30358 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 92 / Thursday, May 11, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[AL–53–200019(a); FRL–6605–8]

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans—Alabama:

Approval of Revisions to the Alabama

State Implementation Plan:

Transportation Conformity Interagency

Memorandum of Agreement

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is approving a revision to

the Alabama State Implementation Plan

(SIP) that contains the transportation

conformity rule pursuant to sections

110(k) and 176 of the Clean Air Act as

amended in 1990 (Act). The

transportation conformity rule assures

that projected emissions from

transportation plans and projects in air

quality nonattainment or maintenance

areas stay within the motor vehicle

emissions ceiling contained in the SIP.

The transportation conformity SIP

revision enables the State to implement

and enforce the Federal transportation

conformity requirements at the State

level per regulations on Conformity to

State or Federal Implementation Plans

of Transportation Plans, Programs, and

Projects Developed, Funded or

Approved Under Title 23 U.S.C. of the

Federal Transit Laws. This EPA

approval action streamlines the

conformity process and allows direct

consultation among agencies at the local

level. This final approval action is

limited to certain regulations on

Transportation Conformity. Rationale

for approving this SIP revision is

provided in the SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION Section of this action.

DATES: This direct final rule is effective

on July 10, 2000, without further notice,

unless EPA receives adverse comment

by June 12, 2000. If adverse comment is

received, EPA will publish a timely

withdrawal of the direct final rule in the

Federal Register informing the public

that this rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: All comments should be

addressed to Kelly Sheckler at the EPA,

Region 4 Air Planning Branch, 61

Forsyth Street, SW, Atlanta, Georgia

30303.

Copies of the state submittal are

available at the following addresses for

inspection during normal business

hours:

Air and Radiation Docket and

Information Center (Air Docket 6102),

U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Ariel Rios Building, N.W.,

Washington, DC 20460.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Atlanta Federal Center, Region 4 Air

Planning Branch, 61 Forsyth Street

S.W., Atlanta, Georgia 30303–3104.

Attn: Kelly Sheckler, (404) 562–9042.

Alabama Department of Environmental

Management, Post Office Box 301463,

1400 Coliseum Boulevard,

Montgomery, Alabama 36130–1463.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Kelly Sheckler, at 404/562–9042, Email: Sheckler.Kelly@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Outlined

below are the contents of this document:

I. Background

A. What is a SIP?

B. What is the Federal approval process for

a SIP?

C. What is transportation conformity?

D. Why must the State submit a

transportation conformity SIP?

E. How does transportation conformity

work?

II. Approval of the State Transportation

Conformity Rule

A. What did the State submit?

B. What is EPA approving today and why?

C. How did the State satisfy the

interagency consultation process (40 CFR

93.105)?

D. How does the State’s submittal address

the United States Court of Appeals for

the District of Columbia Circuit ruling

overturning the grace period for new

nonattainment areas (40 CFR 93.102(d))

in the Sierra Club v. Environmental

Protection Agency lawsuit?

E. What other parts of the rule are

excluded?

III. Opportunity for Public Comments

IV. Administrative Requirements

I. Background

A. What Is a SIP?

The states, under section 110 of the

Act, must develop air pollution

regulations and control strategies to

ensure that state air quality meets the

National Ambient Air Quality Standards

(NAAQS) established by EPA. The Act,

under section 109, established these

NAAQS which currently address six

criteria pollutants. These pollutants are:

carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide,

ozone, lead, particulate matter, and

sulfur dioxide.

Each state must send these regulations

and control strategies to EPA for

approval and incorporation into the

Federally enforceable SIP, which

protects air quality and contains

emission control plans for NAAQS

nonattainment areas. These SIPs can be

extensive, containing state regulations

or other enforceable documents and

supporting information such as

emission inventories, monitoring

networks, and modeling

demonstrations.

B. What Is the Federal Approval Process

for a SIP?

The states must formally adopt the

regulations and control strategies

consistent with state and Federal laws

for incorporating the state regulations

into the Federally enforceable SIP. This

process generally includes a public

notice, public comment period, public

hearing, and a formal adoption by a

state-authorized rulemaking body.

Once a state rule, regulation, or

control strategy is adopted, the state will

send these provisions to EPA for

inclusion in the Federally enforceable

SIP. EPA must then determine the

appropriate Federal action, provide

public notice, and request additional

public comment on the action. The

possible Federal actions include:

approval, disapproval, conditional

approval and limited approval/

disapproval. If adverse comments are

received, EPA must consider and

address the comments before taking

final action.

EPA incorporates state regulations

and supporting information (sent under

section 110 of the Act) into the

Federally approved SIP through the

approval action. EPA maintains records

of all such SIP actions in the CFR at

Title 40, Part 52, entitled ‘‘Approval and

Promulgation of Implementation Plans.’’

The EPA does not reproduce the text of

the Federally approved state regulations

in the CFR. They are ‘‘incorporated by

reference,’’ which means that the

specific state regulation is cited in the

CFR and is considered a part of the CFR

the same as if the text were fully printed

in the CFR.

C. What Is Transportation Conformity?

Conformity first appeared as a

requirement in the Act’s 1977

amendments (Pub. L. 95–95). Although

the Act did not define conformity, it

stated that no Federal department could

engage in, support in any way or

provide financial assistance for, license

or permit, or approve any activity which

did not conform to a SIP which has been

approved or promulgated.

The 1990 Amendments to the Act

expanded the scope and content of the

conformity concept by defining

conformity to a SIP. Section 176(c) of

the Act defines conformity as

conformity to the SIP’s purpose of

eliminating or reducing the severity and

number of violations of the NAAQS and

achieving expeditious attainment of

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 92 / Thursday, May 11, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 30359

such standards. Also, the Act states that

no Federal activity will: (1) Cause or

contribute to any new violation of any

standard in any area, (2) increase the

frequency or severity of any existing

violation of any standard in any area, or

(3) delay timely attainment of any

standard or any required interim

emission reductions or other milestones

in any area. The requirements of section

176(c) of the Clean Air Act apply to all

departments, agencies and

instrumentalities of the Federal

government. Transportation conformity

refers only to the conformity of

transportation plans, programs and

projects that are funded or approved

under title 23 U.S.C. of the Federal

Transit Act.

D. Why Must the State Submit a

Transportation Conformity SIP?

A transportation conformity SIP is a

plan which contains criteria and

procedures for the Department of

Transportation (DOT), Metropolitan

Planning Organizations (MPOs), and

other state or local agencies to assess the

conformity of transportation plans,

programs and projects to ensure that

they do not cause or contribute to new

violations of a NAAQS in the area

substantially affected by the project,

increase the frequency or severity of

existing violations of a standard in such

area or delay timely attainment. 40 CFR

Part 51.390, subpart T requires states to

submit a SIP that establishes criteria for

conformity to EPA. 40 CFR Part 93,

subpart A, provides the criteria the SIP

must meet to satisfy 40 CFR Part 51.390.

EPA was required to issue criteria and

procedures for determining conformity

of transportation plans, programs, and

projects to a SIP by section 176(c) of the

Act. The Act also required the

procedure to include a requirement that

each state submit a revision to its SIP

including conformity criteria and

procedures. EPA published the first

transportation conformity rule in the

November 24, 1993, Federal Register

(FR), and it was codified at 40 CFR Part

51, subpart T and 40 CFR Part 93,

subpart A. EPA required the states to

adopt and submit a transportation

conformity SIP revision to the

appropriate EPA Regional Office by

November 25, 1994. The State of

Alabama submitted a transportation

conformity SIP to the EPA Region 4 on

November 15, 1994. EPA did not take

action on this SIP because the Agency

was in the process of revising the

transportation conformity requirements.

EPA revised the transportation

conformity rule on August 7, 1995 (60

FR 40098), November 14, 1995 (60 FR

57179), and August 15, 1997 (62 FR

43780), and codified the revisions under

40 CFR Part 51, subpart T and 40 CFR

Part 93, subpart A—Conformity to State

or Federal Implementation Plans of

Transportation Plans, Programs, and

Projects Developed, Funded or

Approved Under Title 23 U.S.C. of the

Federal Transit Laws (62 FR 43780).

EPA’s action of August 15, 1997,

required the states to change their rules

and submit a SIP revision to EPA by

August 15, 1998. States may choose to

develop in place of regulations, a

memorandum of agreement (MOA)

which establishes the roles and

procedures for transportation

conformity. The MOA includes the

detailed consultation procedures

developed for that particular area. The

MOA’s are enforceable through the

signature of all the transportation and

air quality agencies, including the

Federal Highway Administration,

Federal Transit Administration and the

Environmental Protection Agency.

E. How Does Transportation Conformity

Work?

The Federal or state transportation

conformity rule applies to all NAAQS

nonattainment and maintenance areas

in the state. The Metropolitan Planning

Organizations (MPO), the State

Department of Transportation (DOT) (in

absence of a MPO), and U.S. Department

of Transportation (USDOT) make

conformity determinations. These

agencies make conformity

determinations on programs and plans

such as transportation improvement

programs (TIP), transportation plans,

and projects. The MPOs calculate the

projected emissions that will result from

implementation of the transportation

plans and programs and compare those

calculated emissions to the motor

vehicle emissions ceiling established in

the SIP. The calculated emissions must

be smaller than the Federally approved

motor vehicle emissions ceiling in order

for USDOT to make a positive

conformity determination with respect

to the SIP.

II. Approval of the State Transportation

Conformity Rule

A. What Did the State Submit?

The State of Alabama chose to address

the transportation conformity SIP

requirement through the development of

an MOA. On April 3, 2000, the State of

Alabama, through the Department of

Environmental Management (ADEM),

submitted the State’s transportation

conformity and consultation interagency

MOA to EPA as a revision to the SIP.

The Alabama Administrative Code

Chapter 335–3–17 Conformity of

Federal Actions to State Implementation

Plans and Code of Alabama 1975,

sections 22–28–14, 22–22A–5, 22–22A–

6, 22–22A–8, and 41–22–9 effective

April 27, 1995 and amended November

21, 1996 and March 27, 1998 adopted by

the Alabama General Assembly in 1992,

contains the necessary authority for the

revision to the SIP. ADEM held a public

hearing on December 21, 1999 and no

comments from the general public were

received. The MOA was developed with

appropriate interagency consultation.

B. What Is EPA Approving Today and

Why?

EPA is approving the Alabama

transportation conformity MOA that

establishes procedures for interagency

consultation and adoption of Chapter

335–3–17 as amended by the state on

March 27, 1998, that incorporates by

reference the Environmental Protection

Agency regulations in 40 CFR 93

Subpart A (July 1, 1997), and 62 FR

43780 [08/15/97; amendments]

Transportation Conformity and Subpart

B General Conformity, that the Director

of the ADEM submitted to the Region 4

office of the EPA on April 3, 2000,

except for the following sections for

incorporation by reference: 40 CFR Parts

93.102(c), 93.104(d), 93.109(c)–(f),

93.118(e), 93.120(a)(2), 93.121(a)(1), and

93.124(b). The rationale for exclusion of

these sections is discussed in Section

II.E of this action. The ADEM

Transportation Conformity MOA only

contains the detailed interagency

consultation procedure as required by

93.105.

EPA has evaluated this SIP revision

and has determined that the State has

met the requirements of Federal

transportation conformity rule as

described in 40 CFR Part 51, subpart T

and 40 CFR Part 93, subpart A. The

ADEM has satisfied the public

participation and comprehensive

interagency consultation requirement

during development and adoption of the

MOA at the local level. Therefore, EPA

is approving the MOA as a revision to

the Alabama SIP and Chapter 335–3–

17–.01 and .02 Conformity of Federal

Actions to State Implementation Plans.

C. How Did the State Satisfy the

Interagency Consultation Process (40

CFR 93.105)?

EPA’s rule requires the states to

develop their own processes and

procedures for interagency consultation

among the Federal, state, and local

agencies and resolution of conflicts

meeting the criteria in 40 CFR 93.105.

The SIP revision must include processes

and procedures to be followed by the

MPO, state DOT, and USDOT in

30360 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 92 / Thursday, May 11, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

consulting with the state and local air

quality agencies and EPA before making

conformity determinations. The

transportation conformity SIP revision

must also include processes and

procedures for the state and local air

quality agencies and EPA to coordinate

the development of applicable SIPs with

MPOs, state DOTs, and USDOT.

The State of Alabama developed its

consultation rule based on the elements

contained in 40 CFR 93.105, and

included it in the MOA, Exhibit 1. As

a first step, the State worked with the

existing transportation planning

organization’s interagency committee

that included representatives from the

State air quality agency, State

Department of Transportation, the

Birmingham Regional Planning

Commission (BRPC), Birmingham

Metropolitan Planning Organization

(MPO), Federal Highway

Administration—Alabama Division,

Federal Transit Administration,

Jefferson County Department of Health

(JCDH), Jefferson County Transit

Authority (B–JCTA), and EPA. The

interagency committee met regularly

and drafted the consultation rules

considering elements in 40 CFR Part

93.105 and 23 CFR Part 450, and

integrated the local procedures and

processes into the consultation MOA.

The consultation process developed in

this MOA is unique to the State of

Alabama. The MOA is enforceable

against the parties by their consent in

the MOA to allow the Attorney General

for the State of Alabama to sue any or

all of the agencies for specific

performance or other relief on behalf of

the citizens of Alabama in paren.

patrial. We have determined that the

State adequately included all elements

of 40 CFR Part 93.105 and that the MOA

meets the EPA SIP requirements.

D. How the State’s Submittal Addresses

the United States Court of Appeals for

the District of Columbia Circuit Ruling

Overturning the Grace Period for New

Nonattainment Areas (40 CFR

93.102(d)) in Sierra Club v.

Environmental Protection Agency

Lawsuit?

The Sierra Club challenged this

section of the second set of amendments

to the transportation conformity rule

arguing that allowing a 120 day grace

period was unlawful under the Act. On

November 4, 1997, the United States

Court of Appeals for the District of

Columbia Circuit held in Sierra Club v.

Environmental Protection Agency, No.

96–1007, determined that EPA’s grace

period violates the plain terms of the

Act and, therefore, is unlawful. Based

on this court action, the State has

excluded this section from its rule. EPA

agrees with the State’s action as it is

consistent with the United States Court

of Appeals for the District of Columbia

Circuit ruling. Further, the exclusion of

40 CFR 93.102(d) will not prevent EPA

from approving the State transportation

conformity SIP.

E. What Other Parts of the Rule Are

Excluded?

EPA promulgated the third set

amendments to the transportation

conformity rule on August 15, 1997. On

March 2, 1999, the United States Court

of Appeals for the District of Columbia

Circuit issued its opinion in

Environmental Defense Fund v.

Environmental Protection Agency, No.

97–1637. The Court granted the

environmental group’s petition for

review and ruled that sections 40 CFR

93.102(c)(1), 93.121(a)(1), and 93.124(b)

are unlawful and remanded 40 CFR

93.118(e) and 93.120(a)(2) to EPA for

revision to harmonize these provisions

with the requirements of the Act for an

affirmative determination that Federal

actions will not cause or increase

violations or delay attainment. The

sections of the rule that were impacted

by this decision were:

(a) 40 CFR 93.102(c)(1) which allowed

certain projects for which the National

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

process has been completed by the DOT

to proceed toward implementation

without further conformity

determinations during a conformity

‘‘lapse’’. A lapse is a situation in which

the conformity determination for the

transportation plan or TIP has expired,

and there is no currently conforming

transportation plan and TIP. As such,

there are restrictions on proceeding with

federally funded and regionally

significant projects.

(b) 40 CFR 93.118(e) which allowed

use of motor vehicle emissions budgets

(budgets) in the submitted SIPs after 45

days if EPA had not declared them

inadequate;

(c) 40 CFR 93.120(a)(2) which allowed

use of the budgets in a disapproved SIP

for 120 days after disapproval;

(d) 40 CFR 93.121(a)(1) which

allowed the nonfederally funded,

regionally significant projects to

proceed if included in the first three

years of the most recent conforming

transportation plan and transportation

improvement program, even if

conformity status is currently lapsed;

and

(e) 40 CFR 93.124(b) which allowed

areas to use a submitted SIP that

allocated portions of a safety margin to

transportation activities for conformity

purposes before EPA approval.

States were required to submit

transportation conformity SIPs to satisfy

the requirements for the third set of

amendments to the transportation

conformity rule by August 15, 1998.

Many of these SIP submittals, developed

prior to the March 2, 1999 Court ruling,

included provisions from the

transportation conformity rule verbatim.

As such, the State of Alabama’s SIP

revision included sections which the

Court ruled unlawful or remanded for

consistency with the Act. Therefore, in

accordance with the Court’s ruling, EPA

can not approve the request to

incorporate by reference those portions

of the Transportation conformity rule

affected by the March 2, 1999 Court

ruling. All other portions of the rule are

incorporated by reference are approved

by this.

The State of Alabama submitted

additional information which has

complied with the EPA requirements for

a transportation conformity SIP and has

adopted the Federal rules in an MOA

which were in effect at the time that the

transportation conformity SIP was due

to the EPA. If the Court had issued its

ruling before adoption and SIP

submittal by the ADEM, EPA believes

the ADEM would have removed these

sections from its rule which

incorporates 40 CFR Part 93, subparts A

and B. The ADEM has expended its

resources and time to prepare this SIP

and meet the statutory deadline, and

EPA acknowledges the agency’s good

faith effort in submitting the

transportation conformity SIP in a

timely manner.

The ADEM will be required to submit

a SIP revision in the future when EPA

revises its rule to comply with the Court

decision. Because the Court decision

has invalidated the aforementioned

affected provisions, EPA believes that it

is reasonable to exclude the

corresponding sections of the State rules

from this SIP approval action. As a

result, EPA is not taking any SIP action

on the following Sections of the

Alabama Chapter 335–3–17 to

incorporate by reference 40 CFR 93,

Subpart A and B: sections 93.102(c),

93.104(d), 93.109(c)–(f), 93.118(e),

93.120(a)(2), 93.121(a)(1), and 93.124(b).

The conformity determinations affected

by these sections should comply with

the relevant requirements of the

statutory provisions of the Act

underlying the Court’s decision on these

issues. EPA will be issuing guidance on

how to implement these provisions in

the interim prior to EPA’s amendment

of the Federal transportation conformity

rule. Once this Federal rule has been

revised, conformity determinations in

Alabama should comply with the

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 92 / Thursday, May 11, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 30361

requirements of the revised Federal rule

until corresponding provisions of the

Alabama conformity SIP have been

approved by EPA.

III. Opportunity for Public Comments

The EPA is publishing this rule

without prior proposal because the

Agency views this as a noncontroversial

submittal and anticipates no adverse

comment. However, in the ‘‘Proposed

Rules’’ section of today’s Federal

Register publication, EPA is publishing

a separate document that will serve as

the proposal to approve this SIP

revision if adverse comments are filed.

This rule will be effective on July 10,

2000, without further notice unless EPA

receives adverse comment by June 12,

2000. If EPA receives adverse comment,

EPA will publish a timely withdrawal in

the Federal Register informing the

public that the rule will not take effect.

EPA will address all public comments

in a subsequent final rule based on the

proposed rule. EPA will not institute a

second comment period on this action.

Any parties interested in commenting

must do so at this time.

IV. Administrative Requirements

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR

51735, October 4, 1993), this action is

not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ and

therefore is not subject to review by the

Office of Management and Budget. This

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 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 approves preexisting 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).

For the same reason, this 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 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 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, 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. As required by

section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (61

FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in issuing

this rule, EPA has taken the necessary

steps to eliminate drafting errors and

ambiguity, minimize potential litigation,

and provide a clear legal standard for

affected conduct. EPA 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

burden under the provisions of the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44

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

The Congressional Review Act, 5

U.S.C. section 801 et seq., as added by

the Small Business Regulatory

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996,

generally provides that before a rule

may take effect, the agency

promulgating the rule must submit a

rule report, which includes a copy of

the rule, to each House of the Congress

and to the Comptroller General of the

United States. EPA will submit a report

containing this rule and other required

information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S.

House of Representatives, and the

Comptroller General of the United

States prior to publication of the rule in

the Federal Register. A major rule

cannot take effect until 60 days after it

is published in the Federal Register.

This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as

defined by 5 U.S.C. section 804(2).

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

Air Act, petitions for judicial review of

this action must be filed in the United

States Court of Appeals for the

appropriate circuit by July 10, 2000.

Filing a petition for reconsideration by

the Administrator of this final rule does

not affect the finality of this rule for the

purposes of judicial review nor does it

extend the time within which a petition

for judicial review may be filed, and

shall not postpone the effectiveness of

such rule or action. This action may not

be challenged later in proceedings to

enforce its requirements. (See section

307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Hydrocarbons,

Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen

dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements.

Dated: April 28, 2000.

A. Stanley Meiburg,

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.

Part 52 of chapter I, title 40, Code of

Federal Regulations is amended as

follows:

PART 52—[AMENDED]

1. The authority for citation for part

52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart—Alabama

2. Section 52.50 is amended by

adding a new entry at the end of the

table in paragraph (c) to read as follows:

§ 52.50 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c) EPA approved Alabama regulatory

provisions.

EPA APPROVED ALABAMA REGULATIONS FOR ALABAMA

State citation Title subject Adoption date EPA approval date Federal Register notice

*******

Chapter No. 335–3–17,

Section 335–3–1–.01.

Transportation Conformity March 27, 1998 ................. May 11, 2000 .................... 65 FR 30361

30362 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 92 / Thursday, May 11, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

EPA APPROVED ALABAMA REGULATIONS FOR ALABAMA—Continued

State citation Title subject Adoption date EPA approval date Federal Register notice

Chapter No. 335–3–17,

Section 335–3–1–.02.

General Conformity ........... March 27, 1998 ................. May 11, 2000 .................... 65 FR 30362

****** *

3. Section 52.50 is amended by

adding a new entry at the end of the

table in paragraph (e) to read as follows:

§ 52.50 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(e) EPA-approved Alabama nonregulatory provisions.

EPA APPROVED ALABAMA NON-REGULATORY PROVISIONS

Provision State effective date EPA approval date FEDERAL REGISTER notice Explanation

*******

Alabama Interagency

Transportation Conformity Memorandum of

Agreement.

January 20, 2000 ............ May 11, 2000 .................. 65 FR 30362.

[FR Doc. 00–11813 Filed 5–10–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

50 CFR Part 622

[Docket No. 991112303–0069–02; I.D.

100499A]

RIN 0648–AM01

Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of

Mexico, and South Atlantic; Coastal

Migratory Pelagic Resources of the

Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic;

Catch Specifications for Gulf Group

King and Spanish Mackerel

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: In accordance with the

framework procedure for adjusting

management measures of the Fishery

Management Plan for the Coastal

Migratory Pelagic Resources of the Gulf

of Mexico and South Atlantic (FMP),

NMFS implements increases in the total

allowable catch (TAC) and the bag limit

for Gulf group Spanish mackerel and

establishes a new fishing season for the

Gulf group king mackerel gillnet fishery.

The intended effects of this rule are to

enhance the economic and social

benefits from the Gulf group king and

Spanish mackerel fisheries while

maintaining healthy stocks.

DATES: This final rule is effective June

12, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr.

Steve Branstetter, telephone: 727–570–

5305, fax: 727–570–5583, e-mail:

Steve.Branstetter@noaa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

fisheries for coastal migratory pelagic

resources are regulated under the FMP.

The FMP was prepared jointly by the

Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic

Fishery Management Councils and was

approved by NMFS and implemented

by regulations at 50 CFR part 622.

In accordance with the framework

procedures of the FMP, the Gulf of

Mexico Fishery Management Council

(Council) recommended, and NMFS

published, a proposed rule (64 FR

71388, December 21, 1999) to

implement increases in the total

allowable catch (TAC) and the bag limit

for Gulf group Spanish mackerel and a

new fishing season for the Gulf group

king mackerel gillnet fishery. The

proposed rule described the need and

rationale for these measures, which are

not repeated here.

Comments and Responses

Three individuals submitted

comments; several of the points raised

by the commenters were the same. The

relevant points and NMFS’ responses

are presented here:

Comment 1: Two commenters

opposed the delay in the opening date

of the gillnet season from November 1

to the Tuesday after the Martin Luther

King, Jr., holiday in January. One

commenter believed that this action

would shorten the season substantially

and create an economic hardship on the

fishery. The commenter suggested that a

viable alternative would be to retain the

November 1 opening date and close all

weekends and holidays. The second

commenter believed that altering the

opening date for the gillnet fishery was

discriminatory against the hook-andline fishery and that the action was

being taken without any evaluations of

the sociological impacts on other

commercial and charter king mackerel

fishermen.

Response: NMFS can only approve,

partially approve, or disapprove actions

submitted by the Councils and cannot

substitute alternative actions for those

submitted by the Councils. Therefore,

NMFS did not consider retaining the

opening date of November 1 for the

gillnet fishery, with all weekends and

holidays closed. Nevertheless, the intent

of the change in the fishing season is to

avoid quota overruns due to the 3-day

holiday. The change in the opening date

of the gillnet season should have little

overall impact on the fishery regarding

its ability to meet the gillnet quota. The

fishery normally does not begin to

harvest fish until after January 1 and has

the capacity to meet its quota in a

week’s time. Since 1995, all landings

occurred in January or early February,

except in 1998 when some landings

were recorded in November and

December. During this timeframe, the

fishery has met its quota in 7 to 31 days.

Delaying the opening date for the

gillnet sector of the fishery should not

impact the other fishing sectors. The

gillnet fishery has a dedicated quota that

historically has been harvested during

the month of January and February,

with as much as 50 to 100 percent of