We issued a proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to include an AD that would apply to all Cessna Models 425 and 441 airplanes that are equipped with pneumatic deicing boots. The proposal was published in the Federal Register as an NPRM on October 12, 1999 (64 FR 55184). The NPRM proposed to require revising the Limitations Section of the AFM to include requirements for activation of pneumatic deicing boots at the first sign of ice accumulation on the airplane.

The FAA invited interested persons to participate in the making of this amendment. We received a comment on the proposed AD from Cessna. Our analysis and disposition of this comment follow:

Cessna provides information it believes demonstrates that the design of the affected airplanes, including the language currently in the AFM, is adequate to address the conditions identified in the proposed AD for these airplanes. Therefore, Cessna requests that FAA withdraw the NPRM.

After evaluating the information that Cessna submitted, we have determined that the design of the affected airplanes, including the language currently in the AFM, is adequate to address the conditions identified in the proposed AD for these airplanes. We will withdraw the NPRM per the Cessna request.

Based on the above information, we have determined that there is no need for the NPRM, Docket No. 99-CE-53-AD, and that we should withdraw it.

Withdrawal of this NPRM does not prevent us from issuing another notice in the future, nor will it commit us to any course of action in the future.

Since this action only withdraws a proposed AD, it is not an AD and, therefore, is not covered under Executive Order 12866, the Regulatory Flexibility Act, or DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979).

Accordingly, FAA withdraws the notice of proposed rulemaking, Docket No. 99-CE-53-AD, published in the Federal Register on October 12, 1999 (64 FR 55184).

Interested persons are invited to participate in the making of the proposed rule by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they may desire. Communications should identify the Rules Docket number and be submitted in triplicate to the address specified above. All communications received on or before the closing date for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposals contained in this notice may be changed in light of the comments received.

Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed rule. All comments submitted will be available in the Rules Docket for examination by interested persons. A report summarizing each FAA-public contact concerned with the substance of this proposal will be filed in the Rules Docket.

Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their mailed comments submitted in response to this notice must submit a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. 2000-SW-27-AD.” The postcard will be date stamped and returned to the commenter.

Any person may obtain a copy of this NPRM by submitting a request to the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, Attention: Rules Docket No. 2000-SW-27-AD, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 663, Fort Worth, Texas 76137.

This document proposes the adoption of a new airworthiness directive (AD) for Hiller Model UH-12, UH-12A, UH-12B, UH-12C, UH-12D, UH-12E, UH-12E-l, UH-12L, and UH-12L4 helicopters. The AD would require replacing all undrilled-shank bolts at pivoting joints in control system linkage with drilled-shank bolts and installing castellated nuts and cotter pins. This proposal is prompted by an accident due to separation of the control system attachments at pivoting points on a Model UH-12E helicopter. The attachments are bolts with self-locking nuts that can lose the self-locking feature with repeated disassembly. This condition, if not corrected, could result in separation of the control system attachments at pivoting points and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.

The FAA has reviewed Hiller Aircraft Service Bulletin No. 10-4, Revision 2, dated December 20, 1999 (SB), which describes procedures for replacing plain bolts and self-locking nuts, used at pivoting joints, with drilled-shank bolts, castellated nuts, and cotter pins.

We have identified an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on other Hiller Model UH-12, UH-12A, UH-12B, UH-12C, UH-12D, UH-12E, UH-12E-L, UH-12L, and UH-12L4 helicopters of the same type design. The proposed AD would require at the next annual inspection or within 12 months, whichever occurs first, replacing all undrilled-shank bolts with drilled-shank bolts at pivoting joints in the control system linkage and installing castellated nuts and cotter pins. The actions would be required to be accomplished in accordance with the SB described previously.

The FAA estimates that 500 helicopters of U.S. registry would be affected by this proposed AD, that it would take approximately 24 work hours per helicopter to accomplish the proposed actions, and that the average labor rate is $60 per work hour. Required parts would cost approximately $150 per helicopter. Based on these figures, the total cost impact of the proposed AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $795,000.

The regulations proposed herein 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. Therefore, it is determined that this proposal would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.

For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this proposed regulation (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 copy of the draft regulatory evaluation prepared for this action 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.

Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as follows:

Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views or arguments as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. Communications should identify the airspace docket number and be submitted in triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Airspace Docket No. 00-ASO-33.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter. All communications received before the specified closing date for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of the comments received. All comments submitted will be available for examination in the Office of the Regional Counsel for Southern Region, Room 550, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, Georgia 30337, both before and after the closing date for comments. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket.

Any person may obtain a copy of this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) by submitting a request to the Federal Aviation Administration, Manager, Airspace Branch, ASO-520, Air Traffic Division, P.O. Box 20636, Atlanta, Georgia 30320. Communications must identify the notice number of this NPRM. Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future NPRMs should also request a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A which describes the application procedure.

The FAA is considering an amendment to part 71 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR Part 71) to establish Class E airspace at Oak Grove, NC. Class E airspace designations for airspace areas extending upward from 700 feet or more above the surface of the earth are published in Paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9G, dated September 1, 1999, and effective September 16, 1999, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designation listed in this document would be published subsequently in the Order.

The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore, 91) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. Communications should identify the airspace docket number and be submitted in triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Airspace Docket No. 00-ACE-23.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter. All communications received on or before the specified closing date for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this action may be changed in light of comments received. All comments submitted will be available for examination in the Rules Docket both before and after the closing date for comments. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket.

An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded from the FAA regulations section of the Fedworld electronic bulletin board service (telephone: 703-321-3339) or the Federal Register's electronic bulletin board service (telephone: 202-512-1661) using a modem and suitable communications software.

Internet users may reach the FAA's web page at http://www.faa.gov or the Federal Register's web page at http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara for access to recently published rulemaking documents.

Any person may also obtain a copy of this NPRM by submitting a request to the FAA, Office of Air Traffic Airspace Management, ATA-400, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by calling (202) 267-8783. Communications must identify the docket number of this NPRM. Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future NPRM's should call the FAA, Office of Rulemaking, (202) 267-9677, to request a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, which describes the application procedure.

The Department of Defense in a continuing need to meet its added national defense responsibilities has increased its training requirements of the USA Reserve and National Guard resources in many areas of the United States. One of the locations where this training has been increased is at Fort Leonard Wood, MO. This increase in training requires modification of the times of use for R-4501 and its subdivisions. Therefore, the USA has requested that the FAA amend the times and days of use for R-4501A, B, C, D, and E.

The FAA is proposing an amendment to 14 CFR part 73 to modify the times of use of R-4501 and its subdivisions over Fort Leonard Wood, MO. Specifically, the FAA proposes to activate R-4501A thirty minutes earlier and deactivate it three hours later. Additionally, R-4501B would be activated on the same schedule but deactivated four hours later. The day schedule (Monday-Saturday) would remain unchanged.

Also, the FAA proposes to activate R-4501C and D two hours later Monday-Friday and deactivate it three hours later than the current designation on Monday and two hours earlier Tuesday-Friday. Saturday would no longer be designated as an active day unless done so by NOTAM 24 hours in advance. In addition, the FAA proposes to activate R-4501E on the same schedule as R-4501C and D. The FAA is proposing this action at the request of the USA to meet the increasing training efforts of the USA at Fort Leonard Wood, MO, and to better depict more realistic operational times of use of the restricted areas.

In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 73 as follows:

You may submit or retrieve comments online through the Document Management System (DMS) at: http://dmses.dot.gov/submit. Acceptable formats include: MS Word (versions 95 to 97), MS Word for Mac (versions 6 to 8), Rich Text File (RTF), American Standard Code Information Interchange (ASCII)(TXT), Portable Document Format (PDF), and WordPerfect (versions 7 to 8). The DMS is available 24 hours each day, 365 days each year. Electronic submission and retrieval help and guidelines are available under the help section of the web site.

An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded by using a computer, modem and suitable communications software from the Government Printing Office's Electronic Bulletin Board Service at (202) 512-1661. Internet users may reach the Office of the Federal Register's home page at: http://www.nara.gov/fedreg and the Government Printing Office's web page at: http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara.

Under the provisions of 23 U.S.C. 106, a formal agreement between the State transportation department (STD) and the FHWA is required for Federal-aid highway projects. This agreement, referred to as the “project agreement,” is in essence a written contract between the State and the Federal Government defining the extent of the work to be undertaken, the State and the Federal shares of a project's cost, and commitments concerning maintenance of the project.

The present regulation at 23 CFR 630, subpart C, provides requirements concerning the project agreement. It includes detailed instructions on preparation of the project agreement, and an assemblage of agreement provisions that are part of the project agreement.

The present regulation at 23 CFR 630, subpart A, provides requirements concerning the project authorization. The FHWA authorization commits the Federal Government to participate in the funding of a project, except in those instances where the State requests FHWA authorization without the commitment of Federal funds. In addition, FHWA authorization also establishes a point in time after which costs incurred on a project are eligible for Federal participation.

It is the FHWA's desire to update and modify the existing regulation to incorporate needed changes to reflect adjustments made by sections 1304 and 1305 of the TEA-21, Public Law 105-178, 112 Stat.107, to combine the project agreement and provisions into the authorization of work, and to retain existing versatility in its use. The proposed changes are discussed in the following section-by-section analysis.

Section 630.102 would be combined with § 630.301 to create a new § 630.102, with minor changes for clarity.

Section 630.104(a) would be retained without modification. Section 630.104(b) would be combined with § 630.104(c) to create a new § 630.104(b), to eliminate the need to cross reference projects financed with FHWA funds covered under separate regulations.

Section 630.106 would be revised to reflect that a project agreement is needed before authorization can be given to proceed with a project. At times, certain special projects may have unique authorization requirements in advance of the commitment of Federal funds. A project agreement, therefore, would be used to authorize special projects to proceed and not be construed as creating in any manner any obligation of the part of the Federal government to provide Federal funds for that portion of the undertaking not fully funded in the agreement. This section would retain many of the basic principles set forth in existing § 630.106. The following discussion covers proposed § 630.106 by individual paragraph.

Section 630.106(a) would retain the requirement that the FHWA's authorization to proceed with a Federal-aid project will only be given in response to a request from the STD in a project agreement, and then only if the applicable requirements in law have been satisfied for the project.

Section 630.106(b) would retain the longstanding requirement that Federal-aid funds will only participate in costs incurred after the date the FHWA has authorized the State to proceed with the project. However, exceptions to this requirement have been allowed under a process set forth in 23 CFR 1.9(b). For informational purposes, wording has been included in paragraph (b) to identify and cross reference the exception process.

Section 630.106 (c), (d), and (e) would retain the requirement that at the time a project agreement is executed for a Federal-aid project, the appropriate Federal funds for this project must be available. Four general categories for exceptions to this rule are presented in § 630.106(c)(1)-(4), these being the same four categories that are in the existing regulation. Section 630.106(d) would be shortened to make it comparable with the clarification provided for other project agreement conditions and requirements.

Section 630.106(f) is revised for purposes of clarification. The FHWA project agreement represents a contractual action by the FHWA and the Federal share of eligible costs must be agreed upon when the project agreement is executed. The Federal share may be in the form of a specified percentage of eligible costs or a lump sum amount. Use of the lump sum share is to accommodate those instances where there is a desire to commit a fixed amount of Federal funds to a project. The lump sum amount may not exceed the legal pro rata share for the Federal funds involved. This may require downward adjustment of the lump sum amount when costs of eligible work on a project are less than the initial estimates at the time the project agreement is executed.

The Federal share agreed to would continue through the life of the project. Manipulation of funding levels of individual projects to accommodate program funding changes or needs would not be allowed. However, adjustments to the Federal share would be permitted for projects in situations where bid prices are significantly different from the estimates at the time of FHWA authorization.

Section 630.106(g) would retain cost sharing principles of title 23, U.S.C. This would continue the practice of allowing the State to contribute more than the normal State match on a Federal-aid project. A State may overmatch without being tied to a mandatory Federal share. However, token financing, such as when the Federal share represents only a minor percentage of eligible work or when large contributions are applied to the project to reduce the total cost, is not to be permitted. It is expected that the amount of Federal funds requested will represent at least 50 percent of eligible project costs. Exception to the 50 percent level should be based on sound project development or management reasons.

Section 630.106(h)(1) is new and would permit cash contributions from private sources for a specific Federal-aid project to be used to reduce the required State match of eligible costs. The FHWA participates in costs incurred on Federal-aid projects. Private cash contributions can be applied to either eligible or ineligible items of work. However, when a private cash contribution is applied to costs ineligible for Federal participation, the private cash contribution is not considered to have reduced the cost of the Federal-aid project and thus cannot reduce the State match.

Private cash contributions made to a State or local government with no designation to a specific project, are considered to be State or local government funds and may be used in any way State or local funds are authorized to be used, including providing State match on Federal-aid projects.

Contributions of funds from other Federal agencies to a specific project generally may not be used to provide the required State match on a Federal-aid project but, instead, are viewed as having reduced the cost incurred by the State on the project. The only exception is in those cases where specific legislative authority allows Federal funds to match other Federal funds.

The fair market value of any donated materials, services, or real property that are accepted and incorporated into the Federal-aid project by the STD may be credited against the State share in certain cases.

Section 630.106(h)(2) is new and would require that all contributions to a project be accounted for and properly credited to the project. The sum of cash contributions from all sources plus the Federal funds may not exceed the total cost of the project. This item is intended to prevent the State from making a profit on a Federal-aid project.

This proposed new section would be a revision of existing § 630.303. A State is required to prepare a project agreement for each Federal-aid highway project. A State would continue to have the flexibility to develop its own format for the project agreement, provided it contains information identified as necessary by the regulation. The optional use of electronic forms and signatures as developed and implemented by the FHWA would also continue.

The following discussion covers proposed § 630.108 by individual paragraph:

Section 630.303(a) and (b) would be relocated to § 630.108(a) and (b), respectively, with the term “State highway agency” replaced with the new term “State transportation department” along with minor changes for clarity and consistency.

Sections 630.303(b)(1), (b)(2), (b)(3), and (b)(4), would be relocated to 23 CFR 630.108(b)(1), (b)(2), (b)(3), and (b)(4), respectively, without modification.

Section 630.108(b)(5) would be a new requirement for the project agreement. The Federal-aid share of eligible costs expressed as either a pro rata percentage or a lump sum is presently required to be established at the time of project authorization. The project agreement being combined with the project authorization requirements must contain this information.

Section 630.303(b)(5), (b)(6), and (b)(7), would be redesignated as § 630.108(b)(6), (b)(7), and (b)(8), and revised to reflect the new agreement provisions section.

Section 630.108(c) would be a new section containing the requirement that the project agreement must document instances when the State uses credit from special accounts and/or when other arrangements affecting Federal funding are used. The Federal share of eligible costs incurred by the State cannot exceed the maximum share permitted by legislation. The only exception is when using amounts of credits from special accounts (such as the 23 U.S.C. 120(j) toll credits, 23 U.S.C. 144(n) off-system bridge credits and 23 U.S.C. 323 land value credits) to cover all, or a portion, of the normal percent of non-Federal share of eligible project costs. The result is that the State may apply these credits to adjust the Federal participation in actual project costs up to 100 percent. The non-Federal participation of eligible costs must come from State funds. Local government funds are considered to be State funds. Thus, local government funds can be combined with STD funds to cover the required State match of eligible costs. The State has the flexibility of using amounts of credit from special accounts permitted by enabling legislation to cover all or a portion of the normal percent non-Federal share of the project.

Section 630.303(d) would be redesignated as § 630.108(d), without modification.

This proposed new section would be comprised of existing § 630.305 with minor revisions. References to the obsolete “SHA” nomenclature would be replaced with the current “STD” nomenclature and a clarifying statement added that would include our longstanding requirement that agreements should not be modified to replace one Federal fund category with another unless specifically authorized by statute.

This proposed new section would be a revision of existing § 630.307. The provisions contained in this section continue to be a required part of each project agreement. Only the provisions that are necessary are included in this section of the regulation. The project agreement, by reference to this section, incorporates the provisions into each agreement. The following discussion covers each of the existing provisions and describes the revisions that are being proposed.

Section 630.307(a), would be redesignated as § 630.312(a), replacing only the references to the obsolete “SHA” nomenclature with the current “STD” nomenclature. This general provision is so broad in scope that there is little or no need for other provisions. Under this general provision, the State agrees to comply with title 23, United States Code, the regulations implementing title 23, and the policies and procedures established by the FHWA. The States generally agree, in the project agreement process, to comply with all other applicable Federal laws and regulations.

Section 630.307(b), would be redesignated as § 630.312(a), with minor changes for clarity.

Section 630.307(c), would be redesignated as § 630.312(c), without modification, except for the use of “STD” nomenclature.

Section 630.307(c)(1), would be redesignated as § 630.312(c)(1), with minor changes for clarity. This provision requires repayment of Federal-aid highway funds authorized if road construction on this right-of-way had not begun within 20 years. It is proposed that information be added concerning the FHWA's process to approve a period longer than twenty years for the repayment of Federal funds that is allowed under 23 U.S.C. 108(a)(2).

Section 630.307(c)(2), would be redesignated as § 630.312(c)(2), with changes to allow the granting of time extensions for engineering cost reimbursement. This provision requires repayment of Federal-aid highway funds authorized if right-of way acquisition or actual construction had not begun within 10 years after authorization of the preliminary engineering. It is proposed that information be added indicating that the FHWA may approve a period longer than 10 years for the repayment of Federal funds if considered reasonable. This provision is now found in the statute; section 1304 of the TEA-21 incorporated this provision into 23 U.S.C. 102(c).

Sections 630.307(c)(3), (4), and (5) would be redesignated as § 630.312(c)(3), (4) and (5) without modification, except for the replacement of “SHA” nomenclature with “STD” nomenclature. These provisions require that certifications be given to the FHWA, for drug-free workplace certification required by 49 CFR 29.630, for suspension/debarment certification required by 49 CFR 29.510, and for lobbying certification required by 49 CFR 20.110. States must provide these certifications for each project. Placing language in the project agreement as part of the general provisions is considered the same as providing a separate certification action for every project placed under agreement.

This section would be removed because § 630.301 would be combined with § 630.102 to create a new § 630.102.

This section would be removed because it would be relocated and revised as proposed new § 630.108.

This section would be removed because it would be relocated as proposed new § 630.110 with minor revisions.

This section would be removed because it would be relocated and revised as proposed new § 630.112.

The following derivation table is provided to assist the user in understanding the reorganization of sections contained in proposed subpart A of part 630. Note that many of the proposed new sections would contain revised language that originated from current subpart C, according to the description in the section-by-section analysis above:

All comments received before the close of business on the comment closing date indicated above will be considered and will be available for examination in the docket at the above address. Comments received after the comment closing date will be filed in the docket and will be considered to the extent practicable, but the FHWA may issue a final rule at any time after the close of the comment period. In addition to late comments, the FHWA will also continue to file relevant information in the docket as it becomes available after the comment closing date, and interested persons should continue to examine the docket for new material.

The FHWA has determined that this action is not a significant regulatory action within the meaning of Executive Order 12866 or significant within the meaning of Department of Transportation regulatory policies and procedures. The proposed amendments would merely update the Federal-aid project agreement regulation to conform to recent laws, regulations, or guidance and clarify existing policies. It is anticipated that the economic impact of this rulemaking will be minimal; therefore, a full regulatory evaluation is not required.

In compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), the FHWA has evaluated the effects of this rule on small entities, such as local governments and businesses. Based on the evaluation, the FHWA hereby certifies that this action would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The proposed amendments would merely clarify or simplify procedures used by State highway agencies in accordance with existing laws, regulations, or guidance. We specifically invite comments on this issue.

This proposed rule would not impose a Federal mandate resulting in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year (2 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ).

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

This proposed rule would 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 action has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13132, dated August 4, 1999, and it has been preliminarily determined that it does not have a substantial direct affect or significant federalism implications on States or local governments that would limit the policymaking discretion of the States. Nothing in this document directly preempts any State law or regulation.

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Number 20.205, Highway Planning and Construction. The regulations implementing Executive Order 12372 regarding intergovernmental consultation on Federal programs and activities apply to this program.

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq. ), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct, sponsor, or require through regulations. The FHWA has determined that this proposal contains collection of information requirements for the purposes of the PRA. The requirements to collect information relating to the current provisions for the project agreement form are covered by a currently-approved information collection entitled “Preparation and Execution of the Project Agreement and Modifications.” This collection is covered under OMB Approval No. 2125-0529 with an expiration date of May 31, 2001.

This proposal would update and modify existing requirements to reflect statutory changes to the project agreement process enacted by Section 1305 of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21, Pub. L. 105-178) amended 23 U.S.C. 106(a) and combined authorization of work and execution of the project agreement for a Federal-aid project into a single action. There are no changes to the current information collection burden estimates as a result of this proposal. The FHWA has estimated that the average number of project agreements executed annually by each of the respondents is 215 and that each agreement takes approximately one hour to complete. The 56 respondents include STDs in the 50 States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands and the Territories of Guam, the Virgin Islands, and American Samoa.

The FHWA seeks public comments regarding these information collection requirements. Interested parties are invited to send comments regarding any aspect of these information collection requirements, including, but not limited to: (1) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the FHWA's performance, including whether the information has practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burdens; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the collection information; and (4) ways to minimize the collection burden without reducing the quality of the information collected.

The agency has analyzed this action for the purpose of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ) and has determined that this action would not have any effect on the quality of the environment.

A regulation identification number (RIN) is assigned to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information Service Center publishes the Unified Agenda in April and October of each year. The RIN contained in the heading of this document can be used to cross reference this action with the Unified Agenda.

In consideration of the foregoing, the FHWA proposes to amend title 23, Code of Federal Regulations, by revising subpart A and removing and reserving subpart C of part 630 as set forth below:

In the following questions and answers, the term “you” refers to the reader of this proposed rule and “we,” “us,” or “our” refers to the EPA.

The Clean Air Act (Act or CAA) requires the EPA to establish National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for certain air pollutants that cause or contribute to air pollution that is reasonably anticipated to endanger public health or welfare. Clean Air Act sections 108 and 109. In 1979, EPA promulgated the 1-hour ground-level ozone standard of 0.12 parts per million (ppm) or 120 parts per billion (ppb). 44 FR 8202 (February 8, 1979).

Ground-level ozone is generally not directly emitted by sources. Rather, volatile organic compounds (VOC) and NO X , both emitted by a wide variety of sources, react in the presence of sunlight to form additional pollutants, including ozone. NO X and VOC are referred to as precursors of ozone.

The Act, as amended in 1990, required EPA to designate as nonattainment any area that was violating the 1-hour ozone standard, generally based on air quality monitoring data from the 1987 through 1989 period. Clean Air Act section 107(d)(4); 56 FR 56694 (November 6, 1991). The Act further classified these areas, based on the areas' ozone design values, as marginal, moderate, serious, severe, or extreme. Marginal areas were suffering the least significant ozone nonattainment problems, while the areas classified as severe and extreme had the most significant ozone nonattainment problems.

The control requirements and date by which attainment with the ozone NAAQS is to be achieved vary with an area's classification. Marginal areas were subject to the fewest mandated control requirements and had the earliest attainment date, November 15, 1993. Moderate areas were subject to more stringent planning and control requirements but were provided more time to attain the ozone standard, until November 15, 1996. Severe and extreme areas are subject to even more stringent planning and control requirements but are also provided more time to attain the standard. Severe areas are required to attain the ozone NAAQS by November 15, 2005 or November 15, 2007, depending on the areas' ozone design values for the 1987 through 1989 period.

The St. Louis ozone nonattainment area (subsequently also referred to as the Metro-East/St. Louis ozone nonattainment area to denote the bi-state nature of the area) was classified as moderate, giving it an attainment deadline of November 15, 1996. The Metro-East/St. Louis ozone nonattainment area is defined (40 CFR 81.314 and 81.326) to contain Madison, Monroe, and St. Clair Counties in Illinois, and Franklin, Jefferson, St. Charles, and St. Louis Counties and St. Louis City in Missouri.

The Chicago-Gary-Lake County ozone nonattainment area was classified as severe-17 and its attainment date is November 15, 2007. The Chicago-Gary-Lake County ozone nonattainment area is defined (40 CFR 81.314 and 81.315) to contain Cook, DuPage, Grundy (Aux Sable and Goose Lake Townships only), Kane, Kendall (Oswego Township only), Lake, McHenry, and Will Counties in Illinois, and Lake and Porter Counties in Indiana.

The Act requires moderate and above ozone nonattainment areas (including severe ozone nonattainment areas) to be addressed in ozone attainment demonstrations, including adopted emission control regulations sufficient to achieve attainment of the ozone NAAQS by the applicable ozone attainment dates. The requirements of the Act for ozone attainment demonstrations for moderate and above ozone attainment areas are determined by considering several sections of the Act. Section 172(c)(6) of the Act requires SIPs to include enforceable emission limitations, and such other control measures, means or techniques as well as schedules and timetables for compliance, as may be necessary to provide for attainment by the applicable attainment dates. Section 172(c)(1) of the Act requires the implementation of all reasonably available control measures (including reasonably available control technology [RACT]) and requires the SIP to provide for sufficient annual reductions in emissions of VOC and NO X as necessary to attain the ozone NAAQS by the applicable attainment dates. Section 182(j)(1)(B) requires the use of photochemical grid modeling or other methods judged to be at least as effective to demonstrate attainment of the ozone NAAQS in multi-state moderate ozone nonattainment areas. Sections 182(c)(2) and (d) required SIP revision submissions by November 15, 1994 for serious and severe ozone nonattainment areas to demonstrate how the areas would attain the 1-hour standard and how they would achieve rate-of-progress (ROP) reductions in VOC emissions of 9 percent for each 3-year period until the date of attainment. (In some cases, NO X emission reductions can be substituted for the required VOC emission reductions to achieve ROP.) Section 182(c)(2)(A) requires the ozone attainment demonstrations for serious and above ozone nonattainment areas to be based on the use of photochemical grid modeling or on other analytical methods determined to be at least as effective. The attainment demonstrations based on photochemical grid modeling can address the emission impacts of both VOC and NO X . The NO X emission control regulations addressed in this proposed rulemaking are, in part, intended to meet the requirements for the attainment demonstrations for the Metro-East/St. Louis and Chicago-Gary-Lake County ozone nonattainment areas.

On October 27, 1998, the EPA promulgated a NO X SIP call for a number of States, including the State of Illinois. The NO X SIP call requires the subject States to develop NO X emission control regulations sufficient to provide for a prescribed NO X emission budget in 2007, and is further discussed below. These NO X emission reductions will address ozone transport in the area of the country primarily east of the Mississippi River. EPA promulgated the NO X SIP call pursuant to the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D) and our authority under CAA section 110(k). Section 110(a)(2)(D) applies to all SIPs for each pollutant covered by a NAAQS and for all areas regardless of their attainment designation. It requires a SIP to contain adequate provisions that prohibit any source or type of source or other types of emissions within a State from emitting any air pollutants in amounts which will contribute significantly to nonattainment in, or interfere with maintenance of attainment of a standard by any other State with respect to any NAAQS. Section 110(k)(5) authorizes the EPA to find that a SIP is substantially inadequate to meet any CAA requirement when appropriate, and, based on such finding, to then require the State to submit a SIP revision within a specified time to correct such inadequacies.

The State of Illinois has the primary responsibility under the CAA for ensuring that Illinois meets the ozone NAAQS and is required to submit a SIP that specifies emission limitations, control measures, and other measures necessary for attainment, maintenance, and enforcement of the NAAQS within the State. The SIP for ozone must meet the CAA requirements discussed above, must be adopted pursuant to notice and comment rulemaking, and must be submitted to the EPA for approval. A number of analyses and EPA rulemaking actions have affected the SIP revisions needed for the Metro-East/St. Louis and Chicago-Gary-Lake County ozone nonattainment areas as discussed below.

The Metro-East/St. Louis and Chicago-Gary-Lake County nonattainment areas have not attained and continue to violate the 1-hour ozone standard. The States of Illinois and Missouri have worked cooperatively to provide the EPA with an ozone attainment demonstration for the Metro-East/St. Louis nonattainment area. The States of Illinois, Indiana, Wisconsin, and Michigan have worked cooperatively to provide the EPA with an ozone attainment demonstration for the Lake Michigan area, which includes the Chicago-Gary-Lake County ozone nonattainment area. Analyses conducted to support both of these ozone attainment demonstrations, as submitted in 1994 and supplemented in April 1998, indicate that reductions in upwind NO X emissions are needed to reduce the transport of ozone into these nonattainment areas.

On March 2, 1995, Mary D. Nichols, Assistant Administrator for EPA's Air and Radiation Division, published a memorandum titled “Ozone Attainment Demonstrations.” In this memorandum, the EPA recognized that the development of the necessary technical information, as well as the emission control measures necessary to achieve the attainment of the ozone NAAQS had been difficult for the States affected by significant ozone transport. EPA established a two-phase process for States with serious and severe nonattainment areas to develop ozone attainment SIPs. Under Phase I, States were required to complete 1994 SIP requirements (with the exception of final ozone attainment demonstrations), submit regulations sufficient to meet ROP requirements through 1999, and submit initial ozone modeling analyses, including preliminary ozone attainment demonstrations based on assumed reductions in upwind ozone precursor emissions. Phase II called for a two-year consultative process to assess regional strategies to address ozone transport in the eastern United States and required submittal of all remaining ROP submittals to cover ROP through the attainment dates, final attainment demonstrations to address the emission reduction requirements resulting from the two-year consultative process and any additional rules and emission controls needed to attain the ozone standard, and any regional controls needed for attainment by all areas in the eastern half of the United States.

In response to problem of ozone transport, the Environmental Council of States (ECOS) recommended the formation of a national workgroup to assess the problem and to develop a consensus approach to addressing the transport problem. As a result of ECOS' recommendation and in response to the March 2, 1995 EPA memorandum, the Ozone Transport Assessment Group (OTAG), a partnership among EPA, the 36 eastern States and the District of Columbia, and industrial, academic, and environmental groups, was formed to conduct regional ozone transport analyses and to develop a recommended ozone transport control strategy. OTAG was given the responsibility of conducting the two years of analyses envisioned in the March 2, 1995 EPA memorandum.

OTAG conducted a number of regional ozone data analyses and regional ozone modeling analyses using photochemical grid modeling. In July 1997, OTAG completed its work and made recommendations to the EPA concerning the regional emissions reductions needed to reduce transported ozone as an obstacle to attainment in downwind areas. OTAG recommended a possible range of regional NO X emission reductions to support the control of transported ozone. Based on OTAG's recommendations and other information, EPA issued the NO X SIP call rule on October 27, 1998. 63 FR 57356.

In the NO X SIP call, EPA determined that sources and emitting activities in 23 jurisdictions  1 emit NO X in amounts that “significantly contribute” to ozone nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS in one or more downwind areas in violation of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). EPA identified NO X emission reductions by source sector that could be achieved using cost-effective measures and set state-wide NO X emission budgets for each affected jurisdiction for 2007 based on the possible cost-effective NO X emission reductions. The source sectors include nonroad mobile, highway mobile, area, electricity generating units (EGUs) (including stationary boilers and turbines, which may generate steam for industrial processes but whose primary purpose is to generate electricity for sale to the electrical grid), and major non-EGU stationary point sources (process stationary boilers or turbines, whose primary purpose is to generate steam for industrial processes). EPA established recommended NO X emissions caps for large EGUs (serving a generator greater than 25 megawatts) and for large non-EGUs (maximum design heat input of 250 million British thermal units [Btu] per hour [mmBtu/hr]). EPA determined that significant NO X reductions using cost-effective measures could be obtained as follows: application of a 0.15 pounds NO X /mmBtu heat input emission rate limit for large EGUs; a 60 percent reduction of NO X emissions from large non-EGUs; a 30 percent reduction of NO X emissions from large cement kilns; and a 90 percent reduction of NO X emissions from large stationary internal combustion engines not serving electricity generators. The 2007 state-wide NO X emission budgets established by jurisdiction were based, in part, by assuming these levels of NO X emission controls coupled with NO X emissions projected by source sector to 2007.

Although the state-wide NO X emission budgets were based on the levels of reduction achievable through cost-effective emission control measures, the NO X SIP call allows each State to determine what measures it will choose to meet the state-wide NO X emission budgets. It does not require the States to adopt the specific NO X emission rates assumed by the EPA in establishing the NO X emission budgets. The NO X SIP call merely requires States to submit SIPs, which, when implemented, will require controls that meet the NO X state-wide emission budget. The NO X SIP call encourages the States to adopt a NO X cap and trade program for large EGUs and large non-EGUs as a cost-effective strategy and provides an interstate NO X trading program that the EPA will administer for the States. If States choose to participate in the national trading program, the States must submit SIPs that conform to the trading program requirements in the NO X SIP call.

As a moderate ozone nonattainment area, the Metro-East/St. Louis nonattainment area was not included in the two-phase approach established in EPA's March 2, 1995 memorandum. The EPA, however, recognizes that some moderate ozone nonattainment areas may also have been significantly impacted by ozone transport from upwind areas, making attainment of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS difficult through the imposition of only local emission control measures. On July 16, 1998, EPA established a policy that allowed for a deferral of the attainment date for areas significantly impacted by ozone transport and where certain conditions are met. The EPA published this policy (Extension Policy) in the Federal Register on March 25, 1999. 64 FR 14441.

Under the Extension Policy, the EPA would defer final findings on the attainment status for moderate nonattainment areas and would instead allow these areas to submit attainment SIPs that include boundary reductions in ozone achieved by controls measures in upwind areas. The attainment date for these areas would be the date by which the relevant upwind areas will have reduced emissions, reducing the transported ozone. Along this line, on March 18, 1999, EPA published a proposed rule titled “Clean Air Reclassification and Notice of Potential Eligibility for Attainment Date Extension, Missouri and Illinois, St. Louis Nonattainment Area; Ozone.” In that proposed rule, the EPA proposed to defer final action on a proposed finding of nonattainment for the Metro-East/St. Louis nonattainment (which would have resulted in a bump-up of the area to serious nonattainment for ozone) until it could ascertain whether the attainment date should be extended for the area based on an application of the Extension Policy.

In an October 1999 draft supplement to its 1994 attainment demonstration for the Metro-East/St. Louis nonattainment area, the State of Illinois committed to implementing state-wide NO X emission reductions from EGUs. Illinois officially submitted the adopted attainment demonstration supplement to the EPA in February 2000. The final attainment strategy for the Metro-East St. Louis area assumed that the 23 jurisdictions affected by the EPA NO X SIP call, including the eastern one-third of Missouri would limit NO X emissions from large EGUs beginning in May 2003 to an emission rate of no more than 0.25 pounds NO X /mmBtu of heat input. Large EGUs in the western two-thirds of Missouri would be limited to a NO X emission rate of no more than 0.35 pounds NO X per mmBtu of heat input. The State's photochemical grid modeling supported attainment of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS in the Metro-East/St. Louis nonattainment area in May 2003 based on these regional NO X reductions. The EPA proposed to conditionally approve this attainment demonstration on April 17, 2000, contingent, in part, on the States of Illinois and Missouri submitting regional (statewide) draft NO X rules by June 2000 and completing adoption of these rules and submitting them in final form to the EPA by December 2000. 65 FR 20404.

On April 30, 1998, the State of Illinois submitted a major revision of the ozone attainment demonstration for the Chicago-Gary-Lake County ozone nonattainment area. In that attainment demonstration revision, the State demonstrated that significant reductions in transported ozone and NO X would be necessary to achieve attainment of the 1-hour ozone standard in the nonattainment area. Illinois committed to complete the ozone attainment demonstration and to adopt sufficient local and regional controls as needed to demonstrate attainment of the ozone standard and to submit the final attainment demonstration and adopted regulations to the EPA by December 2000. The EPA proposed to conditionally approve the 1-hour attainment demonstration based, in part, on the State's commitment to adopt and submit a final attainment demonstration and a post-1999 ROP plan, including the necessary State emission control regulations, by December 31, 2000. 64 FR 70496. The NO X regulations reviewed in this proposed rule are, in part, intended to meet part of the State's commitment to complete the ozone attainment demonstration for the Chicago-Gary-Lake County nonattainment area.

When the EPA published the NO X SIP call on October 27, 1998, a number of States and various industry groups filed petitions challenging the rulemaking before the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. See Michigan vs. EPA, 213 F.3d 663 (D.C. Cir. 2000). The Court, on May 25, 1999, stayed the obligation of State's to submit SIPs in response to the NO X SIP call rule. Subsequently, on March 3, 2000, the Court upheld most of the NO X SIP call rule. The Court, however, vacated the rule as it applied to Missouri and Georgia and remanded for further consideration the inclusion of portions of Missouri and Georgia in the rule. The Court also vacated the rule as it applied to Wisconsin because EPA had not made a showing that sources in Wisconsin significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the ozone NAAQS in any other State. Finally, the Court also remanded two issues concerning a limited portion of the NO X emission budgets. On June 22, 2000, the Court removed the stay of States' obligation to submit SIPs in response to the NO X SIP call and denied petitioners' motions for rehearing and rehearing en banc. In removing the stay, the Court provided that EPA should allow 128 days for States to submit SIPs. Thus, SIPs must be submitted to the EPA by October 30, 2000.

The State of Illinois has indicated that the NO X regulations reviewed in this proposed rulemaking are intended primarily to meet the emission reduction needs of the Metro-East/St. Louis ozone attainment demonstration and secondarily to meet a portion of the NO X emission budget established in the NO X SIP call for Illinois. The State, however, needs to take further action to develop a submission in response to the NO X SIP call emission budget, and, in this action, we are not reviewing the EGU NO X rule for the purposes of determining whether the EGU NO X rule is sufficient to allow the State to meet the NO X SIP call emission budget.

On June 29, 2000, the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA) submitted a draft NO X emission control rule to the EPA for pre-adoption review.

On July 18, 2000, EPA received a letter from David J. Kolaz, Chief, Bureau of Air, Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, which contained a number of documents, including the draft rule submitted on June 29, 2000 along with additional documentation for the draft rule. The letter included a request from the Bureau Chief to process the submittal in parallel (i.e., parallel processing) to the development of the rule at the State level and included a schedule for development and adoption of the rule by the State.

Parallel processing allows a State to submit a plan for approval prior to actual adoption by the State. 47 FR 27073 (June 23, 1982) A submittal for parallel processing must include the following three items: a letter from the State requesting parallel processing; a schedule for final adoption or issuance of the plan; and a copy of the proposed regulation or document. Illinois submitted these three items of information in the letter dated July 18, 2000, from the Bureau Chief. The Bureau Chief is the authorized representative for the State to submit SIP revisions. The letter asks that EPA parallel process the submittal, and it includes milestones leading to final adoption of the plan. The milestones are acceptable to EPA as a schedule, however the end date of final approval (final rule adoption) by the Illinois Pollution Control Board (IPCB) cannot precisely be established. Finally, enclosed with the letter was a copy of the draft NO X rule along with a “Statement of Reasons” provided to the IPCB by the Legal Counsel of the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency to support the adoption of the rule.

The State based the draft rule primarily on EPA's part 96 Trading Rule. Many sections of part 96 are incorporated by reference (IBR) into the draft rule. In addition to IBR of portions of 40 CFR part 96, Illinois' NO X rule also includes IBR of portions of 40 CFR parts 60, 72, 75, and 76. Section 217.104 of the Illinois rule identifies the CFR parts and sections included in the IBR. Table 1 identifies the Volume 40 CFR parts and sections included by IBR in Illinois' NO X rule.

Using information provided by the IEPA to the IPCB in support of the adoption of this rule, the following summarizes the various rule sections listed in table 2 above.

A number of new definitions would be added to an existing part 211 of Illinois' air pollution rules. Definitions of the following terms would be added: Allowance; Combined Cycle System; Combustion Turbine; Common Commercial Operation; Commence Operation; Common Stack; Control Period; Excess Emissions; Fossil Fuel; Fossil Fuel-Fired; Generator; Heat Input; Heat Input Rate; Nameplate Capacity; Potential Electrical Output Capacity; and Repowering. The specifics of these definitions do affect the completeness and enforceability of the rule(s) that uses them. Therefore, they have been compared to definitions contained in 40 CFR parts 96 and 97 as part of the review conducted for this proposed rulemaking.

This section specifies the purpose of the State's NO X rule and limits its scope to prevent problems with existing rules.

This section states that the measurement of NO X emissions at sources and facilities covered by the rule shall be conducted according to: (a) The phenol disulfonic acid method (40 CFR part 60, appendix A, Method 7 (1999)); and continuous emissions monitoring pursuant to 40 CFR part 75 (1999).

Like definitions of terms, abbreviation definitions can affect the completeness and enforceability of a rule, and the abbreviations added to this rule have been reviewed from this standpoint. It should be noted that part 211 of Illinois' air pollution rules also contains a number of defined abbreviations. The abbreviations added in section 217.102 are specific to the NO X rule and do not necessarily apply to other Illinois air pollution control rules.

As noted above, the State proposes to amend section 217.104 (to add this section to existing Illinois rules) to add portions of 40 CFR part 96 and 40 CFR parts 72, 75, and 76 (see table 1 above) to the documents that have been incorporated into Illinois' rules by reference. IBR documents are an integral part of Illinois' rules and are enforceable in the same manner as one would enforce any State rule.

This section addresses the applicability of the State's proposed NO X trading program. Subsection (a) provides that the NO X trading rule and emissions cap applies to all fossil fuel-fired stationary boilers, combustion turbines or combined cycle systems, serving a generator which has a nameplate capacity exceeding 25 megawatts (MWe) if the generated electricity is sold. This section also applies to fossil-fuel fire units with a maximum design heat input rate of greater than 250 mmBtu/hour and serving smaller generators under certain specified circumstances, including the condition that a served generator is larger than 50 percent of a unit's potential electrical output capacity (such a unit would also be classified as an electrical generating unit subject to the rule and the trading program requirements). Subsection (b) of this section provides that units meeting the above criteria are subject to the emission limits of the NO X Trading Program.

Subsection (c) provides an exemption for low-emitters, such as units that burn natural gas and/or fuel oil exclusively and have potential NO X emission rates of 25 tons or less during the control period. The owner or operator of such a unit may choose to get an operating permit that limits emissions to this lower level through federally enforceable conditions as specified in this subsection. Owners and operators seeking low emitter status affect the emission allowances covered in the NO X Trading Program depending on whether the units are existing or new units.

This section specifies the compliance requirements for EGUs subject to the NO X Trading Program (budget EGUs). Owners or operators of each source that has one or more budget EGUs must submit an application meeting the requirements of section 217.758 for an emissions budget permit from the IEPA. The budget permit must specify federally enforceable conditions covering the NO X Trading Program and must satisfy all other permitting requirements in Illinois' air quality rules. The application for a budget permit is subject to specified timing requirements.

Subject budget EGUs must meet specified monitoring requirements, including continuous emissions monitoring. An account representative for a subject budget EGU must comply with specified monitoring compliance certification and reporting requirements of 40 CFR part 96, subpart H. The monitoring results will be used to certify compliance with the budget emissions limitations.

Subsection (d) requires the account representative for a budget EGU to hold sufficient emission allowances available for compliance deduction in the budget EGU's compliance account to account for the source's overdraft account by November 30 of each year starting in the compliance year (1 allowance equals 1 ton of NO X emissions). Only a certain number of allowances will be given to a budget EGU each control period (May 1 through September 30) based on an established State-wide NO X emissions cap and an allowance distribution system devised cooperatively by the States and the affected sources. Budget EGUs can not use an allowance prior to the control period in which it is allocated by the State.

Subsection (d)(3) contains a provision that defers the compliance date for the program beyond May 1, 2003, if any of the neighboring States and other States in Region 5 subject to the NO X SIP Call do not have fully approved regulations or effective federally promulgated regulations by the end of 2002. This raises an unacceptable risk that the rule as proposed by Illinois would not require NO X emission controls by the time they are needed primarily for purposes of attainment in the Metro-East/St. Louis area, by May 1, 2003, to avoid a bump-up of the area to serious nonattainment of the 1-hour ozone standard or for purposes of the NO X SIP Call.

Subsection (e) provides the recordkeeping requirements for the budget EGUs. All emission monitoring information must be recorded and maintained in accordance with 40 CFR part 96, subpart H. Documents and records must be kept and must be made available for inspection upon request for 5 years unless a different period is specified elsewhere (under other rules).

Subsection (f) contains the provisions governing liability of budget EGUs, their owner and operators, and account representatives. The owner and account representative of one budget EGU are not liable for any violation of any other budget EGU with which they are not affiliated, except with respect to requirements for EGUs with a common stack.

The budget permit of a budget EGU must contain federally enforceable conditions that apply to the unit and provide that the budget permit is a complete and segregable portion of the source's entire permit.

Subsection (a) prohibits the issuance of a budget permit and the establishment of a NO X emissions allowance until the IEPA and the EPA have received a complete “account certificate of representation” from the budget EGU's account representative, and sets forth the timing for submitting a budget permit application where one or more of the budget EGUs are subject to the requirements of section 39.5 of the Illinois Clean Air Act Permit Program. Budget EGUs not subject to these requirements are also required to obtain a permit with federally enforceable conditions.

Subsection (a) provides that the total base NO X trading budget available statewide for allowance allocations for each control period (May 1 through September 30) is 30,701 tons (30,701 allowances). This budget may be increased or decreased under various circumstances, such as the opt-in of non-subject sources or the opt-out of exempted low-emitter sources. This subsection also provides that for the years of 2003 through 2005, 5 percent of the 30,701 allowances will be allocated to a new source set-aside. For the years 2006 and thereafter, the new source set-aside will be reduced to 2 percent of the 30,701 allowances.

Subsection (b) authorizes the IEPA to adjust the total EGU trading budget available for allocation. This is done to remove allowances for low-emitters opting to become exempt from the NO X Trading Program.

Subsection (c) authorizes the IEPA to adjust the total base EGU trading budget pro-rata if the EPA subsequently makes adjustments in the EGU budget.

The methodology used to calculate allocations (not the total state-wide emission cap) is based on the emission rate limit and a unit's control period heat input. Appendix F of the rule lists the budget EGUs and their associated allowances. For budget EGUs, including opt-ins, not listed in appendix F, the limiting emission rate used in the calculation of allowances is the more stringent of 0.15 pounds NO X /million Btu heat input or the permitted NO X emission rate, but never less than 0.055 pounds NO X per million Btu heat input.

Subsection (b) sets forth how the heat input is to be determined for the control period. This heat input for each budget EGU is used along with the emission limit to determine the NO X allowance for the EGU.

This section sets forth, for each control period, the allowance allocations for budget EGUs. The allocations involve a “fixed/flex” approach from 2006 through 2009 and a “100 percent flex” approach in 2010 and thereafter (consult this section of the rule for the details of these approaches). The allocations for 2003 through 2005 are specified in subsection (a).

This section sets aside allowances for new sources as noted above. During the period of 2003 through 2005, any allowances that are not allocated to new sources will be allocated to certain EGUs. After January 1, 2003, new budget EGUs that commence commercial operation may purchase allowances from the new source set-aside based on a pricing structure defined in this section.

The IEPA proposes to add this section that allows budget EGUs to request early reduction credits (ERCs) if they reduce NO X emissions in the 2001 or 2002 control periods. This section sets forth the various requirements associated with the generation and recording of these ERCs.

The proposed rules affect all fossil fuel-fired boilers, combustion turbines or combined cycle systems in the State of Illinois serving a generator with a nameplate capacity greater than 25 MWe (and boilers, turbines, and all combined cycle systems in the State of Illinois serving smaller generators provided that these units have heat input rates exceeding 250 mmBtu/hour and have a potential to provide more than 50 percent of their power output to the generators), and any opt-in sources in the State of Illinois as described in the rule.

The NO X reductions called for in the proposed State rule are based on an NO X emissions cap required for EGUs in the State. The target budget established in the State rule is 30,701 tons for the control period. The cap is based on an emission rate of 0.15 pounds/mmBtu heat input for EGUs operating in 1995/1996 applied to operating levels expected in 2007. The State believes the rule will bring about attainment of the 1-hour ozone standard in the Metro-East/St. Louis nonattainment area. With regard to the attainment demonstration for the Chicago-Gary-Lake County nonattainment area, the State can only note that its analysis thus far will “ * * * likely demonstrate attainment * * * ” of the 1-hour ozone standard. The State will complete its air quality modeling and submit its final attainment demonstration to EPA in December 2000. Finally, this rule is intended to provide the level of control from EGUs that, in conjunction with rules establishing similar requirements for other source types, will meet Illinois' NO X emission budget under the NO X SIP call.

The IEPA proposes to incorporate by reference the EPA Part 96 monitoring, Recordkeeping, and reporting requirements for the affected sources. However, in section 217.770(a) of the rule, which addresses early reduction credits for budget EGUs, the rule provides that “ * * * monitoring system availability shall be not less than 80 percent during the control period prior to the control period in which the NO X emissions reduction is made * * * ”. Also, in the opt-in process, the State, in section 217.776(b) addresses monitoring system availability of “ * * * not less than 80 percent * * * ”. This differs with the EPA requirement for monitoring in section 96.84(b) of 40 CFR part 96, which requires 90 percent availability.

The Illinois rule has a compliance date that is contingent upon implementation of NO X rules in other States. Section 217.756 states that sources “ * * * shall be subject to the monitoring and [emission control] requirements * * * starting on the later of May 1, 2003, * * * or [May 1 of the year after] all of the other States subject to the provisions of the NO X SIP Call [in Region 5 or contiguous to Illinois] have adopted regulations to implement NO X trading programs and other required reductions of NO X emissions pursuant to the NO X SIP Call, and such regulations have received final approval by EPA * * * , or a final FIP for ozone promulgated by EPA is effective.” The relevant other States are Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, Missouri, and Kentucky. This language provides for compliance with relevant requirements by May 1, 2003, except that a later compliance date will apply if any of these five other States does not have adequate NO X regulations either as approved State regulations or as effective promulgated Federal regulations by the end of 2002.

This language raises significant concerns. To avoid reclassification of the St. Louis area to serious nonattainment, Illinois must submit rules that provide adequate NO X emission reductions by May 1, 2003. Also, for EPA to approve this rule and the expected other related rules as satisfying the NO X SIP Call, EPA must conclude that the controls needed to achieve the budget will be required by May 1, 2003. The language in Illinois' proposed rule would not achieve either of these purposes if problems arise in any of the five States, delaying approval of their NO X rule until after the end of 2002 or the promulgation of an effective FIP after 2002. Of particular concern is the dependence on the timetable for Missouri, since, unlike Illinois, the Court remanded the NO X SIP Call for Missouri. This will result in Missouri submitting NO X SIP call-compliant regulations on a later schedule than other NO X SIP call States. The EPA rulemaking on such rule may be sufficiently delayed, such that the language of the Illinois NO X rule would delay the compliance date for the rule beyond the attainment date established in the attainment demonstration for the St. Louis area and beyond the required compliance date under the NO X SIP call.

EPA is also concerned about other aspects of this provision of Illinois rule. The language in Ilinois' rule makes the compliance date contingent on adoption/approval or promulgation of “regulations to implement NO X trading programs [and other required reductions].” While EPA is mandating achievement of specified amounts of NO X emissions control, EPA is not mandating that States adopt provisions for emissions trading. Therefore, if a relevant State opts not to implement trading, Illinois' language suggests a permanent compliance date deferral.

Illinois' rule on EGUs is a key element of the set of rules Illinois is expected to submit to satisfy the reduction requirements for NO X emissions that EPA's NO X SIP Call mandates for Illinois. In fact, Illinois' EGU rule establishes a cap on emissions derived from the NO X emission limit (0.15 pounds per million BTUs of heat input) that EPA used in calculating Illinois' budget. Nevertheless, this rulemaking does not evaluate the rule on EGUs as to whether it is an adequate step toward achieving the NO X SIP Call reductions or whether the full set of expected rules will achieve the reductions.

Illinois has not yet submitted a detailed assessment of whether its full set of rules will assure achievement of the reductions. EPA expects such a submittal in conjunction with the other rules that Illinois must still submit. EPA will rulemake on the adequacy of Illinois' rules for achieving the State's NO X SIP call budget as part of rulemaking on these other submittals.

The State reports that early in 1999, the IEPA commenced regular meetings with the NO X Technical Committee and with representatives of the existing EGUs. The State met with these existing sources on numerous occasions. Most of the time was spent developing concepts in the flexible portions of the Federal NO X Trading Program, i.e., initial allocations, allocation methodology, and the use of the Compliance Supplement Pool. The State also met with new EGUs and again with existing EGUs for a second time to discuss how allowances would be allocated.

Following the May 25, 1999 stay by the Court of Appeals, the IEPA shifted its effort to meet the requirements of the 1-hour standard attainment demonstrations. When this stay was lifted on June 22, 2000, IEPA again began to formulate a program to comply with the NO X SIP Call rule. IEPA again met with the affected sources and also with the American Lung Association of Chicago, the Illinois Environmental Council, the Environmental Law and Policy Center, and the Illinois Environmental Regulatory Group.

As noted in the December 16, 1999 proposed rulemaking on the State's attainment demonstration for the Chicago-Gary-Lake County ozone nonattainment area (64 FR 70496), the State did not commit to develop regional NO X controls for specific source categories or for specific emission control levels. The attainment demonstration, which has not been submitted in final form, did note that significant reductions in regional NO X emissions would be needed to attain the standard in the nonattainment area. The State did assume significant future reductions in background (transported) ozone levels and upwind NO X emissions to reflect possible impacts from EPA's NO X SIP call based on information available prior to April 1998. The States (Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin, and the Lake Michigan Air Directors Consortium) are currently modeling the possible impacts of the NO X SIP call for inclusion in the final attainment demonstration submittals for the Lake Michigan area.

As noted in the proposed rulemaking for the Metro-East/St. Louis ozone nonattainment area (65 FR 20404), the attainment demonstration for this nonattainment area relies on NO X emission controls from large EGUs in both Illinois and Missouri. As noted above, the attainment demonstration assumes that NO X emission rates for large EGUs state-wide in Illinois will be limited to a level of 0.25 pounds NO X /mmBtu of heat input or less. The attainment demonstration did not assume additional NO X emission controls beyond those required by the Clean Air Act for a moderate ozone nonattainment area.

The State of Illinois asked that the part 217 NO X emissions control rule be parallel processed by EPA in order to expedite eventual approval of the State's NO X SIP. Guidance for parallel processing is found at 47 FR 27073 (June 23, 1982). In addition, we used 40 CFR part 96 for review of portions of the submittal which apply. The State incorporated by reference a significant portion of 40 CFR part 96. The portions incorporated by reference are listed elsewhere in this proposal.

Aside from the implementation delay problem and other deficiencies discussed elsewhere in this document, EPA proposes to find that the part 217 NO X emissions control program meets the emission reduction needs of the ozone attainment demonstration for Metro-East/St. Louis ozone nonattainment area which EPA has recently proposed to approve. The States of Illinois and Missouri have completed additional revisions in the attainment demonstration which will be addressed in a separate rulemaking. These additional revisions have not affected the emission reduction requirements considered in the attainment demonstration addressed in EPA's proposed rule on April 17, 2000 (65 FR 20404).

Until Illinois and other Lake Michigan States complete the attainment demonstration for the Lake Michigan area, it cannot be determined whether the NO X emissions reductions from the NO X rule reviewed here will be adequate to lead to a demonstration of attainment for the Chicago-Gary-Lake County ozone nonattainment area.

No. The part 217 rule only addresses the NO X controls for EGUs. Although these reductions are significant, they are not sufficient to guarantee that the State will achieve the NO X emission budget established in the NO X SIP call. To achieve the acceptable NO X emission level of the NO X SIP call, the State will have to adopt additional emission control regulations or further tighten the emission limits for EGUs. The adequacy of the full set of reductions to satisfy the NO X SIP Call requirements will be addressed in separate rulemaking. Other deficiencies are noted below.

EPA reviewed the State's draft part 217 NO X emissions control rule and offers the following comments on deficiencies found in the draft rule, many of which are minor and should be readily correctable in the final rule adoption process. These deficiencies must be corrected before the EPA can give final approval to the Illinois NO X rule.

(a) The reference to Method 7 is questionable. Method 7 is a one time stack test. The rule should require Continous Emissions Monitoring System (CEMS). Additionally, there is a more recent method than method 7. It is method 7e.

(c) Low-emitter status. If a unit receives low emitter status, it will not be required to monitor anymore: it will need only to report operating hours. Therefore, item D, which requires potential NO X emissions to be calculated by either part 75 or by the default emissions rate, should require only the use of default emissions rates.

This section repeats section 96.6 of 40 CFR part 96, which is already incorporated by reference. Therefore, section 217.756 could be deleted.

(d)(3) This subsection is discussed in detail in the front of this proposal and is the main reason for EPA's proposed disapproval in the alternative. Basically, this rule as written will result in potential delay regarding implementation of elements of the trading program. This section provides opportunity for delay in implementation of the program until all States in EPA Region 5, and States on the Illinois border have their NO X SIPs approved by EPA or are covered by a FIP in full effect. As written, section 217.756(d)(3) is a major deficiency in the State's plan.

(g) Effect on other authorities—Rather than referencing 40 CFR 96.4(b), the rule should reference 217.754(c).

Throughout this section, when the State addresses allocation of allowances from the new source set-aside, it uses the phrase “to budget EGUs that have not fully operated for the full 2000 control period (italics supplied).” Read literally, it could authorize an existing source that was shut down for part of a control period to receive allowances from the new source set-aside. The State should clarify, perhaps by replacing the italicised phrase with the phrase “commenced commercial operation.” This latter term is used in section 217.768. The regulations should use consistent terminology.

(i) In this section the State should clarify the phrase “ * * * less than one-half of the control period in 2002 * * * ”. Specifics on units and criteria are needed to define this phrase.

(a) The unit's monitoring data availability should be 90 percent, not 80 percent. The phrase, the “ * * * control period prior to the control period * * * ” is ambiguous due to the double reference to “control period.” This phrase should be clarified.

(a)(2) By its terms, the provisions authorize units to opt-in even if all of their emissions are not vented to a stack. This provision should be revised so that only units that vent all emissions to a stack may opt-in. 40 CFR part 96 contains this limit. In addition, part (a) of this provision limits opt-ins to stationary boilers, combustion turbines, or combined cycle systems—all of which vent to a stack.

(b) Monitoring data availability should be 90 percent, not 80 percent.

(b)(3) The rule refers to “any allowances allocated to that unit under section 217.782 of this subpart for the control period * * * (emphasis added).” The emphasized term should be revised to read “the same or earlier control period.”

Throughout this section, the State refers to a unit which changes its regulatory status and becomes a budget opt-in unit. In fact, this provision is meant to address units which change their regulatory status and become budget units. Throughout this section the phrase “ * * * budget opt-in unit * * * ” should be replaced with the phrase “ * * * budget EGU * * * ”.

(b)(2)(B) This should refer to the year of the control period not to the year prior to the year of the control period.

EPA objects to the provision in Illinois' rule that defers the compliance date for the program beyond May 1, 2003, if any of the neighboring States and other States in Region 5 subject to the NO X SIP Call do not have fully approved regulations or effective federally promulgated regulations by the end of 2002. EPA has also noted other concerns with the language of this provision and has noted other deficiencies in the rule.

EPA believes that Illinois can adopt a rule that would ensure compliance by May 1, 2003. In its current draft form, which creates the potential for compliance delays beyond May 1, 2003, the drafted rule is unacceptable because it could cause compliance delays beyond the date currently established by the State for attainment of the 1-hour ozone standard in the St. Louis area. EPA proposes to approve the rule if the State adopts a final rule which assures compliance with NO X emission controls required by the rule by May 1, 2003 and corrects the other deficiencies discussed in this document. In the alternative, EPA proposes to disapprove Illinois' rule if the State adopts the rule in its current drafted form.

Since the EPA is proposing to rulemake on the Illinois NO X rule under a parallel process, it must be recognized that a possibility exists that the State of Illinois will adopt a final version of the rule which differs from the version of the rule reviewed in this proposed rule.

If the State makes significant changes in the rule as a result of its own rule public comment and adoption process and based on further deliberation and/or on comments other than based on the deficiencies noted above, the EPA will re-evaluate the rule through a new proposed rule. If, on the other hand, the State only makes changes in the rule to correct the deficiencies addressed in this proposed rule consistent with the analysis presented here, the EPA will proceed to final rulemaking.

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this regulatory action from the Executive Order 12866, entitled “Regulatory Planning and Review.”

Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), applies to any rule that: (1) is determined to be “economically significant” as defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.

This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does not involve decisions intended to mitigate environmental health or safety risks that may have a disproportionate effect on children.

Under Executive Order 13084, EPA may not issue a regulation that is not required by statute, that significantly affects or uniquely affects the communities of Indian tribal governments, and that imposes substantial direct compliance costs on those communities, unless the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by the tribal governments, or EPA consults with those governments. If EPA complies by consulting, Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to provide to the Office of Management and Budget, in a separately identified section of the preamble to the rule, a description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation with representatives of affected tribal governments, a summary of the nature of their concerns, and a statement supporting the need to issue the regulation. In addition, Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to develop an effective process permitting elected officials and other representatives of Indian tribal governments “to provide meaningful and timely input in the development of regulatory policies on matters that significantly or uniquely affect their communities.”

Today's proposed rule does not significantly or uniquely affect the communities of Indian tribal governments. This action does not involve or impose any requirements that affect Indian Tribes. Accordingly, the requirements of section 3(b) of Executive Order 13084 do not apply to this rule.

Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) revokes and replaces Executive Orders 12612 (Federalism) and 12875 (Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnership). Executive Order 13132 requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.” “Policies that have federalism implications” is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that 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.” Under Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a regulation that has federalism implications, that imposes substantial direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by State and local governments, or EPA consults with State and local officials early in the process of developing the proposed regulation. EPA also may not issue a regulation that has federalism implications and that preempts State law unless the Agency consults with State and local officials early in the process of developing the proposed regulation.

This rule will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132, because it merely approves a state rule implementing a federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply to this rule.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental jurisdictions.

This rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities because SIP approvals under section 110 and subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air Act do not create any new requirements but simply approve requirements that the State is already imposing. Therefore, because the Federal SIP approval does not create any new requirements, I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

Moreover, due to the nature of the Federal-State relationship under the Clean Air Act, preparation of flexibility analysis would constitute Federal inquiry into the economic reasonableness of state action. The Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base its actions concerning SIPs on such grounds. Union Electric Co., v. U.S. EPA , 427 U.S. 246, 255-66 (1976); 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).

Under sections 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (“Unfunded Mandates Act”), signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or final rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs to State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate; or to the private sector, of $100 million or more. Under section 205, EPA must select the most cost-effective and least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule and is consistent with statutory requirements. Section 203 requires EPA to establish a plan for informing and advising any small governments that may be significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule.

EPA has determined that the approval action proposed does not include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs of $100 million or more to either State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate, or to the private sector. This Federal action proposes to approve pre-existing requirements under State or local law, and imposes no new requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local, or tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from this action.

For additional information, see the Direct Final rule which is located in the Rules section of this Federal Register .

On August 10, 2000, EPA published proposed regulations under section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act (CWA) addressing cooling water intake structures for new facilities for public review and comment (65 FR 49060). The comment period was scheduled to end on October 10, 2000.

EPA has received requests to extend the comment period from the regulated community and from the plaintiffs in the lawsuit establishing the schedule for this action. In response to these requests, EPA is extending the comment period 30 days, through November 9, 2000, due to the complexity and the range of issues raised by the proposed rule. However, EPA does not believe that additional time beyond 90 days is needed to comment adequately on the proposed rule. The regulated community has known since October 1995 that EPA was operating under a court order entered by the U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York that requires EPA to propose and take final action on this rule. Thus, they have had sufficient time to plan and conduct research projects they would like to rely upon to support their comments (for example, research into the survival rates of organisms drawn into and later discharged from cooling water intake systems). EPA conducted two public meetings on this rulemaking in 1998 and has met on numerous occasions with interested parties to discuss the Agency's plans for regulating cooling water intake structures. In particular, in May and June 2000, EPA held a series of meetings with interested groups to describe the draft framework for the proposed rule. EPA also made copies of the proposed rule and preamble available to representatives of potentially regulated industries, States, and environmental groups on July 21, 2000, 19 days prior to publication of the proposed rule and preamble in the Federal Register .

In addition to accepting hard-copy written comments, EPA will also accept comments submitted electronically. Electronic comments must be submitted as a Word Perfect 5/6/7/8 or ASCII file and must be submitted to ow-docket@epa.gov.

This document may directly affect any person or company who might petition the Agency for new tolerances, hold a pesticide registration with existing tolerances, or any person or company who is interested in obtaining or retaining a tolerance in the absence of a registration. This group can include pesticide manufacturers or formulators, companies that manufacture inert ingredients, importers of food, grower groups, or any person who seeks a tolerance. Federal, State, local, territorial, or tribal government agencies that petition for, or hold, emergency exemption tolerances are exempt from this rule. The vast majority of potentially affected categories and entities may include, but are not limited to:

For additional information, see the Direct Final Action which is located in the Rules Section of this Federal Register .