 FR
38651. The revised standards became effective on September 16, 1997.
Although the revised suite of particulate matter standards reflects an
overall strengthening of the regulatory standards for particulate
matter, the revised 24-hour PM-10 standard, by itself, reflects a
relaxation of that standard. In the preamble to the final rule setting
the new and revised particulate matter standards, EPA stated that the
pre-existing PM-10 standards would remain in effect for a period of
time after the effective date of the new standard to ensure a smooth
transition to the new standards. 62 FR 38701.
Based on the transition policy announced by EPA in the preamble to
the final rule setting the new and revised particulate standards, if
EPA takes final action on its proposal to split the Power-Bannock
Counties PM-10 nonattainment area, the existing PM-10 standards will
ultimately be revoked in the two resulting nonattainment areas at
different times. Because the monitors located on State lands showed
attainment of the pre-existing PM-10 standard at the time promulgation
of the revised PM-10 standards became effective, the pre-existing PM-10
standard would continue to apply in the proposed Portneuf Valley PM-10
nonattainment area until such time as EPA approves the control measures
that have been adopted and implemented at the State level to bring the
area into attainment with the pre-existing PM-10 NAAQS, and the State
of Idaho has an approved SIP under section 110 of the Act for purposes
of implementing the revised particulate matter standards. See 62 FR
38701. The monitors in the Tribal portion of the nonattainment area,
however, did not show attainment of the pre-existing PM-10 standard at
the time promulgation of the revised PM-10 NAAQS became effective.
Therefore, the pre-existing PM-10 NAAQS would continue to apply in the
proposed Fort Hall PM-10 nonattainment area until EPA has completed its
rulemaking under section 172(e) of the Act to prevent backsliding in
those areas that had not attained the pre-existing PM-10 standard as of
the date the relaxed PM-10 standard became effective. See 62 FR 39701.
The rule promulgated under section 172(e) must require controls in the
Fort Hall PM-10 nonattainment area, that are ``not less stringent than
the controls applicable to areas designated nonattainment before the
relaxation of the 24-hour PM-10 standard.'' EPA is also in the process
of drafting a Federal Implementation Plan for the proposed Fort Hall
PM-10 nonattainment area and expects that such FIP will meet the
requirements promulgated by EPA under section 172(e).
C. Consultation With the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes
As discussed above, EPA consulted with the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes
prior to making this proposal. In particular, as discussed above, EPA
is aware that the Tribes are concerned that splitting the area into two
PM-10 nonattainment areas at the State-Reservation boundary could
result in a less comprehensive approach to air quality planning in the
area. As also discussed above, EPA has carefully considered the Tribes
concerns but believes that the proposed split is in the overall best
interest of the area as a whole because the State has largely completed
its PM-10 planning requirements for the area. Therefore, EPA does not
believe that splitting the nonattainment area will result in a less
comprehensive approach to PM-10 planning for the existing Power-Bannock
Counties PM-10 nonattainment area as a whole. In this regard, EPA would
like to emphasize that until EPA promulgated the TAR in February of
1998, the Tribes did not have authority under the Clean Air Act
[[Page 33605]]
to address the PM-10 planning requirements for the Reservation portion
of the nonattainment area. EPA will carefully consider any additional
comments or concerns raised by the Tribes during the public comment
period on this action, including the Tribes preference for the name of
the nonattainment area located within the Fort Hall Indian Reservation.
IV. Administrative Requirements
A. Executive Order (E.O.) 12866
Under E.O. 12866 (58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993)), EPA is required
to determine whether regulatory actions are significant and therefore
should be subject to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review,
economic analysis, and the requirements of the Executive Order. The
Executive Order defines a ``significant regulatory action'' as one that
is likely to result in a rule that may meet at least one of the four
criteria identified in section 3(f), including, under paragraph (1),
that the rule may ``have an annual effect on the economy of $100
million or more or adversely affect, in a material way, the economy, a
sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the
environment, public health or safety, or State, local or tribal
governments or communities.''
The OMB has exempted this action from review under E.O. 12866. In
addition, the Agency has determined that EPA's proposal to split the
nonattainment area into two nonattainment areas would result in none of
the effects identified in section 3(f).
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq, EPA must
prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis assessing the impact of any
proposed or final rule on small entities. 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604.
Alternatively, EPA may certify 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 government entities with jurisdiction over populations
of less than 50,000.
A regulatory flexibility screening analysis of this proposed action
revealed that it would not have a significant adverse economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities. A rule revising the
designation of an area by creating two separate nonattainment areas
under section 107(d)(3) of the CAA does not impose any new requirements
on small entities. See Mid-Tex Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. FERC, 773
F.2d 327 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (agency's certification need only consider
rule's impact on entities subject to the requirements of the rule). To
the extent that a State, Tribe or EPA must adopt new regulations, based
on an area's nonattainment status, EPA will review the effect those
actions have on small entities at the time EPA takes action on those
regulations. Therefore, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b), I certify that the
approval of the revised designation action proposed today does not have
a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
within the meaning of those terms for RFA purposes.
C. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA), establishes
requirements for Federal agencies to assess the effects of their
regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal governments and the
private sector. Under the UMRA, EPA must assess whether various actions
undertaken in association with proposed or final regulations include a
Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs of $100 million or
more to the private sector, or to State, local or tribal governments in
the aggregate.
EPA has determined that this proposed action, if promulgated, would
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. A rule revising the
designation of an area by creating two separate nonattainment areas
under section 107(d)(3) of the CAA does not impose any new requirements
on the State, Tribes or the private sector. Redesignation is an action
that affects the air quality status of a geographic area or the
boundary of the geographic area and does not impose any regulatory
requirements on the State, Tribes or private sector. Accordingly, EPA
has determined that the proposed 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.
D. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks
Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885 (April 23, 1997)) applies to any
rule that EPA determines (1) ``economically significant'' as defined
under Executive Order 12866, and (2) the environmental health or safety
risk addressed by the rule has 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 proposed action is not subject to Executive Order 13045
because this is not an economically significant regulatory action as
defined by Executive Order 12866.
V. Request for Public Comments
EPA is, by this document, proposing that the PM-10 designation for
the Power-Bannock Counties PM-10 nonattainment area be revised. The EPA
is requesting public comments on all aspects of this proposal,
including the appropriateness of the proposed designation and the scope
of the proposed boundary. Public comments should be submitted to EPA at
the address identified above by July 20, 1998.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 81
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, National parks,
Wilderness areas.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: June 10, 1998.
Chuck Findley,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 10.
[FR Doc. 98-16403 Filed 6-18-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.