Section 218(a) of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as amended (NWPA), requires that “[t]he Secretary [of the Department of Energy (DOE)] shall establish a demonstration program, in cooperation with the private sector, for the dry storage of spent nuclear fuel at civilian nuclear power reactor sites, with the objective of establishing one or more technologies that the [Nuclear Regulatory] Commission may, by rule, approve for use at the sites of civilian nuclear power reactors without, to the maximum extent practicable, the need for additional site-specific approvals by the Commission.” Section 133 of the NWPA states, in part, that “[t]he Commission shall, by rule, establish procedures for the licensing of any technology approved by the Commission under Section 218(a) for use at the site of any civilian nuclear power reactor.”

To implement this mandate, the NRC approved dry storage of spent nuclear fuel in NRC-approved casks under a general license by publishing a final rule in 10 CFR Part 72 entitled, “General License for Storage of Spent Fuel at Power Reactor Sites” (55 FR 29181; July 18, 1990). This rule also established a new Subpart K within 10 CFR Part 72, which contained a list of spent fuel storage cask designs. Included in this list was Certificate of Compliance (CoC) No. 1001 for the Westinghouse MC-10 cask system.

On February 19, 2001, the Westinghouse Government Environmental Services Company submitted a request (ADAMS ML010650146) to the NRC to terminate the § 72.214 listing of CoC No. 1001. Westinghouse indicated it does not desire to continue supporting the MC-10 cask design. Furthermore, no Part 72 general licensees currently use the MC-10 cask design. Therefore, the NRC has no objections to terminating CoC No. 1001 and is removing the CoC from the list of approved spent fuel storage cask designs contained in § 72.214.

The Westinghouse request (ADAMS ML010650146) is available for inspection at the NRC Public Document Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD. Single copies of this document may be obtained from Jayne McCausland, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, telephone (301) 415-6219, email jmm2@nrc.gov.

Certificate No. 1001 is terminated by removing the listing of the certificate.

This rule is limited to the removal of CoC No. 1001 from § 72.214 and does not include other aspects of the Westinghouse MC-10 cask system design. The NRC is using the “direct final rule procedure” to promulgate this removal because it represents a change to an existing CoC that is expected to be noncontroversial. Adequate protection of public health and safety continues to be ensured. The amendment to the rule will become effective on November 5, 2001. However, if the NRC receives significant adverse comments by September 20, 2001, then the NRC will publish a document that withdraws this action and will address the comments received in response to the proposed amendments published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register . A significant adverse comment is a comment where the commenter explains why the rule would be inappropriate, including challenges to the rule's underlying premise or approach, or would be ineffective or unacceptable without a change. A comment is adverse and significant if:

(1) The comment opposes the rule and provides a reason sufficient to require a substantive response in a notice-and-comment process. For example, in a substantive response:

(a) The comment causes the staff to reevaluate (or reconsider) its position or conduct additional analysis;

(b) The comment raises an issue serious enough to warrant a substantive response to clarify or complete the record; or

(c) The comment raises a relevant issue that was not previously addressed or considered by the staff.

(2) The comment proposes a change or an addition to the rule, and it is apparent that the rule would be ineffective or unacceptable without incorporation of the change or addition.

These comments will be addressed in a subsequent final rule. The NRC will not initiate a second comment period on this action.

The National Technology Transfer Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-113) requires that Federal agencies use technical standards that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies unless the use of such a standard is inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. In this direct final rule, the NRC would terminate the Westinghouse MC-10 cask system design listed in § 72.214 (List of NRC-approved spent fuel storage cask designs). This action does not constitute the establishment of a standard that establishes generally applicable requirements.

Under the “Policy Statement on Adequacy and Compatibility of Agreement State Programs” approved by the Commission on June 30, 1997, and published in the Federal Register on September 3, 1997 (62 FR 46517), this rule is classified as compatibility Category “NRC.” Compatibility is not required for Category “NRC” regulations. The NRC program elements in this category are those that relate directly to areas of regulation reserved to the NRC by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (AEA), or the provisions of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations. Although an Agreement State may not adopt program elements reserved to NRC, it may wish to inform its licensees of certain requirements via a mechanism that is consistent with the particular State's administrative procedure laws, but does not confer regulatory authority on the State.

The Presidential Memorandum dated June 1, 1998, entitled “Plain Language in Government Writing” directed that the Government's writing be in plain language. The NRC requests comments on this direct final rule specifically with respect to the clarity and effectiveness of the language used. Comments should be sent to the address listed under the heading ADDRESSES above.

Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended, and the NRC regulations in Subpart A of 10 CFR Part 51, the NRC has determined that this rule, if adopted, would not be a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment and, therefore, an environmental impact statement is not required. The rule will terminate the CoC for the Westinghouse MC-10 cask system from the list of approved spent fuel storage casks that power reactor licensees can use to store spent fuel at reactor sites under a general license. This rulemaking is needed to remove the Westinghouse MC-10 listing from the “List of approved spent fuel storage casks” in § 72.214. Westinghouse Government Environmental Services Company indicated that it does not desire to continue supporting the MC-10 cask design. Furthermore, no Part 72 general licensees currently use the MC-10 cask design. Therefore, the NRC has no objections to terminating CoC No. 1001 and is removing the CoC from the list of approved spent fuel storage cask designs contained in § 72.214. The potential environmental impact of not using the Westinghouse MC-10 cask system will not compromise the public health and safety. The alternative to the proposed action would be to deny approval of the amendment. The proposed termination action now under consideration would not change the potential environmental effects because (1) There are other approved casks available for storage of spent nuclear fuel and (2) there currently is no spent nuclear fuel being stored under the general license provisions of Part 72 in this cask design. Therefore, the NRC staff has determined that there are no significant environmental impacts as a result of the termination. No agencies or persons outside the NRC were contacted in connection with the preparation of this environmental assessment.

This direct final rule does not contain a new or amended information collection requirement subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ). Existing requirements were approved by the Office of Management and Budget, Approval Number 3150-0132.

If a means used to impose an information collection does not display a currently valid OMB control number, the NRC may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, the information collection.

On July 18, 1990 (55 FR 29181), the NRC issued an amendment to 10 CFR part 72 to provide for the storage of spent nuclear fuel under a general license in cask designs approved by the NRC. Any nuclear power reactor licensee can use NRC-approved cask designs to store spent nuclear fuel if it notifies the NRC in advance, spent fuel is stored under the conditions specified in the cask's CoC, and the conditions of the general license are met. A list of NRC-approved cask designs is contained in § 72.214. Included in the list of approved cask designs was the Westinghouse MC-10 cask design under CoC No. 1001. On February 19, 2001, the certificate holder (Westinghouse Government Environmental Services Company) requested that NRC terminate the listing of CoC No. 1001 from § 72.214. Furthermore, no Part 72 general licensee currently uses the MC-10 cask design.

This rule will remove the above listing from § 72.214. The alternative to this action is to withhold approval of this request. This alternative would cost both the CoC holder and the NRC time and resources because the regulatory burden requiring the CoC holder to respond to certain NRC requests, including but not limited to Information Notices, and the NRC to review the responses, would remain.

Approval of the direct final rule will eliminate the above described burden. Further, the direct final rule will have no adverse effect on public health and safety. This direct final rule has no significant identifiable impact or benefit on other Government agencies. Based on the above discussion of the benefits and impacts of the alternatives, the NRC concludes that the requirements of the direct final rule are commensurate with the NRC's responsibilities for public health and safety and the common defense and security. No other available alternative is believed to be as satisfactory, and thus, this action is recommended.

In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), the NRC certifies that this rule will not, if promulgated, have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This direct final rule affects only the Westinghouse Government Environmental Services Company. This company does not fall within the scope of the definition of “small entities” set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act or the Small Business Size Standards set out in regulations issued by the Small Business Administration at 13 CFR part 121.

The NRC has determined that the backfit rule (10 CFR 50.109 or 10 CFR 72.62) does not apply to this direct final rule because this amendment does not involve any provisions that would impose backfits as defined. Therefore, a backfit analysis is not required.

In accordance with the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, the NRC has determined that this action is not a major rule and has verified this determination with the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget.

A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to include an airworthiness directive (AD) that is applicable to certain Boeing Model 737-100, -200, and -200C series airplanes was published in the Federal Register on April 12, 2001 (66 FR 18878). That action proposed to require a one-time detailed visual inspection of the carriage spindles on the outboard midflap for circumferential score marks; and rework of the carriage spindles or replacement with new or serviceable spindles, if necessary.

Interested persons have been afforded an opportunity to participate in the making of this amendment. Due consideration has been given to the comments received.

All of the commenters expressed concern about the proposed inspection methods.

Regarding the detailed visual inspection that is included as one acceptable method of inspection in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-57A1256, dated September 30, 1999, one of the commenters states that the proposed detailed visual inspection of the carriage spindle cannot be accomplished. The commenter states that surrounding airplane structure and a certain seal make it difficult to gain access to and properly clean the carriage spindle when the flap carriage assembly is installed on the airplane.

Regarding the borescopic inspection that is included in the service bulletin as another acceptable method of inspection, two of the commenters stated that the borescopic inspection specified in the service bulletin is not sufficient to detect circumferential score marks on the carriage spindles on the outboard midflap. The commenters state that routine applications of protective coatings such as primer or paint on the carriage spindles may obscure score marks.

One of the commenters, the airplane manufacturer, submitted this comment:

The FAA infers that the commenters are requesting that we clarify what inspection methods are acceptable for compliance with this AD and what other actions must be accomplished on the airplane for these inspection methods to be used. We concur that some clarification is necessary. Our intent is that either the detailed visual or borescopic inspection methods described in the service bulletin are acceptable for compliance with this AD. For clarification, we have revised the summary of this final rule to remove the words “detailed visual.”

With regard to the suitability of the borescopic inspection for finding score marks on the carriage spindle, we note that data in the Operator's Equipment Manual indicate that an inspection with a borescope is adequate to detect the score marks that are the subject of this AD. Accordingly, we have revised paragraph (a) of this AD to require either a detailed visual or borescopic inspection per the service bulletin.

With regard to accomplishing the detailed visual inspection without using a borescope, we note that the service bulletin clearly specifies that it is necessary to remove the outboard trailing edge flaps from the airplane before the detailed visual inspection of the carriage spindles can be carried out. However, to clarify this matter, and per the airplane manufacturer's comment stated above, we have added a new note, Note 3, to this final rule (and reordered subsequent notes accordingly). Note 3 states that removal of the outboard trailing edge flaps from the airplane is necessary for the detailed visual inspection, but an inspection using a borescope is acceptable if the flap carriages are not removed from the airplane.

On behalf of one of its members, the Air Transport Association of America requests extension of the compliance time from 18 months to 36 months for accomplishment of the requirements of the proposed AD. The commenter states that this compliance time will allow accomplishment of the proposed actions during normal scheduled heavy maintenance visits and would provide “a level of safety commensurate with the intent of the proposal.”

The FAA does not concur. In developing an appropriate compliance time for this AD, the FAA considered not only the manufacturer's recommendation, but the degree of urgency associated with addressing the subject unsafe condition, and the average utilization of the affected fleet. In light of these factors, the FAA finds an 18-month compliance time for completing the required actions is warranted, in that it represents an appropriate interval of time allowable for affected airplanes to continue to operate without compromising safety. No change to the final rule is necessary in this regard. However, as noted in paragraph (c) of this AD, we will consider requests for approval of an alternative method of compliance or adjustment of the compliance time, provided that data are submitted which show that an acceptable level of safety will be maintained.

One commenter expresses concern about cutting and removing a certain seal, which is necessary for accomplishing the inspection using a borescope, as specified in Figure 1 of the referenced service bulletin. The commenter is concerned that cutting the seal could allow fluids or debris to enter the area, resulting in long-term deleterious effects in the area previously protected by the seal. The commenter states that the airplane manufacturer responded to this concern by indicating that it is adequate to remove the seal to facilitate the proposed inspection and replace the seal only when the airplane is next overhauled after the inspection. The airplane manufacturer also indicated that replacement of a previously installed Teflon bearing with a new spherical bearing would result in no damage if small debris enters the area.

The FAA acknowledges that it is necessary to cut and remove the identified seal to perform the inspection with a borescope. For those operators who choose to use the borescope method of inspection, we find that the risk of damage associated with the missing segment of seal is low, as long as the seal is replaced at the next maintenance interval. We note, however, that it is not necessary to cut the seal in order to do the detailed visual inspection described in the service bulletin because the service bulletin provides an alternative method of gaining access to do this inspection. If the commenter is sufficiently concerned with the risk associated with the missing seal, the alternative method may be used, as specified in the service bulletin. No change to the final rule is necessary in this regard.

One commenter states that the FAA's estimate of 12 work hours does not reflect the true number of work hours necessary for the proposed inspection. The commenter states that the compliance time will necessitate that the proposed work be accomplished on the vast majority of airplanes at maintenance visits other than overhauls, which is the only maintenance visit in which access to the subject area would be readily available. The commenter notes that the referenced service bulletin estimates that 21 work hours would be necessary for the borescopic inspection or 68 work hours would be necessary for the detailed visual inspection. The commenter asks that the FAA revise the proposed rule to provide a more accurate cost estimate.

The FAA does not concur. The estimates of 21 and 68 work hours provided in the referenced service bulletin include time for gaining access, closing up, and testing. The cost impact analysis in AD rulemaking actions typically includes only the “direct” costs of the specific actions required by the AD, and does not include incidental costs, such as the time required to gain access and close up, planning time, or time necessitated by other administrative actions. Because incidental costs may vary significantly from operator to operator, they are almost impossible to calculate. No change to the final rule is necessary in this regard.

After careful review of the available data, including the comments noted above, the FAA has determined that air safety and the public interest require the adoption of the rule with the changes previously described. The FAA has determined that these changes will neither increase the economic burden on any operator nor increase the scope of the AD.

There are approximately 870 Model 737-100, -200, and -200C series airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that 320 airplanes of U.S. registry will be affected by this AD, that it will take approximately 12 work hours per airplane to accomplish the required actions, and that the average labor rate is $60 per work hour. Based on these figures, the cost impact of this AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $230,400, or $720 per airplane.

The cost impact figure discussed above is based on assumptions that no operator has yet accomplished any of the requirements of this AD action, and that no operator would accomplish those actions in the future if this AD were not adopted. The cost impact figures discussed in AD rulemaking actions represent only the time necessary to perform the specific actions actually required by the AD. These figures typically do not include incidental costs, such as the time required to gain access and close up, planning time, or time necessitated by other administrative actions.

The regulations adopted herein will 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. Therefore, it is determined that this final rule does not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.

For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this action (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3) will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. A final evaluation has been prepared for this action and it is contained in the Rules Docket. A copy of it may be obtained from the Rules Docket at the location provided under the caption ADDRESSES .

The Departmento de Aviacao Civil (DAC) , which is the airworthiness authority for Brazil, recently notified the FAA that an unsafe condition may exist on all Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A. (EMBRAER) Model EMB-135 and -145 series airplanes. The DAC advises that cases of internal corrosion have been found on the stow/transit switches installed in the engine thrust reversers of EMBRAER Model EMB-145 series airplanes. Erroneous messages of “ENG ( ) REV DISAGREE” or “ENG ( ) REV FAIL” have been displayed in the Engine Indicating and Crew Alerting System (EICAS) because of this corrosion. In one case, a transit switch severely contaminated by corrosion resulted in an uncommanded engine rollback to idle in flight. Several cases of aborted takeoffs have also been reported due to “ENG ( ) REV DISAGREE” messages during takeoff. This internal corrosion condition, if not corrected, could result in erroneous signals of the thrust reverser stow/transit switches, which could result in uncommanded loss of engine power in flight, or unnecessary aborted takeoffs on the ground.

EMBRAER has issued Service Bulletin 145-78-0029, dated February 2, 2001, which describes procedures for repetitive inspections of the stow/transit switches for possible internal corrosion by means of a field check with a megohmmeter for insulation resistance; and corrective action, if applicable. The DAC classified this service bulletin as mandatory and issued Brazilian airworthiness directive 2001-05-03, dated June 8, 2001, in order to assure the continued airworthiness of these airplanes in Brazil.

These airplane models are manufactured in Brazil and are 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 DAC has kept the FAA informed of the situation described above. The FAA has examined the findings of the DAC, 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.

Since an unsafe condition has been identified that is likely to exist or develop on other airplanes of the same type design registered in the United States, this AD is being issued to prevent erroneous signals from being displayed on the EICAS, caused by internal corrosion of the thrust reverser stow/transit switches, which could result in uncommanded loss of engine power in flight, or unnecessary aborted takeoffs on the ground. This AD requires accomplishment of the actions specified in the service bulletin described previously, except as discussed below.

This is considered to be an interim action until final action is identified, at which time the FAA may consider further rulemaking.

This AD differs from the parallel Brazilian airworthiness directive in that it requires repetitive inspections every 1,200 flight hours after the initial inspection, as recommended by EMBRAER Service Bulletin 145-78-0029, dated February 2, 2001. The parallel Brazilian airworthiness directive contains only a note that makes reference to a future revision of the airplane Maintenance Review Board (MRB) that will include periodic re-inspection.

Mandating the repetitive inspections specified in the service bulletin is based on the FAA's determination that, in this case, long-term continued operational safety would be better assured by continued monitoring until a design change can be made to remove the source of the problem.

Since a situation exists that requires the immediate adoption of this regulation, it is found that notice and opportunity for prior public comment hereon are impracticable, and that good cause exists for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days.

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 shall 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.

Submit comments using the following format:

• Organize comments issue-by-issue. For example, discuss a request to change the compliance time and a request to change the service bulletin reference as two separate issues.

• For each issue, state what specific change to the AD is being requested.

• Include justification (e.g., reasons or data) for each request.

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 rule must submit a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket Number 2001-NM-248-AD.” The postcard will be date stamped and returned to the commenter.

The regulations adopted herein will 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. Therefore, it is determined that this final rule does not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.

The FAA has determined that this regulation is an emergency regulation that must be issued immediately to correct an unsafe condition in aircraft, and that it 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 Departmento de Aviacao Civil (DAC), which is the airworthiness authority for Brazil, recently notified the FAA that an unsafe condition may exist on certain Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A. (EMBRAER) Model EMB-135ER and -135LR series airplanes, and Model EMB-145, -145ER, -145MR, and -145LR series airplanes. The DAC advises that, during a post-lightning strike inspection of a Model EMB-145 series airplane, the bonding jumpers that electrically bond the vertical and horizontal stabilizers were found to be severed. In addition, one elevator cable was severed and the other elevator cable had arcing damage. The inspection revealed that the bonding jumpers were overstretched and subsequently severed during the lightning strike. When the bonding jumpers severed, they made contact with the elevator cables, which resulted in damage to the elevator cables. This condition, if not corrected, could result in reduced elevator control capability, and consequent reduced controllability of the airplane, due to severed bonding jumpers.

EMBRAER has issued Alert Service Bulletin 145-55-A025, dated June 5, 2001, which describes procedures for performing a one-time general visual inspection to determine if the two bonding jumpers that connect the horizontal to the vertical stabilizers are properly installed (not misaligned, damaged, or showing signs of previous elongation), and replacing the bonding jumper with a new jumper, if necessary. The alert service bulletin also specifies procedures for determining if the mechanical tension between the bonding jumpers and the reference line is 5 millimeters or less, and corrective action (replacing the bonding jumper), if necessary. Additionally, the alert service bulletin describes procedures for performing a one-time general visual inspection to determine if the supports that connect the bonding jumpers to the horizontal stabilizer are deformed, cracked, or ruptured. The alert service bulletin describes corrective actions to repair or replace the connecting support with a new connecting support, as applicable. Accomplishment of the actions specified in the alert service bulletin is intended to adequately address the identified unsafe condition. The DAC classified this alert service bulletin as mandatory and issued Brazilian airworthiness directive 2001-06-03, dated June 13, 2001, in order to assure the continued airworthiness of these airplanes in Brazil.

These airplane models are manufactured in Brazil and are 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 DAC has kept the FAA informed of the situation described above. The FAA has examined the findings of the DAC, 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.

Since an unsafe condition has been identified that is likely to exist or develop on other airplanes of the same type design registered in the United States, this AD is being issued to prevent severed bonding jumpers, which could result in reduced elevator control capability, and consequent reduced controllability of the airplane. This AD requires accomplishment of the actions specified in the alert service bulletin described previously, except as discussed below.

The EMBRAER alert service bulletin specifies that any bonding jumper that is mechanically tensioned outside the limits specified in the alert service bulletin may be replaced within the next 100 flight hours after the inspection. This AD, however, requires that the replacement of a bonding jumper, if necessary, must be accomplished before further flight after the inspection. In developing an appropriate compliance time for this AD, the FAA considered not only the DAC's requirements in the Brazilian airworthiness directive and the manufacturer's recommendations, but the degree of urgency associated with addressing the subject unsafe condition, the average utilization of the affected fleet, and the time necessary to perform the inspection (less than one hour). In light of all of these factors, the FAA finds that the “before further flight” compliance time, in this case, to be warranted.

Since a situation exists that requires the immediate adoption of this regulation, it is found that notice and opportunity for prior public comment hereon are impracticable, and that good cause exists for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days.

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 shall 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.

Submit comments using the following format:

• Organize comments issue-by-issue. For example, discuss a request to change the compliance time and a request to change the service bulletin reference as two separate issues.

• For each issue, state what specific change to the AD is being requested.

• Include justification ( e.g., reasons or data) for each request.

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 rule must submit a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket Number 2001-NM-249-AD.” The postcard will be date stamped and returned to the commenter.

The regulations adopted herein will 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. Therefore, it is determined that this final rule does not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.

The FAA has determined that this regulation is an emergency regulation that must be issued immediately to correct an unsafe condition in aircraft, and that it 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.

A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) by superseding AD 95-04-07 R2, amendment 39-11354 (64 FR 54202, October 6, 1999), which is applicable to certain McDonnell Douglas Model DC-10-10, -15, -30, and -30F (KC-10A military) series airplanes, and Model MD-10-10F and -30F series airplanes, was published in the Federal Register on March 21, 2001 (66 FR 15817). The action proposed to continue to require repetitive inspections to determine the condition of the lockwires on the forward engine mount bolts and correction of any discrepancies found. The action also proposed to require accomplishment of the previously optional terminating actions.

Interested persons have been afforded an opportunity to participate in the making of this amendment. Due consideration has been given to the comments received.

Two commenters express support for the proposed rule.

One commenter requests that the “Applicability” of the proposed rule be revised to specify that it would not apply to certain airplanes on which, not only McDonnell Douglas DC-10 Service Bulletin 71-133, Revision 6, dated June 30, 1992, has been accomplished (as specified in the applicability of the proposed rule); but also would not apply to certain airplanes on which McDonnell Douglas Service Bulletin DC10-71-159, dated September 6, 1995, or Revision 01, dated July 28, 1997, has been accomplished. The commenter also requests that paragraph (b) of the proposed rule be clarified to specify that, for certain models, the terminating action may be accomplished in accordance with either McDonnell Douglas Service Bulletin 71-133, or McDonnell Douglas Service Bulletin DC10-71-159. The commenter states that the proposed rule, as written, implies that both service bulletins must be accomplished for the terminating action.

The FAA agrees with the commenter, and has determined that clarification is needed. It is the intent of the FAA to permit terminating action to be completed in accordance with either of the referenced service bulletins. We have revised the “Applicability” and paragraph (b) of the final rule to specify that, for certain models, compliance with the terminating action may be accomplished by either of the service bulletins noted above. Since the terminating actions for Model DC-10-30 and -30F (KC-10A military) series airplanes are now completely addressed in paragraph (b) of the final rule, we have revised paragraph (c) of the final rule to remove reference to those models and specify that the applicability of paragraph (c) of the final rule applies only to McDonnell Douglas Model DC-10-10 and -15 series airplanes, and Model MD-10-10F series airplanes.

After careful review of the available data, including the comments noted above, the FAA has determined that air safety and the public interest require the adoption of the rule with the changes previously described. The FAA has determined that these changes will neither increase the economic burden on any operator nor increase the scope of the AD.

There are approximately 389 Model DC-10-10, -15, -30, and -30F (KC-10A military) series airplanes, and Model MD-10-10F and -30F series airplanes, of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that 229 airplanes of U.S. registry will be affected by this AD.

The actions that are currently required by AD 95-04-07 R2, and retained in this AD, take approximately 2 work hours per airplane to accomplish, at an average labor rate of $60 per work hour. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the currently required actions on U.S. operators is estimated to be $27,480, or $120 per airplane, per inspection cycle.

Should an operator be required to accomplish the terminating installation specified in McDonnell Douglas DC-10 Service Bulletin 71-133, it will take approximately 4 work hours per airplane to accomplish, at an average labor rate of $60 per hour. Required parts will cost between $2,744 and $2,822 per airplane. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the terminating installation required by this AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be between $2,984 and $3,062 per airplane.

Should an operator be required to accomplish the terminating modification specified in McDonnell Douglas Service Bulletin DC10-71-159, it will take approximately 16 work hours per airplane to accomplish, at an average labor rate of $60 per work hour. Required parts will cost between $2,744 and $2,822 per airplane. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the terminating modification required by this AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be between $3,704 and $3,782 per airplane.

The cost impact figures discussed above are based on assumptions that no operator has yet accomplished any of the requirements of this AD action, and that no operator would accomplish those actions in the future if this AD were not adopted. The cost impact figures discussed in AD rulemaking actions represent only the time necessary to perform the specific actions actually required by the AD. These figures typically do not include incidental costs, such as the time required to gain access and close up, planning time, or time necessitated by other administrative actions.

The regulations adopted herein will 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. Therefore, it is determined that this final rule does not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.

For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this action (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3) will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. A final evaluation has been prepared for this action and it is contained in the Rules Docket. A copy of it may be obtained from the Rules Docket at the location provided under the caption ADDRESSES .

Orion Corp. ORION-FARMOS, P.O. Box 425, SF-20101 Turku, Finland, has informed FDA of a change of sponsor’s name and address to Orion Corp., Orionintie 1, 02200 Espoo, Finland. Accordingly, the agency is amending the regulations in 21 CFR 510.600(c)(1) and (c)(2) to reflect the change of sponsor’s name and address.

This rule does not meet the definition of “rule” in 5 U.S.C. 804(3)(A) because it is a rule of “particular applicability.” Therefore, it is not subject to the congressional review requirements in 5 U.S.C. 801-808.

1. The authority citation for 21 CFR part 510 continues to read as follows:

Bayer Corp., Agriculture Division, Animal Health, P.O. Box 390, Shawnee Mission, KS 66201, filed NADA 141-188 that provides for veterinary prescription use of Marquis TM (ponazuril) EPM Paste for the treatment of equine protozoal myeloencephalitis caused by Sarcocystis neurona . The NADA is approved as of July 19, 2001, and the regulations are amended in 21 CFR part 520 by adding § 520.1855 to reflect the approval. The basis of approval is discussed in the freedom of information summary.

In accordance with the freedom of information provisions of 21 CFR part 20 and 514.11(e)(2)(ii), a summary of safety and effectiveness data and information submitted to support approval of this application may be seen in the Dockets Management Branch (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852, between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

Under section 512(c)(2)(F)(i) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the act) (21 U.S.C. 360b(c)(2)(F)(i)), this approval qualifies for 5 years of marketing exclusivity beginning July 19, 2001, because no active ingredient (including any ester or salt of the drug) has been previously approved in any other application filed under section 512(b)(1) of the act.

The agency has determined under 21 CFR 25.33(d)(1) that this action is of a type that does not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. Therefore, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required.

This rule does not meet the definition of “rule” in 5 U.S.C. 804(3)(A) because it is a rule of “particular applicability.” Therefore, it is not subject to the congressional review requirements in 5 U.S.C. 801-808.

1. The authority citation for 21 CFR part 520 continues to read as follows:

(a) Specifications . Each gram of paste contains 150 milligrams (mg) ponazuril.

(b) Sponsor . See No. 000859 in § 510.600(c) of this chapter.

(c) Conditions of use in horses —(1) Amount . 5 mg per kilogram body weight, daily for 28 days.

(2) Indications for use . For the treatment of equine protozoal myeloencephalitis caused by Sarcocystis neurona .

(3) Limitations . Not for use in horses intended for food. Federal law restricts this drug to use by or on the order of a licensed veterinarian.

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553, a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) was not published for this regulation. Good cause exists for not publishing a NPRM and for making this regulation effective in less than 30 days after Federal Register publication. The parameters of the zone will not unduly impair business and transits of vessels. The Coast Guard will announce via Broadcast Notice to Mariners the anticipated date and time of each launch and will grant general permission to enter the safety zone during those times in which the launch does not pose a hazard to mariners. Because the hazardous condition is expected to last for approximately 5 hours of each day for 16 days, and because general permission to enter the safety zone will be given during non-hazardous times, the impact of this rule on commercial and recreational traffic is expected to be minimal. Therefore, notice and comment is unnecessary. Additionally, the process of scheduling a rocket launch is uncertain due to unforeseen delays that can cause cancellation of the launch. Any delay encountered in this regulation's effective date would be unnecessary and contrary to public interest since immediate action is needed to protect human life and property from possible fallout from the rocket launch. This safety zone should have minimal impact on vessel transits and announcements via Broadcast Notice to Mariners will give vessels advanced notice of the launch.

The Alaska Aerospace Development Corporation (AADC) will attempt to launch an unmanned rocket from their facility at Narrow Cape, Kodiak Island, Alaska sometime between 5 p.m. and 7 p.m. each day between August 31, 2001 and September 15, 2001. The safety zone is necessary to protect spectators and transiting vessels from the potential hazards associated with the launch.

The Coast Guard will announce via Broadcast Notice to Mariners the anticipated date and time of the launch and will grant general permission to enter the safety zone during those times in which the launch does not pose a hazard to mariners. Because the hazardous condition is expected to last for approximately 5 hours of each day for 16 days, and because general permission to enter the safety zone will be given during non-hazardous times, the impact of this rule on commercial and recreational traffic is expected to be minimal.

From the latest information received from the Alaska Aerospace Development Corporation, the launch window is scheduled for 5 hours each day between August 31, 2001 and September 15, 2001. The size of the safety zone has been set based upon the trajectory information in order to provide a greater safety buffer in the event that the launch is aborted shortly after take-off. The safety zone includes an area in the Gulf of Alaska, southeast of Narrow Cape, Kodiak Island, Alaska. Specifically, the zone encompasses all waters of the Gulf of Alaska that are within the area bounded by a line drawn from a point located at 57° 28′ North, 152° 25′ West, thence south to a point located at 57° 09′ North, 152° 25′ West, thence northeast to a point located at 57° 14.5′ North, 151° 59′ West, thence north northeast to a point located at 57° 28′ North, 151° 51.5′ West, and thence west to the point located at 57° 28′ North, 152° 25′ West. All coordinates reference Datum: NAD 1983.

This safety zone is necessary to protect spectators and transiting vessels from the potential hazards associated with the launch of the rocket. The Coast Guard will announce via Broadcast Notice to Mariners the anticipated date and time of the launch and will grant general permission to enter the safety zone during those times in which the launch does not pose a hazard to mariners.

This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 and does not require an assessment of potential cost 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). The Coast Guard expects the economic impact of this rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation under paragraph 10(e) of the regulatory policies and procedures of DOT is unnecessary.

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises 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.

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.

This rule will affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: the owners or operators of vessels intending to transit, anchor, or fish in a portion of the Gulf of Alaska off Ugak Island and Narrow Cape from 2 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. from August 31, 2001 to September 15, 2001. Because the hazardous condition is expected to last for approximately five hours of each day for sixteen days, and because general permission to enter the safety zone will be given during non-hazardous times, the impact of this rule on commercial and recreational traffic should be minimal. Before the effective period, we will issue maritime advisories widely available to users of the affected portion of the Gulf of Alaska. We believe there will be minimal impact to small entities.

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 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.

This rule calls for no new collection of information 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 economically significant and does not cause an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may disproportionately affect children.

This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it would 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.

The Coast Guard considered the environmental impact of this rule and concluded that, under Figure 2-1, paragraph 34(g) of Commandant Instruction M16475.1C, this rule is categorically excluded from further environmental documentation. This rule is excluded under paragraph (34)(g) because it is a safety zone. A “Categorical Exclusion Determination” is available in the docket for inspection or copying where indicated under ADDRESSES.

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, and under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register . The permit application did not allow sufficient time for publication of an NPRM followed by a temporary final rule effective 30 days after publication. Any delay of the effective date of this rule would be contrary to the public interest by exposing the public to the known dangers associated with fireworks displays and the possible loss of life, injury, and damage to property.

This safety zone is established to safeguard the public from the hazards associated with launching of fireworks by Sister Bay marina, Sister Bay, Wisconsin. The size of the zone was determined by using previous experiences with fireworks displays in the Captain of the Port Milwaukee zone and local knowledge about wind, waves, and currents in this particular area.

The safety zone will be in effect on September 1, 2001, from 8:30 p.m. until 10 p.m. (CST). The safety zone will encompass all waters bounded by the arc of a circle with a 420-foot radius with its center in approximate position 45° 10.60′ N, 087° 06.60′ W, offshore Sister Bay marina, Sister Bay, Wisconsin. The size of this zone was determined using the National Fire Prevention Association guidelines and local knowledge concerning wind, waves, and currents. These coordinates are based upon North American Datum 1983 (NAD 83).

All persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of the Captain of the Port Milwaukee or his designated on scene patrol personnel. Entry into, transiting, or anchoring within the safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Milwaukee or his designated on scene representative. The Captain of the Port Milwaukee may be contacted via VHF Channel 16.

This rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, 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).

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises 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.

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.

This rule will affect the following entities: the owners or operators of vessels intending to transit or anchor in the vicinity of Sister Bay marina from 8:30 p.m. until 10 p.m. (CST) on September 1, 2001.

This safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: This rule will be in effect for only one hour and thirty minutes on one day and late in the day when vessel traffic is minimal. Vessel traffic may enter or transit through the safety zone with the permission of the Captain of the Port Milwaukee or his designated on scene representative. Before the effective period, we will issue maritime advisories widely available to users of the Sister Bay.

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we offer to assist small entities in understanding the rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact Marine Safety Office Milwaukee (See ADDRESSES .)

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 under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13132 and have determined that this rule does not have implications for federalism under that Order.

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 would 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 risk to safety that may disproportionately affect children.

The Coast Guard considered the environmental impact of this rule and concluded that under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g), of Commandant Instruction M16475.lC, 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.

The rule governing administrative appeals of Forest Service decisions at 36 CFR part 211, subpart B, consist of three sections. Section 211.16 concerns appeal of resource recovery and rehabilitation decisions resulting from natural catastrophes. Its procedures do not apply to any appeal received after February 22, 1989 (36 CFR 211.16(o)). Section 211.17 concerns appeal of decisions to reoffer returned or defaulted timber sales on National Forests. Its procedures do not apply to any decision signed on or after September 13, 1991 (36 CFR 211.17(q)). Section 211.18 concerns appeal of decisions of forest officers made prior to February 21, 1989 (36 CFR 211.18)(s)).

The processes for appealing National Forest System decisions as established in 36 CFR 211.16 and 211.18 were superseded on January 23, 1989, by adoption of the rules at 36 CFR parts 217 and 251 (54 FR 3342). The rules at 36 FR part 217 offered the public a process for the administrative appeal of decisions relating to land and resource management plans, projects, and activities. The rule at 36 FR part 251, subpart C, was, and continues to be, limited to appeal of decisions regarding written instruments authorizing occupancy and use of National Forest System Lands. At the time these new rules were adopted, the Department made corollay amendments to § 211.16 and 211.18 (54 FR 3342) to make clear they were not applicable to decisions rendered after February 21 and February 22, 1989, respectively. Subsequently, the remaining appeal rule at 36 CFR 211.17 was amended to apply only to decisions signed before September 13, 1991 (56 FR 46549).

Some individuals and groups seeking to appeal Forest Service decisions have become confused by the presence of the now outdated and superseded rules at 36 CFR part 211, subpart B. As recently as March 29, 2001, and April 2, 2001, citizens filed a request for second level review of project of decisions on the Plumas National Forest pursuant to 36 CFR 211.18. In spite of the time and effort the appellants spent drafting their appeals, the Forest Service could not provide the second level reviews requested, because they were filed pursuant to regulations long since terminated. The appellants apparently did not notice the termination date in paragraph (q) of § 211.18 and were unaware of the fact that the decisions they sought to appeal were subject to the appeal process in 36 CFR part 215 adopted November 4, 1993 (58 FR 58910).

Therefore, it is in the public interest to remove from the Code of Federal Regulations the obsolete rules at 36 CFR part 211, subpart B, in order to reduce public confusion. However, it should be noted that the removal of this rule will not alter conditions of any settlement agreement with appellants reached under the provisions of the rules at 36 CFR part 211, subpart B.

This is not a significant rule. The rule will not have an annual effect of $100 million or more on the economy, or adversely affect productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State or local governments. It will not interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency, or raise new legal or policy issues. Finally, the rule will not alter the budgetary impacts of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients of such programs. Accordingly, the rule is not subject to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review under Executive Order 12866. Moreover, this rule has been considered in light of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ). This rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities as defined by the Act. This rule will not impose recordkeeping requirements; will not affect their competitive position in relation to large entities; and will not affect their cash flow, liquidity, or ability to remain in the market.

This rule has no direct or indirect effect on the environment. Section 31.1b of Forest Service Handbook 1909.15 (57 FR 43180; September 18, 1992) excludes from documentation in an environmental assessment or impact statement rules, regulations or policies to establish Service-wide administrative procedures, program processes, or instructions.

This rule has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 12360, and it has been determined that the rule will not pose the risk of a taking of private property, as the rule serves only to clarify appeals procedures by removing outdated information.

This rule has been reviewed under Executive order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. It (1) does not preempt State and local laws and regulations that conflict with or impede its full implementation; (2) has no retroactive effect; and (3) will not require administrative proceedings.

Pursuant to Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538), which the President signed into law on March 22, 1995, the Department has assessed the effects of this rule on State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. This rule will not compel the expenditure of $100 million or more by any State, local, or tribal government or anyone in the private sector. Therefore, a statement under section 202 of the Act is not required.

The Department has considered this rule under the requirements of Executive Orders 12612 and 13132 and concluded that the rule does 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. Therefore, the Department has determined that no further assessment of federalism implications is necessary at this time.

Moreover, this rule does not have tribal implications as defined in Executive order 13175 and, therefore, advance consultation with tribes is not required.

This rule does not contain any recordkeeping or reporting requirements or other information collection requirements as defined in 5 CFR part 1320. In fact, the removal of the obsolete rules may serve to reduce paperwork, as people are less likely to attempt to use these invalid processes for appeals. Accordingly, the review provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ) and implementing regulations at 5 CFR part 1320 do not apply.

This final rule has been reviewed under Executive order 13211 of May 18, 2001, and it has been determined that this rule has no effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. This rule is a ministerial act to remove from the Code of Federal Regulations, rules which have, by their own terms, expired. Therefore, the preparation of a statement of energy effects is not required.

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 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; o r (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 10, 1996, July 24, 1998, April 9, 1999, February 2, 2001 and April 19, 2001, 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) and operating permits (OPs) issued by PADEP. These five sources are located in the Pittsburgh area. The table below identifies the sources and individual PAs and OPs which are the subject of this rulemaking. A summary of the VOC and RACT determinations for each source follows the table.

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 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 December 8, 1995, July 1, 1997, and April 19, 2001, PADEP submitted revisions to the Pennsylvania SIP which establish and impose RACT for several sources of VOC and/or NO X . This rulemaking pertains to eight of those sources. The remaining sources are or have been the subject of separate rulemakings. The Commonwealth's submittals consist of operating permits, enforcement orders and consent orders which impose VOC and/or NO X RACT requirements for each source. These eight sources are all located in the Pittsburgh area. The table below identifies the sources and the individual operating permits (OP), enforcement orders (EO), and consent orders CO) which are the subject of this rulemaking. A summary of the VOC and NO X RACT determinations for each source follows the table.

Ashland Petroleum Company (Ashland) is a petroleum storage, blending and distribution facility located in Floreffe, Pennsylvania. Ashland is a major source of VOC. On December 19, 1996, the Allegheny County Health Department (ACHD) issued a Plan Approval and Agreement Upon Consent Order (CO 256) to establish and impose RACT on Ashland. The PADEP submitted CO 256, on behalf of the ACHD, to EPA as a SIP revision. Under CO 256, Ashland must not exceed 50 tons of VOC per year. This limit must be met on a rolling monthly basis over every consecutive 12 month period. Under CO 256, Ashland must maintain all records and testing data to demonstrate compliance with Section 2108.06 of Article XXI of the ACHD's air pollution control regulations. Record keeping requirements shall include the following: type of VOC-containing products stored; and an annual throughput of VOC-containing products processed and/or distributed. All records shall be maintained for at least two years. Under CO 256, Ashland must operate and maintain all equipment according to good engineering and air pollution control practices.

BP Exploration & Oil, Inc. (BP) is a petroleum terminal station located in Hempfield, Pennsylvania. BP is a major source of VOC. On March 23, 2001, PADEP issued an operating permit (OP-65-000-378) to establish and impose RACT on BP. Under OP 65-000-378, RACT is the use of a Vapor Recovery Unit. The VOC emissions from the Vapor Recovery Unit must not exceed a rate of 60 mg/L. In addition, OP 65-000-378 requires the facility not to exceed 48.14 tons per year (tpy) of VOC on a 12-month rolling basis. BP must record and report the Vapor Recovery Unit's throughput of gasoline and kerosene, the VOC emissions from each source including the emission factors and their origin used to calculate the VOCs. BP must properly operate and maintain all equipment according to good engineering and air pollution control practices in accordance with applicable PADEP regulations.

Gulf Oil, L.P. (Gulf) is a petroleum storage and distribution facility located in Neville, Pennsylvania. Gulf is a major source of VOC. On December 19, 1996, ACHD issued a Plan Approval and Agreement Upon Consent Order (CO 250) to establish and impose RACT on Gulf. The PADEP submitted CO 250, on behalf of the ACHD, to EPA as a SIP revision. Under CO 250, Gulf shall not, at any time, store VOC with vapor pressures greater than 1.5 psia, in any storage tank with a volume greater than 40,000 gallons, unless the storage tank is equipped with a floating roof to control VOC emissions. Under CO 250, the total VOC emissions from marine vessel loading must not exceed 21 tons per year on a rolling monthly basis over every consecutive 12-month period. Under CO 250, Gulf must maintain all records to demonstrate compliance, provide sufficient data and all required calculations with the requirements of Section 2105.06 of Article XXI of the ACHD's air pollution control regulations. Record keeping requirements shall include the following: type and annual throughput of VOCs stored and distributed at the facility. All records shall be maintained for at least two years. Under CO 250, Gulf must operate and maintain all process equipment according to good engineering and air pollution control practices.

Penreco is a refinery facility located in Karns City, Pennsylvania. Penreco is a major source of NO X and VOCs. Penreco has three boilers, five furnaces, two flare units, two retort units and presumptive VOC sources. On May 31, 1995, PADEP issued an operating permit (OP-10-027) to establish and impose RACT on Penreco. The OP 10-027 requires RACT for boilers #1, #5 and #6 to be an annual tune-up and testing. The NO X limits must not exceed the following:

The boilers must be tested annually by the portable analyzer. Stack testing may be required in accordance with EPA reference methods, pending the submission of the results from the portable analyzer. Under OP 10-027, the annual capacity factor for the flares shall not exceed 5% (33 MMBtu/hr for the hydrotreater flare and 15 MMBtu/hr for the kerosene/naphtha flare). Under the OP 10-027, all sources subject to SIP-approved presumptive RACT (five furnaces, two flare units, two retort units and presumptive VOC sources) at Penreco must be installed, maintained, and operated in accordance with manufacturers specifications. Under OP 10-027 , Penreco shall comply with the record keeping requirements of 25 PA Code section 129.95. Penreco must properly operate and maintain all processes according to good engineering and air pollution control practices in accordance with applicable PADEP regulations.

Bellefield Boiler Plant (Bellefield) is a steam generation facility located in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Bellefield is a major source of NO X . On December 19, 1996, the ACHD issued an EO (EO 248) to establish and impose RACT on Bellefield. The PADEP submitted EO 248, on behalf of the ACHD, to EPA as a SIP revision. There are seven boilers located at the Bellefield facility. The EO 248 requires that the NO X emissions from the seven boilers not exceed the following:

Under EO 248, Bellefield must not allow the annual average heat input for the natural gas burner in boiler #3 to exceed 64MMBtu/hr or 560,640 MMBtu/yr based on a natural gas heat content of 1,028 Btu/ft 3 . Under EO 248, Bellefield must determine compliance for this condition by maintaining records of natural gas use for the burner. Under EO 248, Bellefield is required to perform emission testing on boilers 1—6 every five years in accordance with applicable EPA approved test methods and Section 2108.02 of Article XXI of the ACHD's air pollution control regulations. Compliance with the above referenced lbs/MMBtu standards for the six boilers must be determined by an average of three one-hour stack tests. Under EO 248, boiler #7 must not operate unless a NO X continuous emission monitoring (CEM) system is in place all times. Boiler #7 must properly operate and maintain the CEM according to 40 CFR, part 60, Db. Under EO 248, Bellefield must maintain all records and testing data to demonstrate compliance with Section 2105.06 of Article XXI of the ACHD's air pollution control regulations. Annual limits must be met on a rolling monthly basis over every consecutive 12 month period. Record keeping requirements must include the following: type and amount of fuel usage per boiler, (tons/day and or MMSCF/day); steam load per boiler, (lbs/day): and operating hours per boiler, (hours/day and days/year). Under EO 248, Bellefield must maintain all records, inspections calibrations and /or replacement of fuel-burning equipment (e.g. replacement of burners, adjustments of flame patterns and/or air-to-fuel ratios). Under EO 248, Bellefield must operate and maintain all equipment according to good engineering and air pollution control practices.

Pennsylvania Department of Corrections (DOC) is a state correctional institution located in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. DOC is a major source of NO X . On January 23, 1997, the ACHD issued an EO (EO 244) to establish and impose RACT on DOC. The PADEP submitted EO 244, on behalf of the ACHD, to EPA as a SIP revision. There are three boilers located at the DOC facility. Under EO 244, boilers #1, #2 and #3 must not operate unless an annual adjustment and/or tuneup is performed on the combustion process. The annual adjustment and/or tuneup must include, but not be limited to: inspection, adjustment, cleaning or replacement of fuel-burning equipment, including burners and moving parts necessary for the proper operation as specified by the manufacturer; inspection of the flame pattern or characteristics and adjustments necessary to minimize total emissions of NO X ; and inspection of the air-to-fuel ratio control system and adjustments necessary to ensure proper calibration and operation as specified by the manufacturer. Under EO 244, the operating records must contain the following: the date of the adjustment procedure; the name of the service company and technicians; the operating rate or load after adjustment; the NO X emission rate after adjustment; and the excess oxygen rate after adjustment. Under EO 244, DOC must maintain all records and testing data to demonstrate compliance with Section 2105.06 of Article XXI of the ACHD's air pollution control regulations. Record keeping requirements must include the following: fuel type and usage for each combustion unit. Under EO 244, DOC must operate and maintain all equipment according to good engineering and air pollution control practices.

Pittsburgh Allegheny County Thermal, Ltd. (PACT) is a steam generation facility located in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. PACT is a major source of NO X . On November 9, 1998, the ACHD issued a Plan Approval and an Agreement Upon Consent Order (CO 265) to establish and impose RACT on PACT. The PADEP submitted CO 265, on behalf of the ACHD, to EPA as a SIP revision. There are four boilers located at the PACT facility. Under CO 265, NO X emissions must not exceed the following:

The annual limits must be met on a rolling monthly basis over every consecutive 12 months. Under EO 265, PACT is restricted to the use of natural gas or No. 2 fuel oil. Under CO 265, PACT must perform NO X emission testing on boilers every two years to demonstrate compliance in accordance with EPA-approved test methods. Under CO 265, PACT must maintain all records and testing data to demonstrate compliance with Section 2105.06 of Article XXI of the ACHD's air pollution control regulations. Record keeping requirements must include the following: production data on a daily basis for each boiler; total fuel consumption and type consumed; amount of fuel usage, (MMBtu/day and/or gallons/day); steam load, (Mlbs/day); and total operating hours, (hours/day) and (hours/year). All records shall be maintained for at least two years. Under CO 265, PACT shall not operate boilers unless all process equipment and O 2 trim equipment are properly operated and maintained according to good engineering practices. Under CO 265, PACT must operate and maintain all equipment according to good engineering and air pollution control practices.

Pittsburgh Thermal Limited Partnership (PTLP) is a steam generation facility located in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. PTLP is a major source of NO X . On March 4, 1996, the ACHD issued CO 220 to establish and impose RACT on PTLP. The PADEP submitted CO 220, on behalf of the ACHD, to EPA as a SIP revision. There are three boilers located at the PTLP facility. Under CO 220, NO X emissions must not exceed the following:

Under CO 220, PTLP shall not operate boilers unless all process equipment and O 2 trim equipment are properly operated and maintained according to good engineering practices. Fuel usage for boilers shall be natural gas only with the exception of emergency conditions and/or natural gas curtailment. Under CO 220, PTLP must perform NO X emission testing on boiler #3 every two years to demonstrate compliance. Testing must be conducted in accordance with applicable EPA approved test methods and Section 2108.02 of Article XXI of the ACHD's air pollution control regulations. Under CO 220, PTLP must maintain all records and testing data to demonstrate compliance with applicable EPA approved test methods and Section 2105.06 of Article XXI of the ACHD's air pollution control regulations. Record keeping requirements must include the following, but not be limited to:

(1) Production data on a daily basis for each boiler including fuel consumption and type consumed, amount of fuel usage (MMBtu/day and/or gallon(s)/day), steam load (Mlbs/day), and (d) total operating hours, (hours/day) and (hours/year); and (2) All operation, maintenance, inspection, calibration and/or replacement of fuel burning equipment (i.e. replacement of burner(s), adjustment of flame pattern and/or air-to-fuel ratio, etc). All records shall be retained for at least two years. Under CO 220, PTLP must operate and maintain all equipment according to good engineering and air pollution control practices.

EPA is approving these SIP revisions because ACHD and PADEP established and imposed these RACT requirements in accordance with the criteria set forth in its SIP-approved RACT regulations applicable to these sources. The Commonwealth has also imposed record-keeping, monitoring, and testing requirements on these 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/or NO X RACT for eight 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 October 5, 2001 without further notice unless EPA receives adverse comment by September 20, 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 eight 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 5, 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 or NO X from eight individual sources in the Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley area of Pennsylvania 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 or 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 21, 1997, July 1, 1997, March 3, 1999, April 9, 1999, and July 5, 2001, 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 eleven of those sources. The RACT determinations for the other sources are, or have been, the subject of separate rulemakings. The Commonwealth's submittals consist of Operating Permits (OPs) issued by PADEP and Plan Approvals and Agreement Upon Consent Orders (COs) issued by the Allegheny County Health Department (ACHD). The PADEP submitted the COs to EPA as SIP revisions on behalf of the ACHD. These OPs 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 OPs 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.

J & L Structural, Inc. is a mill reheat furnace plant in Aliquippa Borough, Pennsylvania. The PADEP issued OP 04-000-467 to impose RACT for the reheat furnace at this source. Under this permit, J & L Structural, Inc.'s Aliquippa's facility was required to shut down the 14″ mill reheat furnace by May 31, 1997. The NO X emissions from this facility were limited to 331 tons per year (tpy) and records were required to clearly demonstrate compliance with this condition. For the purposes of emission credit generation pursuant to 25 PA Code section 127.207(1)(i), RACT for the 14” mill reheat furnace has been determined to be the installation of ultra low-NO X burners with a control efficiency of 49 percent.

J & L Specialty Steel, Inc.'s Midland facility is a steelmaking and finishing process facility located in Midland Boro, Pennsylvania. J & L Specialty Steel, Inc.'s Midland facility is a major source of NO X and VOC. The PADEP issued OP 04-000-013 to impose RACT for the units at this source. Under this permit, J & L Specialty Steel, Inc.'s Midland facility is required to conduct annual tune-ups at the facility on all combustion units with a rated heat capacity between 20 MMBtu/hr and 50 MMBtu/hr. These tune-ups must be conducted in accordance with 25 PA Code section 192.93(b)(2). J & L Specialty Steel, Inc.'s Midland facility is subject to the record keeping requirements of 25 PA Code section 129.95. At each Z-mill at the Midland facility, VOC emissions are limited to 27.6 tpy. The EAF baghouse is limited to VOC emissions of 92 tpy. The Cold Anneal Pickle (CAP) line HNO 3 /HF scrubber is limited to 76 tpy of NO X . The Hot Anneal Pickle (HAP) line HNO 3 scrubber is limited to 41 tpy of NO X . The EAF baghouse is limited to 1270 tpy of NO X . J & L Specialty Steel, Inc.'s Midland facility is required to perform stack testing on the CAP line HNO 3 /HF scrubber, the HAP line HNO 3 scrubber, and the EAF baghouse, to determine the emission rate of NO X as NO 2 . J & L Specialty Steel, Inc.'s Midland facility is required to perform stack testing on each Z-mill and the EAF baghouse to determine the emission rates of VOC. All stack testing shall be performed in accordance with 25 PA Code Chapter 139, and the PADEP's Source Testing Manual. The source is required to submit pre-test protocols to PADEP, to notify PADEP that stack testing will take place (so that an observer may be present), and to provide PADEP with two copies of the stack test results. All annual limits must be met on a rolling monthly basis over every consecutive 12-month period.

LTV Steel Company, Inc., is a coke production facility located in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. LTV Steel Company, Inc., is a major NO X and VOC emitting facility. In this instance, RACT has been established and imposed by the ACHD in CO 259. The PADEP submitted this CO to EPA on behalf of the ACHD as a SIP revision. The ACHD issued CO 259 to impose RACT on subject units at the facility. Under this CO, LTV Steel Company, Inc., is required to maintain and operate the following units in accordance with good engineering and air pollution control practices: (1) Coke batteries P-1, P-2, P-3N, P-3S, and P-4; (2) Babcock and Wilson boilers 1 through 5 (Southside Boilers); (3) Riley boilers 1 through 3; (4) Keeler boilers 4 through 6; (5) Package boiler; and the (6) By-product plant. LTV Steel Company, Inc., is precluded from allowing NO X emissions from Boilers B & W 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 to exceed 0.329 lbs/MMBtu, and 331 tpy. LTV Steel Company, Inc., is also precluded from operating the By-product plant unless the nitrogen gas blanketing system is being properly maintained and operated at all times while the plant process units blanketed by the system are emitting VOCs, with the exception of emergency or planned outages, repairs or maintenance. All VOC emissions processed by the blanketing system shall be incinerated by combustion in the facility's combustion units. LTV Steel Company, Inc., shall determine the compliance of Southside Boilers 1 through 5 by emission testing for NO X every two years. The emission testing shall be conducted according to EPA-approved methods and section 2108.02 of Article XXI of ACHD's regulations. LTV Steel Company, Inc. shall retain all records required by both section 2105.06 of Article XXI, and the CO for at least two years and they shall be made available to the ACHD upon request. LTV Steel Company, Inc. shall maintain all appropriate records to demonstrate compliance with the requirements of section 2105.06 of Article XXI and CO 259. Records shall include fuel type and usage for the units specified above. LTV Steel Company, Inc. is also subject to additional post-RACT requirements to reduce NO X .

Universal Stainless & Alloy Products, Inc., is a specialty steel products facility located in Bridgeville, Pennsylvania. Universal Stainless & Alloy Products, Inc., is a major NO X and VOC emitting facility. In this instance, RACT has been established and imposed by the ACHD in CO 241. The PADEP submitted this CO to EPA on behalf of the ACHD as a SIP revision. The ACHD issued CO 241 to impose RACT on subject equipment at the facility. Under this CO, Universal Stainless & Alloy Products, Inc. is required to maintain and operate the following equipment in accordance with good engineering practice and manufacturer's specifications: (a) the electric arc furnace; (b) the argon-oxygen decarburization vessel; (c) the ladle reheat furnace; (d) the vessel reheat furnace; (e) the ingot reheat furnace; (f) the teeming process; (g) the hot rolling process; (h) Annealing furnaces No. 3 through 11; (i) Reheat furnaces No. 3 through 20; and (j) the Space heaters. Universal Stainless & Alloy Products, Inc., shall retain all records required by both section 2105.06 of Article XXI and this order for at least two years, and they shall be made available to the PADEP upon request. Such records shall provide sufficient data and calculations to clearly demonstrate that all requirements of section 2105.06 of Article XXI and CO 241 are being met. Data and information required to determine compliance shall include, but not be limited to the production and operating records for the electric arc furnace, the AOD vessel, the teeming process, and the hot rolling process. Universal Stainless and Alloy Products, Inc., shall at all times maintain records of fuel type and fuel usage for the facility including certifications from fuel suppliers for all types of liquid fuel. For each shipment of distillate oils number 1 or 2, a certification that the fuel complies with ASTM D396-78 “Standard Specifications for Fuel Oils” is required. For residual oils, minimum record keeping includes a certification from the fuel supplier of the nitrogen content of the fuel, and identification of the sampling method and protocol.

U.S. Steel's Clairton Works is a coke production facility located in Clairton, Pennsylvania. U.S. Steel's Clairton Works facility is a major NO X and VOC emitting facility. In this instance, RACT has been established and imposed by the ACHD in CO 234. The PADEP submitted this CO to EPA on behalf of the ACHD as a SIP revision. The ACHD issued CO 234 to impose RACT on processing equipment at the facility. Under this CO, U.S. Steel's Clairton Works facility is required to maintain and operate the following equipment in accordance with good engineering and air pollution control practices:

The following units at this source are limited to NO X emissions as follows: Boilers No. 1, 2, 13, 14, R1, R2, T1, and T2 have a NO X limit of 0.54 lbs/MMBtu. Boiler No. 1 is subject to a 1,740 tpy NO X limit. Boiler No. 2 is subject to a 1,285 tpy NO X limit. Boilers No. 13 and 14 are subject to a NO X limit of 282 tpy. Boilers No. R1 and R2 are subject to a NO X limit of 525 tpy. Boilers No. T1 and T2 are subject to a NO X limit of 358 tpy. NO X emission testing shall be performed every two years on these units, and conducted according to EPA approved test methods and section 2108.02 of Article XXI. Boilers No. 1 and 2 shall have properly maintained and operated Continuous Monitoring Systems (CEM) or approved alternatives, meeting all the requirements of section 2108.03 of Article XXI at all times with the exception of emergency or planned outages, repairs or maintenance. The NO X emissions limit for Boilers No. 1 and 2 shall be determined by a thirty day rolling average and by a twelve month rolling average of CEM data for the above limits. U. S. Steel's Clairton Works facility shall not operate the By-products plant unless the clean coke oven gas blanketing system is being properly maintained and operated at all times while the plant process units blanketed by the system are emitting VOCs, with the exception of emergency or planned outages, repairs, or maintenance. All VOC emissions processed by the blanketing system shall be incinerated by combustion in the facility's coke batteries or boilers or by downstream consumers. U. S. Steel's Clairton Works facility shall retain all records required by both section 2105.06 of Article XXI and this order for at least two years and they shall be made available to the PADEP upon request. Such records shall provide sufficient data and calculations to clearly demonstrate that all requirements of the above references are being met.

USX Corporation's Edgar Thomson Works is a steel production facility located in Braddock, Pennsylvania. USX Corporation's Edgar Thomson Works is a major NO X and VOC emitting facility. In this instance, RACT has been established and imposed by the ACHD in CO 235. The PADEP submitted this CO to EPA on behalf of the ACHD as a SIP revision. The ACHD issued CO 235 to impose RACT on subject equipment at the facility. Under this CO, USX Corporation's Edgar Thomson facility is required to maintain and operate the following units in accordance with good engineering and air pollution control practices at all times:

The following units at this source are limited to NO X emissions as follows: Boilers No. 1, 2, and 3 are limited to 0.55lbs/MMBtu, and 800 tpy of NO X . The facility shall not exceed an annual natural gas capacity factor of 78.4 percent at each of these boilers. These boilers must also have properly maintained and operated CEM, meeting all requirements of section 2108.03 of Article XXI. The NO X emission limits specified above shall be determined by a thirty day rolling average and by a twelve month rolling average of CEM data. USX Corporation's Edgar Thomson facility shall retain all records required by both section 2105.06 of Article XXI and this order for at least two years and they shall be made available to the PADEP upon request. Such records shall provide sufficient data and calculations to clearly demonstrate that all requirements of the above references are being met.

USX Corporation's Irvin Works is a steel processing facility located in West Mifflin, Pennsylvania. USX Corporation's Irvin Works facility is a major NO X and VOC emitting facility. In this instance, RACT has been established and imposed by the ACHD in CO 258. The PADEP submitted this CO to EPA on behalf of the ACHD as a SIP revision. The ACHD issued CO 258 to impose RACT on subject equipment at the facility. Under this CO, U.S. Steel's Irvin Works facility is required to maintain and operate the following units in accordance with good combustion and air pollution control practices at all times, with the exception of emergency or planned outages, repairs or maintenance:

USX Corporation's Irvin Works facility is required to conduct an annual adjustment at the Irvin Works on the combustion processes of the following equipment: 80″ Hot Strip Mill Reheat Furnaces 1 through 5; Boilers No. 1, 2, 3, and 4; and No. 2 Continuous Annealing Furnace.

Such annual adjustment shall include: (1) Inspection, adjustment, cleaning, or necessary replacement of fuel-burning equipment, including the burners and moving parts necessary for proper operation as specified by the manufacturer; (2) Inspection of the flame pattern or characteristics and adjustments necessary to minimize total emissions of NO X ; and (3) Inspection of the air-to-fuel ratio control system and adjustments necessary to ensure proper calibration and operation as specified by the manufacturer. USX Corporation's Irvin Works facility shall maintain the following records for the subject equipment: (1) The date of the annual tune-up; (2) The name of the service company and/or individuals performing the annual tune-up; (3) The operating rate or load after the annual tune-up; (4) The NO X emission rate after the annual tune-up. USX Corporation's Irvin Works facility shall operate the No. 3 Five Stand Cold Rolling Mill and the 80″ Hot Strip Mill Rolling Stand with lubricating oil, which is an oil-water emulsion and does not exceed a maximum VOC content by weight, of 2 percent and 4 percent, respectively. USX Corporation's Irvin Works facility shall retain all records required by both section 2105.06 of Article XXI and this order for at least two years and they shall be made available to the ACHD upon request. Such records shall provide sufficient data and calculations to clearly demonstrate that all requirements of the above references are being met.

Washington Steel Corporation is a facility located in Washington City, Pennsylvania. Washington Steel Corporation's Washington plant is a major NO X emitting facility. The PADEP issued OP 63-000-023 to impose RACT for the four preheat and four equalizing furnaces in accordance with the manufacturer's specifications, in accordance with 25 PA Code section 129.93. Further, all sources and air cleaning devices at the facility shall be operated and maintained in accordance with good air pollution control practices. Washington Steel is precluded from exceeding 217 tpy of NO X at this facility. Emission reductions of the targeted contaminants below the levels specified in the source's permit, which were achieved by optimizing the effectiveness of equipment are not surplus reductions and shall not be used to generate emission reduction credits. In order for the emission reductions to be credible, the emission reductions must satisfy the requirements of 25 PA Code section 127, Subchapter E.

Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel Corporation is a facility located in Allenport Borough, Pennsylvania. Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel Corporation's Allenport plant is a major NO X emitting facility. The PADEP issued OP 63-000-066 to impose RACT on the operation of two combination natural gas/oil fired boilers rated at 60.5 MMBtu/hr (retrofitted with low-NO X Burners/Flue Gas Recirculating) and the application of presumptive RACT for the 104 ancillary sources at this plant. Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel Corporation's Allenport plant is required to maintain records in accordance with the requirements of 25 PA Code section 129.95. At a minimum, the following records shall be kept at the facility: monthly diesel consumption, monthly natural gas consumption, and material throughput. These records shall be maintained on file for not less than two years, and shall be made available to PADEP upon request. Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel Corporation shall limit NO X emissions from each boiler at its Allenport plant to 2.0 lbs/hr, and 8.7 tpy when natural gas is used as the fuel. The NO X limit from each boiler shall be limited to 6.7 lbs/hr, and 29.4 tpy when diesel is used as the fuel. For one of the two boilers, if operated over 750 hours annually (combined), a minimum of one stack test in accordance with 25 PA Chapter 139 and the PADEP Source Testing Manual shall be performed at a maximum normal operating condition, to verify the emission rate for NO X . One of the two boilers, if operated over 750 hours annually (combined) shall also be stack tested annually at the normal operating condition and at the fuel condition used for the majority of the time during the past twelve months (either natural gas or diesel fuel) to verify the emission rate for NO X , either through and EPA method stack test, or through the use of portable monitors. Because the two boilers are identical, testing requirements for the stand-by boiler (at the time of testing) shall be waived. For those tests utilizing portable analyzers, the source shall submit a complete operating procedure, including calibration, QA/QC, and emission calculation methods to the PADEP. The accuracy of the portable analyzer shall be verified by operation and recording of readings during an EPA method stack test. This information shall be retained by the source at the test location and provided annually with the emission statement and at other times as requested by the PADEP. Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel Corporation's Allenport plant is required to submit pretest protocols 60 days prior to testing, to notify the PADEP at least two weeks prior to stack testing (so that an observer may be present), and to submit a stack test report to PADEP within 60 days of testing.

Koppers is a coke plant facility located in Monessen, Pennsylvania. Koppers is a major NO X and VOC emitting facility. The PADEP issued OP 65-000-853 to impose RACT on the sources at Koppers' Monessen Coke Works. Koppers' Monessen plant is required to operate and maintain all sources and air cleaning devices in accordance with good air pollution control practices, in accordance with 25 PA Code section 127.441. In addition, all sources and air cleaning devices must be operated and maintained in accordance with the manufacturer's specifications, guidelines and procedures, pursuant to 25 PA Code 127.441. In addition, NO X limits are imposed at the sources at Koppers' Monessen Coke Works as follows with annual limits set based upon any consecutive twelve month period:

VOC limits are imposed at the sources at Koppers' Monessen Coke Works as follows with annual limits set based upon any consecutive twelve month period:

Koppers' Monessen Coke plant is required to verify compliance with the above limits for the coke battery underfire and coke pushing emissions through annual stack testing. Pursuant to 25 PA Code 139.2, all stack testing shall be performed in accordance with 25 PA Code Chapter 139 regulations, and the PADEP Source Testing Manual. Koppers' Monessen Coke plant is required to submit a pre-test protocol to PADEP at least 60 days in advance of testing, to notify PADEP at least two weeks prior to the date of the testing (so that an observer may be present), and to submit two copies of the stack test results to PADEP within 60 days of the testing. Emission reductions of the targeted contaminants below the levels specified in the source's permit, which were achieved by optimizing the effectiveness of equipment, are not surplus reductions and shall not be used to generate emission reduction credits. In order for the emission reductions to be credible, the emission reductions must satisfy the requirements of 25 PA Code Section 127, Subchapter E. Koppers' Monessen Coke plant is required to keep records to demonstrate compliance with the limits specified above, in accordance with 25 PA Code section 129.95. The records shall provide sufficient data and calculations to clearly demonstrate compliance with the requirements specified above. Data and information required to determine compliance shall be recorded and maintained in a time frame consistent with averaging periods to verify compliance. These records shall be retained for at least two years, and made available to PADEP upon request.

Shenango Inc., is a coke production facility located in Neville Township, Pennsylvania. Shenango, Inc., is a major NO X and VOC emitting facility. In this instance, RACT has been established and imposed by the ACHD in CO 233. The PADEP submitted this CO to EPA on behalf of the ACHD as a SIP revision. The ACHD issued CO 233 to impose RACT on subject units at the Neville Township facility. Shenango is required to operate and maintain the following units in accordance with good engineering and air pollution control practices:

Shenango's Neville Township facility is required to properly operate and maintain the existing nitrogen gas blanketing system treating emissions from the following equipment, while the subject equipment is emitting VOC's: (1) Tar Decanter Tanks A & B; (2) Tar Dewatering Tanks A & B; (3) Tar Storage Tanks A & B; (4) Flushing Liquor Recirculating Tanks A & B; (5) Flushing Liquor Overflow Tanks A & B; (6) Wash Oil Recirculating Hot Decanter, Cold Oil Decanter, Purifier and the Hot and Cold Muck Tanks; and (7) Light Oil Process Separator, Light Oil Process Interceptor Sump and Light Oil Process Tanks A & B. The NO X emissions from Boilers No. 7, 8, 9, and 10 shall be limited as follows: Boilers No. 7 and 8 have NO X emission limits of 0.18 lbs/MMBtu, and 92 tpy. Boilers No. 9 and 10 have NO X emission limits of 0.18 lbs/MMBtu, and 281 tpy and 373 tpy, respectively. Shenango shall test for compliance with the above limits every two years, using EPA approved test methods and section 2108.2 of Article XXI. The natural gas capacity factor for Boilers No. 7 and 8 is 52 percent. The natural gas capacity factor for Boiler No. 9 is 44.5 percent. The natural gas capacity factor for Boiler No. 10 is 17.9 percent. Shenango's Neville Township facility shall not exceed a 30 percent annual capacity factor, based on annual heat input for a calendar year, for Boilers No. 9 and 10. Shenango, Inc. shall maintain all appropriate records to demonstrate compliance with the requirements of 2105.06 of Article XXI and the CO, for at least two years, and they shall be made available to PADEP upon request. Such records shall provide sufficient data to clearly demonstrate that all such requirements are met, as described above. Shenango's Neville Township facility is also subject to additional post-RACT requirements to reduce NO X .

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. The ACHD and PADEP have also imposed record-keeping, monitoring, and testing requirements on these 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 eleven major 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 October 5, 2001 without further notice unless EPA receives adverse comment by September 20, 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. If that provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.

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 eleven 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 22, 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 eleven individual steel/coke manufacturing sources in Pennsylvania may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. ( See section 307(b)(2).)

On May 29, 2001 (66 FR 29064), EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR) for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The NPR proposed approval of the Pennsylvania NO X Budget Trading Program. The formal SIP revision was submitted by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) on October 30, 2000 and April 4, 2001. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania submitted a revision to its SIP to address the requirements of the NO X SIP Call Phase I. Pennsylvania's SIP revision to address the requirements of the NO X SIP Call Phase I consists of the addition of Chapter 145—Interstate Pollution Transport Reduction (sections 145.1 through 145.90, inclusive) as well as amendments and additions to Chapter 123—Standards for Contaminants. A detailed description of this SIP revision and EPA's rationale for approving it was provided in the May 29, 2001 NPR and will not be restated here. Two letters of comment were submitted on EPA's proposal. The comments do not oppose EPA's proposed action to approve Pennsylvania's regulations, but rather asked that EPA clarify whether or not section 145.100 of 25 PA Code Chapter 145—Interstate Pollution Transport Reduction was being made part of the SIP. A summary of the comments and EPA's response is provided in Section II, below.

Comment: Two letters of comment were submitted requesting that EPA clarify that its approval of 25 PA Code Chapter 145—Interstate Pollution Transport Reduction does not include section 145.100 of that regulation. The commenters stated that while they could infer from reading the May 29, 2001 NPR that Section 145.100 was not included in the SIP revision, they urged EPA to state explicitly in its final rulemaking that Section 145.100 was not being approved as a revision to the Pennsylvania SIP.

Response: Pennsylvania's submittal to EPA requesting that its NO X Budget Trading Program be approved as a SIP revision did not include Section 145.100 of 25 PA Code Chapter 145—Interstate Pollution Transport Reduction. Therefore, EPA is neither approving section 145.100 nor incorporating it into the Pennsylvania SIP.

EPA is approving SIP revisions as submitted by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania on October 30, 2000 and April 4, 2001. These SIP revisions consist of the Commonwealth's NO X Budget Trading Program to satisfy the requirements of the NO X SIP Call Phase I. Pennsylvania's SIP revisions to address the requirements of the NO X SIP Call Phase I consist of the addition of Chapter 145—Interstate Pollution Transport Reduction (sections 145.1 through 145.90, inclusive) as well as amendments and additions to Chapter 123—Standards for Contaminants. The Commonwealth's SIP revision request does not include section 145.100 of 25 PA Code Chapter 145—Interstate Pollution Transport Reduction.

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” (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 . This rule 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 22, 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 Pennsylvania NO X Budget Trading Program may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. ( See section 307(b)(2).)

On August 13, 2001 (66 FR 42418), EPA published a direct final rulemaking action announcing EPA's approval of VOC and NO X RACT determinations for eight individual sources in the Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley Area. In the preamble of this document, EPA inadvertently stated that these eight sources (Consolidated Natural Gas Transmission Corporation-South Oakford Station, Consolidated Natural Gas Transmission Corporation-Tonkin Station, Carnegie Natural Gas Company-Creighton Station, Consolidated Natural Gas Transmission Corporation-Beaver Station, Consolidated Natural Gas Transmission Corporation-Jeannette Station, Consolidated Natural Gas Transmission Corporation-South Bend Station, Consolidated Natural Gas Transmission Corporation-Oakford Station, and Texas Eastern Transmission Corporation-Uniontown Station) were subject to additional post-RACT requirements to reduce NO X found at 25 PA Code Chapters 121, 123 and 145. This action removes the erroneous language from the preamble.

In rule document 01-20378, beginning on page 42418 in the issue of Monday, August 13, 2001, make the following corrections:

1. On page 42420, third column, remove the last sentence of the second paragraph.

2. On page 42421, first column, remove the last sentence of the fourth paragraph.

3. On page 42421, second column, remove the last sentence of the third paragraph.

4. On page 42422, first column, remove the last sentence of the second paragraph.

5. On page 42422, second column, remove the last sentence of the second paragraph.

6. On page 42423, first column, remove the last sentence of the second paragraph.

7. On page 42423, third column, remove the last sentence of the second paragraph.

8. On page 42424, second column, remove the last sentence of the first paragraph.

Section 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), provides that, when an agency for good cause finds that notice and public procedure are impracticable, unnecessary or contrary to the public interest, the agency may issue a rule without providing notice and an opportunity for public comment. We have determined that there is good cause for making today's rule final without prior proposal and opportunity for comment because we are merely correcting an incorrect citation in a previous action. Thus, notice and public procedure are unnecessary. We find that this constitutes good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B).

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. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)). Because the agency has made a “good cause” finding that this action is not subject to notice-and-comment requirements under the Administrative Procedures Act or any other statute as indicated in the Supplementary Information section above, it is not subject to the regulatory flexibility provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C 601 et seq ), or to sections 202 and 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Public Law 104-4). In addition, this action does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments or impose a significant intergovernmental mandate, as described in sections 203 and 204 of UMRA. 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 governments, as specified by Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant. This technical correction action does not involve technical standards; 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. The rule also does not involve special consideration of environmental justice related issues as required by Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 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, as required by section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996). EPA has complied with Executive Order 12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1998) 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 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 808 allows the issuing agency to make a rule effective sooner than otherwise provided by the CRA if the agency makes 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 had made such a good cause finding, including the reasons therefore, and established an effective date of September 27, 2001. 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 . This correction to rule document 01-20378 for Pennsylvania is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

On August 10, 2001 (66 FR 42136), EPA published a direct final rulemaking action announcing EPA's approval of VOC and NO X RACT determinations for four individual sources in the Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley Area. In the preamble of this document, EPA inadvertently stated that three sources (Ashland Chemical Corporation, Hercules Incorporated, and Neville Chemical Company) were subject to additional post-RACT requirements to reduce NO X found at 25 PA Code Chapters 121, 123 and 145. This action removes the erroneous language from the preamble.

In rule document 01-20241 beginning on page 42136 in the issue of Friday, August 10, 2001, make the following corrections:

1. On page 42138, first column, remove the last sentence of the first paragraph.

2. On page 42138, second column, remove the last sentence of the first paragraph.

3. On page 42139, second column, remove the last sentence of the first paragraph.

Section 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), provides that, when an agency for good cause finds that notice and public procedure are impracticable, unnecessary or contrary to the public interest, the agency may issue a rule without providing notice and an opportunity for public comment. We have determined that there is good cause for making today's rule final without prior proposal and opportunity for comment because we are merely correcting an incorrect citation in a previous action. Thus, notice and public procedure are unnecessary. We find that this constitutes good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B).

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. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). Because the agency has made a “good cause” finding that this action is not subject to notice-and-comment requirements under the Administrative Procedures Act or any other statute as indicated in the Supplementary Information section above, it is not subject to the regulatory flexibility provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C 601 et seq.), or to sections 202 and 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Pub. L. 104-4). In addition, this action does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments or impose a significant intergovernmental mandate, as described in sections 203 and 204 of UMRA. 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 governments, as specified by Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant. This technical correction action does not involve technical standards; 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. The rule also does not involve special consideration of environmental justice related issues as required by Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 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, as required by section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996). EPA has complied with Executive Order 12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1998) 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 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 808 allows the issuing agency to make a rule effective sooner than otherwise provided by the CRA if the agency makes 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 had made such a good cause finding, including the reasons therefore, and established an effective date of September 24, 2001. 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 . This correction to rule document 01-20241 for Pennsylvania is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

States which have received final authorization from EPA under RCRA section 3006(b), 42 U.S.C. 6926(b), must maintain a hazardous waste program that is equivalent to, consistent with, and no less stringent than the Federal program. As the Federal program changes, States must change their programs and ask EPA to authorize the changes. Changes to State programs may be necessary when Federal or State statutory or regulatory authority is modified or when certain other changes occur. Most commonly, States must change their programs because of changes to EPA's regulations in 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) parts 124, 260 through 266, 268, 270, 273 and 279.

We conclude that South Carolina's applications to revise its authorized program meet all of the statutory and regulatory requirements established by RCRA. Therefore, we grant South Carolina Final authorization to operate its hazardous waste program with the changes described in the authorization applications. South Carolina has responsibility for permitting Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (TSDFs) within its borders (except in Indian Country) and for carrying out the aspects of the RCRA program described in its revised program applications, subject to the limitations of the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA). New federal requirements and prohibitions imposed by Federal regulations that EPA promulgates under the authority of HSWA take effect in authorized States before they are authorized for the requirements. Thus, EPA will implement those requirements and prohibitions in South Carolina, including issuing permits, until the State is granted authorization to do so.

The effect of this decision is that a facility in South Carolina subject to RCRA will now have to comply with the authorized State requirements instead of the equivalent federal requirements in order to comply with RCRA. South Carolina has enforcement responsibilities under its state hazardous waste program for violations of such program, but EPA retains its authority under RCRA sections 3007, 3008, 3013, and 7003, which include, among others, authority to:

• Do inspections, and require monitoring, tests, analyses or reports;

• Enforce RCRA requirements and suspend or revoke permits;

• Take enforcement actions regardless of whether the State has taken its own actions.

This action does not impose additional requirements on the regulated community because the regulations for which South Carolina is being authorized by today's action are already effective, and are not changed by today's action.

EPA did not publish a proposal before today's rule because we view this as a routine program change and do not expect comments that oppose this approval. We are providing an opportunity for public comment now. In addition to this rule, in the proposed rules section of today's Federal Register we are publishing a separate document that proposes to authorize the state program changes.

If EPA receives comments that oppose this authorization, we will withdraw this rule by publishing a document in the Federal Register before the rule becomes effective. EPA will base any further decision on the authorization of the state program changes on the proposal mentioned in the previous paragraph. We will then address all public comments in a later final rule. You may not have another opportunity to comment. If you want to comment on this authorization, you must do so at this time.

If we receive comments that oppose only the authorization of a particular change to the State hazardous waste program, we will withdraw that part of this rule but the authorization of the program changes that the comments do not oppose will become effective on the date specified above. The Federal Register withdrawal document will specify which part of the authorization will become effective, and which part is being withdrawn.

South Carolina initially received Final authorization on November 8, 1985, effective November 22, 1985 (50 FR 46437) to implement the RCRA hazardous waste management program. We granted authorization for changes to their program on September 8, 1988, effective November 7, 1988 (53 FR 34758), February 10, 1993, effective April 12, 1993 (58 FR 7865), November 29, 1994, effective January 30, 1995, April 26, 1996, effective June 25, 1996 (61 FR 18502), and October 4, 2000, effective December 4, 2000 (65 FR 59135).

On July 15, 1999, South Carolina submitted final complete program revision applications, seeking authorization of their changes in accordance with 40 CFR 271.21. We now make an immediate final decision, subject to receipt of written comments that oppose this action, that South Carolina's hazardous waste program revision satisfies all of the requirements necessary to qualify for Final authorization. Therefore, we grant South Carolina Final authorization for the following program changes:

South Carolina has incorporated the Federal hazardous waste export provisions at 40 CFR part 262, Subparts E and H into its regulations at R.61-79.262. Subparts E and H requirements will be administered by EPA because the exercise of foreign relations and international commerce powers is reserved to the Federal government under the Constitution. South Carolina was encouraged to adopt these regulations for the convenience of the regulated community.

South Carolina will issue permits for all the provisions for which it is authorized and will administer the permits it issues. EPA will continue to administer any RCRA hazardous waste permits or portions of permits which we issued prior to the effective date of this authorization. At the time the State Program is approved in the new areas, EPA will suspend issuance of Federal permits in the State and terminate those Federal permits issued pursuant to 40 CFR § § 124.5 and 271.8 upon effectiveness of equivalent state permit conditions and South Carolina's compliance with 271.13(d). EPA will also transfer any pending permit applications, completed permits, or pertinent file information to the State within thirty (30) days of the approval of the State Program in conformance with the conditions of this agreement. We will not issue any more new permits or new portions of permits for the provisions listed in the Table above after the effective date of this authorization. EPA will continue to implement and issue permits for HSWA requirements for which South Carolina is not yet authorized.

South Carolina has not requested authorization to carry out its hazardous waste program in Indian Country within the State, which includes the Catawba Indian Nation, and therefore is not authorized to carry out its hazardous waste program in Indian Country within the State. As a result, this action has no effect on Indian Country. EPA will continue to implement and administer the RCRA program in these lands.

Codification is the process of placing the State's statutes and regulations that comprise the State's authorized hazardous waste program into the Code of Federal Regulations. We do this by referencing the authorized State rules in 40 CFR part 272. We reserve the amendment of 40 CFR part 272, subpart PP for this authorization of South Carolina's program until a later date.

The Office of Management and Budget has exempted this action from the requirements of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), and therefore this action is not subject to review by OMB. This action authorizes State requirements for the purpose of RCRA 3006 and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by State law. Accordingly, I certify that this action 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 action authorizes 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). For the same reason, this action does not have tribal implications within the meaning of Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000). It does not have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the relationship between the Federal government and the Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal government and Indian tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175. This action 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 131,132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), because it merely authorizes State requirements as part of the State RCRA hazardous waste program without altering the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established by RCRA. This action also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant and it does not make decisions based on environmental health or safety risks. This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)) because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

Under RCRA 3006(b), EPA grants a State's application for authorization as long as the State meets the criteria required by RCRA. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a State authorization, to require the use of any particular voluntary consensus standard in place of another standard that otherwise satisfies the requirements of RCRA. 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 F.R. 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 F.R. 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 document 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 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). This action will be effective October 22, 2001.

EPA Region II announces the deletion of the V&M/Albaladejo Superfund Site from the NPL. The EPA maintains the NPL as the list of those sites that appear to present a significant risk to public health or the environment. Sites on the NPL can have remedial actions financed by the Hazardous Substances Superfund Response Trust Fund. As described in Section 300.425(e)(3) of the NCP, a site deleted from the NPL remains eligible for remedial actions if conditions at the site warrant such action.

EPA considers this action to be noncontroversial and routine, and therefore, EPA is taking it without prior publication of a Notice of Intent to Delete. This action will be effective October 22, 2001 unless EPA receives significant adverse comments by September 20, 2001 on this action. If significant adverse comments are received within the 30-day public comment period of this action, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of this Direct Final Deletion before the effective date of the deletion and the deletion will not take effect. EPA will, if appropriate, prepare a response to comments and continue with the deletion process on the basis of the Notice Intent to Delete and the comments already received. There will be no additional opportunity to comment.

Section II explains the criteria for deleting sites from the NPL. Section III discusses procedures that EPA is using for this action. Section IV discusses the V&M/Albaladejo Superfund Site and demonstrates how it meets the deletion criteria.

Section 300.425(e) of the NCP provides that Sites may be deleted from the NPL where no further response is appropriate. In making this determination, EPA, in consultation with the Commonwealth, shall consider whether any of the following criteria have been met:

i. Responsible parties or other parties have implemented all appropriate response actions required; or,

ii. All appropriate Fund-financed responses under CERCLA have been implemented, and no further action by responsible parties is appropriate; or

iii. The remedial investigation has shown that the release poses no significant threat to public health or the environment and, therefore, implementing remedial measures is not appropriate.

EPA will not conduct any further reviews of this Site because EPA believes that this Site is suitable for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure. If new information becomes available which indicates a need for further action, EPA may initiate such actions based upon § 300.425(e)(3) of the NCP.

The following procedures apply to deletion of the Site.

(1) From January 1998 to June 1998, EPA conducted a removal action at the Site.

(2) EPA conducted confirmatory sampling and a remedial investigation to determine the extent of the contamination of soil and groundwater at the Site.

(3) On September 29, 2000, EPA issued a Record of Decision which selected a no further action remedy for the Site. EPA also issued a Final Close Out report on September 29, 2000 which summarized the actions taken at the Site.

(4) The EPA consulted with the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico Environmental Quality Board on the deletion of the Site from the NPL prior to developing this Direct Final Deletion.

(5) The Commonwealth of Puerto Rico concurred with the deletion of the Site from the NPL on November 3, 2000.

(6) Concurrently with the publication of this Direct Final Deletion, a parallel Notice of Intent to Delete has been published today in the Notice section of the Federal Register . Notices are also being published in local newspapers and appropriate notice is being provided to federal, state, and local government officials and other interested parties.

(7) The EPA placed copies of documents supporting the deletion in the Site information repositories identified above.

(8) If no significant adverse comments are received, the Site will be deleted. If significant adverse comments are received within the 30-day public comment period on this action or the Notice of Intent to Delete published in today's Federal Register , EPA will publish a timely notice of withdrawal of this Direct Final Deletion before its effective date. EPA will prepare, if appropriate, a response to comments and continue with the deletion process on the basis of the notice of Intent to Delete and the comments already received.

Deletion of a site from the NPL does not itself create, alter, or revoke any individual's rights or obligations. Deletion of a site from the NPL does not in any way alter EPA's right to take enforcement actions, as appropriate. The NPL is designed primarily for informational purposes and to assist EPA management.

The V&M/Albaladejo Site is located off State Road No. 160, Kilometer 4.2 in the Almirante Norte Ward of the municipality of Vega Baja, Puerto Rico. It is reached via a dirt road extending about one mile west from Route 160. The exact Site acreage is unknown but generally consists of two farms, the V&M property and the Albaladejo Farm. The area is rural and characterized by rugged, heavily-vegetated, hilly terrain with small farms located in the valleys. The region is sparsely populated within a one-mile radius of the Site. Fewer than 100 residents are estimated to live within one-quarter mile of the Site.

The Site was used for burning and/or dumping of plastic-coated electric cables, electrical equipment, and car batteries. Wire and other materials were burned to recover the copper, aluminum, and lead contained therein. No containment (i.e., berm, liner) system is known to have been used nor has any been observed. It is not known when the burning activity began at the Site. One of the farm owners reported that trucks had been entering the Site carrying wastes since 1985. Burning reportedly ceased on the V&M property in 1986 when it was purchased by its current owner, but continued on the Albaladejo Farm into 1988. The total quantity of waste disposed and burned at the Site is unknown. Four historical waste disposal/burn areas were identified.

In August 1988, the Puerto Rico Environmental Quality Board (EQB) conducted a preliminary assessment at the Site. In January 1989, EPA conducted a site investigation which found elevated levels of copper and antimony in surface soil samples at the Site.

In June 1996, the V&M Site was proposed to the National Priorities List (NPL), with the final listing on December 26, 1996.

A time-critical removal action was conducted from January through June 1998. Based on previous sampling information, contaminated soils were excavated from the four zones. In total, approximately 5,565 cubic yards of contaminated soils were excavated, stockpiled, and stabilized on-Site in a designated area prior to their removal and proper off-Site disposal. The removal action was completed in June 1998.

Confirmatory testing of burn area soils after the excavation of contaminated soils indicated that the concentrations of lead generally had been reduced to below an average concentration of 400 ppm, a level EPA has determined to be protective of children in a residential environment.

Between March and November, 1998, EPA collected four rounds of groundwater samples from six on-Site monitoring wells during the Remedial Investigation (RI) for the V&M Site. Results indicated a decrease in detection of inorganic analytes in the groundwater, coinciding with the completion of the soil removal action. The decrease in levels of inorganics indicated the successful removal of contaminated soil, the source of groundwater contamination. Round 4 sample results were all below drinking water standards.

On September 29, 2000, EPA issued a Record of Decision, selecting No Further Action as the remedy for the Site. It was determined that site-related groundwater contamination does not pose a significant threat to human health or the environment; therefore, remediation is not necessary.

The EPA, with concurrence of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, has determined that all appropriate responses under CERCLA have been completed, and that no further response actions under CERCLA are necessary. Therefore, EPA is deleting the Site from the NPL.

The Service published a document in the Federal Register of June 14, 2001, (66 FR 32250) that inadvertently omitted the “When Listed” numbers in the table of species information provided in the rule. This correction amends the table to include the previously missing “When Listed” numbers.

The number 709 represents the “When Listed” number for each of the 16 Federally listed freshwater mussel species and the 1 Federally listed freshwater snail species. The “When Listed” numbers correspond to footnotes at the end of 50 CFR 17.11 and 17.12 that indicate the date and Federal Register citation of when animal and plant species were added to the “List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife.”

In rule FR Doc. 01-14878 published on June 14, 2001, (66 FR 32250) make the following corrections. On page 32258 through page 32263, the series of periods (........) found in the “When Listed” column (column 5) of the species information table should be removed and replaced with the number 709.