Browse by Year
/ 2003
/ October
/ Monday, October 27, 2003
[Federal Register: October 27, 2003 (Volume 68, Number 207)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 61106-61111]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr27oc03-10]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 52 and 81
[ID-02-003; FRL -7568-9]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans and Designation
of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes: Ada County/Boise, ID Area
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or Agency) is taking
final action to rescind its earlier finding that the PM10
standards promulgated on July 1, 1987 and the accompanying
nonattainment designation and classification are no longer applicable
in the Ada County/Boise, Idaho area, and simultaneously, approve a
PM10 State Implementation Plan maintenance plan for the Ada
County/Boise Idaho area and to redesignate the area from nonattainment
to attainment. PM10 air pollution is suspended particulate
matter with a diameter less than or equal to a nominal ten micrometers.
EFFECTIVE DATE: November 26, 2003.
ADDRESSES: Copies of the State's request and other supporting
information used in developing 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, Department of Environmental Quality (IDEQ), 1410
North Hilton, Boise, Idaho 83706-1255. Interested persons wanting to
examine these documents should make an appointment with the appropriate
office at least 24 hours before the visiting day. A reasonable fee may
be charged for copies.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Donna Deneen, Office of Air Quality
(OAQ-107), EPA Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98101
(206) 553-6706.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. What Is the Purpose of This Rulemaking?
II. What Comments Did EPA Receive on the Proposed Action?
III. What Final Action Is Being Taken?
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. What Is the Purpose of This Rulemaking?
Under the authority of the federal Clean Air Act (Clean Air Act or
the Act) EPA is finalizing certain actions related to the
PM10 designation and classification of the Ada County/Boise,
Idaho area.\1\ First, EPA is rescinding the March 12, 1999 finding (64
FR 12257) that the PM10 standards promulgated on July 1,
1987 (52 FR 24634) and the accompanying designation and classification
for PM10 no longer apply in the Ada County/Boise, Idaho
area. The intended effect of this action is to restore the
applicability of the current PM10 standards in the Ada
County/Boise, Idaho area as well as the nonattainment designation and
moderate classification associated with those standards.
Simultaneously, EPA is taking final action to approve the
PM10 maintenance plan for the Ada County/Boise, Idaho area
as a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision and to redesignate the
area to ``attainment'' for PM10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Although the State's maintenance plan and redesignation
request refers to ``Northern Ada County,'' we are using the term
``Ada County/Boise, Idaho'' or ``Ada County/Boise, Idaho area'' for
consistency with 40 CFR 81.313.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The action to redesignate Ada County/Boise, Idaho to attainment is
based on valid monitoring data and projections of ambient air quality
made in the demonstration that accompanies the maintenance plan. EPA
believes the area will continue to meet the National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS or standards) for PM10 for at least
10 years beyond this redesignation, as required by the Act. A detailed
description of our proposed action to rescind the March 12, 1999
finding and to approve the Ada County/Boise, Idaho maintenance plan and
redesignation request was published in a proposed rulemaking in the
Federal Register on July 30, 2003 (68 FR 44715).
II. What Comments Did EPA Receive on the Proposed Action?
EPA received the following comments from six commenters on the July
30, 2003 proposal for the Ada County/Boise, Idaho area. All comments
either were in support of the proposal, requested further explanation
on certain aspects of the proposal, or were outside the scope of the
proposal.
[[Page 61107]]
Comment: The air in Canyon County is not polluted because of
vehicle emissions. An inspection and maintenance program is not needed
in Canyon County.
Response: EPA is approving a maintenance plan for Ada County, not
Canyon County. However, to the extent that the State believes that
control measures outside the Ada County/Boise, Idaho area support the
maintenance plan, EPA is approving, at the State's request, those
measures as part of the maintenance plan as well. The federal Clean Air
Act does not specify the particular control measures that must be used
to demonstrate maintenance of the standards. Under the Act, state and
local governments have the primary responsibility to determine which
pollution sources to control, figure out how controls will be
implemented, and demonstrate the controls result in attainment and
maintenance of the NAAQS. In this case, the State has made that
demonstration. EPA's role is to ensure that whatever measures are
selected produce the emissions reductions needed to meet the standards.
Our action here merely approves the maintenance plan and its associated
control measures already adopted by the State and imposes no additional
requirements.
Comment: Canyon County and Ada County are not one airshed. Canyon
County should not be included in the monitoring network for the Ada
County area. Canyon County should be its own separate area and treated
separately.
Response: For the purpose of air quality management, the boundary
of an air shed is determined based on, among other things, the
meterological and topographical parameters, pollution source and impact
area, and land use characteristics. Often the airshed boundary does not
follow political jurisdiction boundaries such as a county line or city
line. Based on the air quality studies and data available to EPA,
including the modeling reconciliation in Appendix D of the maintenance
plan, it is evident that pollution production and transport in the
Treasure Valley area encompass geographical boundaries larger than any
specific county border. As both Ada and Canyon County are experiencing
rapid growth and expansion, it is logical that the airshed management
efforts focus on the larger area. The State selects the monitor
locations (including in Ada County and Canyon County) that make up its
monitoring network. EPA has approved the State's network as meeting the
criteria in 40 CFR 58 appendix D.
Comment: The Middleton monitors do not reflect Canyon County air
quality and should be repositioned. DEQ should not use the Middleton
monitors to define Canyon County's ozone reading.
Response: The Middleton monitors measure ozone and
PM2.5. This action relates to PM10. We will
forward the comments related to ozone and PM2.5 to
appropriate representatives at IDEQ.
Comment: EPA should emphasize that this action has nothing to do
with Canyon County and asks that we refute the statement in the
settlement agreement that IDEQ intends to develop an air quality plan
for Treasure Valley.
Response: While EPA agrees that IDEQ's efforts to develop an air
quality plan for the Treasure Valley are independent of our action on
the maintenance plan, EPA has no basis for refuting IDEQ's intentions
to develop an air quality plan for the Treasure Valley. It is entirely
appropriate for--in fact EPA encourages--the State to take any
preventive steps needed to ensure air quality standards are met in the
Treasure Valley and all of Idaho.
Comment: The basis for reinstating the PM10 NAAQS is no
longer valid due to a decision favorable to EPA in the American
Trucking Association, et al. v. EPA et al., and consolidated cases.
Response: As explained in the proposal, the basis for revoking the
1987 PM10 standards in the Ada County/Boise, Idaho
nonattainment area was eliminated when the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the District of Columbia vacated the revised 1997 PM10
standards. Since we revoked the 1987 standards and the court vacated
the 1997 standards, there are no federal PM10 standards
currently applicable in the Ada County/Boise, Idaho area. Therefore, we
are rescinding the finding that the 1987 PM10 standards are
no longer applicable in Ada County/Boise, Idaho and reinstating the
1987 PM10 standards. The decision in American Trucking
Association referred to by the commenter addressed the PM2.5
standards and not the 1987 or 1997 PM10 standards.
Comment: Control measures are not needed in Canyon County because
Ada County has attained the PM10 NAAQS since 1999.
Response: In order for EPA to redesignate the Ada County/Boise,
Idaho area, the State must not only show that the area is currently
attaining the PM10 NAAQS, but that it will continue to
attain the PM10 NAAQS 10 years into the future. In making
its demonstration, the State must consider anticipated changes to the
area over the next 10 years, including the impacts of surrounding
areas. EPA has reviewed the State's 10 year demonstration and finds
that the demonstration meets the review criteria derived from the Act,
general preamble (57 FR 13498), and further interpreted by a policy and
guidance memorandum from John Calcagni, September 4, 1992, Procedures
for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment (Calcagni
Memorandum). (See also Section III of the Technical Support Document).
Based on this review, EPA has no basis for disapproving any control
measures in the maintenance plan submitted by the State. The federal
Clean Air Act does not specify the particular control measures that the
State must use to demonstrate maintenance of the standards. Under the
Act, state and local governments have the primary responsibility to
determine which pollution sources to control and how those controls
will be implemented. EPA's role is to ensure that whatever measures are
selected produce the emission reductions needed to meet the standards.
In this case, the State has made that demonstration. Our action here
merely approves the maintenance plan and its associated control
measures already adopted by the state and imposes no additional
requirements.
Comment: The commenter requests that all references to Canyon
County be omitted in the approval of the Ada County SIP.
Response: As discussed above, the Ada County/Boise, Idaho
maintenance plan meets EPA's review criteria. EPA has no basis for
omitting references to Canyon County.
Comment: Canyon County and Ada County should not be combined
because of geological, geographical, population, and economic activity
differences. The plan is only about Ada County, not Canyon County, and
the counties should not be combined because they differ in various
ways.
Response: EPA agrees that there are differences between Canyon
County and Ada County. EPA believes IDEQ has appropriately accounted
for those differences in its emissions inventory and modeling
demonstration, as indicated in our evaluation of those elements in the
Technical Support Document.
Comment: The commenter questions whether The Amalgamated Sugar
Company contributes to the Ada County PM10 levels since
Canyon County has not exceeded the standards.
Response: The Amalgamated Sugar Company, although located in Canyon
County, is along the Ada County's upwind flow which sometimes impacts a
portion of the Ada County PM10 nonattainment area. It is
appropriate to include in the maintenance demonstration a source that
is located in
[[Page 61108]]
an attainment area but impacts or interferes with the air quality of
the nonattainment or maintenance area at issue in the SIP or
maintenance plan.
Comment: Contingency measures should not apply to Canyon County.
Response: The federal Clean Air Act requires contingency provisions
to be an element of a maintenance plan but does not specify which ones
to include or where or how they should be applied. Under the federal
Clean Air Act, state and local governments have the primary
responsibility of determining the location, scope, and timing of
particular contingency measures. It is EPA's role is to ensure that
whatever measures are selected would promptly correct any violation of
the NAAQS that occurs after redesignation of the area. The contingency
measures in the plan meet this requirement. Our action here merely
approves these contingencies as part of the maintenance plan and
imposes no additional requirements.
Comment: The commenter asks about the meaning of the correction
made to the PM10 maintenance plan.
Response: EPA assumes the commenter is referring to a revision IDEQ
submitted to EPA on July 21, 2003. The revision corrected an error
found in the fugitive road dust emissions for future years. While this
correction changed the value of future fugitive road dust emissions, it
did not change the method for determining fugitive road dust emissions
in the submitted maintenance plan. IDEQ reran the model to incorporate
the correction and submitted an addendum reflecting the results of the
new modeling run.
Comment: The commenter inquires who has authority to withhold
Federal Funds.
Response: EPA assumes the commenter is referring to section
176(c)(2) of the Clean Air Act, which prohibits a Federal agency from
approving, accepting or funding any transportation plan, program or
project in certain circumstances. Under this provision, the Federal
Government, not a State or local agency, has the ability to withhold
Federal transportation funds.
Comment: The commenter inquires about the criteria EPA uses to
approve a submission from COMPASS and IDEQ.
Response: EPA assumes the commenter means a SIP submission. SIP
submissions are submitted by the Governor of Idaho or his designee. As
discussed in the proposal on July 30, 2003 (68 FR 44715), the State's
submission must meet the requirements of the Clean Air Act. The review
criteria is derived from the Act, general preamble, and further
interpreted by a policy and guidance memorandum from John Calcagni,
September 4, 1992, Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate
Areas to Attainment (Calcagni Memorandum). (See also Section III of the
Technical Support Document).
Comment: The monitors in Canyon County show different levels of
pollutants than in Ada County and, therefore, approvability of the plan
is questionable.
Response: Air quality monitors in an airshed do not record same
levels at the same time because windflows or pollution sources
impacting two monitors are not same. Unless there is a region or area-
wide pollution source that is causing the problem, one expects to see
different levels at different monitors.
Comment: More monitors are needed and monitors should be at
locations indicating the most air quality problems.
Response: As mentioned above, the State selects the monitors that
make up the State monitoring network. EPA has approved the State's
network as meeting the criteria in 40 CFR 58 appendix D. EPA, however,
will forward this comment to monitoring representatives at IDEQ.
Comment: Dairy operations should have more restrictions.
Response: The State of Idaho has the primary responsibility to
determine which sources to control to meet the NAAQS. Our action here
merely approves the maintenance plan as meeting Federal requirements
and imposes no additional requirements. In this instance, IDEQ has
devised an approach that meets and maintains attainment needs by
controlling the sources that they have chosen.
Comment: The CMAQ model should be used to compare results with
Environ's CAMX model.
Response: CMAQ is a more sophisticated and advanced air quality
model. The input parameters (chemistry and meteorology) to run the CMAQ
model are not yet fully developed for the Ada County/Boise, Idaho area.
IDEQ, EPA, and several other partners are currently working together to
develop a CMAQ modeling system for the northwest including the Boise
area for use in future applications.
Comment: The objective should be to model the meteorology and the
air quality of the valley in real time.
Response: EPA agrees that a real time modeling system would be
valuable for the air quality management. EPA Region 10, states, and
several other partners have been collaboratively working to develop a
real time air quality simulation system for the northwest including the
Boise area. However, for the purpose of an attainment or maintenance
demonstration, it is generally adequate to simulate typical historical
worst case pollution episodes.
Comment: Air quality impacts from industry are overstated because
the potential to emit is used rather than actual emissions. Micron
PC.com's projected emissions are over-estimated and requests that IDEQ
correct them.
Response: IDEQ appropriately determined industrial emissions based
on a source's potential to emit because there are no permanent,
enforceable measures to prevent the higher potential emission levels
from occurring. If a facility's projected emissions are higher than its
potential to emit, the use of those emissions in the State's
demonstration would indicate over-control and would have no effect on
the approvability of the maintenance plan. We will, however, forward
this correction request to IDEQ.
Comment: The commenter emphasizes the importance of enforcing and
monitoring facility compliance with the operating permits that the
state relied on to demonstrate attainment. The commenter also
encourages active enforcement of local laws, permits, regulations and
ordinances, specifically the municipal solid waste ban because in order
to take credit for reductions from these new laws, they must be
successfully implemented. Additionally, the commenter also requests
that EPA require IDEQ to certify that all inspections are completed and
facilities are in compliance.
Response: EPA agrees that the enforcement of operating permits,
laws, regulations, and ordinances is an important component of the
State's air quality control program. As discussed in the Technical
Support Document, the SIP and its control measures meet the
requirements for permanent and enforceable measures. EPA further
believes that the state has adequately shown that it has the
appropriate personnel, funding and authority to enforce and ensure
compliance of its permits, laws, regulations and ordinances. Since we
are taking final action on a proposal to approve the States's
maintenance plan and request to redesignate the Ada County/Boise, Idaho
as an attainment area and since the State's submission meets all the
requirements for approval, it is not appropriate in this action to
impose additional requirements as requested by the commenter.
[[Page 61109]]
Comment: The maintenance plan should be changed if permit
conditions that were relied on to demonstrate compliance are changed.
Response: EPA agrees with the commenter. Because emission rates
must reflect permanent, enforceable measures, any changes to the permit
conditions relied on to demonstrate compliance with the PM10
NAAQS are not federally enforceable until the State submits and EPA
approves the revised conditions.
III. Final Action
The Environmental Protection Agency rescinds its earlier finding
that the PM10 standards promulgated on July 1, 1987 and the
accompanying nonattainment designation and classification are no longer
applicable in the Ada County/Boise, Idaho area, and simultaneously,
approves a PM10 SIP maintenance plan for the Ada County/
Boise Idaho area and to redesignate the area from nonattainment to
attainment.
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and therefore is not
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this
reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211,
``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action
merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes
no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law.
Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because
this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does
not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by
state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4).
This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will
not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on
the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have Federalism
implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the
States, on the relationship between the national government and the
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64
FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely approves a state rule
implementing a Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or
the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean
Air Act. This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045
``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically
significant.
In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In
this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the
State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority
to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP
submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise
satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements
of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This rule does not
impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
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 December 26, 2003. 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, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Particulate matter, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.
40 CFR Part 81
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, National parks,
Wilderness areas.
Dated: September 29, 2003.
L. John Iani,
Regional Administrator, Region 10.
0
Chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as
follows:
PART 52--[AMENDED]
0
1. The authority citation for Part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart N--Idaho
0
2. Section 52.670 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(38) to read as
follows:
Sec. 52.670 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(38) The Idaho Department of Environmental Quality (Idaho DEQ, the
State, or Idaho) submitted a PM10 maintenance plan and
redesignation request for the Ada County/Boise, Idaho area on September
27, 2002, and provided supplemental information on July 10, 2003 and
July 21, 2003.
(i) Incorporation by reference.
(A) The following terms and conditions limiting particulate matter
emissions in the following permits:
(1) State of Idaho Air Pollution Operating Permit for LP Wood
Polymers, Inc. Permit No. 001-00115, issued July 12, 2002, the
following conditions: 1.1, 1.3, 3.1, and the Appendix.
(2) State of Idaho Air Pollution Operating Permit for Consolidated
Concrete Company, Permit No. 001-00046, issued December 03, 2001, the
following conditions: 1.1, 1.3, 2.3, 3.1, 3.2, and the Appendix.
[[Page 61110]]
(3) State of Idaho Air Pollution Operating Permit for Crookham
Company, Permit No. 027-00020, issued January 18, 2002, the following
conditions: 1.1, 1.3, 2.1, 2.3, 3.1, 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.2, and the
Appendix.
(4) State of Idaho Air Pollution Operating Permit for Double D
Service Center, Permit No. 001-00168, issued February 4, 2002, the
following conditions: 1.1, 1.3, 3.1, 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.2.3, and the
Appendix.
(5) State of Idaho Air Pollution Operating Permit for Plum Creek
Northwest Lumber, Inc., Permit No. 001-00091, issued July 12, 2002, the
following conditions: 1.1, 1.3, 2.1.2, 3.1, and the Appendix.
(6) State of Idaho Air Pollution Operating Permit for C. Wright
Construction, Inc., Permit No. T2-000033, issued July 08, 2003, the
following conditions: 2 (heading only), 2.5, (2.12, Table 2.2 as it
applies to PM10), 2.14, 3 (heading only), 3.3, Table 3.2,
3.4, 3.5, 3.6, 3.7, 3.8, 3.10, 4 (heading only), 4.2, 4.3, 4.4, 4.7, 5,
and Table 5.1.
(7) State of Idaho Air Pollution Operating Permit for Nelson
Construction Co., Permit No. T2-020029, issued July 21, 2003, the
following conditions: 2 (heading only), 2.12, 2.14, 3 (heading only,
3.3, 3.4, 3.6, 3.7, 3.9, 3.10, 3.11, 3.12, 4 (heading only), 4.3, 4.4,
4.5, 4.6, 5, and Table 5.1.
(8) State of Idaho Air Pollution Operating Permit for Mike's Sand
and Gravel, Permit No. 001-00184, issued July 12, 2002, the following
conditions: 1.1, 1.3, 2.2.1, 3.1, and the Appendix.
(9) State of Idaho Air Pollution Operating Permit for Idaho
Concrete Co., Permit No. T2-020031, issued July 8, 2003, the following
conditions: 2 (heading only), 2.5, 2.13, 3 (heading only), 3.3, 3.4,
3.6, 3.7, 3.8, 4 (heading only), and Table 4.1.
(10) State of Idaho Air Pollution Operating Permit for Idaho
Concrete Co., Permit No T2-020032, issued July 8, 2003, the following
conditions: 2 (heading only), 2.5, 2.13, 3 (heading only), 3.3, 3.4,
3.6, 3.7, 3.8, 4 (heading only), and Table 4.1.
(11) State of Idaho Air Pollution Operating Permit for Idaho
Concrete Co., Permit No. T2-020033, issued July 8, 2003, the following
conditions: 2 (heading only), 2.5, 2.13, 3 (heading only), 3.3, 3.4,
3.6, 3.7, 3.8, 4 (heading only), and Table 4.1.
(12) State of Idaho Air Pollution Operating Permit for The
Amalgamated Sugar Company LLC, Permit No. 027-00010, issued September
30, 2002, the following conditions: 2 (heading only), (2.7, Table 2.2
as it applies to PM10,) 2.10, 2.10.1, 2.10.2, 2.11, 2.11.1,
2.11.2, 2.11.3, 2.11.4, 2.11.5, 2.12, 2.12.1, 2.12.2, 2.12.3, 2.13,
2.13.1, 2.13.2, 2.13.3, 2.14, 2.14.1, 2.14.2, 2.16, 3 (heading only),
(3.3, Table 3.2 as it applies to PM10), 3.5, 3.7, 3.8,
3.8.1, 3.8.2, 3.8.3, 3.8.4, 3.8.5, 3.8.6, 3.8.7, 3.8.8, 3.9, 4 (heading
only), (4.3, Table 4.1 as it applies to PM10), 4.5, 4.6,
4.7, 5 (heading only), (5.3, Table 5.3 as it applies to
PM10), 5.5, 5.9, 5.9.1, 5.9.2, 5.9.3, 5.9.4, 5.9.5, 5.9.6,
5.9.7, 5.9.8, 5.9.9, 5.10, 5.11, 6 (heading only), 6.3, Table 6.1, 6.5,
6.6, 6.7, 6.7.1, 6.7.2, 6.8, 7 (heading only), (7.3, Table 7.1 as it
applies to PM10), 7.5, 7.7, 7.7.1, 7.7.2, 7.8, 8 (heading
only), 8.3, Table 8.1, 8.5, 8.7, 8.7.1, 8.7.2, 8.8, 9 (heading only),
9.3, Table 9.1, 9.5, 9.7, 9.7.1, 9.7.2, 9.8, 10 (heading only), 10.3,
Table 10.1, 10.6, 10.8, 10.8.1, 10.8.2, 10.9, 11 (heading only), 11.3,
Table 11.2, 11.6, 11.8, 11.8.1, 11.8.2, 11.9, 12 (heading only), 12.3,
Table 12.1, 12.5, 12.7, 12.7.1, 12.7.2, 12.8, 13 (heading only), 13.1,
Table 13.1 (except as it applies to condition 13.3), (13.2, Table 13.2
as it applies to PM10), 13.2.1, 13.4, 13.4.1, 13.4.2,
13.4.3, 13.5, 13.5.2, 13.5.3, 13.6, 13.6.1, 13.6.2, 13.7, 13.7.1,
13.7.2, 13.8, 13.8.1, 13.8.2, 13.8.3, 13.10, and 13.11.
0
3. Section 52.672 is amended by revising paragraph (e) to read as
follows:
Sec. 52.672 Approval of plans.
* * * * *
(e) Particulate Matter. (1) EPA approves as a revision to the Idaho
State Implementation Plan, the Northern Ada County PM10 SIP
Maintenance Plan, adopted by the State on September 26, 2002.
(2) [Reserved.]
* * * * *
Sec. 52.676 [Removed and Reserved]
0
4. Remove and reserve Sec. 52.676.
PART 81--[AMENDED]
0
1. The authority citation for Part 81 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
0
2. In Sec. 81.313, the table entitled ``Idaho PM-10'', the entry for
``Ada County: Boise'' is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 81.313 Idaho.
* * * * *
Idaho--PM-10
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Designation Classification
Designated area -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date Type Date Type
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Ada County: Boise--Northern Boundary-- 12/26/2003 Attainment
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.
* * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 61111]]
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 03-26919 Filed 10-24-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
Browse by Year
/ 2003
/ October
/ Monday, October 27, 2003
Loans - Debt Consolidation - Renegade Motorhomes - Credit Counseling
|
|
