66380 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 247 / Wednesday, December 26, 2001 / Proposed Rules

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[CGD01–01–155]

RIN 2115–AA97

Safety Zone; Vessel Launches, Bath

Iron Works, Kennebec River, Bath, ME

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes a

150-yard radius safety zone around the

Bath Iron Works facility dry dock in

Bath, Maine to be activated when the

dry dock is deployed and positioned

into its dredged basin hole near the

center of the Kennebec River. This

safety zone is needed to protect the

maritime community from the possible

dangers and hazards to navigation

associated with positioning a 700-foot

dry dock near the center of the river to

launch and recover large vessels.

DATES: Comments and related material

must reach the Coast Guard on or before

February 25, 2002.

ADDRESSES: You may mail comments

and related material to Marine Safety

Office, Portland, 103 Commercial Street,

Portland, Maine 04101. The Port

Operations Department 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 Marine Safety

Office Portland between 8 a.m. and 4

p.m., Monday through Friday, except

Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Lieutenant (Junior Grade) W.W. Gough,

Ports and Waterways Safety Branch

Chief, Port Operations Department,

Captain of the Port, Portland, Maine at

(207) 780–3251.

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 CGD01–01–155,

indicate the specific section of this

document to which each comment

applies, and give 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 they 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 the view of them.

Public Meeting

We do not now plan to hold a public

meeting. But you may submit a request

for a meeting by writing to Marine

Safety Office Portland 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

The Bath Iron Works facility in Bath,

Maine recently acquired a 700-foot dry

dock. This dry dock needs to be pulled

away from shore to be placed in a

dredged basin near the center of the

Kennebec River in order to submerge to

be able to launch and recover vessels.

This position in the dredged basin is

just to the south and southwest of Red

Nun Buoy Number ‘‘34.’’ The Captain of

the Port, Portland, Maine proposes to

establish a permanent moving safety

zone around the dry dock when it is

being moved from its moored position at

the Bath Iron Works facility to its

deployed location in the dredged basin

of the Kennebec River, and from its

deployed location back to its mooring.

The Captain of the Port, Portland, Maine

also proposes to establish a permanent

safety zone around the dry dock while

it is in its deployed position in the

waters of the Kennebec River. The safety

zone would restrict entry into waters of

the Kennebec River within a 150-yard

radius from the dry dock. This safety

zone is needed to protect the maritime

community from the possible dangers

and hazards to navigation associated

with positioning a 700-foot dry dock

near the center of the river and with

launching and recovering large vessels.

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

Coast Guard expects the economic

impact of this proposal to be so minimal

that a full Regulatory Evaluation under

paragraph 10e of the regulatory policies

and procedures of DOT is unnecessary

for the following reasons: this safety

zone would only be activated

temporarily when the dry dock is

relocated to its launch and recovery

position and during vessel launch and

recovery; the safety zone only restricts

movement in a portion of the Kennebec

River allowing vessels to safely navigate

around the zone without delay; the

maritime community will be notified of

the restrictions via broadcast notice to

mariners; and there will be advanced

coordination of vessel traffic around the

safety zone to minimize the effect on

commercial vessel traffic.

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’’ may include

(1) small businesses and not-for-profit

organizations that are independently

owned and operated and are not

dominant in their fields and (2)

governmental jurisdictions with

populations of less than 50,000.

For the reasons stated in the

Regulatory Evaluation above, the Coast

Guard expects the impact of this

regulation to be minimal and certifies

under section 605(b) of the Regulatory

Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) that

this final rule will not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities.

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.

Assistance for Small Entities

Under section 213(a) of the Small

Business Regulatory Enforcement

Fairness Act of 1996 (Public Law 104–

121), we want to assist small entities in

understanding this proposed rule so that

they can better evaluate its effects on

them and participate in the rulemaking.

If the rule would effect your small

business, organization, or governmental

jurisdiction and you have questions

concerning its provisions or options for

compliance, please contact Lieutenant

(Junior Grade) W.W. Gough, Ports and

Waterways Safety Branch Chief, Captain

of the Port, Portland, Maine at (207)

780–3251.

Collection of Information

This rule contains no collection of

information requirements under the

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.