[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 48 (Friday, March 12, 1999)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 12257-12265]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-5380]


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

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