Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 247 / Wednesday, December 26, 2001 / Proposed Rules 66381

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

Federalism

The Coast Guard has analyzed this

rule under the principles and criteria

contained in Executive Order 13132 and

have determined that this rule does not

have sufficient federalism implications

for Federalism under that order.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) governs

the issuance of Federal regulations that

require unfunded mandates. An

Unfunded Mandate is a regulation that

requires a state, local or tribal

government or the private sector to

incur costs without the Federal

government’s having first provided the

funds to pay those costs. This rule will

not impose an Unfunded Mandate.

Taking of Private Property

This rule will not affect 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 section 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive

Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to

minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity

and reduce burden.

Protection of Children

The Coast Guard has 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.

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

The Coast Guard has considered the

environmental impact of this regulation

and concluded that, under Figure 2–1,

paragraph 34(g) of Commandant

Instruction M16475.1C, this rule is

categorically excluded from further

environmental documentation.

Energy Effects

The Coast Guard has analyzed this

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 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:

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. Redesignate § 165.103 as § 165.108.

3. Add new § 165.103 to read as

follows:

§ 165.103 Safety Zone; vessel launches,

Bath Iron Works, Kennebec River, Bath,

Maine.

(a) Location. The following is a safety

zone: all waters of the Kennebec River

within a 150-yard radius of the Bath

Iron Works dry dock while it is being

moved to and from its moored position

at the Bath Iron Works Facility in Bath,

Maine to a deployed position in the

Kennebec River, and while launching or

recovering vessels.

(b) Regulations. In accordance with

the general regulations in § 165.23 of

this part, entry into this zone is

prohibited unless authorized by the

Captain of the Port, Portland, Maine.

Dated: November 26, 2001.

M.P. O’Malley,

Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of

the Port.

[FR Doc. 01–31658 Filed 12–21–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–15–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[DC001–1000; FRL–7121–8]

Approval of Section 112(l) Authority for

Hazardous Air Pollutants; District of

Columbia; Department of Health

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve

the District of Columbia (the District)

Department of Health’s (DoH’s) request

for delegation of authority to implement

and enforce its hazardous air pollutant

general provisions and hazardous air

pollutant emission standards for

perchloroethylene dry cleaning

facilities, hard and decorative

chromium electroplating and chromium

anodizing tanks, halogenated solvent

cleaning, and publicly owned treatment

works, as well as the test methods,

which have been adopted by reference

from the Federal requirements set forth

in the Code of Federal Regulations

(CFR). This proposed approval will

automatically delegate future

amendments to these regulations once

the District incorporates these

amendments into its regulations. In

addition, EPA is proposing to approve

of DoH’s mechanism for receiving

delegation of future hazardous air

pollutant regulations. This mechanism

entails DoH’s incorporation by reference

of the unchanged Federal standard into

its hazardous air pollutant regulation,

DoH’s notification to EPA of such

incorporation and DoH’s submission of

a delegation request letter to EPA

following EPA notification of a new

Federal requirement. This action

pertains only to affected sources, as

defined by the Clean Air Act’s

hazardous air pollutant program. In the

Final Rules section of this Federal

Register, EPA is approving the District

of Columbia’s request for delegation of

authority as a direct final rule without

prior proposal because the Agency

views this as a noncontroversial

submittal 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 this action, no

further activity is contemplated. 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. EPA will

not institute a second comment period.

66382 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 247 / Wednesday, December 26, 2001 / Proposed Rules

Any parties interested in commenting

on this action should do so at this time.

DATES: Written comments must be

received on or before January 25, 2002.

ADDRESSES: Written comments on this

action should be sent concurrently to:

Makeba A. Morris, Chief, Permits and

Technical Assessment Branch, Mail

Code 3AP11, Air Protection Division,

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Region III, 1650 Arch Street,

Philadelphia, PA 19103–2029, and

Donald E. Wambsgans II, Program

Manager of the Air Quality Division,

District of Columbia Department of

Health, 825 North Capital Street, NE,

Suite 400, Washington, DC 20002.

Copies of the documents relevant to this

action are available for public

inspection during normal business

hours at the Air Protection Division,

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Region III, 1650 Arch Street,

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103 and

the District of Columbia Department of

Health, 825 North Capital Street, NE,

Suite 400, Washington, DC 20002.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Dianne J. McNally, 215–814–3297, at

the EPA Region III address above, or by

e-mail at mcnally.dianne@epa.gov.

Please note that any formal comments

must be submitted, in writing, as

provided in the ADDRESSES section of

this document.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For

further information on this action,

pertaining to approval of the District

DoH’s delegation of authority for the

hazardous air pollutant general

provisions and hazardous air pollutant

emission standards for

perchloroethylene dry cleaning

facilities, hard and decorative

chromium electroplating and chromium

anodizing tanks, halogenated solvent

cleaning, and publicly owned treatment

works, as well as the relevant test

methods, please see the direct final rule,

with the same title, that is located in the

‘‘Rules and Regulations’’ section of this

Federal Register publication.

Dated: December 11, 2001.

Judith M. Katz,

Director, Air Protection Division, Region III.

[FR Doc. 01–31486 Filed 12–21–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

[LA–55–1–7485b; FRL–7121–5]

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans and Designation

of Areas for Air Quality Planning

Purposes; State of Louisiana;

Redesignation of Lafourche Parish

Ozone Nonattainment Area to

Attainment for Ozone

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing to

approve a redesignation request from

the State of Louisiana that redesignates

Lafourche Parish from nonattainment to

attainment for the 1-hour ozone

National Ambient Air Quality Standard.

DATES: Written comments must be

received by January 25, 2002.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should

be addressed to Mr. Thomas H. Diggs,

Chief, Air Planning Section (6PD–L), at

the EPA Region 6 Office listed below.

Copies of documents relevant to this

action are available for public

inspection during normal business

hours at the following locations.

Anyone wanting to examine these

documents should make an

appointment with the appropriate office

at least two working days in advance.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region 6, Air Planning Section (6PD–

L), 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas

75202–2733.

Louisiana Department of Environmental

Quality, Air Quality Division, 7290

Bluebonnet Boulevard, Baton Rouge,

Louisiana 70810.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Thomas Diggs at (214) 665–7214.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the

‘‘Rules and Regulations’’ section of this

Federal Register, EPA is approving the

State’s redesignation request as a direct

final rule without prior proposal

because EPA views this as a

noncontroversial revision and

anticipates no adverse comment. The

EPA has explained its reasons for this

approval in the preamble to the direct

final rule. If EPA receives no relevant

adverse comment, EPA will not take

further action on this proposed rule. If

EPA receives relevant adverse comment,

EPA will withdraw the direct final rule

and it will not take effect. The EPA will

address all public comments in a

subsequent final rule based on this

proposed rule. The EPA will not

institute a second comment period on

this action. Any parties interested in

commenting must do so at this time.

For additional information, see the

direct final rule located in the ‘‘Rules

and Regulations’’ section of this Federal

Register.

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

Dated: December 10, 2001.

Lawrence E. Starfield,

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 6.

[FR Doc. 01–31484 Filed 12–21–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 271

[FRL–7121–2]

Tennessee: Final Authorization of

State Hazardous Waste Management

Program Revisions

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: Tennessee has applied to EPA

for Final authorization of the changes to

its hazardous waste program under the

Resource Conservation and Recovery

Act (RCRA). EPA proposes to grant final

authorization to Tennessee. In the

‘‘Rules and Regulations’’ section of this

Federal Register, EPA is authorizing the

changes by an immediate final rule. EPA

did not make a proposal prior to the

immediate final rule because we believe

this action is not controversial and do

not expect comments that oppose it. We

have explained the reasons for this

authorization in the preamble to the

immediate final rule. Unless we get

written comments which oppose this

authorization during the comment

period, the immediate final rule will

become effective on the date it

establishes, and we will not take further

action on this proposal. If we get

comments that oppose this action, we

will withdraw the immediate final rule

and it will not take effect. We will then

respond to public comments in a later

final rule based on this proposal. You

may not have another opportunity for

comment. If you want to comment on

this action, you must do so at this time.

DATES: Send your written comments so

that they are received by January 25,

2002.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments to

Narindar Kumar, Chief, RCRA Programs

Branch, Waste Management Division,

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

The Sam Nunn Atlanta Federal Center,

61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, GA,

30303–3104; (404) 562–8440. You can