61134 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 200 / Monday, October 16, 2000 / Proposed Rules

The proposed action provided a 30-

day public comment period. In response

to a request from California Council for

Environmental and Economic Balance

submitted by telephone and in writing

on September 28, 2000, EPA is

extending the comment period for an

additional 30 days.

Dated: October 3, 2000.

Felicia Marcus,

Regional Administrator, Region IX.

[FR Doc. 00–26506 Filed 10–13–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[FRL–6886–7]

Supplemental Information to Support

Proposed Approvals of One-Hour

Ozone Attainment Demonstrations for

Serious Ozone Nonattainment Areas

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of availability and

reopening of comment period.

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that

EPA has performed an analysis to

evaluate emission levels of oxides of

nitrogen ( NOX) and volatile organic

compounds (VOC) and their

relationships to the application of

current and anticipated control

measures expected to be implemented

in four serious one-hour ozone

nonattainment areas. This analysis was

done to determine if additional

reasonably available control measures

(RACM) are available after adoption of

Clean Air Act (Act) required measures

for the following serious ozone

nonattainment areas: Greater

Connecticut, New York-New JerseyConnecticut; Springfield,

Massachusetts; Washington, D.C.-

Virginia-Maryland; and Atlanta,

Georgia. The EPA performed this

analysis in response to comments that

were submitted on the proposals on

these areas’ one-hour ozone attainment

demonstrations. The EPA took action to

propose approval (and disapproval in

the alternative) of these areas’ State

implementation plans (SIPs) on

December 16, 1999 (Greater Connecticut

(64 FR 70332); Springfield (64 FR

70319); Metropolitan Washington (64

FR 70460); and Atlanta (64 FR 70478)).

This information supplements the

December 16, 1999 proposals.

DATES: The EPA is establishing a

comment period, ending on October 31,

2000. All comments should be sent to

the appropriate regional office as listed

in the ADDRESSES section by that date.

ADDRESSES: Written comments on the

Greater Connecticut and Springfield

SIPs should be sent (in duplicate if

possible) to: David B. Conroy, EPA

Region I (New England) Office, One

Congress Street, Suite 1100–CAQ,

Boston, Massachusetts 02114–2023.

Copies of the Connecticut and

Massachusetts State submittals and

EPA’s technical support document are

available for public inspection during

normal business hours at the following

address: U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Region 1 (New England), One

Congress St., 11th Floor, Boston,

Massachusetts, telephone (617) 918–

1664. Please telephone in advance

before visiting.

Written comments on the

Washington, D.C.-Virginia-Maryland

submittals should be submitted (in

duplicate if possible) to: David L.

Arnold, Chief, Ozone and Mobile

Sources Branch, Mailcode 3AP21, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region 3, 1650 Arch Street,

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.

Copies of the documents relevant to this

action are available for public

inspection during normal business

hours at the following address: Air

Protection Division, U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Region III, 1650

Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

19103, and the docket numbers are

DC039–2019, VA090–5036 and MD073–

3045.

Written comments on the Atlanta SIP

should be submitted (in duplicate if

possible) to: Scott M. Martin, EPA

Region 4, Air Planning Branch, 61

Forsyth Street, S.W., Atlanta, Georgia

30303. Copies of the State submittal are

available at the following address for

inspection during normal business

hours: Environmental Protection

Agency, Region 4, Air Planning Branch,

61 Forsyth Street, S.W., Atlanta, Georgia

30303–8960, and the docket number is

GA–47–200002.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For

general questions on the RACM analysis

for mobile sources, contact Mr. Mark

Simons at either 734–214–4420 or by email simons.mark@epa.gov. For general

questions on the RACM analysis for

stationary sources, contact Mr. John

Silvasi at either (919) 541-5666 or by email silvasi.john@epa.gov. For specific

questions on the Greater Connecticut

and Springfield SIPs, contact Mr.

Richard Burkhart at (617) 918–1664 or

by e-mail burkhart.richard@epa.gov. For

specific questions on the Washington,

D.C., SIP, contact Mr. David Arnold at

(215) 814–2172 or by e-mail

arnold.dave@epa.gov. For specific

questions on the Atlanta SIP, contact

Mr. Scott Martin at (404) 562–9036 or by

e-mail martin.scott@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section

172(c)(1) of the Act requires SIPs to

contain reasonably available control

measures (RACM) as necessary to

provide for attainment as expeditiously

as practicable. Several commenters have

stated that there is no evidence in the

four serious ozone attainment

demonstrations that were proposed on

December 16, 1999 that they have

adopted all RACM, and a commenter

further stated that the mobile source

emission budgets in the SIPs are

inadequate by definition because the

SIPs do not demonstrate timely

attainment or contain the emission

reductions required for all RACM. In

addition, some commenters stated that

for all potential RACM measures not

adopted into the SIP, the State must

provide a justification for why they

were determined not to be RACM.

The analysis EPA conducted

demonstrates that a number of possible

emission control measures have been

evaluated for their emission reductions.

It further demonstrates that the

measures evaluated either (a) are likely

to require an intensive and costly effort

for numerous small area sources, or (b)

do not advance the attainment dates for

the four areas, and therefore would not

be considered RACM under the Act.

EPA has previously provided

guidance interpreting the RACM

requirements of 172(c)(1). See 57 FR

13498, 13560. In that guidance, EPA

indicated its interpretation that

potentially available measures that

would not advance the attainment date

for an area would not be considered

RACM. EPA concluded that a measure

would not be reasonably available if it

would not advance attainment. EPA also

indicated in that guidance that States

should consider all potentially available

measures to determine whether they

were reasonably available for

implementation in the area, and

whether they would advance the

attainment date. Further, States should

indicate in their SIP submittals whether

measures considered were reasonably

available or not, and if measures are

reasonably available they must be

adopted as RACM. Finally, EPA

indicated that States could reject

potential RACM measures either

because they would not advance the

attainment date, would cause

substantial widespread and long-term

adverse impacts, or for various reasons

related to local conditions, such as

economics or implementation concerns.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 200 / Monday, October 16, 2000 / Proposed Rules 61135

The EPA also issued a recent

memorandum on this topic, ‘‘Guidance

on the Reasonably Available Control

Measures (RACM) Requirement and

Attainment Demonstration Submissions

for Ozone Nonattainment Areas.’’ John

S. Seitz, Director, Office of Air Quality

Planning and Standards, dated

November 30, 1999. A copy can be

obtained from www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/

t1pgm.html.

In response to public comments

received on the proposed rulemakings

in December, EPA has reviewed the SIP

submittals for the four serious areas and

determined that they did not include

sufficient documentation concerning

available RACM measures. Therefore,

EPA has itself reviewed numerous

potential RACM measures, as

documented in the available analysis.

Based on this analysis, EPA concluded

that these measures would either (a)

likely require an intensive and costly

effort for numerous small area sources,

or (b) not advance the attainment date

in any of the four areas and, therefore,

would not be considered RACM.

Although EPA encourages areas to

implement available RACM measures as

potentially cost effective methods to

achieve emissions reductions in the

short term, EPA does not believe that

section 172(c)(1) requires

implementation of potential RACM

measures that either require costly

implementation efforts or produce

relatively small emissions reductions

that will not be sufficient to allow any

of the four areas to achieve attainment

in advance of full implementation of all

other required measures.

Electronic Availability—An electronic

version of EPA’s RACM analysis can be

downloaded at www.epa.gov/ttn/rto

under ‘‘What’s New.’’

For those persons without electronic

capability, a copy of this analysis may

be obtained from Ms. Linda Lassiter at

(919) 541–5526.

The official record for these proposed

actions have been established under

individual dockets which are located at

the Regional office address in the

ADDRESSES section at the beginning of

this document. Electronic comments

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 file format or ASCII file

format. All comments and data in

electronic form must be identified by

the docket number associated with the

individual state proposal.

Dated: October 10, 2000.

Henry C. Thomas,

Acting Director, Office of Air Quality Planning

and Standards.

[FR Doc. 00–26612 Filed 10–13–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 271

[FRL–6885–4]

Utah: Final Authorization of State

Hazardous Waste Management

Program Revision

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The EPA proposes to grant

Final authorization to the hazardous

waste program changes submitted by

Utah. In the ‘‘Rules’’ section of this

Federal Register, we are authorizing the

State’s program changes as an

immediate final rule without a prior

proposed rule because we believe this

action is not controversial. Unless we

get written comments opposing this

authorization during the comment

period, the immediate final rule will

become effective and the Agency will

not take further action on this proposal.

If we receive comments that oppose this

action, we will publish a document in

the Federal Register withdrawing this

rule before it takes effect. EPA will

address public comments in a later final

rule based on this proposal. EPA may

not provide further opportunity for

comment. Any parties interested in

commenting on this action must do so

at this time.

DATES: We must receive your comments

by November 30, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments to

Kris Shurr, 8P–HW, U.S. EPA, Region

VIII, 999 18th St, Ste 500, Denver,

Colorado 80202–2466, phone number:

(303) 312–6139. You can view and copy

Utah’s application at the following

addresses: Utah Department of

Environmental Quality (UDEQ), from

8:00 AM to 5:00 PM, 288 North 1460

West, Salt Lake City, Utah 84114–4880,

contact: Susan Toronto, phone number:

(801) 538–6776. and EPA Region VIII,

from 8:00 AM to 3:00 PM, 999 18th

Street, Suite 500, Denver, Colorado

80202–2466, contact: Kris Shurr, phone

number: (303) 312–6139.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kris

Shurr, EPA Region VIII, 999 18th Street,

Suite 500, Denver, Colorado 80202–

2466, phone number: (303) 312–6139.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For

additional information, please see the

immediate final rule published in the

‘‘Rules’’ section of this Federal Register.

Dated: October 5, 2000.

William P. Yellowtail,

Regional Administrator, Region VIII.

[FR Doc. 00–26504 Filed 10–13–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

50 CFR Part 697

[Docket No. 000412106-0262-02; I.D.

032200A]

RIN 0648-AO02

Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Cooperative

Management Act Provisions;

Horseshoe Crab Fishery; Closed Area

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for

comments.

SUMMARY: NMFS proposes to prohibit

fishing for horseshoe crabs and limit

possession of them in an area in the

exclusive economic zone (EEZ)

encompassing a 30-nautical mile (nm)

radius (in a shape roughly equivalent to

a rectangle) seaward from the midpoint

of the territorial sea line at the mouth of

Delaware Bay. The intent of this

proposed rule is to provide protection

for the Atlantic coast stock of horseshoe

crab, and to promote the effectiveness of

the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries

Commission’s (Commission) Interstate

Fishery Management Plan (ISFMP) for

horseshoe crab.

DATES: Written comments must be

received on or before October 31, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Comments on the proposed

rule should be sent to, and copies of an

Environmental Assessment/Regulatory

Impact Review/Initial Regulatory

Flexibility Analysis (EA/RIR/IRFA), are

available from, Richard H. Schaefer,

Chief, Staff Office for Intergovernmental

and Recreational Fisheries, National

Marine Fisheries Service, 8484 Georgia

Avenue, Suite 425, Silver Spring, MD

20910. Comments regarding the

collection-of-information requirement

contained in this proposed rule should

be sent to Richard H. Schaefer and to

the Office of Information and Regulatory

Affairs attention: NOAA Desk Officer,

Office of Management and Budget,

Washington D.C. 20503.