Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 84 / Tuesday, May 1, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 21671

Commission’s adoption of its rules.

Eliminating the Commission’s separate

rules will prevent confusion in the

administration of the Commission’s

program for ensuring that its employees

comply with the accepted standards for

ethical conduct.

DATES: Effective May 1, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Earl

R. Ohman, Jr., General Counsel, One

Lafayette Center, 1120 20th St., N.W.

9th Floor, Washington, D.C. 20036–

3457, phone 202–606–5410.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Rules for

the ethical conduct of employees

including Commission employees have

been promulgated by the OGE at 5 CFR

Part 2635, Standards of Ethical Conduct

for Employees of the Executive Branch.

The OGE has advised the Commission

that these rules supersede 29 CFR Part

2202.

List of Subjects in 29 CFR Part 2202

Conflict of interests.

For the reasons stated, the

Occupational Safety and Health Review

Commission under the authority of 29

U.S.C. 661(g) amends Title 29, Chapter

XX of the Code of Federal Regulations

as follows:

PART 2202—[REMOVED AND

RESERVED]

1. Part 2202 is removed and reserved.

Dated: April 25, 2001.

Earl R. Ohman, Jr.,

General Counsel.

[FR Doc. 01–10767 Filed 4–30–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7600–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 173

[USCG–1999–6094]

RIN 2115–AF87

Raising the Threshold of Property

Damage for Reports of Accidents

Involving Recreational Vessels

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.

ACTION: Final Rule.

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard raises the

threshold of property damage for reports

of accidents involving recreational

vessels when damage to vessels and

other property totals $2,000 or more in

any one accident or—this represents a

change from the Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking—when a collision occurs

involving two or more vessels,

regardless of the amount of damage to

property. The higher threshold better

accounts for the rising cost of repairs to

recreational vessels. This Final Rule

will reduce the number of reports of

accidents for minor or cosmetic damage,

help us maintain statistics for future

years comparable to those for past ones,

and reduce the burden of paperwork on

the public to report such incidents.

DATES: This final rule is effective July 2,

2001.

ADDRESSES: Comments and materials

received from the public, as well as

documents mentioned in this preamble

as being available in the docket, are part

of docket USCG–1999–6094 and are

available for inspection or copying at

the Docket Management Facility, U. S.

Department of Transportation, room PL–

401, 400 Seventh Street SW.,

Washington, DC, between 10 a.m. and 5

p.m., Monday through Friday, except

Federal holidays. The telephone number

is 202–366–9329. You may also find this

docket on the Internet at http://

dms.dot.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If

you have questions on this rule, contact

Bruce Schmidt, Project Manager, Office

of Boating Safety, Program Management

Division, Coast Guard, by e-mail at

bschmidt@comdt.uscg.mil or by

telephone at 202–267–0955.

If you have questions on viewing the

docket, call Dorothy Beard, Chief,

Dockets, Department of Transportation,

telephone 202–366–9329.

You may obtain a copy of this rule by

calling the U. S. Coast Guard Infoline at

1–800–368–5647 or by accessing either

the Web Site for the Office of Boating

Safety, at http://www.uscgboating.org,

or the Internet Site for the Docket

Management Facility, at http://

dms.dot.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background and Purpose

On June 20, 2000, we published a

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM)

entitled Raising the Threshold of

Property Damage for Reports of

Accidents Involving Recreational

Vessels (65 FR 38229). We received 17

letters commenting on the proposed

rule. No public hearing was requested

and none was held.

Regulatory Authority and History

46 U.S.C. 6101 requires the Secretary

(who has delegated the authority to the

Commandant) to prescribe rules on the

reporting of ‘‘marine casualties.’’ We use

that authority to describe different types

of marine casualties, including those

involving certain amounts of property

damage, that various parties must

report. 33 CFR Part 173, Subpart C,

contains the rules applicable to

recreational vessels.

In 1972, the threshold of property

damage for reports of accidents

involving recreational vessels was $100.

(This was the original threshold.) In

1979, the effects of inflation on the

original threshold dictated that we raise

the threshold to $200. The purpose of

this adjustment was to reduce the

number of reports filed for minor

incidents.

Even the threshold of $200, however,

eventually resulted in the submission of

an excessive number of reports of

accidents on minor incidents. This

trend increased the reporting burden on

the boating public, and the

administrative burden on both the

States and the Coast Guard. On February

6, 1989, to reduce these burdens, we

published a Final Rule (54 FR 5608)

raising the threshold to $500. As it had

been in 1979, the effect of inflation on

repair costs was the basis for this

change.

The formula described in the

preamble of the Final Rule of 1989

rested on a methodology allowing us to

adjust the threshold annually by

applying a deflator based on the Gross

National Product (GNP) to account for

inflation. In that preamble, we also

stated our intent to review the threshold

annually and, if necessary, adjust the

threshold in law each time it rose by

another $100.

How We Developed the New

Methodology for Adjusting the

Threshold

After analyzing the formula described

in the preamble of the Final Rule of

1989, we determined that further

adjustments both in the threshold and

in the methodology used to determine it

were necessary. Non-safety-related

accident reports continued even after

the threshold rose to $500 in 1989. We

now believe both that the threshold was

too low and that the methodology itself

was amiss. An inflation index based on

the GNP and applied to a base-year

value of $500 yields a threshold for

2001 still low enough for the reporting

of too many damages that are merely

cosmetic. We decided that it is

necessary to adjust the base-year value

of the threshold to reach the level only

where damage due to accidents

implicates safety.

The National Association of State

Boating Law Administrators (NASBLA)

is a professional association consisting

of officials of States, commonwealths,

and provinces responsible for

administering or enforcing the boating

laws of those bodies. Within NASBLA,

21672 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 84 / Tuesday, May 1, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

the Committee on Boating Accident

Investigation, Reporting, and Analysis

(BAIRAC) has responsibility for

reporting and analyzing accidents.

The Boating Law Administrators

(BLAs) who serve on BAIRAC are

experts in enforcement, in education for

boating safety, and in investigation of

boating accidents. From their ongoing

relationships with facilities that repair

recreational boats, as well as from their

experience with and knowledge of

various types of damage to boats and

costs to repair it, they have strongly

conveyed the need for the Coast Guard

to raise the threshold of property

damage for reports of accidents

involving recreational vessels to a level

that accurately reflects current prices of

boats and costs of repair.

BAIRAC called on the Coast Guard to

initiate rulemaking to raise the

threshold for reports of accidents

involving only property damage from

$500 to $2,000 and to amend the

reportable conditions to include all

accidents involving collisions of two or

more vessels. The BLAs and the Coast

Guard agreed that a threshold of $2,000

for those accidents involving only

property damage would enable States’

accident investigators to focus on

reports of safety-related damage and

would eliminate most of the reports of

cosmetic damage. However, as we stated

in the NPRM we published in 2000, we

did not then see the benefit of requiring

reports of all accidents involving

collisions of two or more vessels,

regardless of the amount of damage to

property.

In that NPRM, we attempted to define

a level of cosmetic damage using data

contained in the Boating Accident

Report Database (BARD). Data for 1998

show that 1,718 reported collisions of

two or more vessels involved only

property damage. Of those 1,718, 1,002

involved property damage below the

proposed threshold of $2,000. Taking a

closer look at the data, we discovered

that nearly 90% of those 1,002 involved

property damage at or below a threshold

of $1,500. At that time, we considered

most of these more cosmetic than safetyrelated, notwithstanding that they

involved collisions. So, recognizing the

need to reduce the number of reports for

minor or cosmetic damage, the need to

reduce the administrative burden on the

public and the States of reports for such

damage, and the need for States’

accident investigators to focus on safetyrelated damage, we did not plan to

mandate reports of all accidents

involving collisions of two or more

vessels. However, as will become clear

in our discussion of comments, our

position has changed. We now fully

concur with BAIRAC that we should

require reports of such accidents,

regardless of the amount of damage to

property.

The threshold of property damage for

reports of accidents involving

recreational vessels when damage to

vessels and other property totals $2,000

or more in any one accident or of

accidents involving collisions of two or

more vessels, regardless of the amount

of damage to property, is the minimum

set by Federal rule; but States are free

to impose stricter requirements. Thus, a

State could require reports of all

accidents, even if each report results

only in property damage below the

threshold of $2,000.

We have also determined that it is

necessary to find an inflation-index that

tracks the trends in the boat-repair

industry more accurately than does the

GNP. The GNP gives the total market

value of all final goods and services

produced in the U.S. for a given year.

It comprises spending by all sectors of

the economy. Therefore, the GNP

deflator measures all changes in prices

affecting consumers, private industry,

and government.

The Producer Price Index (PPI) is an

alternative inflation-index. It gives the

average change over time of prices

received by sellers of domestic goods

and services. The data constituting the

PPI are organized by industry and

product, making it possible to find

specific data about prices of repairs to

non-military boats. These data track the

specific changes in prices of repairs to

recreational boats. As this rulemaking

concerns these very prices, we believe

the PPI to be more suitable for

measuring the changes in those prices

with an appropriate threshold of

property damage for reports of accidents

involving those vessels.

How we calculate the new threshold.

For 2001 and beyond, we will use the

PPI for Standard Industrial

Classification (SIC) 3732, ‘‘Boat

Building and Repairing: Boat repairing,

non-military boats’’, to reckon the

threshold. The new value for 2001, of

$2,000, will serve as the base value. To

reckon the value of the threshold for

2002 using 2001 as the base year, one

should run the following calculation:

(Base threshold for 2001) × ([PPI for

2002] / [PPI for 2001])

For example, if the preliminary

estimate of the PPI by the Bureau of

Labor Statistics for 2002 were 191.0, and

for 2001 it were 189.0, the calculation

would run as follows:

$2,000 × (191.0 / 189.0) = $2,021.16

Since this increase, rounded to the

nearest $100, is less than $500, the

threshold would remain at $2000. (An

increment of $500 is small enough to

serve the interest of safety and yet not

so small as to entail too-frequent

changes in the threshold.) We will

calculate the increase every year; once

it, rounded to the nearest $100, reaches

$500, we will raise the threshold

accordingly.

Discussion of Comments and Changes

We received a total of 17 comments

on the proposed amendments to the

rules. Eleven comments came from

BLAs, and a twelfth from NASBLA. Two

came from boating organizations, two

from members of the general public, and

one from an associate professor of

education and safety research. Of the 17,

one, from the State of California, arrived

after the closing date of October 18,

2000; we accepted it because of the high

volume of accident reports generated by

the State each year, about 10 percent of

all reported accidents occurring there,

and because we could accept it without

prejudice to other participants in the

rulemaking.

Twelve comments, including seven

submitted by BLAs and the one

submitted by NASBLA, supported

raising the threshold of property damage

to $2,000 or more. Five of those twelve

comments also supported requiring the

reporting of all accidents involving

collisions of two or more vessels,

regardless of the amount of property

damage.

The remaining five comments,

including the remaining four submitted

by BLAs, opposed raising the threshold

of property damage at all.

Here follows a summary of each

adverse comment:

The first stated that published

accident figures are already too low by

a factor of 16, and that raising the

threshold would only worsen the

situation. It further stated that the whole

system of reporting accidents needs to

be strengthened, not weakened.

The second, from the State of

Alabama, suggested that we eliminate

the threshold altogether. It argued that

the amount of property damage has no

relevance for analyzing accidents with

the object of preventing them. It also

presented criteria for reporting them

that the State has been using for around

15 years.

The third, from the State of

Connecticut, maintained that the cost of

property damage alone does not furnish

a fair proxy for safety and that adopting

the revised threshold could eliminate

the reporting of many important

accidents involving smaller boats. Next,

it concurs with NASBLA that any

reporting should reach all collisions

involving any numbers of vessels. Last,

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 84 / Tuesday, May 1, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 21673

it states that eliminating or not

mandating the reporting of all such

collisions would likely reduce the value

of BARD in illustrating the variety of

boating accidents witnessed and

investigated in Connecticut.

The fourth, submitted by the State of

Ohio, presented a variety of arguments

against raising the threshold. (1) We

were failing to differentiate what we

called ‘‘minor or cosmetic damage’’

from what we considered damage

worthy of reporting. (2) An instant

increase in the threshold from $500 to

$2,000 would eliminate statistical

comparability for most accidents. (3)

Although the Coast Guard wishes to

reduce the burden of paperwork on the

public, (a) Congress, which enacted the

reporting system, must have held that

the information warranted the burden;

(b) the threshold of $2,000 is totally

arbitrary and subjective, with no basis

in relevant experience; (c) the Coast

Guard appears to have used a criterion

other than inflation as the factor for

determining the increase from $200 in

1979 to $500 in 1989; and (d) the Coast

Guard has not defined a ‘‘non-safetyrelated accident,’’ it has not offered any

authority for addressing itself solely to

‘‘safety-related accidents,’’ and it has

not stated why one level of ‘‘material

loss’’ is a proper concern of its while

another is not. (4) If the Coast Guard

accepts the demand of BAIRAC for

proposing this change, it should also

follow the full recommendation of

BAIRAC-specifically, the call to cover

all accidents involving collisions of two

or more vessels, regardless of dollar

amount of damage. (5) To set the

threshold at a ‘‘proper’’ amount now,

the Coast Guard should either fix it at

$500 (where it arrived in 1989) but raise

it with the PPI from now on or drop it

back to the original $100 and raise it

appropriately with the PPI. And, last, (6)

the system for reporting accidents arose

in the first place to benefit the boating

community, and, if administered

correctly, would be not a burden but

rather a benefit.

The fifth, submitted by the State of

California, stated that we had not

demonstrated that all accidents in

which property damage falls below

$2,000 or even $500 are any less

important, in establishing causation,

than those where it falls above $2,000.

California believes that even accidents

where damage is nominal may serve in

identifying problems and may benefit

safety analysts as they conceive safety

programs for needs emerging in their

State. Further, California recommends

the reporting of all accidents caused by

factors under the control of operators as

well as accidents involving defects in

equipment, unmarked hazards, and

other matters bearing on safety. When

analyzing any accident, California

considers two questions: whether, if this

operator had acted in a more prudent

manner, this accident could have been

avoided and whether this accident

could have been avoided but for the

defects in equipment, unmarked

hazards, and other matters. If the answer

is yes to either question, California

considers that accident very seriously

when structuring safety programs.

Included in one comment was a

recommendation to clarify that reports

would be required when the damage in

an accident stood not just above but at

$2,000. Thus, it would have the Final

Rule read not ‘‘Damage to vessels and

other property totals more than $2,000

an accident * * *’’ but ‘‘Damage to

vessels and other property totals $2,000

or more an accident * * *’’

After thoughtfully considering all of

the above comments, the Coast Guard

has decided to raise the threshold of

property damage for reports of accidents

involving recreational vessels to a level

where such damage totals $2,000 or

more an accident and to require reports

of accidents for collisions involving two

or more vessels, regardless of amount of

property damage. The higher threshold

will go into effect for the remainder of

calendar year 2001 after the EFFECTIVE

DATE.

Our decision to amend the proposed

rule so as to require reports of accidents

for collisions involving two or more

vessels, regardless of amount of

property damage, rests on information

furnished by the five comments that

supported requiring reports of such

accidents as well as raising the

threshold to a level of $2,000 or more

an accident. Even two of the five

adverse comments agreed with BAIRAC,

on requiring reports of such accidents.

The primary justification for reporting

all such accidents is that they owe to

violation of the Navigation Rules (that

is, No Proper Lookout, Excessive Speed,

Reckless Operation, or the like). We

concur, and add that these accidents are

necessarily ‘‘safety-related.’’

Over time, collisions involving two or

more vessels are the most-reported kind

of accident; every year, they represent

about a third of all reported accidents.

For 1999, BARD shows 2,774 such

accidents. Of those, 1,707 (nearly twothirds) resulted in property damage

only: no fatalities and no injuries. The

average damage for each of those 1,707

was around $2,900; but the damage for

1,023 (60%) of them came to less than

$2,000, and the average damage for

those 1,023 was around $1,000. We

acknowledge that excluding those 1,023

(about 12 percent of all reported

accidents) because of low damage alone

would compromise the quality and

scope of data captured by BARD. Next,

the absence of 1,023 accidents most or

all of which were due to violations of

Navigation Rules would diminish the

usefulness of the data in structuring

safety programs. Last, we do not want to

forgo valuable data on factors

controllable by operators of lessexpensive boats just because their boats

incur less-expensive repairs. We agree

that the reporting of all collisions

involving two or more vessels is

important both for understanding safetyrelated incidents at any moment and for

tracking statistics over time. Thus, the

benefits for the public of our collecting

these data outweigh the burden on the

public of supplying them.

In conclusion, our intent is to raise

the threshold for reporting property

damage to a level where we capture

almost all useful data and almost no

useless ones. Damage worthy of

reporting comprises that whose cause

implicates the safe operation and

navigation of the vessel and whose

effect implicates the ‘‘structural

integrity’’ or ‘‘seaworthiness’’ of the

vessel. Damage worthy of reporting is by

definition worth the paperwork entailed

by reporting. And more-selective

reporting can only yield more-useful

statistics. Again, States remain free to

capture all the data they want.

In our previous Final Rule (54 FR

5608 (February 6, 1989)), we proposed

to raise the threshold in increments of

$100 over time to ensure the adjustment

of the threshold to an appropriate level.

We have not, nevertheless, raised it

since then. Moreover, we doubt whether

even the threshold of $500, set then,

was high enough and we suspect that

the methodology used to calculate it

was amiss. (For instance, applying that

methodology to the latter threshold

would yield a threshold of barely $700

today. Our research suggests, and most

of the comments confirm, that such a

threshold would fail to capture many

useful data.)

We will review the new threshold

every year. When it should increase by

$500, we will raise it to an appropriate

level by appropriate means: Notice-andcomment rulemaking with the

participation of all willing parties.

Regulatory Evaluation

This Final Rule 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. The Office of Management and

Budget (OMB) has not reviewed this

21674 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 84 / Tuesday, May 1, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

Rule 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)). We

expect the economic impact of this Rule

to be so minimal that a full Regulatory

Evaluation under paragraph 10e of the

regulatory policies and procedures of

DOT is unnecessary.

Cost of Rule

This Final Rule would impose no

added monetary costs on the operator or

owner of a recreational vessel or on

anyone else. On the contrary, it would

decrease costs that the current rule

imposes.

Benefits of Rule

Raising the threshold of property

damage for reports of accidents

involving recreational vessels to $2,000

or more an accident and requiring the

reporting of accidents involving

collisions of two or more vessels,

regardless of amount of damage, for

most of the remainder of 2001 would

benefit owners and operators of

recreational vessels, and officials of

States and the Coast Guard, by reducing

the current burden of submitting and

administering accident reports. In 1999,

there were 1,189 reported accidents that

involved only property damage—no

fatalities and no injuries—and also did

not involve any collisions of two or

more vessels. Requiring a threshold of

$2,000 or more in property damage for

reporting an accident would have kept

the following 1,189 accidents from

being published in our statistics on

accidents for 1999:

Number of

accidents Damage amount

Capsizing ......................................................................................................................................................... 112 85,879

Collision with Fixed Object .............................................................................................................................. 302 239,242

Collision with Floating ...................................................................................................................................... 54 44,702

Falls in Boat ..................................................................................................................................................... 10 5,702

Falls Overboard ............................................................................................................................................... 14 11,661

Fire or Explosion of Fuel ................................................................................................................................. 36 29,010

Fire or Explosion (Other) ................................................................................................................................. 46 34,482

Flooding or Swamping ..................................................................................................................................... 213 161,227

Grounding ........................................................................................................................................................ 186 130,864

Other ................................................................................................................................................................ 39 27,018

Sinking ............................................................................................................................................................. 81 59,985

Skiers’ Mishaps ................................................................................................................................................ 7 5,251

Struck by Boat ................................................................................................................................................. 19 13,657

Struck by Motor or Propeller ........................................................................................................................... 3 1,250

Struck Submerged Object ............................................................................................................................... 54 45,809

Unknown Type ................................................................................................................................................. 13 10,759

Total ...................................................................................................................................................... 1,189 906,498

For these 1,189 accidents, the average

amount of damage is about $762.00. If

this level of property damage were

enough to declare the particular vessel

or vessels total losses, the accidents

would meet Federal reportingrequirements. If not, this level of

damage would count as more

‘‘cosmetic’’ than ‘‘safety-related’’ and

therefore would not meet those

requirements.

Small Entities

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

(5 U.S.C. 601–612), we considered

whether this Final Rule will have a

significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities.

The term ‘‘small entities’’ comprises

small businesses, not-for-profit

organizations that are independently

owned and operated and are not

dominant in their fields, and

governmental jurisdictions with

populations of less than 50,000.

This Rule applies exclusively to

private citizens who own or operate

recreational vessels and by definition

are not ‘‘small entities’’. Further, this

Rule will reduce the reporting burden

on those private citizens for reporting

accidents involving recreational vessels.

Because it expects the effects of this

Rule to be minimal, the Coast Guard

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

Rule will not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities. Furthermore,

as private citizens own the vast majority

of recreational vessels and are not small

entities, the Regulatory Flexibility Act

does not apply to most of the public that

this Rule would regulate.

Assistance for Small Entities

Under section 213(a) of the Small

Business Regulatory Enforcement

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

we offered to assist small entities in

understanding this Final Rule so that

they could better evaluate its effects on

them and participate in the rulemaking.

We provided the name, telephone

number, and e-mail address of a contact

for any small entities that felt either that

the Rule would affect their small

businesses, organizations, or

governmental jurisdictions or that had

questions concerning its provisions or

options for compliance.

Small businesses may send comments

on the actions of Federal employees

who enforce, or otherwise determine

compliance with, Federal rules to the

Small Business and Agriculture

Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman

and the Regional Small Business

Regulatory Fairness Boards. The

Ombudsman evaluates these actions

annually and rates each agency’s

responsiveness to small business. If you

wish to comment on actions by

employees of the Coast Guard, call 1–

888–REG–FAIR (1–888–734–3247).

Collection of Information

This Final Rule calls for no new

collection of information under the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44

U.S.C. 3501–3520). In fact, it should

result in an actual reduction of

paperwork as it requires reports of fewer

accidents.

Federalism

We have analyzed this Final Rule

under E.O. 13132, Federalism, and have

determined that it does not have enough

implications for federalism to warrant

the preparation of a Federalism

Assessment. States will remain free to

impose stricter requirements for reports

of accidents involving recreational

vessels.

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 84 / Tuesday, May 1, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 21675

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) requires

Federal agencies to assess the effects of

their regulatory actions not specifically

required by law. In particular, the Act

addresses actions that may result in the

expenditure by State, local, and tribal

governments, in the aggregate, or by the

private sector of $100,000,000 or more

in any one year. Though this Final Rule

will not result in such an expenditure,

we do discuss the effects of this Rule

elsewhere in this preamble.

Taking of Private Property

This Final Rule will not effect a taking

of private property or otherwise have

taking implications under Executive

Order 12630, Governmental Actions and

Interference with Constitutionally

Protected Property Rights.

Reform of Civil Justice

This Final Rule meets applicable

standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of

Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice

Reform, to minimize litigation,

eliminate ambiguity, and reduce

burden.

Protection of Children

We have analyzed this Final Rule

under Executive Order 13045,

Protection of Children from

Environmental Health Risks and Safety

Risks. This Rule is not an economically

significant rule and does not concern an

environmental risk to health or risk to

safety that may disproportionately affect

children.

Indian Tribal Governments

This rule does not have tribal

implications under Executive Order

13175, Consultation and Coordination

with Indian Tribal Governments. A rule

with tribal implications has a

substantial direct effect on one or more

Indian tribe, on the relationship

between the Federal Government and

Indian tribes, or on the distribution of

power and responsibilities between the

Federal Government and Indian tribes.

Environment

We have considered the

environmental impact of this Final Rule

and concluded that, under figure 2–1,

paragraph (34)(a), of Commandant

Instruction M16475.lC, this Rule is

categorically excluded from further

environmental documentation. The Rule

would merely raise the threshold of

property damage for reports of accidents

involving recreational vessels. A

Determination of Categorical Exclusion

is available in the docket where

indicated under ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 173

Marine safety, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements.

For the reasons discussed in the

preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33

CFR part 173 as follows:

Subpart C—Casualty and Accident

Reporting

1. The citation of authority for part

173 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 31 U.S.C. 9701; 46 U.S.C. 2110,

6101, 12301, 12302; OMB Circular A–25; 49

CFR 1.46.

2. Revise § 173.55(a)(3) to read as

follows:

§ 173.55 Report of casualty or accident.

(a) * * *

(3) Damage to vessels and other

property totals $2,000 or more or there

is a complete loss of any vessel; or a

collision occurs involving two or more

vessels, regardless of the amount of

damage to property; or

* * * * *

3. Revise the heading of § 173.57 to

read as follows:

§ 173.57 Contents of report.

4. Revise the heading of § 173.59 to

read as follows:

§ 173.59 Where to submit report.

Dated: March 15, 2001.

Terry M. Cross,

Rear Admiral, U. S. Coast Guard, Assistant

Commandant for Operations.

[FR Doc. 01–10839 Filed 4–30–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–15–U

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[AZ 099–0032a; FRL–6967–8]

Revisions to the Arizona State

Implementation Plan, Pinal-Gila

Counties Air Quality Control District

and Pinal County Air Quality Control

District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final

action to approve revisions to the PinalGila Counties Air Quality Control

District (PGCAQCD) and Pinal County

Air Quality Control District (PCAQCD)

portions of the Arizona State

Implementation Plan (SIP). These

revisions concern the recision of all of

the remaining SIP rules from the

defunct PGCAQCD and the recision of

certain PCAQCD SIP Rules. We are

approving the recision of local rules that

no longer regulate permitting

procedures for various emission sources

under the Clean Air Act as amended in

1990 (CAA or the Act).

DATES: This rule is effective on July 2,

2001 without further notice, unless EPA

receives adverse comments by May 31,

2001. If we receive such comment, we

will publish a timely withdrawal in the

Federal Register to notify the public

that this rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Mail comments to Andrew

Steckel, Rulemaking Office Chief (AIR–

4), Air Division, U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Region IX, 75

Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA

94105.

You may inspect the submittal

documents and our technical support

documents (TSDs) at our Region IX

office during normal business hours.

You may also see copies of the

submitted SIP revisions at the following

locations:

Environmental Protection Agency, Air

Docket (6102), Ariel Rios Building,

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20460

Arizona Department of Environmental

Quality, 3033 North Central Avenue,

Phoenix, AZ 85012

Pinal County Air Quality Control

District, Building F, 31 North Pinal

Street, Florence, AZ 85232

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Al

Petersen, Rulemaking Office (AIR–4),

Air Division, U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Region IX, 75

Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA

94105; (415) 744–1135.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Throughout this document wherever

‘‘we’’, ‘‘us’’, or ‘‘our’’ are used, we mean

EPA.

Table of Contents

I. The State’s Submittal

A. What rules did the State submit for

recision?

B. Are there other versions of the recision

submittals?

C. What is the purpose of the recision

submittals?

II. EPA’s Evaluation and Action

A. How is EPA evaluating the recision

submittals?

B. Do the recision submittals meet the

evaluation criteria?

C. Public comment and final action

III. Background information

A. Why were these rules originally

approved into the SIP?

IV. Administrative Requirements