49608 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 184 / Tuesday, September 23, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

need assistance understanding the

provisions of this rule, please contact

the Coast Guard Captain of the Port

(COTP) closest to your vessel’s

operational area.

Unfunded Mandate

Under the Unfunded Mandate Reform

Act (Pub. L. 104–4), the Coast Guard

must consider whether this rule will

result in an annual expenditure by

State, local, and tribal governments, in

the aggregate, or by the private sector, of

$100 million (adjusted annually for

inflation). The Act also requires (in

Section 205) that the Coast Guard

identify and consider a reasonable

number of regulatory alternatives and,

from those alternatives, select the least

costly, most cost-effective, or least

burdensome alternative that achieves

the objective of the rule.

The cost-benefit analysis done for the

original anticipated under-keel

clearance requirement remains

unchanged for this final rule. The

anticipated under-keel clearance

requirement contained in this final rule

is less prescriptive while achieving the

same objective. The anticipated underkeel clearance requirement, as amended

in this final rule, does not result in costs

of $100 million or more to either State,

local, or tribal governments, in the

aggregate, or to the private sector and is

the least burdensome alternative that

achieves the objective of the rule.

Collection of Information

This final rule contains no new

collection-of-information requirements

under the Paperwork Reduction Act of

1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). As stated

in a notice published on December 6,

1996 (61 FR 64618), the Office of

Management and Budget (OMB) has

approved the collection requirements

under OMB control number 2115–0629.

Federalism

The Coast Guard has analyzed this

final rule under the principles and

criteria contained in Executive Order

12612 (October 26, 1987) and has

determined that this final 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 for

the original operational measures final

rulemaking and concluded that

preparation of an Environmental Impact

Statement was not necessary. An

Environmental Assessment and a

Finding of No Significant Impact are

available in the docket for inspection or

copying where indicated under

ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 157

Cargo vessels, Oil Pollution,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

For the reasons set out in the

preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33

CFR part 157 as follows:

PART 157—RULES FOR THE

PROTECTION OF THE MARINE

ENVIRONMENT RELATING TO TANK

VESSELS CARRYING OIL IN BULK

1. The authority citation for part 157

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1903; 46 U.S.C. 3703,

3703a (note); 49 CFR 1.46. Subparts G, H, and

I are also issued under section 4115(b), Pub.

L. 101–380, 104 Stat. 520; Pub. L. 104–55,

109 Stat. 546.

2. The stay announced at 61 FR

60189, November 27, 1996, is lifted and

§ 157.455 is revised to read as follows:

§ 157.455 Minimum under-keel clearance.

(a) The owner or operator of a

tankship, that is not fitted with a double

bottom that covers the entire cargo tank

length, shall provide the tankship

master with written under-keel

clearance guidance that includes—

(1) Factors to consider when

calculating the ship’s deepest

navigational draft;

(2) Factors to consider when

calculating the anticipated controlling

depth;

(3) Consideration of weather or

environmental conditions; and

(4) Conditions which mandate when

the tankship owner or operator shall be

contacted prior to port entry or getting

underway; if no such conditions exist,

the guidance must contain a statement

to that effect.

(b) Prior to entering the port or place

of destination and prior to getting

underway, the master of a tankship that

is not fitted with the double bottom that

covers the entire cargo tank length shall

plan the ship’s passage using guidance

issued under paragraph (a) of this

section and estimate the anticipated

under-keel clearance. The tankship

master and the pilot shall discuss the

ship’s planned transit including the

anticipated under-keel clearance. An

entry must be made in the tankship’s

official log or in other onboard

documentation reflecting discussion of

the ship’s anticipated passage.

(c) The owner or operator of a tank

barge, that is not fitted with a double

bottom that covers the entire cargo tank

length, shall not permit the barge to be

towed unless the primary towing vessel

master or operator has been provided

with written under-keel clearance

guidance that includes—

(1) Factors to consider when

calculating the tank barge’s deepest

navigational draft;

(2) Factors to consider when

calculating the anticipated controlling

depth;

(3) Consideration of weather or

environmental conditions; and

(4) Conditions which mandate when

the tank barge owner or operator shall

be contacted prior to port entry or

getting underway; if no such conditions

exist, the guidance must contain a

statement to that effect.

Dated: September 15, 1997.

Robert E. Kramek,

Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard Commandant.

[FR Doc. 97–25208 Filed 9–22–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–14–M

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[ME–046–6996a; A–1–FRL–5894–8]

Approval and Promulgation of Air

Quality Implementation Plans; Maine

(General Conformity Rule)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is approving the State

Implementation Plan (SIP) revision

submitted by the State of Maine for the

purpose of implementing General

Conformity (Section 176(c)(4)(C) of the

Clean Air Act (CAA), and its

regulations, 40 CFR part 51, subpart W),

which requires federal actions to

conform to all applicable

implementation plans developed

pursuant to section 110 and part D of

the CAA. The Maine SIP incorporates by

reference the criteria and procedures set

forth at 40 CFR part 51, subpart W. This

general conformity SIP revision will

enable the State of Maine to implement

and enforce the Federal general

conformity requirements in Maine’s

nonattainment and maintenance areas at

the State and local level. This action is

being taken in accordance with the

Clean Air Act.

DATES: This action is effective

November 24, 1997, unless EPA receives

adverse or critical comments by October

23, 1997. If the effective date is delayed,

timely notice will be published in the

Federal Register.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to

Susan Studlien, Deputy Director, Office
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 184 / Tuesday, September 23, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 49609

of Ecosystem Protection (mail code

CAA), U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Region I, JFK Federal Building,

Boston, MA 02203. Copies of the

documents relevant to this action are

available for public inspection during

normal business hours, by appointment

at the Office of Ecosystem Protection,

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Region I, One Congress Street, 11th

floor, Boston, MA; Air and Radiation

Docket and Information Center, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, 401

M Street, SW. (LE–131), Washington,

DC 20460; and the Bureau of Air Quality

Control, Department of Environmental

Protection, 71 Hospital Street, Augusta,

ME 04333.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Donald O. Cooke, (617) 565–3508, at the

EPA Region I address above.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section

176(c) of the Clean Air Act, as amended

(the Act), requires the EPA to

promulgate criteria and procedures for

demonstrating and ensuring conformity

of Federal actions to an applicable

implementation plan developed

pursuant to section 110 and part D of

the Act. EPA promulgated a final

rulemaking on November 30, 1993

consisting of 40 CFR part 93, subpart B,

‘‘Determining Conformity of General

Federal Actions to State or Federal

Implementation Plans,’’ which applied

to Federal agencies immediately

(hereafter referred to as the General

Conformity rule); and 40 CFR part 51,

subpart W, ‘‘Determining Conformity of

General Federal Actions to State or

Federal Implementation Plans,’’ which

established requirements for States in

submitting SIPs. The general conformity

rules, except for the 40 CFR 51.851(a)

language requiring State submission of a

SIP revision, are repeated at 40 CFR part

93, subpart B. The General Conformity

rule establishes the criteria and

procedures governing the determination

of conformity for all Federal actions,

except Federal highway and transit

actions.

The General Conformity rule also

establishes the criteria for EPA approval

of SIPs. See 40 CFR 51.851 and 93.151.

These criteria provide that the state

provisions must be at least as stringent

as the requirements specified in EPA’s

General Conformity rule, and that they

can be more stringent only if they apply

equally to Federal and non-Federal

entities (§ 51.851(b)). The federal

General Conformity rule has been

incorporated by reference so Maine’s

rule is no more stringent than the

federal rule and does not impose any

additional controls on non-federal

entities.

On October 11, 1996, the State of

Maine submitted a formal revision to its

State Implementation Plan (SIP). The

SIP revision consists of incorporating by

reference 40 CFR 51.850, 51.852, 51.853,

51.854, 51.855, 51.856, 51.857, 51.858,

51.859 and 51.860 thereby establishing

general conformity criteria and

procedures in the Maine SIP. This

proposed SIP revision was the subject of

a public hearing held on August 14,

1996 in accordance with federal and

state administrative requirements. The

Maine Board of Environmental

Protection adopted ‘‘State Chapter 141—

Conformity of General Federal Actions,’’

that became effective September 28,

1996. The Maine Office of the Attorney

General has certified Chapter 141 as to

form and legality.

I. Summary of SIP Revision

The purpose of the General

Conformity Rule is to ensure that all

Federal actions [except for Federal

actions related to transportation projects

funded or approved under Title 23

U.S.C. or the Federal Transit Act (49

U.S.C. 1601 et seq.) which are regulated

under Transportation Conformity],

conform to the appropriate SIP

developed pursuant to Section 110 and

part D of the CAA. Section 176(c) of the

CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7506(c), provides that

no Federal department, agency, or

instrumentality shall engage in, support

in any way or provide financial

assistance for, license or permit, or

approve any activity which does not

conform to a SIP that has been approved

or promulgated pursuant to the CAA.

Conformity is defined in section 176(c)

of the CAA as conformity to the SIP’s

purpose of eliminating or reducing the

severity and number of violations of the

National Ambient Air Quality Standards

(NAAQS) and achieving expeditious

attainment of such standards, and that

such activities will not: (1) Cause or

contribute to any new violation of any

standard in any area; (2) interfere with

provisions in the applicable SIP for

maintenance of any standard; (3)

increase the frequency or severity of any

existing violation of any standard in any

area; or (4) delay timely attainment of

any standard or any required interim

emission reductions or other milestones

in any area.

The CAA ties conformity to

attainment and maintenance of the

NAAQS. Conformity therefore applies

only in areas that are non-attainment or

maintenance with respect to any of the

criteria pollutants under the CAA:

carbon monoxide (CO), lead (Pb),

nitrogen dioxide (NO2), ozone (O3),

particulate matter (PM10), and sulfur

dioxide (SO2). The rule covers direct

and indirect emissions of criteria

pollutants or their precursors that are

reasonably foreseeable and caused by a

Federal action.

II. Evaluation of the State’s Submittal

Pursuant to the requirements under

Section 176(c)(4)(C) of the CAA the

Maine DEP submitted a SIP revision to

the EPA on October 11, 1996. The EPA

found this submittal to be complete on

November 14, 1996. In its submittal, the

State adopted through incorporation by

reference, ‘‘EPA’s general conformity

rule 40 CFR part 51, subpart W,

§§ 51.850, 51.852, 51.853, 51.854,

51.855, 51.856, 51.857, 51.858, 51.859,

and 51.860’’ (as published on November

30, 1996 at 58 FR 63247–63253), in

Chapter 141 of the Maine Department of

Environmental Protection Air

Regulation entitled, ‘‘Conformity of

General Federal Actions’’.

General conformity is required for all

areas which are designated

nonattainment or maintenance for any

NAAQS criteria pollutant. The State of

Maine currently has six areas where the

general conformity rule must be

implemented: three areas designated

ozone nonattainment; one area

designated ozone maintenance; one

designated particulate matter (PM10)

maintenance area; and one designated

sulfur dioxide (SO2) maintenance area.

The ozone areas for which conformity

determinations are required and which

are governed by general conformity

include the following counties:

Hancock; Waldo; Knox; Lincoln;

Androscoggin; Kennebec; Cumberland,

Sagadahoc; York. The PM10

maintenance area for which conformity

determinations are required and which

is governed by general conformity

includes a portion of Aroostock County

(within city of Presque Isle). And

finally, the SO2 maintenance area for

which conformity determinations are

required and which is governed by

general conformity is the municipality

of Millinocket.

III. Statutory and Regulatory

References

The Maine Office of Attorney General

determined that this SIP revision will be

enforceable pursuant to Maine statutory

law (i.e., 38 M.R.S.A. Section 585 which

states ‘‘The board may establish and

may amend standards, herein called

‘‘emission standards,’’ limiting and

regulating in a just and equitable

manner the amount and type of air

contaminants which may be emitted to

the ambient air within a region. Such

emission standards shall be designated

to prevent air pollution and to achieve

and maintain the ambient air quality
49610 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 184 / Tuesday, September 23, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

standards within the region in which

applicable’’ and 38 M.R.S.A. Section

585–A which states ‘‘The Board may

establish and amend regulations to

implement ambient air quality

standards and emission standards’’).

Finally, Section 110 of the Clean Air Act

Amendments requires each state to

adopt and submit to the Administrator

a plan providing for the

implementation, maintenance and

enforcement of air quality standards and

control programs.

IV. EPA Action

The EPA is approving the general

conformity SIP revision for the State of

Maine. The EPA has evaluated this SIP

revision and has determined that the

State has fully adopted the provisions of

the Federal general conformity rules set

forth at 40 CFR part 51, subpart B. The

appropriate public participation and

comprehensive interagency

consultations have been undertaken

during development and adoption of

this SIP revision.

The EPA is publishing this action

without prior proposal because the

Agency views this as a noncontroversial

amendment and anticipates no adverse

comments. However, in a separate

document in this Federal Register

publication, the EPA is proposing to

approve the SIP revision should adverse

or critical comments be filed. This

action will be effective November 24,

1997, unless, by October 23, 1997,

adverse or critical comments are

received.

If the EPA receives such comments,

this action will be withdrawn before the

effective date by publishing a

subsequent document that will

withdraw the final action. All public

comments received will be addressed in

a subsequent final rule based on this

action serving as a proposed rule. The

EPA will not institute a second

comment period on this action. Any

parties interested in commenting on this

action should do so at this time. If no

such comments are received, the public

is advised that this action will be

effective November 24, 1997.

Nothing in this action should be

construed as permitting or allowing or

establishing a precedent for any future

request for revision to any State

implementation plan. Each request for

revision to the State implementation

plan shall be considered separately in

light of specific technical, economic,

and environmental factors and in

relation to relevant statutory and

regulatory requirements.

V. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

The Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) has exempted this regulatory

action from E.O. 12866 review.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act,

5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., EPA must prepare

a regulatory flexibility analysis

assessing the impact of any proposed or

final rule on small entities. 5 U.S.C. 603

and 604. Alternatively, EPA may certify

that the rule will not have a significant

impact on a substantial number of small

entities. Small entities include small

businesses, small not-for-profit

enterprises, and government entities

with jurisdiction over populations of

less than 50,000.

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 impose any new requirements, the

Administrator certifies that it does not

have a significant impact on any small

entities affected. Moreover, due to the

nature of the Federal-State relationship

under the CAA, preparation of a

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).

C. Unfunded Mandates Act

Under sections 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 costs to State,

local, or tribal governments in the

aggregate; or to the private sector, of

$100 million or more. Under Section

205, EPA must select the most costeffective 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 proposed does not include a

Federal mandate that may result in

estimated 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 Federal requirements.

Accordingly, no additional costs to

State, local, or tribal governments, or to

the private sector, result from this

action.

D. Submission to Congress and the

General Accounting Office

Under 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A) as added

by the Small Business Regulatory

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, EPA

submitted 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 General Accounting

Office prior to publication of the rule in

today’s Federal Register. This rule is

not a ‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5

U.S.C. 804(2).

E. 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 November 24,

1997. 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).) EPA encourages interested

parties to comment in response to the

proposed rule rather than petition for

judicial review, unless the objection

arises after the comment period allowed

for in the proposal.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Carbon monoxide,

Hydrocarbons, Incorporation by

reference, Intergovernmental relations,

Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,

Particulate matter, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur

oxides.

Dated: September 9, 1997.

John P. DeVillars,

Regional Administrator, Region I.

Part 52 of 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:
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 184 / Tuesday, September 23, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 49611

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q.

Subpart U—Maine

2. Section 52.1020 is amended by

adding paragraph (c)(44) to read as

follows:

§ 52.1020 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(44) Revisions to the State

Implementation Plan submitted by the

Maine Department of Environmental

Protection on October 11, 1996.

(i) Incorporation by reference.

(A) Letter from the Maine Department

of Environmental Protection dated

October 11, 1996 submitting a revision

to the Maine State Implementation Plan.

(B) Chapter 141 of the Maine

Department of Environmental Protection

Air Regulation entitled, ‘‘Conformity of

General Federal Actions,’’ effective in

the State of Maine on September 28,

1996.

3. In § 52.1031 Table 52.1031 is

amended by adding a new entry for state

citation Chapter 141: General

Conformity Rule to read as follows:

§ 52.1031 EPA-approved Maine

regulations.

* * * * *

TABLE 52.1031.—EPA-APPROVED RULES AND REGULATIONS

State citation Title/subject

Date

adopted

by State

Date approved by

EPA

Federal Register citation 52.1020

* * * * * * *

141 ........... Conformity of General Federal Actions.9/11/96 September

23, 1997.

62 FR 49611 .............................. (c)(44) ‘‘Chapter 141: Conformity of

General Federal Actions’’.

* * * * * * *

[FR Doc. 97–25230 Filed 9–22–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[MD 039–3019; FRL–5896–1]

Approval and Promulgation of Air

Quality Implementation Plans;

Maryland; 15% Rate of Progress Plan

for the Maryland Portion of the

Metropolitan Washington, D.C. Area

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is granting conditional

approval of the State Implementation

Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the

State of Maryland, for the Maryland

portion of the Metropolitan Washington,

D.C. serious ozone nonattainment area,

to meet the 15 percent reasonable

further progress (RFP, or 15% plan)

requirements of the Clean Air Act (the

Act). EPA is granting conditional

approval of the 15% plan, submitted by

the State of Maryland, because on its

face the plan achieves the required 15%

emission reduction, but additional

documentation to verify the emission

calculations is necessary for full

approval. Additionally, the plan relies

upon Maryland’s inspection and

maintenance (I/M) program that

received final conditional approval on

July 31, 1997 (62 FR 40938). This action

is being taken under section 110 of the

Clean Air Act.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This final rule is

effective on October 23, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the documents

relevant to this action are available for

public inspection during normal

business hours at the Air, Radiation,

and Toxics Division, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region III, 841 Chestnut Building,

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19107; and

the Maryland Department of the

Environment, 2500 Broening Highway,

Baltimore, Maryland 21224.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Carolyn M. Donahue, Ozone/Carbon

Monoxide and Mobile Sources Section

(3AT21), USEPA—Region III, 841

Chestnut Building, Philadelphia,

Pennsylvania 19107, or by telephone at

(215) 566–2095 or via e-mail, at the

following address:

donahue.carolyn@epamail.epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

Section 182(b)(1) of the Act requires

ozone nonattainment areas classified as

moderate or above to develop plans to

reduce volatile organic compounds

(VOC) emissions by 15% from 1990

baseline levels. The Metropolitan

Washington, D.C. area is classified as a

serious ozone nonattainment area and is

subject to the 15% plan requirement.

The Metropolitan Washington, D.C.

ozone nonattainment area consists of

the entire District of Columbia (‘‘the

District’’), five counties in the Northern

Virginia area and five counties in

Maryland. The Maryland portion

consists of Calvert, Charles, Frederick,

Montgomery and Prince George’s

Counties.

Virginia, Maryland, and the District

all must demonstrate reasonable further

progress for the Metropolitan

Washington, D.C. nonattainment area.

These three jurisdictions, in conjunction

with municipal planning organizations,

collaborated on a coordinated 15% plan

for the nonattainment area. This was

done with the assistance of the regional

air quality planning committee, the

Metropolitan Washington Air Quality

Committee (MWAQC), and the local

municipal planning organization, the

Metropolitan Washington Council of

Governments (MWCOG), to ensure

coordination of air quality and

transportation planning.

The State of Maryland submitted the

15% plan SIP revision for the Maryland

portion of the Metropolitan Washington,

D.C. nonattainment area on July 12,

1995. On June 5, 1997, EPA published

a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR)

in the Federal Register proposing

conditional approval of the 15% plan

(62 FR 30821). EPA’s rationale for

granting conditional approval to this

Maryland 15% plan, and the details of

the July 12, 1995 submittal are

contained in the June 5, 1997 NPR and

the accompanying technical support

document and will not be restated here.

II. Public Comments and EPA

Responses

EPA received a letter in response to

the June 5, 1997 NPR from the Sierra

Club Legal Defense Fund (SCLDF). The