Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 16, 2001 / Proposed Rules 27047

PART 62—EXCHANGE VISITOR

PROGRAM

1. The Authority citation for Part 62

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(J), 1182,

1184, 1258; 22 U.S.C. 1431–1442, 2451–2460;

Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act

of 1998, Pub. L. 105–277, 112 Stat. 2681 et

seq.; Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1977, 3

CFR, 1977 Comp. p. 200; E.O. 12048 of

March 27, 1978; 3 CFR, 1978 Comp. p. 168.

2. Section 62.31 is amended by

revising paragraphs (a), (c)(1) through

(c)(3), (e) introductory text, (e)(3) and

(e)(5), (j), and (k) to read as follows:

§ 62.31 Au pairs.

(a) Introduction. This section governs

Department of State-designated

exchange visitor programs under which

foreign nationals are afforded the

opportunity to live with an American

host family and participate directly in

the home life of the host family. All au

pair participants provide child care

services to the host family and attend a

U.S. post-secondary educational

institution. Au pair participants provide

up to forty-five hours of child care

services per week and pursue not less

than six semester hours of academic

credit or its equivalent during their year

of program participation. Au pairs

participating in the EduCare program

provide up to thirty hours of child care

services per week and pursue not less

than twelve semester hours of academic

credit or its equivalent during their year

of program participation.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(1) Limit the participation of foreign

nationals in such programs to not more

than one year;

(2) Limit the number of hours an

EduCare au pair participant is obligated

to provide child care services to not

more than 10 hours per day or more

than 30 hours per week and limit the

number of hours all other au pair

participants are obligated to provide

child care services to not more than 10

hours per day or more than 45 hours per

week;

(3) Require that EduCare au pair

participants register and attend classes

offered by an accredited U.S. postsecondary institution for not less than

twelve semester hours of academic

credit or its equivalent and that all other

au pair participants register and attend

classes offered by an accredited U.S.

post-secondary institution for not less

than six semester hours of academic

credit or its equivalent;

* * * * *

(e) Au pair placement. Sponsors shall

secure, prior to the au pair’s departure

from the home country, a host family

placement for each participant.

Sponsors shall not:

* * * * *

(3) Place an au pair with a host family

having children under the age of two,

unless the au pair has at least 200 hours

of documented infant child care

experience. An au pair participating in

the EduCare program shall not be placed

with a family having pre-school

children in the home unless alternative

full-time arrangements for the

supervision of such pre-school children

are in place;

* * * * *

(5) Place an au pair with a host family

unless a written agreement between the

au pair and the host family detailing the

au pair’s obligation to provide child care

has been signed by both the au pair and

the host family prior to the au pair’s

departure from his or her home country.

Such agreement shall clearly state

whether the au pair is an EduCare

program participant or not. Such

agreement shall not limit the obligation

to provide child care services to not

more than 10 hours per day or more

than 45 hours per week unless the au

pair is an EduCare participant. Such

agreement shall limit the obligation of

an EduCare participant to provide child

care service to not more than 10 hours

per day or more than 30 hours per week.

* * * * *

(j) Wages and hours. Sponsors shall

require that au pair participants:

(1) Are compensated at a weekly rate

based upon 45 hours of child care

services per week and paid in

conformance with the requirements of

the Fair Labor Standards Act as

interpreted and implemented by the

United Stated Department of Labor.

EduCare participants shall be

compensated at a weekly rate that is

75% of the weekly rate paid to nonEduCare participants;

(2) Do not provide more than 10 hours

of child care per day, or more than 45

hours of child care in any one-week.

EduCare participants may not provide

more than 10 hours of child care per day

or more than 30 hours of child care in

any one week;

(3) Receive a minimum of one and

one half days off per week in addition

to one complete weekend off each

month; and

(4) Receive two weeks of paid

vacation.

(k) Educational component. Sponsors

shall require that during their period of

program participation, all EduCare au

pair participants are enrolled in an

accredited U.S. post-secondary

institution for not less than twelve

semester hours of academic credit or its

equivalent and that all other au pair

participants are enrolled in an

accredited U.S. post-secondary

institution for not less than six semester

hours of academic credit or its

equivalent. As a condition of program

participation, host family participants

must agree to facilitate the enrollment

and attendance of the au pair in an

accredited U.S. post-secondary

institution and to pay the cost of such

academic course work in an amount not

to exceed $1,000 for EduCare au pair

participants and in an amount not to

exceed $500 for all other au pair

participants.

* * * * *

Dated: March 23, 2001.

Helena Kane Finn,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Educational

and Cultural Affairs, Department of State.

[FR Doc. 01–12375 Filed 5–15–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4710–05–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[AL–057–200105; FRL–6980–5]

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans: Alabama:

Nitrogen Oxides Budget and

Allowance Trading Program

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve

a State Implementation Plan (SIP)

revision submitted by the State of

Alabama on March 12, 2001. This

revision responds to the EPA’s

regulation entitled, ‘‘Finding of

Significant Contribution and

Rulemaking for Certain States in the

Ozone Transport Assessment Group

Region for Purposes of Reducing

Regional Transport of Ozone,’’

otherwise known as the ‘‘NOX SIP Call.’’

This revision establishes and requires a

nitrogen oxides (NOX) allowance trading

program for large electric generating and

industrial units, and reductions for

cement kilns, beginning in 2004. The

intended effect of this SIP revision is to

reduce emissions of NOX in order to

help attain the national ambient air

quality standard for ozone. EPA is

proposing to approve Alabama’s NOX

Reduction and Trading Program because

it meets the requirements of the Phase

I NOX SIP Call that will significantly

reduce ozone transport in the eastern

United States. EPA has deemed the

27048 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 16, 2001 / Proposed Rules

submittal is administratively and

technically complete, and a letter of

completeness was sent to Alabama

Department of Environmental

Management (ADEM) on April 26, 2001.

DATES: Written comments must be

received on or before June 15, 2001.

ADDRESSES: All comments should be

addressed to: Sean Lakeman at the EPA,

Region 4 Air Planning Branch, 61

Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia

30303.

Copies of documents relative to this

action are available at the following

addresses for inspection during normal

business hours: Environmental

Protection Agency, Region 4, Air

Planning Branch, 61 Forsyth Street,

SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960.

Alabama Department of Environmental

Management, 400 Coliseum Boulevard,

Montgomery, Alabama 36110–2059.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sean Lakeman, Regulatory Planning

Section, Air Planning Branch, Air,

Pesticides and Toxics Management

Division, Region 4, Environmental

Protection Agency, Atlanta Federal

Center, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta,

Georgia 30303. The telephone number is

(404) 562–9043. Mr. Lakeman can also

be reached via electronic mail at

lakeman.sean@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On

October 13, 2000, ADEM submitted a

draft NOX emission control rule to the

EPA for pre-adoption review, requesting

parallel processing to the development

of the rule at the State level and

included a schedule for development

and adoption of the rule by the State.

On March 12, 2001, ADEM submitted

final revisions to its SIP to meet the

requirements of the Phase I NOX SIP

Call. The revisions comply with the

requirements of the Phase I NOX SIP

Call. Included in this document are

revisions to chapter 335–3–1 General

Provisions and chapter 335–3–8 Control

of Nitrogen Oxide Emissions. The

information in this proposal is

organized as follows:

I. EPA’s Action

A. What action is EPA proposing today?

B. Why is EPA proposing this action?

C. What are the NOX SIP Call general

requirements?

D. What is EPA’s NOX budget and

allowance trading program?

E. What guidance did EPA use to evaluate

Alabama’s submittal?

F. What is the result of EPA’s evaluation

of Alabama’s program?

II. Alabama’s Control of NOX Emissions

A. When did Alabama submit the SIP

revision to EPA in response to the NOX

SIP Call?

B. What is the Alabama’s NOX Budget

Trading Program?

C. What is the Compliance Supplement

Pool?

D. What is the New Source Set-Aside

program?

III. Proposed Action

IV. Administrative Requirements

I. EPA’s Action

A. What Action Is EPA Proposing

Today?

EPA is proposing to approve revisions

to Alabama’s SIP concerning the

adoption of its NOX Reduction and

Trading Program, submitted on March

12, 2001.

B. Why Is EPA Proposing This Action?

EPA is proposing this action because

Alabama’s NOX Reduction and Trading

Program regulations meet the

requirements of the Phase I NOX SIP

Call. Therefore, EPA is proposing full

approval of Alabama’s NOX Reduction

and Trading Program.

C. What Are the NOX SIP Call General

Requirements?

On October 27, 1998, EPA published

a final rule entitled, ‘‘Finding of

Significant Contribution and

Rulemaking for Certain States in the

Ozone Transport Assessment Group

Region for Purposes of Reducing

Regional Transport of Ozone,’’

otherwise known as the ‘‘NOX SIP Call.’’

See 63 FR 57356. The NOX SIP Call

requires 22 States and the District of

Columbia to meet statewide NOX

emission budgets during the five month

period between May 1 and October 1 in

order to reduce the amount of ground

level ozone that is transported across

the eastern United States.

EPA identified NOX emission

reductions by source category that could

be achieved by using cost-effective

measures. The source categories

included were electric generating units

(EGUs) and non-electric generating units

(non-EGUs), internal combustion

engines and cement kilns were also

included. EPA determined state-wide

NOX emission budgets based on the

implementation of these cost effective

controls for each affected jurisdiction to

be met by the year 2007. Internal

combustion engines are not addressed

by Alabama in this response to Phase I,

but will be in Phase II. However, the

NOX SIP Call allowed states the

flexibility to decide which source

categories to regulate in order to meet

the statewide budgets. In the NOX SIP

Call notice, EPA suggested that

imposing statewide NOX emissions caps

on large fossil-fuel fired industrial

boilers and EGUs would provide a

highly cost effective means for states to

meet their NOX budgets. In fact, the

state-specific budgets were set assuming

an emission rate of 0.15 pounds NOX

per million British thermal units (lb.

NOX/mmBtu) at EGUs, multiplied by

the projected heat input (mmBtu) from

burning the quantity of fuel needed to

meet the 2007 forecast for electricity

demand. See 63 FR 57407. The

calculation of the 2007 EGU emissions

assumed that an emissions trading

program would be part of an EGU

control program. The NOX SIP Call state

budgets also assumed on average a 30

percent NOX reduction from cement

kilns, and a 60 percent reduction from

industrial boilers and combustion. The

non-EGU control assumptions were

applied at units where the heat input

capacities were greater than 250 mmBtu

per hour, or in cases where heat input

data were not available or appropriate,

at units with actual emissions greater

than one ton per day.

To assist the states in their efforts to

meet the SIP Call, the NOX SIP Call final

rulemaking notice included a model

NOX allowance trading regulation,

called ‘‘NOX Budget Trading Program

for State Implementation Plans,’’ (40

CFR part 96), that could be used by

states to develop their regulations. The

NOX SIP Call notice explained that if

states developed an allowance trading

regulation consistent with the EPA

model rule, they could participate in a

regional allowance trading program that

would be administered by the EPA. See

63 FR 57458–57459.

There were several periods during

which EPA received comments on

various aspects of the NOX SIP Call

emissions inventories. On March 2,

2000, EPA published additional

technical amendments to the NOX SIP

Call in the Federal Register (65 FR

11222). On March 3, 2000, the D.C.

Circuit issued its decision on the NOX

SIP Call ruling in favor of EPA on all the

major issues. Michigan v. EPA, 213 F.3d

663 (D.C. Cir. 2000). The DC Circuit

Court denied petitioners’ requests for

rehearing or rehearing en banc on July

22, 2000. However, the Circuit Court

remanded four specific elements to EPA

for further action: The definition of

electric generating unit, the level of

control for stationary internal

combustion engines, the geographic

extent of the NOX SIP Call for Georgia

and Missouri, and the inclusion of

Wisconsin. On March 5, 2001, the U.S.

Supreme Court declined to hear an

appeal by various utilities, industry

groups and a number of upwind states

from the D.C. Circuit’s ruling on EPA’s

NOX SIP Call rule.

EPA expects to publish a proposal

that addresses the remanded portion of

the NOX SIP Call Rule. Any additional

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 16, 2001 / Proposed Rules 27049

emissions reductions required as a

result of a final rulemaking on that

proposal will be reflected in the second

phase portion (Phase II) of the State’s

emission budget. On April 11, 2000, in

response to the Court’s decision, EPA

notified Alabama of the maximum

amount of NOX emissions allowed for

the State during the ozone season. This

emission budget reflected adjustments

to Alabama’s NOX emission budget to

reflect the Court’s decision that Georgia

and Missouri should not be included in

full. Although the Court did not order

EPA to modify Alabama’s budget, the

EPA believes these adjustments are

consistent with the Court’s decision.

D. What Is EPA’s NOX Budget and

Allowance Trading Program?

EPA’s model NOX budget and

allowance trading rule, 40 CFR part 96,

sets forth a NOX emissions trading

program for large EGUs and non-EGUs.

A state can voluntarily choose to adopt

EPA’s model rule in order to allow

sources within its borders to participate

in regional allowance trading. The

October 27, 1998, Federal Register

notice contains a full description of the

EPA’s model NOX budget trading

program. See 63 FR 57514–57538 and

40 CFR part 96.

Air emissions trading, in general, uses

market forces to reduce the overall cost

of compliance for pollution sources,

such as power plants, while maintaining

emission reductions and environmental

benefits. One type of market-based

program is an emissions budget and

allowance trading program, commonly

referred to as a ‘‘cap and trade’’

program.

In an emissions budget and allowance

trading program, the state or EPA sets a

regulatory limit, or emissions budget, in

mass emissions from a specific group of

sources. The budget limits the total

number of allowances for each source

covered by the program during a

particular control period. When the

budget is set at a level lower than the

current emissions, the effect is to reduce

the total amount of emissions during the

control period. After setting the budget,

the state or EPA then assigns, or

allocates, allowances to the

participating entities up to the level of

the budget. Each allowance authorizes

the emission of a quantity of pollutant,

e.g., one ton of airborne NOX.

At the end of the control period, each

source must demonstrate that its actual

emissions during the control period

were less than or equal to the number

of available allowances it holds. Sources

that reduce their emissions below their

allocated allowance level may sell their

extra allowances. Sources that emit

more than the amount of their allocated

allowance level may buy allowances

from the sources with extra reductions.

In this way, the budget is met in the

most cost-effective manner.

E. What Guidance Did EPA Use To

Evaluate Alabama’s Submittal?

The final NOX SIP Call rule included

a model NOX budget trading program

regulation. See 40 CFR part 96. EPA

used the model rule and 40 CFR 51.121–

51.122 to evaluate Alabama’s NOX

reduction and trading program.

F. What Is the Result of EPA’s

Evaluation of Alabama’s Program?

EPA has evaluated Alabama’s March

12, 2001, SIP submittal and finds it

approvable. The Alabama NOX

reduction and trading program is

consistent with EPA’s guidance and

meets the requirements of the Phase I

NOX SIP Call. EPA finds the NOX

control measures in the Alabama’s NOX

reduction and trading program

approvable. The March 12, 2001,

submittal will strengthen Alabama’s SIP

for reducing ground level ozone by

providing NOX reductions beginning in

2004. Also, EPA finds that the submittal

contained the information necessary to

demonstrate that Alabama has the legal

authority to implement and enforce the

control measures, and to demonstrate

their appropriate distribution of the

compliance supplement pool.

Furthermore, EPA proposes to find that

the submittal demonstrates that the

compliance dates and schedules, and

the monitoring, recordkeeping and

emission reporting requirements will be

met.

II. Alabama’s Control of NOX Emissions

A. When Did Alabama Submit the SIP

Revision to EPA in Response to the NOX

SIP Call?

On October 13, 2000, the Alabama

Department of Environmental

Management submitted a draft NOX

emission control rule to the EPA for preadoption review, requesting parallel

processing to the development of the

rule at the State level and included a

schedule for adoption of the rule by the

State. On March 12, 2001, ADEM

submitted a final revision to its SIP to

meet the requirements of the Phase I

NOX SIP Call.

B. What Is the Alabama’s NOX Budget

Trading Program?

Alabama proposes, as in the model

rule, to allow the large EGUs, boilers

and turbines to participate in the multistate cap and trade program. Cement

kilns are not included in the trading

program, but will be required to install

low NOX burners, mid-kiln system

firings or technology that achieves the

same emission decreases. Alabama’s SIP

revision to meet the requirements of the

NOX SIP Call consists of the revision of

chapter 335–3–1 General Provisions and

chapter 335–3–8 Control of Nitrogen

Oxide Emissions. The regulations under

335–3–8 affect EGUs, non-EGUs, and

cement manufacturing facilities.

Chapter 335–3–1 added one new

regulation (.14) Emissions Reporting

Requirements Relating to Budgets for

NOX Emissions. Chapter 335–3–8

Control of Nitrogen Oxide Emissions

added eleven new regulations: (.01)

Standards for Portland Cement Kilns;

(.04) Standards For Stationary

Reciprocating Internal Combustion

Engines (reserved); (.05) NOX Budget

Trading Program; (.06) Authorized

Account Representative for NOX Budget

Sources; (.07) Permits; (.08) Compliance

Certification; (.09) NOX Allowance

Allocations; (.10) NOX Allowance

Tracking System; (.11) NOX Allowance

Transfers; (.12) Monitoring and

Reporting; and (.13) Individual Unit

Opt-ins.

Alabama’s NOX Reduction and

Trading Program establishes and

requires a NOX allowance trading

program for large EGUs and non-EGUs,

and reductions from cement kilns. The

regulations under 335–3–8 establish a

NOX cap and allowance trading program

for the ozone control seasons beginning

May 31, 2004.

The State of Alabama voluntarily

chose to follow EPA’s model NOX

budget and allowance trading rule, 40

CFR part 96, that sets forth a NOX

emissions trading program for large

EGUs and non-EGUs. Alabama’s NOX

Reduction and Trading Program is based

upon EPA’s model rule, therefore,

Alabama sources are allowed to

participate in the interstate NOX

allowance trading program that EPA

will administer for the participating

states. The State of Alabama has

adopted regulations that are

substantively identical to 40 CFR part

96. Therefore, pursuant to 40 CFR

51.121(p)(1), Alabama’s SIP revision is

approved as satisfying the State’s NOX

emission reduction obligations. Under

335–3–8, Alabama allocates NOX

allowances to the EGU and non-EGU

units that are affected by these

requirements. The NOX trading program

applies to all fossil fuel fired EGUs with

a nameplate capacity greater than 25

MW or more that sell any amount of

electricity to the grid as well as any nonEGUs that have a heat input capacity

equal to or greater than 250 mmBtu per

hour. Each NOX allowance permits a

source to emit one ton of NOX during

27050 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 16, 2001 / Proposed Rules

the seasonal control period. NOX

allowances may be bought or sold.

Unused NOX allowances may also be

banked for future use, with certain

limitations.

Source owners will monitor their NOX

emissions by using systems that meet

the requirements of 40 CFR part 75,

subpart H, and report resulting data to

EPA electronically. Each budget source

complies with the program by

demonstrating at the end of each control

period that actual emissions do not

exceed the amount of allowances held

for that period. However, regardless of

the number of allowances a source

holds, it cannot emit at levels that

would violate other federal or state

limits, for example, reasonably available

control technology (RACT), new source

performance standards, or Title IV (the

Federal Acid Rain program).

Alabama’s NOX Reduction and

Trading Program establishes

requirements for cement manufacturing

facilities, however, these sources are

subject to NOX reduction requirements

but do not participate in the NOX

trading program. Alabama’s submittal

does not rely on any additional

reductions beyond the anticipated

Federal measures in the mobile and area

source categories.

Alabama’s submittal demonstrates

that the Phase I NOX emission budgets

established by EPA will be met as

follows:

Source category

EPA 2007 NOX

budget emissions

(tons/season)

Alabama 2007

NOX budget

emissions

(tons/season)

EGUs ........................................................................................................................................................... 23,242 23,169

Non-EGUs .................................................................................................................................................... 31,240 31,159

Area Sources ............................................................................................................................................... 21,109 21,109

Non-road Sources ........................................................................................................................................ 13,402 13,402

Highway Sources ......................................................................................................................................... 35,801 35,801

Total ......................................................................................................................................................... 124,795 124,640

C. What Is the Compliance Supplement

Pool?

To provide additional flexibility for

complying with emission control

requirements associated with the NOX

SIP Call, the final NOX SIP Call rule

provided each affected state with a

‘‘compliance supplement pool.’’ The

compliance supplement pool is a

quantity of NOX allowances that may be

used to cover excess emissions from

sources that are unable to meet control

requirements during the 2004 and 2005

ozone season. Allowances from the

compliance supplement pool will not be

valid for compliance past the 2005

ozone season. The NOX SIP Call

included these voluntary provisions in

order to address commenters’ concerns

about the possible adverse effect that the

control requirements might have on the

reliability of the electricity supply or on

other industries required to install

controls as the result of a state’s

response to the NOX SIP Call.

A state may issue some or all of the

compliance supplement pool via two

mechanisms. First, a state may issue

some or all of the pool to sources with

credits from implementing NOX

reductions beyond all applicable

requirements after September 30, 1999,

but before May 31, 2004 (i.e., early

reductions). This allows sources that

cannot install controls prior to May 31,

2004, to purchase other sources’ early

reduction credits in order to comply.

Second, a state may issue some or all of

the pool to sources that demonstrate a

need for an extension of the May 31,

2004, compliance deadline due to

undue risk to the electricity supply or

other industrial sectors, and where early

reductions are not available. See 40 CFR

51.121(e)(3). Alabama has opted to not

participate in the Early Reduction Credit

program. The compliance supplement

pool will be reserved for those

companies that demonstrate an actual

need for the available allowance.

D. What Is the New Source Set-Aside

Program?

The major difference between

Alabama’s rule and EPA’s model rule is

in the allocation of allowances.

Alabama’s SIP provides for no New

Source Set-asides. Initial allocations

submitted with this revision for the

control periods in 2004, 2005, and 2006,

and were given to those NOX budget

units in operation, permitted, or with

complete permit application on or

before October 2, 2000 (referred to as

‘‘baseline units’’). After this date there

will be no allowances available for new

sources unless an existing source shuts

down. If an existing unit is shut down,

a replacement unit constructed at the

same site will be given priority in

allowance allocations over new sources.

The replacement unit must be of the

same or less heat input capacity as the

former unit. Once allocations are made

to the replacement unit, other new units

can qualify for excess allowances

resulting from the shutdown. Future

allocations will be distributed by April

1st of every third year (2004, 2007, 2010

etc.). Allocations will be calculated for

three years each three year period

(2004–2006, 2007–2009, etc.). This

approach to allocations for new units is

acceptable because it falls within the

flexibility of the NOX SIP Call

requirements for a state’s allocation to

new sources.

III. Proposed Action

EPA is proposing to approve the

Alabama’s SIP revision consisting of its

NOX Reduction and Trading Program,

which was submitted on March 12,

2001. EPA finds that Alabama’s

submittal is fully approvable because it

meets the requirements of the Phase I

NOX SIP Call.

IV. 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

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).

This proposed rule also does not have

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 16, 2001 / Proposed Rules 27051

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

proposes to approve 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 proposed approval of the

Alabama NOX Reduction and Trading

Program 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, Nitrogen dioxide,

Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

Dated: May 8, 2001.

A. Stanley Meiburg,

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.

[FR Doc. 01–12355 Filed 5–15–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[PA 150–4108; FRL–6980–3]

Approval and Promulgation of Air

Quality Implementation Plans;

Pennsylvania; Conversion of the

Conditional Approval of the 15 Percent

Plan for the Pennsylvania Portion of

the Philadelphia-Wilmington-Trenton

Ozone Nonattainment Area to a Full

Approval

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to convert

its conditional approval of a State

Implementation Plan (SIP) revision

submitted by the Commonwealth of

Pennsylvania to a full approval. This

revision satisfies the conditions

imposed by EPA on our approval of the

15 percent reasonable further progress

plan (15% plan) requirement of the

Clean Air Act (the Act) for

Pennsylvania’s portion of the

Philadelphia-Wilmington-Trenton

ozone nonattainment area (the

Philadelphia area). EPA is proposing to

convert its conditional approval of this

15% plan to full approval because the

Commonwealth has fulfilled its

obligation and satisfied the conditions

imposed in EPA’s conditional approval

of the 15% plan for the Philadelphia

area. The intended effect of this action

is to convert our conditional approval of

Pennsylvania’s 15% plan SIP for the

Philadelphia area to a full approval.

DATES: Written comments must be

received on or before June 15, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Written comments may be

mailed to David L. Arnold, Chief, Air

Quality Planning and Information

Services Branch, Mailcode 3AP21, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region III, 1650 Arch Street,

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.

Copies of the documents relevant to this

action are available for public

inspection during normal business

hours at the Air Protection Division,

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Region III, 1650 Arch Street,

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. They

are also available at the Pennsylvania

Department of Environmental

Protection, Bureau of Air Quality, P.O.

Box 8468, 400 Market Street, Harrisburg,

Pennsylvania 17105.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Brian Rehn, by phone at: (215) 814–

2176 (at the EPA Region III address

above), or by e-mail at:

rehn.brian@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

On June 5, 1998, the Pennsylvania

Department of Environmental Protection

(PA DEP) submitted a revision to the

Pennsylvania State Implementation Plan

(SIP) for its portion of the Philadelphia

ozone nonattainment area. The revision

consists of an amendment to its plan to

achieve a 15% reduction from 1990 base

year levels in volatile organic

compound (VOC) emissions. The

previous version of Pennsylvania’s 15%

plan for its portion of the Philadelphia

ozone nonattainment area was

conditionally approved by EPA on June

9, 1997 (62 FR 31343). Pennsylvania’s

June 1998 revision to that 15% plan was

done in order to satisfy conditions

imposed by EPA in its conditional

approval of the Commonwealth’s plan.

The Philadelphia ozone

nonattainment area consists of six

counties in Southern New Jersey

(Burlington, Camden, Cumberland,

Gloucester, Mercer, and Salem), two

counties in Northern Delaware (Kent

and New Castle), one county in

Maryland (Cecil), and five counties in

Southeastern Pennsylvania (Bucks,

Chester, Delaware, Montgomery, and

Philadelphia). Each of the states

comprising the multi-state ozone

nonattainment area submitted its own

15% plan to achieve reasonable further

progress towards attainment of the

ozone standard. EPA has taken separate

rulemaking action on each state’s plan.

EPA is taking action today on the

revised 15% plan SIP for Pennsylvania’s

portion of the Philadelphia

nonattainment area, submitted to EPA

by PA DEP on June 5, 1998. These

revisions to the plan satisfy the

conditions stipulated by EPA in its June

9, 1997 conditional approval of the

previous Philadelphia 15% plan. Those

approval conditions related to the I/M

program upon which the 15% plan

relies (and which were conditions of

EPA’s approval of the I/M program).

EPA is proposing in this rulemaking

to convert the June 9, 1997 conditional

approval of Pennsylvania’s 15% plan for

the Philadelphia area to a full approval.

The basis for this action is that EPA has

determined that Pennsylvania has