64126 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 240 / Thursday, December 14, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

1EPA adopted the completeness criteria on

February 16, 1990 (55 FR 5830) and, pursuant to

section 110(k)(1)(A) of the CAA, revised the criteria

on August 26, 1991 (56 FR 42216).

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 500; 15 U.S.C. 1123; 35

U.S.C. 6, 31, 32, 41.

2. Section 10.155 is amended by

revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:

§ 10.155 Appeal to the Commissioner.

(a) Within thirty (30) days from the

date of the initial decision of the

administrative law judge under

§ 10.154, either party may appeal to the

Commissioner. If an appeal is taken, the

time for filing a cross-appeal expires 14

days after the date of service of the

appeal pursuant to § 10.142 or 30 days

after the date of initial decision of the

administrative law judge, whichever is

later. An appeal or cross-appeal by the

respondent will be filed and served with

the Director in duplicate and will

include exceptions to the decisions of

the administrative law judge and

supporting reasons for those exceptions.

If the Director files the appeal or crossappeal, the Director shall serve on the

other party a copy of the appeal or

cross-appeal. The other party to an

appeal or cross-appeal may file a reply

brief. A respondent’s reply brief shall be

filed and served in duplicate with the

Director. The time for filing any reply

brief expires thirty (30) days after the

date of service pursuant to § 10.142 of

an appeal, cross-appeal or copy thereof.

If the Director files a reply brief, the

Director shall serve on the other party

a copy of the reply brief. Upon the filing

of an appeal, cross-appeal, if any, and

reply briefs, if any, the Director shall

transmit the entire record to the

Commissioner.

* * * * *

Dated: December 7, 1995.

Bruce A. Lehman,

Assistant Secretary of Commerce and

Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks.

[FR Doc. 95–30340 Filed 12–13–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–16–M

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[CA141–1–7247; FRL–5326–7]

Approval and Promulgation of State

Implementation Plans; California—

Ozone

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is approving certain

provisions in the state implementation

plan (SIP) revision submitted by the

State of California. The California Air

Resources Board (CARB) adopted these

provisions on November 15, 1994, as

part of ‘‘The 1994 California State

Implementation Plan for Ozone.’’ The

portions of the SIP approved today are

commitments by the CARB to adopt

regulations for various mobile source

and consumer product categories by

particular dates to achieve specific

emission reductions of volatile organic

compounds (VOC) and oxides of

nitrogen (NOX) in order to attain the

national ambient air quality standards

(NAAQS) for ozone.

The effect of EPA’s approval of these

commitments is to incorporate the

commitments into the federally

approved SIP. EPA is approving the

commitments under provisions of the

Clean Air Act (CAA or ‘‘the Act’’)

regarding EPA actions on SIP submittals

and general rulemaking authority

because these revisions strengthen the

SIP.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This approval is

effective on January 16, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Materials relevant to this

rulemaking are available for review at

the following location: Office of Federal

Planning (A–1–2), Air and Toxics

Division, Environmental Protection

Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne

Street, San Francisco, CA 94105–3901.

Interested persons may make an

appointment with Ms. Virginia Petersen

at (415) 744–1265, to inspect the docket

at EPA’s San Francisco office on

weekdays between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m.

A copy of the SIP submittal is also

available for inspection at the address

listed below: California Air Resources

Board, 2020 L Street, Sacramento,

California.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Julia

Barrow (415) 744–2434, at the Office of

Federal Planning (A–1–2), Air and

Toxics Division, U.S. EPA, Region IX,

75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco,

California, 94105–3901.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On August

21, 1995 (60 FR 43421), EPA proposed

to approve certain State commitments

included in Volume II of the California

Ozone SIP, ‘‘The Air Resources Board’s

Mobile Source and Consumer Products

Elements.’’ These commitments were

originally submitted on November 15,

1994, were subsequently updated,

corrected, and resubmitted on December

29, 1994, and were found to be complete

on January 30, 1995 and April 18, 1995,

pursuant to EPA’s completeness criteria

that are set forth in 40 CFR part 51

Appendix V.1

EPA is today finalizing approval of

the State’s commitments listed below, in

advance of CARB adoption of

regulations. EPA is finalizing SIP

approval of these enforceable CARB

commitments under section 110(k)(3)

and 301(a) for their strengthening effect.

The CARB commitments approved

today are as follows:

Measure M3, Accelerated Ultra-Low

Emission Vehicle (ULEV) requirement

for Medium-Duty Vehicles (MDVs),

adoption 1997, implementation 1998–

2002, South Coast reductions in 2010—

32 tons per day (tpd) NOX, 4 tpd

reactive organic gases (ROG). These

reductions will be achieved by an

increase in MDV ULEVs, as currently

defined by CARB, from 10 percent of

sales of new MDVs in 1998 model year

to 100 percent in 2002 and later model

years.

Measure M5, Heavy-Duty Vehicles

(HDVs)—NOX regulations, adoption

1997, implementation 2002, South Coast

reductions in 2010–56 tpd NOX, 4 tpd

ROG. These reductions will be achieved

by CARB adoption of a 2.0 gram per

brake horsepower-hour NOX exhaust

emission standard for new heavy-duty

truck engines sold in California

beginning in 2002, or by

implementation of alternative measures

which achieve equivalent or greater

reductions. Alternatives under

consideration include expanded

introduction of alternative-fueled and

low-emission diesel engines through

demand-side programs and incentives,

retrofit of aerodynamic devices, reduced

idling, and speed reduction.

Measure M8, Heavy-Duty Gasoline

Vehicles (HDGVs)—lower emission

standards, adoption 1997,

implementation 1998–2002, South Coast

reductions in 2010—3 tpd NOX. These

reductions will be achieved by

application of 3-way catalyst technology

in HDGVs will obtain 50 percent

reductions of NOX and ROG emissions

from these engines.

Measure M11, Industrial Equipment,

Gas & LPG—three-way catalyst

technology, adoption 1997,

implementation 2000–2004, South Coast

reductions in 2010—14 tpd NOX, 29 tpd

ROG. Emission standards for new

engines greater than 25 hp and less than

175 hp will be phased in beginning in

2000, based on the use of closed-loop 3-

way catalyst systems, which are

expected to reduce ROG by 75 percent

and NOX by at least 50 percent.

Measure CP–2, Mid-Term Consumer

Products (‘‘Phase II’’), adoption July

1997, reductions in 2005—25 percent

reduction beyond currently adopted

CARB regulations, South Coast

reductions in 2010—34 tpd ROG.
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 240 / Thursday, December 14, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 64127

Two public comments were received

on the proposed approval. Texaco

Refining and Marketing recommended

that EPA recognize and consider the

flexibility that CARB intended for

Measure M3, citing the following

language from the SIP submittal:

[t]he heaviest medium-duty vehicles may

have problems meeting the ULEV standard.

However it may be possible to compensate

for this situation through flexible standards

which allow credits to be generated by the

more populous lighter medium-duty

vehicles. In addition, other mixes of vehicles

and technologies could provide equivalent

emission reductions.

EPA fully supports CARB’s statement of

its flexibility in developing and

implementing this measure.

The Chemical Specialties

Manufacturers Association (CSMA)

commented on Measure CP–2. CSMA

noted that EPA incorrectly identified

the measure as ‘‘phase III.’’ In the

current CARB nomenclature, CP–2 is

‘‘phase II’’ of the State’s consumer

product element. EPA has revised the

measure identification accordingly.

CSMA also commented that CARB did

not cite its full legislative authority to

adopt the measure. EPA believes that

CARB has sufficient authority to adopt

and implement regulations to achieve

the SIP’s reduction targets. Finally,

CSMA stated that CARB’s proposed 25

percent reduction target for the measure

is not supported by CARB’s data, and

CSMA further noted that EPA, CARB,

and industry have met recently to

discuss refinements to the

categorization of consumer products.

EPA continues to believe that the State’s

commitment to adopt the CP–2 measure,

including its reduction target, should be

approved.

As discussed in the proposed

approval, EPA is firmly committed to

assisting CARB in its efforts to develop

and adopt the associated State

regulations, which are essential if the

State is to meet the public health goals

of the Act. EPA shares the State’s

dedication, reflected in these

commitments, to achieve real and

sustainable progress toward clean air at

the least cost. EPA intends to work

closely with CARB to speed full SIP

approval of the regulations eventually

adopted by the State.

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 SIP shall be

considered separately in light of specific

technical, economic, and environmental

factors and in relation to relevant

statutory and regulatory requirements.

Regulatory Process

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

business, small not-for-profit enterprises

and government entities with

jurisdiction over populations of less

than 50,000.

SIP approvals under sections 110 and

301 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, it does not have

a significant impact on any small

entities affected. Moreover, due to the

nature of the Federal/state relationship

under the Act, preparation of a

regulatory flexibility analysis would

constitute Federal inquiry into the

economic reasonableness of state action.

The Act forbids EPA to base its actions

concerning SIPs on such grounds.

Union Electric Co. v. U.S.E.P.A., 427

U.S. 246, 256–66 (S.Ct. 1976); 42 U.S.C.

7410(a)(2).

This action has been classified as a

Table 3 action for signature by the

Regional Administrator under the

procedures published in the Federal

Register on January 19, 1989 (54 FR

2214–2225), as revised by a July 10,

1995 memorandum from Mary Nichols,

Assistant Administrator for Air and

Radiation. The Office of Management

and Budget has exempted this

regulatory action from Executive Order

12866 review.

Unfunded Mandates

Under sections 202, 203, and 205 of

the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of

1995 (‘‘Unfunded Mandates Act’’)

signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA

must undertake various actions in

association with proposed or final rules

that include a Federal mandate that may

result in estimated costs of $100 million

or more to the private sector, or to State,

local, or tribal governments in the

aggregate.

Through submission of these SIP

revisions, the State and any affected

local or tribal governments have elected

to adopt the program provided for under

sections 110 and 182 of the CAA. These

rules may bind State, local, and tribal

governments to perform certain actions

and also require the private sector to

perform certain duties. To the extent

that the rules being approved today will

impose any mandate upon the State,

local, or tribal governments either as the

owner or operator of a source or as a

regulator, or would impose any mandate

upon the private sector, EPA’s action

will impose no new requirements; such

sources are already subject to these

requirements under State law.

Accordingly, no additional costs to

State, local, or tribal governments, or to

the private sector, result from this

action. EPA has also determined that

this action does not include a mandate

that may result in estimated costs of

$100 million or more to State, local, or

tribal governments in the aggregate or to

the private sector.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Carbon monoxide,

Hydrocarbons, Incorporation by

reference, Intergovernmental relations,

Oxides of nitrogen, Ozone, Reporting

and recordkeeping requirements,

Volatile organic compounds.

Dated: October 22, 1995.

Felicia Marcus,

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)(204)(i)(A)(5) to

read as follows:

§ 52.220 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(204) * * *

(i) * * *

(A) * * *

(5) Mid-Term Measures, Accelerated

Ultra-Low Emission Vehicle (ULEV)

requirement for Medium-Duty Vehicles

(Measure M3), Heavy-Duty Vehicles

NOX regulations (Measure M5), HeavyDuty Gasoline Vehicles lower emission

standards (Measure M8), Industrial

Equipment, Gas & LPG—3-way catalyst

technology (Measure M11), Mid-Term

Consumer Products (Measure CP–2), as

contained in The California State

Implementation Plan for Ozone, Volume

II: The Air Resources Board’s Mobile
64128 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 240 / Thursday, December 14, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

Source and Consumer Products

Elements, adopted on Nov. 15, 1994.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 95–30511 Filed 12–13–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

50 CFR Part 675

[Docket No. 950206040–5040–01; I.D.

120895B]

Groundfish of the Bering Sea and

Aleutian Islands Area; Pacific Cod by

Vessels Using Hook-and-Line Gear in

the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

ACTION: Closure.

SUMMARY: NMFS is prohibiting directed

fishing for Pacific cod by vessels using

hook-and-line gear in the Bering Sea

and Aleutian Islands management area

(BSAI). This action is necessary because

the 1995 prohibited species bycatch

mortality allowance of Pacific halibut

specified for the Pacific cod hook-andline fishery in the BSAI has been

reached.

EFFECTIVE DATE: 12 noon, Alaska local

time (A.l.t.), December 11, 1995, until

12 midnight, A.l.t., December 31, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mary Furuness, 907–586-7228.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

groundfish fishery in the BSAI exclusive

economic zone is managed by NMFS

according to the Fishery Management

Plan for the Groundfish Fishery of the

Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Area

(FMP) prepared by the North Pacific

Fishery Management Council under

authority of the Magnuson Fishery

Conservation and Management Act.

Fishing by U.S. vessels is governed by

regulations implementing the FMP at 50

CFR parts 620 and 675.

The 1995 Pacific halibut bycatch

mortality allowance for the hook-andline Pacific cod fishery, which is

defined at § 675.21(b)(2)(ii)(A), is 725

metric tons (60 FR 8479, February 14,

1995).

The Director, Alaska Region, NMFS,

has determined, in accordance with

§ 675.21(d), that the Pacific halibut

bycatch mortality allowance for the

Pacific cod hook-and-line fishery in the

BSAI has been reached. Therefore,

NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing for

Pacific cod by vessels using hook-andline gear in the BSAI.

Maximum retainable bycatch amounts

for applicable gear types may be found

in the regulations at § 675.20(h).

Classification

This action is taken under § 675.20

and is exempt review under E.O. 12866.

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

Dated: December 8, 1995.

Richard W. Surdi,

Acting Director, Office of Fisheries

Conservation and Management, National

Marine Fisheries Service.

[FR Doc. 95–30468 Filed 12–11–95; 12:34

pm]

BILLING CODE 3510–22–F