Determination That Pre-existing National Ambient Air Quality Standards for PM-10 No Longer Apply to Ada County/Boise; State of Idaho

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

[ID23-7003; FRL-6237-9]

Determination That Pre-existing National Ambient Air Quality

Standards for PM-10 No Longer Apply to Ada County/Boise; State of Idaho

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has determined that

the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for particulate

matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to a nominal 10

micrometers (PM-10) that existed before September 16, 1997, shall no

longer apply to the Northern Ada County/Boise, Idaho area and EPA is

revoking the nonattainment designation associated with those standards.

The State of Idaho has satisfied the requirements of the Clean Air Act

(CAA) as well as EPA's regulations and Guidance for Implementing the 1-

Hour Ozone and Pre-existing PM-10 NAAQS dated December 29, 1997.

DATES: Effective March 12, 1999.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the State's request and other information

supporting this action are available for inspection during normal

business hours at the following locations: EPA, Office of Air Quality

(OAQ-107), 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98101, and State of

Idaho, Division of Environmental Quality, 1410 N. Hilton, Boise, Idaho

83720.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rindy Ramos, EPA, Office of Air

Quality (OAQ-107), 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, Washington, 98101, (206)

553-1743.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

On July 18, 1997, EPA revised the primary and secondary NAAQS for

particulate matter (PM) by establishing annual and 24-hour standards

for particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal

to a nominal 2.5 micrometers (PM-2.5) and by changing the form of the

existing 24-hour PM-10 standard. The existing annual PM-10 standard was

retained; however, for the revised PM NAAQS, the requirement to correct

the pressure and temperature of measured concentrations to standard

reference conditions was removed. As noted in the preamble to the final

rule promulgating the revised PM NAAQS, those revisions may potentially

affect the effective stringency of the annual standard. These new

standards became effective September 16, 1997. See 61 FR 65638 (Dec.

13, 1996) and 62 FR 38652 (July 18, 1997).

EPA has developed guidance to ensure that momentum is maintained by

States in their current air programs while moving toward developing

their plans for implementing the new NAAQS. This document entitled

Guidance for Implementing the 1-Hour Ozone and Pre-Existing PM10 NAAQS,

dated December 29, 1997, also reflects a July 16, 1997, memorandum

issued to Administrator Browner by President Clinton on implementation

of the new standards. An additional document entitled Re-Issue of the

Early Planning Guidance for the Revised Ozone and Particulate Matter

(PM) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) dated June 16, 1998

outlines a process for States to review the adequacy of their existing

CAA section 110 state implementation plans (SIPs) for purposes of

implementing the new PM standards.

To provide for an effective transition from the pre-existing to the

revised PM NAAQS, the effective date of the revocation of the PM-10

NAAQS in effect before September 16, 1997, was delayed so that the

existing standards and associated provisions would continue to apply

for an interim period. See 62 FR 38701. EPA, therefore, developed

interim implementation guidance that provides for the continued

applicability of the pre-existing PM-10 NAAQS until certain criteria

are met. The duration of the interim period depends on when the area in

question has met the requirements for revocation. Specifically, in 40

CFR 50.6(d), and the

[[Page 12258]]

guidance document entitled, Guidance for Implementing the 1-Hour Ozone

and Pre-Existing PM10 NAAQS, dated December 29, 1997, EPA outlines the

necessary requirements that areas, which are attaining the pre-existing

PM-10 NAAQS at promulgation of the new standards, must meet in order to

have the pre-existing PM-10 NAAQS revoked. Those documents outline

three conditions for revocation of the pre-existing PM-10 NAAQS which

are applicable to the Northern Ada County/Boise, Idaho area: (1) An

area must have 1994-96 air quality data that shows attainment of the

pre-existing PM-10 standard as of the date that the standard was

revised; (2) the State must have an EPA-approved SIP for the area that

includes all control measures that were adopted and implemented at the

State level to meet the pre-existing PM-10 NAAQS; and (3) the State

must have a section 110 SIP for the area that provides adequate

authority and resources to implement the revised PM-10 and the new PM-

2.5 standards. As further explained in the EPA guidance document

entitled, Re-Issue of the Early Planning Guidance for the Revised Ozone

and Particulate Matter (PM) National Ambient Air Quality Standards

(NAAQS), dated June 16, 1998 the EPA believes that, for initial

planning purposes, an adequate section 110 SIP must enable the State to

develop an infrastructure to implement the new PM standards by

identifying and/or establishing the authority and adequate resources

to: (1) Develop an accurate, complete, and comprehensive emissions

inventory; (2) develop, deploy, and operate the PM monitoring network;

and (3) perform modeling. Once a State submits a request for revocation

that meets the conditions described earlier, and certifies that it has

met the requirements stated above, EPA will take action to revoke the

pre-existing PM-10 standards and the designation for the relevant area.

Once EPA takes action on the State's request for revocation, the pre-

existing PM-10 standards and the section 107 PM-10 designation for that

area will no longer apply. This is because the PM-10 standards that are

related to the current section 107 PM-10 designation for the area would

no longer exist.1

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

\1\ Section 107(d)(1) of the Act establishes the requirements

for making designations for areas when a NAAQS is promulgated or

revised. These are designations of nonattainment, attainment and

unclassifiable. The provision requires States to make

recommendations to EPA concerning the designation of areas in the

State within 1 year after promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS

(i.e., by July 1998). The EPA is then required to designate areas

across the country no later than 2 years following the promulgation

of the NAAQS. The EPA may extend the time period for making these

designations by up to 1 additional year if the Agency lacks

sufficient information to make the designations in the 2-year

timeframe. Therefore, EPA is required to make area designations in

accordance with the revised PM-10 NAAQS no later than July 2000. As

indicated in EPA guidance, the designations will be based on the

most recent 3 consecutive years of air quality data from Federal

reference or equivalent method monitors.

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

On July 24, 1998, the State of Idaho submitted air quality data to

EPA for the years 1994-1996 for the Northern Ada County/Boise

nonattainment area demonstrating that the area met the PM-10 standards

that were in effect prior to September 16, 1997. The submission

included a request that EPA determine that the pre-existing PM-10 NAAQS

no longer apply to that area. Idaho also requested that the CAA section

107 nonattainment area designation for the Northern Ada County/Boise

area be revoked.

EPA evaluated Idaho's request in accordance with the above guidance

and regulation. As a result, on October 26, 1998, EPA published a

Federal Register action proposing to approve Idaho's request to revoke

the PM-10 standard in effect before September 16, 1997 for the Northern

Ada County/Boise area (63 FR 57086). The October 26, 1998, action also

indicated that anyone wishing to comment on EPA's proposed action

should do so by November 25, 1998.

During the comment period, 135 parties commented on the proposed

revocation action. Of the 135 commenters, 123 opposed and 12 supported

EPA's proposed action. A number of additional comments were received

after the comment period closed. There were no comments concerning

EPA's proposal to reformat Idaho's 40 CFR 81.313 table for PM-10

designations to more accurately reflect the designation status of the

areas within each of Idaho's Air Quality Control Regions. EPA has

thoroughly considered the comments in determining the appropriate

action concerning Idaho's request for revocation. A summary of EPA's

review of the comments is presented in the ``Response to Public

Comments'' section below.

EPA is approving Idaho's request that the PM-10 NAAQS that existed

before September 16, 1997, no longer apply to the Northern Ada County/

Boise area, and is revoking the nonattainment designation associated

with those standards. The following is a review of the comments

received on the proposed action.

II. EPA Response To Public Comments:

The following discussion summarizes and responds to the significant

comments which were received concerning the Federal Register document

proposing revocation of the section 107 PM-10 NAAQS for Northern Ada

County/Boise, Idaho published on October 26, 1998 (63 FR 57086).

Comment: A number of commenters claim, generally, that revocation

of the 1987 PM-10 NAAQS, as proposed by EPA, does not satisfy the

criteria in section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA for terminating an area's

nonattainment designation, and that nothing in the NAAQS promulgation

notice, which established the revocation criteria, purported to modify

or revise that Section. Specifically, commenters, representing

environmental organizations, state that the Act does not authorize EPA

to treat the revocation request from the Governor of Idaho as being

exempt from the requirements of section 107(d)(3)(E) as a whole and,

thereby, avoid part D requirements, such as conformity. Comments were

also received which state that the area's airshed is already at

capacity for particulate matter, as recent modeling by IDEQ

demonstrates, and EPA has made no finding that ``the improvements in

air quality is due to permanent and enforceable reductions in

emissions'' as required by section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii) of the CAA.

Finally, commenters stated that there is no maintenance plan proposed

by Idaho or approved by EPA as required by sections 107(d)(3)(E)(iv)

and 175A as a prerequisite for removing the nonattainment designation,

and that it appears that Ada County cannot maintain its current

``clean'' air quality.

Response: The EPA's authority for this action is based on the

regulatory provisions adopted when it promulgated the revised PM-10

NAAQS in July 1997. 62 FR 38652. Those regulations, codified in 40 CFR

50.6(d), provide that the pre-existing PM-10 standards will no longer

apply to an area attaining those standards as of September 16, 1997,

once EPA approves a State Implementation Plan (SIP) applicable to the

area containing all PM-10 control measures adopted and implemented by

the State prior to September 16, 1997, and a section 110 SIP

implementing the PM standards published on July 18, 1997. The preamble

to the PM NAAQS revision stated that, ``to provide for an effective

transition'' from the existing to the revised PM-10 NAAQS, the

effective date of the revocation of the PM-10 NAAQS in effect before

September 16, 1997, was delayed so that the pre-existing PM-10 NAAQS,

and associated provisions, ``will continue to apply for

[[Page 12259]]

an interim period'' until the criteria described above are met. 62 FR

38701. The EPA believes that these are the only criteria that may be

applied in this rulemaking, and that they have been satisfied in the

case of the Ada County/Boise, Idaho area. This approach to revocation

of the pre-existing PM-10 standards is also emphasized in the

memorandum from President Clinton to EPA Administrator Browner

outlining a strategy for implementing the revised PM and ozone NAAQS

that was published on the same day as the revised NAAQS. 62 FR 38421,

38428-38429 (July 18, 1997). Additionally, when EPA promulgated the

regulation, on which today's action is based, EPA explicitly stated

that it was not requiring approval of attainment demonstrations or

maintenance plans as a prerequisite to its determination that the pre-

existing PM-10 NAAQS no longer applies. 62 FR 38701. In essence, the

commenters' complaint, properly viewed, does not relate to the action

being taken at this time, but relates to the regulatory provision on

which this action is based. That regulation was promulgated in July

1997 and presented the appropriate opportunity for commenters to raise

these issues. See section 307(b)(1) of the Act. Moreover, EPA is not

bound to follow the provisions of section 107(d)(3)(E) when a NAAQS has

been revised, and the NAAQS on which a nonattainment designation was

based has been replaced by a new NAAQS, the implementation for which

will supersede the implementation of the old NAAQS. Therefore, since

the action being taken by EPA is not based on section 107(d)(3)(E) and

its attendant provisions, which are applicable only when an area is

being redesignated to attainment, it was not necessary for the Agency

to ``modify or revise'' that section, as certain commenters allege. It

is also not necessary for EPA to determine that improvements are due to

permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions. As for the fact that

certain areas will no longer be subject to conformity, that is a

consequence of the conformity provisions of the statute, which make it

applicable only to areas that are designated nonattainment or that have

maintenance plans approved under section 175A. Such a result is not

arbitrary or capricious nor an abuse of discretion on EPA's part. It

should be understood, however, that any areas that, pursuant to

applicable EPA regulations, are determined to violate the revised PM-10

NAAQS will be designated nonattainment for that NAAQS and become

subject to the Act's nonattainment requirements, including conformity,

at that time. This would include areas for which requests for

revocation of the pre-existing PM-10 NAAQS are approved by EPA.

Comment: EPA received many comments stating that the local

meteorological conditions render the last three years of ambient

monitoring data unrepresentative. These comments suggest that the

reason the Northern Ada County area has not had monitored violations of

the PM-10 NAAQS in the past three years is because the area has not

experienced its usual wintertime inversion weather conditions. They

state that a lack of monitored violations in a period during which

critical weather conditions have not occurred is not sufficient

evidence for EPA to conclude that attainment has been reached in the

area. For this reason, commenters question whether the area will be

able to continue to attain the pre-existing PM-10 NAAQS during the

interim period before designations are made for the revised PM-10

standard in July 2000. Commenters further state that the presence of

mobile source emissions, the cumulative impacts of smoke and

particulate matter from agricultural sources, as well as other

particulate matter emissions may cause the Northern Ada County area to

violate the pre-existing NAAQS if revocation of the pre-existing

standard occurs.

Response: As discussed in the preamble to the PM NAAQS revisions of

July 18, 1997, EPA is not requiring an approval of attainment

demonstrations or maintenance plans for the current PM-10 NAAQS. For

the purpose of revoking the pre-existing PM-10 NAAQS, EPA is requiring

that the State has a SIP approved by EPA in place which contains the

PM-10 control measures that were adopted and implemented at the State

level, and which were responsible for bringing the area into attainment

of the pre-existing PM-10 standards. EPA also requires that the State

certify, i.e., provide the necessary information to assure EPA, that

the section 110 SIP for the area contains adequate resources as well as

the legal authority needed to implement the revised PM-10 and the new

PM-2.5 NAAQS. See 40 CFR 50.6(d).

EPA believes that the State of Idaho has met the requirements for

revocation of the pre-existing PM-10 NAAQS, pursuant to 40 CFR 50.6

(d), as well as EPA guidance related to revocation, for the following

reasons: (1) The State has submitted air quality data for 1994-1996

which demonstrates that the area is attaining the pre-existing PM-10

NAAQS that were in effect prior to September 16, 1997. Air quality data

for the area also indicates that the area has not measured an

exceedance of the pre-existing NAAQS during this time period. (The

highest 24-hour value recorded during calendar years 1994 to 1996 was

131 g/m3, which is significantly below the pre-existing

standard of 150 g/m3. The highest annual-average for the area

was 41.2 g/m3 which is below the pre-existing standard of 50

g/m3.); (2) The State has an approved part D, PM-10 SIP in

place for the area (See 59 FR 48582 and 61 FR 27019) which includes all

PM-10 control measures that were adopted and implemented at the State

level to meet the pre-existing PM-10 NAAQS; (3) In Idaho's July 24,

1998, request for revocation, the State provided information

demonstrating to EPA that it has the legal authority and resources in

its current section 110 SIP needed for purposes of implementing the

revised PM-10 NAAQS and the new NAAQS for PM-2.5.

Many commenters believe that the last three years of meteorological

data is not representative of the kinds of weather typically

experienced in the Boise area in the past. EPA believes, however, that

the method for calculating whether an area is violating or attaining

the PM-10 NAAQS considers such variations. Pursuant to 40 CFR part 50,

appendix K, sections 2.1 and 2.2, the 24 hour and the annual standards

for the pre-existing PM-10 standard are attained when the expected

exceedances per year, at each monitoring site in an area, is less than

or equal to one. In the simplest case, the number of expected

exceedances at a given site is determined by recording the number of

exceedances in each calendar year and then averaging them over the

period of the last 3 most recent calendar years. The requirement to

average 3 successive yearly results is designed to account for the

random nature of meteorological conditions that affect the formation

and dispersion of particles in the atmosphere. If, for example, only

one year is considered, the compliance determination may be dependent

on data results for a year with unusually adverse or unusually

favorable weather conditons. Hence, the standard is designed to reduce

the problem of year-to-year variability by averaging 3 years of data.

See 52 FR 24634, 24640 (July 1, 1987).

Moreover, while EPA's revocation policy only requires consideration

of ambient air quality data for the years 1994 through 1996, it is

important to recognize that the Northern Ada County/Boise Area has not

had an exceedance of the pre-existing NAAQS since January 7, 1991, all

the way to the

[[Page 12260]]

present. Additionally, Boise's 1991 attainment plan used worst-case

meteorological data to determine the appropriate PM-10 control measures

for the area. These are the control measures that have been relied on

and implemented in the area, and that have allowed the area to attain

the pre-existing PM-10 NAAQS. Although, EPA agrees that the area's

recent weather characteristics are different from past patterns, EPA

also believes it should be recognized that those differences, i.e., the

lack of severe and prolonged wintertime inversions, have been a fact

for at least eight years now. Consequently, EPA believes that all these

factors provide a sufficient basis to determine, consistent with the

revocation criteria in 40 CFR 50.6(d), that the area has attained the

pre-existing PM-10 standards.

Comment: A number of comments were received regarding the issue of

conformity. Several commenters stated that the State's request, and the

proposed approval of the revocation avoids the conformity requirements

established under section 176(c) of the CAA. Other commenters,

representing environmental organizations, claim that the motor vehicle

emissions budget, that is adopted by the State as part of the SIP and,

they argue, is implemented through the conformity program, is a control

measure that effectively requires motor vehicle emissions in the

nonattainment area to be capped at levels specified in the SIP. The

commenters believe that without conformity the State cannot ensure that

motor vehicle emissions will not increase over time as a result of

population and growth in vehicle miles traveled (VMT). Given this, the

commenters argue that (1) the State cannot satisfy EPA's requirement

that all measures implemented before September 1997 will continue to be

implemented, and (2) EPA cannot find that the remaining measures in the

SIP provide for attainment and maintenance, as required by section 110.

Response: As stated in previous responses, EPA is not requiring

States, under its transition policy, to demonstrate attainment and

maintenance of the PM-10 NAAQS that are being replaced by revised PM-10

NAAQS. Additionally, while EPA agrees with the commenters about the

basic purpose of motor vehicle emission budgets in SIPs, EPA does not

agree with the characterization of the role served by conformity in

relation to those budgets and the SIP in general. EPA believes the

conformity provisions of the Act demonstrate that conformity is a

process which requires the establishment of procedures or techniques by

EPA and States to ensure that emissions-generating activity on the part

of Federal agencies does not undermine the air quality reduction or

attainment goals of the SIP. Section 176(c)(4)(C) of the Act makes this

clear by saying that SIPs must include ``criteria and procedures for

assessing the conformity of any plan, program, or project subject to

the conformity requirements of this subsection.'' Conformity is

demonstrated by showing that the emissions from the Federal action fall

within the emissions budget or emissions reduction targets established

in the SIP. And, until such a showing is made, the Federal action may

not proceed. But, while conformity operates to constrain Federal

activity that is inconsistent with the SIP emissions budgets or

emissions reductions targets, the budgets themselves are established

and enforced through the SIP, not by the conformity program. Therefore,

while the conformity requirements may force adjustments to the SIP in

order to allow a Federal action to proceed, such as requiring the

adoption of offsetting emissions, the conformity program does not

itself directly control emission rates, nor is it the sole determinant

of whether a State can attain or maintain a NAAQS.

Finally, once this final action becomes effective, the pre-existing

PM-10 NAAQS and associated designation for Northern Ada County, in

effect before September 16, 1997, will no longer apply. Hence, at that

time, any requirements of the Act that are associated with those

standards and designation, including conformity requirements, will no

longer have any validity as well.

Comment: Commenters representing several environmental

organizations indicate that the major source preconstruction review

programs, and other control programs of the Act, are tied directly to

area designations and that EPA is not free to ``carve out huge

exemptions that could allow major new sources of PM to be built without

any air quality review because they are located in an area without a

designation for PM.''

Response: EPA agrees that the preconstruction review requirements

of the Act, including the part D nonattainment new source review (NSR)

and prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) requirements, are

tied to the section 107 area designations. However, it is incorrect for

the commenters to conclude that the revocation of area designations for

PM-10 will result in the lack of a permit review for major sources of

PM-10. While it is true that the nonattainment NSR requirements will no

longer apply with respect to PM-10 in an area where the PM-10

nonattainment designation is revoked, certain PSD requirements will

apply instead with respect to PM-10.

It is important to recognize that there are differences in the way

that the two major source preconstruction review programs are tied to

the section 107 area designations. The nonattainment NSR requirements

under part D of the Act are tied directly to the designation of

nonattainment on a pollutant-specific basis. That is, a new source

proposing to locate in a nonattainment area for PM-10, for example,

would be required to undergo nonattainment NSR for emissions of PM-10

emitted in major amounts. The same source would not be subject to

nonattainment NSR for other pollutants unless (1) the area were

designated nonattainment for the pollutant, and (2) the source would

emit the pollutant in major amounts. Under PSD, a proposed source

locating in an area designated attainment or unclassifiable for any

pollutant is subject to review for any pollutant subject to regulation

under the Act which will be emitted in major amounts and for any other

pollutant which will be emitted in significant amounts, as long as the

area is not designated nonattainment for such pollutant. Consequently,

when a proposed source will emit PM-10 in significant amounts in an

area designated attainment for SO2, for example, the source

must undergo PSD review for PM-10 if the source will also emit another

pollutant in major amounts. Since, as a result of this action, the

Northern Ada County/Boise, ID area is not designated nonattainment for

PM-10, PM-10 emissions are subject to certain PSD requirements, even

though the area is currently undesignated with respect to PM-10. This

is EPA's interpretation of the PSD applicability provisions under 40

CFR 51.166(i)(2), (i)(3), and (i)(5), and 40 CFR 52.21(i)(2), (i)(3),

and (i)(5). Since the Northern Ada County/Boise, ID area has existing

designations for the other NAAQS (i.e., other than for particulate

matter), new major sources (of any of those pollutants) that emit PM-10

in significant amounts will be subject to the appropriate PSD

requirements. (See response below.)

Comment: Commenters state that EPA's proposed action fails to

ensure that the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD)

increments for PM-10, along with an accurate baseline, will continue to

apply.

Response: EPA acknowledges that in its notice proposing to revoke

the PM-10 nonattainment area designation for

[[Page 12261]]

the Northern Ada County/Boise area, EPA indicated that the PSD

permitting requirements would continue to apply but did not explain how

it would ensure the implementation of the PM-10 increments in those

areas. Following its proposal, EPA concluded that in the absence of a

designation pursuant to section 107 of the Act, there is no basis for

establishing the baseline date and baseline area in association with

the applicable PSD increment. This arises from the fact that the

existing definitions associated with the PSD increments, as contained

in the PSD regulations in parts 51 and 52 of the Code of Federal

Regulations, explicitly tie the ``baseline dates'' and ``baseline

area'' for the increments to the section 107 area designation on a

pollutant-specific basis. See, e.g., 40 CFR 52.21(b)(14) and (15).

Thus, the comments are correct that, upon revocation of the pre-

existing PM-10 NAAQS and associated nonattainment designation for areas

like the Northern Ada County/Boise area that were designated

nonattainment for PM-10, the PM-10 increments will not apply unless and

until the area is designated attainment or unclassifiable for the

revised PM-10 NAAQS.

EPA understands the commenters' concerns with the inapplicability

of the PM-10 increments to such areas in the period immediately

following revocation of the pre-existing PM-10 NAAQS. (The commenters

referred to ``continuing'' applicability of the increments, but EPA

assumes that their concern applies even for nonattainment areas, like

the Northern Ada County/Boise area, in which the increments did not

apply previously because of the nonattainment designation.) However,

EPA believes that it would not be appropriate to delay revocation of

the pre-existing PM-10 NAAQS, or otherwise attempt to create attainment

or unclassifiable PM-10 designations that would apply to areas like

Boise upon revocation of that NAAQS, in order to trigger applicability

of the PM-10 PSD increments to such areas. EPA will be promulgating

designations for the revised PM-10 NAAQS a little over a year from now.

Those designations will trigger the applicability of appropriate PM-10

permitting requirements, including the PSD increments for areas

designated attainment or unclassifiable for those standards. EPA

believes that the other PSD requirements described in the response

above--e.g., requirements to prevent emissions increases that would

cause or contribute to a NAAQS violation and to apply best available

control technology (BACT) for sources that are major for another

pollutant and emit PM-10 in significant amounts--should be sufficient

to protect air quality in this short interim period between revocation

of the pre-existing PM-10 NAAQS and the promulgation of designations

under the revised PM-10 NAAQS .

Comment: Commenters state that EPA's guidance and transitional

policies do not actually promote their stated objectives and are

inconsistent with the Act and administrative law, and requests that EPA

revamp its national guidance concerning revocation of the 1987-PM-10

NAAQS.

Response: EPA believes that the policies reflected in the

revocation provisions of the 1997 PM NAAQS rule and subsequent guidance

documents do promote EPA's objective of ensuring that ``momentum is

maintained by states in their current air programs while moving toward

developing their plans for implementing the new NAAQS.'' See 63 FR

57087. Under EPA's approach, areas like and including the Northern Ada

County/Boise area will not be able to adopt SIP revisions that would

interfere with meeting the revised PM-10 NAAQS. EPA is requiring that

all control measures which were adopted and implemented and resulted in

attainment of the NAAQS be included in the SIP. Any subsequent attempt

to remove these measures would be subject to all requirements for SIP

revisions. (See section 110(l).) Moreover, as stated above, most major

new stationary source growth will be allowed only if the emissions are

controlled to BACT levels and would not cause or contribute to NAAQS

violations. EPA believes the retention of the SIP control measures that

brought these areas into attainment, and application of these PSD

requirements, is sufficient to maintain momentum in these states'

current programs in the short period until the air quality planning

requirements applicable upon designation for the revised PM-10 NAAQS

are triggered.

Comment: Commenters expressed concern that the proposed revocation

fails to recognize that the action will allow the State to make

decisions for new federally-funded highway projects to proceed, which

will encourage the use of more single occupancy vehicles and result in

an increase of PM-10 emissions, instead of spending money on projects

that would reduce pollution.

Response: EPA recognizes that revoking the pre-existing PM-10

standard and removing the nonattainment designation for the Ada County/

Boise Area, among other things, will allow for federal funding of a

number of highway projects in the area. However, EPA's decision is

based on its determination that the criteria for revocation set forth

in 40 CFR 50.6(d) have been met by the State of Idaho. It should be

kept in mind that, as previously discussed, the current SIP and the

controls it imposes on emission levels for source categories throughout

the area, will remain in place after the standard is revoked and Boise

is no longer designated a nonattainment area for the pre-existing PM-10

standard. Finally, under the Act, it is the State, and not EPA, that

has the primary authority and responsibility to determine how to best

manage and control the air resources within the State, including

decisions on how to address anticipated increases in vehicle emissions.

Comment: Commenters claim that, at the local level, there was

inadequate opportunity, and in some cases the public was discouraged,

even intimidated, from participating or commenting on the request for

revocation. The comments also state that the public was not

sufficiently aware of the revocation request, or the related effects of

the revocation action, in a timely manner, to be able to have a voice

in the debate about the request. It was also said that an Ada Planning

Association (APA) letter, dated November 13, 1998, supporting early

revocation, was approved at an APA executive committee meeting, and not

a meeting of the full APA board, a procedure not authorized under APA

bylaws.

Response: The Agency believes that any deficiencies in the State or

local process should be addressed at the State or local level. The

Agency believes, however, that the comment process it undertook when

considering the State's revocation request did afford meaningful public

review. The action being taken by EPA today is based upon a revocation

request received from Idaho's Division of Environmental Quality (DEQ).

The mode of submission was consistent with similar air quality-related

submissions made by the State of Idaho. The proposal for this action

was published in the Federal Register on October 26, 1998. 63 FR 57086.

EPA's proposed action on this matter served to formally put the public

on notice concerning the revocation request, and also served to invite

public comment. In response to the Federal Register document, EPA

received over 130 comments expressing a variety of viewpoints on all

aspects of the revocation and its effect. Consequently, EPA believes

that its actions and the public response both demonstrate that

[[Page 12262]]

ample opportunity for public comment has been provided, and therefore

EPA will not be reopening the comment period for this action. EPA

appreciates the interest that the public has shown concerning issues

involving air quality in the Northern Ada County/Boise area and

encourages continued involvement in the public process.

Comment: Comments were received expressing medical concerns

regarding the relationship between potential deterioration of PM-10 air

quality and enumerated respiratory illnesses. These comments also cited

recent articles by the American Lung Association concerning increases

in respiratory deaths and diseases, that are attributable, in part, to

elevated PM-10 levels. Based on the modeling forecasts in the Ada

Planning Association's study, the commenters appear to believe that

revocation of the pre-existing PM-10 standards would eliminate existing

protections and result in a de facto worsening of air quality in the

Boise area, particularly if coupled with inversion episodes. Indeed,

they state that the revocation action would be a significant setback

for the protection of human health, environmental air quality, and

quality of life.

Response: EPA agrees that elevated levels of particulate matter are

linked to aggravated respiratory and cardiovascular effects and

contribute to illnesses among the members of the public. Indeed, it is

evidence of this very nature that prompted the Agency to promulgate the

revisions it made to the PM standards. Today's action will result in

the revocation of the pre-existing PM-10 standards, which have been

replaced by new PM standards. Thus, the action being taken today by EPA

is not intended to and does not eliminate the air quality gains made

through implementation of the pre-existing PM-10 NAAQS. To the

contrary, it requires the State to consolidate in its SIP and continue

implementing the control measures that allowed the area to monitor

attainment of those standards. As noted earlier, under EPA's transition

policy it is a pre-condition to revocation that the area demonstrate

with air quality data from 1994-96 that it is currently attaining the

pre-existing PM-10 NAAQS and has a fully-approved SIP in place. Idaho

has satisfied these conditions with respect to the Northern Ada County/

Boise area. The area is implementing and, even after revocation, will

continue to implement its federally-approved part D SIP. Also, the PM-

10 controls associated with the pre-existing NAAQS, that resulted in

air quality data which shows attainment of that NAAQS, will remain in

place. It is EPA's belief that continued implementation and enforcement

of the existing control measures will assure continued protection of

the public health during the transition towards implementation of the

revised PM-10 NAAQS.

Comment: One commenter indicated that the modified standard would

adjust emission levels based on 24-hour averages in lieu of the

instantaneous measurements which are currently employed.

Response: EPA is unclear about what the precise nature of the

commenter's concern is, and does not understand what types of

instantaneous measurements for PM-10 are being referred to by the

commenter. NAAQS PM monitors are not designed for instantaneous

measurements. The pre-existing PM-10 NAAQS, the revised PM-10 NAAQS,

and the new PM-2.5 NAAQS are all based on 24-hour averages. Particulate

matter data is collected for a 24-hour period with EPA-approved

monitors. The collected data is then averaged over that 24-hour period

and compared to the 24-hour PM standard by EPA to make regulatory

determinations.

Comment: Commenters stated that EPA should not revoke the PM-10

standards in Idaho unless they plan to do the same nationwide, and that

a bad precedent would be set by the revocation.

Response: Even though the timing will vary, EPA will act to revoke

the pre-existing PM-10 NAAQS for other PM-10 areas, since those

standards have been replaced by new PM standards. Requests for

revocation must be initiated by the State, which must also satisfy EPA

that the requirements for approval of such requests, as set forth in 40

CFR 50.6(d), have been met.

III. Final Action

EPA is approving Idaho's request and by this final action is

determining that the PM-10 NAAQS that existed before September 16,

1997, will no longer apply to the Northern Ada County/Boise area. EPA

is also revoking the nonattainment designation associated with those

standards. Once this action becomes effective, among other things, the

conformity provisions of section 176(c) of the Act and the part D PM-10

nonattainment new source review requirements, will no longer apply for

the Northern Ada County/Boise area.

IV. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

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

regulatory action from Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, Regulatory

Planning and Review.

B. Executive Order 12875

Under Executive Order 12875, Enhancing the Intergovernmental

Partnership, EPA may not issue a regulation that is not required by

statute and that creates a mandate upon a State, local or tribal

government, unless the Federal Government provides the funds necessary

to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by those governments, or

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

Executive Order 12875 requires EPA to provide to the Office of

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

consultation with representatives of affected State, local and tribal

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

communications from the governments, and a statement supporting the

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

requires EPA to develop an effective process permitting elected

officials and other representatives of State, local and tribal

governments to provide meaningful and timely input in the development

of regulatory proposals containing significant unfunded mandates.

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

governments. The rule does not impose any enforceable duties on these

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

Order 12875 do not apply to this rule.

C. Executive Order 13045

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.

EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those

regulatory actions that are based on health or safety risks, such that

the analysis required under section 5-501 of the Order has the

potential to influence the regulation. This rule is not subject to

Executive Order 13045 because it does not involve

[[Page 12263]]

decisions intended to mitigate environmental health or safety risks.

D. Executive Order 13084

Under Executive Order 13084, Consultation and Coordination with

Indian Tribal Governments, EPA may not issue a regulation that is not

required by statute, that significantly or uniquely affects the

communities of Indian tribal governments, and that imposes substantial

direct compliance costs on those communities, unless the Federal

government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance

costs incurred by the tribal governments, or EPA consults with those

governments. If EPA complies by consulting, Executive Order 13084

requires EPA to provide to the Office of Management and Budget, in a

separately identified section of the preamble to the rule, a

description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation with

representatives of affected tribal governments, a summary of the nature

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

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

an effective process permitting elected officials and other

representatives of Indian tribal governments To provide meaningful and

timely input in the development of regulatory policies on matters that

significantly or uniquely affect their communities.

Today's rule does not significantly or uniquely affect the

communities of Indian tribal governments. Accordingly, the requirements

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

E. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency

to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to

notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies

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

substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small

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

jurisdictions.

This action will affect the regulatory status of a geographical

area but will not impose any new regulatory requirements on sources.

For this reason, the Administrator certifies that this action has no

significant impact on any small entities, nor will it affect a

substantial number of small entities. Moreover, due to the nature of

the Federal-State relationship under the Clean Air Act, preparation of

a flexibility analysis would constitute Federal inquiry into the

economic reasonableness of State action. The Clean Air Act forbids EPA

to base its actions concerning SIPs on such grounds. Union Electric Co.

v. U.S. EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255-66 (1976); 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).

F. Unfunded Mandates

Under section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

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

must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or

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

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

or to private sector, of $100 million or more. Under section 205, EPA

must select the most cost-effective and least burdensome alternative

that achieves the objectives of the rule and is consistent with

statutory requirements. Section 203 requires EPA to establish a plan

for informing and advising any small governments that may be

significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule.

EPA has determined that this final approval action does not include

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

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

aggregate, or to the private sector. Because EPA is not imposing new

Federal requirements, neither State, local, or tribal governments, nor

the private sector should incur costs from this action.

G. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally

provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating

the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,

to each House of 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. This rule is not a

``major'' rule as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

H. Rule Effective Date

The EPA finds that there is good cause for this action to become

effective immediately upon publication because a delayed effective date

is unnecessary due to the nature of this action, which is a

determination that the PM-10 NAAQS in effect prior to September 16,

1997, no longer applies to the Northern Ada County/Boise area. The

immediate effective date for this action is authorized under both 5

U.S.C. 553 (d)(1), which provides that rulemaking actions may become

effective less than 30 days after publication if the rule ``grants or

recognizes an exemption or relieves a restriction'' and section

553(d)(3), which allows an effective date less than 30 days after

publication ``as otherwise provided by the agency for good cause found

and published with the rule.''

I. 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 May 11, 1999. Filing a

petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule

does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial

review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial

review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such

rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings

to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental

relations, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

40 CFR Part 81

Air pollution control, National parks, Wilderness areas.

Dated: February 26, 1999.

Carol M. Browner,

EPA Administrator.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, parts 52 and 81, chapter I,

title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations are amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

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

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

Subpart N--Idaho

2. Section 52.676 is added to read as follows:

Sec. 52.676 Control strategy: Particulate matter.

Revocation of PM-10 NAAQS--On July 24, 1998, the State of Idaho

submitted a request that EPA determine that the PM-10 NAAQS in effect

as of

[[Page 12264]]

September 16, 1997, no longer apply to the Northern Ada County/Boise

area and to revoke the nonattainment designation associated with that

NAAQS. The State has satisfied the requirements of the Clean Air Act as

well as 40 CFR 50.6(d) and Guideline for Implementing the 1-Hour Ozone

and Pre-Existing PM-10 NAAQS dated December 29, 1997. (A copy of the

guidance document may be found on the World Wide Web site at the

following URL: http://www.epa.gov/ttncaaa1/1pgm.html). Therefore, EPA

revokes the pre-existing NAAQS for particulate matter as delineated in

40 CFR 50.6. The revised NAAQS for particulate matter in 40 CFR 50.7

remain in effect.

PART 81--[AMENDED]

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

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

2. In Sec. 81.313, the table entitled ``Idaho--PM-10'' is revised

to read as follows:

Sec. 81.313 Idaho.

* * * * *

Idaho PM-10

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

Designation Classification

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

Date Type Date Type

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

Ada County:

Boise........................ 3/12/99 Pre-existing............. 3/12/99 Pre-existing

PM-10 NAAQS NA........... PM-10 NAAQS NA.

Northern Boundary--Beginning at a

point in the center of the

channel of the Boise River,

where the line between sections

15 and 16 in Township 3 north

(T3N), range 4 east (R4E),

crosses said Boise River;

thence, west down the center of

the channel of the Boise River

to a point opposite the mouth of

More's Creek; thence, in a

straight line north 44 degrees

and 38 minutes west until the

said line intersects the north

line T5N (12 Ter. Ses. 67);

thence west to the northwest

corner T5N, R1W Western

Boundary--Thence, south to the

northwest corner of T3N, R1W;

thence east to the northwest

corner of section 4 of T3N, R1W;

thence south to the southeast

corner of section 32 of T2N,

R1W; thence, west to the

northwest corner of T1N, R1W;

thence, south to the southwest

corner of section 32 of T2N,

R1W; thence, west to the

northwest corner of T1N, R1W;

thence south to the southwest

corner of T1N, R1W Southern

Boundary--Thence, east to the

southwest corner of section 33

of T1N, R4E Eastern Boundary--

Thence, north along the north

and south center line of

Townships T1N, R4E, T2N, R4E,

and T3N, R4E, Boise Meridian to

the beginning point in the

center of the channel of the

Boise River.

Shoshone County.................. 1/20/94 Nonattainment............ 1/20/94 Moderate.

a. Northwest quarter of the

Northwest quarter, Section

8, Township 48 North, Range

2 East; Southwest quarter of

the Northwest quarter,

Section 8, Township 48,

North, Range 2 East;

Northwest quarter of the

Southwest quarter, Section

8, Township 48 North, Range

2 East; Southwest quarter,

Section 8, Township 48

North, Range 2 East;

Southwest quarter of the

Southwest quarter, Section

48 North, Range 2 East,

Boise Base (known as

``Pinehurst expansion

area'').

b. City of Pinehurst......... 11/15/90 Nonattainment............ 11/15/90 Moderate.

Power-Bannock Counties, part of:

(Pocatello):

State Lands.................. 11/15/90 Nonattainment............ 11/15/90 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\

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

Power-Bannock Counties, part of:

(Pocatello):

Fort Hall Indian Reservation. 11/15/90 Nonattainment............ 11/15/90 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

Bonner County.................... 11/15/90 Nonattainment............ 11/15/90 Moderate.

The Sandpoint Area:

Sections 1-3, 9-12, 15,

16, 21, 22, 27, 28 of

range 2 west and

Township 57 north; and

the western \3/4\ of

Sections 14, 23 and 26

of the same Township and

range coordinates.

Eastern Idaho Intrastate AQCR 61. 11/15/90 Unclassifiable

[[Page 12265]]

(Excluding the Power-Bannock

Counties, part of: Pocatello-

State Lands and Fort Hall

Indian Reservation PM-10

nonattainment areas).

Eastern Washington-Northern Idaho 11/15/90 Unclassifiable

Interstate AQCR 62.

(Excluding the Shoshone

County and City of Pinehurst

PM-10 nonattainment areas).

Idaho Intrastate AQCR 63......... 11/15/90 Unclassifiable

(Excluding the Sandpoint Area

PM-10 nonattainment area).

Metropolitan Boise Intrastate 11/15/90 Unclassifiable

AQCR 64.

(Excluding the former Ada

County Boise PM-10

nonattainment area).

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

* * * * * *

[FR Doc. 99-5380 Filed 3-11-99; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P