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.

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 1 / Wednesday, January 2, 2002 / Notices 75

SUMMARY: As required by the Federal 

Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C., App. 

2 section 9(c), EPA’s Office of Pesticide 

Programs (OPP) is giving notice of the 

renewal of the Pesticide Program 

Dialogue Committee (PPDC) and its 

Charter and the appointment of new 

members.

DATES: The PPDC Charter, which was 

filed with Congress on November 9, 

2001, will be in effect for 2 years, until 

November 9, 2003.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Margie Fehrenbach (7501C), Office of 

Pesticide Programs, Environmental 

Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania 

Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; 

telephone number: (703) 308–4775 or 

(703) 305–7093; fax number: (703) 308–

4776; e-mail address: 

Fehrenbach.Margie@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. General Information 

A. Does this Action Apply to Me? 

This action is directed to the public 

in general. This action may, however, it 

may be of interest to persons who are 

concerned about implementation of the 

Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and 

Rodenticide Act; the Federal Food, 

Drug, and Cosmetic Act; and the 

amendments to both of these major 

pesticide laws by the Food Quality 

Protection Act (Public Law 104–170) of 

1996. Since other entities may also be 

interested, the Agency has not 

attempted to describe all the specific 

entities that may be affected by this 

action. If you have any questions 

regarding the applicability of this action 

to a particular entity, consult the person 

listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT. 

B. How Can I Get Additional 

Information, Including Copies of this 

Document and Other Related 

Documents? 

1. Electronically. You may obtain 

electronic copies of this document, and 

certain other related documents that 

might be available electronically, from 

the EPA Internet Home Page at http://

www.epa.gov/. To access this 

document, on the Home Page select 

‘‘Laws and Regulations,’’ ‘‘Regulations 

and Proposed Rules,’’ and then look up 

the entry for this document under the 

‘‘Federal Register—Environmental 

Documents.’’ You can also go directly to 

the Federal Register listings at http://

www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/. To access 

information about PPDC, go directly to 

the Home Page for EPA’s Office of 

Pesticide Programs at http://

www.epa.gov/pesticides/ppdc. 

2. In person. The Agency has 

established an administrative record for 

this meeting under docket control 

number OPP–00439M. The 

administrative record consists of the 

documents specifically referenced in 

this notice, any public comments 

received during an applicable comment 

period, and other information related to 

the Pesticide Program Dialogue 

Committee (PPDC). This administrative 

record includes the documents that are 

physically located in the docket, as well 

as the documents that are referenced in 

those documents. The public version of 

the administrative record, which 

includes printed, paper versions of any 

electronic comments that may be 

submitted during an applicable 

comment period, is available for 

inspection in the Public Information 

and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB), 

Rm. 119, Crystal Mall #2, 1921 Jefferson 

Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA, from 8:30 

a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

excluding legal holidays. The PIRIB 

telephone number is (703) 305–5805. 

C. How Can I Participate in PPDC 

Meetings? 

PPDC meetings and workshops will 

be open to the public under section 

10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory 

Committee Act, Public Law 92–463. 

Outside statements by observers will be 

welcome. Oral statements will be 

limited to 3–5 minutes, and it is 

preferred that only one person per 

organization present the statement. Any 

person who wishes to file a written 

statement may do so before or after the 

meeting. These statements will become 

part of the permanent record and will be 

available for public inspection at the 

address in Unit II.2. 

II. Background 

The PPDC is composed of 42 members 

appointed by the EPA Deputy 

Administrator. Committee members 

were selected from a balanced group of 

participants from the following sectors: 

Pesticide users, grower and commodity 

groups; industry and trade associations; 

environmental/public interest and 

farmworker groups; Federal, State and 

tribal governments; public health 

organizations; animal welfare; and 

academia. PPDC was established to 

provide a public forum to discuss a 

wide variety of pesticide regulatory 

development and reform initiatives, 

evolving public policy and program 

implementation issues, and science 

policy issues associated with evaluating 

and reducing risks from use of 

pesticides.

List of Subjects 

Environmental protection, 

Agriculture, Chemicals, Drinking water, 

Foods, Pesticides, Pests.

Dated: December 21, 2001. 

Marcia E. Mulkey, 

Director, Office of Pesticide Programs.

[FR Doc. 01–32214 Filed 12–31–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–S

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[FRL–7124–1] 

Peer Review of EPA Draft Human 

Health and Ecological Risk 

Assessment of Perchlorate

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency.

ACTION: Notice of Peer Review 

Workshop and public comment period. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) Office of 

Research and Development is 

announcing an external peer review 

workshop to review the revised draft 

document entitled, ‘‘Perchlorate 

Environmental Contamination: 

Toxicological Review and Risk 

Characterization’’ (NCEA–I–0503). The 

EPA is also announcing a public 

comment period for this draft 

document. The workshop is being 

organized and convened by the Eastern 

Research Group, Inc. (ERG), an EPA 

contractor.

DATES: The two-day peer review 

workshop will begin on Tuesday, March 

5, 2002, at 9 a.m. and will end on 

Wednesday, March 6, 2002, at 4:30 p.m. 

The 30-day public review and comment 

period will begin January 9, 2002, and 

will end February 11, 2002.

ADDRESSES: The external peer review 

meeting will be held at a facility in 

Sacramento, California. To attend the 

meeting as an observer, please register 

with ERG via the Internet by visiting 

www.meetings@erg.com. You may also 

register by calling ERG’s conference 

registration line at 781–674–7374 or by 

faxing a registration request to 781–674–

2906. Upon registering, you will be sent 

an agenda and a logistical fact sheet 

containing information on the meeting 

site, overnight accommodations, and 

ground transportation. The deadline for 

pre-registration is February 25, 2002. 

Space is limited, and reservations will 

be accepted on a first-come, first-served 

basis. There will be a limited time for 

oral comments on the revised draft 

document during the meeting. When 

registering, please let ERG know if you