Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 126 / Friday, June 29, 2001 / Proposed Rules 34593

New Requirements of This AD

Replacement of Hinge Plates

(b) Before the accumulation of 15,000 total

flight cycles, or within 5 years since the

airplane’s date of manufacture, whichever

occurs first: Replace the elevator hinge plates

at hinges 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8, with new,

improved hinge plates; per Part II of the

Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing

Service Bulletin 737–55–1067, dated October

19, 2000, except as provided by paragraph (c)

of this AD. The replacement includes

modification of the elevator upper skin, the

upper and lower hinge covers, and the upper

and lower closure panels, as applicable.

Doing this replacement ends the repetitive

inspections required by this AD.

Exception to Service Bulletin Instructions:

Wear Limits

(c) During the replacement of elevator

hinge plates per paragraph (a) or (b) of this

AD, where Boeing Service Bulletin 737–55–

1067, dated October 19, 2000, specifies to

contact Boeing for wear limits, before further

flight, contact the Manager, Seattle Aircraft

Certification Office (ACO), FAA, or a Boeing

Company Designated Engineering

Representative who has been authorized by

the Manager, Seattle ACO, to make such

findings. For wear limits to be approved by

the Manager, Seattle ACO, as required by this

paragraph, the Manager’s approval letter

must specifically reference this AD.

Alternative Methods of Compliance

(d) 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, Seattle

ACO. Operators shall submit their requests

through an appropriate FAA Principal

Maintenance Inspector, who may add

comments and then send it to the Manager,

Seattle ACO.

Note 3: Information concerning the

existence of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this AD, if any, may be

obtained from the Seattle ACO.

Special Flight Permits

(e) Special flight permits may be issued in

accordance with §§ 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. 01–16382 Filed 6–28–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 2001–NM–114–AD]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell

Douglas Model DC–9–81, –82, –83, and

–87 Series Airplanes, Model MD–88

Airplanes, and Model MD–90–30 Series

Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM).

SUMMARY: This document proposes the

supersedure of an existing airworthiness

directive (AD), applicable to certain

McDonnell Douglas Model DC–9–81–

82–83, and–87 series airplanes, Model

MD–88 airplanes, and Model MD–90–30

series airplanes, that currently requires

a revision to the applicable Airplane

Flight Manual (AFM) to provide the

flightcrew with the appropriate landing

distance and flap positions, if

applicable, for wet or icy runways. That

AD also provides for an optional

terminating action for the applicable

AFM revision. For certain airplanes, this

action would require accomplishment of

the previously optional terminating

action. The actions specified by the

proposed AD are intended to prevent

the flightcrew from performing a

scheduled landing on a runway of

potentially insufficient length due to

failure of the weight-on-wheels spoiler

lockout mechanism system and possible

inactivation of the autospoiler actuator,

which could result in the airplane

overrunning the end of the runway

during landing on a wet or icy runway.

DATES: Comments must be received by

August 13, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in

triplicate to the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), Transport

Airplane Directorate, ANM–114,

Attention: Rules Docket No. 2001–NM–

114–AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW.,

Renton, Washington 98055–4056.

Comments may be inspected at this

location between 9 a.m. and 3 p.m.,

Monday through Friday, except Federal

holidays. Comments may be submitted

via fax to (425) 227–1232. Comments

may also be sent via the Internet using

the following address: 9-anmnprmcomment@faa.gov. Comments sent

via fax or the Internet must contain

‘‘Docket No. 2001–NM–114–AD’’ in the

subject line and need not be submitted

in triplicate. Comments sent via the

Internet as attached electronic files must

be formatted in Microsoft Word 97 for

Windows or ASCII text.

The service information referenced in

the proposed rule may be obtained from

Boeing Commercial Aircraft Group,

Long Beach Division, 3855 Lakewood

Boulevard, Long Beach, California

90846, Attention: Data and Service

Management, Dept. C1–L5A (D800–

0024). This information may be

examined at the FAA, Transport

Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind

Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at

the FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft

Certification Office, 3960 Paramount

Boulevard, Lakewood, California.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Albert Lam, Aerospace Engineer,

Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM–

130L, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft

Certification Office, 3960 Paramount

Boulevard, Lakewood, California

90712–4137; telephone (562) 627–5346;

fax (562) 627–5210.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

Interested persons are invited to

participate in the making of the

proposed rule by submitting such

written data, views, or arguments as

they may desire. Communications shall

identify the Rules Docket number and

be submitted in triplicate to the address

specified above. All communications

received on or before the closing date

for comments, specified above, will be

considered before taking action on the

proposed rule. The proposals contained

in this action may be changed in light

of the comments received.

Submit comments using the following

format:

• Organize comments issue-by-issue.

For example, discuss a request to

change the compliance time and a

request to change the service bulletin

reference as two separate issues.

• For each issue, state what specific

change to the proposed AD is being

requested.

• Include justification (e.g., reasons or

data) for each request.

Comments are specifically invited on

the overall regulatory, economic,

environmental, and energy aspects of

the proposed rule. All comments

submitted will be available, both before

and after the closing date for comments,

in the Rules Docket for examination by

interested persons. A report

summarizing each FAA-public contact

concerned with the substance of this

proposal will be filed in the Rules

Docket.

Commenters wishing the FAA to

acknowledge receipt of their comments

34594 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 126 / Friday, June 29, 2001 / Proposed Rules

submitted in response to this action

must submit a self-addressed, stamped

postcard on which the following

statement is made: ‘‘Comments to

Docket Number 2001–NM–114–AD.’’

The postcard will be date stamped and

returned to the commenter.

Availability of NPRMs

Any person may obtain a copy of this

NPRM by submitting a request to the

FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate,

ANM–114, Attention: Rules Docket No.

2001–NM–114–AD, 1601 Lind Avenue,

SW., Renton, Washington 98055–4056.

Discussion

On April 5, 2001, the FAA issued AD

2001–07–10, amendment 39–12176 (66

FR 18870, April 12, 2001), applicable to

certain McDonnell Douglas Model DC–

9–81, –82, –83, and –87 series airplanes,

Model MD–88 airplanes, and Model

MD–90–30 series airplanes, to require a

revision to the applicable Airplane

Flight Manual (AFM) to provide the

flightcrew with the appropriate landing

distance and flap positions, if

applicable, for wet or icy runways. That

AD also provides for an optional

terminating action for the applicable

AFM revision. That action was

prompted by reports indicating that the

wiring of the weight-on-wheels spoiler

lockout mechanism system provides

insufficient current/voltage to provide

full operational capability of

deployment of the ground spoilers

(inboard and outboard) during ground

operation. The requirements of that AD

are intended to prevent the flightcrew

from performing a scheduled landing on

a runway of potentially insufficient

length due to failure of the weight-onwheels spoiler lockout mechanism

system and possible inactivation of the

autospoiler actuator, which could result

in the airplane overrunning the end of

the runway during landing on a wet or

icy runway.

Actions Since Issuance of Previous Rule

In the preamble to AD 2001–07–10,

the FAA indicated that certain actions

required by that AD were considered

‘‘interim action’’ and that further

rulemaking action was being considered

to require the terminating action (i.e.,

installing spoiler support bracket

assemblies and relays, and revising the

spoiler lockout relay wiring) for the

applicable AFM revision on McDonnell

Douglas Model MD–90–30 series

airplanes. We have now determined that

further rulemaking action is indeed

necessary, and this proposed AD

follows from that determination.

Since the issuance of AD 2001–07–10,

the FAA has reviewed and approved

Appendix 3E, Section 4, of MD–90

Airplane Flight Manual (AFM) MDC–

91K0930, dated March 14, 2001, for

incorporation into the Performance

Section of the FAA-approved AFM. The

procedures described in Section 4

provide the flightcrew with the

appropriate landing distance and flap

positions, if applicable, for wet or icy

runways. Paragraph (b) of AD 2001–07–

10, which is retained in this proposed

AD, requires an AFM revision similar to

that described in Section 4 of MD–90

AFM MDC–91K0930. We find that, in

the interim until the terminating action

can be done, either revision (discussed

above) to the Performance Section of the

MD–90 AFM can be accomplished.

Therefore, we have added this provision

to paragraph (b) of this proposed AD.

Explanation of Requirements of

Proposed Rule

Since an unsafe condition has been

identified that is likely to exist or

develop on other products of this same

type design, the proposed AD would

supersede AD 2001–07–10 to continue

to require a revision to the applicable

Airplane Flight Manual (AFM) to

provide the flightcrew with the

appropriate landing distance and flap

positions, if applicable, for wet or icy

runways. For certain airplanes, this

proposed AD also would continue to

provide for an optional terminating

action (i.e., installing spoiler support

bracket assemblies and relays, and

revising the spoiler lockout relay

wiring) for the applicable AFM revision.

For certain other airplanes, this

proposed AD also would require

accomplishment of the previously

optional terminating action, which

would terminate the requirement for the

applicable AFM revision. The

terminating actions would be required

to be accomplished in accordance with

the applicable Boeing service bulletin as

described in the preamble of AD 2001–

07–10, and listed in the following table:

TABLE.—APPLICABLE SERVICE BULLETINS

Alert service bulletin Revision level Date Model

MD80–27A359 ......... Original or 01 .......... January 29, 2001, March 26, 2001 .................... DC–9–81, –82, –83, and –87 series airplanes,

and MD–88 airplanes.

MD90–27A031 ......... Original or 01 .......... January 29, 2001, March 26, 2001 .................... MD–90–30 series airplanes.

Cost Impact

There are approximately 224 Model

DC–9–81, –82, –83, and –87 series

airplanes, Model MD–88 airplanes, and

Model MD–90–30 series airplanes of the

affected design in the worldwide fleet.

The FAA estimates that 67 airplanes of

U.S. registry would be affected by this

proposed AD.

The AFM revisions that are currently

required by AD 2001–07–10, and

retained in this proposed AD, take

approximately 1 work hour per airplane

to accomplish, at an average labor rate

of $60 per work hour. Based on these

figures, the cost impact of the currently

required actions on U.S. operators is

estimated to be $4,020, or $60 per

airplane.

For certain airplanes, the new

terminating action that is proposed in

this AD action would take

approximately 22 work hours per

airplane to accomplish, at an average

labor rate of $60 per work hour. The

manufacturer has committed previously

to its customers that it will bear the cost

of replacement parts. Based on these

figures, the cost impact of the proposed

requirements of this AD on U.S.

operators of Model MD–90–30 series

airplanes is estimated to be $1,320 per

airplane.

The cost impact figures discussed

above are based on assumptions that no

operator has yet accomplished any of

the current or proposed requirements of

this AD action, and that no operator

would accomplish those actions in the

future if this AD were not adopted. The

cost impact figures discussed in AD

rulemaking actions represent only the

time necessary to perform the specific

actions actually required by the AD.

These figures typically do not include

incidental costs, such as the time

required to gain access and close up,

planning time, or time necessitated by

other administrative actions.

Should an operator of Model DC–9–

81, –82, –83, and –87 series airplanes,

and Model MD–88 airplanes elect to

accomplish the optional terminating

action that would be provided by this

AD action, it would take approximately

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 126 / Friday, June 29, 2001 / Proposed Rules 34595

22 work hours to accomplish it, at an

average labor rate of $60 per work hour.

The manufacturer has committed

previously to its customers that it will

bear the cost of replacement parts.

Based on these figures, the cost impact

of the optional terminating action would

be $1,320 per airplane.

Regulatory Impact

The regulations proposed herein

would not have a substantial direct

effect 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. Therefore,

it is determined that this proposal

would not have federalism implications

under Executive Order 13132.

For the reasons discussed above, I

certify that this proposed regulation (1)

is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’

under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not

a ‘‘significant rule’’ under the DOT

Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44

FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3) if

promulgated, will not have a significant

economic impact, positive or negative,

on a substantial number of small entities

under the criteria of the Regulatory

Flexibility Act. A copy of the draft

regulatory evaluation prepared for this

action is contained in the Rules Docket.

A copy of it may be obtained by

contacting the Rules Docket at the

location provided under the caption

ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation

safety, Safety.

The Proposed Amendment

Accordingly, pursuant to the

authority delegated to me by the

Administrator, the Federal Aviation

Administration proposes to amend part

39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations

(14 CFR part 39) as follows:

PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS

DIRECTIVES

1. The authority citation for part 39

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

§ 39.13 [Amended]

2. Section 39.13 is amended by

removing amendment 39–12176 (66 FR

18870, April 12, 2001), and by adding

a new airworthiness directive (AD), to

read as follows:

McDonnell Douglas: Docket 2001–NM–114–

AD. Supersedes AD 2001–07–10,

Amendment 39–12176.

Applicability: Models identified in Table 1

of this AD, certificated in any category;

excluding those airplanes on which the

modification specified in the applicable

service bulletin listed in Table 1 of this AD

has been done. Table 1 is as follows:

TABLE 1.—APPLICABILITY

Model As Listed In

DC–9–81, –82, –83, and –87 series airplanes, and MD–88 airplanes. .. Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD80–27A359, Revision 01, dated March

26, 2001.

MD–90–30 series airplanes. ..................................................................... Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD90–27A031, Revision 01, dated March

26, 2001.

Note 1: This AD applies to each airplane

identified in the preceding applicability

provision, regardless of whether it has been

otherwise 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 the unsafe condition has not

been eliminated, the request should include

specific proposed actions to address it.

Compliance: Required as indicated, unless

accomplished previously.

To prevent the flightcrew from performing

a scheduled landing on a runway of

potentially insufficient length due to failure

of the weight-on-wheels spoiler lockout

mechanism system and possible inactivation

of the autospoiler actuator, which could

result in the airplane overrunning the end of

the runway during landing on a wet or icy

runway, accomplish the following:

Restatement of Requirements of AD 2001–

07–10

Airplane Flight Manual Revisions

(a) For Model DC–9–81, –82, –83, and –87

series airplanes, and MD–88 airplanes:

Within 48 clock hours after April 27, 2001

(the effective date AD 2001–07–10,

amendment 39–12176), revise the

Performance Section of the FAA-approved

Airplane Flight Manual (AFM) to include the

following statement. This may be done by

inserting a copy of this AD in the AFM.

‘‘In-flight Spoiler Lockout Mechanism

Installed and Activated, and Automatic

Ground Spoiler System Operated.

When the in-flight spoiler lockout

mechanism is installed and activated, the wet

or icy runway landing field length, which is

determined from the appropriate Landing

Field Length and Speed Chart, must be

increased by 1,720 feet under either of the

following conditions:

a. The weight-on-wheels unlocking feature

is not installed; or

b. The weight-on-wheels unlocking feature

is installed, but inoperative.

When the in-flight spoiler lockout

mechanism is deactivated, the above landing

field length is not required.’’

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

Within 48 clock hours after April 27, 2001,

do the actions specified in either paragraph

(b)(1) or (b)(2) of this AD.

(1) Revise the Performance Section of the

FAA-approved AFM to include the following

statement. This may be done by inserting a

copy of this AD in the AFM.

‘‘Landing Field Length for A Wet or Icy

Runway.

Increase landing field length, which is

determined from the Basic Manual, by 1,800

feet (549 meters) for a wet or icy runway with

28-degree and 40-degree flaps.

There is no landing field length penalty for

a dry runway.

In-flight spoiler lockout mechanism may

NOT be deactivated, as indicated in the

Master Minimum Equipment List (MMEL).’’

(2) Revise the Performance Section of the

FAA-approved AFM by inserting a copy of

Appendix 3E, Section 4, of MD–90 AFM

MDC–91K0930, dated March 14, 2001, into

the AFM.

Note 2: The MD–90 Master Minimum

Equipment List (MMEL), system and

sequence number 65–02, and the second

proviso of system and sequence number 65–

03, currently specifies that, for 10 days, the

in-flight spoiler lockout mechanism system

may be deactivated. Where differences exist

between the current specification of the

MMEL and the requirements of this AFM

limitation, the AFM limitation prevails.

Optional Terminating Modifications

(c) For Model DC–9–81, –82, –83, and –87

series airplanes, and MD–88 airplanes:

Accomplishment of the actions specified in

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

Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD80–27A359,

dated January 29, 2001, or Revision 01, dated

March 26, 2001, terminates the AFM revision

requirements of paragraph (a) of this AD.

After doing those actions, the AFM revision

required by paragraph (a) of this AD may be

removed from the AFM.

(1) Install the spoiler support bracket

assemblies and relays; and

(2) Revise the spoiler lockout relay wiring.

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.