72 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 1 / Wednesday, January 2, 2002 / Notices 

The Commission’s Rules of Practice 

require all intervenors filing documents 

with the Commission to serve a copy of 

that document on each person on the 

official service list for the project. 

Further, if an intervenor files comments 

or documents with the Commission 

relating to the merits of an issue that 

may affect the responsibilities of a 

particular resource agency, they must 

also serve a copy of the document on 

that resource agency. 

k. This application has been accepted 

and is ready for environmental analysis 

at this time. 

l. Description of the Project: The 

proposed peaking project consists of the 

following existing facilities: (1) A 2,000-

foot-long dam, consisting of (a) a 270-

foot-long, 175-foot-high concrete 

section, (b) a 200-foot-long attached 

powerhouse section, and (c) an earthen 

section in excess of 1,500 feet in length; 

(2) four steel penstocks ranging from 6 

feet to 24 feet in diameter; (3) a concrete 

powerhouse containing four generating 

units, having a total rated hydraulic 

capacity of 7,140 cubic feet per second 

and installed generation capacity of 76.4 

megawatts (4) a 3,746-acre 

impoundment varying in width from 0.9 

to 1.5 miles, extending about 9 miles 

upstream, that has a usable storage 

capacity of 850 million cubic feet; and 

(5) appurtenant facilities. The applicant 

estimates the total average annual 

generation would be approximately 202 

million kilowatt hours. 

m. A copy of the application is on file 

with the Commission and is available 

for public inspection. This filing may 

also be viewed on the web at http://

www.ferc.gov using the ‘‘RIMS’’ link—

select ‘‘Docket #’’ and follow the 

instructions (call 202–208–2222 for 

assistance). A copy is also available for 

inspection and reproduction at the 

address in item h above. 

n. The Commission directs, pursuant 

to Section 4.34(b) of the Regulations (see 

Order No. 533 issued May 8, 1991, 56 

FR 23108, May 20, 1991) that all 

comments, recommendations, terms, 

conditions and prescriptions concerning 

the application be filed with the 

Commission within 60 days from the 

issuance date of this notice. All reply 

comments must be filed with the 

Commission within 105 days from the 

date of this notice. 

Anyone may obtain an extension of 

time for these deadlines from the 

Commission only upon a showing of 

good cause or extraordinary 

circumstances in accordance with 18 

CFR 385.2008. 

All filings must: (1) Bear in all capital 

letters the title ‘‘COMMENTS’’, ‘‘REPLY 

COMMENTS’’, 

‘‘RECOMMENDATIONS’’, ‘‘TERMS 

AND CONDITIONS’’, or 

‘‘PRESCRIPTIONS’’; (2) set forth in the 

heading the name of the applicant and 

the project number of the application to 

which the filing responds; (3) furnish 

the name, address, and telephone 

number of the person submitting the 

filing; and (4) otherwise comply with 

the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 

through 385.2005. All comments, 

recommendations, terms, conditions or 

prescriptions must set forth their 

evidentiary basis and otherwise comply 

with the requirements of 18 CFR 4.34(b). 

Agencies may obtain copies of the 

application directly from the applicant. 

Each filing must be accompanied by 

proof of service on all persons listed on 

the service list prepared by the 

Commission in this proceeding, in 

accordance with 18 CFR 4.34(b), and 

385.2010.

Linwood A. Watson, Jr., 

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 01–32186 Filed 12–31–01; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6717–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission 

[Docket No. RM98–1–000] 

Regulations Governing Off-the-Record 

Communications; Public Notice 

December 21, 2001. 

This constitutes notice, in accordance 

with 18 CFR 385.2201(h), of the receipt 

of exempt and prohibited off-the-record 

communications. 

Order No. 607 (64 FR 51222, 

September 22, 1999) requires 

Commission decisional employees, who 

make or receive an exempt or a 

prohibited off-the-record 

communication relevant to the merits of 

a contested on-the-record proceeding, to 

deliver a copy of the communication, if 

written, or a summary of the substance 

of any oral communication, to the 

Secretary. 

Prohibited communications will be 

included in a public, non-decisional file 

associated with, but not part of, the 

decisional record of the proceeding. 

Unless the Commission determines that 

the prohibited communication and any 

responses thereto should become part of 

the decisional record, the prohibited offthe-record communication will not be 

considered by the Commission in 

reaching its decision. Parties to a 

proceeding may seek the opportunity to 

respond to any facts or contentions 

made in a prohibited off-the-record 

communication, and may request that 

the Commission place the prohibited 

communication and responses thereto 

in the decisional record. The 

Commission will grant such requests 

only when it determines that fairness so 

requires. Any person identified below as 

having made a prohibited off-the-record 

communication should serve the 

document on all parties listed on the 

official service list for the applicable 

proceeding in accordance with Rule 

2010, 18 CFR 385.2010. 

Exempt off-the-record 

communications will be included in the 

decisional record of the proceeding, 

unless the communication was with a 

cooperating agency as described by 40 

CFR 1501.6, made under 18 CFR 

385.2201(e)(1)(v). 

The following is a list of exempt and 

prohibited off-the-record 

communications received in the Office 

of the Secretary within the preceding 14 

days. Copies of this filing are on file 

with the Commission and are available 

for public inspection. The documents 

may be viewed on the web at http://

www.ferc.gov using the ‘‘RIMS’’ link, 

select ‘‘Docket#’’ and follow the 

instructions (call 202–208–2222 for 

assistance). 

Exempt 

1. Project No. 11495–000: 12–10–01, 

Kenneth D. Thomas 

2. Project Nos. 2699–001 and 2019–017: 

12–10–01, Carol Gleichman 

3. Project No. 11563–002: 12–10–01, 

Carol Gleichman 

4. RP00–241–000: 12–11–01, Office of 

Clerk/U.S. House of Representatives 

5. CP01–415–000: 12–13–01 Medha 

Kochlar 

6. CP01–176–000 and CP01–179–000: 

12–13–01, Ray Hellwig 

7. P–2342–011: 12–13–01, Loree Randall 

8. CP01–76–000, CP01–77–000, RP01–

217–000, and CP01–156–000: 12–18–

01, Chris Zerby

Linwood A. Watson, Jr., 

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 01–32189 Filed 12–31–01; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6717–01–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[FRL–7123–7] 

Notice of Deficiency for Clean Air 

Operating Permits Program in 

Washington

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of deficiency.

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 1 / Wednesday, January 2, 2002 / Notices 73

SUMMARY: Pursuant to its authority 

under section 502(i) of the Clean Air Act 

and the implementing regulations at 40 

CFR 70.10(b)(1), EPA is publishing this 

notice of deficiency for the State of 

Washington’s (Washington or State) 

Clean Air Act title V operating permits 

program, which is administered by two 

State agencies and seven local air 

pollution control authorities. The notice 

of deficiency is based upon EPA’s 

finding that Washington’s provisions for 

insignificant emissions units do not 

meet minimum Federal requirements for 

program approval. Publication of this 

notice is a prerequisite for withdrawal 

of Washington’s title V program 

approval, but does not effect such 

withdrawal.

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 14, 2001. 

Because this Notice of Deficiency is an 

adjudication and not a final rule, the 

Administrative Procedure Act’s 30-day 

deferral of the effective date of a rule 

does not apply.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Denise Baker, EPA, Region 10, Office of 

Air Quality (OAQ–107), 1200 6th 

Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101, (206) 553–

8087. 

I. Description of Action 

EPA is publishing a notice of 

deficiency for the Clean Air Act (CAA 

or Act) title V operating permits 

program for the State of Washington. 

This document is being published to 

satisfy 40 CFR 70.10(b)(1), which 

provides that EPA shall publish in the 

Federal Register a notice of any 

determination that a title V permitting 

authority is not adequately 

administering or enforcing its title V 

operating permits program. The 

deficiency that is the subject of this 

notice relates to Washington’s 

requirements for insignificant emissions 

units (IEUs) and applies to all State and 

local permitting authorities that 

implement Washington’s title V 

program. 

A. Approval of Washington’s Title V 

Program 

The CAA requires all State and local 

permitting authorities to develop 

operating permits programs that meet 

the requirements of title V of the Act, 42 

U.S.C. 7661–7661f, and its 

implementing regulations, 40 CFR part 

70. Washington’s operating permits 

program was submitted in response to 

this directive. EPA granted interim 

approval to Washington’s air operating 

permits program on November 9, 1994 

(59 FR 55813). EPA repromulgated final 

interim approval of Washington’s 

operating permits program on one issue, 

along with a notice of correction, on 

December 8, 1995 (60 FR 62992). 

Washington’s title V operating 

permits program is implemented by the 

Washington Department of Ecology 

(Ecology), the Washington Energy 

Facility Site Evaluation Commission 

(EFSEC), and seven local air pollution 

control authorities: the Benton County 

Clean Air Authority (BCCAA); the 

Northwest Air Pollution Authority 

(NWAPA); the Olympic Air Pollution 

Control Authority (OAPCA); the Puget 

Sound Clean Air Agency (PSCAA); the 

Spokane County Air Pollution Control 

Authority (SCAPCA); the Southwest 

Clean Air Agency (SWCAA); and the 

Yakima Regional Clean Air Authority 

(YRCAA). After these State and local 

agencies revised their operating permits 

programs to address the conditions of 

the interim approval, EPA promulgated 

final full approval of Washington’s title 

V operating permits program on August 

13, 2001 (66 FR 42439). 

B. Additional Public Comment Process 

on Title V Programs 

On December 11, 2000 (65 FR 77376), 

EPA published a Federal Register notice 

notifying the public of the opportunity 

to submit comments identifying any 

programmatic or implementation 

deficiencies in State title V programs 

that had received interim or full 

approval. Pursuant to the settlement 

agreement discussed in that notice, EPA 

committed to respond to the merits of 

any such claims of deficiency on or 

before December 1, 2001, for those 

States, such as Washington, that had 

received interim approval. On March 

12, 2001, EPA received comments from 

Smith & Lowney, PLLC, on behalf of 

pacific Air Improvement Resource, 

Waste Action Project, Washington 

Toxics Coalition, and the Washington 

Environmental Council (the 

commenters). The commenters 

identified numerous alleged 

deficiencies in the title V operating 

permits programs administered by all 

Washington permitting authorities. 

After thoroughly reviewing all issues 

raised by the commenters, EPA 

identified one area where EPA believes 

that Washington’s regulations do not 

meet the requirements of title V and part 

70—Washington’s exemption of 

‘‘insignificant emission units’’ from 

certain permit content requirements. 

Accordingly, EPA is issuing this notice 

of deficiency. In a separate document, 

EPA has responded to the other issues 

raised by the commenters, which EPA 

does not believe constitute deficiencies 

in Washington’s operating permits 

program at this time. 

C. Exemption of IEUs From Permit 

Content Requirements 

Part 70 authorizes EPA to approve as 

part of a State program a list of 

insignificant activities and emission 

levels (IEUs) which need not be 

included in the permit application, 

provided that an application may not 

omit information needed to determine 

the applicability of, or to impose, any 

applicable requirement, or to evaluate 

the fee amount required under the EPAapproved schedule. See 40 CFR 70.5(c). 

Nothing in part 70, however, authorizes 

a State to exempt IEUs from the testing, 

monitoring, recordkeeping, reporting, or 

compliance certification requirements of 

40 CFR 70.6. 

Washington’s regulations contain 

criteria for identifying IEUs. See WAC 

173–401–200(16), –530, –532, and –533. 

Sources that are subject to a Federallyenforceable requirement other than a 

requirement of the State Implementation 

Plan that applies generally to all sources 

in Washington (a so-called ‘‘generally 

applicable requirement’’) are not 

deemed ‘‘insignificant’’ under 

Washington’s program even if they 

otherwise qualify under one of the five 

lists. See WAC 173–401–530(2)(a). 

Washington’s regulations also expressly 

state that no permit application can 

omit information necessary to determine 

the applicability of, or to impose any 

applicable requirement. See WAC 173–

401–510(1). In addition, WAC 173–401–

530(1) and (2)(b) provide that 

designation of an emission unit as an 

IEU does not exempt the unit from any 

applicable requirements and that the 

permit must contain all applicable 

requirements that apply to IEUs. The 

Washington program, however, 

specifically exempts IEUs from testing, 

monitoring, recordkeeping, and 

reporting requirements except where 

such requirements are specifically 

imposed in the applicable requirement 

itself. See WAC 173–401–530(2)(c). The 

Washington program also exempts IEUs 

from compliance certification 

requirements. See WAC 173–401–

530(2)(d). 

Because EPA does not believe that 

part 70 exempts IEUs from the testing, 

monitoring, recordkeeping, reporting, 

and compliance certification 

requirements of 40 CFR 70.6, EPA 

initially determined that Ecology must 

revise its IEU regulations as a condition 

of full approval. See 60 FR at 62993–

62997 (final interim approval of 

Washington’s operating permits 

program based on exemption of IEUs 

from certain permit content 

requirements); 60 FR 50166 (September 

28, 1995) (proposed interim approval of 

74 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 1 / Wednesday, January 2, 2002 / Notices 

1EPA is developing an Order of Sanctions rule to 

determine which sanction applies at the end of this 

18 month period.

Washington’s operating permits 

program on same basis). The Western 

States Petroleum Association (WSPA), 

together with several other companies 

and the Washington Department of 

Ecology, challenged EPA’s 

determination that Ecology must revise 

its IEU regulations as a condition of full 

approval. See 66 FR at 19. On June 17, 

1996, the Ninth Circuit found in favor 

of the petitioners. WSPA v. EPA, 87 F.3d 

280 (9th Cir. 1996). The Ninth Circuit 

did not opine on whether EPA’s 

position was consistent with part 70. It 

did, however, find that EPA had acted 

inconsistently in its title V approvals, 

and had failed to explain the departure 

from precedent that the Court perceived 

in the Washington interim approval. 

The Court then remanded the matter to 

EPA, instructing EPA to give full 

approval to Washington’s IEU 

regulations. 

In light of the Court’s order in the 

WSPA case, EPA determined that it 

must give full approval to Washington’s 

IEU regulations. Therefore, on August 

13, 2001, EPA published a Federal 

Register notice granting final full 

approval to Washington’s title V 

program notwithstanding what EPA 

believed to be a deficiency in its IEU 

regulations. 66 FR 42439–42440 (August 

13, 2001). Nonetheless, as EPA stated in 

its final full approval of Washington’s 

program, EPA maintained its position 

that part 70 does not allow the 

exemption of IEUs subject to generally 

applicable requirements from the 

testing, monitoring, recordkeeping, 

reporting, and compliance certification 

requirements of 40 CFR 70.6 and 

intended to issue a notice of deficiency 

in another rulemaking action if the 

deficiencies in Washington’s IEU 

regulations were not promptly 

addressed. 

Since issuance of the Court’s order in 

WSPA case, EPA has carefully reviewed 

the IEU provisions of those eight title V 

programs identified by the Court as 

inconsistent with EPA’s decision on 

Washington’s regulations. EPA has 

determined that three of the title V 

programs identified by the WSPA Court 

(Massachusetts; North Dakota; Knox 

County, Tennessee) are in fact 

consistent with EPA’s position that 

insignificant sources subject to 

applicable requirements may not be 

exempt from permit content 

requirements. See 61 FR 39338 (July 29, 

1996). North Carolina, Florida, and 

Jefferson County, Kentucky have made 

revisions to their IEU provisions. EPA 

has approved the changes made by 

North Carolina and Florida. 65 FR 

38744, 38745 (June 22, 2000) (Forsyth 

County, North Carolina); 66 FR 45941 

(August 31, 2001) (all other North 

Carolina permitting authorities); 66 FR 

49837 (October 1, 2001) (Florida). EPA 

has not yet taken action on the changes 

made by Jefferson County, Kentucky. 

EPA has notified Ohio and Hawaii that 

their provisions for IEUs do not conform 

to the requirements of part 70 and must 

be revised. If Ohio and Hawaii do not 

revise their provisions for IEUs to 

conform to part 70, EPA intends to issue 

notices of deficiencies to these 

permitting authorities in accordance 

with the time frames set forth in the 

December 11, 2000 Federal Register

notice soliciting comments on title V 

program deficiencies. See 65 FR 77376. 

Having addressed the inconsistencies 

identified by the Ninth Circuit when it 

ordered EPA to approve Washington’s 

IEU provisions, EPA is now notifying 

Washington that it must bring its IEU 

provisions into alignment with the 

requirements of part 70 and other State 

and local title V programs or face 

withdrawal of its title V operating 

permits program. 

Because WAC 173–401–530(2)(c) and 

(d), the regulations that exempt IEUs 

from certain permit content 

requirements, apply throughout the 

State of Washington, this notice of 

deficiency applies to all State and local 

agencies that implement Washington’s 

operating permits program. As 

discussed above, those agencies include 

Ecology, EFSEC, BCCAA, NWAPA, 

OAPCA, PSCAA, SCAPCA, SWACAA, 

and YRCAA. 

D. Effect of Notice of Deficiency 

Part 70 provides that EPA may 

withdraw a part 70 program approval, in 

whole or in part, whenever the 

approved program no longer complies 

with the requirements of part 70 and the 

permitting authority fails to take 

corrective action. 40 CFR 70.10(c)(1). 

This section goes on to list a number of 

potential bases for program withdrawal, 

including the case where the permitting 

authority’s legal authority no longer 

meets the requirements of part 70. 40 

CFR 70.10(b) sets forth the procedures 

for program withdrawal, and requires as 

a prerequisite to withdrawal that the 

permitting authority be notified of any 

finding of deficiency by the 

Administrator and that the document be 

published in the Federal Register. 

Today’s document satisfies this 

requirement and constitutes a finding of 

program deficiency. If the permitting 

authority has not taken ‘‘significant 

action to assure adequate administration 

and enforcement of the program’’ within 

90 days after publication of a notice of 

deficiency, EPA may withdraw the State 

program, apply any of the sanctions 

specified in section 179(b) of the Act, or 

promulgate, administer, and enforce a 

Federal title V program. 40 CFR 

70.10(b)(2). Section 70.10(b)(3) provides 

that if a State has not corrected the 

deficiency within 18 months of the 

finding of deficiency, EPA will apply 

the sanctions under section 179(b) of the 

Act, in accordance with section 179(a) 

of the Act. Upon EPA action, the 

sanctions will go into effect unless the 

State has corrected the deficiencies 

identified in this document within 18 

months after signature of this 

document.1 In addition, section 

70.10(b)(4) provides that, if the State has 

not corrected the deficiency within 18 

months after the date of notice of 

deficiency, EPA must promulgate, 

administer, and enforce a whole or 

partial program within 2 years of the 

date of the finding.

This document is not a proposal to 

withdraw Washington’s title V program. 

Consistent with 40 CFR 70.10(b)(2), EPA 

will wait at least 90 days, at which point 

it will determine whether Washington 

has taken significant action to correct 

the deficiency. 

II. Administrative Requirements 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean 

Air Act, petitions for judicial review of 

today’s action may be filed in the 

United States Court of Appeals for the 

appropriate circuit within 60 days of 

January 2, 2002.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 70

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Air pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Operating permits, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements.

Dated: December 14, 2001. 

L. John Iani, 

Regional Administrator, Region 10.

[FR Doc. 01–32103 Filed 12–31–01; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[OPP–00439M; FRL–6818–1] 

Pesticide Program Dialogue 

Committee;Committee and Charter 

Renewal

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.