This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains notices to the public of the proposed

issuance of rules and regulations. The

purpose of these notices is to give interested

persons an opportunity to participate in the

rule making prior to the adoption of the final

rules.

Proposed Rules Federal Register

9779

Vol. 66, No. 29

Monday, February 12, 2001

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 2000–CE–26–AD]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Cessna

Aircraft Company, Models 172N, 172P,

R172K, 172RG, F172N, F172P, FR172J,

and FR172K Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM); Extension of the comment

period.

SUMMARY: This document provides

additional time for the public to

comment on a proposal to supersede

Airworthiness Directive (AD) 80–04–08,

which currently requires inspecting

(one-time) the fuel line and map light

switch in the left hand forward door

post for chafing or arcing and repairing

any damage found on certain Cessna

Aircraft Company (Cessna) Model 172N,

R172K, F172N, and FR172K airplanes.

AD 80–04–08 also required providing at

least a 0.50-inch clearance between the

map light switch and the fuel line; and

installing a switch cover (insulator) over

the map light switch. The proposed AD

would extend the inspections and

installation of the switch cover

requirement to certain 172N, 172P,

R172K, 172RG, F172N, F172P, FR172J,

and FR172K series airplanes, would

require replacement of the fuel line, if

damaged; and would make the switch

cover inspection and replacement

repetitive. Comments received on the

original NPRM (66 FR 1273, January 8,

2001) specify additional time to respond

to the proposed action. The actions

specified by the proposed AD are

intended to detect and correct any

chafing between the map light switch

and the bordering fuel line, which could

result in a fuel leak and an in-flight fire.

DATES: The Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA) must receive any

comments on this proposed rule by

April 13, 2001. This is extended from

February 12, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Send three copies of

comments to FAA, Central Region,

Office of the Regional Counsel,

Attention: Rules Docket No. 2000–CE–

26–AD, 901 Locust, Room 506, Kansas

City, Missouri 64106. You may read

comments at this location between 8

a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through

Friday, except holidays.

You may get the service information

referenced in the proposed AD from the

Cessna Aircraft Company, P.O. Box

7706, Wichita, Kansas 67277; telephone:

(316) 941–7550, facsimile: (316) 942–

9008. You may look at this information

at the Rules Docket at the address above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

Clyde Erwin, Aerospace Engineer, FAA,

Wichita Aircraft Certification Office,

1801 Airport Road, Room 100, MidContinent Airport, Wichita, Kansas

67209, telephone: (316) 946–4149;

facsimile: (316) 946–4407.

Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on January

23, 2001.

David R. Showers,

Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate,

Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 01–3570 Filed 2–8–01; 12:29 pm]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[CGD13–01–001]

RIN 2115–AE47

Drawbridge Operations Regulations;

Lake Washington Ship Canal, Seattle,

WA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to

temporarily change the operating

regulations for the Ballard Bridge across

the Lake Washington Ship Canal, mile

1.1, at Seattle, Washington. This change

limits double-leaf opening of the draw

daily to 5 a.m., 12:30 p.m., and 8 p.m.

contingent upon five hours notice being

given. Single-leaf openings would be

provided in accordance with the

currently established operating schedule

and would be unaffected by this

rulemaking. This temporary change is

needed for 15 months to accommodate

a major refurbishment project to the

operating and drive systems of the

bridge by the City of Seattle.

DATES: Comments and related material

must reach the Coast Guard on or before

April 13, 2001.

ADDRESSES: You may mail comments

and related material to Commander

(oan), Thirteenth Coast Guard District,

915 Second Avenue, Seattle,

Washington 98174–1067 or deliver them

to room 3510 between 7:45 a.m. and

4:15 p.m., Monday through Friday,

except federal holidays. The Aids to

Navigation and Waterways Management

Office 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.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Austin Pratt, Project Officer, Thirteenth

Coast Guard District, (206) 220–7282.

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 (CGD or COTP docket

number), 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 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 view of them.

Pubic Meeting

We do not now plan to hold a public

meeting. But you may submit a request

for a meeting by writing to Commander

Thirteenth Coast Guard District (oan) 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

9780 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 29 / Monday, February 12, 2001 / Proposed Rules

and place announced by a later notice

in the Federal Register.

Background and Purpose

The City of Seattle proposes to replace

the aged operating and drive systems of

the bascule drawspan of the Ballard

Bridge across the Lake Washington Ship

Canal, mile 1.1, at Seattle, Washington.

To minimize interference with

navigation, only one leaf will be

temporarily disabled at a time. The

disabled draw leaf will be powered by

a winch system that will not perform at

the usual speed for this drawbridge. In

order to avoid lengthy inoperative

periods, the bridge owner proposes

three daily periods during which the

draw will open fully for vessels unable

to safely pass through one-half of the

span. With five hours notice, both

leaves of the draw would open at 5 a.m.,

12:30 p.m., and 8 p.m. on any day of the

week. During the project, single-leaf

openings would be available according

to the operating schedule currently in

effect. This rulemaking would provide

that both draw leaves need not be

opened for the passage of vessels,

including vessels engaged in towing

operations, from 7 a.m. to 9 a.m. and

from 4 p.m. to 6 p.m. Monday through

Friday, except federal holidays, for any

vessel under 1000 gross tons.

Discussion of Proposed Rule

The Coast Guard proposes that

double-leaf openings be required only

three times daily after no less than five

hours notice for a requested opening.

These three scheduled openings would

be at 5 a.m., 12:30 p.m., and 8 p.m.

Single-leaf openings would be available

whenever openings are currently

required by the normal operating

regulations of the bridge. Unless a vessel

is 1000 gross tons or over, it need not

receive an opening of the Ballard Bridge

from 7 a.m. to 9 a.m. and 4 p.m. to 6

p.m., Monday through Friday (federal

holidays excepted). With a single leaf

open the Ballard Bridge provides 62.5

feet of horizontal clearance (125 feet

with both leaves open) with unrestricted

vertical clearance. In the closed

position, the drawbridge provides 45

feet of vertical clearance above the mean

regulated lake level (Lake Washington).

Shorter periods of single-span opening

operations have been authorized in the

past. The majority of vessels on the

related reach of the waterway can safely

pass through a single-leaf draw opening.

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).

We expect the economic impact of

this proposed rule to be so minimal that

a full Regulatory Evaluation under

paragraph 10e of the regulatory policies

and procedures of DOT is unnecessary.

This conclusion is based on the fact that

most vessels will be able to pass the

bridge with little change from normal

operations and that all vessels can be

accommodated three times a day.

Small Entities

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

(5 U.S.C. 601–612), we considered

whether this proposed 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 Coast Guard certifies under 5

U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule

would not have a significant economic

impact on a substantial number of small

entities. Some vessel owners might be

temporarily inconvenienced by the

change, if effected, but the delay should

not be significant, especially after vessel

operators learn of the change and can

therefore plan their trips on the canal

accordingly.

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 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 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) 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 direct costs without the Federal

Government’s having first provided the

funds to pay those costs. This proposed

rule would not impose an unfunded

mandate.

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 does not concern an

environmental risk to health or risk to

safety that may disproportionately affect

children.

Environment

We considered the environmental

impact of this proposed rule and

concluded that, under figure 2–1,

paragraph (32)(e) of Commandant

Instruction M16475.lC, this proposed

rule is categorically excluded from

further environmental documentation

because promulgation of drawbridge

regulations have been found not to have

a significant effect on the environment.

A ‘‘Categorical Exclusion

Determination’’ is available in the

docket where indicated under

ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117

Bridges

Regulations

For the reasons discussed in the

preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to

amend 33 CFR part 117 as follows:

PART 117—DRAWBRIDGE

OPERATION REGULATIONS

1. The authority citation for part 117

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 499; 49 CFR 1.46; 33

CFR 1.05–1–(g); section 117.255 also issued

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 29 / Monday, February 12, 2001 / Proposed Rules 9781

under the authority of Pub. L. 102–587, 106

Stat. 5039.

2. From 5 a.m. on June 4, 2001,

through 8 p.m. on September 30, 2002,

§ 117.1051 is temporarily amended by

adding paragraph (d)(4) as follows:

§ 117.1051 Lake Washington Ship Canal.

* * * * *

(d) * * *

(4) From 5 a.m. on June 4, 2001, to 8

p.m. September 30, 2002, the Ballard

Bridge, mile 1.1, need not open both

draw leaves for the passage of vessels,

including those engaged in towing

operations, except at 5 a.m., 12:30 p.m.,

and 8 p.m., if at least five hours notice

is given.

* * * * *

Dated: February 2, 2001.

Erroll Brown,

Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander,

Thirteenth Coast Guard District.

[FR Doc. 01–3550 Filed 2–9–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–15–U

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[MD105–3054b; FRL–6916–5]

Approval and Promulgation of Air

Quality Implementation Plans;

Maryland; Approval of Opacity

Recodifications and Revisions to

Visible Emissions COMAR 26.11.06.02

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: EPA proposes to approve the

State Implementation Plan (SIP)

revisions submitted by the State of

Maryland for the purposes of

recodifying Maryland’s general opacity

regulations and for providing

procedures whereby a source may apply

for and be granted a federally

enforceable alternative visible emission

standard. In the Final Rules section of

this Federal Register, EPA is approving

the State’s SIP submittals as a direct

final rule without prior proposal

because the Agency views these as

noncontroversial submittals and

anticipates no adverse comments. A

more detailed description of the state

submittals and EPA’s evaluation are

included in a Technical Support

Document (TSD) prepared in support of

this rulemaking action. A copy of the

TSD is available, upon request, from the

EPA Regional Office listed in the

ADDRESSES section of this document. 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. Any parties

interested in commenting on this action

should do so at this time.

DATES: Comments must be received in

writing by March 14, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should

be addressed to Denis Lohman, Acting

Chief, Technical Assessment Branch,

Mailcode 3AP22, U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Region III, 1650

Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

19103. 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 Maryland Department of the

Environment, 2500 Broening Highway,

Baltimore, Maryland 21224.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ruth E. Knapp, (215) 814–2191, at the

EPA Region III address above, or by email at knapp.ruth@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For

further information regarding the

recodifications to Maryland’s general

opacity regulations and the procedures

by which a source may apply for and be

granted an alternative visible emission

standard, please see the information

provided in the direct final action, with

the same title, located in the ‘‘Rules and

Regulations’’ section of this Federal

Register publication.

Dated: November 30, 2000.

Bradley M. Campbell,

Regional Administrator, Region III.

[FR Doc. 01–3379 Filed 2–9–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 261

[FRL–6932–8]

Hazardous Waste Management

System; Identification and Listing of

Hazardous Waste; Proposed Exclusion

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency.

ACTION: Proposed rule and request for

comment.

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA or Agency) today is

proposing to grant a petition submitted

by BMW Manufacturing Corporation,

Greer, South Carolina (BMW), to

exclude (or ‘‘delist’’) a certain hazardous

waste from the list of hazardous wastes.

BMW will generate the petitioned waste

by treating wastewater from BMW’s

automobile assembly plant when

aluminum is one of the metals used to

manufacture automobile bodies. The

waste so generated is a wastewater

treatment sludge that meets the

definition of F019. BMW petitioned

EPA to grant a generator-specific

delisting, because BMW believes that its

F019 waste does not meet the criteria for

which this type of waste was listed. EPA

reviewed all of the waste-specific

information provided by BMW,

performed calculations, and determined

that the waste could be disposed in a

landfill without harming human health

and the environment. Today’s proposed

rule proposes to grant BMW’s petition to

delist its F019 waste, and requests

public comment on the proposed

decision. If the proposed delisting

becomes a final delisting, BMW’s

petitioned waste will no longer be

classified as F019, and will not be

subject to regulation as a hazardous

waste under Subtitle C of the Resource

Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).

The waste will still be subject to local,

State, and Federal regulations for

nonhazardous solid wastes.

DATES: EPA is requesting public

comments on this proposed decision.

Comments will be accepted until March

29, 2001. Comments postmarked after

the close of the comment period will be

stamped ‘‘late.’’ These ‘‘late’’ comments

may not be considered in formulating a

final decision.

Any person may request a hearing on

this proposed decision by filing a

request with Richard D. Green, Director

of the Waste Management Division,

EPA, Region 4, whose address appears

below, by February 27, 2001. The

request must contain the information

prescribed in section 260.20(d).

ADDRESSES: Send two copies of your

comments to Jewell Grubbs, Chief,

RCRA Enforcement and Compliance

Branch, U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Region 4, Sam Nunn Atlanta

Federal Center, 61 Forsyth Street,

Atlanta, Georgia 30303. Send one copy

to Cindy Carter, Appalachia III District,

South Carolina Department of Health

and Environmental Control, 975C North

Church Street, Spartanburg, South

Carolina 29303. Identify your comments

at the top with this regulatory docket

number: R4–00–01–BMWP. Comments

may also be submitted by e-mail to

sophianopoulos.judy@epa.gov. If files

are attached, please identify the format.