Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 59 / Tuesday, March 28, 1995 / Proposed Rules 15891

out of compliance with the demands of

the legislation. MMS, however, is

looking at situations where it can ease

some of the reporting requirements and

minimize assessments. For example,

MMS has taken action to adjust its

billing thresholds to minimize

‘‘nuisance’’ bills for trivial assessments.

In a related area, MMS is addressing

the financial impacts incurred by payors

that fail to timely file certain forms.

MMS formed a study group to evaluate

the existing regulatory requirements for

oil and gas allowances including the

assessments and sanctions for untimely

filed forms. The Study Group was

comprised of representatives from

MMS, industry, and the State and Tribal

Royalty Audit Committee. It addressed

the need for and equity of allowance

payback and late payment interest

charges for untimely filed forms. The

Study Group found that the penalties

were not consistent with the crime and

proposed alternatives to the payback

penalty. MMS has prepared two

proposed rules to implement the Study

Group’s recommendations—one dealing

with oil and gas, and one dealing with

coal.

Timetable—MMS plans to publish the

proposed rules by mid-1995.

5. The Appeals Process

Comments Received—Current appeals

process is too long.

Action Taken—MMS has undertaken

a streamlining review of its

administrative appeals process. MMS

has transferred decisionmaking on

routine appeals from the Appeals

Division to the Royalty Management

Program. This has reduced the Appeals

Division’s workload by 20 percent and

freed up staff to work on more complex

appeals cases.

MMS also initiated three pilot

programs in its streamlining efforts. One

pilot program aims to decrease the time

and expense incurred by MMS in its

preparation of an appellant’s

administrative record. A second pilot

program involves reformatting the

decisionmaking process to speed the

issuance of shorter, more timely

decisions. The third pilot program will

test the use of alternative dispute

resolution mechanisms to resolve many

of the administrative appeals.

Timetable—The first two pilots were

put in place the latter half of 1994, and

the third pilot began the end of February

1995.

6. Other

Comments Received—MMS received

unfavorable comments on proposed

rules concerning administrative offset

and credit adjustments. Comments were

also received about closing audit

periods and receiving orders to perform

self-audits. Finally, there were

comments received about the estimated

royalty payment system and that

guidance given to payors over the phone

was overruled by RMP auditors.

Action Taken—The administrative

offset and credit adjustment rules have

been consolidated as a final rule. MMS

recognizes that many companies oppose

these rules but considers the rules to be

important enough that they should

proceed to the final rulemaking stage.

Some of the issues regarding closing

audit periods and orders to perform

recalculations of royalties are being

addressed in a manual MMS is

preparing on audit procedures. With

respect to the other comments received,

MMS will address them in order ways,

such as ongoing customer service

initiatives.

Timetable—Publication of the

administrative offset-credit adjustment

final rule is scheduled for mid-1995.

The audit manual will be available later

this year.

Dated: March 22, 1995.

Cynthia Quarterman,

Acting Director, Minerals Management

Service.

[FR Doc. 95–7534 Filed 3–27–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–MR–M

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[CA–144–2–6918a; FRL–5179–3]

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans; California State

Implementation Plan Revision, San

Diego County Air Pollution Control

District and San Joaquin Valley Unified

Air Pollution Control District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM).

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve

revisions to the California State

Implementation Plan (SIP) which

concern the control of volatile organic

compound (VOC) emissions from fixed

and floating roof tanks at bulk plants

and terminals; and fugitives at light

crude oil production, gas production,

and natural gas processing facilities.

The intended effect of proposing

approval of these rules is to regulate

emissions of VOCs in accordance with

the requirements of the Clean Air Act,

as amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act).

EPA’s final action on this NPRM will

incorporate these rules into the federally

approved SIP. In addition, final action

on these rules will serve as a final

determination that deficiencies in each

rule identified by EPA in a limited

approval/limited disapproval action on

August 30, 1993 have been corrected

and that any sanctions or Federal

Implementation Plan (FIP) obligations

are permanently stopped. An Interim

Final Determination published in

today’s Federal Register will defer the

imposition of sanctions until EPA takes

final rulemaking action. EPA has

evaluated each of these rules and is

proposing to approve them under

provisions of the CAA regarding EPA

action on SIP submittals, SIPs for

national primary and secondary ambient

air quality standards and plan

requirements for nonattainment areas.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before April 27, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed

to: Daniel A. Meer, Rulemaking Section

[A–5–3], Air and Toxics Division, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San

Francisco, CA 94105–3901.

Copies of the rules and EPA’s

evaluation report of each rule are

available for public inspection at EPA’s

Region 9 office during normal business

hours. Copies of the submitted rules are

also available for inspection at the

following locations:

California Air Resources Board,

Stationary Source Division, Rule

Evaluation Section, 2020 ‘‘L’’ Street,

Sacramento, CA 95814.

San Diego County Air Pollution Control

District, 9150 Chesapeake Drive, San

Diego, CA 92123.

San Joaquin Valley Unified Air

Pollution Control District 1999

Tuolumne Street, Fresno, CA 93721.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mae

Wang, Rulemaking Section [A–5–3], Air

and Toxics Division, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San

Francisco, CA 94105–3901, (415) 744–

1200.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Applicability

The rules being proposed for approval

into the California SIP include: San

Diego County Air Pollution Control

District (SDCAPCD) Rule 61.1,

Receiving and Storing Volatile Organic

Compounds at Bulk Plants and Bulk

Terminals; and San Joaquin Valley

Unified Air Pollution Control District

(SJVUAPCD) Rule 4403, Components

Serving Light Crude Oil or Gases at
15892 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 59 / Tuesday, March 28, 1995 / Proposed Rules

1At that time, Kern County included portions of

two air basins: the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin and

the Southeast Desert Air Basin. The San Joaquin

Valley Air Basin portion of Kern County was

designated as nonattainment, and the Southeast

Desert Air Basin portion of Kern County was

designated as unclassified. See 40 CFR 81.305

(1991).

2On March 20, 1991, the San Joaquin Valley

Unified Air Pollution Control District (SJVUAPCD)

was formed. The SJVUAPCD has authority over the

San Joaquin Valley Air Basin which includes all the

above eight counties except the Southeast Desert

Air Basin portion of Kern County.

3This extension was not requested for the

following counties: Kern, Kings, Madera, Merced

and Tulare. Thus, the attainment date for these

counties remained December 31, 1982.

4Among other things, the pre-amendment

guidance consists of those portions of the proposed

post-1987 ozone and carbon monoxide policy that

concern RACT, 52 FR 45044 (November 24, 1987);

‘‘Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints,

Deficiencies, and Deviations, Clarification to

Appendix D of November 24, 1987 Federal Register

Notice’’ (Blue Book) (notice of availability was

published in the Federal Register on May 25, 1988);

and the existing control technique guidelines

(CTGs).

5The San Diego County and the San Joaquin

Valley Areas were redesignated nonattainment and

classified by operation of law pursuant to sections

107(d) and 181(a) upon the date of enactment of the

CAA. See 55 FR 56694 (November 6, 1991).

6EPA 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).

Light Crude Oil and Gas Production

Facilities and Components at Natural

Gas Processing Facilities. These rules

were submitted by the California Air

Resources Board to EPA on January 24,

1995 and February 24, 1995

respectively.

Background

On March 3, 1978, EPA promulgated

a list of ozone nonattainment areas

under the provisions of the Clean Air

Act, as amended in 1977 (1977 CAA or

pre-amended Act), that included the

San Diego County Area and San Joaquin

Valley Area which includes the

following eight air pollution control

districts (APCDs): Fresno County APCD,

Kern County APCD,1 Kings County

APCD, Madera County APCD, Merced

County APCD, San Joaquin County

APCD, Stanislaus County APCD, and

Tulare County APCD.2 43 FR 8964; 40

CFR 81.305. Because these areas were

unable to meet the statutory attainment

date of December 31, 1982, California

requested under section 172(a)(2), and

EPA approved, an extension of the

attainment date to December 31, 1987.3

40 CFR 52.222. On May 26, 1988, EPA

notified the Governor of California,

pursuant to section 110(a)(2)(H) of the

pre-amended Act, that the above

districts’ portions of the California SIP

were inadequate to attain and maintain

the ozone standard and requested that

deficiencies in the existing SIP be

corrected (EPA’s SIP-Call). On

November 15, 1990, the Clean Air Act

Amendments of 1990 were enacted.

Public Law 101–549, 104 Stat. 2399,

codified at 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q. In

amended section 182(a)(2)(A) of the

CAA, Congress statutorily adopted the

requirement that nonattainment areas

fix their deficient reasonably available

control technology (RACT) rules for

ozone and established a deadline of May

15, 1991 for states to submit corrections

of those deficiencies.

Section 182(a)(2)(A) applies to areas

designated as nonattainment prior to

enactment of the amendments and

classified as marginal or above as of the

date of enactment. It requires such areas

to adopt and correct RACT rules

pursuant to pre-amended section 172(b)

as interpreted in pre-amendment

guidance.4 EPA’s SIP-Call used that

guidance to indicate the necessary

corrections for specific nonattainment

areas. Both the San Diego County Area

and the San Joaquin Valley Area are

classified as serious; 5 therefore, these

areas were subject to the RACT fix-up

requirement and the May 15, 1991

deadline.

The State of California submitted

many revised RACT rules for

incorporation into its SIP on January 24,

1995 and February 24, 1994, including

the rules being acted on in this

document. This document addresses

EPA’s proposed action for SDCAPCD

Rule 61.1, Receiving and Storing

Volatile Organic Compounds at Bulk

Plants and Bulk Terminals; and

SJVUAPCD Rule 4403, Components

Serving Light Crude Oil or Gases at

Light Crude Oil and Gas Production

Facilities and Components at Natural

Gas Processing Facilities. SDCAPCD

adopted Rule 61.1 on January 10, 1995

and SJVUAPCD adopted Rule 4403 on

February 16, 1995. These submitted

rules were found to be complete on

February 24, 1995 and March 10, 1995

pursuant to EPA’s completeness criteria

that are set forth in 40 CFR Part 51

Appendix V 6 and are being proposed

for approval into the SIP.

SDCAPCD Rule 61.1 controls VOC

emissions from fixed and floating roof

tanks at bulk plants and terminals.

SJVUAPCD Rule 4403 controls VOC

fugitive emissions from oil and gas

production and processing facilities.

VOCs contribute to the production of

ground-level ozone and smog. The rules

were adopted as part of each district’s

efforts to achieve the National Ambient

Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for

ozone and in response to EPA’s SIP-Call

and the section 182(a)(2)(A) CAA

requirement. The following is EPA’s

evaluation and proposed action for

these rules.

EPA Evaluation and Proposed Action

In determining the approvability of a

VOC rule, EPA must evaluate the rule

for consistency with the requirements of

the CAA and EPA regulations, as found

in section 110 and Part D of the CAA

and 40 CFR Part 51 (Requirements for

Preparation, Adoption, and Submittal of

Implementation Plans). The EPA

interpretation of these requirements,

which forms the basis for today’s action,

appears in the various EPA policy

guidance documents listed in footnote

4. Among those provisions is the

requirement that a VOC rule must, at a

minimum, provide for the

implementation of RACT for stationary

sources of VOC emissions. This

requirement was carried forth from the

pre-amended Act.

For the purpose of assisting state and

local agencies in developing RACT

rules, EPA prepared a series of Control

Technique Guideline (CTG) documents.

The CTGs are based on the underlying

requirements of the Act and specify the

presumptive norms for what is RACT

for specific source categories. Under the

CAA, Congress ratified EPA’s use of

these documents, as well as other

Agency policy, for requiring States to

‘‘fix-up’’ their RACT rules. See section

182(a)(2)(A). The CTGs applicable to

these rules are entitled, ‘‘Control of

Volatile Organic Emissions from

Petroleum Liquid Storage in External

Floating Roof Tanks,’’ EPA 450/2–78–

047; ‘‘Control of Volatile Organic

Emissions from Petroleum Liquid

Storage in Fixed Roof Tanks,’’ EPA 450/

2–77–036; and ‘‘Control of Volatile

Organic Compound Equipment Leaks

from Natural Gas/Gasoline Processing

Plants,’’ EPA–450/3–83–007. Further

interpretations of EPA policy are found

in the Blue Book, referred to in footnote

4. In general, these guidance documents

have been set forth to ensure that VOC

rules are fully enforceable and

strengthen or maintain the SIP.

SDCAPCD Rule 61.1, Receiving and

Storing Volatile Organic Compounds at

Bulk Plants and Bulk Terminals

includes the following significant

changes from the current SIP:

• The exemption section was revised

to delete the reference to rule 11.

• A recordkeeping requirement was

added to demonstrate exemption

eligibility.

• Test methods were added for

determination of true vapor pressure

and control efficiency of vapor control

systems. (A detailed summary of rule

changes is provided in the Technical
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 59 / Tuesday, March 28, 1995 / Proposed Rules 15893

Support Document (TSD) dated March

7, 1995).

• SJVUAPCD Rule 4403, Components

Serving Light Crude Oil or Gases and

Light Crude Oil and Gas Production

Facilities and Components at Natural

Gas Processing Facilities includes the

following significant changes from the

current SIP:

• Definitions have been added for

rule clarification.

• The exemption section was

amended to exclude components from

being exempt from leak minimization or

recordkeeping requirements.

• Violation language was added so

that any leaks in excess of the leak

thresholds will constitute a violation of

the rule.

• The variance provision has been

removed.

• Repair procedures for essential

components have been added.

• Various recordkeeping

requirements were added.

• The test method section was

amended to reference methods for

determining true vapor pressure. (A

detailed summary of rule changes is

provided in the TSD dated March 7,

1995).

EPA has evaluated the submitted

rules and has determined that they are

consistent with the CAA, EPA

regulations, and EPA policy. Therefore,

SDCAPCD Rule 61.1, Receiving and

Storing Volatile Organic Compounds at

Bulk Plants and Bulk Terminals; and

SJVUAPCD Rule 4403, Components

Serving Light Crude Oil and Gas

Production Facilities and Components

at Natural Gas Processing Facilities, are

being proposed for approval under

section 110(k)(3) of the CAA as meeting

the requirements of section 110(a) and

Part D.

Nothing in this action should be

construed as permitting or allowing or

establishing a precedent for any future

request for revision to any state

implementation plan. 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.

Regulatory Process

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act,

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

prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis

assessing the impact of any proposed or

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

§§ 603 and 604. Alternatively, EPA may

certify that the rule will not have a

significant impact on a substantial

number of small entities. Small entities

include small businesses, small not-forprofit 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 CAA

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 CAA, preparation

of a regulatory flexibility analysis would

constitute Federal inquiry into the

economic reasonableness of state action.

The CAA 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).

The OMB has exempted this action

from review under Executive Order

12866.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Hydrocarbons,

Intergovernmental relations, Ozone,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Volatile organic

compound.

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q.

Date Signed: March 16, 1995.

Felicia Marcus,

Regional Administrator

[FR Doc. 95–7472 Filed 3–27–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

50 CFR Parts 649, 650 and 651

[I.D. 031695A]

New England Fishery Management

Council; Public Meeting

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

ACTION: Public meeting; request for

comments.

SUMMARY: The New England Fishery

Management Council (Council) will

hold a 2-day public meeting to consider

actions affecting the New England

fisheries in the exclusive economic zone

(EEZ).

DATES: The meetings are scheduled as

follows:

1. March 29, 1995, 10 a.m.; and

2. March 30, 1995, 8:30 a.m.

Comments must be received by March

30, 1995.

ADDRESSES: The meetings will be held at

the King’s Grant Inn, Route 128 and

Trask Lane, Danvers, MA 01923;

telephone: 508–774–6800. Comments

may be sent to the Executive Director,

New England Fishery Management

Council, 5 Broadway, Saugus, MA

01906.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Douglas G. Marshall, Executive Director;

telephone: 617–231–0422.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Wednesday, March 29, 1995

The meeting will begin with

introductions and announcements. The

Groundfish Oversight Committee will

report on its progress in developing

management alternatives for

Amendment 7 to the Northeast

Multispecies Fishery Management Plan

(FMP), in consideration of low

abundances of key fish stocks in the

northeast. This meeting will be the first

at which the Groundfish Committeeinitiated framework adjustment to the

Northeast Multispecies and Sea Scallop

FMPs will be discussed. The purpose of

the framework is to correct the baseline

used by Vessel Tracking Systems (VTS)

to calculate days at sea (DAS).

During the afternoon session, Dr.

William Hogarth of NMFS will brief the

Council on the management status of

weakfish and striped bass. Following

his presentation, the Ad Hoc Committee

on the Reauthorization of the Magnuson

Fishery Conservation and Management

Act will discuss aspects of the various

reauthorization bills and ask the full

Council for its views.

Thursday, March 30, 1995

The Lobster Committee will discuss

the list of potential issues to be

reviewed in the Council’s public

hearing document for a lobster stock

rebuilding/effort reduction program.

This will be the final meeting to

consider a framework adjustment to the

Lobster FMP that would address a range

of issues related to lobster limited

access permits (see below). The Sea

Scallop Committee will revisit the issue

of specifications for twine tops used in

scallop gear and referred to in

Framework Adjustment 5 to the Scallop

FMP. This will also be the final meeting

to consider Framework Adjustment 5 to

the FMP that would modify gear

restrictions for scallop limited access

fishing vessels (see below). The Gear

Conflict Committee will report on its

efforts to reach an agreement that might

reduce interactions between various