29270 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 104 / Wednesday, May 30, 2001 / Proposed Rules

Model Serial Nos.

SA227–AC ................................................................................................ AC406, AC415, AC416, AC420 through AC633, AC637, AC638,

AC641 through AC644, AC647, AC648, AC651, AC652, AC656, and

AC657.

SA227–AT ................................................................................................ AT423 through AT631.

SA227–TT ................................................................................................. TT421 through TT547.

(b) Who must comply with this AD?

Anyone who wishes to operate any of the

above airplanes must comply with this AD.

(c) What problem does this AD address?

The actions specified by this AD are intended

to prevent a dual engine flameout on the

affected airplanes by providing a system that

automatically turns on the engine igniters

when low torque is sensed. A dual engine

flameout could result in failure of both

engines with consequent loss of control of

the airplane.

(d) What actions must I accomplish to

address this problem? To address this

problem, you must accomplish the following:

Actions Compliance Procedures

Incorporate the kit specified in

the applicable service bulletin. This kit modifies the

negative torque sensing test

system to allow the igniters to

automatically turn when an

engine senses low torque.

Within the next 6 calendar

months after the effective

date of this AD.

Accomplish the modification in accordance with the instructions provided with

the kit that is referenced in either Fairchild Aircraft Service Bulletin 26–74–

30–048 (FA Kit Drawing 26K82301), Revised: April 13, 2000; Fairchild Aircraft Service Bulletin No. 226–74–003 (FA Kit Drawing 27K82087), Issued:

March 21, 2000; Fairchild Aircraft Service Bulletin 227–74–003 (FA Kit

Drawing 27K82087), Issued: March 21, 2000; or Fairchild Aircraft Service

Bulletin 227–74–001, Issued: July 8, 1986, as applicable.

(e) Can I comply with this AD in any other

way? You may use an alternative method of

compliance or adjust the compliance time if:

(1) Your alternative method of compliance

provides an equivalent level of safety; and

(2) The Manager, Fort Worth Airplane

CertificationOffice (ACO), approves your

alternative. Submit your request through an

FAA Principal Maintenance Inspector, who

may add comments and then send it to the

Manager,Fort Worth ACO.

Note: This AD applies to each airplane

identified in paragraph (a) of this AD,

regardless of whether it has been modified,

altered, or repaired in the area subject to the

requirements of this AD. For airplanes that

have been modified, altered, or repaired so

that the performance of the requirements of

this AD is affected, the owner/operator must

request approval for an alternative method of

compliance in accordance with paragraph (e)

of this AD. The request should include an

assessment of the effect of the modification,

alteration, or repair on the unsafe condition

addressed by this AD; and, if you have not

eliminated the unsafe condition, specific

actions you propose to address it.

(f) Where can I get information about any

already-approved alternative methods of

compliance? Contact Ingrid Knox, Aerospace

Engineer, FAA, Airplane Certification Office,

2601 Meacham Boulevard, FortWorth, Texas

76193–0150; telephone: (817) 222–5139;

facsimile: (817) 222–5960.

(g) What if I need to fly the airplane to

another location to comply with this AD? The

FAA can issue a special flight permit under

sections 21.197 and 21.199 of the Federal

Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.197 and

21.199) to operate your airplane to a location

where you can accomplish the requirements

of this AD.

(h) How do I get copies of the documents

referenced in this AD? You may obtain copies

of the documents referenced in this AD from

Fairchild Aircraft, Inc., P.O. Box 790490, San

Antonio, Texas 78279–0490. You may

examine these documents at FAA, Central

Region, Office of the Regional Counsel, 901

Locust, Room 506, Kansas City, Missouri

64106.

Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on May

21, 2001.

Michael Gallagher,

Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft

Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 01–13466 Filed 5–29–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

[PA175–4117; FRL–6987–8]

Approval and Promulgation of Air

Quality Implementation Plans;

Pennsylvania; Redesignation of the

Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley Ozone

Nonattainment Area to Attainment and

Approval of the Associated

Maintenance Plan and Other

Miscellaneous Revisions

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to

redesignate the Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley

ozone nonattainment area (the

Pittsburgh Area) to attainment for the 1-

hour ozone National Ambient Air

Quality Standard (NAAQS). The

Pittsburgh area is comprised of

Allegheny, Armstrong, Beaver, Butler,

Fayette, Washington, and Westmoreland

counties. The EPA is also proposing to

approve the maintenance plan,

submitted by the Pennsylvania

Department of Environmental Protection

(PADEP) on April 9, 2001, as a revision

to the Pennsylvania State

Implementation Plan (SIP). Approval of

the maintenance plan would put into

place a plan for maintaining the 1-hour

ozone standard for the next 10 years in

the Pittsburgh area. PADEP submitted a

1990 base year emissions inventory for

nitrous oxides (NOX) to EPA on March

22, 1996 and supplemented the

inventory on February 18, 1997. EPA is

also proposing to approve the 1990 NOX

base year inventory. Lastly, EPA is also

proposing to convert the limited

approval of Pennsylvania’s New Source

Review (NSR) program to full approval

throughout the Commonwealth, with

the exception of the 5-county

Pennsylvania portion of the

Philadelphia-Wilmington-Trenton

ozone nonattainment area where it will

retain its limited approval status until

that area has an approved attainment

demonstration for the 1-hour ozone

standard.

DATES: Written comments must be

received on or before June 29, 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;

Pennsylvania Department of

Environmental Resources, Bureau of Air

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 104 / Wednesday, May 30, 2001 / Proposed Rules 29271

Quality Control, P.O. Box 8468, 400

Market Street, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania

17105.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jill

Webster, (215) 814–2033, or via e-mail

at Webster.Jill@epamail.epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On April

9, 2001, the Commonwealth submitted a

request that EPA redesignate the

Pittsburgh area to attainment. The

Commonwealth simultaneously

submitted its proposed maintenance

plan for the Pittsburgh area and

requested that EPA parallel process its

approval of that plan as a SIP revision.

In this document, EPA will answer the

following:

What action is EPA proposing to take?

Why is EPA taking this action?

What would be the effect of this

redesignation?

What is the background for this action?

What are the redesignation review criteria?

What is EPA’s analysis of the

commonwealth’s request?

What actions is EPA proposing to take?

Pursuant to a request from the

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, EPA is

proposing to redesignate the Pittsburgh

moderate ozone area from

nonattainment to attainment of the 1-

hour ozone NAAQS. We are also

proposing to approve the Pittsburgh

area’s maintenance plan submitted by

PADEP on April 9, 1990 for approval by

EPA as a SIP revision. This revision is

being proposed under a procedure

called parallel processing, whereby EPA

proposes rulemaking action

concurrently with the state’s procedures

for amending its SIP. If the proposed

maintenance plan is substantially

changed in areas other than those

identified in this notice, EPA will

evaluate those changes and may publish

another notice of proposed rulemaking.

If no substantial changes are made other

than those areas cited in this notice,

Pennsylvania will adopt its

maintenance plan. The final rulemaking

action by EPA will occur only after the

SIP revision (i.e., the Pittsburgh area’s

maintenance plan) has been adopted by

Pennsylvania and submitted formally to

EPA for incorporation into the SIP.

Why is EPA taking this action?

The Pittsburgh area meets the

redesignation and maintenance plan

requirements of the Clean Air Act

(CAA).

What would be the effect of this

redesignation?

The redesignation would change the

official designation of the Pennsylvania

counties of Allegheny, Armstrong,

Beaver, Butler, Fayette, Washington,

and Westmoreland from nonattainment

to attainment for the 1-hour ozone

standard. It would also put into place a

plan for maintaining the 1-hour ozone

standard for the next 10 years. This

maintenance plan includes contingency

measures to address any future

violations of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS.

What is the background for this action?

On November 15, 1990, the CAA

amendments were enacted. Pursuant to

section 107(d)(4)(A), on November 6,

1991 (56 FR 56694), the Pennsylvania

counties of Allegheny, Armstrong,

Beaver, Butler, Fayette, Washington,

and Westmoreland were designated as

the Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley moderate

ozone nonattainment area. On

November 12, 1993, the Commonwealth

of Pennsylvania formally submitted a

redesignation request for the Pittsburgh

ozone nonattainment area. At the same

time, the Commonwealth submitted a

maintenance plan for the Pittsburgh area

as a SIP revision. The maintenance plan

was subsequently amended on January

13, 1994. In November 1994, the

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

suspended the implementation of

certain key control programs for which

substantial emission reduction credit

had been taken in the submitted

maintenance plan—rendering it no

longer approvable. Not until May 12,

1995 did Pennsylvania submit a revised

maintenance plan to correct the

deficiencies caused by the suspension of

the previous version’s key control

strategies. Early during the 1995 ozone

season, and prior to the time EPA could

initiate rulemaking on the May 12, 1995

submittal, the Pittsburgh area violated

the ozone NAAQS, making the area

ineligible for redesignation. The

Commonwealth chose not to withdraw

its redesignation request. Therefore, on

May 1, 1996 (61 FR 19193), EPA

disapproved the Commonwealth’s

request based upon the fact that the area

violated the NAAQS for ozone in 1995.

On November 25, 1996 the

Commonwealth certified that the

Pittsburgh area monitored no

exceedances during 1996 and formally

requested an attainment date extension

from November 1996 to November 1997.

EPA granted the Commonwealth an

attainment date extension on February

25, 1997 (62 FR 8389). Subsequently,

the area violated the NAAQS again

during the 1997 ozone season. As

discussed later in this document, the

Commonwealth has since adopted and

implemented additional control

measures in the Pittsburgh area to

reduce ozone precursors.

The Pittsburgh area has recorded

three years of complete quality-assured,

violation-free ambient air quality

monitoring data for the 1998 to 2000

ozone seasons, thereby demonstrating

that the area has attained the 1-hour

ozone NAAQS. On April 9, 2001,

PADEP submitted a request that EPA

redesignate the Pittsburgh area from

nonattainment to attainment of the 1-

hour ozone standard. The PADEP also

requested that EPA parallel process its

approval of the maintenance plan in

concert with the Commonwealth’s

procedures for amending its SIP.

What are the redesignation review

criteria?

The Act provides the requirements for

redesignating a nonattainment area to

attainment. Specifically, section

107(d)(3)(E) allows for redesignation

providing that: (1) The Administrator

determines that the area has attained the

NAAQS; (2) The Administrator has fully

approved the applicable

implementation plan for the area under

section 110(k); (3) The Administrator

determines that the improvement in air

quality is due to permanent and

enforceable reductions in emissions

resulting from implementation of the

applicable Federal air pollutant control

regulations and other permanent and

enforceable reductions; (4) The

Administrator has fully approved a

maintenance plan for the area as

meeting the requirements of section

175(A); and, (5) The State containing

such area has met all requirements

applicable to the area under section 110

and part D.

The EPA provided guidance on

redesignation in the General Preamble

for the Implementation of Title I of the

Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 on

April 16, 1992 (57 FR 13498) and

supplemented on April 28, 1992 (57 FR

18070). The EPA has provided further

guidance on processing redesignation

requests in the following documents:

1. ‘‘Part D New Source Review (part

D NSR) Requirements for Areas

Requesting Redesignation to

Attainment,’’ Mary D. Nichols, Assistant

Administrator for Air and Radiation,

October 14, 1994, (Nichols, October

1994).

2. ‘‘Use of Actual Emissions in

Maintenance Demonstrations for Ozone

and Carbon Monoxide, (CO)

Nonattainment Areas,’’ D. Kent Berry,

Acting Director, Air Quality

Management Division, November 30,

1993.

3. ‘‘State Implementation Plan (SIP)

Requirements for Areas Submitting

Requests for Redesignation to

Attainment of the Ozone and Carbon

Monoxide (CO) National Ambient Air

Quality Standards (NAAQS) on or after

29272 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 104 / Wednesday, May 30, 2001 / Proposed Rules

November 15, 1992,’’ Michael H.

Shapiro, Acting Assistant Administrator

for Air and Radiation, September 17,

1993.

4. ‘‘State Implementation Plan (SIP)

Actions Submitted in Response to Clean

Air Act Deadlines,’’ John Calcagni,

Director, Air Quality Management

Division, October 28, 1992. (Calcagni,

October 1992).

5. ‘‘Procedures for Processing

Requests to Redesignate Areas to

Attainment,’’ John Calcagni, Director,

Air Quality Management Division,

September 4, 1992.

6. ‘‘Contingency Measures for Ozone

and Carbon Monoxide (CO)

Redesignations,’’ G.T. Helms, Chief

Ozone/Carbon Monoxide Programs

Branch, June 1, 1992.

7. State Implementation Plans;

General Preamble for the

Implementation of Title I of the Clean

Air Act Amendments of 1990 (57 FR

13498), April 16, 1992.

What Is EPA’s analysis of the

Commonwealth’s request?

1. The Area Must Be Attaining the 1-

Hour Ozone NAAQS

For ozone, an area may be considered

attaining the 1-hour ozone NAAQS if

there are no violations, as determined in

accordance with 40 CFR 50.9 and

appendix H, based upon three complete

consecutive calendar years of quality

assured monitoring data. A violation of

the 1-hour ozone NAAQS occurs when

the annual average number of expected

daily exceedances is equal to or greater

than 1.05 per year at a monitoring site.

A daily exceedance occurs when the

maximum hourly ozone concentration

during a given day is 0.125 parts per

million (ppm) or higher. The data must

be collected and quality-assured in

accordance with 40 CFR part 58, and

recorded in AIRS. The monitors should

have remained at the same location the

duration of the monitoring period

required for demonstrating attainment.

The PADEP submitted ozone monitoring

data for the April through October

ozone season from 1998 to 2000. This

data has been quality assured and is

recorded in AIRS. During the 1998 to

2000 time period, the design value is

123 parts per billion. The average

annual number of expected exceedances

is 1.0 for that same time period.

Therefore, the first criterion of section

107(d)(3)(E) has been satisfied.

2. The Area Must Have a Fully

Approved SIP Under Section 110(k);

and the Area Must Have Met All

Applicable Requirements Under Section

110 and Part D

Section 110 Requirements: General

SIP elements are delineated in section

110(a)(2) of Title I, part A. These

requirements include but are not limited

to the following: submittal of a SIP that

has been adopted by the state after

reasonable notice and public hearing,

provisions for establishment and

operation of appropriate apparatus,

methods, systems and procedures

necessary to monitor ambient air

quality, implementation of a permit

program, provisions for part C,

Prevention of Significant Deterioration

(PSD), and part D, New Source Review

(NSR) permit programs, criteria for

stationary source emission control

measures, monitoring and reporting, an

enhanced Inspection and Maintenance

(I/M) program, and provisions for public

and local agency participation. For the

purposes of redesignation, the

Pennsylvania SIP was reviewed to

ensure that all requirements under the

amended CAA were satisfied through

approved SIP provisions for the

Pittsburgh area. EPA has concluded that

the Commonwealth’s SIP for the

Pittsburgh area satisfies all of the

section 110 SIP requirements of the

CAA.

Part D: General Provisions for

Nonattainment Areas: Before the

Pittsburgh area may be redesignated to

attainment, it must have fulfilled the

applicable requirements of part D.

Under part D, an area’s classification

determines the requirements to which it

is subject. Subpart 1 of part D sets forth

the basic nonattainment requirements

applicable to all nonattainment areas.

Subpart 2 of part D establishes

additional requirements for

nonattainment areas classified under

Table 1 of section 181(a). As described

in the General Preamble for the

Implementation of Title 1, specific

requirements of subpart 2 may override

subpart 1’s general provisions (57 FR

13501, April 16, 1992). The Pittsburgh

area was classified as moderate ozone

nonattainment. Therefore, in order to be

redesignated, the Commonwealth must

meet the applicable requirements of

subpart 1 of part D—specifically section

172(c) and 176, as well as the applicable

requirements of subpart 2 of part D.

Section 172(c) Requirements: EPA has

determined that the redesignation

request received from PADEP for the

Pittsburgh area has satisfied all the

relevant submittal requirements under

section 172(c) necessary for the area to

be redesignated.

Earlier this year, on January 10, 2001

(66 FR 1925), EPA proposed that the

requirements of section 172(c)(1) and

182(b)(1) concerning submission of an

ozone attainment demonstration and

reasonably available control measures

for reasonable further progress (RFP) or

attainment will no longer be applicable

to the area.

The RFP requirement under section

172(c)(2) is defined as progress that

must be made toward attainment.

Section 182(b)(1)(A) sets forth the

specific requirements for RFP. On

March 22, 1996, the Commonwealth

submitted a 15% Rate of Progress plan

for the Pittsburgh area. EPA granted

conditional of that 15% plan on January

14, 1998 (63 FR 2147). On April 3, 2001

(66 FR 17634), EPA converted its

conditional approval of the Pittsburgh

area’s 15% plan to a full approval. By

meeting the specific 15% plan RFP

requirement of section 182(b)(1)(A), the

Pittsburgh area is also meeting the RFP

requirement of section 172(c)(2).

Section 172(c)(3) requires submission

and approval of a comprehensive,

accurate and current inventory of actual

emissions. On January 14, 1998 (63 FR

2147), EPA published a conditional

approval of the 1990 base year

emissions inventory of volatile organic

compounds (VOCs) submitted by

PADEP for the Pittsburgh area. On April

3, 2001, EPA converted its conditional

approval of the VOC emissions

inventory for the Pittsburgh area to a

full approval (66 FR 17634). Today, EPA

is proposing to approve the 1990 NOX

emission inventory for the Pittsburgh

area as submitted by PADEP on March

22, 1996, and supplemented on

February 18, 1997.

Section 172(c)(5) requires permits for

the construction and operation of new

and modified major stationary sources

anywhere in the nonattainment area.

Section 182(b)(5) requires all major new

sources or modifications in a moderate

nonattainment area to achieve offsetting

reductions of VOC’s at a ratio of at least

1.15 to 1.0. The EPA granted limited

approval of the Commonwealth’s NSR

program on December 9, 1997 (62 FR

64722). EPA’s sole reason for granting

limited approval rather than full

approval of Pennsylvania’s regulations

was that they do not contain certain

restrictions on the use of emission

reductions from the shutdown and

curtailment of existing sources or units

as NSR offsets. These restrictions only

apply in nonattainment areas without

an approved attainment demonstration

(see 40 CFR part 51.165(a)(ii)(C)). The

only portion of the Commonwealth

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 104 / Wednesday, May 30, 2001 / Proposed Rules 29273

where an attainment demonstration is

still required, and has yet to be

approved, is the Pennsylvania portion of

the Philadelphia-Wilmington-Trenton

severe ozone nonattainment area

(consisting of Philadelphia, Delaware,

Chester, Montgomery, and Bucks

counties). Therefore, EPA is also

proposing to convert its limited

approval of Pennsylvania’s NSR

program to full approval for the entire

Commonwealth, with the exception of

the Pennsylvania portion of the

Philadelphia-Wilmington-Trenton

severe ozone nonattainment area where

it shall, for the time being, retain its

limited approval status.

Section 176 Conformity

Requirements. Section 176(c) of the

CAA requires states to establish criteria

and procedures to ensure that Federally

supported or funded projects conform to

the air quality planning goals in the

applicable SIP. The requirements to

determine conformity applies to

transportation plans, programs and

projects developed, funded or approved,

under title 23 U.S.C. of the Federal

Transit Act (‘‘transportation

conformity’’), as well as to all other

Federally supported or funded projects

(‘‘general conformity’’). Section 176

further provides that state conformity

revisions must be consistent with

Federal conformity regulations that the

CAA required the EPA to promulgate.

The EPA believes it is reasonable to

interpret the conformity requirements as

not applying for purposes of evaluating

the redesignation request under section

107(d). The rationale for this is based on

a combination of two factors. First, the

requirement to submit SIP revisions, to

comply with the conformity provision

of the CAA continues to apply to areas

after redesignation to attainment, since

such areas would be subject to a section

175A maintenance plan. Second, EPA’s

Federal conformity rules require the

performance of conformity analyses in

the absence of Federally approved state

rules. Therefore, because areas are

subject to the conformity requirements

regardless of whether they are

redesignated to attainment and must

implement conformity under Federal

rules if state rules are not yet approved,

the EPA believes it is reasonable to view

these requirements as not applying for

purposes of evaluating a redesignation

request. Consequently, EPA may

approve the ozone redesignation request

for the Pittsburgh area without a fully

approved conformity SIP. See Detroit,

Michigan, carbon monoxide

redesignation published on June 30,

1999 (64 FR 35017), Cleveland-AkronLorain ozone redesignation published

on May 7, 1996 (61 FR 20458), and

Tampa, Florida, published on December

7, 1995 (60 FR 52748). EPA did approve

the Commonwealth’s general conformity

SIP on September 29, 1997 (62 FR

50870).

By proposing approval of the

maintenance plan for the Pittsburgh

area, EPA is also proposing to approve

the Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets

(MVEB) contained in that plan adequate

for maintenance of the ozone NAAQS.

Upon the effective date of the final

approval of the maintenance plan for

the Pittsburgh area, the MVEB’s for both

VOC and NOX contained in the plan

shall be the applicable budgets that

must be used for purposes of

demonstrating transportation

conformity. These budgets shall replace

the VOC budget of the 15% plan and the

so-called ‘‘NOX Build/No Build Test’’

currently being used to demonstrate

transportation conformity in the

Pittsburgh area.

Subpart 2 Section 182 Requirements.

The Pittsburgh area is classified as

moderate ozone nonattainment;

therefore part D, subpart 2 section

182(b) requirements apply. In

accordance with the September 17, 1993

EPA guidance memorandum, the

requirements which came due prior to

the submission of the request to

redesignate the area must be fully

approved into the SIP before or at the

time of the request to redesignate the

area to attainment. Those requirements

are discussed below:

1990 Base Year Inventory. The 1990

base year emission inventory was due

on November 15, 1992. PADEP

submitted the 1990 base year emission

inventory on March 22, 1996 and later

supplemented it on February 18, 1997.

Today, EPA is proposing approval of the

1990 base year NOX inventory for the

Pittsburgh area submitted by the

Commonwealth on March 22, 1996 and

supplemented on February 18, 1997.

Please note that EPA converted its

January 14, 1998 (63 FR 2147)

conditional approval of the VOC base

year inventory to a full approval on

April 3, 2001 (66 FR 17634).

Periodic Emission Inventory. Periodic

inventories were required to be

submitted on November 15, 1995 and

November 15, 1998, providing an

estimate of emissions for 1993 and 1996,

respectively. This inventory is not

considered a SIP requirement for the

Pittsburgh area, therefore they do not

need to be approved into the SIP.

Pennsylvania provided its most recent

estimates of emissions for 1999 in this

redesignation request and these

emissions are summarized in tables

provided later in this document.

Emission Statements. Pennsylvania

formally submitted an emissions

statement SIP on November 12, 1992

and EPA approved it on January 12,

1995 (60 FR 2881).

15% Plan. The 15% ROP plan for

VOC reductions was required to be

submitted by November 15, 1993, and,

therefore is applicable to the PittsburghBeaver Valley moderate ozone

nonattainment area. The

Commonwealth submitted a 15% plan

on March 22, 1996 and EPA granted a

conditional approval of the plan on

January 14, 1998 (63 FR 2147). PADEP

revised its 15 percent plan SIP on July

22, 1998 in order to address the

conditions of the January 14, 1998

conditional approval. EPA removed the

conditional approval of the

Commonwealth’s 15 percent plan and

converted to a full approval on April 3,

2001 (66 FR 17634).

VOC and NOX RACT Requirements.

SIP revisions requiring 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 and apply to the

Pennsylvania submittal. The

Pennsylvania SIP has approved RACT

regulations and requirements for all

sources and source categories covered

by the CTG’s. These are listed in

appendix A of the Technical Support

Document (TSD) prepared in support of

this proposed rulemaking. Copies of the

TSD are available, upon request, from

the EPA Regional Office listed in

ADDRESSES section of this document.

On February 4, 1994, PADEP

submitted a revision to its SIP to require

major sources of NOX 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 NOX 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 NOX 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

NOX comply with RACT by May 31,

1995. The regulations contain

technology-based or operational

29274 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 104 / Wednesday, May 30, 2001 / Proposed Rules

‘‘presumptive RACT emission

limitations’’ for certain major NOX

sources. For other major NOX 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 caseby-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 NOX

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, the

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 NOX RACT

regulations by submitting 485 case-bycase VOC/NOX RACT determinations as

SIP revisions and making the

demonstration described as condition 2,

above. EPA determined that

Pennsylvania’s April 22, 1999 submittal

satisfies 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 NOX RACT regulations

on a statewide basis. The regulation

currently retains its limited approval

status. Once EPA has approved the caseby-case RACT determinations submitted

by PADEP for subject sources located in

Allegheny, Armstrong, Beaver, Butler,

Fayette, Washington, and Westmoreland

Counties, the limited approval of

Pennsylvania’s generic VOC and NOX

RACT regulations shall convert to a full

approval for the Pittsburgh area. Final

action by EPA to approve the

redesignation of the Pittsburgh area

from nonattainment to attainment may

occur only after the Pennsylvania’s

generic VOC and NOX RACT regulations

are fully approved for that area.

It should be noted that the

Commonwealth has adopted and is

implementing additional ‘‘post RACT

requirements’’ to reduce seasonal NOX

emissions in the form of a NOX cap and

trade regulation, 25 Pa Code Chapters

121 and 123, based upon a model rule

developed by the States in the Ozone

Transport Region. 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 NOX

SIP call and submitted those regulations

to EPA for SIP approval. Publication of

EPA’s rulemaking action on the

Commonwealth’s NOX SIP call rule SIP

submittal will appear in the Federal

Register in the near future.

Stage II Vapor Recovery. Section

182(b)(3) requires states to submit Stage

II rules no later than November 15,

1992. The Pennsylvania Stage II rules

were submitted as a SIP revision on

March 4, 1992. The SIP was

supplemented on October 16, 1995. EPA

approved the Stage II program for the

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania on

December 13, 1995 (60 FR 63940).

Enhanced Vehicle Inspection and

Maintenance (I/M). Pennsylvania

submitted its enhanced I/M SIP to EPA

on March 22, 1996. EPA granted

conditional interim approval of the

Commonwealth’s enhanced I/M SIP on

January 28, 1997. EPA granted full

approval of the Commonwealth’s

enhanced I/M program on June 17, 1999

(64 FR 32411).

3. The Improvement in Air Quality Must

Be Due to Permanent and Enforceable

Reductions in Emissions

The improvement in air quality must

be due to permanent and enforceable

reductions in emissions resulting from

the SIP, Federal Measures, and other

state adopted measures. The

improvement in air quality in the

Pittsburgh area is due to emissions

reductions from reductions in point,

stationary, area, and mobile sources.

Point source reductions are due to

implementation of RACT, additional

NOX controls, 111(d) plans and National

Emission Standards for Hazardous Air

Pollutants (NESHAPS) which reduce

VOCs, Prevention of Significant

Deterioration (PSD), and NSR.

Additional stationary area source

controls were implemented for the

following categories: Automobile

refinish coatings, consumer products,

architectural and industrial

maintenance coatings, wood furniture

coatings, aircraft surface coating, marine

surface coating, metal furniture coating,

municipal solid waste landfills,

treatment storage and disposal facilities,

and Stage II vapor recovery. Several

programs were implemented to reduce

highway vehicle emissions, such as the

Federal Motor Vehicle Control Program

(FMVCP), a Pittsburgh-specific

summertime gasoline 7.8 psi volatility

limit, and enhanced I/M. Nonroad

source programs include Federal rules

for large and small compression-ignition

engines, small spark-ignition engines,

and recreation spark-ignition marine

engines.

Pennsylvania has satisfied the criteria

of section 107(d)(3)(E) that the

improvement in air quality must be due

to permanent and enforceable

reductions in emissions resulting from

the SIP, Federal Measures, and other

state adopted measures.

4. The Area Must Have a Fully

Approved Maintenance Plan Meeting

the Requirements of Section 175A

Section 175A of the CAA sets for the

elements of a maintenance plan for

areas seeking redesignation from

nonattainment to attainment. The

maintenance plan is a SIP revision

which provides for maintenance of the

relevant NAAQS in the area for at least

10 years after redesignation. The EPA

memorandum, dated September 4, 1992

from John Calcagni, provides additional

guidance on the required content of a

maintenance plan. An ozone

maintenance plan should address the

following five areas: the attainment

emissions inventory, maintenance

demonstration, monitoring network,

verification of continued attainment and

a contingency plan. The attainment

emissions inventory identifies the

emissions level in the area which is

sufficient to attain the 1-hour ozone

NAAQS, and includes emissions during

the time period which had no

monitored violations. Maintenance is

demonstrated by showing that future

emissions will not exceed the level

established by the attainment inventory.

Provisions for continued operation of an

appropriate air quality monitoring

network are to be included in the

maintenance plan. The state must show

how it will track and verify the progress

of the maintenance plan. Finally, the

potential contingency measures ensure

prompt correction of any violation of

the ozone standard.

The PADEP included a 1999

emissions inventory as the attainment

inventory. The maintenance plan

provides emissions estimates from 1990

to 2011 for VOCs and NOX (see Tables

1 and 2, below). The emissions in the

Pittsburgh area are projected to decrease

from the 1999 levels. The results of the

analysis show that the Pittsburgh area is

expected to maintain the air quality

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 104 / Wednesday, May 30, 2001 / Proposed Rules 29275

standard for at least 10 years into the

future after redesignation.

TABLE 1.—VOC EMISSIONS FROM 1999 TO 2011 IN THE PITTSBURGH AREA

Major source category 1999

attainment

2007

projected

2011

projected

Point sources ........................................................................................................................................... 34 36 38

Stationary Area Sources .......................................................................................................................... 130 136 142

Highway Vehicles .................................................................................................................................... 110 98 102

Nonroad Engines/Vehicles ...................................................................................................................... 64 42 37

Total .................................................................................................................................................. 338 313 319

TABLE 2.—NOX EMISSIONS FROM 1999 TO 2011 IN THE PITTSBURGH AREA

Major source category 1999

attainment

2007

projected

2011

projected

Point sources ........................................................................................................................................... 282 199 199

Stationary Area Sources .......................................................................................................................... 10 10 10

Highway Vehicles .................................................................................................................................... 171 129 115

Nonroad Engines/Vehicles ...................................................................................................................... 75 67 60

Total .................................................................................................................................................. 538 405 384

The Commonwealth’s plan commits

to continue the operation of the

monitors in the area in accordance with

40 CFR part 58. The Commonwealth’s

plan also states that it will track

maintenance by reviewing the air

quality and emissions data during the

maintenance period. As stated earlier,

the plan also includes motor vehicle

emission budgets to be used for

transportation conformity purposes for

the Pittsburgh area upon the effective

date of the final approval of the

maintenance plan.

The contingency plan for the

Pittsburgh area consists of attainment

tracking and contingency measures to be

implemented in the event that a

violation of the ozone NAAQS occurs in

the Pittsburgh area. Two measures of

attainment tracking will be utilized in

the Pittsburgh area: (1) air quality

monitoring using the existing ozone

monitoring network, and (2) inventory

updates on a regular schedule.

Stationary, mobile, and area source

inventories will be updated a minimum

of once every three years beginning in

2002. The inventories will be assessed

by comparison with the 1999

maintenance inventory to ensure that

the emissions do not exceed the

attainment year inventory by more than

10 percent. The Commonwealth will

develop periodic emissions inventories

(every 3 years) beginning in 2002 and

will evaluate these inventories relative

to the 1999 baseline to assess whether

further controls are needed.

The contingency measures included

in the plan to be considered for

implementation for the Pittsburgh area

are four VOC model rules currently

being considered as additional measures

for the Philadelphia Ozone

Nonattainment area. The rules are part

of a recent Memorandum of

Understanding (MOU) and resolutions

signed on March 28, 2001 by the

member states of the Ozone Transport

Commission (OTC). The VOC rules

under consideration have the potential

to reduce emissions from consumer

products, portable fuel containers,

architectural and industrial

Maintenance coatings, and solvent

cleaning operations.

The Commonwealth’s submittal

adequately addresses the five basic

components which comprise a

maintenance plan (attainment

inventory, maintenance demonstration,

monitoring network, verification of

continued attainment, and a

contingency plan) and therefore,

satisfies the maintenance plan

requirement of section 107(d)(3)(E).

The CAA section 175A(b) also

requires the PADEP to submit a revision

of the SIP eight years after the original

redesignation request is approved to

provide for maintenance of the NAAQS

for an additional 10 years following the

first 10-year period. The Commonwealth

recognizes that it is required to submit

such a SIP revision 8 years after this

request and maintenance plan are

approved.

Proposed Actions

EPA is proposing to redesignate the

Pittsburgh area from nonattainment to

attainment of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS

and is proposing to approve the

maintenance plan submitted by the

Commonwealth on April 9, 2001. By

proposing approval of the Pittsburgh

area maintenance plan, EPA is also

proposing to approve the MVEBs

contained in that plan as adequate for

maintenance of the ozone NAAQS and

for transportation conformity purposes.

EPA is also proposing to approve the

1990 NOX base year emissions

inventory. EPA is also proposing to

convert its limited approval of

Pennsylvania’s NSR program to a full

approval for the entire Commonwealth,

with the exception of the Philadelphia

area where it will retain its limited

approval status. Final action by EPA to

approve the redesignation of the

Pittsburgh area from nonattainment to

attainment may occur only after the

Pennsylvania’s generic VOC and NOX

RACT regulations are fully approved for

that area.

EPA is soliciting public comments on

the issues discussed in this notice or on

other relevant matters. These comments

will be considered before taking final

action. Interested parties may

participate in the Federal rulemaking

procedure by submitting written

comments to the EPA Regional office

listed in the ADDRESSES section of this

document. Interested parties should

submit comments by June 29, 2001. All

interested parties are advised to submit

comments at this time as EPA does not

intend to extend this comment period or

to institute a second comment period.

This redesignation is being proposed

under a procedure called parallel

processing, whereby EPA proposes

rulemaking action concurrently with the

29276 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 104 / Wednesday, May 30, 2001 / Proposed Rules

state’s procedures for amending its

regulations. If the proposed

maintenance plan is substantially

changed in areas other than those

identified in this notice, EPA will

evaluate those changes and may publish

another notice of proposed rulemaking.

If no substantial changes are made other

than those areas cited in this notice,

Pennsylvania will publish a Final

Rulemaking Notice on the revisions.

The final rulemaking action by EPA will

occur only after the SIP revision has

been adopted by Pennsylvania and

submitted formally to EPA for

incorporation into the SIP.

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 action merely proposes to

approve state law as meeting Federal

requirements and imposes no additional

requirements beyond those imposed by

state law. Accordingly, the

Administrator certifies that this

proposed redesignation and associated

maintenance plan 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 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

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 redesignation

and associated maintenance plan also

are 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 redesignation of the

Pittsburgh area from nonattainment to

attainment for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS

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, Volatile organic

compounds.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 81

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control.

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

Dated: May 21, 2001

Thomas C. Voltaggio,

Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.

[FR Doc. 01–13513 Filed 5–29–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

50 CFR Part 660

[Docket No. 010509116–116–01; I.D.

042301B]

RIN 0648–AO87

Fisheries off West Coast States and in

the Western Pacific; Pacific Coast

Groundfish Fishery; Restrictions on

Frequency of Limited Entry Permit

Transfers

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for

comments.

SUMMARY: NMFS proposes a rule that

would revise restrictions on the

frequency and timing of limited entry

permit transfers and would clarify

NMFS regulatory requirements for

transferring limited entry permits. This

proposed rule would also update and

clarify limited entry program

regulations so that they are more

readable for the public. This action is

intended to propose revisions to the

limited entry permit regulations that

would better address the needs of the

small businesses participating in the

Pacific Coast groundfish limited entry

fishery.

DATES: Comments must be submitted in

writing by June 19, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Send comments to Donna

Darm, Acting Administrator, Northwest

Region, (Regional Administrator) NMFS,

7600 Sand Point Way NE., Seattle, WA

98115; or Rebecca Lent, Administrator,

Southwest Region, NMFS, 501 West

Ocean Blvd., Suite 4200, Long Beach,

CA 90802–4213. Copies of the

environmental assessment/regulatory

impact review (EA/RIR) for this action

are available from Donald McIsaac,

Executive Director, Pacific Fishery

Management Council (Council), 2130

SW Fifth Avenue, Suite 224, Portland,

OR 97201.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Yvonne deReynier or Kevin Ford

(Northwest Region, NMFS), phone: 206–

526–6140; fax: 206–526–6736 and; email: Yvonne.dereynier@noaa.gov,

kevin.ford@noaa.gov or Svein Fougner

(Southwest Region, NMFS) phone: 562–

980–4000; fax: 562–980–4047 and; email: svein.fougner@noaa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: