Rescinding the Finding that the Pre-existing PM-10 Standards Are No Longer Applicable in Northern Ada County/Boise, ID

Related Material

Other Related Documents

Note: EPA no longer updates this information, but it may be useful as a reference or resource.

[Federal Register: June 26, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 123)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 39321-39326]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr26jn00-14]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 50, 52 and 81

[FRL-6713-7]
RIN 2060-AJ05

Rescinding the Finding that the Pre-existing PM-10 Standards Are
No Longer Applicable in Northern Ada County/Boise, ID

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: Today, EPA is proposing to rescind the finding that the pre-
existing PM-10 standards and the accompanying designation and
classification are no longer applicable in Northern Ada County/Boise,
Idaho (``Ada County''). The EPA had previously taken final action
regarding the applicability of the pre-existing PM-10 standards for Ada
County, Idaho on March 12, 1999. A recent ruling of the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit) has
undermined the basis for EPA's previous determination on the
applicability of the pre-existing PM-10 standards. In the ruling, the
court vacated the revised national ambient air quality standards
(NAAQS) for PM-10, the existence of which served as the underlying
basis for EPA's regulations governing such applicability determinations
and, thus, the specific finding that the pre-existing PM-10 standards
no longer applied in Ada County, Idaho. Since the court has vacated the
revised PM-10 standards that we issued in 1997, there are no Federal
PM-10 standards currently applicable in that area as required under the
Clean Air Act (CAA). The State's approved PM-10 standards remain in
effect. Therefore, today we are proposing to rescind the finding that
the pre-existing PM-10 standards are no longer applicable in Ada
County, Idaho, and to reinstate the applicability of the pre-existing
PM-10 standards. Under this proposal, we would reinstate the
designation and classification that previously applied in Northern Ada
County/Boise with respect to the pre-existing PM-10 standards. EPA has
discussed this with the State of Idaho. Further, in today's action EPA
is proposing to delete 40 CFR 50.6(d), thus ensuring that the pre-
existing PM-10 standards will continue to apply to all areas.

DATES: Your comments must be submitted on or before July 26, 2000 in
order to be considered.

[[Page 39322]]

ADDRESSES: You may comment in various ways:
On paper. Send paper comments (in duplicate, if possible) to the
Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center (6102), Attention:
Docket No. A-2000-13, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20460, telephone (202) 260-7548.
Electronically. Send electronic comments to EPA at: A-and-R-
Docket@epa.gov. Avoid sending confidential business information. We
accept comments as e-mail attachments or on disk. Either way, they must
be in WordPerfect 5.1 or 6.0 or ASCII file format. Avoid the use of
special characters and any form of encryption. You may file your
comments on this proposed rule online at many Federal Depository
Libraries. Be sure to identify all comments and data by Docket number
A-2000-13.
Public inspection. You may read the proposed rule (including paper
copies of comments and data submitted electronically, minus anything
claimed as confidential business information) at the Office of Air and
Radiation Docket and Information Center located at 401 M Street, SW,
Washington, DC 20460. They are available for public inspection from
8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. A reasonable fee may be charged for copying.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Questions about this proposal should
be addressed to Gary Blais (Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, Air Quality Strategies and Standards Division, Integrated
Policy and Strategies Group, MD-15, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711,
telephone (919) 541-3223 or e-mail to blais.gary@epa.gov. To ask about
policy matters specifically regarding Northern Ada County/Boise, call
Bonnie Thie, EPA Region 10, Office of Air Quality (OAQ-107), EPA,
Seattle, Washington, (206) 553-1189.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Background
A. What was the basis for EPA's previous rulemaking actions
finding that the pre-existing PM-10 standards no longer apply in
Northern Ada County, Idaho?
B. What effect does the recent court decision have on today's
proposed action?
II. What action is EPA proposing to take today?
III. What is the effect of rescinding the previous finding that the
pre-existing PM-10 standards no longer apply in Ada County?
A. What additional planning options could the State of Idaho
pursue?
IV. What administrative requirements are we considering in writing
today's proposed rule?
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Impact Analysis
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
C. Unfunded Mandates
D. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
F. Executive Order 13084: Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments
G. Paperwork Reduction Act
H. Executive Order 12898: Environmental Justice
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

I. Background

A. What was the basis for EPA's Previous Rulemaking Actions Finding
that the Pre-existing PM-10 Standards no Longer Apply in Ada County,
Idaho?

On July 18, 1997 (62 FR 38856), we issued a regulation replacing
the pre-existing PM-10 standards with revised PM-10 standards at a
level of 150 g/m\3\ on a daily basis, and 50 g/m\3\
on an annual basis. We based the form of the revised daily standard on
the 3-year average of the 99th percentile concentration value for each
of those years measured at each monitor within an area. We based the
form of the revised annual standard on the 3-year average of the annual
mean concentration for each of those years at each monitor within an
area. The new standards, which became effective on September 16, 1997,
were issued to provide increased protection to the public, especially
children, the elderly, and other at-risk populations.
Also, on July 18, 1997, we announced that the effective date of the
revocation of the pre-existing PM-10 NAAQS would be delayed and that,
therefore, the existing standards and associated designations and
classifications would continue to apply for an interim period. We did
this to provide continuity in public health protection during the
transition from the pre-existing to the new PM NAAQS. We provided, by
regulation, that the pre-existing PM-10 standards would no longer apply
to an area attaining those standards based on 3 years of quality-
assured monitoring data, and certain other criteria. The regulation
indicating the conditions under which the pre-existing PM-10 standards
would no longer apply was clearly premised upon the existence of the
newly-revised PM standards, and the implementation scheme developed for
those standards. See 63 FR 38652, 38701.
The criteria in the regulation at 40 CFR 50.6(d) for determining
that the pre-existing PM-10 NAAQS would no longer be applicable for an
area, and guidance issued subsequently by EPA, reflect and are
consistent with a memorandum issued by President Clinton that same day
(62 FR 38421, 38428, July 18, 1997).
On March 12, 1999 (64 FR 12257), we issued final rules approving
the State of Idaho's request that EPA revoke the pre-existing PM-10
NAAQS, along with the associated designation and classification, for
Ada County because the area had attained those standards and had
satisfied the revocation criteria found in 40 CFR 50.6(d). We therefore
took action 175 F.3d 1027 (D.C. Cir., 1999) determining that the pre-
existing PM-10 standards no longer applied in Ada County.

B. What Effect Does the Recent Court Decision Have on Today's Proposed
Action?

On May 14, 1999, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
issued an opinion questioning the constitutionality of the CAA
authority to review and revise the NAAQS, as applied in EPA's revision
to the ozone and particulate matter NAAQS. American Trucking
Association, et al., v. EPA, et al., and consolidated cases. The Court
stopped short of finding the statutory grant of authority
unconstitutional, instead providing EPA with another opportunity to
develop a determinate principle for promulgating NAAQS under the
statute. In its decision, the Court found there was adequate evidence
in the rulemaking record to justify EPA's choice to regulate both
coarse and fine particulate matter pollution. Nevertheless, the Court
went on to find that the Agency's decision to issue separate, but
overlapping, regulations governing fine particles (defined as having an
aerodynamic diameter of 2.5 microns or less) and regulations governing
coarse particles (defined as having an aerodynamic diameter of 10
microns or less, which, therefore, includes particles sized at 2.5
microns and below) was unreasonable. In the Court's view,
implementation of both PM NAAQS together would have led to ``double
regulation'' of the PM-2.5 component of the revised PM-10 NAAQS and
potential underregulation of pollution above the 2.5 micron size.
Consequently, the Court determined that EPA had acted in an arbitrary
and capricious manner, and vacated the revised PM-10 NAAQS.

[[Page 39323]]

The Ada County revocation rulemaking was based on the existence of
the revised PM-10 standards, as well as the transition policy that was
put in place to facilitate implementation of those standards. Since the
Court vacated those standards, we have no justification for leaving in
place a determination that would deprive members of the public in the
Ada County area of any Federal protection from high levels of coarse
particulate matter pollution. Such a result is untenable, especially
when the Agency itself concluded that increased health protection was
necessary when it issued its revised PM NAAQS. We therefore, feel the
appropriate course is to propose an action that would rescind our
previous finding that the pre-existing PM-10 standards are no longer
applicable in Ada County. Through restoration of the pre-existing PM-10
standards, we will ensure continued CAA health protection for members
of the public living in Ada County, Idaho.

II. What Action Is EPA Proposing To Take Today?

Today, we are proposing to rescind the Agency's March 12, 1999
finding that the pre-existing PM-10 standards no longer apply in Ada
County (64 FR 12257). The intended effect of this proposal, once it
undergoes public comment and we take final action, will be that the
applicability of the pre-existing PM-10 standards will be restored in
Ada County. A consequence of this action, when completed, will be the
return of the nonattainment designation and classification associated
with those standards.
Further, we are proposing to amend 40 CFR parts 50, 52 and 81 as
follows: (1) Part 50, section 50.6(d) will be deleted in its entirety
consistent with our decision that the pre-existing PM-10 standards, as
reflected in subsections (a) and (b) of 50.6, should continue to apply
in all areas. The effect of this action would be that the pre-existing
PM-10 standards, as codified at 40 CFR 50.6(a) and (b), would remain
applicable to all areas; and (2) part 52, section 52.676, which
codified the revocation of the pre-existing PM-10 NAAQS and the removal
of the nonattainment designation, will be deleted in its entirety. As a
consequence of this action, part 81, Sec. 81.313 will be revised to
indicate that the pre-existing PM-10 standards and nonattainment
designation apply to Ada County.

III. What Is the Effect of Rescinding the Previous Finding That the
Pre-Existing PM-10 Standards No Longer Apply in Ada County?

The requirements of section 176 of the CAA (U.S.C. 7506), designed
to coordinate transportation and air quality planning, will apply
immediately upon the effective date of the final action, as it would
have the effect of reestablishing the nonattainment designation. We
note that the D.C. Circuit has held that EPA could not provide a 1-year
grace period for applicability of these transportation regulations, but
rather that transportation requirements would apply as a matter of law.
Sierra Club v. EPA, 129 F.3d 137 (D.C. Cir. 1997). Therefore, EPA
believes that to interpret the CAA most consistently with the case law,
the transportation requirements would apply again to any area that has
a nonattainment designation reestablished. This will be the case for
Ada County if we take final action consistent with today's proposal.
The requirements that would now apply are included in 40 CFR parts
51 and 93. The EPA and the Department of Transportation issued guidance
on May 14, 1999 and June 18, 1999, respectively, clarifying the
requirements for transportation and air quality planning. These
documents can be found in the docket.
When these requirements begin applying to an affected area, the
area must have a current transportation plan and program that is
consistent with the air quality implementation plan to receive Federal
approval or funding for transportation projects. Ada County's
transportation improvement program expired on January 8, 1999. Ada
County does have an approved PM-10 State Implementation Plan (SIP) (61
FR 27019, May 30, 1996) which contains motor vehicle emissions budgets.
To demonstrate that the requirements under section 176 are met, the
transportation plan and program would need to be consistent with the
budgets in the approved SIP prior to this proposal taking effect.
New Source Review Requirements: The NSR program which was linked to
the CAA section 107 designation and classification that was in effect
in Ada County (when EPA found that the pre-existing PM-10 standard no
longer applied), will again apply under the approved SIP immediately
upon rescission of that finding.
Idaho's SIP defines the term ``nonattainment area'' as simply any
area designated as nonattainment under section 107(d) of the CAA.
Therefore, EPA's previous designation of the Ada County area as
nonattainment made it a nonattainment area for all purposes under
Idaho's SIP rules. Therefore, Idaho's part D NSR rules that previously
applied prior to March 12, 1999, the date of EPA's determination that
the pre-existing PM-10 standards no longer applied, would again apply
in Ada County to new and modified major sources of PM-10 automatically
upon finalization of this action.

A. What Additional Planning Options Could the State of Idaho Pursue?

An option which is always available under the Clean Air Act is for
an area such as Ada County to apply for a redesignation to attainment.
The requirements for redesignation are listed in section 107(d)(3) and
EPA guidance. The essence of the redesignation requirements is that an
area develop and adopt air quality plans which will be protective of
public health for the long-term by ensuring the continued achievement
of the air quality standard at issue, in this case PM-10.
The State of Idaho and Ada and Canyon County representatives have
been working on a comprehensive multi-county air quality plan--the
Treasure Valley Airshed Management Plan. EPA understands that the State
is working to complete, implement, and submit the requirements listed
in section 107(d)(3). In addition, the State and Ada County
representatives are considering measures necessary to implement
existing PM-10 control strategies and other measures necessary to
ensure continued progress and no net increase in PM-10 emissions from
transportation projects while any such plan is developed.

IV. What Administrative Requirements Have We Considered in Writing
Today's Proposed Rule?

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Impact Analysis

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), the
Agency must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant''
and, therefore, subject to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review
and the requirements of the Executive Order The Order defines
``significant regulatory action'' as one that is likely to result in a
rule that may:
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or
communities;

[[Page 39324]]

(2) create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants,
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof; or
(4) raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
the Executive Order.
The Agency has determined that this proposed regulatory action is
not significant. The OMB agrees and is exempting this proposed
regulatory action from Executive Order 12866 review.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.,
EPA must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis assessing the impact
of any proposed or final rule on small entities (5 U.S.C. 603 and 604),
unless EPA certifies that the rule will not have a significant impact
on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small
businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and government entities
with jurisdiction over populations of less than 50,000. The EPA is
proposing that this rule, in its final form, will not have a
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities because
the determination that the pre-existing PM-10 standards again apply in
Ada County does not itself directly impose any new requirements on
small entities. See Mid-Tex Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. FERC, 773
F.2d 327 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (agency's certification need only consider
the rule's impact on entities subject to the requirements of the rule).
Instead, this rule merely establishes that the previous PM-10 standard
again applies in Ada County. For the most part, any requirements
applicable to small entities that may indirectly apply as a result of
this action would be imposed independently by the State under its SIP,
not by EPA through this action. Moreover, to the extent this rule would
automatically trigger the applicability of certain SIP requirements to
small entities (e.g., NSR), this rule cannot itself be tailored to
address small entities that would be subject to those requirements.
One requirement that may apply immediately upon this action in Ada
County is the requirement under CAA section 176(c) and associated
regulations to demonstrate conformity of Federal actions to SIPs.
However, those rules only apply directly to Federal agencies and
metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs), which by definition are
designated only for metropolitan areas with populations of at least
50,000 and thus do not meet the definition of small entities under the
RFA. Therefore, I certify that this action will not have a significant
impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of
those terms for RFA purposes.

C. Unfunded Mandates

Under section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 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 cost-effective and least-burdensome alternative
that achieves the objectives of the rule and is consistent with
statutory requirements. Section 203 requires EPA to establish a plan
for informing and advising any small governments that may be
significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule.
Today's action, if finalized, would 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 rule would reinstate the applicability of the pre-existing
PM-10 standards and the designation and classification status of Ada
County. The consequences of this action may result in some additional
costs within the affected area; however, the Agency believes that these
costs would not exceed $100 million per year in the aggregate.
One mandate that may apply as a consequence of this action in Ada
County is the requirement under CAA section 176(c) and associated
regulations to demonstrate conformity of Federal actions to SIPs. These
rules apply to Federal agencies and MPOs making conformity
determinations. The EPA concludes that such conformity determinations
will not cost $100 million or more in the aggregate annually. Finally,
Idaho's part D NSR rules will apply again if we take final action on
this proposal, however we don't believe the incremental costs of these
rules compared with the prevention of significant deterioration (PSD)
rules currently in place in Ada County, plus the costs of conformity
determinations, would exceed $100 million or more in the aggregate in
any 1 year.

D. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks

Executive Order 13045: ``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 explain why the
planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and
reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.
The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those
regulatory actions that are based on health or safety risks, such that
the analysis required under section 5-501 of the Order has the
potential to influence the regulation. This proposed rule is not
subject to Executive Order 13045 because this is not an economically
significant regulatory action as defined by Executive Order 12866, and
it implements a previously promulgated health or safety-based Federal
standard, and does not itself involve decisions that affect
environmental health or safety risks.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

Executive Order 13132, entitled Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999), 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'' are 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
Section 6 of 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

[[Page 39325]]

implications and that preempts State law unless the Agency consults
with State and local officials early in the process of developing the
proposed regulation.
The EPA concludes that this rule will not have substantial
federalism implications, as specified in Section 6 of Executive Order
13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), because, as noted previously,
this rule would simply reinstate the applicability of the previous PM-
10 standard and the associated air quality designation for Ada County
and will not directly impose significant new requirements on Ada
County, or substantially alter the relationship or the distribution of
power and responsibilities between Idaho and the Federal government.
Although EPA has determined that Section 6 of Executive Order 13132
does not apply, EPA nonetheless consulted on numerous occasions with a
broad range of State and local officials both prior to and in the
course of developing this proposed rule. These included contacts with
members and staffs of the State's congressional offices,
representatives of the Governor, the State Attorney General's Office,
the Department of Environmental Protection, and affected local
metropolitan planning offices. During these discussions, concerns were
raised by Idaho regarding the impact of reinstatement of the
preexisting PM-10 standards on current planning endeavors, including
transportation improvement programs. In this context, and in order to
understand whether there might be potential alternative planning
options, the State sought clarification from EPA on its view of the
legal implications of the D.C. Circuit's American Trucking opinion.
EPA's response to these queries is summarized in Section I of this
notice. Additionally, EPA was able to assure the State that
transportation programs undertaken prior to finalization of
reinstatement of the standards and designation would not be affected by
that action. Finally, although EPA could not resolve all of Idaho's
concerns regarding the impact of this action on certain air quality
planning initiatives, the Agency committed itself to work closely with
the State, within the limits permitted by the requirements of the Clean
Air Act, to minimize any unnecessary impacts.

F. Executive Order 13084: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments

Under Executive Order 13084, EPA may not issue a regulation that is
not required by statute that significantly or uniquely affects the
communities of Indian tribal governments, and that imposes substantial
direct compliance costs on those communities, unless the Federal
government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance
costs incurred by the tribal governments, or EPA consults with those
governments. If EPA complies by consulting, Executive Order 13084
requires EPA to provide to OMB, in a separately identified section of
the preamble to the rule, a description of the extent of EPA's prior
consultation with representatives of affected tribal governments, a
summary of the nature of their concerns, and a statement supporting the
need to issue the regulation. In addition, Executive Order 13084
requires EPA to develop an effective process permitting elected
officials and other representatives of Indian tribal governments ``to
provide meaningful and timely input in the development of regulatory
policies on matters that significantly or uniquely affect their
communities.''
Today's proposed rule does not significantly or uniquely affect the
communities of Indian tribal governments. This proposed action does not
involve or impose any requirements that directly affect Indian tribes.
Under EPA's tribal authority rule, tribes are not required to implement
CAA programs but, instead, have the opportunity to do so. Accordingly,
the requirements of section 3(b) of Executive Order 13084 do not apply
to this rule.

G. Paperwork Reduction Act

This proposal does not contain any information collection
requirements which require OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction
Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

H. Executive Order 12898: Environmental Justice

Under Executive Order 12898, each Federal agency must make
achieving environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and
addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human
health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and
activities on minorities and low-income populations. Today's proposed
action reinstating the pre-existing PM-10 standard does not adversely
affect minorities and low-income populations.

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 new regulations. To comply with
NTTAA, the 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 proposed action.
Today's proposed action does not require the public to perform
activities conducive to the use of VCS.

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 50

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Sulfur oxides.

40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental
relations, Particulate matter.

40 CFR Part 81

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, National parks,
Wilderness areas.

Dated: June 2, 2000.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, chapter I, title 40 of the
Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as follows:

PART 50--[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 50 continues to read as follows:

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

Sec. 50.6 [Amended]

2. Section 50.6(d) is proposed to be removed.

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

Sec. 52.676 [Removed]

2. Section 52.676 is proposed to be removed.

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 Sec. 81.313, the entries for ``Ada County'' and
``Metropolitan Boise Intrastate AQCR 64'' in the table entitled ``Idaho
PM-10'' are proposed to be revised to read as follows:

[[Page 39326]]

Sec. 81.313 Idaho.

* * * * *

Idaho PM-10
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Designation Classification
Designated area ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date Type Date Type
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ada County:
Boise......................... Effective date of Nonattainment....................... Effective date of Moderate
final rule final rule
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 of
T5N (12 Ter. Ses. 67); thence
west to the northwest corner
of 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

* * * * * * *
Metropolitan Boise Intrastate 11/15/90 Unclassifiable......................
AQCR 64.
(Excluding Ada County Boise PM-
10 nonattainment area)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 00-14854 Filed 6-23-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

Notices For
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996
1995
1994

Rescinding the Finding that the Pre-existing PM-10 Standards Are No Longer Applicable in Northern Ada County/Boise, ID

Related Material

Local Navigation