Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 104 / Wednesday, May 31, 1995 / Proposed Rules 28377

written comments was May 1, 1995. On

April 5, 1995 the Coast Guard published

a second notice in the Federal Register

(60 FR 17287) announcing a series of

regional public meetings to be held on

the same topics. The deadline for

written comments in this notice was

June 5, 1995.

At the April 20, 1995 public meeting

and in written comments to the docket,

several commentors requested an

extension of the May 1, 1995 comment

period. The issues discussed in the

notice and at the public meeting are

important and require careful thought

and evaluation. Since the regulatory

reform initiative is an ongoing process,

a longer comment period can be

accommodated. In addition to receiving

comments on the regulatory policy

announced in this notice, comments on

the issues raised in the two prior notices

may be submitted. To provide

maximum value on this notice,

comments should be received by

December 8, 1995. However, late

comments will be accepted and

evaluated to the extent practicable.

In response to the Federal Register

notice and public meetings, the Coast

Guard has received and is still receiving

comments suggesting specific

regulations for review and identifying

reasons why those regulations should be

either amended or eliminated. The

Coast Guard will fully evaluate each

suggestion and may initiate appropriate

rulemaking projects at a later date.

However, the Coast Guard has already

made a preliminary determination to

proceed immediately with at least two

regulatory reinvention initiatives. The

first is to purge the Code of Federal

Regulations of obsolete and out-of-date

regulations. A Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking (NPRM) proposing a wide

range of recissions was published in the

Federal Register of May 9, 1995 (60 FR

24748). This first set of obsolete and

out-of-date regulations has minimal

impact on the public and no controversy

or objection is expected. Additional

obsolete and out-of-date regulations will

be proposed for elimination or revision

in later rulemaking documents.

Second, the Coast Guard has

established a goal of eliminating any

Coast Guard induced differential

between requirements that apply to U.S.

vessels in international trade and those

that apply to similar vessels in

international trade that fly the flag of

responsible foreign nations. The Coast

Guard will carefully evaluate every

existing and newly proposed regulation.

To the maximum extent possible,

requirements that create an unwarranted

differential between U.S. and

responsible international standards will

be eliminated. There are several new

rulemaking projects under development

that reflect this new Coast Guard policy.

The U.S. maritime industry

conducted several studies, some of

which indicated that industry

competitiveness has been adversely

impacted by the cost differential

between building a vessel to U.S.

standards and building it to some

foreign standards. The industry reported

that differential was from 0% to 15% of

the total construction cost. However, all

of these industry studies were

conducted prior to implementation of

the 1981 and 1983 amendments to the

1974 Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS)

Convention. The Convention and its

amendments have greatly reduced the

gap between U.S. and international

standards.

The U.S. has sometimes unilaterally

adopted more stringent standards than

the international regulations

promulgated by the International

Maritime Organization (IMO), a

specialized agency of the United

Nations. A Maritime Administration

sponsored study conducted in 1979

reported that the portion of the total

construction cost differential directly

attributable to discretionary

requirements imposed by the Coast

Guard was less than one-half of one

percent. However, even a one-half of

one percent differential in construction

costs should be avoided if it does not

result in needed additional safety or

environmental protection.

In the past, international standards

were in large part inadequate or

nonexistent which required the United

States to adopt high quality standards of

its own. This situation has changed in

recent years. Great strides have been

taken by the responsible members of the

international community to adopt

standards that provide levels of safety

and environmental protection that are

generally equivalent to U.S. standards.

The IMO has adopted a wide range of

safety and environmental protection

requirements that parallel many of the

standards that apply to U.S. vessels.

However, the IMO requirements are in

some cases general in nature and need

amplifying national regulations. In

addition, IMO requirements do not

constitute a complete ship construction

standard. They must be used together

with classification society standards and

flag state requirements. Responsible

foreign flag states and classification

societies now have standards that are

equivalent to U.S. standards. Because

these responsible flag states and

classification societies now assure high

levels of protection, it is no longer

desirable for the United States to apply

different requirements to U.D. vessels.

Accordingly, in cooperation with the

American Bureau of Shipping, the Coast

Guard has identified various U.S.

regulations that differ from the best

international standards. The Coast

Guard is now carefully evaluating each

of those regulations to determine if it

makes necessary additional safety or

environmental protection contributions.

Those regulations that do not provide

necessary added levels of protection

will be proposed for elimination.

Because of the global nature of

maritime commerce, it is seldom

effective for an individual nation to

require substantially different standards

for its vessels engaged in international

trade. Ships of every nationality call at

ports all over the world. Substandard

performers pose a risk to their host

nations everywhere. For this reason,

IMO recently formed the Flag State

Implementation Subcommittee (FSI) to

develop strong international standards

for nations that flag vessels (flag states)

and for nations that host vessels (port

states). By working closely with the FSI

the Coast Guard will assure both a high

and a level playing field for U.S. flag

vessels in international trade.

The Coast Guard invites comment on

this initial regulatory policy.

Dated: May 22, 1995.

J.C. Card,

Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Chief, Office

of Marine Safety, Security and Environmental

Protection.

[FR Doc. 95–13269 Filed 5–30–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–14–M

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

[MN–36–1–6752b; FRL–5020–2]

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans and Designation

of Area for Air Quality Planning

Purposes: Minnesota

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (USEPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The USEPA proposes to

approve the request for redesignation to

attainment for particulate matter (PM) in

Olmsted County and sulfur dioxide

(SO2) in the Air Quality Control Region

(AQCR) 131 Twin Cities and Pine Bend

areas (excluding the St. Paul Park area).

In addition, USEPA proposes to approve

a State Implementation Plan (SIP)

revision to the administrative order for

PM for Rochester Public Utilities,
28378 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 104 / Wednesday, May 31, 1995 / Proposed Rules

located in Rochester, Minnesota. The

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency

(MPCA) submitted the proposed SIP

revision and redesignation requests on

September 7, 1994. In the final rules

section of this Federal Register, USEPA

is approving the SIP revision and

requests to redesignation as a direct

final rule because the Agency views this

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 this proposed rule. If

USEPA 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

USEPA will not institute a second

comment period on this notice.

DATES: Comments on this proposed rule

must be received on or before June 30,

1995.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should

be mailed to: William L. MacDowell,

Chief, Regulation Development Section,

Air Enforcement Branch (AE–17J),

United States Environmental Protection

Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,

Chicago, Illinois 60604.

Copies of the State submittal and

USEPA’s analysis are available for

public inspection during normal

business hours at the following address:

United States Environmental Protection

Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation

Division, 77 West Jackson Boulevard

(AR–17J), Chicago, Illinois 60604.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Randy Robinson, Air Enforcement

Branch, Regulation Development

Section (AE–17J) United States

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region 5, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312)

353–6713.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For

additional information see the direct

final rule published in the rules section

of the Federal Register.

Dated: April 19, 1995.

Valdas V. Adamkus,

Regional Administrator.

[FR Doc. 95–13180 Filed 5–30–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–M

40 CFR Part 60

[AD–FRL–5211–5]

RIN 2060–AF00

Standards of Performance for New

Stationary Sources Appendix A , Test

Method 23

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: This rule amends Method 23,

entitled ‘‘Determination of

Polychlorinated Dibenzo-p-Dioxins and

Polychlorinated Dibenzofurans from

Stationary Sources,’’ to correct existing

errors in the method, to eliminate the

methylene chloride rinse of the

sampling train, and to clarify the quality

assurance requirements of the method.

DATES: Comments. Comments must be

received on or before August 29, 1995.

Public Hearing. If anyone contacts

EPA requesting to speak at a public

hearing by June 14, 1995 a public

hearing will be held on June 28, 1995,

beginning at 10 a.m.

Request to Speak at Hearing. Persons

wishing to present oral testimony must

contact EPA by June 14, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be

submitted (in duplicate if possible) to

Public Docket No. A–94–2 at the

following address: U. S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Air and Radiation

Docket and Information Center, Mail

Code: 6102, 401 M Street SW.,

Washington, DC 20460. The Agency

requests that a separate copy also be

sent to the contact person listed below.

The docket is located at the above

address in room M–1500 Waterside Mall

(ground floor), and may be inspected

from 8:30 a.m.–12 p.m. and 1:30 p.m.–

3 p.m., Monday through Friday. The

proposed regulatory text and other

materials related to this rulemaking are

available for review in the docket or

copies may be mailed on request from

the Air Docket by calling 202–260–7548.

A reasonable fee may be charged for

copying docket materials.

Public Hearing. If anyone contacts

EPA requesting a public hearing, it will

be held at EPA’s Emission Measurement

Laboratory, Research Triangle Park,

North Carolina. Persons interested in

attending the hearing or wishing to

present oral testimony should notify Ms.

Lala Cheek (MD–19), U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina

27711, telephone number (919) 541–

5545.

Docket. A Docket, A–94–22,

containing materials relevant to this

rulemaking, is available for public

inspection and copying between 8:30

a.m.–12 p.m. and 1:30 p.m.–3 p.m.,

Monday through Friday, in at EPA’s Air

Docket Section (LE–131), Room M–1500

Waterside Mall (ground floor) 401 M

Street SW., Washington, DC. 20460. A

reasonable fee may be charged for

copying.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gary

McAlister, Emission Measurement

Branch (MD–19), Emissions,

Monitoring, and Analysis Division, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina

27711, telephone (919) 541–1062.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

proposed regulatory text of the proposed

rule is not included in this Federal

Register document, but is available in

Docket No. A–94–22 or by written or

telephone request from the Air Docket

(see ADDRESSES). If necessary, a limited

number of copies of the Regulatory Text

are available from the EPA contact

persons designated earlier in this

document. This document with the

proposed regulatory language is also

available on the Technology Transfer

Network (TTN), one of EPA’s electronic

bulletin boards. TTN provides

information and technology exchange in

various areas of air pollution control.

The service is free except for the cost of

the phone call. Dial (919) 541–5742 for

up to a 14400 bps modem. If more

information on TTN is needed, call the

HELP line at (919) 541–5384.

I. Summary

Method 23 was promulgated along

with the New Source Performance

Standard for municipal waste

combustors (Subpart Ea). As

promulgated, the method contained

some errors. This action would correct

those errors and would clarify some of

the existing quality assurance

requirements. In addition, the current

procedure requires rinsing of the

sampling train with two separate

solvents which must be analyzed

separately. Based on data the Agency

has collected since promulgation of

Method 23, we believe that one of these

rinse steps and the resulting sample

fraction can be eliminated. This could

save as much as $2000 per test run in

analytical costs.

II. The Rulemaking

This rulemaking does not impose

emission measurement requirements

beyond those specified in the current

regulations nor does it change any

emission standard. Rather, the

rulemaking would simply amend an

existing test method associated with

emission measurement requirements in