66046 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 242 / Wednesday, December 17, 1997 / Proposed Rules

Assistant Administrator for Air and

Radiation. The Office of Management

and Budget (OMB) has exempted this

regulatory action from E.O. 12866

review.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act,

5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., EPA must prepare

a regulatory flexibility analysis

assessing the impact of any proposed or

final rule on small entities. 5 U.S.C. 603

and 604. Alternatively, EPA may certify

that the rule will not have a significant

impact on a substantial number of small

entities. Small entities include small

businesses, small not-for-profit

enterprises, and government entities

with jurisdiction over populations of

less than 50,000.

SIP approvals under section 110 and

subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air Act

do not create any new requirements but

simply approve requirements that the

State is already imposing. Therefore,

because the Federal SIP approval does

not impose any new requirements, the

Administrator certifies that it does not

have a significant impact on any small

entities affected. Moreover, due to the

nature of the Federal-State relationship

under the CAA, preparation of a

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).

C. 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 approval

action proposed 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 Federal action

approves pre-existing requirements

under State or local law, and imposes

no new Federal requirements.

Accordingly, no additional costs to

State, local, or tribal governments, or to

the private sector, result from this

action.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Hydrocarbons,

Intergovernmental relations, Ozone,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Volatile organic

compound.

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q.

Dated: December 9, 1997.

Felicia Marcus,

Regional Administrator, Region IX.

[FR Doc. 97–32929 Filed 12–16–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[FRL–5933–7]

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans; Colorado;

Correction

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing corrections

to the State Implementation Plan (SIP)

for the State of Colorado. First, EPA is

proposing corrections to its January 21,

1997 rulemaking in which EPA

approved several Colorado new source

review (NSR) SIP revisions. Specifically,

pursuant to a December 17, 1996 request

from the State of Colorado, EPA is

proposing to remove from the approved

SIP two sections of Colorado’s

prevention of significant deterioration

(PSD) rules in Regulation No. 3. EPA is

also proposing to disapprove a

provision in the State’s definition of

‘‘federally enforceable’’ in Regulation

No. 3 that EPA inadvertently failed to

disapprove in its January 21, 1997

rulemaking. Specifically, the provision

in that definition states that provisions

which are not required by the Federal

Clean Air Act (Act) shall not be

submitted as part of the SIP and shall

not be federally enforceable. This

provision is being proposed for

disapproval because the Act provides

that any provision approved by EPA as

part of the SIP is federally enforceable

unless and until the State requests, and

EPA approves, a SIP revision removing

such provision.

Second, EPA is proposing to correct

an October 5, 1979 rulemaking in which

EPA incorrectly listed Colorado House

Bill 1109 as being approved as part of

the Colorado SIP.

Last, EPA is proposing to correct a

September 23, 1980 rulemaking, in

which EPA mistakenly replaced a

Colorado SIP approval in 40 CFR 52.320

with a Montana SIP approval.

DATES: Comments must be received in

writing on or before January 16, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Written comments on this

action should be addressed to Vicki

Stamper, 8P2-A, Environmental

Protection Agency, Region VIII, 999

18th Street, suite 500, Denver, Colorado

80202–2466. Copies of the documents

relative to this action are available for

inspection during normal business

hours at the following location: Air

Program, Environmental Protection

Agency, Region VIII, 999 18th Street,

suite 500, Denver, Colorado 80202–

2466.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Vicki Stamper, EPA Region VIII,(303)

312–6445.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Corrections to January 21, 1997

Rulemaking

On January 21, 1997, EPA

promulgated approval of five Colorado

SIP revisions submitted on November

12, 1993, August 25, 1994, September

29, 1994, November 17, 1994, and

January 29, 1996. (See 62 FR 2910–

2914.) All of these SIP submittals

contained revisions to the State’s NSR

and PSD provisions in Parts A and B of

Colorado Regulation No. 3.

A. Correction to Exclude Sections V.B.

and VII.A.5. of Part B of Colorado

Regulation No. 3 From the SIP

The November 12, 1993 SIP submittal

contained revisions to Regulation No. 3

that were adopted by the Colorado Air

Quality Control Commission (AQCC) at

a July 15, 1993 public hearing. The

primary purpose of the State’s July 1993

rulemaking was to adopt an operating

permit program to address the

requirements of title V of the Clean Air

Act Amendments of 1990 and 40 CFR

part 70. Concurrent with the adoption of

its operating permit program, the State

made revisions to its construction

permit regulations, which are also in

Regulation No. 3, to make the two

programs work together and to allow for

the implementation of certain title V

operating permit provisions. At the

same time, the State also completely

restructured and renumbered the

provisions in Regulation No. 3. While

the majority of the provisions in the
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 242 / Wednesday, December 17, 1997 / Proposed Rules 66047

1The AQCC originally adopted Section V.B. on

March 10, 1983 and Section VII.A.5. on May 17,

1990.

2States can designate certain provisions in a title

V permit that have not been approved as part of the

SIP or that are not otherwise federally enforceable

or federally required as ‘‘State-only’’ in a title V

operating permit, and those terms would not be

considered federally enforceable. (See 40 CFR

70.6(b)(2).)

State’s construction permitting

regulations were unchanged, the State’s

November 12, 1993 SIP submittal

included the State’s entire construction

permitting regulations (including its

PSD rules) because of the restructuring

and renumbering of Regulation No. 3.

On December 17, 1996, the State

submitted a request to exclude two

sections of Part B of Regulation No. 3

from its November 12, 1993 SIP

submittal, specifically Sections V.B. and

VII.A.5. (referred to herein as Sections

V.B. and VII.A.5. or as ‘‘the two

provisions.’’) On January 21, 1997,

EPA’s approval of the State’s November

12, 1993 SIP submittal was published

(62 FR 2910). The approval did not

exclude Sections V.B. and VII.A.5.

Section V.B. of Part B of Regulation

No. 3 applies the Class I sulfur dioxide

PSD increment to certain pristine areas

in Colorado that are not designated

Class I by the Federal PSD regulations.

This is not required by the Act or

Federal PSD regulations. Section

VII.A.5. of Part B of Regulation No. 3

provides that no new major stationary

source or major modification shall

individually consume more than 75% of

an applicable increment. No such

provision (or similar provision) is

required by the Act or Federal PSD

regulations. Neither of the two

provisions is necessary for the State to

demonstrate attainment and/or

maintenance of the National Ambient

Air Quality Standards (NAAQS).

Therefore, EPA believes that these two

provisions may be removed from the

SIP.

In this instance, EPA believes it is

appropriate to remove the two

provisions from the SIP pursuant to

EPA’s authority under section 110(k)(6)

of the Act. Section 110(k)(6) of the Act

provides as follows:

Whenever the Administrator determines

that the Administrator’s action approving,

disapproving, or promulgating any plan or

plan revision (or part thereof), area

designation, redesignation, classification, or

reclassification was in error, the

Administrator may in the same manner as the

approval, disapproval, or promulgation

revise such action as appropriate without

requiring any further submission from the

State. Such determination and the basis

thereof shall be provided to the State and

public.

The State submitted its request well

before EPA’s final approval of the

State’s November 12, 1993 SIP submittal

was published in the Federal Register

or was otherwise announced to the

public. Thus, EPA had an opportunity

to exclude the two provisions from the

final published rule, but failed to do so.

Although there may be instances

where a request to withdraw

components of a SIP implicates the

Act’s requirement for State notice and

hearing, EPA does not believe this is

one of them. First, these two provisins

had been part of the State’s regulations

for many years 1, but had been expressly

excluded from the State’s SIP submittals

of prior PSD revisions and had been

expressly excluded from EPA’s

rulemaking actions on those prior PSD

rule revisions. (See 51 FR 31125,

September 2, 1986, and 56 FR 12850,

March 28, 1991.) Second, the State

merely renumbered these two

provisions at its July 15, 1993 hearing,

and there was no indication that the

State intended to change course and

submit these two provisions to EPA for

approval into the SIP. Presumably, if the

State had intended such a change in

course, the State would have focused its

notice and public hearing on the two

provisions prior to adopting the

renumbering of Regulation No. 3 and

submitting it to EPA. This did not occur,

and the evidence suggests that submittal

of these two provisions to EPA was

merely an oversight. If EPA had

reviewed the circumstances more

carefully when it received the State’s

December 17, 1996 letter, EPA could

have corrected its final rule before

publication.

With respect to Section V.B., EPA also

believes a correction is necessary

because Section V.B. (which, as stated

above, applies the Class I sulfur dioxide

increment to certain pristine Class II

areas in Colorado) is inconsistent with

the requirements of EPA’s PSD

regulations. Specifically, 40 CFR

51.166(g) contains certain requirements

for redesignating an area from Class II to

Class I, and the State has not addressed

those requirements for the areas listed

in Section V.B. Thus, EPA erred in

approving Section V.B. as part of the

SIP. This position is consistent with

EPA’s prior rulemaking regarding this

provision. In a September 2, 1986

action, EPA did not approve this

provision into the SIP, explaining that

the State had not followed the specific

procedures outlined in 40 CFR 51.166(g)

for redesignating an area from Class II to

Class I. (See 51 FR 31125.)

For the reasons discussed above, EPA

is correcting its January 21, 1997 SIP

approval to remove Sections V.B. and

VII.A.5. of Part B of Regulation No. 3

from the approved SIP.

B. Correction to Disapprove Provision in

Definition of ‘‘Federally Enforceable’’ in

Colorado Regulation No. 3

In the State’s September 29, 1994 SIP

submittal of revisions to Regulation No.

3, the State revised its definition of

‘‘federally Enforceable’’ in Section

I.B.22. of Part A of Colorado Regulation

No. 3. EPA’s nonattainment NSR and

PSD permitting regulations in 40 CFR

51.165 and 51.166, respectively, require

this term to be defined in States’

permitting programs, as it is used in

various definitions and provisions of the

Federal preconstruction permitting

regulations.

Colorado’s definition of ‘‘federally

enforceable’’ basically mirrors the

Federal definition in 40 CFR

51.165(a)(1)(xiv) and 51.166(b)(17).

However, on August 18, 1994, the State

revised this definition (among other

things) to add a provision stating the

following: ‘‘Notwithstanding the

foregoing, and except for the voluntarily

accepted limitations and conditions

described in the preceding sentence,

any provision, standard, or regulation

that is not required by the Federal Act

or that is more stringent than the

Federal Act is adopted under powers

reserved to the State of Colorado

pursuant to section 116 of the Federal

Act, is not to be submitted to the EPA

as a provision of the SIP and shall not

be federally enforceable.’’ According to

the State, this revision was made to

mirror the definition found in Section

25–7–105.1 of the Colorado Air

Pollution Prevention and Control Act.

During the State’s public comment

period on this regulatory change, EPA

stated in an August 12, 1994 letter that

it could not approve the statement

quoted above as part of the SIP. Any

provision that has been submitted by

the State and approved by EPA as part

of the SIP is considered to be federally

enforceable regardless of whether it is

required by the Act or more stringent

than the Act. Similarly, terms and

conditions incorporated into a permit

that is issued under an EPA-approved

permitting program, such as new source

review or title V operating permits, are

also generally considered to be federally

enforceable. 2 The only way a State can

change the Federal enforceability of any

provision that has been approved by

EPA as part of the SIP is by submitting

a request for revision to the SIP and by

receiving EPA approval of the SIP
66048 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 242 / Wednesday, December 17, 1997 / Proposed Rules

3Note that the provision in 40 CFR 52.320(c)(10)

promulgated on October 5, 1979 was renumbered as

40 CFR 52.320(c)(15) on June 27, 1980. See 45 FR

43411.

revision (through notice and comment

rulemaking via the Federal Register).

EPA believes the statement in the

State’s definition of ‘‘federally

enforceable’’ quoted above is thus

misleading to the public and the

regulated community.

In EPA’s January 21, 1997 rulemaking,

EPA approved the definition of

‘‘federally enforceable’’ into the SIP in

its entirety. (See 62 FR 2914.) However,

for the reasons discussed above and in

EPA’s August 12, 1994 letter to the

State, EPA believes its approval of the

above-quoted statement was made in

error. Consequently, EPA is proposing

to correct its January 21, 1997

rulemaking to disapprove the statement

in the State’s definition of ‘‘federally

enforceable’’ which states that any

provision, standard or regulation not

required by the Act is not to be

submitted as part of the SIP and shall

not be federally enforceable. EPA is

proposing this correction pursuant to

section 110(k)(6) of the Act.

II. Correction of October 5, 1979

Rulemaking

On October 5, 1979, EPA approved

several submittals from the State of

Colorado, which were made pursuant to

the 1977 revisions to the Act. (See 44 FR

57401–57411.) In that action, EPA listed

House Bill 1109 in 40 CFR

52.320(c)(14)as one of the submittals

being approved (see 44 FR 57409,

October 5, 1979). House Bill 1109

repealed and reenacted the State’s Air

Quality Control Act. The bill was signed

into law by the Governor on June 20,

1979 and submitted to EPA on July 23,

1979, along with House Bill 1090

(regarding burning of solid wastes) and

Senate Bill 1 (regarding provisions for

reducing motor vehicle emissions). In

the preamble to the October 5, 1979

rulemaking, EPA discussed the State’s

July 23, 1979 submittal of the three bills.

EPA indicated that it was taking no

action on House Bill 1109 at that time

and would propose action in the

Federal Register at a future date to take

public comment on the acceptability of

the State’s revised Air Quality Control

Act (see 44 FR 57403). Since EPA

clearly stated in the preamble that it was

not taking action on House Bill 1109,

EPA erred in listing House Bill 1109 as

being approved as part of the SIP in 40

CFR 52.320(c)(14). Therefore, pursuant

to section 110(k)(6) of the Act, EPA is

proposing to amend the regulatory text

regarding the State’s July 23, 1979

submittal to remove the reference to

House Bill 1109. 3

Although EPA’s October 5, 1979

rulemaking indicated that EPA would

propose action on House Bill 1109 at a

future date, EPA no longer believes it is

necessary to take action on House Bill

1109 or any successor provisions in the

State’s Air Quality Control Act.

Generally, EPA does not believe it is

necessary to approve State authorizing

legislation into the SIP. Instead, EPA

needs to be satisfied that such

authorizing legislation exists and that it

shows that the State has adequate legal

authority to adopt, implement, and

enforce the SIP. Therefore, EPA will not

be taking action on House Bill 1109.

III. Correction of September 23, 1980

Rulemaking

On September 23, 1980, EPA

approved various SIP submittals from

the State of Montana intended to

address the 1977 revisions to the Act. In

that action, EPA mistakenly revised 40

CFR 52.320, which identifies SIP

approvals for the State of Colorado, to

reflect approval of these various

Montana SIP submittals (see 45 FR

62984). EPA’s original intention with

the September 23, 1980 rulemaking was

to revise 40 CFR 52.1370(c)(8) for the

State of Montana’s plan, but EPA

promulgated the language regarding

Montana’s SIP at 40 CFR 52.320(c)(8).

On June 30, 1982, EPA partially

corrected this error for Montana by

promulgating the September 23, 1980

approval at 40 CFR 52.1370(c)(10). (See

47 FR 28373.) However, no correction

was ever made to the ‘‘Identification of

Plan’’ for Colorado at 40 CFR 52.320.

Consequently, EPA is proposing to

revise 40 CFR 52.320(c)(8) to reinstate

the previous Colorado SIP approval

promulgated at 52.320(c)(8), as it was

last revised on March 2, 1976 (see 41 FR

8958).

IV. Proposed Action

EPA is proposing to revise 40 CFR

52.320(c)(72)(I)(D) to exclude Sections

V.B. and VII.A.5. of Part B of Regulation

No. 3, which pertain to the State’s PSD

program, from the approved SIP.

EPA is proposing to correct its

January 21, 1997 approval of Section

I.B. of Part A of Regulation No. 3 (as in

effect on September 30, 1994) to

disapprove the last sentence in the

definition of ‘‘federally enforceable’’

which states that any provision,

standard or regulation not required by

the Act is not to be submitted as part of

the SIP and shall not be federally

enforceable.

EPA is proposing to amend 40 CFR

52.320(c)(15) to remove the reference to

House Bill 1109, which was incorrectly

listed as being approved in EPA’s

October 5, 1979 Colorado rulemaking

(see 44 FR 57409).

Last, EPA is proposing to amend 40

CFR 52.320(c)(8) to reinstate the

Colorado SIP approval promulgated on

March 2, 1976 (see 41 FR 8958) that was

incorrectly replaced in a September 23,

1980 rulemaking (45 FR 62984).

EPA is making these corrections

pursuant to section 110(k)(6) of the Act.

Nothing in this action should be

construed as permitting or allowing or

establishing a precedent for any future

request for revision to any SIP. Each

request for revision to a SIP shall be

considered separately in light of specific

technical, economic, and environmental

factors and in relation to relevant

statutory and regulatory requirements.

V. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

The Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) has exempted this regulatory

action from E.O. 12866 review.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act,

5 U.S.C. 600, et seq., EPA must prepare

a regulatory flexibility analysis

assessing the impact of any proposed or

final rule on small entities. 5 U.S.C. 603

and 604. Alternatively, EPA may certify

that the rule will not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities. Small entities

include small businesses, small not-forprofit enterprises, and government

entities with jurisdiction over

populations of less than 50,000.

The proposed corrections would

remove certain requirements from the

SIP. However, regardless of EPA’s final

action, these requirements will still

apply as a matter of State law. Thus, the

proposed corrections would not alter

the impact of these requirements on

small entities, and EPA certifies that the

removal of such requirements from the

SIP would not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities.

The proposed corrections would also

result in a disapproval of certain

language in the State’s definition of

federally enforceable in its permitting

regulations. Disapproval of this

language would not create any new

requirements and would not alter

requirements that the State is already

imposing. Therefore, EPA certifies that

this disapproval would not have a

significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities.
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 242 / Wednesday, December 17, 1997 / Proposed Rules 66049

C. 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 the private sector, of

$100 million or more. Under section

205, EPA must select the most costeffective 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 corrections do 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 Federal action

would impose no new requirements.

Accordingly, no additional costs to

State, local, or tribal governments, or to

the private sector, would result from

this action.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Incorporation by

reference, Intergovernmental relations,

Particulate matter, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements.

Dated: November 17, 1997.

Patricia D. Hull,

Acting Regional Administrator, Region VIII.

[FR Doc. 97–32926 Filed 12–16–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[AD–FRL–5936–2]

RIN: 2060–AE–83

National Emission Standards for

Hazardous Air Pollutants for Pesticide

Active Ingredient Production

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule; Extension of

public comment period.

SUMMARY: The EPA is announcing a 30-

day extension of the public comment

period for the proposed ‘‘National

Emission Standards for Hazardous Air

Pollutants for Pesticide Active

Ingredient Production.’’ As initially

published in the Federal Register on

November 10, 1997 (62 FR 60565),

written comments on the proposed rule

were to be submitted to the EPA on or

before January 9, 1998 (a 60-day public

comment period). The public comment

period is being extended for 30 days and

will now end on February 9, 1998.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before February 9, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be

submitted (in duplicate, if possible) to

the Air and Radiation Docket and

Information Center (6102), Attention:

Docket No. A–95–20, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, 401

M Street S.W., Washington, DC 20460.

The EPA requests that a separate copy

also be sent to the contact person listed

under the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section. Comments and data

may also be submitted electronically by

following the instructions provided in

the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section.

No Confidential Business Information

(CBI) should be submitted through

electronic mail.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

Lalit Banker; Organic Chemicals Group,

Emission Standards Division (MD–13),

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina

27711, telephone number (919) 541–

5420.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Electronic

Filing. Electronic comments can be sent

directly to the EPA at: a-and-rdocket@epamail.epa.gov. Electronic

comments and data must be submitted

as an ASCII file avoiding the use of

special characters and any form of

encryption. Comments and data will

also be accepted on disks in

WordPerfect 5.1 or 6.1 file format or

ASCII file format. All comments and

data in electronic form must be

identified by the docket number A–95–

20. Electronic comments may be filed

online at many Federal Depository

Libraries.

Discussion. On November 10, 1997, at

62 FR 60565, the EPA published the

proposed National Emission Standards

for Hazardous Air Pollutants for

Pesticide Active Ingredient Production

and provided a 60-day public comment

period. Requests have been received to

extend the public comment period

beyond the 60 days originally provided.

These requests have been made by

businesses that will be affected by the

rule. Their request for this extension is

primarily based on the fact that

Thanksgiving and Christmas holidays

occur during the comment period which

would cause hardship on their ability to

provide timely and useful comments. In

consideration of these concerns, the

EPA is extending the comment period

by 30 days (until February 9, 1998), in

order to give all interested persons the

opportunity to comment fully.

Dated: December 9, 1997.

Richard D. Wilson,

Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and

Radiation.

[FR Doc. 97–32928 Filed 12–16–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

50 CFR Part 660

[Docket No. 971208290–7290–01; I.D.

112097C]

RIN 0648–AK51

Fisheries Off West Coast States and in

the Western Pacific; Northern Anchovy

Fishery; Control Date

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

ACTION: Advance notice of proposed

rulemaking; consideration of a control

date.

SUMMARY: The Pacific Fishery

Management Council (Council) is

developing an amendment to the

Northern Anchovy Fishery Management

Plan (FMP) that may place small coastal

pelagic species under Federal

management along with northern

anchovy. Proposed management options

include limiting effort by controlling the

number and/or capacity of vessels

harvesting coastal pelagic resources off

Washington, Oregon, and California.

This notice is intended to notify

fishermen that anyone entering the

coastal pelagics fishery after November

5, 1997, may not be eligible to continue

participating in the fishery under the

new amendment.

DATES: Comments must be submitted by

January 16, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments to the

Pacific Fishery Management Council,

2130 SW Fifth Avenue, Suite 224,

Portland, OR 97201.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

James J. Morgan, (562) 980–4036, or Mr.

Svein Fougner, Acting Chief, Fisheries

Management Division, (562) 980–4034.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

current draft of the amendment to the

FMP would add the following species to

the management unit: Pacific mackerel