[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 20 (Tuesday, January 30, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8229-8230]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-2568]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-6938-7]


Proposed Settlement Agreement, Challenge to Final CAA Action

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Notice of Proposed Settlement; Request for Public Comment.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with section 113(g) of the Clean Air Act, as 
amended, (the ``Act''), 42 U.S.C. 7413(g), notice is hereby given of a 
proposed settlement agreement in Idaho Clean Air Force et al. v. EPA et 
al., Nos. 99-70259 and 70576 (9th Cir.) filed by the Idaho Clean Air 
Force and the Environmental Defense (formerly Environmental Defense 
Fund) under section 307(b)(1) of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 7607(b)(1). The 
Community Planning Association of Southwest Idaho (COMPASS) was granted 
leave to intervene as a respondent in the litigation.

DATES: Written comments on the proposed settlement agreement must be 
received by March 1, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should be sent to Michael Prosper, Air and 
Radiation Law Office (2344A), Office of General Counsel, U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, Ariel Rios Building North, 1200 
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC, 20004. Copies of the proposed 
settlement agreement are available from Samantha S. Hooks, (202) 564-
7606.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This lawsuit challenged a final action by 
EPA which removed the applicability of the 1987 PM10 national ambient 
air quality standards, and associated designation and classification, 
for Northern Ada County, Idaho. 64 FR 12257 (March 12, 1999). EPA's 
action was primarily based on the promulgation in 1997 of more 
protective PM standards, including revised PM10 standards. In May of 
1999 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit issued a decision, 
American Trucking Associations et al. v. EPA, 175 F.3d 1027 (D.C. Cir. 
1999) which, among other things, vacated the newly-revised PM10 
standards. This decision effectively removed the basis for the March 
12th Northern Ada County rulemaking. The proposed settlement agreement 
is being entered into by the parties to the litigation, and by 
representatives of the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality (IDEQ) 
and the Idaho Attorney General's Office.
    In general, the agreement being proposed provides that the 
litigation in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals would be terminated, but 
with the possibility that it may be re-activated, pending completion of 
the obligations committed to by the parties in the settlement

[[Page 8230]]

agreement. Additionally, IDEQ would develop and submit to EPA by 
September 30, 2002 a plan to ensure maintenance of the 1987 PM10 
standards along with a request to redesignate Northern Ada County as 
attainment for those standards. During the period preceding such 
submission, IDEQ would also adopt by early next year and implement, as 
revisions to the existing State Implementation plan, two air quality 
rules that must limit and maintain emissions in the County from 
stationary and mobile sources at levels similar to what would be 
required if the area were still designated nonattainment for the 1987 
PM10 standards. COMPASS has also committed to achieve the emissions 
reductions agreed to in the settlement agreement that fall within areas 
over which it exercises implementation responsibility.
    In exchange for these undertakings, EPA would agree to delay taking 
final action on a proposed rulemaking we issued on June 26, 2000 which, 
if finalized, would reinstate the 1987 PM10 standards and associated 
nonattainment designation and classification for Northern Ada County. 
Also, if IDEQ submits a maintenance plan and request for redesignation 
of the County to attainment as described in the settlement agreement, 
EPA would agree to take final action on that submission by September 
30, 2003.
    If various parties to the settlement agreement fail to take certain 
specified actions by dates established in the agreement, then EPA would 
be required to take final action with respect to the June 26, 2000 
proposed rulemaking. Final action on reinstatement may also occur if 
the area experiences a violation of the PM10 standards before a 
redesignation request and maintenance plan are approved by EPA. in 
addition, for similar failures to act as required by the agreement, any 
of the parties may re-activate the litigation in the 9th Circuit. 
Finally, the agreement reflects that EPA has committed to fund 
technical studies and other air pollution reduction initiatives to be 
undertaken in the area that are designed to ensure either that PM10 
emissions are further minimized or that the air quality is not further 
degraded.
    For period of thirty (30) days following the date of publication of 
this notice, EPA will receive written comments relating to proposed 
settlement agreement from persons who were not named as parties or 
interveners to the litigation in question. EPA or the Department of 
Justice may withdraw or withhold consent to the proposed settlement 
agreement if the comments disclose facts or considerations that 
indicate that such consent is inappropriate, improper, inadequate, or 
inconsistent with the requirements of the Act. Unless EPA or the 
Department of Justice determine, following the comment period, that 
consent is inappropriate, the settlement agreement will then be 
executed by the parties.

    Dated: January 22, 2001.
Anna Wolgast,
Acting General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 01-2568 Filed 1-29-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-M