Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 88/Thursday, May 7, 1998 / Proposed Rules 25189

and all vessels to take immediate steps

to avoid collision. The display of an

orange distress smoke signal from a

patrol vessel will be the signal for any

and all vessels to stop immediately.

(3) Spectators required to maintain a

safe distance from the racecourse at all

times.

(b) Effective Date: This section

becomes effective annually at 12 p.m.

and terminates at 4:30 p.m. EDT, on the

third Sunday of July.

Dated: April 24, 1998.

R.C. Olsen, Jr.,

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting

Commander, Seventh Coast Guard District.

[FR Doc. 98–12138 Filed 5–6–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–15–M

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[CGD11–98–005]

RIN 2115–AA97

Safety/Security Zone; San Francisco

Bay, San Pablo Bay, Carquinez Straits,

and Suisun Bay, CA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to

establish a moving safety/security zone

around vessels transporting foreign

research reactor spent nuclear materials

on the navigable waters of San

Francisco Bay, San Pablo Bay,

Carquinez Straits, and Suisun Bay, CA.

The zone will extend 200 yards ahead

and astern, and 100 yards to each side

of each vessel carrying the nuclear

materials, during transit from buoys 7

and 8 in the San Francisco Bay Traffic

Lane to the Weapons Support Facility

Seal Beach Detachment Concord on

Suisun Bay. When the vessel is safely

moored at the Weapons Support

Facility, the zone will close to

encompass all waters within 100 yards

of the vessels and will remain so until

all nuclear materials cargo handling

operations have been completed.

The purpose of this safety/security

zone are two-fold: To ensure the safety

of the participant transport vessels and

crew, and of all other vessels and crew

in the vicinity of the participant

transport vessels; and to ensure the

security of the participant transport

vessels, and of the property of the

United States Government contained on

those vessels, against sabotage or other

subversive and/or disruptive acts. No

persons or vessels will be allowed to

enter, operate, or anchor within this

zone, except as may be authorized by

Commander, Eleventh Coast Guard

District, or his designated

representative.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before July 6, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Lieutenant Commander Mark Dix, Coast

Guard Marine Safety Office San

Francisco Bay, at (510) 437–3073,

between the hours of 7:30 a.m. and 4

p.m. PDT, Monday through Friday,

except federal holidays.

ADDRESSES: U.S. Coast Guard Marine

Safety Office San Francisco Bay,

Building 14, Coast Guard Island,

Alameda, CA 94501–5100.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Request for Comments

Interested persons are invited to

participate in this rulemaking by

submitting written views, data, or

arguments. Persons submitting

comments should include their names

and addresses, identifying this proposal

by docket number (CGD11–98–005) and

the specific section of this proposal to

which their comments apply, and give

reasons for each comment. Receipt of

comments will be acknowledged if a

stamped, self-addressed postcard or

envelope is enclosed. All comments

received before the expiration of the

comment period will be considered

before final action is taken on this

proposal. The proposed rule may be

changed in light of comments received.

No public hearing on this proposal is

planned, but one may be held if written

requests for a hearing are received and

it is determined that the opportunity for

oral presentation will enhance the

rulemaking process.

Background and Purpose

As part of a major national security

objective to further the objectives of the

1968 Treaty On Non-Proliferation of

Nuclear Weapons, the United States

Department of Energy (DOE) will be

receiving shipments of foreign research

reactor spent nuclear fuel at the

Weapons Support Facility Seal Beach

Detachment Concord in Concord, CA.

As such, DOE is responsible for the

shipments necessitating promulgation of

this safety/security zone.

The Coast Guard proposes to establish

a moving safety/security zone around

each vessel transporting these foreign

research reactor spent nuclear materials

on behalf of DOE and the United States

Government on the navigable waters of

San Francisco Bay, San Pablo Bay,

Carquinez Straits, and Suisun Bay, CA,

and at the Weapons Support Facility

Seal Beach Detachment Concord.

The Coast Guard does not anticipate

that maritime traffic will be significantly

impacted by the promulgation of this

safety/security zone because DOE has

advised that there will be irregular and

infrequent shipments, and that

expeditious transits will be scheduled

for days and times of light maritime

traffic so as to maximize safety and

minimize any delay or inconvenience

caused by the shipments. The purposes

of this safety/security zone are two-fold:

(1) Pursuant to 33 CFR 165.23, to ensure

that safety of the participant transport

vessels and crew, and of all other

vessels and crew in the vicinity of the

participant transport vessels; and, (2)

pursuant to 33 CFR 165.33, to ensure

the security of the participant transport

vessels, and of the property of the

United States Government contained on

those vessels, against sabotage or other

subversive and/or disruptive acts.

Discussion and Proposed Rule

The proposed safety/security zone

will extend 200 yards ahead and astern,

and 100 yards to each side of vessels

carrying the nuclear materials, during

transit from buoys 7 and 8 in the San

Francisco Bay Traffic Lane (LLNR 4190

& 4195, positions 37°46.9′N, 122°35.4′W

& 37°46.5′N, 122°35.2′W, respectively)

to the Weapons Support Facility Seal

Beach Detachment Concord on Suisun

Bay (position 38°03.3′N, 122°02.5′W).

Once the vessel is safety moored, the

zone will close to encompass all waters

within 100 yards of the vessel and will

remain so until all nuclear materials

cargo handling operations have been

completed. No persons or vessels will

be allowed to enter, operate, or anchor,

including any emergency mooring or

anchoring, within this zone during the

vessel’s transit and subsequent cargo

handling operations except as may be

authorized by Commander, Eleventh

Coast Guard District, or his designated

representative.

DOE anticipates that these shipments

will take place at irregular intervals for

an undetermined period of years. Thus,

the actual dates and times that this

safety/security zone will be activated

are not known by the Coast at this time.

The Eleventh Coast Guard District

Commander will cause notice of the

activation of this safety/security zone to

be made by all appropriate means to

effect the widest publicity among the

affected segments of the public,

including publication in the Federal

Register as practicable, in accordance

with the provisions of 33 CFR 165.7(a);

such means of announcement may

include, but are not limited to,
25190 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 88/Thursday, May 7, 1998 / Proposed Rules

Broadcast Notice to Mariners. The Coast

Guard will also issue a Broadcast Notice

to Mariners notifying the public when

nuclear materials cargo handling has

been completed.

Regulatory Evaluation

This proposal 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. It has been exempted from review

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

proposal to be so minimal that a full

Regulatory Evaluation under paragraph

10e of the regulatory policies and

procedures of DOT is unnecessary.

Maritime traffic will not be significantly

impacted because of the infrequent

transits necessitating activation of this

safety zone, and the limited duration of

the zone during transit and cargo

operations.

Small Entities

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

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

must consider whether this proposal

will have a significant economic impact

on a substantial number of small

entities. ‘‘Small entities’’ may include

small businesses and not-for-profit

organizations that are not dominant in

their respective fields, and

governmental jurisdictions with

populations less than 50,000. For the

same reasons set forth in the above

Regulatory Evaluation, the Coast Guard

certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this

proposal, if adopted, is not expected to

have a significant economic impact on

any substantial number of entities,

regardless of their size.

Assistance for Small Entities

In accordance with 213(a) of the

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement

Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104–121),

the Coast Guard wants to assist small

entities in understanding this proposed

rule so that they can better evaluate its

effects on them and participate in the

rulemaking process. If your small

business or organization is affected by

this rule and you have questions

concerning its provisions or options for

compliance, please contact LCDR Mark

Dix, Coast Guard Marine Safety Office

San Francisco Bay, at the address listed

in ADDRESSES.

Collection of Information

This rule contains no collection-ofinformation requirements under the

Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.

3501 et seq.).

Federalism

The Coast Guard has analyzed this

proposal under the principles and

criteria contained in Executive Order

12612 and has determined that this

proposed rule does not have sufficient

Federalism implications to warrant the

preparation of a Federalism Assessment.

Environmental Assessment

The Coast Guard has considered the

environmental impact of this

rulemaking in accordance with Figure

2–1, paragraph (34)(g), of Commandant

Instruction M16475.1C, and has

determined that this particular action is

categorically excluded from further

environmental documentation. A

Categorical Exclusion Determination

and Environmental Analysis Checklist

is in file in the rulemaking docket, and

is available for inspection at the address

shown above in the paragraph entitled

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. A copy of DOE’s ‘‘Final

Environmental Impact Statement on a

Proposed Nuclear Weapons

Nonproliferation Policy Concerning

Foreign Research Reactor Spent Nuclear

Fuel’’ has also been placed in the

rulemaking docket and is available for

inspection at the address shown above

in the paragraph entitled FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT. To request your

own copy of this document, contact:

Charles Head, Program Manager, Office

of Spent Nuclear Fuel Management

(EM–67), U.S. Department of Energy,

1000 Independence Avenue, SW,

Washington, DC 20585.

Unfunded Mandates

Under the Unfunded Mandates

Reform Act of 1995 (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 of $100

million (adjusted annually for inflation).

If so, the Act requires that a reasonable

number of regulatory alternatives be

considered, and that from those

alternatives, the least costly, most costeffective, or least burdensome

alternative that achieves the objective of

the rule be selected.

No state, local, or tribal government

entities will be affected by this rule, so

this rule will not result in annual or

aggregate costs of $100 million or more.

Therefore, the Coast Guard is exempt

from any further regulatory

requirements under the Unfunded

Mandates Act.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation

(water), Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Safety measures,

Waterways.

Proposed Regulations

In consideration of the foregoing, the

Coast Guard proposes to amend subpart

F of part 165 of Title 33, Code of Federal

Regulations, 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 150.5;

49 CFR 1.46.

2. A new § 165.1115 is added to read

as follows:

§ 165.1115 Safety/Security Zone: San

Francisco Bay, San Pablo Bay, Carquinez

Straits, and Suisun Bay, CA.

(a) Regulated area. The following area

is established as a safety/security zone:

(1) All waters 200 yards ahead and

astern and 100 yards to each side of

every vessel transporting nuclear

materials on behalf of the United States

Department of Energy while such

vessels transit from a line drawn

between buoys 7 and 8 in the San

Francisco Bay Traffic Lane (LLNR 4190

& 4195, positions 37°46.9′N, 122°35.4′W

& 37°46.5′N, 122°35.2′W, respectively)

until safely moored to the Weapons

Support Facility Seal Beach Detachment

Concord on Suisun Bay (position

38°03.3′N, 122°02.5′W).

All coordinates referenced use datum:

NAD 1983.

(2) All waters within 100 yards of

each vessel described in paragraph (a)(1)

of this section while moored at the

Weapons Support Facility Seal Beach

Detachment Concord until all nuclear

materials cargo handling operations

have been completed.

(b) Notification. Commander,

Eleventh Coast District, will cause

notice of the activation of this safety/

security zone to be made by all

appropriate means to effect the widest

publicity among the affected segments

of the public, including publication in

the Federal Register as practicable, in

accordance with the provisions of 33

CFR 165.7(a); such means of

announcement may include, but are not

limited to, Broadcast Notice to Mariners.

The Coast Guard will issue a Broadcast

Notice to Mariners notifying the public

when nuclear materials cargo handling

has been completed.

(c) Effective Period. The safety/

security zone will be effective
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 88/Thursday, May 7, 1998 / Proposed Rules 25191

commencing at the time any vessel

described in paragraph (a)(1) of this

section enters the zone described in

paragraph (a)(1) of this section and will

remain in effect until all spent nuclear

materials cargo handling operations

have been completed at Weapons

Support Facility Seal Beach Detachment

Concord.

(d) Regulations. The general

regulations governing safety and

security zones contained in both 33 CFR

165.23 and in 33 CFR 165.33 apply.

Entry into, transit through, or anchoring

within this safety/security zone is

prohibited unless authorized by

Commander, Eleventh Coast Guard

District, or his designated

representative.

Dated: April 21, 1998.

J.C. Card,

Vice Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard Commander,

Eleventh Coast Guard District.

[FR Doc. 98–12137 Filed 5–6–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–15–M

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[MO 047–1047; FRL–6010–8]

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans; State of

Missouri

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing to

approve the State Implementation Plan

(SIP) revisions submitted by the state of

Missouri to broaden the current visible

emission rule exceptions to include

smoke generating devices. This revision

would allow smoke generators to be

used for military and other types of

training when operated under

applicable requirements.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before June 8, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to

Kim Johnson, U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Air Branch, 726

Minnesota Avenue, Kansas City, Kansas

66101.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kim

Johnson at (913) 551–7975.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This

amendment broadens the current visible

emission rule exceptions to include

smoke generating devices in general,

when a required permit or a written

determination that a permit is not

required has been issued. The visible

emission rule 10 CSR 10–3.080 is a

general limit on opacity from all

contaminated sources located in certain

geographic areas in Missouri. The

amendment adds certain categories such

as smoke-generating devices to the list

of sources exempted from the opacity

limit. The amendment defines a smoke

generating device as a specialized piece

of equipment which is not an integral

part of a commercial, industrial, or

manufacturing process, and whose sole

purpose is the creation and dispersion

of fine solid or liquid particles in a

gaseous medium. This revision would

allow smoke generators to be used for

military training at such facilities as

Fort Leonard Wood, as long as such

facilities are subject to applicable permit

requirements.

A modeling analysis was used to

predict air quality impacts for Fort

Leonard Wood Smoke Training School.

Based on the modeling analysis, the

proposed smoke training at Fort

Leonard Wood, if operated under the

requirements listed in the prevention of

significant deterioration (PSD) permit,

will not exceed the maximum allowable

PSD PM10 increment of 30 μg/m3 based

on a 24-hour average, and will not cause

or contribute to a violation of the PM10

national ambient air quality standards.

The amendment only exempts units

which are subject to permit limits

containing restrictions which ensure

that air quality standards will not be

violated, and units with de minimis

emissions which have been determined

by Missouri to be exempt from

permitting. The EPA believes that the

exemption will not interfere with

attainment and maintenance of the

ambient air quality standards.

Proposed Action

The EPA is proposing to approve as

a revision to the SIP the amendment to

rule 10 CSR 10–3.080, ‘‘Restriction of

Emission of Visible Air Contaminants,’’

submitted by the state of Missouri on

July 10, 1996.

Nothing in this action should be

construed as permitting or allowing or

establishing a precedent for any future

request for revision to any SIP. Each

request for revision to the SIP shall be

considered separately in light of specific

technical, economic, and environmental

factors, and in relation to relevant

statutory and regulatory requirements.

Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

The Office of Management and Budget

has exempted this regulatory action

from Executive Order 12866 review.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act,

5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., the 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, the 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-forprofit 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

(CAA) 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

regulatory flexibility analysis would

constitute Federal inquiry into the

economic reasonableness of state action.

The CAA forbids the EPA to base its

actions concerning SIPs on such

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

E.P.A., 427 U.S. 246, 256–66 (S.Ct.

1976); 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2)).

C. Unfunded Mandates

Under section 202 of the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act of 1995

(‘‘Unfunded Mandates Act’’), signed

into law on March 22, 1995, the 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

private sector, of $100 million or more.

Under section 205, the 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 the EPA to

establish a plan for informing and

advising any small governments that

may be significantly or uniquely

impacted by the rule.

The 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 preexisting requirements

under state or local law, and imposes no

new requirements. Accordingly, no