34380 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 125 / Thursday, June 28, 2001 / Proposed Rules

Issued in Renton, Washington, on June 21,

2001.

Kalene C. Yanamura,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 01–16204 Filed 6–27–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[COTP Honolulu 01–047]

RIN 2115–AA97

Safety Zone; Japanese Fisheries High

School Training Vessel EHIME MARU

Relocation and Crew Member

Recovery, Pacific Ocean, South Shores

of the Island of Oahu, HI

AGENCY: U.S. Coast Guard, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to

establish four temporary safety zones

south of Oahu, Hawaii to protect vessels

and mariners from the hazards

associated with vessel relocation and

crew member recovery operations of the

Japanese Fisheries High School Training

Vessel EHIME MARU, which sank after

being struck by the submarine USS

GREENEVILLE (SSN 772). Entry into

these zones will be prohibited unless

authorized by the Captain of the Port

Honolulu, HI.

DATES: Comments and related material

must reach the Coast Guard on or before

July 30, 2001.

ADDRESSES: You may mail comments

and related material to U.S. Coast Guard

Marine Safety Office Honolulu, 433 Ala

Moana Boulevard, Honolulu, HI, 96813,

who maintains the public docket for this

rulemaking. Comments and material

received from the public, as well as

documents indicated in this preamble as

being available in the docket, will

become part of this docket and will be

available for inspection or copying at

Coast Guard Marine Safety Office

Honolulu between 7 a.m. and 3:30 p.m.,

Monday through Friday, except Federal

holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: LT

Mark Willis, U.S. Coast Guard Marine

Safety Office Honolulu, Hawaii at (808)

522–8260.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Request for Comments

We encourage you to participate in

this rulemaking by submitting

comments and related material. If you

do so, please include your name and

address, identify the docket number for

this rulemaking [COTP Honolulu 01–

047], indicate the specific section of this

document to which each comment

applies, and give the reason for each

comment. Please submit all comments

and related material in an unbound

format, no larger than 81⁄2 by 11 inches,

suitable for copying. If you would like

to know your comments reached us,

please enclose a stamped, self-addressed

postcard or envelope. We will consider

all comments and material received

during the comment period. We may

change this proposed rule in view of

them. We are providing a 30-day

comment period on this proposal so that

we can seek public input on the

proposed safety zones and still publish

the final rule before the start of the

vessel relocation and crew member

recovery operation. We anticipate the

rule will be effective less than 30 days

after its publication in the Federal

Register.

Public Meeting

We do not now plan to hold a public

meeting. But you may submit a request

for a meeting by writing to U.S. Coast

Guard Marine Safety Office Honolulu,

HI, at the address under ADDRESSES

explaining why one would be

beneficial. If we determine that one

would aid this rulemaking, we will hold

one at a time and place announced by

a later notice in the Federal Register.

Background and Purpose

On February 9, 2001, the Japanese

Fisheries High School Training Vessel

EHIME MARU was struck by the

submarine USS GREENEVILLE (SSN

772) approximately 9 nautical miles

south of Diamond Head on the island of

Oahu, Hawaii. The EHIME MARU sank

in approximately 2,000 feet of water. At

the time of the sinking, 26 of the 35

crewmembers were successfully

rescued. An extensive search failed to

locate additional personnel and it is

assumed that some, or all, of the nine

missing crewmembers were trapped

inside the vessel. The EHIME MARU is

resting upright on the seafloor at

position 21°–04.8′N, 157°–49.5′W. The

U.S. Navy plans to recover

crewmembers, personal effects, and

certain unique characteristic

components from the EHIME MARU. In

its present location, the vessel is beyond

diver capability to safely conduct

recovery operations. Therefore, the

current recovery plan calls for use of a

specially equipped offshore

construction vessel to lift the EHIME

MARU from the bottom and transport

the vessel to a shallow water work site.

The EHIME MARU would then be

placed back on the seafloor, in

approximately 115 feet of water, where

Navy divers would enter the hull and

attempt to recover crewmembers,

personal effects, and uniquely

characteristic components found inside.

To limit the impact on the marine

environment, diesel fuel, lubricating oil,

loose debris, and any other hazardous

materials will be removed to the

maximum extent practicable at the

shallow water work site. The hull will

then be lifted back off the ocean floor

and moved to a deep water relocation

site approximately 13 nautical miles

south of Barbers Point on the island of

Oahu, Hawaii. To support the vessel

relocation and crew member recovery

operation, the Coast Guard proposes to

establish safety zones as follows:

1. A fixed safety zone, with a radius

of 1 nautical mile, centered at 21°–

04.8′N, 157°–49.5′W; the present

location of the EHIME MARU.

2. A moving safety zone, with a radius

of 1 nautical mile, will be in effect

during the transit of the EHIME MARU

and associated recovery vessels from the

present location of the EHIME MARU to

the shallow water work site, located

within the Naval Defensive Sea Area at

approximate position 21°–17.5′N, 157°

–56.4′W.

3. A moving safety zone, with a radius

of 1 nautical mile, will be in effect

during transit of the EHIME MARU and

associated recovery vessels from the

shallow water work site to the deep

water relocation site at approximate

position 21°–05.0′N, 157°–07.0′W.

4. A fixed safety zone, with a radius

of 1 nautical mile, centered at the

coordinates of the deep water relocation

site, will be in effect until the EHIME

MARU is placed back on the ocean

floor. The portion of the safety zone

extending beyond the territorial

boundary is advisory only.

The safety zones would be enforced

sequentially, the exact dates will be

dependent on the phase of the

operation. The safety zones would

become effective at the beginning of

August, 2001, and would remain in

effect until the operation, which will

take about 31⁄2 months, ends in midNovember. The purpose of these safety

zones is to protect vessels and mariners

from hazards associated with vessel

relocation and crew member recovery

operations of the Japanese Fisheries

High School Training Vessel EHIME

MARU. Since oil spills may result due

to damaged and ruptured fuel tanks, the

safety zone would also protect vessels

and mariners from the hazards of any

pollution response operations that may

be necessary. Entry into these safety

zones will be prohibited unless

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 125 / Thursday, June 28, 2001 / Proposed Rules 34381

authorized by the Captain of the Port

Honolulu, HI. The safety zones will be

enforced by representatives of the

Captain of the Port Honolulu. The

Captain of the Port may be assisted by

other federal agencies.

Regulatory Evaluation

This proposed 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 has not reviewed it 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). The

U.S. Coast Guard expects the economic

impact of this action to be so minimal

that a full Regulatory Evaluation under

paragraph 10(e) of the regulatory

policies and procedures of DOT is

unnecessary. This expectation is based

on the short duration of the zone and

the limited geographic area affected by

it.

Small Entities

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

(5 U.S.C. 601–612), we considered

whether this rule would 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.

The U.S. Coast Guard certifies under

5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this regulation will

not have a significant economic impact

on a substantial number of small

entities. No small business impacts are

anticipated due to the small size of the

zones and the short duration of the

safety zones in any one area. If you

think that your business, organization,

or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as

a small entity and that this rule would

have a significant economic impact on

it, please submit a comment (see

ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it

qualifies and how and to what degree

this rule would economically affect it.

Collection of Information

This rule calls for no new collection

of information under the Paperwork

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501–

3520).

Federalism

The U.S. Coast Guard has analyzed

this rule under Executive Order 13132,

and has determined this proposed rule

does not have implications for

federalism under that Order.

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 discretionary regulatory actions. In

particular, the Act addresses actions

that may result in the expenditure by a

State, local, or tribal government, in the

aggregate, or by the private sector of

$100,000,000 or more in any one year.

Though this proposed rule would not

result in such an expenditure, we do

discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere

in this preamble.

Indian Tribal Governments

This proposed rule does not have

tribal implications under Executive

Order 13175, Consultation and

Coordination with Indian Tribal

Governments, because it does not have

a substantial direct effect on one or

more Indian tribes, 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.

Taking of Private Property

This 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.

Civil Justice Reform

This 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 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.

Environment

The U.S. Coast Guard considered the

environmental impact of this action and

concluded that, under figure 2–1,

paragraph (34)(g) of Commandant

Instruction M16475.1C, this rule is

categorically excluded from further

environmental documentation.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation

(water), Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Security measures,

Waterways.

Regulation

For the reasons set out in the

preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to

amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 165

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191,

33 CFR 1.05–1(g), 6.04–1, 6.04–6, 160.5; 49

CFR 1.46.

2. From August 1, 2001, to November

15, 2001, new § 165.T14–047 is

temporarily added to read as follows:

§ 165.T14–047 Safety zone: Japanese

fisheries high school training vessel EHIME

MARU relocation and crew member

recovery, Pacific Ocean, south shores of

the Island of Oahu, Hawaii.

(a) Location. The following areas are

safety zones. All coordinates reference

1983 North American Datum (NAD83).

(1) At the current location of the

Japanese Fisheries High School Training

Vessel EHIME MARU, all waters from

the surface of the ocean to the bottom

within a 1 nautical mile radius centered

at 21°–04.8′N, 157°–49.5′W.

(2) All waters from the surface of the

ocean to the bottom within a 1 nautical

mile radius of the recovery vessels

while enroute between the current

location at 21°–04.8′N, 157°–49.5′W, to

the shallow water recovery site at 21°–

17.5′N, 157°–56.4′W.

(3) All waters from the surface of the

ocean to the bottom within a 1 nautical

mile radius of the recovery vessels

while enroute between the shallow

water work site at 21°–17.5′N, 157°–

56.4′W, to the deep water relocation site

at 21°–05.0′N, 157°–07.0′W.

(4) All waters from the surface of the

ocean to the bottom within a 1 nautical

mile radius centered at 21°–05.0′N,

157°–07.0′W, except those waters

extending beyond the territorial seas.

(b) Designated representative. A

designated representative of the U.S.

Coast Guard Captain of the Port is any

U.S. Coast Guard commissioned,

warrant, or petty officer that has been

authorized by the U.S. Coast Guard

Captain of the Port, Honolulu, to act on

his behalf. The following officers have

or will be designated by the Captain of

the Port Honolulu: The senior U.S.

Coast Guard boarding officer on each

vessel enforcing the safety zone.

(c) Regulations. In accordance with

the general regulations in § 165.23 of

this part, entry into these zones is

prohibited unless authorized by the U.S.

Coast Guard Captain of the Port or his

designated representatives. The Captain

of the Port Honolulu will grant general

34382 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 125 / Thursday, June 28, 2001 / Proposed Rules

permissions to enter the zones via

Broadcast Notice to Mariners.

(d) Effective dates. This section is

effective from the beginning of August

2001 [date to be inserted in final rule]

until the operation ends in midNovember 2001 [date to be inserted in

final rule]. The public will be notified

of the exact dates for enforcement of the

various zones by Broadcast Notice to

Mariners.

Dated: June 19, 2001.

G.J. Kanazawa,

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the

Port Honolulu.

[FR Doc. 01–16205 Filed 6–27–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–15–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[IL208–1, IL209–1; FRL–7003–8]

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans; Illinois NOX

Regulations

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (USEPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: On April 9, 2001, and May 1,

2001, Illinois submitted adopted rules to

reduce emissions of nitrogen oxides

(NOX) from cement kilns and from

industrial boilers and turbines,

respectively. Illinois adopted these rules

to help meet the NOX emission budget

as required under USEPA’s NOX State

Implementation Plan (SIP) Call as well

as to help attain the 1-hour ozone

standard in the Chicago area.

USEPA proposes to approve these two

sets of rules. These rules are similar to

and satisfy the requirements of USEPA’s

sample rules. Illinois’ rules include

language mandated by the Illinois

legislature making the compliance

deadline contingent on Federal

enforceability of similar rules in other

nearby states. However, the legislature

has recently reversed its prior mandate

and established a fixed compliance

deadline of May 31, 2004.

On June 18, 2001, Illinois submitted

a budget demonstration, reflecting the

impact of the rules on cement kilns and

industrial boilers and turbines in

conjunction with previously submitted

rules on electricity generating units. The

submittal justifies two minor inventory

revisions, adding one source and

deleting another source from the list of

regulated industrial sources. Illinois’

submittal shows that its rules will

achieve the revised budget of acceptable

2007 NOX emission levels. USEPA

concurs with the inventory revisions

and proposes to approve Illinois’ budget

demonstration.

USEPA has previously proposed to

approve Illinois’ rules for electricity

generating units, provided Illinois

established a fixed compliance

deadline. With today’s action, USEPA

has proposed to approve all of the

regulations needed to achieve the

budgeted 2007 NOX emission levels and

to meet USEPA’s associated

requirements. Therefore, USEPA

proposes to conclude that Illinois has

satisfied all requirements of USEPA’s

NOX SIP Call.

DATES: Written comments on this

proposed rule must be received on or

before July 30, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Send comments to: J. Elmer

Bortzer, Chief, Regulation Development

Section (AR–18J), United States

Environmental Protection Agency, 77

West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago,

Illinois 60604. Copies of the State’s

submittal are available for inspection at

the following address: (We recommend

that you telephone John Summerhays at

312–886–6067, before visiting the

Region 5 Office.) U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Region 5, Air and

Radiation Division (AR–18J), 77 West

Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois

60604.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John

Summerhays, Regulation Development

Section, Air Programs Branch (AR–18J),

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Region 5, Chicago, Illinois 60604,

summerhays.john@epa.gov, 312–886–

6067.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the

following text, the terms ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or

‘‘our’’ refer to USEPA. This notice is

organized according to the following

table of contents:

I. Background

A. What is USEPA’s ‘‘ NOX SIP Call’’?

B. What requirements must Illinois meet?

II. Summary of Illinois Submittals

A. Overview of Pertinent Submittals

1. What are the elements of Illinois’ NOX

emission control program?

2. What submittals has Illinois made?

3. What are USEPA’s plans for rulemaking

on Subpart X?

B. Cement Kiln Rules (Subpart T)

1. When was the cement kiln NOX

emission control rule submitted to

USEPA?

2. When must sources reduce emissions?

3. What are the basic components of the

State’s rule?

4. Will affected sources be allowed to

participate in the NOX emissions trading

program?

5. What public review opportunities were

provided?

C. Industrial Boiler Rules (Subpart U)

1. What do the industrial boiler rules

require?

2. What sources are subject to these rules?

3. What are the special provisions of these

rules?

4. How much emission reduction do these

rules achieve?

D. Budget Demonstration

III. USEPA Review

A. Cement Kiln Rules (Subpart T)

1. What guidance did USEPA use to

evaluate the State’s rule?

2. Can USEPA approve Illinois’ cement

kiln rules?

B. Industrial Boiler Rules (Subpart U)

1. Can USEPA approve the general

approach?

2. Can USEPA approve the new source setaside features?

3. Can USEPA approve the early reduction

credit features?

4. Can USEPA approve the low emitter

exemption features?

5. Can USEPA approve the opt-in features?

6. In summary, can USEPA approve

Illinois’ industrial boiler rules?

C. Budget Demonstration

1. Does USEPA accept Illinois’

recommended budget revisions?

2. Do Illinois’ rules satisfy USEPA’s

budget?

IV. Proposed Action

V. Administrative Requirements

I. Background

A. What Is USEPA’s ‘‘NOX SIP Call’’?

On October 27, 1998, the USEPA

promulgated a regulation known as the

NOX SIP Call for numerous States,

including the State of Illinois. The NOX

SIP Call requires the subject States to

develop NOX emission control

regulations sufficient to provide for a

prescribed NOX emission budget in

2007.

Preceding the promulgation of

USEPA’s NOX SIP Call was extensive

discussions of transport of ozone in the

Eastern United States. The

Environmental Council of States (ECOS)

recommended the formation of a

national workgroup to assess the

problem and to develop a consensus

approach to addressing the transport

problem. As a result of ECOS’

recommendation and in response to a

March 2, 1995 USEPA memorandum,

the Ozone Transport Assessment Group

(OTAG) was formed to conduct regional

ozone transport analyses and to develop

a recommended ozone transport control

strategy. OTAG was a partnership

among USEPA, the 37 eastern States and

the District of Columbia, and industrial,

academic, and environmental groups.

OTAG was given the responsibility of

conducting the two years of analyses

envisioned in the March 2, 1995 USEPA

memorandum.

OTAG conducted a number of

regional ozone data analyses and