On June 21, 2000, the FAA issued AD 2000-13-05, Amendment 39-11804 (65 FR 40983, July 3, 2000), to require initial and repetitive ultrasonic inspections for cracks in LPC fan blade dovetail roots, and if necessary, replacement with serviceable parts. That action was prompted by reports of LPC fan blade dovetail root cracks in a factory engine. That condition, if not corrected, could result in an uncontained engine failure and damage to the airplane.

Since that AD was issued, data has been collected by RR that identifies the need to ultrasonically inspect LPC fan blade dovetail roots at earlier initial thresholds and at more frequent repetitive inspection intervals, than is required by the current AD. RR has also determined that the different Trent engine models require different initial and repetitive inspection interval requirements. RR has also instituted a procedure to allow repetitive ultrasonic inspections of LPC fan blade dovetail roots on blades not removed from the engine.

Rolls-Royce plc. has issued service bulletin (SB) No. RB.211-72-C878, Revision 4, dated January 22, 2001, that:

• Specifies procedures for removing LPC fan blades and performing initial and repetitive ultrasonic inspections for cracks in LPC fan blade dovetail roots, at earlier initial thresholds and at more frequent repetitive inspection intervals, than the inspections required by the current AD.

• Specifies that the different Trent engine models require different initial and repetitive inspection intervals.

• Adds a procedure that does not require blade removal from the engine in order to perform repetitive ultrasonic inspections for cracks in LPC fan blade dovetail roots.

• Requires that for the initial inspection and for at least every third inspection interval thereafter, the LPC fan blades be removed from the engine, to be ultrasonically inspected.

This engine model is manufactured in the UK and is type certificated for operation in the United States under the provisions of section 21.29 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.29) and the applicable bilateral airworthiness agreement. Pursuant to this bilateral airworthiness agreement, the CAA has kept the FAA informed of the situation described above. The FAA has examined the findings of the CAA, reviewed all available information, and determined that AD action is necessary for products of this type design that are certificated for operation in the United States.

Although none of these affected engine models are used on any airplanes that are registered in the United States, the possibility exists that the engine models could be used on airplanes that are registered in the United States in the future. Since an unsafe condition has been identified that is likely to exist or develop on other RR RB211 Trent 768- 60, Trent 772-60, and Trent 772B-60 turbofan engine models of the same type design, this AD is being issued to prevent possible multiple LPC fan blade failures, which could result in an uncontained engine failure and damage to the airplane. This AD requires:

• Initial ultrasonic inspections of the fan blade root with blades removed,

• Repetitive ultrasonic inspections of the fan blade root with blades removed or installed, and

• Ultrasonic inspection to be done with the fan blades removed at least every third inspection. The actions are required to be accomplished in accordance with the service bulletin described previously.

Since there are currently no domestic operators of this engine model, notice and opportunity for prior public comment are unnecessary. Therefore, a situation exists that allows the immediate adoption of this regulation.

Although this action is in the form of a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety and, thus, was not preceded by notice and an opportunity for public comment, comments are invited on this rule. Interested persons are invited to comment on this rule by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they may desire. Communications should identify the Rules Docket number and be submitted in triplicate to the address specified under the caption ADDRESSES . All communications received on or before the closing date for comments will be considered, and this rule may be amended in light of the comments received. Factual information that supports the commenter's ideas and suggestions is extremely helpful in evaluating the effectiveness of the AD action and determining whether additional rulemaking action would be needed.

Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the rule that might suggest a need to modify the rule. All comments submitted will be available, both before and after the closing date for comments, in the Rules Docket for examination by interested persons. A report that summarizes each FAA-public contact concerned with the substance of this AD will be filed in the Rules Docket.

Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments submitted in response to this action must submit a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket Number 2000-NE-05-AD.” The postcard will be date stamped and returned to the commenter.

This final rule does not have federalism implications, as defined in Executive Order 13132, because it would not have a substantial direct effect 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. Accordingly, the FAA has not consulted with state authorities prior to publication of this final rule.

The FAA has determined that this regulation is an emergency regulation that must be issued immediately to correct an unsafe condition in aircraft, and is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866. It has been determined further that this action involves an emergency regulation under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979). If it is determined that this emergency regulation otherwise would be significant under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures, a final regulatory evaluation will be prepared and placed in the Rules Docket. A copy of it, if filed, may be obtained from the Rules Docket at the location provided under the caption ADDRESSES .

The FAA published this direct final rule with a request for comments in the Federal Register on May 9, 2001 (66 FR 23558). The FAA uses the direct final rulemaking procedure for a non-controversial rule where the FAA believes that there will be no adverse public comment. This direct final rule advised the public that no adverse comments were anticipated, and that unless a written adverse comment, or a written notice of intent to submit such an adverse comment, were received within the comment period, the regulation would become effective on September 6, 2001. No adverse comments were received, and thus this notice confirms that this direct final rule will become effective on that date.

The FAA published this direct final rule with a request for comments in the Federal Register on May 9, 2001 (66 FR 23557). The FAA uses the direct final rulemaking procedure for a non-controversial rule where the FAA believes that there will be no adverse public comment. This direct final rule advised the public that no adverse comments were anticipated, and that unless a written adverse comment, or a written notice of intent to submit such an adverse comment, were received within the comment period, the regulation would become effective on September 6, 2001. No adverse comments were received, and thus this notice confirms that this direct rule will become effective on that date.

The FAA published this direct final rule with a request for comments in the Federal Register on May 9, 2001 (66 FR 23560). The FAA uses the direct final rulemaking procedure for a non-controversial rule where the FAA believes that there will be no adverse public comment. This direct final rule advised the public that no adverse comments were anticipated, and that unless a written adverse comment, or a written notice of intent to submit such an adverse comment, were received within the comment period, the regulation would become effective on September 6, 2001. No adverse comments were received, and thus this notice confirms that this direct final rule will become effective on that date.

The Bureau of Export Administration (BXA) is amending the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) to continue its efforts to simplify the EAR and to reflect current business practice and world circumstance. Specifically, this rule amends the EAR by revising the list of countries included in Country Group E:1 in Supplement No. 1 to part 740.

This rule revises Country Group E:1, in Supplement no. 1 to part 740 of the EAR. This country group currently lists the countries subject to United Nations embargo, is revised by listing countries designated by the Department of State as those countries whose governments have repeatedly provided support for acts of international terrorism (Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Sudan and Syria). Therefore, this rule removes Angola, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Rwanda from Country Group E:1, and adds Iran, Sudan and Syria. This rule does not change export control policy or license requirements for these countries or for Angola, Serbia and Montenegro, or Rwanda set forth in parts 742 and 746. This rule also makes conforming changes in § 734.4—De minimis U.S. content, § 740.9—Temporary imports, export, and reexports (TMP), § 740.10—Servicing and replacement of parts and equipment (RPL) by replacing references to those countries with the phrase “Country Group E:1.”

This rule also expands the scope of eligible countries for License Exception TMP for exhibition and demonstration by making Country Group D:1 eligible for this provision. Under License Exception TMP, you may now export or reexport commodities and software for exhibition or demonstration in any country, including countries in Country Group D:1, except a country listed in Country Group E:1, subject to the terms and conditions of License Exception TMP and the restrictions that apply to all License Exceptions in § 740.2 of the EAR.

This rule clarifies that a license exception may be applicable to items for which a license would otherwise be required under General Prohibition one, two, three, or eight.

1. This interim final rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of E.O. 12866.

2. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required to respond to nor be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information, subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act, unless that collection of information displays a current valid OMB Control Number. This rule involves a collection of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ). This collection has been approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 0694-0088.

3. This rule does not contain policies with Federalism impacts as that term is defined in Executive Order 13132.

4. The provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553) requiring notice of proposed rulemaking, the opportunity for public participation, and a delay in effective date, are inapplicable because this regulation involves a military and foreign affairs function of the United States (See 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(1)). Further, no other law requires that a notice of proposed rulemaking and an opportunity for public comment be given for this interim rule. Because a notice of proposed rulemaking and an opportunity for public comment are not required to be given for this rule under 5 U.S.C. 553 or by any other law, the analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ) are not applicable.

However, because of the importance of the issues raised by these regulations, this rule is being issued in interim form and BXA will consider comments in the development of the final regulations.

Accordingly, the Department encourages interested persons who wish to comment to do it at the earliest possible time to permit the fullest consideration of their views.

The period for submission of comments will close September 10, 2001. The Department will consider all comments received before the close of the comment period in developing final regulations. Comments received after the end of the comment period will be considered if possible, but their consideration cannot be assured. The Department will not accept public comments accompanied by a request that a part or all of the material be treated confidentially because of its business proprietary nature or for any other reason. The Department will return such comments and materials to the persons submitting the comments and will not consider them in the development of final regulations. All public comments on these regulations will be a matter of public record and will be available for public inspection and copying. In the interest of accuracy and completeness, the Department requires comments be submitted in written form. Oral comments must be followed by written memoranda, which will also be a matter of public record and will be available for public review and copying.

The public record concerning these comments will be maintained in the Bureau of Export Administration, Office of Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 6883, 14th and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; (202) 482-0637. This component does not maintain a separate public inspection facility. Requesters should first view BXA's FOIA website (which can be reached through http://www.bxa.doc.gov/foia ). If the records sought cannot be located at this site, or if the requester does not have access to a computer, please call the number above for assistance.

We did not publish a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for this regulation. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing an NPRM. Publishing an NPRM was unnecessary and contrary to public interest since this rule only modifies the existing regulations and provides for regularly scheduled openings.

For the same reasons, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register .

The John Limehouse Bridge across the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway mile 479.3 at Johns Island, Charleston County, SC, has a vertical clearance of 12 feet in the closed position at mean high water and a horizontal clearance of 90 feet between fenders. On May 7, 2001, the South Carolina Department of Transportation requested a modification from the current operating regulation in 33 CFR 117.911(e) which requires the drawbridge to open on signal; except that from 6:30 a.m. to 9 a.m. and 4 p.m. to 6:30 p.m., Monday through Friday except federal holidays, the draw need open on the hour and 30 minutes after the hour. Between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday except federal holidays, from March 15 to June 15, and from September 15 to November 15, the bridge need not be opened except on the hour, 20 minutes after the hour, and 40 minutes after the hour.

Under this rule, from August 6, 2001, the John Limehouse Bridge shall open on signal: except that the draw need not open from 6:30 a.m. to 9 a.m. and from 4 p.m. to 6:30 p.m., Monday through Friday except federal holidays. Between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday except federal holidays, the draw need open only on the hour and half hour. The draw shall open as soon as possible for the passage of tugs with tows, public vessels of the United States and vessels in a situation where a delay would endanger life or property.

The John Limehouse Bridge is being replaced with a high-level fixed bridge. In addition, the Maybank Highway Bridge, which is in close proximity to the John Limehouse Bridge, will also begin replacement construction within the next year. These two bridges are main access arteries onto and off of Johns Island, SC. This regulation will assist in improving the transportation scheme for both vehicular and vessel traffic during the construction of these bridge projects.

This rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under Section 6(a)(3) of that order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that order. It is not “significant” under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Transportation (DOT) (44 FR 11040, February 26, 1979), because this rule will only modify the existing regulations and will still provide for regular bridge openings.

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), the Coast Guard considered whether this rule would have a significant economic effect upon a substantial number of small entities. “Small entities” include small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.

This rule may affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: the owners or operators of vessels intending to transit under the John Limehouse Bridge from August 6, 2001 until about December 1, 2003. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities as the regulations allow scheduled openings and all exempt vessels shall be passed at any time.

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-121), we offered to assist small entities in understanding the rule so that they could better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process. Small entities may contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT for assistance in understanding and participating in this rulemaking. We also have a point of contact for commenting on actions by employees of the Coast Guard. Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247).

This rule calls for no new collection of information requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for federalism.

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.

This rule will not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.

This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and does not concern an environmental risk to health or safety that may disproportionately affect children.

The Coast Guard has considered the environmental impact of this action and has determined under Figure 2-1, paragraph 32(e) of Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, that this rule is categorically excluded from further environmental documentation.

This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. It has not been designated by the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211.

Global Express Guaranteed service is the Postal Service's premium international shipping service. Global Express Guaranteed is an expedited delivery service that is offered as a result of an alliance between the Postal Service and DHL Worldwide Express. It provides date-certain delivery service from designated U.S. ZIP Code areas to locations in over 200 destination countries and territories. Global Express Guaranteed consists of two mail classifications: Global Express Guaranteed Document Service and Global Express Guaranteed Non-Document Service. Regulations for Global Express Guaranteed service are set forth in part 210 of the International Mail Manual (IMM) and the Global Express Guaranteed Service Guide.

The Postal Service is offering discounted rates to customers who prepare and pay for their Global Express Guaranteed shipments online, offering a standard discount for all online transactions, and volume-based discounts for customers who ship minimum volumes on a weekly basis. This discount rate structure is comparable to that offered by other shippers in the international shipping marketplace.

The discounts are limited to Global Express Guaranteed shipments prepared and paid for online because the Global Express Guaranteed online application can perform the necessary activity of automatically tracking customer activity and volume for use in calculating rates. This capability is not currently available at the retail terminals in Post Offices. There is also a cost saving for the Postal Service when customers prepare and pay for shipments online. Thus, these discounts will not apply to Global Express Guaranteed shipments that are paid for at retail acceptance Post Offices.

The standard and volume-based online discount rates will be applied automatically via the Global Express Guaranteed Web application. The volume-based discounts will be calculated at three volume levels—5, 12, or 20 or more pieces per week—and will vary depending on shipment destination. For those online customers shipping fewer than 5 pieces per week, a standard discount of 5 percent off the non-discounted rate that would otherwise apply to the shipment will be offered. These rates are reflected in the four rate schedules in IMM 216.36.

The volume discounts are calculated as follows:

Week 1: All shipments receive the standard Web discount of 5 percent off the published price.

Week 2: The discount is based on how much volume was mailed in the first week.

Week 3: The discount is based on the average volume of the first 2 weeks.

Week 4: The discount is based on the average volume of the first 3 weeks.

This continues through a 12-week cycle. After a 12-week history is established, the discount is based on the average volume of the preceding 12 weeks.

Although the Postal Service is exempted by 39 U.S.C. 410(a) from the notice requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act regarding rule making (5 U.S.C.553), the Postal Service invites public comment on this interim rule at the above address.

EPA is amending the table of currently approved information collection request (ICR) control numbers issued by OMB for various regulations. This amendment updates the table to list those information collection requirements promulgated under EPA's Confidentiality Rules, which appeared in the Federal Register at 41 FR 36902 on September 1, 1976, as amended at 43 FR 40000, September 8, 1978, and 50 FR 51661, December 18, 1985. The affected regulations are codified at 40 CFR part 2, subpart B.

This amendment also updates the table to list those information collection requirements promulgated under Imports and Exports of Hazardous Wastes: Implementation of OECD Council Decision C(92)39 Concerning Control of Transfrontier Movements of Wastes Destined for Recovery Operations, which appeared in the Federal Register at 61 FR 16310 on April 12, 1996. The affected regulations are codified at 40 CFR 262.83-262.85 and 40 CFR 262.87.

EPA will continue to present OMB control numbers in a consolidated table format to be codified in 40 CFR part 9 of the Agency's regulations. The table lists CFR citations with reporting, recordkeeping, or other information collection requirements, and the current OMB control numbers. This listing of the OMB control numbers and their subsequent codification in the CFR satisfies the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ) and OMB's implementing regulations at 5 CFR part 1320.

These ICRs were previously subject to public notice and comment prior to OMB approval. Due to the technical nature of the table, EPA finds that further notice and comment is unnecessary. As a result, EPA finds that there is “good cause” under section 553(b)(B) of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), to amend this table without prior notice and comment.

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a “significant regulatory action” and is therefore not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. In addition, this action does not impose any enforceable duty, contain any unfunded mandate, or impose any significant or unique impact on small governments as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4). This rule also does not require prior consultation with State, local, and tribal government officials as specified by Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, October 10, 1999) or Executive Order 13084 (63 FR 27655 (May 10, 1998), or involve special consideration of environmental justice related issues as required by Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). Because this action is not subject to notice-and-comment requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute, it is not subject to the regulatory flexibility provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ). This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) because 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 rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does not establish an environmental standard intended to mitigate health or safety risks.

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. Section 808 allows the issuing agency to make a good cause finding that notice and public procedure is impracticable, unnecessary or contrary to the public interest. This determination must be supported by a brief statement. 5 U.S.C. 808(2). As stated previously, EPA has made such a good cause finding, including the reasons therefor, and established an effective date of August 10, 2001. This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

On May 24, 2001 (66 FR 28685), EPA proposed to approve the following rules into the California and Arizona State Implementation Plans (SIP).

On the same day (66 FR 28666), EPA also published a direct final rule approving these rules into their respective SIPs, and providing a 30 day public comment period and explained that if we received adverse comments, we would withdraw the relevant direct final action.

We did receive adverse comments, and are therefore removing the direct final approval of Maricopa County Environmental Services Department (MCESD) Rule 344, Automotive Windshield Washer Fluid. We are not opening an additional comment period. At a later date, we intend to respond to comments and finalize action on this rule based on the May 24, 2001 proposal. The other rule listed above is not affected by this removal and is incorporated into the SIP as of the effective date of the May 24, 2001 direct final action.

Pursuant to sections 182(b)(2) and 182(f) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (the Commonwealth or Pennsylvania) is required to establish and implement RACT for all major volatile organic compounds (VOC) and NO X sources. The major source size is determined by its location, the classification of that area and whether it is located in the ozone transport region (OTR). Under section 184 of the CAA, RACT as specified in sections 182(b)(2) and 182(f) applies throughout the OTR. The entire Commonwealth is located within the OTR. Therefore, RACT is applicable statewide in Pennsylvania.

State implementation plan revisions imposing reasonably available control technology (RACT) for three classes of VOC sources are required under section 182(b)(2). The categories are: (1) All sources covered by a Control Technique Guideline (CTG) document issued between November 15, 1990 and the date of attainment; (2) All sources covered by a CTG issued prior to November 15, 1990; (3) All other major non-CTG rules were due by November 15, 1992. The Pennsylvania SIP has approved RACT regulations and requirements for all sources and source categories covered by the CTG's.

On February 4, 1994, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) submitted a revision to its SIP to require major sources of NO X and additional major sources of VOC emissions (not covered by a CTG) to implement RACT. The February 4, 1994 submittal was amended on May 3, 1994 to correct and clarify certain presumptive NO X RACT requirements. In the Pittsburgh area, a major source of VOC is defined as one having the potential to emit 50 tons per year (tpy) or more, and a major source of NO X is defined as one having the potential to emit 100 tpy or more. Pennsylvania's RACT regulations require sources, in the Pittsburgh area, that have the potential to emit 50 tpy or more of VOC and sources which have the potential to emit 100 tpy or more of NO X comply with RACT by May 31, 1995. The regulations contain technology-based or operational “presumptive RACT emission limitations” for certain major NO X sources. For other major NO X sources, and all major non-CTG VOC sources (not otherwise already subject to RACT under the Pennsylvania SIP), the regulations contain a “generic” RACT provision. A generic RACT regulation is one that does not, itself, specifically define RACT for a source or source categories but instead allows for case-by-case RACT determinations. The generic provisions of Pennsylvania's regulations allow for PADEP to make case-by case RACT determinations that are then to be submitted to EPA as revisions to the Pennsylvania SIP.

On March 23, 1998 EPA granted conditional limited approval to the Commonwealth's generic VOC and NO X RACT regulations (63 FR 13789). In that action, EPA stated that the conditions of its approval would be satisfied once the Commonwealth either (1) certifies that it has submitted case-by-case RACT proposals for all sources subject to the RACT requirements currently known to PADEP; or (2) demonstrates that the emissions from any remaining subject sources represent a de minimis level of emissions as defined in the March 23, 1998 rulemaking. On April 22, 1999, PADEP made the required submittal to EPA certifying that it had met the terms and conditions imposed by EPA in its March 23, 1998 conditional limited approval of its VOC and NO X RACT regulations by submitting 485 case-by-case VOC/NO X RACT determinations as SIP revisions and making the demonstration described as condition 2, above. EPA determined that Pennsylvania's April 22, 1999 submittal satisfied the conditions imposed in its conditional limited approval published on March 23, 1998. On May 3, 2001 (66 FR 22123), EPA published a rulemaking action removing the conditional status of its approval of the Commonwealth's generic VOC and NO X RACT regulations on a statewide basis. The regulation currently retains its limited approval status. Once EPA has approved the case-by-case RACT determinations submitted by PADEP to satisfy the conditional approval for subject sources located in Allegheny, Armstrong, Beaver, Butler, Fayette, Washington, and Westmoreland Counties; the limited approval of Pennsylvania's generic VOC and NO X RACT regulations shall convert to a full approval for the Pittsburgh area.

On March 21, 1996, PADEP submitted revisions to the Pennsylvania SIP which establish and impose case-by-case RACT for several sources of VOC and/or NO X . This rulemaking pertains to the Commonwealth's submittal of operating permit (OP) 65-000-016 which imposes NO X RACT requirements for the Latrobe Steel Company (LSC), a major source of NO X located in the Pittsburgh area. The RACT determinations submitted on March 21, 1996 for other sources are or have been the subject of separate rulemakings.

The Latrobe Steel Company (Latrobe) is a producer of high-performing alloy and specialty steels located in the Borough of Latrobe, Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania. The Latrobe facility consists of eighty-eight individual unit/processes with potential NO X and VOC emissions of 493.4 tons per year and 15 tons per year, respectively facility-wide. As the facility's potential VOC emissions are less than 50 tons per year, the facility is not a major source of VOC. The facility is a major source of NO X and is subject to RACT. The PADEP established NO X RACT requirements for the facility in OP 65-000-016 for the eighty-eight individual units or processes subject to Pennsylvania's RACT regulation.

(1) Electric Arc Furnaces (EAFs) A and B at the Melt Shop —Both EAFs are used at the plant to melt and refine the charge of metallic scrap, fluxes, and various alloying elements. The sufficient resistive heating is generated inside the refractory-lined furnace vessel by electrical current flowing between the three graphite electrodes and through the metallic charge. In spite of very high temperatures which arise inside the furnace during the melting phase, only modest NO X formation occurs. This is due to the fact that in the EAF process the generation of NO X is largely transferred from a steelmaking facility to an electric generating unit at a utility plant where those emissions are controlled.

(2) Heating/Reheating/Annealing Furnaces —Heating/reheating furnaces are used for heat-treating of steel and bringing it to a uniform temperature suitable for hot working. Annealing furnaces are used to refine the steel grain structure, to relief stresses induced by hot or cold working, and to alter the mechanical properties of steel in order to improve its machinability. Heat treatment of the alloy steels is conducted at a slow rate and relatively low temperatures to minimize thermal stresses and to avoid distortion and cracking.

Of the eighty-eight NO X emitting units/processes, seventy-nine are various heating/reheating/annealing natural gas-fired furnaces with a rated gross heat input of less than 20 MMBTU/hr each. Pennsylvania has determined that these sources are subject to SIP-approved presumptive RACT requirements set forth in 25 Pa. Code Section 129.93(c)(1) which require that the installation, maintenance, and operation of the source be done in accordance with manufacturer's specifications. One of the other nine remaining sources is a natural gas-fired combustion unit (boiler) with a rated gross heat input between 20 MMBTU/hr and 50 MMBTU/hr. Pennsylvania has determined that this source is a subject to SIP-approved presumptive RACT requirements set forth in 25 Pa. Code Section 129.93(b)(2) which require that an annual adjustment or tune-up of the combustion process be performed.

The remaining eight sources are comprised of two EAFs, four Carbottom natural gas-fired heating furnaces with a rated gross heat input of less than 50 MMBTU/hr each, and two natural gas-fired reheating furnaces (Selas Barrel and Salem Walking Beam furnaces) with a rated gross heat input of less than 100 MMBTU/hr each. The following NO X control options were evaluated in a case-by-case RACT analysis: Selective Non-Catalytic Reduction (SNCR), Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR), Waste Gas Wet Scrubber, Exhaust Gas Recirculation (EGR), Staged Combustion Burners, Low NO X Burners, and Optimized Combustion Systems Operations/Maintenance Procedures. Pennsylvania's determinations of NO X RACT requirements for these eight furnaces were based upon case-by-case analyses of whether or not the evaluated control technologies were technically and economically feasible options in each particular application. A summary of Pennsylvania's NO X RACT determinations for these furnaces is provided below.

(1) EAFs and B at the Melt Shop —The PADEP concluded that there are no feasible control technologies for reducing NO X emissions from the existing EAFs. The equipment and technology currently in place are constitute RACT for the source. In OP 65-000-016, PADEP limits NO X emissions from EAFs A and B to 0.52 lbs per ton each and to 14.5 tpy and 21.7 tpy, respectively.

(2) Carbottom furnaces (No. 1 and No. 2 at the Melt Shop; No. 7 and No. 50 at the Mesta Press —Furnaces Nos. 1, 2, and 7 are identical in design and rated capacity and consist of 16 natural gas-fired burners each with a total gross heat input of 29.6 MMBTU/hr per furnace. Furnace No. 50 consists of 15 natural gas-fired burners with a total gross heat input of 20.6 MMBTU/hr. Based upon a case-by-case NO X RACT analysis, Pennsylvania has concluded that implementation of combustion operating/maintenance procedures constitutes RACT for these sources. This control option is consistent with the SIP-approved presumptive RACT requirements for combustion units with a rated gross heat input between 20 MMBTU/hr and 50 MMBTU/hr set forth in 25 Pa. Code Section 129.93.(b)(2). Pennsylvania also limits NO X emissions from each of Carbottom furnaces Nos. 1, 2 and 7 to 0.12 lbs/MMBTU and to 15.6 tpy. The NO X emissions from Carbottom furnace No. 50 are limited to 0.12 lbs/MMBTU and 13.7 tpy.

(3) Selas Barrel furnace No. 1 at the Continuous Rolling Mill —The furnace consists of 88 natural gas-fired burners with a total gross heat input of 80.8 MMBTU/hr. Based upon a case-by-case NO X RACT analysis, Pennsylvania has concluded that implementation of combustion operating/maintenance procedures constitutes RACT for the source. Pennsylvania also limits NO X emissions from Selas Barrel furnace No. 1 to 0.12 lbs/MMBTU and to 35.7 tpy.

(4) Salem Walking Beam furnace at the Continuous Rolling Mill —The furnace consists of 13 natural gas-fired burners with a total gross heat input of 88 MMBTU/hr. Pennsylvania limits the hours of operations to no more than 6,000 hours in any calendar year and requires implementation of specified combustion operating/maintenance procedures. In addition to restricting the furnace's operating hours, Pennsylvania also limits the NO X emissions from the Salem Walking Beam furnace to 0.12 lbs/MMBTU and to 46.3 tpy.

EPA is approving Pennsylvania's RACT SIP submittal of OP 65-000-016 which establishes and imposes RACT requirements on Latrobe Steel in accordance with the criteria set forth in its SIP-approved RACT regulations and which also imposes record-keeping, monitoring, and testing requirements sufficient to determine compliance with the applicable RACT determinations.

EPA is approving Latrobe Steel's OP 65-000-016 as a revision to the Pennsylvania SIP. It was submitted by PADEP to establish and impose NO X RACT for Latrobe Steel, a major source located in the Pittsburgh area. EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipates no adverse comment. However, in the “Proposed Rules” section of today's Federal Register , EPA is publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposal to approve the SIP revision if adverse comments are filed. This rule will be effective on September 24, 2001 without further notice unless EPA receives adverse comment by September 10, 2001. If EPA receives adverse comment, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the public that the rule will not take effect. EPA will address all public comments in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time.

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a “significant regulatory action” and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.” See 66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001. This action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies 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. ). Because this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4). This rule also does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it 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 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), because it merely approves a state rule implementing a Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant. In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. As required by section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in issuing this rule, EPA has taken the necessary steps to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize potential litigation, and provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct. EPA has complied with Executive Order 12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1988) by examining the takings implications of the rule in accordance with the “Attorney General's Supplemental Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk and Avoidance of Unanticipated Takings” issued under the executive order. This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ).

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq. , as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. Section 804 exempts from section 801 the following types of rules: (1) rules of particular applicability; (2) rules relating to agency management or personnel; and (3) rules of agency organization, procedure, or practice that do not substantially affect the rights or obligations of non-agency parties. 5 U.S.C. 804(3). EPA is not required to submit a rule report regarding today's action under section 801 because this is a rule of particular applicability establishing source-specific requirements for one named source.

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by October 9, 2001. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action approving the Commonwealth's source-specific RACT requirements to control NO X from Latrobe Steel may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

Throughout this document, “we”, “us” and “our” refer to EPA.

Table 1 lists the rules we are approving with the dates that they were adopted by the local air agencies and submitted by the California Air Resources Board (CARB).

Table 1 also provides the dates these rule submittals were found to meet the completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51, appendix V, which must be met before formal EPA review.

We approved a version of KCAPCD Rules 108 and 108.1 into the SIP for the Kern County Air Pollution Control District on July 6, 1982, and August 22, 1977, respectively. The KCAPCD adopted revisions to the SIP-approved version of Rule 108.1 on May 6, 1991 and CARB submitted them to us on May 30, 1991. The KCAPCD adopted additional revisions to Rule 108.1 on May 2, 1996 and CARB submitted them to us on July 23, 1996. While we can only act on the most recently submitted version, we have reviewed materials provided with previous submittals.

The previous version of ICAPCD Rules 109 and 110 were approved into the SIP for the Imperial County Air Pollution Control District on August 11, 1978 and February 3, 1989, respectively.

KCAPCD Rule 108 contains general requirements on the types of sources required to install continuous monitoring systems, the standards of performance, and the reporting and recordkeeping requirements for those systems. KCAPCD Rule 108.1 contains general requirements for preparing and performing stack sampling. ICAPCD Rule 109 contains general requirements for preparing to perform stack sampling. ICAPCD Rule 110 contains general requirements on the types of sources required to install continuous monitoring systems, the standards of performance, and the reporting and recordkeeping requirements for those systems. The TSDs have more information about these rules.

These rules describe general provisions that support emission monitoring and testing found in other local agency requirements. Generally, SIP rules must be enforceable (see section 110(a) of the Act) and must not relax existing requirements (see sections 110(l) and 193). Guidance and policy documents that we used to define specific enforceability requirements include, “Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and Deviations; Clarification to Appendix D of November 24, 1987 Federal Register Notice,” (Blue Book), notice of availability published in the May 25, 1988 Federal Register .

We believe these rules are consistent with the relevant policy and guidance regarding enforceability and SIP relaxations. The TSDs have more information on our evaluation.

The TSDs describe additional rule revisions that do not affect EPA's current action but are recommended for the next time the local agency modifies the rules.

As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the Act, EPA is fully approving the submitted rules because we believe they fulfill all relevant requirements. We do not think anyone will object to this approval, so we are finalizing it without proposing it in advance. However, in the Proposed Rules section of this Federal Register , we are simultaneously proposing approval of the same submitted rules. If we receive adverse comments by September 10, 2001, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register to notify the public that the direct final approval will not take effect and we will address the comments in a subsequent final action based on the proposal. If we do not receive timely adverse comments, the direct final approval will be effective without further notice on October 9, 2001. This will incorporate these rules into the federally enforceable SIP.

Section 110(a) of the CAA requires states to submit regulations that control volatile organic compounds, oxides of nitrogen, particulate matter, and other air pollutants which harm human health and the environment. These rules were developed as part of the local agency's program to control these pollutants.

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a “significant regulatory action” and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 32111, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action merely approves state law as meeting federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies 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.). Because this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4). This rule also does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it 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 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), because it merely approves a state rule implementing a federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant.

In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. As required by section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in issuing this rule, EPA has taken the necessary steps to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize potential litigation, and provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct. EPA has complied with Executive Order 12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1988) by examining the takings implications of the rule in accordance with the “Attorney General's Supplemental Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk and Avoidance of Unanticipated Takings' issued under the executive order. This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register . A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register . This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by October 9, 2001. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. ( See section 307(b)(2).)

Pursuant to sections 182(b)(2) and 182(f) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania) is required to establish and implement RACT for all major VOC and NO X sources. The major source size is determined by its location, the classification of that area and whether it is located in the ozone transport region (OTR). Under section 184 of the CAA, RACT as specified in sections 182(b)(2) and 182(f)) applies throughout the OTR. The entire Commonwealth is located within the OTR. Therefore, RACT is applicable statewide in Pennsylvania.

State implementation plan revisions imposing reasonably available control technology (RACT) for three classes of VOC sources are required under section 182(b)(2). The categories are:

(1) All sources covered by a Control Technique Guideline (CTG) document issued between November 15, 1990 and the date of attainment;

(2) All sources covered by a CTG issued prior to November 15, 1990; and

(3) All major non-CTG sources. The regulations imposing RACT for these non-CTG major sources were to be submitted to EPA as SIP revisions by November 15, 1992 and compliance required by May of 1995.

The Pennsylvania SIP already includes approved RACT regulations for all sources and source categories covered by the CTGs. On February 4, 1994, PADEP submitted a revision to its SIP to require major sources of NO X and additional major sources of VOC emissions (not covered by a CTG) to implement RACT. The February 4, 1994 submittal was amended on May 3, 1994 to correct and clarify certain presumptive NO X RACT requirements. In the Pittsburgh area, a major source of VOC is defined as one having the potential to emit 50 tons per year (tpy) or more, and a major source of NO X is defined as one having the potential to emit 100 tpy or more. Pennsylvania's RACT regulations require sources, in the Pittsburgh area, that have the potential to emit 50 tpy or more of VOC and sources which have the potential to emit 100 tpy or more of NO X comply with RACT by May 31, 1995. The regulations contain technology-based or operational “presumptive RACT emission limitations” for certain major NO X sources. For other major NO X sources, and all major non-CTG VOC sources (not otherwise already subject to RACT under the Pennsylvania SIP), the regulations contain a “generic” RACT provision. A generic RACT regulation is one that does not, itself, specifically define RACT for a source or source categories but instead allows for case-by-case RACT determinations. The generic provisions of Pennsylvania's regulations allow for PADEP to make case-by case RACT determinations that are then to be submitted to EPA as revisions to the Pennsylvania SIP.

On March 23, 1998 EPA granted conditional limited approval to the Commonwealth's generic VOC and NO X RACT regulations (63 FR 13789). In that action, EPA stated that the conditions of its approval would be satisfied once the Commonwealth either (1) Certifies that it has submitted case-by-case RACT proposals for all sources subject to the RACT requirements currently known to PADEP; or (2) demonstrate that the emissions from any remaining subject sources represent a de minimis level of emissions as defined in the March 23, 1998 rulemaking. On April 22, 1999, PADEP made the required submittal to EPA certifying that it had met the terms and conditions imposed by EPA in its March 23, 1998 conditional limited approval of its VOC and NO X RACT regulations by submitting 485 case-by-case VOC/NO X RACT determinations as SIP revisions and making the demonstration described as condition 2, above. EPA determined that Pennsylvania's April 22, 1999 submittal satisfied the conditions imposed in its conditional limited approval published on March 23, 1998. On May 3, 2001 (66 FR 22123), EPA published a rulemaking action removing the conditional status of its approval of the Commonwealth's generic VOC and NO X RACT regulations on a statewide basis. The regulation currently retains its limited approval status. Once EPA has approved the case-by-case RACT determinations submitted by PADEP to satisfy the conditional approval for subject sources located in Allegheny, Armstrong, Beaver, Butler, Fayette, Washington, and Westmoreland Counties; the limited approval of Pennsylvania's generic VOC and NO X RACT regulations shall convert to a full approval for the Pittsburgh area.

It must be noted that the Commonwealth has adopted and is implementing additional “post RACT requirements” to reduce seasonal NO X emissions in the form of a NO X cap and trade regulation, 25 Pa Code Chapters 121 and 123, based upon a model rule developed by the States in the OTR. That rule's compliance date is May 1999. That regulation was approved as SIP revision on June 6, 2000 (65 FR 35842). Pennsylvania has also adopted regulations to satisfy Phase I of the NO X SIP call and submitted those regulations to EPA for SIP approval. Pennsylvania's SIP revision to address the requirements of the NO X SIP Call Phase I consists of the adoption of Chapter 145—Interstate Pollution Transport Reduction and amendments to Chapter 123—Standards for Contaminants. On May 29, 2001 (66 FR 29064), EPA proposed approval of the Commonwealth's NO X SIP call rule SIP submittal. EPA expects to publish the final rulemaking in the Federal Register in the near future. Federal approval of a case-by-case RACT determination for a major source of NO X in no way relieves that source from any applicable requirements found in 25 PA Code Chapters 121, 123 and 145.

On January 6, 1995, September 13, 1996, and July 1, 1997, PADEP submitted revisions to the Pennsylvania SIP which establish and impose RACT for several major sources of VOC and/or NO X . This rulemaking pertains to five of those sources. The remaining sources are or have been the subject of separate rulemakings. The Commonwealth's submittals consist of Plan Approvals (PAs) issued by PADEP and Plan Approvals and Agreement Upon Consent Orders (COs) issued by the Allegheny County Health Department (ACHD). These PAs and COs impose VOC and/or NO X RACT requirements for each source. These sources are all located in the Pittsburgh area.

The table below identifies the sources, and their respective PAs and COs, which are the subject of this rulemaking. A summary of the VOC and NO X RACT determinations for each source follows the table.

(1) Duquesne Light Company's Brunot Island Power Station is located in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. The Duquesne Light Company's Brunot Island Power Station is a major NO X emitting facility. In this instance, RACT has been established and imposed by the ACHD in CO 214. The PADEP submitted this CO to EPA on behalf of the ACHD as a SIP revision. The ACHD issued CO 214 to impose RACT for six combustion turbine units at this source, designated 1A, 1B, 1C, 2A, 2B, and 3, as follows. All six of the units can use natural gas or no. 2 fuel oil as fuel. There are no other NO X emission sources at this facility.

The Brunot Island Power Station is precluded from operating Unit 2A, 2B or 3 in combined combustion cycle (CCC) mode, without a properly installed and operating water/stream injection NO X control system in place at each of the units. The source is precluded from operating these same units in CCC without a properly installed and operating NO X continuous emission monitoring system (CEMS) or an approved alternate, meeting all requirements of section 2108.03 of Article XXI of Allegheny County's air pollution control regulations.

Units 2A, 2B and 3, when operating in CCC mode, must each meet NO X emission limitations of 0.25 lbs/MMBtu and 1,039 tpy. The source is required to determine compliance by using CEM data averaged over a 24-hour period for the first limit, and annual CEM data for the second limit. Units 1A, 1B, and 1C, when operating in Simple Combustion Cycle (SCC), must each meet NO X emission limitations of 0.698 lbs/MMBtu and 330 tpy. Units 2A, 2B and 3, when operating in SCC, must each meet NO X emission limitations of 0.698 lbs/MMBtu and 662 tpy. In addition, Units 1A, 1B and 1C are each limited to a maximum annual average capacity factor of 36 percent, and Units 2A, 2B, and 3 are each limited to a maximum annual average capacity factor of 23 percent.

The Duquesne Light Company is required to conduct NO X emission tests, record fuel usage, and fuel analyses at its Brunot Island Power Station in order to determine compliance on these units, in accordance with EPA approved test methods and section 2108.2 of Article XXI. The source is required to maintain all appropriate records to demonstrate compliance with the requirements of both section 2105.06 of Article XXI and CO 214. The source is required to retain all records required by both section 2105.06 of Article XXI and CO 214 for this facility, for at least two years. The source is required to at all times properly operate and maintain all process and emission control equipment at the facility according to good engineering practices.

The Duquesne Light Company's Brunot Island Power Station is also subject to the additional post-RACT requirements to reduce NO X , found at 25 PA Code Chapters 121, 123 and 145.

The Duquesne Light Company's Cheswick Power Station is located in Springdale Borough, Pennsylvania. The Cheswick Power Station is a major NO X emitting facility. In this instance, RACT has been established and imposed by the ACHD in CO 217. The PADEP submitted this CO to EPA on behalf of the ACHD as a SIP revision. The ACHD issued CO 217 to impose RACT for the one unit, a 5,280 MMBtu/hr boiler, known as Boiler No. 1.

The Cheswick Power Station, is precluded from operating the facility unless the low NO X concentric firing system II, commonly known as “LNCFS II,” is properly maintained and operated. The source is also precluded from operating the facility unless a NO X CEMS is properly maintained and operated as specified in section 2108.03 of Article XXI. Boiler No. 1 must meet the following NO X emission limitations: 0.5548 lbs/MMBtu, an annual average of 0.45lbs/MMBtu, and total annual emissions may not exceed 10,840 tpy. Compliance with these limits shall be determined by using CEM data, using a 24-hour averaging period for the first limit, a one year averaging period for the second limit and annual CEM data for the third limit.

The Dusquesne Light Company is required to maintain all appropriate records to demonstrate compliance at its Cheswick Power Station with the requirements of both section 2105.06 of Article XXI, and CO 217. The source is required to retain all records required by both section 2105.06 of Article XXI and CO 217 for this facility for at least two years. The source is required to, at all times, properly operate and maintain all process and emission control equipment at the facility according to good engineering practices.

Duquesne Light Company, Cheswick Power Station, is also subject to additional post-RACT requirements to reduce NO X , found at 25 PA Code Chapters 121, 123 and 145.

The Duquesne Light Company's Elrama Plant is located in Union Township, Pennsylvania. The Elrama Plant is a major NO X emitting facility. The PADEP issued PA 63-000-014 to impose RACT for this plant's NO X emitting units. The plan approval for this facility requires the installation of low NO X burning systems and associated modifications on Units 1 through 4 of the Elrama plant. The auxiliary boiler at the plant shall be limited to an annual capacity factor of no more than 66 percent, and Duquesne Light shall operate it in accordance with manufacturer specifications and keep data that clearly demonstrates compliance with this capacity factor.

The NO X emission limit of 0.5 lbs/MMBtu, based on a 30-day rolling average, applies to the main stack at this facility. The yearly NO X emission limit for Units 1, 2, 3, and 4 is 11,353 tpy. Stack testing is required in accordance with 25 PA. Code Chapter 139 and the PADEP's Source Testing Manual.

The Duquesne Light Company's Elrama Plant is also subject to additional post-RACT requirements to reduce NO X found at 25 PA Code Chapters 121, 123 and 145.

Duquesne Light Company's Phillips Power Station is located in Crescent Township, Pennsylvania. The Phillips Power Station, is a major NO X emitting facility. In this instance, RACT has been established and imposed by the ACHD in CO 212. The PADEP submitted CO 212 to EPA on behalf of the ACHD as a SIP revision. The ACHD issued CO 212 to impose RACT for Units 3, 4, and 5 (which are twin furnace steam generators) and Unit 6 (which is a re-heat unit).

The Phillips Power Station is precluded from operating Units 3, 4, 5, and 6 without proper installation and operation of low NO X burner systems in place on each unit. The source is not allowed to operate these units without a properly installed and operating NO X CEMs, meeting all the requirements of section 2108.03 of Article XXI. The NO X emission limit for each of the units is 0.72 lbs/MMBtu. Units 3, 4, and 5 have an annual NO X limitation of 2,718.3 tpy. Unit 6 has an annual NO X limitation of 4,702.0 tpy. The Duquesne Light Company is required to determine compliance at its Phillips Power Station with the above-reference limits by using CEM data averaged over a 24 hour period and a one year period, respectively. The source is required to maintain all appropriate records to demonstrate compliance with the requirements of both section 2105.06 of Article XXI and CO 212. The source is required to retain all records required by both section 2105.06 of Article XXI and CO 212 for this facility, for at least two years. The source is required to at all times properly operate and maintain all process and emission control equipment at the facility according to good engineering practices.

Duquesne Light Company's Phillips Power Station is also subject to additional post-RACT requirements to reduce NO X found at 25 PA Code Chapters 121, 123 and 145.

The Pennsylvania Electric Power Company's ( PENELEC's) Keystone Generating Station is located in Plumcreek Township, Pennsylvania. The Keystone Generating Station is a major source of both NO X and VOCs. The PADEP issued PA 03-000-027 to PENELEC to impose RACT for the NO X and VOC emitting units at its Keystone Generating Station.

The PADEP's PA 03-000-027 for this facility requires the installation of the low NO X concentric firing system level II, commonly known as “LNCFS, III” on main Units 1 and 2.

The PADEP's PA 03-000-027 also requires that the plant's auxiliary boilers, Units A and B, be operated at a capacity factor of no more than 10 percent, and maintained in accordance with the manufacturer's specifications. PENELEC is required to maintain an operating log for the auxiliary boilers to verify that the annual capacity limit, noted above, is not exceeded. The source shall not operate diesel generators 3 through 6 in excess of a 5 percent annual capacity factor. These units are to be installed, maintained, and operated in accordance with the manufacturer's specifications. In addition, the source is required to maintain an operating log for diesel generators, emergency generator, fire pump and all other sources subject to any operating restriction to verify compliance with the applicable SIP-approved presumptive RACT limitations.

The NO X emission limit for each main unit is 0.45 lbs/MMBtu, based on a 30-day rolling average. The yearly NO X emission limit, facility-wide, is 31,673 tpy. Each main unit must meet an annual VOC limit of 71 tpy, and the entire facility's VOC emissions are limited to 144 tpy. All stack testing is required to be performed in accordance with 25 PA Code Chapter 139 and the PADEP's Source Testing Manual.

The PENELEC's Keystone Generating Station is also subject to additional post-RACT requirements to reduce NO X found at 25 PA Code Chapters 121, 123 and 145.

EPA is approving these RACT SIP submittals because the ACHD and PADEP established and imposed these RACT requirements in accordance with the criteria set forth in the SIP-approved RACT regulations applicable to these sources. For the subject installations and processes at these sources, ACHD and PADEP determined RACT to be the technologically and economically feasible controls available to minimize NO X and VOCs emissions, or to be SIP-approved presumptive RACT requirements. The ACHD and PADEP have also imposed record-keeping, monitoring, and testing requirements on these sources sufficient to determine compliance with the applicable RACT determinations.

EPA is approving the revisions to the Pennsylvania SIP submitted by PADEP to establish and require VOC and NO X RACT for five major of sources located in the Pittsburgh area. EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipates no adverse comment. However, in the “Proposed Rules” section of today's Federal Register , EPA is publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposal to approve the SIP revision if adverse comments are filed. This rule will be effective on September 24, 2001 without further notice unless EPA receives adverse comment by September 10, 2001. If EPA receives adverse comment, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the public that the rule will not take effect. EPA will address all public comments in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time. Please note that if adverse comment is received for a specific source or subset of sources covered by an amendment, section or paragraph of this rule, only that amendment, section, or paragraph for that source or subset of sources will be withdrawn.

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a “significant regulatory action” and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.” See 66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001. This action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies 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. ). Because this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4). This rule also does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it 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 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), because it merely approves a state rule implementing a Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant.

In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. As required by section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in issuing this rule, EPA has taken the necessary steps to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize potential litigation, and provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct. EPA has complied with Executive Order 12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1988) by examining the takings implications of the rule in accordance with the “Attorney General's Supplemental Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk and Avoidance of Unanticipated Takings” issued under the executive order. This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ).

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq. , as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. Section 804 exempts from section 801 the following types of rules: (1) rules of particular applicability; (2) rules relating to agency management or personnel; and (3) rules of agency organization, procedure, or practice that do not substantially affect the rights or obligations of non-agency parties. 5 U.S.C. 804(3). EPA is not required to submit a rule report regarding today's action under section 801 because this is a rule of particular applicability establishing source-specific requirements for five named sources.

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by October 9, 2001. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action approving the Commonwealth's source-specific RACT requirements to control VOC and NO X from five power plants in the Pittsburgh area may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)