Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 210 / Monday, November 1, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 63321

37 CFR Part 7 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Trademarks.

■ The Office is correcting parts 2 and 7 

of title 37 as follows:

PART 2—RULES OF PRACTICE IN 

TRADEMARK CASES

■ 1. The authority citation continues to 

read as follows:

Authority: 15 U.S.C. 1123, 35 U.S.C. 2, 

unless otherwise noted.

■ 2. Amend § 2.190 by revising 

paragraph (a) to read as follows:

§ 2.190 Addresses for trademark 

correspondence with the United States 

Patent and Trademark Office. 

(a) Trademark correspondence. In 

general. All trademark-related 

documents filed on paper, except 

documents sent to the Assignment 

Services Division for recordation; 

requests for copies of trademark 

documents; and certain documents filed 

under the Madrid Protocol as specified 

in paragraph (e) of this section, should 

be addressed to: Commissioner for 

Trademarks, P.O. Box 1451, Alexandria, 

VA 22313–1451. All trademark-related 

documents may be delivered by hand, 

during the hours the Office is open to 

receive correspondence, to the 

Trademark Assistance Center, James 

Madison Building—East Wing, 

Concourse Level, 600 Dulany Street, 

Alexandria, Virginia 22314.

* * * * *

PART 7—RULES OF PRACTICE IN 

FILINGS PURSUANT TO THE 

PROTOCOL RELATING TO THE 

MADRID AGREEMENT CONCERNING 

THE INTERNATIONAL REGISTRATION 

OF MARKS

■ 3. The authority citation continues to 

read as follows:

Authority: 15 U.S.C. 1123, 35 U.S.C. 2, 

unless otherwise noted.

■ 4. Revise § 7.4, by revising paragraph 

(c) to read as follows:

§ 7.4 Receipt of correspondence.

* * * * *

(c) Hand-Delivered Correspondence. 

International applications under § 7.11, 

subsequent designations under § 7.21, 

responses to notices of irregularity 

under § 7.14, requests to record changes 

in the International Register under 

§ 7.23 and § 7.24, requests for 

transformation under § 7.31, and 

petitions to the Director to review an 

action of the Office’s Madrid Processing 

Unit, may be delivered by hand during 

the hours the Office is open to receive 

correspondence. Madrid-related handdelivered correspondence must be 

delivered to the Trademark Assistance 

Center, James Madison Building—East 

Wing, Concourse Level, 600 Dulany 

Street, Alexandria, VA 22314, Attention: 

MPU.

* * * * *

Dated: October 26, 2004. 

Jon W. Dudas, 

Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual 

Property and Director of the United States 

Patent and Trademark Office.

[FR Doc. 04–24311 Filed 10–29–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–16–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[AZ 120–0063; FRL–7820–2] 

Revisions to the Arizona State 

Implementation Plan, Arizona 

Department of Environmental Quality

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is finalizing a full 

approval of some revisions to the 

Arizona Department of Environmental 

Quality (ADEQ) portion of the Arizona 

State Implementation Plan (SIP) and a 

limited approval/limited disapproval of 

another revision to the SIP. This action 

was proposed in the Federal Register on 

May 14, 2004 and concerns sulfur 

dioxide (SO2) emissions from existing 

primary copper smelters. Under 

authority of the Clean Air Act as 

amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act), this 

action simultaneously approves rules 

that regulate these emission sources and 

directs Arizona to correct rule 

deficiencies.

DATES: This rule is effective on 

December 1, 2004.

ADDRESSES: You can inspect copies of 

the administrative record for this action 

at EPA’s Region IX office during normal 

business hours by appointment. You 

can inspect copies of the submitted SIP 

revisions by appointment at the 

following locations: Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region IX, 75 

Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 

94105–3901. 

Air and Radiation Docket and 

Information Center, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Room B–102, 1301 

Constitution Avenue, NW., (Mail Code 

6102T), Washington, DC 20460. 

Arizona Department of Environmental 

Quality, 1110 West Washington Street, 

Phoenix, AZ 85007. 

A copy of the rules may also be 

available via the Internet at http://

www.sosaz.com/public_services/

Title_18/18–02.htm. Please be advised 

that this is not an EPA Web site and 

may not contain the same version of the 

rule that was submitted to EPA.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Al 

Petersen, EPA Region IX, (415) 947–

4118, petersen.alfred@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us’’

and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA. 

I. Proposed Action 

The following table lists the rules 

addressed by this action, with the dates 

that they were adopted and submitted 

by the ADEQ.

Local agency Rule # Rule title Adopted Submitted 

ADEQ ................................. R18–2–715 (sections F, G, 

and H).

Standards of Performance for Existing Primary Copper 

Smelters, Site-Specific Requirements.

08/09/02 09/12/03 

ADEQ ................................. R18–2–715.01 ................... Standards of Performance for Existing Primary Copper 

Smelters, Compliance and Monitoring.

08/09/02 09/12/03 

ADEQ ................................. R18–2–715.02 ................... Standards of Performance for Existing Primary Copper 

Smelters, Fugitive Emissions.

11/15/93 07/15/98 

ADEQ ................................. R18–2–appendix 8 ............. Procedures for Utilizing the Sulfur Balance Method for 

Determining Sulfur Emissions.

11/15/93 07/15/98 

On May 14, 2004 (69 FR 26786), EPA 

proposed a full approval of ADEQ’s 

submitted Rules R18–2–715 (sections F, 

G, and H), R18–2–715.01, and R18–2–

715.02 as fulfilling the requirements of 

RACT, SIP relaxations, and 

enforceability. On the same date, we 

proposed a limited approval and limited 

disapproval of Rule R18–2–appendix 8. 

63322 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 210 / Monday, November 1, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

We proposed a limited approval because 

we determined that this rule improves 

the SIP and is largely consistent with 

the relevant CAA requirements. We 

simultaneously proposed a limited 

disapproval because some rule 

provisions of Rule R18–2–appendix 8 

conflict with section 110 and part D of 

the Act. These provisions include the 

following: 

1. Sections A.8.1.2 and A.8.2 contain 

excessive Director’s discretion by 

allowing the Director to approve an 

equivalent method to calculate the 

sulfur content without providing the 

criteria that will be used to determine 

approvability. 

2. Sections A.8.1.2.1.1, A.8.1.2.1.2, 

and A.8.1.2.1.3 should clarify how a 

representative sample should be taken 

from belt feeders, railcars, and trucks so 

that the sampling process is not biased. 

3. Sections A.8.1.2.3.1 and A.8.1.2.3.2 

should provide specific test methods for 

the ‘‘barium sulfate’’ and ‘‘potassium 

iodide’’ procedures. 

4. Section A.8.2.5.5 should provide a 

specific test method for ‘‘chemical 

gravimetric means.’’ Also the accuracy 

is stated as +50%, but it should be a ±

number. The accuracy of a gravimetric 

procedure is normally about ±1%, not 

±50%. 

5. The reference in A8.3.1 should be 

changed from R18–2–715(C)(4) to R18–

2–715.01(K)–(O). Also, the reference in 

A.8.3.2 should be changed from R18–2–

715(C)(7)(v) to R18–2–715.01(Q). 

Based on information received during 

the comment period of our proposed 

action, we no longer consider deficiency 

#2 or the second part of deficiency #4 

above to be deficiencies in Rule R18–2–

appendix 8. See Comments and 

Responses #3 and #4. Our proposed 

action contains more information on the 

basis for this rulemaking and on our 

evaluation of the submittals. 

II. Public Comments and EPA 

Responses 

EPA’s proposed action provided a 30-

day public comment period ending on 

June 14, 2004. We received comments 

from the following parties: 

Kenneth Evans, Arizona Mining 

Association (AMA); letter dated June 14, 

2004 and received on June 14, 2004. 

Nancy Wrona, ADEQ; letter dated 

June 11, 2004 and received on June 11, 

2004.

The comments and our responses are 

summarized below. 

Comment 1: EPA cited as a deficiency 

excessive ADEQ Director’s discretion to 

approve alternate analytical procedures 

in Appendix 8. AMA and ADEQ state 

that Title V permits, which could 

include alternate analytical procedures 

approved by the ADEQ Director’s 

discretion, are then subject to EPA 

approval by the review and objection 

authority granted to EPA under Title V. 

Therefore, requiring another EPA 

approval of an alternate analytical 

procedure approved by the ADEQ 

Director’s discretion is duplicative and 

unwarranted. 

Response: Appendix 8 in its present 

form allows the ADEQ Director to 

approve an ‘‘equivalent method’’

without regard to the status of a Title V 

permit or EPA’s approval of that permit. 

First, as noted in our proposed rule, the 

term ‘‘equivalent method’’ should be 

replaced with the term ‘‘alternative 

method,’’ as these phrases have distinct 

meanings. Second, not all alternative 

procedures under Appendix 8 would 

necessarily end up in a Title V permit. 

Finally, depending on EPA’s workload, 

we may not review every Title V permit 

thoroughly, and our default approval of 

an alternative procedure by our 

oversight, would not comply with the 

intent of Clean Air Act section 110(i). 

Appendix 8 must be revised to provide 

the criteria that will be used to 

determine approvability of an 

alternative method or must explicitly 

require the approval of both the ADEQ 

Director and EPA of an alternate 

analytical procedure. 

Comment 2: EPA cited as a deficiency 

the absence of references to specific test 

methods for barium sulfate and 

potassium iodine procedures, as well as 

‘‘chemical gravimetric means.’’ AMA 

states that the chemical gravimetric 

means of analysis in sections 

A.8.1.2.3.1, A.8.1.2.3.2, and A.8.2.5.5 of 

appendix 8 are taken from Standard 

Methods of Chemical Analysis, 6th 

edition, N. Howell Furman, Ph.D, 

editor, D. Van Nostrand Co., Inc. (1962). 

This has been the ‘‘bible’’ of chemical 

analytical methods since the 1930s. 

Response: We concur that this is an 

excellent reference for chemical 

gravimetric means and chemical 

analytical methods. However, this 

reference is missing from the submitted 

rule. It should be explicitly cited in 

Appendix 8. 

Comment 3: EPA requested 

clarification of sampling procedures for 

sulfur-bearing materials introduced into 

the smelting process, so that sampling is 

not biased. ADEQ states that the 

materials sampled are a fine 

homogeneous mixture of concentrate 

from the flotation process, and therefore 

the current methods in sections 

A.8.1.2.1.1, A.8.1.2.1.2, and A.8.1.2.1.3 

of appendix 8 are adequate to assure 

accurate accounting of the sulfurbearing materials.

Response: As noted by ADEQ, 

sampling bias can occur when there is 

a large variation in the size of materials 

being sampled. However, sampling from 

a homogeneous mixture of finely ground 

material can be considered reliable and 

unbiased. Additional sulfur bearing 

materials are also introduced to the 

smelting process along with the 

homogeneous dry floatation concentrate 

mentioned by ADEQ, but the 

concentrate contains over 90% of the 

sulfur content in the mixture. EPA 

concurs that the methods described in 

the sections cited in Comment 3 are 

adequate for the type of sulfur-bearing 

material described. Therefore, we are 

not finalizing our concern regarding 

sampling procedures as a deficiency. 

Comment 4: EPA commented that the 

accuracy of gravimetric methods is 

normally about ±1% instead of the 

±50% accuracy required in section 

A.8.2.5.5. This requirement addresses 

the sulfur content of copper ingots. The 

sulfur content of copper ingots at one 

facility over a one-month period was 4 

to 108 ppm sulfur with an average of 

24.5 ppm. At these very low sulfur 

contents, an accuracy of ±1% is not 

feasible. 

Response: EPA believes that better 

accuracy than ±50% for sulfur in copper 

ingots is feasible, although not close to 

±1%. However, a ±50% error in the 

sulfur content of copper ingots would 

cause a maximum error in the sulfur 

balance of ±0.03%. Other measurements 

in the sulfur balance are subject to 

greater maximum errors, such as ±5%, 

therefore an accuracy of better than 

±50% is not reasonably required for the 

section A.8.2.5.5 contribution to the 

sulfur balance. Therefore, we are not 

finalizing our concern about the 

accuracy of gravimetric methods as a 

deficiency. However, as specified in 

deficiency #4 above, Section A.8.2.5.5 

should provide a specific test method 

for ‘‘chemical gravimetric means,’’ and 

should be revised to specify the 

maximum error as ±50%, rather than 

±50%. 

III. EPA Action 

Although some submitted comments 

led us to not finalize some deficiencies 

listed in the proposed action, the 

remaining deficiencies in Rule R–18–2-

appendix 8 conflict with section 110 

and part D of the CAA and prevent full 

approval of this rule. Therefore, as 

authorized in sections 110(k)(3) and 

301(a) of the Act, EPA is finalizing a full 

approval of ADEQ’s submitted Rules 

R18–2–715 (sections F, G, and H), R18–

2–715.01, and R–18–2–715.02. We are 

also finalizing a limited approval of 

Rule R–18–2-appendix 8. This action 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 210 / Monday, November 1, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 63323

incorporates the submitted rules into 

the Arizona SIP, including those 

provisions identified as deficient. As 

authorized under section 110(k)(3), EPA 

is simultaneously finalizing a limited 

disapproval of the Rule R–18–2-

appendix 8. As a result, sanctions will 

be imposed unless EPA approves 

subsequent SIP revisions that correct the 

rule deficiencies within 18 months of 

the effective date of this action. These 

sanctions will be imposed under section 

179 of the Act according to 40 CFR 

52.31. In addition, EPA must 

promulgate a federal implementation 

plan (FIP) under section 110(c) unless 

we approve subsequent SIP revisions 

that correct the rule deficiencies within 

24 months. Note that the submitted 

rules have been adopted by the ADEQ, 

and EPA’s final limited disapproval 

does not prevent the local agency from 

enforcing them. 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

The Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) has exempted this regulatory 

action from Executive Order 12866, 

entitled ‘‘Regulatory Planning and 

Review.’’

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

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.) 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

generally requires an agency to conduct 

a regulatory flexibility analysis of any 

rule subject to notice and comment 

rulemaking requirements unless the 

agency certifies that the rule will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

Small entities include small businesses, 

small not-for-profit enterprises, and 

small governmental jurisdictions.

This rule will not have a significant 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities because SIP approvals under 

section 110 and subchapter I, part D of 

the Clean Air Act do not create any new 

requirements but simply approve 

requirements that the State is already 

imposing. Therefore, because the 

Federal SIP approval does not create 

any new requirements, I certify that this 

action will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. 

Moreover, due to the nature of the 

Federal-State relationship under the 

Clean Air Act, preparation of flexibility 

analysis would constitute Federal 

inquiry into the economic 

reasonableness of state action. The 

Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base its 

actions concerning SIPs on such 

grounds. Union Electric Co. v. U.S. EPA, 

427 U.S. 246, 255–66 (1976); 42 U.S.C. 

7410(a)(2). 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

Under sections 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 

$100 million or more. Under section 

205, EPA must select the most costeffective 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 requirements. Accordingly, no 

additional costs to State, local, or tribal 

governments, or to the private sector, 

result from this action. 

E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism 

Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999) revokes and replaces Executive 

Orders 12612 (Federalism) and 12875 

(Enhancing the Intergovernmental 

Partnership). Executive Order 13132 

requires EPA to develop an accountable 

process to ensure ‘‘meaningful and 

timely input by State and local officials 

in the development of regulatory 

policies that have federalism 

implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have 

federalism implications’’ is defined in 

the Executive Order to include 

regulations that 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.’’ Under 

Executive Order 13132, EPA may not 

issue a regulation that has federalism 

implications, that imposes substantial 

direct compliance costs, and that is not 

required by statute, unless the Federal 

government provides the funds 

necessary to pay the direct compliance 

costs incurred by State and local 

governments, or EPA consults with 

State and local officials early in the 

process of developing the proposed 

regulation. EPA also may not issue a 

regulation that has federalism 

implications and that preempts State 

law unless the Agency consults with 

State and local officials early in the 

process of developing the proposed 

regulation. 

This rule will 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, because it 

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. Thus, the requirements of 

section 6 of the Executive Order do not 

apply to this rule. 

F. Executive Order 13175, Coordination 

With Indian Tribal Governments 

Executive Order 13175, entitled 

‘‘Consultation and Coordination with 

Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR 

67249, November 9, 2000), requires EPA 

to develop an accountable process to 

ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by 

tribal officials in the development of 

regulatory policies that have tribal 

implications.’’ This final rule does not 

have tribal implications, as specified in 

Executive Order 13175. It will not have 

substantial direct effects on tribal 

governments, 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. 

Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not 

apply to this rule. 

G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

Protection of Children From 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety 

Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), 

applies to any rule that: (1) Is 

determined to be ‘‘economically 

significant’’ as defined under Executive 

Order 12866, and (2) concerns an 

environmental health or safety risk that 

EPA has reason to believe may have a 

disproportionate effect on children. If 

the regulatory action meets both criteria, 

the Agency must evaluate the 

environmental health or safety effects of 

the planned rule on children, and 

63324 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 210 / Monday, November 1, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

explain why the planned regulation is 

preferable to other potentially effective 

and reasonably feasible alternatives 

considered by the Agency. 

This rule is not subject to Executive 

Order 13045 because it does not involve 

decisions intended to mitigate 

environmental health or safety risks.

H. Executive Order 13211, Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This rule is not subject to Executive 

Order 13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning 

Regulations That Significantly Affect 

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use’’ (66 

FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is 

not a significant regulatory action under 

Executive Order 12866. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

Section 12 of the National Technology 

Transfer and Advancement Act 

(NTTAA) of 1995 requires Federal 

agencies to evaluate existing technical 

standards when developing a new 

regulation. To comply with NTTAA, 

EPA must consider and use ‘‘voluntary 

consensus standards’’ (VCS) if available 

and applicable when developing 

programs and policies unless doing so 

would be inconsistent with applicable 

law or otherwise impractical. 

The EPA believes that VCS are 

inapplicable to this action. Today’s 

action does not require the public to 

perform activities conducive to the use 

of VCS. 

J. Congressional Review Act 

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). This rule 

will be effective December 1, 2004. 

K. Petitions for Judicial Review 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean 

Air Act, petitions for judicial review of 

this action must be filed in the United 

States Court of Appeals for the 

appropriate circuit by January 3, 2005. 

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 in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides.

Dated: September 14, 2004. 

Wayne Nastri, 

Regional Administrator, Region IX.

■ Part 52, Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code 

of Federal Regulations is amended as 

follows:

PART 52—[AMENDED]

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart D—Arizona

■ 2. Section 52.120 is amended by 

adding paragraphs (c)(110)(i)(A)(2) and 

(c)(116) to read as follows:

§ 52.120 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * * 

(110) * * * 

(i) * * * 

(A) * * * 

(2) Rules R18–2–715.02 and R18–2–

715, Appendix 8 amended on November 

15, 1993.

* * * * *

(116) New and amended regulations 

were submitted on September 12, 2003, 

by the Governor’s designee. 

(i) Incorporation by reference. 

(A) Arizona Department of 

Environmental Quality. 

(1) Rules R18–2–715 (sections F, G, 

and H) and R18–2–715.01 amended on 

August 9, 2002.

[FR Doc. 04–24334 Filed 10–29–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[ID–02–003; FRL–7825–3] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; Idaho; 

Correcting Amendments

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule; correcting 

amendments. 

SUMMARY: This action corrects the 

incorporation by reference provisions in 

the approval of the Idaho PM10 State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) maintenance 

plan for the Ada County/Boise, Idaho 

area published on October 27, 2003.

DATES: This action is effective 

November 1, 2004.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the supporting 

documentation used in developing this 

action and the action being corrected are 

available for inspection during normal 

business hours at the following 

locations: U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region 10, Office of 

Air, Waste and Toxics (AWT–107), 1200 

Sixth Avenue, Seattle, Washington 

98101; Idaho Operations Office, 1435 

North Orchard Street, Boise, Idaho 

83706.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Colleen Huck at (206) 553–1770 or 

Donna Deneen at (206) 553–6706 or at 

the above EPA, Region 10 address.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On 

October 27, 2003, (68 FR 61106), EPA 

approved an Idaho SIP maintenance 

plan which addressed the attainment 

and maintenance of the National 

Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) 

for PM10 in the Ada County/Boise, Idaho 

area. PM10 air pollution is suspended 

particulate matter with a diameter less 

than or equal to a nominal ten 

micrometers. 

In approving the Ada County/Boise, 

Idaho PM10 maintenance plan, EPA 

incorporated by reference specific 

permit conditions limiting particulate 

matter emissions for a number of 

facilities in the Ada County/Boise Idaho 

area (68 FR 61110). In doing so, EPA 

inadvertently incorporated by reference 

permit conditions relating to the 

installation of a beet cleaning system, a 

transformer evaporator, and mill heaters 

in the State of Idaho Air Pollution 

Operating Permit for the Amalgamated 

Sugar Company LLC, Permit No. 027–

00010, issued September 30, 2002.

Idaho subsequently provided 

information to EPA indicating that the 

installation of the beet cleaning system,