24792 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 90 / Wednesday, May 10, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

Federal requirement HSWA or FR Notice Promulgation State authority

Checklist 118.—Liquids in

Landfills II.

57 FR 54452 11/18/92 391–3–11–.02(1) and (2) and .10(1) and (2); 12–8–64(1)(A)(B)(D)(F)(I); 12–

8–65(a)(16)(21); 12–8–66(a).

Checklist 119.—Toxicity

characteristic revision.

57 FR 55114 11/24/92 391–3–11–.07; 12–8–62(10); 12–8–64(1)(D)(E); 12–8–65(a)(16)(21).

58 FR 6854 2/2/93 391–3–11–.07(1).

Checklist 120—Wood preserving; technical

amendment.

57 FR 61492 12/24/92 391–3–11–.07(1); 391–3–11–.10(2) and (1); 12–8–62(10)(11)(13); 12–8–

64(1)(D)(E); 12–8–65(a)(16)(21)(3); 12–8–64(1)(A)(B)(C)(D)(F) and (I); 12–

8–66.

Checklist 121.—Corrective

action management

units and temporary

units.

58 FR 8658 2/16/93 391–3–11–.02(1); 391–3–11–.10(2) and (1); 391–3–11–.16; 391–3–11–

.11(12); 391–3–11–.11(7)(d); 12–8–64(1)(A)(B)(D)(F)(I); 12–8–

65(a)(16)(21); 12–8–66(e).

Checklist 122.—Recycled

used oil management

standards.

58 FR 26420 5/3/93 391–3–11–.07(1). 391–3–11–.10(2) and (1);

58 FR 33341 6/17/93 391–3–11–.17; 12–8–62(11)(13)(22); 12–8–64(1)(A)(B)(C)(D)(E)(F) and (I);

12–8–65(a)(3)(16) and (21); 12–8–66.

NCL.—LDR amendent

third.

58 FR 14317 3/17/93 391–3–11–.16.

Checklist 123.—LDR hazardous waste debris

case–by–case capacity

variance.

58 FR 28506 5/14/93 391–3–11–.16; 12–8–62(13)(14); 12–8–64(1)(A)(B)(D)(F) and (I); 12–8–

65(a)(16)(21); 12–8–66.

Checklist 124.—LDR for

iqnitable and corrosive

characteristic wastes.

58 FR 29860 5/24/93 391–3–11–.10(2) and (1); 391–3–11–.16; 391–3–11–.11(7)(d); 12–8–

62(13)(14); 12–8–64(1)(A)(B)(C)(D)(E)(F) and (I); 12–8–65(a)(16)(21); 12–

8–66.

Footnote: Checklist 117B—Georgia adopted 40 CFR Part 261, 1992, by reference at 391–3–11–.07(i). The wording ‘‘Toxicity Characteristic’’ is

correct in the 1992 CFR. Since Georgia did not adopt subsequent final optional rules that incorrectly changed the wording, Georgia did not cite

57 CFR 23062 specifically.

C. Decision

I conclude that Georgia’s application

for these program revisions meets all of

the statutory and regulatory

requirements established by RCRA.

Accordingly, Georgia is granted final

authorization to operate its hazardous

waste program as revised.

Georgia now has responsibility for

permitting treatment, storage, and

disposal facilities within its borders and

carrying out other aspects of the RCRA

program, subject to the limitations of its

program revision application and

previously approved authorities.

Georgia also has primary enforcement

responsibilities, although EPA retains

the right to conduct inspections under

Section 3007 of RCRA and to take

enforcement actions under Section

3008, 3013, and 7003 of RCRA.

Compliance With Executive Order

12866

The Office of Management and Budget

has exempted this rule from the

requirements of Section 6 of Executive

Order 12866.

Certification Under the Regulatory

Flexibility Act

Pursuant to the provisions of 5 U.S.C.

605(b), I hereby certify that this

authorization will not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities. This

authorization effectively suspends the

applicability of certain Federal

regulations in favor of Georgia’s

program, thereby eliminating

duplicative requirements for handlers of

hazardous waste in the State. It does not

impose any new burdens on small

entities. This rule, therefore, does not

require a regulatory flexibility analysis.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 271

Administrative practice and

procedure, Confidential business

information, Hazardous materials

transportation, Hazardous waste, Indian

lands, Intergovernmental relations,

Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Water pollution control,

Water supply.

Authority: This notice is issued under the

authority of Sections 2002(a), 3006, and

7004(b) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act as

amended (42 U.S.C. 6912(a), 6926, 6974(b)).

Dated: April 28, 1995.

Patrick M. Tobin,

Acting Regional Administrator.

[FR Doc. 95–11395 Filed 5–9–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

43 CFR Public Land Order 7141

[UT–942–1430–01; UTU–42967, UTU–42983]

Revocation of Secretarial Orders Dated

October 28, 1921, and February 27,

1934; Utah

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management,

Interior.

ACTION: Public Land Order.

SUMMARY: This order revokes two

Secretarial Orders in their entireties that

withdrew 80 acres of public land for

powersite classification purposes. The

land is no longer required for powersite

purposes. The land will be opened to

surface entry. The land has been open

to mining under the provisions of the

Mining Claims Rights Restoration Act of

1955, and these provisions are no longer

required. The land has been and will

remain open to mineral leasing.

EFFECTIVE DATE: August 9, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karl

Fridberg, BLM Utah State Office, P.O.

Box 45155, Salt Lake City, Utah 84145,

801–539–4101.

By virtue of the authority vested in

the Secretary of the Interior by section

204 of the Federal Land Policy and

Management Act of 1976, 43 U.S.C.

1714 (1988), it is hereby ordered as

follows:
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 90 / Wednesday, May 10, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 24793

1. The Secretarial Orders dated

February 27, 1934, which established

Powersite Classification No. 283, and

October 28, 1921, which established

Powersite Classification No. 16, are

hereby revoked in their entireties for the

following described land:

Salt Lake Meridian

T. 13 S., R. 5 E.,

Sec. 31, SE1⁄4NE1⁄4 and NE1⁄4SE1⁄4.

The area described contains 80 acres in

Sanpete County.

2. The State of Utah has a preference

right for public highway rights-of-way

or material sites for a period of 90 days

from the date of publication of this

order and any location, entry, selection,

or subsequent patent shall be subject to

any rights granted the State as provided

by the Act of June 10, 1920, 16 U.S.C.

818 (1988).

3. At 9 a.m. on August 9, 1995, the

land described in paragraph 1 shall be

opened to operation of the public land

laws generally, subject to valid existing

rights, the provisions of existing

withdrawals, other segregations of

record, and the requirements of

applicable law. All valid applications

received at or prior to 9 a.m. on August

9, 1995, shall be considered as

simultaneously filed at that time. Those

received thereafter shall be considered

in the order of filing.

The land described in paragraph 1 has

been open to mining under the

provisions of the Mining Claims Rights

Restoration Act of 1955, and these

provisions are no longer required.

Dated: April 21, 1995.

Bob Armstrong,

Assistant Secretary of the Interior.

[FR Doc. 95–11459 Filed 5–9–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–DQ–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Coast Guard

46 CFR Part 15

[CGD 92–061]

RIN–2115–AE28

Federal Pilotage Requirement for

Foreign Trade Vessels

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is amending

the regulations to require Federal pilots

for foreign trade vessels: Navigating

certain offshore marine oil terminals

located within the U.S. navigable waters

of the States of California and Hawaii;

making intra-port transits within certain

designated waters in the States of New

York and New Jersey; and transiting

certain designated waters of the State of

Massachusetts. This action is necessary

to ensure that vessels are navigated by

competent, qualified individuals, who

are knowledgeable of the local area. The

Coast Guard believes this requirement

will promote navigational safety,

increase the level of accountability, and

reduce the risk of an accident and the

discharge of oil or other hazardous

substances into these waters.

EFFECTIVE DATE: The final rule is

effective on June 9, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Unless otherwise indicated,

documents referenced 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, SW., Washington,

DC 20593–0001, telephone (202) 267–

6102.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Drafting Information: The principal

persons involved in drafting this rule are Mr.

John R. Bennett, Project Manager, Office of

Marine Safety, Security and Environmental

Protection, and Mr. Nicholas Grasselli,

Project Counsel, Office of Chief Counsel.

Regulatory History

On July 9, 1993, the Coast Guard

published a notice of proposed

rulemaking (NPRM) entitled ‘‘Federal

Pilotage Requirement for Foreign Trade

Vessels’’ in the Federal Register (58 FR

36914). This NPRM proposed areas in

waters of the States of California,

Hawaii, New York, New Jersey, and

Massachusetts where a vessel engaged

in foreign commerce would be required

to use a Federally licensed first class

pilot. The Coast Guard received seventyfive letters in response to the NPRM.

The majority of these letters addressed

the proposed pilotage requirements for

New York and New Jersey.

Background and Purpose

The principal reason for this

rulemaking is to enhance the safety of

vessels performing difficult mooring

maneuvers, or transiting congested or

restricted waters. As noted in the

NPRM, State laws do not require use of

a pilot in the areas covered by this rule.

Under 46 U.S.C. 8503, the Coast Guard

may prescribe pilotage regulations in

waters not subject to State pilotage

requirements.

Discussion of Comments and Changes

A. Summary

Seventy nine comments were

received. Many comments stated that

this rulemaking was unnecessary

because most of the vessels affected by

this rulemaking are piloted by

individuals who hold State and Federal

pilot’s licenses. While it is true that

many vessels affected by this rule are

piloted by individuals who hold State

and Federal pilot’s licenses, it is not

always clear whether these individuals

are operating under their State or

Federal pilot’s license. For clarification

and disciplinary purposes, the Coast

Guard needs: (1) To verify that certain

vessels operating in certain waters are

being piloted by an individual holding

a pilot’s license; and (2) to ensure that

the pilot is operating under the

authority of only one pilot’s license.

There have been several marine

casualties involving pilots holding both

State and Federal licenses. In cases

where the individual was operating

under the authority of a State license the

Coast Guard could not take disciplinary

action. This rulemaking will help to

ensure that all foreign trade vessels

operating in the areas described in this

rulemaking are required to be under the

direction and control of a Federally

licensed pilot who is knowledgeable of

the local navigational hazards and

operating conditions, and who can be

held accountable for his or her actions

in the event of a casualty.

Several comments requested a public

hearing. However, it is the Coast

Guard’s belief that holding a public

hearing would not result in additional

or different information than was

provided in the comments. Therefore,

the Coast Guard decided not to hold a

public hearing.

B. California

Six comments supported this section

of the rulemaking based on the belief

that the Coast Guard needs to be able to

improve its oversight of pilotage and

ensure the pilot has local knowledge of

the pilotage area.

Two comments opposed this section

of the rulemaking because of possible

Federalism implications. They noted

that the California State Lands

Commission (the Commission) already

has a regulation that addresses pilotage

requirements at offshore terminals. The

Commission’s regulation requires a

mooring master who holds a valid U.S.

Coast Guard license as a master or mate,