Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 123 / Monday, June 26, 2000 / Proposed Rules 39321

roles of the federal and state

governments with regard to the

regulation of surface coal mining and

reclamation operations. One of the

purposes of SMCRA is to ‘‘establish a

nationwide program to protect society

and the environment from the adverse

effects of surface coal mining

operations.’’ Section 503(a)(1) of

SMCRA requires that state laws

regulating surface coal mining and

reclamation operations be ‘‘in

accordance with’’ the requirements of

SMCRA, and section 503(a)(7) requires

that state programs contain rules and

regulations ‘‘consistent with’’

regulations issued by the Secretary

pursuant to SMCRA.

Executive Order 12988—Civil Justice

Reform

The Department of the Interior has

conducted the reviews required by

section 3 of Executive Order 12988 and

has determined that, to the extent

allowed by law, this rule meets the

applicable standards of subsections (a)

and (b) of that section. However, these

standards are not applicable to the

actual language of State regulatory

programs and program amendments

since each such program is drafted and

promulgated by a specific State, not by

OSM. Under sections 503 and 505 of

SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1253 and 1255) and

30 CFR 730.11, 732.15, and

732.17(h)(10), decisions on proposed

State regulatory programs and program

amendments submitted by the States

must be based solely on a determination

of whether the submittal is consistent

with SMCRA and its implementing

Federal regulations and whether the

other requirements of 30 CFR Parts 730,

731, and 732 have been met.

National Environmental Policy Act

Section 702(d) of SMCRA (30 U.S.C.

1292(d)) provides that a decision on a

proposed state regulatory program

provision does not constitute a major

federal action within the meaning of

section 102(2)(C) of the National

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (42

U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)). A determination has

been made that such decisions are

categorically excluded from the NEPA

process (516 DM 8.4.A).

Paperwork Reduction Act

This rule does not contain

information collection requirements that

require approval by the Office of

Management and Budget under the

Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.

3507 et seq.).

Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Department of the Interior has

determined 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.). The state submittal

which is the subject of this rule is based

upon counterpart Federal regulations for

which an economic analysis was

prepared and certification made that

such regulations would not have a

significant economic effect upon a

substantial number of small entities.

Accordingly, this rule will ensure that

existing requirements previously

promulgated by OSM will be

implemented by the state. In making the

determination as to whether this rule

would have a significant economic

impact, the Department relied upon the

data and assumptions for the

counterpart federal regulations.

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement

Fairness Act

This rule is not a major rule under 5

U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act.

This rule:

a. Does not have an annual effect on

the economy of $100 million.

b. Will not cause a major increase in

costs or prices for consumers,

individual industries, federal, state, or

local government agencies, or

geographic regions.

c. Does not have significant adverse

effects on competition, employment,

investment, productivity, innovation, or

the ability of U.S. based enterprises to

compete with foreign-based enterprises.

This determination is based upon the

fact that the state submittal which is the

subject of this rule is based upon

counterpart federal regulations for

which an analysis was prepared and a

determination made that the federal

regulation was not considered a major

rule.

Unfunded Mandates

This rule will not impose a cost of

$100 million or more in any given year

on any governmental entity or the

private sector.

List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 917

Intergovernmental relations, Surface

mining, Underground mining.

Dated: June 16, 2000.

Allen D. Klein,

Regional Director, Appalachian Regional

Coordinating Center.

[FR Doc. 00–16088 Filed 6–23–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–05–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 50, 52 and 81

[FRL–6713–7]

RIN 2060–AJ05

Rescinding the Finding that the Preexisting 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 preexisting 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.

39322 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 123 / Monday, June 26, 2000 / Proposed Rules

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-RDocket@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 preexisting 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 preexisting PM–10 standards with revised

PM–10 standards at a level of 150 μg/

m3 on a daily basis, and 50 μg/m3 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 preexisting 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.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 123 / Monday, June 26, 2000 / Proposed Rules 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 preexisting 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, § 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 preexisting 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 longterm 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;

39324 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 123 / Monday, June 26, 2000 / Proposed Rules

(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 preexisting 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 leastburdensome 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

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 123 / Monday, June 26, 2000 / Proposed Rules 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 preexisting PM–10 standard does not

adversely affect minorities and lowincome 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.

§ 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

§ 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 § 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:

39326 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 123 / Monday, June 26, 2000 / Proposed Rules

§ 81.313 Idaho.

* * * * *

IDAHO PM–10

Designated area

Designation Classification

Date Type Date Type

Ada County:

Boise .................................................................................... Effective

date of

final rule

Nonattainment ............... Effective

date of

final rule

Moderate

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 BoundaryThence, 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 AQCR 64 ............................... 11/15/90 Unclassifiable.

(Excluding Ada County Boise PM–10 nonattainment area)

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 00–14854 Filed 6–23–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[FRL–6721–7]

RIN 2060–AE41

National Emission Standards for

Hazardous Air Pollutants for Source

Categories: National Emission

Standards for Primary Copper

Smelters

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Supplement to proposed rule.

SUMMARY: This action proposes a change

to the proposed national emission

standards for hazardous air pollutants

(NESHAP) for primary copper smelters.

After our careful review and evaluation

of comments received on the proposed

rule and new emissions data obtained

since the proposal of the rule, we

conclude that a change to the proposed

standards for the control of process

emissions from smelting furnaces, slag

cleaning vessels, and batch copper

converters is warranted. Specifically,

instead of the equipment standard

specified in the original proposal, we

are proposing a numerical emission

standard that would limit the maximum

concentration of total particulate matter

in the off-gases discharged from these

processes. This action also proposes a

new requirement for smelters using

baghouses that are required to use bag

leak detector systems. On April 20, 1998

(63 FR 19592), the EPA proposed the

NESHAP for Source Categories: National

Emission Standards for Primary Copper

Smelters. In that proposal the EPA

estimated that nationwide HAP

emissions from the ‘‘Primary Copper

Smelting’’ source category was

estimated to be approximately 189 Mg/

yr (208 tpy). The EPA estimated in the

same proposal that implementation of

the NESHAP, as proposed, would

reduce these nationwide HAP emissions

by approximately 20 percent to 115 Mg/

yr (171 tpy).

DATES: Comments. We are requesting

comments only on this supplement to

the proposed rule by August 25, 2000.

Public Hearing. If anyone contacts the

EPA requesting to speak at a public

hearing on or before July 17, 2000, a

public hearing will be held on July 26,

2000 beginning at 10:00 a.m.

ADDRESSES: Comments. Comments on

this supplement to the proposed rule

should be submitted (in duplicate) to

Docket No. A–96–22 at the following

address: Air and Radiation Docket and

Information Center (6102), U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200

Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,

Washington, DC 20460. We request that

a separate copy of the comments also be

sent to the contact person listed below

in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

Docket

The docket for this rulemaking is

Docket No. A–96–22 and is available for

public inspection between 8 a.m. and