Under the Federal Register Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 15), the Administrative Committee of the Federal Register is responsible for establishing the prices charged for Federal Register publications. Federal Register publications are sold and distributed to the public by the Government Printing Office's (GPO) Superintendent of Documents. The Administrative Committee periodically reviews data submitted by the Superintendent of Documents to determine whether subscription rates and single copy prices of Federal Register publications produce sufficient revenue to keep pace with GPO's printing, handling and distribution costs, as well as postal rate increases. GPO receives no appropriation for any of the costs associated with producing Federal Register publications. Sales revenue supports the costs of the sales program.

In January 2001, the Administrative Committee reviewed data submitted by the Government Printing Office (GPO). The data indicates that sales revenue is insufficient to cover the program costs of certain Federal Register publications. The shortfall in sales revenue is attributable to declining paper subscriptions, increases in GPO employee pay scales and benefits, higher paper prices, and a 12.7 percent increase in postal rates in 2001. Although GPO has taken aggressive measures to achieve savings in its sales program, such as reducing full time equivalent employee costs by 29 percent since 1994, a number of other factors have combined to make it necessary to raise the price of paper publications. Part of the increased program costs can be attributed to a rise in the number of pages printed per subscription. The number of pages printed for each subscription to the Federal Register has increased by more than 10 percent since 1997 (66,934 pages in 1997 as compared with 77,234 pages in 2000). A sharp decline in the number of paid subscriptions has also contributed to the need for price increases. Since 1994, when the Administrative Committee began providing online access to the Federal Register, subscriptions have fallen by 73 percent. The decline in paper subscription revenue far exceeds the savings realized from reduced production costs. As a result, handling costs must be allocated over a much smaller base of orders, forcing increases in the prices of paper publications.

Based on this information, the Administrative Committee determined that it should propose price increases for certain publications to more accurately reflect the current costs of production and distribution. The Administrative Committee published a proposed rule on price changes for Federal Register publications on June 6, 2001 at 66 FR 30340. The proposed pricing schedule took into account the actual production, handling and distribution costs for paper publications over the past year and projected costs for the remainder of 2001. In this final rule, the Administrative Committee adopts without change the new subscription rates and single copy prices as set out in the proposed rule.

The price changes issued in the final rule are reflected in amendments to 1 CFR part 11. The following rates will be effective September 24, 2001. The annual subscription rate for the daily Federal Register paper edition increases from $638 to $699. For a combined Federal Register, Federal Register Index and LSA (List of CFR Sections Affected) subscription, the rate increases from $697 to $764. The price of a single copy of the daily Federal Register paper edition increases from $9 to $10. The annual subscription rate for the microfiche edition of the Federal Register, which includes the Federal Register Index and LSA, increases from $253 to $264. The annual subscription price for the Federal Register Index increases from $28 to $30. The annual subscription price for the monthly LSA increases from $31 to $35. The annual subscription rate for a full set of the CFR paper edition increases from $1094 to $1195. The annual subscription rate for the microfiche edition of the CFR increases from $290 to $298. The annual subscription rates for the Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents increase from $92 to $103 for delivery by non-priority mail and from $151 to $169 for delivery by first-class mail.

The changes to subscription rates for the paper editions amount to a 9.6 percent increase in the price of the Federal Register, a 9.2 percent increase in the price of the CFR, and a 12 percent increase in the price of the Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents. The single copy prices for the Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents and the microfiche editions of the daily Federal Register and CFR will not change.

In the proposed rule, the Administrative Committee acknowledged that subscribers who prefer the convenience of having the paper editions of Federal Register publications delivered to their places of business would incur additional expenses. However, the Committee also stated that individuals and small businesses would not be substantially affected because of the free access that is provided to the online editions on GPO Access and to the paper editions at Federal Depository libraries.

One person submitted a comment on the proposed rule. The commenter stated that the price increases did not adversely affect her ability to access Federal rules and policies. The commenter has relied on obtaining free access through a Depository library in the past and now uses the free online edition of the Federal Register on GPO Access. The commenter noted that having ready access to the online edition saves her the cost of driving at least 640 miles per year to a Depository library to do research and make photocopies.

Use of online Federal Register publications on the GPO Access service (http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara) has expanded rapidly since free service was introduced in late 1995. Information retrievals from the online edition of the Federal Register grew from just under 15 million documents in calendar year 1996 to over 61 million documents downloaded in calendar year 2000. Over the same period, information retrievals from the online edition of the CFR grew from about 725,000 documents to more than 93 million documents downloaded. The success of the online publications demonstrates that the Administrative Committee is fulfilling its mission to provide the public with essential information on the functions, actions, and regulatory requirements of the Federal government. At the same time, the Administrative Committee is constantly engaged in efforts to improve the quality of our online publications, including investments in new technology applications that will enhance e-government services to the public. In addition, GPO recently took new steps to significantly increase server capacity to meet the growing demand for online access to Federal Register publications. For members of the public who prefer to read the printed editions, GPO continues to provide free access to Federal Register publications at Federal Depository libraries located throughout the nation under funding provided by Congress.

This rule has been drafted in accordance with Executive Order 12866, section 1(b), “Principles of Regulation.” The Administrative Committee consulted with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and determined that the rule does not meet the criteria for a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. The annualized cost of the rule will be far less than $100 million and it does not meet any of the other criteria of section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. Therefore, this final rule is not subject to OMB review.

The Administrative Committee has determined that the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., does not apply to rate increases necessary to recover the costs to the Government for printing and distributing Federal Register publications. This rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities since it imposes no substantive requirements, and any increased costs can be avoided by accessing Federal Register publications through the free GPO Access service on the Internet or at a Federal depository library. Therefore, a regulatory flexibility analysis as provided in the Regulatory Flexibility Act, as amended, is not required.

This rule has no Federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. It does not impose compliance costs on State or local governments or preempt State law.

This rule is not a major rule as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). The Administrative Committee will submit a rule report, including a copy of this final rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States as required under the congressional review provisions of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1986.

The annual subscription price for the monthly LSA (List of CFR Sections Affected), purchased separately, in paper form, is $35.

Listed below is a complete edition of the Board's Foreign List. The Foreign List was last published on February 22, 2001 (66 FR 11101), and became effective March 1, 2001.

The Foreign List is composed of foreign equity securities that qualify as margin securities under Regulation T by meeting the requirements of § 220.11(c) and (d). Additional foreign securities qualify as margin securities if they are deemed by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to have a “ready market” under SEC Rule 15c3-1 (17 CFR 240.15c3-1) or a “no-action” position issued thereunder. This includes all foreign stocks in the FTSE World Index Series.

It is unlawful for any creditor to make, or cause to be made, any representation to the effect that the inclusion of a security on the Foreign List is evidence that the Board or the SEC has in any way passed upon the merits of, or given approval to, such security or any transactions therein. Any statement in an advertisement or other similar communication containing a reference to the Board in connection with the Foreign List or the stocks thereon shall be an unlawful representation.

There are no additions to the Foreign List. The following three stocks are being removed because they no longer substantially meet the provisions of § 220.11(d) of Regulation T:

The requirements of 5 U.S.C. 553 with respect to notice and public participation were not followed in connection with the issuance of this amendment due to the objective character of the criteria for inclusion and continued inclusion on the Foreign List specified in § 220.11(c) and (d). No additional useful information would be gained by public participation. The full requirements of 5 U.S.C. 553 with respect to deferred effective date have not been followed in connection with the issuance of this amendment because the Board finds that it is in the public interest to facilitate investment and credit decisions based in whole or in part upon the composition of the Foreign List as soon as possible. The Board has responded to a request by the public and allowed approximately a one-week delay before the Foreign List is effective.

Accordingly, pursuant to the authority of sections 7 and 23 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (15 U.S.C. 78g and 78w), and in accordance with 12 CFR 220.2 and 220.11, there is set forth below a complete edition of the Foreign List.

Copies of this notice are available for downloading from the Bureau of the Public Debt home page at: http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov.

On August 23, 1996, The Department published a final rule to govern securities held in the commercial book-entry system, also referred to as the Treasury/Reserve Automated Debt Entry System (“TRADES”), 61 FR 43626.

In the commentary to the final regulations, Treasury stated that for the 28 states that had by then adopted Revised Article 8, the versions enacted were “substantially identical” to the uniform version for purposes of the rule. Therefore, for those states, that portion of the TRADES rule requiring application of Revised Article 8 was not invoked. Treasury also indicated in the commentary that as additional states adopt Revised Article 8, notice would be provided in the Federal Register as to whether the enactments are substantially identical to the uniform version so that the federal application of Revised Article 8 would no longer be in effect for those states. Treasury adopted this approach in an attempt to provide certainty in the application of the rule in response to public comments.

We have subsequently published notices setting forth our determination concerning 23 additional states' enactment of Revised Article 8. See 62 FR 26, January 2, 1997; 62 FR 34010, June 18, 1997; 62 FR 61912, November 20, 1997; 63 FR 20099, April 23, 1998; 63 FR 35807, July 1, 1998; 63 FR 50159, September 21, 1998; and 66 FR 33832, June 26, 2001. Thus, prior to this notice, a total of 51 jurisdictions (including the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, which are treated as states), have enacted statutes deemed by Treasury as substantially identical to the uniform version of Revised Article 8.

We note that South Carolina's enactment of Article 8 includes conforming revisions made by Revised Article 9 (1998), which the state also enacted. The TRADES rules define “Revised Article 8” as the 1994 Official Text with conforming amendments (§ 357.2). Consistent with our notice published June 26, 2001 (66 FR 33832) concerning Revised Article 9, we have reviewed these changes and conclude that the law enacted by South Carolina is “substantially identical” to the 1994 version of Article 8 for purposes of the TRADES rules. Therefore, if either § 357.10(b) or § 357.11(b) directs a person to South Carolina, the provisions of §§ 357.10(c) and 357.11(d) of the TRADES rule are not applicable.

As noted in our June 26, 2001 notice, several technical or conforming changes to the TRADES regulations required by Revised Article 9 will be published in the near future.

37 CFR 10.140(b) relates to whom within the USPTO represents the Director of Enrollment and Discipline (OED Director) in disciplinary proceedings, and who shall be available as counsel to the Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO Director) in deciding such proceedings. For example, it states that at least two associate solicitors shall be designated to represent the OED Director. It also states that the Solicitor and Deputy Solicitor shall advise the USPTO Director.

Additionally, the last sentence of 37 CFR 10.4(b) identifies the USPTO employees that shall not participate in rendering a decision on disciplinary changes. Among those identified as not participating in rendering decisions are associate and assistant solicitors of the Office of the Solicitor. In addition, the PTOEA designated the head of the USPTO as Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the USPTO. 35 U.S.C. 3(a)(1).

As a result, it is necessary and appropriate to interpret the last sentence of § 10.4(b) and § 10.140(b) in view of this reorganization. Because these are interpretive statements of rules, they are exempt from notice and comment rulemaking under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(A). For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the United States Patent and Trademark Office interprets §§ 10.4(b) and 10.140(b) as follows:

The last sentence of § 10.4(b) provides, “When charges are brought against a practitioner, no member of the Committee on Discipline, employee under the direction of the Director, or associate solicitor or assistant solicitor in the Office of the Solicitor shall participate in rendering a decision on the charges.” This sentence is construed as providing that when charges are brought against a practitioner, the designated attorneys in the Office of General Counsel (including assistant and associate solicitors, and associate counsel) shall not participate in rendering a decision on the charges.

The first sentence of § 10.140(b) provides, “The Commissioner shall designate at least two associate solicitors in the Office of the Solicitor to act as representatives for the Director in disciplinary proceedings.” This sentence is construed as authorizing the USPTO Director to designate at least two attorneys (including assistant and associate solicitors, and associate counsel) in the Office of General Counsel to act as representatives for the OED Director in disciplinary proceedings.

The second sentence of § 10.140(b) provides, “In prosecuting disciplinary proceedings, the designated associate solicitors shall not involve the Solicitor or the Deputy Solicitor.” This sentence is construed as providing that in prosecuting disciplinary proceedings, the designated attorneys in the Office of General Counsel (including assistant and associate solicitors, and associate counsel) shall not involve the General Counsel or the Deputy General Counsel for General Law.

The third sentence of § 10.140(b) provides, “The Solicitor and the Deputy Solicitor shall remain insulated from the investigation and prosecution of all disciplinary proceedings in order that they shall be available as counsel to the Commissioner in deciding disciplinary proceedings.” This is construed as providing that the General Counsel and the Deputy General Counsel for General Law shall remain insulated from the investigation and prosecution of all disciplinary proceedings in order that they shall be available as counsel to the USPTO Director in deciding disciplinary proceedings. However, the Deputy General Counsel for Intellectual Property Law and Solicitor shall not remain insulated from the investigation and prosecution of disciplinary proceedings, and thus shall not be available to counsel the USPTO Director in deciding such proceedings.

This final rule consists of nonsubstantive changes and, therefore, is not subject to the notice and comment and effective date provisions of 5 U.S.C. 553.

The Secretary hereby certifies that this regulatory amendment will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities as they are defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612. This rule merely consists of nonsubstantive changes. Therefore, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b), this amendment is exempt from the initial and final regulatory flexibility analysis requirements of sections 603 and 604.

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 NOX 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 NOX 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 NOX 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 NOX 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 NOX comply with RACT by May 31, 1995. The regulations contain technology-based or operational “presumptive RACT emission limitations” for certain major NOX sources. For other major NOX 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 NOX 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 NOX RACT regulations by submitting 485 case-by-case VOC/ NOX 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 NOX 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 NOX 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 NOX emissions in the form of a NOX 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 NOX SIP call and submitted those regulations to EPA for SIP approval. Pennsylvania's SIP revision to address the requirements of the NOX 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 NOX 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 NOX in no way relieves that source from any applicable requirements found in 25 PA Code Chapters 121, 123 and 145.

On March 21, 1996, October 18, 1996, January 21, 1997, July 1, 1997, March 23, 2001, and April 19, 2001, PADEP submitted revisions to the Pennsylvania SIP which establish and impose RACT for several major sources of VOC. This rulemaking pertains to nine of those sources. The remaining sources are or have been the subject of separate rulemakings. The Commonwealth's submittals consist of operating permits (OPs) issued by PADEP and plan approval and agreement upon consent orders (Consent Orders or COs) issued by the Allegheny County Health Department (ACHD). These nine sources are located in the Pittsburgh area.

The table below identifies the sources and individual OPs and COs which are the subject of this rulemaking. A summary of the VOC RACT determinations for each source follows the table.

Armstrong World Industries (AWI) manufactures commercial grade ceiling tile. This facility is located in Beaver Falls, Beaver County, Pennsylvania. AWI is a major VOC emitting facility. In this instance, RACT has been established and imposed by PADEP in an OP. On January 21, 1997, PADEP submitted this OP 04-000-108 to EPA as a SIP revision. OP 04-000-108 requires AWI and any associated air cleaning devices to be operated and maintained in a manner consistent with good operating and management practices. Under OP 04-000108, AWI must comply with the facility emission limit of 164 tons of VOC per year. AWI must not exceed a ceiling board production rate of 96 million square feet per year. AWI must maintain coating usage records. The production rate must be monitored and recorded to demonstrate compliance with the annual facility emission limit of 164 tons of VOC per year. Monitoring data will be recorded in log sheets, computer media, paper printouts, strip charts, or a combination of these for each production line. Summary reports of all required monitoring must be submitted by AWI to PADEP every 12 months. Compliance with annual limits must be met on a rolling monthly basis over very consecutive 12 month period.

Bacharach Inc. manufactures gas detection equipment and temperature and measurement devices. This facility is located in O'Hara Township, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. Bacharach Inc. is a major VOC emitting facility. In this instance, RACT has been established and imposed by ACHD in CO 263. On April 19, 2001, PADEP submitted CO 263 to EPA on behalf of the ACHD as a SIP revision. Bacharach Inc. consists of two processes: (a) Vapor degreaser, and (2) spray paint booth and oven. Under CO 263, Bacharach Inc. is not allowed to exceed 50 tons per year of total combined annual facility wide emissions of VOCs. Also, under CO 263, Bacharach Inc. must maintain records to demonstrate compliance with this CO and Article XXI, section 2105.06. Recordkeeping requirements must include material purchase and consumption records. All records shall be retained for at least two years.

Bakerstown Container Corporation (BCC) is a steel drum manufacturing facility located in Bakerstown, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. BCC is a major VOC emitting facility. In this instance, RACT has been established and imposed by ACHD in CO 221. On July 1, 1997, PADEP submitted CO 221 to EPA on behalf of the ACHD as a SIP revision. BCC reconditions 55 gallon steel drums and consists of a drum drying furnace, drum interior and drum exterior coating processes, a curing oven and one boiler. Under CO 221, at no time shall BCC allow the drum burning furnace to operate unless the furnace and afterburner are properly maintained and operated within the following parameters: (1) Minimum afterburner operating temperature of 1600 degrees Fahrenheit, and (2) minimum afterburner residence time of 0.5 seconds. Also under CO 221, at no time shall BCC store containers of VOCs at the facility unless such containers are covered at all times, with the exceptions of the following: (a) the mixing of paint immediately prior to paint application, and (b) the transfer of material to different containers. CO 221 requires BCC at all times and as expeditiously as possible, to cleanup any liquid or dry material spilled at the facility. CO 221 also requires BCC to maintain records to demonstrate compliance with this CO and Article XXI, section 2105.06. Recordkeeping requirements must include the quantity, composition, and density of all coatings and solvents, including solvents used for cleanup and purging, used in each process. All records shall be retained for at least two years.

Chestnut Ridge Foam, Inc. (Chestnut) operates a facility for the manufacture of flame-resistant and specialty foam products located in East Huntington Township, Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania. Chestnut is a major VOC emitting facility. In this instance, RACT has been established and imposed by PADEP in an OP. On March 21, 1996, PADEP submitted OP 65-000-181 to EPA as a SIP revision. OP 654-000-181 requires that all processes and associated air cleaning devices be operated and maintained in a manner consistent with good operating and management practices. OP 654-000-181 is for the operation of the various VOC emitting sources: Dip Line, Lamination line, Ross Line, Glue Tables, Urethane Line, Boiler #1, Boiler #2, and Box Dryers. OP 654-000-181 requires Chestnut not to exceed 165.57 tons per year of VOC. All records shall be retained for at least two years. Recordkeeping includes monthly records on the quantity of VOC containing compounds used at the facility. Annual limits are to be met on a rolling monthly basis over every consecutive 12 month period.

Flexsys America L.P. (Flexsys), Monongahela Plant, manufactures an insoluble sulfur additive called Crystex which is used in the making of rubber tires. The facility is located in Monongahela, Washington County, Pennsylvania. Flexsys is a major VOC emitting facility. In this instance, RACT has been established and imposed by PADEP in an OP. On April 19, 2001, PADEP submitted OP 63-000-015 to EPA as a SIP revision. OP 63-000-015 requires Flexsys' processes and any associated air cleaning devices to be operated and maintained in a manner consistent with good operating and management practices. Flexsys must maintain records in accordance with 25 PA Code section 129.95. Under OP 63-000-015, VOC emissions from this facility shall not exceed 170 tons per year to met on a rolling monthly basis over every consecutive 12 month period. In addition, VOC emissions from the Crystex process, shall not exceed 3.2 pounds per hour. The method of compliance with the VOC emission limitations above shall be the submittal of a yearly report to PADEP summarizing the actual and potential VOC emissions. This report shall describe in detail the methods used to calculate the emissions.

Haskell of Pittsburgh, Inc. (Haskell) is a steel office furniture manufacturing facility located in Verona, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. Haskell is a major VOC emitting facility. In this instance, RACT has been established and imposed by ACHD in CO 224. On July 1, 1997, PADEP submitted CO 224 to EPA on behalf of the ACHD as a SIP revision. Haskell has six separate manufacturing processes along with miscellaneous facility maintenance operations. CO 224 requires Haskell the following:

(1) For the paint process: Utilize high solid paint coatings which have a VOC content not greater than 3.0 pounds per gallon, less water and exempt solvents, as applied; and utilize electrostatic spray equipment or equipment equal to or better in terms of VOC emission control.

(2) For the paint mixing room process: Utilize high solid paint coatings which have a VOC content not greater than 0.3 pounds per gallon, less water and exempt solvents, as applied; cover containers containing VOCs at all times, except during the transfer of material to different containers; and clean, as expeditiously as possible, any liquid or dry material spilled containing VOCs.

(3) For the paint storage rooms: Cover containers containing VOCs at all times, except during the transfer of material to different containers; and clean, as expeditiously as possible, any liquid or dry material spilled containing VOCs.

(4) For the burn-off oven: For the purpose of paint removal, maintain and operate its incinerator so that the minimum operating temperature of 1400 degrees Fahrenheit and minimum residence time of 0.5 seconds is maintained.

(5) For the xylene reclaim process: Utilize the still as a VOC control device, condensing the VOC containing vapors as a means of capturing VOCs.

(6) For the glue booth process operations: Utilize only glues which have a VOC content of not greater than 3.0 pounds per gallon, less water and exempt solvents, as applied.

(7) Operations with respect to the use of xylol in cleaning and maintenance: Maintain covers on all xylol containers except when in use, and clean any spilled xylol as expeditiously as possible.

CO 224 requires the VOC content of the booth peel used at the facility not to exceed 7.0 pounds per gallon, less water and exempt solvents, as applied. CO 224 requires Haskell to maintain records to demonstrate compliance with this CO and Article XXI, section 2105.06. Recordkeeping requirements must include the quantity, composition and density of all coatings and solvents in the paint process, and the glue both process, including solvents used for cleanup and purging in such processes. All records shall be retained for at least two years.

Three Rivers Aluminum Company (TRACO) manufactures commercial thermally improved operating and fixed windows, insulated glass, and custom and finished aluminum extrusions. The facility is located in Cranberry Township, Butler County, Pennsylvania. TRACO is a major VOC emitting facility. In this instance, RACT has been established and imposed by PADEP in an OP. On March 23, 2001, PADEP submitted OP 10-267 to EPA as a SIP revision. OP 10-267 requires TRACO to continue to investigate the use of substitute solvents; continue to improve procedures to reduce solvent usage and evaporative loss for assembly operations and continue to implement good work practices and mange solvent use and rags to minimize evaporation. All sources shall be operated and maintained in accordance with good air pollution control practices. OP 10-267 also requires TRACO to keep a log of all solvents used in the assembly operations. The log requirements are: (a) To be maintained on a monthly basis specifying monthly VOC emissions from the assembly operations; and (b) to be maintained for a period of at least 5 years.

Tuscarora Plastics, Inc. (Tuscarora) is an expandable polystyrene plant located in New Brighton, Beaver County, Pennsylvania. Tuscarora manufactures various foam plastic products, including structural components, custom molded parts, foam plastic packaging and material handling constituents, Tuscarora is a major VOC emitting facility. In this instance, RACT has been established and imposed by PADEP in an OP. On October 18, 1996, PADEP submitted OP 04-000-497 to EPA as a SIP revision. OP 04-000-497 requires Tuscarora's processes and any associated air cleaning devices to be operated and maintained in a manner consistent with good operating and management practices. OP 04-000-497 requires the average VOC content of the raw material by weight shall not exceed 4.3 percent for the expandable polystyrene (EPS) beads and 8 percent for small quantities of polystyrene/polyethylene copolymer (ARCEL) beads. VOC emissions shall be limited to 4.17 pounds per 100 pounds of raw material processed for EPS, and 7.2 pounds per 100 pounds of raw material processes for ARCEL. The annual VOC emission rate shall not exceed 63 tons facility wide to met on a rolling monthly basis over every consecutive 12 month period. Records shall be maintained verifying emission rates and shall be retained for at least two years.

Witco Corporation (Witco) is a grease and other lubricants manufacturing facility located in Gibsonia, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. Witco is a major VOC emitting facility. In this instance, RACT has been established and imposed by ACHD in CO 210. On July 1, 1997, PADEP submitted CO 210 to EPA on behalf of the ACHD as a SIP revision. CO 210 requires Witco not to conduct any process operations which generate emissions of VOCs at any time, unless all VOC emissions are processed by the facility's thermal oxidizer. The thermal oxidizer shall be properly maintained and operated with a minimum VOC destruction efficiency of 98.9 percent, a minimum retention of 0.5 seconds and a minimum operating temperature of 1500 degrees Fahrenheit at all times during process operations. The thermal oxidizer destruction efficiency shall be determined annually according to EPA approved test methods and section 2108.02.c of Article XXI. CO 210 requires Witco to maintain records to demonstrate compliance with this CO and Article XXI, section 2105.06. All records shall be retained for at least two years.

EPA is approving these RACT SIP submittals because 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 has also imposed recordkeeping, monitoring, and testing requirements on these sources sufficient to determine compliance with the applicable RACT determinations.

EPA is approving the revisions to the Pennsylvania SIP submitted by PADEP to establish and require VOC RACT for nine 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 9, 2001 without further notice unless EPA receives adverse comment by September 24, 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 nine named sources.

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by October 9, 2001. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action approving the Commonwealth's source-specific RACT requirements to control VOC from nine individual sources in the Pittsburgh area 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 NOX 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 NOX 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 NOX 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 NOX 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 NOX comply with RACT by May 31, 1995. The regulations contain technology-based or operational “presumptive RACT emission limitations” for certain major NOX sources. For other major NOX 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 NOX 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 NOX RACT regulations by submitting 485 case-by-case VOC/NOX 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 NOX 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 NOX 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 NOX emissions in the form of a NOX 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 NOX SIP call and submitted those regulations to EPA for SIP approval. Pennsylvania's SIP revision to address the requirements of the NOX 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 NOX 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 NOX in no way relieves that source from any applicable requirements found in 25 PA Code Chapters 121, 123 and 145.

On March 21, 1996, July 1, 1997, April 9, 1999, and April 19, 2001, PADEP submitted revisions to the Pennsylvania SIP which establish and impose RACT for several sources of VOC and/or NOX. This rulemaking pertains to 10 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, and agreement upon consent orders (COs) issued by the Allegheny County Health Department (ACHD) which impose VOC and/or NOX RACT requirements for each source. These sources are all located in the Pittsburgh area.

The table below identifies the sources and the individual PAs, OPs and COs which are the subject of this rulemaking. A summary of the VOC and NOX RACT determinations for each source follows the table.

Anchor Glass Container Corporation (Anchor) is a glass manufacturer located in Connellsville, Pennsylvania. Anchor is a major source of NOX. Anchor has three glass melting furnaces for the production of glass. On December 20, 1996, PADEP issued PA-26-000-119 to establish and impose RACT on Anchor. Under the PA, Anchor must meet NOX emission limitations of 5.5 lbs/ton, 5.5 lbs/ton and 12.75 lbs/ton of glass processed at furnaces #1, #2, and #3, respectively. RACT for furnace #3 also includes any NOX reductions accomplished by energy efficient rebricking of the furnace. Compliance is to be demonstrated through annual stack testing in accordance with 25 Pa Code Chapter 139. Anchor is subject to the recordkeeping requirements of Pa Code section 129.95. Anchor must properly operate and maintain all process and associated emission control equipment according to good engineering and air pollution control practices in accordance with applicable PADEP regulations.

The Anchor Hocking Speciality Glass Co. (Anchor Hocking) is a pressed and blown glass manufacturer located in Monaca, Pennsylvania. Anchor Hocking is a major source of NOX. Anchor has three glass melting furnaces for the production of glass. On October 13, 1995, PADEP issued OP-04-000-084 to establish and impose RACT on Anchor Hocking. The OP requires RACT as the operation of Low-NOX burners, underport firing, and low-excess air on the melter tank. It requires SIP-approved presumptive RACT requirements on the annealing, decorating and the quenching lehrs, and the removal of the niter (sodium nitrate) addition from the glass-making process. Under the OP, Anchor Hocking must maintain excess air at less 4.5 percent. The facility's NOX emissions may not exceed 5.0lbs/ton of glass produced and shall not exceed 279 tons/year. Under OP-04-000-084, Anchor Hocking shall conduct a minimum of one stack test in accordance with 25 PA Code Section 139. Anchor Hocking must maintain records in accordance with the recordkeeping requirements of Pa Code Section 129.95. The following records shall be kept: operating hours and daily fuel consumption. These records shall be maintained on file for no less than two years. Units applicable to presumptive limits identified in Pa Code section 129.93 shall operate in accordance with manufacturer's specifications for installation, maintenance, and operation of these sources. Anchor Hocking must properly operate and maintain all process and emission control equipment according to good engineering and air pollution control practices in accordance with applicable PADEP regulations.

Corning Consumer Products (Corning) is a glassware manufacturer located in Charleroi, Pennsylvania. Corning is a major source of NOX. Corning has two glass melting tanks, one firing kiln and 12 small combustion units used in the production of glassware. On January 4, 1996, PADEP issued PA-63-000-110 to establish and impose RACT on Corning. The PA requires Tank #11 to convert gas/oxygen firing on all ports and electric boost to be increased to 30% on this unit. Tank #6 must continue the operation of gas/oxygen firing on all ports. RACT for the Tunnel kiln and the 12 small units shall be the operation and maintenance of these units in accordance with manufacturer's specifications and good air pollution control practices. Under the PA, Corning must meet the following emission limitations: (1) Tank #6, 22.8 lbs of NOX/hr and 100 tons of NOX/year, 0.35 lbs of VOC/hr and 1.53 tons of VOC /year; (2) Tank #11, 57.1 lbs of NOX/hr and 250 tons of NOX/year, 2.0 lbs of VOC/hr and 8.8 tons of VOC/year; (3) Tunnel kiln, 1.75 lbs of NOX/hr and 7.7 tons of NOX/year, 0.01 lbs of VOC/hr and 0.04 tons of VOC/year; and the combination of the 12 small units, 4.03 lbs of NOX/hr and 17.66 tons of NOX/year, 3.34 lbs of VOC/hr and 14.6 tons of VOC/year. Compliance is to be demonstrated thorough stack testing in accordance with 25 Pa Code Chapter 139. Annual limits are to be met on a rolling monthly basis for every consecutive 12 month period. Corning shall comply with the recordkeeping requirements of Pa Code section 129.95, including daily records on natural gas, oxygen, temperatures, electric consumption and tons of fill charged to Tanks #6 and #11. These records shall be maintained on file for at least two years. Corning must properly operate and maintain all process and emission control equipment according to good engineering and air pollution control practices in accordance with applicable PADEP regulations.

The General Electric Company (GE) is a glass tubing manufacturing facility located in Collier, Pennsylvania. GE is a major source of NOX. On December 19, 1996, Allegheny County Health Department (ACHD) issued CO 251 to establish and impose RACT on GE. The PADEP submitted CO 251, on behalf of the ACHD, to EPA as a SIP revision. GE produces glass in six glass melting furnaces, three cullet dryers, three natural gas boilers. There are two emergency generators used as back-up for boilers. RACT for the Simplex furnace is the operation of ox-fuel combustion equipment. General Electric must maintain the baseline controls for the Fait furnace, Germicidal furnace and the 180 furnace including adherence to the furnace manufacturer's specifications and good engineering practices, low-excess oxygen for each furnace and the use of cullet as a batch ingredient for the180 furnace. All units are required to comply with manufacturer's specifications in accordance with good engineering and air pollution control practices. Additionally, GE must utilize electric boost as part of the baseline controls for the Gas/Electric and Special Furnaces. Under CO 251, the remaining sources (boilers, cullet dryers and emergency generators) must comply with manufacturer's specifications in accordance with good engineering and air pollution control practices. The CO requires that the NOX emissions from the following units shall not exceed the following: (1) The Simplex furnace, 37.5lbs/hr and 165 tons/yr; (2) the 180 furnace, 27.72lbs/hr and 122 tons/yr. Under CO 251, GE is required to conduct emissions testing at least once every three years in accordance with applicable EPA approved test methods and Section 2108.02 of Article XXI of the ACHD's air pollution control regulations. Annual limits are to met on a rolling monthly basis for every consecutive 12 month period. Under CO 251, GE 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: records of oxygen and fuel usage; production records for the Simplex furnace and; production usage and fuel usage of all other furnaces. All records shall be maintained for at least two years. Under CO 251, GE must operate and maintain all process and emission control equipment according to good engineering and air pollution control practices.

The Glenshaw Glass Company (Glenshaw) is a glass manufacturing facility located in Glenshaw, Pennsylvania. Glenshaw is a major source of NOX. On March 10, 2000, the ACHD issued CO 270 to establish and impose RACT on Glenshaw. The PADEP submitted CO 270, on behalf of the ACHD, to EPA as a SIP revision. Glenshaw produces glass in four glass melting furnaces. The CO 270 limits NOX emissions from the glass melting furnaces as the following:

Under CO 270, Glenshaw is required to conduct emissions testing at least once every two years in accordance with applicable EPA approved test methods and Section 2108.02 of Article XXI of the ACHD's air pollution control regulations. Annual limits are to met on a rolling monthly basis for every consecutive 12 month period. Under CO 270, Glenshaw 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 shall include fuel use and production date per combustion unit. All records shall be maintained for at least two years. Under CO 270, Glenshaw must operate and maintain all process and emission control equipment according to good engineering and air pollution control practices.

Guardian Industries, Corp. (Guardian) is a float glass manufacturing facility located in Floreffe, Pennsylvania. Guardian is a major source of NOX. On August 27, 1996, ACHD issued CO 242 to establish and impose RACT on Guardian. The PADEP submitted CO 242, on behalf of the ACHD, to EPA as a SIP revision. Guardian produces glass in one glass melting furnace. The CO limits the NOX emissions from the glass melting furnace to 40.0 lbs/ton glass and 2556 tons/year. Under CO 242, Guardian is required to conduct emissions testing at least once every two years in accordance with applicable EPA approved test methods and section 2108.02 of Article XXI of the ACHD's air pollution control regulations. The annual limit is to met on a rolling monthly basis for every consecutive 12 month period. Under CO 242, Guardian must maintain all records and testing data to demonstrate compliance with Section 2108.02 of Article XXI of the ACHD's air pollution control regulations. Record keeping requirements shall include fuel use and operating hours for the glass melting furnace; and all maintenance, inspection and repair activities, calibration and/or replacement of fuel-burning equipment for the glass melting furnace. Guardian must maintain daily records of information on the batch house and the glass melting furnace operations. All records shall be retained for at least two years. Under CO 242, Guardian must operate and maintain all process and emission control equipment according to good engineering and air pollution control practices.

The Allegheny County Sanitary Authority (ALCOSAN) operates a publically owned wastewater treatment works facility located in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. ALCOSAN is a major source of NOX. On May 14, 1996, the ACHD issued CO 222 to establish and impose RACT on ALCOSAN. The PADEP submitted CO 222, on behalf of the ACHD, to EPA as a SIP revision. The CO 222 requires that the NOX emissions from the entire facility shall not exceed 95 tons per year from two Fluidized bed incinerators (FBI) and one Multi-hearth incinerator. Under CO 222, the multi-hearth sludge incinerator shall not exceed annual operating hours of 3,665 per year. The annual limits are to met on a rolling monthly basis for every consecutive 12 month period. Under CO 222, ALCOSAN must maintain all records to demonstrate compliance, provide sufficient data and 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 fuel type and amount of fuel usage per combustion unit; hours of operation of combustion unit; and amount of sludge processed, in dry tons, for all the incinerators. All records shall be maintained for at least two years. Under CO 222, ALCOSAN must operate and maintain all process and emission control equipment according to good engineering and air pollution control practices.

Browning-Ferris Industries of PA, Inc. (BFI) is the operator of a solid waste municipal landfill located in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. BFI is a major source of VOC. On April 28, 1997, the ACHD issued CO 231A to establish and impose RACT on BFI. The PADEP submitted CO 231A, on behalf of the ACHD, to EPA as a SIP revision. The CO requires a properly maintained and operated active landfill off gas collection system which collects off gas from each cell, area or group of cells in which initial solid waste has been placed for a period equal to or exceeding five (5) years if the subject cell, area or group of cells is active, with the exception of Area Seven (7), Phase Two (2), or two years if the subject cell, area or group of cells is closed or at grade. The average collection system efficiency of the active off gas collection system shall be a minimum of seventy-five (75%) percent at all times. Compliance for the collection efficiency shall be determined by calculating the VOC emission rate from the cells, areas/groups of cells treated by the off gas collection system according to current approved EPA estimation procedures and the actual collection system off gas flow rate data. Such collection efficiency determinations must be conducted and reported annually. Except in emergency situations and for maintenance purposes requiring shutdown, BFI shall at all times, with the exception of Area Seven (7), Phase Two (2), have a properly maintained and operated off gas control system which shall process collected off gas and meet the following reduction efficiency criteria: (1) A minimum VOC destruction efficiency of ninety-eight (98%) percent, by weight percent; or (2) twenty parts per million (20ppm) as hexane by volume, dry basis at three percent (3%) oxygen or less. Compliance with the reduction criteria specified above shall be determined by emission testing conducted every five years according to applicable EPA approved test methods and Section 2108.02 of Article XXI of the ACHD's air pollution control regulations. The collection system must be operated with negative pressure at each wellhead at all times except (1) when a fire is present or when well temperatures indicate the possibility of a fire; (2) when a geomembrane or synthetic cover is in place; or (3) when a decommissioned well may experience static positive pressure after shutdown to accommodate declining off gas flows. Each interior wellhead shall operate with a landfill gas temperature of less than one-hundred and thirty-one (131) degrees Fahrenheit at all times with the exception of increased levels necessary to control offsite migration, a nitrogen level less than 20 percent or an oxygen level less then five percent. Each wellhead must be monitored monthly for temperature and nitrogen or oxygen levels according to EPA approved methods. Under CO 231A, BFI must maintain all records regarding gas monitoring data, tonnage records, a waste characterization with sufficient data and calculations to clearly demonstrate that all requirements of Section 2108.06 of Article XXI and CO231A are being met. Under CO 231A, all records shall be maintained for at least two years. BFI must operate and maintain all process and emission control equipment according to good engineering and air pollution control practices. Finally, it should be noted that CO 231A also requires that within one year after Area Seven (7), Phase Two (2) achieves final grade, BFI must install, operate and maintain a landfill gas collection and control system that meets, without exception, all the conditions of CO 231A.

Chambers Development Company (Chambers) is the owner and operator of a solid waste municipal landfill located in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. Chambers is a major source of VOC. On December 30, 1996, ACHD issued CO 253 to establish and impose RACT on Chambers. The PADEP submitted CO 253, on behalf of the ACHD, to EPA as a SIP revision. The CO requires a properly maintained and operated active landfill off gas collection system which collects off gas from each cell, area or group of cells in which initial solid waste has been placed for a period equal to or exceeding five (5) years if the subject cell, area or group of cells is active, or two years if the subject cell, area or group of cells is closed or at grade.

The average collection system efficiency of the active off gas collection system shall be a minimum of seventy-five (75%) percent at all times. Compliance for the collection efficiency shall be determined by calculating the VOC emission rate from the cells, areas/groups of cells treated by the off gas collection system according to current approved EPA estimation procedures and the actual collection system off gas flow rate data. Such collection efficiency determinations must be conducted and reported annually. Except in emergency situations and for maintenance purposes requiring shutdown, Chambers shall, at all times, have a properly maintained and operated off gas control system which shall process collected off gas and meet the following reduction efficiency criteria: (1) A minimum VOC destruction efficiency of ninety-eight (98%) percent, by weight percent; or (2) twenty parts per million (20ppm) as hexane by volume, dry basis at three percent (3%) oxygen or less. Compliance with the reduction criteria specified above shall be determined by emission testing conducted every five years according to applicable EPA approved test methods and Section 2108.02 of Article XXI of the ACHD's air pollution control regulations. The collection system must be operated with negative pressure at each wellhead at all times except (1) when a fire is present or when well temperatures indicate the possibility of a fire; (2) when a geomembrane or synthetic cover is in place; or (3) when a decommissioned well may experience static positive pressure after shutdown to accommodate declining off gas flows. Each interior wellhead shall operate with a landfill gas temperature of less than fifty-five (55) degrees centigrade at all times, with a nitrogen level less than 20 percent or an oxygen level less then five percent. Each wellhead must be monitored monthly for temperature and nitrogen or oxygen levels according to EPA approved methods. Under the CO, Chambers must maintain all records regarding gas monitoring data, tonnage records, a waste characterization with sufficient data and calculations to clearly demonstrate that all requirements of Section 2108.06 of Article XXI and CO 253 are being met. Under the CO, all records shall be maintained for at least two years. Chambers must operate and maintain all process and emission control equipment according to good engineering and air pollution control practices.

Kelly Run Sanitation (Kelly Run) operates a solid waste municipal landfill located in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. Kelly Run is a major source of VOC. On January 23, 1997, ACHD issued CO 236 to establish and impose RACT on Kelly Run. The PADEP submitted CO 236, on behalf of the ACHD, to EPA as a SIP revision. The CO requires a properly maintained and operated active landfill off gas collection system which collects off gas from each cell, area or group of cells in which initial solid waste has been placed for a period equal to or exceeding five (5) years if the subject cell, area or group of cells is active, or two years if the subject cell, area or group of cells is closed or at grade. The average collection system efficiency of the active off gas collection system shall be a minimum of seventy-five (75%) percent at all times. Compliance for the collection efficiency shall be determined by calculating the VOC emission rate from the cells, areas/groups of cells treated by the off gas collection system. Such collection efficiency determinations must be conducted and reported annually. Except in emergency situations and for maintenance purposes requiring shutdown, Kelly Run shall, at all times, have a properly maintained and operated off gas control system which shall process collected off gas and meet a reduction efficiency criteria of a minimum VOC destruction efficiency of ninety-eight (98%) percent, by weight percent. Compliance with the reduction criteria specified above shall be determined by emission testing conducted every five years according to applicable EPA approved test methods and Section 2108.02 of Article XXI of the ACHD's air pollution control regulations.

The collection system must be operated with negative pressure at each wellhead at all times except (1) when a fire is present or when well temperatures indicate the possibility of a fire; (2) when a geomembrane or synthetic cover is in place; or (3) when a decommissioned well may experience static positive pressure after shutdown to accommodate declining off gas flows. Each interior wellhead shall operate with a landfill gas temperature of less than fifty-five (55) degrees centigrade at all times, with a nitrogen level less than 20 percent or an oxygen level less then five percent. Each wellhead must be monitored monthly for temperature and nitrogen or oxygen levels according to EPA approved methods. Under the CO, Kelly Run must maintain all records regarding gas monitoring data, tonnage records, a waste characterization with sufficient data and calculations to clearly demonstrate that all requirements of Section 2108.06 of Article XXI and CO 236 are being met. Under the CO, all records shall be maintained for at least two years. Kelly Run must operate and maintain all process and emission control equipment according to good engineering and air pollution control practices.

EPA is approving these RACT SIP submittals because PADEP and ACHD established and imposed these RACT requirements in accordance with the criteria set forth in the SIP-approved RACT regulations applicable to these sources. The Commonwealth and the County 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 NOX RACT for ten 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 9, 2001 without further notice unless EPA receives adverse comment by September 24, 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 ten 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 23, 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 NOX from ten individual sources in 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 NOX 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 NOX 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 NOX 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 NOX 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 NOX comply with RACT by May 31, 1995. The regulations contain technology-based or operational “presumptive RACT emission limitations” for certain major NOX sources. For other major NOX 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 NOX 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 NOX RACT regulations by submitting 485 case-by-case VOC/NOX 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 NOX 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 NOX 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 NOX emissions in the form of a NOX 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 NOX SIP call and submitted those regulations to EPA for SIP approval. Pennsylvania's SIP revision to address the requirements of the NOX 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 NOX 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 NOX in no way relieves that source from any applicable requirements found in 25 PA Code Chapters 121, 123 and 145.

On July 1, 1997, October 23, 1997, November 4, 1997, December 31, 1997, April 9, 1999, and August 9, 2000, PADEP submitted revisions to the Pennsylvania SIP which establish and impose RACT for several sources of VOC and/or NOX. This rulemaking pertains to ten of those sources. The remaining sources are or have been the subject of separate rulemakings. The Commonwealth's submittals consist of operating permits and consent orders which impose VOC and/or NOX RACT requirements for each source. These sources are all located in the Pittsburgh area. The table below identifies the sources and the individual operating permits (OPs), consent orders (COs), or enforcement orders (EOs) which are the subject of this rulemaking. A summary of the VOC and NOX RACT determinations for each source follows the table.

Carbidie Corporation (Carbidie) is a tools and parts tungsten carbide manufacturer located in Hempfield, Pennsylvania. Carbidie is a major source of VOC. On July 31, 1998, PADEP issued an operating permit (OP-65-000-720) to establish and impose RACT for Carbidie. Under OP 65-000-720, fixed lids and shaft seals on mixers and storage tanks must be monitored to insure that they are sealing properly sealed. A record of daily inspections shall be maintained as well. The temperature of the cool water chiller bath shall be maintained in the range of 55°-72° F. Under OP 65-000-720, a thermocouple must be installed, monitored, and maintained to ensure compliance. Dryers equipped with condensers must not be operated in the event that the condenser units are incapable of operation. Under OP 65-000-720, Carbidie, in accordance with 25 Pa Code 129.95, must retain sufficient records to demonstrate compliance with all conditions to meet RACT. This includes the following, but is not limited to: cool water chiller bath temperature (55°-72° F); total heptane consumption on a monthly basis; hours of operation; and all maintenance and repair operations to ensure compliance with all emission limits and restrictions. All records must be retained for at least two years. Carbidie must properly operate and maintain all equipment according to good engineering and air pollution control practices.

Fansteel Hydro Carbide (Fansteel) is a manufacturer of cemented tungsten carbide located in Latrobe, Pennsylvania. Fansteel is a major source of VOC. Fansteel has three 100SC attritors, five 30S attritors, two ballmills, and six vacuum dryers. The attritors will be controlled by a packaged chiller unit and the dryers are equipped with condensers. On December 12, 1997, PADEP issued an operating permit (OP-65-000-860) to establish and impose RACT on Fansteel. Under OP 65-000-860, the attritors must not be operated in the event that the package chiller unit is incapable of operation and the vacuum dryers shall not operate if the condensers are incapable of operation. Under OP 65-000-860, the coolant temperature exiting the package chiller unit must be maintained no at higher than 55 degrees Fahrenheit. The monitor on chiller unit shall visually show the inlet and outlet temperatures. These two readings along with time taken must be documented in a log book once a shift. These records must be retained on site for at least two years. The OP 65-000-860, requires Fansteel to operate an audible alarm in the milling room to ensure that the operators are aware if the chiller unit outlet water temperature is above the maximum temperature allowed (55 degrees Fahrenheit). Under OP 65-000-860, Fansteel must track and record hours of operation and all maintenance and repair operations to the attritor mills, package chiller unit, and vacuum dryers (condensers). All such recordkeeping must be done on a monthly basis. All such records shall be retained on site for at least two years. Under the OP, Fansteel must conduct a fugitive heptane leak detection and repair program patterned after that required for fugitive VOC sources at petroleum refineries under 25 Pa. Code 129.58. The facility shall record all spills of VOC-containing material. Spills must be cleaned-up to minimize atmospheric emissions. Emissions which occur as a result of spills must be estimated and recorded. Those spills which result in emissions exceeding 3 pounds of VOC /hr or 15lbs/day shall be immediately reported to PADEP and included in Fansteel's annual emissions inventory. Fansteel must document and maintain monthly records of the quantity of VOC-containing compound used at this facility. Fansteel must monitor in a logbook the weekly heptane consumed and recovered. Fansteel must maintain records in accordance with 129.95 and 129.91-.94 of Pennsylvania's SIP-approved regulations. Fansteel must properly operate and maintain all equipment according to good engineering and air pollution control practices.

Newcomer Products, Inc. (Newcomer) is a tungsten carbide product manufacturer located in Latrobe, Pennsylvania. Newcomer is a major source of VOC. On August 7, 1997, PADEP issued an operating permit (OP-65-000-851) to establish and impose RACT on Newcomer. The OP 65-000-851 requires the installation of a Dry Mill (two 30SC attritors), Water Mill & Spray Dryer, and Vibratory Manufacturing System. This operation will be controlled by a new cyclone and baghouse. A monthly log must be kept of all VOC-containing materials purchased, consumed, and the inventory on hand at the facility. These records shall be maintained in a file for a period of no less than two years. Under OP 65-000-851, no heptane shall be used in the milling, powder making, and the carbide pellet making processes unless approved by PADEP. Newcomer must properly operate and maintain all equipment according to good engineering and air pollution control practices.

Heinz USA (Heinz) is a food processing facility located in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Heinz is a major source of VOC and NOX. On March 8, 1996 and October 24, 1996, respectfully, the Allegheny County Health Department (ACHD) issued an Enforcement Order (EO 211) and a Plan Approval and Agreement Upon Consent Order (CO 247) to establish and impose RACT on Heinz. Under EO 211, the NOX emissions from the seven boilers must not exceed the following:

Under EO 211, Heinz at no time shall allow the combined annual NOX emissions to exceed 596 tons per year. Under EO 211, compliance for each boiler must be determined through emission testing according to all applicable EPA approved test methods and section 2108.02 of Article XXI of the ACHD's air pollution control regulation. Heinz must conduct emissions monitoring for NOX from boiler #8 according to 40 CFR part 60, subpart Db. Under EO 211, Heinz 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. Recordkeeping requirements must include (1) the fuel usage and steam load per unit; (2) all recording and reporting required by EPA's 40 CFR part 60, subpart Db for boiler #8. Under CO 211, Heinz must retain all records required by section 2105.06 of Article XXI. Under CO 247, Heinz must install a VOC absorption system, for the purposes of reducing VOC emissions from the vinegar production generators. Under CO 247, Heinz shall not operate the vinegar production generators unless the VOC absorption system is at all times properly maintained and operated within the following performance specifications: Minimum VOC stack removal efficiency by the absorption system of eighty percent (80%); and minimum overall VOC removal efficiency of sixty-four percent (64%). Under CO 247, Heinz must conduct a system performance test in order to demonstrate compliance with the performance specifications. Under CO 247, Heinz must determine the stack absorption system removal efficiency according to EPA approved test methods and section 2108.02 of Article XXI of the ACHD's air pollution control regulations. Also, Heinz must estimate the overall control efficiency through material balance calculations. Under CO 247, Heinz shall not, at any time, conduct ketchup production in the ketchup process mixing kettles unless the addition of vinegar to the kettles is through a hard-pipe system from the vinegar storage tanks and the kettles are immediately covered after the addition of all ingredients. Under EO 247, Heinz must not, at any time, use glue in the labeling and packaging process at the facility that exceeds a VOC content of on percent (1%), by weight. Under CO 247, Heinz must not, at any time, allow the annual average use of solvent borne inks to exceed seventy percent (70%) and the maximum VOC content of solvent borne inks to exceed ninety-five percent (95%). Under CO 247, Heinz must maintain all appropriate records to demonstrate compliance with the requirements of section 2150.06 of Article XXI of the ACHD's air pollution control regulations. All records must provided sufficient data and calculations to demonstrate that all requirements of section 2105.06 of Article XXI are met. Heinz must record data and information required to determine compliance for the facility in a time frame consistent with the averaging period of the requirements of section 2105.06 of Article XXI. All records for both (EO 211 and CO 247) must be retained for at least two years. Under EO 211 and CO 247, Heinz must operate and maintain all process and emission control equipment according to good engineering and air pollution control practices.

Nabisco Biscuit Company (Nabisco) is a bakery facility located in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Nabisco is a major source of VOC. On December 19, 1996, the ACHD issued CO 246 to establish and impose RACT on Nabisco. The PADEP submitted CO 246, on behalf of the ACHD, to EPA as a SIP revision. Under CO 246, at no time shall Nabisco allow the following equipment to operate unless each piece of equipment is being maintained and operated in accordance with good engineering practice and within the manufacturer's specifications: Boiler #1, Boiler #2; Propane vaporizer; and Bake ovens #2-#6. Under CO 246, Nabisco must maintain records of fuel type and fuel usage, certifications from fuel suppliers for all types of liquid fuel. For each shipment of distillate oils #1 or #2, a certification that the fuel complies with ASTM D396-78 “Standard Specifications for Fuel Oils” is required. For residual oils, minimum recordkeeping includes a certification from the fuel supplier of the nitrogen content of the fuel, and identification of the sampling method and protocol. Under CO 246, Nabisco must not at any time, allow the use of yeast-leaved dough in bake ovens three (#3), four (#4) and six (#6). Under CO 246, Nabisco must not allow the annual operation of bake ovens two (#2) and five (#5) to exceed eighty-four percent (84%) of their maximum operating capacity or 7, 360 hours per year, each for yeast-leavened dough. There shall be no limitation on the use of non-yeast leavened dough in bake ovens two (#2) or five (#5). Annual limits must be met on a rolling monthly basis over every consecutive 12 month period. Under CO 246, Nabisco must maintain all appropriate records to demonstrate compliance with section 2105.06 of Article XXI of the ACHD's air pollution control regulations. Record must provide sufficient data and calculations to clearly demonstrate that all requirements of section 2105.06 or Article XXI are met. Recordkeeping requirements must include the hours of operation, dough type (yeast or non-yeast) per bake oven. All records must be retained for at least two years. Under CO 246, Nabisco must operate and maintain all equipment according to good engineering and air pollution control practices.

Aristech Chemical Company (Artistech) is a plasticizer manufacturing facility located in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Artistech is a major source of VOC. On December 30, 1996, the ACHD issued CO 232 to establish and impose RACT on Aristech. The PADEP submitted CO 232, on behalf of the ACHD, to EPA as a SIP revision. Under CO 232, Aristech must properly maintain, at all times, the plasticizer manufacturing plant reactor vents and the stripper secondary jet water cooled condensers at an average annual coolant inlet temperature of 95° F, except in emergency situations. Under CO 232, Aristech must operate the alcohol measuring tanks for the plasticizer train #3 to operate a maximum operating temperature that shall not exceed 110 degrees centigrade and the maximum heating cycle must not exceed two hours. Under CO 232, Aristech 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. Recordkeeping requirements shall include the following, but not be limited to, production records and condenser inlet coolant temperatures. All records shall be maintained for at least two years. Under CO 232, Aristech must operate and maintain all equipment according to good engineering and air pollution control practices.

Dyno Nobel Inc. (Dyno) is a manufacturer of ammonium nitrate located in Donora, Pennsylvania. Dyno is a major source of NOX. On March 31, 1999, PADEP issued an operating permit (OP-63-000-070) to establish and impose RACT on Dyno. The OP 63-000-070 requires RACT for the entire facility not to exceed 460 tons/year in any 12-month consecutive period as follows:

Under OP 63-000-070, Dyno must perform an annual adjustment or tune-up as required by 25 Pa Code Chapter 129.93 (b)(2) on each boiler with individual rated heat inputs between 20 and 50 MMBTU/hr as identified. Under OP 63-000-070, Dyno must maintain records for each adjustment conducted under the procedures outlined in 25 Pa Code Chapter 129.93(b)(2) (i-iii) for all identified combustion sources with rated heat inputs between 20 and 50 MMBtu/hr. All records must contain, at a minimum, the following: The date of the tuning procedure, the name of the service company and technicians, the final operating rate or load, the final NOX emission rates, the final excess oxygen rate. Under OP 63-000-070, Dyno must maintain records including computerized records that may be necessary to comply with 23 Pa Code Chapter 135.21 (relating to reporting and emission statements). The records shall include production, fuel usage, maintenance of production or pollution control equipment, quantification of potential and actual air contaminant emissions. Under OP 63-000-070, Dyno shall maintain records in accordance with the record keeping requirements of 25 Pa Code Chapter 129.95. The records shall provide sufficient data and calculations to clearly demonstrate that the requirements of 25 Pa Code Chapter 129.91-94 are met. 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 5 years. Dyno must properly operate and maintain all equipment according to good engineering and air pollution control practices in accordance with applicable PADEP regulations.

General Carbide Corporation (General Carbide) processes metal carbide powders into tools and is located in Hempfield Township, Pennsylvania. General Carbide is a major source of VOC. On December 29, 1995, PADEP issued OP-65-000-622 to establish and impose RACT on General Carbide. Under OP 65-000-622, General Carbide may not operate unless its dryers and condensers are operational. Under OP 65-000-622, General Carbide must track and record hours of operation, total heptane consumption, all maintenance and repair operations to comply with the recordkeeping requirements. These record must be retained on site for at least two years. Under OP 65-000-622, General Carbide must conduct daily monitoring of the area that uses heptane. A heptane vapor monitor will be used to assure that the equipment is functioning properly and no leaks are occurring. If any leaks are detected from the storage tanks or process, General Carbide will notify PADEP immediately. OP 65-00-622 requires General Carbide to continue to officially document and maintain monthly records on the quantity of VOC containing compounds used at the facility. General Carbide must properly operate and maintain all processes according to good engineering and air pollution control practices in accordance with applicable PADEP regulations.

Koppers Industries, Inc. (Koppers) is the owner and operator of crude tar feed and heavy, middle, and light distillates facilities in Clairton, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. Koppers is a major source of VOC. On August 27, 1996, the ACHD issued CO 223 to establish and impose RACT on Koppers. The PADEP submitted CO 223, on behalf of the ACHD, to EPA as a SIP revision. Under CO 223, Koppers must not operate the tar distillation and refining unit unless the VOC emissions from this unit is processed by the existing natural gas blanketing system. Under CO 223, the natural gas blanketing system must be properly maintained and operated with a minimum VOC destruction efficiency of 95% at all times when the tar distillation and refining unit is operating. Under CO 223, the natural gas blanketing system destruction efficiency must be determined annually according to US EPA approved test methods and as required by section 2108.02(c) of Article XXI of the ACHD's air pollution control regulations. Under CO 223, Koppers 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. Under CO 223, all records must provide sufficient data and calculations to demonstrate that all requirements of section 2105.06 of Article XXI are being met. The data and information required to determine compliance must be recorded and maintained by the Koppers and shall include, but not limited to, throughput and operating hours of the tar refining process. All records shall be maintained for at least two years. Under CO 223, Koppers must operate and maintain all equipment according to good engineering and air pollution control practices.

Pressure Chemical Co. (Pressure Chemical) is a operator of a small batch chemical manufacturing facility located in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Pressure Chemical is a major source of VOC. On June 11, 1997, the ACHD issued CO 261 to establish and impose RACT on Pressure Chemical. The PADEP submitted CO 261, on behalf of the ACHD, to EPA as a SIP revision. Under CO 261, Pressure Chemical must keep all storage containers containing VOCs covered at all times except during the transfer of materials and must clean any liquid or dry material spilled at the facility. Under CO 261, Pressure Chemical must at all times maintain the following records in order to calculated actual VOC emissions according to accepted mass balance methodology: (1) Purchase and inventory records of VOC containing materials; (2) annual throughput of VOC-containing materials; and (3) production records for all processes involving VOC containing materials. All records must be retained for at least two years. Under CO 261, Pressure Chemical must properly maintain and operate all existing process equipment according to good engineering and air pollution control practices.

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 SIP-approved RACT regulations applicable to these sources. The ACHD and PADEP have also imposed recordkeeping, 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 NOX RACT for ten 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 9, 2001 without further notice unless EPA receives adverse comment by September 24, 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 ten 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 23, 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 NOX from ten individual sources located in the Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley 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 volatile organic compounds (VOC) and NOX sources. The major source size is determined by its location, the classification of that area and whether it is located in the ozone transport region (OTR). Under section 184 of the CAA, RACT as specified in sections 182(b)(2) and 182(f) applies throughout the OTR. The entire Commonwealth is located within the OTR. Therefore, RACT is applicable statewide in Pennsylvania.

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

On February 4, 1994, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) submitted a revision to its SIP to require major sources of NOX 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 NOX 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 NOX 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 NOX comply with RACT by May 31, 1995. The regulations contain technology-based or operational “presumptive RACT emission limitations” for certain major NOX sources. For other major NOX 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 NOX RACT regulations (63 FR 13789). In that action, EPA stated that the conditions of its approval would be satisfied once the Commonwealth either (1) certifies that it has submitted case-by-case RACT proposals for all sources subject to the RACT requirements currently known to PADEP; or (2) demonstrates that the emissions from any remaining subject sources represent a de minimis level of emissions as defined in the March 23, 1998 rulemaking. On April 22, 1999, PADEP made the required submittal to EPA certifying that it had met the terms and conditions imposed by EPA in its March 23, 1998 conditional limited approval of its VOC and NOX RACT regulations by submitting 485 case-by-case VOC/NOX 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 NOX 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 NOX RACT regulations shall convert to a full approval for the Pittsburgh area.

On August 8, 2001, PADEP submitted revisions to the Pennsylvania SIP which establish and impose case-by-case RACT for several sources of VOC and/or NOX. This rulemaking pertains to the Commonwealth's submittal of operating permit (OP) 04-000-227 which imposes NOX RACT requirements for the Koppel Steel Corporation's Ambridge Plant, a major source of NOX located in the Pittsburgh area. Remaining sources are the subject of separate rulemakings.

The Koppel Steel Corporation's Ambridge Plant is a producer of carbon and alloy tubular products located in Harmony Township, Beaver County, Pennsylvania. The Koppel's Ambridge facility receives steel billets and tube rounds from another Koppel facility located in Koppel, Pennsylvania. The Ambridge Plant is a steel processing facility which treats and shapes these billets and rounds into tubular products. The facility consists of eight installations/processes with potential NOX emissions of 153.1 tons per year. It is, therefore, a major source of NOX and subject to RACT. As the facility's potential VOC emissions are less than 50 tons per year, the facility is not a major source of VOC. The PADEP established NOX RACT requirements in OP 04-000-227 for the eight installations/processes subject to Pennsylvania's RACT regulation.

The eight installations/processes at Koppel Steel's Ambridge facility fall into two source types, heat treating furnaces and space heating units.

The heat treating furnaces include the Quench Furnace, Temper Furnace, Reheat Furnace, 5″ and 7.5″ upsetter furnaces, off-mill normalize furnace, and rotary hearth reheat furnace. The heating/reheat furnaces are used for heat-treating of steel to bring it to a uniform temperature suitable for hot working. Upsetter furnaces are small units used to heat treat the ends of the tubular products to the correct temperature prior to their upsetting. The normalizing furnace is used to refine the steel grain structure, to relieve stresses induced by hot or cold working, and to improve the mechanical properties of the steel. The quench and temper furnaces are used in the product's final finishing process, in order to achieve its proper physical properties, by cooling it under closely controlled thermal conditions. Heat treatment of the carbon and alloy steels is conducted at a slow rate and relatively low temperatures to minimize thermal stresses and to avoid distortion and cracking. All the heat treating furnaces at the Koppel's Ambridge facility are natural gas fired combustion units.

Several natural gas fired space heaters are located throughout the plant. These units do not contribute significantly to the total plant-wide NOX emissions. The gas space heaters are henceforth discussed collectively.

Of the plant's eight major NOX emitting installations/processes, four (the reheat furnace, 5″ and 7.5″ upsetter furnaces, and the gas space heaters) are units with rated heat input of less than 20 MMBTU/hr each. Pennsylvania has determined that these sources are subject to SIP-approved presumptive RACT requirements set forth in 25 Pa. Code Section 129.93(c)(1) which requires that the installation, maintenance, and operation of the source be done in accordance with manufacturer's specifications. Three of the four remaining sources (the quench, temper, and off-mill normalized furnaces) are natural gas fired combustion units with a rated heat inputs between 20 MMBTU/hr and 50 MMBTU/hr each. Pennsylvania has determined that these three sources are subject to SIP-approved presumptive RACT requirements set forth in 25 Pa. Code Section 129.93(b)(2) which require that an annual adjustment or tune-up of the combustion process be performed. Pennsylvania also requires that an annual test program be conducted utilizing a portable analyzer for nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, and VOC for the quench, temper, reheat, and off-mill normalize furnaces. In addition, in its OP 04-000-227 Pennsylvania has imposed a requirement that all sources, listed above, shall be operated and maintained in accordance with good air pollution control practices. The remaining NOX emitting source is the rotary hearth reheat furnace with a rated heat input of 182 MMBTU/hr. The following NOX control options were evaluated in a case-by-case RACT analysis: Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR), Low NOX Burners (LNB), Flue Gas Recirculation (FGR), Selective Non-Catalytic Reduction (SNCR), and Low Excess Air (LEA). Pennsylvania has determined that, as RACT, Koppel shall employ LEA at a percentage of approximately 10% to minimize NOX formation. Pennsylvania also requires that an annual test program be conducted utilizing a portable analyzer for nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, and VOC for this source. OP 04-000-227 also requires that a PADEP-approved stack test for oxides of nitrogen, carbon monoxide, and VOC be performed, and that the furnace shall be operated and maintained in accordance with good air pollution control practices.

EPA is approving Pennsylvania's SIP submittal to impose RACT for Koppel Steel Corporation's Ambridge Plant because OP 04-000-227 establishes and imposes RACT requirements in accordance with the criteria set forth in the SIP-approved RACT regulations and also imposes record-keeping, and testing requirements sufficient to determine compliance with the applicable RACT determinations.

EPA is approving OP 04-000-227 issued by the PADEP to impose RACT for Koppel Steel Corporation's Ambridge Plant as a revision to the Pennsylvania SIP. 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 9, 2001 without further notice unless EPA receives adverse comment by September 24, 2001. If EPA receives adverse comment, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the public that the rule will not take effect. EPA will address all public comments in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time.

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a “significant regulatory action” and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.” See 66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001. This action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4). This rule also does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), because it merely approves a state rule implementing a Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant. In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. As required by section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in issuing this rule, EPA has taken the necessary steps to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize potential litigation, and provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct. EPA has complied with Executive Order 12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1988) by examining the takings implications of the rule in accordance with the “Attorney General's Supplemental Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk and Avoidance of Unanticipated Takings'' issued under the executive order. This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

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

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by October 23, 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 NOX emissions from Koppel Steel Corporation's Ambridge Plant may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

On May 16, 2001 (66 FR 27051), EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR) for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The NPR proposed the conversion of EPA's prior conditional approval of Pennsylvania's 15% plan SIP for the Philadelphia area to full approval. The basis for this proposed approval was a formal amendment to Pennsylvania's 15% plan SIP revision that was submitted by Pennsylvania on June 5, 1998. EPA is approving Pennsylvania's 15% plan for its portion of the Philadelphia area, which is based upon an overall air emissions target level of 487.9 tons per day of anthropogenic volatile organic compounds. EPA's rationale for approval of this SIP revision and the specific details of EPA's proposed action are explained in the NPR and will not be restated here. No public comments were submitted on the NPR.

EPA is converting its prior conditional approval of Pennsylvania's 15% plan for its portion of the Philadelphia-Wilmington-Trenton ozone nonattainment area to a full approval. This action upon Pennsylvania's 15% plan SIP revision for the Philadelphia area serves to convert EPA's prior conditional approval of this SIP revision to a full approval.

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 a 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 (Pub. L. 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 to convert EPA's prior conditional approval of the Philadelphia 15% plan to full approval must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by October 23, 2001. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

This is a synopsis of the Commission's Report and Order, MM Docket No. 01-95, adopted August 1, 2001 and released August 10, 2001. The full text of this Commission decision is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Information Center (Room CY-A257), 445 12th Street, SW, Washington, DC. The complete text of this decision may also be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, International Transcription Service, Inc., (202) 857-3800, 1231 20th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20036.

This is a synopsis of the Commission's Report and Order, MM Docket No. 00-14 adopted August 1, 2001, and released August 10, 2001. The full text of this Commission decision is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Information Center (Room CY-A257), 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC. The complete text of this decision may also be purchased from the Commission's copy contractors, International Transcription Service, Inc., (202) 857-3800, 1231 20th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20036.

On October 24, 2000 (65 FR 64670, October 30, 2000), NMFS issued a permit, for a period of 3 years, to authorize the incidental, but not intentional, taking of four stocks of threatened or endangered marine mammals (Fin whale, California/Oregon/Washington stock; Humpback whale, California/Oregon/Washington-Mexico stock; Steller sea lion, eastern stock; and Sperm whale, California/Oregon/Washington stock) by the CA/OR drift gillnet fishery under section 101(a)(5)(E) of the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) (16 U.S.C. 1371(a)(5)(E)).

To authorize the incidental take by this fishery of marine mammals listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), NMFS completed a formal consultation under section 7 of the ESA. On October 23, 2000, NMFS issued a BO in which it determined that the current operations of the CA/OR drift gillnet fishery are jeopardizing the continued existence of the leatherback and loggerhead sea turtle populations by appreciably reducing the likelihood of both the survival and recovery of these two species.

All sea turtles that occur in U.S. waters are listed as either endangered or threatened under the ESA. The leatherback (Dermochelys coriacea) is listed as endangered and the loggerhead (Caretta caretta) is listed as threatened. Under the ESA and its implementing regulations, taking sea turtles, even incidentally, is prohibited, with exceptions identified in 50 CFR 223.206. The incidental take of endangered species may only be legally authorized by an incidental take statement or an incidental take permit issued pursuant to section 7 or section 10 of the ESA. In order for an incidental take statement to be issued, the incidental take must not be likely to jeopardize the continued existence of listed species or destroy or adversely modify designated critical habitat.

To avoid the likelihood of the CA/OR drift gillnet fishery jeopardizing the continued existence of the leatherback and loggerhead sea turtles, NMFS developed a reasonable and prudent alternative in the BO which consists of three measures: a) a drift gillnet time and area closure to protect leatherback sea turtles; b) funding and supporting a Western Pacific conservation, education, and protection program aimed at protecting nesting females, their eggs, and nesting beach habitat and addressing incidental capture in local fisheries; and c) a drift gillnet time and area closure to protect loggerhead sea turtles.

This interim final rule implements only the measure to protect leatherback sea turtles. For the reasons indicated later in this preamble, this measure must be implemented immediately.

The conservation, education, and protection program does not fall within U.S. regulatory authority and will be implemented through cooperative efforts with appropriate parties.

The measure to address the incidental take of loggerhead sea turtles by the CA/OR drift gillnet fishery will be implemented by a subsequent rulemaking. Observer data from July 1990 through January 2000 indicate that all the observed loggerhead sea turtle entanglements occurred during El Nino events. According to the most recent El Nino Watch Advisory, 2001-07, the existing west coast oceanographic conditions are consistent with a decay of the La Nina conditions and a prelude to a mild or moderate El Nino in the ensuing months. NOAA/National Environmental Satellite, Data and Information Services, Coast watch Program (http://cwatchwc.ucsd.edu) data indicate that an El Nino event is not imminent. Because the BO concluded that the CA/OR drift gillnet fishery would only jeopardize the continued existence of loggerhead sea turtles during El Nino events, there is adequate time to provide prior notice and an opportunity for public comment on the time and area closure to protect loggerhead sea turtles. Therefore, this measure was not included in this rulemaking but will be implemented in a separate rulemaking.

The measure identified in the BO to address the incidental take of leatherback sea turtles by the CA/OR drift gillnet fishery consists of a time and area closure that would prohibit drift gillnet fishing activity in state and Federal ocean waters off of California and Oregon inside the area bounded by straight lines connecting Point Conception (34°27 N) to 34°27 N 129° W, to 45° N 129° W, to the point where 45° N intersects the Oregon coast, from August 15 to October 31, for a period of 3 years (2001-2003).

This measure would reduce the likelihood of the CA/OR drift gillnet fishery incidentally entangling leatherback turtles by 78 percent. Although the observer data do not indicate a specific, localized area where more leatherbacks are entangled, but rather a more widespread distribution, observed leatherback entanglement rates change as a function of latitude, with the most substantial increase in entanglement rates occurring north of 36°30 N. NMFS has observed 23 leatherback entanglements since the inception of the observer program in July 1990, 91 percent of which were recorded north of Point Conception. Takings of leatherbacks have been observed during the months of September, October, November, December and January, with approximately 60 percent of the entanglements occurring in October. Based on this information, NMFS expects this measure to prohibit fishing with drift gillnets in ocean waters north of Point Conception would avoid the likelihood of the CA/OR drift gillnet fishery jeopardizing the continued existence of the leatherback sea turtle species.

Since the issuance of the BO on October 23, 2000, NMFS received comments from CA/OR drift gillnet commercial fishermen, recreational fishing organizations, and from the Pacific Offshore Cetacean Take Reduction Team (TROTTED) regarding the measure in the reasonable and prudent alternative to close the CA/OR drift gillnet fishery north of Point Conception from August 15 to October 31. The CA/OR drift gillnet fishermen have expressed a need to fish north of Point Conception to remain economically viable as a fishery. Recreational fishing organizations have expressed a concern that an increased number of drift gillnet vessels fishing south of Point Conception would cause a reduction in the number of striped marlin that recreational fishermen could catch. In response to the concern expressed by the fishermen on the effects of the closure on the fishery, the TROTTED evaluated whether there might be a measure other than the reasonable and prudent alternative measure identified in the BO, that would allow the fishermen to fish north of Point Conception and still provide the same level of protection to leatherback sea turtles and presented a consensus recommendation for consideration.

NMFS recognizes the merit and importance of the TROTTED recommendation. While NMFS was not able to conclude that the TROTTED recommendation provided a comparable level of protection for leatherback turtles, NMFS concluded that a modified version of the TROTTED recommendation would provide fishing opportunity north of Point Conception while providing the same level of protection for leatherback sea turtles as the BO.

In September 2000, NMFS tagged two leatherback turtles in Monterey Bay, CA with satellite transmitter tags. Shortly afterwards, the turtles departed the area, traveling in a southwesterly direction, presumably toward western Pacific nesting beaches. Based on this recent leatherback satellite telemetry data and historical observer data, NMFS is implementing a modified version of the TROTTED recommendation which will protect the potential migratory route of leatherback turtles departing Monterey, CA, in August, September, October and the first half of November. This alternative measure closes the area bounded by the straight lines from Point Sur (34°18.5 N) to 34°27 N 123°35 W, to 34°27 N 129° W, to 45° N 129° W, to the point 45° N intersects land, from August 15 to November 15. NMFS has determined that this alternative provides the same, if not greater, protection for leatherback turtles as the reasonable and prudent alternative measure identified in the BO. The NMFS Office of Protected Resources, which issued the BO, has concurred that this alternative would provide the same level of protection as the reasonable and prudent alternative measure identified in the BO and would avoid the likelihood of jeopardizing the continued existence of the leatherback sea turtle.

This determination is based on observer data that indicate that NMFS’ alternative time and area closure described above provides the same level of protection for leatherback turtles (a 78-percent reduction in the likelihood of the CA/OR drift gillnet fishery incidentally entangling leatherback turtles) as the time and area closure identified in the reasonable and prudent alternative of the BO. In addition, based on leatherback satellite telemetry data, NMFS’ alternative is expected to provide protection to migrating leatherback turtles departing Monterey, CA, in August, September, October and the first half of November.

Under this measure, drift gillnet vessels must continue to comply with existing state codes that regulate gear, equipment and fishing seasons and with Federal regulations that implement the Pacific Offshore Cetacean Take Reduction Plan (50 CFR 229.31).

NMFS prepared an EA for this interim final rule and concluded these regulations would pose no significant adverse environmental impact.

The action implemented by this interim final rule is expected to impact approximately 81 California/Oregon drift gillnet vessel owners and operators, representing approximately 2,000 fishing sets annually. Four alternatives were evaluated in the EA prepared for this interim final rule, including a status quo alternative. For a description and a detailed economic analysis of the alternatives analyzed for the CA/OR drift gillnet fishery, readers should refer to the EA prepared for this interim final rule. The total cost to the CA/OR drift gillnet fleet resulting from the time and area closures in this interim final rule is estimated at $640K. This maximum cost estimate to the fishery is a worst case scenario based on the assumption that none of the fishing effort will shift to ocean areas that remain open to fishing. However, because the observed entanglement rate for swordfish in the leatherback closed area is similar to the swordfish entanglement rate in the open area along central California, NMFS expects most of the fishing effort will shift to the open ocean waters. Therefore, NMFS does not expect the leatherback time and area closure to have as much of an effect on ex-vessel gross revenue values as the worst case scenario estimate of $640K.

This interim final rule does not contain collection-of-information requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act.

This interim final rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.

A BO on the issuance of a marine mammal permit under section 101 (a)(5)(E) of the MMPA was finalized on October 23, 2000. That BO concluded that issuance of a permit and continued operation of the CA/OR drift gillnet fishery was likely to jeopardize the continued existence of leatherback and loggerhead sea turtles. This interim final rule implements an alternative to the reasonable and prudent alternative measure in the BO to protect leatherback sea turtles. NMFS has determined that the alternative measure implemented by this interim final rule is as protective of leatherback sea turtles as the reasonable and prudent alternative measure in the BO. NMFS Office of Protected Resources, which issued the BO, has concurred that this alternative would provide the same level of protection as the reasonable and prudent alternative measure identified in the BO and would avoid the likelihood of jeopardizing the continued existence of the leatherback sea turtle. This alternative measure does not change the conclusions of the BO related to marine mammals listed under the ESA. Moreover, this interim final rule will have no adverse impacts on marine mammals that are not listed under the ESA.

Given the endangered status of the leatherback sea turtle, the fact that the fishery opened on August 15, and that the existing regulations are not sufficient to prevent entanglements, the Assistant Administrator for NOAA Fisheries (AA), for good cause, under 5 U.S.C. 553 (b)(3)(B), finds that delaying this closure action to allow for prior notice and an opportunity for public comment would be contrary to the public interest because such delay would not provide protection for leatherback sea turtles that would otherwise be taken by this fishery. For the same reasons, the AA finds good cause also under 5 U.S.C. 553 (d)(3) not to delay the effective date of this interim final rule for 30 days.

In developing the alternative closure for protection of leatherback sea turtles under this interim final rule, NMFS has considered, to the maximum extent practicable and consistent with the ESA, the concerns of the CA/OR drift gillnet fishery and Pacific Offshore Cetacean Take Reduction Team as previously described in this action. To ensure timely notice of this action, NMFS has scheduled mandatory skipper workshops for vessel operators and owners during the last week in August and first week in September to clarify issues related to the time and area closure to protect leatherback sea turtles and the Pacific Offshore Cetacean Take Reduction Plan. A fleet notice will be sent by certified mail to the vessel owners and operators notifying them of the leatherback time and area closure. NMFS will also coordinate with the U.S. Coast Guard to issue a Notice to Mariners on Channel 16, VHF radio as well as send notice through NOAA Weather radio.

As prior notice and opportunity for public comment are not required to be provided for this interim final rule by 5 U.S.C. 553, or by any other law, the analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., are inapplicable.

In keeping with the intent of the Executive Order 13132 to provide continuing and meaningful dialogue on issues of mutual state and Federal interest, NMFS has conferred with the States of California and Oregon regarding the implementation of the reasonable and prudent alternative. Both California and Oregon have expressed support for the measures identified in the BO for the protection of leatherback and loggerhead sea turtle species. NMFS met with California Department of Fish and Game officials to decide which agency would implement the regulations to meet the requirement of the BO reasonable and prudent alternative. The State of California decided that NMFS should implement the regulations under the authority of the ESA. In addition, as a member of the TROTTED, the State of California was actively involved in the development of the alternative measure to protect leatherback sea turtles and participated in meetings about its implementation. NMFS intends to continue engaging in informal and formal contacts with the States of California and Oregon during the implementation of the measures in the BO and development of the highly migratory species fishery management plan that includes the CA/OR drift gillnet fishery.

Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Marine mammals, Transportation.

Administrative practice and procedure, Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

This action is authorized by regulations implementing the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan (FMP), which governs the groundfish fishery off Washington, Oregon, and California. On January 11, 2001 (66 FR 2338), the levels of allowable biological catch (ABC), the optimum yield (OY) and the commercial OY (the OY minus the tribal allocation) for U.S. harvests of whiting were announced in the Federal Register. For 2001 the whiting ABC and OY are 190,400 metric tons (mt) and the commercial OY is 162,900 mt. -

Regulations at 50 CFR 660.323(a)(4) divide the commercial OY into separate allocations for the catcher/processor, mothership, and shore-based sectors of the whiting fishery. The 2001 allocations, based on the 2001 commercial OY, are 55,386 mt (34 percent) for the catcher/processor sector, 39,096 mt (24 percent) for the mothership sector, and 68,418 mt (42 percent) for the shore-based sector. When each sector's allocation is reached, the primary season for that sector is ended. -

The shore-based sector is composed of vessels that harvest whiting for delivery to land-based processors. The regulations at 50 CFR 660.323 (a)(3)(i) describe the primary season for the shore-based sector as the period(s) when the large-scale target fishery is conducted (when trip limits under § 660.323(b) are not in effect). Before and after the primary seasons, per-trip limits are in effect for whiting. -

The best available information on August 21, 2001, indicates that 64,641 mt had been taken through August 18, 2001, and that the 68,418 mt shore-based allocation would be reached by 12 noon August 21, 2001. This Federal Register document announces the date that the primary season for the shore-based sector ends, and that per-trip limits are imposed. The per-trip limit is intended to accommodate small bait and fresh fish markets and bycatch in other fisheries. To minimize incidental catch of chinook salmon by vessels fishing shoreward of the 100 fm (183 m) contour in the Eureka area, at any time during a fishing trip, a limit of 10,000-lb (4,536 kg) of whiting is in effect year-round (unless landings of whiting are prohibited).

For the reasons stated here, and in accordance with the regulations at 50 CFR 660.323(a)(4)(iii)(C), NMFS herein announces: -

Effective 12 noon l.t. August 21, 2001, no more than 20,000-lb (9,072-kg) of whiting may be taken and retained, possessed or landed by a catcher vessel participating in the shore-based sector of the whiting fishery. If a vessel fishes shoreward of the 100 fm (183 m) contour in the Eureka area (43° - 40° 30′ N. lat.) at any time during a fishing trip, the 10,000-lb (4,536-kg) trip limit applies, as announced in the annual management measures at paragraph IV, B (3)(c)(ii). -

This action is authorized by the regulations implementing the FMP. The determination to take this action is based on the most recent data available. The aggregate data upon which the determination is based are available for public inspection at the Office of the Regional Administrator (see ADDRESSES) during business hours. This action is taken under the authority of 50 CFR 660.323(a)(4)(iii)(C) and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.