[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 123 (Monday, June 26, 2000)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 39321-39326]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-14854]


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

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No Longer Applicable in Northern Ada County/Boise, ID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classification are no longer applicable in Northern Ada County/Boise, 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the pre-existing PM-10 standards are no longer applicable in Ada 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 href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#03422e626d672e512e476c60686677436673622d646c75"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="044529656a60295629406b676f6170446174652a636b72">[email protected]</span></a>. 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 <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#46242a272f35682127343f0623362768212930"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="89ebe5e8e0faa7eee8fbf0c9ecf9e8a7eee6ff">[email protected]</span></a>. 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 <greek-m>g/m\3\ on a daily basis, and 50 <greek-m>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


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>