Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 83 / Friday, April 28, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 24875

with populations less than 50,000.

Because this safety zone is very small,

will only be in effect for six days, and

does not impede access to other

maritime facilities in the area, the Coast

Guard believes there will be no impact

to small entities. Therefore, 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.

Collection of Information

This rule does not provide for a

collection of information under the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

Federalism

The Coast Guard has analyzed this

rule under the principles and criteria

contained in Executive Order 12612 and

has determined that this rule does not

have sufficient federalism implications

to warrant the preparation of a

Federalism Assessment.

Environment

The Coast Guard considered the

environmental impact of this rule and

concluded that, under Figure 2–1,

paragraph 34(g) of Commandant

Instruction M16475.1C, this rule is

categorically excluded from further

environmental documentation because

it establishes a safety zone. A

‘‘Categorical Exclusion Determination’’

is available in the docket for inspection

or copying where indicated under

ADDRESSES.

Unfunded Mandates

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) and E.O.

12875, Enhancing the Intergovernmental

Partnership, (58 FR 58093, October 28,

1993) govern 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 costs. This rule will

not impose an unfunded mandate.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation

(water), Reporting and record keeping

requirements, Security measures,

Waterways.

Temporary Regulation

For the reasons discussed in the

preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33

CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for Part 165

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191;

33 CFR 1.05–1(g), 6.04–1, 6.04–6, and 160.5;

49 CFR 1.46.

2. From 12:01 a.m. on May 4, 2000,

until 11:59 p.m. on May 9, 2000,

§ 165.T17–00–001 is temporarily added

to read as follows:

§ 165.T17–00–001 Safety Zone; Kachemak

Bay, Alaska.

(a) Description. The following area is

a Safety Zone: All navigable waters

within a 200 yard radius of the Heavylift vessel SWAN, located in Kachemak

Bay, Alaska.

(b) Effective Dates. This section is

effective from 12:01 a.m. on May 4,

2000, until 11:59 p.m. on May 9, 2000.

(c) Regulations.

(1) The Captain of the Port means the

Captain of the Port, Western Alaska. The

Captain of the Port may authorize or

designate any Coast Guard

commissioned, warrant, or petty officer

to act on his behalf as his representative.

(2) The general regulations governing

safety zones contained in Title 33 Code

of Federal Regulations, § 165.23 apply.

No person or vessel may enter, transit

through, anchor or remain in this safety

zone, with the exception of attending

vessels, without first obtaining

permission from the Captain of the Port,

Western Alaska, or his representative.

The Captain of the Port or his

representative may be contacted in the

vicinity of the SWAN via marine VHF

channel 16. The Captain of the Port’s

representative can also be contacted by

telephone at (907) 271–6700.

Dated: April 13, 2000.

W.J. Hutmacher,

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the

Port, Western Alaska.

[FR Doc. 00–10607 Filed 4–27–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–15–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[Region II Docket No. NY42–21–1; FRL–

6583–8]

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans; Reasonably

Available Control Technology for

Oxides of Nitrogen for the State of New

York

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) is approving New York’s

revisions to the State Implementation

Plan (SIP) for ozone. The State

submitted this portion of the

implementation plan to satisfy Clean

Air Act (the Act) requirements for

adoption of rules for the application of

reasonably available control technology

(RACT) for oxides of nitrogen (NOX) in

the entire State. The intended effect of

this SIP revision is to reduce emissions

of NOX from combustion sources in

order to help attain the national ambient

air quality standard for ozone.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule will be

effective May 30, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the state

submittal(s) are available at the

following addresses for inspection

during normal business hours:

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region II Office, Air Programs Branch,

290 Broadway, 25th Floor, New York,

New York 10007–1866.

New York State Department of

Environmental Conservation, Division

of Air Resources, 50 Wolf Road,

Albany, New York 12233.

Environmental Protection Agency, Air

and Radiation Docket and Information

Center, Air Docket (6102), 401 M

Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ted

Gardella, Air Programs Branch,

Environmental Protection Agency, 290

Broadway, 25th Floor, New York, New

York 10278, (212) 637–3892.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

What Action is EPA Approving?

Why is EPA Approving This Action?

When did EPA Propose to Approve New

York’s SIP Revisions?

What are the Public’s Comments on EPA’s

Proposal?

Where is Additional Information Available

on EPA’s Action?

Conclusion

Administrative Requirements

What Action Is EPA Approving?

The EPA is approving revisions to

New York’s ozone State Implementation

Plan (SIP) which New York submitted to

EPA on January 20, 1994 and April 29,

1999. The January 20, 1994 submittal

includes New York’s Subpart 227–2

entitled ‘‘Reasonably Available Control

Technology (RACT) for Oxides of

Nitrogen (NOX).’’ The April 29, 1999

submittal includes amendments to

Subpart 227–2. A separate EPA action

approved other portions (Part 200, Part

201, Subpart 227–1 and Subpart 227–3)

of the January 1994 and April 1999

submittals in a Federal Register

24876 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 83 / Friday, April 28, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

document published at 65 FR 20905 on

April 19, 2000.

Why Is EPA Approving This Action?

EPA is approving this action because

it determined that New York’s SIP

revisions meet all requirements of the

Clean Air Act (the Act), EPA guidelines

and EPA policy thereby allowing

implementation and enforcement of

NOX RACT requirements statewide.

When Did EPA Propose To Approve

New York’s SIP Revisions?

On January 5, 2000, EPA published in

the Federal Register (65 FR 421) a

Proposed Rulemaking to approve New

York’s regulations as a SIP revision and

providing for a 30-day public comment

period, which ended February 4, 2000.

What Are the Public’s Comments on

EPA’s Proposal?

EPA received no public comments

regarding the Proposed Rulemaking.

Where Is Additional Information

Available on EPA’s Action?

A detailed discussion of this action is

available in the January 5, 2000

Proposed Rulemaking (65 FR 421). A

Technical Support Document, prepared

in support of the proposed rulemaking,

contains the full description of New

York’s submittals and EPA’s evaluation.

A copy of the Technical Support

Document is available upon request

from the EPA Regional Office contact

listed above in the ADDRESSES section.

Conclusion

EPA is approving the two SIP

revisions that implement New York’s

NOX RACT Program throughout the

State for combustion sources, regardless

of the nonattainment status. The first

SIP revision, dated January 20, 1994,

includes Subpart 227–2. The second SIP

revision, dated April 29, 1999, includes

amendments to Subpart 227–2.

Therefore, this rule makes final the

action proposed at 65 FR 421.

Administrative Requirements

Executive Order 12866

The Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) has exempted this regulatory

action from Executive Order (E.O.)

12866, entitled ‘‘Regulatory Planning

and Review.’’

Executive Order 13132

Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10,

1999) revokes and replaces Executive

Orders 12612 (Federalism) and 12875

(Enhancing the Intergovernmental

Partnership). Executive Order 13132

requires EPA to develop an accountable

process to ensure ‘‘meaningful and

timely input by State and local officials

in the development of regulatory

policies that have federalism

implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have

federalism implications’’ is defined in

the Executive Order to include

regulations that 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.’’ Under

Executive Order 13132, EPA may not

issue a regulation that has federalism

implications, that imposes substantial

direct compliance costs, and that is not

required by statute, unless the Federal

government provides the funds

necessary to pay the direct compliance

costs incurred by State and local

governments, or EPA consults with

State and local officials early in the

process of developing the proposed

regulation. EPA also may not issue a

regulation that has federalism

implications and that preempts State

law unless the Agency consults with

State and local officials early in the

process of developing the proposed

regulation.

This final rule will not have

substantial direct effects on the States,

on the relationship between the national

government and the States, or on the

distribution of power and

responsibilities among the various

levels of government, as specified in

Executive Order 13132, because it

merely approves 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.

Thus, the requirements of section 6 of

the Executive Order do not apply to this

rule.

Executive Order 13045

Protection of Children from

Environmental Health Risks and Safety

Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997),

applies to any rule that: (1) Is

determined to be ‘‘economically

significant’’ as defined under E.O.

12866, and (2) concerns an

environmental health or safety risk that

EPA has reason to believe may have a

disproportionate effect on children. If

the regulatory action meets both criteria,

the Agency must evaluate the

environmental health or safety effects of

the planned rule on children, and

explain why the planned regulation is

preferable to other potentially effective

and reasonably feasible alternatives

considered by the Agency.

This rule is not subject to Executive

Order 13045 because it does not involve

decisions intended to mitigate

environmental health or safety risks.

Executive Order 13084

Under Executive Order 13084, EPA

may not issue a regulation that is not

required by statute, that significantly

affects or uniquely affects the

communities of Indian tribal

governments, and that imposes

substantial direct compliance costs on

those communities, unless the Federal

government provides the funds

necessary to pay the direct compliance

costs incurred by the tribal

governments. If the mandate is

unfunded, EPA must provide to the

Office of Management and Budget, in a

separately identified section of the

preamble to the rule, a description of

the extent of EPA’s prior consultation

with representatives of affected tribal

governments, a summary of the nature

of their concerns, and a statement

supporting the need to issue the

regulation.

In addition, Executive Order 13084

requires EPA to develop an effective

process permitting elected officials and

other representatives of Indian tribal

governments ‘‘to provide meaningful

and timely input in the development of

regulatory policies on matters that

significantly or uniquely affect their

communities.’’

Today’s rule does not significantly or

uniquely affect the communities of

Indian tribal governments. Accordingly,

the requirements of section 3(b) of

Executive Order 13084 do not apply to

this rule.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

generally requires an agency to conduct

a regulatory flexibility analysis of any

rule subject to notice and comment

rulemaking requirements unless the

agency certifies that the rule will not

have a significant economic impact on

a substantial number of small entities.

Small entities include small businesses,

small not-for-profit enterprises, and

small governmental jurisdictions.

This final rule will not have a

significant impact on a substantial

number of small entities because SIP

approvals under section 110 and

subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air Act

do not create any new requirements but

simply approve requirements that the

State is already imposing. Therefore,

because the Federal SIP approval does

not create any new requirements, I

certify that this action will not have a

significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities.

Moreover, due to the nature of the

Federal-State relationship under the

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 83 / Friday, April 28, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 24877

Clean Air Act, preparation of flexibility

analysis would constitute Federal

inquiry into the economic

reasonableness of state action. The

Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base its

actions concerning SIPs on such

grounds. Union Electric Co., v. U.S.

EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255–66 (1976); 42

U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).

Unfunded Mandates

Under Section 202 of the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act of 1995

(‘‘Unfunded Mandates Act’’), signed

into law on March 22, 1995, EPA must

prepare a budgetary impact statement to

accompany any proposed or final rule

that includes a Federal mandate that

may result in estimated annual costs to

State, local, or tribal governments in the

aggregate; or to private sector, of $100

million or more. Under Section 205,

EPA must select the most cost-effective

and least burdensome alternative that

achieves the objectives of the rule and

is consistent with statutory

requirements. Section 203 requires EPA

to establish a plan for informing and

advising any small governments that

may be significantly or uniquely

impacted by the rule.

EPA has determined that the approval

action promulgated does not include a

Federal mandate that may result in

estimated annual costs of $100 million

or more to either State, local, or tribal

governments in the aggregate, or to the

private sector. This Federal action

approves pre-existing requirements

under State or local law, and imposes

no new requirements. Accordingly, no

additional costs to State, local, or tribal

governments, or to the private sector,

result from this action.

Submission to Congress and the

Comptroller General

The Congressional Review Act, 5

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small

Business Regulatory Enforcement

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides

that before a rule may take effect, the

agency promulgating the rule must

submit a rule report, which includes a

copy of the rule, to each House of the

Congress and to the Comptroller General

of the United States. EPA will submit a

report containing this rule and other

required information to the U.S. Senate,

the U.S. House of Representatives, and

the Comptroller General of the United

States prior to publication of the rule in

the Federal Register. This rule is not a

‘‘major’’ rule as defined by 5 U.S.C.

804(2).

National Technology Transfer and

Advancement Act

Section 12 of the National Technology

Transfer and Advancement Act

(NTTAA) of 1995 requires Federal

agencies to evaluate existing technical

standards when developing a new

regulation. To comply with NTTAA,

EPA must consider and use ‘‘voluntary

consensus standards’’ (VCS) if available

and applicable when developing

programs and policies unless doing so

would be inconsistent with applicable

law or otherwise impractical.

The EPA believes that VCS are

inapplicable to this action. Today’s

action does not require the public to

perform activities conducive to the use

of VCS.

Petitions for Judicial Review

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean

Air Act, petitions for judicial review of

this action must be filed in the United

States Court of Appeals for the

appropriate circuit by June 27, 2000.

Filing a petition for reconsideration by

the Administrator of this final rule does

not affect the finality of this rule for the

purposes of judicial review nor does it

extend the time within which a petition

for judicial review may be filed, and

shall not postpone the effectiveness of

such rule or action. This action may not

be challenged later in proceedings to

enforce its requirements. (See section

307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Hydrocarbons,

Incorporation by reference,

Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen

dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements, Volatile

organic compounds.

Dated: March 23, 2000.

William J. Muszynski,

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 2.

Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code

of Federal Regulations is amended as

follows:

PART 52—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 52

continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart HH—New York

2. Section 52.1670 is amended by

adding new paragraph (c)(97) to read as

follows:

§ 52.1670 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

* * * * *

(97) Revisions to the State

Implementation Plan submitted on

January 20, 1994 and April 29, 1999 by

the New York State Department of

Environmental Conservation that

establishes NOX RACT requirements

Statewide for combustion sources.

(i) Incorporation by reference:

(A) Regulation Subpart 227–2 of Title

6 of the New York Code of Rules and

Regulations, entitled ‘‘Reasonably

Available Control Technology (RACT)

for Oxides of Nitrogen (NOX)’’ adopted

on January 19, 1994, and effective on

February 18, 1994.

(B) Amendments to Subpart 227–2

adopted on January 12, 1999 and

effective on March 5, 1999.

(ii) Additional information

(A) Letters from the New York State

Department of Environmental

Department Conservation dated January

20, 1994 and April 29, 1999, submitting

the NOX RACT Regulation and

amendments as revisions to the New

York State Implementation Plan for

ozone.

(B) Letter from the New York State

Department of Environmental

Department Conservation dated April

27, 1999 submitting an analysis of mass

NOX emissions from generic sources

throughout the State as well as

resolution of other approvability issues.

3. In section 52.1679, the table is

amended by revising the entry for

Subpart 227–2 as follows:

§ 52.1679 EPA-approved New York State

regulations.

New York State regulation State effective date Latest EPA approval date Comments

*******

Subpart 227–2, Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) for Oxides of

Nitrogen (NOX).

3/5/99 [4/28/00 65 FR 24877].

*******

24878 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 83 / Friday, April 28, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

[FR Doc. 00–10521 Filed 4–27–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Coast Guard

46 CFR Part 26

[USCG–1999–5040]

RIN 2115–AF69

Safety of Uninspected Passenger

Vessels Under the Passenger Vessel

Safety Act of 1993 (PVSA)

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.

ACTION: Interim rule.

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard establishes

this interim rule to provide for the

issuance of special permits to

uninspected vessels under the Passenger

Vessel Safety Act of 1993 (PVSA). That

Act authorizes the Coast Guard to

amend operating and equipment

guidelines for uninspected passenger

vessels over 100 gross tons, carrying 12

or less passengers for hire. In addition,

it authorizes the Coast Guard to issue

special permits for vessels participating

in a Marine Event of National

Significance, such as OPSAIL 2000 and

Tall Ships 2000.

DATES: This interim rule is effective May

12, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Comments and material

received from the public, as well as

documents mentioned in this preamble

as being available in the docket, are part

of docket USCG–1999–5040 and are

available for inspection or copying at

the Docket Management Facility, U.S.

Department of Transportation, room PL–

401, 400 Seventh Street SW.,

Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5

p.m., Monday through Friday, except

Federal holidays. You may also find this

docket on the Internet at http://

dms.dot.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For

questions on this rule, call Lieutenant

Commander Michael A. Jendrossek,

Office of Operating and Environmental

Standards (G–MSO–2), Coast Guard,

telephone 202–267–0836. For questions

on viewing or submitting material to the

docket, call Dorothy Walker, Chief,

Dockets, Department of Transportation,

telephone 202–366–9329.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulatory History

On September 30, 1994, we published

Navigation and Vessel Inspection

Circular (NVIC) No. 7–94 to provide

compliance and enforcement guidance

to Coast Guard members on

implementing the provisions of the

PVSA while detailed regulations were

being developed. The NVIC addressed

the statutory changes in detail,

including one of the more significant

changes requiring all chartered vessels

carrying more than 12 passengers to be

inspected by the Coast Guard. The

PVSA allowed these vessels to apply for

inspection with a phase-in period for

compliance. The period for application

for inspection expired on June 21, 1994,

and the period for compliance expired

on December 21, 1996. With widespread

public notification, several hundred

charter vessels applied for and met the

conditions for certification with the

requirements of the PVSA and policy

guidance of the NVIC.

The NVIC also provided extensive

guidance to Coast Guard Marine Safety

field units on implementing the

provisions of the new law. For those

interested in viewing a copy of NVIC 7–

94, it is available in this rulemaking

docket as indicated under ADDRESSES

and also on the Internet at

www.uscg.mil/hq/g-m/nvic/

index90.htm.

On April 1, 1999, the Coast Guard

published an advanced notice of

proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) in the

Federal Register (64 FR 15709),

notifying the public of the intent of this

rulemaking and requesting comments in

several areas. We received nine letters

in response to the ANPRM.

On March 2, 2000, we published a

notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)

entitled ‘‘Safety of Uninspected

Passenger Vessels Under the Passenger

Vessel Safety Act of 1993 (PVSA)’’ in

the Federal Register (65 FR 11410).

Almost all of the changes proposed

there are still open for public comment.

Proposed section 26.03–8, however, was

issued with a 30-day comment period to

enable the Coast Guard to have

regulations in place for this year’s

millennium celebrations involving

sailing vessels from around the world,

beginning May 25, 2000. The Coast

Guard was not sure that certain vessels

would need an exemption in order to

participate in this celebration, thus we

did not propose these regulations

earlier. We received six comments on

this proposed section. No public hearing

was requested, and none was held.

Effective Date

The Coast Guard finds having these

regulations in place before this year’s

Marine Event of National Significance

begins constitutes good cause under the

Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C.

§ 553(d)(3)) for an effective date of less

than 30 days. These regulations will

take affect on May 12, 2000.

Background and Purpose

The PVSA authorizes the Coast Guard

to develop regulations to issue special

permits to uninspected vessels. This

broadens the Coast Guard’s authority

from the excursion permit for inspected

vessels to carry passengers for unique

events. Under this authority, we

proposed issuing special permits to the

owner or operator of a vessel that is a

registered participant in an event that

the Commandant, U.S. Coast Guard,

declares as a Marine Event of National

Significance.

Discussion of Comments and Changes

The following is a summary of the

comments we received concerning the

proposed section 26.03–8 in the Notice

of Proposed Rulemaking. We received

six comments concerning the Coast

Guard’s implementation of special

permits for Marine Events of National

Significance.

One comment from The American

Sail Training Association requests that

Tall Ships 2000, scheduled to take place

from 12 June to 16 July 2000, be granted

designation as a Marine Event of

National Significance. The Commandant

has determined that Tall Ships 2000

meets the criteria necessary to be

designated as such an event. Therefore,

Tall Ships 2000 has been officially

designated as a Marine Event of

National Significance. In the NPRM for

this rule, we noted that the

Commandant had designated OPSAIL

2000 as a Marine Event of National

Significance (65 FR 11410).

We received four comments that

specifically address foreign flagged

vessels carrying passengers in coastwise

trade.

One comment states that the Coast

Guard cannot permit foreign flagged

vessels to transport passengers in the

U.S. coastwise trades. The Coast Guard

concurs with this comment. The

Passenger Vessel Services Act (46 U.S.C.

App. 283) prohibits the transportation of

merchandise and passengers between

points in the United States embraced

within the coastwise laws in any vessel

other than a vessel built in and

documented under the laws of the

United States and owned by persons

who are citizens of the United States.

However, the United States Customs

Service has defined a passenger as

‘‘* * *any person carried on a vessel

who is not connected with the operation

of such vessel, her navigation,

ownership, or business’’ (19 CFR § 4.50

[b]). Based on this definition, the

Customs Service has held that a person