6326 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 27 / Wednesday, February 9, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

temporary deviation from the

drawbridge operation regulations for the

P.J. McArdle Bridge, mile 0.3, across the

Chelsea River between Chelsea and East

Boston, Massachusetts. This withdrawal

was necessary because the bridge has

been repaired and is operating under its

normal operating regulations. The

normal operating regulations require the

bridge to open on signal at all times for

vessel traffic.

DATES: This deviation withdrawal is

effective January 18, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John

McDonald, Project Officer, First Coast

Guard District, at (617) 223–8364.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The bridge

owner, the City of Boston, requested a

temporary deviation from the operating

regulations to facilitate vehicular and

pedestrian traffic during electrical

repairs at the P. J. McArdle Bridge, mile

0.3, across the Chelsea River between

East Boston and Chelsea, Massachusetts.

The submarine electrical cable for the

bridge was damaged during harbor

dredging operations requiring

emergency repairs to be implemented in

order to restore bridge operation and

facilitate marine traffic.

The Coast Guard issued a temporary

deviation from the operating regulations

published in the Federal Register (65

FR 2541; January 18, 2000) effective

January 6, 2000 through March 5, 2000.

The purpose of the deviation was to

help facilitate vehicular traffic during

the weekday rush hours.

A temporary auxiliary operating

system has been installed to open the

bridge and the bridge is now operating

under its normal operating regulations.

The temporary deviation from the

operating regulations is no longer

necessary as a result of the bridge being

returned to a fully operable status. The

bridge owner was advised on January

18, 2000, that the deviation has been

withdrawn.

Notice is given that the P.J. McArdle

Bridge, mile 0.3, across the Chelsea

River shall open on signal at all times

for vessel traffic.

Dated: January 25, 2000.

R.M. Larrabee,

Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard Commander,

First Coast Guard District.

[FR Doc. 00–2897 Filed 2–8–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–15–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[CGD01–00–003]

RIN 2115–AE47

Drawbridge Operation Regulations:

Reserved Channel, Massachusetts

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is removing

the drawbridge operation regulations

governing the Summer (L) Street Bridge,

mile 0.2, across the Reserved Channel in

Boston, MA. The bridge has been rebuilt

as a fixed bridge and the operating

regulations are no longer necessary.

Notice and public procedure have been

omitted from this action because the

bridge the regulations formerly

governed no longer exists.

DATES: This rule is effective February 9,

2000.

ADDRESSES: This docket (CGD01–00–

003), is available for inspection or

copying at the First Coast Guard

District, Bridge Branch Office, 408

Atlantic Avenue, Boston,

Massachusetts, 02110, 6:30 a.m. to 3

p.m., Monday through Friday, except

Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

John W. McDonald, Project Officer, First

Coast Guard District, (617) 223–8364.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background and Purpose

The Summer (L) Street Bridge has

been removed and replaced with a fixed

bridge that does not open for navigation.

The operating regulations are now

unnecessary and will be removed by

this final rule.

The Coast Guard has determined that

good cause exists under the

Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C.

553) to forego notice and comment for

this rulemaking because notice and

comment are unnecessary. Notice and

comment are unnecessary because the

bridge the regulations governed no

longer exists.

The Coast Guard, for the reasons

stated above, has determined that good

cause exists for this rule to be effective

upon publication in the Federal

Register.

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). This

conclusion is based on the fact that the

bridge the regulations governed no

longer exists.

Small Entities

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

(5 U.S.C. 601–612) we considered

whether this 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 less than 50,000.

For reasons discussed in the

Regulatory Evaluation section above, 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 calls for no new collection

of information under the Paperwork

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501–

3520).

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

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 27 / Wednesday, February 9, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 6327

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 risk to

safety that may disproportionately affect

children.

Environment

The Coast Guard considered the

environmental impact of this rule and

concluded that under figure 2–1,

paragraph (32)(e) of Commandant

Instruction M16475.1C, this rule is

categorically excluded from further

environmental documentation because

promulgation of changes to drawbridge

regulations have been found to not have

a significant effect on the environment.

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 set out in the

preamble, the Coast Guard amends 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; 49 CFR 1.46; 33

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

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

Stat. 5039.

§ 117.617 [REMOVED]

2. Section 117.617 is removed.

Dated: January 25, 2000.

R.M. Larrabee,

Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander,

First Coast Guard District.

[FR Doc. 00–2896 Filed 2–8–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–15–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans

CFR Correction

In Title 40 of the Code of Federal

Regulations, part 52 (§§ 52.01 to

52.1018), revised as of July 1, 1999, page

533, § 52.820 is corrected by adding the

effective date note following the source

note as follows:

§ 52.820 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

Effective Date Note: At 64 FR 25827, May

13, 1999, § 52.820, paragraph (c) was

amended by revising the entries for ‘‘567–

20.2’’ in Chapter 20, ‘‘567–22.1, 567–22.203,

and 567–22.300’’ in Chapter 22, ‘‘567–23.1’’

in Chapter 23, ‘‘567–25.1’’ in Chapter 25, and

‘‘567–28.1’’ in Chapter 28, effective July 12,

1999. For the convenience of the user, the

superseded text is set forth as follows:

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 00–55502 Filed 2–8–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 1505–01–D

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration

49 CFR Part 571

Docket No. NHTSA 2000–6740

RIN 2127–AH64

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety

Standards; Hydraulic and Electric

Brake Systems; Passenger Car Brake

Systems

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.

ACTION: Response to petitions for

reconsideration; final rule.

SUMMARY: This document responds to

two petitions for reconsideration of

amendments we made in September

1997 to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety

Standards Nos. 105 and 135 specifying

requirements for brake systems on

electric vehicles (EV). In response to the

petition by Hydro-Quebec of Canada, we

are allowing the use, under certain

conditions, of a regenerative braking

system (RBS) for EV testing in

accordance with S7.7 of Standard No.

135. This action is taken to facilitate

new technology in the braking system of

an EV. We are not amending Standard

Nos. 105 and 135 in response to the

petition for reconsideration by Toyota

Motor Sales USA Inc. Amending the

Standards as requested by Toyota may

degrade the safety of EVs by reducing

the stringency of the thermal tests.

DATES: The final rule is effective March

27, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Samuel Daniel, Vehicle Dynamics

Division, Office of Vehicle Safety

Standards, NHTSA (phone: 202–366–

4921).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Background

II. Petitions for Reconsideration

A. HQ’s Petition for Reconsideration

1. The Petition

2. Design of HQ’s EV Brake System

3. Amendments Recommended by HQ

4. Conclusions

B. Toyota’s Petition for Reconsideration

1. The Petition

2. Comparison of Thermal Tests in FMVSS

No. 135 and ECE R13–H

3. Amendments Recommended by Toyota

4. Conclusions

III. Additional Amendments—RBS

Malfunction Indicator Lamp

I. Background

On September 5, 1997, we amended

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards

(FMVSS) Nos. 105, Hydraulic Brake

Systems, and 135, Passenger Car Brake

Systems to accommodate EV brake

systems. See 62 FR 46907 for full

background information on this rule.

Electrically-powered vehicles have

unique performance characteristics that

do not permit them to be tested for

braking performance in the same way

that other light-duty vehicles are tested.

For example, because of the limited

range of EVs and the extensive travel

distance specified in several Federal

brake test series, we established

procedures for re-charging or replacing

the propulsion batteries during testing.

Most EVs have a feature called a

‘‘regenerative braking system’’ (RBS)

designed to extend the range of the

vehicle by as much as 10 to 20 percent

through conversion of vehicle kinetic

energy into electrical energy when the

vehicle is being decelerated. When

operating, the RBS provides a vehicle

deceleration, or braking force. The

September 1997 amendments also

established procedures for testing EV

braking systems and EVs equipped with

RBS.

We received two petitions for

reconsideration of the final rule, from

Hydro-Quebec of Canada (HQ), and

from Toyota Motor Sales Corporation

USA Inc. (Toyota).

II. Petitions for Reconsideration

A. HQ’s Petition for Reconsideration

1. The petition. HQ commented that

S7.7.3(h) of FMVSS No. 135, which

specifies that an EV with an RBS be

tested with the RBS inoperative during

the S7.7 Stops with Engine Off tests, is

inconsistent with other parts of FMVSS

No. 135. Specifically, the stopping

distance performance requirements of

S7.5, Cold Effectiveness and S7.7, Stops

with Engine Off, are identical; each test

requires that the vehicle be stopped

from 100 km/h (62 mph) within a

distance of 70 m (230 ft.). However, the