Opinion ID: 185156
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Right of The Public To Comment on Tribal Applications to Regulate

Text: 68 EPA's final rule limited the opportunity of the public to comment directly to the Agency on competing claims over tribes' reservation boundary assertions and assertions of jurisdiction over non-reservation areas, allowing only appropriate governmental entities to submit comments. Tribal Authority Rule, 63 Fed. Reg. at 7267. Petitioners challenge this limitation of the public's opportunity to comment directly to EPA. Before this court, however, EPA indicated its intent to clarify that the Agency will accept comments directly from all commenters on the determination of a tribe's eligibility to be treated as a state. See Br. for Respondent at 43. Subsequently, EPA issued a clarification to this effect. See Indian Tribes: Air Quality Planning and Management, 65 Fed. Reg. 1322, 1323 (2000). 69 Therefore, this issue is moot. See Motor & Equip. Mfrs. Ass'n v. Nichols, 142 F.3d 449, 458 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (finding challenge to EPA's waiver for state's program was moot where actions complained of were revised after lawsuit was filed). A dispute may be rendered moot where the complained of conduct has been voluntarily discontinued if (1) there is no reasonable expectation that the conduct will recur and (2) 'interim relief or events have completely and irrevocably eradicated the effects of the alleged violation.'  Id. at 459 (quoting County of Los Angeles v. Davis, 440 U.S. 625, 631 (1979)). In this case, there is no indication that EPA will revert to its past proposal only to receive direct comments from appropriate governmental units, and all of the adverse effects of the Agency's alleged illegal action have been remedied by EPA's clarification. 70