Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 81 / Thursday, April 27, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 20649

the Clean Air Act and, hence does not

impose any federal intergovernmental

mandate, as defined in section 101 of

the Unfunded Mandates Act. This

action also will not impose a 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.

D. Petitions for Judicial Review

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Act,

petitions for judicial review of this

action must be filed in the United States

Court of Appeals for the appropriate

circuit by June 26, 1995. 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, Oxides of nitrogen,

Incorporation by reference,

Intergovernmental relations, Ozone.

Dated; April 13, 1995.

Valdas V. Adamkus,

Regional Administrator.

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows.

PART 52—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 52

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671(q).

Subpart X—Michigan

2. Section 52.1174 is amended by

adding paragraph (e) and (f) to read as

follows:

§ 52.1174 Control strategy: Ozone

* * * * *

(e) Approval—On July 1, 1994, the

Michigan Department of Natural

Resources submitted a petition for

exemption from the oxides of nitrogen

requirements of the Clean Air Act for

the East Lansing ozone nonattainment

area. The submittal pertained to the

exemption from the oxides of nitrogen

requirements for conformity and new

source review. Theses are required by

sections 176(c) and 182(f) of the 1990

amended Clean Air Act, respectively. If

a violation of the ozone standard occurs

in the East Lansing ozone

nonattainment area, the exemption shall

no longer apply.

(f) Approval—On July 8, 1994, the

Michigan Department of Natural

Resources submitted a petition for

exemption from the oxides of nitrogen

requirements of the Clean Air Act for

the Genesee County ozone

nonattainment area. The submittal

pertained to the exemption from the

oxides of nitrogen requirements for

conformity and new source review.

These are required by sections 176(c)

and 182(f) of the 1990 amended Clean

Air Act, respectively. If a violation of

the ozone standard occurs in the

Genesee County ozone nonattainment

area, the exemption shall no longer

apply.

[FR Doc. 95–10247 Filed 4–26–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

FEDERAL EMERGENCY

MANAGEMENT AGENCY

44 CFR Part 64

[Docket No. FEMA–7615]

List of Communities Eligible for the

Sale of Flood Insurance

AGENCY: Federal Emergency

Management Agency (FEMA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This rule identifies

communities participating in the

National Flood Insurance Program

(NFIP). These communities have

applied to the program and have agreed

to enact certain floodplain management

measures. The communities’

participation in the program authorizes

the sale of flood insurance to owners of

property located in the communities

listed.

EFFECTIVE DATES: The dates listed in the

third column of the table.

ADDRESSES: Flood insurance policies for

property located in the communities

listed can be obtained from any licensed

property insurance agent or broker

serving the eligible community, or from

the NFIP at: Post Office Box 6464,

Rockville, MD 20849, (800) 638–6620.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Robert F. Shea, Jr., Division Director,

Program Implementation Division,

Mitigation Directorate, 500 C Street,

SW., room 417, Washington, DC 20472,

(202) 646–3619.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The NFIP

enables property owners to purchase

flood insurance which is generally not

otherwise available. In return,

communities agree to adopt and

administer local floodplain management

measures aimed at protecting lives and

new construction from future flooding.

Since the communities on the attached

list have recently entered the NFIP,

subsidized flood insurance is now

available for property in the community.

In addition, the Director of the

Federal Emergency Management Agency

has identified the special flood hazard

areas in some of these communities by

publishing a Flood Hazard Boundary

Map (FHBM) or Flood Insurance Rate

Map (FIRM). The date of the flood map,

if one has been published, is indicated

in the fourth column of the table. In the

communities listed where a flood map

has been published, Section 102 of the

Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, as

amended, 42 U.S.C. 4012(a), requires

the purchase of flood insurance as a

condition of Federal or federally related

financial assistance for acquisition or

construction of buildings in the special

flood hazard areas shown on the map.

The Director finds that the delayed

effective dates would be contrary to the

public interest. The Director also finds

that notice and public procedure under

5 U.S.C. 553(b) are impracticable and

unnecessary.

National Environmental Policy Act

This rule is categorically excluded

from the requirements of 44 CFR Part

10, Environmental Considerations. No

environmental impact assessment has

been prepared.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Associate Director certifies that

this rule will not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities in accordance

with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5

U.S.C. 601 et seq., because the rule

creates no additional burden, but lists

those communities eligible for the sale

of flood insurance.

Regulatory Classification

This final rule is not a significant

regulatory action under the criteria of

section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 of

September 30, 1993, Regulatory

Planning and Review, 58 FR 51735.

Paperwork Reduction Act

This rule does not involve any

collection of information for purposes of

the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C.

3501 et seq.

Executive Order 12612, Federalism

This rule involves no policies that

have federalism implications under

Executive Order 12612, Federalism,

October 26, 1987, 3 CFR, 1987 Comp.,

p. 252.
20650 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 81 / Thursday, April 27, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

Executive Order 12778, Civil Justice

Reform

This rule meets the applicable

standards of section 2(b)(2) of Executive

Order 12778, October 25, 1991, 56 FR

55195, 3 CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 309.

List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 64

Flood insurance, Floodplains.

Accordingly, 44 CFR part 64 is

amended as follows:

PART 64—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 64

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.,

Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1978, 3 CFR,

1978 Comp., p. 329; E.O. 12127, 44 FR 19367,

3 CFR, 1979 Comp., p. 376.

§ 64.6 [Amended]

2. The tables published under the

authority of § 64.6 are amended as

follows:

State/location Community

No. Effective date of eligibility Current effectivemap date

New Eligibles—Emergency Program

North Dakota: Nelson County, unincorporated areas ............................................ 380683 March 3, 1995 ....................

Georgia: Worth County, unincorporated areas ...................................................... 130196 March 10, 1995 .................. June 2, 1978.

Tennessee:

Hancock County, unincorporated areas ......................................................... 470226 March 15, 1995 .................. July 14, 1978.

Clay County, unincorporated areas ................................................................ 470382 March 17, 1995 .................. March 30, 1979.

Arkansas: Hempstead County, unincorporated areas ........................................... 050436 March 28, 1995 .................. June 3, 1977.

New Eligibles—Regular Program

Missouri:

Dardenne Prairie, town of, St. Charles County .............................................. 290899 March 13, 1995 .................. December 15,

1992.

Park Hills, city of, St. Francois County 1 ......................................................... 290920 March 22, 1995 ..................

Florida: Palm Shores, town of, Brevard County .................................................... 120612 March 27, 1995 .................. August 18, 1992.

Colorado: Severance, town of, Weld County 2 ....................................................... 080317 March 28, 1995 .................. September 28,

1982.

Reinstatements

Indiana: Lewisville, town of, Henry County ............................................................ 180091 October 26, 1976, Emerg.;

September 4, 1987, Reg.;

September 4, 1987,

Susp.; March 10, 1995,

Rein.

September 4,

1987.

Virginia: Quantico, town of, Prince William County ............................................... 510232 March 19, 1975, Emerg.;

August 15, 1978, Reg.;

January 5, 1995; Susp.;

March 29, 1995, Rein.

January 5, 1995.

Regular Program Conversions

Region I:

Connecticut:

Darien, town of, Fairfield County .................................................................... 090005 March 2, 1995, suspension

withdrawn.

March 2, 1995.

Ellington, town of, Tolland County .................................................................. 090158 ......do .................................. Do.

Killingly, town of, Windham County ................................................................ 090136 ......do .................................. Do.

New Britain, city of, Hartford County .............................................................. 090032 ......do .................................. Do.

Suffield, town of, Hartford County ................................................................... 090038 ......do .................................. Do.

Region VI:

Louisiana:

Grand Isle, city of, Jefferson Parish ............................................................... 225197 March 23, 1995, suspension withdrawn.March 23, 1995.

Gretna, city of, Jefferson Parish ..................................................................... 225198 ......do .................................. Do.

Harahan, city of, Jefferson Parish .................................................................. 225200 ......do .................................. Do.

Jean Lafitte, town of, Jefferson Parish ........................................................... 220371 ......do .................................. Do.

Jefferson Parish, unincorporated areas .......................................................... 225199 ......do .................................. Do.

Kenner, city of, Jefferson Parish ..................................................................... 225201 ......do .................................. Do.

Westwego, city of, Jefferson Parish ............................................................... 220094 ......do .................................. Do.

1Effective January 1, 1994, the Cities of Flat River (CID 295264), Esther (CID 290730), and Elvins (CID 290322) and the Village of Rivermines

(CID 290544) consolidated into one governmental jurisdiction (city) named the ‘‘City of Park Hills.’’ The City of Park Hills has adopted the Flood

Insurance Study for the City of Flat River with accompanying Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) dated 4–20–73 and revision dated 9–5–75, and

has also adopted the Flood Hazard Boundary Maps (FHBMs) for the Cities of Elvins and Esther dated 8–1–87 and 2–21–75, respectively, for

flood insurance and floodplain management purposes. 2The Town of Severance has adopted the Weld County (CID 080266) Flood Insurance Rate Map, Panel Number 080266 0475 C, dated September 28, 1982.

Code for reading third column: Emerg.—Emergency; Reg.—Regular; Susp.—Suspension, Rein.—Reinstatement.
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 81 / Thursday, April 27, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 20651

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No.

83.100, ‘‘Flood Insurance’’)

Issued: April 20, 1995.

Frank H. Thomas,

Deputy Associate Director, Mitigation

Directorate.

[FR Doc. 95–10352 Filed 4–26–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6718–21–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Coast Guard

46 CFR Part 15

[CGD 84–060]

RIN 2115–AB67

Licensing of Pilots; Manning of

Vessels by Pilots

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is amending

the regulations concerning the licensing

of pilots and the manning of vessels by

pilots. This final rule: defines

‘‘coastwise seagoing vessel’’ for pilotage

purposes; describes first class pilotage

areas where local pilotage expertise is

warranted; allows licensed individuals

to serve as pilots in areas not identified

as first class pilotage areas on vessels

that they are otherwise qualified to

control; requires a Federal pilot for

vessels in excess of 1,600 gross tons,

propelled by machinery and subject to

inspection under 46 U.S.C. Chapter 33,

that are not authorized by their

Certificate of Inspection to proceed

beyond the Boundary Line; and

provides quick reference tables for

Federal pilotage requirements. These

changes are necessary to eliminate

confusion over where and on what

vessels pilotage expertise is required.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 30, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Unless otherwise indicated,

documents referred to in this preamble

are available for inspection or copying

at the office of the Executive Secretary,

Marine Safety Council(G–LRA/3406),

U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters, 2100

Second Street SW., room 3406,

Washington, DC 20593–0001 between 8

a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through

Friday, except Federal holidays. The

telephone number is (202) 267–1477.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

John R. Bennett, Merchant Vessel

Personnel Division (G–MVP/12), Room

1210, U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters,

2100 Second Street, S.W., Washington,

D.C. 20593–0001, telephone (202) 267–

6102.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Drafting Information

The principal persons involved in

drafting this document are: Mr. John R.

Bennett, Project Manager, Merchant

Vessel Personnel Division, Office of

Marine Safety, Security and

Environmental Protection, and, Mr.

Nicholas Grasselli, Project Counsel,

Office of Chief Counsel.

Regulatory History

A notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM) was published June 24, 1985

(50 FR 26117), addressing unresolved

pilotage issues. The comment period

was originally scheduled to end on

September 23, 1985, however, a notice

of extension of comment period (50 FR

38557), published in the Federal

Register on September 23, 1985,

extended the comment period to

December 22, 1985. In response to that

notice, the Coast Guard received 172

written comments, and held two public

meetings. One public meeting was held

in New York, hosted by the Maritime

Association of New York, on November

12, 1985. The second was a meeting of

the Towing Safety Advisory Committee

Subcommittee on Personnel Manning

and Licensing, which was held at Coast

Guard Headquarters in Washington,

D.C., on December 12, 1985. On June 6,

1988, the Coast Guard published a

supplemental notice of proposed

rulemaking (SNPRM) (53 FR 20654)

addressing the comments received in

response to the NPRM and public

meetings. The comment period for the

SNPRM ended September 6, 1988.

Sixteen written comments were

received regarding the 1988 SNPRM.

Those comments included several

recommendations by the Towing Safety

Advisory Committee (TSAC).

On February 2, 1994, the Coast Guard

published an interim final rule entitled

Licensing of Pilots; Manning of Vessels

by Pilots in the Federal Register (59 FR

4839). The Coast Guard received six

letters commenting on the interim final

rule. No public hearing was requested,

and none was held.

Background and Purpose

Normally, foreign vessels and U.S.

vessels operating on a registry

endorsement are under State pilotage

authority, and U.S. vessels operating on

a coastwise endorsement are under

Federal pilotage authority. The

regulations addressed in this rule deal

only with Federal pilotage.

Discussion of Comments and Changes

Six letters commenting on the interim

final rule were received. Some of the

comments addressed in these letters

raised issues that were not the subject

of this rulemaking. The Coast Guard is

responding only to those comments

relating to this rulemaking.

One comment suggested that there

should be only ‘‘designated’’ pilotage

areas because otherwise the Coast Guard

would be reducing pilotage

requirements for tank barges. The Coast

Guard is not reducing pilotage

requirements for tank barges or any

other vessels in this rulemaking.

Another comment stated that ‘‘the

local pilotage rules are excessive with

regard to the round trip required in nondesignated areas.’’ This rule places a

Federal pilotage requirement on inland

route self-propelled vessels greater than

1,600 gross tons. The only other change

required by this rule is to require the

master, mate or operator of a coastwise

seagoing vessel to have made one round

trip in the non-designated areas of

pilotage waters within the past five

years in order to satisfy the pilotage

requirement for that area. The Coast

Guard does not believe these additional

pilotage requirements are excessive.

Several members of the small

passenger vessel industry indicated that

they are opposed to the rule because it

places a new pilotage requirement on

their vessels. The interim final rule does

not establish a new pilotage requirement

for small passenger vessels. Existing

pilotage regulatory requirements for

these vessels were established in the

1985 Final Rule (50 FR 26106) and in

earlier rules. A vessel has a Federal

pilotage requirement if it is a coastwise

seagoing vessel, not sailing on register,

and underway, not on the high seas.

This rule does not create a pilotage

requirement for certain small passenger

vessels, the requirement already exists.

Another comment stated that while it

is clear in the quick reference table that

a coastwise seagoing tank barge requires

a pilot, the text of the regulation does

not specifically indicate that it is a

‘‘coastwise seagoing’’ tank barge that

requires a pilot, and suggested that the

text of the regulation be modified to

agree with the quick reference table. The

Coast Guard agrees, and the words

‘‘coastwise seagoing’’ are being added to

the text of the regulation in

§ 15.812(a)(1).

The same comment also suggested

that the ‘‘designated’’ areas be compiled

and published in the Code of Federal

Regulations. The Coast Guard does not

agree. This information can be readily

obtained from the local Coast Guard

Captain of the Port (COTP).

The Coast Guard is adopting the

interim final rule as published with

some minor technical changes. First, the