[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 207 (Monday, October 27, 2003)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 61106-61111]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-26919]


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

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nonattainment designation and classification are no longer applicable 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