69720 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 224 / Monday, November 20, 2000 / Proposed Rules

Restatement of Requirements of AD 98–25–

52

Airplane Flight Manual (AFM) Revisions

(a) Within 7 days after December 29, 1998

(the effective date of AD 98–25–52,

amendment 39–10957), revise the

Limitations Section of the FAA-approved

AFM to include the following procedures.

This may be accomplished by inserting a

copy of this AD into the AFM.

‘‘For Model 747–400 series airplanes

equipped with a horizontal stabilizer tank,

operation of the horizontal stabilizer tank

transfer pumps is prohibited in flight.

A tripped circuit breaker of a center wing

tank override/jettison pump or a tripped

circuit breaker of a horizontal stabilizer tank

transfer pump must not be reset until the

associated fuel pump has been inspected for

damage and any damage has been repaired.

The center wing tank override/jettison

pumps must be operated in accordance with

either option 1 or option 2 below.

Option 1

If the center wing tank override/jettison

pumps are required for flight, the center tank

must contain a minimum of 17,000 pounds

(7,700 kilograms) at engine start. The fuel

quantity indicating system of the center wing

tank must be operative to dispatch with

center wing tank fuel intended for use in the

flight.

Select both center wing tank override/

jettison pump switches off at or before the

fuel quantity of the center wing tank reaches

7,000 pounds (3,200 kilograms). Note: On

Model 747–400 series airplanes, the ‘‘FUEL

OVRD CTR L’’ and ‘‘FUEL OVRD CTR R’’

engine indication and crew alerting system

(EICAS) messages will be displayed with the

switches off.

The center wing tank override/jettison

pumps may be operated with less than 7,000

pounds of fuel in the center wing tank if

required to address an emergency (such as

fuel jettison or low fuel quantity).

Option 2

If the center wing tank override/jettison

pumps are required for flight, the center tank

must contain a minimum of 50,000 pounds

(22,700 kilograms) at engine start. The fuel

quantity indicating system of the center wing

tank must be operative to dispatch with

center wing tank fuel intended for use in the

flight.

Select both center wing tank override/

jettison pump switches off at or before center

wing tank fuel quantity reaches 3,000 pounds

(1,400 kilograms).

The center wing tank override/jettison

pumps may be operated with less than 3,000

pounds of fuel in the center wing tank if

required to address an emergency (such as

fuel jettison or low fuel quantity).’’

New Requirements of This AD

Determination of Correct Thrust Washer

(b) For airplanes having center wing fuel

tank override/jettison pumps and, if

installed, horizontal stabilizer tank transfer

pumps, and all pumps meet the criteria

specified in paragraph (b)(1), (b)(2), or (b)(3)

of this AD (i.e., the correct thrust washer is

installed), no further action is required by

this AD.

(1) Verify the serial number on the pump

data plate. The first four digits of the pump

serial number represent the month and year

of manufacture (e.g., 0697 indicates a pump

manufactured in June 1997). If the serial

number date code indicates that the pump

was manufactured prior to July 1996, or after

November 1998, and if the operator can

determine that the pump was not overhauled

or repaired after July 31, 1996, then the pump

has the correct thrust washer installed. If the

pump was overhauled or repaired after July

31, 1996, and the operator has maintenance/

overhaul records showing that the thrust

washer was not replaced, or was replaced

with the correct thrust washer, as specified

in paragraph (c) of this AD, then the pump

has the correct thrust washer installed.

(2) For airplanes having a date of

manufacture prior to July 1996, if the

operator can determine that the pump was

not overhauled or repaired after July 31,

1996; and the pump was not replaced with

a new pump manufactured between July

1996 and November 1998, then the pump has

the correct thrust washer installed. If the

pump was overhauled or repaired after July

31, 1996, and the operator has maintenance/

overhaul records showing that the thrust

washer was not replaced, or was replaced

with the correct thrust washer, as specified

in paragraph (c) of this AD, then the pump

has the correct thrust washer installed.

(3) For airplanes having pumps installed

containing a serial number on the pump data

plate with the suffix ‘‘P,’’ the pump has the

correct thrust washer installed.

Terminating Action

(c) For airplanes that do not meet the

requirements specified in paragraph (b)(1),

(b)(2), or (b)(3) of this AD; or if the serial

number on the pump data plate of any fuel

pump cannot be determined: Within 24

months after the effective date of this AD,

replace the applicable center wing fuel tank

override/jettison pumps and horizontal

stabilizer tank transfer pumps with Crane

Hydro-Aire fuel pumps having a thrust

washer, part number 60–06561, with a date

code of 9848 (‘‘98’’ indicates the year 1998,

and ‘‘48’’ indicates the 48th week in 1998),

or higher, etched on the outside diameter of

the thrust washer. Accomplishment of this

paragraph terminates the requirements of

paragraph (a) of this AD.

Alternative Methods of Compliance

(d)(1) An alternative method of compliance

(AMOC) or adjustment of the compliance

time that provides an acceptable level of

safety may be used if approved by the

Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office

(ACO), FAA. Operators shall submit their

requests through an appropriate FAA

Principal Operations Inspector or Principal

Maintenance Inspector, as applicable, who

may add comments and then send it to the

Manager, Seattle ACO.

(2) With the exception of FAA AMOC letter

to Boeing (No. 98–140–437, dated December

9, 1998), AMOC’s approved previously in

accordance with AD 98–25–52, amendment

39–10957, are approved as alternative

methods of compliance with paragraph (a) of

this AD.

Note 2: Information concerning the

existence of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this AD, if any, may be

obtained from the Seattle ACO.

Special Flight Permits

(e) Special flight permits may be issued in

accordance with sections 21.197 and 21.199

of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR

21.197 and 21.199) to operate the airplane to

a location where the requirements of this AD

can be accomplished.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on

November 13, 2000.

Donald L. Riggin,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 00–29498 Filed 11–17–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[TX–114–2–7480; FRL–6904–2]

Approval and Promulgation of Air

Quality State Implementation Plans

(SIP); Texas: Control of Gasoline

Volatility

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: We, the EPA, propose to fully

approve a State Implementation Plan

(SIP) revision submitted by the State of

Texas establishing a low-Reid Vapor

Pressure (RVP) fuel requirement for

gasoline distributed in 95 counties in

the eastern and central parts of Texas.

Texas developed this fuel requirement

to reduce emissions of volatile organic

compounds (VOC) as part of the State’s

strategy to achieve the National

Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS)

for ozone in the Houston and DallasFort Worth nonattainment areas. We are

approving Texas’ fuel requirements into

the SIP because we found that the fuel

requirement is in accordance with the

requirements of the Clean Air Act (the

Act) as amended in 1990 and is

necessary for these nonattainment areas

to achieve the ozone NAAQS.

DATES: Comments should be received on

or before December 20, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Written comments on this

action should be addressed to Mr.

Thomas H. Diggs, Chief, Air Planning

Section, at the EPA Regional Office

listed below. Copies of the documents

relevant to this action are available for

public inspection during normal

business hours at the following

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 224 / Monday, November 20, 2000 / Proposed Rules 69721

locations. Environmental Protection

Agency, Region 6, Air Planning Section

(6PD–L), 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700,

Dallas, Texas 75202–2733. Texas

Natural Resource Conservation

Commission, 12100 Park 35 Circle,

Austin, Texas 78711–3087. Persons

interested in examining these

documents should make an

appointment with the appropriate office

at least 24 hours before the visiting day.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sandra Rennie, Air Planning Section

(6PD–L), EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross

Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202–2733,

telephone (214) 665–7214.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

What Does the State’s Low-RVP

Regulation Include?

The State’s low-RVP regulation

requires that gasoline sold within the 95

attainment counties listed in the

regulations have a maximum RVP of 7.8

psi. The regulations apply to gasoline

sold at gasoline dispensing facilities

between June 1 and October 1 of each

year, and between May 1 and October 1

of each year for bulk plants, gasoline

terminals and gasoline storage vessels.

The 95 central and eastern Texas

counties affected by these rules are

Anderson, Angelina, Aransas, Atascosa,

Austin, Bastrop, Bee, Bell, Bexar,

Bosque, Bowie, Brazos, Burleson,

Caldwell, Calhoun, Camp, Cass,

Cherokee, Colorado, Comal, Cooke,

Coryell, De Witt, Delta, Ellis, Falls,

Fannin, Fayette, Franklin, Freestone,

Goliad, Gonzales, Grayson, Gregg,

Grimes, Guadalupe, Harrison, Hays,

Henderson, Hill, Hood, Hopkins,

Houston, Hunt, Jackson, Jasper,

Johnson, Karnes, Kaufman, Lamar,

Lavaca, Lee, Leon, Limestone, Live Oak,

Madison, Marion, Matagorda,

McLennan, Milam, Morris,

Nacogdoches, Navarro, Newton, Nueces,

Panola, Parker, Polk, Rains, Red River,

Refugio, Robertson, Rockwall, Rusk,

Sabine, San Jacinto, San Patricio, San

Augustine, Shelby, Smith, Somervell,

Titus, Travis, Trinity, Tyler, Upshur,

Van Zandt, Victoria, Walker,

Washington, Wharton, Williamson,

Wilson, Wise, and Wood Counties.

How Does the Low-RVP Proposal Relate

to Other SIP Activities in the State?

Current planning efforts by the State

are directed at three nonattainment

areas, Houston-Galveston (HGA), DallasFort Worth (DFW), and Beaumont-Port

Arthur (BPA). The attainment

demonstration SIPs for two of these

areas rely upon the low-RVP fuel to

make their demonstrations. The SIPs

are:

(1) The Dallas Attainment

Demonstration, adopted on April 19,

2000, and submitted on April 25, 2000.

(2) The Houston Attainment

Demonstration, proposed by the State

on August 9, 2000. It will be submitted

to EPA no later than December 2000.

Texas has adopted a Regional SIP to

complement these attainment

demonstration SIPs for Houston and

Dallas, and provide additional emission

reductions necessary for these areas to

attain the ozone NAAQS. The Texas

Regional SIP includes a list of controls

that apply in the attainment areas

surrounding these nonattainment areas.

Specifically, the Texas Regional SIP

includes three control programs to

reduce emissions of nitrogen oxides

(NOX) and VOC: a regional low-RVP fuel

program (the subject of this action), a

stationary source program, and a Stage

I vapor recovery program.

What Is Proposed?

We are proposing to approve a SIP

revision establishing a low-RVP fuel

requirement for gasoline sold in the 95

eastern and central counties of Texas.

The State’s low-RVP program will only

apply in the listed attainment counties

and will not apply in the designated

nonattainment counties in the HGA,

DFW, or BPA areas because these areas

are already subject to federal fuel

controls that are at least as stringent.

What Are the Clean Air Act

Requirements?

This action is pursuant to section 110

of the Act. The approval of the State’s

fuel control measure must also meet the

requirements of section 211(c)(4)(C).

Under this section, we may approve a

state fuel control into a SIP if we find

that the control is ‘‘necessary’’ to

achieve a NAAQS.

The EPA’s August 21, 1997, Guidance

on Use of Opt-in to RFG and Low-RVP

Requirements in Ozone SIPs gives

further guidance on what EPA is likely

to consider in making a finding of

necessity. The guidance sets out four

issues to be analyzed:

1. The quantity of emissions

reductions needed to achieve the

NAAQS;

2. Other possible control measures

and the reductions each would achieve;

3. The explanation for rejecting

alternatives as unreasonable or

impracticable; and

4. A demonstration that reductions

are needed even after implementation of

reasonable and practicable alternatives,

and that the fuel control will provide

some or all or the needed reductions.

In this notice of proposed rulemaking

and accompanying Technical Support

Document (TSD), we address these

issues in a slightly different fashion.

Though somewhat differently stated, the

4 items listed for consideration in the

guidance are covered by the review

done for this submittal. First, we

explain the way in which the low-RVP

program will help the nonattainment

areas achieve the NAAQS. This serves

the same purpose as the first item listed

in the Guidance. Though we do not

discuss the specific amount of

reductions needed, this is the basis for

satisfying the necessity showing

required by the Clean Air Act. Second,

we review the reasonableness and

practicability of non-fuel control

alternatives. This satisfies the second

and third items listed in the Guidance

and meets the specific requirements of

section 211(c)(4)(C). Finally, we show

that with implementation of all

reasonable and practicable control

measures and the regional fuel controls,

the Houston and Dallas nonattainment

areas may be able to just attain the

ozone NAAQS but the ozone design

value for these areas is expected to

continue to exceed the one hour

standard for ozone. This meets item

number 4 in the Guidance and rounds

off the demonstration that the measure

is necessary.

What Did the State Submit?

The State submitted this revision to

the SIP by letter from the Governor

dated August 16, 1999. This was

followed by two technical supplements

dated October 13, 1999, and February

11, 2000. The SIP submittal contains

Chapter 114, Texas Administrative Code

(TAC), as adopted on June 30, 1999, and

April 19, 2000, a request for a waiver

from federal preemption pursuant to

section 211(c)(4)(C) of the Act, and

Texas laws providing the authority for

the State to adopt and implement

revisions to the SIP.

Texas submitted data and analyses to

support a finding under section

211(c)(4)(C) that the State’s low-RVP

requirement is necessary for the DFW

and HGA nonattainment areas to

achieve the ozone NAAQS. The State

has (1) identified the reduction in

modeled peak values needed to achieve

attainment of the ozone NAAQS; (2)

identified all other reasonable and

practical control measures; (3) shown

that even with the implementation of all

reasonable and practicable control

measures, the State would need

additional emissions reductions for

these nonattainment areas to meet the

ozone NAAQS (124 ppb) on a timely

basis; and (4) demonstrated that the

low-RVP requirement would contribute

to those additional reductions.

69722 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 224 / Monday, November 20, 2000 / Proposed Rules

Why Is the State Submitting this SIP for

Low-RVP Gasoline in Attainment Areas

of Texas?

Lowering the RVP in gasoline reduces

VOC emissions. This is primarily

through reducing evaporative losses

from vehicle fuel tanks, lines, and

carburetors as well as losses from

gasoline storage and transfer facilities.

To a lesser degree there is also a

reduction in the VOCs in vehicle

exhaust. Without the proposed fuel

controls, the 95-county area subject to

the proposed fuel control would receive

gasoline with an RVP of up to 9.0 psi

during the summer months. The State,

based on modeling results using EPA’s

complex model, estimates that the

proposed regional low-RVP program

will reduce VOC emissions from

automobiles by at least 14%.

Ozone and the precursor pollutants

that cause ozone can be transported into

an area from pollution sources hundreds

of miles upwind. In order to address

ozone pollution, EPA has traditionally

focused its control strategies on

reducing emissions within the

nonattainment areas. EPA and states,

however, have become increasingly

aware of the contribution to ozone

nonattainment from upwind sources of

ozone and its precursors. Modeling and

other analyses support the conclusion

that lowering VOC emissions through

Texas’ regional low-RVP program will

benefit the DFW and HGA

nonattainment areas through one or

more of three mechanisms: reducing

ozone transport, reducing VOC

transport, and reducing the transport of

higher RVP gasoline into the

nonattainment areas in commuters’

vehicles. Each of these mechanisms is

discussed in more detail in the TSD for

this proposal.

The analysis in the TSD suggests that

the low-RVP control in various counties

will benefit the nonattainment areas in

different ways. For some counties the

primary benefit will be the reduction of

ozone transport from those counties to

the nonattainment counties, while in

others the primary benefit will be a

reduction in the emissions from

commuters’ vehicles. A single RVP

control throughout the 95-county area

captures all the attainment counties

contributing to nonattainment in the

DFW and HGA areas, and avoids a

patchwork of fuel controls. We therefore

agree with the State that it is reasonable

to adopt a uniform program throughout

the 95-county area to allow fuel

supplies to be co-mingled in the

pipeline, promote trading, and simplify

tracking compliance.

Are There Any Reasonable and

Practicable Alternatives to the Regional

Low-RVP Program?

The State conducted thorough

analyses of control measures available

to benefit the DFW and HGA

nonattainment areas. The HGA and

DFW SIPs contain long lists of

stationary source controls that are or

will be required, expansion and

upgrading of the vehicle inspection and

maintenance programs, and a host of

other measures that must be

implemented including a ban on the use

of residential lawn and garden

equipment before noon during the

summer in the HGA nonattainment area

and delay of construction activities

during daylight savings time in both

HGA and DFW nonattainment areas.

The attainment SIPs use a weight-ofevidence (WOE) analysis to show that

implementation of all reasonable and

practicable controls, including the

regional low-RVP program, should just

bring the DFW area into attainment.

Attainment demonstration modeling for

all nonattainment areas suggests that

even with the implementation of all

reasonable and practicable controls, the

modeled peak value for the areas may

exceed the 1-hour ozone standard and

that additional reductions are necessary

to achieve the standard.

The Metropolitan Planning

Organizations in both the DFW and

HGA areas examined several hundred

options for potential reductions in each

nonattainment area. At this point in

time, other non-fuel reductions are

either non-existent or considered

impracticable. Texas also submitted a

long list of non-fuel measures that it

considered for implementation outside

the nonattainment areas. These

measures were also found by the State

to be unreasonable or impracticable

based primarily on cost and the time

required to implement the measures.

Based on the State’s analysis of the

cost-effectiveness and the time required

to implement these measures, we agree

that there are no reasonable or

practicable non-fuel control measures

available to the State to achieve the

ozone NAAQS. Compared to all

measures outlined in the TSD, low-RVP

fuel is the most reasonable and

practicable measure available to reduce

background ozone levels and curtail the

transport of ozone and precursors into

the nonattainment areas. The State

estimates that the cost for implementing

the low-RVP fuel will be less than 0.3

cents per gallon. In addition, the

benefits of the low-RVP program will be

felt immediately upon implementation.

The TSD includes a detailed review of

the controls that the State has already

proposed or adopted and the

reasonableness and practicability of the

non-fuel alternatives that are still

available. A more complete description

of the State’s analysis of the measures

considered for the attainment area may

also be found in the October 13, 1999

technical supplement submitted by the

State.

Is the Regional Low-RVP Fuel Control

Program Necessary for Achieving the

NAAQS?

The 1996 document, Guidance on

Using Modeled Results to Demonstrate

Attainment of the Ozone NAAQS,

presents two approaches to

demonstrating attainment, a statistical

approach and a deterministic approach.

For the purposes of the attainment

demonstrations submitted for the DFW,

and proposed for the HGA

nonattainment areas, the deterministic

approach was used. Though EPA’s

review is far from complete, CAMx

modeling for both attainment

demonstrations appears to predict that

even with implementation of all

reasonable and practicable measures,

including the regional low-RVP control,

the design values for the nonattainment

areas will still be above the 1-hour

ozone standard. It should be noted that

EPA is working with the State to bring

the areas into attainment. EPA will

address the design value modeling and

attainment demonstration for the

various areas in separate actions to be

published at future dates.

Preliminary review of attainment

demonstration modeling submitted on

April 25, 2000, for DFW appears to

indicate that with all measures taken

into account in the model, including the

regional low-RVP program, the modeled

peak value for the DFW area remains

very close to or in excess of the NAAQS.

Therefore, it is apparent that every ton

of ozone reduction is necessary to

achieve the 1-hour standard including

those that result from the other

measures adopted and proposed for the

95 attainment counties.

The Houston modeling submitted in

November, 1999, showed, after

modeling extensive controls including

the low-RVP program, an estimated

shortfall of 118 tpd of NOX. The

shortfall of NOX represents additional

reductions that the model would require

to show a modeled peak ozone value of

124 ppb. While modeling submitted in

November, 1999, indicated only a very

slight benefit from VOC controls, more

recent models which support the

proposed attainment demonstration SIP

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 224 / Monday, November 20, 2000 / Proposed Rules 69723

for HGA indicate a clear need for VOC

reductions.

Further, Texas performed regional

modeling (submitted in April 2000)

which demonstrated that the VOC

reductions provided by the regional

low-RVP control are necessary to reduce

ozone in the nonattainment areas. The

models predicted that a mixture of NOX

and VOC controls, including the

regional low-RVP control, would reduce

modeled peak values. Texas proposed

another revision to the Houston SIP on

August 9, 2000. The new proposal with

revised emission estimates has an

estimated NOX shortfall of only 78 tpd.

As mentioned above, the modeling in

the new proposal shows a greater

sensitivity to VOC controls than

previous modeling studies.

Does the State Submittal Meet the SIP

Approval Requirements Under Section

110?

The Texas Regional SIP submittal,

including the regional low-RVP fuel

control program, meets the requirements

outlined in section 110. The Texas rules

for this SIP include adequate

enforceability measures.

Texas submitted the fuel portion of

the Texas Regional SIP under a

Governor’s letter dated August 16, 1999.

The submittal contains the appropriate

hearing actions, a preamble, and the

regional low-RVP rules. The State also

submitted technical supplements dated

October 13, 1999, and February 11,

2000, that provided data on commuter

patterns and an analysis of measures

considered for the attainment area. The

SIP was deemed complete by operation

of law on February 16, 2000.

On February 9, 2000, the State

proposed revisions to the fuel rules

previously adopted in 30 TAC 114.

Revisions included strengthening the

enforcement provisions. The State

adopted these rules on April 5, 2000.

Revised chapter 114 rules were

submitted under a Governor’s letter

dated April 25, 2000. The revisions

strengthened enforcement provisions

that EPA requested during the public

comment period for the original

submittal.

How Will the Program Be Enforced?

The Texas Natural Resource

Conservation Commission will

implement the low-RVP rule. Producers,

importers, terminals, pipelines,

truckers, rail carriers, and retail

dispensing outlets are subject to

provisions of this rule. Registration,

recordkeeping, reporting, and

certification requirements are included.

We find that these rules are an

acceptable approach for enforcing the

low-RVP gasoline program.

Proposed Action By EPA

Texas’ regional low-RVP program will

provide needed VOC and ozone

reductions for the DFW and HGA ozone

nonattainment areas. Without the

program, the modeled peak ozone

values for the nonattainment areas will

continue to exceed the 1-hour ozone

standard. The State demonstrated that

the regional low-RVP fuel control

program is necessary to help the DFW

and HGA nonattainment areas achieve

the 1-hour ozone standard and that no

other reasonable or practicable

alternatives remain that would bring

about timely attainment. We are

proposing to approve the Texas

Regional Low-RVP Gasoline Program

into the Texas SIP under § 110(k)(3) of

the CAA as meeting the requirements of

§ 110(a) and Part D. We are also

proposing to find that this SIP revision

meets the requirements of section

211(c)(4)(C) of the Act.

Nothing in this action should be

construed as permitting or allowing or

establishing a precedent for any future

implementation plan. Each request for

revision to the State Implementation

Plan shall be considered separately in

light of specific technical, economic,

and environmental factors and in

relation to relevant statutory and

regulatory requirements.

Administrative Requirements

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR

51735, October 4, 1993), this proposed

action is not a ‘‘significant regulatory

action’’ and therefore is not subject to

review by the Office of Management and

Budget. This proposed action merely

approves state law as meeting federal

requirements and imposes no additional

requirements beyond those imposed by

state law. Accordingly, the Regional

Administrator certifies that this

proposed 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 proposes to

approve 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 proposed rule 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 proposed

rule will not have substantial direct

effects on the States, on the relationship

between the national government and

the States, or on the distribution of

power and responsibilities among the

various levels of government, as

specified in Executive Order 13132 (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 proposed 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 proposed 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.).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Carbon monoxide,

Hydrocarbons, Intergovernmental

relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,

Particulate matter, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur

oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

69724 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 224 / Monday, November 20, 2000 / Proposed Rules

Dated: November 3, 2000.

Myron O. Knudson,

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 6.

[FR Doc. 00–29645 Filed 11–17–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 73

[DA 00–2485; MM Docket No. 00–226; RM–

10001.

Radio Broadcasting Services (Fair

Bluff, North Carolina, Litchfield Beach,

Johnsonville and Olanta, South

Carolina)

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The Commission, at the

request of joint petitioners Atlantic

Broadcasting Co., Inc., permittee of

Station WSIM, Channel 287C3, Fair

Bluff, North Carolina, and The

Waccamaw Neck Broadcasting

Company, licensee of Station WPDT,

286A, Johnsonville, South Carolina,

seeks comment on a petition for rule

making proposing the reallotment of

Channel 287C3 from Fair Bluff, North

Carolina, to Litchfield Beach, South

Carolina, as the community’s first local

aural transmission service, and the

reallotment of Channel 286A from

Johnsonville, South Carolina, to Olanta,

South Carolina, as the community’s first

local aural transmission service.

Channel 287C3 can be allotted to

Litchfield Beach in compliance with the

Commission’s minimum distance

separation requirements, with respect to

domestic allotments, at petitioners’

requested site, 0.4 kilometers (0.3 miles)

South, at coordinates 33–27–47 NL and

79–06–05 WL. Channel 286A can be

allotted to Olanta in compliance with

the Commission’s minimum distance

separation requirements, with respect to

domestic allotments, at petitioner’s

requested site, 4.9 kilometers (3.0 miles)

East, at coordinates 33–55–38 NL and

79–52–41 WL. See Supplementary

Information.

DATES: Comments must be filed on or

before December 26, 2000, and reply

comments on or before January 10,

2001.

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications

Commission, 445 12th Street, S.W.,

Room TW–A325, Washington, D.C.

20554. In addition to filing comments

with the FCC, interested parties in MM

Docket No. 00–215 should serve

petitioner, or its counsel or consultant,

as follows: Gary S. Smithwick,

Smithwick & Belendiuk, P.C., 1990 M

Street, N.W., Suite 510,1990 M Street,

N.W., Suite 510 Washington, D.C.

20036, (Counsel to Atlantic

Broadcasting Co. Inc.), Stephen T.

Yelverton, Yelverton Law Firm, 601

Pennsylvania Ave., N.W., Washington,

DC 20004 (Counsel to Waccamaw Neck

Broadcasting Company).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Victoria M. McCauley, Mass Media

Bureau, (202) 418–2180.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a

synopsis of the Commission’s Notice of

Proposed Rule Making, Docket No. 00–

226, adopted October 25, 2000, and

released November 3, 2000. The full text

of this Commission decision is available

for inspection and copying during

normal business hours in the FCC

Reference Center (Room 239), 445 12th

Street, SW, Washington, DC. The

complete text of this decision may also

be purchased from the Commission’s

copy contractor, International

Transcription Services, Inc., (202) 857–

3800, 1231 20th Street, NW,

Washington, DC 20036.

Petitioners are requested to provide

further information to establish that

Litchfield Beach and Olanta are

communities for allotment purposes.

They are also asked to provide

information on any public interest

benefit other than provision of a first

local transmission service which would

justify the grant of the reallotment of

Channel 286A from Johnsonville to

Olanta, as it would result in the removal

of the sole local transmission service at

Johnsonville.

Provisions of the Regulatory

Flexibility Act of 1980 do not apply to

this proceeding. Members of the public

should note that from the time a Notice

of Proposed Rule Making is issued until

the matter is no longer subject to

Commission consideration or court

review, all ex parte contacts are

prohibited in Commission proceedings,

such as this one, which involve channel

allotments. See 47 CFR 1.1204(b) for

rules governing permissible ex parte

contact.

For information regarding proper

filing procedures for comments, see 47

CFR 1.415 and 1.420.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73

Radio broadcasting.

For the reasons discussed in the

preamble, the Federal Communications

Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR

part 73 as follows:

PART 73—RADIO BROADCAST

SERVICES

1. The authority citation for part 73

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 47 U.S.C 154, 303, 334 and 336.

§ 73.202 [Amended]

2. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FM

Allotments under North Carolina is

amended by removing Fair Bluff,

Channel 287C3.

3. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FM

Allotments under South Carolina, is

amended by removing Johnsonville,

Channel 286A and adding Litchfield

Beach, Channel 287C3, and Olanta,

Channel 286A.

Federal Communications Commission.

John A. Karousos,

Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules

Division, Mass Media Bureau.

[FR Doc. 00–29626 Filed 11–17–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–U

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 73

[DA 00–2482; MM Docket No. 00–222, RM–

10002; MM Docket No. 00–223, RM–10003;

MM Docket No. 00–224, RM–10004; MM

Docket No. 00–225, RM–10005]

Radio Broadcasting Services; North

English, IA; Pendleton, SC; Hamilton,

TX; Munday, TX

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: This document proposes four

new allotments to North English, IA;

Pendleton, SC; Hamilton, TX; and

Munday, TX. The Commission requests

comments on a petition filed by IowaKeokuk Radio (Russell Johnson, sole

proprietor) proposing the allotment of

Channel 246A at North English, Iowa, as

the community’s first local aural

transmission service. Channel 246A can

be allotted to North English in

compliance with the Commission’s

minimum distance separation

requirements with a site restriction of

7.7 kilometers (4.8 miles) southwest of

city reference coordinates. The

coordinates for Channel 246A at North

English are 41–27–15 North Latitude

and 92–07–21 West Longitude. See

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

DATES: Comments must be filed on or

before December 26, 2000, and reply

comments on or before January 10,

2000.

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications

Commission, Washington, DC 20554. In