34596 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 126 / Friday, June 29, 2001 / Proposed Rules

New Actions Required by This AD

Terminating Modification for Model MD–90–

30 Series Airplanes

(d) For Model MD–90–30 series airplanes:

Within 18 months after the effective date of

this AD, do the actions specified in

paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this AD, per

Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD90–27A031,

dated January 29, 2001, or Revision 01, dated

March 26, 2001. Accomplishment of those

actions terminates the AFM revision

requirements of paragraph (b) of this AD.

After doing those actions, the AFM revision

required by paragraph (b) of this AD may be

removed from the AFM.

Alternative Methods of Compliance

(e) An alternative method of compliance or

adjustment of the compliance time that

provides an acceptable level of safety may be

used if approved by the Manager, Los

Angeles Aircraft Certification Office (ACO),

FAA. Operators shall submit their requests

through an appropriate FAA Principal

Maintenance Inspector, who may add

comments and then send it to the Manager,

Los Angeles ACO.

Note 3: Information concerning the

existence of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this AD, if any, may be

obtained from the Los Angeles ACO.

Special Flight Permits

(f) Special flight permits may be issued in

accordance with §§ 21.197 and 21.199 of the

Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.197

and 21.199) to operate the airplane to a

location where the requirements of this AD

can be accomplished.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on June 22,

2001.

Kalene C. Yanamura,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 01–16383 Filed 6–28–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[OH118–1a; FRL–7005–5]

Conditional Approval Implementation

Plans; Ohio

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The United States

Environmental Protection Agency

(USEPA) is proposing conditional

approval of the Ohio Environmental

Protection Agency’s (OEPA) SIP for

Prevention of Significant Deterioration

(PSD) provisions for attainment areas.

Ohio submitted a request for a SIPapproved PSD program on March 1,

1996. The request was supplemented on

April 16, 1997, September 5, 1997,

December 4, 1997, and April 21, 1998.

Ohio Administrative Code (OAC)

sections 3745–31–11 to 3745–31–20

contain the permitting provisions for

areas attaining the national ambient air

quality standards (NAAQS). The general

provisions applying to both attainment

and nonattainment areas are found in

OAC sections 3745–31–01 to 3745–31–

10.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before July 30, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the documents

relevant to this action are available for

inspection during normal business

hours at the following location: Permits

and Grants Section, Air Programs

Branch, (AR–18J), U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West

Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois,

60604.

Please contact Genevieve Damico at

(312) 353–4761 before visiting the

Region 5 office.

Written comments should be sent to:

Pamela Blakley, Chief, Permits and

Grants Section, Air Programs Branch,

(AR–18J), U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West

Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois

60604.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Genevieve Damico, Environmental

Engineer, Permits and Grants Section,

Air Programs Branch, (AR–18J), U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,

Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 353–4761.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This

supplemental information section is

organized as follows:

A. What is the purpose of this document?

B. Who will be affected by this action?

C. What is the history of OEPA’s PSD

program?

D. How are OEPA’s PSD rules structured?

E. Why are we granting a conditional

approval?

F. How will 51.166(b)(23)(i) be

implemented under this action?

G. How can this conditional approval

become fully approved?

A. What Is the Purpose of This

Document?

We are soliciting public comments on

the proposal for conditional approval of

Ohio’s request for its Prevention of

Significant Deterioration (PSD) program

to be approved into the SIP. We will

consider these comments before we take

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.

B. Who Is Affected by This Action?

Because the fully approved PSD

program will be similar to the PSD

program that OEPA already operates

under delegated authority, air pollution

sources will generally not be affected by

this action. However, once the program

is fully approved, persons wishing to

appeal PSD permits will have to file

their appeals with OEPA under the SIPapproved program, rather than with

USEPA’s Environmental Appeals Board

as they have been doing under the

delegated PSD program.

C. What Is the History of Ohio’s PSD

Program?

OEPA submitted its first permitting

SIP to USEPA on January 31, 1972, and

submitted replacement regulations on

June 6, 1973. These regulations

provided requirements, such as best

available technology, that were meant to

be uniformly applied throughout the

state.

The Clean Air Act Amendments of

1977 required states to go further than

uniformly applied regulations. The

Amendments provided for the

designation of areas within a state as

‘‘attainment’’ or ‘‘nonattainment.’’ An

‘‘attainment’’ area meets the NAAQS. A

‘‘nonattainment’’ area does not meet the

NAAQS.

OEPA requested delegation of the PSD

attainment permitting program on

February 8, 1980, and received

delegation on January 29, 1981.

OEPA submitted a request for

approval of Ohio Administrative code

(OAC) sections 3745–31–01 to 3745–31–

20 into the SIP on March 1, 1996. Ohio

subsequently submitted revisions dated

March 1, 1996, April 16, 1997,

September 5, 1997, December 4, 1997,

and April 21, 1998. OEPA’s PSD

program has since remained in

delegated status. The subsequent

requests for SIP-approval of Ohio’s

regulations allow us to grant conditional

approval to the program for reasons

described below.

D. How Are OEPA’s PSD Rules

Structured?

Part C of Title I of the Clean Air Act

(CAA) requires a SIP for PSD rules for

attainment areas. 40 CFR 51.165 and

51.166 contain the requirements for a

PSD permitting program. OEPA

submitted this SIP in the form of OAC

sections 3745–31–11 to 3745–31–20.

OEPA also submitted general provisions

applying to both attainment and

nonattainment areas in the form of OAC

sections 3745–31–01 to 3745–31–10.

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 126 / Friday, June 29, 2001 / Proposed Rules 34597

E. Why Are We Granting a Conditional

Approval?

We are proposing to grant conditional

approval to Ohio’s PSD rules, OAC

sections 3745–31–01 to 3745–31–20.

These rules, for the most part, fulfill

part C of Title I of the CAA by

incorporating the critical provisions at

40 CFR 51.165 and 51.166 for ambient

air increment consumption, area

designation and redesignation

restrictions, best available control

technology, impact analysis, and air

quality modeling. OAC sections 3745–

31–01(OOO) does not, however, include

a 25 tons per year significance level for

particulate matter, or a 50 ton per year

significance level for municipal solid

waste landfill emissions, as required by

40 CFR 51.166(b)(23)(i). Furthermore,

total reduced sulfur and reduce sulfur

compounds are incorrectly defined to

exclude hydrogen sulfide. Therefore, the

definition of significant as required by

40 CFR 51.166(b)(23)(i) is not complete.

In a December 5, 2000, letter, OEPA has

committed to correct the definition of

significance in OAC 3745–31. Because

OAC sections 3745–31–01 through

3745–31–20 meet all requirements of 40

CFR 51.165 and 51.166 with this

exception, and OEPA has committed to

correct these deficiencies, we believe it

is appropriate to grant conditional

approval. When Ohio demonstrates that

the deficiencies identified above are

cured, USEPA can grant final approval

to these rules.

USEPA is currently reviewing OEPA’s

implementation of the delegated PSD

program in response to a petition

submitted by D. David Altman on behalf

of Ohio Citizen Action, the Ohio

Environmental Council, Rivers

Unlimited, and the Ohio Sierra Club.

Any concerns that USEPA finds as a

result of this review will be addressed

through the process of responding to the

petition. Today’s proposed conditional

approval only addresses whether or not

specific provisions of Ohio’s

administrative code meet the federal

criteria for a PSD program, as set forth

in 40 CFR part 51, and does not address

any issues regarding how the code is

being applied or enforced by Ohio. We

believe the OAC revisions meet the

criteria for approval with the exceptions

listed above, and are therefore

proposing to conditionally approve

them. No particular findings or

conclusions in or from the USEPA

petition review should be inferred from

today’s proposed conditional approval.

F. How Will 51.166(b)(23)(i) Be

Implemented Under This Action?

Although Ohio will have a SIPapproved PSD program, until this

conditional approval becomes final

OEPA will continue to be delegated the

authority under § 51.166(b)(23)(i) of the

federal PSD regulations to permit

sources of significant particulate matter,

municipal solid waste landfill

emissions, and total reduced sulfur and

reduce sulfur compounds. The

delegation will continue until such time

as the identified deficiencies are

corrected and full approval is granted

(or unless USEPA otherwise addresses

the delegation after the review of Ohio’s

implementation of the PSD program

pursuant to the petition discussed

above).

G. How Can This Conditional Approval

Become Fully Approved?

OEPA will have one year from the

time that the conditional approval is

final to submit the necessary changes to

its rules to correct the deficiencies

identified in this notice. If OEPA does

not submit approvable changes within

the one year timeframe, USEPA will

disapprove Ohio’s PSD program.

USEPA Action

In this rulemaking action, we propose

conditional approval of OEPA’s March

1, 1996 request, as amended by OEPA’s

April 16, 1997 request, for additions and

revisions to OAC sections 3745–31–01

to 3745–31–10, and OAC sections 3745–

31–11 to 3745–31–20 because the

request meets all of the requirements of

40 CFR 51.165 and 51.166 with the

exception of a 25 ton per year

significance level for particulate matter;

a 50 ton per year significance level for

municipal solid waste landfill emissions

as required by 40 CFR 51.166(b)(23)(i);

and because total reduced sulfur and

reduce sulfur compounds are

incorrectly defined to exclude hydrogen

sulfide. OEPA has also committed to

correct the definition of significance in

OAC 3745–31.

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

(Pub. L. 104–4). For the same reason,

this proposed rule also does not

significantly or uniquely affect the

communities of tribal governments, as

specified by Executive Order 13084 (63

FR 27655, May 10, 1998). This proposed

rule will not have substantial direct

effects on the States, on the relationship

between the national government and

the States, or on the distribution of

power and responsibilities among the

various levels of government, as

specified in Executive Order 13132 (64

FR 43255, August 10, 1999), because it

merely approves a state rule

implementing a federal standard, and

does not alter the relationship or the

distribution of power and

responsibilities established in the Clean

Air Act. This proposed rule also is not

subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR

19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not

economically significant.

In reviewing SIP submissions,

USEPA’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),

USEPA has no authority to disapprove

a SIP submission for failure to use VCS.

It would thus be inconsistent with

applicable law for USEPA, 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, USEPA

has taken the necessary steps to

eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity,

minimize potential litigation, and

provide a clear legal standard for

affected conduct. USEPA has complied

with Executive Order 12630 (53 FR

8859, March 15, 1988) by examining the

takings implications of the rule in

accordance with the ‘‘Attorney

General’s Supplemental Guidelines for

the Evaluation of Risk and Avoidance of

Unanticipated Takings’’ issued under

the executive order. This rule does not

impose an information collection

34598 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 126 / Friday, June 29, 2001 / Proposed Rules

1 ‘‘Maricopa,’’ ‘‘Maricopa County’’ and ‘‘Phoenix’’

are used interchangeably throughout this proposal

to refer to the nonattainment area.

2There are two PM–10 NAAQS, a 24-hour

standard and an annual standard. 40 CFR 50.6. EPA

promulgated these NAAQS on July 1, 1987 (52 FR

24672), replacing standards for total suspended

particulate with new standards applying only to

particulate matter up to 10 microns in diameter

(PM–10). At that time, EPA established two PM–10

standards. The annual PM–10 standard is attained

when the expected annual arithmetic average of the

24-hour samples for a period of one year does not

exceed 50 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m3). The

24-hour PM–10 standard of 150 μg/m3 is attained

if samples taken for 24-hour periods have no more

than one expected exceedance per year, averaged

over 3 years. See 40 CFR 50.6 and 40 CFR part 50,

appendix K.

3See ‘‘State Implementation Plans; General

Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the

Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,’’ (General

Preamble) 57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992) and 57 FR

18070 (April 28, 1992).

burden under the provisions of the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Carbon monoxide,

Hydrocarbons, Incorporation by

reference, Intergovernmental relations,

Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,

Particulate matter, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur

oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

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

Dated: May 8, 2001.

Norman Neidergang,

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.

[FR Doc. 01–16437 Filed 6–28–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–U

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[AZ105–0040; FRL–7005–4]

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans; Arizona—

Maricopa Nonattainment Area; PM–10

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve

under the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act),

as a revision to the Arizona State

Implementation Plan (SIP), a general

permit rule that provides for the

expeditious implementation of best

management practices (BMPs) to reduce

particulate matter (PM–10) from

agricultural sources in the Maricopa

County (Phoenix) PM–10 nonattainment

area. EPA is proposing to approve the

general permit rule as meeting the

‘‘reasonably available control measure’’

(RACM) requirements of the Act.

DATES: Written comments will be

accepted until July 30, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be

submitted (in duplicate, if possible) to:

John Ungvarsky, EPA Region 9, 75

Hawthorne Street (AIR2), San Francisco,

CA 94105 or ungvarsky.john@epa.gov.

A copy of docket, containing material

relevant to EPA’s proposed action, is

available for review at: EPA Region 9,

Air Division, 75 Hawthorne Street, San

Francisco, CA 94105. Interested persons

may make an appointment with John

Ungvarsky to inspect the docket at

EPA’s San Francisco office on weekdays

between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m.

A copy of docket is also available to

review at the Arizona Department of

Environmental Quality, Library, 3033 N.

Central Avenue, Phoenix, Arizona

85012. (602) 207–2217.

Electronic Availability.This document

is also available as an electronic file on

EPA’s Region 9 Web Page at http://

www.epa.gov/region09/air.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John

Ungvarsky at (415) 744–1286 or

ungvarsky.john@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

I. Background

A. Air Quality Status

Portions of Maricopa County 1 are

designated nonattainment for the PM–

10 national ambient air quality

standards (NAAQS) 2 and were

originally classified as ‘‘moderate’’

pursuant to section 188(a) of the CAA.

56 FR 11101 (March 15, 1991). On May

10, 1996, EPA reclassified the Maricopa

County PM–10 nonattainment area to

‘‘serious’’ under CAA section 188(b)(2).

61 FR 21372. Having been reclassified,

Phoenix is required to meet the serious

area requirements in CAA section

189(b).

While the Phoenix PM–10

nonattainment area is currently

classified as serious, today’s proposed

action relates only to the moderate area

statutory requirements for RACM.

However, as discussed further below,

Arizona developed state legislation and

a general permit rule applicable to

agricultural sources of PM–10 when the

area had already been reclassified to

serious. Therefore the State’s focus was

on the serious area statutory

requirements for ‘‘best available control

measures’’ (BACM). RACM, as will be

seen, is generally considered to be a

subset of BACM. As a result, in order to

evaluate whether the general permit rule

meets the RACM requirements for the

purpose of this rulemaking, it was

necessary for EPA to refer to portions of

the State’s serious area state

implementation plan (SIP) submittals.

Thus, while the Agency is not proposing

action at this time on those submittals

as they relate to the Act’s serious area

statutory requirements, those

requirements and the State’s submittals

developed to meet them are discussed

here. The relevant portions of the State’s

serious area submittals are cited below

and are included in the docket for this

proposed action.

B. CAA Planning Requirements and

EPA Guidance

The air quality planning requirements

for PM–10 nonattainment areas are set

out in subparts 1 and 4 of title I of the

Clean Air Act. Those states containing

initial moderate PM–10 nonattainment

areas were required to submit, among

other things, by November 15, 1991

provisions to assure that RACM

(including such reductions in emissions

from existing sources in the area as may

be obtained through the adoption, at a

minimum, of reasonably available

control technology (RACT)) shall be

implemented no later than December

10, 1993. CAA sections 172(c)(1) and

189(a)(1)(C). Since that deadline has

passed, EPA has concluded that the

required RACM/RACT must be

implemented ‘‘as soon as possible.’’

Delaney v. EPA, 898 F.2d 687, 691 (9th

Cir. 1990). EPA has interpreted this

requirement to be ‘‘as soon as

practicable.’’ See 55 FR 41204, 41210

(October 1, 1990) and 63 FR 28898,

28900 (May 27, 1998).

EPA has issued a ‘‘General

Preamble’’ 3 describing EPA’s

preliminary views on how the Agency

intends to review SIPs and SIP revisions

submitted under title I of the Act,

including those state submittals

containing moderate PM–10

nonattainment area SIP provisions. The

methodology for determining RACM/

RACT is described in detail in the

General Preamble. 57 FR 13498, 13540–

13541. In short and as pertinent here,

EPA suggests starting to define RACM

with the list of available control

measures for fugitive dust in Appendix

C1 to the General Preamble and adding

to this list any additional control

measures proposed and documented in

public comments. Any measures that

apply to emission sources of PM–10 and

that are de minimis and any measures

that are unreasonable for technology

reasons or because of the cost of the

control in the area can then be culled

from the list. In addition, potential

RACM may be culled from the list if a

measure cannot be implemented on a

schedule that would advance the date