Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 100 / Wednesday, May 24, 1995 / Proposed Rules 27463

Option A is the most timely option with

the advantage of using existing EPA

mechanisms to provide support, but

also has the attached limitations of the

TAG and TOSC programs as to the type

of support which could be provided.

Option B would procure independent

technical assistance providers for the

program and would relieve community

members of TRCs and RABs of much of

the administrative burden associated

with managing government grants;

however, it requires the time needed for

a competitive procurement and does not

provide the funds directly to

community members of TRCs and

RABs. Option C allows greater control

and flexibility by community members,

but imposes greater administrative

burdens on community members of

TRCs and RABs and on the contracting

office issuing the purchase order. The

Department of Defense is interested in

determining the opinions of affected

citizens and groups on these options.

This would include preferences for

particular options over others. It would

also include comments on the

individual options and the components

of those options as described in Section

II. There also exists the possibility of

combining one or more of the Section II

options. The Department of Defense

solicits any comments or suggestions

regarding option combinations. The

Department of Defense also solicits

comments on specific aspects of each

option as well as on additional options

desired to provide for technical and

public participation assistance.

Within the options are specific items

for which the Department of Defense

solicits comments. These include the

qualifications given for the independent

technical assistance providers described

in Option B. Comments on either the list

of qualifications provided or on

additional qualifications which should

be added are encouraged. Both Options

A and B have provisions for the division

of the country into geographic areas

with different service providers for each

area. Do those commenting have

preferences regarding nationwide versus

regionalized coverage by service

providers for these options? All options

will be subject to an allotment cap. Do

those commenting have suggestions as

to the size of such a cap or the criteria

which should be use to establish a cap?

The Department of Defense has

developed a list of public participation

services it believes should be provided

under Options B and C in addition to

hiring technical advisors, facilitators,

mediators and educators. These services

are: translation and interpretation;

training; transportation to meetings; and

payment of approved travel. Comments

on these or other services to be included

under Options B and C are encouraged.

Dated: May 18, 1995.

L.M. Bynum,

Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison

Officer, Department of Defense.

[FR Doc. 95–12628 Filed 5–23–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 5000–04–M

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[CGD13–90–028]

RIN 2115–AE06

Regulated Navigation Area: Puget

Sound and Strait of Juan de Fuca, WA;

Grays Harbor, WA; Columbia River &

Willamette River OR; Yaguina Bay, OR;

Umpqua River, OR; Coos Bay, OR

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of termination.

SUMMARY: This rulemaking project was

initiated to adopt regulations requiring

an emergency tow-wire on tank barges

while transiting certain port areas of the

Pacific Northwest. The project is no

longer necessary because the Coast

Guard issued separate regulations on

December 22, 1993, which require an

emergency tow wire or tow line on all

offshore oil barges. The Coast Guard is

therefore terminating further rulemaking

under docket number CGD13–90–028.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

LCDR J. Bigley or LTJG M. L. Kammerer,

Thirteenth Coast Guard District, Port

Safety and Security Branch, (206) 220–

7210.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On May

22, 1990, the Coast Guard published a

‘‘Request for comments; notice of

hearing’’ at 55 FR 21044 seeking public

comment on six navigation safety

initiatives for port areas in the Pacific

Northwest. These six safety initiatives

involved the use of tug escorts,

emergency towing plans, speed criteria,

additional bridge personnel, emergency

tow-wire requirements for tank barges,

and requirements for extended pilotage.

A public hearing was held on June 22,

1990, in Seattle, Washington, to hear

comments on the six initiatives and

alternative courses of action. The

comments pertaining to emergency towwire requirements for tank barges were

addressed and incorporated in a notice

of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)

published on October 24, 1991 at 56 FR

55104.

The rule proposed by the October 24,

1991, NPRM would have required all

tank barges to carry an emergency towwire while transiting certain port areas

of the Pacific Northwest. This rule was

proposed in response to the growing

concerns of the citizens of Washington

and Oregon that regulatory action was

necessary to prevent the discharge of oil

or other hazardous substances during

transportation. The proposed rule was

intended to enhance navigation safety,

thereby reducing the risk of pollution

and environmental damage from

collisions and groundings.

Subsequent to publication of the

October 24, 1991 NPRM, the Coast

Guard issued regulations requiring that

all offshore oil barges carry an

emergency tow wire or tow line

(December 22, 1993, 58 FR 67988).

These separate regulations became

effective on January 21, 1994, and are

codified at 33 CFR 155.230. Because

these separate regulations adequately

addressed the same issue addressed by

the proposed rule, the proposed rule has

become unnecessary, and the Coast

Guard is terminating further rulemaking

under docket number CGD13–90–028.

Dated: May 16, 1995.

John A. Pierson,

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander,

Thirteenth Coast Guard District, Acting.

[FR Doc. 95–12735 Filed 5–23–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–14–M

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[KY–83–6927b; FRL–51848–8]

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans State: Kentucky

Approval of Revisions to State

Implementation Plan (SIP)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve

a revision to the state implementation

plan (SIP) submitted by the

Commonwealth of Kentucky through

the Natural Resources and

Environmental Protection Cabinet

(Cabinet). This revision will incorporate

into the SIP an operating permit issued

to the Calgon Carbon Corporation

located in the Kentucky portion of the

Ashland/Huntington ozone (O3)

nonattainment area. This permit will

reduce the emissions of volatile organic

compounds (VOCs) by requiring

reasonably available control technology
27464 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 100 / Wednesday, May 24, 1995 / Proposed Rules

(RACT). In the final rules section of this

Federal Register, the EPA is approving

the State’s SIP revision as a direct final

rule without prior proposal because the

Agency views this as a noncontroversial

revision amendment and anticipates no

adverse comments. A detailed rationale

for the approval is set forth in the direct

final rule. If no adverse comments are

received in response to that direct final

rule, no further activity is contemplated

in relation to this proposed rule. If EPA

receives adverse comments, the direct

final rule will be withdrawn and all

public comments received will be

addressed in a subsequent final rule

based on this proposed rule. The EPA

will not institute a second comment

period on this document. Any parties

interested in commenting on this

document should do so at this time.

DATES: To be considered, comments

must be received by June 23, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Written comments on this

action should be addressed to Scott

Southwick, at the EPA Regional Office

listed below.

Copies of the documents relative to

this action are available for public

inspection during normal business

hours at the following locations. The

interested persons wanting to examine

these documents should make an

appointment with the appropriate office

at least 24 hours before the visiting day.

Air and Radiation Docket and

Information Center (Air Docket 6102),

U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, 401 M Street, SW,

Washington, DC 20460.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region 4 Air Programs Branch, 345

Courtland Street, NE, Atlanta, Georgia

30365.

Division for Air Quality, Department for

Environmental Protection, Natural

Resources and Environmental

Protection Cabinet, 316 St. Clair Mall,

Frankfort, Kentucky 40601.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Scott Southwick, Regulatory Planning

and Development Section, Air Programs

Branch, Air, Pesticides & Toxics

Management Division, Region 4

Environmental Protection Agency, 345

Courtland Street, NE, Atlanta, Georgia

30365. The telephone number is 404/

347–3555 x 4207. Reference file KY–

083.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For

additional information see the direct

final rule which is published in the

rules section of this Federal Register.

Dated: March 21, 1995.

Patrick M. Tobin,

Acting Regional Administrator.

[FR Doc. 95–12618 Filed 5–23–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

40 CFR Part 52

[MN30–1–6215b; FRL–5183–9]

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans; Minnesota

AGENCY: United States Environmental

Protection Agency (USEPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: In the Final Rules Section of

the Federal Register, the USEPA is

approving recodification of Minnesota’s

regulations, removal of certain

redundant and unnecessary regulations

from the SIP, and other minor revisions.

USEPA is taking that action as a direct

final rule without prior proposal

because USEPA views the action as

noncontroversial and anticipates no

adverse comments. A detailed rationale

for the approval is set forth in the direct

final rule. If no adverse comments are

received in response to that direct final

rule, no further activity is contemplated

in relation to the proposal of that action.

If USEPA receives adverse public

comments, the direct final rule will be

withdrawn and all public comments

received will be addressed in a

subsequent final rule based on this

proposed rule. USEPA will not institute

a second comment period on this action.

Any parties interested in commenting

on this action should do so at this time.

DATES: Comments on this action must be

received by June 23, 1995.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Addresses

and Supplementary Information are

provided in the Rules section of this

Federal Register.

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q.

Dated: March 20, 1995.

David A. Ullrich,

Acting Regional Administrator.

[FR Doc. 95–12562 Filed 5–23–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

40 CFR Part 52

[Region II Docket No.129, NY10–1–6212,

FRL–5210–1]

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans; New York State

Implementation Plan Revision

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection

Agency is proposing to approve a

revision to the New York State

Implementation Plan (SIP) related to the

control of volatile organic compounds.

The SIP revision consists of

amendments to Part 200, ‘‘General

Provisions,’’ Part 201, ‘‘Permits and

Certificates,’’ Part 228, ‘‘Surface Coating

Processes,’’ Part 229, ‘‘Petroleum and

Volatile Organic Liquid Storage,’’ Part

233, ‘‘Pharmaceutical and Cosmetic

Manufacturing Processes,’’ and Part 234,

‘‘Graphic Arts.’’ The amendments

extend reasonably available control

technology rules to enlarged

nonattainment areas and to areas of the

Northeast Ozone Transport Region as

required by the Clean Air Act. In

addition, the amendments to Part 228

correct deficiencies in New York’s

existing SIP, as required by the Clean

Air Act.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before June 23, 1995.

ADDRESSES: All comments should be

addressed to: William S. Baker, Chief

Air Programs Branch, Environmental

Protection Agency, Region II Office, 290

Broadway, New York, New York 10007–

1866.

Copies of the State submittal are

available at the following addresses for

inspection during normal business

hours: Environmental Protection

Agency, Region II Office, Air Programs

Branch, 290 Broadway, 20th Floor, New

York, New York 10007–1866.

New York State Department of

Environmental Conservation, Division

of Air Resources, 50 Wolf Road, Albany,

New York 12233.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul

R. Truchan, State Implementation Plan

Section, Air Programs Branch,

Environmental Protection Agency, 290

Broadway, 20th Floor, New York, New

York 10007–1866, (212) 637–4249.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The Clean Air Act (Act) as amended

in 1990 sets forth a number of

requirements that states with areas

designated as nonattainment for ozone

must satisfy and a timetable for

satisfying these requirements. These

requirements are further explained in

the General Preamble to the Act (57 FR

13513), which was published on April

16, 1992. The specific requirements vary

depending upon the severity of the

ozone problem. One of the

requirements, and the subject of this

proposed rulemaking, is for states to

adopt reasonably available control

technology (RACT) rules for various

volatile organic compound (VOC)