16822 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 63 / Monday, April 3, 1995 / Proposed Rules

wanting acknowledgment of receipt of

comments should enclose a stamped,

self-addressed postcard or envelope.

The Coast Guard will consider all

comments received during the comment

period. It may change this proposal in

view of the comments. The Coast Guard

plans no public hearing; however,

persons may request a public hearing by

writing to the Maritime Planning Staff at

the address under ADDRESSES. If it is

determined that the opportunity for oral

presentations will aid this rulemaking,

the Coast Guard will hold a public

hearing at a time and place announced

by a later notice in the Federal Register.

Drafting Information

The drafters of this notice are LTJG K.

Messenger, Project Manager, Captain of

the Port, New York and LCDR J. Stieb,

Project Attorney, First Coast Guard

District, Legal Office.

Background and Purpose

For the last several years, the City of

Rensselaer has submitted an

Application for Approval of Marine

Event for a fireworks program in the

waters of the Hudson River. This

regulation would establish a safety zone

in the waters of the Hudson River on the

third Saturday in September from 8:30

p.m. until 10 p.m., unless extended or

terminated sooner by the Captain of the

Port New York. This safety zone would

preclude all vessels from transiting a

portion of the Hudson River, shore to

shore, north of the 42°38′12′′ N line of

latitude, and south of the Dunn

Memorial Bridge, Albany, New York. It

is needed to protect mariners from the

hazards associated with fireworks

exploding in the area.

This permanent regulation would

provide notice to mariners that this

event occurs annually at the same

location, on the same day and time,

allowing them to plan transits

accordingly. This regulation will be

announced annually via Safety Marine

Information Broadcasters and by locally

issued notices.

Regulatory Evaluation

This proposal 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. It has been exempted from review

by the Office of Management and

Budget 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 Coast Guard

expects the economic impact of this

proposal to be so minimal that a full

Regulatory Evaluation under paragraph

10(e) of the regulatory policies and

procedures of DOT is unnecessary. This

safety zone would close a portion of the

Hudson River to all vessel traffic

annually on the third Saturday in

September from 8:30 p.m. until 10 p.m.,

unless extended or terminated sooner by

the Captain of the Port New York.

Although this regulation would prevent

traffic from transiting this area, the

effect of this regulation would not be

significant for several reasons. Due to

the limited duration of the event; the

late hour of the event; the extensive,

advance advisories that will be made;

and that this event has been held

annually for the past several years

without incident or complaint, the Coast

Guard expects the economic impact of

this regulation to be so minimal that a

Regulatory Evaluation is unnecessary.

Small Entities

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

(5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), the Coast Guard

must consider whether this proposal

will have a significant economic impact

on a substantial number of small

entities. ‘‘Small entities’’ include

independently owned and operated

small businesses that are not dominant

in their field and that otherwise qualify

as ‘‘small business concerns’’ under

Section 3 of the Small Business Act (15

U.S.C. 632).

For reasons set forth in the above

Regulatory Evaluation, the Coast Guard

expects the impact of this proposal to be

minimal. The Coast Guard certifies

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

will not have a significant economic

impact on a substantial number of small

entities.

Collection of Information

This proposal contains no collection

of information requirements under the

Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.

3501).

Federalism

The Coast Guard has analyzed this

action in accordance with the principles

and criteria contained in Executive

Order 12612 and has determined that

this proposal does not raise sufficient

federalism implications to warrant the

preparation of a Federalism Assessment.

Environment

The Coast Guard has considered the

environmental impact of this proposal

and concluded that under section

2.B.2.e. of Commandant Instruction

M16475.1B (as revised by 59 FR 38654;

July 29, 1994), it is categorically

excluded from further environmental

documentation. A Categorical Exclusion

Determination is included in the docket.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation

(water), Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Security measures,

Waterways.

Proposed Regulations

For 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, and 160.5;

49 CFR 1.46.

2. Section 165.167 is added to read as

follows:

§ 165.167 Safety Zone; Annual Rensselaer

Festival Fireworks Display, Hudson River,

New York.

(a) Location. All waters of the Hudson

River, shore to shore, north of the

42°38′12′′ N line of latitude, and south

of the Dunn Memorial Bridge, Albany,

New York.

(b) Effective period. This section is in

effect annually on the third Saturday in

September from 8:30 p.m. until 10 p.m.,

unless extended or terminated sooner by

the Captain of the Port New York. The

effective period will be announced via

Safety Marine Information Broadcasts

and locally issued notices.

(c) 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.

U.S. Coast Guard patrol personnel

include commissioned, warrant, and

petty officers of the Coast Guard. Upon

being hailed by a U.S. Coast Guard

vessel via siren, radio, flashing light, or

other means, the operator of a vessel

shall proceed as directed.

Dated: March 8, 1995.

T.H. Gilmour,

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

Port, New York.

[FR Doc. 95–8126 Filed 3–31–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–14–M
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 63 / Monday, April 3, 1995 / Proposed Rules 16823

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[CA 83–5–6889b; FRL–5165–6]

Approval and Promulgation of State

Implementation Plans; California State

Implementation Plan Revision, Bay

Area Air Quality Management District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve

revisions to the California State

Implementation Plan (SIP) which

concern the control of volatile organic

compound (VOC) emissions from

organic liquid bulk terminals and bulk

plants, surface coating of miscellaneous

metal parts and products, aerospace

assembly and component coating

operations, flexible and rigid disc

manufacturing, gasoline bulk terminals,

gasoline bulk plants, and gasoline

delivery vehicles. One of the rules

concerns the submittal of VOC and

oxides of nitrogen (NOX) emissions data

to the district.

The intended effect of proposing

approval of these rules is to regulate

emissions of VOCs and NOx in

accordance with the requirements of the

Clean Air Act, as amended in 1990

(CAA or the Act). In the final rules

section of this Federal Register, the EPA

is approving the state’s SIP revision as

a direct final rule without prior proposal

because the Agency views this as a

noncontroversial revision amendment

and anticipates no adverse comments. A

detailed rationale for this approval is set

forth in the direct final rule. If no

adverse comments are received in

response to this proposed rule, no

further activity is contemplated in

relation to this rule. If EPA receives

adverse comments, the direct final rule

will be withdrawn and all public

comments received will be addressed in

a subsequent final rule based on this

proposed rule. The EPA will not

institute a second comment period on

this document. Any parties interested in

commenting on this action should do so

at this time.

DATES: Comments on this proposed rule

must be received in writing by May 3,

1995.

ADDRESSES: Written comments on this

action should be addressed to: Daniel A.

Meer, Rulemaking Section (A–5–3), Air

and Toxics Division, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Street, San

Francisco, CA 94105–3901.

Copies of the rule revisions and EPA’s

evaluation report of each rule are

available for public inspection at EPA’s

Region 9 office during normal business

hours. Copies of the submitted rule

revisions are also available for

inspection at the following locations:

Environmental Protection Agency, Air

Docket (6102), 401 ‘‘M’’ Street SW.,

Washington, DC 20460.

Bay Area Air Quality Management

District, 939 Ellis Street, San

Francisco, CA 94109.

California Air Resources Board,

Stationary Source Division, Rule

Evaluation Section, 2020 ‘‘L’’ Street,

Sacramento, CA 95812.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Helen Liu, Rulemaking Section [A–5–3],

Air and Toxics Division, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Street, San

Francisco, CA 94105–3901, Telephone:

(415) 744–1199.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This

document concerns Bay Area Air

Quality Management District Rule 8.6,

Organic Liquid Bulk Terminals and

Bulk Plants, Rule 8.19, Surface Coating

of Miscellaneous Metal Parts and

Products, Rule 8.29, Aerospace

Assembly and Component Coatings

Operations, Rule 8.33, Gasoline Bulk

Terminals and Gasoline Delivery

Vehicles, Rule 8.38, Flexible and Rigid

Disc Manufacturing, Rule 8.39, Gasoline

Bulk Plants and Gasoline Delivery

Vehicles, and Rule 2.1, Section 429,

Emissions Statement. These rules were

all submitted by the California Air

Resources Board (CARB) to EPA on

September 28, 1994, except for Rule 8.6,

which was submitted on May 24, 1994,

and Rule 2.1, Section 429, which was

submitted on October 19, 1994. For

further information, please see the

information provided in the direct final

action which is located in the rules

section of this Federal Register.

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q.

Dated: February 15, 1995.

Felicia Marcus,

Regional Administrator.

[FR Doc. 95–8043 Filed 3–31–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

40 CFR Part 52

[IL91–1–6279b; FRL–5169–5]

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans; Illinois

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (USEPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The USEPA proposes to

approve the site-specific State

Implementation Plan (SIP) revision

request submitted by the State of Illinois

on January 25, 1994, for Quantum

Chemical Corporation’s facility located

in Morris, Illinois. This site-specific SIP

revision alters certain Reasonably

Available Control Technology (RACT)

regulations contained within 35 Illinois

Administrative Code (IAC) Part 218 as

they apply to specific units or plants

within this facility. This approval is

based upon sufficient demonstration

that factors relating to this facility are

substantially and significantly different

from those relied upon in adopting 35

IAC Part 218, and that these factors

warrant a corresponding adjustment of

its RACT requirements. In the final rules

section of this Federal Register, the

USEPA is approving this action as a

direct final rule without prior proposal

because USEPA views this as a

noncontroversial action 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 the

proposed rule. Please be aware that

USEPA will institute another comment

period on this action only if warranted

by significant revisions to the

rulemaking based on any comments

received in response to the direct final

rule. Any parties interested in

commenting on this notice should do so

at this time.

DATES: Comments on this proposed rule

must be received on or before May 3,

1995. If no such comments are received,

USEPA hereby advises the public that

the direct final rule will be effective on

June 2, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should

be mailed to: J. Elmer Bortzer, Chief,

Regulation Development Section,

Regulation Development Branch (AR–

18J), U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson

Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.

Copies of the State submittal and

USEPA’s analysis of it are available for

inspection at: Regulation Development

Section, Regulation Development

Branch (AR18–J), U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West

Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois

60604.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mark J. Palermo, Regulation