Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 79 / Monday, April 24, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 21647

individual company. The total annual

re-registration cost, based on the present

renewal fee of $477.00 for each

individual company, would be

$667,800. It should be noted that DEA

published a proposed rule in the

Federal Register on December 1, 1999

(64 FR 67216) that proposed to reduce

the new application fee to $326.00 and

the renewal fee to $171.00 for each

individual company, respectively. If

finalized, these revised fees would

reduce the total burden for initial

registration and for annual reregistration to $456,400 and $239,400,

respectively. In addition to the specific

dollar cost, the registration requirement

would require an annual reporting

burden of 700 hours. This is based on

the estimated one-half hour required to

complete and submit an application for

registration or re-registration. Therefore,

in accordance with the Regulatory

Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), the

Deputy administrator has reviewed this

application and by approving it certifies

that this regulation will not have a

significant economic impact upon a

substantial number of small entities.

Executive Order 12866

This regulation has been drafted and

reviewed in accordance with Executive

Order 12866, Section 1(b), Principles of

Regulation. The DEA has determined

that this rule is not a ‘‘significant

regulatory action’’ under Executive

Order 12866, Section 3(f), Regulatory

Planning and Review, and accordingly

this rule has not been reviewed by the

Office of Management and Budget.

Administrative Procedure Act—Good

Cause Exemption

DEA finds that there is good cause to

exempt this action from the notice and

comment requirements of Section 553 of

the Administrative Procedures Act on

the grounds that notice and comment

are unnecessary. Public Law 106–172

amended the CSA to make GBL a List

I Chemical effective February 18, 2000.

This action is a conforming amendment

to 21 CFR 1310.02(a) to make the

regulations consistent with the

requirements of the law. DEA has no

discretion in this action and can not

deviate from what Congress has enacted.

Therefore, DEA is publishing this action

as a Final Rule. To ameliorate this final

action, DEA has included a temporary

exemption from the registration

requirement for persons handling GBL

provided that DEA receives a properly

completed application for registration

on or before July 24, 2000.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of

1995

This rule will not result in the

expenditure by State, local, and tribal

governments, in the aggregate, or by the

private sector, of $100,000,000 or more

in any one year, and will not

significantly or uniquely affect small

governments. Therefore, no actions were

deemed necessary under the provisions

of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

of 1995.

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement

Fairness Act of 1996

This rule is not a major rule as

defined by Section 804 of the Small

Business Regulatory Enforcement

Fairness Act of 1996. This rule will not

result in an annual effect on the

economy of $100,000,000 or more; a

major increase in cost or prices; or

significant adverse effects on

competition, employment, investment,

productivity, innovation, or on the

ability of United States-based

companies to compete with foreignbased companies in domestic and

export markets.

Executive Order 13132

This regulation will not have

substantial direct effects on the States,

on the relationship between the national

government and the States, or on

distribution of power and

responsibilities among the various

levels of government. Therefore, in

accordance with Executive Order 13132,

it is determined that this rule does not

have sufficient federalism implications

to warrant the preparation of a

Federalism Assessment.

Plain Language Instructions

The Drug Enforcement

Administration makes every effort to

write clearly. If you have suggestions as

to how to improve the clarity of this

regulation, call or write Patricia M.

Good, Chief, Liaison and Policy Section,

Office of Diversion Control,

Washington, DC 20537, Telephone (202)

307–7297.

List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 1310

Drug traffic control, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements.

For reasons set out above, 21 CFR part

1310 is amended as follows:

PART 1310—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 1310

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 21 U.S.C. 802, 830, 871(b).

2. Section 1310.02 is amended by

adding a new paragraph (a)(24) to read

as follows:

§ 1310.02 Substances covered

* * * * *

(a) List I chemicals:

* * * * *

(24) gamma-Butyrolactone (Other

names include: GBL; Dihydro-2

(3H)-furanone; 1,2-Butanolide; 1,4-

Butanolide; 4-Hydroxybutanoic

acid lactone; gamma-hydroxybutyric acid lactone) ........................ 2011

3. Section 1310.09 is amended by

adding a new paragraph (c) to read as

follows:

§ 1310.09 Temporary exemption from

registration

* * * * *

(c) Each person required by section

302 of the act (21 U.S.C. 822) to obtain

a registration to distribute, import, or

export GBL is temporarily exempted

from the registration requirement,

provided that the DEA receives a proper

application for registration on or before

July 24, 2000. The exemption will

remain in effect for each person who has

made such application until the

Administration has approved or denied

that application. This exemption applies

only to registration; all other chemical

control requirements set forth in parts

1309, 1310, and 1313 of this chapter

remain in full force and effect.

Dated: April 14, 2000.

Donnie R. Marshall,

Deputy Administrator.

[FR Doc. 00–9988 Filed 4–21–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410–09–M

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 100

[CGD07–00–029]

RIN 2115–AE46

Special Local Regulations: Annual

Suncoast Kilo Run, Sarasota Bay,

Sarasota, FL

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is amending

the final rule for the Annual Suncoast

Kilo Run to change the date from the

first Friday in July to the last Friday in

June for 2000 only. The high-speed boat

race event will be held from 8 a.m. to

1 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time (EDT) on

June 30, 2000, in Sarasota Bay, Sarasota,

Florida. These regulations are needed to

provide for the safety of life on

navigable waters during the event.

21648 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 79 / Monday, April 24, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

DATES: This rule becomes effective at 8

a.m. and terminates at 1 p.m. EDT on

June 30, 2000.

ADDRESSES: The public docket for this

rulemaking is maintained by

Commanding Officer, U.S. Coast Guard

Group St. Petersburg. Any materials

concerning this rulemaking should be

mailed to Commanding Officer, U.S.

Coast Guard Group St. Petersburg, 600

8th Ave SE, St. Petersburg, FL 33701.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Chief Petty Officer Steve Aykroyd, Coast

Guard Group St. Petersburg at (727)

824–7554.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulatory Information

We did not publish a notice of

proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for this

regulation. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the

Coast Guard finds that good cause exists

for not publishing an NPRM because

this is an annual event with a date

change for this year that has been highly

publicized. It is impractical to publish

an NPRM at this time because to do so

would interfere with the 30-day notice

requirement for the final rule.

Background and Purpose

These regulations are required to

provide for the safety of life on

navigable waters because of the inherent

danger of high speed competition boat

racing in the vicinity of spectator craft

during the Annual Suncoast Kilo Run,

Sarasota Bay, Sarasota, FL. A permanent

regulation has been established for this

event (33 CFR 100.718) which is

effective on the first Friday in July each

year. Logistical problems caused the

organizers to request that the event be

moved for this year to June 30. The

permanent regulations create a regulated

area that prohibits non-participating

vessels from entering the regulated area

during the event. The practical effect of

this amendment is to change the date of

the event for this year only from the first

Friday in July to June 30, 2000.

Regulatory Evaluation

This rule is not a ‘‘significant

regulatory action’’ under section 3(f) of

Executive Order 12866 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 Transportation (DOT)

(44 FR 11040; February 26, 1979). The

Coast Guard expects the economic

impact of this proposal to be so minimal

that a full Regulatory Evaluation under

paragraph 10(e) of the regulatory

policies and procedures of DOT is

unnecessary. The regulated area will

only be in effect for 5 hours on one day.

Small Entities

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

(5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), the Coast Guard

must consider whether this rule will

have a significant economic effect upon

a substantial number of small entities.

‘‘Small entities’’ include small business,

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 rule will not have

a significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities as

the regulations will only be in effect for

5 hours on one day in a limited area of

Sarasota Bay, Florida.

Assistance for Small Entities

Under section 213(a) of the Small

Business Regulatory Enforcement

Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104–221),

we offer to assist small entities in

understanding the rule so that they

could better evaluate its effects on them

and participate in the rulemaking

process. Small entities may contact the

person listed under FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT for assistance in

understanding and participating in this

rulemaking. We also have a point of

contact for commenting on actions by

employees of the Coast Guard. Small

businesses may send comments on the

actions of Federal employees who

enforce, or otherwise determine

compliance with Federal regulations to

the Small Business and Agriculture

Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman

and the Regional Small Business

Regulatory Fairness Boards. The

Ombudsman evaluates these actions

annually and rates each agency’s

responsiveness to small business. If you

wish to comment on actions by

employees of the Coast Guard, call 1–

888–REG–FAIR (1–888–734–3247).

Collection of Information

This rule calls for no new collection

of information requirements under the

Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.

3501 et seq.).

Federalism

We have analyzed this rule under

Executive Order 13132 and have

determined that this rule does not have

implications for federalism under that

order.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) governs

the issuance of Federal regulations that

require unfunded mandates. An

unfunded mandate is a regulation that

requires a State, local, or tribal

government or the private sector to

incur direct costs without the Federal

Government’s having first provided the

funds to pay those unfunded mandate

costs. This rule will not impose an

unfunded mandate.

Taking of Private Property

This rule will not effect a taking of

private property or otherwise have

taking implications under E.O. 12630,

Governmental Actions and Interference

with Constitutionally Protected Property

Rights.

Civil Justice Reform

This rule meets applicable standards

in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of E.O.

12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize

litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and

reduce burden.

Protection of Children

We have analyzed this rule under E.O.

13045, Protection of Children from

Environmental Health Risks and Safety

Risks. This rule is not an economically

significant rule and does not concern an

environmental risk to health or safety

that may disproportionately affect

children.

Environment

The Coast Guard considered the

environmental impact of this rule and

has determined pursuant to Figure 2–1,

paragraph 34(h) of Commandant

Instruction M16475.1C, that this

proposal is categorically excluded from

further environmental documentation.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 100

Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation

(water), Reports and recordkeeping

requirements, Security measures,

Waterways.

Temporary Regulations

In consideration of the foregoing, the

Coast Guard proposes to amend Part 100

of Title 33, Code of Federal Regulations,

as follows:

PART 100—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 100

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1233, 49 CFR 1.46,

and 33 CFR 100.35.

2. In § 100.718, paragraph (c) is

suspended and a new paragraph (d) is

added to read as follows:

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 79 / Monday, April 24, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 21649

§ 100.718 Annual Suncoast Kilo Run;

Sarasota Bay, Sarasota, FL.

* * * * *

(d) Dates: This section becomes

effective at 8 a.m. and terminates at 1

p.m. EDT on June 30, 2000.

Dated: April 7, 2000.

G.W. Sutton,

Captain U.S. Coast Guard, Commander,

Seventh Coast Guard District, Acting.

[FR Doc. 00–10151 Filed 4–21–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–15–U

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[Region VII Tracking No. MO 098–1098b;

FRL–6583–4]

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans; State of

Missouri

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final

action to approve the Eagle-Picher

Technologies’ LLC Consent Agreement

as a revision to the Missouri State

Implementation Plan (SIP). This

Consent Agreement ensures that the

operation of their newly installed

emissions controls at the Chemicals

Divisions in Joplin, Missouri, are

permanent, enforceable, and

measurable.

DATES: This rule is effective on June 23,

2000 without further notice, unless EPA

receives adverse written comment by

May 24, 2000. If EPA receives such

comments, it will publish a timely

withdrawal of the direct final rule in the

Federal Register and inform the public

that the rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should

be mailed to Kim Johnson, Air Planning

and Development Branch, 901 North 5th

Street, Kansas City, Kansas 66101.

Copies of the state submittal(s) are

available at the following address for

inspection during normal business

hours: Environmental Protection

Agency, Air Planning and Development

Branch, 901 North 5th Street, Kansas

City, Kansas 66101.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kim

Johnson at (913) 551–7975.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Throughout this document whenever

‘‘we, us, or our’’ is used, we mean EPA.

This section provides additional

information by addressing the following

questions:

What is a SIP?

What is the Federal approval process for a

SIP?

What does Federal approval of a state

regulation mean to me?

What is being addressed in this document?

Have the requirements for approval of a

SIP revision been met?

What action is EPA taking?

What Is a SIP?

Section 110 of the Clean Air Act

(CAA) requires states to develop air

pollution regulations and control

strategies to ensure that state air quality

meets the national ambient air quality

standards (NAAQS) established by EPA.

These ambient standards are established

under section 109 of the CAA, and they

currently address six criteria pollutants.

These pollutants are: carbon monoxide,

nitrogen dioxide, ozone, lead,

particulate matter, and sulfur dioxide.

Each state must submit these

regulations and control strategies to EPA

for approval and incorporation into the

Federally enforceable SIP.

Each Federally approved SIP protects

air quality primarily by addressing air

pollution at its point of origin. These

SIPs can be extensive, containing state

regulations or other enforceable

documents and supporting information

such as emission inventories,

monitoring networks, and modeling

demonstrations.

What Is the Federal Approval Process

for a SIP?

In order for state regulations to be

incorporated into the Federally

enforceable SIP, states must formally

adopt the regulations and control

strategies consistent with state and

Federal requirements. This process

generally includes a public notice,

public hearing, public comment period,

and a formal adoption by a stateauthorized rulemaking body.

Once a state rule, regulation, or

control strategy is adopted, the state

submits it to EPA for inclusion into the

SIP. EPA must provide public notice

and seek additional public comment

regarding the proposed Federal action

on the state submission. If adverse

comments are received, they must be

addressed prior to any final Federal

action by EPA.

All state regulations and supporting

information approved by EPA under

section 110 of the CAA are incorporated

into the Federally approved SIP.

Records of such SIP actions are

maintained in the Code of Federal

Regulations (CFR) at Title 40, Part 52,

entitled ‘‘Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans.’’ The actual state

regulations which are approved are not

reproduced in their entirety in the CFR

outright but are ‘‘incorporated by

reference,’’ which means that EPA has

approved a given state regulation with

a specific effective date.

What Does Federal Approval of a State

Regulation Mean to Me?

Enforcement of the state regulation

before and after it is incorporated into

the Federally approved SIP is primarily

a state responsibility. However, after the

regulation is Federally approved, EPA is

authorized to take enforcement action

against violators. Citizens are also

offered legal recourse to address

violations as described in the CAA.

What Is Being Addressed in This

Document?

In 1995, the Missouri Department of

Natural Resources (MDNR) and EPA

initiated a review of small lead sources

with the potential to emit five tons of

lead per year or more. The purpose of

this review is to determine whether or

not the sources have the potential to

cause or contribute to violations of the

lead NAAQS of 1.5 μg/m3. The first

review consisted of an emissions

inventory review and preliminary

screening modeling.

Preliminary modeling of the

emissions at Eagle-Picher, Chemicals

Division in Joplin, Missouri, predicted

ambient air lead values near this facility

which exceeded the NAAQS for lead of

1.5 μg/m3.

As a result of this modeling, the state

of Missouri planned to place an ambient

air lead monitor in the area. In order to

effectively locate a monitor, additional

information was needed for a more

refined modeling analysis.

On March 25, 1998, EPA issued an

order under section 114 of the CAA

requesting additional facility

information and stack testing of three of

the facility’s major emissions points.

These three points accounted for 71

percent of the lead emissions from the

facility.

Shortly after the 114 Order was

issued, Eagle-Picher informed EPA and

MDNR that as a result of an internal

environmental review, they planned to

install controls in August 1998, on the

Basic Silicate White Lead (BSWL)

scrubber drier exhaust, their most

significant lead source which

contributed almost 60 percent of the

lead emissions from this facility.

Eagle-Picher agreed to enter into a

Consent Agreement with the state of

Missouri to ensure these controls are

permanent, enforceable, and

measurable. This Consent Agreement

defines control specifications, operation

parameters, and testing and reporting

requirements for the BSWL baghouse at