Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 59 / Thursday, March 27, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 14641

Dated: February 26, 1997.

John Wise,

Acting Regional Administrator.

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. 7401–7671q

Subpart F—California

2. Section 52.220 is amended by

adding paragraph (c)(241) to read as

follows:

§ 52.220 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(241) New and amended regulations

for the following APCD were submitted

on October 18, 1996 by the Governor’s

designee.

(i) Incorporationed by reference.

(A) San Diego County Air Pollution

Control District.

(1) Rules 2, Definitions; 67.0,

Architectural Coatings; 67.1, Alternative

Emission Control Plans; 67.2, Dry

Cleaning Equipment Using PetroleumBased Solvents; 67.3, Metal Parts and

Products Coating Operations; 67.5,

Paper, Film, and Fabric Coating

Operations; 67.7, Cutback and

Emulsified Asphalts; 67.12, Polyester

Resin Operations; 67.15, Pharmaceutical

and Cosmetic Manufacturing

Operations; 67.16, Graphic Arts

Operations; 67.17, Storage of Materials

Containing Volatile Organic

Compounds; 67.18, Marine Coating

Operations; and 67.24, Bakery Ovens,

adopted on May 15, 1996.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 97–7690 Filed 3–26–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

40 CFR Part 81

[ME048–1–6997a; FRL–5802–3]

Designation of Areas for Air Quality

Planning Purposes; Correction of

Designation of Nonclassified Ozone

Nonattainment Areas; States of Maine

and New Hampshire

AGENCY: United States Environmental

Protection Agency (USEPA or Agency).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: The USEPA announces its

decision to correct the ozone

designations for the Sullivan and

Belknap counties, New Hampshire

nonattainment areas, and the portions of

Oxford, Franklin and Somerset counties

in Maine designated nonattainment. The

USEPA is publishing the designation

correction of these areas to attainment/

unclassifiable for ozone, pursuant to

section 110(k)(6) of the Clean Air Act

(the Act), which allows the USEPA to

correct its actions. The rationale for this

approval is set forth in this final rule;

additional information is available at

the address indicated below. In the

proposed rules section of this Federal

Register, the USEPA is proposing

approval of and soliciting public

comment on this action. If adverse

comments are received on this direct

final rule, the USEPA will withdraw

this direct final rule and address the

comments received in a subsequent

final rule on the related proposed rule

which is being published in the

proposed rules section of this Federal

Register. No additional opportunity for

public comment will be provided.

Unless this direct final rule is

withdrawn no further rulemaking will

occur on this action.

DATES: This action will be effective May

27, 1997 unless notice is received by

April 28, 1997 that someone wishes to

submit adverse comments. If the

effective date is delayed, timely notice

will be published in the Federal

Register.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to

Susan Studlien, Deputy Director, Office

of Ecosystems Protection, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region I, JFK Federal Bldg., (CAA)

Boston, MA 02203. Copies of EPA’s

technical support document are

available for public inspection during

normal business hours, by appointment

at: Office of Ecosystems Protection, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region I, One Congress Street, 11th

floor, Boston, MA; the Bureau of Air

Quality Control, Department of

Environmental Protection, 71 Hospital

Street, Augusta, ME 04333; and the New

Hampshire Department of

Environmental Services, 64 N. Main St.,

Concord, NH 03302.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Richard P. Burkhart, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region I, JFK Federal Bldg., (CAQ)

Boston, MA 02203. Phone: 617–565–

3578.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

1. Background for Sullivan and Belknap

Counties, New Hampshire

Pursuant to the 1977 amendments to

the Clean Air Act (Act), the USEPA

designated nonattainment areas with

respect to the 0.08 parts per million

(ppm) photochemical oxidant National

Ambient Air Quality Standard

(NAAQS). For such areas, states

submitted State Implementation Plans

(SIPs) to control emissions and achieve

attainment of the NAAQS. In New

Hampshire, an area named the

Merrimack Valley-Southern New

Hampshire Interstate Air Quality

Control Region (AQCR 121) was

designated as nonattainment for

photochemical oxidants on March 3,

1978 (43 FR 9013). On February 8, 1979

(44 FR 8202), the USEPA revised the

NAAQS from 0.08 ppm to 0.12 ppm and

the regulated pollutant from

photochemical oxidants to ozone.

Subsequently, on May 29, 1979, New

Hampshire submitted a revised analysis

which considered the change in the

NAAQS and its affect on nonattainment

designations (hereinafter referred to as

‘‘the May 1979, New Hampshire

submittal’’).

The May 1979, New Hampshire

submittal requested that the New

Hampshire portion of the Merrimack

Valley-Southern New Hampshire

Interstate AQCR be designated

nonattainment, even though the Federal

ozone standard had changed, and there

were no ozone monitoring data from the

relevant portions of the AQCR. EPA

approved the request on April 11, 1980

(45 FR 24869). AQCR 121 includes

Belknap and Sullivan counties, along

with other areas in both New Hampshire

and Massachusetts whose attainment

classification and status will be

unchanged by this technical correction.

The May 1979, New Hampshire

submittal was based on the revised

Federal ozone standard of 0.12 ppm.

Unfortunately, New Hampshire did not

know the full extent of its ozone

nonattainment problems, because, there

were no monitors in either Belknap or

Sullivan counties. Ozone monitors for

AQCR 121 existed only in Keene,

Manchester, Nashua, and Portsmouth

during the period from 1973 to 1978.

These sites did experience exceedances

of the 0.12 ppm standard, but none are

close enough to either Belknap or

Sullivan county to indicate their air

quality.

Upon the date of enactment of the

1990 amendments to the Clean Air Act,

the New Hampshire portion of AQCR

121 retained its designation of

nonattainment by operation of law

pursuant to section 107(d). Pursuant to

the section 181(a), nonattainment areas

were further classified based on their

monitored design value, as marginal,

moderate, serious, severe or extreme.

The nonattainment areas in New

Hampshire were split into several
14642 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 59 / Thursday, March 27, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

1The Maine Legislative has since set Maine’s

health based ozone standard to be equivalent to the

Federal standard.

2 It states: CORRECTIONS—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.

nonattainment areas and classified as

follows: (1) the Portsmouth-DoverRochester area as serious, (2) the New

Hampshire portion of the BostonLawrence-Worcester area as serious, (3)

the Manchester area as marginal, and (4)

Sullivan, Cheshire and Belknap

counties, remained nonattainment with

incomplete data. See 56 FR 56694,

November 6, 1991.

2. Background for Portions of Franklin,

Oxford and Somerset Counties, Maine

Pursuant to the 1977 amendments to

the Clean Air Act (Act), an area in

Maine named the Androscoggin Valley

Interstate Air Quality Control Region

(AQCR 107) was designated as

nonattainment for photochemical

oxidants by USEPA. On February 8,

1979 (44 FR 8202), the USEPA revised

the NAAQS from 0.08 ppm to 0.12 ppm

and the regulated pollutant from

photochemical oxidants to ozone.

Subsequently, on April 19, 1979 Maine

submitted a revised analysis which

considered the change in the NAAQS

and its effects on designations

(hereinafter referred to as ‘‘the April,

1979 Maine submittal’’).

The April 1979, Maine submittal

requested that the Maine portion of the

Androscoggin Valley Interstate AQCR be

designated nonattainment, even though

the Federal ozone standard had changed

and no ozone monitoring data existed

for the relevant portion of the AQCR. It

is worth noting that Maine retained its

own state standard to be 0.08 ppm

ozone not to be exceeded more than

once per year.1 The USEPA approved

the request for the AQCR to be

designated nonattainment on February

19, 1980 (45 FR 10766). AQCR 107

includes portions of Oxford, Somerset

and Franklin counties, along with other

areas in both Maine and New

Hampshire whose attainment

classification and status will be

unchanged by this technical correction.

Ambient ozone data for the State of

Maine in the 1970’s was severely

limited. There were not any monitors in

either of the three counties. An ozone

monitor in Maine for AQCR 107 did

exist in the Town of Unity for a short

period in 1977. This site did not

experience an exceedance of the 0.12

Federal ppm ozone standard, which is

the applicable standard under the Act

for the purposes of designating the

federal attainment status of areas under

Section 107.

Upon the date of enactment of the

1990 amendments to the Clean Air Act,

the areas that make up AQCR 107

retained their designation of

nonattainment by operation of law

pursuant to section 107(d).

Nonattainment areas were further

classified based on their monitored

design value, pursuant to section 181(a),

as marginal, moderate, serious, severe or

extreme. The areas in Maine in AQCR

107 were split up and joined with other

areas to form several nonattainment

areas which were classified as follows:

the Knox and Lincoln counties area as

moderate, the Lewiston-Auburn area as

moderate (which is Androscoggin and

Kennebec counties), the Hancock and

Waldo counties area as marginal, and

portions of Oxford, Franklin and

Somerset counties, remained

nonattainment with incomplete data.

See 56 FR 56694, November 6, 1991.

II. Summary of This Action

Section 110(k)(6) of the Clean Air Act

provides the USEPA with the authority

to correct designation determinations

made in error.2 The USEPA interprets

Section 110(k)(6) to authorize the

Agency to make corrections to a

promulgated regulation when it is

shown to EPA’s satisfaction that:

(1) EPA clearly erred in failing to

consider or inappropriately considered

information made available to EPA at

the time of the promulgation; or the

information made available at the time

of promulgation is subsequently

demonstrated to have been clearly

inadequate; and;

(2) other information persuasively

supports a change in the regulation 57

FR 56763 (November 30, 1992)

The USEPA’s earlier action approving

the retention of the nonattainment

designations for the Belknap and

Sullivan counties in New Hampshire

was in error. That action was based on

the State’s May 29, 1979 submittal. The

USEPA believes that the information

submitted by New Hampshire in the

May, 1979 submittal did not provide

enough data to designate these two areas

nonattainment for ozone because it did

not contain in-county ozone monitoring

data showing violations of the 0.12 ppm

NAAQS. Furthermore, in-county

monitoring data collected from 1991–

1996 in the Sullivan County

nonclassifiable areas do not demonstrate

violations of the 0.12 ppm NAAQS.

The USEPA hereby determines that

the information available at the time of

the designation was clearly inadequate,

and that the in-county monitoring data

available since the original designation

persuasively support a change in the

designations. The USEPA is correcting

this error by correcting the designations

for these areas to attainment/

unclassifiable.

Similarly, the USEPA’s action

approving the retention of the

nonattainment designations for the

portions of Oxford, Somerset and

Franklin counties in Maine designated

nonattainment was also in error. The

USEPA’s action was based on the April

19, 1979 Maine submittal. The USEPA

believes that the information submitted

by Maine was insufficient to designate

these three areas nonattainment for

ozone because it did not contain ozone

monitoring data showing violations of

the 0.12 ppm NAAQS. Furthermore, incounty monitoring data from 1991–1996

collected in those counties do not show

violations of the 0.12 ppm federal

NAAQS. Since the information available

at the time of the designation was

clearly inadequate and in-county

monitoring data support a change in the

designations, the USEPA is correcting

this error by correcting the designations

for these areas to attainment/

unclassifiable.

In order to demonstrate a violation of

the ozone NAAQS, the average annual

number of expected exceedances of the

NAAQS must be greater than 1.0 per

calendar year. (See 40 CFR 50.9.) The

USEPA reviewed the basis of the

original ozone designation for these five

areas. Ambient air quality monitoring

data for ozone was retrieved from the

Aerometric Information Retrieval

System (AIRS). The USEPA found that

none of the five nonattainment

nonclassifiable areas in New Hampshire

and Maine ever had ozone monitoring

data above 0.12 ppm. More information,

including the AIRS ozone data report for

these areas and the Technical Support

Document (TSD), is located in the

docket for this rulemaking.

III. Rulemaking Action

Pursuant to section 110(k)(6) of the

Clean Air Act (the Act), which allows

the USEPA to correct its actions, the

USEPA is promulgating a correction to

the designation status of the Sullivan

and the Belknap counties, New

Hampshire nonattainment areas, and the

portions of Oxford, Franklin and

Somerset counties in Maine designated

nonattainment. The public should be

advised that this action is effective May
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 59 / Thursday, March 27, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 14643

27, 1997. However, if notice is received

by April 28, 1997 that someone submits

adverse or critical comments, this action

will be withdrawn, and a subsequent

final rule will be published which will

address the comments received.

The USEPA is publishing a separate

document in today’s issue of the

Federal Register publication, which

constitutes a ‘‘proposed approval’’ of the

requested SIP revisions and clarifies this

rulemaking will not be deemed final if

timely adverse or critical comments are

filed. The ‘‘direct final’’ approval shall

be effective on May 27, 1997, unless the

USEPA receives adverse or critical

comments by April 28, 1997.

If the USEPA receives comments

adverse to or critical of the approval

discussed above, the USEPA will

withdraw this approval before its

effective date by publishing a

subsequent Federal Register document

which withdraws this final action. All

public comments received will then be

addressed in a subsequent rulemaking

notice. Any parties interested in

commenting on this action should do so

at this time. If no such comments are

received, the USEPA hereby advises the

public that this action will be effective

on May 27, 1997.

IV. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order (E.O.) 12866

Under E.O. 12866 (58 FR 51735, Oct.

4, 1993), this action is not a ‘‘significant

regulatory action’’ and, is therefore not

subject to review by the Office of

Management and Budget.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act,

5 U.S.C. 600 et. seq., the USEPA 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, the USEPA 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-forprofit enterprises, and government

entities with jurisdiction over

populations of less than 50,000.

Correction of designation status of these

areas to attainment under section

110(k)(6) of the Clean Air Act does not

impose any new requirements on small

entities. Correction of designation status

is an action that affects the status of a

geographical area and does not impose

any regulatory requirements on sources.

Therefore I certify that the approval of

the redesignation request does not have

a significant impact on a substantial

number of small entities.

C. Unfunded Mandates

Under Sections 202 of the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act of 1995

(‘‘Unfunded Mandates Act’’), signed

into law on March 22, 1995, the USEPA

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, the USEPA 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 the USEPA to

establish a plan for informing and

advising any small governments that

may be significantly or uniquely

impacted by the rule.

The USEPA has determined that this

correction action promulgated 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 requirements. Accordingly, no

additional costs to State, local, or tribal

governments, or to the private sector,

result from this action.

D. Submission to Congress and the

General Accounting Office

Under 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A) as added

by the Small Business Regulatory

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996

(SBREFA), the USEPA submitted 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 General

Accounting Office prior to publication

of the rule in today’s Federal Register.

This rule is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as

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

E. 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 May 27, 1997.

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).) EPA encourages interested

parties to comment in response to the

proposed rule rather than petition for

judicial review, unless the objection

arises after the comment period allowed

for in the proposal.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Carbon monoxide,

Hydrocarbons, Incorporation by

reference, Intergovernmental relations,

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Sulfur oxides.

Dated: March 19, 1997.

Carol M. Browner,

Administrator.

Part 81 of chapter I, title 40 of the

Code of Federal Regulations is amended

as follows:

PART 81—DESIGNATION OF AREAS

FOR AIR QUALITY PLANNING

PURPOSES

1. The authority citation of part 81

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401—7671q.

2. In § 81.320 the ozone table is

amended by revising entries for

‘‘Franklin County Area’’, ‘‘Oxford

County Area’’, and ‘‘Somerset County

Area’’ to read as follows:

§ 81.320 Maine.

* * * * *

MAINE—OZONE

Designated area

Designation Classification

Date 1 Type Date 1 Type

Franklin County Area

Franklin County (part) .............. May 27, 1997 ....... Unclassifiable/Attainment

* * * * * * *

Oxford County Area
14644 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 59 / Thursday, March 27, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

MAINE—OZONE—Continued

Designated area

Designation Classification

Date 1 Type Date 1 Type

Oxford County (part) ................ May 27, 1997 ....... Unclassifiable/Attainment

* * * * * * *

Somerset County Area

Somerset County (part) ........... May 27, 1997 ....... Unclassifiable/Attainment

* * * * * * *

1This date is November 15, 1990, unless otherwise noted.

* * * * *

2. In § 81.330 the ozone table is

amended by revising entries for

‘‘Belknap County’’ and ‘‘Sullivan

County’’ to read as follows:

§ 81.330 New Hampshire.

* * * * *

NEW HAMPSHIRE—OZONE

Designated areas

Designation Classification

Date 1 Type Date 1 Type

* * * * * * *

Belknap County ............................... May 27, 1997 ....... Unclassifiable/Attainment

* * * * * * *

Sullivan County ............................... May 27, 1997 ....... Unclassifiable/Attainment

* * * * * * *

1This date is November 15, 1990, unless otherwise noted.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 97–7628 Filed 3–26–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

50 CFR Parts 600 and 648

[Docket No. 960612172–7054–02; I.D.

011697A]

RIN 0648–A121

Fisheries of the Northeastern United

States; Technical Amendment

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

ACTION: Final rule; technical

amendment.

SUMMARY: NMFS issues this final rule to

correct and clarify 50 CFR part 648,

which contains regulations

implementing the fishery management

plans (FMPs) for: Summer flounder,

scup, and black sea bass; Atlantic sea

scallops; Northeast multispecies;

Atlantic surf clams and ocean quahogs;

Atlantic mackerel, squid, and butterfish;

and Atlantic salmon. During the

consolidation of these FMPs into one

part (50 CFR part 648), unintended

omissions and changes were made. This

document corrects those errors.

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 24, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mary M. Tokarcik, Fisheries

Management Specialist, 508–281–9326.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On July 3,

1996 (61 FR 34966), NMFS published a

final rule that incorporated six separate

CFR parts (50 CFR parts 625, 650, 651,

652, 655, and 657) into 50 CFR part 648.

Subsequently, regulations implementing

the scup and black sea bass FMPs were

added to this part. In addition, 50 CFR

parts 600, 601, 602, 603, 605, 611, 619,

620, and 621 were consolidated into 50

CFR part 600. These consolidations

were called for under President

Clinton’s Regulatory Reinvention

Initiative for comprehensive regulatory

reform. Because 50 CFR part 648 was

prepared concurrent with the

implementation of Amendment 7 to the

Northeast Multispecies Fisheries

Management Plan, many changes from

the proposed rule to the final rule

implementing Amendment 7 were not

included in the consolidated document.

Also, errors occurred during the

consolidation of 50 CFR parts 600 and

648 in references and dates and through

unintended omissions and inclusions.

This rule makes these corrections and

clarifies sections of the regulations as

follows:

In 50 CFR 600.10, the definition for

‘‘area of custody’’ is added.

In § 648.2, the definition for

‘‘Multispecies Monitoring Committee’’

is revised to clarify that no more than

two state representatives can be

appointed from all of the affected states.

In § 648.2, the scientific name for

redfish is changed to Sebastes fasciatus.

In § 648.2, the definition for ‘‘Prior to

leaving port’’ is revised to clarify when

a vessel must begin a days-at-sea (DAS)

trip under the call-in requirement. Also,

the phrase ‘‘with respect to the call-in

notification for NE multispecies’’ is

revised to clarify that the definition is

also applicable to scallop DAS vessels.

In § 648.2, the definition for ‘‘Target

Total Allowable Catch’’ is put in

alphabetical order.

In § 648.4(a)(1)(i)(E)(2), the

assumptions for establishing net

tonnage (NT) and gross registered

tonnage (GRT) for vessels that are not

required to be documented are in error

and are removed.

In § 648.4(a)(6)(i)(B)(1), the deadline

for application for the scup moratorium