The FAA has determined that notice and opportunity for prior public comment hereon are unnecessary because these special conditions are substantially identical to those that have been issued on three previous occasions, and that further new comments are unlikely.

Interested persons are invited to submit such written data, views, or arguments as they may desire. Communications should identify the Rules Docket number identified above and be submitted in duplicate to the address specified above. All communications received on or before the closing date for comments specified above will be considered. The special conditions may be changed in light of the comments received.

All comments received will be available in the Rules Docket for examination by interested persons, both before and after the closing date for comments. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerning this rulemaking will be filed in the Rules Docket.

Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments submitted in response to this request must submit a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket Number NM198.” The postcard will be date stamped and returned to the commenter.

On April 20, 2001, Boeing Commercial Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington 98124, applied for a type certificate design change to install inflatable lapbelts for head injury protection on certain seats in Boeing Model 777 series airplanes. The Model 777 series airplane is a swept-wing, conventional-tail, twin-engine, turbofan-powered transport. The inflatable lapbelt is designed to limit occupant forward excursion in the event of an accident. This will reduce the potential for head injury, thereby reducing the Head Injury Criteria (HIC) measurement. The inflatable lapbelt behaves similarly to an automotive airbag, but in this case the airbag is integrated into the lapbelt, and inflates away from the seated occupant. While airbags are now standard in the automotive industry, the use of an inflatable lapbelt is novel for commercial aviation.

Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) § 25.785 requires that occupants be protected from head injury by either the elimination of any injurious object within the striking radius of the head, or by padding. Traditionally, this has required a set back of 35 inches from any bulkhead or other rigid interior feature or, where not practical, specified types of padding. The relative effectiveness of these means of injury protection was not quantified. With the adoption of Amendment 25-64 to 14 CFR part 25, specifically § 25.562, a new standard that quantifies required head injury protection was created.

Section 25.562 specifies that dynamic tests must be conducted for each seat type installed in the airplane. In particular, the regulations require that persons not suffer serious head injury under the conditions specified in the tests, and that a HIC measurement of not more than 1000 units be recorded, should contact with the cabin interior occur. While the test conditions described in this section are specific, it is the intent of the requirement that an adequate level of head injury protection be provided for crash severity up to and including that specified.

Amendment 25-64 is part of the Model 777 certification basis. Therefore, the seat installation with inflatable lapbelts must meet the requirement that a HIC of less than 1000 be demonstrated for occupants of seats incorporating the inflatable lapbelt.

Because §§ 25.562 and 25.785 and associated guidance do not adequately address seats with inflatable lapbelts, the FAA recognizes that appropriate pass/fail criteria need to be developed that do fully address the safety concerns specific to occupants of these seats.

The inflatable lapbelt has two potential advantages over other means of head impact protection. First, it can provide significantly greater protection than would be expected with energy-absorbing pads, for example, and second, it can provide essentially equivalent protection for occupants of all stature. These are significant advantages from a safety standpoint, since such devices will likely provide a level of safety that exceeds the minimum standards of the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR). Conversely, inflatable lapbelts in general are active systems and must be relied upon to activate properly when needed, as opposed to an energy-absorbing pad or upper torso restraint that is passive, and always available. These potential advantages must be balanced against the potential disadvantages in order to develop standards that will provide an equivalent level of safety to that intended by the regulations.

The FAA has considered the installation of inflatable lapbelts to have two primary safety concerns: first, that they perform properly under foreseeable operating conditions, and second, that they do not perform in a manner or at such times as would constitute a hazard to the airplane or occupants. This latter point has the potential to be the more rigorous of the requirements, owing to the active nature of the system. With this philosophy in mind, the FAA has considered the following as a basis for the special conditions.

The inflatable lapbelt will rely on electronic sensors for signaling and pyrotechnic charges for activation so that it is available when needed. These same devices could be susceptible to inadvertent activation, causing deployment in a potentially unsafe manner. The consequences of such deployment must be considered in establishing the reliability of the system. Boeing Commercial Airplanes must substantiate that the effects of an inadvertent deployment in flight are either not a hazard to the airplane, or that such deployment is an extremely improbable occurrence (less than 10 −9 per flight hour). The effect of an inadvertent deployment on a passenger or crewmember that might be positioned close to the inflatable lapbelt should also be considered. The person could be either standing or sitting. A minimum reliability level will have to be established for this case, depending upon the consequences, even if the effect on the airplane is negligible.

The potential for an inadvertent deployment could be increased as a result of conditions in service. The installation must take into account wear and tear so that the likelihood of an inadvertent deployment is not increased to an unacceptable level. In this context, an appropriate inspection interval and self-test capability are considered necessary. Other outside influences are lightning and high intensity electromagnetic fields (HIRF). Since the sensors that trigger deployment are electronic, they must be protected from the effects of these threats. Existing Special Conditions No. 25-ANM-78 regarding lightning and HIRF are therefore applicable. For the purposes of compliance with those special conditions, if inadvertent deployment could cause a hazard to the airplane, the inflatable lapbelt is considered a critical system; if inadvertent deployment could cause injuries to persons, the inflatable lapbelt should be considered an essential system. Finally, the inflatable lapbelt installation should be protected from the effects of fire, so that an additional hazard is not created by, for example, a rupture of the pyrotechnic squib.

In order to be an effective safety system, the inflatable lapbelt must function properly and must not introduce any additional hazards to occupants as a result of its functioning. There are several areas where the inflatable lapbelt differs from traditional occupant protection systems, and requires special conditions to ensure adequate performance.

Because the inflatable lapbelt is essentially a single use device, there is the potential that it could deploy under crash conditions that are not sufficiently severe as to require head injury protection from the inflatable lapbelt. Since an actual crash is frequently composed of a series of impacts before the airplane comes to rest, this could render the inflatable lapbelt useless if a larger impact follows the initial impact. This situation does not exist with energy-absorbing pads or upper torso restraints, which tend to provide protection according to the severity of the impact. Therefore, the inflatable lapbelt installation should be such that the inflatable lapbelt will provide protection when it is required, and will not expend its protection when it is not needed. There is no requirement for the inflatable lapbelt to provide protection for multiple impacts, where more than one impact would require protection.

Since each occupant's restraint system provides protection for that occupant only, the installation must address seats that are unoccupied. It will be necessary to show that the required protection is provided for each occupant, regardless of the number of occupied seats and considering that unoccupied seats may have inflatable lapbelts that are active.

Since a wide range of occupants could occupy a seat, the inflatable lapbelt should be effective for a wide range of occupants. The FAA has historically considered the range from the fifth percentile female to the ninety-fifth percentile male as the range of occupants that must be taken into account. In this case, the FAA is proposing consideration of a broader range of occupants, due to the nature of the lapbelt installation and its close proximity to the occupant. In a similar vein, these persons could have assumed the brace position, for those accidents where an impact is anticipated. Test data indicate that occupants in the brace position may not require supplemental protection, and so it would not be necessary to show that the inflatable lapbelt will enhance the brace position. However, the inflatable lapbelt must not introduce a hazard in that case by deploying into the seated, braced occupant.

Another area of concern is the use of seats so equipped by children whether lap-held, in approved child safety seats, or occupying the seat directly. Similarly, if the seat is occupied by a pregnant woman, the installation needs to address such usage, either by demonstrating that it will function properly, or by adding appropriate limitation on usage.

Since the inflatable lapbelt will be electrically powered, there is the possibility that the system could fail due to a separation in the fuselage. Since this system is intended as crash/post-crash protection means, failure due to fuselage separation is not acceptable. As with emergency lighting, the system should function properly if such a separation occurs at any point in the fuselage. A separation that occurs at the location of the inflatable lapbelt would not have to be considered.

Since the inflatable lapbelt is likely to have a large volume displacement, the inflated bag could potentially impede egress of passengers. Since the bag deflates to absorb energy, it is likely that an inflatable lapbelt would be deflated at the time that persons would be trying to leave their seats. Nonetheless, it is considered appropriate to specify a time interval after which the inflatable lapbelt may not impede rapid egress. Ten seconds has been chosen as a reasonable time since this corresponds to the maximum time allowed for an exit to be openable. In actuality, it is unlikely that an exit would be prepared this quickly in an accident severe enough to warrant deployment of the inflatable lapbelt, and the inflatable lapbelt will likely deflate much quicker than ten seconds.

Finally, it should be noted that the special conditions are certification requirements applied to the inflatable lapbelt system as installed. The special conditions are not an installation approval. Therefore, while the special conditions relate to each such system installed, the overall installation approval is a separate finding, and must consider the combined effects of all such systems installed.

Under the provisions of § 21.101, Boeing Commercial Airplanes must show that the Model 777 series airplanes, as changed, continue to meet the applicable provisions of the regulations incorporated by reference in Type Certificate No. T00001SE or the applicable regulations in effect on the date of application for the change. The regulations incorporated by reference in the type certificate are commonly referred to as the “original type certification basis.” The regulations incorporated by reference in Type Certificate No. T00001SE are as follows: Amendments 25-1 through 25-82 for the Model 777-200 and Amendments 25-1 through 25-86 with exceptions for the Model 777-300. The U.S. type certification basis for the Model 777 is established in accordance with §§ 21.29 and 21.17 and the type certification application date. The U.S. type certification basis is listed in Type Certificate Data Sheet No. T00001SE.

If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness regulations (i.e., part 25 as amended) do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for Boeing Model 777 series airplanes because of a novel or unusual design feature, special conditions are prescribed under the provisions of § 21.16.

In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special conditions, the Boeing Model 777 must comply with the fuel vent and exhaust emission requirements of part 34 and the noise certification requirements of part 36.

Special conditions, as appropriate, are issued in accordance with § 11.19 after public notice, as required by § 11.38, and become part of the type certification basis in accordance with § 21.101(b)(2).

Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which they are issued. Should the type certificate for that model be amended later to include any other model that incorporates the same novel or unusual design feature, or should any other model already included on the same type certificate be modified to incorporate the same novel or unusual design feature, the special conditions would also apply to the other model under the provisions of § 21.101(a)(1).

The Model 777 series airplanes will incorporate the following novel or unusual design features: Boeing Commercial Airplanes is proposing to install an inflatable lapbelt on certain seats of Boeing Model 777 series airplanes, in order to reduce the potential for head injury in the event of an accident. The inflatable lapbelt works similar to an automotive airbag, except that the airbag is integrated with the lap belt of the restraint system.

The CFR states the performance criteria for head injury protection in objective terms. However, none of these criteria are adequate to address the specific issues raised concerning seats with inflatable lapbelts. The FAA has therefore determined that, in addition to the requirements of part 25, special conditions are needed to address requirements particular to installation of seats with inflatable lapbelts.

Accordingly, in addition to the passenger injury criteria specified in § 25.785, these special conditions are adopted for the Boeing Model 777 series airplanes equipped with inflatable lapbelts. Other conditions may be developed, as needed, based on further FAA review and discussions with the manufacturer and civil aviation authorities.

From the standpoint of a passenger safety system, the inflatable lapbelt is unique in that it is both an active and entirely autonomous device. While the automotive industry has good experience with airbags, the conditions of use and reliance on the inflatable lapbelt as the sole means of injury protection are quite different. In automobile installations, the airbag is a supplemental system and works in conjunction with an upper torso restraint. In addition, the crash event is more definable and of typically shorter duration, which can simplify the activation logic. The airplane operating environment is also quite different from automobiles and includes the potential for greater wear and tear, and unanticipated abuse conditions (due to galley loading, passenger baggage, etc.); airplanes also operate where exposure to high intensity electromagnetic fields could affect the activation system.

The following special conditions can be characterized as addressing either the safety performance of the system, or the system's integrity against inadvertent activation. Because a crash requiring use of the inflatable lapbelts is a relatively rare event, and because the consequences of an inadvertent activation are potentially quite severe, these latter requirements are probably the more rigorous from a design standpoint.

One comment was received in response to the most recent publication of the inflatable lapbelt special conditions (65 FR 60343) which are substantially identical to the special condition contained herein. The disposition of this comment is contained in Rules Docket No. NM176 and is available for examination by interested parties. In our disposition, we substantially agreed with the commenter, but noted that the substance of the comment was already addressed in the special conditions. Therefore, this comment did not result in a change to the special conditions.

As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to the Model 777 series airplanes. Should Boeing Commercial Airplanes apply at a later date for a change to the type certificate to modify any other model included on Type Certificate No. T00001SE to incorporate the same novel or unusual design feature, the special conditions would apply to that model as well under the provisions of § 21.101(a)(1).

This action affects only certain novel or unusual design features on the Boeing Model 777 series airplanes. It is not a rule of general applicability, and it affects only Model 777 series airplanes listed on TCDS T00001SE.

The FAA has determined that notice and opportunity for prior public comment hereon are unnecessary because these special conditions are substantially identical to those that have been issued on three previous occasions, and that further new comments are unlikely.

The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:

The FAA received a report of an accident involving a Fairchild Model SA226-TC airplane where the flight crew lost control of the airplane at low altitude during the final approach for landing. Prior to the accident, the flight crew reported a loss of hydraulic pressure and a fire on the left side of the airplane.

Investigation of this accident indicates the following:

A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to include an AD that is applicable to certain models of Pratt & Whitney (PW) PW4000 series turbofan engines was published in the Federal Register on March 22, 2001 (66 FR 16017). That action proposed to require operators to perform initial and repetitive inspections for cracking of high pressure compressor (HPC) front drum rotors based on cycle usage. The action also proposed to require the removal from service of any cracked HPC front drum rotors in accordance with PW Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) No. PW4ENG A72-722, dated September 29, 2000.

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

Six commenters express concern with the deletion of the five-cycle flyback allowance.

One commenter requests clarification of the difference between the NPRM and ASB 72-722 with respect to the deletion of the five-cycle flyback allowance for engines with indications requiring eddy current inspection (ECI) verification.

Another commenter states that the AD should provide the five-cycle flyback allowance because eight reported findings of HPC front drum cracking were discovered in the shop and that the cracks do not propagate quickly.

A third commenter expresses concern that in cases of suspect cracks, the airline would incur an undue economic burden waiting for confirmation as to whether the visual indication is a crack or not. Also, the commenter suggests an initial inspection threshold of 1,200 cycles-since-new and a 20-cycle window for ECI reinspection to verify a visual crack indication. The commenter suggests that it is preferable to inspect compressor drums at a more frequent inspection interval and allow an engine with a “suspect” crack to continue in service for a limited time to allow for planning a reinspection. The same commenter suggests a 1,500 cycle repetitive inspection.

Another commenter provided information on the nature of the crack findings to date. Fifteen engines were identified with crack indications through borescope inspection. Three were obvious visual cracks and 12 required further assessment using the ECI inspection procedure cited in the SB. These 12 indications were confirmed not to be cracks.

Two commenters state that the five-cycle allowance for additional nondestructive inspections is effective in eliminating false initial crack indications and should be reinstated.

The FAA agrees that the five-cycle flyback allowance for engines with suspect crack indications is acceptable. Since the publication of the NPRM, results of a metallurgical investigation were provided that substantiate the five-cycle flight allowance. This information also determined that if a suspect crack indication extends from the knife edges to the disk radius of the sixth or seventh stage, an ECI reinspection must be accomplished before further flight. Accordingly, a five-cycle flyback allowance has been added to the compliance section of the AD.

However, the FAA does not agree with the suggested 20-cycle reinspection window or with the 1,500 cycle repetitive inspection interval. The FAA based the initial inspection threshold, reinspect flight allowance, and repetitive inspection interval on a risk assessment that uses known inspection data results to date.

Several commenters request clarification regarding initial and repetitive inspection of the HPC front drum rotors. Two commenters request clarification of the requirement stated in the NPRM that the initial inspection be performed before the drum accumulates 1,500 cycles-since-new (CSN). Other commenters express concern that the NPRM does not address front drum rotors that exceed 1,500 CSN.

The FAA agrees. It is the FAA's intent to be consistent with the analytical data associated with HPC front drum rotor cracking. The ASB states that the initial borescope inspection should be performed on all HPC front drum rotors that have accumulated 1,000 cycles (total drum cycles), at the next “A” check, or 500 cycles after the receipt of the ASB. The FAA agrees with the inspection threshold of 500 cycles determined by the risk assessment and chose the upper limit of 1,500 CSN as the compliance threshold for the initial inspection. Rewording the initial inspection threshold inadvertently introduced confusion. The requirements of the ASB and the AD are equivalent because they are based on the same data. Therefore, the FAA will change the wording to be consistent with the ASB.

One commenter requests that a drum rotor that was inspected in accordance with SB 72-722, having a total time beyond 1,500 CSN when inspected, be permitted to remain in service.

Another commenter asks if the AD has the same exemption as the ASB, which states that HPC front drum rotors previously inspected in accordance with the CIR Manual requirement at the last shop visit within 500 cycles, are exempt from the initial borescope inspection. That commenter also states that the requirement is not clear for the repetitive inspection requirement for HPC front drum rotors that were previously inspected in the shop.

Another commenter states that the provision in ASB PW4ENG A72-722 that exempts drums that were detail-part-inspected within 500 cycles from the initial inspection and fall into the 2,200 cycle reinspection interval should be included in the final rule.

The FAA agrees that if an HPC front drum rotor was inspected in accordance with On-Wing paragraphs of ASB 72-722, as required by the proposed rule, the initial inspection requirement is satisfied. However, the rotor is still subject to the repetitive On-Wing inspection requirements, within 2,200 cycles since last inspection.

The FAA also agrees that an HPC front drum rotor inspected in the shop utilizing the flourescent penetrant inspection (FPI) procedure within the past 500 CIS is exempt from the initial borescope inspection. Again, the rotor is still subject to the repetitive On-Wing inspection requirements, within 2,200 cycles since last inspection.

One commenter requests that the ECI of ASB 72-722 be omitted when the drum rotor is FPI per SPOP82 (CIR P/N 51A357 72-35-00). Another commenter asks whether the HPC front drum knife edge spacer area between the sixth and seventh stage disks previously visually inspected with split case condition or during light maintenance also should be exempted from initial borescope inspection.

As noted above, the FAA agrees that an HPC front drum rotor that was fluorescent penetrant inspected in the shop, as cited in the compliance section of the ASB, within the past 500 cycles in service (CIS), satisfies the initial inspection requirement. The ECI inspection requirement that is provided to confirm a suspect crack indication does not apply to HPC front drum rotors that have been fluorescent penetrant inspected in the shop within the past 500 CIS. The in-shop FPI inspection is more rigorous than the on-wing inspection requirements.

One commenter provides new information that there are eleven confirmed cracked HPC front drum rotors to date as compared to the seven that were described in the Summary and Discussion Sections of the NPRM. The FAA agrees that the higher number is accurate.

One commenter expresses a preference to inspect after 3,000 CIS, given that operator's experience with HPC front drum rotor cracking.

The FAA does not agree with the suggested 3,000 cycle repetitive inspection interval. The FAA based the initial inspection threshold, reinspect flight allowance, and repetitive inspection interval on a 20-year cumulative risk assessment that uses known inspection data results to date. The AD provides for individual operators to submit substantiating data that would support an increase in the repetitive inspection interval under the alternative method of compliance paragraph.

One commenter states that the inspection procedure in Pratt & Whitney Service Bulletin PW4ENG A72-693 is the same as that required by the proposed rule; therefore, “credit” should be given for the inspections previously performed using this SB.

The FAA disagrees. PW ASB PW4ENG A72-693 was not referenced in the NPRM because that was a fleetwide campaign that has been completed and was not part of the 20-year risk assessment for which the start date was June 2000. However, credit will be given for inspections done prior to the issuance of this AD depending on when and how they were accomplished. These should be evaluated on an individual case basis within the context of the alternative method of compliance provision of the AD.

One commenter notes that Revision 1 of the ASB does not exempt PW4158 engine serial numbers P728534 through P728546 from the inspection requirements and the AD does not need to include this information in the description of the differences between the manufacturer's service information and this AD. The FAA agrees and that statement has been removed from the AD.

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

Since the publication of the NPRM, the manufacturer revised, and the FAA has approved the technical contents of alert service bulletin (ASB) No. PW4ENG A72-722, Revision 1, dated June 7, 2001. Although ASB No. PW4ENG A72-722, Revision 1, dated June 7, 2001, provides procedures for operators to perform off-wing initial and repetitive HPC drum rotor inspections, the off-wing requirements are not mandated by this AD. The FAA has evaluated a 20-year cumulative risk assessment and has determined that an acceptable level of safety will be met by requiring the on-wing inspections at the cyclic intervals detailed in the ASB.

The FAA estimates that there are 1,970 engines of the affected design in the worldwide fleet, and that 538 engines installed on aircraft of U.S. registry would be affected by this proposed AD. The FAA also estimates that it would take approximately 2.5 work hours per engine to accomplish the proposed on-wing inspection, and that the average labor rate is $60 per work hour. It is estimated that three engines would be found with cracked HPC front drum rotors in the time frame of one year. Approximately 269 engines will be inspected on average per year. The cost of removal and reinstallation of an engine is approximately $10,000, and the cost of replacing the HPC front drum rotor is approximately $750,000. Required replacement parts would cost $356,130 per engine. Based on these figures, the total cost impact per year of the proposed AD for accomplishing initial inspections and replacing HPC front drum rotors, on U.S. operators is estimated to be $3,388,730.

This final rule does not have federalism implications, as defined in Executive Order 13132, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Accordingly, the FAA has not consulted with state authorities prior to publication of this final rule.

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

On June 20, 2001, the FAA issued AD 2001-13-14, amendment 39-12295 (66 FR 34083, June 27, 2001), applicable to all EMBRAER Model EMB-120 series airplanes, to require revising the Airplane Flight Manual (AFM), installing a placard on the main instrument panel, and removing the “LIGHT-HEAVY” inflation switch of the leading edge deicing boots. That action was prompted by issuance of mandatory continuing airworthiness information by a foreign civil airworthiness authority. The actions required by that AD are intended to ensure that the flightcrew is provided with accurate indications of the severity of ice accretion and appropriate procedures and actions to prevent reduced controllability of the airplane due to accretion of ice on the airplane.

Since the issuance of that AD, the Departmento de Aviacao Civil (DAC), which is the airworthiness authority for Brazil, has notified the FAA that an unsafe condition may exist on all EMBRAER Model EMB-120 series airplanes. The DAC advises that it has received reports of loss of control events occurring on EMBRAER Model EMB-120 series airplanes that were flying during icing conditions. The DAC advises that such events indicate that the flightcrews may not have correctly determined both the severity of the ice accretion and the need to take immediate action to prevent excessive loss of airspeed, especially when using the autopilot. This situation, if not corrected, could result in reduced controllability of the airplane due to accretion of ice on the airplane.

EMBRAER has issued Service Bulletin 120-30-0033, Change 01, dated September 6, 2001, that describes procedures for installing a low speed alarm on the glareshield panel, adding new electrical wires in the cockpit and in the electronic compartment, installing or replacing two placards, and reworking the pitot-static system between frames 3 and 4.

EMBRAER also issued Service Bulletin 120-30-0033, Change 02, dated September 14, 2001, which includes two new electrical diagrams, corrects the hook-up charts, and describes a check for correct installation of diodes.

EMBRAER has issued Service Bulletin 120-25-0258, Change 01, dated August 30, 2001, which describes procedures for installing a placard to instruct pilots to immediately activate the deicing boots and disengage the autopilot, whenever ice is detected by visual cues or ice detector illumination. The original issue of Service Bulletin 120-25-0258, dated May 14, 2001, was cited as a source of service information in AD 2001-13-14. Change 01 is identical in technical content to the original service bulletin, and merely specifies that a new placard has been developed for airplanes that have been modified per EMBRAER Service Bulletin 120-30-0033, and contains procedures for installing the new placard.

The DAC classified these service bulletins as mandatory and issued Brazilian airworthiness directive 2001-05-02R1, effective September 30, 2001, in order to assure the continued airworthiness of these airplanes in Brazil.

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

Since an unsafe condition has been identified that is likely to exist or develop on other airplanes of the same type design registered in the United States, this AD supersedes AD 2001-13-14 to continue to require revising the AFM, installing a placard on the main instrument panel, and removing the “LIGHT-HEAVY” inflation switch of the leading edge deicing boots. This AD will also require installing a low speed alarm for icing conditions, revising the AFM, and replacing an existing placard with a placard that directs the flightcrew to activate the deicing boots whenever ice is detected by visual cues or ice detector illumination.

This AD differs from the Brazilian AD in the following ways:

1. This AD is more specific as to when to disconnect the autopilot.

2. This AD includes instructions to remove the current information contained in the Normal Procedures Section advising the flightcrew to select either HEAVY or LIGHT mode.

3. This AD adds a WARNING to the Normal Procedures section to exit icing conditions if the flightcrew detects large or frequent changes in trim or excessive performance degradation.

4. This AD includes additional AFM instructions regarding abnormal operations with the icing low speed alarm activated.

5. This AD also includes dispatch relief regarding certain Master Minimum Equipment List items for the ice detection system and the new icing low speed alarm system.

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

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

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

Submit comments using the following format:

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

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

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

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

Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments submitted in response to this rule must submit a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket Number 2001-NM-298-AD.” The postcard will be date stamped and returned to the commenter.

The regulations adopted herein will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, it is determined that this final rule does not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.

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

In January, 2001 (66 FR 5916-6135), OSHA published revisions to its rule on recording and reporting occupational injuries and illnesses (29 CFR parts 1904 and 1952) to take effect on January 1, 2002. On July 3, 2001, the agency proposed to delay the effective date of Sections 1904.10 Recording criteria for cases involving occupational hearing loss, and 1904.12 Recording criteria for cases involving work-related musculoskeletal disorders, until January 1, 2003 (66 FR 35113-35115). In that notice, OSHA explained that, as a result of the regulatory review required by the Andrew Card memorandum (66 FR 7702), it was reconsidering the requirement in Section 1904.10 to record a case involving an occupational hearing loss averaging 10dB, or more. OSHA found that there were reasons to question the appropriateness of 10dB as the recording criterion, and asked for comment on other approaches and criteria, including recording losses averaging 15, 20 or 25dB. In view of the uncertainty concerning the appropriate criteria, OSHA preliminarily concluded that it should delay implementing the 10dB requirement for a year while it reconsidered the question. The proposal stated that if implementation of Section 1904.10 were delayed for a year, employers would continue to record hearing loss cases during that year using the 25dB criterion articulated in OSHA's 1991 enforcement policy (See 66 FR 35114-35115).

OSHA also stated that it was reconsidering the requirement in Section 1904.12 that employers check the MSD column on the OSHA Log for a case involving a “musculoskelal disorder” as defined in that Section. This action was taken in light of a the Secretary's decision to develop a comprehensive plan to address ergonomic hazards, and to schedule a series of forums to consider key issues relating to the plan, including the approach to defining an ergonomic injury. OSHA preliminarily found that it would be premature to define a musculoskeletal disorder for recordkeeping purposes before further progress has been made in developing the comprehensive ergonomics plan, and that a delay in the effective date of Section 1904.12 was therefore appropriate. 66 FR 35115. The Agency noted that the proposed delay would not affect the employer's obligation to record all injuries and illnesses, including musculoskeletal injuries and illnesses, that meet the criteria in Sections 1904.4-1904.7, regardless of whether a particular injury or illness would meet the definition of MSD found in Section 1904.12. Id.

The period for submission of comments on the proposed rule closed on September 4, 2001. After considering the views of interested parties, OSHA has determined that the effective date of Sections 1904.10(a) and 1904.12(a) and (b) should be delayed until January 1, 2003, and that a new paragraph (c) should be added to Section 1904.10 re-establishing a 25dB recording criterion for hearing loss cases for calendar year 2002.

Section 1904.10 of the final recordkeeping rule requires employers to record, by checking the “hearing loss” column on the OSHA 300 Log, a case in which an employee's hearing test (audiogram) reveals that a Standard Threshold Shift (STS) in hearing acuity has occurred. An STS is defined as “a change in hearing threshold, relative to the most recent audiogram for that employee, of an average of 10 decibels (dB) or more at 2000, 3000 and 4000 hertz in one or both ears.” The recordkeeping rule itself does not require the employer to test employee's hearing. However, OSHA's occupational noise standard (29 CFR 1910.95), requires employers in general industry to conduct periodic audiometric testing of employees when employees' noise exposures are equal to, or exceed, an 8-hour time-weighted average of 85dB. If such testing reveals that an employee has sustained hearing loss equal to an STS, the employer must take protective measures, including requiring the use of hearing protectors, to prevent further hearing loss.

The old recordkeeping rule, which remains in effect until January 1, 2001, contained no specific threshold for recording hearing loss cases. In 1991, OSHA issued an enforcement policy on the criteria for recording hearing loss cases, to remain in effect until new criteria were established by rulemaking. The 1991 policy stated that OSHA would cite employers for failing to record work related shifts in hearing of an average of 25dB or more at 2000, 3000 and 4000 hertz in either ear. Subsequently, OSHA released interpretations stating that the employer could adjust the audiogram for aging using the tables in Appendix F of the Noise Standard, and that the employer was to use the employee's pre-employment audiogram as the baseline reference audiogram for determining a recordable hearing loss.

One of the major issues in the recordkeeping rulemaking was to determine the level of occupational hearing loss that constitutes a health condition serious enough to warrant recording. This was necessary because the final rule no longer requires recording of minor or insignificant health conditions. See, e.g., 66 FR 5931. OSHA proposed a requirement to record hearing loss averaging 15dB at 2000, 3000 and 4000 hertz in one or both ears. OSHA adopted the lower 10dB threshold in the final rule based in large part upon comments submitted by the Coalition to Preserve OSHA and NIOSH and Protect Workers' Hearing, asserting that “[a]n age-corrected STS is a large hearing change that can affect communicative competence.” 66 FR 6008.

In its July 3 proposal to delay implementation of Section 1904.10, OSHA expressed reservations about whether 10dB is the appropriate threshold for recording hearing loss. The agency acknowledged that there is evidence that an STS may not be a serious health problem, particularly for employees who have not previously sustained hearing loss, and that a 10dB shift may not be a reliable criterion for recording purposes because of normal variations in audiometric measurement (66 FR 35114). For these and other reasons, OSHA reopened the record to permit consideration of additional evidence and to explore alternative approaches ( Id. ).

Most commenters supported the proposed delay in implementation of Section 1940.10 (see, e.g., Exs. 3-1, 3-6, 3-14, 3-22, 3-25, 3-26, 3-29, 3-34, 3-49, 3-50, 3-54). The view expressed by Organization Resources Counselors, Inc. is representative. ORC (Ex. 3-49, p. 3) argued:

Several commenters opposed the delay, with most citing the protective purposes served by recordkeeping requirements (see, e.g., Exs. 3-3, 3-4, 3-8, 3-9, 3-10, 3-11, 3-12, 3-17, 3-31). In a representative comment, the AFL-CIO argued that the requirement to record a 10dB hearing loss on the Log would aid in the early detection and prevention of occupational hearing loss. It stated (Ex. 3-24-1, p.3) that,

OSHA is not persuaded by this argument. As the AFL-CIO concedes (Ex. 3-24-1, p.6), Congress intended the recordkeeping system to capture non-minor injuries and illnesses. OSHA is reconsidering the finding that a 10dB shift in hearing acuity represents such a health condition, and intends to resolve this issue based on all the available evidence. In the meantime, there is sufficient question concerning the appropriateness of 10dB as a recording threshold to justify a limited delay in implementing Section 1904.10(a) and (b).

Delaying implementation of the 10dB threshold for a year while OSHA reconsiders the criteria for recording hearing loss cases will not deprive employers and employees of information about noise hazards. The occupational noise exposure standard requires that employees in general industry be tested for hearing loss when noise exposure exceeds an 8-hour time-weighted average of 85dB, and that employees be informed, in writing, if a 10dB shift has occurred. The audiometric test records must be retained for the duration of the affected employee's employment. See 29 CFR 1910.95 (g), (m). The noise standard also specifies the protective measures to be taken to prevent further hearing loss for employees who have experience a 10dB shift, including the use of hearing protectors and referral for audiological evaluation where appropriate. See 29 CFR 1910.95 (g)(8). These requirements, which apply without regard to the recording criteria in the recordkeeping rule, will protect workers against the hazards of noise. The one-year delay in implementing Section 1904.10(a) and (b) will therefore not deprive employers and workers of the means to detect and prevent hearing loss.

Several commenters supported a requirement to record a hearing loss averaging 25 dB or more while OSHA reconsidered the 10dB criterion (see, e.g., Exs. 3-49, 3-54), The American Iron and Steel Institute (AISI) argued that the 25dB criterion should be included in the regulatory text to avoid any confusion about employers' compliance responsibilities during calendar year 2002. OSHA agrees with AISI on this point, and has added a new paragraph (c) to Section 1904.10 specifying the criteria to be used for the 2002 recording year. The AISI also recommended that OSHA continue its policy of allowing employers to correct employee's audiograms for aging (presbycusis) using the age correction tables in the occupational noise standard (Ex. 3-54). Since this was OSHA's policy in the past, the Agency has also included language to this effect in the new paragraph, 1904.10(c).

A few commenters urged OSHA to make sure that the State Plan States have the same recording criteria as federal OSHA (see, e.g., Exs. 3-22, 3-49). When OSHA issues a final determination for the recording of occupational hearing loss for calendar years 2003 and beyond, the states will be required to have identical criteria. However, the purpose of this notice is to maintain the status quo regarding the recording of occupational hearing loss for the year 2002, while OSHA reconsiders what the appropriate recording criteria should be. Therefore, the State Plan States will be allowed to maintain their policies for the recording of hearing loss during 2002.

Section 1904.12 provides that if an employee experiences a recordable musculoskeletal disorder (MSD), the employer must record it on the OSHA Log and must check the MSD column. For recordkeeping purposes, the rule defines MSDs as disorders of the muscles, nerves, tendons, ligaments, joints, cartilage and spinal discs that are not caused by slips, trips, falls, motor vehicle accidents or other similar accidents (see Section 1904.12(b)(1)). The Section also explains that in determining whether an MSD is recordable, the employer must use the same criteria that apply to other injuries and illnesses. To be recordable, the disorder must be work related, must be a new case, and must meet one or more of the general recording criteria. Section 1904.12 states that “[t]here are no special criteria for determining which musculoskeletal disorders to record,” and refers the reader to other sections of the rule in which the basic recording criteria are found.

OSHA's purpose in including an MSD column on the Log was to gather data on “musculoskeletal disorders” as that term is defined in Section 1904.12. Two months after publication of the new recordkeeping rule, Congress disapproved OSHA's ergonomics standard under the Congressional Review Act (Pub. L. 107.5 Mar. 20, 2001). Following Congressional disapproval of the ergonomics standard, the Secretary announced that she intends to develop a comprehensive plan to address ergonomics hazards and scheduled a series of forums to consider basic issues related to ergonomics (66 FR 31694, 66 FR 33578). One of the key issues to be considered in connection with the Secretary's comprehensive plan is the approach to defining an ergonomic injury.

In the July proposal, OSHA preliminarily found that it would be premature to implement the new definition of MSD in Section 1904.12 before considering the views of business, labor and the public health community on the problem of ergonomic hazards. It also preliminarily found that it would create confusion and uncertainty to require employers to implement the new MSD definition while the Secretary was considering how to define an ergonomic injury under the comprehensive plan. 66 FR 35115. Many commenters supported the delay, citing reasons similar to those in the July 3 proposal ( see, e.g., Exs. 3-1, 3-6, 3-14, 3-19, 3-20, 3-25, 3-26, 3-27, 3-29, 3-32, 3-35, 3-37, 3-38, 3-43, 3-44, 3-49, 3-50, 3-54, 3-59, 3-61). OSHA continues to believe a delay is justified for these reasons.

Several commenters opposed a delay in implementing the recordkeeping rule's definition of MSD and the requirement to check the MSD column ( see, e.g., Exs. 3-3, 3-8, 3-9, 3-10, 3-11, 3-12, 3-17, 3-21, 3-24, 3-28, 3-31, 3-36, 3-40, 3-42, 3-52). In a representative comment, the AFL-CIO argued that delayed implementation of Section 1904.12 will make it more difficult for employers, workers and OSHA to address workplace ergonomic hazards, and will seriously undermine OSHA's ability to enforce the general duty clause for ergonomic hazards ( see Ex. 3-24-1, pp. 15-22).

OSHA does not agree with this assessment. Employers are required to record all injuries and illnesses meeting the criteria established in Sections 1904.4 through 1904.7 of the recordkeeping rule regardless of whether a particular injury or illness meets the definition of MSD in Section 1904.12. Thus, the delay in implementing Section 1904.12 will not reduce the number of cases recorded or affect the narrative description of the injury or illness that must be provided for each case. Employers who use the Log and injury reports to discover ergonomic hazards will be able to continue to do so, relying on the description-of-injury information and other data to identify soft-tissued disorders in their workplaces (Ex. 3-24-1, p. 15). Employees will continue to have access to the information provided in the Log and, under the new rule, to the information in the part of the Incident Report explaining how the incident occurred. Employers and employees will be able to categorize this injury and illness information in any manner they find useful.

The delay need not lead to the elimination of useful statistical data on MSDs, as the AFL-CIO suggests (Ex. 3-24-1, p. 16). The definition of MSD in Section 1904.12 is a new one. The Secretary is currently considering approaches to defining ergonomic injuries in connection with her comprehensive plan, and it is premature to say, at this point, what definition would be appropriate to produce useful data. To require employers to implement a new definition of MSD while the agency is considering the issue in connection with the comprehensive ergonomics plan could create unnecessary confusion which would not, in OSHA's view, be balanced by improvements in the national statistics.

Finally, OSHA notes that the delay in the implementation of Section 1904.12 will have no effect on the Department's enforcement of the general duty clause. The definition of MSD in that section has never been in effect, and has not been a factor in enforcement of the clause. The sole effect of the delay is that employers need not use the definition to categorize cases on the OSHA Recordkeeping Log for calendar year 2002. This recordkeeping issue does not affect an employer's obligation under the general duty clause. The employer remains obligated to free its workplace from recognized hazards that are likely to cause serious physical harm.

OSHA is adding a note following the introduction to Section 1904.12 to inform employers of the policy that will be in effect during 2002. The note also informs the employer that, instead of checking the column on the 300 Log for musculoskeletal disorders (since this column is being removed from the log), the employer is to check the column for “injury” or “all other illness,” depending on the circumstances of the case.

In a related matter, paragraph 1904.29(b)(7)(vi) of the rule states that employers must consider an illness case to be a privacy concern case, and withhold the employee's name from the forms, if the employee independently and voluntarily requests that his or her name not be entered on the Log. The second sentence of the paragraph states that “[m]usculoskeletal disorders (MSDs) are not considered privacy concern cases.” OSHA will be unable to enforce this requirement during the period of time that the definition of MSD in the rule is delayed. Accordingly, OSHA is adding a note to section 1904.29(b)(7)(vi) stating that the first sentence of that section takes effect on January 1, 2002, and the second sentence takes effect on January 1, 2003.

Consistent with the above decisions, OSHA will issue new recordkeeping forms that have been modified to remove the MSD and hearing loss columns from the OSHA 300 Log of Work-Related Injuries and Illnesses and the OSHA 300A Summary of Work-Related Injuries and Illnesses. The instructions accompanying the forms have also been modified to reflect the decisions for the 1904 requirements that will be in effect during calendar year 2002.

Employers may obtain copies of the forms from OSHA's Internet homepage at www.osha.gov, or by contacting the OSHA publications office at (202) 693-1888.

OSHA has submitted to OMB a request for approval of the information collection requirements of the final recordkeeping rule, including the effect on the rule's paperwork burden of the delay in implementation of Sections 1904.10 and 1904.12 until January 1, 2003, and the adoption of an interim 25dB recording criterion for hearing loss cases for calendar year 2002. OSHA will publish a subsequent Federal Register document when OMB takes further action on the information collection requirements in the recordkeeping rule.

Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601), the Assistant Secretary certifies that the final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The rule does not add any new requirements, but merely delays the effective date of two sections of the rule. The delay will not impose any additional costs on the regulated public.

This document has been deemed significant under Executive Order 12866 and has been reviewed by OMB.

This document was prepared under the direction of John Henshaw, Assistant Secretary for Occupational Safety and Health. It is issued under Section 8 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act (29 U.S.C. 657) and 5 U.S.C. 553.

We did not publish a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for this regulation. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing an NPRM. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register . The permit application was not received in time to publish an NPRM followed by a final rule before the effective date. Delaying this rule would be contrary to the public interest of ensuring the safety of spectators and vessels during this event and immediate action is necessary to prevent possible loss of life or property. The Coast Guard has not received any complaints or negative comments previously with regard to this event.

A temporary safety zone is necessary to ensure the safety of vessels and spectators from the hazards associated with fireworks displays. Based on recent accidents that have occurred in other Captain of the Port zones, and the explosive hazard of fireworks, the Captain of the Port Detroit has determined fireworks launches in close proximity to watercraft pose significant risks to public safety and property. The likely combination of large numbers of recreational vessels, congested waterways, darkness punctuated by bright flashes of light, alcohol use, and debris falling into the water could easily result in serious injuries or fatalities. Establishing a safety zone to control vessel movement around the locations of the launch platform will help ensure the safety of persons and property at this event and help minimize the associated risk.

The safety zone will encompass all waters surrounding the fireworks launch platform within a 400-yard radius of the fireworks barge with its center in approximate position 42°26′01″ N, 083°51′56″ W, off of Harbor Seawall. The geographic coordinates are based upon North American Datum 1983 (NAD 83). The size of this zone was determined using the National Fire Prevention Association guidelines and local knowledge concerning wind, waves, and currents.

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

This rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed this rule under that order. It is not “significant” under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Transportation (DOT) (44 FR 11040, February 26, 1979). The economic impact of this proposed rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation under paragraph 10(e) of the regulatory policies and procedures of DOT is unnecessary. This determination is based on the minimal time (2 hours) that vessels will be restricted from the zone.

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

The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

This rule would affect the following entities, some of which might be small entities: the owners or operators of commercial vessels intending to transit or anchor in a portion of the activated safety zone.

This safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: This safety zone is only in effect from 9 p.m. until 11 p.m. the day of the event. Vessel traffic may pass safely around the safety zone. Before the effective period, we will issue maritime advisories widely available to users of the Detroit River by the Ninth Coast Guard District Local Notice to Mariners, and Marine Information Broadcasts. Facsimile broadcasts may also be made.

If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see ADDRESSES ) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what degree this rule would economically affect it.

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

Small businesses may send comments on the actions of federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247).

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

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

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

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

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

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

We have considered the environmental impact of this proposed rule and concluded that, under figure 2-1, paragraph 34(g) of Commandant Instruction M16475.1C, this rule is categorically excluded from further environmental documentation. A written categorical exclusion determination is available in the docket for inspection or copying where indicated under ADDRESSES .

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

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

As authorized by 5 U.S.C. 553, we did not publish a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for this regulation. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing an NPRM, and, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register . Following the catastrophic nature and extent of damage realized from the aircraft flown into the World Trade Center towers September 11, 2001, this rulemaking is urgently necessary to protect the national security interests of the United States against future potential terrorists strikes against public and governmental targets. A similar attack was conducted against the Pentagon on the same day. National security and intelligence officials warn that future terrorist attacks against civilian targets may be anticipated. Publication of a notice of proposed rulemaking and delay of effective date would be contrary to the public interest because immediate action is necessary to protect against the possible loss of life, injury, or damage to property.

A temporary security zone is necessary to ensure the security of the Kewaunee nuclear power plant as a result of the terrorist attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001. The security zone is described as follows: all navigable waters of Western Lake Michigan commencing from a point on the shoreline at 44°20.85′ N, 087°32.1′ W; then easterly to 44°20.85′ N, 087°31.4′ W; then southerly to 44°20.35′ N, 087°31.4′ W; then westerly to 44°20.35′ N, 087°32.1′ W; then northerly following the shoreline back to the point of origin. These coordinates are based upon North American Datum 1983 (NAD 83). Entry into, transit through or anchoring within this security zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Milwaukee or his designated on-scene representative. The designated on-scene representative will be the Patrol Commander and may be contacted via VHF/FM Marine Channel 16.

This rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. It is not “significant” under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Transportation (DOT) (44 FR 11040, February 26, 1979). This is a temporary rule and vessels will be able to transit around the security zone. In addition, vessels may request permission from the Captain of the Port to transit through the security zone.

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

For the reasons set out in the Regulatory Evaluation, the Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

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

Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As authorized by 5 U.S.C. 553, we did not publish a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for this regulation. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing an NPRM, and, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), good cause exists for making this rule it effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register . The Coast Guard had insufficient advance notice to publish an NPRM followed by a temporary final rule. Publication of a notice of proposed rulemaking and delay of effective date would be contrary to the public interest because immediate action is necessary to prevent possible loss of life, injury, or damage to property.

A temporary security zone is necessary to ensure the security of Davis Besse nuclear power plant, as a result of the terrorist attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001. The security zone consists of all navigable waters of Lake Erie within a line beginning from position 41°36.8′ N, 083°06.2′ W; north to 41°37.7′ N, 083°06.0′ W; east to 41°36.6′ N, 083°03.7′ W; south to 41°35.8′ N, 083°04.0′ W; back to the beginning point. Entry into, transit through or anchoring within this security zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Coast Guard Captain of the Port Toledo or the designated on scene representative. The designated on scene representative will be the Patrol Commander and may be contacted via VHF Channel 16.

This rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that order. It is not “significant” under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Transportation (DOT) (44 FR 11040, February 26, 1979). This finding is based on the historical lack of vessel traffic during this time of year. Also, vessel traffic can pass safely around the security zone and vessels may request permission from the Captain of the Port Toledo to transit through the security zone.

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

The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

This rule will affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: the owners and operators of vessels intending to transit or anchor in a portion of Lake Erie.

This security zone will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: Vessel traffic can pass safely around the security zone and commercial vessels may request permission from the Captain of the Port Toledo to transit through the security zone.

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

Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247).

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

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

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) governs the issuance of Federal regulations that require unfunded mandates. An unfunded mandate is a regulation that requires a State, local, or tribal government or the private sector to incur direct costs without the Federal government having first provided the funds to pay those costs. This rule will not impose an unfunded mandate.

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

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

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

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

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

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

As authorized by 5 U.S.C. 553, we did not publish a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for this regulation. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing an NPRM, and, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register . The Coast Guard had insufficient advance notice to publish an NPRM followed by a temporary final rule. Publication of a notice of proposed rulemaking and delay of effective date would be contrary to the public interest because immediate action is necessary to prevent possible loss of life, injury, or damage to property.

A temporary security zone is necessary to ensure the security of Enrico Fermi nuclear power plant, as a result of the terrorist attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001. The security zone consists of all navigable waters of Lake Erie within a line beginning from position 41°58.5′ N, 083°14.8′ W; southeast to 41°58.2′ N, 083°13.7′ W; south to 41°56.7′ N, 083°14.8′ W; west to 41°56.7′ N, 083°15.3′ W; back to the beginning point. Entry into, transit through or anchoring within this security zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Coast Guard Captain of the Port Toledo or the designated on scene representative. The designated on scene representative will be the Patrol Commander and may be contacted via VHF Channel 16.

This rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that order. It is not “significant” under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Transportation (DOT) (44 FR 11040, February 26, 1979). This finding is based on the historical lack of vessel traffic during this time of year. Also, vessels can pass safely around the security zone and vessels may request permission from the Captain of the Port Toledo to transit through the security zone.

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

The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

This rule will affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: the owners and operators of vessels intending to transit or anchor in a portion of Lake Erie.

This security zone will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: Vessel traffic can pass safely around the security zone and commercial vessels may request permission from the Captain of the Port Toledo to transit through the security zone.

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

Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247).

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

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

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) governs the issuance of Federal regulations that require unfunded mandates. An unfunded mandate is a regulation that requires a State, local, or tribal government or the private sector to incur direct costs without the Federal government having first provided the funds to pay those costs. This rule will not impose an unfunded mandate.

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

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

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

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

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

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

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:

As authorized by 5 U.S.C. 553, we did not publish a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for this regulation. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing an NPRM, and, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register . Following the catastrophic nature and extent of damage realized from the aircraft flown into the World Trade Center towers on September 11, 2001, this rulemaking is urgently necessary to protect the national security interests of the United States against future potential terrorists strikes against public and governmental targets. A similar attack was conducted against the Pentagon on the same day. National security and intelligence officials warn that future terrorist attacks against civilian targets may be anticipated. Publication of a notice of proposed rulemaking and delay of effective date would be contrary to the public interest because immediate action is necessary to protect against the possible loss of life, injury, or damage to property.

A temporary security zone is necessary to ensure the security of the Point Beach nuclear power plant as a result of the terrorist attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001. The security zone is described as follows: All navigable waters of Western Lake Michigan commencing from a point on the shoreline at 44°17.1′ N, 087°32.3′ W; then northeasterly to 44°17.4′ N, 087°31.6′ W; then southeasterly to 44°16.9′ N, 087°31.3′ W; then southwesterly to 44°16.7′ N, 087°32.0′ W; then northwesterly along the shoreline back to the point of origin. These coordinates are based upon North American Datum 1983 (NAD 83). Entry into, transit through or anchoring within this security zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Milwaukee or his designated on-scene representative. The designated on-scene representative will be the Patrol Commander and may be contacted via VHF/FM Marine Channel 16.

This rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. It is not “significant” under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Transportation (DOT) (44 FR 11040, February 26, 1979).

This is a temporary rule encompassing winter months. During periods when the waters in this area are not frozen, vessels will be able to transit around the security zone. In addition, vessels may request permission from the Captain of the Port to transit through the security zone.

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

For reasons stated in the Regulatory Evaluation, the Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

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

Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As authorized by 5 U.S.C. 553, we did not publish a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for this regulation. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing an NPRM, and, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register . Following the catastrophic nature and extent of damage realized from the aircraft flown into the World Trade Center towers on September 11, 2001, this rulemaking is urgently necessary to protect the national security interests of the United States against future potential terrorists strikes against public and governmental targets. A similar attack was conducted against the Pentagon on the same day. National security and intelligence officials warn that future terrorist attacks against civilian targets may be anticipated. Publication of a notice of proposed rulemaking and delay of effective date would be contrary to the public interest because immediate action is necessary to protect against the possible loss of life, injury, or damage to property.

A temporary security zone is necessary to ensure the security of the Perry nuclear power plant, as a result of the terrorist attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001. The security zone consists of all navigable waters of Lake Erie bound by a line beginning at a point 41°48′6″ N, 081°09′6″ W; thence due north to 41°48′36″ N, 081°09′6″ W; thence due east to 41°49′0″ N, 081°07′54″ W; thence due south to the south shore of Lake Erie at 41°48′36″ N, 081°07′54″ W; and thence westerly along south shore back to the beginning. These coordinates are based upon North American Datum 1983 (NAD 83). Entry into, transit through or anchoring within this security zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Cleveland or his designated on-scene representative. The designated on-scene representative will be the Patrol Commander and may be contacted via VHF/FM Marine Channel 16.

This rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. It is not “significant” under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Transportation (DOT) (44 FR 11040, February 26, 1979). This is a temporary rule and vessels will be able to transit around the security zone. In addition, vessels may request permission from the Captain of the Port to transit through the security zone.

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

For reasons stated in the Regulatory Evaluation, the Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

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

Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On December 8, 1995, July 1, 1997, and April 19, 2001, PADEP submitted revisions to the Pennsylvania SIP which establish and impose RACT for several sources of VOC and/or NO X . This rulemaking pertains to eight of those sources. The remaining sources are or have been the subject of separate rulemakings. The Commonwealth's submittals consist of operating permits, enforcement orders and consent orders which impose VOC and/or NO X RACT requirements for each source. These eight sources are all located in the Pittsburgh area and consist of: Ashland Petroleum Company; BP Exploration & Oil, Inc.; Gulf Oil, L.P.; Penreco; Bellefield Boiler Plant; PA Dept. of Corrections; Pittsburgh Allegheny County Thermal; and Pittsburgh Thermal Limited Partnership.

On August 21, 2001, EPA published a direct final rule (66 FR 43783) and a companion notice of proposed rulemaking (66 FR 43822) to approve these SIP revisions. On September 7, 2001, we received adverse comments on our direct final rule from the Citizens for Pennsylvania's Future (PennFuture). On September 27, 2001 (66 FR 49293), we published a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the public that the direct final rule did not take effect. We indicated in our August 21, 2001 direct final rulemaking that if we received adverse comments, EPA would address all public comments in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule (66 FR 43822). This is that subsequent final rule. A description of the RACT determination(s) made for each source was provided in the August 21, 2001 direct final rule and will not be restated here. A summary of the comments submitted by PennFuture germane to this final rulemaking and EPA's responses are provided in Section II of this document.

The Citizens for Pennsylvania's Future (PennFuture) submitted adverse comments on twenty proposed rules published by EPA in the Federal Register between August 6 and August 24, 2001 to approve case-by-case RACT SIP submissions from the Commonwealth for NO X and or VOC sources located in the Pittsburgh area. PennFuture's letter includes general comments and comments specific to EPA's proposals for certain sources. A summary of those comments and EPA's responses are provided below.

A. Comment: PennFuture comments that EPA has conducted no independent technical review, and has prepared no technical support document to survey potential control technologies, determine the capital and operating costs of different options, and rank these options in total and marginal cost per ton of NO X and VOC controlled. In citing the definition of the term “RACT,” and the Strelow Memorandum [Roger Strelow, Assistant Administrator for Air and Waste Management, EPA, December 9, 1976, cited in Michigan v. Thomas, 805 F.2d 176, 180 (6th Cir. 1986) and at 62 FR 43134, 43136 (1997)], PennFuture appears to comment that in every situation, RACT must include an emission rate. PennFuture asserts that EPA should conduct its own RACT evaluation for each source, or at a minimum document a step-by-step review demonstrating the adequacy of state evaluations, to ensure that appropriate control technology is applied. The commenter also believes that EPA's failure to conduct its own independent review of control technologies has resulted in our proposing to approve some RACT determinations that fail to meet the terms of EPA's own RACT standard.

Response: On March 23, 1998 (63 FR 13789), EPA granted conditional limited approval of Pennsylvania's generic RACT regulations, 25 PA Code Chapters 121 and 129, thereby approving the definitions, provisions and procedures contained within those regulations under which the Commonwealth would require and impose RACT. Subsection 129.91, Control of major sources of NO X and VOCs, requires subject facilities to submit a RACT plan proposal to both the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) and to EPA Region III by July 15, 1994 in accordance with subsection 129.92, entitled, RACT proposal requirements. Under subsection 129.92, that proposal is to include, among other information: (1) A list of each subject source at the facility; (2) The size or capacity of each affected source, and the types of fuel combusted, and the types and amounts of materials processed or produced at each source; (3) A physical description of each source and its operating characteristics; (4) Estimates of potential and actual emissions from each affected source with supporting documentation; (5) A RACT analysis which meets the requirements of subsection 129.92 (b), including technical and economic support documentation for each affected source; (6) A schedule for implementation as expeditiously as practicable but not later than May 15, 1995; (7) The testing, monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting procedures proposed to demonstrate compliance with RACT; and (8) any additional information requested by the DEP necessary to evaluate the RACT proposal. Under subsection 129.91, the DEP will approve, deny or modify each RACT proposal, and submit each RACT determination to EPA for approval as a SIP revision.

The conditional nature of EPA's March 23, 1998 conditional limited approval did not impose any conditions pertaining to the regulation's procedures for the submittal of RACT plans and analyses by subject sources and approval of case-by-case RACT determinations by the DEP. Rather, EPA stated that “* * * RACT rules may not merely be procedural rules (emphasis added) that require the source and the State to later agree to the appropriate level of control; rather the rules must identify the appropriate level of control for source categories or individual sources.”

On May 3, 2001 (66 FR 22123), EPA published a rulemaking determining that Pennsylvania had satisfied the conditions imposed in its conditional limited approval. In that rulemaking, EPA removed the conditional status of its approval of the Commonwealth's generic VOC and NO X RACT regulations on a statewide basis. EPA received no public comments on its action and that final rule removing the conditional status of Pennsylvania's VOC and NO X RACT regulations became effective on June 18, 2001. As of that time, Pennsylvania's generic VOC and NO X RACT regulations retained a limited approval status. On August 24, 2001 (66 FR 44578), EPA proposed to remove the limited nature of its approval of Pennsylvania's generic RACT regulation in the Pittsburgh area. EPA received no public comments on that proposal. Final action converting the limited approval to full approval shall occur once EPA has completed rulemaking to approve either (1) the case-by-case RACT proposals for all sources subject to the RACT requirements currently known in the Pittsburgh-Beaver area or (2) for a sufficient number of sources such that the emissions from any remaining subject sources represent a de minimis level of emissions as defined in the March 23, 1998 rulemaking (63 FR 13789).

EPA agrees that it has an obligation to review the case-by-case RACT plan approvals and/or permits submitted as individual SIP revisions by Commonwealth to verify and determine if they are consistent with the RACT requirements of the Act and any relevant EPA guidance. EPA does not agree, however, that this obligation to review the case-by-case RACT determinations submitted by Pennsylvania necessarily extends to our performing our own RACT analyses, independent of the sources' RACT plans/analyses (included as part of the case-by-case RACT SIP revisions) or the Commonwealth's analyses. EPA first reviews this submission to ensure that the source and the Commonwealth followed the SIP-approved generic rule when applying for and imposing RACT for a specific source. Then EPA performs a thorough review of the technical and economic analyses conducted by the source and the state. If EPA believes additional information may further support or would undercut the RACT analyses submitted by the state, then EPA may add additional EPA-generated analyses to the record.

While RACT, as defined for an individual source or source category, often does specify an emission rate, such is not always the case. EPA has issued Control Technique Guidelines (CTGs) which states are to use as guidance in development of their RACT determinations/rules for certain sources or source categories. Not every CTG issued by EPA includes an emission rate. There are several examples of CTGs issued by EPA wherein equipment standards and/or work practice standards alone are provided as RACT guidance for all or part of the processes covered. Such examples include the CTGs issued for Bulk gasoline plants, Gasoline service stations—Stage I, Petroleum Storage in Fixed-roof tanks, Petroleum refinery processes, Solvent metal cleaning, Pharmaceutical products, External Floating roof tanks and Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing (SOCMI)/polymer manufacturing. (The publication numbers for these CTG documents may be found at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/catc/dir1/ctg.txt ).

EPA disagrees with PennFuture's general comment that our failure to conduct our own independent review of control technologies for every case-by-case RACT determination conducted by the Commonwealth has resulted in our proposing to approve some RACT determinations that fail to meet the terms of our own RACT standard. PennFuture submitted comments specific to the case-by-case RACT determinations for only three sources located in the Pittsburgh area, namely for Duquesne Light's Elrama, Phillips and Brunot Island stations. EPA summarizes those comments and provides responses in the final rule pertaining to those sources.

B. Comment: PennFuture comments that when EPA reviewed Pennsylvania's RACT program, it noted that Pennsylvania coal-fired boilers with a rated heat input of equal to or greater than 100 million Btu per hour “are some of the largest NO X emitting sources in the Commonwealth and in the Northeast United States” [63 FR 13789, 13791 (1998)] and as such should have numeric emission limitations imposed as RACT whether or not they install presumptive RACT (under 25 Pa.Code 129.93) to guarantee that sources would achieve quantifiable emissions reductions under the RACT program. PennFuture goes on to comment that because EPA has not conducted and documented a technical review of Pennsylvania case-by case RACT submissions, EPA has not demonstrated that these large boilers are subject to “numeric emission limitations” under RACT. EPA must conduct a thorough RACT evaluation or review for each such source, and must document the application of numeric emission limits and quantifiable reductions for each coal-fired boiler with a rated heat input of over 100 million Btu per hour.

Response: Circumstances may exist wherein a state could justify otherwise, however, in general, EPA agrees with PennFuture that coal-fired boilers with a rated heat input of equal to or greater than 100 million Btu per hour should have numeric emission limitations imposed as RACT whether or not they install presumptive RACT (under 25 Pa.Code 129.93).

As provided in the response found in II. A, EPA does not agree that it must conduct its own technical analysis of each of the case-by-case RACT determinations submitted for each RACT source in order to document that its RACT requirements include numeric emission limitations. That determination can be made by EPA when it reviews the plan approval, consent order, or permit issued to such a source as submitted by the Commonwealth as SIP revision. PennFuture's comment did not point to a specific instance where a RACT plan approval, consent order or permit imposing RACT on a coal-fired boiler with a rated heat input of equal to or greater than 100 million Btu per hour did, in fact, lack a numerical emission limitation(s). Nonetheless, pursuant to PennFuture's comment, EPA has re-examined all of the case-by-case RACT SIP submissions made by the Commonwealth for such sources located in the Pittsburgh area. That re-examination, combined with information provided by the Commonwealth, indicates that each case-by-case RACT plan approval, consent order and/or permit for each coal-fired boiler with a rated heat input of equal to or greater than 100 million Btu per hour includes a numeric emission limitation. A listing of each source, its plan approval, consent order and/or permit number and its numerical emission limitation has been placed in the Administrative Records for the case-by-case RACT rulemakings for the Pittsburgh area.

C. Comment: PennFuture asserts that the Commonwealth has not adopted and submitted category RACT rules for all VOC source categories for which federal control technique guidelines (CTGs) have been issued. The commenter refers to Appendix 1 of the Technical Support Document (dated May 14, 2001), prepared by EPA in support of its proposed rule to redesignate the Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley Ozone Nonattainment Area (66 FR 29270), to assert that EPA has failed to require the Commonwealth to submit VOC RACT rules for certain categories of sources. PennFuture specifically names source categories such as equipment leaks from natural gas/gas processing plants, coke oven batteries, iron and steel foundries, and publically owned treatment works and asserts that the Commonwealth has neglected a statutory requirement to adopt category RACT regulations for these and 14 other unnamed VOC source categories.

Response: EPA has not issued CTGs for coke oven batteries, iron and steel foundries and publically owned treatment works. The Appendix 1, referred to by the commenter, lists CTG covered categories as well as source categories taken from two STAPPA/ALAPCO documents entitled, “Meeting the 15-Percent Rate-of-Progress Requirement Under the Clean Air Act—A Menu of Options' (September 1993) and “Controlling Nitrogen Oxides Under the Clean Air Act—A Menu of Options” (July 1994). The categories referenced by PennFuture are not VOC categories for which EPA has issued CTGs, but were included in Appendix A as examples of some of the types of sources that could be subject to Pennsylvania's generic RACT regulations. The Commonwealth is under no statutory obligation to adopt RACT rules for source categories for which EPA has not issued a CTG. In fact, CTGs do not exist for all but one of the categories to which the commenter explicitly refers.

The Act requires that states adopt regulations to impose RACT for “major sources of VOC,” located within those areas of a state where RACT applies under Part D of the Act [182(b)(2)(C)]. This is referred to as the non-CTG VOC RACT requirement. Moreover, EPA disagrees that there is a statutory mandate that a state adopt a source category RACT regulation even for a source category where EPA has issued a CTG. There are two statutory provisions that address RACT for sources covered by a CTG. One provides that states must adopt RACT for “any category of VOC sources” covered by a CTG issued prior to November 15, 1990 [182(b)(2)(A)]. The other provides that states must adopt VOC RACT for all “VOC sources” covered by a CTG issued after November 15, 1990 [182(b)(2)(B)]. EPA has long interpreted the statutory RACT requirement to be met either by adoption of category-specific rules or by source-specific rules for each source within a category. When initially established, RACT was clearly defined as a case-by-case determination, but EPA provided CTG's to simplify the process for states such that they would not be required to adopt hundreds or thousands of individual rules. See Strelow Memorandum dated December 9, 1976 and 44 FR 53761, September 17, 1979. EPA does not believe that Congress' use of “source category” in one provision of section 182(b)(2) was intended to preclude the adoption of source-specific rules.

Thus, where CTG-subject sources are located within those areas of a state where RACT applies under Part D of the Act, the state is obligated to impose RACT for the same universe of sources covered by the CTG. However, that obligation is not required to be met by the adoption and submittal of a source category RACT rule. A state may, instead, opt to impose RACT for such sources in permits, plan approvals, consent orders or in any other state enforceable document and submit those documents to EPA for approval as source-specific SIP revisions. This option has been exercised by many states, and happens most commonly when only a few CTG-subject sources are located in the state. The source-specific approach is generally employed to avoid what can be a lengthy and resource-intensive state rule adoption process for only a few sources that may have different needs and considerations that must be taken into account.

As stated earlier, there is one source category explicitly included in PennFuture's comment for which EPA has issued a CTG, namely natural gas/gas processing plants. The Commonwealth made a negative declaration to EPA on April 13, 1993, stating that as of that date there were no applicable sources in this category. Therefore, the Commonwealth did not adopt a category RACT regulation for natural gas/gas processing plants.

D. Comment: PennFuture cites EPA correspondence [letter from Marcia Spink, EPA, to James Salvaggio, DEP, December 15, 1993] to the Commonwealth which states that establishing any dollar figure in RACT guidance will not provide for the “automatic” selection or rejection of a control technology or emission limitation as RACT for a source or source category. With regard to the Pennsylvania DEP's intent to finalize a NO X RACT Guidance Document for implementation of its NO X RACT regulation, EPA's 1993 letter stated that the document could improperly be used to establish “bright line” or “cook-book” approaches, particularly for a regulation applicable to many source categories and suggested that if the guidance document must include dollar figures/ton, it provide approximate ranges by source category. PennFuture comments that DEP issued its “Guidance Document on Reasonably Available Control Technology for Sources of NO X Emissions,” March 11, 1994, and on pp. 8-9 states that the acceptable threshold is $1500 per ton, and that this figure applies to “all source categories.” PennFuture notes that EPA later objected to the $1500 per ton methodology as “not generically acceptable to EPA” [letter from Thomas Maslany, EPA, to James Salvaggio, DEP, June 24, 1997] and further stated in a Federal Register notice that a “dollar per ton threshold” is “inconsistent with the definition of RACT” [62 FR 43134, 37-38 (1997)].

PennFuture comments that EPA is proposing to approve RACT determinations based on a cost per ton method that EPA had previously rejected, and according to its own clearly expressed standard, EPA must not approve RACT determinations by Pennsylvania DEP that apply this $1500 per ton threshold. The commenter states that PennFuture's review of several of the current DEP evaluations indicate that the Commonwealth applied this standard and provides the examples of Duquesne Light'Elrama (auxiliary boiler); Allegheny Ludlum—Washington (formerly Jessop Steel). PennFuture asserts EPA must reject all Pennsylvania RACT determinations applying the standard of $1500 per ton, or any other “bright line” approach, as failing to follow EPA procedures established for Pennsylvania RACT.

Response: EPA still takes the position that a single cost per ton dollar figure may not, in and of itself, form the basis for rejecting a control technology, equipment standard, or work practice standard as RACT. The Technical Support Document prepared by EPA in support of its March 23, 1998 rulemaking [63 FR 13789] clearly indicates that the Commonwealth's document, “Guidance Document on Reasonably Available Control Technology for Sources of NO X Emissions.” March 11, 1994, had not been included as part of the SIP submission of the Commonwealth's generic regulation and, therefore, had not been approved by EPA. EPA further notes that the Administrative Record of the March 23, 1998 rulemaking [63 FR 13789], in addition to the correspondence cited by PennFuture, also includes correspondence from DEP to EPA [letter from James Salvaggio, DEP to David Arnold, EPA, September 10, 1997] stating that DEP's RACT guidance document does not establish a maximum dollar per ton for determining the cost effectiveness for RACT determinations and notes that the DEP's $1500 per ton cost effectiveness is a target value and not an absolute maximum. For example, in its analyses of the cost effectiveness of RACT control options submitted by DEP as part of the case-by-case SIP revision for Peoples Natural Gas (PNG) Valley Compressor Station's turbo charged lean burn IC engine (see the Administrative Record for 66 FR 43492), the Commonwealth included DEP interoffice memoranda (Thomas Joseph to Krishnan Ramamurthy, July 14, 1994 and Krishnan Ramamurthy to Thomas McGinley, Babu Patel, Ronald Davis, Richard Maxwell, and Devendra Verma, July 15, 1994) which spoke directly to the $1500/ton dollar figure as being a guideline and not an upper limit. These memoranda explain that although PNG initially proposed intermediate original equipment manufacturer (OEM) combustion controls which would have reduced NO X emissions from 254.7 tons per year to 115 tons per year (by 55%) at a cost of $1355 per ton reduced, DEP required the installation of an OEM lean combustion modification that reduced NO X emissions from 254.7 tons per year to 76 tons per year (by 69%) at a cost of $1684 per ton reduced. The DEP's July 15, 1994 interoffice memorandum says of the PNG RACT determination which exceeded the cost effectiveness screening level of $1500 per ton “Tom's (Joseph) insistence for the next more stringent level of control than the company's chosen level in the case of PNG was consistent with EPA Region III's sentiment that establishing any dollar figure in RACT guidance will not provide for an “automatic” rejection of a control technology as RACT for a source.”

In no instance, including that for Duquesne Light—Elrama (auxiliary boiler) and Allegheny Ludlum—Washington (formerly Jessop Steel), has EPA proposed to approve a RACT determination submitted by the Commonwealth which was based solely on a conclusion that controls that cost more than $1500/ton were not required as RACT. As explained in the response provided in section II. A. of this document, EPA conducts its review of the entire case-by-case RACT SIP submittal including the source's proposed RACT plan and analyses, Pennsylvania's analyses and the RACT plan approval, consent order or permit itself to insure that the requirements of the SIP-approved generic RACT have been followed. These analyses not only evaluate and consider the costs of potential control options, but also evaluate their technological feasibility.

E. Comment: PennFuture comments that any emission reduction credits (ERCs) earned by sources subject to RACT must be surplus to all applicable state and federal requirements. Under Pennsylvania law, ERCs must be surplus, permanent, quantified, and Federally enforceable. 25 Pa.Code 127.207(1). As to the requirement that ERCs be surplus, the Pennsylvania Code states: ERCs shall be included in the current emission inventory, and may not be required by or be used to meet past or current SIP, attainment demonstration, RFP, emission limitation or compliance plans. Emission reductions necessary to meet NSPS, LAER, RACT, Best Available Technology, BACT and permit or plan approval emissions limitations or another emissions limitation required by the Clean Air Act or the [Air Pollution Control Act] may not be used to generate ERCs. 25 Pa.Code 127.207(1)(i). To be creditable, ERCs must surpass not only RACT requirements but a host of other possible sources of emission limits. PennFuture comments that some of the RACT evaluations at issue in the current EPA notices purport to establish RACT as a baseline for future ERCs. PennFuture does acknowledge that EPA notes in its boilerplate for the notices, that Pennsylvania and EPA have established a series of NO X -reducing rules, including the recent Chapter 145 rule, to reduce NO X at large utility and industrial sources. See, for example, 66 FR 42415, 16-17 (August 13, 2001). Because any ERCs must be surplus to the most stringent limitation applicable under state or federal law as described in the Pennsylvania Code provision set forth above, DEP and EPA must not approve ERCs unless they surpass all such limitations in addition to any limits set by RACT.

Response: EPA agrees with this comment by PennFuture. The approval of a case-by-case RACT determination, in and of itself, does not establish the baseline from which further emission reductions may be calculated and assumed creditable under the Commonwealth's SIP-approved NSR and ERC program. Moreover, EPA's review of the Pennsylvania DEP's implementation of its approved SIP-approved NSR and ERC program indicates that the Commonwealth calculates and credits ERCs in accordance with the SIP-approved criteria for doing so as outlined in PennFuture's comment. No source for which EPA is approving a case-by-case RACT determination should assume that its RACT approval alone automatically establishes the baseline against which it may calculate creditable ERCs.

F. Comment: PennFuture comments that as in the case with Pennsylvania Power—Newcastle, EPA should compare RACT proposals to applicable acid rain program emission limits and control strategies. PennFuture contends that EPA previously disapproved a RACT proposal for the Pennsylvania Power—Newcastle plant [62 FR 43959 (1997); 63 FR 23668 (1998)] and that EPA did so on the basis that the acid rain program requires more stringent emission limits. PennFuture asserts that while EPA had originally proposed to approve this proposal, an analysis of comparable boilers and, especially, a comparison to Phase II emission limits under the acid rain program led EPA to conclude that the RACT proposal emission limits were too lenient. [62 FR at 43961]. Therefore, PennFuture contends that for sources subject to the acid rain program, EPA should consider emissions and control strategies for compliance with acid rain emission limits when evaluating proposals for compliance with RACT.

Response: Title IV of the Act, addressing the acid rain program, contains NO X emission requirements for utilities which must be met in addition to any RACT requirements (see NO X Supplement to the General Preamble at 57 FR 55625, November 25, 1992). The Act provides for a number of control programs that may affect similar sources. For example, new sources may be subject to new source performance standards (NSPS), best available control technology (BACT), and lowest achievable emission rate (LAER). Other controls, under such programs as the acid rain program or the hazardous air pollutant program may also apply to sources. However, the applicability of these other requirements, which are often more stringent than RACT, do not establish what requirements must apply under the RACT program. While these programs may provide information as to the technical and economic feasibility of reduction programs for RACT, there is no presumption that acid rain controls should be mandated as RACT.

EPA stated in the final disapproval of the NO X RACT determination for PPNC [63 FR at 23669], that the discussion concerning average emission rates for boilers with respect to the acid rain program requirements were included in order to provide a context for EPA's proposed disapproval. EPA made clear in its August 18, 1997 proposed disapproval of Pennsylvania Powers'—Newcastle (PPNC) RACT determination, that the basis for disapproval was a comparison between PPNC's boilers and other similar combustion units, not acid rain limits. In fact, EPA stated in the August 18, 1997 proposed disapproval that “Without additional knowledge or information, it would be erroneous and premature to conclude that the limits in the acid rain permit are RACT.” [62 FR at 43961]. EPA clearly stated in the final disapproval for PPNC that it did not use acid rain permit limits, or Pennsylvania's participation in any other NO X control program, to determine PPNC RACT approvability [63 FR at 23670]. Nor has EPA intended to use participation in NO X control programs including acid rain, in determining RACT for PPNC or any other subject sources. EPA also stated that the April 30, 1998, PPNC disapproval was based on the absence of pertinent information regarding a computerized combustion optimization system through an enforceable permit, not comparison of acid rain permit limits.

EPA is approving the revisions to the Pennsylvania SIP submitted by PADEP to establish and require VOC and/or NO X RACT for eight major of sources located in the Pittsburgh area. EPA is approving these SIP revisions because ACHD and PADEP established and imposed these RACT requirements in accordance with the criteria set forth in its SIP-approved RACT regulations applicable to these sources. The Commonwealth has also imposed record-keeping, monitoring, and testing requirements on these sufficient to determine compliance with the applicable RACT determinations.

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a “significant regulatory action” and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ). Because this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4). This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will 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). This action also does not have Federalism implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action 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 “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (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. This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ).

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

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by December 11, 2001. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action approving the Commonwealth's source-specific RACT requirements to control VOC and or NO X from eight individual sources in the Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley area of Pennsylvania may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. ( See section 307(b)(2).)

On July 1, 1997 and April 19, 2001, PADEP submitted revisions to the Pennsylvania SIP which establish and impose RACT for several major sources of VOC and/or NO X . This rulemaking pertains to five of those sources. The remaining sources are or have been the subject of separate rulemakings. The Commonwealth's submittals consist of plan approval and agreement upon consent orders (COs) and enforcement orders (EOs) issued by the Allegheny County Health Department (ACHD). These five sources are located in the Pittsburgh area and consist of Pruett Schaffer, Chemical Company; PPG Industries, Inc.; Reichhold Chemicals, Inc.; Reichhold Chemicals, Inc.; and Valspar Corporation.

On August 10, 2001, EPA published a direct final rule (66 FR 42123) and a companion notice of proposed rulemaking (66 FR 42172) to approve these SIP revisions. On September 7, 2001, we received adverse comments on our direct final rule from the Citizens for Pennsylvania's Future (PennFuture). On September 26, 2001 (66 FR 49108), we published a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the public that the direct final rule did not take effect. We indicated in our August 21, 2001 direct final rulemaking that if we received adverse comments, EPA would address all public comments in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule (66 FR 42172). This is that subsequent final rule. A description of the RACT determination(s) made for each source was provided in the August 10, 2001 direct final rule and will not be restated here. A summary of the comments submitted by PennFuture germane to this final rulemaking and EPA's responses are provided in Section II of this document.

The Citizens for Pennsylvania's Future (PennFuture) submitted adverse comments on twenty proposed rules published by EPA in the Federal Register between August 6 and August 24, 2001 to approve case-by-case RACT SIP submissions from the Commonwealth for NO X and or VOC sources located in the Pittsburgh area. PennFuture's letter includes general comments and comments specific to EPA's proposals for certain sources. A summary of those comments and EPA's responses are provided below.

A. Comment: PennFuture comments that EPA has conducted no independent technical review, and has prepared no technical support document to survey potential control technologies, determine the capital and operating costs of different options, and rank these options in total and marginal cost per ton of NO X and VOC controlled. In citing the definition of the term “RACT,” and the Strelow Memorandum [Roger Strelow, Assistant Administrator for Air and Waste Management, EPA, December 9, 1976, cited in Michigan v. Thomas, 805 F.2d 176, 180 (6th Cir. 1986) and at 62 FR 43134, 43136 (1997)], PennFuture appears to comment that in every situation, RACT must include an emission rate. PennFuture asserts that EPA should conduct its own RACT evaluation for each source, or at a minimum document a step-by-step review demonstrating the adequacy of state evaluations, to ensure that appropriate control technology is applied. The commenter also believes that EPA's failure to conduct its own independent review of control technologies has resulted in our proposing to approve some RACT determinations that fail to meet the terms of EPA's own RACT standard.

Response: On March 23, 1998 (63 FR 13789), EPA granted conditional limited approval of Pennsylvania's generic RACT regulations, 25 PA Code Chapters 121 and 129, thereby approving the definitions, provisions and procedures contained within those regulations under which the Commonwealth would require and impose RACT. Subsection 129.91, Control of major sources of NO X and VOCs, requires subject facilities to submit a RACT plan proposal to both the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) and to EPA Region III by July 15, 1994 in accordance with subsection 129.92, entitled, RACT proposal requirements. Under subsection 129.92, that proposal is to include, among other information: (1) A list of each subject source at the facility; (2) The size or capacity of each affected source, and the types of fuel combusted, and the types and amounts of materials processed or produced at each source; (3) A physical description of each source and its operating characteristics; (4) Estimates of potential and actual emissions from each affected source with supporting documentation; (5) A RACT analysis which meets the requirements of subsection 129.92 (b), including technical and economic support documentation for each affected source; (6) A schedule for implementation as expeditiously as practicable but not later than May 15, 1995; (7) The testing, monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting procedures proposed to demonstrate compliance with RACT; and (8) any additional information requested by the DEP necessary to evaluate the RACT proposal. Under subsection 129.91, the DEP will approve, deny or modify each RACT proposal, and submit each RACT determination to EPA for approval as a SIP revision.

The conditional nature of EPA's March 23, 1998 conditional limited approval did not impose any conditions pertaining to the regulation's procedures for the submittal of RACT plans and analyses by subject sources and approval of case-by-case RACT determinations by the DEP. Rather, EPA stated that “RACT rules may not merely be procedural rules (emphasis added) that require the source and the State to later agree to the appropriate level of control; rather the rules must identify the appropriate level of control for source categories or individual sources.”

On May 3, 2001 (66 FR 22123), EPA published a rulemaking determining that Pennsylvania had satisfied the conditions imposed in its conditional limited approval. In that rulemaking, EPA removed the conditional status of its approval of the Commonwealth's generic VOC and NO X RACT regulations on a statewide basis. EPA received no public comments on its action and that final rule removing the conditional status of Pennsylvania's VOC and NO X RACT regulations became effective on June 18, 2001. As of that time, Pennsylvania's generic VOC and NO X RACT regulations retained a limited approval status. On August 24, 2001 (66 FR 44578), EPA proposed to remove the limited nature of its approval of Pennsylvania's generic RACT regulation in the Pittsburgh area. EPA received no public comments on that proposal. Final action converting the limited approval to full approval shall occur once EPA has completed rulemaking to approve either (1) the case-by-case RACT proposals for all sources subject to the RACT requirements currently known in the Pittsburgh-Beaver area or (2) for a sufficient number of sources such that the emissions from any remaining subject sources represent a de minimis level of emissions as defined in the March 23, 1998 rulemaking (63 FR 13789).

EPA agrees that it has an obligation to review the case-by-case RACT plan approvals and/or permits submitted as individual SIP revisions by Commonwealth to verify and determine if they are consistent with the RACT requirements of the Act and any relevant EPA guidance. EPA does not agree, however, that this obligation to review the case-by-case RACT determinations submitted by Pennsylvania necessarily extends to our performing our own RACT analyses, independent of the sources' RACT plans/analyses (included as part of the case-by-case RACT SIP revisions) or the Commonwealth's analyses. EPA first reviews this submission to ensure that the source and the Commonwealth followed the SIP-approved generic rule when applying for and imposing RACT for a specific source. Then EPA performs a thorough review of the technical and economic analyses conducted by the source and the state. If EPA believes additional information may further support or would undercut the RACT analyses submitted by the state, then EPA may add additional EPA-generated analyses to the record.

While RACT, as defined for an individual source or source category, often does specify an emission rate, such is not always the case. EPA has issued Control Technique Guidelines (CTGs) which states are to use as guidance in development of their RACT determinations/rules for certain sources or source categories. Not every CTG issued by EPA includes an emission rate. There are several examples of CTGs issued by EPA wherein equipment standards and/or work practice standards alone are provided as RACT guidance for all or part of the processes covered. Such examples include the CTGs issued for Bulk gasoline plants, Gasoline service stations—Stage I, Petroleum Storage in Fixed-roof tanks, Petroleum refinery processes, Solvent metal cleaning, Pharmaceutical products, External Floating roof tanks and Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing (SOCMI)/polymer manufacturing. (The publication numbers for these CTG documents may be found at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/catc/dir1/ctg.txt ).

EPA disagrees with PennFuture's general comment that our failure to conduct our own independent review of control technologies for every case-by-case RACT determination conducted by the Commonwealth has resulted in our proposing to approve some RACT determinations that fail to meet the terms of our own RACT standard. PennFuture submitted comments specific to the case-by-case RACT determinations for only three sources located in the Pittsburgh area, namely for Duquesne Light's Elrama, Phillips and Brunot Island stations. EPA summarizes those comments and provides responses in the final rule pertaining to those sources.

B. Comment: PennFuture comments that when EPA reviewed Pennsylvania's RACT program, it noted that Pennsylvania coal-fired boilers with a rated heat input of equal to or greater than 100 million Btu per hour “are some of the largest NO X emitting sources in the Commonwealth and in the Northeast United States” [63 FR 13789, 13791 (1998)] and as such should have numeric emission limitations imposed as RACT whether or not they install presumptive RACT (under 25 Pa.Code 129.93) to guarantee that sources would achieve quantifiable emissions reductions under the RACT program. PennFuture goes on to comment that because EPA has not conducted and documented a technical review of Pennsylvania case-by case RACT submissions, EPA has not demonstrated that these large boilers are subject to “numeric emission limitations” under RACT. EPA must conduct a thorough RACT evaluation or review for each such source, and must document the application of numeric emission limits and quantifiable reductions for each coal-fired boiler with a rated heat input of over 100 million Btu per hour.

Response: Circumstances may exist wherein a state could justify otherwise, however, in general, EPA agrees with PennFuture that coal-fired boilers with a rated heat input of equal to or greater than 100 million Btu per hour should have numeric emission limitations imposed as RACT whether or not they install presumptive RACT (under 25 Pa.Code 129.93).

As provided in the response found in II. A, EPA does not agree that it must conduct its own technical analysis of each of the case-by-case RACT determinations submitted for each RACT source in order to document that its RACT requirements include numeric emission limitations. That determination can be made by EPA when it reviews the plan approval, consent order, or permit issued to such a source as submitted by the Commonwealth as SIP revision. PennFuture's comment did not point to a specific instance where a RACT plan approval, consent order or permit imposing RACT on a coal-fired boiler with a rated heat input of equal to or greater than 100 million Btu per hour did, in fact, lack a numerical emission limitation(s). Nonetheless, pursuant to PennFuture's comment, EPA has re-examined all of the case-by-case RACT SIP submissions made by the Commonwealth for such sources located in the Pittsburgh area. That re-examination, combined with information provided by the Commonwealth, indicates that each case-by-case RACT plan approval, consent order and/or permit for each coal-fired boiler with a rated heat input of equal to or greater than 100 million Btu per hour includes a numeric emission limitation. A listing of each source, its plan approval, consent order and/or permit number and its numerical emission limitation has been placed in the Administrative Records for the case-by-case RACT rulemakings for the Pittsburgh area.

C. Comment: PennFuture asserts that the Commonwealth has not adopted and submitted category RACT rules for all VOC source categories for which federal control technique guidelines (CTGs) have been issued. The commenter refers to Appendix 1 of the Technical Support Document (dated May 14, 2001), prepared by EPA in support of its proposed rule to redesignate the Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley Ozone Nonattainment Area (66 FR 29270), to assert that EPA has failed to require the Commonwealth to submit VOC RACT rules for certain categories of sources. PennFuture specifically names source categories such as equipment leaks from natural gas/gas processing plants, coke oven batteries, iron and steel foundries, and publically owned treatment works and asserts that the Commonwealth has neglected a statutory requirement to adopt category RACT regulations for these and 14 other unnamed VOC source categories.

Response: EPA has not issued CTGs for coke oven batteries, iron and steel foundries and publically owned treatment works. The Appendix 1, referred to by the commenter, lists CTG covered categories as well as source categories taken from two STAPPA/ALAPCO documents entitled, “Meeting the 15-Percent Rate-of-Progress Requirement Under the Clean Air Act—A Menu of Options” (September 1993) and “Controlling Nitrogen Oxides Under the Clean Air Act—A Menu of Options” (July 1994). The categories referenced by PennFuture are not VOC categories for which EPA has issued CTGs, but were included in Appendix A as examples of some of the types of sources that could be subject to Pennsylvania's generic RACT regulations. The Commonwealth is under no statutory obligation to adopt RACT rules for source categories for which EPA has not issued a CTG. In fact, CTGs do not exist for all but one of the categories to which the commenter explicitly refers.

The Act requires that states adopt regulations to impose RACT for “major sources of VOC,” located within those areas of a state where RACT applies under Part D of the Act [182(b)(2)(C)]. This is referred to as the non-CTG VOC RACT requirement. Moreover, EPA disagrees that there is a statutory mandate that a state adopt a source category RACT regulation even for a source category where EPA has issued a CTG. There are two statutory provisions that address RACT for sources covered by a CTG. One provides that states must adopt RACT for “any category of VOC sources” covered by a CTG issued prior to November 15, 1990 [182(b)(2)(A)]. The other provides that states must adopt VOC RACT for all “VOC sources” covered by a CTG issued after November 15, 1990 [182(b)(2)(B)]. EPA has long interpreted the statutory RACT requirement to be met either by adoption of category-specific rules or by source-specific rules for each source within a category. When initially established, RACT was clearly defined as a case-by-case determination, but EPA provided CTG's to simplify the process for states such that they would not be required to adopt hundreds or thousands of individual rules. See Strelow Memorandum dated December 9, 1976 and 44 FR 53761, September 17, 1979. EPA does not believe that Congress' use of “source category” in one provision of section 182(b)(2) was intended to preclude the adoption of source-specific rules.

Thus, where CTG-subject sources are located within those areas of a state where RACT applies under Part D of the Act, the state is obligated to impose RACT for the same universe of sources covered by the CTG. However, that obligation is not required to be met by the adoption and submittal of a source category RACT rule. A state may, instead, opt to impose RACT for such sources in permits, plan approvals, consent orders or in any other state enforceable document and submit those documents to EPA for approval as source-specific SIP revisions. This option has been exercised by many states, and happens most commonly when only a few CTG-subject sources are located in the state. The source-specific approach is generally employed to avoid what can be a lengthy and resource-intensive state rule adoption process for only a few sources that may have different needs and considerations that must be taken into account.

As stated earlier, there is one source category explicitly included in PennFuture's comment for which EPA has issued a CTG, namely natural gas/gas processing plants. The Commonwealth made a negative declaration to EPA on April 13, 1993, stating that as of that date there were no applicable sources in this category. Therefore, the Commonwealth did not adopt a category RACT regulation for natural gas/gas processing plants.

D. Comment: PennFuture cites EPA correspondence [letter from Marcia Spink, EPA, to James Salvaggio, DEP, December 15, 1993] to the Commonwealth which states that establishing any dollar figure in RACT guidance will not provide for the “automatic” selection or rejection of a control technology or emission limitation as RACT for a source or source category. With regard to the Pennsylvania DEP's intent to finalize a NO X RACT Guidance Document for implementation of its NO X RACT regulation, EPA's 1993 letter stated that the document could improperly be used to establish “bright line” or “cook-book” approaches, particularly for a regulation applicable to many source categories and suggested that if the guidance document must include dollar figures/ton, it provide approximate ranges by source category. PennFuture comments that DEP issued its “Guidance Document on Reasonably Available Control Technology for Sources of NO X Emissions,” March 11, 1994, and on pp. 8-9 states that the acceptable threshold is $1500 per ton, and that this figure applies to “all source categories.” PennFuture notes that EPA later objected to the $1500 per ton methodology as “not generically acceptable to EPA” [letter from Thomas Maslany, EPA, to James Salvaggio, DEP, June 24, 1997] and further stated in a Federal Register notice that a “dollar per ton threshold” is “inconsistent with the definition of RACT” [62 FR 43134, 37-38 (1997)].

PennFuture comments that EPA is proposing to approve RACT determinations based on a cost per ton method that EPA had previously rejected, and according to its own clearly expressed standard, EPA must not approve RACT determinations by Pennsylvania DEP that apply this $1500 per ton threshold. The commenter states that PennFuture's review of several of the current DEP evaluations indicate that the Commonwealth applied this standard and provides the examples of Duquesne Light—Elrama (auxiliary boiler); Allegheny Ludlum—Washington (formerly Jessop Steel). PennFuture asserts EPA must reject all Pennsylvania RACT determinations applying the standard of $1500 per ton, or any other “bright line” approach, as failing to follow EPA procedures established for Pennsylvania RACT.

Response: EPA still takes the position that a single cost per ton dollar figure may not, in and of itself, form the basis for rejecting a control technology, equipment standard, or work practice standard as RACT. The Technical Support Document prepared by EPA in support of its March 23, 1998 rulemaking [63 FR 13789] clearly indicates that the Commonwealth's document, “Guidance Document on Reasonably Available Control Technology for Sources of NO X Emissions.” March 11, 1994, had not been included as part of the SIP submission of the Commonwealth's generic regulation and, therefore, had not been approved by EPA. EPA further notes that the Administrative Record of the March 23, 1998 rulemaking [63 FR 13789], in addition to the correspondence cited by PennFuture, also includes correspondence from DEP to EPA [letter from James Salvaggio, DEP to David Arnold, EPA, September 10, 1997] stating that DEP's RACT guidance document does not establish a maximum dollar per ton for determining the cost effectiveness for RACT determinations and notes that the DEP's $1500 per ton cost effectiveness is a target value and not an absolute maximum. For example, in its analyses of the cost effectiveness of RACT control options submitted by DEP as part of the case-by-case SIP revision for Peoples Natural Gas (PNG) Valley Compressor Station's turbo charged lean burn IC engine (see the Administrative Record for 66 FR 43492), the Commonwealth included DEP interoffice memoranda (Thomas Joseph to Krishnan Ramamurthy, July 14, 1994 and Krishnan Ramamurthy to Thomas McGinley, Babu Patel, Ronald Davis, Richard Maxwell, and Devendra Verma, July 15, 1994) which spoke directly to the $1500/ton dollar figure as being a guideline and not an upper limit. These memoranda explain that although PNG initially proposed intermediate original equipment manufacturer (OEM) combustion controls which would have reduced NO X emissions from 254.7 tons per year to 115 tons per year (by 55%) at a cost of $1355 per ton reduced, DEP required the installation of an OEM lean combustion modification that reduced NO X emissions from 254.7 tons per year to 76 tons per year (by 69%) at a cost of $1684 per ton reduced. The DEP's July 15, 1994 interoffice memorandum says of the PNG RACT determination which exceeded the cost effectiveness screening level of $1500 per ton “Tom's (Joseph) insistence for the next more stringent level of control than the company's chosen level in the case of PNG was consistent with EPA Region III's sentiment that establishing any dollar figure in RACT guidance will not provide for an “automatic” rejection of a control technology as RACT for a source.”

In no instance, including that for Duquesne Light—Elrama (auxiliary boiler) and Allegheny Ludlum—Washington (formerly Jessop Steel), has EPA proposed to approve a RACT determination submitted by the Commonwealth which was based solely on a conclusion that controls that cost more than $1500/ton were not required as RACT. As explained in the response provided in section II. A. of this document, EPA conducts its review of the entire case-by-case RACT SIP submittal including the source's proposed RACT plan and analyses, Pennsylvania's analyses and the RACT plan approval, consent order or permit itself to insure that the requirements of the SIP-approved generic RACT have been followed. These analyses not only evaluate and consider the costs of potential control options, but also evaluate their technological feasibility.

E. Comment: PennFuture comments that any emission reduction credits (ERCs) earned by sources subject to RACT must be surplus to all applicable state and federal requirements. Under Pennsylvania law, ERCs must be surplus, permanent, quantified, and Federally enforceable. 25 Pa.Code 127.207(1). As to the requirement that ERCs be surplus, the Pennsylvania Code states: ERCs shall be included in the current emission inventory, and may not be required by or be used to meet past or current SIP, attainment demonstration, RFP, emission limitation or compliance plans. Emission reductions necessary to meet NSPS, LAER, RACT, Best Available Technology, BACT and permit or plan approval emissions limitations or another emissions limitation required by the Clean Air Act or the [Air Pollution Control Act] may not be used to generate ERCs. 25 Pa.Code 127.207(1)(i). To be creditable, ERCs must surpass not only RACT requirements but a host of other possible sources of emission limits. PennFuture comments that some of the RACT evaluations at issue in the current EPA notices purport to establish RACT as a baseline for future ERCs. PennFuture does acknowledge that EPA notes in its boilerplate for the notices, that Pennsylvania and EPA have established a series of NO X -reducing rules, including the recent Chapter 145 rule, to reduce NO X at large utility and industrial sources. See, for example, 66 FR 42415, 16-17 (August 13, 2001). Because any ERCs must be surplus to the most stringent limitation applicable under state or federal law as described in the Pennsylvania Code provision set forth above, DEP and EPA must not approve ERCs unless they surpass all such limitations in addition to any limits set by RACT.

Response: EPA agrees with this comment by PennFuture. The approval of a case-by-case RACT determination, in and of itself, does not establish the baseline from which further emission reductions may be calculated and assumed creditable under the Commonwealth's SIP-approved NSR and ERC program. Moreover, EPA's review of the Pennsylvania DEP's implementation of its approved SIP-approved NSR and ERC program indicates that the Commonwealth calculates and credits ERCs in accordance with the SIP-approved criteria for doing so as outlined in PennFuture's comment. No source for which EPA is approving a case-by-case RACT determination should assume that its RACT approval alone automatically establishes the baseline against which it may calculate creditable ERCs.

F. Comment: PennFuture comments that as in the case with Pennsylvania Power—Newcastle, EPA should compare RACT proposals to applicable acid rain program emission limits and control strategies. PennFuture contends that EPA previously disapproved a RACT proposal for the Pennsylvania Power—Newcastle plant [62 FR 43959 (1997); 63 FR 23668 (1998)] and that EPA did so on the basis that the acid rain program requires more stringent emission limits. PennFuture asserts that while EPA had originally proposed to approve this proposal, an analysis of comparable boilers and, especially, a comparison to Phase II emission limits under the acid rain program led EPA to conclude that the RACT proposal emission limits were too lenient. [62 FR at 43961]. Therefore, PennFuture contends that for sources subject to the acid rain program, EPA should consider emissions and control strategies for compliance with acid rain emission limits when evaluating proposals for compliance with RACT.

Response: Title IV of the Act, addressing the acid rain program, contains NO X emission requirements for utilities which must be met in addition to any RACT requirements (see NO X Supplement to the General Preamble at 57 FR 55625, November 25, 1992). The Act provides for a number of control programs that may affect similar sources. For example, new sources may be subject to new source performance standards (NSPS), best available control technology (BACT), and lowest achievable emission rate (LAER). Other controls, under such programs as the acid rain program or the hazardous air pollutant program may also apply to sources. However, the applicability of these other requirements, which are often more stringent than RACT, do not establish what requirements must apply under the RACT program. While these programs may provide information as to the technical and economic feasibility of reduction programs for RACT, there is no presumption that acid rain controls should be mandated as RACT.

EPA stated in the final disapproval of the NO X RACT determination for PPNC [63 FR at 23669], that the discussion concerning average emission rates for boilers with respect to the acid rain program requirements were included in order to provide a context for EPA's proposed disapproval. EPA made clear in its August 18, 1997 proposed disapproval of Pennsylvania Powers'—Newcastle (PPNC) RACT determination, that the basis for disapproval was a comparison between PPNC's boilers and other similar combustion units, not acid rain limits. In fact, EPA stated in the August 18, 1997 proposed disapproval that “Without additional knowledge or information, it would be erroneous and premature to conclude that the limits in the acid rain permit are RACT.” [62 FR at 43961]. EPA clearly stated in the final disapproval for PPNC that it did not use acid rain permit limits, or Pennsylvania's participation in any other NO X control program, to determine PPNC RACT approvability [63 FR at 23670]. Nor has EPA intended to use participation in NO X control programs including acid rain, in determining RACT for PPNC or any other subject sources. EPA also stated that the April 30, 1998, PPNC disapproval was based on the absence of pertinent information regarding a computerized combustion optimization system through an enforceable permit, not comparison of acid rain permit limits.

EPA is approving the revisions to the Pennsylvania SIP submitted by PADEP to establish and require VOC and NO X RACT for five major sources located in the Pittsburgh area. 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 have also imposed record-keeping, monitoring, and testing requirements on these sources sufficient to determine compliance with the applicable RACT determinations.

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a “significant regulatory action” and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ). Because this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4). This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will 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). This action also does not have Federalism implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action 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 “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (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. This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ).

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

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by December 11, 2001. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action approving the Commonwealth's source-specific RACT requirements to control VOC and NO X from five individual sources in the Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley ozone nonattainment area of Pennsylvania may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

On August 1, 1995, December 8, 1995, April 16, 1996, July 1, 1997, July 2, 1997, January 21, 1997, and February 2, 1999, PADEP submitted revisions to the Pennsylvania SIP which establish and impose RACT for several major sources of VOC and/or NO X . This rulemaking pertains to eight of those sources. The RACT determinations for the other sources are, or have been, the subject of separate rulemakings. The Commonwealth's submittals consist of Operating Permits (OP) issued by PADEP, and an Enforcement Order (EO) issued by the Allegheny County Health Department (ACHD). These OPs, and EOs impose VOC and/or NO X RACT requirements for each source. These sources are all located in the Pittsburgh area and consist of: Consolidated Natural Gas Transmission Corporation—South Oakford Station; Consolidated Natural Gas Transmission Corporation—Tonkin Station; Carnegie Natural Gas Company—Creighton Station; Consolidated Natural Gas Transmission Corporation—Beaver Station; Consolidated Natural Gas Transmission Corporation—Jeannette Station; Consolidated Natural Gas Transmission Corporation—South Bend Station; Consolidated Natural Gas Transmission Corporation—Oakford Station; and Texas Eastern Transmission Corporation—Uniontown Station.

On August 13, 2001, EPA published a direct final rule (66 FR 42418) and a companion notice of proposed rulemaking (66 FR 42487) to approve these SIP revisions. On September 7, 2001, we received adverse comments on our direct final rule from the Citizens for Pennsylvania's Future (PennFuture). On September 24, 2001 (66 FR 48806), we published a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the public that the direct final rule did not take effect. We indicated in our August 13, 2001 direct final rulemaking that if we received adverse comments, EPA would address all public comments in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule (66 FR 42487). This is that subsequent final rule. A description of the RACT determination(s) made for each source was provided in the August 13, 2001 direct final rule and will not be restated here. A summary of the comments submitted by PennFuture germane to this final rulemaking and EPA's responses are provided in Section II of this document.

The Citizens for Pennsylvania's Future (PennFuture) submitted adverse comments on twenty proposed rules published by EPA in the Federal Register between August 6 and August 24, 2001 to approve case-by-case RACT SIP submissions from the Commonwealth for NO X and or VOC sources located in the Pittsburgh area. PennFuture's letter includes general comments and comments specific to EPA's proposals for certain sources. A summary of those comments and EPA's responses are provided below.

A. Comment: PennFuture comments that EPA has conducted no independent technical review, and has prepared no technical support document to survey potential control technologies, determine the capital and operating costs of different options, and rank these options in total and marginal cost per ton of NO X and VOC controlled. In citing the definition of the term “RACT,” and the Strelow Memorandum [Roger Strelow, Assistant Administrator for Air and Waste Management, EPA, December 9, 1976, cited in Michigan v. Thomas , 805 F.2d 176, 180 (6th Cir. 1986) and at 62 FR 43134, 43136 (1997)], PennFuture appears to comment that in every situation, RACT must include an emission rate. PennFuture asserts that EPA should conduct its own RACT evaluation for each source, or at a minimum document a step-by-step review demonstrating the adequacy of state evaluations, to ensure that appropriate control technology is applied. The commenter also believes that EPA's failure to conduct its own independent review of control technologies has resulted in our proposing to approve some RACT determinations that fail to meet the terms of EPA's own RACT standard.

Response: On March 23, 1998 (63 FR 13789), EPA granted conditional limited approval of Pennsylvania's generic RACT regulations, 25 PA Code Chapters 121 and 129, thereby approving the definitions, provisions and procedures contained within those regulations under which the Commonwealth would require and impose RACT. Subsection 129.91, Control of major sources of NO X and VOCs, requires subject facilities to submit a RACT plan proposal to both the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) and to EPA Region III by July 15, 1994 in accordance with subsection 129.92, entitled, RACT proposal requirements . Under subsection 129.92, that proposal is to include, among other information: (1) A list each of subject source at the facility; (2) The size or capacity of each affected source, and the types of fuel combusted, and the types and amounts of materials processed or produced at each source; (3) A physical description of each source and its operating characteristics; (4) Estimates of potential and actual emissions from each affected source with supporting documentation; (5) A RACT analysis which meets the requirements of subsection 129.92 (b), including technical and economic support documentation for each affected source; (6) A schedule for implementation as expeditiously as practicable but not later than May 15, 1995; (7) The testing, monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting procedures proposed to demonstrate compliance with RACT; and (8) any additional information requested by the DEP necessary to evaluate the RACT proposal. Under subsection 129.91, the DEP will approve, deny or modify each RACT proposal, and submit each RACT determination to EPA for approval as a SIP revision.

The conditional nature of EPA's March 23, 1998 conditional limited approval did not impose any conditions pertaining to the regulation's procedures for the submittal of RACT plans and analyses by subject sources and approval of case-by case RACT determinations by the DEP. Rather, EPA stated that “ * * *RACT rules may not merely be procedural rules (emphasis added) that require the source and the State to later agree to the appropriate level of control; rather the rules must identify the appropriate level of control for source categories or individual sources.”

On May 3, 2001 (66 FR 22123), EPA published a rulemaking determining that Pennsylvania had satisfied the conditions imposed in its conditional limited approval. In that rulemaking, EPA removed the conditional status of its approval of the Commonwealth's generic VOC and NO X RACT regulations on a statewide basis. EPA received no public comments on its action and that final rule removing the conditional status of Pennsylvania's VOC and NO X RACT regulations became effective on June 18, 2001. As of that time, Pennsylvania's generic VOC and NO X RACT regulations retained a limited approval status. On August 24, 2001 (66 FR 44578), EPA proposed to remove the limited nature of its approval of Pennsylvania's generic RACT regulation in the Pittsburgh area. EPA received no public comments on that proposal. Final action converting the limited approval to full approval shall occur once EPA has completed rulemaking to approve either (1) the case-by-case RACT proposals for all sources subject to the RACT requirements currently known in the Pittsburgh-Beaver area or (2) for a sufficient number of sources such that the emissions from any remaining subject sources represent a de minimis level of emissions as defined in the March 23, 1998 rulemaking (63 FR 13789).

EPA agrees that it has an obligation to review the case-by-case RACT plan approvals and/or permits submitted as individual SIP revisions by Commonwealth to verify and determine if they are consistent with the RACT requirements of the Act and any relevant EPA guidance. EPA does not agree, however, that this obligation to review the case-by-case RACT determinations submitted by Pennsylvania necessarily extends to our performing our own RACT analyses, independent of the sources' RACT plans/analyses (included as part of the case-by case RACT SIP revisions) or the Commonwealth's analyses. EPA first reviews this submission to ensure that the source and the Commonwealth followed the SIP-approved generic rule when applying for and imposing RACT for a specific source. Then EPA performs a thorough review of the technical and economic analyses conducted by the source and the state. If EPA believes additional information may further support or would undercut the RACT analyses submitted by the state, then EPA may add additional EPA-generated analyses to the record.

While RACT, as defined for an individual source or source category, often does specify an emission rate, such is not always the case. EPA has issued Control Technique Guidelines (CTGs) which states are to use as guidance in development of their RACT determinations/rules for certain sources or source categories. Not every CTG issued by EPA includes an emission rate. There are several examples of CTGs issued by EPA wherein equipment standards and/or work practice standards alone are provided as RACT guidance for all or part of the processes covered. Such examples include the CTGs issued for Bulk gasoline plants, Gasoline service stations—Stage I, Petroleum Storage in Fixed-roof tanks, Petroleum refinery processes, Solvent metal cleaning, Pharmaceutical products, External Floating roof tanks and Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing (SOCMI)/polymer manufacturing. (The publication numbers for these CTG documents may be found at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/catc/dir1/ctg.txt ).

EPA disagrees with PennFuture's general comment that our failure to conduct our own independent review of control technologies for every case-by-case RACT determination conducted by the Commonwealth has resulted in our proposing to approve some RACT determinations that fail to meet the terms of our own RACT standard. PennFuture submitted comments specific to the case-by-case RACT determinations for only three sources located in the Pittsburgh area, namely for Duquesne Light's Elrama, Phillips and Brunot Island stations. EPA summarizes those comments and provides responses in the final rule pertaining to those sources.

B. Comment: PennFuture comments that when EPA reviewed Pennsylvania's RACT program, it noted that Pennsylvania coal-fired boilers with a rated heat input of equal to or greater than 100 million Btu per hour “are some of the largest NO X emitting sources in the Commonwealth and in the Northeast United States' [63 FR 13789, 13791 (1998)] and as such should have numeric emission limitations imposed as RACT whether or not they install presumptive RACT (under 25 Pa.Code 129.93) to guarantee that sources would achieve quantifiable emissions reductions under the RACT program. PennFuture goes on to comment that because EPA has not conducted and documented a technical review of Pennsylvania case-by case RACT submissions, EPA has not demonstrated that these large boilers are subject to “numeric emission limitations” under RACT. EPA must conduct a thorough RACT evaluation or review for each such source, and must document the application of numeric emission limits and quantifiable reductions for each coal-fired boiler with a rated heat input of over 100 million Btu per hour.

Response: Circumstances may exist wherein a state could justify otherwise, however, in general, EPA agrees with PennFuture that coal-fired boilers with a rated heat input of equal to or greater than 100 million Btu per hour should have numeric emission limitations imposed as RACT whether or not they install presumptive RACT (under 25 Pa.Code 129.93).

As provided in the response found in II. A, EPA does not agree that it must conduct its own technical analysis of each of the case-by-case RACT determinations submitted for each RACT source in order to document that its RACT requirements include numeric emission limitations. That determination can be made by EPA when it reviews the plan approval, consent order, or permit issued to such a source as submitted by the Commonwealth as SIP revision. PennFuture's comment did not point to a specific instance where a RACT plan approval, consent order or permit imposing RACT on a coal-fired boiler with a rated heat input of equal to or greater than 100 million Btu per hour did, in fact, lack a numerical emission limitation(s). Nonetheless, pursuant to PennFuture's comment, EPA has re-examined all of the case-by-case RACT SIP submissions made by the Commonwealth for such sources located in the Pittsburgh area. That re-examination, combined with information provided by the Commonwealth, indicates that each case-by-case RACT plan approval, consent order and/or permit for each coal-fired boiler with a rated heat input of equal to or greater than 100 million Btu per hour includes a numeric emission limitation. A listing of each source, its plan approval, consent order and/or permit number and its numerical emission limitation has been placed in the Administrative Records for the case-by-case RACT rulemakings for the Pittsburgh area.

C. Comment: PennFuture asserts that the Commonwealth has not adopted and submitted category RACT rules for all VOC source categories for which federal control technique guidelines (CTGs) have been issued. The commenter refers to Appendix 1 of the Technical Support Document (dated May 14, 2001), prepared by EPA in support of its proposed rule to redesignate the Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley Ozone Nonattainment Area (66 FR 29270), to assert that EPA has failed to require the Commonwealth to submit VOC RACT rules for certain categories of sources. PennFuture specifically names source categories such as equipment leaks from natural gas/gas processing plants, coke oven batteries, iron and steel foundries, and publically owned treatment works and asserts that the Commonwealth has neglected a statutory requirement to adopt category RACT regulations for these and 14 other unnamed VOC source categories.

Response: EPA has not issued CTGs for coke oven batteries, iron and steel foundries and publically owned treatment works. The Appendix 1, referred to by the commenter, lists CTG covered categories as well as source categories taken from two STAPPA/ALAPCO documents entitled, “Meeting the 15-Percent Rate-of-Progress Requirement Under the Clean Air Act—A Menu of Options” (September 1993) and “Controlling Nitrogen Oxides Under the Clean Air Act—A Menu of Options” (July 1994). The categories referenced by PennFuture are not VOC categories for which EPA has issued CTGs, but were included in Appendix A as examples of some of the types of sources that could be subject to Pennsylvania's generic RACT regulations. The Commonwealth is under no statutory obligation to adopt RACT rules for source categories for which EPA has not issued a CTG. In fact, CTGs do not exist for all but one of the categories to which the commenter explicitly refers.

The Act requires that states adopt regulations to impose RACT for “major sources of VOC,” located within those areas of a state where RACT applies under Part D of the Act [182(b)(2)(C)]. This is referred to as the non-CTG VOC RACT requirement. Moreover, EPA disagrees that there is a statutory mandate that a state adopt a source category RACT regulation even for a source category where EPA has issued a CTG. There are two statutory provisions that address RACT for sources covered by a CTG. One provides that states must adopt RACT for “any category of VOC sources” covered by a CTG issued prior to November 15, 1990 [182(b)(2)(A)].

The other provides that states must adopt VOC RACT for all “VOC sources” covered by a CTG issued after November 15, 1990 [182(b)(2)(B)]. EPA has long interpreted the statutory RACT requirement to be met either by adoption of category-specific rules or by source-specific rules for each source within a category. When initially established, RACT was clearly defined as a case-by-case determination, but EPA provided CTG's to simplify the process for states such that they would not be required to adopt hundreds or thousands of individual rules. See Strelow Memorandum dated December 9, 1976 and 44 FR 53761, September 17, 1979. EPA does not believe that Congress' use of “source category” in one provision of section 182(b)(2) was intended to preclude the adoption of source-specific rules.

Thus, where CTG-subject sources are located within those areas of a state where RACT applies under Part D of the Act, the state is obligated to impose RACT for the same universe of sources covered by the CTG. However, that obligation is not required to be met by the adoption and submittal of a source category RACT rule. A state may, instead, opt to impose RACT for such sources in permits, plan approvals, consent orders or in any other state enforceable document and submit those documents to EPA for approval as source-specific SIP revisions. This option has been exercised by many states, and happens most commonly when only a few CTG-subject sources are located in the state. The source-specific approach is generally employed to avoid what can be a lengthy and resource-intensive state rule adoption process for only a few sources that may have different needs and considerations that must be taken into account.

As stated earlier, there is one source category explicitly included in PennFuture's comment for which EPA has issued a CTG, namely natural gas/gas processing plants. The Commonwealth made a negative declaration to EPA on April 13, 1993, stating that as of that date there were no applicable sources in this category. Therefore, the Commonwealth did not adopt a category RACT regulation for natural gas/gas processing plants.

D. Comment: PennFuture cites EPA correspondence [letter from Marcia Spink, EPA, to James Salvaggio, DEP, December 15, 1993] to the Commonwealth which states that establishing any dollar figure in RACT guidance will not provide for the “automatic” selection or rejection of a control technology or emission limitation as RACT for a source or source category. With regard to the Pennsylvania DEP's intent to finalize a NO X RACT Guidance Document for implementation of its NO X RACT regulation, EPA's 1993 letter stated that the document could improperly be used to establish “bright line” or “cook-book” approaches, particularly for a regulation applicable to many source categories and suggested that if the guidance document must include dollar figures/ton, it provide approximate ranges by source category. PennFuture comments that DEP issued its “Guidance Document on Reasonably Available Control Technology for Sources of NO X Emissions,” March 11, 1994, and on pp. 8-9 states that the acceptable threshold is $1500 per ton, and that this figure applies to “all source categories.” PennFuture notes that EPA later objected to the $1500 per ton methodology as “not generically acceptable to EPA” [letter from Thomas Maslany, EPA, to James Salvaggio, DEP, June 24, 1997] and further stated in a Federal Register notice that a “dollar per ton threshold” is “inconsistent with the definition of RACT” [62 FR 43134, 37-38 (1997)].

PennFuture comments that EPA is proposing to approve RACT determinations based on a cost per ton method that EPA had previously rejected, and according to its own clearly expressed standard, EPA must not approve RACT determinations by Pennsylvania DEP that apply this $1500 per ton threshold. The commenter states that PennFuture's review of several of the current DEP evaluations indicate that the Commonwealth applied this standard and provides the examples of Duquesne Light—Elrama (auxiliary boiler); Allegheny Ludlum—Washington (formerly Jessop Steel). PennFuture asserts EPA must reject all Pennsylvania RACT determinations applying the standard of $1500 per ton, or any other “bright line” approach, as failing to follow EPA procedures established for Pennsylvania RACT.

Response: EPA still takes the position that a single cost per ton dollar figure may not, in and of itself, form the basis for rejecting a control technology, equipment standard, or work practice standard as RACT. The Technical Support Document prepared by EPA in support of its March 23, 1998 rulemaking [63 FR 13789] clearly indicates that the Commonwealth's document, “Guidance Document on Reasonably Available Control Technology for Sources of NO X Emissions.” March 11, 1994, had not been included as part of the SIP submission of the Commonwealth's generic regulation and, therefore, had not been approved by EPA. EPA further notes that the Administrative Record of the March 23, 1998 rulemaking [63 FR 13789], in addition to the correspondence cited by PennFuture, also includes correspondence from DEP to EPA [letter from James Salvaggio, DEP to David Arnold, EPA, September 10, 1997] stating that DEP's RACT guidance document does not establish a maximum dollar per ton for determining the cost effectiveness for RACT determinations and notes that the DEP's $1500 per ton cost effectiveness is a target value and not an absolute maximum. For example, in its analyses of the cost effectiveness of RACT control options submitted by DEP as part of the case-by-case SIP revision for Peoples Natural Gas (PNG) Valley Compressor Station's turbo charged lean burn IC engine (see the Administrative Record for 66 FR 43492), the Commonwealth included DEP interoffice memoranda (Thomas Joseph to Krishnan Ramamurthy, July 14, 1994 and Krishnan Ramamurthy to Thomas McGinley, Babu Patel, Ronald Davis, Richard Maxwell, and Devendra Verma, July 15, 1994) which spoke directly to the $1500/ton dollar figure as being a guideline and not an upper limit. These memoranda explain that although PNG initially proposed intermediate original equipment manufacturer (OEM) combustion controls which would have reduced NO X emissions from 254.7 tons per year to 115 tons per year (by 55%) at a cost of $1355 per ton reduced, DEP required the installation of an OEM lean combustion modification that reduced NO X emissions from 254.7 tons per year to 76 tons per year (by 69%) at a cost of $1684 per ton reduced. The DEP's July 15, 1994 interoffice memorandum says of the PNG RACT determination which exceeded the cost effectiveness screening level of $1500 per ton “Tom's (Joseph) insistence for the next more stringent level of control than the company's chosen level in the case of PNG was consistent with EPA Region III's sentiment that establishing any dollar figure in RACT guidance will not provide for an ‘automatic’ rejection of a control technology as RACT for a source.”

In no instance, including that for Duquesne Light—Elrama (auxiliary boiler) and Allegheny Ludlum—Washington (formerly Jessop Steel), has EPA proposed to approve a RACT determination submitted by the Commonwealth which was based solely on a conclusion that controls that cost more than $1500/ton were not required as RACT. As explained in the response provided in section II. A. of this document, EPA conducts its review of the entire case-by-case RACT SIP submittal including the source's proposed RACT plan and analyses, Pennsylvania's analyses and the RACT plan approval, consent order or permit itself to insure that the requirements of the SIP-approved generic RACT have been followed. These analyses not only evaluate and consider the costs of potential control options, but also evaluate their technological feasibility.

E. Comment: PennFuture comments that any emission reduction credits (ERCs) earned by sources subject to RACT must be surplus to all applicable state and federal requirements. Under Pennsylvania law, ERCs must be surplus, permanent, quantified, and Federally enforceable. 25 Pa.Code 127.207(1). As to the requirement that ERCs be surplus, the Pennsylvania Code states: ERCs shall be included in the current emission inventory, and may not be required by or be used to meet past or current SIP, attainment demonstration, RFP, emission limitation or compliance plans. Emission reductions necessary to meet NSPS, LAER, RACT, Best Available Technology, BACT and permit or plan approval emissions limitations or another emissions limitation required by the Clean Air Act or the [Air Pollution Control Act] may not be used to generate ERCs. 25 Pa.Code 127.207(1)(i). To be creditable, ERCs must surpass not only RACT requirements but a host of other possible sources of emission limits. PennFuture comments that some of the RACT evaluations at issue in the current EPA notices purport to establish RACT as a baseline for future ERCs. PennFuture does acknowledge that EPA notes in its boilerplate for the notices, that Pennsylvania and EPA have established a series of NO X -reducing rules, including the recent Chapter 145 rule, to reduce NO X at large utility and industrial sources. See, for example, 66 FR 42415, 16-17 (August 13, 2001). Because any ERCs must be surplus to the most stringent limitation applicable under state or federal law as described in the Pennsylvania Code provision set forth above, DEP and EPA must not approve ERCs unless they surpass all such limitations in addition to any limits set by RACT.

Response: EPA agrees with this comment by PennFuture. The approval of a case-by-case RACT determination, in and of itself, does not establish the baseline from which further emission reductions may be calculated and assumed creditable under the Commonwealth's SIP-approved NSR and ERC program. Moreover, EPA's review of the Pennsylvania DEP's implementation of its approved SIP-approved NSR and ERC program indicates that the Commonwealth calculates and credits ERCs in accordance with the SIP-approved criteria for doing so as outlined in PennFuture's comment. No source for which EPA is approving a case-by-case RACT determination should assume that its RACT approval alone automatically establishes the baseline against which it may calculate creditable ERCs.

F. Comment: PennFuture comments that as in the case with Pennsylvania Power-Newcastle, EPA should compare RACT proposals to applicable acid rain program emission limits and control strategies. PennFuture contends that EPA previously disapproved a RACT proposal for the Pennsylvania Power-Newcastle plant [62 FR 43959 (1997); 63 FR 23668 (1998)] and that EPA did so on the basis that the acid rain program requires more stringent emission limits. PennFuture asserts that while EPA had originally proposed to approve this proposal, an analysis of comparable boilers and, especially, a comparison to Phase II emission limits under the acid rain program led EPA to conclude that the RACT proposal emission limits were too lenient. [62 FR at 43961]. Therefore, PennFuture contends that for sources subject to the acid rain program, EPA should consider emissions and control strategies for compliance with acid rain emission limits when evaluating proposals for compliance with RACT.

Response: Title IV of the Act, addressing the acid rain program, contains NO X emission requirements for utilities which must be met in addition to any RACT requirements (see NO X Supplement to the General Preamble at 57 FR 55625, November 25, 1992). The Act provides for a number of control programs that may affect similar sources. For example, new sources may be subject to new source performance standards (NSPS), best available control technology (BACT), and lowest achievable emission rate (LAER). Other controls, under such programs as the acid rain program or the hazardous air pollutant program may also apply to sources. However, the applicability of these other requirements, which are often more stringent than RACT, do not establish what requirements must apply under the RACT program. While these programs may provide information as to the technical and economic feasibility of reduction programs for RACT, there is no presumption that acid rain controls should be mandated as RACT.

EPA stated in the final disapproval of the NO X RACT determination for PPNC [63 FR at 23669], that the discussion concerning average emission rates for boilers with respect to the acid rain program requirements were included in order to provide a context for EPA's proposed disapproval. EPA made clear in its August 18, 1997 proposed disapproval of Pennsylvania Powers'-Newcastle (PPNC) RACT determination, that the basis for disapproval was a comparison between PPNC's boilers and other similar combustion units, not acid rain limits. In fact, EPA stated in the August 18, 1997 proposed disapproval that “Without additional knowledge or information, it would be erroneous and premature to conclude that the limits in the acid rain permit are RACT.” [62 FR at 43961]. EPA clearly stated in the final disapproval for PPNC that it did not use acid rain permit limits, or Pennsylvania's participation in any other NO X control program, to determine PPNC RACT approvability [63 FR at 23670]. Nor has EPA intended to use participation in NO X control programs including acid rain, in determining RACT for PPNC or any other subject sources. EPA also stated that the April 30, 1998, PPNC disapproval was based on the absence of pertinent information regarding a computerized combustion optimization system through an enforceable permit, not comparison of acid rain permit limits.

EPA is approving the revisions to the Pennsylvania SIP submitted by PADEP to establish and require VOC and NO X RACT for eight major of sources located in the Pittsburgh area. EPA is approving these RACT SIP submittals because the ACHD and PADEP established and imposed these RACT requirements in accordance with the criteria set forth in the SIP-approved RACT regulations applicable to these sources. The ACHD and PADEP have also imposed record-keeping, monitoring, and testing requirements on these sources sufficient to determine compliance with the applicable RACT determinations.

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a “significant regulatory action” and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ). Because this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4). This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will 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). This action also does not have Federalism implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action 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 “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (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. This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ).

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

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by December 11, 2001. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action approving the Commonwealth's source-specific RACT requirements to control VOC and NO X from eight individual gas compressor stations in the Pittsburgh area may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. ( See section 307(b)(2).)

Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA.

Standards and guidelines for new and existing HMIWIs were promulgated under the authority of sections 111 and 129 of the Clean Air Act on September 15, 1997 (62 FR 48374). These standards are 40 CFR part 60, subpart Ec for new sources, and 40 CFR part 60, subpart Ce for existing sources.

These rules apply to new and existing incinerators used by hospitals and health care facilities, as well as to incinerators used by commercial waste disposal companies to burn hospital waste and/or medical/infectious waste. Subpart Ce establishes an emission guideline (EG) which applies to existing HMIWIs that commenced construction on or before June 20, 1996.

The subpart Ce EG is not a direct Federal regulation but is a “guideline” for states to use in regulating existing HMIWIs. The EG requires states to submit for EPA approval a section 111(d) state plan containing air emission regulations and compliance schedules for existing HMIWIs.

We originally approved the state's HMIWI 111(d) plan in 40 CFR part 62 on August 19, 1999 (64 FR 45187). Upon implementation of the plan, the state determined two definitions in rule 10 CSR 10-6.200, Hospital, Medical, Infectious Waste Incinerators (which is part of the 111(d) plan) were incomplete, and needed to be revised for clarification and to be consistent with the EPA definitions.

Subsequently, in this rule, in subsection (2)(E), the term “co-fired combustor” was amended. The additional language addresses what is considered other waste for purposes of calculating the percentage of hospital and medical/infectious waste combusted of the total of all wastes combusted in a co-fired combustor. Other waste for purposes of the definition includes pathological, chemotherapeutic, and low-level radioactive waste. This amendment can affect applicability as companies calculate the percentage of other waste being incinerated. This definition is now consistent with the EPA definition at 40 CFR 62.14490.

In subsection (2)(T) of the same rule, the term “medical/infectious waste” was amended. The additional language helps to clarify what the term “medical/infectious waste” means by listing specific excluded wastes. These excluded wastes include such things as hazardous waste, household waste, and domestic sewage materials. This additional language can also affect applicability when calculating the percentage of waste incinerated. This definition is now consistent with the EPA definition at 40 CFR 62.14490.

Since the additional language serves to clarify the meaning of the respective terms and these definitions are now equivalent to the EPA definitions, we are approving these revisions to the state's HMIWI 111(d) plan.

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a “significant regulatory action” and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ). Because this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4).

This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will 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). This action also does not have Federalism implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely approves a state plan 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 “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant.

In reviewing state plan 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 state plan submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a state plan submission, to use VCS in place of a state plan 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. 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. We will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the United States Senate, the United States House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register . A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register . This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by December 11, 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).)

On August 22, 2001, the Northwest Regional Administrator, NMFS (Regional Administrator), transferred 20,000 coho from the overall marked coho quota for the commercial fishery area from Queets River, WA to Cape Falcon, OR to the marked coho sub-quota in the recreational fishery subarea from Leadbetter Pt., WA to Cape Falcon, OR (Columbia River Area), hence making the overall sub-quota 122,500 coho. Modification of quotas is authorized by regulations at 50 CFR 660.409 (b)(1)(i).

In the 2001 annual management measures for ocean salmon fisheries (66 FR 23185, May 8, 2001), NMFS announced that the recreational fishery from Leadbetter Pt., WA to Cape Falcon, OR would open July 1 through the earlier of September 3, or the attainment of the subarea sub-quota of 102,500 coho. NMFS also announced an opening for the commercial fishery for Queets River, WA to Cape Falcon, OR that would extend through the earliest of September 30, or the attainment of the overall chinook quota or a 63,000 marked coho guideline.