Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 230 / Wednesday, November 29, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 71059

Regulatory Evaluation

This final rule is not a significant

regulatory action under section 3(f) of

Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 and does

not require an assessment of potential

costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3)

of that Order. It has not been reviewed

by the Office of Management and

Budget 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

final rule to be so minimal that a full

Regulatory Evaluation under paragraph

10e of the regulatory policies and

procedures of DOT is unnecessary.

Small Entities

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

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

considers whether this final rule will

have a significant economic impact on

a substantial number of small entities.

‘‘Small entities’’ include (1) small

businesses, not-for-profit organizations

that are independently owned and

operated and are not dominant in their

fields, and (2) governmental

jurisdictions with populations of less

than 50,000.

Because the Coast Guard expects there

to be no impact from this rule, it

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. The Coast

Guard expects no impact from this rule.

There will be no changes made to the

operation of the bridge.

Collection of Information

This final rule would call for no new

collection of information under the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44

U.S.C. 3501–3520.).

Federalism

We have analyzed this final rule

under E.O. 13132 and have determined

that this final 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 costs. This final rule

would not impose an unfunded

mandate.

Taking of Private Property

This final rule would 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 final 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 final rule

under E.O. 13045, Protection of

Children from Environmental Health

Risks and Safety Risks. This final 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

We considered the environmental

impact of this final rule and concluded

that, under figure 2–1, paragraph (32)(e),

of Commandant Instruction M16475.lC,

this final rule is categorically excluded

from further environmental

documentation. This final rule will not

change the operation of the bridge. A

‘‘Categorical Exclusion Determination’’

is available in the docket 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 is amending

Part 117 of Title 33, Code of Federal

Regulations, 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, 105

Stat. 5039.

2. In § 117.971, the existing text is redesignated as paragraph (b) and a new

paragraph (a) is added to read as

follows:

§ 117.971 Neches River

(a) The draw of the Kansas City

Southern automated bridge, mile 19.5,

at Beaumont, is not constantly manned

and is operated from a remote site in

Shreveport, Louisiana. The bridge is

normally maintained in the closed to

navigation position, providing 13 feet of

vertical clearance above mean high tide.

This bridge will open on signal.

(1) Mariners may request a bridge

opening at anytime via one of the

following methods:

(i) Telephone at 1–877–829–6295;

(ii) Marine radio on VHF–FM Channel

16; or

(iii) Proper sound signal as prescribed

in § 117.15.

(2) When signaling by sound, if return

sound signal is not sent from the remote

bridge operator, in compliance with

§ 117.15, contact the remote operator via

telephone or marine radio.

(3) An audible warning siren will

sound when the bridge is in motion.

Video cameras will constantly monitor

the waterway near and under the draw.

Once a vessel has passed through the

bridge, the draw will lower, provided

the infrared ‘‘under bridge’’ presence

detector and video cameras reveal

nothing under the draw.

* * * * *

Dated: November 13, 2000.

Paul J. Pluta,

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

Eighth Coast Guard District.

[FR Doc. 00–30391 Filed 11–28–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–15–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[CGD08–00–027]

Drawbridge Operating Regulation;

Sabine Lake, Texas

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of temporary deviation

from regulations.

SUMMARY: The Commander, Eighth

Coast Guard District has issued a

temporary deviation from the regulation

in 33 CFR 117.979 governing the

operation of the State Route 82, swing

span bridge across Sabine Lake, mile

10.0 at Port Arthur, Texas. This

deviation allows the State of Texas,

Department of Transportation to close

the bridge to navigation from 7 a.m. on

December 1, 2000 through 5 p.m. on

December 15, 2000. Presently, the draw

is required to open on signal except that

from 9 p.m. to 5 a.m., the draw shall

open on signal if at least six hours

notice is given to the Maintenance

Construction Supervisor or the

Maintenance Foreman at Port Arthur.

This temporary deviation is issued to

allow for replacement of the operator

house and to perform electrical and

mechanical maintenance.

71060 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 230 / Wednesday, November 29, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

DATES: This deviation is effective from

7 a.m. on December 1, 2000 through 5

p.m. on December 15, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Unless otherwise indicated,

documents referred to in this notice are

available for inspection or copying at

the office of the Eighth Coast Guard

District, Bridge Administration Branch,

Commander (ob), 501 Magazine Street,

New Orleans, Louisiana, 70130–3396.

The Bridge Administration Branch

maintains the public docket for this

temporary deviation.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Phil

Johnson, Bridge Administration Branch,

telephone (504) 589–2965.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The State

Route 82, swing span bridge across

Sabine Lake, mile 10.2, near Port

Arthur, Texas, has a vertical clearance

of 9 feet above high water in the closedto-navigation position and unlimited

clearance in the open-to-navigation

position. Navigation on the waterway

consists primarily of fishing vessels, and

recreational craft, although the bridge is

occasionally transited by small tugs

with tows, transporting sand, gravel and

marine shells. The State of Texas,

Department of Transportation requested

a temporary deviation from the normal

operation of the drawbridge in order to

accommodate the maintenance work,

involving construction of a new

operator house and replacement of the

submarine power supply cable and

other electrical and mechanical repairs.

This maintenance is necessary for the

continued operation of the bridge. An

alternate route via the Gulf Intracoastal

Waterway is available.

This deviation allows the draw of the

State Route 82 Bridge swing span

drawbridge across Sabine Lake, mile

10.0, to remain closed to navigation

from 7 a.m. on December 1, 2000

through 5 p.m. on December 15, 2000.

Dated: November 14, 2000.

Paul J. Pluta,

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

Eighth Coast Guard District.

[FR Doc. 00–30392 Filed 11–28–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–15–U

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

[NH–45–7172a; A–1–FRL–6906–2]

Approval and Promulgation of Air

Quality Implementation Plans and

Designations of Areas for Air Quality

Planning Purposes; State of New

Hampshire; Revision to the Carbon

Monoxide State Implementation Plan,

City of Nashua; Carbon Monoxide

Redesignation Request, Maintenance

Plan, Transportation Conformity

Budget, and Emissions Inventory for

the City of Nashua; Carbon Monoxide

Redesignation Request, Maintenance

Plan, Transportation Conformity

Budget, and Emissions Inventory for

the City of Manchester

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) is redesignating the

Nashua, New Hampshire nonattainment

area to attainment for the carbon

monoxide (CO) air quality standard and

approving a maintenance plan that will

insure that the Nashua area remains in

attainment. The EPA is also

redesignating the Manchester, New

Hampshire nonattainment area to

attainment for the CO air quality

standard and approving a maintenance

plan that will insure that the

Manchester area remains in attainment.

Under the Clean Air Act, as amended in

1990 (the CAA), designations can be

revised if sufficient data are available to

warrant such revisions and the request

to redesignate shows that all of the

requirements of section 107(d)(E)(3) of

the CAA have been met. EPA is

approving the New Hampshire

maintenance plans and other

redesignation submittals because they

meet the maintenance plan and

redesignation requirements, and will

ensure that the two areas remains in

attainment. The approved maintenance

plans will become a federally

enforceable part of the New Hampshire

State Implementation Plan (SIP). In this

action, EPA is also approving the New

Hampshire 1990 baseline emission

inventories for both of these areas,

transportation conformity budgets for

both areas and a revision to the motor

vehicle inspection and maintenance (I/

M) SIP approved for the Nashua area.

DATES: This direct final rule is effective

January 29, 2001 without further notice,

unless EPA receives adverse comment

by December 29, 2000. If adverse

comment is received, EPA 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: Comments may be mailed to

David Conroy, Unit Manager, Air

Quality Planning, Office of Ecosystem

Protection (mail code CAQ), U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, New

England office, One Congress Street,

Suite 1100, Boston, MA 02114–2023.

Copies of the State’s redesignation

requests and other information

supporting this action and EPA’s

technical support document are

available for public inspection during

normal business hours, by appointment

at the Office of Ecosystem Protection,

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

New England office, One Congress

Street, 11th floor, Boston, MA and Air

Resources Division, Department of

Environmental Services, 6 Hazen Drive,

P.O. Box 95, Concord, NH 03302–0095.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Jeffrey S. Butensky, Environmental

Planner, Air Quality Planning Unit of

the Office of Ecosystem Protection (mail

code CAQ), U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, New England office,

One Congress Street, Boston, MA

02114–2023, (617) 918–1665 or at

butensky.jeff@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Summary of SIP Revisions

Why is EPA taking this action?

Why are we concerned about carbon

monoxide?

How did EPA establish Manchester and

Nashua as nonattainment for carbon

monoxide?

Why did New Hampshire initiate an

Inspection and Maintenance program in

the Nashua area?

What are the related Clean Air Act

requirements, and how does New

Hampshire meet them?

Why Is EPA Taking This Action?

On February 2, 1999, the State of New

Hampshire submitted formal CO

redesignation requests for the City of

Manchester and the City of Nashua.

These two submittals also included

maintenance plans, 1990 CO emission

inventories, and transportation

conformity budgets for both cities. Both

of these submittals are being approved

in today’s action. New Hampshire also

submitted a revision to the CO

attainment SIP for Nashua. This

submittal, dated February 1, 1999,

requests to replace the previously

implemented CO I/M program in the

Nashua area with controls consisting of

the existing federal Tier 1 emission