61106 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 207 / Monday, October 27, 2003 / Rules and Regulations 

1Although 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.

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

Dated: October 16, 2003. 

Bharat Mathur, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.

PART 52—[AMENDED]

■ Accordingly, the amendment of 40 

CFR 52.1220(c) as published at 68 FR 

52113 (September 2, 2003) is withdrawn 

as of October 27, 2003.

[FR Doc. 03–26921 Filed 10–24–03; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[MN73–2; FRL–7578–5] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; 

Minnesota; Withdrawal of Direct Final 

Rule

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Withdrawal of direct final rule.

SUMMARY: Due to the receipt of an 

adverse comment, the EPA is 

withdrawing the direct final rule 

approving a site-specific revision to the 

Minnesota particulate matter (PM) State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) for Lafarge 

Corporation’s (Lafarge) facility located 

on Red Rock Road in Saint Paul, 

Ramsey County, Minnesota. In the 

direct final rule published on September 

2, 2003 (68 FR 52106), EPA stated that 

if EPA receives adverse comment by 

October 2, 2003, the PM rule would be 

withdrawn and not take effect. On 

September 2, 2003, EPA subsequently 

received one comment. We believe this 

comment is adverse and, therefore, we 

are withdrawing the direct final rule. 

EPA will address the comment received 

in a subsequent final action based on 

the proposed action published on 

September 2, 2003.

DATES: The direct final rule published at 

68 FR 52106 on September 2, 2003, is 

withdrawn as of October 27, 2003.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Christos Pantos, Criteria Pollutant 

Section, Air Programs Branch (AR–18J), 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, 

Illinois 60604. Telephone: (312) 353–

8328. E-mail address: 

panos.christos@epa.gov.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Intergovernmental 

relations, Particulate matter, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements.

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

Dated: October 16, 2003. 

Bharat Mathur, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.

PART 52—[AMENDED]

■ Accordingly, the addition of 40 CFR 

52.1220(c)(64) is withdrawn as of 

October 27, 2003.

[FR Doc. 03–26922 Filed 10–24–03; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

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.

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.

Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 207 / Monday, October 27, 2003 / Rules and Regulations 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

61108 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 207 / Monday, October 27, 2003 / Rules and Regulations 

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 overcontrol 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.

Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 207 / Monday, October 27, 2003 / Rules and Regulations 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.

■ 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 N—Idaho

■ 2. Section 52.670 is amended by 

adding paragraph (c)(38) to read as 

follows:

§ 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.

61110 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 207 / Monday, October 27, 2003 / Rules and Regulations 

(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.

■ 3. Section 52.672 is amended by 

revising paragraph (e) to read as follows:

§ 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.]

* * * * *

§ 52.676 [Removed and Reserved]

■ 4. Remove and reserve § 52.676.

PART 81—[AMENDED]

■ 1. The authority citation for Part 81 

continues to read as follows:

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

■ 2. In § 81.313, the table entitled ‘‘Idaho 

PM–10’’, the entry for ‘‘Ada County: 

Boise’’ is revised to read as follows:

§ 81.313 Idaho.

* * * * *

IDAHO—PM–10

Designated area 

Designation Classification 

Date Type Date Type 

*******

Ada County: Boise—Northern Boundary—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. 

12/26/2003 Attainment 

*******

Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 207 / Monday, October 27, 2003 / Rules and Regulations 61111

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 03–26919 Filed 10–24–03; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 

[Docket # OR–02–003a; FRL–7572–7] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; State of 

Oregon; Grants Pass PM–10 

Nonattainment Area Redesignation to 

Attainment and Designation of Areas 

for Air Quality Planning Purposes

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: On November 4, 2002, the 

State of Oregon submitted a PM–10 

maintenance plan for Grants Pass to 

EPA for approval and concurrently 

requested that EPA redesignate the 

Grants Pass nonattainment area to 

attainment for the National Ambient Air 

Quality Standard (NAAQS) for 

particulate matter with an aerodynamic 

diameter of less than ten micrometers 

(PM–10). In this action, EPA is 

approving the maintenance plan and 

redesignating the Grants Pass PM–10 

nonattainment area to attainment.

DATES: This direct final rule will be 

effective December 26, 2003, unless EPA 

receives adverse comments by 

November 26, 2003. If relevant adverse 

comments are received, EPA will 

publish a timely withdrawal of the 

direct final rule in the Federal Register

informing the public that the rule will 

not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be 

submitted either by mail or 

electronically. Written comments 

should be mailed to Steven K. Body, 

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

Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, 

Washington, 98101. Electronic 

comments should be sent either to 

r10.aircom@epa.gov or to http://

www.regulations.gov which is an 

alternative method for submitting 

electronic comments to EPA. To submit 

comments, please follow the detailed 

instructions described in the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section, 

Part VII, General Information. Copies of 

the documents relevant to this action 

are available for public inspection 

during normal business hours at the 

EPA, Region 10, Office of Air Quality, 

1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle WA.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Steven K. Body, State and Tribal 

Programs Unit, Office of Air Quality, 

(OAQ–107), EPA Region 10, 1200 Sixth 

Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101. Telephone 

number: (206) 553–0782, or e-mail 

address at body.steve@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Throughout this document, wherever 

‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean 

the EPA. Please note that if EPA 

receives relevant adverse comment on 

an amendment, paragraph or section of 

this rule and if that provision may be 

severed from the remainder of the rule, 

EPA may adopt as final those provisions 

of the rule that are not the subject of a 

relevant adverse comment.

Table of Contents 

I. What Is the Purpose of This Action? 

II. Why Was Grants Pass Designated 

Nonattainment? 

III. How Can a Nonattainment Area Be 

Redesignated Attainment? 

IV. Did the State Follow Appropriate 

Administrative Procedures Before 

Submitting All the Relevant Material to 

EPA? 

V. Evaluation of the Redesignation Request 

and Maintenance Plan 

A. The Area Must Have Attained the PM–

10 NAAQS 

B. The Area Must Have Met All Applicable 

Requirements Under Section 110 and 

Part D 

C. Clean Air Act (CAA) Section 110 

Requirements 

D. Part D Requirements 

E. Section 172(c)(3)—Emissions Inventory 

F. Section 172(c)(5)—New Source Review 

(NSR) 

G. Section 172(c)(7)—Compliance With 

CAA Section 110(a)(2): Air Quality 

Monitoring Requirements 

H. The Area Must Have a Fully Approved 

SIP Under Section 110(k) of the CAA 

I. The Area Must Show the Improvement 

in Air Quality is Due to Permanent and 

Enforceable Emission Reductions. 

J. The Area Must Have a Fully Approved 

Maintenance Plan Under CAA Section 

175A 

K. Emissions Inventory—Attainment Year 

L. Demonstration of maintenance 

M. Monitoring Network and Verification of 

Continued Attainment 

N. Contingency Plan 

O. Transportation Conformity 

VI. Final Action 

VII. General Information 

VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What Is the Purpose of This Action? 

EPA is approving the Grants Pass PM–

10 Maintenance Plan and redesignating 

the Grants Pass PM–10 nonattainment 

area to attainment. Grants Pass is a city 

in southern Oregon with a population of 

approximately 36,000. In the late 1980’s 

Grants Pass recorded PM–10 

concentrations significantly above the 

level of the 24-hour PM–10 standard. 

II. Why Was Grants Pass Designated 

Nonattainment? 

On November 15, 1990, the Clean Air 

Act Amendments of 1990 were enacted 

(Pub. L. 101–549, 104 Stat. 2399, 

codified at 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q). 

Under section 107(d)(1)(C) of the Clean 

Air Act (CAA), the Grants Pass, Oregon, 

area was designated nonattainment for 

PM–10 by operation of law because the 

area had been designated a Group I 

planning area before November 15, 

1990. Group I planning areas were 

identified on August 7, 1987. See 52 FR 

29383. On October 31, 1990, EPA 

clarified the description of certain 

Group I planning areas, including the 

Grants Pass area. See 55 FR 45799. 

These areas were called ‘‘initial PM–10 

nonattainment areas.’’ On March 15, 

1991, EPA announced these areas and 

classified them as moderate PM–10 

nonattainment areas. See 56 FR 11101. 

III. How Can a Nonattainment Area Be 

Redesignated to Attainment? 

Nonattainment areas can be 

redesignated to attainment after the area 

has measured air quality data showing 

it has attained the NAAQS and when 

certain planning requirements are met. 

Section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA, and the 

General Preamble to Title I (57 FR 

13498) provide the criteria for 

redesignation. These criteria are further 

clarified in a policy and guidance 

memorandum from John Calcagni, 

September 4, 1992, Procedures for 

Processing Requests to Redesignate 

Areas to Attainment. The criteria for 

redesignation are: 

(1) The Administrator determines that 

the area has attained the relevant 

national ambient air quality standard; 

(2) The Administrator has fully 

approved the applicable 

implementation plan for the area under 

section 110(k) of the Act; 

(3) 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, applicable 

Federal air pollution control 

regulations, and other permanent and 

enforceable reductions; 

(4) The Administrator has fully 

approved a maintenance plan for the 

area as meeting the requirements of 

CAA section 175A; and 

(5) The State containing the area has 

met all requirements applicable to the 

area under section 110 and part D of the 

CAA. 

Before an area can be redesignated to 

attainment, all applicable State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) elements