Two provisions of the Farm Credit Act of 1971, as amended (Act) authorize the Farm Credit System Insurance Corporation (FCSIC) to impose civil money penalties. First, section 5.65(c) specifies that any insured System bank that willfully fails or refuses to file any certified statement or pay any premium required under Part E of the Act shall be subject to a penalty of $100 for each day that the violation continues. Second, section 5.65(d) makes it unlawful for anyone convicted of a criminal offense involving dishonesty or a breach of trust to serve as a director, officer, or employee of any System institution, without the prior written consent of the Farm Credit Administration. For a willful violation of this section, the FCSIC may subject the institution to a penalty of $100 for each day that the violation continues. In 1996, the FCSIC applied the inflation formula provided in the Federal Civil Penalties Adjustment Act of 1990, (28 U.S.C. 2461 note) and increased the penalties to $110.

The prescribed cost-of-living adjustment formula or inflation factor is based on the difference between the Consumer Price Index (CPI) for June of 1999 and the CPI for June of 1996, the year the penalty was last set. We used the Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics—All Urban Consumers Tables. The CPI value was 156.7 for June 1996 and was 166.2 for June 1999, resulting in an inflation factor of 1.06 (i.e., a 6-percent increase). Using this adjustment the $110 penalty goes to $116.6 and with the rounding method prescribed in the statute it becomes $117.

The existing penalty of $110 continues to apply until amended by the publishing of this rule in the Federal Register .

The Federal Civil Penalties Adjustment Act of 1990, as amended by the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996, gives agencies no discretion in the adjustment of civil money penalties for the rate of inflation. It also requires a reassessment every 4 years. Moreover, this rule is ministerial, technical, and noncontroversial. For these reasons, the FCSIC finds good cause to determine that public notice and an opportunity to comment are impracticable, unnecessary, and contrary to the public interest pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B). Therefore, this rule is adopted in final form.

Reports of leaking JanAero fuel regulator shutoff valves found during routine aircraft inspections caused FAA to issue AD 2001-08-01, Amendment 39-12178 (66 FR 19718, April 17, 2001). This AD requires that you accomplish the following on certain JanAero Devices (JanAero) 14D11 and 23D04 series fuel regulator shutoff valves used with certain JanAero combustion heaters that are installed on aircraft:

Accomplishment of these actions is required in accordance with JanAero Service Bulletin No. A-107, dated January 8, 2001.

The affected fuel regulator shutoff valves are part of the JanAero B1500, B2030, B2500, B3040, B3500, B4050, or B4500 combustion heater configuration.

This condition, if not corrected, could result in fuel leakage in aircraft with these combustion heaters, which could result in an aircraft fire with consequent damage or destruction.

Operators of aircraft with the affected fuel regulatory shutoff valves installed and mechanics who accomplished the actions of the AD provided suggestions for improvement to AD 2001-08-01. Based on this feedback, FAA is superseding AD 2001-08-01. Specifically, this feedback is as follows:

After examining the circumstances and reviewing all available information related to the subject above, we have determined that:

This AD supersedes AD 2001-08-01 with a new AD that retains the actions of AD 2001-08-01, except only the visual inspection or the pressure test is required instead of both. This AD also specifically calls out the specific fuel regulator shutoff valves by part number instead of series, includes provisions for disabling the heater as an alternative method of compliance, and makes other minor clarifying revisions or additions to the AD.

Accomplishment of this AD is still required in accordance with JanAero Service Bulletin No. A-107, dated January 8, 2001.

Because the unsafe condition described in this document could result in an aircraft fire with consequent damage or destruction, FAA finds that notice and opportunity for public prior comment are impracticable. Therefore, good cause exists for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days.

Although this action is in the form of a final rule and was not preceded by notice and opportunity for public comment, we invite your comments on the rule. You may submit whatever written data, views, or arguments you choose. You need to include the rule's docket number and submit your comments in triplicate to the address specified under the caption ADDRESSES. We will consider all comments received on or before the closing date specified above. We may amend this rule in light of comments received. Factual information that supports your ideas and suggestions is extremely helpful in evaluating the effectiveness of the AD action and determining whether we need to take additional rulemaking action.

The FAA specifically invites comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the rule that might suggest a need to modify the rule. You may examine all comments we receive before and after the closing date of the rule in the Rules Docket. We will file a report in the Rules Docket that summarizes each FAA contact with the public that concerns the substantive parts of this AD.

We are reviewing the writing style we currently use in regulatory documents, in response to the Presidential memorandum of June 1, 1998. That memorandum requires federal agencies to communicate more clearly with the public. We are interested in your comments on whether the style of this document is clear, and any other suggestions you might have to improve the clarity of FAA communications that affect you. You can get more information about the Presidential memorandum and the plain language initiative at http://www.plainlanguage.gov.

If you want us to acknowledge the receipt of your comments, you must include a self-addressed, stamped postcard. On the postcard, write “Comments to Docket No. 2001-CE-26-AD.” We will date stamp and mail the postcard back to you.

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

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

A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) by revising AD 2000-17-10, amendment 39-11884 (65 FR 53157, September 1, 2000), which is applicable to Lockheed Model L-1011-385 series airplanes, was published in the Federal Register on April 26, 2001 (66 FR 20954). The action proposed to continue to require modifications of the engine turbine cooling air panel at the flight engineer/second officer's console, pilot's caution and warning light panel on the main instrument panel, and monitoring system for the engine turbine air temperature. That action also proposed to remove certain airplanes from the applicability of the existing AD.

Interested persons have been afforded an opportunity to participate in the making of this amendment. No comments were submitted in response to the proposal or the FAA's determination of the cost to the public.

The FAA has determined that air safety and the public interest require the adoption of the rule as proposed.

There are approximately 54 Model Lockheed Model L-1011-385 series airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that 29 airplanes of U.S. registry will be affected by this AD, that it will take approximately 8 work hours per engine (3 engines per airplane) to accomplish the required actions, and that the average labor rate is $60 per work hour. Required parts will cost approximately $6,320 per engine, or $18,960 per airplane. Based on these figures, the cost impact of this AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $591,600 or $20,400 per airplane.

The cost impact figure discussed above is based on assumptions that no operator has yet accomplished any of the requirements of this AD action, and that no operator would accomplish those actions in the future if this AD were not adopted.

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

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

A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to include an airworthiness directive (AD) that is applicable to all Aerospatiale Model ATR42-200, -300, -320, and -500 series airplanes, and all Model ATR72 series airplanes, was published in the Federal Register on April 12, 2001 (66 FR 18882). That action proposed to require revising the Airplane Flight Manual (AFM) to modify procedures for takeoff when Type II or IV de-icing fluids have been used.

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

One commenter (the manufacturer) disagrees with certain characterizations in the proposed AD related to the unsafe condition's potential effects on the affected airplanes. The commenter suggests that application of Type II or IV de-icing or anti-icing fluids may induce a stick force increase at rotation, but no performance degradation. Between 1991 and 1998, there were five reported cases of aborted takeoff (above V1) after use of Type II or IV fluids, but no change in the performance of those airplanes. To provide the necessary margins for a delayed takeoff or even a late aborted takeoff on limited runways, the manufacturer has recommended increasing the takeoff distance for airplanes using Type II or IV fluids, as reflected in the revised takeoff performance calculations in the AFM. Accordingly, the commenter requests the following changes to the proposed AD:

• The commenter requests that “Type II or IV de-icing fluids” also refer to “anti-icing fluids.”

• The commenter requests that the effect on the airplane resulting from the unsafe condition be revised from “reduced controllability of the airplane” to “delayed or even late aborted takeoff.”

• The commenter requests that the description of the revised AFM procedures be revised from “procedures for takeoff” to “procedures for calculating takeoff performance.”

The FAA partially concurs. The FAA finds that, while the requested changes are not substantive and will not have a significant bearing on how operators will comply with the AD, the changes provide a more accurate description of the effect of the fluids on the performance of the airplane. The final rule has been revised accordingly.

This same commenter (the manufacturer) requests a revision of the number of affected U.S.-registered airplanes identified in the Cost Impact section of the proposed AD. According to the manufacturer's data, the number of affected airplanes should be 159, not 69. The FAA concurs and has revised the final rule accordingly.

The introductory language of paragraph (a) of this final rule has been revised to provide a better explanation of the actions required by that paragraph.

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

The FAA estimates that 159 airplanes of U.S. registry will be affected by this AD, that it will take approximately 1 work hour per airplane to accomplish the required actions, and that the average labor rate is $60 per work hour. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $9,540, or $60 per airplane.

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

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

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

A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) by superseding AD 2000-03-12, amendment 39-11571 (65 FR 8030, February 17, 2000), which is applicable to certain McDonnell Douglas Model MD-11 series airplanes, was published in the Federal Register on February 20, 2001 (66 FR 10842). The action proposed to require, among other actions, replacement of the existing air driven generator (ADG) wire assembly in the right air conditioning compartment with a certain new wire assembly. The action also proposed to expand the applicability of the existing AD to include additional airplanes.

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

The airplane manufacturer states that the referenced department name, number, and mail code of the address for obtaining service information are incorrect in the proposed AD. The correct address is Boeing Commercial Aircraft Group, Long Beach Division, 3855 Lakewood Boulevard, Long Beach, California 90846, Attention: Data and Service Management, Dept. C1-L5A (D800-0024). The airplane manufacturer requests that the proposed AD be revised accordingly. The FAA agrees and has revised this address in the final rule.

One commenter requests that the FAA verify that the proposed replacements can be accomplished with the desired result before issuing the final rule. The commenter states that the proposed AD cannot be complied with as written due to a non-existent screw, part number (P/N) 3D0005-8-9, specified in Boeing Service Bulletin MD11-24-128, Revision 02, dated October 31, 2000, which is referenced in the proposed AD as the appropriate source of service information for accomplishing the proposed replacements. The commenter also states that Figure 1 (Sheet 4 of 5), view B-B of the service bulletin indicates a screw having P/N NAS1096-2-9, which is not mentioned in the Materials information of the service bulletin. The commenter asks whether this screw is supposed to be listed in the Materials information instead of screw, P/N 3D-0005-8-9 (or -08-9).

The FAA partially agrees. To delay this action until the required actions can be performed on an airplane would be inappropriate, since we have determined that an unsafe condition exists and that replacement must be accomplished to ensure continued safety. However, since issuance of the NPRM, we have reviewed and approved Revision 03 of Boeing Service Bulletin MD11-24-128, dated May 17, 2001. The only relevant change is that the revised service bulletin corrects the screw P/N to NAS1096-2-9 in the Material information and removes the non-existent screw, P/N 3D0005-8-9. No more work is necessary on airplanes changed as shown in Revision 02 of the service bulletin. Therefore, we have revised the final rule to reference Revision 03 of the service bulletin as the appropriate source of service information, and added a new note to give operators credit for accomplishment of Revision 02 of the service bulletin before the effective date of this AD.

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

There are approximately 191 Model MD-11 series airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that 60 airplanes of U.S. registry will be affected by this AD.

The new actions that are required in this AD action will take approximately 1 work hour per airplane to accomplish, at an average labor rate of $60 per work hour. Required parts will cost approximately $810 per airplane. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the requirements of this AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $52,200, or $870 per airplane.

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

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

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

A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to include an airworthiness directive (AD) that is applicable to certain McDonnell Douglas MD-11 series airplanes was published in the Federal Register on February 20, 2001 (66 FR 10846). That action proposed to require an inspection to detect arcing damage of the electrical cables leading to the hydraulic pump terminal strips and the surrounding structure in the wheel well area of the right main landing gear (MLG); and corrective actions, if necessary. That action also proposed to require replacement of a certain terminal strip with a new terminal strip, and removal of the applicable nameplate in the wheel well of the right MLG.

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

The airplane manufacturer states that the referenced department name, number, and mail code of the address for obtaining service information are incorrect in the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). The correct address is Boeing Commercial Aircraft Group, Long Beach Division, 3855 Lakewood Boulevard, Long Beach, California 90846, Attention: Data and Service Management, Dept. C1-L5A (D800-0024). The airplane manufacturer requests that the NPRM be revised accordingly. The FAA agrees and has revised this address in the final rule.

One commenter requests that the final rule not be issued until Boeing has issued Revision 01 of McDonnell Douglas Alert Service Bulletin MD11-24A186. The commenter states that the NPRM cannot be complied with as written due to “problems” with McDonnell Douglas Alert Service Bulletin MD11-24A186, dated October 4, 2000 (original version), which is referenced in the NPRM as the appropriate source of service information for accomplishing certain proposed actions.

Since issuance of the NPRM, the FAA has reviewed and approved Revision 01 of McDonnell Douglas Alert Service Bulletin MD11-24A186, dated May 16, 2001. For certain airplanes, the revised service bulletin describes the following procedures:

1. Replacing a certain terminal strip;

2. Removing the applicable nameplate in the right MLG wheel well;

3. Sealing the screw heads of any replaced terminal strip;

4. Performing an inspection to detect arcing damage of the electrical cables leading to the hydraulic pump terminal strips and the surrounding structure in the wheel well area of the right MLG, and replacing any damaged component with a new component or repairing the damaged component.

For certain other airplanes, the revised service bulletin describes procedures for an inspection of the terminal strip to determine if the correct washer is installed, and replacement of any incorrect washer with a new washer.

Accomplishment of the actions specified in the service bulletin is intended to adequately address the identified unsafe condition. We find that these actions are an acceptable alternative method of compliance (AMOC) with the actions specified in the original version of service bulletin and specified by the NPRM. Therefore, we have revised the final rule to include these actions as an option to complying with the requirements of paragraphs (a) and (b) of this AD, as applicable.

Because of the “problems” with the McDonnell Douglas Alert Service Bulletin MD11-24A186, dated October 4, 2000 (original version), the commenter also requests that the NPRM be changed as follows:

1. Allow re-identification of the terminal strip (specified in the General Notes of the referenced service bulletin) per operator standard practices.

2. Revise paragraph (a)(2) of the NPRM to include a statement that, “if the damaged strip is S3-261, replace it per [paragraph (b)(1) of the AD].” The commenter provided no justification.

3. Include a defined repair, developed by Boeing, in paragraph (a)(5) of the NPRM for cases where the Structural Repair Manual (SRM) does not cover the damage. The commenter states that accomplishing the repair required by paragraph (a)(5) of the NPRM can lead to extended unscheduled airplane downtime due to the unknown damage and unknown repair procedure. The commenter also states that requiring approval of a repair by the Aircraft Certification Office (ACO) will not be practical. Damage to airplanes that is not covered in the SRM is commonly encountered and is addressed by the airline's FAA-approved engineering support process.

4. Revise paragraph (b)(1) of the NPRM to require replacement of the installed t-strip with a new terminal strip, part number (P/N) HS27212-3-4, no matter what the base thickness, stud, and terminal sizes are. The commenter states that measuring the base thickness, stud, and terminal sizes of the terminal strips to determine whether or not to replace the strip will cause confusion, and possibly result in the affected terminal strips being left on the airplane.

5. Sealing screw heads of replaced terminal strips (paragraph 3.B.6 of the referenced service bulletin) should be done per Boeing Standard Wiring Practices Manual (SWPM) (Document D6-82481) Chapter 20-20-03, paragraphs 2.B.(1) through (3) and paragraph 3.B. (reference Boeing TWX DAL-ATL-01-01462H, dated April 6, 2001). The commenter states that the referenced Douglas Process Specification (DPS) is not a practical source document for maintenance instructions, because it references many other DPSs, which would complicate compliance.

6. Performing the continuity test (part of the closing actions) should be done per Wiring Diagram Manual (WDM) 29-21-01, not per WDM 24-51-09, as referenced. The commenter provided no justification.

The FAA does not agree with the commenter's request to allow re-identification of the terminal strip per operator standard practices. Because the commenter provided no justification, we have no knowledge about the specifics of the commenter's “operator's standard practices.” Therefore, no change to the final rule is necessary with regard to this point. However, paragraph (d) of the final rule does provide operators the opportunity to apply for an alternative method of compliance, such as the use of “operator's standard practices.”

The FAA does not agree with the commenter's request to include a statement that, “if the damaged strip is S3-261, replace it per [paragraph (b)(1) of the AD].” Although the commenter's suggested wording may eliminate a step in the work instructions, we have determined that the procedures specified in the revised service bulletin address this concern.

The FAA does not agree with the commenter's request to include a defined repair, developed by Boeing, in paragraph (a)(5) of the NPRM for cases where the SRM does not cover the damage. We find that repair of damaged structure is necessary, since such damage could lead to further unsafe conditions. Also, if the service bulletin does not cover every aspect of the structural repair, we cannot rely on an unknown engineering support process of the airlines. However, we have issued a notice (N 8110.72, dated March 30, 1998), which provides guidance for delegating authority to certain type certificate holder structural designated engineering representatives (DER) to approve alternative methods of compliance for AD-required repairs and modifications of individual airplanes. We are currently working with Boeing, Douglas Products Division (DPD), to develop the implementation process for delegation of approval of AMOCs in accordance with that notice. Once this process is implemented, approval authority for alternative methods of compliance can be delegated without revising the AD.

The FAA partially agrees with the commenter's request to revise paragraph (b)(1) of the final rule to require replacement of the installed t-strip with a new terminal strip, P/N HS27212-3-4, no matter what the base thickness, stud, and terminal sizes are. We do not agree to revise paragraph (b)(1) of the final rule. However, we have revised the final rule (paragraph (c)(1)(i)) to include an option to replace the installed t-strip no matter what the base thickness, stud, and terminal sizes are (as referenced in Revision 01 of the service bulletin described above).

The FAA agrees with the commenter's request that the sealing of screw heads of the replaced terminal strips (paragraph 3.B.6 of the referenced service bulletin) should be done per Boeing SWPM Chapter 20-20-03. We have included the correct reference to SWPM Chapter 20-20-03 in new paragraph (c)(1)(i) of the final rule. Revision 01 of the service bulletin (described above) incorrectly references Chapter 20-20-02 of the Boeing SWPM for accomplishing the sealing of the screw heads.

The FAA agrees with the commenter that the continuity test (part of the closing actions) should be done per WDM 29-21-01, not per WDM 24-51-09, as referenced in the NPRM. This change has been made in Revision 01 of the service bulletin (described above).

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

There are approximately 191 Model MD-11 series airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that 60 airplanes of U.S. registry will be affected by this AD, that it will take approximately 1 work hour per airplane to accomplish the required actions, and that the average labor rate is $60 per work hour. Required parts will cost approximately $25 per airplane. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $5,100, or $85 per airplane.

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

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

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

A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) by superseding AD 97-10-12, amendment 39-10024 (62 FR 25839, May 12, 1997), which is applicable to certain McDonnell Douglas Model MD-11 series airplanes, was published in the Federal Register on February 20, 2001 (66 FR 10849). The action proposed to require a one-time inspection to detect riding, chafing, or damage of the wire bundles adjacent to the disconnect panel bracket of the observer's station; follow-on actions; corrective actions, if necessary; and installation of anti-chafing sleeving for all airplanes.

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

The airplane manufacturer states that the referenced department name, number, and mail code of the address for obtaining service information are incorrect in the proposed AD. The correct address is Boeing Commercial Aircraft Group, Long Beach Division, 3855 Lakewood Boulevard, Long Beach, California 90846, Attention: Data and Service Management, Dept. C1-L5A (D800-0024). The airplane manufacturer requests that the proposed AD be revised accordingly. The FAA agrees and has revised this address in the final rule.

One commenter notes that the proposed AD refers to paragraph 3.B.2. of the Accomplishment Instructions of the referenced service bulletin for accomplishing the proposed actions. The commenter points out that the referenced service bulletin has two paragraphs 3.B.2 in the Accomplishment Instructions—one for Group 1 and another for Group 2. The commenter requests that the FAA clarify these references.

The FAA agrees. Since additional work is NOT required for Group 2 airplanes, our intent was that the required actions be done per Figures 1, 2, and 3 of the referenced service bulletin, as applicable, which are the appropriate figures indicated in paragraph 3.B.2 of the Accomplishment Instruction for Group 1 airplanes. Therefore, the FAA has revised the final rule to reference Figures 1, 2, and 3, as applicable, rather than paragraph 3.B.2.

As discussed under the heading “Differences Between the Proposed AD and Service Bulletin” in the preamble of the proposed AD, the FAA has consulted with the airplane manufacturer and determined that additional work is NOT required for Group 2 airplanes. As a result of this determination, we excluded Group 2 airplanes in the applicability statement of the proposed AD (i.e., airplanes on which anti-chafing sleeving was installed on the wire bundles per paragraph (a)(1) or (a)(2) of AD 97-10-12). Our intention was to give credit to operators of those airplanes on which the requirements of this AD had been accomplished previously, and that those airplanes continue to be operated per those requirements. However, since issuance of the proposed AD, we recognize that excluding those airplanes in the applicability statement is incorrect, because they would no longer be required to operate per the requirements of this AD. Therefore, we have removed that exclusion from the applicability statement and clarified this point in a note that states, “As allowed by the phrase, ‘Required as indicated, unless accomplished previously,’ if the requirements of AD 97-10-12 have already been accomplished, this AD does not require that those actions be repeated.”

One commenter requests that the FAA revise the proposed rule to specify that operators will be given “credit” for having previously accomplished the installation of a protective grommet per AD 97-10-12. The commenter suggests ways of revising the proposed AD to accommodate its request. As discussed above, the FAA has revised the final rule to address this commenter's request.

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

There are approximately 195 Model MD-11 series airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that 60 airplanes of U.S. registry will be affected by this AD.

The inspection and installation that are required by this AD action will take approximately 2 work hours per airplane to accomplish, at an average labor rate of $60 per work hour. The cost of required parts will be nominal. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the inspection and installation required by this AD on U.S. operators is estimated to $7,200, or $120 per airplane.

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

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

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

A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to include an airworthiness directive (AD) that is applicable to certain McDonnell Douglas Model MD-11 series airplanes was published in the Federal Register on February 20, 2001 (66 FR 10851). That action proposed to require an inspection of the upper avionics circuit breaker panel at the main observer's station to detect damage of the wires and to verify the correct routing of the wire bundles; corrective actions, if necessary; and installation of a new clamp, spacer, and sta-straps.

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

The airplane manufacturer states that the referenced department name, number, and mail code of the address for obtaining service information are incorrect in the proposed AD. The correct address is Boeing Commercial Aircraft Group, Long Beach Division, 3855 Lakewood Boulevard, Long Beach, California 90846, Attention: Data and Service Management, Dept. C1-L5A (D800-0024). The airplane manufacturer requests that the proposed AD be revised accordingly. The FAA agrees and has revised this address in the final rule. 1

One commenter requests that the requirements for adjusting the wire routing (i.e., loosening of clamps and replacing sta-straps) specified in paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of the proposed AD be deleted, and that a requirement to install individual spacers or sleeves be added. The commenter states that the adjustment cannot be done according to the drawings as recommended in the referenced service bulletin without a big expenditure of work. The commenter also states that the adjustment may cause disruption of the wire bundles and introduce new possibilities for wire chafing.

The FAA does not agree. We find that adjusting the wire routing, as required by paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of the AD, further minimizes the possibility of wire damage and adequately addresses the identified unsafe condition. However, under the provision of paragraph (b) of the final rule, we may consider requests for approval of an alternative method of compliance if sufficient data are submitted to substantiate that such a design change would provide an acceptable level of safety.

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

There are approximately 185 Model MD-11 series airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that 59 airplanes of U.S. registry will be affected by this AD, that it will take approximately 5 work hours per airplane to accomplish the required actions, and that the average labor rate is $60 per work hour. Required parts will be supplied by the airplane manufacturer at no cost to the operators. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $17,700, or $300 per airplane.

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

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

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

A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to include an airworthiness directive (AD) that is applicable to certain McDonnell Douglas Model MD-11 series airplanes was published in the Federal Register on February 20, 2001 (66 FR 10853). That action proposed to require performing a general visual inspection to detect chafing or damage of the parallel power feeder cables of the number 2 integrated drive generator (IDG); repairing any chafed cable and damaged structure; and repositioning the parallel power feeder cables of the number 2 IDG.

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

The airplane manufacturer states that the referenced department name, number, and mail code of the address for obtaining service information are incorrect in the proposed AD. The correct address is Boeing Commercial Aircraft Group, Long Beach Division, 3855 Lakewood Boulevard, Long Beach, California 90846, Attention: Data and Service Management, Dept. C1-L5A (D800-0024). The airplane manufacturer requests that the proposed AD be revised accordingly. The FAA agrees and has revised this address in the final rule.

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

There are approximately 64 Model MD-11 series airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that 14 airplanes of U.S. registry will be affected by this AD, that it will take approximately 4 work hours per airplane to accomplish the required actions, and that the average labor rate is $60 per work hour. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $3,360, or $240 per airplane.

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

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

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

A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to include an airworthiness directive (AD) that is applicable to certain McDonnell Douglas Model MD-11 series airplanes was published in the Federal Register on February 20, 2001 (66 FR 10855). That action proposed to require replacement of the insulation blankets of the forward and center cargo compartments in the area of the cargo control units (CCU) with new insulation blankets.

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

The airplane manufacturer states that the referenced department name, number, and mail code of the address for obtaining service information are incorrect in the proposed AD. The correct address is Boeing Commercial Aircraft Group, Long Beach Division, 3855 Lakewood Boulevard, Long Beach, California 90846, Attention: Data and Service Management, Dept. C1-L5A (D800-0024). The airplane manufacturer requests that the proposed AD be revised accordingly. The FAA agrees and has revised this address in the final rule.

One commenter requests that the FAA delay issuance of the final rule until an on aircraft verfication has been performed. The FAA does not agree. To delay this final rule would be inappropriate, since we have determined that an unsafe condition exists and that the insulation blankets must be replaced to ensure continued safety.

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

There are approximately 91 Model MD-11 series airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that 22 airplanes of U.S. registry will be affected by this AD, that it will take approximately 3 work hours per airplane to accomplish the required actions, and that the average labor rate is $60 per work hour. Required parts will be supplied by the airplane manufacturer at no cost to the operators. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $3,960, or $180 per airplane.

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

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

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

A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to include an airworthiness directive (AD) that is applicable to certain McDonnell Douglas Model MD-11 series airplanes was published in the Federal Register on February 20, 2001 (66 FR 10857). That action proposed to require replacement of the cargo roller circuit breakers with new circuit breakers, and reidentification of the aft circuit breaker panel; as applicable.

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

The airplane manufacturer states that the referenced department name, number, and mail code of the address for obtaining service information are incorrect in the proposed AD. The correct address is Boeing Commercial Aircraft Group, Long Beach Division, 3855 Lakewood Boulevard, Long Beach, California 90846, Attention: Data and Service Management, Dept. C1-L5A (D800-0024). The airplane manufacturer requests that the proposed AD be revised accordingly. The FAA agrees and has revised this address in the final rule.

One commenter requests that the FAA delay issuance of the final rule until an on-aircraft verfication has been performed. The FAA does not agree. To delay this final rule would be inappropriate, since we have determined that an unsafe condition exists and that an inspection must be conducted to ensure continued safety.

One commenter states that the requirements of the proposed AD are acceptable, but questions the effectiveness of installing a smaller circuit breaker to protect a component. Based on lessons learned over the last two years related to the development of arc fault detection of circuit breakers, the commenter states that it seems unlikely that changing the size of the circuit breaker will be adequate in preventing further incidents of electrical failures in the cargo control unit (CCU) that have resulted in sparks or flame exiting the CCU.

From these comments, the FAA infers that the commenter is requesting that the thermal circuit breakers be replaced with arc fault detection circuit breakers, rather than 5 amp thermal circuit breakers. The FAA does not agree. The FAA agrees that replacing 10 amp circuit breakers with 5 amp circuit breakers will not prevent all incidents of electrical failures in the CCU, which could result in sparks or flames. We also agree that arc fault detection of circuit breakers may provide additional protection to the existing thermal blankets. However, these circuit breakers are currently in the research and development phase. Industry has not published a set of performance requirements for such circuit breakers, and the FAA has not approved their installation. Although installation of these circuit breakers in the future may increase the effectiveness of circuit protection, the 5 amp thermal circuit breakers do protect the wiring against many types of electrical faults. Therefore, we have determined that replacing 10 amp circuit breakers with 5 amp thermal circuit breakers will further minimize the possibility of incidents of electrical failures in the CCU. No change to the final rule is necessary with regard to this point.

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

There are approximately 104 Model MD-11 series airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that 24 airplanes of U.S. registry will be affected by this AD, that it will take approximately 2 work hours per airplane to accomplish the required actions, and that the average labor rate is $60 per work hour. Required parts will be supplied by the airplane manufacturer at no cost to the operators. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $2,880, or $120 per airplane.

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

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

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

A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to include an airworthiness directive (AD) that is applicable to certain McDonnell Douglas Model MD-11 series airplanes was published in the Federal Register on February 20, 2001 (66 FR 10858). That action proposed to require a one-time general visual inspection of the electrical wiring of the right side of the cockpit to determine if the electrical wiring is chafing against the observer station and to detect damaged wires; and corrective actions, if necessary.

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

The airplane manufacturer states that the referenced department name, number, and mail code of the address for obtaining service information are incorrect in the proposed AD. The correct address is Boeing Commercial Aircraft Group, Long Beach Division, 3855 Lakewood Boulevard, Long Beach, California 90846, Attention: Data and Service Management, Dept. C1-L5A (D800-0024). The airplane manufacturer requests that the proposed AD be revised accordingly. The FAA agrees and has revised this address in the final rule.

One commenter requests that the FAA delay issuance of the final rule until an on-aircraft verfication has been performed. The FAA does not agree. To delay this final rule would be inappropriate, since we have determined that an unsafe condition exists and that an inspection must be conducted to ensure continued operational safety.

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

There are approximately 148 Model MD-11 series airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that 43 airplanes of U.S. registry will be affected by this AD, that it will take approximately 1 work hour per airplane to accomplish the required inspection, and that the average labor rate is $60 per work hour. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the inspection required by this AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $2,580, or $60 per airplane.

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

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

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

On June 18, 2001, the FAA published in the Federal Register a direct final rule; request for comments, which established a Class E enroute domestic airspace area beginning at 1,200 feet above ground level in the vicinity of Kingman, AZ (FR Document 01-4680, 66 FR 32731, Airspace Docket No. 01-AWP-17). The FAA uses the direct final rulemaking procedure for a non-controversial rule where the FAA believes that there will be no adverse public comment. This direct final rule advised the public that no adverse comments were anticipated, and that unless a written adverse comment, or a written notice of intent to submit such an adverse comment, were received within the comment period, the regulation would become effective on September 6, 2001. No adverse comments were received; therefore this document confirms that this direct final rule will become effective 0901 UTC, on September 6, 2001.

On June 18, 2001, the FAA published in the Federal Register a direct final rule; request for comments, which established a Class E enroute domestic airspace area beginning at 1,200 feet above ground level in the vicinity of Las Vegas, NV (FR Document 01-4680, 66 FR 32732, Airspace Docket No. 01-AWP-16). The FAA uses the direct final rulemaking procedure for a non-controversial rule where the FAA believes that there will be no adverse public comment. This direct final rule advised the public that no adverse comments were anticipated, and that unless a written adverse comment, or a written notice of intent to submit such an adverse comment, were received within the comment period, the regulation would become effective on September 6, 2001. No adverse comments were received; therefore this document confirms that this direct final rule will become effective 0901 UTC, on September 6, 2001.

We did not publish a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for this regulation. In keeping with 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) and 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a NPRM and for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register . The high-speed power boat races will take place on September 1 and 2, 2001. The special local regulations are necessary to provide for the safety of event participants, support vessels, spectator craft and other vessels transiting the event area. For the safety concerns noted, it is in the public interest to have these regulations in effect during the event. In addition, advance notifications will be made via the Local Notice to Mariners, marine information broadcasts, and area newspapers.

On September 1 and 2, 2001, the Harford County Power Boat Club will sponsor the Harford County Power Boat Regatta on the waters of the Bush River, near Abingdon, Maryland. The event will consist of 60 hydroplanes and runabouts racing in heats counter-clockwise around an oval racecourse. A fleet of spectator vessels is anticipated. Due to the need for vessel control during the races, vessel traffic will be temporarily restricted to provide for the safety of spectators, participants and transiting vessels.

The Coast Guard is establishing temporary special local regulations on specified waters of the Bush River. The temporary special local regulations will be in enforced from 11:30 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. eastern time on September 1 and 2, 2001, and will restrict general navigation in the regulated area during the event. If the event is postponed due to inclement weather, then the temporary special local regulations will be enforced from 11:30 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. eastern time on September 3, 2001. Except for participants and vessels authorized by the Coast Guard Patrol Commander, no person or vessel may enter or remain in the regulated area. Non-participating vessels will be allowed to transit the event area at minimum wake speed, at the Patrol Commander's discretion. These regulations are needed to control vessel traffic during the event to enhance the safety of participants, spectators and transiting vessels.

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

Although this regulation prevents traffic from transiting a portion of the Bush River during the event, the effect of this regulation will not be significant due to the limited duration of the regulation, the fact that the Coast Guard Patrol Commander will allow non-participating vessels to transit at minimum wake speed whenever it is safe to do so, and the extensive advance notifications that will be made to the maritime community via the Local Notice to Mariners, marine information broadcasts, and area newspapers, so mariners can adjust their plans accordingly.

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

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

This rule will affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: the owners or operators of vessels intending to transit or anchor in the effected portions of the Bush River during the event.

Although this regulation prevents traffic from transiting or anchoring in a portion of the Bush River during the event, the effect of this regulation will not be significant because of its limited duration, the fact that the Coast Guard Patrol Commander will allow non-participating vessels to transit at minimum wake speed whenever it is safe to do so, and the extensive advance notifications that will be made to the maritime community via the Local Notice to Mariners, marine information broadcasts, and area newspapers, so mariners can adjust their plans accordingly.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We prepared an “Environmental Assessment” in accordance with Commandant Instruction M16475.1C, and determined that this rule will not significantly affect the quality of the human environment. The “Environmental Assessment” and “Finding of No Significant Impact” is available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES.

This final rule merely reflects agency organization. Accordingly, we are dispensing with prior notice and comment and a delayed effective date under the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 553.

The Secretary of Veterans Affairs hereby certifies that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities as they are defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-602, since this final rule does not contain any substantive provisions. Therefore, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b), this final rule is exempt from the regulatory flexibility analyses requirements of sections 603 and 604.

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

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

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

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

On January 21, 1997, PADEP submitted revisions to the Pennsylvania SIP which establish and impose case-by-case RACT for several sources of VOC and/or NO X . This rulemaking pertains to two of those sources, the Armco Inc., Butler Operations Main Plant and the Armco Inc., Butler Operations Stainless Plant. Remaining sources are or have been the subject of separate rulemakings.

The Armco Inc., Butler Operations Main Plant is a producer of flat rolled stainless and silicon steel slabs, sheets, and coils located in Butler, Butler County, Pennsylvania. The facility is not a major VOC emitting source. The facility is a major source of NO X , and is subject to RACT. The facility's Melt Shop consists of three Electric Arc Furnaces (EAFs), an Argon-Oxygen Decarburization (AOD) vessel, a Vacuum Degasser, five Ladle Preheaters, two Continuous Casters, and various auxiliary equipment. Other installations and processes at the Main Plant include Hot Mill with slab conditioning, Cold Mill, and North/Silicon Processing units with the associated annealing and pickling lines as well as other process/auxiliary equipment. The facility also includes five boilers and a number of preheat/heating/reheat/drying and annealing metallurgical furnaces and heaters. Pennsylvania established NO X RACT requirements for the facility in a RACT Plan Approval consisting of an operating permit, PA 10-001-M.

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

(b) AOD vessel at the Melt Shop: The AOD vessel is a refractory-lined furnace used in the ladle metallurgical argon-oxygen decarburization process to refine stainless steel outside the EAF. During the oxygen-argon blowing, fluxes and alloy materials are added to the vessel. Immediately after the decarburization blow, molten steel is argon-stirred to achieve the desired chemical and temperature homogenization of the material. The AOD process primarily generates particulate emissions controlled by a baghouse. Waste gases from the process (consisting chiefly of carbon monoxide) are combusted in an open hood above the vessel's mouth producing a relatively small amount of NO X emissions.

(c) Vacuum Degasser at the Melt Shop: The installation is used to expose molten steel to a low-pressure environment in order to remove gaseous impurities from the steel. In the process, a vessel with molten steel is closed and placed under a slight negative pressure while natural gas-fired burners are keeping the steel in the molten state for processing. Based on the small amount of natural gas used in this operation, the installation does not present a significant source of NO X emissions.

(d) Continuous Caster at the Melt Shop: The Caster is used to form the molten steel (produced by the EAF and refined in the AOD/Vacuum Degasser) into a solid slab. In the process, molten steel is lifted in a ladle to the top of the casting machine where it poured into a tundish. From the tundish the molten steel flows in the water cooled mold where it formed into the shape of the slab. Modest NO X emissions are formed around the oxygen cutting torch at the exit of the Caster and during tundish maintenance associated with drying and preheating operations.

(e) Slab Reheat Furnaces at the Hot Mill: The furnaces are used to heat the slabs at a uniform rate to the temperature suitable for hot working and to hold them at that temperature for a specified period of time to impart the desired metallurgical properties for further processing steps. All four furnaces are natural gas-fired units with burners mounted in the roof of each furnace. Each furnace has a natural draft exhaust stack, a combustion blower and equipped with adjustable automatic temperature controls.

(f) Continuous Annealing Furnaces at various locations: Annealing furnaces are natural gas-fired units that are used to refine the steel grain structure, to relief stresses induced by hot or cold working, and to alter the mechanical properties of steel in order to improve its malleability. Heat treatment of stainless steels is conducted at a slow rate and relatively low temperatures to minimize thermal stresses and to avoid distortion and cracking. Annealing makes steel softer and more ductile by controlled heating and cooling.

(g) Continuous Decarburization and Drying Furnaces at Silicon Processing unit: The decarburization furnaces are used to remove residual carbon from silicon (electrical) steel by heating steel in a controlled atmosphere inside the furnace. The drying furnaces are used to cure a Magnesium-Oxide coating applied to the steel surface in order to produce a “glass-like” insulating layer which is required for the electrical applications of the product. The heat is supplied to the process furnaces by radiant tube heat exchangers where the burners are situated at the one end of the tube and the exhaust at the other end of the exchanger. Some of the furnaces are heated by electrical power as well as by natural gas.

(h) Pickling Lines at various locations: Pickling is the process used to remove the superficial scale that is formed on the steel surface during hot rolling, annealing, and cold rolling operations. The pickle tubs on all of the processing lines are covered and each processing line is vented to its own packed bed water scrubber. Steel coils are uncoiled and welded together to form a continuous strip which travels through the pickle tubs (where various acids and water are continuously fed) followed by cold and hot rinse tanks. The overflow from the pickle tubs, the rinse tanks and the acid fume scrubbers are neutralized with lime at the facility's wastewater treatment plant.

The facility generates NO X emissions from forty-two installations/processes. Pennsylvania has determined that 14 combustion sources comprised of Ladle Preheaters and various metallurgical furnaces with rated heat inputs less than 20 MMBTU/hr are subject to SIP-approved presumptive RACT requirements set forth in 25 Pa. Code Section 129.93.(c)(1). Five of the other twenty-eight sources are natural gas-fired metallurgical furnaces and boilers with rated gross heat inputs less than 50 MMBTU/hr. Pennsylvania has determined that these sources are subject to SIP-approved presumptive RACT requirements set forth in 25 Pa. Code Section 129.93(b)(2). Pennsylvania has also determined that three Miscellaneous small combustion sources are subject to SIP-approved presumptive RACT requirements set forth in 25 Pa. Code Section 129.93.(b)(3). The remaining twenty sources are comprised of the three EAFs, AOD vessel, Vacuum Degasser, Pickling Lines #2, #12, #4 and #23, five Slab Reheat Furnaces, two Annealing Furnaces, and four boilers. A case-by-case detailed RACT analysis was performed for those twenty installations/processes. Pennsylvania's determinations of NO X RACT requirements are based on the analysis of whether or not the evaluated control technologies were economically and technically feasible options in each particular application. The following is the summary of Pennsylvania's RACT determinations.

(a) PA 10-001-M requires that the NO X emission limit for the inlet of the baghouse No. 3 serving the Melt Shop shall not exceed 75 lb/hr. This baghouse controls emissions from the EAFs, Casters, argon stirring station, ladle preheaters, and miscellaneous combustion sources. The permit also requires monitoring of the specified NO X emission limit by implementing an annual stack testing program.

(b) PA 10-001-M requires that the average NO X emission rate of pickle lines #2, #4, #12, #23 shall not exceed 1.0 lb/ton. The permit also requires monitoring of the specified NO X emission limit by implementing an annual stack testing program.

(c) PA 10-001-M requires AOD vessel; Vacuum Degasser; #1-6 ladle preheaters; #2-3 Continuous Caster; #20 and #26 Carlite; #1, #6, #11, #19 Decarburization and Drying furnaces, and CRNO Dryer to comply with the requirements of 25 PA Code Section 129.93(c)(1). In addition, Pennsylvania requires the sources to be operated in accordance with good air pollution control practices.

(d) PA 10-001-M requires annealing furnaces #2, #4, #7, and #12, CRNO furnace, and #19/20 Boiler to comply with the requirements of 25 PA Code Section 129.93(b)(3). In addition, Pennsylvania requires the sources to be operated in accordance with good air pollution control practices.

(e) PA 10-001-M limits annual fuel consumption for four Slab Reheat Furnaces and four boilers to a specified volume of natural gas expressed in thousand cubic feet per year for each installation.

All annual limits must be met on a rolling monthly basis over every consecutive 12-month period. PA 10-001-M imposes requirements for conducting the annual stack test programs including notification of the test, pre-approval of the stack test procedures, the number of tests, their duration, and post-test reporting requirements.

The Armco Inc., Butler Operations Stainless Plant is a processor of intermediate and final gauge 300 and 400 series stainless steel located in Butler, Butler County, Pennsylvania. The facility is not a major VOC emitting source. The facility is a major source of NO X and is subject to RACT. The facility consists of #22 Annealing Furnace, #22 Pickling Line and #13/#14 Boiler. Pennsylvania established NO X RACT requirements for the facility in a RACT Plan Approval consisting of an operating permit, PA 10-001-S.

The Butler Operations Stainless Plant is a finishing facility. The semi-finished products supplied by the Main Plant are annealed and pickled at the facility. The NO X emitting sources include #22 Annealing Furnace, #22 Pickling Line, and #13/#14 Boiler. The description of the NO X emitting installations and processes provided for the Main Plant, above, also describe those at Butler Operations Stainless Plant.

(a) #13/#14 Boiler: The installation has a rated heat input of 21 MMBTU/hr. Pennsylvania has determined that this source is subject to the SIP-approved presumptive RACT emission limitations in 25 Pa. Code Section 129.93(b)(2).

(b) #22 Annealing Furnace: The installation has a rated heat input of 68 MMBTU/hr. Pennsylvania determined that NO X RACT for the #22 Annealing Furnace is compliance with the SIP-approved requirements of 25 PA Code Section 129.93(b)(3) and operation/maintenance of the furnace in accordance with good air pollution control practice.

(c) #22 Pickling Line: Pennsylvania determined NO X RACT for the #22 Pickling Line to be improvements to the water-based scrubber technology which was already in place. To this end, PA 10-001-S requires the facility to install/maintain the instrumentation to monitor water flow rates and scrubber pressure drops. In addition, Pennsylvania limits NO X emissions from the #22 Pickling Line to 1.6 lb/ton and requires monitoring of this NO X emission limit by implementing an annual stack testing program. PA 10-001-M imposes requirements for conducting the annual stack test programs including notification of the test, pre-approval of the stack test procedures, the number of tests, their duration, and post-test reporting requirements.

EPA is approving PA 10-001-M and PA 10-001-S, issued by PADEP to the Armco Inc., Butler Operations Main Plant and Armco Inc., Butler Operations Stainless Plant, respectively, as revisions to the Pennsylvania SIP. The permits were submitted by PADEP to establish and impose NO X RACT for Armco Inc., Butler Operations Main and Stainless Plant, major sources located in the Pittsburgh area. EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipates no adverse comment. However, in the “Proposed Rules” section of today's Federal Register , EPA is publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposal to approve the SIP revision if adverse comments are filed. This rule will be effective on October 9, 2001 without further notice unless EPA receives adverse comment by September 21, 2001. If EPA receives adverse comment, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the public that the rule will not take effect. EPA will address all public comments in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time. Please note that if adverse comment is received for a specific source or subset of sources covered by an amendment, section or paragraph of this rule, only that amendment, section, or paragraph for that source or subset of sources will be withdrawn.

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

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

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by October 22, 2001. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action approving the Commonwealth's source-specific RACT requirements to control NO X from the Armco Inc., Butler Operations Main Plant and Armco Inc., Butler Operations Stainless Plant may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On July 1, 1997, PADEP submitted revisions to the Pennsylvania SIP which establish and impose RACT and RACT-related requirements for several major sources of VOC and/or NO X . This rulemaking pertains to four of those sources for their NO X emissions. The remaining sources are or have been the subject of separate rulemakings. The Commonwealth's submittals consist of plan approval and agreement upon consent orders (consent Orders or COs) and an enforcement order (EO) issued by the Allegheny County Health Department (ACHD). The PADEP submitted these COs and EO to EPA, on behalf of ACHD, as SIP revisions. These four sources are located in the Pittsburgh area.

General Motors Corporation (GMC) is an automotive parts manufacturing facility located in West Mifflin, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. GMC had the potential to emit more than 100 tons per year (tpy) of NO X . In this instance, the ACHD issued CO 243 to GMC. On July 1, 1997, PADEP submitted CO 243 to EPA on behalf of the ACHD as a SIP revision. CO 243 requires GMC not to exceed annual NO X emissions of 99 tons per year, and also not to exceed the combined actual heat input to boilers number 1 and 2 of 355,651 MMBTUs/year. For the annual limits imposed in CO 243 to meet EPA's Federal enforceability criteria for limiting this source's potential to emit below the major source threshold, the annual limits imposed in CO 243 must be met on a rolling monthly basis over every consecutive 12 month period. Under CO 243, GMC must maintain records to demonstrate compliance with this CO and Article XXI, section 2105.06. Records shall include, but not be limited to the fuel type and amount of fuel usage for boilers number 1 and 2. All records shall be retained for at least two years.

Oakmont Steel, Inc. (OSI) is a steel production facility located in Oakmont, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. OSI had the potential to emit more than 100 tpy of NO X . In this instance, the ACHD issued CO 226 to OSI. On July 1, 1997, PADEP submitted CO 226 to EPA on behalf of the ACHD as a SIP revision. CO 226 requires OSI's annual NO X emissions not to exceed 100 tons per year. For the annual limits imposed in CO 226 to meet EPA's Federal enforceability criteria for limiting this source's potential to emit below the major source threshold, the annual limits imposed in CO 226 must be met on a rolling monthly basis over every consecutive 12 month period. Under CO 226, OSI must maintain records to demonstrate compliance with this CO and Article XXI, section 2105.06. Records shall include the fuel type and fuel usage for the facility. All records shall be retained for at least two years.

The Peoples Natural Gas, Co. (PNG) is a natural gas compressor station located in Plum Borough, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. PNG had the potential to emit more than 100 tpy of NO X . In this instance, the ACHD issued CO 240 to PNG. On July 1, 1997, PADEP submitted CO 240 to EPA on behalf of the ACHD as a SIP revision. CO 240 requires PNG not to exceed the annual NO X emissions of 95 tons per year. For the annual limits imposed in CO 240 to meet EPA's Federal enforceability criteria for limiting this source's potential to emit below the major source threshold, the annual limits imposed in CO 240 must be met on a rolling monthly basis over every consecutive 12 month period. Under CO 240, PNG must maintain records to demonstrate compliance with this CO and Article XXI, section 2105.06. Records shall include, but not limited to the fuel type and amount of fuel usage per engine, and the hours of operation of the engine. All records shall be retained for at least two years.

U.S. Bureau of Mines (USBM) is a power manufacturing facility located in Pittsburgh, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. USBM is a major NO X emitting facility. In this instance, RACT has been established and imposed by ACHD in EO 215. On July 1, 1997, PADEP submitted this EO 215 to EPA on behalf of the ACHD as a SIP revision. EO 215 requires USBM not to allow the operating hours and NO X emissions from the subject equipment to exceed the following limitations:

Under EO 215, USBM must maintain records to demonstrate compliance with this EO and Article XXI, section 2105.06. The annual limits imposed in EO 215 must be met on a rolling monthly basis over every consecutive 12 month period. Records shall include certifications from fuel suppliers for all types of fuel and for each shipment of distillate oils number 1 or 2; and a certification that the fuel complies with ASTM D396-78, “Standard Specifications for Fuel Oils”. All records shall be retained for at least two years. USBM shall operate and maintain all process and emission control equipment according to good engineering practice.

EPA is approving these SIP submittals because ACHD established and imposed requirements in accordance with the criteria set forth in SIP-approved regulations for imposing RACT or for limiting a source's potential to emit. The ACHD has also imposed record-keeping, monitoring, and testing requirements on these sources sufficient to determine compliance with these requirements.

EPA is approving the revisions to the Pennsylvania SIP submitted by PADEP on behalf of ACHD to reduce NO X from four sources located in the Pittsburgh area. EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipates no adverse comment. However, in the “Proposed Rules” section of today's Federal Register , EPA is publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposal to approve the SIP revision if adverse comments are filed. This rule will be effective on October 6, 2001 without further notice unless EPA receives adverse comment by September 21, 2001. If EPA receives adverse comment, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the public that the rule will not take effect. EPA will address all public comments in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time. Please note that if adverse comment is received for a specific source or subset of sources covered by an amendment, section or paragraph of this rule, only that amendment, section, or paragraph for that source or subset of sources will be withdrawn.

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

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

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by October 22, 2001. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action approving the Commonwealth's source-specific requirements to control NO X from four individual sources in Pennsylvania may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

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

EPA has the responsibility for determining whether a nonattainment area has attained the CO NAAQS by the applicable attainment date. In this case the EPA was required to make determinations concerning whether serious CO nonattainment areas attained the NAAQS by their December 31, 2000, attainment date. Pursuant to the CAA, the EPA is required to make attainment determinations for these areas by June 30, 2001, no later than six months following the attainment date for the areas. This proposal was based on all available, quality-assured data collected from the CO monitoring sites, which has been entered into the Aerometric Information Retrieval System (AIRS). This data was reviewed to determine the area's air quality status in accordance with EPA guidance at 40 CFR 50.8, and in accordance with EPA policy and guidance as stated in a memorandum from William G. Laxton, Director Technical Support Division, entitled “Ozone and Carbon Monoxide Design Value Calculations,” dated June 18, 1990.

On June 15, 2001 (66 FR 32595-32597), EPA proposed to find that the Spokane CO nonattainment area in Washington has attained the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for CO as of December 31, 2000. A detailed discussion of EPA's proposal is contained in the June 15, 2001, proposed rule and will not be restated here. The reader is referred to the proposed rule for more details.

We received no comments in response to EPA's proposed action to find that the Spokane CO nonattainment area in Washington has attained the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for carbon monoxide as of December 31, 2000.

EPA has determined that the Spokane serious CO nonattainment area has attained the CO NAAQS by the attainment date of December 31, 2000. Consistent with CAA section 188, the area will remain a serious CO nonattainment area with the additional planning requirements that apply to serious CO nonattainment areas. This finding of attainment should not be confused with a redesignation to attainment under CAA section 107(d). Washington has not submitted a maintenance plan as required under section 175A(a) of the CAA or met the other CAA requirements for redesignation to attainment. The designation status in 40 CFR part 81 will remain serious nonattainment for the Spokane CO nonattainment area until such time as EPA finds that Washington has met the CAA requirements for redesignation to attainment.

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a “significant regulatory action” and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action merely makes a determination based on air quality data and does not impose any requirements. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this rule does not impose any enforceable duty, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4). This rule also does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), because it merely approves makes a determination based on air quality data, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant.

The requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. As required by section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in issuing this rule, EPA has taken the necessary steps to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize potential litigation, and provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct. EPA has complied with Executive Order 12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1988) by examining the takings implications of the rule in accordance with the “Attorney General's Supplemental Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk and Avoidance of Unanticipated Takings” issued under the executive order. This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. section 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register . A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register . This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. section 804(2). This rule will be effective September 21, 2001.

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by October 22, 2001. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

The information presented in this preamble is arranged as follows:

This rule is published under the authority of sections 1008, 2002, 4004, and 4010 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act of 1970, as amended by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 6907, 6912, 6945, and 6949).

EPA proposed to amend 40 CFR 258.28(a) by adding a new paragraph (a)(3) to refer to a new section of the rules, § 258.41, 66 FR 19403, April 16, 2001). However, another Project XL rulemaking, published in the Federal Register on August 13, 2001 (66 FR 42441 for Yolo County Rulemaking) already has effected these proposed changes. Therefore, today's rulemaking is limited to that portion of EPA's proposed rule which proposed to add a new § 258.41(a). This new § 258.41(a) applies to the Buncombe County Solid Waste Management Facility in Buncombe County, North Carolina and allows Cells 1-10 of the landfill to utilize recirculation of leachate supplemented with river water, as long as each cells meets the design criteria, operational requirements, monitoring and other requirements set forth in § 258.41(a). See Section IV of this preamble for full description of the regulatory relief provided for this project.

Today's rule is being finalized with one other change, based on the one comment EPA received during the comment period on the proposal. The comment was from the American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM), which pointed out that the proposed rule referenced an earlier version of their consensus voluntary standards ASTM D2216. The final rule correctly references the latest standard ASTM D2216-98.

Other than the removal of the proposed additions of new §§ 258.28(a)(3) and 258.41(b), which have already been effected, as noted above, no changes have been made to the proposed rule.

Project XL is an EPA initiative to allow regulated entities to achieve better environmental results at less costs. Project XL—“eXcellence and Leadership”—was announced on March 16, 1995 as a central part of the National Performance Review and EPA's efforts to reinvent environmental protection. See 60 FR 27282 (May 23, 1995). Specifically, Project XL gives a limited number of regulated entities the opportunity to develop their own pilot projects and alternative strategies to achieve environmental performance that is superior to what would be achieved through compliance with current and reasonably anticipated future regulations. These efforts are crucial to the Agency's ability to test new regulatory strategies that reduce regulatory burden and promote economic growth while achieving better environmental and public health protection. The Agency intends to evaluate the results of this and other XL projects to determine which specific elements of the projects, if any, should be more broadly applied to other regulated entities for the benefit of both the economy and the environment.

Project XL is intended to allow EPA to experiment with untried, potentially promising regulatory approaches, both to assess whether they provide benefits at the specific facility affected, and whether they should be considered for wider application. Such pilot projects allow EPA to proceed more quickly than would be possible when undertaking changes on a nationwide basis. EPA may modify rules, on a site specific or state specific basis, that represent one of several possible policy approaches within a more general statutory directive, so long as the alternative being used is permissible under the statute.

Adoption of such alternative approaches or interpretations in the context of a given XL project is not an indication that EPA plans to adopt that interpretation as a general matter or even in the context of other XL projects. It would be inconsistent with the forward looking nature of these pilot projects to adopt such innovative approaches prematurely on a widespread basis without first determining whether they are viable in practice and successful for the particular project that embody them. These pilot projects are not intended to be a means for piecemeal revision of entire programs.

EPA believes that adopting alternative policy approaches and interpretations, on a limited site specific or state specific basis and in connection with a carefully selected pilot project is consistent with the expectations of Congress about EPA's role in implementing the environmental statutes (provided that the Agency acts within the discretion allowed by the statute). Congress' recognition that there is a need for experimentation and research, as well as ongoing reevaluation of environmental programs, is reflected in a variety of statutory provisions (e.g., section 8001 of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6981).

Under Project XL, participants in four categories: facilities, industry sectors, governmental agencies, and communities are offered the opportunity to develop common sense, cost-effective strategies that will replace or modify specific regulatory requirements on the condition that they produce and demonstrate superior environmental performance. To participate in Project XL, applicants must develop alternative pollution reduction strategies pursuant to eight criteria: (1) Superior environmental performance; (2) cost savings and paperwork reduction; (3) stakeholder involvement and support; (4) test of an innovative strategy; (5) transferability; (6) feasibility; (7) identification of monitoring, reporting, and evaluation methods; and (8) avoidance of shifting risk burden. The project must have full support of affected federal, state, and tribal agencies to be selected. For more information about the XL criteria, readers should refer to two descriptive documents published in the Federal Register (60 FR 27282, published May 23, 1995 and 62 FR 19872, published April 23, 1997) and the document entitled “Principles for Development of Project XL Final Project Agreements,” dated December 1, 1995.

Development of a Project has four basic phases: the initial pre-proposal phase where the project sponsor comes up with an innovative concept that it would like EPA to consider as an XL pilot; the second phase where the project sponsor works with EPA and interested stakeholders in developing its XL proposal; the third phase where EPA, local regulatory agencies, and other interested stakeholders review the XL proposal; and the fourth phase where the project sponsor works with EPA, local regulatory agencies, and interested stakeholders in developing the FPA and legal mechanism. The XL pilot proceeds into the implementation phase and evaluation phase after promulgation of the required federal, state and local legal mechanisms and after the designated participants sign the FPA.

The Final Project Agreement (FPA) is a written agreement between the project sponsor and regulatory agencies. The FPA contains a detailed description of the pilot project. It addresses the eight Project XL criteria and discusses how EPA expects the project to meet that criteria. The FPA identifies performance goals and indicators which will enable the project sponsor to demonstrate superior environmental benefits. The FPA also discusses administration of the agreement, including dispute resolution and conditions for termination of the agreement. On September 18, 2000, EPA, Buncombe County, and the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources signed the FPA for the Buncombe County bioreactor landfill XL Project.

For more information about the XL criteria, readers should refer to the two descriptive documents published in the Federal Register (60 FR 27282, May 23, 1995 and 62 FR 19872, April 23, 1997), and the December 1, 1995 Principles for Development of Project XL Final Project Agreements document. For further discussion as to how the Buncombe County XL project addresses the XL criteria, readers should refer to the Final Project Agreement available from the EPA RCRA docket (see ADDRESSES section of today's preamble) or on the world wide web at http://www.epa.gov/projectxl/.

A bioreactor landfill is generally defined as a landfill operated to transform and stabilize the readily and moderately decomposable organic constituents of the waste stream by purposeful control to enhance the microbiological process. Bioreactor landfills often employ liquid addition to supplement leachate for recirculation. A byproduct of the decomposition process is landfill gas, which includes methane, carbon dioxide, and volatile organic compounds (VOCs). Landfill gases are produced sooner in a bioreactor landfill than in a conventional landfill. Therefore, bioreactors often incorporate state of the art landfill gas collection.

On April 6, 2000, EPA published a document in the Federal Register (65 FR 18015) requesting information on bioreactor landfills because the Agency is considering whether and to what extent the Criteria for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills, 40 CFR part 258, should be revised to allow for leachate recirculation over alternative liners in MSWLF. EPA requested information about liquid additions and leachate recirculation in MSWLFs to the extent currently allowed, i.e., in MSWLFs designed and constructed with a composite liner as specified in 40 CFR 258.40(a)(2).

Proponents of bioreactor technology note that operation of MSWLFs as bioreactors provide a number of environmental benefits including: (1) Increasing the rate of waste decomposition which in turn extends the operating life of the landfill and lessens the need for additional landfill space or other disposal options; (2) decreasing or even eliminating the quantity, and increasing the quality of leachate requiring treatment and offsite disposal, leading to decreased risks and costs associated with leachate management, treatment and disposal; (3) reduced post-closure care costs and risks, due to the accelerated, controlled settlement of the solid waste during landfill operation; (4) lower long term potential for leachate migration into the subsurface environment; and (5) opportunity for recovery of methane gas for energy production.

There are several XL projects involving operation of landfills as bioreactors throughout the country. These landfill projects will enable EPA to evaluate benefits of different alternative liners and leachate recirculation systems under various terrains and operating conditions. As expressed in the above referenced April 2000 Federal Register document, EPA is interested in assessing the performance of landfills operated as bioreactors and these XL projects could contribute valuable data.

The Buncombe County project and other XL projects are expected to contribute additional information on the performance of MSWLFs when liquids are added to a landfill constructed with an alternative liner system. The Agency is also interested in assessing the performance of various types of alternative liners and how they meet the design performance standard under bioreactor conditions.

The terms of the Buncombe County bioreactor project are contained in the FPA. The FPA is available to the public at the EPA RCRA Docket in Washington, DC, from the Region 4 XL Coordinator, and on the world wide web at http://www.epa.gov/projectxl/.

The Buncombe County Solid Waste Management Facility operates a RCRA Subtitle D municipal solid waste landfill in an area north of Asheville in Buncombe County, western North Carolina. The landfill began operation in 1997. The landfill facility encompasses approximately 600 acres although only a portion of that acreage is used for landfilling operations at this time. The French Broad River traces the south and west border of the landfill facility acreage. To date three cells of the planned 10 cells for the facility have been constructed and are in operation.

Cells 1 and 2 of the landfill facility were constructed in 1997 with the standard composite liner system prescribed in EPA regulations implementing RCRA Subtitle D for MSWLFs. The standard liner consists of 24 inches of compacted clay with a hydraulic conductivity of no more than 1 x 10 -7 cm/sec overlain by a 60 millimeter High Density Polyethylene (HDPE) membrane. Cell 3 was constructed with an alternative liner system consisting of 18 inches of compacted clay with a hydraulic conductivity of no greater than 1 x 10 -5 cm/sec overlain by a geosynthetic clay liner (GCL) with a hydraulic conductivity of no greater than 5 x 10 -9 cm/sec and a 60-mil HDPE liner.

Cells 1, 2, and 3 were constructed with a leachate collection/drainage system consisting of two feet of crushed stone. A 28 oz. fabric cushion protects the underlying synthetic liner from penetration or abrasion from the stone. Interior walls of each cell (lift) slope to a collection sump where leachate is pumped out over the cell wall (i.e., no liner penetration). A central leachate collection line was also installed in Cell 3 to improve leachate collection due to the lesser interior slopes. Leachate is pumped from each of the cells to a 1.5 million gallon composite lined leachate holding pond. A tanker truck pumps leachate from the holding pond and hauls it to a wastewater treatment plant located seven miles from the landfill facility.

Buncombe County intends to construct and operate a combined leachate recirculation and gas recovery system in prototype Cells 4 and 5 for which construction began in August, 2000. Cells 4 and 5 will be constructed with the same alternative liner system as was installed in Cell 3. If operation of these prototype cells is successful, Buncombe County will construct the remaining Cells 6-10 with the same alternative liner system and combined leachate recirculation and gas recovery system. Recirculation of leachate would not be permitted under the current federal regulations using the alternative liner by Buncombe County. Buncombe will begin recirculation of leachate in Cell 3 when this rule is finalized.

Prior to adding any supplemental liquids to the facility, Buncombe County will prepare a comprehensive landfill stability analysis under recirculation conditions with supplemental liquids. Buncombe County will submit this analysis to three university professors who are recognized as experienced in the field of geotechnical engineering in general and landfill slope stability. The County will incorporate comments from these professors into a final stability analysis for their review. The County will forward the analysis along with letters from the reviewing professors stating that the landfill should remain stable under the operating plan developed by the County, to the USEPA and the State of North Carolina for concurrence prior to adding any supplemental liquids.

As is the case with Cells 1, 2, and 3, Buncombe County will install an automatic submersible pump at the collection point at the bottom of each landfill cell with appurtenant piping to pump the leachate collected to the leachate holding pond. The pump engages automatically when the leachate reaches a certain depth above the pump. A new pump system and dedicated force main will be constructed at the leachate holding pond to direct leachate back to the landfill cells for recirculation.

During operation, solid waste will be added and compacted in layers above the landfill liner and leachate collection system. Additional piping will be installed in a horizontal configuration as the solid waste layers build. The piping will be used to redistribute leachate pumped from the leachate holding pond and to collect landfill gas.

As further protection against liner leakage, performance of the liner system will be monitored by an adjunct leak detection system underlying the compacted soil layer of the sump portion of each landfill cell. The leak detection system will consist of 60-mil HDPE liner placed on a prepared subgrade. Any leakage through the primary composite liner system will be captured on the 60 mil HDPE liner and fed to a sump. A 4-inch capped pipe will drain leachate collected in the sump out beyond the footprint of the landfill cell. The capped pipe will be sampled semi-annually to determine whether any leachate escaped the composite liner.

As required by 40 CFR 258.51, Buncombe County installed groundwater monitoring wells to monitor whether landfill operations impact groundwater. Two upgradient groundwater monitoring wells were installed and sampled prior to construction of the first cell to determine true background groundwater quality in the absence of any landfill construction or operation. Additional downgradient monitoring wells will continue to be installed with the construction of each landfill unit. These wells will continue to be sampled semi-annually for constituents listed in Appendix I of the North Carolina Solid Waste Management Rules.

Moisture content of the landfill waste will be monitored throughout the life of the project through a network of moisture sensors installed as waste is placed. Final design of the moisture detection system will occur with preparation of the permitting application.

Surface water quality is currently monitored at three stations around the facility. All surface water runoff from the site flows north through erosion control structures to Blevin Branch. Blevin Branch will continue to be monitored at the eastern end of the site where it originates and at the western end where it exits the landfill facility.

Leachate will be applied to landfill waste during operations to provide enhanced conditions for rapid waste decomposition. If additional water is needed to achieve optimal moisture level, this water will be drawn from the French Broad River.

Leachate will be injected below the landfill surface to prevent contact with employees or users of the landfill. In addition, the County may apply leachate to the working face after the landfill has stopped receiving customers and just before the day's waste is covered. At that time, the only people nearby will be the driver of the leachate spray truck and the heavy equipment operators placing the soil cover. These persons should not come in contact with the leachate. If supplemental river water is used, it will first be discharged to the leachate collection pond before application to the landfill or the river water will be applied directly to the working face of the landfill by tanker truck. The recirculation system will be designed and operated to allow application of leachate in small, discreet areas as needed to maintain an optimum moisture level.

The volume of leachate and supplemental water added back to the landfill will be monitored throughout the life of the project. Recirculation quantities will be quantified using flow sensors installed on the leachate discharge line at the leachate holding pond and on the delivery lines to each cell. The objective is to determine the amount of leachate returned to each cell individually and determine an optimum moisture content and application rate.

Proponents of leachate recirculation claim that there is an improvement in leachate quality due to the aerobic and anaerobic decomposition of constituents which serve as a food source to the bacteria. Improved leachate quality is an indicator of a stabilized waste mass that poses a decreased threat to groundwater supplies should the containment system breach at some future date. Buncombe County will sample leachate from each cell semi-annually to determine whether leachate quality is improving.

Since effective degradation of the waste mass and gas production depend on optimizing the temperature within the landfill cell, temperature gauges will be installed along with the moisture sensors as waste is added to the landfill. As each cell reaches design grade, monuments will be installed to monitor settlement of the waste. Monument settlement will be evaluated semi-annually. Additionally, annual aerial topographic surveys will be conducted to evaluate settlement and the effectiveness of the leachate recirculation system.

Under the FPA for the Buncombe County bioreactor project, the expected superior environmental benefits include: (1) maximizing landfill gas control and minimizing fugitive methane and VOC emissions; (2) greater recovery of landfill gas; (3) landfill life extension and/or reduced landfill use; and (4) minimizing leachate associated groundwater concerns.

1. Maximizing Landfill Gas Control and Minimizing Fugitive Methane and VOC Emissions.

Landfill gas contains roughly 50% methane, a potent greenhouse gas. In terms of climate effects, methane is second in importance only to carbon dioxide. Landfill gas also contains volatile organic compounds (VOC's) that are air pollutants of local concern. Buncombe County will immediately begin collecting landfill gas by installing a gas collection system consisting of a surface permeable gas collection layer overlain by a cover of soil with an embedded membrane. Gas will be withdrawn such that this permeable layer beneath surface containment will be at a slight vacuum. This system will minimize the amount of landfill gas emitted to the environment. Buncombe County will immediately begin collecting landfill gas once recirculation operations begin.

2. Expedited Methane Generation/Recovery.

If the landfill were operated as a conventional landfill, the County would likely not have to install a gas collection system at this facility under New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for several years. However, in the Buncombe bioreactor, the majority of the methane will be generated over a much earlier and shorter time period than a conventional landfill. The County has committed to installing the system and collecting gas as soon as recirculation begins which should make the total amount of gas collected at this site greater than if it operated conventionally and only complied with NSPS. This is expected to minimize the long-term low-rate methane generation often lost in conventional landfill practices.

3. Landfill Life Extension And/or Reduced Landfill Use.

The more rapid conversion of greater quantities of solid waste to gas reduces the volume of the waste. Volume reduction translates into either landfill life extension and/or less landfill use. Thus, this bioreactor landfill will be able to accept more waste over its working lifetime, subject to applicable State regulatory requirements. Additionally, fewer landfills may be needed to accommodate the same inflows of waste from a given population.

4. Minimizing Leachate-Associated Concerns.

Research has shown that bioreactor processes can reduce the concentration of many pollutants in leachate. These include organic acids and other soluble organic pollutants. Since a bioreactor operation brings pH to near-neutral conditions, metals of concern are largely precipitated and immobilized in the waste.

Buncombe County encouraged stakeholder involvement during the project development stage in several ways. The methods included communicating through the media (newspaper, e-mails, and XL website); directly contacting interested parties; and offering an educational program regarding the regulatory requirements impacted by the XL project. Buncombe County has continued to keep stakeholders informed on the project status via mailing lists, newspaper articles, and public meetings; and EPA has posted information on the website at URL: http://www.epa.gov/projectxl/buncombe/index.htm. In addition, Buncombe County has initiated stakeholder involvement by televising a presentation of the issues associated with the landfill originally presented to the Buncombe County Commissioners' Annual Retreat. The State of North Carolina and EPA are kept informed of issues as they arise.

Representatives from the local community and the Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League participated in conference calls and meetings with the Project XL team and provided comments during the development of the Final Project Agreement.

Few local stakeholders other than immediate residents have expressed interest in actively participating in the development of the project. Copies of all comment letters, as well as EPA's response to comment letters, are available on the website.

As this XL project is implemented, the stakeholder involvement program will shift its focus to ensure that: (1) Stakeholders are apprized of the status of project implementation; and, (2) stakeholders have access to information sufficient to judge the success of this Project XL initiative. Anticipated stakeholder involvement during the term of the project will likely include other general public meetings to present periodic status reports, availability of data and other information generated. Buncombe County will convene periodic meetings for interested stakeholders to brief them on progress during the duration of the XL Agreement. In addition to the reporting requirements of today's rule, the FPA includes provisions whereby the County will make copies of project reports available to all interested parties. A public file on this XL project has been maintained at the website throughout project development, and the EPA will continue to update it as the project is implemented. Additional information is available at EPA's website at http://www.epa.gov/projectxl.

A detailed description of this program and the stakeholder support for this project is included in the Final Project Agreement, which is available through the docket or through EPA's Project XL site on the Internet (see ADDRESSES section of this preamble).

Buncombe County has preliminarily identified the following stakeholders, and additional stakeholders may be added over time:

With respect to Cell 3, the alternative liner system saved Buncombe County nearly $400,000 as compared with the standard composite system. It is estimated that the County will save a total of $5 million through build-out of the facility if the alternative liner system is used. Other potential cost savings from the project include:

1. $5-$10 million in reduced construction costs for additional landfill capacity if an increase of 20%-30% in additional waste volume can be achieved due to rapid waste decomposition during operations; and,

2. $9 million if leachate hauling and off-site treatment can be eliminated. No appreciable reduction in paperwork is anticipated.

Today's site-specific rule adds the Buncombe County landfill to those MSWLFs which are granted regulatory flexibility from 40 CFR 258.28 Liquid Restrictions under 40 CFR 258.28(a)(3). Under the existing rule, bulk or noncontainerized liquid waste is not allowed to be placed in a MSWLF unit unless (1) the waste is household waste other than septic waste, (2) the waste is leachate or gas condensate derived from the MSWLF unit and the MSWLF unit is designed with a composite liner and leachate collection system as described in § 258.40(a)(2), or (3) they are designated as Project XL MSWLF units meeting the applicable requirements set forth at 40 CFR 258.41. As stated above, Buncombe County seeks to recirculate leachate derived from the landfill, possibly supplemented with river water, to Cell 3 and future cells, all of which have or are expected to have a liner system that differs from the liner prescribed in 40 CFR 258.41(a)(2). Cells 1 and 2 were constructed with the prescribed liner, and therefore be allowed to receive leachate and gas condensate under 40 CFR 258.28(a)(2).

EPA has entered into Final Project Agreements for several bioreactor pilot projects. Each of these projects will require a site-specific rulemaking in order to be implemented.

Today's rule amends 40 CFR 258.41 by adding a new section, § 258.41(a). The new § 258.41(a) specifically applies to the Buncombe County Solid Waste Management Facility in Buncombe County, North Carolina and will allow Cells 1-10 of the landfill to utilize recirculation of leachate supplemented with river water, as long as each cell meets the design criteria and other requirements set forth in § 258.41(a).

Currently, federal regulations outline two methods for complying with liner requirements for municipal solid waste landfills. The first method is a performance standard under 40 CFR 258.40(a)(1). This standard allows installation of any liner configuration provided the liner design is approved by an EPA-approved state and the design ensures that certain constituent concentrations are not exceeded in the uppermost aquifer underlying the landfill facility at the point of compliance.

The second method is set out in 40 CFR 258.40(a)(2) and (b). Section 258.40(b) sets forth a liner design which consists of two components: (1) an upper component comprising a minimum of 30 mil flexible membrane liner (60 mil if High Density Polyethylene (HDPE) is used); and (2) a lower component comprising at least two feet of compacted soil with a hydraulic conductivity no greater than 1x10 −7 cm/sec.

As stated earlier, leachate recirculation in municipal landfills is allowed under 40 CFR 258.28(a)(2) but only if the liner system complies with the design standard set out under 40 CFR 258.40(b) and a leachate collection system as described in § 258.40(a)(2). The reason that the existing regulation requires a leachate collection system and a composite liner design as specified § 258.40(a)(2) is to ensure that contaminant migration to the aquifer is controlled. (56 FR 50978, 51056 (Oct. 9, 1991)).

Under today's proposal, 40 CFR 258.41(a) specifically addresses Buncombe County Landfill in Alexander, North Carolina and allows Cells 3-10 of that landfill to recirculate leachate over an alternative liner as long as those cells met the requirements set forth in that subsection. Section 258.41(a)(4) provides an alternative to the landfill liner design requirements set forth at 40 CFR 258.40(a)(2) and (b). These design criteria are identical to the liner design described in 40 CFR 258.40(b), except that the upper component includes a 60 mil HDPE liner overlying a GCL with a hydraulic conductivity of no greater than 5×10 −9 cm/sec. The lower component of the composite liner consists of 18 inches of compacted soil with a hydraulic conductivity of not more than 1×10 −5 cm/sec. The GCL will overlay and be in direct contact with the compacted soil layer.

The State of North Carolina reviewed the alternative liner system for Cell 3 prior to approval and authorization for construction. The state's alternative liner design showed a leakage rate through the standard Subtitle D liner system and compared that figure against rates calculated for the alternative liner system for Cell 3. The standard liner calculations produced a leakage rate of 1.12 gallons/acre/day while the alternative liner calculations produced a leakage rate of only 0.53 gallons/acre/day (North Carolina Permitting Guidance for Alternative Composite Liner Systems, June 1, 1998). The alternative liner's leakage rate is expected to be less than half that of the standard prescribed liner. The modeling performed to complete the demonstration of the acceptability (and superiority) of the alternative liner involves inputting the leakage rates into EPA's MULTIMED model, which simulates the movement of contaminants leaching from a landfill. The output of the MULTIMED model reflects the fact that the alternative liner is more protective than the standard regulatory liner. Based on this information, EPA is satisfied that the liner design will afford as much, if not more, protection to groundwater as the standard composite liner specified in 40 CFR 258.41(a).

As further protection against liner leakage, this rule requires cells 3-10 to be constructed with an adjunct leak detection system underlying the compacted soil layer of the sump portion of each landfill cell. The leak detection system will be required to consist of 60-mil HDPE liner placed on a prepared subgrade. Any leakage through the primary composite liner system will be captured on the 60 mil HDPE liner and fed to a sump. The design specifications also require a 4-inch capped pipe to drain leachate collected in the sump out beyond the footprint of the landfill cell.

Based on the modeling for the alternative liner, in conjunction with the leak detection system, EPA believes that the addition of landfill leachate into cells 3-10 will not result in any increased leakage to groundwater from the bioreactor cells.

This rule does not change the requirement in 40 CFR 258.28(a)(2) that a leachate collection system as described in 40 CFR 258.40(a)(2) be in place in order for leachate to be recirculated in the landfill unit. Buncombe County's design for Cells 3-10 is required to have leachate collection systems designed to maintain leachate over the liner to a depth of no more than 30 cm.

This rule only allows certain liquid waste to be added to the Buncombe County facility. Section 258.41(a)(2) authorizes only leachate or gas condensate derived from the MSWLF, which may be supplemented with water from the French Broad River. Buncombe County will also be required to control liquids addition in order to assure that the average moisture content of the landfill does not exceed 50% by weight. EPA is allowing a moisture content of 50% by weight because this is in the middle of the 40%-70% range commonly accepted as needed for biological reaction to go forward in a bioreactor landfill. 1 The rule allows the State Director to establish a different maximum limit on landfill unit moisture content if the State Director determines that a different limit is either necessary to maintain the integrity of the landfill and its liner system or to increase the reaction rate, provided landfill and liner system integrity are maintained. As previously stated, prior to adding any supplemental liquids to the facility, Buncombe County will prepare a comprehensive landfill stability analysis under recirculation conditions with supplemental liquids and will submit this analysis to three university professors who are recognized as experienced in the field of geotechnical engineering in general, and landfill slope stability. This rule also includes, as a prerequisite to adding liquids, the requirement that Buncombe County receive an air quality permit from the Western North Carolina Regional Air Quality Agency incorporating requirements for Buncombe County Landfill XL project. The air quality permit is also referred to as the Federally-Enforceable State-Operating Permit (FESOP). The air permit addressing the potential for earlier gas generation was issued on November 13, 2000 and will be required to be in effect during the entire period of leachate recirculation and post closure period. As described above in section III.B., Expected Superior Environmental Performance, one result of adding liquids to a landfill is that landfill gases will be generated earlier and over a shorter period than in a conventional landfill.

As discussed above in section III.A., Description of the Project, an important element of the project is the information about bioreactor operation, alternative liner performance, waste decomposition efficiency, and potential environmental impacts. This rule requires Buncombe County to monitor certain parameters which are not required for conventional MSWLFs under 40 CFR part 258. Some of this data, for example, moisture content, will be required in order to assess the physical stability of the landfill unit. This rule also requires Buncombe County to report data obtained from the required monitoring to the State and EPA on an annual basis.

The FPA calls for the project to continue for 25 years in order to take into account the bioreactor process in all 10 cells of the facility. Therefore, today's rule provides that 40 CFR 258.41(a) be in effect for 25 years from the effective date of the rule.

Today's rule also includes an early termination provision in the event of noncompliance with the requirements of 40 CFR 258.41(a). The EPA Regional Administrator for Region 4 is authorized to issue a notice of termination, stating the reason for the decision to terminate the authority under 40 CFR 258.41(a). The Regional Administrator could terminate the rule with respect to all or part of the landfill cells for which the site-specific authority to add liquids is required (Cells 3-10). Termination would take effect 60 days from the date of the notice, unless the Regional Administrator determined, in writing, to rescind the termination. In the event of termination, all the applicable regulatory requirements of 40 CFR part 258 that would have applied to the Buncombe County facility in the absence of 40 CFR 258.41(a) would be applicable. However, the Regional Administrator could establish an interim compliance period if deemed necessary to complete the transition from bioreactor operation to conventional “dry tomb” operation.

This provision for early termination of the rule is not exclusive. In addition to termination for noncompliance, the FPA allows any party to the agreement to terminate the project before the end of 25 years, for any reason. In the event that EPA determines that this project and site-specific rule should be terminated for reasons other than noncompliance before the end of the 25 year period and that the site-specific rule should be rescinded, the Agency would withdraw this rule through a subsequent rulemaking. This will afford all interested persons and entities the opportunity to comment on the proposed early termination and withdrawal of regulatory authority, and the proposed termination would also include any proposal for an interim compliance period while Buncombe County returned to full compliance with the existing requirements of 40 CFR part 258.

In addition, new laws or regulations may become applicable during the project term which might render the project impractical, or might contain regulatory requirements that supersede this XL Project. Or, during the project duration, EPA may decide to change the federal rule allowing recirculation over alternative liners and the addition of outside bulk liquids for all Subtitle D landfills. In that event, the FPA and site-specific rule for this project would no longer be needed.

Under 5. U.S.C. 553(d), the rulemaking section of the Administrative Procedure Act, EPA is making this rule effective upon publication. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1), EPA is making this rule immediately effective because the rule relieves a restriction in that it allows Buncombe County to add to the landfill additional types of liquid waste beyond what is currently allowed under 40 CFR 258.28(a)(1) and (2). In addition, under 5. U.S.C. 553(d)(3), EPA finds good cause exists to make this rule effective immediately because Buncombe County is the only regulated entity affected by the rule, sought the conditional relief provided in this rule, and has had full notice of the rule. Making the rule immediately effective will allow Buncombe County to proceed sooner with the bioreactor project.

Because this rule affects only one facility, it is not a rule of general applicability and therefore not subject to OMB review and Executive Order 12866. In addition, OMB has agreed that review of site specific rules under Project XL is not necessary.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. , generally requires an agency to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and public 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. Only the definition of “small governmental jurisdiction” is relevant here. 5 U.S.C. 601(5) defines “small governmental jurisdiction” to mean governments of cities, counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special districts, with a population of less than fifty thousand. According to Buncombe County officials, the county population in 1990 exceeded 150,000; thus, Buncombe County does not qualify as “small governmental jurisdiction” within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. 601(5).

After considering the economic impacts of today's final rule on small entities, I certify that this action will not have an significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. This final rule will not impose any requirements on small entities because no small entities are subject to this rule.

This action does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The requirements of this rule do not apply to 10 or more entities, therefore the PRA does not apply.

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA generally must prepare a written statement, including cost benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with “Federal mandates” that may result in expenditures to State, local, and tribal governments in the aggregate or to the private sector of $100 million or more in any one year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative if the Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation of why that alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying affected small governments, enabling officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely input in the development of the EPA regulatory proposal with significant Federal mandates, and informing, educating, and advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements.

As discussed above, this rulemaking has limited application. It applies only to the Buncombe County Solid Waste Management Facility. If adopted, this rule will result in a cost savings for Buncombe County when compared with the costs it would have had to incur if required to adhere to the requirements contained in the current rule. As such, this rule does not contain a Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for state, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector in any one year. While this rule will have a unique affect for Buncombe County, the population of Buncombe County exceeds that which would qualify it as a “small government,” therefore, EPA is not required under section 203 of UMRA to develop a small government plan. However, EPA has worked with and continues to work with Buncombe County, affected citizens, and other stakeholders in seeking meaningful and timely input into the development of the Final Project Agreement and this rule. Thus, today's rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.

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

Executive Order 13045, entitled “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 in Executive Order 12886; 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 potentially effective and feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.

This rule is not subject to the Executive Order because it is not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and because the Agency does not have reason to believe the environmental health or safety risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to children. This rule does not involve decisions based on environmental health or safety risks because it is limited to modifying a regulatory construction standard for a municipal solid waste liner that is expected to result in a liner which performs at least as well as the liner design specified in the current regulations and for a lesser construction cost.

Executive Order 13132, entitled “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), 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 and 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.”

This rule does not have federalism implications. It will not have a substantial direct effect on States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of powers and responsibilities among various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132. This rulemaking will only affect one local governmental entity and state and will provide regulatory flexibility for each entity concerned. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this rule.

Executive Order 13175, entitled “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications.” “Policies that have tribal implications” is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have “substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal government and the Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal government and Indian tribes.”

This rule does not have tribal implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the relationship between the Federal government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal government and Indian tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175. EPA is currently unaware of any Indian tribes located in the vicinity of the landfill or Buncombe County. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule.

As noted in the proposed rule, Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (“NTTAA”), Public Law 104-113, requires that EPA use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (for example, material specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business practices) developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.

This rulemaking involves technical standards. EPA has decided to use existing voluntary consensus standards developed by the American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM). EPA is using ASTM D5261 and ASTM D2216-98 as standards for the geosynthetic liner specified in 40 CFR 258.41(a)(4)(iii). These standards assure the proper standards of production for geotextiles and geosynthetic clay liners addressed in today's rule. ASTM D5261 was approved on June 15, 1992. ASTM D2216-98 was approved in 1998. These standards are available from ASTM through their website, http://www.astm.org/, or by contacting ASTM at 100 Barr Harbor Drive, West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania, 19428-2959. The ASTM is a voluntary consensus standards-setting body under the NTTAA.

This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

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

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

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

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

• Enforce RCRA requirements and suspend or revoke permits; and

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

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

EPA did not publish a proposal before today's rule because we view this as a routine program change and do not expect comments that oppose this approval. We are providing an opportunity for public comment now. In addition to this rule, in the proposed rules section of today's Federal Register we are publishing a separate document that proposes to authorize the State program changes. If EPA receives comments which oppose this authorization, or portion(s) thereof, that document will serve as a proposal to authorize such changes.

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

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

Idaho initially received final authorization on March 26, 1990, effective April 9, 1990 (55 FR 11015) to implement the RCRA hazardous waste management program. We granted authorization for changes to their program on April 6, 1992, effective June 5, 1992 (57 FR 11580), June 11, 1992, effective August 10, 1992 (57 FR 24757), April 12, 1995, effective June 11, 1995 (60 FR 18549), and October 21, 1998, effective January 19, 1999 (63 FR 56086).

Through three codification actions dated December 6, 1990 (55 FR 50327), June 11, 1992 (57 FR 24757), and June 25, 1999 (64 FR 34180) the EPA has codified at 40 CFR part 272, subpart N all authorization actions for the State of Idaho RCRA program, which reflect non-HSWA and HSWA requirements promulgated as of July 1, 1996, with the exception of the Organic Air Emission Standards for Tanks, Surface Impoundments and Containers (subpart CC standards).

On May 1, 2001, Idaho submitted a final complete program revision application, seeking authorization of their changes in accordance with 40 CFR 271.21. We now make an immediate final decision, subject to receipt of written comments that oppose this action, that Idaho's hazardous waste program revision satisfies all of the requirements necessary to qualify for final authorization. Therefore, we grant Idaho final authorization for all delegable hazardous waste regulations promulgated as of July 1, 1998, as incorporated by reference in IDAPA 16.01.05.(002)-(016) and 16.01.05.997. 1

Any subsequent changes to the Federal program that occurred after July 1, 1998 are not part of Idaho's authorized RCRA program. EPA is not authorizing IDAPA 16.01.05.000; 16.01.05.001; 16.01.05.006.02; 16.01.05.015.02(a), (b); 16.01.05.(017)-(996); 16.01.05.998; and 16.01.05.999.

Idaho will issue permits for all the provisions for which it is authorized and will administer the permits it issues. EPA will continue to administer any RCRA hazardous waste permits or portions of permits which we issued prior to the effective date of this authorization until the timing and process for effective transfer to the State are mutually agreed upon. Until such time as formal transfer of the EPA permit responsibility to the State occurs, EPA and the State agree to coordinate the administration of permits in order to maintain consistency. EPA will continue to implement and issue permits for HSWA requirements for which Idaho is not yet authorized.

Idaho is not authorized to carry out its hazardous waste program in Indian country within the State. Therefore, this action has no effect on Indian country. EPA will continue to implement and administer the RCRA program in these lands.

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

The Office of Management and Budget has exempted this action from the requirements of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), and therefore this action is not subject to review by OMB. This action authorizes State requirements for the purpose of RCRA 3006 and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by State law. Accordingly, I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ). Because this action authorizes pre-existing requirements under State law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by State law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4). For the same reason, this action also does not significantly or uniquely affect the communities of Tribal governments, as specified by Executive Order 13084 (63 FR 27655, May 10, 1998). This action will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), because it merely authorizes State requirements as part of the State RCRA hazardous waste program without altering the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established by RCRA. This action also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant and it does not make decisions based on environmental health or safety risks.

Under RCRA 3006(b), EPA grants a State's application for authorization as long as the State meets the criteria required by RCRA. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a State authorization application, to require the use of any particular voluntary consensus standard in place of another standard that otherwise satisfies the requirements of RCRA. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. As required by section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in issuing this rule, EPA has taken the necessary steps to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize potential litigation, and provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct. EPA has complied with Executive Order 12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1988) by examining the takings implications of the rule in accordance with the “Attorney General's Supplemental Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk and Avoidance of Unanticipated Takings” issued under the executive order. This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ).

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq. , as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this document and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication in the Federal Register . A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register . This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This action will be effective November 20, 2001.

EPA announces the deletion of the Schuylkill Metals Corporation Superfund Site in Plant City, Hillsborough County, Florida from the NPL, which constitutes appendix B of 40 CFR part 300. EPA published a Notice of Intent to Delete the Schuylkill Metal Corporation Superfund Site from the NPL on June 12, 2001 in the Federal Register , (66 FR 31580). EPA received no comments on the proposed deletion; therefore, no responsiveness summary is necessary for this Notice of Deletion.

EPA identifies sites on the NPL that appear to present a significant risk to public health, welfare, or the environment. Sites on the NPL may be the subject to remedial actions financed by the Hazardous Substances Superfund Response Trust Fund (Fund). Pursuant to 40 CFR 300.425(e)(3) of the NCP, any site deleted from the NPL remains eligible for Fund-financed Remedial Actions if conditions at the site warrant such action. Deletion of a site from the NPL does not affect the responsible party liability or impede agency efforts to recover costs associated with response efforts.

The emergency interim rule that was published July 17, 2001 (66 FR 37167), implements Steller sea lion protection measures and announces final 2001 harvest specifications for the groundfish fisheries of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Area and the Gulf of Alaska. As published, the final regulations contain errors that need to be corrected in Tables 7 and 27 to the preamble and in Tables 21 through 24 to 50 CFR part 679 by adding footnote reference numbers and footnotes.

Table 7 to the preamble inadvertently omitted a footnote. Table 27 to the preamble, which lists the final 2001 GOA groundfish harvest limitations (sideboards), inadvertently omitted entries for pollock C Season and D Season. That portion of Table 27 is reprinted in this document.

Tables 21 through 24 to 50 CFR part 679 are corrected by this document and are reprinted in their entirety.

Accordingly, in the emergency interim rule published on July 17, 2001 (66 FR 37167), FR Doc. 01-17850, is corrected as follows:

1. In Table 7 to the preamble, page 37173:

a. In the first column under the fourth entry from the top, “Hook-and-line Catcher Processors (≥ 60 ft LOA)” add a footnote reference number “3” to read: “Hook-and-line Catcher Processors (≥ 60 ft LOA) 3 ”, and

b. Add the footnote at the end of Table 7 to read as follows: “ 3 Harvest of Pacific cod made by catcher processors less than 60 ft LOA using hook-and-line gear will accrue to the 80 percent allocation under § 679.20(a)(7)(i)(C)( 1 )( i ) when the other non-trawl halibut mortality bycatch allowance becomes available on August 1, 2001.”

2. In Table 27 to the preamble, page 37176:

a. Correct the spelling of the second entry “Pacific code” to read: “Pacific cod”.

b. The following entries, which were inadvertently omitted from “Pollock”, “C Season (W/C areas only)” are added in this document. This portion of Table 27 should be inserted between the entries “Pollock” and “Pacific cod”: