Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 103 / Tuesday, May 29, 2001 / Notices 29127

2005 and 2007 are adequate. This

finding will also be announced on

EPA’s conformity website: http://

www.epa.gov/otaq/transp/, (once there,

click on the ‘‘Conformity’’ button, then

look for ‘‘Adequacy Review of SIP

Submissions for Conformity’’).

Transportation conformity is required

by section 176(c) of the Clean Air Act.

EPA’s conformity rule requires that

transportation plans, programs, and

projects conform to state air quality

implementation plans and establishes

the criteria and procedures for

determining whether or not they do.

Transportation conformity to a SIP

means that transportation activities will

not produce new air quality violations,

worsen existing violations, or delay

timely attainment of the national

ambient air quality standards.

The criteria by which we determine

whether a SIP’s motor vehicle emission

budgets are adequate for conformity

purposes are outlined in 40 CFR

93.118(e)(4). Please note that an

adequacy review is separate from EPA’s

completeness review, and it also should

not be used to prejudge EPA’s ultimate

approval of the SIP. Even if we find a

budget adequate, the EPA may later be

disapprove the SIP.

We’ve described our process for

determining the adequacy of submitted

SIP budgets in guidance (May 14, 1999

memo titled ‘‘Conformity Guidance on

Implementation of March 2, 1999

Conformity Court Decision’’). We

followed the guidance in making our

adequacy determination.

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q.

Dated: May 14, 2001.

David A. Ullrich,

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.

[FR Doc. 01–13412 Filed 5–25–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

[ND–001–0008; AD–FRL–6973–1]

Approval and Promulgation of State

Implementation Plans; North Dakota;

Notice of Potential Violations of the

Prevention of Significant Deterioration

Increments

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Information notice.

SUMMARY: North Dakota has conducted a

draft modeling analysis that shows

numerous violations of the Class I

prevention of significant deterioration

(PSD) increments for sulfur dioxide

(SO2) in four Class I areas. Those Class

I areas include Theodore Roosevelt

National Park, the Lostwood Wilderness

Area, the Medicine Lakes Wilderness

Area, and the Fort Peck Class I Indian

Reservation. In a March 13, 2001 letter

to EPA, the North Dakota Department of

Health has committed to refine this

modeling analysis and to subsequently

adopt revisions to the State

Implementation Plan (SIP) as may be

necessary to address the increment

violations that may be shown by the

revised analysis. The purpose of this

document is to inform the public of

potential increment violations and of

the commitments made by the North

Dakota Department of Health to address

the potential violations.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 29, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Relevant documents are

available for public inspection during

normal business hours at the Air and

Radiation Program, Environmental

Protection Agency, Region VIII, 999

18th Street, Suite 300, Denver, Colorado

80202–2405. Interested persons should

contact the person listed below to

arrange for a mutually agreeable time to

view these documents.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Amy Platt, Air and Radiation Program,

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region VIII, (303) 312–6449.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. What Is the Purpose of This

Document?

The purpose of this document is to

inform the public of the commitments

made by the North Dakota Department

of Health regarding draft modeling

studies that have shown violations of

the PSD increment for SO2 in four Class

I areas. Those Class I areas include

Theodore Roosevelt National Park and

the Lostwood Wilderness Area, both of

which are in North Dakota, and the

Medicine Lakes Wilderness Area and

the Fort Peck Class I Indian Reservation,

both of which are within the State of

Montana. In a March 13, 2001 letter to

EPA, the North Dakota Department of

Health has committed to refine this

modeling analysis and to subsequently

adopt revisions to its SIP as may be

necessary to address the increment

violations that may be shown by the

revised modeling analysis. Specifically,

the North Dakota Department of Health

made the following commitments:

• By April 1, 2001—The State will

develop an air quality modeling

protocol.

• By January 2, 2002—The State will

complete its modeling analysis (or

within nine months from the time EPA

completes its review of the modeling

protocol).

• By February 1, 2002—The State will

provide EPA with a summary of its

modeling analysis.

• By August 1, 2003—The State will

complete a SIP revision to resolve the

increment issue (if the modeling

analysis shows that the increment is

exceeded).

Note that EPA is publishing the State’s

commitments in order to inform the

public of the process that the State and

EPA are following to address the

increment violations modeled by the

State. However, this document does not

make the State’s commitments legally

binding.

EPA responded to the State in a letter

dated March 28, 2001. Specifically, EPA

stated that, in light of the State’s March

13, 2001 commitment letter, we will not

initiate formal action to call for a SIP

revision to address these violations of

the PSD increments for SO2. We

acknowledged that the State needs to

refine the modeling analysis to better

determine the appropriate control

strategy(ies) to address the violations,

and we will work with the State in its

efforts. If the State does not meet its

commitments, or if the State and EPA

cannot agree on an acceptable modeling

protocol or on acceptable control

measures, we may decide to initiate a

formal SIP call.

II. What Are the PSD Increments?

The purpose of the PSD program of

the Clean Air Act (Act), 42 U.S.C. 7470–

7479, is to ensure that the air quality in

clean air areas remains clean and does

not deteriorate to the level of the

national ambient air quality standards

(NAAQS). The mechanism created by

Congress to meet this goal is the

establishment of ‘‘PSD increments.’’

These increments define the maximum

allowable increases over baseline

concentrations that are allowed in a

clean air area for a particular pollutant.

Any increase above this level indicates

that significant deterioration of air

quality has occurred. Because only

emissions increases above the baseline

concentration are considered in

determining how much increment has

been consumed, the amount of

increment consumed can only be

determined through air quality

dispersion modeling, not through direct

monitoring of ambient concentrations.

The Act provides for three different

classes of air quality protection, to

reflect varying levels of protection from

significant deterioration in air quality.

In the 1977 Clean Air Act Amendments,

Congress designated all international

parks, national wilderness areas and

national memorial parks which exceed

5000 acres in size, and all national parks

29128 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 103 / Tuesday, May 29, 2001 / Notices

which exceed 6000 acres in size as

mandatory Class I areas. Congress also

allowed States or Tribes to request

redesignation of any area to Class I air

quality protection status. Class I areas

are to receive special protection from

degradation of air quality, and the most

stringent PSD increments apply in these

areas.

The Class I increments for SO2 are

defined in section 163(b)(1) of the Act,

42 U.S.C. 7473(b)(1), as follows:

Annual arithmetic mean ............. 2 ug/m3

Twenty-four hour maximum ...... 5 ug/m3

Three-hour maximum ................. 25ug/m3

These increments are also

promulgated in EPA’s PSD regulations

at 40 CFR 52.21(c). North Dakota has

adopted these increments as state

regulation in section 33–15–15–01.2.b.

of the North Dakota Administrative

Code, which EPA approved as part of

the SIP on November 2, 1979 (44 FR

63102).

For any averaging period other than

an annual averaging period, section

163(a) of the Act allows the increment

to be exceeded during one such period

per year. Otherwise, section 163 of the

Act provides that the increments are not

to be exceeded and that the SIP must

contain measures assuring that the

increments will not be exceeded.

Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) of the Act, 42

U.S.C. 7410(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), further

requires the SIP to include provisions

prohibiting any source or other emitting

activity within the State from emitting

air pollution in amounts that will

interfere with measures to be included

in any other State’s implementation

plan to prevent significant deterioration

of air quality. EPA’s PSD regulations

also provide that the SIP must be

revised whenever EPA or the State

determines that an applicable PSD

increment is being violated. (See 40 CFR

51.166(a)(3).)

III. How Can I Obtain More

Information on This Matter?

Copies of the State’s March 13, 2001

letter and EPA’s March 28, 2001

response can be obtained from the

contact person listed above. A

Background Document is also available,

which discusses in greater detail the

PSD requirements of the Act, the history

of PSD increment violations in North

Dakota Class I areas, and the State’s

draft modeling analysis.

This notice today informs the public

and identifies the appropriate EPA

regional office from which the public

may gain further information and

review the relevant documents

pertaining to this North Dakota PSD

increment issue.

Dated: April 20, 2001.

Jack W. McGraw,

Acting Regional Administrator, Region VIII.

[FR Doc. 01–13409 Filed 5–25–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

[OPP–100171; FRL–6784–1]

DynCorp I & ET and Geologics;

Transfer of Data

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: This notice announces that

pesticide-related information submitted

to EPA’s Office of Pesticide Programs

(OPP) pursuant to the Federal

Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide

Act (FIFRA) and the Federal Food, Drug,

and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), including

information that may have been claimed

as Confidential Business Information

(CBI) by the submitter, will be

transferred to DynCorp I & ET and its

subcontractor, Geologics, in accordance

with 40 CFR 2.307(h)(3) and 2.308(i)(2).

DynCorp I & ET and its subcontractor,

Geologics, have been awarded a contract

to perform work for OPP, and access to

this information will enable DynCorp I

& ET and its subcontractor, Geologics, to

fulfill the obligations of the contract.

DATES: DynCorp I & ET and its

subcontractor, Geologics, will be given

access to this information on or before

June 4, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: By

mail: Erik R. Johnson, FIFRA Security

Officer, Information Resources and

Services Division (7502C), Office of

Pesticide Programs, Environmental

Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania

Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460;

telephone number: (703) 305–7248; email address: johnson.erik@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

This action applies to the public in

general. As such, the Agency has not

attempted to describe all the specific

entities that may be affected by this

action. If you have any questions

regarding the applicability of this action

to a particular entity, consult the person

listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT.

B. How Can I Get Additional

Information, Including Copies of this

Document and Other Related

Documents?

You may obtain electronic copies of

this document, and certain other related

documents that might be available

electronically, from the EPA Internet

Home Page at http://www.epa.gov/. To

access this document, on the Home Page

select ‘‘Laws and Regulations,’’

‘‘Regulations and Proposed Rules,’’ and

then look up the entry for this document

under the ‘‘Federal Register—

Environmental Documents.’’ You can

also go directly to the Federal Register

listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/.

II. Contractor Requirements

Under Contract No. 68–W0–1007,

DynCorp I & ET and its subcontractor,

Geologics, will perform the following

based on the statement of work.

OPP develops data requirements and

study guidelines that are used to assess

the potential impact pesticides may

have on human health and the

environment. Before using these data for

regulatory purposes, OPP must evaluate

the studies to determine their adequacy

and to guarantee that appropriate

quality assurance (QA) procedures were

carried out. In evaluating and

performing services required under this

statement of work, the contractor shall

submit all relevant information used in

developing conclusions or options to

the cognizant Work Assignment

Manager (WAM) for all projects for

review and approval.

OPP has determined that access by

DynCorp I & ET and its subcontractor,

Geologics, to information on all

pesticide chemicals is necessary for the

performance of this contract.

Some of this information may be

entitled to confidential treatment. The

information has been submitted to EPA

under sections 3, 4, 6, and 7 of FIFRA

and under sections 408 and 409 of

FFDCA.

In accordance with the requirements

of 40 CFR 2.307(h)(2), the contract with

DynCorp I & ET and its subcontractor,

Geologics, prohibits use of the

information for any purpose not

specified in the contract; prohibits

disclosure of the information to a third

party without prior written approval

from the Agency; and requires that each

official and employee of the contractor

sign an agreement to protect the

information from unauthorized release

and to handle it in accordance with the

FIFRA Information Security Manual. In

addition, DynCorp I & ET and its

subcontractor, Geologics, are required to

submit for EPA approval a security plan