Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 117 / Monday, June 18, 2001 / Proposed Rules 32783

Quality, Air and Waste Management

Bureau, 1520 E. 6th Avenue, Helena,

Montana 59620.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Kerri Fiedler, EPA, Region VIII, (303)

312–6493 or Laurie Ostrand, EPA,

Region VIII, (303) 312–6437.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: See the

information provided in the Direct Final

action of the same title which is located

in the ‘‘Rules and Regulations’’ section

of this Federal Register.

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

Dated: May 16, 2001.

Jack W. McGraw,

Acting Regional Administrator, Region VIII.

[FR Doc. 01–15144 Filed 6–15–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[AZ 063–0024; FRL–6998–4]

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 a

simultaneous limited approval and

limited disapproval of revisions to the

Pinal County Air Quality Control

District (PCAQCD) portion of the

Arizona State Implementation Plan (SIP)

concerning particulate matter (PM–10)

emissions from visible emissions, from

open burning, and from industrial

processes, and concerning carbon

monoxide (CO) emissions from

industrial processes.

We are also proposing full approval of

revisions to the PCAQCD portion of the

Arizona State SIP concerning PM–10

emissions from visible emissions and

from open burning.

We are proposing action on local rules

that regulate these emission sources

under the Clean Air Act as amended in

1990 (CAA or the Act). We are taking

comments on this proposal and plan to

follow with a final action.

DATES: Any comments must arrive by

July 18, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Mail comments to Andrew

Steckel, Rulemaking Office Chief (AIR–

4), Air Division, U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Region IX, 75

Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA

94105.

You can inspect copies of the

submitted rule revisions and EPA’s

technical support documents (TSDs) at

our Region IX office during normal

business hours. You may also see copies

of the submitted rule revisions at the

following locations:

Environmental Protection Agency, Air

Docket (6102), Ariel Rios Building,

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,

Washington, DC 20460

Arizona Department of Environmental

Quality, 3033 North Central Avenue,

Phoenix, AZ 85012

Pinal County Air Quality Control

District, Building F, 31 North Pinal

Street (P. O. Box 987), Florence, AZ

85232

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Al

Petersen, Rulemaking Office (AIR–4),

Air Division, U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Region IX, 75

Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA

94105; (415)744–1135.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA.

Table of Contents

I. The State’s Submittal

A. What rules did the State submit?

B. Are there other versions of these rules?

C. What are the changes in the submitted

rules?

II. EPA’s Evaluation and Action

A. How is EPA evaluating the rules?

B. Do the rules meet the evaluation

criteria?

C. What are the rule deficiencies?

D. EPA recommendations to further

improve the rules

E. Proposed action and public comment

III. Background information

A. Why were these rules submitted?

IV. Administrative Requirements

I. The State’s Submittal

A. What Rules Did the State Submit?

Table 1 lists the rules proposed for

limited approval and limited

disapproval with the dates that they

were adopted by the local air agency

and submitted by the Arizona

Department of Environmental Quality

(ADEQ).

TABLE 1.—SUBMITTED RULES

Local agency Rule # Rule title Adopted Submitted

PCAQCD ................. 2–8–300 Performance Standards [Visible Emissions] ........................................................ 06/29/93 11/27/95

PCAQCD ................. 3–8–700 General Provisions [Open Burning] ..................................................................... 02/22/95 11/27/95

PCAQCD ................. 5–24–1032 Federally Enforceable Minimum Standard of Performance—Process Particulate Emissions.02/22/95 11/27/95

PCAQCD ................. 5–24–1040 Carbon Monoxide Emissions—Industrial Processes ........................................... 02/22/95 11/27/95

On February 2, 1996, we determined

that the rule submittals in Table 1 met

the completeness criteria in 40 CFR part

51 appendix V, which must be met

before formal EPA review.

Table 2 lists the rules proposed for

full approval with the dates that they

were adopted by the local air agency

and submitted by the Arizona

Department of Environmental Quality

(ADEQ).

TABLE 2.—SUBMITTED RULES

Local agency Rule # Rule title Adopted Submitted

PCAQCD .................. 2–8–280 General [Visible Emissions] .................................................................................. 06/29/93 11/27/95

PCAQCD .................. 2–8–290 Definitions [Visible Emissions] .............................................................................. 06/29/93 11/27/95

PCAQCD .................. 2–8–310 Exemptions [Visible Emissions] ............................................................................ 06/29/93 11/27/95

PCAQCD .................. 2–8–320 Monitoring and Records [Visible Emissions] ......................................................... 06/29/93 11/27/95

PCAQCD .................. 3–8–710 Permit Provisions and Administration [Open Burning] .......................................... 02/22/95 11/27/95

32784 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 117 / Monday, June 18, 2001 / Proposed Rules

1The Pinal-Gila Counties Air Quality Control

District originally had jurisdiction in Pinal County

and Gila County. On April 1, 1988, Gila County

gave jurisdiction for air quality control to ADEQ.

On April 4, 1988, Gila County dissolved the

PGCAQCD on behalf of Gila County. On August 15,

1988, Pinal County renamed the PGCAQCD the

Pinal County Air Quality Control District, but

continued to enforce the PGCAQCD rules. On

November 23, 1992, Pinal County formally

dissolved the PGCAQCD on behalf of Pinal County.

In 1993 and later, PCAQCD adopted PCAQCD

replacement rules, many of which subsequently

became SIP-approved PCAQCD rules.

2 If the PM–10 Plan should be modified in the

future, the CAA could require additional control

measures to meet RACM/RACT or BACM/BACT

requirements.

On February 2, 1996, we determined

that the submittals for Rules 2–8–280,

2–8–290, 2–8–310, 2–8–320, and 3–8–

710 met the completeness criteria.

B. Are There Other Versions of These

Rules?

We approved a version of Rules 2–8–

280, 2–8–290, 2–8–300, 2–8–310, and 2–

8–320 into the Pinal-Gila Counties Air

Quality Control District 1 (PGCAQCD)

portion of the SIP, as Rule 7–3–1.1,

Visible Emissions: General, on April 12,

1982 (47 FR 15579).

We approved a version of Rules 3–8–

700 and 3–8–710 into the PGCAQCD

portion of the SIP, as Rule 7–3–1.3,

Open Burning, on November 15, 1978

(43 FR 53031).

We approved a version of Rule 5–24–

1032 into the PGCAQCD portion of the

SIP, as Rule 7–3–1.8, Process Industries,

on November 15, 1978 (43 FR 53031).

We approved a version of Rule 5–24–

1040 into the PGCAQCD portion of the

SIP, as Rule 7–3–4.1, Emission

Standards—Carbon Monoxide from

Stationary Sources, on November 15,

1978 (43 FR 53031).

C. What Are the Changes in the

Submitted Rules?

Rule 2–8–280 adds the limitation that

visible emissions to the atmosphere are

from any air contaminant.

Rule 2–8–290 adds relevant

definitions.

Rule 2–8–300 has an equally stringent

opacity standard for emissions of 40%

opacity.

Rule 2–8–310 adds the exemption for

emissions where opacity results from

uncombined water.

Rule 2–8–320 adds an EPA-approved

test method for determining opacity.

Rule 3–8–700 has the following

burning operation added to the

exemptions for obtaining a permit:

• (C.1) Fires used only for orchard

heaters for frost protection.

Rule 3–8–700 has the added burning

operations allowed by permit from the

Control Officer as follows:

• (E.1.a) Fires for residential disposal

of leaves, clippings, and tree trimmings.

• (E.1.b) Fires for residential disposal

of household trash in approved burners

in remote areas with no refuse

collection available.

• (E.2) Fires for commercial disposal

of leaves, clippings, and tree trimmings.

• (E.4) Fires for building demolition,

only after on-site inspection by the

District.

Rule 3–8–700 has added a prohibition

against burning various listed hazardous

materials or materials that evolve smoke

or particulate matter when burned. The

rule has added the requirement that

fires may be extinguished at the

discretion of the Control Officer in the

case of:

• Inadequate smoke dispersion.

• Periods of excessive visibility

impairment which could adversely

affect public safety.

• Periods when smoke blows into a

populated area to create a public

nuisance.

Rule 3–8–710 adds to the SIP rule the

provisions to be cited in the permit, the

requirement of the District to keep

copies, and the term of the permit.

Rule 5–24–1032 is reformatted but

equally as stringent as the SIP rule.

Rule 5–24–1040 is renumbered.

The TSDs have more information

about these rules.

II. EPA’s Evaluation and Action

A. How Is EPA Evaluating the Rules?

We evaluated these rules for

enforceability and consistency with the

CAA as amended in 1990, with 40 CFR

51, and with EPA’s PM–10 policy.

Sections 172(c)(1) and 189(a) of the

CAA require moderate PM–10

nonattainment areas to implement

reasonably available control measures

(RACM), including reasonably available

control technology (RACT) for

stationary sources of PM–10. Section

189(b) requires that serious PM–10

nonattainment areas, in addition to

meeting the RACM/RACT requirements,

implement best available control

measures (BACM), including best

available control technology (BACT). In

the northern part of PCAQCD is the

Apache Junction portion of the Phoenix

metropolitan area, which is a serious

PM–10 nonattainment area. In the

northeastern part of PCAQCD is

Hayden-Miami, which is a moderate

PM–10 nonattainment area. PCAQCD

regulates certain sources of PM–10

within the nonattainment areas.

EPA’s preliminary guidance for both

moderate and serious PM–10

nonattainment areas provides that

RACM/RACT and BACM/BACT are

required to be implemented for all

source categories unless the State

demonstrates that a particular source

category does not contribute

significantly to PM–10 levels in excess

of the NAAQS. See General Preamble

for the Implementation of Title I of the

Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, 57

FR 13498, 13540 (April 16, 1992) and

Addendum to the General Preamble for

the Implementation of Title I of the

Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, 59

FR 41998 (August 16, 1994). The

activities regulated by Rules 2–8–280,

2–8–290, 2–8–300, 2–8–310, and 2–8–

320 contribute a small but not

insignificant amount of the total PM–10

emissions in PCAQCD according to the

August 1999 Apache Junction Portion of

the Metropolitan Phoenix PM–10

Serious State Implementation Plan.2

Therefore, Rules 2–8–280, 2–8–290, 2–

8–300, 2–8–310, and 2–8–320 must

meet the requirements of BACM/BACT.

The activities regulated by Rules 3–8–

700 and 3–8–710 contribute an

insignificant amount of the total PM–10

emissions in the Apache Junction area

and in the Hayden-Miami area. The

activities regulated by Rule 5–24–1032

contribute an insignificant amount of

the total PM–10 emissions in the

Apache Junction area. The PM–10

sources in the Hayden-Miami area are

primarily copper smelters, which are

regulated by Arizona Department of

Environmental Quality rules. EPA

believes that the remaining sources

regulated by this rule are insignificant

sources of PM–10. Moreover, PCAQCD

did not submit any of these rules as

RACM/RACT or BACM/BACT rules on

which PM–10 attainment relies.

Therefore, PCAQCD Rules 3–8–700, 3–

8–710 and 5–24–1032 are not required

to meet RACM/RACT or BACM/BACT

control levels. We are evaluating these

rules only to ensure that they do not

relax the SIP in violation of CAA

sections 110(l) and 193, and that they

meet enforceability and other general

SIP requirements of section 110.

PCAQCD is a CO attainment area.

Therefore, we are evaluating Rule 5–24–

1040 only to ensure that it does not

relax the SIP in violation of CAA

sections 110(l) and 193, and that it

meets enforceability and other general

SIP requirements of section 110. The

TSDs have more information on how we

evaluated the rules.

Guidance and policy documents that

we used to define specific enforceability

and SIP relaxation requirements include

the following:

• PM–10 Guideline Document, (EPA–

452/R093–008).

• Apache Junction Portion of the

Metropolitan Phoenix PM–10 Serious

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 117 / Monday, June 18, 2001 / Proposed Rules 32785

State Implementation Plan (August

1999).

• General Preamble Appendix C3—

Prescribed Burning Control Measures,

57 FR 18072 (April 28, 1992).

• Addendum to the General Preamble

for the Implementation of Title I of the

Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, 59

FR 41998 (August 16, 1994).

B. Do the Rules Meet the Evaluation

Criteria?

These rules improve the SIP by

replacing defunct PGCAQCD rules.

These rules are largely consistent with

the relevant policy and guidance

regarding enforceability and SIP

relaxations. Rule provisions which do

not meet the evaluation criteria are

summarized below and discussed

further in the TSDs.

C. What Are the Rule Deficiencies?

Rule 2–8–300 contains the following

deficiency:

• 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.

Rule 3–8–700 contains the following

deficiencies:

• The rule enforceability is limited,

because of the discretion of a public

officer to grant permission to burn for

certain types of burning that are exempt

from obtaining a permit. These types of

burning could be scheduled on a day

when conditions are favorable for open

burning and smoke dispersion. The

discretion should be removed by using

criteria based on quantitative data, such

as reasonably available meteorological

data, to determine days on which

conditions are favorable for open

burning and smoke dispersion.

• The rule enforceability is limited,

because of the discretion of the Control

Officer to determine qualitative

conditions of ‘‘inadequate’’ smoke

dispersion, ‘‘excessive’’ visibility

impairment, and ‘‘creating’’ a public

nuisance for extinguishing certain types

of burning with a permit. The

qualitative criteria could be replaced by

using criteria based on quantitative data,

such as reasonably available

meteorological data, to determine days

on which conditions are favorable for

open burning and smoke dispersion.

• The new exemption from

permitting for orchard heaters could

become a SIP relaxation if any were put

in use. The exemption should be

removed, because there are no orchard

heaters in PCAQCD.

Rule 5–24–1032 contains the

following deficiencies:

• The rule enforceability is limited,

because it does not contain periodic

monitoring requirements. If the rule

were revised to reference Rule 3–1–150,

Monitoring, it would continue to be

deficient, because Rule 3–1–150 allows

for monitoring at the discretion of the

Control Officer.

• The rule enforceability is limited,

because it does not state the test method

for PM. If the rule were revised to

reference Rule 3–1–160, Test Methods

and Procedures, it would continue to be

deficient, because Rule 3–1–160 allows

for approval of an alternate test method

at the discretion of the Control Officer.

• The rule enforceability is limited,

because of the discretion of the Control

Officer to determine whether the

manner of control of fugitive emissions

is satisfactory.

• The rule enforceability is limited,

because it does not require

recordkeeping for at least two years.

Rule 5–24–1040 contains the

following deficiencies:

• The rule enforceability is limited,

because it does not contain a numerical

standard for the emission of CO. A 400

ppmv CO standard in exhaust gases has

been in effect in other parts of the

country for many years.

• The rule enforceability is limited,

because it does not contain periodic

monitoring requirements. If the rule

were revised to reference Rule 3–1–150,

Monitoring, it would continue to be

deficient, because Rule 3–1–150 allows

for monitoring at the discretion of the

Control Officer.

• The rule enforceability is limited,

because it does not state the test method

for CO. If the rule were revised to

reference Rule 3–1–160, Test Methods

and Procedures, it would continue to be

deficient, because Rule 3–1–160 allows

for approval of an alternate test method

at the discretion of the Control Officer.

• The rule enforceability is limited,

because it does not require

recordkeeping for two years.

D. EPA Recommendations To Further

Improve the Rules

The TSDs describe additional rule

revisions that do not affect our current

action but are recommended for the next

time the local agency modifies the rules.

E. Proposed Action and Public

Comment

As authorized in sections 110(k)(3)

and 301(a) of the CAA, we are proposing

a limited approval of the submitted Rule

2–8–300 to improve the SIP. If finalized,

this action would incorporate the

submitted rule into the SIP, including

those provisions identified as deficient.

We are simultaneously proposing a

limited disapproval of this rule under

section 110(k)(3). If this disapproval is

finalized, sanctions will be imposed

under section 179 of the CAA unless

EPA approves subsequent SIP revisions

that corrects the rule deficiency within

18 months. These sanctions would be

imposed as described in 59 FR 39832

(August 4, 1994). A final disapproval

would also trigger the federal

implementation plan (FIP) requirement

under section 110(c). Note that the

submitted rule has been adopted by the

PCAQCD, and our final limited

disapproval would not prevent the local

agency from enforcing it.

As authorized in sections 110(k)(3)

and 301(a) of the CAA, we are proposing

a limited approval of the submitted

Rules 3–8–700, 5–24–1032, and 5–24–

1040 to improve the SIP. If finalized,

this action would incorporate the

submitted rules into the SIP, including

those provisions identified as deficient.

We are simultaneously proposing a

limited disapproval of these rules under

section 110(k)(3). If this disapproval is

finalized, sanctions will not be imposed

under section 179 of the CAA. Note that

the submitted rules have been adopted

by the PCAQCD, and our final limited

approval would not prevent the local

agency from enforcing them.

As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of

the CAA, EPA is proposing a full

approval of the submitted Rules 2–8–

280, 2–8–290, 2–8–310, 2–8–320 and 3–

8–710 to improve the SIP.

We will accept comments from the

public on the proposed proposed

limited approval/limited disapprovals

and the proposed full approvals for the

next 30 days.

III. Background Information

A. Why Were These Rules Submitted?

PM–10 and CO harm human health

and the environment. Section 110(a) of

the CAA requires states to submit

regulations that control PM–10 and CO

emissions. Table 3 lists some of the

national milestones leading to the

submittal of local agency PM–10 and CO

rules.

32786 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 117 / Monday, June 18, 2001 / Proposed Rules

TABLE 3.—PM–10 AND CO NONATTAINMENT MILESTONES

Date Event

March 3, 1978 ................................. EPA promulgated a list of CO and total suspended particulate (TSP) nonattainment areas under the Clean

Air Act, as amended in 1977. 43 FR 8964; 40 CFR 81.305.

July 1, 1987 .................................... EPA replaced the TSP standards with new PM standards applying only up to 10 microns in diameter (PM–

10). 52 FR 24672.

November 15, 1990 ........................ Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 were enacted, Pub. L. 101–549, 104 Stat. 2399, codified at 42 U.S.C.

7401–7671q.

November 15, 1990 ........................ CO and PM–10 areas meeting the qualifications of section 107(d)(4)(A) and (B) of the CAA were designated nonattainment by operation of law and classified as moderate or serious pursuant to section

186(a) and 189(a). States are required by section 110(a) to submit rules regulating CO and PM–10

emissions in order to achieve the attainment dates specified in section 186(a)(1) and 188(c).

IV. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

The Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) has exempted this regulatory

action from Executive Order (E.O.)

12866, Regulatory Planning and Review.

B. Executive Order 13045

Executive Order 13045, entitled

Protection of Children from

Environmental Health Risks and Safety

Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997),

applies to any rule that: (1) Is

determined to be ‘‘economically

significant’’ as defined under E.O.

12866, and (2) concerns an

environmental health or safety risk that

EPA has reason to believe may have a

disproportionate effect on children. If

the regulatory action meets both criteria,

the Agency must evaluate the

environmental health or safety effects of

the planned rule on children, and

explain why the planned regulation is

preferable to other potentially effective

and reasonably feasible alternatives

considered by the Agency.

This rule is not subject to E.O. 13045

because it does not involve decisions

intended to mitigate environmental

health or safety risks.

C. Executive Order 13132

Executive Order 13132, entitled

Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10,

1999) revokes and replaces Executive

Orders 12612, Federalism and 12875,

Enhancing the Intergovernmental

Partnership. E.O. 13132 requires EPA to

develop an accountable process to

ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by

State and local officials in the

development of regulatory policies that

have federalism implications.’’ ‘‘Policies

that have federalism implications’’ is

defined in the Executive Order to

include regulations that 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.’’ Under E.O.

13132, EPA may not issue a regulation

that has federalism implications, that

imposes substantial direct compliance

costs, and that is not required by statute,

unless the Federal government provides

the funds necessary to pay the direct

compliance costs incurred by State and

local governments, or EPA consults with

State and local officials early in the

process of developing the proposed

regulation. EPA also may not issue a

regulation that has federalism

implications and that preempts State

law unless the Agency consults with

State and local officials early in the

process of developing the proposed

regulation.

This proposed 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

E.O. 13132, because it merely acts on 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. Thus, the requirements of

section 6 of the Executive Order do not

apply to this proposed rule.

D. Executive Order 13175

Executive Order 13175, entitled

‘‘Consultation and Coordination with

Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR

67249, November 6, 2000), requires EPA

to develop an accountable process to

ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by

tribal officials in the development of

regulatory policies that have tribal

implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have tribal

implications’’ is defined in the

Executive Order to include regulations

that have ‘‘substantial direct effects on

one or more Indian tribes, on the

relationship between the Federal

government and the Indian tribes, or on

the distribution of power and

responsibilities between the Federal

government and Indian tribes.’’

This proposed rule does not have

tribal implications. It will not have

substantial direct effects on tribal

governments, 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 in Executive Order 13175.

Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not

apply to this rule. In the spirit of

Executive Order 13175, and consistent

with EPA policy to promote

communications between EPA and

tribal governments, EPA specifically

solicits additional comment on this

proposed rule from tribal officials.

E. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

generally requires an agency to conduct

a regulatory flexibility analysis of any

rule subject to notice and comment

rulemaking requirements unless the

agency certifies that the rule will not

have a significant economic impact on

a substantial number of small entities.

Small entities include small businesses,

small not-for-profit enterprises, and

small governmental jurisdictions.

This proposed rule will not have a

significant impact on a substantial

number of small entities because SIP

approvals under section 110 and

subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air Act

do not create any new requirements but

simply act on requirements that the

State is already imposing. Therefore,

because the Federal SIP approval does

not create any new requirements, I

certify that this action will not have a

significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities.

EPA’s proposed disapproval of the

state request under section 110 and

subchapter I, part D of the CAA does not

affect any existing requirements

applicable to small entities. Any preexisting federal requirements remain in

place after this disapproval. Federal

disapproval of the state submittal does

not affect state enforceability. Moreover,

EPA’s disapproval of the submittal does

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 117 / Monday, June 18, 2001 / Proposed Rules 32787

not impose any new Federal

requirements. Therefore, I certify that

this action will not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities.

Moreover, due to the nature of the

Federal-State relationship under the

Clean Air Act, preparation of flexibility

analysis would constitute Federal

inquiry into the economic

reasonableness of state action. The

Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base its

actions concerning SIPs on such

grounds. Union Electric Co. v. U.S. EPA,

427 U.S. 246, 255–66 (1976); 42 U.S.C.

7410(a)(2).

F. Unfunded Mandates

Under section 202 of the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act of 1995

(‘‘Unfunded Mandates Act’’), signed

into law on March 22, 1995, EPA must

prepare a budgetary impact statement to

accompany any proposed or final rule

that includes a Federal mandate that

may result in estimated costs to State,

local, or tribal governments in the

aggregate; or to private sector, of $100

million or more. Under section 205,

EPA must select the most cost-effective

and least burdensome alternative that

achieves the objectives of the rule and

is consistent with statutory

requirements. Section 203 requires EPA

to establish a plan for informing and

advising any small governments that

may be significantly or uniquely

impacted by the rule.

EPA has determined that the

proposed action does not include a

Federal mandate that may result in

estimated costs of $100 million or more

to either State, local, or tribal

governments in the aggregate, or to the

private sector. This proposed Federal

action acts on pre-existing requirements

under State or local law, and imposes

no new requirements. Accordingly, no

additional costs to State, local, or tribal

governments, or to the private sector,

result from this action.

G. National Technology Transfer and

Advancement Act

Section 12 of the National Technology

Transfer and Advancement Act

(NTTAA) of 1995 requires Federal

agencies to evaluate existing technical

standards when developing a new

regulation. To comply with NTTAA,

EPA must consider and use ‘‘voluntary

consensus standards’’ (VCS) if available

and applicable when developing

programs and policies unless doing so

would be inconsistent with applicable

law or otherwise impractical.

EPA believes that VCS are

inapplicable to today’s proposed action

because it does not require the public to

perform activities conducive to the use

of VCS.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Carbon monoxide,

Incorporation by reference,

Intergovernmental relations, Particulate

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

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

Dated: May 18, 2001.

Jane Diamond,

Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.

[FR Doc. 01–15293 Filed 6–15–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

50 CFR Parts 223 and 224

[Docket No.010607150–1150–01; I.D.

091200F]

RIN 0648–AN64

Sea Turtle Conservation; Restrictions

Applicable to Fishing and Scientific

Research Activities

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for

comments.

SUMMARY: NMFS proposes to amend the

sea turtle handling and resuscitation

regulation. Recent scientific and

technical information indicate that the

current procedures need to be updated.

This measure is necessary to improve

the handling of sea turtles that are

incidentally captured during scientific

research or fishing activities.

DATES: Written comments must be

received on or before July 18, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Comments on this proposed

rule should be addressed to the Chief,

Endangered Species Division, Office of

Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 EastWest Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910

or comments may be submitted via

facsimile 301–713–0376 or via

electronic Internet at

seaturt.resuscitate@noaa.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Therese A. Conant, or Barbara A.

Schroeder, (301)713–1401.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The taking

of sea turtles is governed by regulations

implementing the Endangered Species

Act (ESA) at 50 CFR parts 222 and 223

(see 64 FR 14051, March 23, 1999, final

rule consolidating and reorganizing ESA

regulations). Generally, the taking of sea

turtles is prohibited. However, the

incidental take of turtles during shrimp

and summer flounder fishing in areas of

the Atlantic Ocean and in the Gulf of

Mexico is excepted from the taking

prohibition pursuant to sea turtle

conservation regulations at 50 CFR

223.206, which include a requirement to

have a NMFS-approved turtle excluder

device (TED) installed in each net rigged

for fishing. Other exceptions to the

taking prohibition include incidental

take that is authorized for ESA scientific

research permits, incidental take

permits, and section 7 incidental take

statements. All take excepted from the

prohibitions requires safe handling and

resuscitation of incidentally caught sea

turtles as specified at 50 CFR

223.206(d)(1).

Justification and Changes Proposed

Sea turtles are air breathers and may

drown under conditions of forced

submergence. To minimize the impact

of forced submergence, NMFS

developed protocols to handle comatose

turtles (FR 43 32801, July 28, 1978) and

subsequently updated the protocols (57

FR 57354, December 4, 1992). New

scientific and technical information has

been collected since the last update. For

example, the practice of stepping on the

plastron to revive the turtle may

actually do more harm than good.

Plastral pumping may cause the airway

to block, thus prohibiting air from

entering the lungs. Pumping the

plastron while a turtle is on its back also

causes the viscera to compress the lungs

which are located dorsally, thereby

hindering lung ventilation. Recent

physiological studies on the effects of

trawl capture on small sea turtles show

that high stress levels are developed

during short-duration forced

submergences and that the turtles may

require from 3.5 up to 24 hours to

recover from the stress effects. Thus, in

addition to comatose turtles being held

up to 24 hours, the release of actively

moving turtles should also be delayed

when possible. Resuscitation techniques

have been refined over the years as

biologists have developed effective ways

to test for reflexes in order to determine

the status of the turtle.

The proposed changes to the existing

protocol are as follows: Eliminate

stepping on the plastron as a method for

resuscitation; provide a more defined

criteria to determine dead versus

comatose turtles; increase the minimum

elevation of the hindquarters; and add

carapace movement and a reflex test to

the resuscitation methods. In addition,