Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 236 / Thursday, December 7, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 76567

comment on any issues or opening the

record for any issue other than those

related to this amendment to paragraph

(n)(4) of 29 CFR 1910.1043.

If OSHA receives no significant

adverse comment on this amendment,

OSHA will publish a Federal Register

document confirming the effective date

of this direct final rule. Such

confirmation may include minor

stylistic or technical changes to the

amendment that appear to be clearly

justified. For the purposes of legal

review, OSHA views the date of

confirmation of the effective date of this

amendment as the date of issuance.

If OSHA receives significant adverse

comments on this amendment, it will

withdraw the amendment and proceed

with the proposed rule addressing the

batch kier washing issue published in

the Proposed Rules section of today’s

Federal Register.

List of Subjects in 29 CFR Part 1910

Cotton dust, Hazardous substances,

Occupational safety and health,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

Authority and Signature

This document was prepared under

the direction of Charles N. Jeffress,

Assistant Secretary of Labor for

Occupational Safety and Health, 200

Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington,

DC. 20210.

This action is taken pursuant to

sections 4, 6, and 8 of the Occupational

Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C.

653, 655, 657), Section 4 of the

Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C.

553), Secretary of Labor’s Order No. 3–

2000 (65 FR 50017, August 16, 2000)

and 29 CFR part 1911.

Signed at Washington, DC, this 4th day of

December, 2000.

Charles N. Jeffress,

Assistant Secretary of Labor.

Part 1910 of Title 29 of the Code of

Federal Regulations is hereby amended

as set forth below:

PART 1910—(AMENDED)

1. The authority citation for Subpart

Z of Part 1910 is revised to read as

follows:

Authority: Sections 4, 6 and 8 of the

Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970

(29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657; Secretary of Labor’s

Order No. 12–71 (36 FR 8754), 8–76 (41 FR

25059), 9–83 (48 FR 35736), 6–96 (62 FR 111)

or 3–2000 (65 FR 50017) as applicable; and

29 CFR part 1911.

All of subpart Z issued under sec. 6(b) of

the Occupational Safety and Health Act,

except those substances that have exposure

limits listed in Tables Z–1, Z–2, and Z–3 of

29 CFR 1910.1000. The latter were issued

under sec. 6(a) (29 U.S.C. 655(a)).

Section 1910.1000, and Table Z–1, Z–2,

and Z–3 and 1910.1043 (n) also issued under

5 U.S.C. 553.

Section 1910.1000, and Tables Z–1, Z–2,

and Z–3 not issued under 29 CFR part 1911

except for the arsenic (organic compounds),

benzene, and cotton dust listings.

Section 1910.1001 also issued under

section 107 of the Contract Work Hours and

Safety Standards Act (40 U.S.C. 333) and 5

U.S.C. 553.

Section 1910.1002 not issued under 29

U.S.C. 655 or 29 CFR part 1911; also issued

under 5 U.S.C. 553.

Sections 1910.1018, 1910.1029 and

1910.1200 are also issued under 29 U.S.C.

653.

2. Paragraph (n)(4) of § 1910.1043 is

revised to read as follows:

§ 1910.1043 Cotton dust.

* * * * *

(n) * * *

(4) Higher grade washed cotton. The

handling or processing of cotton classed

as ‘‘low middling light spotted or

better’’ (color grade 52 or better and leaf

grade code 5 or better according to the

1993 USDA classification system) shall

be exempt from all provisions of the

standard except the requirements of

paragraphs (h) medical surveillance,

(k)(2) through (4) recordkeeping—

medical records, and Appendices B, C,

and D of this section, if they have been

washed on one of the following systems:

(i) On a continuous batt system or a

rayon rinse system including the

following conditions:

(A) With water;

(B) At a temperature of no less than

60 °C;

(C) With a water-to-fiber ratio of no

less than 40:1; and

(D) With the bacterial levels in the

wash water controlled to limit bacterial

contamination of the cotton.

(ii) On a batch kier washing system

including the following conditions:

(A) With water;

(B) With cotton fiber mechanically

opened and thoroughly prewetted

before forming the cake;

(C) For low-temperature processing, at

a temperature of no less than 60 °C with

a water-to-fiber ratio of no less than

40:1; or, for high-temperature

processing, at a temperature of no less

than 93 °C with a water-to-fiber ratio of

no less than 15:1;

(D) With a minimum of one wash

cycle followed by two rinse cycles for

each batch, using fresh water in each

cycle, and

(E) With bacterial levels in the wash

water controlled to limit bacterial

contamination of the cotton.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 00–31186 Filed 12–6–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510–26–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[CA 022–0239; FRL–6875–8]

Final Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans; California State

Implementation Plan Revision, Ventura

County Air Pollution District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is finalizing limited

approval and limited disapproval of

revisions to the California State

Implementation Plan (SIP) proposed in

the Federal Register on March 9, 2000.

This limited approval and limited

disapproval action will incorporate

Rules 10–15, 15.1, 16, 23–24, 26, 26.1–

26.10, 29 and 30 of Ventura County Air

Pollution District (District) into the

federally approved State

Implementation Plan (SIP).

The intended effect of finalizing this

limited approval is to strengthen the

federally approved SIP by incorporating

these rules and by satisfying Federal

requirements for an approvable

nonattainment area new source review

(NSR) SIP for the District. While

strengthening the SIP, however, this SIP

revision contains deficiencies which the

District must address before EPA can

grant full approval under section

110(k)(3). Thus, EPA is finalizing

simultaneous limited approval and

limited disapproval as a revision to the

California SIP under provisions of the

Act regarding EPA action on SIP

submittals, and general rulemaking

authority.

In addition to the above action, we are

removing District Rules 18, 21, and 25

from the SIP, and deleting the

conditions identified by us in 1981 for

the District’s 1981 NSR rule.

DATE: This action is effective on January

8, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the state submittal

and other supporting information used

in developing the final action are

available for public inspection (Docket

Number CA 022–0239) at EPA’s Region

IX office during normal business hours

and at the following locations:

76568 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 236 / Thursday, December 7, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

• Ventura County Air Pollution

Control District, 669 County Square

Drive, Ventura, California 93003.

• California Air Resources Board,

Stationary Source Division, Rule

Evaluation Section, 2020 ‘‘L’’ Street,

Sacramento, CA 95812.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Nahid Zoueshtiagh, Permits Office,

(AIR–3), Air Division, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San

Francisco, CA 94105–3901, Telephone:

(415) 744–1261.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Throughout this document wherever

‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ are used we mean

EPA.

Table of Contents

I. What Action is EPA finalizing?

II. Background

III. Public Comments and EPA Responses

IV. EPA Evaluation and Final Action

V. Next Action

VI. Administrative Requirements

1. Executive Order 12866

2. Executive Order 13045

3. Executive Order 13084

4. Executive Order 13132

5. Regulatory Flexibility Act

6. Unfunded Mandates

7. Submission to Congress and the

Comptroller General

8. National Technology Transfer and

Advancement Act

9. Petitions for Judicial Review

I. What Action Is EPA Finalizing?

EPA is finalizing limited approval and

limited disapproval of Rules 1–15, 15.1,

16, 23–24, 26, 26.1–26.10, 29 and 30.

These rules are being approved into the

California SIP. EPA is also removing

Rules 18, 21, and 25 from the California

SIP.

TABLE 1.—RULES SUBJECT TO TODAY’S FINAL ACTION

Rule No. Existing sip title SIP approval

date Current rule title Adoption date

10 ......... Permits Required ................................................. 6/18/82 Permits Required ................................................. 6/13/95

11 ......... Application Contents ............................................ 6/18/82 Definitions for Regulation II ................................. 6/13/95

12 ......... Statement by Engineer or Application Preparer 2/3/89 Application for Permits ........................................ 6/13/95

13 ......... Statement by Applicant ....................................... 6/18/82 Action on Applications for an Authority to Construct.6/13/95

14 ......... Trial Test Runs .................................................... 9/22/72 Action on Application for a Permit to Operate .... 6/13/95

15 ......... Permit Issuance ................................................... 4/17/87 Standards for Permit Issuance ............................ 6/13/95

15.1 ...... none ..................................................................... Sampling and Testing Facilities .......................... 10/12/93

16 ......... Permit Contents ................................................... 6/18/82 BACT Certification ............................................... 6/13/95

18 ......... Permit to Operate-Application Required for Existing Equipment.9/22/72 none—Deleted ..................................................... 6/13/95

21 ......... Expiration of Applications and Permits ............... 6/18/82 none—Deleted ..................................................... 6/13/95

23 ......... Exemptions from Permits .................................... 6/18/82 Exemptions from Permit ...................................... 7/9/96

24 ......... Source Recordkeeping & Reporting .................... 6/18/82 Source Recordkeeping & Reporting .................... 9/15/92

25 ......... Action on Applications ......................................... 6/18/82 none—Deleted ..................................................... 6/13/95

26 ......... New Source Review ............................................ 7/1/82 New Source Review ............................................ 10/22/91

26.1 ...... All New & Modified Stationary Sources .............. 7/1/82 New Source Review (NSR) Definitions ............... 1/13/98

26.2 ...... All New & Modified Stationary Sources-Attainment Pollutants.7/1/82 Requirements ...................................................... 1/13/98

26.3 ...... All New & Modified Stationary Sources Non-Attainment Pollutants.7/1/82 Exemptions .......................................................... 1/13/98

26.4 ...... None .................................................................... Emission Banking ................................................ 1/13/98

26.5 ...... Power Plants ....................................................... 7/1/82 Community Bank ................................................. 1/13/98

26.6 ...... Air Quality Impact Analysis & Modification ......... 7/1/82 Calculations ......................................................... 1/13/98

26.7 ...... none ..................................................................... NSR-Notification .................................................. 12/22/92

26.8 ...... none ..................................................................... NSR-Permit to Operate ....................................... 10/22/91

26.9 ...... none ..................................................................... Power Plants ....................................................... 10/22/91

26.10 .... none ..................................................................... Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) ..... 1/13/98

29 ......... Conditions on Permit ........................................... 6/18/82 Conditions on Permits ......................................... 10/22/91

30 ......... Permit Renewal ................................................... 5/3/84 Permit Renewal ................................................... 5/30/89

II. Background

On March 9, 2000, in 65 FR 12495,

EPA proposed limited approval and

limited disapproval for the above listed

District rules. In addition EPA proposed

to delete four obsolete rules from the

SIP and a 1981 condition that no longer

applies. We also solicited comments on

the District’s public notification

requirements for its permitting actions.

Please note that in EPA’s March 9, 2000

proposal, there was a typographic error

in Table 1 where the rule number for

Rule 26.10 (Prevention of Significant

Deterioration) was erroneously shown

as Rule 26.1.

In our proposal for limited approval

and limited disapproval, we identified

the following deficiencies in this set of

permitting and NSR rules:

1. Rule 10 does not require an

authority to construct (ATC) for

emission units relocating within five

miles within the District.

2. Rule 26 does not specify that

emissions offsets must be surplus at the

time of use.

3. Rule 26 provides authority to the

District to deny a permit for violating

National Ambient Air Quality Standards

(NAAQS) but it does not provide for

denial of a permit for sources that may

violate PSD increments.

4. Rule 26 relies entirely on California

Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for

implementing alternatives analysis

required by the CAA.

III. Public Comments and EPA

Response

A 30-day public comment period was

provided on EPA’s proposed rulemaking

at 65 FR 12495. EPA only received two

comments, both from the District. The

District commented on one of the rule

deficiency issues, and on public

notification requirements. EPA’s

response follows a brief summary of the

District comments.

Comment #1: The District disagreed

with EPA’s interpretation that CAA

Section 173(c) requires Ventura County

emission reduction credits (‘‘ERCs’’) to

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 236 / Thursday, December 7, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 76569

be ‘‘surplus at the time of use’’. (see

Rule Deficiency #2 above). The District

contends:

• An emission reduction that

generates an ERC is surplus because the

District’s attainment plan does not rely

on that emission reduction to show

attainment. All emission reductions

submitted for ERCs are reduced to the

amount to that the attainment plan

identifies for the emission control that

produced the emission reduction. Any

amended attainment plan does not rely

on reduction of banked ERCs.

• An emission reduction that

generates an ERC is creditable because

it is not ‘‘otherwise required by this

Act’’. Ventura County’s ERCs are

binding through local requirements

established for the purpose of creating

ERC. This local authority is separate

from any requirements of CAA.

Furthermore, the emission reduction

that generated the ERC is not relied on

for attainment.

Response #1: We understand that the

District has not relied on the banked

emission reductions in developing its

attainment or Air Quality Management

Plan (AQMP) and on that basis

considers all banked ERCs to be surplus

to the requirements of the CAA.

However, the CAA requirement for

ERCs to be surplus from other

requirements of the CAA is independent

from the District’s obligation to meet the

National Ambient Air Quality Standards

(NAAQS). See Section 173 (c)(2) of the

CAA. 42 U.S.C. § 7503(c)(2). EPA has

interpreted this provision to require

emissions reductions used as offsets to

satisfy Section 173(c)(2), to be surplus to

all other requirements of the CAA at the

time the offset is used. See ‘‘Response

to Request for Guidance on Use of Pre–

1990 ERC’s and Adjusting for RACT at

Time of Use’’ from Seitz to Howekamp,

(August 26, 1994) at page 2, Note 1. We

do not agree that any ERC banked in the

District is automatically and always

surplus because it is not relied upon for

attainment. An ERC may be surplus at

the time of generation but it not

necessarily surplus at the time of use (or

disbursement) because, for example, a

Reasonably Available Control

Technology (RACT) requirement that

did not apply at the time the ERC was

generated by a source category, becomes

statutorily applicable before or at the

time the ERC is used. In such a case,

Sections 172(c) and 173(c)(2) of the

CAA require discounting the ERC to

RACT levels prior to use.

We recognize that at the time of

issuance (or banking), the District

discounts ERCs under its Rule 26.4.C.

However, this discounting procedure

does not ensure that these ERCs are

surplus to all requirements of the Act as

set forth in Section 172(c), 42 U.S.C.

§ 7502 (c), at the time of use. For

example some VOC compounds are also

hazardous air pollutants (HAPs). In

these situations, at the time of use of an

ERC for VOC, there may be a

requirement for the HAP reduction

pursuant to a MACT standard. Since a

portion of the VOC is a HAP, and the

reduction is required by a MACT

standard under the CAA, the portion of

the ERC associated with the HAP is not

surplus simply because the District has

not relied upon the reductions for

Reasonable Further Progress (RFP), Rate

of Progress (ROP) or the attainment

demonstration. See August 26, 1994,

Seitz Memo at page 3, Note 5. In sum,

ERCs are not automatically surplus.

Therefore it is important to ensure that

ERCs are surplus to all requirements of

the Act at the time they are used, even

though they were discounted at the time

of generation and even though the

District has not relied on the ERCs for

its attainment demonstration.

Comment #2: In proposing this rule,

EPA requested comments on the

District’s threshold for public

notification of its permitting actions.

Only the District commented on this

subject.

The District’s rule provides public

notice only for those permit actions that

involve emission units with a combined

potential to emit (PTE) in excess of one

of the thresholds listed in its Rule 26.7.

The District believes that PTE is the best

measure of the ‘‘size’’ of project that

should be subject to public notice. The

District also clarified that the PTE

thresholds for public comment are not

based on the net emission increase from

the emission units. It is, therefore,

misleading to compare the public notice

thresholds to the federal significance

levels (which are based on net emission

increases).

Response #2: EPA solicited comments

on the public notice thresholds to gauge

public interest in being notified of

permit actions for projects with a lower

combined PTE than the rule’s

thresholds. The fact that we only

received one comment (from the

District) indicates that the District’s

requirements are sufficient for providing

opportunity for public review and

comment on its on permitting actions.

Therefore, we agree with the District’s

comment on this subject and will

finalize approval of Rule 26.7 for

incorporation into the SIP.

IV. EPA Evaluation and Final Action

For the reasons explained above, the

comments submitted by the District

have not changed our evaluation of the

rules as described in our proposed

action. EPA is, therefore, finalizing its

limited approval and limited

disapproval of District Rules 10–15,

15.1, 16, 23–24, 26, 26.1–26.10, and 29–

30. Our final action is a limited

approval and limited disapproval

because the Rules contain deficiencies

and are not fully consistent with CAA

requirements, EPA regulations and EPA

policy. The District must revise its Rules

10 and 26 to address the following

deficiencies:

• Rule 10 must be clarified or set

specific conditions for the exemption

from an authority to construct (ATC)

permit for relocating emission units.

The rule must be made clear to avoid

potential circumvention of BACT and

public notice requirements for an ATC.

The rule must specify that only very

small units are eligible for this

exemption for relocation within five

miles in the District. The District must

also revise Section A.3 of its Rule 26.3

(NSR exemption for relocated units) to

reflect revisions made to Rule 10 in

correcting the deficiency.

• Rule 26 must be revised to address

the following three deficiency issues:

Emission Reduction Credits must be

surplus at the time of use.

This rule must be revised to ensure

that ERCs required for offsetting air

emission increases are surplus to

reductions otherwise required by the

CAA. Section 173(c)(2) of the CAA

requires that sources provide offsets in

order to obtain an ATC permit. Further,

the Act requires that offsetting emission

reductions must be federally enforceable

at the time that the NSR permit is issued

[section 173(a)], and in effect by the

time the source commences operation

[section 173(c)(1)]. In addition, section

173(c)(2) requires that the offsets be

surplus of all other requirements of the

Act. The CAA does not allow the use of

ERCs which were surplus some years

ago when they were generated, but

which are no longer surplus (for

example to RACT or MACT

requirements) at the time that the ERC

is used. Thus, the District is required to

amend its rule to provide for adjusting

all ERCs to ensure that the requirement

of section 173(c)(2) for surplus ERCs is

met at the time that the ERCs are used.

To be corrected, Rules 26.2.B and

26.6.D.7.b must prohibit the use of the

ERCs that are not surplus to the CAA

requirements at the time of use. The

District must revise Rules 26.2.B and

26.6.D.7 to add this requirement. The

District must also revise the definition

of major modification in Rule 26.1.16, to

add that in calculating

contemporaneous net emission

76570 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 236 / Thursday, December 7, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

increases, ERCs that are not surplus at

the time of use shall not be included.

Violation of Ambient Air Increments

Rule 26 must also be revised to

provide authority to the District to deny

a permit to operate to any source which

would cause increases in pollution

concentrations over the baseline

concentration and would cause a

violation of ambient air increments.

Alternative Analysis

Rule 26’s reliance on California

Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for

the alternatives analysis required by

Section 173(a)(5) of the Act must be

revised. The alternatives analysis must

not be circumvented by qualifying for a

statutory or categorical exemptions, or a

negative declaration pursuant to CEQA.

The District must revise the rule to

remove any exemptions. The District

may revise the rule so that the District

bases its independent conclusions for

the alternatives analysis on materials

developed under CEQA. However, the

District must independently conclude

that the alternatives analysis whether

based on CEQA or other information

demonstrates the benefits of the

proposed source significantly outweigh

the environmental and social cost.

Because these rule deficiencies are

inappropriate for inclusion in the SIP,

EPA cannot grant full approval of these

rules under section 110(k)(3). Also,

because the submitted rules are not

composed of separable parts which meet

all the applicable requirements of the

CAA, EPA cannot grant partial approval

of the rule under section 110(k)(3).

However, EPA is granting final limited

approval of the submitted rules under

section 110(k)(3) in light of EPA’s

authority pursuant to section 301(a) to

adopt regulations necessary to further

air quality by strengthening the SIP. The

final approval is limited because EPA’s

action also contains a simultaneous

limited disapproval. In order to

strengthen the SIP, EPA is finalizing

limited approval and limited

disapproval of District rules under

sections 110(k)(3) and 301(a) of the

CAA. It should be noted that the rules

covered by this final rulemaking have

been adopted by the District and are

currently in effect in the District. EPA’s

final limited disapproval action does

not prevent the District or EPA from

enforcing these rules. 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 the state implementation

plan shall be considered separately in

light of specific technical, economic,

and environmental factors and in

relation to relevant statutory and

regulatory requirements.

V. Next Action

The District will have 18 months from

the effective date of this final action to

correct the deficiencies delineated by

EPA in Section IV above, to avoid

federal sanctions. See section 179(b) of

the CAA. The District’s failure to correct

the deficiencies will also trigger the

Federal implementation plan

requirements under 110(c).

VI. Administrative Requirements

1. Executive Order 12866

The Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) has exempted this regulatory

action from Executive Order 12866,

entitled ‘‘Regulatory Planning and

Review.’’

2. 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 Executive

Order 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 Executive

Order 13045 because it does not involve

decisions intended to mitigate

environmental health or safety risks.

3. Executive Order 13084

Under Executive Order 13084,

Consultation and Coordination with

Indian Tribal Governments, EPA may

not issue a regulation that is not

required by statute, that significantly

affects or uniquely affects the

communities of Indian tribal

governments, and that imposes

substantial direct compliance costs on

those communities, unless the Federal

government provides the funds

necessary to pay the direct compliance

costs incurred by the tribal

governments. If the mandate is

unfunded, EPA must provide to the

Office of Management and Budget, in a

separately identified section of the

preamble to the rule, a description of

the extent of EPA’s prior consultation

with representatives of affected tribal

governments, a summary of the nature

of their concerns, and a statement

supporting the need to issue the

regulation.

In addition, Executive Order 13084

requires EPA to develop an effective

process permitting elected and other

representatives of Indian tribal

governments ‘‘to provide meaningful

and timely input in the development of

regulatory policies on matters that

significantly or uniquely affect their

communities.’’ Today’s rule does not

significantly or uniquely affect the

communities of Indian tribal

governments. Accordingly, the

requirements of section 3(b) of

Executive Order 13084 do not apply to

this rule.

4. Executive Order 13132

Executive Order 13121, entitled

Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10,

1999) revokes and replaces Executive

Orders 12612, Federalism and 12875,

Enhancing the Intergovernmental

Partnership. Executive Order 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

Executive Order 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 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 Register / Vol. 65, No. 236 / Thursday, December 7, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 76571

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 rule.

5. 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 final 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 approve 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.

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).

6. 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 annual 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 promulgated does not include a

Federal mandate that may result in

estimated annual 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 requirements. Accordingly, no

additional costs to State, local, or tribal

governments, or to the private sector,

result from this action.

7. Submission to Congress and the

Comptroller General

The Congressional Review Act, 5

U.S.C. 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 rule is not a ‘‘major’’ rule as

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

8. 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.

The EPA believes that VCS are

inapplicable to this action. Today’s

action does not require the public to

perform activities conducive to the use

of VCS.

9. Petitions for Judicial Review

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 February 5, 2001.

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,

Incorporation by reference,

Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen

dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile

organic compounds.

Dated: September 5, 2000.

Felicia Marcus,

Regional Administrator, Region IX.

Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code

of Federal Regulations is amended as

follows:

PART 52—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 52

continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart F—California

2. Section 52.220 is amended by

adding paragraphs (b)(5), (c)(56)(ii)(C),

(c)(95)(ii)(C), (c)(179)(i)(D)(2),

(c)(187)(i)(B)(4), (c)(188)(i)(D)(4),

(c)(190)(i)(A)(3), (c)(193)(i)(E),

(c)(196)(i)(B)(2), (c)(225)(i)(G)(2),

(c)(241)(i)(C)(3), and (c)(255)(i)(G) to

read as follows:

§ 52.220 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(b) * * *

(5) Ventura County Air Pollution

Control District.

(i) Previously approved on September

22, 1972 and now deleted without

replacement Rule 18.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(56) * * *

(ii) * * *

(C) Previously approved on June 18,

1982 and now deleted without

replacement Rule 25.

* * * * *

(95) * * *

(ii) * * *

(c) Previously approved on June 18,

1982 and now deleted without

replacement Rule 21.

* * * * *

(179) * * *

(i) * * *

(D) * * *

(2) Rule 30 adopted on May 30, 1989.

* * * * *

(187) * * *

(i) * * *

(B) * * *

(4) Rules 26.A (‘‘General’’), 26.8 and

26.9 adopted on October 22, 1991.

* * * * *

76572 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 236 / Thursday, December 7, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

(188) * * *

(i) * * *

(D) * * *

(4) Rule 29 adopted on October 22,

1991.

* * * * *

(190) * * *

(i) * * *

(A) * * *

(3) Rule 24 adopted on September 15,

1992.

* * * * *

(193) * * *

(i) * * *

(E) Ventura County Air Pollution

Control District

(1) Rule 26.7 adopted on December

22, 1992.

* * * * *

(196) * * *

(i) * * *

(B) * * *

(2) Rule 15.1 adopted on October 12,

1993.

* * * * *

(225) * * *

(i) * * *

(G) * * *

(2) Rules 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16

adopted on June 13, 1995.

* * * * *

(241) * * *

(i) * * *

(C) * * *

(3) Rule 23 adopted on July 9, 1996.

* * * * *

(255) * * *

(i) * * *

(G) Ventura County Air Pollution

Control District.

(1) Rules 26.1, 26.2, 26.3, 26.4, 26.5,

26.6 and 26.10 adopted on January 13,

1998.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 00–31050 Filed 12–6–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–60–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Coast Guard

46 CFR Part 67

[USCG–1999–6095]

RIN 2115–AF88

Citizenship Standards for Vessel

Ownership and Financing; American

Fisheries Act

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard amends

citizenship requirements for fishing

vessels of less than 100 feet in length

that are eligible for a fishery

endorsement, by increasing the

percentage of interest in a vessel

required to be owned and controlled by

U.S. citizens in corporations. The

percentage increased is from more than

50 percent to at least 75 percent. We add

provisions making fishery endorsements

of documented fishing vessels chartered

or leased to a person who is not a

citizen or to an entity which is ineligible

to own a documented fishing vessel

invalid. We also prohibit fishery

endorsement for a fishing vessel

mortgaged to a trustee if the mortgage

interest is issued, assigned, transferred,

or held in trust for a person not eligible

to own a documented fishing vessel,

even if the trustee is eligible to own a

documented fishing vessel.

DATES: This final rule becomes effective

on October 1, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Comments and material

received from the public, as well as

documents mentioned in this preamble

as being available in the docket, are part

of docket USCG–1999–6095 and are

available for inspection or copying at

the Docket Management Facility, U.S.

Department of Transportation, room PL–

401, 400 Seventh Street SW.,

Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5

p.m., Monday through Friday, except

Federal holidays. You may also find this

docket on the Internet at http://

dms.dot.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If

you have questions on this rule, call

Patricia J. Williams, Coast Guard,

telephone 304–271–2400. If you have

questions on viewing the docket, call

Dorothy Beard, Chief, Dockets,

Department of Transportation,

telephone 202–366–9329.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulatory History

On July 27, 2000, we published a

notice of proposed rulemaking entitled

Citizenship Standards for Vessel

Ownership and Financing; American

Fisheries Act [USCG–1999–6095] in the

Federal Register (65 FR 46137). No

public hearing was requested and none

was held.

Background and Purpose

For reasons and purposes as

discussed in the NPRM the Coast Guard

amends its fishery endorsement

regulations as mandated by the 105th

U.S. Congress (Pub. L. 105–277)

outlining fishery endorsement eligibility

for fishing vessels less than 100 feet in

length. The American Fisheries Act

(AFA) requires a real, effective, and

enforceable U.S. ownership threshold

for U.S.-flag fishing vessels. Under this

Act, U.S. citizens must own and control

at least 75 percent of the ownership

interest in any U.S.-flag fishing vessel.

The Act is intended to ensure that

vessels with a fishery endorsement are

truly controlled by citizens of the

United States. The Act also increases

the penalties for fishery endorsement

violations and is intended to discourage

willful noncompliance with the new

requirements.

Discussion of Comments and Changes

The Coast Guard received 12

comments from two respondents

addressing the proposed changes to the

citizenship requirements for U.S.-flag

fishing vessels with a fishery

endorsement. Each respondent

highlighted several different items

within the proposed rule.

One comment felt that the proposed

change to § 67.11 goes too far by

eliminating the fishing vessel exemption

on selling, mortgaging, leasing,

chartering, delivering, or otherwise

transferring of the vessel to a non-U.S.

citizen without the prior approval of the

Maritime Administration. The Coast

Guard agrees. Our initial intent was to

ensure full compliance with the

American Fisheries Act and to ensure

there is no confusion among the

regulated community. By removing

paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(3) we

inadvertently exceeded the scope of the

mandate. We have added a paragraph (c)

to this section that clarifies vessels less

than 100 feet must comply with the

Fishery Endorsement requirements of

the part, and vessels 100 feet and greater

must comply with the requirements

found in 46 CFR part 356.

Both respondents stated our proposed

restrictions on chartering should apply

only to fish harvesting vessels, and not

to fish processing or fish tender vessels.

We have reviewed the issue, as well as

the regulations applicable to larger

vessels, implemented by the Maritime

Administration (MARAD), the agency

with the authority of administering the

AFA on vessels greater than or equal to

100 feet in length. We have determined

that the regulations regarding chartering

of vessels less than 100 feet should be

the same as those regarding larger

vessels. Thus, we have added language

to § 67.21(d)(3) that will not restrict time

or voyage charters to Non-Citizens of

dedicated Fish Processing or Fish

Tender Vessels. This change will bring

the regulations for vessels less than 100

feet into symmetry with the regulations

for larger vessels, while still

invalidating fishery endorsements

whenever a fish harvesting vessel is

chartered to a Non-Citizen. Bareboat

charters of any fishing industry vessel to