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

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 123 / Monday, June 26, 2000 / Proposed Rules 39327

5:30 p.m., Monday through Friday

except for Federal holidays, at the

following address: U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Air and Radiation

Docket and Information Center (6102),

401 M Street SW., Washington, DC

20460; telephone: (202) 260–7548. The

docket is located at the above address in

Room M–1500, Waterside Mall (ground

floor). A reasonable fee may be charged

for copying.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

Eugene Crumpler, Metals Group,

Emission Standards Division (MD–13),

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Research Triangle Park, NC, 27711,

telephone number (919) 541–0881,

facsimile number (919) 541–5600,

electronic mail address

‘‘crumpler.gene@epa.gov’’.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulated Entities

Entities potentially regulated by this

action are primary copper smelters (SIC

3339). No Federal government entities

nor State/local/tribal government

entities would be regulated by final

action on this supplemental proposal.

This description of the regulated

entities is not intended to be exhaustive,

but rather provides a guide for readers

regarding entities likely to be regulated

by final action on this supplemental

proposal. This description identifies the

types of entities that we are now aware

could potentially be regulated by final

action on this supplemental proposal.

To determine whether your facility is

regulated by final action on this

supplemental proposal, you should

carefully examine the applicability

criteria in the proposed rule (63 FR

19582, April 20, 1998). If you have any

questions regarding the applicability of

this action to a particular entity, consult

the contact person listed in FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT.

World Wide Web

An electronic copy of this document

will also be available on the Technology

Transfer Network (TTN) policy and

guidance page for newly proposed or

promulgated rules (http://www.epa.gov/

ttn/oarpg/). The TTN provides

information and technology exchange in

various areas of air pollution control. If

more information regarding the TTN is

needed, call (919) 541–5384.

Docket

The supplemental proposal and other

information related to the proposed rule

are available for review in the docket.

Copies of this information may be

obtained by request from the Air Docket

by calling (202) 260–7548. A reasonable

fee may be charged for copying docket

materials The docket is intended to be

an organized and complete file of the

administrative records complied by us

in the development of this rulemaking.

The docket is a dynamic file because

material is added throughout the

rulemaking development. The docketing

system is intended to allow members of

the public and regulated industries to

readily identify and locate documents

so that they can effectively participate

in the rulemaking process. Along with

the proposed and promulgated

standards and their preambles, the

contents of the docket, except for certain

interagency documents, will serve as the

record for judicial review. (See CAA

section 307(d)(7)(A).)

Public Hearing

If anyone contacts us and requests to

speak at a public hearing by July 17,

2000, a public hearing will be held at

the U.S. EPA’s Office of Administration

Auditorium, 79 T.W. Alexander Drive,

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.

Persons interested in attending the

hearing or in making an oral

presentation should notify Mrs. Mary

Hinson, Metals Group, Emission

Standards Division (MD–13), U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina

27711, telephone number (919) 541–

5601.

Electronic Filing

Electronic comments can be sent

directly to U.S. EPA’s Air and Radiation

Docket and Information Center at: ‘‘Aand-R-Docket@epamail.epa.gov.’’

Electronic comments must be submitted

as an ASCII file avoiding the use of

special characters and any form of

encryption. Comments and data will

also be accepted on disks in

WordPerfect in 5.1, 6.1, or Corel 8 file

format or ASCII file format. All

comments and data in electronic form

must be identified by the docket number

(A–96–22). No ‘‘Confidential Business

Information’’ should be submitted

through electronic mail. Electronic

comments may be filed online at many

Federal Depository Libraries.

Confidential Business Information

If you want to submit proprietary

information for consideration, you

should clearly distinguish such

information from your other comments

and clearly label it ‘‘Confidential

Business Information.’’ To ensure that

proprietary information is not

inadvertently placed in the docket,

comments containing such proprietary

information should not be sent to the

public docket but instead sent directly

to Mr. Eugene Crumpler, Metals Group,

Emission Standards Division, c/o

OAQPS Document Control Officer, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, 411

West Chapel Hill Street, Room 740B,

Durham, NC 27701. Information covered

by such claim of confidentiality will be

disclosed by us only to the extent

allowed and by the procedures set forth

in 40 CFR part 2. If no claim of

confidentiality accompanies a

submission when it is received by us,

the submission may be made available

to the public without further notice to

the commenter.

Outline

The information in this preamble is

organized as follows.

I. Summary of Proposed Rule Change

II. Background to Supplemental Proposal

III. Selection of the Proposed Emission

Standard

A. Original Decision to Propose an

Equipment Standard

B. Public Comments on the Proposed

Equipment Standard

C. Why We Decided to Change to an

Emission Standard

D. Why We Selected Particulate Matter as

a HAP Surrogate

E. How We Selected the Numerical Limit

for the Emission Standard

IV. Requirements for Alarm Limits on

Baghouse Leak Detectors

V. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory

Planning and Review

B. Executive Order 13132, Federalism

C. Executive Order 13084, Consultation

and Coordination with Indian Tribal

Governments

D. Executive Order 13045, Protection of

Children from Environmental Health

Risks and Safety Risks

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

F. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as

amended by the Small Business

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of

1996 (SBREFA), 5 USC 601 et. seq.

G. Paperwork Reduction Act

H. National Technology Transfer and

Advancement Act

I. Summary of Proposed Rule Change

We are proposing an emission

standard to control the hazardous air

pollutants (HAP) emissions from

process off-gases discharged from

smelting furnaces, slag cleaning vessels,

and batch copper converters operated at

primary copper smelters subject to the

rule as proposed. This emission

standard replaces the equipment

standard we originally proposed for

these sources. The emission standard

would establish a numerical limit for

the concentration of total particulate

matter allowed to be emitted in the

process off-gases discharged to the

atmosphere from an affected source. We

39328 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 123 / Monday, June 26, 2000 / Proposed Rules

are proposing that this concentration

limit be set at 23 milligrams of total

particulate matter per dry standard

cubic meter (mg/dscm) (approximately

0.010 grains per dry standard cubic foot

(gr/dscf)). Measurement of total

particulate matter concentration would

be performed using either EPA Method

5 or Method 29 in 40 CFR part 60,

appendix A. The average value of the

results from three test runs would be

used to determine compliance with this

numerical limit.

We are also proposing a requirement

for the percentage of time that bag leak

detectors installed on baghouses at

primary copper smelters detect levels of

particulate matter above a set point. A

violation of the standard will occur

when the percentage of time that the

alarm on the detector is activated

exceeds 5 percent of the operating time

in any 6-month period.

II. Background to Supplemental

Proposal

Section 112 of the Clean Air Act

(CAA) directs us to establish NESHAP

to control emissions from major and

area stationary sources. The source

category of ‘‘primary copper smelting’’

is one of the approximately 170

categories selected for regulation under

section 112 (57 FR 31576, 61 FR 28202).

On April 20, 1998, we proposed the

NESHAP for the primary copper

smelting source category (63 FR 19582,

April 20, 1998).

Following the proposal date, a 90-day

comment period (April 20, 1998 to July

20, 1998) was provided to receive

comments from the public. A copy of

each comment letter that we received

has been placed in the docket for this

rulemaking (Docket No. A–96–22).

Several commenters provided new

information regarding operations at

primary copper smelters that caused us

to reconsider the equipment standard

originally proposed for the control of

smelter process off-gas streams

discharged from smelting furnaces, slag

cleaning vessels, and batch copper

converters.

The supplement also proposes an

operating standard that would limit the

frequency and duration of baghouse leak

detector alarms to 5 percent of the

baghouse operating time during any 6-

month period. This operating standard

helps assure that baghouses are in

continuous compliance with particulate

matter standards. The standard will also

assure that the owner or operator will

properly operate and maintain the

system by responding immediately to

alarms and take corrective action.

Discussions on the purpose and bases

of these proposed changes to the

original proposal are contained in the

following sections of this preamble.

III. Selection of the Proposed Emission

Standard

A. Original Decision To Propose an

Equipment Standard

Process HAP emissions are the HAP

contained in the primary exhaust gas

stream (i.e., off-gases) discharged from a

process unit or vessel. Process HAP

emissions at primary copper smelters

include metal HAP contained in the offgases exhausted from flash smelting

furnaces and from batch copper

converters (when the converter vessels

are positioned and operated in either

the slag or copper blowing mode). At

those smelters that perform an

additional slag cleaning process step, a

third source of metal HAP emissions is

the off-gases exhausted from the slag

cleaning vessels. All three of these

process off-gas streams share a common

characteristic. They all contain

substantial quantities of sulfur dioxide

(SO2) at high concentrations ranging

from 4 percent to as much as 80 percent

for some smelting furnaces. At all

existing smelters using these processes,

the process off-gas streams are vented to

by-product sulfuric acid plants for SO2

control. These sulfuric acid plants were

installed at the smelters to comply with

Federal and State regulations limiting

emissions of SO2 to the atmosphere.

When we were developing the

proposed NESHAP, we determined that

the maximum achievable control

technology (MACT) floor for controlling

metal HAP emissions in the process offgases vented from existing smelting

furnaces, slag cleaning vessels, and

batch copper converters is to vent these

off-gases to a by-product sulfuric acid

plant with its ancillary particulate

matter pre-cleaning and conditioning

systems (63 FR 19594). Recognizing that

an emission standard is the preferred

approach for standards established

under section 112 of the CAA, we

nevertheless proposed an equipment

standard pursuant to section 112(h).

Our decision to propose an equipment

standard was based on the inherent

design and operation of the sulfuric acid

plants used to treat the off-gases

discharged from the smelting furnaces,

slag cleaning vessels, and batch copper

converters in order to comply with the

existing, federally-enforceable SO2

emission standards. By operating these

plants, the smelters also achieve

effective control of the metal HAP

contained in the process off-gases

discharged from the smelting and

converting operations. Rigorous precleaning and conditioning of these

process off-gases to remove metals and

other particulate matter upstream of the

acid plant catalyst beds are mandatory

to optimize the acid plant performance

and to prevent expensive damage to the

catalysts and other critical plant

equipment. Consequently, the metal

HAP concentrations in the tail gases

exiting the sulfuric acid plants at

primary copper smelters are controlled

to very low, if not, trace levels. We

concluded that compliance with the

existing federally-enforceable SO2

emission limits would ensure good

metal HAP emission control for the SO2

rich process off-gases discharged to the

smelter’s sulfuric acid plant. Therefore,

we proposed an equipment standard for

the primary copper smelter NESHAP

that would require that the process offgases from smelting furnaces, slag

cleaning vessels, and batch copper

converters be discharged through a byproduct sulfuric acid plant (or other

type of sulfur recovery process unit that

requires comparable levels of gas stream

pre-cleaning and conditioning to

remove particulate matter). No

numerical emission limits for either

individual HAP metals or particulate

matter were proposed.

B. Public Comments on the Proposed

Equipment Standard

One commenter disagreed with our

decision to propose an equipment

standard instead of an emission

standard for control of metal HAP

emissions from smelting furnaces, slag

cleaning vessels, and batch copper

converters at the affected primary

copper smelters. The commenter argued

that we are required by the CAA to

establish an emission standard for these

sources unless it can be demonstrated

that prescribing and enforcing a

numerical limit is not feasible. In the

case of the proposed NESHAP for

primary copper smelters, the commenter

stated that we provided no

documentation to support a

determination that it is not feasible to

prescribe a numerical limit for the metal

HAP emissions from sulfuric acid plants

operated at primary copper smelters.

C. Why We Decided To Change to an

Emission Standard

Since proposal, we have learned that

source tests using EPA reference test

methods have been routinely performed

at primary copper smelters to measure

the content of total particulate matter

and individual HAP metal constituents

in the tail gas streams vented from the

sulfuric acid plants operating at these

smelters. After our careful review and

evaluation of the comments received on

the proposed equipment standard and

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 123 / Monday, June 26, 2000 / Proposed Rules 39329

the newly obtained source test data, we

have now changed our opinion

regarding the application of a numerical

emission limit to these sources.

We have compiled a data base that

includes metal HAP and total

particulate matter emission data from

source tests of the sulfuric acid plants

operated at four of the six primary

copper smelters using batch copper

converters. Many source tests have been

conducted at primary copper smelters

since 1996 to measure the

concentrations of total particulate

matter and individual metal HAP in the

tail gases exiting the smelter sulfuric

acid plants. The majority of these tests

were performed using EPA reference

test methods.

At two smelters, source tests were

repeated on a monthly basis for a 3-year

period. The demonstrated capability of

the smelter owners and operators to

conduct these source tests clearly

supports a conclusion that this type of

source testing is not only feasible but is

practical and not overly burdensome to

perform. Furthermore, given the data

base that has been compiled using the

source test results, we now conclude

that a numerical emission limit on the

tail gases exiting the sulfuric acid plants

operated at primary copper smelters can

readily be prescribed and effectively

enforced.

D. Why We Selected Particulate Matter

as a HAP Surrogate

The HAP emissions from primary

copper smelters originate primarily from

metal impurities (e.g., arsenic, lead,

cadmium, antimony, and other heavy

metal species that have been listed as

HAP) that naturally occur in copper ore

concentrates. During the smelting

process of the copper ore concentrates

and the subsequent converting process

to produce blister copper, these HAP

metal species either are eliminated in

the molten slag tapped from the process

vessels or are vaporized and discharged

in the process vessel off-gases. Upon

cooling of the process off-gases, the

volatilized HAP metal species condense,

form aerosols, and behave as particulate

matter.

The composition and amounts of

metal HAP in the copper ore

concentrates can vary from one smelter

to another as well as over time at

individual smelters depending on the

ore deposit from which the copper ore

concentrate is derived. This inherent

variability and unpredictability of the

metal HAP compositions and amounts

in copper ore concentrates have a

material effect on the composition and

amount of HAP metals in the process

off-gas emissions. As a result,

prescribing individual numerical

emission limits for each HAP metal

species (e.g., a specific emission limit

for arsenic, a specific emission limit for

lead, etc.) is difficult, if not impossible,

to do.

Given that prescribing individual

numerical emission limits for HAP

metal is not a practicable approach in

this case, an alternative approach is to

use total particulate matter as a

surrogate pollutant for the metal HAP

emitted from primary copper smelters.

An emission characteristic common to

all primary copper smelters and similar

source categories is the fact that the

metal HAP are a component of the

particulate matter contained in the

process off-gases discharged from

smelting and converting operations.

Strong direct correlations exist between

the emissions of total particulate matter

and metal HAP compounds. Emission

limits established to achieve good

control of total particulate matter will

also achieve good control of metal HAP.

Adopting particulate matter as a

surrogate pollutant for these sources

provides the added benefit of

consistency with the format and test

procedures we are using for the other

primary copper smelter sources for

which we have proposed numerical

emission limits (i.e., specifically the

proposed numerical emission limit

standards for exhaust gas streams from

copper concentrate dryers and for

captured process fugitive gas streams

from smelting and converting vessels).

E. How We Selected the Numerical Limit

for the Emission Standard

We prepared a data base from which

we could select a numerical limit for

total particulate matter contained in the

tail gases exiting the sulfuric acid plants

operated at primary copper smelters.

This data base is derived from the

results of field source tests performed

between 1996 and 1999 by the primary

copper smelter companies using EPA

test methods. Most of the tests included

in our data base were performed using

EPA Method 29 (in appendix A to 40

CFR part 60) which can measure both

particulate matter and individual metal

emissions from stationary sources. The

remaining tests were performed using

EPA Method 5 (also in appendix A to

40 CFR part 60) which is used to

measure particulate matter emissions

from stationary sources. The test

protocol for these EPA methods requires

that three test runs be completed to be

considered a valid compliance test.

The data base includes results for

particulate matter emissions from the

sulfuric acid plants operated at four of

the six primary copper smelters that

would potentially be subject to this

supplemental proposal. All the tested

sulfuric acid plants are double-contact

plant designs with sulfuric acid

production capacities ranging from

approximately 2,200 to 4,000 tons per

day. One of the smelters tested operates

two sulfuric acid plants, and the data

base includes test results for both

plants. The two other smelters for which

we do not have source test results also

operate double-contact sulfuric acid

plants. The design and sulfuric acid

production capacities of the sulfuric

acid plants for which we do not have

data are similar to the five plants

included in the data base. A summary

of results for each of the individual

source tests included in the data base is

available in the docket for this

rulemaking (Docket A–96–22).

For one smelter located in Arizona,

the company provided us with the

results from six additional source tests

for their facility’s sulfuric acid plant

conducted using the Arizona Method

A1. This is a test method adopted by the

State of Arizona for measuring total

particulate matter emissions in gas

streams containing sulfur. Arizona

Method A1 uses a different protocol

than EPA Methods 5 and 29. The

temperature specified by Arizona

Method A1 for the sample collection

filter is in the range of 350°F versus

250°F for EPA Methods 5 and 29. At the

filter temperature used for the EPA

methods, sulfuric acid mist and waters

of hydration are condensed and counted

as part of the total particulate catch on

the filter. Sulfuric acid mist and waters

of hydration do not condense at the

higher filter temperature used for

Arizona Method A1 and pass through

the filter (i.e., do not collect on the

filter). Consequently, for a given sulfuric

acid plant tail gas stream, a total

particulate matter concentration value

measured on the filter using Arizona

Method A1 will be lower than the

concentration value measured on the

filter using either EPA Method 5 or 29.

The test results obtained using Arizona

Method A1 cannot be directly compared

to the test results obtained using the

EPA test methods. Therefore, we

decided not to mix incompatible test

results in our data base, and we

included only those individual source

tests conducted using EPA Methods 5 or

29.

In addition, we excluded from further

consideration in our selection of a

numerical emission limit the results of

three source tests that were obtained

from the smelter companies. Although

these tests were conducted using EPA

test methods, our review of the tests

showed that the documentation of the

39330 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 123 / Monday, June 26, 2000 / Proposed Rules

test results was either incomplete or that

the test was not conducted under

normal representative operating

conditions. The first test reported

results for only two test runs; this is

fewer than the minimum number of

three runs required by EPA test method

protocol to be a valid compliance test.

A second test was excluded because the

smelter company reported to us that,

based on the results of that test, the

sulfuric acid plant was subsequently

shut down to make repairs to catalyst

beds. We do not consider this test to be

representative of normal sulfuric acid

plant performance at the smelter. Our

review of the third test shows that there

exists a substantial inconsistency in the

measured particulate matter

concentrations between the first test run

as compared to the second and third

runs conducted on the same day. An

extraordinarily large value of 0.075 gr/

dscf was reported for the first run versus

more credible values of 0.004 and 0.005

gr/dscf reported for the second and third

runs, respectively. These results clearly

indicate that the first run result is an

outlier due to either a sampling or

analytical error. We have, therefore,

decided to exclude the results for that

source test from further consideration.

Our data base for selecting the

numerical limit for the emission

standard is comprised of a total of 78

particulate matter concentration values.

Each of these values represents the total

particulate matter concentration in the

tail gas stream exiting the sulfuric acid

plant and is calculated by averaging the

results for the three individual test runs

conducted for a given source test. These

3-run averages range from 0.001 gr/dscf

to 0.015 gr/dscf of total particulate

matter emitted in the sulfuric acid plant

tail gas streams. All but two of these 3-

run averages are less than 0.010 gr/dscf

(one facility reported a 3-run average

value of 0.011 gr/dscf, and another a 3-

run average value of 0.015 gr/dscf). For

each of the five sulfuric acid plants

represented in our data base, we also

computed the overall average total

particulate matter concentration from all

of the 3-run averages included in our

data base for a given sulfuric acid plant.

These overall average particulate

concentration values are presented in

the following Table 1. (Note that

sulfuric acid plants A and B are located

at the same primary copper smelter.)

Also shown are the number of 3-run

tests used to compute the overall

average for each sulfuric acid plant.

TABLE 1.—PARTICULATE MATTER

EMISSIONS FROM SULFURIC ACID

PLANTS AT PRIMARY COPPER

SMELTERS

Sulfuric

acid

plant

Overall average

total particulate

matter concentration

Number of

source tests

averaged

A ........... 0.004 gr/dscf 34

B ........... 0.004 gr/dscf 38

C .......... 0.007 gr/dscf 1

D .......... 0.008 gr/dscf 2

E ........... 0.010 gr/dscf 3

A review of the five sulfuric plant

designs supports a finding that all of the

plants provide a comparable level of

particulate matter pre-cleaning. Each

process off-gas stream from the smelting

and converting operations passes

through a series of particulate control

devices before the gases enter the

sulfuric acid plant catalyst beds. For

most of the process gas streams, the

particulate matter cleaning sequence

begins with an electrostatic precipitator

(ESP), followed by a wet scrubber

system, and finally a wet ESP and mist

eliminator. Variations of this sequence

are used for a few of the process off-gas

streams. For example, at one smelter,

the smelting furnace off-gases pass

through two separate wet scrubbing

systems before entering the wet ESP.

However, regardless of the specific

design configuration used for precleaning the process off-gases, all of the

process off-gasses pass through a series

of either ESP or wet scrubber control

devices and then a wet ESP before the

gas stream enters the catalyst bed.

Therefore, we conclude that all five

sulfuric acid plants represent the MACT

floor level of control, and that the

variation of the particulate matter

concentrations reported in the data base

for the tail gases exiting from these

plants reflect normal and unavoidable

variability.

Given the above finding and our

evaluation of the available test results,

we are proposing 0.010 gr/dscf as the

numerical limit for total particulate

matter contained in the tail gases exiting

the sulfuric acid plants operated at

primary copper smelters. In our

judgment, this value reflects a level of

total particulate matter emissions that

can be achieved consistently by a

properly operated and maintained

sulfuric acid plant used to control

process off-gases from primary copper

smelting and converting operations.

Converting the value of 0.010 gr/dscf to

the equivalent metric units, the

numerical emission limit we are

proposing for the concentration of total

particulate matter allowed to be emitted

in the process off-gases discharged to

the atmosphere from smelting furnaces,

slag cleaning vessels, and batch copper

converters is 23 mg/dscm.

IV. Requirements for Alarm Limits on

Baghouse Leak Detector Alarms

Today’s action also proposes

additional requirements for owners or

operators of baghouses with bag leak

detection systems. This supplement to

the proposed rule would enhance the

requirements regarding bag leak

detection systems in § 63.1452 of the

proposed rule to include an enforceable

operating limit, such that the owner or

operator would be in violation of the

standards operating limit if the alarm on

a bag leak detection system sounds for

more than 5 percent of the total

operating time in each 6-month

reporting period. This supplementary

proposal also specifies that each time

the alarm sounds and the owner or

operator initiates corrective actions

within 1 hour of the alarm, 1 hour of

alarm time would be counted. If the

owner or operator takes longer than 1

hour to initiate corrective actions, the

EPA proposes that alarm time would be

counted as the actual amount of time

taken by the owner or operator to

initiate corrective actions. If inspection

of the baghouse system demonstrates

that no corrective actions are necessary,

no alarm time would be counted. This

supplementary proposal also proposes

that owners and operators be required to

continuously record the output from a

bag leak detection system and to

maintain these records as specified in

§ 63.10 of the general provisions.

By requiring sources controlled by

baghouses to continuously monitor their

compliance with specific control

devices, and by making deviations from

such operating parameters for more than

5 percent of the total operating time in

each 6-month reporting period a

violation of the operating limit, the

monitoring requirements help assure

continuous compliance with the

emission limits through continuous

emissions reductions. Likewise, the

continuous monitoring of the baghouse

using a bag leak detection system, and

the enforceable 5 percent threshold

level, will help ensure that the baghouse

is being operated and maintained

properly and thereby helps assure

continuous compliance with the

emission limit through continuous

emissions reductions. The EPA is

proposing the requirement to

continuously record bag leak detection

system output to ensure that data

necessary to assess compliance with the

newly proposed operating limit for bag

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 123 / Monday, June 26, 2000 / Proposed Rules 39331

leak detection system alarms would be

available. In the absence of such

information, enforcement personnel

would be unable to determine whether

the operating limit is being met. The

output records would also provide data

necessary to assess the magnitude of the

output level above the alarm set point,

and would assist owners and operators

in properly operating and maintaining

the baghouse and in diagnosing

baghouse upsets. As proposed, an alarm

simply indicates that the set point was

exceeded, but it does not relate to the

deviation or magnitude of the output

level above the set point.

V. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory

Planning and Review

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR

51735, October 4, 1993), the EPA must

determine whether the regulatory action

is ‘‘significant’’ and therefore subject to

review by the Office of Management and

Budget (OMB) and the requirements of

the Executive Order. The Executive

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;

(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

obligation 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.

Pursuant to the terms of Executive

Order 12866, it has been determined

that this rule is not a ‘‘significant

regulatory action’’ because none of the

listed criteria apply to this action.

Consequently, this action was not

submitted to OMB for review under

Executive Order 12866.

B. Executive Order 13132, Federalism

Executive Order 13132, entitled

‘‘Federalism’’ (64 FR 43255, August 10,

1999), requires the EPA to develop an

accountable process to ensure

‘‘meaningful and timely input by State

and local officials in the development of

regulatory policies that have federalism

implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have

federalism implications’’ is defined in

the Executive Order to include

regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct

effects on the States, on the relationship

between the national government and

the States, or on the distribution of

power and responsibilities among the

various levels of government.’’

Under Section 6 of Executive Order

13132, the 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 the EPA consults with

State and local officials early in the

process of developing the proposed

regulation. The EPA also may not issue

a regulation that has federalism

implications and that preempts State

law, unless the Agency consults with

State and local officials early in the

process of developing the proposed

regulation.

This supplement to the proposed rule

does not have federalism implications.

It will not have substantial direct effects

on the States, on the relationship

between the national government and

the States, or on the distribution of

power and responsibilities among the

various levels of government, as

specified in Executive Order 13132. No

State or local governments own or

operate primary copper smelters. Thus,

the requirements of section 6 of the

Executive Order do not apply to this

rule.

C. Executive Order 13084, Consultation

and Coordination With Indian Tribal

Governments

Under Executive Order 13084, the

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 the EPA consults with

those governments. If the EPA complies

by consulting, Executive Order 13084

requires the EPA to provide to OMB, in

a separately identified section of the

preamble to the rule, a description of

the extent of the 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 the 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.’’ This supplement to the

proposed rule does not significantly or

uniquely affect the communities of

Indian tribal governments. No tribal

governments own or operate primary

copper smelters. Accordingly, the

requirements of section 3(b) of

Executive Order 13084 do not apply to

this action.

D. Executive Order 13045, Protection of

Children From Environmental Health

Risks and Safety Risks

Executive Order 13045 (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

the 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 Executive Order has the potential to

influence the regulation. This

supplement to the proposed rule is not

subject to Executive Order 13045

because it is based on technology

performance and not on health or safety

risks. No children’s risk analysis was

performed because no alternative

technologies exist that would provide

greater stringency at a reasonable cost.

Furthermore, this rule has been

determined not to be ‘‘economically

significant’’ as defined under Executive

Order 12866.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of

1995

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public

Law 104–4, establishes requirements for

Federal agencies to assess the effects of

their regulatory actions on State, local,

and tribal governments and the private

sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA,

the EPA generally must prepare a

written statement, including a costbenefit analysis, for proposed and final

rules with ‘‘Federal mandates’’ that may

result in expenditures by State, local,

39332 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 123 / Monday, June 26, 2000 / Proposed Rules

and tribal governments, in aggregate, or

by the private sector, of $100 million or

more in any 1 year. Before promulgating

an EPA rule for which a written

statement is needed, section 205 of the

UMRA generally requires the EPA to

identify and consider a reasonable

number of regulatory alternatives and

adopt the least-costly, most costeffective, or least-burdensome

alternative that achieves the objectives

of the rule. The provisions of section

205 do not apply when they are

inconsistent with applicable law.

Moreover, section 205 allows the EPA to

adopt an alternative other than the leastcostly, most cost-effective, or leastburdensome alternative if the

Administrator publishes with the final

rule an explanation why that alternative

was not adopted. Before the EPA

establishes any regulatory requirements

that may significantly or uniquely affect

small governments, including tribal

governments, it must have developed

under section 203 of the UMRA a small

government agency plan. The plan must

provide for notifying potentially

affected small governments, enabling

officials of affected small governments

to have meaningful and timely input in

the development of the EPA regulatory

proposals with significant Federal

intergovernmental mandates, and

informing, educating, and advising

small governments on compliance with

the regulatory requirements.

The EPA has determined that this

supplement to the proposed rule does

not contain a Federal mandate that may

result in expenditures of $100 million or

more for State, local, and tribal

governments, in the aggregate, or the

private sector in any 1 year. The

maximum total annual cost of the

requirements by this supplement to the

proposed for any year has been

estimated to be less than $50,000. Thus,

today’s supplement to the proposed rule

is not subject to the requirements of

sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA. In

addition, the EPA has determined that

this supplement to the proposed rule

contains no regulatory requirements that

might significantly or uniquely affect

small governments because it contains

no requirements that apply to such

governments or impose obligations

upon them. Therefore, today’s

supplement to the proposed rule is not

subject to the requirements of section

203 of the UMRA.

F. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as

Amended by the Small Business

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of

1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.

The RFA generally requires an agency

to prepare a regulatory flexibility

analysis of any rule subject to notice

and comment rulemaking requirements

under the Administrative Procedure Act

or any other statute unless the agency

certifies that the rule will not have a

significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities.

Small entities include small businesses,

small organizations, and small

governmental jurisdictions.

For purposes of assessing the impacts

of today’s supplemental proposal on

small entities, small entity is defined as:

(1) A small business that is a business

having less than 500 employees; (2) a

small governmental jurisdiction that is a

government of a city, county, town,

school district or special district with a

population of less than 50,000; and (3)

a small organization that is any not-forprofit enterprise which is independently

owned and operated and is not

dominant in its field.

After considering the economic

impacts of today’s supplement to the

proposed rule on small entities, I certify

that this action will not have a

significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities.

This supplement to the proposed rule

will not impose any requirements on

small entities. No small businesses,

small government jurisdictions, nor

small organizations own or operate

primary copper smelters potentially

subject to the proposed rule.

G. Paperwork Reduction Act

The EPA submitted an Information

Collection Request (ICR)(EPA ICR No.

1850.01) for the proposed rule to OMB

for approval under the Paperwork

Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.

That ICR has been revised to add the

estimated burden for the emission

standard proposed by this supplement

to the proposal. No other changes were

made to the burden estimates presented

in ICR 1850.01. The revised ICR

document for the supplemental

proposal will be submitted to OMB

(EPA ICR No. 1850.02). Public and OMB

comments made previously on ICR

1850.01 have not been addressed to date

and are not reflected in this revision. All

comments, new and old, will be

addressed in the ICR for the final rule.

A copy of this revised ICR document

may be obtained from Sandy Farmer by

mail at the Office of Environmental

Information, U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Collection Strategies

Division (2822), 1200 Pennsylvania

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20460, by

email at farmer.sandy@epa.gov, or by

calling (202) 260–2740. A copy may also

be downloaded off the internet at

http://www.epa.gov/icr. The

information requirements are not

effective until OMB approves them.

The information requirements for the

proposed rule are based on notification,

recordkeeping, and reporting

requirements in the NESHAP General

Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A),

which are mandatory for all operators

subject to national emission standards.

These recordkeeping and reporting

requirements are specifically authorized

by section 114 of the CAA (42 U.S.C.

7414). All information submitted to the

EPA pursuant to the recordkeeping and

reporting requirements for which a

claim of confidentiality is made is

safeguarded according to Agency

policies set forth in 40 CFR part 2,

subpart B.

The emission standard proposed by

this supplement to the proposal would

not require any notifications or reports

beyond those required by the General

Provisions for performance testing

under 40 CFR 63.7. The recordkeeping

requirements require only the specific

information needed to determine

compliance with the proposed emission

standard by performance testing.

Adding the burden estimates for the

performance testing required by the

supplement to the proposed rule, the

revised total annual monitoring,

reporting, and recordkeeping burden for

the rule (averaged over the first 3 years

after the effective date of the rule) is

estimated to be 11,980 labor hours per

year at a total annual cost of $624,000.

This estimate includes a one-time

performance test and report (with repeat

tests where needed); one-time

submission of a startup, shutdown, and

malfunction plan with semi-annual

reports for any event when the

procedures in the plan were not

followed; semi-annual excess emission

reports; maintenance inspections;

notifications; and recordkeeping. Total

capital/startup costs associated with the

monitoring requirements over the 3-year

period of the ICR are estimated at

$156,000, with operation and

maintenance costs of $72,000/yr.

Burden means the total time, effort, or

financial resources expended by persons

to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose,

or provide information to or for a

Federal agency. This includes the time

needed to review instructions; develop,

acquire, install, and utilize technology

and systems for the purpose of

collecting, validating, and verifying

information; processing and

maintaining information, and disclosing

and providing information; adjust the

existing ways to comply with any

previously applicable instructions and

requirements; train personnel to

respond to a collection of information;

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 123 / Monday, June 26, 2000 / Proposed Rules 39333

search existing data sources; complete

and review the collection of

information; and transmit or otherwise

disclose the information.

An Agency may not conduct or

sponsor, and a person is not required to

respond to, a collection of information

unless it displays a currently valid OMB

control number. The OMB control

numbers for EPA’s regulations are listed

in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.

Comments on the estimated burden

for the emission standard proposed by

this supplement to the proposal are

requested on the EPA’s need for this

information, the accuracy of the

provided burden estimates, and any

suggested methods for minimizing

respondent burden, including the use of

automated collection techniques. Send

comments on the ICR to the Director,

Regulatory Information Division, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency

(2137), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW,

Washington, DC 20460; and to the

Office of Information and Regulatory

Affairs, Office of Management and

Budget, 725 17th Street NW,

Washington, DC 20503, marked

‘‘Attention: Desk Office for EPA.’’

Include the ICR number in any

correspondence. Because the OMB is

required to make a decision concerning

the ICR between 30 and 60 days after

June 26, 2000, comment to OMB is best

assured of having its full effect if OMB

receives it by July 26, 2000. The final

rule will respond to any OMB or public

comments on the information collection

requirements contained in this proposal.

H. National Technology Transfer and

Advancement Act

Section 12(d) of the National

Technology Transfer and Advancement

Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law No.

104–113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272

note), directs all Federal agencies to use

voluntary consensus standards instead

of government-unique standards in their

regulatory activities unless to do so

would be inconsistent with applicable

law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary

consensus standards are technical

standards (e.g., material specifications,

test method, sampling and analytical

procedures, business practices, etc.) that

are developed or adopted by one or

more voluntary consensus standards

bodies. Examples of organizations

generally regarded as voluntary

consensus standards bodies include the

American Society for Testing and

Materials (ASTM), the National Fire

Protection Association (NFPA), and the

Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE).

The NTTAA requires Federal agencies

like the EPA to provide Congress,

through OMB, with explanations when

an agency decides not to use available

and applicable voluntary consensus

standards.

In developing this supplement to the

proposal, the EPA searched for

voluntary consensus standards that

might be applicable. The search has

identified no applicable voluntary

standards. Accordingly, the NTTAA

requirement to use applicable voluntary

consensus standards does not apply to

this rule.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

Environmental protection,

Administrative practice and procedure,

Air pollution control, Copper,

Hazardous substances,

Intergovernmental relations, Reporting

and recordkeeping requirements.

Dated: June 19, 2000.

Carol M. Browner,

Administrator.

For the reasons set out in the

preamble, part 63 of title 40, chapter I,

of the Code of Federal Regulations, as

proposed to be amended at 63 FR 19602

on April 20, 1998, is proposed to be

further amended as follows:

PART 63—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 63

continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart QQQ—National Emission

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants

From Primary Copper Smelters

2. Section 63.1444 is amended by

revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:

§ 63.1444 Standards: Smelting vessels.

* * * * *

(b) The owner or operator shall not

discharge nor cause to be discharged to

the atmosphere any off-gases from the

smelting vessel that contain total

particulate matter greater than 23

milligrams per dry standard cubic meter

(mg/dscm) as determined by an

emission test conducted in accordance

with the applicable requirements of

§ 63.1451. Off-gases from the smelting

vessel are generated when copper ore

concentrate and fluxes are being

smelted to form copper matte and slag.

* * * * *

3. Section 63.1445 is amended by

revising paragraph (b)(1) to read as

follows:

§ 63.1445 Standards: Slag cleaning

vessels.

* * * * *

(b) * * *

(1) The owner or operator shall not

discharge nor cause to be discharged to

the atmosphere any off-gases from the

slag cleaning vessel that contain total

particulate matter greater than 23

milligrams per dry standard cubic meter

(mg/dscm) as determined by a

performance test conducted in

accordance with the applicable

requirements of § 63.1451. Off-gases

from the slag cleaning vessel are

generated when molten copper-bearing

material is processed to separate this

material into molten copper matte and

slag layers

* * * * *

4. Section 63.1446 is amended by

revising paragraphs (b)(1)(iii)(A),

(b)(2)(ii), and (c)(3)(i) to read as follows:

§ 63.1446 Standards: Copper converters.

* * * * *

(b) * * *

(1) * * *

(iii) * * *

(A) The owner or operator shall not

discharge nor cause to be discharged to

the atmosphere any primary hood

exhaust stream that contains total

particulate matter greater than 23

milligrams per dry standard cubic meter

(mg/dscm) as determined by a

performance test conducted in

accordance with the applicable

requirements of § 63.1451.

* * * * *

(2) * * *

(ii) The owner or operator shall not

discharge nor cause to be discharged to

the atmosphere any side flue exhaust

stream that contains total particulate

matter greater than 23 milligrams per

dry standard cubic meter (mg/dscm) as

determined by a performance test

conducted in accordance with the

applicable requirements of § 63.1451.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(3) * * *

(i) The owner or operator shall not

discharge nor cause to be discharged to

the atmosphere any side flue exhaust

stream that contains total particulate

matter greater than 23 milligrams per

dry standard cubic meter (mg/dscm) as

determined by a performance test

conducted in accordance with the

applicable requirements of § 63.1451.

* * * * *

5. Section 63.1452 is amended by

adding a new paragraph (d)(5)(iii) to

read as follows:

§ 63.1452 Inspection and monitoring

requirements.

* * * * *

(d) * * *

(5) * * *

(iii) (A) The owner or operator shall

operate and maintain the baghouse so

39334 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 123 / Monday, June 26, 2000 / Proposed Rules

that the alarm on the bag leak detection

system does not sound for more than 5

percent of the total operating time in

each 6-month reporting period. Each

time the alarm sounds and the owner or

operator initiates corrective actions

within 1 hour of the alarm, 1 hour of

alarm time will be counted. If the owner

or operator takes longer than 1 hour to

initiate corrective actions, alarm time

will be counted as the actual amount of

time taken by the owner or operator to

initiate corrective actions. If inspection

of the baghouse system demonstrates

that no corrective actions are necessary,

no alarm time will be counted.

(B) The owner or operator shall

continuously record the output from the

bag leak detection system.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 00–15915 Filed 6–23–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

43 CFR Parts 3130 and 3160

[WO–310–1310–03–2410]

RIN 1004–AD13

National Petroleum Reserve, Alaska—

Unitization

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management,

Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule; notice of

extension of public comment period.

SUMMARY: The Bureau of Land

Management (BLM) hereby gives notice

that it is extending the public comment

period on a Notice of Proposed Rule,

which was published in the Federal

Register on April 26, 2000 (54 FR

24542). The comment period for the

proposed rule expires on June 26, 2000.

The proposed rule would add a new

subpart to BLM’s oil and gas regulations

implementing new statutory authority

allowing operators to enter into unit

agreements in the National Petroleum

Reserve, Alaska (NPRA). Units allow for

the sharing of costs and spreading of

revenues among several leases, and

allow for production from unit leases to

occur without regard to lease or

property boundaries. The rule would

also allow for waiver, suspension, or

reduction of rental or royalty for NPRA

leases; allow for suspension of

operations and production for NPRA

leases; amend existing regulatory

language to set the primary lease term

for an NPRA lease at 10 years. Current

regulations allow 10 years, or a shorter

term if it is in the notice of sale; and add

a new subpart to the NPRA regulations

on subsurface storage agreements.

Subsurface storage agreements allow

operators to store gas in existing

geologic structures on Federal lands.

This proposal would also make it

clear that existing suspension

regulations would not apply to the

NPRA. In response to requests from the

public, BLM is extending the comment

period to August 10, 2000.

DATES: Submit comments by August 10,

2000.

ADDRESSES: Mail: Director (630), Bureau

of Land Management, Administrative

Record, Room 401 LS, 1849 C Street,

NW, Washington, DC 20240. Personal or

messenger delivery: Room 401, 1620 L

Street, NW, Washington, DC 20036.

Internet e-mail: WOComment@blm.gov.

(Include ‘‘Attn: AD13’’).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Erick Kaarlela of BLM’s Fluid Minerals

Group at (202) 452–0340 or Ian Senio of

BLM’s Regulatory Affairs Group at (202)

452–5049.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: If you

wish to comment, you may submit your

comments by any one of several

methods. You may mail comments to

Director (630), Bureau of Land

Management, Room 401 LS, 1849 C

Street, NW, Washington, DC 20240. You

may deliver comments to Room 401,

1620 L Street, NW, Washington, DC

20036. You may also comment via the

Internet to WOComment@blm.gov.

Please submit Internet comments as an

ASCII file avoiding the use of special

characters and any form of encryption.

Please also include ‘‘Attn: AD13’’ and

your name and return address in your

Internet message. If you do not receive

a confirmation that we have received

your Internet message, contact us

directly at (202) 452–5030. Please make

your written comments on the proposed

rule as specific as possible, confine

them to issues pertinent to the proposed

rule, and explain the reason for any

changes you recommend. Where

possible, your comments should

reference the specific section or

paragraph of the proposal that you are

addressing. BLM may not necessarily

consider or include in the

Administrative Record for the final rule

comments that BLM receives after the

close of the comment period (see DATES)

or comments delivered to an address

other than those listed above (see

ADDRESSES). Comments, including

names and street addresses of

respondents, will be available for public

review at the address listed under

‘‘ADDRESSES: Personal or messenger

delivery’’ during regular business hours

(7:45 a.m. to 4:15 p.m.), Monday

through Friday, except holidays.

Individual respondents may request

confidentiality, which we will honor to

the extent allowable by law. If you wish

to withhold your name or address,

except for the city or town, you must

state this prominently at the beginning

of your comment. We will make all

submissions from organizations or

businesses, and from individuals

identifying themselves as

representatives or officials of

organizations or businesses, available

for public inspection in their entirety.

Dated: June 20, 2000.

Michael Schwartz,

Group Manager, Regulatory Affairs Group.

[FR Doc. 00–15959 Filed 6–23–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–84–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Coast Guard

46 CFR Parts 110 and 111

[USCG–1999–6096]

RIN 2115–AF89

Marine Shipboard Electrical Cable

Standards; Correction

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of public meeting and

reopening of comment period;

correction.

SUMMARY: This document corrects the

notice of public meeting and reopening

of comment period as published on June

5, 2000. In that document, the docket

number was incorrectly published as

USCG–2000–6096. The correct docket

number is USCG–1999–6096.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For

questions on the public meeting, call

Dolores Mercier, Project Manager, Office

of Design and Engineering Standards

(G–MSE), Coast Guard, telephone 202–

267–0658, fax 202–267–4816, e-mail

dmercier@comdt.uscg.mil. For questions

on viewing or submitting material to the

docket, call Dorothy Beard, Chief,

Dockets, Department of Transportation,

phone 202–366–9329.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On June 5, 2000, the Coast Guard

published a notice of public meeting

and reopening of comment period (65

FR 35600). The docket number was

incorrectly published. Please submit

your comments to USCG–1999–6096,

the correct docket number.