33930 Federal Register / Vol. 6, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2001 / Proposed Rules

organization, or governmental

jurisdiction and you have questions

concerning its provisions or options for

compliance, please contact Marine

Safety Office Chicago (see ADDRESSES.)

Collection of Information

This proposed rule would call for no

new collection of information under the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44

U.S.C. 3501–3520).

Federalism

We have analyzed this proposed rule

under Executive Order 13132,

Federalism, and have determined that

this 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.

Taking of Private Property

This proposed rule would 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 proposed 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 proposed rule

under Executive Order 13045,

Protection of Children from

Environmental Health Risks and Safety

Risks. This rule is not an economically

significant rule and would not create an

environmental risk to health or risk to

safety that might disproportionately

affect children.

Environment

We have considered the

environmental impact of this proposed

rule and concluded that, under figure 2–

1, paragraph 34 (g), of Commandant

Instruction M16475.lC, this rule is

categorically excluded from further

environmental documentation. A

‘‘Categorical Exclusion Determination’’

is available in the docket where

indicated under ADDRESSES.

Indian Tribal Governments

This 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.

Energy Effects

We have analyzed this proposed rule

under Executive Order 13211, Actions

Concerning Regulations That

Significantly Affect Energy Supply,

Distribution, or Use. We have

determined that it is not a ‘‘significant

energy action’’ under that order because

it is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’

under Executive Order 12866 and is not

likely to have a significant adverse effect

on the supply, distribution, or use of

energy. It has not been designated by the

Administrator of the Office of

Information and Regulatory Affairs as a

significant energy action. Therefore, it

does not require a Statement of Energy

Effects under Executive Order 13211.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

Harbors, Marine Safety, Navigation

(water), Reporting and record keeping

requirements, Security measures,

Waterways.

For the reasons discussed in the

preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to

amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION

AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

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. Add section 165.T09–925 to read as

follows:

§ 165.T09–925 Safety Zone: Kalamazoo

Lake, Saugatuck, MI

(a) The following area is designated a

safety zone:

(i) Location. The waters of Kalamazoo

Lake bounded by the arc of a circle with

a 1000-foot radius with its center in the

middle of the fireworks launch barge, in

approximate position 42° 38′52.5′′ N,

086° 12′18.15′′ W (NAD 1983).

(ii) Effective dates. This regulation is

effective from 8 p.m. (local) to 11:30

p.m. (local) on July 28, 2001.

(b) Regulations.

(1) The general regulations contained

in 33 CFR 165.23 apply.

(2) All persons and vessels shall

comply with the instructions of the

Coast Guard Captain of the Port or the

designated on scene patrol personnel.

Coast Guard patrol personnel include

commissioned, warrant, and petty

officers of the U.S. Coast Guard. Upon

being hailed by a U.S. Coast Guard

vessel via siren, radio, flashing light, or

other means, the operator shall proceed

as directed.

Dated: May 24, 2001.

R.E. Sebald,

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

Port Chicago.

[FR Doc. 01–16019 Filed 6–25–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–15–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[CA242–0240; FRL–7002–9]

Revisions to the California State

Implementation Plan, Imperial County

Air Pollution Control District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing a

disapproval of revisions to the Imperial

County Air Pollution Control District’s

(ICAPCD) portion of the California State

Implementation Plan (SIP). These

revisions concern visible emissions (VE)

from many different sources of air

pollution. We are proposing action on

Rule 401—Opacity of Emissions, a local

rule regulating different emission

sources under the Clean Air Act as

amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act). We

are taking comments on this proposal

and plan to follow with a final action.

DATES: Any comments must arrive by

July 26, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Mail comments to Andy

Steckel, Rulemaking Office Chief (AIR–

4), U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne

Street, San Francisco, CA 94105–3901.

You can inspect copies of the

submitted SIP revisions and EPA’s

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:

California Air Resources Board,

Stationary Source Division, Rule

Evaluation Section, 1001 ‘‘I’’ Street,

Sacramento, CA 95814.

Federal Register / Vol. 6, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2001 / Proposed Rules 33931

Imperial County Air Pollution Control

District, 150 South 9th Street, El

Centro, CA 92243

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Jerald S. Wamsley, Rulemaking Office

(AIR–4), U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Region IX, (415) 744–1226.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us’’

and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA.

Table of Contents

I. The State’s Submittal

A. What rule did the State submit?

B. Are there other versions of this rule?

C. What is the purpose of the submitted

rule revision?

II. EPA’s Evaluation and Action.

A. How is EPA evaluating the rule?

B. Does the rule meet the evaluation

criteria?

C. What are the rule’s deficiencies?

D. EPA recommendations to further

improve the rule.

E. Proposed action and public comment.

III. Background Information.

Why was this rule submitted?

IV. Administrative Requirements

I. The State’s Submittal

A. What Rule Did the State Submit?

Table 1 lists the rule addressed by this

proposal with the dates that it was

adopted by the ICAPCD and submitted

by the California Air Resources Board

(CARB).

TABLE 1.—SUBMITTED RULES

Local agency Rule No. Rule title Adopted Submitted

ICAPCD .................................. 401 Opacity of Emissions .............................................................. 09/14/99 05/26/00

On October 6, 2000, EPA found this

rule submittal met the completeness

criteria in 40 CFR part 51, appendix V.

These criteria must be met before formal

EPA review may begin.

B. Are There Other Versions of the Rule?

The SIP contains two rules with

requirements and provisions similar to

submitted Rule 401: Rule 401—Opacity

of Emissions and Rule 402—

Exemptions. EPA incorporated these

rules within the SIP on February 3,

1989. We are acting on the latest and

only state submittal of Rule 401.

C. What is the Purpose of the Submitted

Rule Revision?

This rule limits the emissions of

visible air contaminants of any type;

usually, but not always particulate

matter from combustion sources and

industrial sites. Specifically, Rule 401

prohibits emissions beyond a defined

opacity standard. ICAPCD’s September

14, 1999 amendments consolidate SIP

Rules 401 and 402 within a single rule

format. Revised Rule 401 includes by

reference exemptions taken from the

California Health and Safety Code at

sections 41701.5, 41704, 41800, and

42350. The TSD has more detailed

information about these amendments.

II. EPA’s Evaluation and Action

A. How is EPA Evaluating the Rule?

Generally, SIP rules must be

enforceable (see section 110(a) of the

Act), must meet Reasonably Available

Control Measure (RACM) requirements

for nonattainment areas (see section

189), and must not relax existing

requirements (see sections 110(l) and

193). The ICAPCD regulates an PM

nonattainment area (see 40 CFR part 81),

so Rule 401 must fulfill RACM.

Guidance and policy documents that

we used to define specific enforceability

requirements include the following:

1. Portions of the proposed post-1987

ozone and carbon monoxide policy that

concern RACT, 52 FR 45044, November

24, 1987.

2. ‘‘Issues Relating to VOC Regulation

Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and Deviations;

Clarification to Appendix D of

November 24, 1987 Federal Register

document,’’ (Blue Book), notice of

availability published in the May 25,

1988 Federal Register.

B. Does the Rule Meet the Evaluation

Criteria?

This rule is partially consistent with

the relevant policy and guidance

regarding enforceability and RACM.

Also, a single rule format provides for

a clearer presentation of VE

requirements. However, there are rule

provisions which do not meet the

evaluation criteria. These provisions are

summarized below and discussed

further in the TSD.

C. What Are the Rule’s Deficiencies?

Certain provisions of Rule 401

conflict with section 110 and part D of

the Act and prevent full approval of the

SIP revision. First, given the section 189

RACM requirement, Rule 401 should

not grandfather existing sources as it

does at section B.3. Secondly, California

has not submitted the sections of the

Health and Safety Code (HSC) cited in

section C for SIP inclusion.

Consequently, EPA can neither review,

nor act on these incorporations by

reference. While one remedy would be

to include desired exemptions within

the rule, they would again be subject to

EPA review and approval. Finally,

section 42350 of the HSC allows for

variances to a district’s opacity limits.

We object to these variance provisions

because they provide broad discretion to

modify the SIP in violation of CAA

sections 110(i), 110(l), and 193.

D. EPA Recommendations to Further

Improve the Rule

We have no recommended rule

revisions that do not affect EPA’s

current action; these revisions would be

recommended for the next time the local

agency modifies the rule.

E. Proposed Action and Public

Comment

As authorized in sections 110(l) and

301(a) of the Act, EPA is proposing a

disapproval of Rule 401. If finalized,

this action will preserve the versions of

Rule 401 & 402 approved in 1989

already within the federally approved

SIP. These rules will remain federally

enforceable. As a result, this

disapproval action does not trigger

sanctions or Federal Implementation

Plan time clocks under section 179 of

the CAA.

We will accept comments from the

public on this proposed disapproval for

the next 30 days.

III. Background Information

Why Was This Rule Submitted?

Visible emission rules with their

opacity standards are basic components

of an air quality regulation program and

a general RACM requirement for PM–10

regulations. Section 110(a) of the CAA

requires states to submit regulations that

control VE emissions. Table 2 lists some

of the national milestones leading to the

submittal of this local agency VE rule.

33932 Federal Register / Vol. 6, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2001 / Proposed Rules

TABLE 2.—PM–10 NONATTAINMENT MILESTONES

Date Event

November 15, 1990 ............. Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 were enacted. Pub. L. 101–549, 104 Stat. 2399, codified at 42 U.S.C. 7401–

7671q.

December 10, 1993 ............. Section 189(a)(1)(C) requires that PM–10 nonattainment areas implement all reasonably available control measures (RACM) by this date.

IV. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

The Office of Management and Budget

has exempted this regulatory action

from Executive Order 12866, Regulatory

Planning and Review.

B. Executive Order 13045

Executive Order 13045, entitled

Protection of Children from

Environmental Health Risks and Safety

Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997),

applies to any rule that: (1) is

determined to be ‘‘economically

significant’’ as defined under Executive

Order 12866, and (2) concerns an

environmental health or safety risk that

EPA has reason to believe may have a

disproportionate effect on children. If

the regulatory action meets both criteria,

the Agency must evaluate the

environmental health or safety effects of

the planned rule on children, and

explain why the planned regulation is

preferable to other potentially effective

and reasonably feasible alternatives

considered by the Agency.

This rule is not subject to Executive

Order 13045 because it does not involve

decisions intended to mitigate

environmental health or safety risks.

C. Executive Order 13132

Executive Order 13132, entitled

Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10,

1999) revokes and replaces Executive

Orders 12612, Federalism and 12875,

Enhancing the Intergovernmental

Partnership. Executive Order 13132

requires EPA to develop an accountable

process to ensure ‘‘meaningful and

timely input by State and local officials

in the development of regulatory

policies that have federalism

implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have

federalism implications’’ is defined in

the Executive Order to include

regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct

effects on the States, on the relationship

between the national government and

the States, or on the distribution of

power and responsibilities among the

various levels of government.’’ Under

Executive Order 13132, EPA may not

issue a regulation that has federalism

implications, that imposes substantial

direct compliance costs, and that is not

required by statute, unless the Federal

government provides the funds

necessary to pay the direct compliance

costs incurred by State and local

governments, or EPA consults with

State and local officials early in the

process of developing the proposed

regulation. EPA also may not issue a

regulation that has federalism

implications and that preempts State

law unless the Agency consults with

State and local officials early in the

process of developing the proposed

regulation.

This proposed rule will not have

substantial direct effects on the States,

on the relationship between the national

government and the States, or on the

distribution of power and

responsibilities among the various

levels of government, as specified in

Executive Order 13132, because it

merely acts on a state rule implementing

a federal standard, and does not alter

the relationship or the distribution of

power and responsibilities established

in the Clean Air Act. Thus, the

requirements of section 6 of the

Executive Order do not apply to this

proposed rule.

D. Executive Order 13175

Executive Order 13175, entitled

‘‘Consultation and Coordination with

Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR

67249, November 6, 2000), requires EPA

to develop an accountable process to

ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by

tribal officials in the development of

regulatory policies that have tribal

implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have tribal

implications’’ is defined in the

Executive Order to include regulations

that have ‘‘substantial direct effects on

one or more Indian tribes, on the

relationship between the Federal

government and the Indian tribes, or on

the distribution of power and

responsibilities between the Federal

government and Indian tribes.’’

This proposed rule does not have

tribal implications. It will not have

substantial direct effects on tribal

governments, 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,

as specified in Executive Order 13175.

Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not

apply to this rule. In the spirit of

Executive Order 13175, and consistent

with EPA policy to promote

communications between EPA and

tribal governments, EPA specifically

solicits additional comment on this

proposed rule from tribal officials.

E. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

generally requires an agency to conduct

a regulatory flexibility analysis of any

rule subject to notice and comment

rulemaking requirements unless the

agency certifies that the rule will not

have a significant economic impact on

a substantial number of small entities.

Small entities include small businesses,

small not-for-profit enterprises, and

small governmental jurisdictions.

EPA’s proposed disapproval of the

state request under section 110 and

subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air Act

does not affect any existing

requirements applicable to small

entities. Any pre-existing federal

requirements remain in place after this

disapproval. Federal disapproval of the

state submittal does not affect state

enforceability. Moreover, EPA’s

disapproval of the submittal does not

impose any new Federal requirements.

Therefore, I certify that this action will

not have a significant economic impact

on a substantial number of small

entities.

Moreover, due to the nature of the

Federal-State relationship under the

Clean Air Act, preparation of flexibility

analysis would constitute Federal

inquiry into the economic

reasonableness of state action. The

Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base its

actions concerning SIPs on such

grounds. Union Electric Co. v. U.S. EPA,

427 U.S. 246, 255–66 (1976); 42 U.S.C.

7410(a)(2).

F. Unfunded Mandates

Under section 202 of the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act of 1995

(‘‘Unfunded Mandates Act’’), signed

into law on March 22, 1995, EPA must

prepare a budgetary impact statement to

accompany any proposed or final rule

that includes a Federal mandate that

may result in estimated costs to State,

local, or tribal governments in the

aggregate; or to private sector, of $100

Federal Register / Vol. 6, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2001 / Proposed Rules 33933

million or more. Under section 205,

EPA must select the most cost-effective

and least burdensome alternative that

achieves the objectives of the rule and

is consistent with statutory

requirements. Section 203 requires EPA

to establish a plan for informing and

advising any small governments that

may be significantly or uniquely

impacted by the rule.

EPA has determined that the

proposed action does not include a

Federal mandate that may result in

estimated costs of $100 million or more

to either State, local, or tribal

governments in the aggregate, or to the

private sector. This proposed Federal

action acts on pre-existing requirements

under State or local law, and imposes

no new requirements. Accordingly, no

additional costs to State, local, or tribal

governments, or to the private sector,

result from this action.

G. National Technology Transfer and

Advancement Act

Section 12 of the National Technology

Transfer and Advancement Act

(NTTAA) of 1995 requires Federal

agencies to evaluate existing technical

standards when developing a new

regulation. To comply with NTTAA,

EPA must consider and use ‘‘voluntary

consensus standards’’ (VCS) if available

and applicable when developing

programs and policies unless doing so

would be inconsistent with applicable

law or otherwise impractical.

EPA believes that VCS are

inapplicable to today’s proposed action

because it does not require the public to

perform activities conducive to the use

of VCS.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Hydrocarbons,

Intergovernmental relations, Ozone,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Volatile organic

compound.

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.

Dated: June 8, 2001.

Keith Takata,

Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.

[FR Doc. 01–16004 Filed 6–25–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

FEDERAL EMERGENCY

MANAGEMENT AGENCY

44 CFR Part 67

[Docket No. FEMA–B–7414]

Proposed Flood Elevation

Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency

Management Agency (FEMA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: Technical information or

comments are requested on the

proposed base (1% annual chance) flood

elevations (BFEs) and proposed BFE

modifications for the communities

listed below. The BFEs and modified

BFEs are the basis for the floodplain

management measures that the

community is required either to adopt

or to show evidence of being already in

effect in order to qualify or remain

qualified for participation in the

National Flood Insurance Program

(NFIP).

DATES: The comment period is ninety

(90) days following the second

publication of this proposed rule in a

newspaper of local circulation in each

community.

ADDRESSES: The proposed BFEs for each

community are available for inspection

at the office of the Chief Executive

Officer of each community. The

respective addresses are listed in the

following table.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Matthew B. Miller, P.E., Chief, Hazards

Study Branch, Mitigation Directorate,

FEMA, 500 C Street SW., Washington,

DC 20472, (202) 646–3461, or (e-mail)

matt.miller@fema.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: FEMA

proposes to make determinations of

BFEs and modified BFEs for each

community listed below, in accordance

with Section 110 of the Flood Disaster

Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104,

and 44 CFR 67.4(a).

These proposed BFEs and modified

BFEs, together with the floodplain

management criteria required by 44 CFR

60.3, are the minimum that are required.

They should not be construed to mean

that the community must change any

existing ordinances that are more

stringent in their floodplain

management requirements. The

community may at any time enact

stricter requirements of its own, or

pursuant to policies established by other

Federal, State, or regional entities.

These proposed elevations are used to

meet the floodplain management

requirements of the NFIP and are also

used to calculate the appropriate flood

insurance premium rates for new

buildings built after these elevations are

made final, and for the contents in these

buildings.

National Environmental Policy Act.

This proposed rule is categorically

excluded from the requirements of 44

CFR Part 10, Environmental

Consideration. No environmental

impact assessment has been prepared.

Regulatory Flexibility Act. The Acting

Administrator, Federal Insurance

Administration and Mitigation certifies

that this proposed rule is exempt from

the requirements of the Regulatory

Flexibility Act because proposed or

modified BFEs are required by the Flood

Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42

U.S.C. 4104, and are required to

establish and maintain community

eligibility in the NFIP. No regulatory

flexibility analysis has been prepared.

Regulatory Classification. This

proposed rule is not a significant

regulatory action under the criteria of

Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 of

September 30, 1993, Regulatory

Planning and Review, 58 FR 51735.

Executive Order 12612, Federalism.

This proposed rule involves no policies

that have federalism implications under

Executive Order 12612, Federalism,

dated October 26, 1987.

Executive Order 12778, Civil Justice

Reform. This proposed rule meets the

applicable standards of Section 2(b)(2)

of Executive Order 12778.

List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 67

Administrative practice and

procedure, Flood insurance, Reporting

and recordkeeping requirements.

Accordingly, 44 CFR Part 67 is

proposed to be amended as follows:

PART 67—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for Part 67

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.;

Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1978, 3 CFR,

1978 Comp., p. 329; E.O. 12127, 44 FR 19367,

3 CFR, 1979 Comp., p. 376, § 67.4

2. The tables published under the

authority of § 67.4 are proposed to be

amended as follows:

BILLING CODE 6718–04–P