        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 648
        [Docket No. 170314268-7268-01]
        RIN 0648-BG68
        Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Recreational Management Measures for the Summer Flounder and Scup Fisheries; Fishing Year 2017

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

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS proposes management measures for the 2017 summer flounder and scup recreational fisheries. The implementing regulations for these fisheries require NMFS to publish recreational measures for the fishing year and to provide an opportunity for public comment. The intent of these measures is to constrain recreational catch to established limits and prevent overfishing of the summer flounder and scup resources. We are proposing the 2017 management measures and revised specifications for the recreational black sea bass fishery in separate actions.

          DATES:
          Comments must be received by 5 p.m. local time, on May 4, 2017.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments on this document, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2017-0022, by either of the following methods:

            Electronic submission: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal.
          • Go to www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2017-0022,

          • Click the “Comment Now!” icon, complete the required fields
          • Enter or attach your comments.

          Or

            Mail: Submit written comments to John Bullard, Regional Administrator, Greater Atlantic Region, 55 Great Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930.

            Instructions: Comments sent by any other method, to any other address or individual, or received after the end of the comment period, may not be considered by NMFS. All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted for public viewing on www.regulations.gov without change. All personal identifying information (e.g., name, address, etc.), confidential business information, or otherwise sensitive information submitted voluntarily by the sender will be publicly accessible. NMFS will accept anonymous comments (enter “N/A” in the required fields if you wish to remain anonymous).

          Copies of the Supplemental Information Report (SIR) and other supporting documents for the recreational harvest measures are available from Dr. Christopher M. Moore, Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, Suite 201, 800 N. State Street, Dover, DE 19901. The recreational harvest measures document is also accessible via the Internet at: http://www.greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Peter Burns, Fishery Policy Analyst, (978) 281-9144.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Summary of Proposed Management Measures
        In this rule, NMFS proposes management measures for the 2017 summer flounder and scup recreational fisheries consistent with the recommendations of the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council and the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission. To allow for consideration of the results of a new black sea bass benchmark stock assessment released in early 2017, the Council is addressing revised black sea bass specifications and recreational management measures separately from the summer flounder and scup recreational fisheries. Accordingly, we are proposing the revised specifications and 2017 recreational management measures for black sea bass in separate rulemakings.
        NMFS is proposing measures that would apply in the Federal waters of the exclusive economic zone (EEZ). These measures apply to all federally-permitted party/charter vessels with applicable summer flounder and scup permits, regardless of where they fish, unless the state in which they land implements measures that are more restrictive. These measures are intended to achieve, but not exceed, the previously established 2017 recreational harvest limits for scup through a final rule published on December 28, 2015 (80 FR 80689), and for summer flounder in a final rule that published on December 22, 2016 (81 FR 93842).
        The 2017 summer flounder recreational harvest limit is 3.77 million lb (1,710 mt), a decrease from the 2016 harvest limit of 5.42 million lb (2,458 mt). Preliminary estimates indicate that the 2016 recreational landings are 6.38 million lb (2,893 mt). These 2016 projected landings are based on preliminary Marine Recreational Information Program estimates through Wave 6 (November and December 2016). Accordingly, more restrictive management measures are necessary in 2017 to reduce landings by approximately 41 percent, compared to 2016 landings, to ensure that the landings do not exceed the recreational harvest limit.
        For summer flounder, we are proposing to continue the use of conservation equivalency measures to all the states, through the Commission, to determine the most appropriate measures to constrain the landings to the 2017 recreational harvest limit. We also propose a suite of non-preferred coastwide measures that would constrain landings to the 2017 recreational harvest limits should we not adopt the conservation equivalency approach recommended by the Council and Commission and serve as a benchmark for regional conservation equivalency proposals. Should we approve the use of conservation equivalency, we will simply waive the coastwide measures for vessels fishing in Federal waters, provided the vessel's state has implemented measures approved through the Commission process. In addition, we propose a set of precautionary default measures that a state or region must implement if they fail to provide measures that are consistent with the Commission plan.
        We are not proposing any changes to the recreational measures for the 2017 recreational scup fishery, as the current suite of management measures are expected to effectively constrain landings to the 2017 recreational harvest limit.

        The specific management measures for both fisheries are further described below in this preamble. All proposed minimum fish sizes are total length measurements of the fish, i.e., the straight-line distance from the tip of the snout to the end of the tail while the fish is lying on its side. All proposed possession limits are per person per trip.
        Background and Management Process

        The summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass fisheries are managed cooperatively under the provisions of the Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Fishery Management Plan (FMP) developed by the Council and the Commission, in consultation with the New England and South Atlantic Fishery Management Councils. The management units specified in the FMP include summer flounder (Paralichthys dentatus) in U.S. waters of the Atlantic Ocean from the southern border of North Carolina northward to the U.S./Canada border, and scup (Stenotomus chrysops) and black sea bass (Centropristis striata) in U.S. waters of the Atlantic Ocean from 35° 13.3′ N. lat. (the approximate latitude of Cape Hatteras, North Carolina). States manage these three species within 3 nautical miles (4.83 km) of their coasts, under the Commission's plan for summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass. The applicable species-specific Federal regulations govern vessels and individual fishermen fishing in Federal waters of the EEZ, as well as vessels possessing a summer flounder, scup, or black sea bass Federal charter/party vessel permit, regardless of where they fish.
        Recreational Management Measures Process

        The Council process for recommending recreational management measures to NMFS for rulemaking is generically described below. All meetings are open to the public and the materials utilized during such meetings, as well as any documents created to summarize the meeting results, are public information and posted on the Council's Web site (www.mafmc.org) or are available from the Council by request. Therefore, extensive background on the 2017 recreational management measures recommendation process is not repeated in this preamble.

        The FMP established monitoring committees for the three fisheries, consisting of representatives from the Commission, the Council, state marine fishery agency representatives from Massachusetts to North Carolina, and NMFS. The FMP's implementing regulations require the monitoring committees to review scientific and other relevant information annually. The objective of this review is to recommend management measures to the Council that will constrain landings within the recreational harvest limits established for the three fisheries for the upcoming fishing year. The FMP limits the choices for the types of measures to minimum fish size, per angler possession limit, and fishing season.
        The Council's Demersal Species Committee and the Commission's Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Management Board then consider the monitoring committees' recommendations and any public comment in making their recommendations to the Council and the Commission, respectively. The Council reviews the recommendations of the Demersal Species Committee, makes its own recommendations, and forwards them to NMFS for review. The Commission similarly adopts recommendations for the states. NMFS is required to review the Council's recommendations to ensure that they are consistent with the targets specified for each species in the FMP and all applicable laws and Executive Orders before ultimately implementing measures for Federal waters. Commission measures are final at the time they are adopted.
        Summer Flounder Conservation Equivalency Process
        Conservation equivalency, as established by Framework Adjustment 2 (July 29, 2001; 66 FR 36208), allows each state to establish its own recreational management measures (possession limits, minimum fish size, and fishing seasons) to achieve its state harvest limit partitioned by the Commission from the coastwide recreational harvest limit, as long as the combined effect of all of the states' management measures achieves the same level of conservation as would Federal coastwide measures. Framework Adjustment 6 (July 26, 2006; 71 FR 42315) allowed states to form regions for conservation equivalency in order to minimize differences in regulations for anglers fishing in adjacent waters.
        The Council and Board annually recommend that either state- or region-specific recreational measures be developed (conservation equivalency) or that coastwide management measures be implemented to ensure that the recreational harvest limit will not be exceeded. Even when the Council and Board recommend conservation equivalency, the Council must specify a set of coastwide measures that would apply if conservation equivalency is not approved for use in Federal waters.
        When conservation equivalency is recommended, and following confirmation that the proposed state or regional measures developed through the Commission's technical and policy review processes achieve conservation equivalency, NMFS may waive the permit condition found at § 648.4(b), which requires Federal permit holders to comply with the more restrictive management measures when state and Federal measures differ. In such a situation, federally permitted summer flounder charter/party permit holders and individuals fishing for summer flounder in the EEZ would then be subject to the recreational fishing measures implemented by the state in which they land summer flounder, rather than the coastwide measures.
        In addition, the Council and the Board must recommend precautionary default measures when recommending conservation equivalency. The Commission would require adoption of the precautionary default measures by any state that either does not submit a summer flounder management proposal to the Commission's Summer Flounder Technical Committee, or that submits measures that would exceed the Commission-specified harvest limit for that state.
        Much of the conservation equivalency measures development process happens at both the Commission and the individual state level. The selection of appropriate data and analytical techniques for technical review of potential state conservation equivalent measures and the process by which the Commission evaluates and recommends proposed conservation equivalent measures are wholly a function of the Commission and its individual member states. Individuals seeking information regarding the process to develop specific state measures or the Commission process for technical evaluation of proposed measures should contact the marine fisheries agency in the state of interest, the Commission, or both.

        Once the states and regions select their final 2017 summer flounder management measures through their respective development, analytical, and review processes and submit them to the Commission, the Commission will conduct further review and evaluation of the submitted proposals, ultimately notifying NMFS as to which proposals have been approved or disapproved. NMFS has no overarching authority in the development of state or Commission management measures, but is an equal participant along with all the member states in the review process. NMFS neither approves nor implements individual states' measures, but retains the final authority either to approve or to disapprove the use of conservation equivalency in place of the coastwide measures in Federal waters, and will publish its determination as a final rule in the Federal Register to establish the 2017 recreational measures for these fisheries.
        2017 Summer Flounder Recreational Management Measures

        NMFS proposes to implement the Council's and Commission's recommendation to use conservation equivalency to manage the 2017 summer flounder recreational fishery. The Council and Commission approved this approach at their joint meeting, held in December 2016. Consequently, in February 2017, the Board adopted Addendum XXVIII to its Summer Flounder FMP to continue regional conservation equivalency for fishing year 2017. The Commission has adopted the following regions, which are consistent with the 2016 regions: (1) Massachusetts; (2) Rhode Island; (3) Connecticut and New York; (4) New Jersey; (4) Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia; and (5) North Carolina. To provide the maximum amount of flexibility and to continue to adequately address the state-by-state differences in fish availability, each state in a region is required by the Council and Commission to establish fishing seasons of the same length, with identical minimum fish sizes and possession limits. The Commission will need to certify that these measures, in combination, are the conservation equivalent of coastwide measures that would be expected to result in the recreational harvest limit being achieved, but not exceeded. More information on this addendum is available from the Commission (www.asmfc.org).

        NMFS proposes a suite of non-preferred coastwide measures, consistent with those adopted by the the Council and Board for implementation in 2017. Under conservation equivalency, the cumulative impact of the regional recreational measures should achieve the same constraints on harvest as the non-preferred coastwide measures. For 2017, non-preferred coastwide measures approved by the Council and Board are a 19-inch (48.3-cm) minimum fish size, a 4-fish per person possession limit, and an open season from June 1 through September 15. These measures are expected to constrain the overall recreational landings to the 2017 recreational harvest limit. If a jurisdiction's measures do not achieve the level of conservation required by the Commission, that state or region must implement the precautionary default measures. The 2017 precautionary default measures recommended by the Council and Board and proposed herein are a 20.0-inch (50.8-cm) minimum fish size, a 2-fish per person possession limit, and an open season of July 1 through August 31, 2017.
        States and regions submitted their respective management measures to the Commission in March 2017. In a letter to the Greater Atlantic Regional Administrator dated April 5, 2017, the Commission informed us that it has reviewed the regional management proposals and determined that the proposals are sufficient to constrain landings to the 2017 recreational harvest limit.
        Scup Recreational Management Measures
        The 2017 scup recreational harvest limit is 5.50 million lb (2,494 mt) and 2016 recreational landings are currently estimated at 5.40 million lb (2,449 mt). The status quo management measures are a 9-inch (22.9-cm) minimum fish size, 50-fish per person possession limit, and year-round season. The Council recommends maintaining the existing management measures, as no changes are needed to ensure the 2017 recreational harvest limit is not exceeded, and further liberalization of the management measures is not requested or advisable. As a result, we are not proposing, for 2017, any changes to the current scup recreational management measures.
        Classification
        Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the Assistant Administrator has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with the Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass FMP, other provisions of 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.

        An IRFA was prepared by the Council, as required by section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), to examine the impacts of these proposed specifications on small business entities, if adopted. A description of the specifications, why they are being considered, and the legal basis for proposing and implementing specifications for the summer flounder fishery are contained in the preamble to this proposed rule. A copy of the detailed RFA analysis is available from NMFS or the Council (see ADDRESSES). The Council's analysis made use of quantitative approaches when possible. Where quantitative data on revenues or other business-related metrics that would provide insight to potential impacts were not available to inform the analyses, qualitative analyses were conducted. A summary of the 2017 summer flounder recreational fishery management measures RFA analysis follows.
        The Council conducted an evaluation of the potential socioeconomic impacts of the proposed measures in conjunction with a SIR. Because no regulatory changes are proposed that would affect the recreational scup fishery, they are not considered in the evaluation. The proposed measures would continue the use of conservation equivalency for summer flounder and maintain the existing scup recreational management measures.
        Description of the Reasons Why Action by the Agency Is Being Considered, and a Statement of the Objectives of, and Legal Basis for, This Proposed Rule
        This action proposes recreational harvest measures for the summer flounder and scup fisheries, intented to constrain the fisheries to the recreational harvest limits established for 2017. This action would maintain the current recreational management meausures for the 2017 recreational scup fishery and proposes the continuation of conservation equivalency, including non-preferred coastwide measures and precautionary default measures, for the 2017 recreational summer flounder fishery. A complete description of the action, why it is being considered, and the legal basis for this action are contained in the preamble to this proposed rule, and are not repeated here.
        Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which the Proposed Rule Would Apply
        A business primarily engaged in for-hire fishing activity is classified as a small business if it has combined annual receipts not in excess of $7.5 million (NAICS 11411) for Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) compliance purposes only. The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) is the standard used by Federal statistical agencies in classifying business establishments for the purpose of collecting, analyzing, and publishing statistical data related to the U.S. business economy.
        This proposed rule affects recreational fish harvesting entities engaged in the summer flounder fishery. Individually-permitted vessels may hold permits for several fisheries, harvesting species of fish that are regulated by several different FMPs, even beyond those impacted by the proposed action. Furthermore, multiple-permitted vessels and/or permits may be owned by entities affiliated by stock ownership, common management, identity of interest, contractual relationships, or economic dependency. For the purposes of the RFA analysis, the ownership entities, not the individual vessels, are considered to be the regulated entities.
        Ownership entities are defined as those entities with common ownership personnel as listed on the permit application. Only permits with identical ownership personnel are categorized as an ownership entity. For example, if five permits have the same seven persons listed as co-owners on their permit applications, those seven persons would form one ownership entity that holds those five permits. If two of those seven owners also co-own additional vessels, that ownership arrangement would be considered a separate ownership entity for the purpose of this analysis.
        The current ownership data set used for this analysis is based on calendar year 2015 (the most recent complete year available) and contains average gross sales associated with those permits for calendar years 2013 through 2015.
        A description of the specific permits that are likely to be impacted by this action is provided below, along with a discussion of the impacted businesses, which can include multiple vessels and/or permit types.
        The ownership data for the for-hire fleet indicate that there were 411 for-hire affiliate firms generating revenues from fishing recreationally for various species during the 2013-2015 period, all of which are categorized as small businesses. Although it is not possible to derive what proportion of the overall revenues came from specific fishing activities, given the popularity of summer flounder as a recreational species, it is likely that revenues generated from summer flounder recreational fishing are important for some, if not all, of these firms. The three-year average (2013-2015) gross receipts for these small entities ranged from $10,000 for 121 entities to over $1 million for 10 entites (highest value was $2.7 million).
        Description of the Projected Reporting, Record-Keeping, and Other Compliance Requirements of This Proposed Rule

        There are no new reporting or recordkeeping requirements contained in any of the alternatives considered for this action.

        Federal Rules Which May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With This Proposed Rule
        NMFS is not aware of any relevant Federal rules that may duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this proposed rule.
        Description of Significant Alternatives to the Proposed Action Which Accomplish the Stated Objectives of Applicable Statutes and Which Minimize Any Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities
        The proposed measures are designed to result in a 41-percent reduction in harvest, compared to 2016, requiring more restrictive measures that could include higher minimum size limits, lower possession limits, and shorter fishing seasons. Business entities that hold charter/party permits and are active participants in the fishery may be affected if the public demand for summer flounder fishing decreases as a result of more restrictive size limits, possession limits, and season length. Similar effects could result under the non-preferred approach that would enact coastwide measures in Federal waters. Like the conservation equivalency approach, coastwide measures would result in harvest restrictions, compared to 2016, to constrain landings to the reduced 2017 recreational harvest limit. Although there is no way to predict how the demand for charter/party trips might change under either scenario, the coastwide approach reduces the flexibility of states to adopt conservationally equivalent measures intended to optimize fishing opportunities, which could further impact the demand of summer flounder fishing in some states. Overall, adverse impacts on recreational anglers and party/charter operators are expected under conservation equivalency, but these impacts would be less adverse than if the coastwide measures were implemented.
        The proposed action, as required by the regulations governing the FMP, is designed to specify management measures to constrain catch to the 2017 summer flounder recreational harvest limit. The summer flounder regulations require us to publish a proposed rule regarding the overall percent adjustment in recreational landings required for the fishing year, and the Commission's recommendation concerning conservation equivalency, the precautionary default measures, and coastwide measures. The proposed action is consistent with the recommendations of the Council and Commission. The measures proposed herein are intended to meet the recommended adjustments required to constrain recreational catch to the 2017 recreational harvest limits to avoid overfishing of the summer flounder resource as required under the FMP. Accordingly, no other alternatives were considered.

          List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 648
          Fisheries, Fishing, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

          Dated: April 13, 2017.
          Alan D. Risenhoover,
          Acting Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

        For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 648 is proposed to be amended as follows:

          PART 648—FISHERIES OF THE NORTHEASTERN UNITED STATES

        1. The authority citation for part 648 continues to read as follows:

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

        2. In § 648.104, paragraph (b) is revised to read as follows:

          § 648.104
          Summer flounder minimum fish sizes.

          (b) Party/charter permitted vessels and recreational fishery participants. Unless otherwise specified pursuant to § 648.107, the minimum size for summer flounder is 19 inches (48.3 cm) TL for all vessels that do not qualify for a moratorium permit under § 648.4(a)(3), and charter boats holding a moratorium permit if fishing with more than three crew members, or party boats holding a moratorium permit if fishing with passengers for hire or carrying more than five crew members.

        3. In § 648.105 is revised to read as follows:

          § 648.105
          Summer flounder recreational fishing season.
          Unless otherwise specified pursuant to § 648.107, vessels that are not eligible for a moratorium permit under § 648.4(a)(3), and fishermen subject to the possession limit, may fish for summer flounder from June 1 through September 15. This time period may be adjusted pursuant to the procedures in § 648.102.

        4. In § 648.106, paragraph (a) is revised to read as follows:

          § 648.106
          Summer flounder possession restrictions.

            (a) Party/charter and recreational possession limits. Unless otherwise specified pursuant to § 648.107, no person shall possess more than four summer flounder in, or harvested from, the EEZ, per trip unless that person is the owner or operator of a fishing vessel issued a summer flounder moratorium permit, or is issued a summer flounder dealer permit. Persons aboard a commercial vessel that is not eligible for a summer flounder moratorium permit are subject to this possession limit. The owner, operator, and crew of a charter or party boat issued a summer flounder moratorium permit are subject to the possession limit when carrying passengers for hire or when carrying more than five crew members for a party boat, or more than three crew members for a charter boat. This possession limit may be adjusted pursuant to the procedures in § 648.102.

        5. In § 648.107, introductory text to paragraph (a) and paragraph (b) are revised to read as follows:

          § 648.107
           Conservation equivalent measures for the summer flounder fishery.
          (a) The Regional Administrator has determined that the recreational fishing measures proposed to be implemented by the states of Maine through North Carolina for 2017 are the conservation equivalent of the season, minimum size, and possession limit prescribed in §§ 648.102, 648.103, and 648.105(a), respectively. This determination is based on a recommendation from the Summer Flounder Board of the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission.

          (b) Federally permitted vessels subject to the recreational fishing measures of this part, and other recreational fishing vessels registered in states and subject to the recreational fishing measures of this part, whose fishery management measures are not determined by the Regional Administrator to be the conservation equivalent of the season, minimum size and possession limit prescribed in §§ 648.102, 648.103(b), and 648.105(a), respectively, due to the lack of, or the reversal of, a conservation equivalent recommendation from the Summer Flounder Board of the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission shall be subject to the following precautionary default measures: Season—July 1 through August 31; minimum size—20 inches (50.8 cm); and possession limit—two fish.

      [FR Doc. 2017-07886 Filed 4-18-17; 8:45 am]
       BILLING CODE 3510-22-P


        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
        40 CFR Part 52
        [EPA-R09-OAR-2012-0408; FRL-9680-1]
        Approval of Air Quality Implementation Plans; California; San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District; Prevention of Significant Deterioration

          AGENCY:
          Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:

          EPA is proposing approval of a permitting rule submitted for the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District (District) portion of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). The State is required under Part C of title I of the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) to adopt and implement a SIP-approved Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permit program. This SIP revision proposes to incorporate District Rule 2410—Prevention of Significant Deterioration—into the SIP to establish a PSD permit program for pre-construction review of certain new and modified major stationary sources in attainment or unclassifiable areas. The District is currently attainment or unclassifiable for the PM10, NO2, CO, and lead National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). We are soliciting public comments on this proposal and plan to follow with a final action after consideration of comments received.

          DATES:
          Any comments must be submitted no later than July 2, 2012.

          ADDRESSES:
          Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA-R09-OAR-2012-0408, by one of the following methods:
          1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions.
          2. Email: R9airpermits@epa.gov.

          3. Mail or deliver: Gerardo Rios (Air-3), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-3901.

            Instructions: All comments will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Information that you consider CBI or otherwise protected should be clearly identified as such and should not be submitted through www.regulations.gov or email. www.regulations.gov is an “anonymous access” system, and EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send email directly to EPA, your email address will be automatically captured and included as part of the public comment. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment.

            Docket: The index to the docket for this action is available electronically at www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. While all documents in the docket are listed in the index, some information may be publicly available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted material), and some may not be publicly available in either location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard copy materials, please schedule an appointment during normal business hours with the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section below.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Lisa Beckham, Permits Office (AIR-3), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, (415) 972-3811, beckham.lisa@epa.gov.

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

          I. The State's Submittal
          A. What rule did the State submit?
          B. Are there other versions of this rule?
          C. What is the purpose of the submitted rule?
          II. EPA's Evaluation and Action
          A. How is EPA evaluating this rule?
          B. Does the rule meet the evaluation criteria?
          C. Transfer of existing EPA-issued PSD permits.
          D. Public comment and proposed action.
          III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

        I. The State's Submittal
        A. What rule did the State submit?
        Table 1 lists the rule on which we are proposing action with the date it was adopted by the local agency and submitted to EPA by the California Air Resources Board (CARB).

          Table 1—Submitted Rule

            Local agency
            Rule No.
            Rule title
            Adopted
            Submitted

            SJVUAPCD
            2410
            Prevention of Significant Deterioration
            6/16/2011
            8/23/2011

        CAA section 110(k)(1)(B) requires EPA to determine whether a SIP submittal is complete within 60 days of receipt. This section also provides that any SIP submittal that we have not affirmatively determined to be complete or incomplete will become complete by operation of law six months after the day of submittal. The August 23, 2011 submittal of the District's PSD regulation became complete by operation of law on February 23, 2012.
        B. Are there other versions of this rule?
        There are no previous versions of Rule 2410 in the California SIP. The District originally adopted Rule 2410 on June 16, 2011 and it has not been revised since that date.
        C. What is the purpose of the submitted rule?
        Section 110(a) of the CAA requires states to adopt and submit regulations for the implementation, maintenance and enforcement of the primary and secondary NAAQS. Specifically, section 110(a)(2)(J) requires the state's plan to meet the applicable requirements of section 165 relating to a pre-construction permit program for the prevention of significant deterioration of air quality and visibility protection. The purpose of District Rule 2410—Prevention of Significant Deterioration, is to implement a pre-construction PSD permit program as required by section 165 of the CAA for certain new and modified major stationary sources located in attainment areas. Because the State does not currently have a SIP-approved PSD program within the District, EPA is currently the PSD permitting authority in the District. Inclusion of this rule into the SIP will transfer PSD permitting authority from EPA to the District. EPA would then assume the role of overseeing the District's PSD permitting program, as intended by the CAA.
        II. EPA's Evaluation and Action
        A. How is EPA evaluating this rule?
        The relevant statutory provisions for our review of the submitted rules include CAA sections 110(a), 110(l), and 165 and Part 51, section 166 of title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (40 CFR 51.166). Section 110(a) requires, among other things, that SIP rules be enforceable, while section 110(l) precludes EPA approval of SIP revisions that would interfere with any applicable requirements concerning attainment and reasonable further progress. Section 165 of the CAA requires states to adopt a pre-construction permitting program for certain new and modified major stationary sources located in attainment or unclassifiable areas. 40 CFR 51.166 establishes the specific requirements for SIP-approved PSD permit programs that must be met to satisfy the requirements of section 165 of the CAA.
        B. Does the rule meet the evaluation criteria?
        With some exclusions and revisions, Rule 2410 incorporates by reference EPA's PSD permit program at 40 CFR 52.21, as of June 16, 2011. We generally consider the EPA's PSD permit program to be consistent with the criteria in 40 CFR 51.166. However, we conducted a review of Rule 2410 to ensure that all requirements of 40 CFR 51.166 are met. Our evaluation is available as an attachment to the technical support document (TSD) for this rulemaking. We also reviewed the revisions the District made to the provisions of 40 CFR 52.21 that were incorporated by reference into Rule 2410, such as revising certain terms and definitions to reflect that the District, rather than the EPA, will be the PSD permitting authority. Rule 2410 also relies on the existing SIP-approved public notice requirements contained in Rule 2201—New Source Review. In addition, we reviewed revisions made to 40 CFR 51.166 and 52.21 after the District adopted Rule 2410. Please see the TSD for additional information. Based on our review of Rule 2410 and confirmation from the District, in a letter dated May 18, 2012, regarding its implementation procedures and commitment to revise Rule 2410 in the future for clarity, we are proposing to find the SIP revision acceptable under CAA sections 110(a), 110(l) and 165 and 40 CFR 51.166.
        EPA's TSD for this rulemaking has more information about this rule, including our evaluation and recommendation to approve it into the SIP.
        C. Transfer of Existing EPA-Issued PSD Permits

        The District has also requested approval to exercise its authority to administer the PSD program with respect to those sources located in the District that have existing PSD permits issued by EPA. This would include authority to conduct general administration of these existing permits, authority to process and issue any and all subsequent PSD permit actions relating to such permits (e.g., modifications, amendments, or revisions of any nature), and authority to enforce such permits. Pursuant to the criteria under section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) of the CAA, we have determined that the District has the authority, personnel, and funding to implement the PSD program within the District for existing EPA-issued permits. Concurrent with EPA's approval of the District's PSD program into the SIP, the EPA-issued permits would be transferred to the District. A list of these EPA-issued permits is provided as an attachment to the TSD. EPA intends to provide a copy of each permit to the District prior to the effective date of the final SIP approval.
        In order to promote an orderly transition of the PSD program from the EPA to the District, the efficient use of the District's and EPA's resources, and certainty for the regulated community and the public, EPA proposes to retain PSD permit implementation authority for those specific sources within the District that have submitted PSD permit applications to EPA and for which EPA has issued a proposed permit decision, but for which final agency action and/or the exhaustion of all administrative and judicial appeals processes (including any associated remand actions) have been not yet been concluded or completed upon the effective date of EPA's final action on Rule 2410. The District would assume full PSD responsibility for the administration and implementation of such PSD permits immediately upon notification from EPA that all administrative and judicial appeals processes and any associated remand actions have been completed or concluded for any such permit application.
        D. Public Comment and Proposed Action
        Because EPA believes the submitted rule fulfills all relevant requirements, we are proposing to fully approve it as a revision to the SIP pursuant to section 110(k)(3) of the Act. Specifically, we are proposing to approve District Rule 2410—Prevention of Significant Deterioration, as adopted by the District on June 16, 2011 and submitted by CARB on August 23, 2011.
        We will accept comments from the public on this proposal until July 2, 2012.
        III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
        Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve State choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this proposed action merely approves State law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by State law. For that reason, this proposed action:
        • Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);

        • Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);

        • Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
        • Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
        • Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
        • Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
        • Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
        • Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; and
        • Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address disproportionate human health or environmental effects with practical, appropriate, and legally permissible methods under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
        In addition, this proposed rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the State, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

          List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
          Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Greenhouse gases, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

          Dated: May 22, 2012.
          Jared Blumenfeld,
          Regional Administrator, Region IX.

      [FR Doc. 2012-13338 Filed 5-31-12; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
        40 CFR Part 52
        [PA 210-4302; FRL-7588-4]
        Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Pennsylvania; Revisions To Update the 1-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan for the Reading Area (Berks County)

          AGENCY:
          Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:
          EPA is proposing to approve a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. This revision amends Pennsylvania's ten-year plan to maintain the 1-hour ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) in the Reading area (Berks County). The maintenance plan is being amended to revise the attainment year inventories and motor vehicle emission budgets using MOBILE6. The contingency measures portion of the plan is also being amended. This action is being taken under the Clean Air Act.

          DATES:
          Written comments must be received on or before December 19, 2003.

          ADDRESSES:
          Written comments may be mailed to Robert Kramer, Chief, Energy, Radiation and Indoor Environment, Mailcode 3AP23, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the documents relevant to this action are available for public inspection during normal business hours at the Air Protection Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103; andthe Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Air Quality Control, P.O. Box 8468, 400 Market Street, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17105.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Martin T. Kotsch, Energy, Radiation and Indoor Environment Branch, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1650 Arch Street, Mail Code 3AP23, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103-20209, (215) 814-3335, or by e-mail at Kotsch.Martin@epa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        I. Background
        On May 7, 1997 ( 62 FR 24826), EPA approved Pennsylvania's redesignation request and ten year plan for continued maintenance of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS in the Reading area as a revision to the Pennsylvania SIP. This maintenance plan included, among other things, MOBILE5-based motor vehicle emissions budgets (MVEBs).
        On October 14, 2003, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) submitted a request that EPA parallel process revisions to the Pennsylvania SIP's 1-hour ozone maintenance plan for the Reading area.

        The maintenance plan identifies and establishes the applicable MVEBs for the Reading area to which the area's transportation improvement program and long range transportation plan must conform. Conformity to MVEBs in a SIP means that transportation activities will not produce new air quality violations, worsen existing violations, or delay timely attainment of the NAAQS. The Reading area maintenance plan identifies and establishes the applicable MVEBs for the Reading area for both volatile organic compounds (VOC) and nitrogen oxides (NOX), which are precursors of ground level ozone, for the years 1992, 2004, and 2007.

        The MOBILE model is an EPA emissions factor model for estimating pollution from on-road motor vehicles. The MOBILE model calculates emissions of VOCs, NOX and carbon monoxide (CO) from passenger cars, motorcycles, buses, and light-duty and heavy-duty trucks. The model accounts for the emission impacts of factors such as changes in vehicle emission standards, changes in vehicle populations and activity, and variation in local conditions such as temperature, humidity, fuel quality, and air quality programs. The MOBILE model is used to calculate current and future inventories of motor vehicle emissions at the national and local level. These inventories are used to make decisions about air pollution policies and programs at the local, State and national level. MOBILE-based inventories are also used to meet the Federal Clean Air Act's SIP and transportation conformity requirements.
        The MOBILE model was first developed in 1978. It has been updated many times to reflect changes in the vehicle fleet and fuels, to incorporate EPA's growing understanding of vehicle emissions, and to cover new emissions regulations and modeling needs. EPA released MOBILE6, a new version of the motor vehicle emissions factor model on January 29, 2002 (67 FR 4254). Although some minor updates were made in 1996 with the release of MOBILE5b, MOBILE6 is the first major revision to MOBILE since MOBILE5a was released in 1993. Beginning in January of 2004, all conformity determinations for new Transportation Improvement Programs and/or Transportation Plans will be required to use the MOBILE6 emissions model to demonstrate conformity.
        II. Summary of the Proposed SIP Revisions to the Reading Area Maintenance Plan
        A. Revisions to the Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets (MVEBs)
        In the original maintenance plan approved for the Reading area on May 7, 1997 (62 FR 24826), emissions growth was projected for all source categories (point, area, and highway mobile) starting with the year that the area attained the NAAQS (1992). Those original mobile emissions budgets were projected based on the MOBILE5 emissions model. The October 14, 2003, proposed SIP revision amends the mobile inventories for the attainment year (1992) and the MVEBs for 2004 and 2007 using MOBILE6.
        B. Revisions to the Contingency Measures

        In the original maintenance plan for the Reading area, the Commonwealth's motor vehicle inspection and maintenance (I&M) program was identified as a contingency measure. The October 14, 2003, proposed SIP revision moves the I&M program from the contingency measures portion of the plan and makes it part of the maintenance strategy. Improved rule effectiveness will remain as a contingency measure in the maintenance plan.
        III. EPA's Evaluation of the Proposed Revisions to the Reading Area Maintenance Plan
        A. The Revised Attainment Year (1992) Emission Inventories
        The DEP's October 14, 2003, proposed revisions revise the 1992 attainment year motor vehicle emissions inventories and the 2004 and 2007 MVEBs using the MOBILE6 model. EPA has articulated its policy regarding the use of MOBILE6 in SIP development in its “Policy Guidance on the Use of MOBILE6 for SIP Development and Transportation Conformity” 1

          .                                             EPA's review of the DEP's October 14, 2003, submittal indicates that it has appropriately applied this policy. EPA policy guidance also requires the Commonwealth to consider whether growth and control strategy assumptions for non-motor vehicle sources (i.e., point, area, and non-road mobile sources) were still accurate at the time the October 14, 2003, proposed revision was developed. Pennsylvania has reassessed the growth and control strategy assumptions for non-motor vehicle sources, and concluded that these assumptions continue to be valid for the 1-hour ozone maintenance demonstration for the Reading area.

            1 Memorandum, “Policy Guidance on the Use of MOBILE6 for SIP development and Transportation Conformity,” issued January 18, 2002. A copy of this memorandum can be found on EPA's Web site at http://www.epa.gov/otaq/transp/traqconf.htm.

        Table 1 summarizes the MOBILE6-based motor vehicle emissions inventories in tons per summer day (tpd) for the 1992 attainment year in the Reading area.

          Table 1.—MOBILE6-Based Motor Vehicle Emissions Inventories for the Reading Area

            Maintenance area
            1992 Attainment year
            VOC (tpd)
            NOX (tpd)

            Reading
            27.25
            35.57

        B. The Revised Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets (MVEBs)
        For the Reading area maintenance plan, the MVEBs are the projected on-road mobile source components of the 2004 and 2007 maintenance inventories. Table 2 below summarizes Pennsylvania's proposed revised MOBILE6-based budgets. These budgets were developed using the latest planning assumptions, including 2002 vehicle registration data, vehicle miles traveled, speeds, fleet mix, and SIP control measures. Because DEP's October 14, 2003, submittal satisfies the conditions outlined in EPA's MOBILE6 Policy guidance, and demonstrates that the new levels of motor vehicle emissions calculated using MOBILE6 continue to support maintenance of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS, EPA is proposing to approve these budgets.

          Table 2.—MOBILE6-Based MVEBs in the Maintenance Plan for the Reading Area

            Maintenance Area
            2004
            VOC (tpd)
            NOX (tpd)
            2007
            VOC (tpd)
            NOX (tpd)

            Reading Area (Berks County)
            17.02
            28.99
            13.81
            23.06

        The October 14, 2003, submittal demonstrates that the new levels of motor vehicle emissions calculated using MOBILE6 continue to support the demonstration of maintenance of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS for the Reading area. This is evidenced by the fact that the 2004 and 2007 MVEBs shown in Table 2 continue to be well below the 1992 MOBILE6 based MVEBs for their attainment year.
        IV. EPA's Proposed Action
        EPA is proposing to approve the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania's proposed revisions to the maintenance plan for the Reading area which were submitted on October 14, 2003. Long term maintenance of the NAAQS is deemed to be demonstrated when total projected growth in emissions in all categories remains below the level of emissions that occurred in the attainment year. EPA's review of the DEP's October 14, 2003, submittal indicates that the proposed revisions to the maintenance plan continue to demonstrate long term maintenance of the 1-hour ozone standard for the Reading area. These revisions are being proposed under a procedure called parallel processing, whereby EPA proposes rulemaking action concurrent with the Commonwealth's procedures for amending its SIP. If the proposed revisions are substantially changed in areas other than those identified in this notice, EPA will evaluate those changes and may publish another notice of proposed rulemaking. If no substantial changes are made other than those areas cited in this notice, EPA will publish a Final Rulemaking Notice on the revisions. The final rulemaking action by EPA will occur only after the SIP revisions have been adopted by Pennsylvania and submitted formally to EPA for incorporation into the SIP.
        EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this document. These comments will be considered before taking final action. Interested parties may participate in the Federal rulemaking procedure by submitting either electronic or written comments. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, identify the appropriate rulemaking identification number PA 210-4302 in the subject line on the first page of your comment. Please ensure that your comments are submitted within the specified comment period. Comments received after the close of the comment period will be marked “late.” EPA is not required to consider these late comments.

          1. Electronically. If you submit an electronic comment as prescribed below, EPA recommends that you include your name, mailing address, and an e-mail address or other contact information in the body of your comment. Also include this contact information on the outside of any disk or CD-ROM you submit, and in any cover letter accompanying the disk or CD-ROM. This ensures that you can be identified as the submitter of the comment and allows EPA to contact you in case EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties or needs further information on the substance of your comment. EPA's policy is that EPA will not edit your comment, and any identifying or contact information provided in the body of a comment will be included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment.

          i. E-mail. Comments may be sent by electronic mail (e-mail) to Kramer.Robert@EPA.gov, attention PA 210-4302. EPA's e-mail system is not an “anonymous access” system. If you send an e-mail comment directly without going through Regulations.gov, EPA's e-mail system automatically captures your e-mail address. E-mail addresses that are automatically captured by EPA's e-mail system are included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket.

          ii. Regulations.gov. Your use of Regulation.gov is an alternative method of submitting electronic comments to EPA. Go directly to Regulations.gov at http://www.regulations.gov, then select “Environmental Protection Agency” at the top of the page and use the “go” button. The list of current EPA actions available for comment will be listed. Please follow the online instructions for submitting comments. The system is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity, e-mail address, or other contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment.

          iii. Disk or CD-ROM. You may submit comments on a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to the mailing address identified in the ADDRESSES section of this document. These electronic submissions will be accepted in WordPerfect, Word or ASCII file format. Avoid the use of special characters and any form of encryption.

          2. By Mail. Written comments should be addressed to the EPA Regional office listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document.
        For public commenters, it is important to note that EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing at the EPA Regional Office, as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, confidential business information (CBI), or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. When EPA identifies a comment containing copyrighted material, EPA will provide a reference to that material in the version of the comment that is placed in the official public rulemaking file. The entire printed comment, including the copyrighted material, will be available at the Regional Office for public inspection.
        Submittal of CBI Comments
        Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI electronically to EPA. You may claim information that you submit to EPA as CBI by marking any part or all of that information as CBI (if you submit CBI on disk or CD-ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that is CBI). Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.

        In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes any information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the official public regional rulemaking file. If you submit the copy that does not contain CBI on disk or CD-ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM clearly that it does not contain CBI. Information not marked as CBI will be included in the public file and available for public inspection without prior notice. If you have any questions about CBI or the procedures for claiming CBI, please consult the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
        Considerations When Preparing Comments to EPA
        You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your comments:
        1. Explain your views as clearly as possible.
        2. Describe any assumptions that you used.
        3. Provide any technical information and/or data you used that support your views.
        4. If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you arrived at your estimate.
        5. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns.
        6. Offer alternatives.
        7. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified.

        8. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, identify the appropriate regional file/rulemaking identification number in the subject line on the first page of your response. It would also be helpful if you provided the name, date, and Federal Register citation related to your comments.
        V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

        Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this proposed action is not a “significant regulatory action” and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This proposed action merely proposes to approve Commonwealth law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by Commonwealth law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this rule proposes to approve pre-existing requirements under state law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4).
        This proposed rule also does not have tribal implications because it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have Federalism implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely proposes to approve a state rule implementing a Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. This proposed rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant.

        In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply.

        This rule proposing to approve Pennsylvania's proposed revisions to the Reading area's maintenance plan for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS, submitted to EPA on October 14, 2003, for parallel-processing, does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

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

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

          Dated: November 10, 2003.
          Thomas Voltaggio,
          Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.

      [FR Doc. 03-28909 Filed 11-18-03; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6560-50-P