        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Parts 622 and 697
        [Docket No. 0612242961-7381-01]
        RIN 0648-AT13
        Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Cooperative Management Act Provisions; Atlantic Coast Red Drum Fishery off the Atlantic States; Transfer of Management Authority

          AGENCY:
          National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS issues this proposed rule to repeal the Atlantic Coast Red Drum Fishery Management Plan (FMP) and to transfer the management authority of Atlantic red drum in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) from the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (South Atlantic Council), in cooperation with the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Mid-Atlantic Council), under the Magnuson-Stevens Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) to the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (Commission) under the Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Cooperative Management Act (Atlantic Coastal Act), as requested by the Councils and the Commission. The intent of this action is to enhance the effectiveness and efficiency of managing Atlantic red drum.

          DATES:
          Written comments on this proposed rule must be received no later than 5 p.m., eastern time, on May 5, 2008.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments, identified by “0648-AT13”, by any one of the following methods:

          • Electronic Submissions: Submit electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
          • Fax: 727-824-5308; Attention: Kate Michie.
          • Mail: Kate Michie, Southeast Regional Office, NMFS, 263 13th Avenue South, St. Petersburg, FL 33701.

          Instructions: All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted to http://www.regulations.gov without change. All Personal Identifying Information (for example, name, address, etc.) voluntarily submitted by the commenter may be publicly accessible. Do not submit Confidential Business Information or otherwise sensitive or protected information.
          NMFS will accept anonymous comments. Attachments to electronic comments will be accepted in Microsoft Word, Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe PDF file formats only.

          Copies of the environmental assessment, which describes the impacts of the transfer of management authority, may be obtained from Kate Michie at the address above or by e-mail at: Kate.Michie@noaa.gov.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Kate Michie, telephone: 727-824-5305, fax: 727-824-5308, e-mail: Kate.Michie@noaa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        The Atlantic red drum fishery off the South Atlantic and Mid-Atlantic coastal states is currently managed under two separate FMPs. Atlantic red drum located in the EEZ are managed under the Atlantic Coast Red Drum FMP prepared by the South Atlantic Council, in cooperation with the Mid-Atlantic Council (Council FMP), and implemented under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Act by regulations at 50 CFR part 622. The Council FMP prohibits harvest or possession of red drum in the South Atlantic and Mid-Atlantic EEZ. Atlantic red drum located in state waters are managed under the Interstate Fishery Management Plan (ISFMP) for Red Drum (Commission FMP) by the Atlantic coast states (New Jersey through Florida) and the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission. The Commission was established under the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission Compact, an interstate compact approved by Congress in 1942. This proposed rule would repeal the Council FMP and implementing regulations issued under the Magnuson-Stevens Act and replace them with substantially identical regulations under the Atlantic Coastal Act. to the Commission under the Atlantic Coastal Act. The Atlantic Coastal Act allows the Federal government to better coordinate its management practices with the states via the Commission process. The repeal of the Council FMP would occur at the same time as this rule is implemented.
        Statutory Authority
        Section 803(b) of the Atlantic Coastal Act, 16 U.S.C. 5101 et seq., states that in the absence of an approved and implemented FMP under the Magnuson-Stevens Act (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.), and, after consultation with the appropriate Fishery Management Council(s), the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) may implement regulations to govern fishing in the EEZ, which in this case is from 3 to 200 nautical miles (nm) offshore. These regulations must be (1) compatible with the effective implementation of an ISFMP developed by the Commission and (2) consistent with the national standards set forth in section 301 of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Regulations may include measures recommended by the Commission to the Secretary that are necessary to support the provisions of the Commission FMP.
        Purpose and Need for the Transfer of Management Authority
        The management of red drum (Sciaenops ocellatus) is greatly influenced by the biology of the fish. The younger fish are found primarily in state waters (estuaries and inlets) while the larger fish and schools may be found in either the offshore state waters (shore to 3 nm) or Federal waters (3 to 200 nm offshore). Because of this distribution, juveniles tend to experience higher rates of exploitation than the offshore adult population. According to the most recent stock assessment of Atlantic red drum, conducted in 2000, recruitment of individuals to the spawning stock continues to decline, largely due to excessive fishing mortality on juvenile red drum, predominantly in state waters.
        Since most of the day-to-day management and all harvest of red drum takes place in state waters, the South Atlantic Council, the Mid-Atlantic Council, and the Commission have requested that Atlantic red drum in the South Atlantic and Mid-Atlantic EEZ be managed under the Atlantic Coastal Act instead of under the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Managing Atlantic red drum under a single FMP would minimize management costs and eliminate unnecessary duplication of management efforts.
        Background
        In the early 1980's, Atlantic coastal states realized that significant overfishing of juvenile red drum had been occurring in state waters for some time. At the same time, a purse seine fishery for red drum developed in the Gulf of Mexico EEZ. Although Gulf red drum is a different stock than Atlantic red drum, there was concern that a purse seine fishery might develop in the South Atlantic. Given these conditions, the Commission implemented an ISFMP for Atlantic red drum in 1984. Although this ISFMP addressed overfishing in state waters, it lacked the authority to protect the Atlantic red drum spawning stock in the EEZ.
        The South Atlantic Council, in cooperation with the Mid-Atlantic Council, developed the Council FMP in 1990 under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. The management unit for Atlantic red drum was defined as the population of red drum occurring along the United States Atlantic coast from the Federal boundary, separating the Gulf of Mexico EEZ from the South Atlantic EEZ to the New Jersey/New York line. Regulations implementing the Council FMP (55 FR 47059, November 9, 1990) prohibited the possession or harvest of red drum in this management area.
        Objectives of the Council FMP included: (1) Maintaining a spawning stock biomass sufficient to prevent recruitment failure by working cooperatively with the states to provide a 30-percent escapement of juvenile red drum to the spawning stock and control fishing mortality to achieve at least a 30-percent spawning stock biomass per recruit level; (2) providing a flexible management system to address incompatibility and inconsistency among state and Federal regulations which minimizes regulatory delay while retaining substantial Council and public input into management decisions and which can adapt to changes in resource abundance, new scientific information, and changes in fishing patterns among user groups or by area; and (3) promoting cooperative collection of biological, economic, and sociological data required to effectively monitor and assess the status of the red drum resource and evaluate management efforts.
        In 1991, the Commission implemented Amendment 1 to their ISFMP for red drum to make it compatible with the Council FMP. Escapement rates of juvenile red drum increased as a result of Amendment 1 to the ISFMP for red drum, however, overall exploitation estimates indicated that overfishing was still occurring in state waters.

        In 1993, the Atlantic Coastal Act was enacted to facilitate coordination of inter-jurisdictional fisheries management (16 U.S.C. 5101 et seq). The Atlantic Coastal Act acknowledges the Commission's authority for preparing and adopting coastal FMPs and facilitates the states' implementation and enforcement of these FMPs in their waters. Under the Atlantic Coastal Act, Federal support is still required for cooperative interstate management. The Commission FMP for Atlantic red drum was adopted under the authority of the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Compact, originally approved by Congress in 1940.
        In 1998, the Secretary approved Amendment 1 to the Council FMP, which identified essential fish habitat and habitat areas of particular concern. In 2000, Amendment 2 to the Council FMP established new proxy reference points for red drum, based on a 40-percent static spawning potential ratio (SPR) of the stock. However, under the Commission FMP, state management measures were still based on an SPR of 30 percent and red drum continued to be overfished. Therefore, to reduce mortality of juvenile red drum in state waters and achieve optimum yield from the stock, the South Atlantic Council's Red Drum Management Committee and the Commission's South Atlantic State-Federal Management Board recommended the Commission implement compatible management measures.
        In June 2002, the Commission developed and approved Amendment 2 to the Commission FMP, which among other things, updated the Commission FMP to meet the standards for Commission FMPs under the Atlantic Coastal Act. The management goal of Amendment 2 was to achieve and maintain the optimum yield for the Atlantic red drum fishery, i.e. the amount of harvest U.S. fishermen could take while maintaining the SPR at or above 40 percent. To meet this goal, Amendment 2 required states to implement appropriate bag and size limits. In addition, all states agreed to maintain their current level of harvest restrictions to preclude the establishment of any new commercial fisheries for red drum.

        The Commission's Red Drum Plan Review Team examined the status of the Atlantic red drum stock the next year. They found that although escapement of juvenile red drum to the EEZ was increasing (by approximately 15 percent in the southern region and 18 percent in the northern region), it was increasing by only approximately half of the desired rate of 30 percent. Thus, overfishing of juvenile red drum in state waters was still occurring.
        Following implementation of Amendment 2 to the Commission FMP, the Councils determined they had done all they could to protect the Atlantic red drum spawning stock, but lacked the ability to prevent overfishing of juveniles in state waters under the present management structure. As a result, the Mid-Atlantic and South Atlantic Councils requested in letters dated December 9, 2003, and October 26, 2004, respectively, that the Secretary repeal the Council FMP, as authorized under section 304(h) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and use the authority provided by the Atlantic Coastal Act to manage red drum in Federal waters of the U.S. Atlantic, with the provision that the current EEZ harvest or possession prohibitions remain in place. The letters stated that the basis for the Councils' requests was that the Commission has an Atlantic red drum FMP that mirrors the Council FMP, and 100 percent of the harvest and most of the day-to-day management of Atlantic red drum takes place in state waters under the Commission's jurisdiction. The letters also stated that consolidating the management of Atlantic red drum under one management authority, namely the Commission, would minimize costs and avoid unnecessary duplication as mandated by national standard 7 of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, without having any adverse impacts on the red drum resource. This would provide for a more efficient and timely mechanism to address managing Atlantic red drum throughout its range.
        The Commission supported these requests in a December 17, 2004, letter to NOAA's Assistant Administrator for Fisheries. The Commission requested that the current EEZ harvest or possession prohibitions remain in place, and that the process of withdrawing the Council FMP and establishing management authority under the Atlantic Coastal Act be a simultaneous action to ensure continuous protection of Atlantic red drum in the EEZ.
        Benefits of the Change in Management Authority
        Consistent with national standard 7, this action would reduce management costs and avoid unnecessary duplication of management efforts. Under the Atlantic Coastal Act, the Secretary will maintain the existing harvest or possession prohibitions in the EEZ, and the states, NMFS, and the U.S. Coast Guard will continue to enforce those prohibitions. Repealing the Council FMP under the Magnuson-Stevens Act and simultaneously implementing comparable regulations under the Commission FMP under the Atlantic Coastal Act, will provide for a more efficient and timely rebuilding of the Atlantic red drum resource.
        Classification
        Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, I have determined that this proposed rule is consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable law, subject to further consideration after public comment.
        This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
        The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration that this proposed rule, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The basis for this is as follows:

          No small entities, as defined by the Regulatory Flexibility Act, are directly or indirectly impacted by the rule and the rule has no direct or indirect economic costs. Specifically, this rule would transfer management of the Atlantic Red Drum Resource from the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council to the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (Commission) to reduce management costs by avoiding unnecessary duplication of management efforts. The Commission is the creation of 15 member states and each member state is represented by 3 Commissioners: the director for the state's marine fisheries management agency, a state legislator, and an individual appointed by the governor. Neither the Commission, which is directly affected by this rule, nor its member states are small governmental jurisdictions as defined by the RFA. The transfer would not require the Commission to change its existing Red Drum Fishery Management Plan, nor, in turn, would it require member states to change their existing regulations regarding harvest of red drum by small or large entities. Consequently, this rule would not require the Commission, its member states, or entities operating within the states to change existing practices. The Secretary would maintain the existing prohibitions in the EEZ, and NMFS and the U.S. Coast Guard would continue to enforce those prohibitions.

        As a result, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis is not required and none has been prepared.

          List of Subjects

          50 CFR Part 622

        Fisheries, Fishing, Puerto Rico, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Virgin Islands.

          50 CFR Part 697

        Fisheries, Fishing.

          Dated: March 28, 2008.
          James W. Balsiger,
          Acting Assistant Administrator For Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

        For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR parts 622 and 697, are proposed to be amended as follows:

          PART 622—FISHERIES OF THE CARIBBEAN, GULF, AND SOUTH ATLANTIC
          1. The authority citation for part 622 continues to read as follows.

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

            § 622.1 [Amended]

          2. In § 622.1, Table 1, the entries for “Atlantic Coast Red Drum FMP” are removed.

            § 622.32 [Amended]

          3. In § 622.32, remove paragraph (b)(3), and redesignate paragraph (b)(4) as paragraph (b)(3); remove newly redesignated paragraph (b)(3)(iii), and redesignate newly redesignated paragraphs (b)(3)(iv) through (vi) as paragraphs (b)(3)(iii) through (v).

            § 622.48 [Amended]

          4. In § 622.48, remove paragraph (k), and redesignate paragraphs (l) and (m) as paragraphs (k) and (l), respectively.

          PART 697—ATLANTIC COASTAL FISHERIES COOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT
          5. The authority citation for part 697 continues to read as follows:

            Authority:
            16 U.S.C. 5101 et seq.

            6. In § 697.2(a), the definition of “Atlantic red drum” is added and the definition of “Regional Administrator” is revised, in alphabetical order, to read as follows:

            § 697.2
            Definitions.
            (a) * * *

              Atlantic red drum, also called redfish, means Sciaenops ocellatus, or a part thereof, found in the waters of the Atlantic Ocean off the Atlantic coastal states, to the outer boundary of the EEZ, as specified in § 600.10 of this chapter, from the boundary of the United States and Canada, to the boundary between the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council and the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, as specified in § 600.105(c) of this chapter.

              Regional Administrator, means Regional Administrator, Northeast Region, NMFS, or Regional Administrator, Southeast Region, NMFS, whichever has the applicable jurisdiction, or a respective designee.

            7. In § 697.7, paragraph (f) is added to read as follows:

            § 697.7
            Prohibitions.

            (f) Atlantic red drum fishery. In addition to the prohibitions set forth in § 600.725 of this chapter, it is unlawful for any person to do any of the following:
            (1) Harvest or possess Atlantic red drum in the EEZ south of a line extending in a direction of 115° from true north commencing at a point at 40°29.6′ N. lat., 73°54.1′ W. long., such point being the intersection of the New Jersey/New York boundary with the 3-nm line denoting the seaward limit of state waters, and north of the demarcation line between the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council and the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council described in § 600.105(c) of this chapter.
            (2) Fail to release immediately without further harm, all Atlantic red drum caught in the EEZ area described in paragraph (f)(1) of this section.
            8. In § 697.22, the introductory text and paragraph (a)(1) are revised to read as follows:

            § 697.22
            Exempted fishing.
            The Regional Administrator or Director may exempt any person or vessel from the requirements of this part for the conduct of exempted fishing beneficial to the management of the American lobster, weakfish, Atlantic red drum, Atlantic striped bass, Atlantic sturgeon, or horseshoe crab resource or fishery, pursuant to the provisions of § 600.745 of this chapter.
            (a) * * *
            (1) Have a detrimental effect on the American lobster, weakfish, Atlantic red drum, Atlantic striped bass, Atlantic sturgeon, or horseshoe crab resource or fishery; or

      [FR Doc. E8-6955 Filed 4-2-08; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-S


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Parts 222 and 223
        [I.D. 062501B]
        RIN 0648-AN62
        Endangered and Threatened Wildlife; Sea Turtle Conservation Requirements

          AGENCY:
          National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

          ACTION:
          Public hearing notice; extension of public comment period.

          SUMMARY:

          Notice is hereby given that the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Department of Commerce, will extend the public comment period, through December 31, 2001, for the purpose of receiving comments on the proposed rule to amend the regulations protecting sea turtles to enhance their effectiveness in reducing sea turtle mortality resulting from shrimp trawling in the Atlantic and Gulf Areas of the southeastern United States, published in the Federal Register on October 2, 2001.

          DATES:
          Written comments should be received by December 31, 2001.

          ADDRESSES:
          Written comments should be addressed to the Chief, Endangered Species Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD  20910.  Comments may also be sent via fax to 301-713-0376.  Comments will not be accepted if submitted via e-mail or the Internet.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Robert Hoffman (ph. 727-570-5312, fax 727-570-5517, e-mail Robert.Hoffman@noaa.gov), or Therese A. Conant (ph. 301-713-1401, fax 301-713-0376, e-mail Therese.Conant@noaa.gov).

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Turtle excluder devices (TEDs) have proven to be effective at excluding sea turtles from shrimp trawls; however, NMFS has determined that modifications to the design of TEDs need to be made to exclude leatherbacks and large, sexually mature loggerhead and green  turtles; several approved TED designs are structurally weak and do not function properly under normal fishing conditions; and modifications to the trynet and bait shrimp exemptions to the TED requirements are necessary to decrease lethal take of sea  turtles.  These proposed amendments are necessary to protect endangered and threatened sea turtles in the Atlantic and Gulf Areas.

          Dated: November 13, 2001.
          David Cottingham
          Deputy Director, Office of Protected Resources, National marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 01-28877 Filed 11-14-01; 2:50 pm]
      BILLING CODE  3510-22-S


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 622
        [ I.D. 052301E]
        Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council; Public Hearings

          AGENCY:
          National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

          ACTION:
          Notice of public hearings; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          The Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (Council) will convene public hearings to receive comments on its proposed Amendment 18 to the Fishery Management Plan for the Reef Fish Resources of the Gulf of Mexico that proposes to establish a 10-year red grouper stock rebuilding program and address other reef fish fishery gear and enforcement issues.

          DATES:
          The public hearings will be held in June.  See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for specific dates and times of the public hearings.  Written comments will be accepted until June 28, 2001.

          ADDRESSES:

          Written comments should be sent to and copies of draft Amendment 18 and its draft supplemental environmental impact statement (DSEIS) are available from the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, 3018 U.S. Highway 301, North, Suite 1000, Tampa, FL  33619; telephone 813-228-2815.  Public hearings will be held in Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida.  See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for specific hearing locations.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Mr. Steven Atran, Population Dynamics Statistician, Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council; 813-228-2815.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        In October 2000, NMFS informed the Council that it had determined that the Gulf of Mexico red grouper stock is overfished and undergoing overfishing.  Under the Magnuson-Steven Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), the Council is required to propose management measures to initiate rebuilding the stock within one year of NMFS’ determination that the stock is overfished.   -
        The Council has developed Amendment 18, in part, to address its responsibility under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, to propose stock rebuilding measures for red grouper.  The Council will convene public hearings to review draft Amendment 18 and its  accompanying DSEIS.  Amendment 18 proposes to establish a 10-year red grouper rebuilding program and address other gear and enforcement issues.  The issues and proposed alternative measures contained in draft Amendment 18 are summarized below; the section references refer to sections of the draft Amendment 18 document.  -
        Draft Amendment 18 Issues and Alternative Measures
        Longline and Buoy Gear Endorsement (Section 6.1.1)
        6.1.1.1  Establish a longline/buoy gear endorsement - No preferred alternative selected. -
        6.1.1.2  Transferability of endorsement - Fully transferable. -
        6.1.1.3  Appeals board - Appeals to be handled by NMFS.

          Longline and Buoy Gear Boundary Line (Section 6.1.2) - No          preferred alternative selected.

          Longline and Buoy Gear Phase-Out (Section 6.1.3) -  No preferred   alternative selected.

          Use of Powerheads When Spearfishing (Section 6.2) - Require a permit for the use of powerheads when reef fish fishing (both commercially and recreationally), and eliminate the regulatory exemption that allows the use of powerheads in the stressed area for harvest of sand perch, dwarf sand perch, and hogfish.

          Use of Reef Fish for Bait (Section 7.0) - Prohibit the use of all species in the reef fish management unit or parts thereof, except sand perch and dwarf sand perch, with any gear for bait.  No preferred alternative has been selected regarding whether to apply this provision to commercial fishing, recreational fishing, or both.

          Vessel Monitoring System (Section 8.0) - Require fishing vessels engaged in the bottom (reef fish) longline fishery to be equipped with an electronic vessel monitoring system (VMS), with the cost of the vessel equipment, installation, maintenance, and month-to-month communications to be paid or arranged by the owners as appropriate.  NMFS would maintain and publish in the Federal Register a list of type-approved units and communications protocols.
        Dormant Reef Fish Permits (Section 9.0) - No preferred alternative selected. -
        Red Grouper Rebuilding Plan (Section 10.0)
        10.1 Red Grouper Sustainable Fishing Parameters - Set red grouper maximum sustainable yield (MSY), fishing mortality rate at MSY (FMSY), and spawning stock biomass proxy at MSY (SSMSY) at the range of values estimated by the Reef Fish Stock Assessment Panel, MSY = 6.705 to 7.012 million pounds; FMSY = 0.223 to 0.270; SSMSY = 350.7 to 433.2 million grams female gonad weight. -
        10.2 Red Grouper Minimum Stock Size Threshold (MSST) - Red grouper minimum stock size threshold (MSST) shall be 80% of SSMSY (280.6 to 346.6 million grams female gonad weight). -
        10.3 Red Grouper Maximum Fishing Mortality Threshold (MFMT) - Red grouper maximum fishing mortality threshold (MFMT) shall be FMSY (0.223 to 0.270), or the F consistent with recovery to the MSY level in no more than 10 years.  -
        10.4 Red Grouper Optimum Yield (OY) - Red grouper optimum yield (OY) shall be 90% of MSY (6.035 to 6.311 million pounds). -
        10.5 Red Grouper Rebuilding Strategy - Adopt a 10-year red grouper rebuilding plan based on a constant catch strategy.  The annual ABC during the rebuilding period is initially set at 4.3-5.2 million pounds. (This is a reduction of 21-34 percent from the 1996-99 average landings of 6.6 million pounds.)  This ABC range may be modified following a future stock assessment by a regulatory amendment or plan amendment. -
        10.6 Commercial Shallow-Water Grouper Closed Seasons, Reef Fish Recreational Harvest on a Commercial Vessel, and Reef Fish Fishing Year - In addition to consideration of commercial shallow-water grouper closed seasons, this section also contains an alternative to consider prohibiting the retention of both commercial and recreational harvest of reef fish species on the same trip, and an alternative to consider changing the start of the fishing year for stocks that have a fixed closed season.  No preferred alternative selected. -
        10.7 Recreational Closed Seasons - No preferred alternative selected. -
        10.8 Commercial Grouper Trip Limits - No preferred alternative selected. -
        10.9 Recreational Grouper Bag Limits - No preferred alternative selected.
        10.10 Closed Areas - No preferred alternative selected.

          Tilefish and Deep-Water Grouper Quotas and Closed Seasons(Section 11.0) - Combine tilefish and deep-water grouper into a new deep-water reef fish aggregate; set the new deep-water reef fish quota at 1.47 million pounds (which is the average annual harvest of tilefish and deep-water grouper from 1996-99); and consider a closed season for deep-water grouper and tilefish.

          Changes to the Reef Fish Management Unit (Section 12.0) - Add the following species to the FMP management unit as indicated:  Add the marbled grouper (Epinephelus inermis)to the shallow-water grouper aggregate under the management unit; and add the sand tilefish (Malacanthus plumieri) to the management unit.

          Modifications to the Reef Fish FMP’s Framework Procedure for Setting Total Allowable Catch (TAC) (Section 13.0) - The primary modification is to allow a species TAC and commercial-to-recreational allocation to be set for an individual species within an aggregate (such as the shallow-water grouper aggregate) that differs from the aggregate allocation, provided the aggregate allocation remains as specified.  A second modification allows NMFS stock assessments to report the status of stocks in terms of biomass or biomass proxy instead of spawning potential ratio (SPR).  This section also contains an alternative to consider specifying that, if a TAC is set for red grouper or gag, the allocations will be based on catch histories of those stocks for the years 1986 to 1999.   -
        Time and Location for Public Hearings
        Public hearings for Reef Fish Amendment 18 will be held at the following locations and dates from 7 p.m. - 10 p.m.
        1.  Thursday, June 14, 2001, Port Aransas Community Center, 408  North Allister, Port Aransas, TX.
        2.  Monday, June 18, 2001, Larose Regional Park, 307 East 5th Street, Larose, LA.
        3.  Tuesday, June 19, 2001, Imperial Palace Hotel, 850 Bayview, Biloxi, MS.
        4.  Wednesday, June 20, 2001, Hilton Beachfront Garden Inn, 23092 Perdido Beach Boulevard, Orange Beach, AL.
        5.  Thursday, June 21, 2001, National Marine Fisheries Service, 3500 Delwood Beach Road, Panama City, FL.-
        6.  Monday, June 25, 2001, Holiday Inn Beachside, 3841 North Roosevelt Boulevard, Key West, FL.
        7.  Tuesday, June 26, 2001, Edison Comm. College, Hendry Hall, room K143, Ft. Myers, FL (Use Shoreline Blvd. entrance.  Park in 1st lot on right (Lot 8).  For Map directions see: http://www.edison.edu/aboutecc/lee_campus.htm).
        8.  Wednesday, June 27, 2001, Madeira Beach City Hall, 300 Municipal Drive, Madeira Beach, FL.
        9.  -Thursday, June 28, 2001, Plantation Inn, 9301 West Fort Island Trail, Crystal River, FL. -

        The Council will also hear public testimony before taking final action on Amendment 18 at another meeting.  A notification of the date, time, and location of that meeting will be published in the Federal Register.  The Council will accept written comments received by June 28, 2001. -
        Special Accommodations
        These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities.  Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Anne Alford at the Council (see ADDRESSES) by June 7, 2001.

          Dated: June 7, 2001.
          Richard W. Surdi,
          Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 01-14893 Filed 6-8-01; 3:25 pm]
      BILLING CODE  3510-22-S


        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
        40 CFR Part 52
        [EPA-R09-OAR-2019-0493; FRL-9999-98-Region 9]
        Air Plan Conditional Approval; Arizona; Maricopa County

          AGENCY:
          Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:
          The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to conditionally approve revisions to the Maricopa County Air Quality Department (MCAQD or the County) portion of the Arizona State Implementation Plan (SIP). These revisions concern emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) from organic liquid and gasoline storage and transfer operations. We are proposing to conditionally approve local rules to regulate these emission sources under the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act) and conditionally approve the County's demonstration regarding Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) requirements for the 2008 8-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) in the Phoenix-Mesa ozone nonattainment area, with respect to petroleum liquid storage and gasoline transfer and transport. We are taking comments on this proposal and plan to follow with a final action.

          DATES:
          Any comments must arrive by October 23, 2019.

          ADDRESSES:

          Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-OAR-2019-0493 at https://www.regulations.gov. For comments submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Rebecca Newhouse, EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne St., San Francisco, CA 94105, (415) 972-3004, newhouse.rebecca@epa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Throughout this document, “we,” “us” and “our” refer to the EPA.
        Table of Contents

          I. The State's Submittal
          A. What did the State submit?
          B. Are there earlier versions of the submitted documents in the SIP?
          C. What is the purpose of the submitted documents?
          II. The EPA's Evaluation and Action
          A. How is the EPA evaluating the submitted documents?
          B. Do the submitted documents meet the evaluation criteria?
          C. What are the deficiencies?
          D. What are the commitments to remedy the deficiencies?
          E. The EPA's Recommendations To Further Improve the Submitted Rules
          F. Public Comment and Proposed Action
          III. Incorporation by Reference
          IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

        I. The State's Submittal
        A. What did the State submit?
        Table 1 lists the documents addressed by this proposal with the dates that they were adopted by the local air agency and submitted by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ or the State).

          Table 1—Submitted Documents

            Local agency
            Document
            Revised
            Submitted

            MCAQD
            Analysis of Reasonably Available Control Technology for the 2008 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) State Implementation Plan (RACT SIP)

              1 06/16/2017
            06/22/2017

            MCAQD
            Rule 350: Storage and Transfer of Organic Liquids (Non-Gasoline) at an Organic Liquid Distribution Facility
            11/02/2016
            06/22/2017

            MCAQD
            Rule 351: Storage and Loading of Gasoline at Bulk Gasoline Plants and Bulk Gasoline Terminals
            11/02/2016
            06/22/2017

            MCAQD
            Rule 352: Gasoline Cargo Tank Testing and Use
            11/02/2016
            06/22/2017

            MCAQD
            Rule 353: Storage and Loading of Gasoline at Gasoline Dispensing Facilities
            11/02/2016
            06/22/2017

        On December 22, 2017, the submittal containing the documents listed in Table 1 was deemed by operation of law to meet the completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51 Appendix V, which must be met before formal EPA review.

            1 This document is dated December 5, 2016. It was adopted by the County on June 16, 2017.

        In addition to these SIP submittals, the County and the ADEQ transmitted letters to the EPA 2 3
           committing to adopt and submit specific enforceable measures within a year of our final action that would remedy the deficiencies identified in this notice and further described in the associated technical support documents (TSDs) for this action.

            2 Letter dated January 28, 2019, from Philip A. McNeely, Director, MCAQD, to Misael Cabrera, Director, ADEQ.

            3 Letter dated February 25, 2019, from Misael Cabrera, Director, ADEQ, to Michael Stoker, Regional Administrator, EPA, Region IX.

        The County's submittal states that Rules 350, 351, 352 and 353 were submitted to regulate sources associated with the Control Techniques Guidelines (CTGs) shown in Table 2:

            4 See RACT SIP, Appendix C: CTG RACT Spreadsheet.

          Table 2—Rules and Associated CTGs 4

            County rule
            Associated CTGs

            Rule 350
            Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Storage of Petroleum Liquids in Fixed-Roof Tanks (EPA-450/2-77-036).

            Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Petroleum Liquid Storage in External Floating Roof Tanks (EPA-450/2-78-047).

            Rule 351
            Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Storage of Petroleum Liquids in Fixed-Roof Tanks (EPA-450/2-77-036).

            Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Petroleum Liquid Storage in External Floating Roof Tanks (EPA-450/2-78-047).

            Control of Hydrocarbons from Tank Truck Gasoline Loading Terminals (EPA-450/2-77-026).

            Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Bulk Gasoline Plants (EPA-450/2-77-035).

            Rule 352
            Control of Volatile Organic Compound Leaks from Gasoline Tank Trucks and Vapor Collection Systems (EPA-450/2-78-051).

            Rule 353
            Design Criteria for Stage I Vapor Control Systems—Gasoline Service Stations (EPA-450/R-75-102).

        B. Are there earlier versions of the submitted documents in the SIP?
        We approved earlier versions of the rules listed in Table 1 into the SIP on September 5, 1995 (Rules 350 and 352) (60 FR 46024), February 9, 1998 (Rule 351) (63 FR 6489), and on February 1, 1996 (Rule 353) (61 FR 3578). There is no previously approved version of the RACT SIP for the 2008 8-hour ozone standard in the MCAQD portion of the Arizona SIP. The ADEQ previously submitted the documents in Table 1 in a SIP revision on December 19, 2016, along with the County's RACT SIP. However, this submittal did not include documentation that showed the entirety of the County's SIP revision had met the public notice requirements required for completeness under 40 CFR part 51 Appendix V. The County's June 22, 2017 submittal was provided in response to this feedback, and the State withdrew the December 19, 2016 submittal on May 17, 2019.5

            5 Letter dated May 17, 2019, from Timothy S. Franquist, Director, Air Quality Division, ADEQ, to Michael Stoker, Regional Administrator, Region IX.

        C. What is the purpose of the submitted documents?
        Emissions of VOCs contribute to the production of ground-level ozone, smog and particulate matter, which harm human health and the environment. Section 110(a) of the CAA requires states to submit regulations that control VOC emissions. Section 182(b)(2) requires that SIPs for ozone nonattainment areas classified as Moderate or above implement RACT for any source covered by a CTG document and for any major sources of VOCs. The MCAQD is subject to this requirement as it regulates a portion of the Phoenix-Mesa ozone nonattainment area, which is classified as Moderate for the 2008 8-hr ozone NAAQS (40 CFR 81.303).
        Section III.D of the preamble to the EPA's final rule to implement the 2008 ozone 8-hour ozone NAAQS (80 FR 12264, March 6, 2015) discusses RACT requirements. It states in part that RACT SIPs must contain adopted RACT regulations, certifications where appropriate that existing provisions are RACT, and/or negative declarations that there are no sources in the nonattainment areas covered by a specific CTG category. The County's RACT SIP provides MCAQD's analyses of its compliance with the CAA section 182 RACT requirements for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. As a result of this analysis, the County revised and submitted the rules listed in Table 1 to establish RACT-level controls for VOC emissions from the petroleum liquid storage and gasoline transfer and transport CTG source categories shown in Table 2.
        The EPA's TSDs have more information about the submitted rules and RACT SIP.
        II. The EPA's Evaluation and Action
        A. How is the EPA evaluating the submitted documents?
        Rules in the SIP must be enforceable (see CAA section 110(a)(2)), must not interfere with applicable requirements concerning attainment and reasonable further progress or other CAA requirements (see CAA section 110(l)), and must not modify certain SIP control requirements in nonattainment areas without ensuring equivalent or greater emissions reductions (see CAA section 193).
        Generally, SIP rules must require RACT for each category of sources covered by a CTG document as well as each major source of VOCs in ozone nonattainment areas classified as Moderate or above (see CAA section 182(b)(2)). The MCAQD regulates a portion of the Phoenix-Mesa ozone nonattainment area, which is classified as Moderate for the 2008 8-hr ozone NAAQS 40 CFR 81.303. Therefore, these rules must implement RACT.
        The County's RACT SIP explains that Rules 350, 351, 352, and 353 were revised and submitted in order to meet the RACT requirement for the source categories listed in Table 2. Accordingly, our evaluation of whether these rules establish RACT levels of control also constitutes our evaluation of the approvability of the MCAQD RACT SIP, with respect to those CTG source categories.
        Guidance and policy documents that we used to evaluate enforceability, revision/relaxation and rule stringency requirements for the applicable criteria pollutants include the following:
        1. “State Implementation Plans; General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,” 57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992); 57 FR 18070 (April 28, 1992).
        2. “Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and Deviations,” EPA, May 25, 1988 (the Bluebook, revised January 11, 1990).
        3. “Guidance Document for Correcting Common VOC & Other Rule Deficiencies,” EPA Region 9, August 21, 2001 (the Little Bluebook).
        4. “Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Storage of Petroleum Liquids in Fixed-Roof Tanks,” EPA-450/2-77-036, December 1977.
        5. “Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Petroleum Liquid Storage in External Floating Roof Tanks,” EPA-450/2-78-047, December 1978.
        6. “Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Bulk Gasoline Plants,” EPA-450/2-77-035, December 1977.
        7. “Control of Hydrocarbons from Tank Truck Gasoline Loading Terminals,” EPA-450/2-77-026, October 1977.
        8. “Control of Volatile Organic Compound Leaks from Gasoline Tank Trucks and Vapor Collection Systems,” EPA-450/2-78-051, December 1978.
        9. “Design Criteria for Stage I Vapor Control Systems-Gasoline Service Stations,” EPA-450/R-75-102, November 1975.
        10. “Alternative Control Techniques Document: Volatile Organic Liquid Storage in Floating and Fixed Roof Tanks,” EPA-453/R-94-001, January 1994.
        B. Do the submitted documents meet the evaluation criteria?
        Rules 350, 351, 352, and 353 apply to sources of VOC emissions from organic liquid storage and gasoline transfer and storage operations in the Phoenix-Mesa area. The four rules are generally more stringent than the applicable CTGs, have requirements for organic liquid and gasoline storage and transfer that are generally consistent with other local air district rules for these source categories, and are largely consistent with the applicable CAA requirements. However, as identified below, the rules contain deficiencies that preclude full approval. In a letter dated January 28, 2019 (the “commitment letter”), the County identified certain rule deficiencies and committed to revise those provisions in accordance with EPA guidance, and submit the revised rules within eleven months of a conditional approval.6
           On February 25, 2019, the ADEQ provided its own commitment to submit the County's revised rules to the EPA within one month after the County's action and request for SIP revision.7

           Because the commitments by the County and ADEQ would remedy the identified rule deficiencies, we propose to conditionally approve Rules 350, 351, 352, and 353, and the RACT SIP with respect to the VOC source categories covered by Rules 350, 351, 352, 353 (as provided in Table 2). Summaries of the specific rule deficiencies and the County's commitments to address those deficiencies are included in the following sections.

            6 Letter dated January 28, 2019, from Philip A. McNeely, Director, MCAQD, to Misael Cabrera, Director, ADEQ.

            7 Letter dated February 25, 2019, from Misael Cabrera, Director, ADEQ, to Michael Stoker, Region Administrator, EPA, Region IX.

        Our TSDs for Rules 350, 351, 352, and 353 provide further details on our evaluation for these proposed conditional approvals.
        C. What are the deficiencies?
        The following provisions of Rules 350, 351, 352, and 353 do not fully satisfy the requirements of section 110 and part D of title I of the Act and prevent full approval of the SIP revision.
        1. Rule 350 Deficiencies 8

            8 Rule deficiencies throughout this section marked with an asterisk (*) also apply to Rule 351; those marked with a dagger (†) also apply to Rule 352.

        (a) Rule 350 includes exemptions from rule requirements for fuel consumed or dispensed at the facility directly to users, hazardous waste, which is undefined, and wastewater and ballast water, none of which are exempted from the applicable CTGs.
        (b) The rule lacks an emissions limit for bulk terminals transferring organic liquid. The SIP-approved version requires an emissions limit of 0.08 lbs VOCs/1000 gallons transferred.9

            9 The 0.08 lbs VOC/1000 gallons limit is included in SIP-approved Rule 351, which contains transfer requirements for organic liquid and gasoline.

        (c) The rule contains inappropriate use of director's discretion with respect to the opening of hatches or seals on cargo tanks.* †
        (d) Several sections do not clearly state rule prohibitions, and instead require owners and operators with particular types of tanks to put some amount of liquid into tanks that meet certain requirements. Section 301.3, in particular, appears to be missing the word “not” in a way that impacts the effectiveness of the requirement.*
        (e) The rule exempts roofs from the requirement that they always be floating on liquid when the tank is being filled, instead of only while filling after the tank has been emptied completely.*
        (f) The rule is not clear regarding which external floating roof tanks are exempt from the rule's requirements.*
        (g) The rule does not clearly specify vapor control requirements for internal floating roof tanks.
        (h) The rule contains an overly broad provision, allowing the opening of hatches, vent valves, or vapor sealing devices for vacuum relief when organic liquid is transferred from the cargo tank or railcar into a storage tank.*
        2. Rule 351 Deficiencies 10

            10 For additional Rule 351 deficiencies, please see Rule 350 deficiencies (c)-(f) and (h).

        (a) The rule allows the use of a less stringent compliance option than the SIP-approved rule for controlling VOC vapors from gasoline storage.11

            11 The vapor loss control requirement is included in SIP-approved Rule 350, which contains storage requirements for organic liquid and gasoline.

        (b) Rule 351 requirements for gasoline transfers at bulk plants are not as strict as requirements that have been demonstrated to be reasonably available in other air districts, as there is no emissions limit or vapor recovery efficiency requirement when vapor balance systems are used.
        (c) The rule exempts the loading of aviation gasoline at airports from the rule's gasoline transfer requirements, which is not exempted from applicable CTGs or other analogous SIP-approved district rules.12

            12 This deficiency also applies to Rule 352 and Rule 353.

        3. Rule 352 Deficiencies 13

            13 For additional Rule 352 deficiencies, please see Rule 350 deficiency (c), and Rule 351 deficiency (c).

        (a) The rule exempts cargo tanks with gasoline loads that originated outside of Arizona, and gasoline loads delivered outside Maricopa County, from the rule's gasoline cargo tank vapor tightness requirements. Exemptions from vapor tightness requirements based on where the cargo tank is initially filled or where it ultimately delivers gasoline are not provided for in the applicable CTG.
        (b) The rule provides inappropriate discretion to unspecified agencies to certify cargo tanks vapor tight.
        (c) The rule allows gasoline cargo tank vapor tightness tests to remain valid for up to two years, whereas the CTG and rules from other air districts require more frequent testing.
        (d) The rule allows inappropriate discretion for the opening of cargo tank hatches during loading.
        (e) No test method is specified for determining compliance with the provision requiring a 90% reduction in VOC emissions by weight when purging cargo tank vapors.
        (f) The rule does not clearly prohibit purging of gasoline vapors from cargo tanks, including during switch loading, and may relax purging provisions as compared to the SIP-approved rule.
        4. Rule 353 Deficiencies 14

            14 For an additional Rule 353 deficiency, please see Rule 351 deficiency (c).

        (a) The rule exempts an owner or operator from certain rule requirements if the gasoline dispensing facility (GDF) is unattended or there is only one owner or operator present. As there may be one attendant at a GDF in many instances for a variety of reasons, this exemption is overly broad and presents enforceability challenges.
        D. What are the commitments to remedy the deficiencies?
        The County's commitment letter includes specific and enforceable commitments, outlined below, to address the above deficiencies for Rules 350, 351, 352, and 353.
        1. Rule 350 Commitments 15

            15 Rule commitments throughout this section marked with an asterisk (*) also apply to Rule 351; those marked with a dagger (†) also apply to Rule 352.

        (a) Removing the exemptions for fuel consumed or dispensed at the facility directly to users, hazardous waste, wastewater, and ballast water, to address section II.C.1.a, above.
        (b) Adding an emissions limit for organic liquid distribution facilities transferring over 600,000 gallons per 30-day period of organic liquid, based on a RACT analysis, to address II.C.1.b, above.
        (c) Deleting the provision that allows Control Officer discretion for approval of hatch or seal opening, to address II.C.1.c, above.* †
        (d) Rephrasing and restructuring the requirements for organic liquid storage tanks to clarify the specified requirements without weakening any substantive requirements, to address II.C.1.d, above.*
        (e) Clarifying that the floating roof exemption will only apply when the tank is filled initially, after it is drained completely and subsequently refilled, or when undergoing maintenance requiring the roof be rested on its leg supports, to address II.C.1.e, above.*
        (f) Removing the specified exemption for external floating roof tanks, to address II.C.1.f, above.*
        (g) Deleting the specified section, and adding requirements for internal floating roof organic liquid storage tanks that match SIP-approved requirements, to address II.C.1.g, above.
        (h) Limiting the conditions under which a hatch, vent valve, or vapor sealing device may be open during the organic liquid transfer from the cargo tank to the storage tank to those necessary to avoid unsafe operating conditions, to address II.C.1.h, above.*
        2. Commitments for Rule 351 16

            16 For additional Rule 351 commitments, please see Rule 350 commitments (c)-(f) and (h), above.

        (a) Adding vapor loss control requirements that will be at least as stringent as the SIP-approved version, to address II.C.2.a above.

        (b) Revising Rule 351 to include an emissions limit or vapor recovery efficiency for loading at a bulk gasoline plant, based on a RACT analysis, to address II.C.2.b, above.

        (c) Removing the exemption for aviation gasoline loading at airports, to address II.C.2.c, above.17

            17 This commitment also applies to Rule 352 and Rule 353.

        3. Commitments for Rule 352 18

            18 For additional Rule 352 commitments, please see Rule 350 commitment (c), and Rule 351 commitment (c).

        (a) Removing the vapor tightness test exemption for cargo tanks with gasoline loads that originated outside of Arizona and gasoline loads delivered outside Maricopa County, to address II.C.3.a, above.
        (b) Requiring that a gasoline cargo tank tested outside Maricopa County be tested and verified vapor tight using methods at least as stringent as those found in the County's rule, and that testing documentation be submitted to the MCAQD, to address II.C.3.b.
        (c) Revising vapor tightness certification expiration requirements to shorten the maximum testing interval, to address II.C.3.c.
        (d) Revising to clarify and limit the conditions under which a hatch, vent valve, or vapor sealing device may be open during the transfer of gasoline from the cargo tank, to address II.C.3.d.
        (e) Including appropriate EPA-approved test methods to determine compliance with at least a 90% reduction in VOC emissions by weight, to address II.C.3.e.
        (f) Revising the purging requirements to include a prohibition on purging that is at least as stringent as the SIP-approved version, to address II.C.3.f.
        4. Commitments for Rule 353 19

            19 For an additional Rule 353 commitment, please see Rule 351 commitment (c).

        (a) Deleting the exemption for unattended GDFs, or GDFs where there is only one owner or operator present, to address II.C.4.a.
        E. The EPA's Recommendations To Further Improve the Submitted Rules
        The TSDs for Rule 350, 351, 352, and 353 describe additional rule revisions that we recommend for the next time the County modifies the rules.
        F. Public Comment and Proposed Action
        Rules 350, 351, 352, and 353 largely fulfill the relevant CAA § 110 and part D requirements, but the deficiencies, as discussed in section C, preclude full SIP approval pursuant to 110(k)(3) of the Act. Section 110(k)(4) authorizes the EPA to conditionally approve SIP revisions based on a commitment by the state to adopt specific enforceable measures by a date certain but not later than one year after the date of the plan approval.20
           Because the MCAQD and the ADEQ have committed to provide the EPA with a SIP submission within one year of this final action that will include specific rule revisions that would adequately address the identified deficiencies, we are proposing to conditionally approve Rules 350, 351, 352, and 353, pursuant to section 110(k)(4) of the Act. We are also proposing to conditionally approve MCAQD's RACT demonstrations for the 2008 8-hr ozone NAAQS with respect to the VOC source categories covered by Rules 350, 351, 352, and 353, as specified in Table 2. If the MCAQD and the ADEQ submit the required rule revisions by the specified deadline, and the EPA approves the submission, then the identified deficiencies will be cured. However, if these proposed conditional approvals are finalized, and MCAQD, through the ADEQ, fails to submit these revisions within the required timeframe, the conditional approval would be treated as a disapproval for those rules for which the revisions are not submitted (and the associated RACT SIP CTG source categories). We will accept comments from the public on this proposal until October 23, 2019. If we take final action to approve the submitted rules, our final action will incorporate these rules into the federally enforceable SIP.

            20 42 U.S.C. 7410(k)(4).

        III. Incorporation by Reference

        In this rule, the EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule, regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to incorporate by reference the MCAQD rules described in Table 1 of this preamble. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials available through https://www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region IX Office (please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more information).
        IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

        Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders can be found at https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.

        A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
        This action is not a significant regulatory action and was therefore not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review.
        B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulations and Controlling Regulatory Costs
        This action is not an Executive Order 13771 regulatory action because actions such as SIP approvals are exempted under Executive Order 12866.
        C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
        This action does not impose an information collection burden under the PRA, because the proposed conditional approvals, if finalized, will not in-and-of themselves create any new information collection burdens, but will simply conditionally approve certain State requirements for inclusion in the SIP.
        D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
        I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This action will not impose any requirements on small entities. These proposed conditional approvals, if finalized, will not in-and-of themselves create any new requirements but will simply conditionally approve certain State requirements for inclusion in the SIP.
        E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
        This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. This action proposes to conditionally approve 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.
        F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
        This action does not have federalism implications. It 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.
        G. Executive Order 13175: Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments

        This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175, because the SIP revisions that the EPA is proposing to conditionally approve would not apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction, and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.
        H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
        The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect children, per the definition of “covered regulatory action” in section 2-202 of the Executive Order. This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because the proposed conditional approvals, if finalized, will not in-and-of themselves create any new regulations, but will simply conditionally approve certain State requirements for inclusion in the SIP.
        I. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
        This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
        J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)
        Section 12(d) of the NTTAA directs the EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. The EPA believes that this action is not subject to the requirements of section 12(d) of the NTTAA because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA.
        K. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Population
        The EPA lacks the discretionary authority to address environmental justice in this rulemaking.

          List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
          Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

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

          Dated: September 6, 2019.
          Deborah Jordan,
          Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.

      [FR Doc. 2019-20425 Filed 9-20-19; 8:45 am]
       BILLING CODE 6560-50-P