Security Zones; San Francisco Bay, San Pablo Bay, Carquinez Strait, Suisun Bay, CA, 55607-55610 [05-18935]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 183 / Thursday, September 22, 2005 / Proposed Rules
Comments Due Date
(a) The Federal Aviation Administration
must receive comments on this AD action by
October 24, 2005.
Affected ADs
(b) None.
Applicability
(c) This AD applies to Model C–212–CC
series airplanes, certificated in any category,
modified in accordance with Supplemental
Type Certificate (STC) ST02177AK, or by
field approval using STC ST02177AK as a
basis for the field approval.
Unsafe Condition
(d) This AD was prompted by our
determination that affected airplanes, when
carrying both cargo and passengers in the
same compartment, cannot achieve the
required level of performance. We are issuing
this AD to prevent a hazardous quantity of
smoke, flames, and/or fire extinguishing
agent from the cargo compartment from
entering a compartment occupied by
passengers or crew.
Compliance
(e) You are responsible for having the
actions required by this AD performed within
the compliance times specified, unless the
actions have already been done.
Modification
(f) As of 12 months after the effective date
of this AD, no person may operate an
airplane in the combi configuration, unless
the actions specified by either paragraph
(f)(1) or (f)(2) are done in accordance with a
method approved by the Manager, Anchorage
Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA.
(1) Modify the airplane to incorporate a
protective liner between the passengers and
the cargo and to ensure compliance with
section 25.855 (‘‘Cargo or baggage
compartment’’) of the Federal Aviation
Regulations (14 CFR 25.855).
(2) Comply with the terms and conditions
specified in paragraphs (f)(2)(i) through
(f)(2)(vi) of this AD.
(i) There are means to extinguish or control
a fire without requiring a crewmember to
enter the compartment.
(ii) There are means to exclude hazardous
quantities of smoke, flames, or extinguishing
agent from any compartment occupied by the
crew or passengers.
(iii) There is a separate approved smoke
detector or fire detector system to give
warning at the pilot or flight engineer station.
(iv) Crew members must receive training in
the use of the fire extinguishers and the cargo
fire containment covers; they must also
receive training in the use of the approved
procedure for the elimination of smoke and
fumes that is specified in the AFM.
(v) Two additional fire extinguishers must
be carried on the airplane.
(vi) Limitations (f)(2)(i) through (f)(2)(v)
must be documented as operating limitations
in the limitations section of the Airplane
Flight Manual Supplement.
Special Flight Permits
(g) Special flight permits may be issued in
accordance with sections 21.197 and 21.199
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:39 Sep 21, 2005
Jkt 205001
of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR
21.197 and 21.199) to operate the airplane to
a location where the airplane can be
modified (if the operator elects to do so),
provided no passengers are onboard.
Alternative Methods of Compliance
(AMOCs)
(h) The Manager, Anchorage Aircraft
Certification Office, FAA, has the authority to
approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in
accordance with the procedures found in 14
CFR 39.19.
Issued in Renton, Washington, on
September 16, 2005.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate,
Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 05–18908 Filed 9–21–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 165
[COTP San Francisco Bay 05–007]
RIN 1625–AA87
Security Zones; San Francisco Bay,
San Pablo Bay, Carquinez Strait,
Suisun Bay, CA
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to
establish fixed security zones in the
waters extending approximately 100
yards around six separate oil refinery
piers in the San Francisco Bay area.
These security zones are an integral part
of the Coast Guard’s efforts to protect
these facilities and the surrounding
areas from destruction or damage due to
accidents, subversive acts, or other
causes of a similar nature. The proposed
security zones would prohibit all
persons and vessels from entering,
transiting through or anchoring within
portions of the designated waters of San
Francisco Bay, San Pablo Bay,
Carquinez Strait, and Suisun Bay,
unless authorized by the Captain of the
Port (‘‘COTP’’) or his designated
representative. These zones will be
subject to discretionary and random
patrol and monitoring by Coast Guard,
federal, state and local law enforcement
assets.
DATES: Comments and related material
must reach the Coast Guard on or before
November 21, 2005.
ADDRESSES: You can mail comments
and related material to the Waterways
Safety Branch, U.S. Coast Guard Sector
San Francisco, Coast Guard Island,
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
55607
Alameda, California 94501. The
Waterways Safety Branch 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 the Waterways
Safety Branch between 9 a.m. and 4
p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Lieutenant Ian Callander, U.S. Coast
Guard Sector San Francisco, at (510)
437–3401 or the Sector San Francisco
Command Center, at (415) 399–3547.
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 (COTP 05–007),
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 that your submission reached
us, please enclose a stamped, selfaddressed 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.
Public Meeting
We do not now plan to hold a public
meeting. But you may submit a request
for a meeting by writing to the
Waterways Safety Branch 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 separate notice in the
Federal Register.
Background and Purpose
As part of the Diplomatic Security
and Antiterrorism Act of 1986 (Pub. L.
99–399), Congress amended section 7 of
the Ports and Waterways Safety Act
(PWSA), 33 U.S.C. 1226, to allow the
Coast Guard to take actions, including
the establishment of security and safety
zones, to prevent or respond to acts of
terrorism against individuals, vessels, or
public or commercial structures. The
Coast Guard also has authority to
establish security zones pursuant to the
Act of June 15, 1917, as amended by the
Magnuson Act of August 9, 1950 (50
U.S.C. 191 et seq.) and implementing
E:\FR\FM\22SEP1.SGM
22SEP1
55608
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 183 / Thursday, September 22, 2005 / Proposed Rules
regulations promulgated by the
President in subparts 6.01 and 6.04 of
part 6 of title 33 of the Code of Federal
Regulations.
To address the aforementioned
security concerns and to take steps to
prevent the catastrophic impact that a
terrorist attack against an oil facility pier
would have on the public and the
environment, we propose to establish
security zones in the waters within
approximately 100 yards of six oil
refinery piers. These zones are
necessary to protect the people, ports,
waterways, and properties of San
Francisco Bay, San Pablo Bay,
Carquinez Strait, and Suisun Bay areas.
Discussion of Proposed Rule
The Coast Guard proposes to establish
a separate fixed security zone around
each of six oil refinery piers. The zones
will encompass the waters extending
from the surface to the sea floor, within
an area approximately 100 yards around
the selected oil refinery piers located
within San Francisco Bay, California.
The specific coordinates defining these
zones are given in paragraph (a) of
proposed 33 CFR 165.1197.
For the Chevron-Texaco oil facility,
the proposed security zone would
extend approximately 100 yards into the
waters of San Francisco Bay around the
Chevron Long Wharf, located in
Richmond, California.
For the Conoco-Phillips oil facility,
the proposed security zone would
extend approximately 100 yards into the
waters of San Pablo Bay around the
Conoco-Philips Wharf, located in
Rodeo, California.
For the Shell Martinez oil facility, the
proposed security zone would extend
approximately 100 yards into the waters
of Carquinez Strait around the Shell
Terminal, located in Martinez,
California.
For the Tesoro-Amorco oil facility, the
proposed security zone would extend
approximately 100 yards into the waters
of Carquinez Strait around the Amorco
Pier, located in Martinez, California.
For the Valero oil facility, the
proposed security zone would extend
approximately 100 yards into the waters
of Carquinez Strait around the Valero
Pier, located in Benicia, California.
For the Tesoro-Avon oil facility, the
proposed security zone would extend
approximately 100 yards into the waters
of Suisun Bay around the Avon Pier,
located in Martinez, California.
These zones will be subject to
discretionary and random patrol and
monitoring by Coast Guard, federal,
state and local law enforcement assets.
In December 2002, the Coast Guard
established permanent moving security
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:39 Sep 21, 2005
Jkt 205001
zones around all tank vessels within
San Francisco Bay to enhance security
during their transit, mooring and
anchorage (67 FR 79854, December 31,
2002). This proposed rule would extend
this level of security to oil refinery piers
by restricting access to the waters
surrounding the piers. Each of these
proposed security zones would provide
a margin of safety for ongoing
operations at the refinery piers.
Vessels or persons violating this
section would be subject to the penalties
set forth in 33 U.S.C. 1232 and 50 U.S.C.
192. Pursuant to 33 U.S.C. 1232, any
violation of the security zones described
herein, is punishable by civil penalties
(not to exceed $32,500 per violation,
where each day of a continuing
violation is a separate violation),
criminal penalties (imprisonment up to
6 years and a maximum fine of
$250,000) and in rem liability against
the offending vessel. Any person who
violates this section using a dangerous
weapon, or who engages in conduct that
causes bodily injury or fear of imminent
bodily injury to any officer authorized
to enforce this regulation also faces
imprisonment up to 12 years. Vessels or
persons violating this section are also
subject to the penalties set forth in 50
U.S.C. 192: seizure and forfeiture of the
vessel to the United States, a maximum
criminal fine of $10,000, and
imprisonment up to 10 years. The
Captain of the Port may enlist the aid
and cooperation of any Federal, State,
county, municipal, or private agency to
assist in the enforcement of the
regulation.
Regulatory Evaluation
This proposed rule is not a
‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under
section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866,
Regulatory Planning and Review, 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 Homeland Security
(DHS).
We expect the economic impact of
this proposed rule to be so minimal that
a full Regulatory Evaluation under the
regulatory policies and procedures of
DHS is unnecessary. Although this
proposed rule restricts access to the
waters encompassed by the security
zones, the effect of this proposed rule
would not be significant because: (i) The
zones would encompass only small
portions of the waterways, (ii) vessels
would be able to pass safely around the
zones, and (iii) vessels may be allowed
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
to enter these zones on a case-by-case
basis with permission of the Captain of
the Port or his designated
representative.
The size of the proposed zones are the
minimum necessary to provide adequate
protection for the oil refinery piers,
vessels engaged in operations at the oil
facility piers, their crews, other vessels
operating in the vicinity, and the public.
Small Entities
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
(5 U.S.C. 601–612), we have 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. This proposed rule may affect
the following entities, some of which
may be small entities: owners and
operators of private vessels intending to
fish or sightsee near the oil refinery
piers.
The proposed security zones would
not have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities
for several reasons: (i) Vessel traffic
would be able to pass safely around the
area, (ii) vessels engaged in recreational
activities, sightseeing and commercial
fishing would have ample space outside
of the security zones to engage in these
activities, and (iii) vessels may receive
authorization to transit through the
zones by the Captain of the Port or his
designated representative on a case-bycase basis. In addition to publication in
the Federal Register, small entities and
the maritime public would be advised of
these security zones via public notice to
mariners.
If you think that your business,
organization, or governmental
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity
and that this proposed 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 (Pub. L. 104–121),
we want to assist small entities in
understanding this proposed rule so that
they can better evaluate its effects on
E:\FR\FM\22SEP1.SGM
22SEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 183 / Thursday, September 22, 2005 / Proposed Rules
them and participate in the rulemaking.
If the proposed rule would affect your
small business, organization, or
governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or
options for compliance, please contact
Lieutenant Ian Callander, Waterways
Safety Branch, U.S. Coast Guard Sector
San Francisco, at (510) 437–3701 or the
Sector San Francisco Command Center,
at (415) 399–3547.
Collection of Information
This proposed rule calls for no new
collection of information under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3501–3520).
Federalism
A rule has implications for federalism
under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct
effect on State or local governments and
would either preempt State law or
impose a substantial direct cost of
compliance on them. We have analyzed
this proposed rule under that Order and
have determined that it does not have
implications for federalism.
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 proposed 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
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:39 Sep 21, 2005
Jkt 205001
environmental risk to health or risk to
safety that might disproportionately
affect children.
Indian Tribal Governments
This proposed rule does not have
tribal implications under Executive
Order 13175, Consultation and
Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it would 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. The Administrator of the Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs
has not designated it as a significant
energy action. Therefore, it does not
require a Statement of Energy Effects
under Executive Order 13211.
Technical Standards
The National Technology Transfer
and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15
U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use
voluntary consensus standards in their
regulatory activities unless the agency
provides Congress, through the Office of
Management and Budget, with an
explanation of why using these
standards would be inconsistent with
applicable law or otherwise impractical.
Voluntary consensus standards are
technical standards (e.g., specifications
of materials, performance, design, or
operation; test methods; sampling
procedures; and related management
systems practices) that are developed or
adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies.
This proposed rule does not use
technical standards. Therefore, we did
not consider the use of voluntary
consensus standards.
Environment
We have analyzed this proposed rule
under Commandant Instruction
M16475.lD, which guides the Coast
Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and
have concluded that there are no factors
in this case that would limit the use of
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
55609
a categorical exclusion under section
2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, this
proposed rule is categorically excluded,
under figure 2–1, paragraph (34)(g), of
the Instruction, from further
environmental documentation because
it would establish security zones.
A draft ‘‘Environmental Analysis
Check List’’ and a draft ‘‘Categorical
Exclusion Determination’’ (CED) will be
available in the docket where indicated
under ADDRESSES. Comments on this
section will be considered before we
make the final decision on whether the
rule should be categorically excluded
from further environmental review.
List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation
(water), Reporting and recordkeeping
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. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C.
Chapter 701; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR
1.05–1(g), 6.04–1, 6.04–6, and 160.5; Pub. L.
107–295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of
Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
2. Add § 165.1197, to read as follows:
§ 165.1197 Security Zones; San Francisco
Bay, San Pablo Bay, Carquinez Strait,
Suisun Bay, California.
(a) Locations. The following areas are
security zones:
(1) Chevron Long Wharf, San
Francisco Bay. This security zone
includes all waters extending from the
surface to the sea floor within
approximately 100 yards of the Chevron
Long Wharf, Richmond, CA, and
encompasses all waters in San Francisco
Bay within a line connecting the
following geographical positions—
Latitude
37°55′52.2″
37°55′41.8″
37°55′26.8″
37°55′47.1″
37°55′42.9″
37°55′11.2″
37°55′14.4″
37°55′19.7″
37°55′22.2″
37°55′38.5″
37°55′47.8″
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Longitude
122°24′04.7″
122°24′07.1″
122°24′35.9″
122°24′55.5″
122°25′03.5″
122°24′32.8″
122°24′27.5″
122°24′23.7″
122°24′26.2″
122°23′56.9″
122°23′53.3″
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
and along the shoreline back to the
beginning point.
(2) Conoco-Phillips Wharf, San Pablo
Bay. This security zone includes all
waters extending from the surface to the
E:\FR\FM\22SEP1.SGM
22SEP1
55610
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 183 / Thursday, September 22, 2005 / Proposed Rules
sea floor within approximately 100
yards of the Conoco-Phillips Wharf,
Rodeo, CA, and encompasses all waters
in San Pablo Bay within a line
connecting the following geographical
positions—
Latitude
38°03′06.0″
38°03′20.7″
38°03′21.8″
38°03′29.1″
38°03′23.8″
38°03′16.8″
38°03′18.6″
38°03′04.0″
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Longitude
122°15′32.4″
122°15′35.8″
122°15′29.8″
122°15′31.8″
122°15′55.8″
122°15′53.2″
122°15′45.2″
122°15′42.0″
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
and along the shoreline back to the
beginning point.
(3) Shell Terminal, Carquinez Strait.
This security zone includes all waters
extending from the surface to the sea
floor within approximately 100 yards of
the Shell Terminal, Martinez, CA, and
encompasses all waters in San Pablo
Bay within a line connecting the
following geographical position—
Latitude
38°01′39.8″
38°01′54.0″
38°01′56.9″
38°02′02.7″
38°01′49.5″
38°01′43.7″
38°01′50.1″
38°01′36.3″
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Longitude
122°07′40.3″
122°07′43.0″
122°07′37.9″
122°07′42.6″
122°08′08.7″
122°08′04.2″
122°07′50.5″
122°07′47.6″
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
and along the shoreline back to the
beginning point.
(4) Amorco Pier, Carquinez Strait.
This security zone includes all waters
extending from the surface to the sea
floor within approximately 100 yards of
the Amorco Pier, Martinez, CA, and
encompasses all waters in the Carquinez
Strait within a line connecting the
following geographical positions—
Latitude
38°02′03.1″
38°02′05.6″
38°02′07.9″
38°02′13.0″
38°02′05.7″
38°02′00.5″
38°02′01.8″
38°01′55.0″
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Longitude
122°07′11.9″
122°07′18.9″
122°07′14.9″
122°07′19.4″
122°07′35.9″
122°07′31.1″
122°07′27.3″
122°07′11.0″
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
and along the shoreline back to the
beginning point.
(5) Valero Pier, Carquinez Strait. This
security zone includes all waters
extending from the surface to the sea
floor within approximately 100 yards of
the Valero Pier, Benicia, CA, and
encompasses all waters in the Carquinez
Strait within a line connecting the
following geographical positions—
Latitude
38°02′37.6″ N
38°02′34.7″ N
VerDate Aug<31>2005
38°02′44.1″ N
38°02′48.0″ N
38°02′47.7″ N
122°07′34.9″ W
122°07′37.9″ W
122°07′42.1″ W
40 CFR Parts 52 and 81
and along the shoreline back to the
beginning point.
(6) Avon Pier, Suisun Bay. This
security zone includes all waters
extending from the surface to the sea
floor within approximately 100 yards of
the Avon Pier, Martinez, CA, and
encompasses all waters in Suisun Bay
within a line connecting the following
geographical positions—
Latitude
38°02′24.6″
38°02′54.0″
38°02′55.8″
38°03′02.1″
38°02′55.1″
38°02′48.8″
38°02′52.4″
38°02′46.5″
Longitude
122°04′52.9″
122°05′19.5″
122°05′16.1″
122°05′19.4″
122°05′42.6″
122°05′39.2″
122°05′27.7″
122°05′22.4″
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Jkt 205001
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
and along the shoreline back to the
beginning point.
(b) Regulations. (1) In accordance
with the general regulations in § 165.33,
entry into the security zones described
in paragraph (a) of this section is
prohibited, unless specifically
authorized by the Captain of the Port
San Francisco Bay, or his designated
representative.
(2) Persons desiring to transit the area
of a security zone may contact the
Captain of the Port at telephone number
(415) 399–3547 or on VHF–FM channel
16 (156.8 MHz) to seek permission to
transit the area. If permission is granted,
all persons and vessels must comply
with the instructions of the Captain of
the Port or his designated
representative.
(c) Enforcement. The U.S. Coast
Guard may be assisted in the patrol and
enforcement of these security zones by
federal, state and local law enforcement
assets.
Dated: September 9, 2005.
W.J. Uberti,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the
Port, San Francisco Bay, California.
[FR Doc. 05–18935 Filed 9–21–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–15–P
Longitude
122°07′51.5″ W
122°07′48.9″ W
14:39 Sep 21, 2005
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
[R05–OAR–2005–IL–0002; FRL–7972–8]
Designation of Areas for Air Quality
Planning Purposes; Illinois; Lyons
Township PM–10 Redesignation and
Maintenance Plan
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve
the State of Illinois’ request to
redesignate to attainment the Lyons
Township (McCook) area currently
designated as nonattainment of the
National Ambient Air Quality Standard
(NAAQS) for particulate matter with an
aerodynamic diameter less than or equal
to a nominal 10 micrometers (PM–10).
We are also proposing to approve the
Lyons Township maintenance plan,
submitted by the Illinois Environmental
Protection Agency (IEPA) on August 2,
2005, as a revision to the PM–10 State
Implementation Plan (SIP) for this area.
In the final rules section of this
Federal Register, EPA is approving the
SIP revision as a direct final rule
without prior proposal, because EPA
views this as a noncontroversial
revision and anticipates no adverse
comments. A detailed rationale for the
approval is set forth in the direct final
rule. If we do not receive any adverse
comments in response to these direct
final and proposed rules, we do not
contemplate taking any further action in
relation to this proposed rule. If EPA
receives adverse comments, we will
withdraw the direct final rule and will
respond to all public comments in a
subsequent final rule based on this
proposed rule. EPA will not institute a
second comment period on this action.
Any parties interested in commenting
on this action should do so at this time.
DATES: Written comments must be
received on or before October 24, 2005.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments,
identified by Regional Material in
EDocket (RME) ID No. R05–OAR–2005–
IL–0002 by one of the following
methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line
instructions for submitting comments.
Agency Web site: https://
docket.epa.gov/rmepub/.
RME, EPA’s electronic public docket
and comment system, is EPA’s preferred
method for receiving comments. Once
in the system, select ‘‘quick search,’’
then key in the appropriate RME Docket
E:\FR\FM\22SEP1.SGM
22SEP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 183 (Thursday, September 22, 2005)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 55607-55610]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-18935]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 165
[COTP San Francisco Bay 05-007]
RIN 1625-AA87
Security Zones; San Francisco Bay, San Pablo Bay, Carquinez
Strait, Suisun Bay, CA
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to establish fixed security zones in
the waters extending approximately 100 yards around six separate oil
refinery piers in the San Francisco Bay area. These security zones are
an integral part of the Coast Guard's efforts to protect these
facilities and the surrounding areas from destruction or damage due to
accidents, subversive acts, or other causes of a similar nature. The
proposed security zones would prohibit all persons and vessels from
entering, transiting through or anchoring within portions of the
designated waters of San Francisco Bay, San Pablo Bay, Carquinez
Strait, and Suisun Bay, unless authorized by the Captain of the Port
(``COTP'') or his designated representative. These zones will be
subject to discretionary and random patrol and monitoring by Coast
Guard, federal, state and local law enforcement assets.
DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or
before November 21, 2005.
ADDRESSES: You can mail comments and related material to the Waterways
Safety Branch, U.S. Coast Guard Sector San Francisco, Coast Guard
Island, Alameda, California 94501. The Waterways Safety Branch
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 the Waterways
Safety Branch between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lieutenant Ian Callander, U.S. Coast
Guard Sector San Francisco, at (510) 437-3401 or the Sector San
Francisco Command Center, at (415) 399-3547.
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 (COTP 05-
007), 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
8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for copying. If you would like to know
that your submission 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.
Public Meeting
We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a
request for a meeting by writing to the Waterways Safety Branch 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 separate notice in the Federal Register.
Background and Purpose
As part of the Diplomatic Security and Antiterrorism Act of 1986
(Pub. L. 99-399), Congress amended section 7 of the Ports and Waterways
Safety Act (PWSA), 33 U.S.C. 1226, to allow the Coast Guard to take
actions, including the establishment of security and safety zones, to
prevent or respond to acts of terrorism against individuals, vessels,
or public or commercial structures. The Coast Guard also has authority
to establish security zones pursuant to the Act of June 15, 1917, as
amended by the Magnuson Act of August 9, 1950 (50 U.S.C. 191 et seq.)
and implementing
[[Page 55608]]
regulations promulgated by the President in subparts 6.01 and 6.04 of
part 6 of title 33 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
To address the aforementioned security concerns and to take steps
to prevent the catastrophic impact that a terrorist attack against an
oil facility pier would have on the public and the environment, we
propose to establish security zones in the waters within approximately
100 yards of six oil refinery piers. These zones are necessary to
protect the people, ports, waterways, and properties of San Francisco
Bay, San Pablo Bay, Carquinez Strait, and Suisun Bay areas.
Discussion of Proposed Rule
The Coast Guard proposes to establish a separate fixed security
zone around each of six oil refinery piers. The zones will encompass
the waters extending from the surface to the sea floor, within an area
approximately 100 yards around the selected oil refinery piers located
within San Francisco Bay, California. The specific coordinates defining
these zones are given in paragraph (a) of proposed 33 CFR 165.1197.
For the Chevron-Texaco oil facility, the proposed security zone
would extend approximately 100 yards into the waters of San Francisco
Bay around the Chevron Long Wharf, located in Richmond, California.
For the Conoco-Phillips oil facility, the proposed security zone
would extend approximately 100 yards into the waters of San Pablo Bay
around the Conoco-Philips Wharf, located in Rodeo, California.
For the Shell Martinez oil facility, the proposed security zone
would extend approximately 100 yards into the waters of Carquinez
Strait around the Shell Terminal, located in Martinez, California.
For the Tesoro-Amorco oil facility, the proposed security zone
would extend approximately 100 yards into the waters of Carquinez
Strait around the Amorco Pier, located in Martinez, California.
For the Valero oil facility, the proposed security zone would
extend approximately 100 yards into the waters of Carquinez Strait
around the Valero Pier, located in Benicia, California.
For the Tesoro-Avon oil facility, the proposed security zone would
extend approximately 100 yards into the waters of Suisun Bay around the
Avon Pier, located in Martinez, California.
These zones will be subject to discretionary and random patrol and
monitoring by Coast Guard, federal, state and local law enforcement
assets.
In December 2002, the Coast Guard established permanent moving
security zones around all tank vessels within San Francisco Bay to
enhance security during their transit, mooring and anchorage (67 FR
79854, December 31, 2002). This proposed rule would extend this level
of security to oil refinery piers by restricting access to the waters
surrounding the piers. Each of these proposed security zones would
provide a margin of safety for ongoing operations at the refinery
piers.
Vessels or persons violating this section would be subject to the
penalties set forth in 33 U.S.C. 1232 and 50 U.S.C. 192. Pursuant to 33
U.S.C. 1232, any violation of the security zones described herein, is
punishable by civil penalties (not to exceed $32,500 per violation,
where each day of a continuing violation is a separate violation),
criminal penalties (imprisonment up to 6 years and a maximum fine of
$250,000) and in rem liability against the offending vessel. Any person
who violates this section using a dangerous weapon, or who engages in
conduct that causes bodily injury or fear of imminent bodily injury to
any officer authorized to enforce this regulation also faces
imprisonment up to 12 years. Vessels or persons violating this section
are also subject to the penalties set forth in 50 U.S.C. 192: seizure
and forfeiture of the vessel to the United States, a maximum criminal
fine of $10,000, and imprisonment up to 10 years. The Captain of the
Port may enlist the aid and cooperation of any Federal, State, county,
municipal, or private agency to assist in the enforcement of the
regulation.
Regulatory Evaluation
This proposed rule is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review,
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
Homeland Security (DHS).
We expect the economic impact of this proposed rule to be so
minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation under the regulatory policies
and procedures of DHS is unnecessary. Although this proposed rule
restricts access to the waters encompassed by the security zones, the
effect of this proposed rule would not be significant because: (i) The
zones would encompass only small portions of the waterways, (ii)
vessels would be able to pass safely around the zones, and (iii)
vessels may be allowed to enter these zones on a case-by-case basis
with permission of the Captain of the Port or his designated
representative.
The size of the proposed zones are the minimum necessary to provide
adequate protection for the oil refinery piers, vessels engaged in
operations at the oil facility piers, their crews, other vessels
operating in the vicinity, and the public.
Small Entities
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
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. This proposed rule may affect the following
entities, some of which may be small entities: owners and operators of
private vessels intending to fish or sightsee near the oil refinery
piers.
The proposed security zones would not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities for several reasons:
(i) Vessel traffic would be able to pass safely around the area, (ii)
vessels engaged in recreational activities, sightseeing and commercial
fishing would have ample space outside of the security zones to engage
in these activities, and (iii) vessels may receive authorization to
transit through the zones by the Captain of the Port or his designated
representative on a case-by-case basis. In addition to publication in
the Federal Register, small entities and the maritime public would be
advised of these security zones via public notice to mariners.
If you think that your business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this proposed 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 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this proposed rule so that they can better
evaluate its effects on
[[Page 55609]]
them and participate in the rulemaking. If the proposed rule would
affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction
and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for
compliance, please contact Lieutenant Ian Callander, Waterways Safety
Branch, U.S. Coast Guard Sector San Francisco, at (510) 437-3701 or the
Sector San Francisco Command Center, at (415) 399-3547.
Collection of Information
This proposed rule calls for no new collection of information under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
Federalism
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local
governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial
direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this proposed rule
under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications
for federalism.
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 proposed 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.
Indian Tribal Governments
This proposed rule does not have tribal implications under
Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it would 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. The Administrator of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy
action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects
under Executive Order 13211.
Technical Standards
The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15
U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards
in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress,
through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why
using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or
operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management
systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies.
This proposed rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we
did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.
Environment
We have analyzed this proposed rule under Commandant Instruction
M16475.lD, which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and
have concluded that there are no factors in this case that would limit
the use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the
Instruction. Therefore, this proposed rule is categorically excluded,
under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g), of the Instruction, from further
environmental documentation because it would establish security zones.
A draft ``Environmental Analysis Check List'' and a draft
``Categorical Exclusion Determination'' (CED) will be available in the
docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. Comments on this section will
be considered before we make the final decision on whether the rule
should be categorically excluded from further environmental review.
List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and
recordkeeping 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. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701; 50
U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1(g), 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Pub.
L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security
Delegation No. 0170.1.
2. Add Sec. 165.1197, to read as follows:
Sec. 165.1197 Security Zones; San Francisco Bay, San Pablo Bay,
Carquinez Strait, Suisun Bay, California.
(a) Locations. The following areas are security zones:
(1) Chevron Long Wharf, San Francisco Bay. This security zone
includes all waters extending from the surface to the sea floor within
approximately 100 yards of the Chevron Long Wharf, Richmond, CA, and
encompasses all waters in San Francisco Bay within a line connecting
the following geographical positions--
Latitude Longitude
37[deg]55[min]52.2[sec] N 122[deg]24[min]04.7[sec] W
37[deg]55[min]41.8[sec] N 122[deg]24[min]07.1[sec] W
37[deg]55[min]26.8[sec] N 122[deg]24[min]35.9[sec] W
37[deg]55[min]47.1[sec] N 122[deg]24[min]55.5[sec] W
37[deg]55[min]42.9[sec] N 122[deg]25[min]03.5[sec] W
37[deg]55[min]11.2[sec] N 122[deg]24[min]32.8[sec] W
37[deg]55[min]14.4[sec] N 122[deg]24[min]27.5[sec] W
37[deg]55[min]19.7[sec] N 122[deg]24[min]23.7[sec] W
37[deg]55[min]22.2[sec] N 122[deg]24[min]26.2[sec] W
37[deg]55[min]38.5[sec] N 122[deg]23[min]56.9[sec] W
37[deg]55[min]47.8[sec] N 122[deg]23[min]53.3[sec] W
and along the shoreline back to the beginning point.
(2) Conoco-Phillips Wharf, San Pablo Bay. This security zone
includes all waters extending from the surface to the
[[Page 55610]]
sea floor within approximately 100 yards of the Conoco-Phillips Wharf,
Rodeo, CA, and encompasses all waters in San Pablo Bay within a line
connecting the following geographical positions--
Latitude Longitude
38[deg]03[min]06.0[sec] N 122[deg]15[min]32.4[sec] W
38[deg]03[min]20.7[sec] N 122[deg]15[min]35.8[sec] W
38[deg]03[min]21.8[sec] N 122[deg]15[min]29.8[sec] W
38[deg]03[min]29.1[sec] N 122[deg]15[min]31.8[sec] W
38[deg]03[min]23.8[sec] N 122[deg]15[min]55.8[sec] W
38[deg]03[min]16.8[sec] N 122[deg]15[min]53.2[sec] W
38[deg]03[min]18.6[sec] N 122[deg]15[min]45.2[sec] W
38[deg]03[min]04.0[sec] N 122[deg]15[min]42.0[sec] W
and along the shoreline back to the beginning point.
(3) Shell Terminal, Carquinez Strait. This security zone includes
all waters extending from the surface to the sea floor within
approximately 100 yards of the Shell Terminal, Martinez, CA, and
encompasses all waters in San Pablo Bay within a line connecting the
following geographical position--
Latitude Longitude
38[deg]01[min]39.8[sec] N 122[deg]07[min]40.3[sec] W
38[deg]01[min]54.0[sec] N 122[deg]07[min]43.0[sec] W
38[deg]01[min]56.9[sec] N 122[deg]07[min]37.9[sec] W
38[deg]02[min]02.7[sec] N 122[deg]07[min]42.6[sec] W
38[deg]01[min]49.5[sec] N 122[deg]08[min]08.7[sec] W
38[deg]01[min]43.7[sec] N 122[deg]08[min]04.2[sec] W
38[deg]01[min]50.1[sec] N 122[deg]07[min]50.5[sec] W
38[deg]01[min]36.3[sec] N 122[deg]07[min]47.6[sec] W
and along the shoreline back to the beginning point.
(4) Amorco Pier, Carquinez Strait. This security zone includes all
waters extending from the surface to the sea floor within approximately
100 yards of the Amorco Pier, Martinez, CA, and encompasses all waters
in the Carquinez Strait within a line connecting the following
geographical positions--
Latitude Longitude
38[deg]02'03.1'' N 122[deg]07'11.9'' W
38[deg]02'05.6'' N 122[deg]07'18.9'' W
38[deg]02'07.9'' N 122[deg]07'14.9'' W
38[deg]02'13.0'' N 122[deg]07'19.4'' W
38[deg]02'05.7'' N 122[deg]07'35.9'' W
38[deg]02'00.5'' N 122[deg]07'31.1'' W
38[deg]02'01.8'' N 122[deg]07'27.3'' W
38[deg]01'55.0'' N 122[deg]07'11.0'' W
and along the shoreline back to the beginning point.
(5) Valero Pier, Carquinez Strait. This security zone includes all
waters extending from the surface to the sea floor within approximately
100 yards of the Valero Pier, Benicia, CA, and encompasses all waters
in the Carquinez Strait within a line connecting the following
geographical positions--
Latitude Longitude
38[deg]02'37.6'' N 122[deg]07'51.5'' W
38[deg]02'34.7'' N 122[deg]07'48.9'' W
38[deg]02'44.1'' N 122[deg]07'34.9'' W
38[deg]02'48.0'' N 122[deg]07'37.9'' W
38[deg]02'47.7'' N 122[deg]07'42.1'' W
and along the shoreline back to the beginning point.
(6) Avon Pier, Suisun Bay. This security zone includes all waters
extending from the surface to the sea floor within approximately 100
yards of the Avon Pier, Martinez, CA, and encompasses all waters in
Suisun Bay within a line connecting the following geographical
positions--
Latitude Longitude
38[deg]02'24.6'' N 122[deg]04'52.9'' W
38[deg]02'54.0'' N 122[deg]05'19.5'' W
38[deg]02'55.8'' N 122[deg]05'16.1'' W
38[deg]03'02.1'' N 122[deg]05'19.4'' W
38[deg]02'55.1'' N 122[deg]05'42.6'' W
38[deg]02'48.8'' N 122[deg]05'39.2'' W
38[deg]02'52.4'' N 122[deg]05'27.7'' W
38[deg]02'46.5'' N 122[deg]05'22.4'' W
and along the shoreline back to the beginning point.
(b) Regulations. (1) In accordance with the general regulations in
Sec. 165.33, entry into the security zones described in paragraph (a)
of this section is prohibited, unless specifically authorized by the
Captain of the Port San Francisco Bay, or his designated
representative.
(2) Persons desiring to transit the area of a security zone may
contact the Captain of the Port at telephone number (415) 399-3547 or
on VHF-FM channel 16 (156.8 MHz) to seek permission to transit the
area. If permission is granted, all persons and vessels must comply
with the instructions of the Captain of the Port or his designated
representative.
(c) Enforcement. The U.S. Coast Guard may be assisted in the patrol
and enforcement of these security zones by federal, state and local law
enforcement assets.
Dated: September 9, 2005.
W.J. Uberti,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, San Francisco Bay,
California.
[FR Doc. 05-18935 Filed 9-21-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P
