68388 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 217 / Thursday, November 10, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Office of the Secretary 

14 CFR Part 389 

[Docket No. OST–99–5003] 

RIN 2105–AC47 

Withdrawal of Proposed Rulemaking 

Action; Fees and Charges for Special 

Services 

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, DOT. 

ACTION: Withdrawal of proposed 

rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: This document withdraws an 

Office of the Secretary (OST) notice of 

proposed rulemaking that proposed to 

update the fees and charges paid by 

recipients of certain aviation licensing 

and related services provided by the 

Department. The proposal was 

predicated on specific labor and 

overhead cost studies and data that, 

with the passage of time and 

organizational changes within OST, 

have been rendered stale, greatly 

reducing their utility as bases for costbased fees and charges. 

ADDRESSES: You may obtain a copy of 

this document from the DOT public 

docket through the Internet at http:// 

dms.dot.gov, docket number OST–99–

5003. If you do not have access to the 

Internet, you may obtain a copy of the 

notice by United States mail from the 

Docket Management System, U.S. 

Department of Transportation, Room 

PL–401, 400 Seventh Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20590. You must 

identify docket number OST–99–5003 

and request a copy of the document 

entitled ‘‘Withdrawal of Proposed 

Rulemaking.’’

You may also review the public 

docket in person in the Docket office 

between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, except Federal holidays. 

The Docket office is on the plaza level 

of the Department of Transportation. 

Additionally, you can also get a copy of 

this document from the Federal Register 

Web site at http://www.gpo.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John 

D. Miller, Office of Aviation Analysis 

(X–50), Office of the Assistant Secretary 

for Aviation and International Affairs, 

400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, 

DC 20590; (202) 366–4834; fax: (202) 

366–7035; e-mail: John.Miller@dot.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

Part 389 of Title 14 of the Code of 

Federal Regulations—Fees and Charges 

for Special Services—describes certain 

special services related to aviation 

economic proceedings, such as 

certification of new air carriers, 

licensing of air taxi operators, and 

award of international route authority to 

U.S. airlines, that the Department 

provides to the public, and sets forth the 

fees and charges applicable to those 

services. 

In January 1999, we issued a Notice 

of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), 64 FR 

3229, to obtain comments on proposed 

revisions to the filing fee schedule and 

related provisions of Part 389. In the 

main, the NPRM proposed (1) To 

eliminate, except in the case of a treaty 

or agreement, the waiver of processing 

fees for those foreign air carriers whose 

home countries waive processing fees 

for U.S. air carriers, as set forth in 

existing section 389.24; (2) to revise and 

update the individual services and 

related fee amounts included on the 

schedule contained in existing section 

389.25(a), including significant fee 

increases for several existing services 

and new fees for several services not 

previously covered; and (3) to 

implement certain procedural changes 

to facilitate processing of licensing 

applications. 

Our proposed fee amounts were based 

on work-process analysis of more than 

600 service applications, including (1) 

the direct labor costs incurred to process 

individual applications and (2) the 

office space, utilities and related 

overhead costs allocable to individual 

applications based on the organizational 

structure of the Office of the Assistant 

Secretary for Avaition and International 

Affairs. 

Comments 

We received comments on the NPRM 

from the British Government, the Air 

Transport Association of America, the 

International Air Carrier Association, 

and representatives of 20 foreign air 

carriers. All commenters objected to our 

proposal to eliminate the waiver of 

foreign air carrier processing fees as 

contrary to U.S. law and provisions of 

bilateral agreements, or as 

counterproductive for U.S. air carriers. 

Similarly, all contested the rationale for, 

or proposed amount of, one or more of 

our individual fee items as 

unreasonable, unwarranted or excessive. 

No party objected to our proposed 

changes to facilitate applications 

processing. 

Withdrawal 

Following our receipt and review of 

comments on the NPRM, unanticipated 

events interrupted the rulemaking 

process. In particular, the horrific events 

of September 11, 2001, and their 

aftermath required us to redirect 

resources to more immediate priorities. 

Under the Air Transportation Safety and 

Stabilization Act (Pub. L. 107–42), for 

example, we were charged with 

dispensing up to $5 billion in direct 

payments to assist air carriers that had 

suffered losses as a result of the 

September 11 attacks. The delays 

experienced since September 11 have 

greatly reduced the utility of the labor 

cost data underlying our 1999 fee 

proposal. That proposal has been further 

compromised by outdated overhead 

allocations due to numerous 

organizational changes which have 

occurred within the Office of the 

Assistant Secretary for Aviation and 

International Affairs since the NPRM 

was issued. For these reasons, the 

Department believes that the labor and 

overhead cost estimates used to develop 

its proposed fees are no longer timely 

and do not support finalization of the 

proposed rule. We are, therefore, 

withdrawing the 1999 NPRM. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on November 4, 

2005. 

Michael W. Reynolds, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Aviation and 

International Affairs. 

[FR Doc. 05–22451 Filed 11–9–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–62–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[R09–OAR–2005–AZ–0007, FRL–7994–7] 

Revisions to the Arizona State 

Implementation Plan, Pinal County Air 

Quality Control District 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

a revision to the Pinal County Air 

Quality Control District (PCAQCD) 

portion of the Arizona State 

Implementation Plan (SIP). Under 

authority of the Clean Air Act as 

amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act), we 

are proposing to approve a local rule 

that addresses opacity standards. 

DATES: Any comments must arrive by 

December 12, 2005. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, 

identified by docket number R09–OAR–

2005–AZ–0007, by one of the following 

methods: 

• Agency Web site: http:// 

docket.epa.gov/rmepub/. EPA prefers 

receiving comments through this 

electronic public docket and comment 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 217 / Thursday, November 10, 2005 / Proposed Rules 68389 

system. Follow the on-line instructions 

to submit comments. 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line 

instructions. 

• E-mail: steckel.andrew@epa.gov. 

• Mail or deliver: Andrew Steckel 

(Air-4), U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, 

San Francisco, CA 94105. 

Instructions: All comments will be 

included in the public docket without 

change and may be made available 

online at http://docket.epa.gov/ 

rmepub/, including any personal 

information provided, unless the 

comment includes Confidential 

Business Information (CBI) or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Information that 

you consider CBI or otherwise protected 

should be clearly identified as such and 

should not be submitted through the 

agency Web site, eRulemaking portal, or 

e-mail. The agency Web site and 

eRulemaking portal are ‘‘anonymous 

access’’ systems, and EPA will not know 

your identity or contact information 

unless you provide it in the body of 

your comment. If you send e-mail 

directly to EPA, your e-mail address 

will be automatically captured and 

included as part of the public comment. 

If EPA cannot read your comment due 

to technical difficulties and cannot 

contact you for clarification, EPA may 

not be able to consider your comment. 

Docket: The index to the docket for 

this action is available electronically at 

http://docket.epa.gov/rmepub and in 

hard copy at EPA Region IX, 75 

Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, 

California. While all documents in the 

docket are listed in the index, some 

information may be publicly available 

only at the hard copy location (e.g., 

copyrighted material), and some may 

not be publicly available in either 

location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard 

copy materials, please schedule an 

appointment during normal business 

hours with the contact listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section 

below. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Al 

Petersen, EPA Region IX, (415) 947–

4118, petersen.alfred@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us’’

and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. The State’s Submittal 

A. What rule did the State submit? 

B. Are there other versions of this rule? 

C. What are the purposes of the submitted 

rule revisions? 

II. EPA’s Evaluation and Action 

A. How is EPA evaluating the rule? 

B. Does the rule meet the evaluation 

criteria? 

C. Public comment and final action 

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. The State’s Submittal 

A. What rule did the State submit? 

Table 1 lists the rule we are proposing 

to approve with the date that it was 

adopted by the local air agency and 

submitted by the Arizona Department of 

Environmental Quality (ADEQ). 

TABLE 1.—SUBMITTED RULE

Local Agency Rule No. Rule Title Revised Submitted 

PCAQCD .................................... 2–8–300 Performance standards ................................................................... 05/18/05 09/12/05 

On September 28, 2005, the rule 

submittal was found to meet the 

completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51, 

appendix V, which must be met before 

formal EPA review. 

B. Are there other versions of this rule? 

On April 28, 2004 (69 FR 23103), EPA 

finalized a limited approval and limited 

disapproval of a version of Rule 2–8–

300. 

C. What are the purposes of the 

submitted rule revisions? 

Section 110(a) of the CAA requires 

states to submit regulations that control 

volatile organic compounds, oxides of 

nitrogen, particulate matter, and other 

air pollutants which harm human health 

and the environment. This rule was 

developed as part of the local agency’s 

program to control particulate matter. 

The purposes of the rule revisions 

relative to the SIP rule are as follows: 

• The clarification is added that 

provisions of the rule apply to an 

‘‘existing source,’’ a ‘‘point source,’’ and 

a ‘‘stationary source,’’ which are 

appropriately defined. 

• The opacity standard is decreased 

from 40% in all areas to (a) 20% in 

nonattainment or maintenance 

attainment areas after June 2, 2005 and 

(b) 20% in attainment or unclassified 

areas after April 23, 2006. 

• A provision is added to allow 

submittal of a petition to the Control 

Officer (CO) by September 15, 2005 for 

an alternative opacity standard (AOS), if 

the source complies with the applicable 

particulate matter (PM) mass rate 

standard, but cannot comply with the 

20% opacity standard. Requirements for 

the petition contents are listed. If an 

AOS is approved by the CO, he shall 

submit the AOS to the EPA 

Administrator for approval as a SIP 

revision. If an AOS is not approved, the 

source shall comply with the 20% 

opacity standard or submit a 

compliance plan before April 23, 2006. 

• A definition of ‘‘process weight 

rate’’ is added to clarify its applicability 

to continuous processes and batch 

processes. 

The TSD has more information about 

this rule. 

II. EPA’s Evaluation and Action 

A. How is EPA evaluating the rule? 

Generally, SIP rules must be 

enforceable (see section 110(a) of the 

CAA), must require reasonably available 

control measures (RACM), including 

reasonably available control technology 

(RACT) in moderate PM–10 

nonattaiment areas (see section 189(a)), 

must require best available control 

measures (BACM), including best 

available control technology (BACT) in 

serious PM–10 nonattaiment areas (see 

section 189(b)), and must not relax 

existing requirements (see sections 

110(l) and 193). A portion of PCAQCD 

is designated attainment, a portion is 

designated moderate nonattainment, 

and a portion is designated serious 

nonattainment for PM–10. 

The following guidance documents 

were used for reference: 

• Requirements for Preparation, 

Adoption, and Submittal of 

Implementation Plans, U.S. EPA, 40 

CFR part 51. 

• PM–10 Guideline Document (EPA–

452/R–93–008). 

B. Does the rule meet the evaluation 

criteria? 

The deficiency cited in the previous 

limited approval/limited disapproval 

action of PCAQCD Rule 2–8–300 is as 

follows: The 40% opacity standard does 

not meet the requirements of BACM/ 

BACT. Analogous generic 20% opacity 

standards meet the requirements of 

RACM/RACT in other parts of the 

country, and we believe BACM/BACT in 

PCAQCD should be at least as stringent. 

See 69 FR 23103 (April 28, 2004). 

68390 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 217 / Thursday, November 10, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

The revision to a 20% opacity 

standard in the submitted rule corrects 

the cited deficiency for unclassified, 

attainment, maintenance, and moderate 

nonattainment areas to a level 

comparable to RACM/RACT in other 

parts of the country. We believe that 

BACM/BACT, as required for the 

serious nonattainment area in PCAQCD, 

should be at least as stringent as RACM/ 

RACT. We do not have justification for 

an opacity standard more stringent than 

20% to fulfill BACM/BACT for general 

PM–10 sources in the serious 

nonattainment area. Therefore, we 

believe that the 20% opacity standard 

fulfills RACM/RACT and BACM/BACT 

for the general PM–10 sources to which 

the rule is applicable, even though some 

specific PM–10 sources might achieve a 

more stringent opacity standard in 

fulfilling BACM/BACT. 

We believe this rule is consistent with 

the relevant policy and guidance 

regarding enforceability, SIP relaxations, 

and fulfilling the requirements of 

RACM/RACT and BACM/BACT and 

should be given full approval. 

C. Public comment and final action 

Because EPA believes the submitted 

rule fulfills all relevant requirements, 

we are proposing to fully approve it as 

described in section 110(k)(3) of the 

CAA. We will accept comments from 

the public on this proposal for the next 

30 days. Unless we receive convincing 

new information during the comment 

period, we intend to publish a final 

approval action that will incorporate the 

rule into the federally enforceable SIP. 

III. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

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. For this reason, this action is 

also not subject to Executive Order 

13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning Regulations 

That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355, May 

22, 2001). This proposed 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 rule will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this rule 

proposes to approve pre-existing 

requirements under state law and does 

not impose any additional enforceable 

duty beyond that required by state law, 

it does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Public Law 104–4). 

This proposed rule also does not have 

tribal implications because it will 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). This 

action also does not have Federalism 

implications because it does 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). This action merely 

proposes to approve a state rule 

implementing a Federal standard, and 

does not alter the relationship or the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities established in the Clean 

Air Act. This proposed rule also is not 

subject to Executive Order 13045 

‘‘Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety 

Risks’’ (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. This proposed 

rule 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, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Particulate matter, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

Dated: October 19, 2005. 

Wayne Nastri, 

Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

[FR Doc. 05–22377 Filed 11–9–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 81 

[OAR–2005–0150b; FRL–7995–2] 

Designation of Areas for Air Quality 

Planning Purposes; Arizona; 

Correction of Boundary of Phoenix 

Metropolitan 1-Hour Ozone 

Nonattainment Area 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to correct 

the boundary of the Phoenix 

metropolitan 1-hour ozone 

nonattainment area to exclude the Gila 

River Indian Reservation. EPA is 

proposing this action under the 

authority of section 110(k)(6) of the 

Clean Air Act and in light of the Federal 

trust responsibility to the Tribes. This 

action is intended to facilitate and 

support the Gila River Indian 

Community’s efforts to develop, adopt 

and implement a comprehensive Tribal 

Implementation Plan by removing 

unnecessary obligations that flow from 

the erroneous inclusion of a portion of 

the Reservation in the Phoenix 

metropolitan 1-hour ozone 

nonattainment area. 

DATES: Any comments on this proposal 

must arrive by December 12, 2005. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, 

identified by docket number R09–OAR–

2005–150, by one of the following 

methods: 

1. Agency Web site: http:// 

docket.epa.gov/rmepub/. EPA prefers 

receiving comments through this 

electronic public docket and comment 

system. Follow the on-line instructions 

to submit comments. 

2. Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

on-line instructions. 

3. E-mail: tax.wienke@epa.gov. 

4. Mail or deliver: Wienke Tax, Office 

of Air Planning (AIR–2), U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Street, San 

Francisco, CA 94105–3901. 

Instructions: All comments will be 

included in the public docket without 

change and may be made available 

online at http://docket.epa.gov/ 

rmepub/, including any personal