Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 118 / Friday, June 19, 1998 / Proposed Rules 33597

Intracoastal Waterway. The zone is

needed to safeguard vessels transiting in

the St. Johns River and Sisters Creek

during this event. This event will occur

annually and the date and times will be

published in the Federal Register and in

a Local Notice to Mariners. During each

of these events, local law enforcement

agents will be on scene to assist in

enforcing the No Wake Zone and to

monitor vessel traffic. This regulation is

issued pursuant to 33 U.S.C. 1233

through 1236 as set out in the authority

citation for all of Part 100.

Regulatory Evaluation

This proposed rule is not a significant

regulatory action under section 3(f) of

Executive Order 12866 and does not

require an assessment of potential costs

and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that

order. It has not been reviewed by the

Office of Management and Budget under

that order. It is not significant under the

regulatory policies and procedures of

the Department of Transportation (DOT)

(44 FR 11040: February 26, 1979). The

Coast Guard expects the economic

impact of this proposed rule to be so

minimal that a full Regulatory

Evaluation under paragraph 10e of the

regulatory policies and procedures of

DOT is unnecessary. Only a small

amount of recreational and fishing

vessel traffic is expected to be disrupted

by the increased size of the No Wake

Zone.

Small Entities

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

(5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), the Coast Guard

must consider whether this proposed

rule would have a significant economic

impact on a substantial number of small

entities. ‘‘Small entities’’ include small

businesses, not-for-profit organizations

that are independently owned and

operated and are not dominant in their

field and governmental jurisdictions

with populations of less than 50,000.

Therefore, the Coast Guard certifies

under 605(b) that this proposed rule

would not have a significant economic

impact on a substantial number of small

entities because the No Wake Zone will

only be in effect in a limited area for

approximately 60 hours each year.

Collection of Information

This proposed rule contains no

collection of information requirements

under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

Federalism

This proposed action has been

analyzed in accordance with the

principles and criteria contained in

Executive Order 12612, and it has been

determined that the rulemaking does

not have sufficient federalism

implications to warrant the preparation

of a Federalism Assessment.

Environmental Assessment

The Coast Guard has considered the

environmental impact of this proposal

and has concluded under Figure 2–1,

paragraph (34)(h) of Commandant

Instruction M16475.1C, that this action

is categorically excluded from further

environmental documentation. A

Categorical Exclusion Determination

and Environmental Analysis checklist

will be completed during the comment

period.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 100

Marine safety, Navigation (water),

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Waterways.

Proposed Regulations

In consideration of the foregoing, the

Coast Guard proposes to amend Part 100

of Title 33, Code of Federal Regulations,

as follows:

PART 100—[AMENDED]

1. The Authority citation for Part 100

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1233, 49 CFR 1.46 and

33 CFR 100.35.

2. Revise § 100.710 to read as follows:

§ 100.710 Annual Greater Jacksonville

Kingfish Tournament; Jacksonville, Florida.

(a) Regulated area. A regulated area is

established for the waters of the St.

Johns River lying between a eastern

boundary formed by St. Johns River

Lighted Buoy 7 (LLNR (7145) position

30–23.56N, 081–23.04W, and Lighted

Buoy 8 (LLNR 7150) position 30–

24.03N, 081–23.01W, and the western

boundary formed by Lighted Buoy 25

(LLNR 7305) position 30–23.40N, 081–

28.26W, and Short Cut Light 26 (LLNR

7310) position 30–23.46N, 081–28.16W

with the northern and southern

boundaries formed by the banks of the

St. Johns River and extended north from

the boundary formed by the St. Johns

River and the Intracoastal Waterway,

Sisters Creek, to Lighted Buoy 83 (LLNR

38330) on the Intracoastal Waterway.

(b) Regulations. Vessels operating in

the regulated area must operate at No

Wake Speed.

(c) Dates. This section is effective

annually during the second full week of

July. Coast Guard Group Mayport will

issue a Local Notice to Mariners each

year announcing future specific times

and dates of the event. In 1998, the

event will occur from July 14 to July 19

from 6 a.m. to 4 p.m. each day.

N.T. Saunders,

Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander,

Seventh Coast Guard District.

[FR Doc. 98–16241 Filed 6–18–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–14–M

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 81

[ID 21–7001; FRL–6113–4]

Designation of Areas for Air Quality

Planning Purposes: State of Idaho and

the Fort Hall Indian Reservation

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY: In this action, the

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

proposes to revise the designation for

particulate matter with an aerodynamic

diameter of less than a nominal 10

microns (PM–10) for the Power-Bannock

Counties PM–10 nonattainment area by

creating two distinct nonattainment

areas that together cover the identical

geographic area as the original

nonattainment area. The revised areas

would be divided at the boundary

between State lands and the Fort Hall

Indian Reservation, with one revised

area comprised of State lands and the

other revised area comprised of lands

within the exterior boundary of the Fort

Hall Indian Reservation. The

redesignation is based upon a request

from the State of Idaho, which is

supported by monitoring and modeling

information. Both areas would retain

PM–10 nonattainment designations and

classification as moderate PM–10

nonattainment areas as a result of this

proposed action.

In a concurrent notice of proposed

rulemaking published today, EPA is

proposing to make a finding that the

proposed PM–10 nonattainment area

within the exterior boundary of the Fort

Hall Indian Reservation failed to attain

the National Ambient Air Quality

Standards (NAAQS) for PM–10 by the

applicable attainment date. Such a

finding would, by operation of law,

result in the reclassification of the

proposed PM–10 nonattainment area

within the Fort Hall Indian Reservation

to a serious PM–10 nonattainment area.

EPA recently established a new

standard for particulate matter with a

diameter equal to or less than 2.5

microns and also revised the existing

PM–10 standards. Today’s proposal,
33598 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 118 / Friday, June 19, 1998 / Proposed Rules

1There are two pre-existing PM–10 NAAQS, a 24-

hour standard and an annual standard. See 40 CFR

50.6. EPA promulgated these NAAQS on July 1,

1987 (52 FR 24672), replacing standards for total

suspended particulate with new standards applying

only to particulate matter up to ten microns in

diameter (PM–10). The annual PM–10 standard is

attained when the expected annual arthimetic

average of the 24-hour samples for a period of one

year does not exceed 50 micrograms per cubic

meter (ug/m3). Attainment of the 24-hour PM–10

standard is determined by calculating the expected

number of days in a year with PM–10

concentrations greater than 150 ug/m3. The 24-hour

PM–10 standard is attained when the expected

number of days with levels above the standard,

averaged over a three year period, is less than or

equal to one. See 40 CFR 50.6 and 40 CFR part 50,

appendix K.

2The 1990 Amendments to the CAA made

significant changes to the Act. See Public Law No.

101–549, 104 Stat. 2399. References herein are to

the CAA as amended. The CAA is codified, as

amended, in the United States Code at 42 U.S.C.

7401, et seq.

3EPA has learned that a portion of the FMC

facility is located on State lands. This issue is

discussed in more detail below.

4Private industry operated a seven station air

monitoring network, funded by FMC and Simplot,

on and near the industrial complex from October

1, 1993, through September 30, 1994 (EMF

monitors). There were no measured PM–10

concentrations above the level of the 24-hour PM–

10 NAAQS (150 ug/m3) at any of the EMF stations.

EMF Site #2, however, which was on the Fort Hall

Indian Reservation less than 300 yards east of

where the primary site is now located, reported

several 24-hour concentrations of PM–10 at or near

the level of the NAAQS. EMF Site #2 also reported

an annual concentration of 55.1 ug/m3 for the one

year period the network was in operation. This is

10% greater than the 50 ug/m3 level of the annual

PM–10 NAAQS. Because the EMF network did not

collect a calendar year’s worth of data, EPA

concluded that data from EMF Site #2 did not

document a violation of the annual NAAQS. See 61

FR 66602, 66604 (December 18, 1996). EPA also

stated, however, that the number of the recorded

24-hour concentrations at or near the level of the

standard and the high annual concentration for the

one-year period EMF Site #2 was in operation

indicated that a serious air quality problem

continued in the Power-Bannock Counties PM–10

nonattainment area. Id. This is confirmed by the

more recent data from the Tribal monitors.

however, does not address these new

and revised standards.

DATES: All written comments should be

submitted to Steven K. Body, EPA

Region 10, [Docket #ID 21–7001], at the

address indicated below by July 20,

1998.

ADDRESSES: Information supporting this

action can be found in Public Docket

No. [#ID 21–7001]. The docket is located

at EPA, Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue,

Seattle WA 98101. The docket may be

inspected from 9:00 am to 4:30 pm on

weekdays, except for legal holidays. A

reasonable fee may be charged for

copying.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Steven K. Body, EPA Region 10, Office

of Air Quality (OAQ–107), EPA, Seattle,

Washington, (206) 553–0782.

I. Background

A portion of Power and Bannock

Counties in Idaho is designated

nonattainment for PM–10 1 and

classified as moderate under sections

107(d)(4)(B) and 188(a) of the Clean Air

Act upon enactment of the Clean Air

Act Amendments of 1990 (Act or CAA).

See 40 CFR 81.313 (PM–10 Initial

Nonattainment Areas); see also 55 FR

45799 (October 31, 1990); 56 FR 11101

(March 15, 1991); 56 FR 37654 (August

8, 1991); 56 FR 56694 (November 6,

1991).2 For an extensive discussion of

the history of the designation of the

Power-Bannock Counties PM–10

nonattainment area, please refer to the

discussion at 61 FR 29667, 29668–29670

(June 12, 1996).

The Power-Bannock Counties PM–10

nonattainment area covers

approximately 266 square miles in

south central Idaho and comprises both

trust and fee lands within the exterior

boundary of the Fort Hall Indian

Reservation and State lands in portions

of Power and Bannock Counties.

Approximately 75,000 people live in the

nonattainment area, most of whom live

in the cities of Pocatello and Chubbuck,

which are located near the center of the

nonattainment area on State lands.

Approximately 15 miles northwest of

downtown Pocatello is an area known

as the ‘‘industrial complex,’’ which

includes the two major stationary

sources of PM–10 in the nonattainment

area. The boundary between the Fort

Hall Indian Reservation and State lands

runs through the industrial complex.

One of the major stationary sources of

PM–10, FMC Corporation (FMC), is

located primarily on fee lands within

the exterior boundary of the Fort Hall

Indian Reservation.3 The other major

stationary source of PM–10 in the

nonattainment area, J.R. Simplot

Corporation (Simplot), is located on

State lands immediately adjacent to the

Reservation.

The State of Idaho has established and

operates four PM–10 State and Local Air

Monitoring Stations (SLAMS) in the

current Power-Bannock Counties PM–10

nonattainment area, all of which are on

State lands (the State monitors). All of

the State monitors meet EPA SLAMS

network design and siting requirements,

set forth at 40 CFR part 58, appendices

D and E. There have been no violations

of the annual PM–10 standard at any of

the State monitors since 1990. No levels

above the 24-hour standard have been

recorded at any of the State monitors

since January of 1993.

The Shoshone-Bannock Tribes began

operating a PM–10 monitor on the

portion of the nonattainment area

within the exterior boundary of the

Reservation in February 1995. Prior to

this time, the Tribes relied on data from

the State operated samplers for area

designations and classifications. This

reliance was due to a lack of resources

to establish and operate their own Tribal

monitoring stations. In 1994 the Tribes

requested and EPA granted the Tribes

additional program support grant funds

to enable the Tribes to establish their

own monitoring stations to collect

ambient air quality data representative

of conditions on the Reservation and to

generate data to support Tribal air

quality planning efforts. This monitor,

called the ‘‘Sho-Ban site,’’ is located

approximately 100 feet north of the

FMC facility across a frontage road. Due

to operational problems with the

sampler and quality assurance

problems, valid data were not reported

for this monitor until October 1, 1996.

Also in October 1996, the Tribes

initiated monitoring at two new sites.

The ‘‘primary site’’ is located

approximately 100 feet north of the

FMC facility across the frontage road,

600 feet east of the Sho-Ban site and

approximately 600 feet from the

boundary between the Fort Hall Indian

Reservation and State lands. The ‘‘Tribal

background site’’ is approximately one

and one-half miles southwest of the

FMC facility upwind of the

predominant wind direction from the

industrial complex. All three

monitoring sites are owned by the

Tribes and operated by a contractor for

the Tribes. The Tribal monitoring sites

meet EPA SLAMS network design and

siting requirements, set forth at 40 CFR

part 58, appendices D and E. Both the

Sho-Ban and Primary sites on the

Reservation portion of the

nonattainment area have recorded

numerous PM–10 concentrations above

the level of the 24-hour PM–10 NAAQS

since October 1996.4

II. This Action

A. Idaho’s Request

Pursuant to section 107(d)(3)(D) of the

Act, the Governor of any State, on the

Governor’s own motion, is authorized to

submit to the Administrator a revised

designation of any area or portions

thereof within the State. On April 16,

1998, the State of Idaho submitted to

EPA a request to revise the designation

of the Power-Bannock Counties PM–10

nonattainment area to split the

nonattainment area into two separate

nonattainment areas at the boundary

between the Fort Hall Indian

Reservation and State lands. Together,

the two nonattainment areas would

cover the same geographic area as the
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 118 / Friday, June 19, 1998 / Proposed Rules 33599

5The Power-Bannock Counties PM–10

nonattainment area originally had an attainment

date of December 31, 1994, see section 188(a) and

(c)(1), but the area could not demonstrate

attainment by that date. At the request of the State

of Idaho, EPA granted the area two one-year

extensions of the attainment date, in accordance

with section 188(d) of the CAA. See 60 FR 44452

(August 28, 1995) (proposed action on first

extension); 61 FR 20730 (May 8, 1996) (final action

on first extension); 61 FR 66602 (December 18,

1996)(direct final action on second extension).

existing Power-Bannock Counties PM–

10 nonattainment area.

In support of its request, the State of

Idaho noted that the State has the

primary PM–10 planning responsibility

under the Clean Air Act for State lands

within the nonattainment area, whereas

EPA and the Tribes have the primary

PM–10 planning responsibility for the

Tribal lands within the nonattainment

area. The State also noted that it has

largely completed the PM–10 planning

and implementation of control measures

for the PM–10 sources located on State

lands within the nonattainment area

whereas no controls have been proposed

or imposed on sources in the Tribal

portion of the nonattainment area.

The State also supported its request

with monitoring data which shows that

State monitors have not recorded any

PM–10 concentrations above the level of

the 24-hour PM–10 NAAQS since

January 1993 and that the State lands

within the nonattainment area have

attained the PM–10 NAAQS. In

addition, the State provided an analysis

of pollution concentrations recorded at

the Tribal primary site and the Sho-Ban

site as a function of wind direction

which shows that violations of the PM–

10 NAAQS at the Tribal sites are not the

result of emissions from sources located

on State lands. The State also provided

modeling information to support its

assertion that sources on State lands are

not contributing to the violations of the

PM–10 NAAQS that have been recorded

at the Tribal monitors.

On May 21, 1998, the ShoshoneBannocks Tribes and FMC submitted to

the State of Idaho documents opposing

Idaho’s request to EPA to split the

nonattainment area into two

nonattainment areas. The Tribes and

FMC contend that the State failed to

follow Idaho law in submitting the

request to EPA without first providing

public notice and opportunity for

comment. The Tribes also expressed

concern that splitting the area into two

PM–10 nonattainment areas at the StateReservation boundary could result in a

less comprehensive approach to air

quality planning in the area. In addition

to its contention that the State failed to

comply with State requirements for

public notice and opportunity for public

comment, FMC further contends that

the State failed to comply with the

Clean Air Act in making its request and

noted that part of the FMC facility is

located on State lands.

On May 29, 1998, Idaho provided

EPA with a letter from the Idaho

Attorney General’s Office stating that

public notice and opportunity to

comment were not required under State

law. The letter also responded to the

other issues raised by FMC and asked

EPA to move forward on the State’s

request to split the nonattainment area.

The State also provided EPA with a

copy of the State’s letter responding to

the issues raised by the Tribes. Copies

of the letters from FMC and the Tribes

to the State and from the State to EPA

and the Tribes are in the Docket for this

proposal.

B. EPA’s Proposed Action on Idaho’s

Request

In determining whether to approve or

deny a State’s request for a revision to

the designation of an area under section

107(d)(3)(D), EPA believes it is

appropriate to consider the same factors

Congress directed EPA to consider when

EPA initiates a revision to a designation

of an area on its own motion under

section 107(d)(3)(A). These factors

include ‘‘air quality data, planning and

control considerations, or any other air

quality-related considerations the

Administrator deems appropriate.’’

Based on the information submitted by

Idaho and other information available to

EPA, EPA believes that the air quality

data, planning and control

considerations, and other air qualityrelated considerations support the

State’s request to revise the PowerBannock Counties PM–10

nonattainment area into two PM–10

nonattainment areas at the boundary

between the Fort Hall Indian

Reservation and State lands. EPA

therefore proposes to create two

separate nonattainment areas in place of

the existing Power-Bannock Counties

PM–10 nonattainment area. One area, to

be called the ‘‘Portneuf Valley PM–10

Nonattainment Area’’, would consist of

the existing portion of the PowerBannock Counties PM–10

nonattainment area outside of the

exterior boundary of the Fort Hall

Indian Reservation and under the

regulatory jurisdiction of the State of

Idaho. The other area, to be called the

‘‘Fort Hall PM–10 nonattainment area,’’

would consist of the existing portion of

the nonattainment area within the

exterior boundary of the Fort Hall

Reservation. Both areas would continue

to be designated nonattainment for PM–

10 and classified as moderate should

this proposal be finalized by EPA.

Although the comments from the

Tribes and FMC were directed to the

State in the context of the State

proceeding, and not to EPA, EPA has

considered those issues in making this

proposal, as is discussed in more detail

below. The Tribes and FMC will also

have an opportunity to raise those and

other issues in the public comment

period on this proposal.

1. Air Quality Data and Other Air

Quality-Related Considerations

As stated above, there have been no

violations of the annual PM–10 standard

at any of the four State monitoring sites

since 1990 and no levels above the 24-

hour standard have been recorded at

any of the State sites since January of

1993. The data recorded at the State

monitors also show a decline in the

yearly annual average at each State

monitoring station since 1993 and, with

the exception of the Sewage Treatment

Plant (STP) monitoring station, a

decline in the highest and second

highest 24-hour PM–10 readings for

each year at each of the State monitoring

stations. The STP monitoring site did

record a 24-hour PM–10 concentration

of 149 ug/m3, just below the level of the

24-hour standard of 150 ug/m3. Even if

that monitoring site had recorded one

PM–10 concentration above the

standard, however, the 24-hour PM–10

standard would not have been violated

because the site operates on an everyday

sampling schedule and the expected

exceedence rate, averaged over a three

year period, would have been less than

1.1. Moreover, the second highest 24-

hour PM–10 readings for each year at

the STP site have remained fairly

constant since 1993, and there has been

a decline in the yearly PM–10 annual

average at the STP site since 1992. In

summary, the State monitors show

attainment of the PM–10 standard in the

State portion of the nonattainment area,

as well as a general decline in the PM–

10 values recorded on the State

monitors.

In contrast, the monitors located

within the Tribal portion of the

nonattainment area continue to show

numerous levels above the standard.

Although the monitors did not begin

recording valid data until October 1996,

the number of PM–10 concentrations

above the level of the 24-hour PM–10

NAAQS between October and December

1996 resulted in a violation of the 24-

hour PM–10 NAAQS as of December 31,

1996, the attainment date for the area.5

Appendix K of 40 CFR part 50, contains

‘‘gapfilling’’ techniques for situations

where less than three complete years of

data are available. Using the gapfilling

techniques of appendix K, the number
33600 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 118 / Friday, June 19, 1998 / Proposed Rules

of exceedences reported from the ShoBan and primary sites during the last

three months of 1996 represent a

violation of the 24-hour PM–10 NAAQS.

The expected exceedence rate of the 24-

hour standard, averaged over the years

1994, 1995, and 1996, from these two

monitors is greater than 1.1, even if the

days during which the monitors did not

operate or collect valid data had

reported zero PM–10 levels. Numerous

levels above the standard have been

recorded since December 31, 1996, as

well.

In addition to the monitoring data

which document that the monitors on

State lands show attainment of the PM–

10 standard, the State of Idaho also

provided monitoring and modeling

information to support its request to

divide the current nonattainment area at

the State-Reservation boundary. The

State first presented information to

demonstrate that there are two separate

areas of air quality impacts and sources

within the current nonattainment area.

One area, which the State refers to as

the ‘‘urban complex,’’ encompasses the

City of Pocatello and is solely on State

lands. The other area is the industrial

complex, which includes FMC within

the Fort Hall Indian Reservation and J.R.

Simplot on State lands. Based on

chemical analysis of the particulate

collected on the filters from both State

and Tribal monitors and comparing

these results to the chemical

composition of emissions from various

sources, the State determined that the

urban area is impacted by PM–10

emissions from residential wood

burning, traffic, and commercial

establishments. In contrast, the

industrial complex is impacted by

industrial emissions.

Analysis of the 1993 dispersion

modeling used by the State in

developing its SIP shows that the urban

complex and the industrial complex

have different sources contributing to

the high PM–10 levels that have been

recorded in each area. The modeling

also shows that there is no evidence of

significant mixing of emissions between

the industrial complex and the urban

complex. Appendix A to the State’s

request contains a detailed discussion of

these modeling results, including an

analysis of four specific days with worst

case meteorology. In general, this

analysis consists of PM–10

concentration isopleth graphs that

demonstrate two separate areas of

maximum concentrations of PM–10, one

located over the urban complex and the

second located over the FMC and J.R.

Simplot industrial facilities.

The State also showed that, within the

industrial complex, it is possible to

separate the impacts of sources on

Tribal lands from sources on State lands

at the State-Reservation boundary. In

the process of developing the PM–10

plan for the Tribal portion of the

nonattainment area, EPA constructed

‘‘pollution wind roses’’ from the

ambient PM–10 monitoring data from

two of the Tribal monitors (the Sho-Ban

site and the primary site) and the

meteorological station at the primary

site. ‘‘Pollution wind roses’’ relate

pollutant concentration measurements

(in this case PM–10 levels) and the wind

direction that occurred during that

measurement. The State reviewed

pollution wind roses for the period from

October 1996 and May 1997. The data

show that, on days when the primary

site recorded values greater than the 24-

hour standard (150 ug/m3), the wind

was blowing from the FMC facility

toward the monitor, i.e., from the

southwest. Similarly, on days when the

Sho-Ban site recorded values greater

than the standard, the wind was

blowing from FMC facility toward the

Sho-Ban monitor, i.e., from the south. In

contrast, on days when the wind was

blowing from State lands, particularly

Simplot, toward the primary and ShoBan monitors, high PM–10 values were

not recorded on the monitors. The State

concludes from this information that

sources on State lands, particularly

Simplot, are effectively controlled and

do not contribute to violations of the

PM–10 NAAQS on State or Tribal lands.

EPA evaluated the information

submitted by the State along with the

more recent information provided by

FMC to the State that a portion of the

FMC facility is located on State lands.

FMC property extends approximately

7000 feet east-west along a frontage road

of which 1100 feet appears to extend

east onto State lands. The only PM–10

sources of potential significance on this

portion of FMC property (i.e., on State

lands) are a portion (approximately

1100 feet) of the north and south main

ore shale storage piles and a small

number of unpaved access roads. The

piles are approximately 1500 feet long

and 300 feet wide of which two-thirds

extend onto State lands. EPA estimates

that PM–10 emissions from that portion

of the FMC facility located on State

lands account for only 89 pounds of the

12,021 pounds per day of total PM–10

emissions from the facility, or less than

1% of total FMC emissions of PM–10.

When the ‘‘pollution rose’’ graphs relied

on by the State are laid over a map of

the area, it is apparent that violations at

the primary site occur when winds are

blowing from the south to westsouthwest, which is down wind of the

FMC calcining operations, furnace

building, and slag pit operations.

Violations occur at the Sho-Ban site

when the winds are blowing from the

west-southeast to east-southwest, which

is again downwind from the FMC

calcining operations, furnace building,

and slag pit operations. Violations have

not occurred with a wind direction

blowing from the eastern portion of the

FMC property, which is the portion of

the FMC facility located on State lands,

or from the Simplot facility, which is

also located on State lands. Based on the

small percentage of emissions from the

FMC PM–10 sources located on State

lands to total FMC PM–10 emissions

and EPA’s review of the pollution and

wind roses for the area, EPA does not

believe that the new information

provided by FMC—that part of the FMC

facility is located on State lands—alters

the analysis provided by the State to

support its request to split the existing

nonattainment area into two

nonattainment areas at the StateReservation boundary. In summary, EPA

agrees with the State’s analysis and with

the State’s conclusion that emissions

from sources on State lands do not

appear to be contributing to the

exceedences that have been recorded on

the Tribal monitors. In light of the

recent information provided by FMC to

the State, however, EPA specifically

requests comment on this issue.

2. Planning and Control Considerations

The current Power-Bannock Counties

PM–10 nonattainment area encompasses

two different regulatory jurisdictions:

the State of Idaho for the State portion

of the nonattainment area and the

Shoshone-Bannock Tribes and EPA for

the Reservation portion of the

nonattainment area. Under the Clean

Air Act, the State has the primary PM–

10 planning responsibilities for the State

portion of the nonattainment area. See

CAA sections 110 and 189. In

furtherance of those planning

obligations, the State of Idaho, along

with several local agencies, developed

and implemented control measures on

PM–10 sources located on State lands

within the Power-Bannock Counties

PM–10 nonattainment area. The State

submitted these control measures in

1993 for the Power-Bannock Counties

PM–10 nonattainment area as part of its

moderate PM–10 nonattainment State

Implementation Plan (SIP) under

section 189(a) of the Act. These control

measures include a comprehensive

residential wood combustion program,

including a mandatory woodstove

curtailment program; stringent controls

on fugitive road dust, including controls

on winter road sanding and a limited
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 118 / Friday, June 19, 1998 / Proposed Rules 33601

6Secondary aerosol particulates are small

particles formed in the atmosphere through

chemical reactions from emissions of precursor

gases.

unpaved road paving program; and a

revised operating permit that represents

reasonably available control technology

(RACT) for the J.R. Simplot facility, the

only major stationary source of PM–10

on the portion of the nonattainment area

on State lands. Although EPA has not

yet taken final action to approve the

State’s moderate PM–10 SIP for the area,

EPA has previously stated (based on

EPA’s preliminary review in the context

of approving the State’s requests for

extensions of the attainment date) that

these control measures substantially

meet EPA’s guidance for reasonably

available control measures (RACM),

including RACT, for sources of primary

particulate on the State portion of the

nonattainment area. See 61 FR 66602,

66604–66605 (December 18, 1996).

The effect of these control measures

on air quality can be seen in the

reported ambient PM–10 measurements

at the State monitoring sites. As

discussed above, there have been no

violations of the annual PM–10 standard

since 1990 at any of the State

monitoring sites, no violations or

exceedences of the 24-hour PM–10

standard at any of the State sites since

January 1993, and a general decline in

the reported ambient PM–10

concentrations at the State sites since

1993. The beginning of the decline in

the ambient concentrations roughly

coincides with the period when the

State began to impose the PM–10

control measures discussed above.

These facts support the State’s assertion

that the State’s PM–10 planning efforts

have been effective.

In its request to split the

nonattainment area, the State also

discusses how it is addressing the

deficiencies that EPA had previously

identified in the State’s SIP submission.

The State has advised EPA that it will

submit a SIP revision in the near future

that addresses these deficiencies. The

deficiencies previously identified by

EPA include the State’s failure to

address PM–10 precursors in the State’s

emissions inventory and control strategy

and the fact that the 1993 SIP did not

demonstrate attainment in the

downtown Pocatello area due to road

dust emissions. The State also plans to

address PM–10 emissions from

Bannock-Paving Company,

Incorporated. A summary of the State’s

plans with respect to addressing these

deficiencies is presented below.

Section 189(e) of the Act states that

the control requirements applicable to

major stationary sources of PM–10 shall

also apply to major stationary sources of

PM–10 precursors, except where EPA

determines that major stationary sources

of PM–10 precursors do not contribute

significantly to PM–10 levels which

exceed the PM–10 standard in the area.

At the time the State developed and

submitted its SIP, PM–10 precursors

were not thought to contribute to PM–

10 levels which exceeded the PM–10

standard in the Power-Bannock

Counties PM–10 nonattainment area.

However, subsequent monitoring data

and analysis of the particulates

collected on the filters by the State in

January 1993 showed significant levels

of secondary aerosol and necessitated a

reevaluation of the contribution of PM–

10 precursors to the nonattainment

problem in the Power-Bannock Counties

PM–10 nonattainment area.6

Accordingly, in conjunction with EPA

and the Tribes, the State developed a

work plan for analyzing and addressing

the contribution of PM–10 precursors to

the nonattainment problem in the

Power-Bannock Counties PM–10

nonattainment area.

Since PM–10 precursors were first

identified in particulate samples

collected in January 1993 as a potential

contributor to the nonattainment

problem in the nonattainment area,

however, no levels above the standard

have been recorded at any of the State

monitors. Instead, it appears that PM–10

precursors represent a significant

fraction of the total PM–10 mass loading

only during very specific meteorological

conditions—cold stagnant winter days

with relative high humidity. There have

been only two days between 1986 and

1997 in which violations of the PM–10

NAAQS in the Power-Bannock Counties

PM–10 nonattainment area have been

attributed to secondary aerosols. Based

on the fact that the State monitors have

not recorded an exceedence since

January 1993, it does not appear that

major stationary sources of PM–10

precursors contribute significantly to

PM–10 levels which exceed the

standard within the portion of the

Power-Bannock Counties PM–10

nonattainment area located on State

lands. Although EPA reserves final

determination on this issue until the

State submits its SIP revision and EPA

takes final action on that revision, EPA’s

preliminary determination is that

stationary sources of PM–10 precursors

do not appear to contribute significantly

to PM–10 levels which exceed the

standard on the portion of the

nonattainment area on State lands. Final

action on such a finding would mean

that the State will not be required to

further address PM–10 precursors in

completing its SIP planning obligations

for the State portion of the PowerBannock Counties PM–10

nonattainment area.

EPA is aware that the ShoshoneBannock Tribes and citizens in the

Power-Bannock counties PM–10

nonattainment area believe that

particulate precursors contribute to air

quality problems in the area and should

be addressed. EPA shares this concern.

On July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated

new, more stringent, air quality

standards for particulate matter with an

aerodynamic diameter equal to or less

than 2.5 microns (PM–2.5). These

standards were promulgated to address

the serious health effects associated

with these very small particles, of which

secondary aerosol makes up a

significant fraction. EPA, the State, and

the Tribes are just now in the process of

establishing PM–2.5 air monitoring

stations to better define and characterize

the nature and extent of the fine

particulate air quality problem in the

Portneuf Valley and Fort Hall area.

EPA’s preliminary determination that

PM–10 precursors do not need to be

addressed by the State in its current

PM–10 planning process for the

Portneuf Valley area should not be

interpreted to imply that particulate

precursors will not need to be addressed

under the new PM–2.5 standard. To the

contrary, EPA believes it is likely that

particulate precursors will need to be

addressed in the Portneuf Valley and

Fort Hall area under the new PM–2.5

standard.

Another deficiency previously

identified by EPA in the State’s PM–10

planning process was the State’s

inability to model attainment of the

PM–10 standard in the Pocatello urban

area due to projected fugitive road dust

emissions. The State has long suspected

that the emission factors it used to

estimate road dust emissions in the

emissions inventory and attainment

demonstration (AP–42 emission factors)

were far too high. Idaho therefore

commissioned a study to measure road

dust emissions in the Pocatello area and

to develop new emission factors if

appropriate. Preliminary results from

the study, which are included in the

Docket for this rulemaking, indicate that

the emission factors derived from the

study are, on average, 68% less than the

AP–42 emission factors used to develop

the original emissions inventory. The

State therefore asserts that the modeled

exceedences of the PM–10 standard in

the downtown Pocatello area appear to

be due to the erroneously high road dust

emission factors and are not

representative of actual ambient

conditions. Although EPA defers a final
33602 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 118 / Friday, June 19, 1998 / Proposed Rules

7The State’s request to split the nonattainment

area states that Bannock Paving is a major stationary

source of PM–10. Based on EPA’s review of the five

State permits for Bannock Paving and conversations

with the State, EPA understands that the statement

in the State’s request was in error and that each of

the Bannock Paving facilities is a minor source of

PM–10, even when the portable facilities co-locate.

8 In developing its PM–10 control strategy and

SIP, the State did not seek to impose controls on

any sources located on Reservation lands, including

fee lands within the exterior boundary of the

Reservation, or attempt to demonstrate to EPA that

it had authority to promulgate and enforce air

controls on Reservation lands.

determination on this issue until it

receives and reviews the State’s SIP

revision, EPA tentatively agrees with the

State that additional controls on road

dust emissions do not appear to be

necessary to demonstrate attainment in

the State portion of the nonattainment

area.

As discussed above, the State also

intends to address emissions from

Bannock Paving Company, Incorporated

(Bannock Paving), in its SIP revision.

Bannock Paving operates five portable

facilities that operate in attainment and

nonattainment areas in the State of

Idaho, each of which is a minor source

of PM–10.7 The State has submitted the

existing construction permits for the

Bannock Paving facilities, which were

issued under a federally enforceable

permit program. The existing permits

contain several emission limitations that

control PM–10, such as opacity limits,

grain loading standards, and

requirements for controlling fugitive

emissions, and the State asserts that the

level of controls currently imposed on

Bannock Paving in these construction

permits represents RACT. The State has

also advised EPA that it intends to

consolidate all of the existing

construction permits the State has

issued for Bannock Paving into a new

operating permit for Bannock Paving

and submit the revised permit and a

demonstration that the permit

constitutes RACT in its SIP revision.

EPA defers a final determination on this

issue until EPA has received the State’s

SIP revision, but notes that Bannock

Paving is currently subject to controls

on PM–10 emissions.

Based on the controls that have been

previously imposed by the State on the

sources of PM–10 on State lands within

the nonattainment area and the

discussion by the State of its soon-to-be

submitted SIP revision in support of its

request to split the nonattainment area,

EPA believes that the State has largely

completed its PM–10 planning

obligations under the Clean Air Act.

Indeed, on its portion of the

nonattainment area, the State is

demonstrating and, in all likelihood will

continue to demonstrate, attainment of

the PM–10 NAAQS. In light of the

information that some sources of PM–10

emissions at the FMC facility are located

on State lands, however, the State’s SIP

revision will also need to address the

PM–10 emissions from that portion of

the FMC facility located on State lands.

In contrast, the PM–10 requirements

for the Tribal portion of the

nonattainment area are still under

development.8 Because of long-standing

concerns about the air quality in the

Power-Bannock County PM–10

nonattainment area, EPA has been

developing a Federal Implementation

Plan (FIP) for the portion of the

nonattainment area within the exterior

boundary of the Fort Hall Indian

Reservation. The plan is being

developed in close consultation with

the Tribes and with extensive public

participation. EPA intends to propose

the FIP by the end of January 1999, and

to finalize the FIP in the year 2000.

The Clean Air Act Amendments of

1990 greatly expanded the role of Indian

Tribes in implementing the provisions

of the Clean Air Act in Indian country.

Section 301(d) of the Act authorizes

EPA to issue regulations specifying the

provisions of the Clean Air Act for

which Indian tribes may be treated in

the same manner as States. See CAA

sections 301(d)(1) and (2). EPA

promulgated the final rule under section

301(d) of the Act, entitled ‘‘Indian

Tribes: Air Quality Planning and

Management,’’ on February 12, 1998. 63

FR 7254. The rule is generally referred

to as the ‘‘Tribal Authority Rule’’ or

‘‘TAR’’. The TAR implements the

provisions of section 301(d) of the Act

to authorize eligible Tribes to

implement their own Tribal air

programs. This includes a delegation of

authority, to Tribes which meet certain

requirements and request delegation, to

develop, adopt and submit PM–10

nonattainment area Tribal

Implementation Plans for lands within

the exterior boundary of Indian

Reservations, including fee lands. Until

promulgation of the TAR in February

1998, however, the Shoshone-Bannock

Tribes did not have authority under the

Clean Air Act to carry out the PM–10

planning responsibilities for the Tribal

portion of the nonattainment area.

The Shoshone-Bannock Tribes have

expressed a strong interest in seeking

authority under the TAR to regulate

sources of air pollution on Tribal land

under the Clean Air Act. Based on

discussions with the Tribes, however,

EPA believes that it will be at least

several months before the Tribes will be

ready to seek authority under the TAR

to assume Clean Air Act planning

responsibilities and that, even should

they do so, the Tribes intend to build

their capacity and seek authority for the

various Clean Air Act programs over

time, rather than all at once. EPA’s

understanding is that the Tribes

continue to support EPA’s efforts to

promulgate a PM–10 nonattainment FIP

for the Tribal portion of the

nonattainment area notwithstanding the

recent promulgation of the TAR.

In summary, although the State has

largely completed its PM–10 planning

responsibilities for the portion of the

Power-Bannock Counties PM–10

nonattainment area on State lands, the

planning responsibilities for the Tribal

portion of the nonattainment area,

including the FMC facility, are still

under development.

3. Issues Raised by the Tribes and FMC

to the State

As discussed above, on May 21, 1998,

the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes and FMC

submitted to the State of Idaho

documents opposing Idaho’s request to

EPA to split the nonattainment area into

two nonattainment areas. Although the

Tribes and FMC raised these issues in

the State proceeding and will have an

opportunity to raise the issues in the

public comment period on this

proposal, EPA has considered the issues

raised by the Tribes and FMC prior to

this proposal.

The Tribes and FMC assert that the

State failed to follow Idaho law (Idaho

Administrative Procedures Act (IDAPA)

16.01.01.578.04) by submitting its

request to EPA without first providing

public notice and opportunity for

comment. FMC further asserts that the

State’s request failed to comply with

other provisions of IDAPA 16.01.01.578,

as well, such as the requirement to

consider certain factors enumerated in

IDAPA 16.01.01.578.02 for designating

boundaries, and that public notice and

comment was also required by Idaho

Code sections 67–5221 and 5222, which

govern rulemaking proceedings. The

Idaho Attorney General’s Office has

advised EPA that the State’s request to

EPA to split the nonattainment area into

two nonattainment areas is not subject

to IDAPA 16.01.01.578, which is

entitled ‘‘Designation of Attainment,

Unclassifiable and Nonattainment

Areas.’’ The Attorney General’s office

has also advised EPA that the State’s

request to EPA is not a rulemaking

under State law and is thus not subject

to Idaho Code sections 67–5221 and 67–

5222. EPA defers to the Idaho Attorney

General’s Office on these interpretations

of Idaho law.
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 118 / Friday, June 19, 1998 / Proposed Rules 33603

The Tribes and FMC also expressed

concern that splitting the area into two

PM–10 nonattainment areas at the StateReservation boundary could result in a

less comprehensive approach to air

quality planning in the area. EPA was

previously aware of the Tribes concern

on this issue based on several meetings

between the EPA and the Tribes

regarding the State’s request. EPA has

carefully considered this concern,

especially the interests of the ShoshoneBannock Tribes, but continues to

believe that the proposed split is in the

overall best interest of the area as a

whole. The State has largely completed

its PM–10 planning requirements for the

area. Therefore, EPA does not believe

that splitting the nonattainment area

will result in a less comprehensive

approach to PM–10 planning for the

existing Power-Bannock Counties PM–

10 nonattainment area as a whole. If

some area in or near the City of

Pocatello or the Fort Hall Indian

Reservation is later identified as a

nonattainment area for PM–2.5, EPA

will consider at the time of such

identification whether, based on air

quality data, planning and control

considerations, or other air qualityrelated considerations, the planning

requirements for PM–2.5 are best carried

out by having a single nonattainment

area or having two nonattainment areas

divided at the State-Reservation

boundary or in some other way.

In addition to its contention that the

State failed to comply with State

requirements for public notice and

opportunity for public comment, FMC

further contends that the State failed to

comply with the Clean Air Act in

making its request to EPA. FMC argues

that sections 110(a)(2) and 110(l) of the

CAA also require that the State’s request

to EPA be subject to public notice and

comment before submission to EPA.

EPA disagrees. Sections 110(a)(2) and

110(l) of the CAA require a State to

provide public notice and comment at

the State level for State Implementation

Plans (SIPs) and SIP revisions. The

State’s request to EPA to split the

Power-Bannock Counties PM–10

nonattainment area is not a SIP or SIP

revision, and is therefore not subject to

the requirements of section 110 of the

CAA. FMC further argues that the

State’s request is incomplete as a matter

of federal law because it does not

address the factors enumerated in

section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA. That

section, however, by its terms applies

only to requests to redesignation of an

area from nonattainment to attainment.

The State has not requested that the

portion of the Power-Bannock Counties

PM–10 nonattainment area located on

State lands be redesignated from

nonattainment to attainment. As stated

above, the proposed Portneuf Valley

PM–10 nonattainment area will retain

its classification as a moderate PM–10

nonattainment area as a result of this

proposed action. Therefore, section

107(d)(3)(E) is inapplicable to the State’s

request and EPA’s proposed action.

Finally, FMC asserts that splitting the

nonattainment area into two

nonattainment areas is inconsistent with

section 107(d)(1) of the CAA absent a

showing that ‘‘other sources in the area

are not collectively causing or

contributing to a violation of the

NAAQS.’’ As stated above, based on

information currently available to EPA,

EPA believes the State has shown that

sources located on State lands are not

causing or contributing to the violations

of the PM–10 NAAQS that have been

recorded on the Tribal monitors.

Therefore, EPA believes that splitting

the Power-Bannock Counties PM–10

nonattainment areas into two

nonattainment areas at the StateReservation boundary is consistent with

section 107(d)(1) of the CAA.

FMC also asserts that a portion of the

FMC facility is located on State lands.

As discussed above, EPA has considered

the impact of this fact on the State’s

request, and continues to believe it is

appropriate to split the nonattainment

area at the State-Reservation boundary.

Based on the fact that more of the FMC

facility is located on State lands than

was previously understood by EPA,

however, EPA specifically invites

comment on whether, as an alternative

proposal, it would be appropriate to

split the current Power-Bannock

Counties PM–10 nonattainment area at

the State-Reservation boundary, except

to include in the proposed Fort Hall

PM–10 nonattainment area that portion

of the FMC facility located within State

lands.

4. Summary

Based on the information provided by

the State in its request and other

information available to EPA, EPA

proposes to grant the State’s request to

split the Power-Bannock Counties PM–

10 nonattainment area into two

nonattainment areas along the StateReservation boundary. The monitors

located on State lands have not

registered a violation or even an

exceedence of the PM–10 NAAQS for

more than five years. In addition,

modeling and monitoring information

shows that sources on State lands

within the nonattainment area are not

contributing to the exceedences of the

PM–10 NAAQS that have been recorded

on the Tribal monitors. Finally, the

State has imposed controls on major

sources of PM–10 within the State

portion of the nonattainment area and

the monitors sited on State lands have

shown a general decline in the ambient

PM–10 values recorded since the State

first imposed these controls. In contrast,

the monitors situated on Tribal lands

have recorded numerous exceedences of

the PM–10 NAAQS since they began

operation in 1996, and EPA has not yet

completed rulemaking action that

would impose controls on the major

sources of PM–10 in the Tribal portion

of the nonattainment area. EPA

therefore believes that air quality data,

planning and control considerations,

and other air quality-related information

support dividing the current PowerBannock Counties PM–10

nonattainment area into two separate

PM–10 nonattainment areas at the StateReservation boundary, as requested by

the State.

III. Implications of this Proposed

Action

A. Area Classifications and

Designations

If EPA takes final action on this

proposal, the current Power-Bannock

Counties PM–10 nonattainment area

would be split into two nonattainment

areas that together cover the identical

geographic area of the current

nonattainment area. The revised areas

would be divided at the boundary

between State lands and the Fort Hall

Indian Reservation, with one revised

area, to be referred to as the ‘‘Portneuf

Valley PM–10 nonattainment area,’’

comprised of State lands and the other

revised area, referred to as the ‘‘Fort

Hall PM–10 nonattainment area,’’

comprised of lands within the exterior

boundary of the Fort Hall Indian

Reservation.

The table below indicates how EPA is

proposing to revise the PM–10

designation for the current PowerBannock Counties PM–10

nonattainment area, for both Idaho and

the Fort Hall Indian Reservation in 40

CFR section 81.313.
33604 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 118 / Friday, June 19, 1998 / Proposed Rules

PART 81.313—PM–10

Designated area

Designation Classification

Date Type Date ype

Idaho ........................................................................................ .................... Nonattainment ............... .................... Moderate.

Portneuf Valley Area:

T.5S, R.34E Sections 25–36.

T.5S, R.35E Section 31.

T.6S, R.34E Sections 1–36.

T.6S, R.35E Sections 5–9, 16–21, 28–33.

Plus the West 1⁄2 of Sections 10,15,22,27,34.

T.7S, R.34E Sections 1–4, 10–14, and 24.

T.7S, R.35E Sections 4–9, 16–21, 28–33.

Plus the West 1⁄2 of Sections 3,10,15,22,27,34.

T.8S, R.35E Section 4.

Plus the West 1⁄2 of Section 3.

Fort Hall Indian Reservation ................................................ .................... Nonattainment ............... .................... Moderate.

T.5S, R.34E Sections 15–23.

T.5S, R.33E Sections 13–36.

T.6S, R.33E Sections 1–36.

T.7S, R.33E Sections 4,5,6.

T.7S, R.34E Section 8.

Both the Portneuf Valley PM–10

nonattainment area and the Fort Hall

PM–10 nonattainment area would retain

nonattainment designations as PM–10

nonattainment areas as a result of this

proposed action. In a concurrent notice

of proposed rulemaking published

today, however, EPA is proposing to

make a finding that the proposed ‘‘Fort

Hall PM–10 nonattainment area’’ has

failed to attain the PM–10 NAAQS by

the applicable attainment date of

December 31, 1996. If EPA makes a final

determination that the proposed ‘‘Fort

Hall PM–10 nonattainment area’’ has

failed to attain the standard, that area

would be reclassified as a serious PM–

10 nonattainment area by operation of

law under section 188(b) of the Act,

whereas the Portneuf PM–10

nonattainment area would remain

classified as a moderate area.

B. New and Revised NAAQS for

Particulate Matter

On July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated

revisions to both the annual and the 24-

hour PM–10 standards and also

established two new standards for

particulate matter, both of which apply

only to particulate matter equal to or

less than 2.5 microns in diameter (PM–

2.5). See 62 FR 38651. The revised

standards became effective on

September 16, 1997. Although the

revised suite of particulate matter

standards reflects an overall

strengthening of the regulatory

standards for particulate matter, the

revised 24-hour PM–10 standard, by

itself, reflects a relaxation of that

standard. In the preamble to the final

rule setting the new and revised

particulate matter standards, EPA stated

that the pre-existing PM–10 standards

would remain in effect for a period of

time after the effective date of the new

standard to ensure a smooth transition

to the new standards. 62 FR 38701.

Based on the transition policy

announced by EPA in the preamble to

the final rule setting the new and

revised particulate standards, if EPA

takes final action on its proposal to split

the Power-Bannock Counties PM–10

nonattainment area, the existing PM–10

standards will ultimately be revoked in

the two resulting nonattainment areas at

different times. Because the monitors

located on State lands showed

attainment of the pre-existing PM–10

standard at the time promulgation of the

revised PM–10 standards became

effective, the pre-existing PM–10

standard would continue to apply in the

proposed Portneuf Valley PM–10

nonattainment area until such time as

EPA approves the control measures that

have been adopted and implemented at

the State level to bring the area into

attainment with the pre-existing PM–10

NAAQS, and the State of Idaho has an

approved SIP under section 110 of the

Act for purposes of implementing the

revised particulate matter standards. See

62 FR 38701. The monitors in the Tribal

portion of the nonattainment area,

however, did not show attainment of the

pre-existing PM–10 standard at the time

promulgation of the revised PM–10

NAAQS became effective. Therefore, the

pre-existing PM–10 NAAQS would

continue to apply in the proposed Fort

Hall PM–10 nonattainment area until

EPA has completed its rulemaking

under section 172(e) of the Act to

prevent backsliding in those areas that

had not attained the pre-existing PM–10

standard as of the date the relaxed PM–

10 standard became effective. See 62 FR

39701. The rule promulgated under

section 172(e) must require controls in

the Fort Hall PM–10 nonattainment

area, that are ‘‘not less stringent than the

controls applicable to areas designated

nonattainment before the relaxation of

the 24-hour PM–10 standard.’’ EPA is

also in the process of drafting a Federal

Implementation Plan for the proposed

Fort Hall PM–10 nonattainment area

and expects that such FIP will meet the

requirements promulgated by EPA

under section 172(e).

C. Consultation With the ShoshoneBannock Tribes

As discussed above, EPA consulted

with the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes prior

to making this proposal. In particular, as

discussed above, EPA is aware that the

Tribes are concerned that splitting the

area into two PM–10 nonattainment

areas at the State-Reservation boundary

could result in a less comprehensive

approach to air quality planning in the

area. As also discussed above, EPA has

carefully considered the Tribes concerns

but believes that the proposed split is in

the overall best interest of the area as a

whole because the State has largely

completed its PM–10 planning

requirements for the area. Therefore,

EPA does not believe that splitting the

nonattainment area will result in a less

comprehensive approach to PM–10

planning for the existing PowerBannock Counties PM–10

nonattainment area as a whole. In this

regard, EPA would like to emphasize

that until EPA promulgated the TAR in

February of 1998, the Tribes did not

have authority under the Clean Air Act
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 118 / Friday, June 19, 1998 / Proposed Rules 33605

to address the PM–10 planning

requirements for the Reservation portion

of the nonattainment area. EPA will

carefully consider any additional

comments or concerns raised by the

Tribes during the public comment

period on this action, including the

Tribes preference for the name of the

nonattainment area located within the

Fort Hall Indian Reservation.

IV. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order (E.O.) 12866

Under E.O. 12866 (58 FR 51735

(October 4, 1993)), EPA is required to

determine whether regulatory actions

are significant and therefore should be

subject to Office of Management and

Budget (OMB) review, economic

analysis, and the requirements of the

Executive Order. The Executive Order

defines a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’

as one that is likely to result in a rule

that may meet at least one of the four

criteria identified in section 3(f),

including, under paragraph (1), that the

rule may ‘‘have an annual effect on the

economy of $100 million or more or

adversely affect, in a material way, the

economy, a sector of the economy,

productivity, competition, jobs, the

environment, public health or safety, or

State, local or tribal governments or

communities.’’

The OMB has exempted this action

from review under E.O. 12866. In

addition, the Agency has determined

that EPA’s proposal to split the

nonattainment area into two

nonattainment areas would result in

none of the effects identified in section

3(f).

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act,

5 U.S.C. 601 et seq, EPA must prepare

a regulatory flexibility analysis

assessing the impact of any proposed or

final rule on small entities. 5 U.S.C. 603

and 604. Alternatively, EPA may certify

that the rule will not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities. Small entities

include small businesses, small not-forprofit enterprises, and government

entities with jurisdiction over

populations of less than 50,000.

A regulatory flexibility screening

analysis of this proposed action

revealed that it would not have a

significant adverse economic impact on

a substantial number of small entities. A

rule revising the designation of an area

by creating two separate nonattainment

areas under section 107(d)(3) of the

CAA does not impose any new

requirements on small entities. See MidTex Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. FERC,

773 F.2d 327 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (agency’s

certification need only consider rule’s

impact on entities subject to the

requirements of the rule). To the extent

that a State, Tribe or EPA must adopt

new regulations, based on an area’s

nonattainment status, EPA will review

the effect those actions have on small

entities at the time EPA takes action on

those regulations. Therefore, pursuant to

5 U.S.C. 605(b), I certify that the

approval of the revised designation

action proposed today does not have a

significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities

within the meaning of those terms for

RFA purposes.

C. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates

Reform Act (UMRA), establishes

requirements for Federal agencies to

assess the effects of their regulatory

actions on State, local, and Tribal

governments and the private sector.

Under the UMRA, EPA must assess

whether various actions undertaken in

association with proposed or final

regulations include a Federal mandate

that may result in estimated costs of

$100 million or more to the private

sector, or to State, local or tribal

governments in the aggregate.

EPA has determined that this

proposed action, if promulgated, would

not include a Federal mandate that may

result in estimated costs of $100 million

or more to either State, local, or tribal

governments in the aggregate, or to the

private sector. A rule revising the

designation of an area by creating two

separate nonattainment areas under

section 107(d)(3) of the CAA does not

impose any new requirements on the

State, Tribes or the private sector.

Redesignation is an action that affects

the air quality status of a geographic

area or the boundary of the geographic

area and does not impose any regulatory

requirements on the State, Tribes or

private sector. Accordingly, EPA has

determined that the proposed action

does not include a Federal mandate that

may result in estimated costs of $100

million or more to either State, local, or

Tribal governments in the aggregate, or

to the private sector.

D. Executive Order 13045: Protection of

Children From Environmental Health

Risks and Safety Risks

Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885

(April 23, 1997)) applies to any rule that

EPA determines (1) ‘‘economically

significant’’ as defined under Executive

Order 12866, and (2) the environmental

health or safety risk addressed by the

rule has a disproportionate effect on

children. If the regulatory action meets

both criteria, the Agency must evaluate

the environmental health or safety

effects of the planned rule on children;

and explain why the planned regulation

is preferable to other potentially

effective and reasonably feasible

alternatives considered by the Agency.

This proposed action is not subject to

Executive Order 13045 because this is

not an economically significant

regulatory action as defined by

Executive Order 12866.

V. Request for Public Comments

EPA is, by this document, proposing

that the PM–10 designation for the

Power-Bannock Counties PM–10

nonattainment area be revised. The EPA

is requesting public comments on all

aspects of this proposal, including the

appropriateness of the proposed

designation and the scope of the

proposed boundary. Public comments

should be submitted to EPA at the

address identified above by July 20,

1998.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 81

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, National parks,

Wilderness areas.

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

Dated: June 10, 1998.

Chuck Findley,

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 10.

[FR Doc. 98–16403 Filed 6–18–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 81

[ID 22–7002; FRL–6113–3]

Clean Air Act Reclassification; Fort

Hall Indian Reservation Particulate

Matter (PM–10) Nonattainment Area

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: EPA proposes to determine

that a portion of the Fort Hall Indian

Reservation has not attained the

National Ambient Air Quality Standards

(NAAQS) for particulate matter with an

aerodynamic diameter of less than or

equal to 10 microns (PM–10) by the

applicable attainment date for moderate

PM–10 nonattainment areas under the

Clean Air Act (CAA). In a concurrent

notice of proposed rulemaking

published today, EPA has proposed that

the existing Power-Bannock Counties

PM–10 nonattainment area, which is

currently classified as moderate with an

attainment date of December 31, 1996,