Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 214 / Friday, November 5, 2004 / Proposed Rules 64555

would alter the normal operating 

conditions of the drawbridge, it falls 

within this exclusion. A ‘‘Categorical 

Exclusion Determination’’ is available in 

the docket for inspection or copying 

where indicated under ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117

Bridges.

Regulations 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to 

amend 33 CFR part 117 as follows:

PART 117—DRAWBRIDGE 

OPERATION REGULATIONS 

1. The authority citation for part 117 

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 499; Department of 

Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1; 33 

CFR 1.05–1(g); section 117.255 also issued 

under the authority of Pub. L. 102–587, 106 

Stat. 5039.

2. From midnight, October 14, 2005, 

until midnight March 15, 2006, in 

§ 117.667 suspend paragraph (b) and 

add a new paragraph (d) to read as 

follows:

§ 117.667 St. Croix River.

* * * * *

(d) The Stillwater Highway 

Drawbridge, Mile 23.4, St. Croix River, 

at Stillwater, need not open for river 

traffic and may be maintained in the 

closed-to-navigation position.

Dated: October 8, 2004. 

J.W. Stark, 

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting 

Commander, Eighth Coast Guard District.

[FR Doc. 04–24688 Filed 11–4–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–15–P

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 165

[COTP San Francisco Bay 04–023] 

RIN 1625–AA00

Safety Zone; Mission Creek Waterway, 

China Basin, San Francisco Bay, CA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is proposing 

to establish a temporary safety zone in 

the navigable waters of the Mission 

Creek Waterway in China Basin 

surrounding the construction site of the 

Fourth Street Bridge, San Francisco, 

California. This temporary safety zone is 

necessary to protect persons and vessels 

from hazards associated with bridge 

construction activities scheduled to last 

from February 15, 2005 to December 31, 

2005. The safety zone will temporarily 

prohibit use of the Mission Creek 

Waterway surrounding the Fourth Street 

Bridge; specifically, no persons or 

vessels will be permitted to come within 

100 yards of either side of the bridge or 

pass beneath the bridge during 

construction, unless authorized by the 

Captain of the Port, or his designated 

representative.

DATES: Comments and related material 

must reach the Coast Guard on or before 

January 4, 2005.

ADDRESSES: You may mail comments 

and related material to the Waterways 

Management Branch, U.S. Coast Guard 

Marine Safety Office San Francisco Bay, 

Coast Guard Island, Alameda, California 

94501. The Waterways Management 

Branch maintains the public docket for 

this rulemaking. Comments and 

material received from the public, as 

well as documents indicated in this 

preamble as being available in the 

docket, will become part of this docket 

and will be available for inspection or 

copying at the Waterways Management 

Branch between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., 

Monday through Friday, except Federal 

holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Lieutenant Doug Ebbers, U.S. Coast 

Guard Marine Safety Office San 

Francisco Bay, at (510) 437–3073.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Request for Comments 

We encourage you to participate in 

this rulemaking by submitting 

comments and related material. If you 

do so, please include your name and 

address, identify the docket number for 

this rulemaking (COTP San Francisco 

04–023), indicate the specific section of 

this document to which each comment 

applies, and give the reason for each 

comment. Please submit all comments 

and related material in an unbound 

format, no larger than 81⁄2 by 11 inches, 

suitable for copying. If you would like 

to know that your submission reached 

us, please enclose a stamped, selfaddressed postcard or envelope. We will 

consider all comments and material 

received during the comment period. 

We may change this proposed rule in 

view of them. 

Public Meeting 

We do not now plan to hold a public 

meeting. But you may submit a request 

for a meeting by writing to the 

Waterways Management Branch at the 

address under ADDRESSES explaining 

why one would be beneficial. If we 

determine that one would aid this 

rulemaking, we will hold one at a time 

and place announced by a separate 

notice in the Federal Register. 

Background and Purpose 

The San Francisco Department of 

Public Works is requesting a waterway 

closure on Mission Creek for the 

purpose of performing significant work 

to the Fourth Street Bridge. The Fourth 

Street Bridge was erected across the 

Mission Creek Waterway at the China 

Basin in 1917, and was determined 

eligible for listing in the National 

Register of Historic Places in 1985 as 

part of the California Department of 

Transportation (Caltrans) Historic 

Bridge Inventory. Caltrans, Division of 

Structures, evaluated the Fourth Street 

Bridge and recommended that the 

bridge be brought up to current seismic 

safety standards. The three objectives of 

the rehabilitation project are to: (1) 

Seismically retrofit the structure while 

not significantly altering the historical 

appearance of the bridge; (2) repair the 

damage to the concrete approaches and 

several steel and concrete members of 

the movable span, and (3) reinitiate light 

rail service across the bridge. The 

Federal Highway Administration, the 

State of California and the City of San 

Francisco are funding the Fourth Street 

Bridge Retrofit Project. 

The first phase of this project 

included the removal of the lift span, 

which took place between May 1 and 

July 28, 2003. During that period, the 

channel was closed at the Fourth Street 

Bridge to boating traffic by a temporary 

final rule that was published in the 

Federal Register on May 13, 2003 (68 

FR 25500) and a subsequent change in 

effective period temporary final rule 

that was published on July 9, 2003 (68 

FR 40772). Those two rules established 

a safety zone that extended 100 yards on 

either side of the Fourth Street Bridge. 

The second phase of the construction 

project includes rebuilding the north 

and south approaches and the new 

counterweight and its enclosing pit; but 

does not require that the waterway be 

closed to boating traffic. The safety zone 

being proposed in this rule is for the last 

phase of construction, which includes 

replacing the lift span and aligning the 

bridge to accept the light rail track 

system. This final phase is scheduled to 

begin on February 15, 2005, and end on 

December 31, 2005. The proposed safety 

zone of 100 yards on either side of the 

Fourth Street Bridge is needed during 

this period to protect boating traffic 

public from the dangers posed by the 

construction operations and to allow the 

construction operations to be 

completed.

64556 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 214 / Friday, November 5, 2004 / Proposed Rules 

There are two major environmental 

issues that affect the scheduling of 

construction in the channel, namely the 

annual pacific herring spawning season 

that runs from December 1st to March 

31st, and noise constraints for steelhead 

from December 1st to June 1st. Any 

demolition, pile driving and excavation 

in the water during those time periods 

will be monitored and restricted for 

possible impacts on these species. 

The Fourth Street Bridge Project is 

related to the larger Third Street Light 

Rail Project, and many public 

presentations on the project?s 

components, channel closure schedules, 

impacts to surrounding uses and project 

duration have been made by the City 

and Port of San Francisco. The Third 

Street Light Rail Advisory Group was 

created as a forum to keep the public 

informed on the progress being made on 

the Third Street Light Rail Project. Also, 

this project has been presented at many 

Mission Bay Citizen Advisory 

Committee meetings. At these meetings, 

the public was notified of the project 

components, impacts and the need to 

temporarily close the waterway. 

Specific to the Fourth Street Bridge 

project, an Environmental Assessment, 

required by the Federal Highway 

Administration and Caltrans, (under the 

National Environmental Protection Act) 

was conducted by the City of San 

Francisco. A public hearing regarding 

the Environmental Assessment was held 

on January 17, 2002 at San Francisco 

Arts College, Timken Lecture Hall, 1111 

8th Street in San Francisco California, 

and was well attended. 

In addition, the City of San Francisco 

advised the Coast Guard Captain of the 

Port in January of 2003 that two channel 

closures would be necessary in order to 

accomplish the Fourth Street Bridge 

project. The Coast Guard met with 

various City and Port officials to ensure 

that there would be minimal impacts on 

area boaters and other involved entities. 

This proposed temporary safety zone 

in the navigable waters of Mission Creek 

surrounding the construction site of the 

Fourth Street Bridge would be in effect 

24 hours a day from February 15, 2005 

to December 31, 2005. 

Discussion of Proposed Rule 

The Coast Guard proposes to establish 

a safety zone in a portion of the 

navigable waters located near the Fourth 

Street Bridge in the Mission Creek 

Waterway in China Basin, San 

Francisco, California. The proposed 

safety zone would encompass the 

navigable waters, from the surface to the 

sea floor, bounded by two lines; one line 

drawn from a point on the north shore 

of Mission Creek extending southeast to 

a point on the opposite shore, 100 yards 

west of the bridge, and the other line 

drawn from a point on the north shore 

of Mission Creek extending southeast to 

a point on the opposite shore, 100 yards 

east of the bridge. 

The intent of the proposed safety zone 

is to affect a waterway closure during 

reconstruction of the Fourth Street 

Bridge and would be effective 24 hours 

a day between February 15, 2005 and 

December 31, 2005. The proposed safety 

zone is necessary to protect persons and 

vessels from hazards, injury and damage 

associated with bridge construction 

activities. No vessel or person may come 

within 100 yards of either side of the 

bridge, or pass beneath the bridge 

during construction. 

Vessels and people may be allowed to 

enter an established safety zone on a 

case-by-case basis with authorization 

from the Captain of the Port or his 

designated representative. Section 

165.23 of Title 33, Code of Federal 

Regulations, prohibits any unauthorized 

person or vessel from entering or 

remaining in an established safety zone. 

U.S. Coast Guard personnel will 

enforce this safety zone and may be 

assisted by other Federal, State, or local 

agencies, including the Coast Guard 

Auxiliary. Section 165.23 of Title 33, 

Code of Federal Regulations, prohibits 

any unauthorized person or vessel from 

entering or remaining in a safety zone. 

Vessels or persons violating this section 

will be subject to the penalties set forth 

in 33 U.S.C. 1232. Pursuant to 33 U.S.C. 

1232, any violation of the safety zone 

described herein, will be punishable by 

civil penalties (not to exceed $32,500 

per violation, where each day of a 

continuing violation is a separate 

violation), criminal penalties 

(imprisonment up to 6 years and a 

maximum fine of $250,000), and in rem 

liability against the offending vessel. 

Any person who violates this section, 

using a dangerous weapon, or who 

engages in conduct that causes bodily 

injury or fear of imminent bodily injury 

to any officer authorized to enforce this 

regulation, also faces imprisonment up 

to 12 years. 

Regulatory Evaluation 

This proposed rule is not a 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under 

section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, 

Regulatory Planning and Review, and 

does not require an assessment of 

potential costs and benefits under 

section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office 

of Management and Budget has not 

reviewed it under that Order. It is not 

‘‘significant’’ under the regulatory 

policies and procedures of the 

Department of Homeland Security 

(DHS). 

We expect the economic impact of 

this proposed rule to be so minimal that 

a full Regulatory Evaluation under the 

regulatory policies and procedures of 

DHS is unnecessary. Although this 

proposed rule restricts access to the 

waters encompassed by the safety zone, 

the effect of this proposed rule would 

not be significant because the zone is 

temporary in nature, and owners of 

boats located within Mission Creek have 

been advised of the planned waterway 

closures at several Mission Bay Citizen 

Advisory Committee meetings. 

The size of the proposed zone is the 

minimum necessary to provide adequate 

protection for the boating public and an 

adequate distance to ensure vessel 

wakes to not interfere with construction 

operations. The entities most likely to 

be affected are pleasure craft engaged in 

recreational activities and sightseeing.

Small Entities 

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(5 U.S.C. 601–612), we have considered 

whether this proposed rule would have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

The term ‘‘small entities’’ comprises 

small businesses, not-for-profit 

organizations that are independently 

owned and operated and are not 

dominant in their fields, and 

governmental jurisdictions with 

populations of less than 50,000. 

The Coast Guard certifies under 5 

U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule 

would not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. This proposed rule may affect 

the following entities, some of which 

may be small entities: owners and 

operators of private vessels intending to 

transit the area of the 4th Street Bridge. 

The proposed safety zone would not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities 

for the same reasons set forth in the 

above Regulatory Evaluation. In 

addition, the Mission Creek Harbor 

Association has a lease agreement with 

the Port of San Francisco for both 

houseboats and pleasure boats to moor 

at the head of the channel, and the 

channel closure will not impact land 

access to the houseboats during the 

proposed waterway closures. However, 

a small number of sailboats that moor in 

the harbor may be impacted. The 

Department of Public Works and the 

Port of San Francisco are in consultation 

with the Mission Creek Harbor 

Association to assess the temporary 

impacts to the boaters on closing the 

channel for this needed work. Small 

entities and the maritime public would 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 214 / Friday, November 5, 2004 / Proposed Rules 64557

be advised of this safety zone via public 

notice to mariners. 

If you think that your business, 

organization, or governmental 

jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity 

and that this proposed rule would have 

a significant economic impact on it, 

please submit a comment (see 

ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it 

qualifies and how and to what degree 

this rule would economically affect it. 

Assistance for Small Entities 

Under section 213(a) of the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104–121), 

we want to assist small entities in 

understanding this proposed rule so that 

they can better evaluate its effects on 

them and participate in the rulemaking. 

If the proposed rule would affect your 

small business, organization, or 

governmental jurisdiction and you have 

questions concerning its provisions or 

options for compliance, please contact 

Lieutenant Doug Ebbers, Waterways 

Management Branch, U.S. Coast Guard 

Marine Safety Office San Francisco Bay, 

at (510) 437–3073. The Coast Guard will 

not retaliate against small entities that 

question or complain about this rule or 

any policy or action of the Coast Guard. 

Collection of Information 

This proposed rule calls for no new 

collection of information under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

U.S.C. 3501–3520). 

Federalism 

A rule has implications for federalism 

under Executive Order 13132, 

Federalism, if it has a substantial direct 

effect on State or local governments and 

would either preempt State law or 

impose a substantial direct cost of 

compliance on them. We have analyzed 

this proposed rule under that Order and 

have determined that it does not have 

implications for federalism. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) requires 

Federal agencies to assess the effects of 

their discretionary regulatory actions. In 

particular, the Act addresses actions 

that may result in the expenditure by a 

State, local, or tribal government, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector of 

$100,000,000 or more in any one year. 

Though this proposed rule would not 

result in such an expenditure, we do 

discuss the effects of this proposed rule 

elsewhere in this preamble. 

Taking of Private Property 

This proposed rule would not effect a 

taking of private property or otherwise 

have taking implications under 

Executive Order 12630, Governmental 

Actions and Interference with 

Constitutionally Protected Property 

Rights.

Civil Justice Reform 

This proposed rule meets applicable 

standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of 

Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice 

Reform, to minimize litigation, 

eliminate ambiguity, and reduce 

burden. 

Protection of Children 

We have analyzed this proposed rule 

under Executive Order 13045, 

Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety 

Risks. This rule is not an economically 

significant rule and would not create an 

environmental risk to health or risk to 

safety that might disproportionately 

affect children. 

Indian Tribal Governments 

This proposed rule does not have 

tribal implications under Executive 

Order 13175, Consultation and 

Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments, because it would 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. 

Energy Effects 

We have analyzed this proposed rule 

under Executive Order 13211, Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use. We have 

determined that it is not a ‘‘significant 

energy action’’ under that order because 

it is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’

under Executive Order 12866 and is not 

likely to have a significant adverse effect 

on the supply, distribution, or use of 

energy. The Administrator of the Office 

of Information and Regulatory Affairs 

has not designated it as a significant 

energy action. Therefore, it does not 

require a Statement of Energy Effects 

under Executive Order 13211. 

Technical Standards 

The National Technology Transfer 

and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 

U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use 

voluntary consensus standards in their 

regulatory activities unless the agency 

provides Congress, through the Office of 

Management and Budget, with an 

explanation of why using these 

standards would be inconsistent with 

applicable law or otherwise impractical. 

Voluntary consensus standards are 

technical standards (e.g., specifications 

of materials, performance, design, or 

operation; test methods; sampling 

procedures; and related management 

systems practices) that are developed or 

adopted by voluntary consensus 

standards bodies. 

This proposed rule does not use 

technical standards. Therefore, we did 

not consider the use of voluntary 

consensus standards. 

Environment 

We have analyzed this proposed rule 

under Commandant Instruction 

M16475.1D, which guides the Coast 

Guard in complying with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and 

have concluded that there are no factors 

in this case that would limit the use of 

a categorical exclusion under section 

2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, this 

proposed rule is categorically excluded, 

under figure 2–1, paragraph (34)(g), of 

the Instruction, from further 

environmental documentation because 

it would establish a safety zone. 

A draft ‘‘Environmental Analysis 

Check List’’ and a draft ‘‘Categorical 

Exclusion Determination’’ (CED) will be 

available in the docket where indicated 

under ADDRESSES. Comments on this 

section will be considered before we 

make the final decision on whether the 

rule should be categorically excluded 

from further environmental review.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation 

(water), Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Security measures, 

Waterways.

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to 

amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION 

AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 

1. The authority citation for part 165 

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. 

Chapter 701; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 

1.05–1(g), 6.04–1, 6.04–6, and 160.5; Pub. L. 

107–295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of 

Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

2. Temporarily add § 165.T11–048 to 

read as follows:

§ 165.T11–048 Safety Zone; Mission Creek 

Waterway, China Basin, San Francisco Bay, 

California. 

(a) Location. One hundred yards to 

either water-side of the Fourth Street 

Bridge, encompassing the navigable 

waters, from the surface to the sea floor, 

bounded by two lines; one line drawn 

from a point on the north shore of 

Mission Creek [37°46′29′′ N, 122°23′36′′

64558 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 214 / Friday, November 5, 2004 / Proposed Rules 

W] extending southeast to a point on the 

opposite shore [37°46′28′′ N, 122°23′34′′

W], and the other line drawn from a 

point on the north shore of Mission 

Creek [37°46′34′′ N, 122°23′30′′ W] 

extending southeast to a point on the 

opposite shore [37°46′33′′ N, 122°23′28′′

[Datum: NAD 83] 

(b) Effective Period. The safety zone 

will be in effect from February 15, 2005 

through December 31, 2005. If the need 

for this safety zone ends before the 

scheduled termination time, the Captain 

of the Port will cease enforcement of the 

safety zone and will announce that fact 

via Broadcast Notice to Mariners. 

(c) Regulations. (1) In accordance with 

the general regulations in § 165.23 of 

this part, entry into, transit through, or 

anchoring within this zone by all 

vessels is prohibited, unless specifically 

authorized by the Captain of the Port 

San Francisco Bay, or his designated 

representative. 

(2) All persons and vessels shall 

comply with the instructions of the 

Coast Guard Captain of the Port or the 

designated on-scene patrol personnel. 

Patrol personnel comprise 

commissioned, warrant, and petty 

officers of the Coast Guard onboard 

Coast Guard, Coast Guard Auxiliary, 

local, state, and federal law enforcement 

vessels. Upon being hailed by U.S. Coast 

Guard patrol personnel by siren, radio, 

flashing light, or other means, the 

operator of a vessel shall proceed as 

directed.

Dated: October 27, 2004. 

Gordon A. Loebl, 

Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting 

Captain of the Port, San Francisco Bay, 

California.

[FR Doc. 04–24684 Filed 11–4–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–15–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 194

[FRL–7835–6] 

Central Characterization Project Waste 

Characterization Program Documents 

Applicable to Transuranic Radioactive 

Waste From the Savannah River Site 

Proposed for Disposal at the Waste 

Isolation Pilot Plant

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency.

ACTION: Notice of availability; opening 

of public comment period. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA, or ‘‘we’’) is announcing 

the availability of, and soliciting public 

comments for 30 days on, Department of 

Energy (DOE) documents on waste 

characterization programs applicable to 

certain transuranic (TRU) radioactive 

waste at the Savannah River Site (SRS) 

proposed for disposal at the Waste 

Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP). The 

documents are procedures and other 

materials related to the Central 

Characterization Project (CCP), 

established by DOE to augment the 

ability of TRU waste sites to 

characterize and certify the waste in 

accordance with EPA’s WIPP 

Compliance Criteria. The documents are 

available for review in the public 

dockets listed in ADDRESSES. We will 

use these documents to evaluate the 

CCP activities at SRS to characterize 

SRS-generated contact-handled (CH) 

retrievably-stored TRU debris waste 

during an inspection conducted the 

week of October 25, 2004. The purpose 

of the inspection is to verify that the 

CCP can properly characterize SRSgenerated contact-handled (CH) TRU 

debris waste, consistent with the WIPP 

Compliance Criteria and Condition 3 of 

EPA’s final certification decision for the 

WIPP. The EPA will not make a 

determination of compliance prior to 

the inspection or before the 30-day 

comment period has closed.

DATES: The EPA is requesting public 

comment on these documents. 

Comments must be received by EPA’s 

official Air Docket on or before 

December 6, 2004.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be 

submitted by mail to: EPA Docket 

Center (EPA/DC), Air and Radiation 

Docket, Environmental Protection 

Agency, EPA West, Mail Code 6102T, 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20460. Attention 

Docket ID No. OAR–2004–0430. 

Comments may also be submitted 

electronically, by facsimile, or through 

hand delivery/courier. Follow the 

detailed instructions as provided in 

Unit I.B of the SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ed 

Feltcorn, Office of Radiation and Indoor 

Air, (202) 343–9422. You can also call 

EPA’s toll-free WIPP Information Line, 

1–800–331–WIPP or visit our Web site 

at http://www.epa/gov/radiation/wipp.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. General Information 

A. How Can I Get Copies of This 

Document and Other Related 

Information? 

1. Docket. EPA has established an 

official public docket for this action 

under Docket ID No. OAR–2004–0430. 

The official public docket consists of the 

documents specifically referenced in 

this action, any public comments 

received, and other information related 

to this action. Although a part of the 

official docket, the public docket does 

not include Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

The official public docket is the 

collection of materials that is available 

for public viewing at the Air and 

Radiation Docket in the EPA Docket 

Center, (EPA/DC) EPA West, Room 

B102, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC. The EPA Docket 

Center Public Reading Room is open 

from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, excluding legal 

holidays. The telephone number for the 

Public Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, 

and the telephone number for the Air 

and Radiation Docket is (202) 566–1742. 

These documents are also available for 

review in paper form at the official EPA 

Air Docket in Washington, DC, Docket 

No. A–98–49, Category II–A2, and at the 

following three EPA WIPP informational 

docket locations in New Mexico: in 

Carlsbad at the Municipal Library, 

hours: Monday–Thursday, 10 a.m.–9 

p.m., Friday–Saturday, 10 a.m.–6 p.m., 

and Sunday, 1 p.m.–5 p.m.; in 

Albuquerque at the Government 

Publications Department, Zimmerman 

Library, University of New Mexico, 

hours: vary by semester; and in Santa Fe 

at the New Mexico State Library, hours: 

Monday–Friday, 9 a.m.–5 p.m. As 

provided in EPA’s regulations at 40 CFR 

part 2, and in accordance with normal 

EPA docket procedures, if copies of any 

docket materials are requested, a 

reasonable fee may be charged for 

photocopying. 

2. Electronic Access. You may access 

this Federal Register document 

electronically through the EPA Internet 

under the ‘‘Federal Register’’ listings at 

http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/.

An electronic version of the public 

docket is available through EPA’s 

electronic public docket and comment 

system, EPA Dockets. You may use EPA 

Dockets at http://www.epa.gov/edocket/

to submit or view public comments, 

access the index listing of the contents 

of the official public docket, and to 

access those documents in the public 

docket that are available electronically. 

Once in the system, select ‘‘search,’’

then key in the appropriate docket 

identification number.

Certain types of information will not 

be placed in the EPA Dockets. 

Information claimed as CBI and other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute, which is not 

included in the official public docket,