[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 114 (Wednesday, June 12, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 29667-29672]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-14455]



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


ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 81

[ID14-6994a; FRL-5515-1 ]


Description of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; State of 
Idaho; Correction to Boundary of the Power-Bannock Counties Particulate 
Matter Nonattainment Area to Exclude the Inkom Area

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule, correction.

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

SUMMARY: This action corrects EPA's announcement of the boundary of the 
Power-Bannock Counties PM-10 nonattainment area (particulate matter 
with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to a nominal 10 
micrometers) in the State of Idaho. The boundary of the Power-Bannock 
Counties PM-10 nonattainment area is being corrected to exclude that 
portion east of the Inkom Gap, a geographic feature separating the 
Inkom area from the rest of the

[[Page 29668]]

nonattainment area. New analysis of air quality data existing at the 
time of the original area designation indicates that the Inkom area, at 
the time of and prior to designation, had never violated the National 
Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for PM-10. Additional current 
information also indicates that the Inkom area has not and is not 
predicted to violate the PM-10 standard into the foreseeable future. 
This action will remove the City of Inkom and the surrounding area from 
the nonattainment area. With this correction, the Part D new source 
review requirements of the Clean Air Act will no longer apply to 
sources in the Inkom area. Instead, new or modified major sources of 
particulate matter would be subject to the Prevention of Significant 
Deterioration (PSD) requirements.
DATES: This action will be effective on August 12, 1996 unless adverse 
or critical comments are received by July 12, 1996. If the effective 
date is delayed, timely notice will be published in the Federal 
Register.

ADDRESSES: Written comments on this action should be addressed to 
Steven K. Body, Office of Air Quality, U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency, Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101. Copies of the 
documents relevant to this action are available for public inspection 
during normal business hours at the same address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steven K. Body, (206) 553-0782, or by 
mail at the Region 10 address above.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

A. In General

    Section 107(d)(4)(B) of the Clean Air Act sets out the general 
process by which areas were to be designated nonattainment for PM-10 
upon enactment of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments (the ``Act'' or 
``CAA''). The procedure that is relevant for the Power-Bannock Counties 
PM-10 nonattainment area is stated in section 107(d)(4)(B)(i) of the 
Act, which provides that each area that had been identified by EPA as a 
PM-10 Group I area prior to the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments (these 
were areas that, at the time the particulate matter indicator was 
changed from TSP to PM-10, were estimated to have a high probability of 
exceeding the PM-10 NAAQS) be designated nonattainment for PM-10 by 
operation of law upon enactment of the 1990 Amendments. While EPA 
believes that, in general, the language of this section would appear to 
preclude any exercise of EPA discretion to modify these initial 
nonattainment area designations, EPA also believes that section 
107(d)(4)(B)(i)'s explicit reliance on the Agency's prior Group I 
determinations provides the basis for an exception to the general rule. 
By requiring that all Group I areas be among the initial areas 
designated nonattainment upon enactment of the 1990 CAAA, Congress 
relied on EPA's expertise and judgment in determining, based on an 
analysis of relevant air quality information, those areas for which a 
PM-10 nonattainment status was merited. EPA does not believe that 
Congress intended initial PM-10 areas to be designated nonattainment 
based on a clearly erroneous Group I determination. Thus, one exception 
to the non-initial designation modification principle is where, prior 
to enactment of the 1990 Amendments, EPA mistakenly construed then-
existing air quality data and, as a consequence, incorrectly identified 
an area as being among the Group I areas that were subsequently 
reference in section 107(d)(4)(B)(i) of the Act. See 56 FR 37654, 37656 
(August 8, 1991).
    As discussed below, EPA believes that such a clear identification 
error occurred in the case of the Power-Bannock Counties PM-10 
nonattainment area. That is, EPA believes that it acted in error in 
including the Inkom area as part of the Power-Bannock Counties PM-10 
nonattainment area. Accordingly, under the authority of section 
110(k)(6) of the Act, and based on the State's request, EPA is revising 
the boundary of the Power-Bannock Counties PM-10 nonattainment area to 
exclude the Inkom area. Although this boundary correction action is not 
subject to the legal requirements for public notice and comment, EPA is 
providing the public with an opportunity to comment on this action in 
order to foster public participation and avoid further error.

B. Designation of the Area as Nonattainment

    Prior to promulgation of the PM-10 NAAQS on July, 1, 1987 (52 FR 
24672), total suspended particulate (TSP) was the indicator for 
particulate matter. In the Pocatello vicinity, the TSP nonattainment 
area consisted of the 12 square mile industrial area approximately 10 
miles west of downtown Pocatello. See 49 FR 11177 (March 26, 1984). Two 
major stationary sources of particulate matter, FMC Corporation's 
elemental phosphorus facility and J.R. Simplot Company's phosphate 
fertilizer facility, are located in the industrial complex. This TSP 
nonattainment area did not include the City of Pocatello.
    After promulgation of the PM-10 standard, EPA published a list of 
``PM-10 Group I areas,'' areas with a strong likelihood of violating 
the PM-10 NAAQS and requiring substantial revisions to their existing 
state implementation plans. See 52 FR 29383 (August 7, 1987). The 
August 7, 1987, document listed ``Pocatello'' as a Group I ``area of 
concern'' and identified that area as including both Power and Bannock 
Counties. 52 FR 29385. In October 1990, EPA issued a document 
clarifying the description of certain Group I areas of concern. 55 FR 
45799 (October 31, 1990). This document described the area of concern 
as the ``City of Pocatello'' in Power and Bannock Counties and further 
explained that: ``When cities or towns are shown, the area of concern 
is defined by the municipal boundary limits as of the date of this 
notice.'' 55 FR 45801 n. 2. The City of Pocatello, however, lies only 
in Bannock County. In addition, the City of Pocatello does not include 
either the FMC facility or the J.R. Simplot facility in the industrial 
complex. Considering the original TSP nonattainment area boundary, it 
would seem apparent that any potential PM-10 nonattainment site for 
this area would have included the industrial complex, including the two 
major stationary sources located there. However, the erroneous boundary 
description for this area on the PM-10 Group I areas list remained, as 
explained above, and became the boundary description for the PM-10 area 
that was designated nonattainment by operation of law upon enactment of 
the 1990 Amendments. Given the above inconsistencies, it seems evident 
that the current boundaries of the Pocatello PM-10 nonattainment area 
were and are incorrect.
    The 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments became effective November 15, 
1990. As discussed above, section 107(d)(4)(By)(i) required that all 
Group I areas be designated nonattainment for PM-10 by operation of law 
upon enactment of the 1990 Amendments. In March 1991, EPA published a 
Federal Register document announcing all the areas, including all the 
Group I areas, designated under the amended Act as PM-10 nonattainment 
areas. 56 FR 11101 (March 15, 1991). The document identified the ``City 
of Pocatello'' in Power and Bannock Counties as such an area, and 
provided the public an opportunity to comment. As the document 
indicated, EPA's solicitation of public comment on the nonattainment 
area boundaries did not stem from any legal obligation, because neither 
the initial designations nor the

[[Page 29669]]

initial classifications for PM-10 were subject to the requirements for 
notice-and-comment rulemaking under either the Administrative 
Procedures Act (5 U.S.C. 553-657) or section 307(d) of the Clean Air 
Act. See generally 56 FR 11103; see also 56 FR 36755 & n. 2. Rather, as 
a matter of policy, EPA requested public comment on the document in 
order to facilitate public participation and avoid errors.
    In response to EPA's March 1991 Federal Register document, the 
Idaho Department of Environmental Quality (IDEQ) submitted comments to 
EPA indicating what portion of the Pocatello area in Power and Bannock 
Counties IDEQ believed should be designated nonattainment for PM-10. 
The area described by IDEQ was approximately 260 square miles of lands 
in Power and Bannock counties that included lands under State 
jurisdiction and both trust and fee lands within the Fort Hall Indian 
Reservation. The area also included the two major stationary sources in 
the industrial complex, the Cities of Chubbuck and Pocatello and 
certain areas east of Inkom Gap. The area east of Inkom Gap includes 
the City of Inkom, a small community approximately 15 miles southeast 
of downtown Pocatello, and a cement plant operated by Ash Grove Cement 
Company, which is a major stationary source of PM-10 (see discussion 
later in this document regarding the emissions impact of this 
facility).
    In August 1991, EPA used its authority under section 110(k)(6) of 
the Act to make corrections in nonattainment area designations and 
descriptions for several Group I areas based on information submitted 
by commenters on the March 1991 document. 56 FR 37656 (August 8, 1991). 
EPA included in that document corrections and clarifications to the 
boundary description of the Pocatello nonattainment area consistent 
with IDEQ's request. In correcting the Power-Bannock Counties listing, 
EPA noted that the prior boundary description for this nonattainment 
area as ``the City of Pocatello'' was clearly erroneous since Pocatello 
lies only in Bannock County, and that EPA and the State had originally 
intended that certain areas surrounding the City of Pocatello in both 
Power and Bannock Counties be included in the nonattainment area. 56 FR 
37658, 37664. In formally codifying the final designations, 
classifications, and boundaries of areas in the country with respect to 
PM-10 (and other NAAQS) in November 1991, EPA further refined the 
description of the Power-Bannock Counties PM-10 nonattainment area by 
clearly specifying those lands in the nonattainment area which are 
within the exterior boundary of the Fort Hall Indian Reservation and 
those lands in the nonattainment area that are State lands. 56 FR 
56694, 56749 (November 6, 1991). However, neither the August nor the 
November 1991 documents addressed the question of whether the portion 
of the nonattainment area east of the Inkom Gap was properly included 
in the boundary description.

II. This Action

A. Correction of the Boundary of the Nonattainment Area

    On May 23, 1995, IDEQ submitted to EPA additional analysis of data 
that were available at the time of enactment of the 1990 Clean Air Act 
Amendments in support of a request to once again correct the Power-
Bannock Counties PM-10 nonattainment area boundary. The State's 
submittal asked EPA to exclude that portion east of the Inkom Gap and 
to simultaneously redesignate the Inkom area to attainment. Based on 
the data information, EPA believes that the State has demonstrated that 
inclusion of the Inkom area in the Power-Bannock Counties PM-10 
nonattainment area prior to the 1990 Amendments to the Clean Air Act 
was in error.
    IDEQ's additional analysis is based upon monitored TSP data from 
two locations in Inkom during the 1970s and 1980s. IDEQ operated a 
sampler at the U.S. Post Office during 1972 and again from 1974 through 
1986. In 1986, IDEQ moved the sampler to a well pump station owned by 
the City of Inkom located on Highway 30, approximately one mile north 
of the Post Office. Monitoring continued at this location until it was 
discontinued on December 1, 1988. The State's additional analysis of 
the TSP data collected by IDEQ during the 1970s and 1980s converting 
TSP data to PM-10 data using a general ratio of PM-10 to TSP 
demonstrates that the Inkom area has not experienced a violation of the 
PM-10 NAAQS since 1981, well before promulgation of the PM-10 NAAQS on 
July 1, 1987. The data submitted by IDEQ also shows a substantial 
improvement in air quality in the Inkom area after 1982. In addition, 
IDEQ submitted emission reduction information (which included both 
historical actual emission estimates and allowable emission rates for 
the Ash Grove Cement facility) for the Inkom area that demonstrates 
that the PM-10 NAAQS has been protected since 1988, when monitoring in 
the area ceased, because of reduced emissions. For a further discussion 
of the air quality data and the emission reductions that have been 
achieved in the area, please refer to the IDEQ submittal in the docket.
    Section 110(k)(6) of the Act authorizes EPA, upon a determination 
that EPA's action in approving, disapproving or promulgating any State 
Implementation Plan or plan revision (or any part thereof) was in 
error, to revise the action as appropriate in the same manner as the 
approval, disapproval, or promulgation. In making such a correction, 
EPA must provide such determination and the basis for it to the State 
and the public. By this document, EPA is notifying the State of Idaho, 
the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes, and the public that EPA is correcting the 
boundary of the Power-Bannock Counties PM-10 nonattainment area to 
exclude the area east of Inkom Gap, thus excluding the City of Inkom 
and Ash Grove Cement's facility. The basis for this boundary correction 
is that the State of Idaho, which requested in 1991 that the Inkom area 
be included in the Power-Bannock County PM-10 nonattainment area, has 
now submitted valid data information to EPA showing that its 1991 
request was in error and asking EPA to correct the boundary 
description. Had the State of Idaho presented this information either 
before the clarification of the Group I listing of October 31, 1990, or 
before the August 8, 1991, clarification of the PM-10 nonattainment 
area boundary, EPA would have excluded the Inkom area from the Power-
Bannock Counties PM-10 nonattainment area.
    Accordingly, as of the effective date of this action, the North-
South boundary along the eastern edge of the Power-Bannock Counties PM-
10 nonattainment area will be defined as the line between the West \1/
2\ and East \1/2\ of:

Sections 10, 15, 22, 27, 34 of T6S, R35E,
Sections 3, 10, 15, 22, 27, 34 of T7S, R35E, and
Section 3 of T8S, R35E

    Although neither the Administrative Procedures Act nor the Clean 
Air Act legally obligate EPA to provide the public an opportunity to 
comment on this correction, EPA is inviting the State, the Shoshone-
Bannock Tribes, and the public to comment on this action to foster 
public participation and avoid error. EPA will consider any written 
comments on this action that are received by July 12, 1996. This 
correction will become effective on August 12, 1996. This will provide 
sufficient time for EPA to make any adjustments to this correction that 
are appropriate in light of the comments.

[[Page 29670]]

    In making this boundary correction, EPA notes that IDEQ has also 
provided information showing that significant emission reductions have 
been achieved at the Ash Grove Cement facility since 1990 and that Ash 
Grove Cement is now operating under a 1995 IDEQ-issued and federally 
enforceable operating permit that establishes emission limits that will 
protect the NAAQS into the future. IDEQ has also provided information 
showing that emissions from sources in the Inkom area are not expected 
to contribute to violations of the PM-10 NAAQS in other portions of the 
Power-Bannock Counties PM-10 nonattainment area because the Inkom Gap, 
a constriction in the Portneuf River Valley formed by a mountain ridge 
rising 1500 feet above the valley floor on either side of the river, 
effectively provides a natural barrier between the airsheds of Inkom 
and Pocatello and prevents transport of emissions between them. 
Finally, IDEQ has committed to monitor air quality at two locations in 
the Inkom area and to monitor meteorology at one location in the Inkom 
area. Air quality monitoring has already begun in a residential area 
near the elementary school in Inkom and a second air quality monitor, 
located at the site of the expected maximum impact of Ash Grove 
Cement's facility, began operation on October 12, 1995.
    In correcting the boundary of the Power-Bannock PM-10 nonattainment 
area to exclude the Inkom area, EPA has relied on the data available 
prior to August 1991, when EPA announced the boundary description, 
along with subsequent analysis of those data. The information submitted 
by IDEQ regarding emission reductions and emission limitations since 
that time and IDEQ's commitments to monitor air quality in the Inkom 
area in the future were not regarded by EPA as a basis for the 
correction. However, this information and the State's commitments do 
provide additional assurance that the NAAQS will be protected in the 
Inkom area into the future. EPA would be reluctant to revise through 
correction the description of a nonattainment area based on information 
available before EPA's initial erroneous boundary description if data 
collected since the initial erroneous boundary description indicated 
that the area was not in attainment of, or would be expected to soon 
violate, the NAAQS.

B. State's Request to Redesignate the Inkom Area to Attainment

    The State has also requested that the Inkom area be redesignated to 
attainment. EPA declines to grant this portion of the State's request 
at this time, because to do so would undermine the planning 
requirements of section 107(d)(3)(E) of the Act for redesignation of a 
nonattainment area (or portion thereof) to attainment. EPA may 
redesignate an area to attainment if:
    (i) The Administrator determines that the area has attained the 
NAAQS;
    (ii) The Administrator has fully approved the applicable 
implementation plan for the area under section 110(k) of the Act;
    (iii) The Administrator determines that the improvement in air 
quality is due to permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions 
resulting from implementation of the applicable implementation plan and 
applicable federal air pollutant control regulations and other 
permanent and enforceable reductions;
    (iv) The Administrator has fully approved a maintenance plan for 
the area as meeting the requirements of section 175A of the Act; and,
    (v) The State containing such area has met all the requirements 
applicable to the area under section 110 and part D of the Act.
    The State of Idaho has not provided sufficient information to allow 
EPA to make these findings for the Inkom area. Therefore, EPA is not 
granting the State's request to redesignate the Inkom area to 
attainment. Thus, this correction to the nonattainment area boundary 
will result in the Inkom area being designated ``unclassifiable'' for 
PM-10. This designation is the same designation as most rural areas 
within the State of Idaho, and is the designation the Inkom area would 
have had in August 1991 had it not been erroneously included in the 
Power-Bannock Counties PM-10 nonattainment area.

III. Implications of this Action

    Upon the effective date of this rule, the Inkom area, which is 
currently designated nonattainment for PM-10, will revert to a 
designation of ``unclassifiable'' for PM-10. A revised description of 
the boundary for the Power-Bannock Counties PM-10 nonattainment area is 
set forth in the table below, which shows the corrections that will be 
made to the Table in Part 81.
    As a result of today's action, new or modified major stationary 
sources of particulate matter in the Inkom area will be subject to 
Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) requirements of Part C of 
the Act rather than the New Source Review requirements of Part D of the 
Act. In addition, the State no longer needs to include the Inkom area 
in the planning requirements for the Power-Bannock Counties PM-10 
nonattainment area. However, removing the Inkom area from the Power-
Bannock Counties PM-10 nonattainment area does not protect any source 
in the area from requirements for additional control technology if the 
source's emissions are determined in the future to contribute to 
violations of a NAAQS in the Power-Bannock Counties PM-10 nonattainment 
area or elsewhere and if such control technology is necessary to attain 
the NAAQS.
    As discussed above, based on the information submitted by the 
State, EPA believes that the NAAQS in the Inkom area has been protected 
through the present and will also be protected into the foreseeable 
future. Should one of the State's monitors record a violation of the 
PM-10 or other particulate matter NAAQS in the future, however, EPA 
will proceed immediately to redesignate the Inkom area to 
nonattainment.

IV. Administrative Review

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 600 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 impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small 
entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, 
and government entities with jurisdiction over populations of less than 
50,000.
    SIP approvals under section 110 and subchapter I, Part D of the CAA 
do not create any new requirements, but simply approve requirements 
that the state is already imposing. Therefore, because the federal SIP-
approval does not impose any new requirements, I certify that it does 
not have a significant impact on any small entities affected. Moreover, 
due to the nature of the federal-state relationship under the CAA, 
preparation of a regulatory flexibility analysis would constitute 
federal inquiry into the economic reasonableness of state action. The 
CAA forbids EPA to base its actions concerning SIPs on such grounds. 
Union Electric Co. v. E.P.A., 427 U.S. 246, 256-66 (S.Ct. 1976); 42 
U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).
    Under Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 
(``Unfunded Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA 
must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or 
final rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in estimated 
costs to State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate; or to 
the private sector, of

[[Page 29671]]

$100 million or more. Under Section 205, EPA must select the most cost-
effective and least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives 
of the rule and is consistent with statutory requirements. Section 203 
requires EPA to establish a plan for informing and advising any small 
governments that may be significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule.
    EPA has determined that the approval action promulgated 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. This Federal action approves pre-
existing requirements under State or local law, and imposes no new 
Federal requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local, 
or tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from this 
action.
    The EPA has reviewed this request for revision of the federally-
approved SIP for conformance with the provisions of the 1990 Clean Air 
Act Amendments enacted on November 15, 1990. The EPA has determined 
that this action conforms with those requirements.
    Nothing in this action should be construed as permitting or 
allowing or establishing a precedent for any future request for 
revision to any SIP. Each request for revision to the SIP shall be 
considered separately in light of specific technical, economic and 
environmental factors and in relation to relevant statutory and 
regulatory requirements.
    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this 
regulatory action from E.O. 12866 review.
    The EPA is publishing this action without prior proposal because 
the Agency views this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipates 
no adverse comments. However, in a separate document in this Federal 
Register publication, the EPA is proposing to approve the SIP revision 
should adverse or critical comments be filed. This action will be 
effective August 12, 1996 unless, by July 12, 1996, adverse or critical 
comments are received.
    If the EPA receives such comments, this action will be withdrawn 
before the effective date by publishing a subsequent document that will 
withdraw the final action. All public comments received will be 
addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this action serving as a 
proposed rule. The EPA will not institute a second comment period on 
this action. Any parties interested in commenting on this action should 
do so at this time. If no such comments are received, the public is 
advised that this action will be effective August 12, 1996.
    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 August 12, 1996. 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), 42 U.S.C. 
7607(b)(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 81

    Environmental protection, Designation of areas for air quality 
planning purposes.

    Dated: May 29, 1996.
Carol M. Browner,
U.S. EPA Administrator.

PART 81--[AMENDED]

    Chapter I, Title 40 of the code of Federal Regulations is amended 
as follows:
    1. The authority citation for part 81 continues to read as follows:

    Authority 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.

    2. Section 81.313 is amended by revising the entry for ``Bannock 
and Power Counties'' in the ``Idaho PM-10 Nonattainment Areas'' table 
to read as follows:


Sec. 81.313  Idaho

* * * * *

                                        Idaho--PM-10 Nonattainment Areas                                        
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Designation                           Classification           
         Designated area          ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Date                Type                Date               Type          
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                
*                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *                
Power-Bannock Counties, part of:                                                                                
 (Pocatello)                                                                                                    
    State Lands                       11/15/90  Nonattainment............     11/15/90  Moderate                
        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:                                                                               
        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                                                                                   
                                                                                                                
*                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *                
                                                        *                                                       
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 29672]]


* * * * *
[FR Doc. 96-14455 Filed 6-11-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P