Security Zone; Tinian, Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, 46185-46188 [E7-16203]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 159 / Friday, August 17, 2007 / Proposed Rules these inshell prices per pound by the 0.45 conversion factor (inshell to kernelweight) established in the order yields a 2007–08 price range estimate of $1.74 and $1.78 per kernelweight pound of assessable walnuts. To calculate the percentage of grower revenue represented by the assessment rate, the assessment rate of $0.0122 (per kernelweight pound) is divided into the low and high estimates of the price Budget expense range. The estimated assessment 2006–07 2007–08 categories revenue for the 2007–08 marketing year as a percentage of total grower revenue Administrative would likely range between 0.701 and Staff/Field Sal0.685 percent. aries & BeneThis action would increase the fits .................. $415,000 $438,600 Travel/Board Exassessment obligation imposed on penses ........... 75,000 86,000 handlers. While assessments impose Office Costs/Ansome additional costs on handlers, the nual Audit ...... 142,500 139,500 costs are minimal and uniform on all Program Exhandlers. Some of the additional costs penses Includmay be passed on to producers. ing Research However, these costs would be offset by Controlled Purchases ..... 5,000 5,000 the benefits derived by the operation of the marketing order. In addition, the Crop Acreage Survey ........... .................... 85,000 Board’s meeting was widely publicized Crop Estimate ... 100,000 100,000 throughout the California walnut Production Reindustry and all interested persons were search ........... 725,000 730,000 invited to attend the meeting and Domestic Market participate in Board deliberations on all Development 1,750,000 2,002,000 issues. Like all Board meetings, the May Reserve for Contingency .. 10,360 191,020 31, 2007, meeting was a public meeting and all entities, both large and small, The Board reviewed and unanimously were able to express views on this issue. Finally, interested persons are invited to recommended 2007–08 expenditures of submit comments on this proposed rule, $3,777,120. Prior to arriving at this budget, the Board considered alternative including the regulatory and informational impacts of this action on expenditure levels, but ultimately small businesses. decided that the recommended levels This proposed rule would impose no were reasonable to properly administer additional reporting or recordkeeping the order. The assessment rate recommended by the Board was derived requirements on either small or large California walnut handlers. As with all by dividing anticipated expenses by Federal marketing order programs, expected shipments of California reports and forms are periodically walnuts certified as merchantable. Merchantable shipments for the year are reviewed to reduce information requirements and duplication by estimated at 309,600,000 kernelweight industry and public sector agencies. pounds which should provide AMS is committed to complying with $3,777,120 in assessment income and the E-Government Act, to promote the allow the Board to cover its expenses. use of Internet and other information Unexpended funds may be used technologies to provide increased temporarily to defray expenses of the subsequent marketing year, but must be opportunities for citizen access to Government information and services, made available to the handlers from and for other purposes. whom collected within 5 months after USDA has not identified any relevant the end of the year, according to Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or § 984.69. According to NASS, the season conflict with this rule. average grower prices for years 2005 and A small business guide on complying 2006 were $1,570 and $1,600 per ton with fruit, vegetable, and specialty crop respectively. These prices provide a marketing agreements and orders may reasonable price range within which the be viewed at: http://www.ams.usda.gov/ 2007–08 season average price is likely to fv/moab.html. Any questions about the fall. Dividing these average grower compliance guide should be sent to Jay prices by 2,000 pounds per ton provides Guerber at the previously mentioned an inshell price per pound range of address in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION between $0.785 and $0.80. Dividing CONTACT section. ebenthall on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS at 344,000 tons. Thus, the $0.0122 rate should provide $3,777,120 in assessment income and be adequate to meet this year’s expenses. The increased assessment rate is primarily due to increased budget expenditures. The following table compares major budget expenditures recommended by the Board for the 2006–07 and 2007–08 fiscal years: VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:36 Aug 16, 2007 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 46185 A 15-day comment period is provided to allow interested persons to respond to this proposed rule. Fifteen days is deemed appropriate because: (1) The 2007–08 marketing year will begin on August 1, 2007, and the marketing order requires that the rate of assessment for each year apply to all assessable walnuts handled during the year; (2) the Board needs to have sufficient funds to pay its expenses which are incurred on a continuous basis and; (3) handlers are aware of this action which was unanimously recommended by the Board at a public meeting and is similar to other assessment rate actions issued in past years. List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 984 Walnuts, Marketing agreements, Nuts, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 7 CFR part 984 is proposed to be amended as follows: PART 984—WALNUTS GROWN IN CALIFORNIA 1. The authority citation for 7 CFR part 984 continues to read as follows: Authority: 7 U.S.C. 601–674. 2. Section 984.347 is revised to read as follows: § 984.347 Assessment rate. On and after August 1, 2007, an assessment rate of $0.0122 per kernelweight pound is established for California merchantable walnuts. Dated: August 13, 2007. Kenneth C. Clayton, Acting Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service. [FR Doc. E7–16199 Filed 8–16–07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410–02–P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [COTP Guam 07–005] RIN 1625–AA87 Security Zone; Tinian, Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands Coast Guard, DHS. Notice of proposed rulemaking. AGENCY: ACTION: SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to change a permanent security zone in waters adjacent to the island of Tinian, Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI). Review of this E:\FR\FM\17AUP1.SGM 17AUP1 46186 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 159 / Friday, August 17, 2007 / Proposed Rules established zone indicates that its scope is overly-broad and that it imposes an unnecessary and unsustainable enforcement burden on the Coast Guard. This proposed change is intended to narrow the zone’s scope so it more accurately reflects current enforcement needs. DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or before September 17, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may mail comments and related material to Commanding Officer, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Guam, PSC 455 Box 176, FPO, AP 968540– 1056. Sector Guam 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, are available for inspection and copying at Coast Guard Sector Guam between 7 a.m. and 3:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lieutenant Commander John Winter, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Guam at (671) 355–4861. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: ebenthall on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS 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 Guam 07–005), 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 Sector Guam at the address under ADDRESSES explaining why one would be beneficial. If we determine that one would aid this rulemaking, we would hold one at a time and place announced by separate notice in the Federal Register. Background and Purpose The security zones at Tinian codified in 33 CFR 165.1403 were first established on November 14, 1986 (51 VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:36 Aug 16, 2007 Jkt 211001 FR 42220, November 24, 1986), as requested by the U.S. Navy in order to prevent injury or damage to persons and equipment incident to the mooring of the first Maritime Preposition Ships in the port. In addition to describing a larger security zone that is enforced when a Maritime Position Ship is moored at the site, the regulation, as currently written, establishes a permanent 50-yard security zone around Moorings A and B when no vessel is moored there. The zone is approximately 100 nautical miles from the nearest Coast Guard surveillance assets, a distance that hinders our ability to patrol it regularly. A recent review of the 50-yard zone indicates that patrolling it is unnecessary except when the Navy needs to ensure availability of the mooring space, which is signaled by the anchoring of mooring balls. The purpose of this proposal is to change the smaller zone from one that is activated all the time to one that is activated only when necessary. The proposed change would both reduce a burden to more accurately reflect current enforcement needs and eliminate our need to travel 100 miles to patrol the zone when enforcement is unnecessary. In addition, we propose changing the section heading of this regulation to reflect CNMI’s proper name and the fact that the section describes two security zones. We also propose to make it easier to distinguish the two zones by describing them in separate paragraphs in 33 CFR 165.1403. Finally, we seek to clarify that while these regulations would be in effect at all times, the security zones would only be activated—and thus subject to enforcement—when necessary. Discussion of Proposed Rule In order to narrow the scope of the 50yard security zone established in 33 CFR 165.1403, we propose to add the condition that mooring balls be anchored and on station as a condition for that smaller zone to be activated and thus subject to enforcement. The mooring balls would only be anchored and on station when it is necessary to enforce the zone. Also, we propose to separate the two zone descriptions currently in paragraph (a) of § 165.1403. The existing description of the large zone would appear in paragraph (a)(1) with the only change being that the words ‘‘is in effect’’ would be replaced by ‘‘will be enforced.’’ The description of the smaller zone, reflecting the mooringballs activation condition discussed above, would appear in paragraph (a)(2). PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 Finally, we propose to revise the section’s title by pluralizing the word ‘‘Zone,’’ inserting ‘‘of the’’ after ‘‘Commonwealth,’’ and singularizing ‘‘Marianas.’’ The revised section heading would read: ‘‘Security Zones; Tinian, Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.’’ 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. The Coast Guard expects the economic impact of this proposed rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation is unnecessary. This expectation is based on the nature of the proposed change (diminishing an established security zone’s enforcement period), which is likely to further minimize the economic impact of an established rule. Small Entities Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601–612), we have considered whether this proposed rule will 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 will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Due to the nature of the proposed change (diminishing an established security zone’s enforcement period), we anticipate that it will further reduce any economic impact of the established rule. 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 (Pub. L. 104–121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule so that E:\FR\FM\17AUP1.SGM 17AUP1 46187 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 159 / Friday, August 17, 2007 / Proposed Rules they can better evaluate its effects on 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 Commander John Winter, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Guam, (671) 355–4861. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard. 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 will not result in such expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble. Taking of Private Property This proposed 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. ebenthall on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS 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 VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:36 Aug 16, 2007 Jkt 211001 Risks. This proposed rule is not an economically significant rule and does not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may 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 does 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. have made a preliminary determination that this action is not likely to have a significant effect on the human environment. Draft documentation supporting this preliminary determination is available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this proposed rule. List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165 Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reports and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways. 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. For the reasons set out in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows: 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. § 165.1403 Security Zones; Tinian, Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. 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 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 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, 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. In § 165.1403, revise the section heading and paragraph (a) to read as follows: (a) Location. The following areas are security zones: (1) The waters of the Pacific Ocean off Tinian between 14°59′04.9″ N, 145°34′58.6″ E to 14°59′20.1″ N, 145°35′41.5″ E to 14°59′09.8″ N, 145°36′02.1″ E to 14°57′49.3″ N, 145°36′28.7″ E to 14°57′29.1″ N, 145°35′31.1″ E and back to 14°59′04.9″ N, 145°34′58.6″ E. This zone will be enforced when one, or more, of the Maritime Preposition Ships is in the zone or moored at Mooring A located at 14°58′57.0″ N and 145°35′40.8″ E or Mooring B located at 14°58′15.9″ N, 145°35′54.8″ E. (2) Additionally, a 50-yard security zone in all directions around Moorings A and B will be enforced when no vessels are moored thereto but mooring balls are anchored and on station. Note to paragraph (a): All positions of latitude and longitude are from International Spheroid, Astro Pier 1944 (Saipan) Datum (NOAA Chart 81071). * E:\FR\FM\17AUP1.SGM * * 17AUP1 * * 46188 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 159 / Friday, August 17, 2007 / Proposed Rules Dated: August 6, 2007. William Marhoffer, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Guam. [FR Doc. E7–16203 Filed 8–16–07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910–15–P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA–R08–OAR–2007–0465; FRL–8453–4] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; State of Colorado; Revised Denver and Longmont Carbon Monoxide Maintenance Plans, and Approval of Related Revisions Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. ebenthall on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS AGENCY: SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to take direct final action approving a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of Colorado. On September 25, 2006, the Governor’s designee submitted revised maintenance plans for the Denver metropolitan and Longmont carbon monoxide (CO) maintenance areas for the CO National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). These revised maintenance plans address maintenance of the CO standard for a second ten-year period beyond redesignation, extend the horizon years, and contain revised transportation conformity budgets. In addition, Regulation No. 11, ‘‘Vehicle Emission Inspection Program,’’ and Regulation No. 13, ‘‘Oxygenated Fuels Program,’’ are removed from Denver’s and Longmont’s revised CO maintenance plans. EPA is proposing approval of the revised Denver and Longmont CO maintenance plans, and the revised transportation conformity budgets. In addition, EPA is proposing to approve the removal of Regulation No. 11 and Regulation No. 13 from Denver’s and Longmont’s revised CO maintenance plans. This action is being taken under section 110 of the Clean Air Act. In the ‘‘Rules and Regulations’’ section of this Federal Register, EPA is approving the State’s SIP revision as a direct final rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial SIP revision and anticipates no adverse comments. A detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the preamble to the direct final rule. If EPA receives no adverse comments, EPA will not take further action on this proposed rule. If EPA VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:36 Aug 16, 2007 Jkt 211001 receives adverse comments, EPA will withdraw the direct final rule and it will not take effect. EPA will address 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 must do so at this time. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of the rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment. DATES: Written comments must be received on or before September 17, 2007. Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R08– OAR–2007–0465, by one of the following methods: • http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. • E-mail: videtich.callie@epa.gov and fiedler.kerri@epa.gov. • Fax: (303) 312–6064 (please alert the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT if you are faxing comments). • Mail: Callie A. Videtich, Director, Air and Radiation Program, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P–AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202–1129. • Hand Delivery: Callie A. Videtich, Director, Air and Radiation Program, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P–AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Suite 300, Denver, Colorado 80202–1129. Such deliveries are only accepted Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding Federal holidays. Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. Please see the direct final rule which is located in the Rules section of this Federal Register for detailed instructions on how to submit comments. ADDRESSES: FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kerri Fiedler, Air and Radiation Program, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P– AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202–1129, phone (303) 312– 6493, and e-mail at: fiedler.kerri@epa.gov. See the information provided in the Direct Final action of the same title which is located in the Rules and Regulations section of this Federal Register. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. Dated: July 30, 2007. Kerrigan G. Clough, Acting Regional Administrator, Region VIII. [FR Doc. E7–16164 Filed 8–16–07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560–50–P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 62 [EPA–R06–OAR–2006–1028; FRL–8455–2] Approval and Promulgation of State Plan for Designated Facilities and Pollutants: Louisiana; Clean Air Mercury Rule (CAMR) Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. AGENCY: SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve the State Plan submitted by Louisiana on October 25, 2006. The plan addresses the requirements of EPA’s Clean Air Mercury Rule (CAMR), promulgated on May 18, 2005 and subsequently revised on June 9, 2006. EPA is proposing that the submitted State Plan fully implements the CAMR requirements for Louisiana. CAMR requires States to regulate emissions of mercury (Hg) from large coal-fired electric generating units (EGUs). CAMR establishes State budgets for annual EGU Hg emissions and requires States to submit State Plans that ensure that annual EGU Hg emissions will not exceed the applicable State budget. States have the flexibility to choose which control measures to adopt to achieve the budgets, including participating in the EPA-administered CAMR cap-and-trade program. In the State Plan that EPA is approving, Louisiana would meet CAMR requirements by participating in the EPA administered cap-and-trade program addressing Hg emissions. DATES: Comments must be received on or before September 17, 2007. ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to Mr. Matthew Loesel, Air Permits Section (6PD–R), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 75202–2733. Comments may also be submitted electronically or through hand delivery/ courier by following the detailed instructions in the Addresses section of the direct final rule in the final rules section of the Federal Register. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Matthew Loesel, Air Permitting Section (6PD–R) U.S. EPA, Region 6, Multimedia Planning and Permitting E:\FR\FM\17AUP1.SGM 17AUP1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 159 (Friday, August 17, 2007)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 46185-46188]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-16203]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[COTP Guam 07-005]
RIN 1625-AA87


Security Zone; Tinian, Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana 
Islands

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to change a permanent security zone 
in waters adjacent to the island of Tinian, Commonwealth of the 
Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI). Review of this

[[Page 46186]]

established zone indicates that its scope is overly-broad and that it 
imposes an unnecessary and unsustainable enforcement burden on the 
Coast Guard. This proposed change is intended to narrow the zone's 
scope so it more accurately reflects current enforcement needs.

DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or 
before September 17, 2007.

ADDRESSES: You may mail comments and related material to Commanding 
Officer, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Guam, PSC 455 Box 176, FPO, AP 968540-
1056. Sector Guam 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, are 
available for inspection and copying at Coast Guard Sector Guam between 
7 a.m. and 3:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lieutenant Commander John Winter, U.S. 
Coast Guard Sector Guam at (671) 355-4861.

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 Guam 
07-005), 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 Sector Guam at the address under 
ADDRESSES explaining why one would be beneficial. If we determine that 
one would aid this rulemaking, we would hold one at a time and place 
announced by separate notice in the Federal Register.

Background and Purpose

    The security zones at Tinian codified in 33 CFR 165.1403 were first 
established on November 14, 1986 (51 FR 42220, November 24, 1986), as 
requested by the U.S. Navy in order to prevent injury or damage to 
persons and equipment incident to the mooring of the first Maritime 
Preposition Ships in the port. In addition to describing a larger 
security zone that is enforced when a Maritime Position Ship is moored 
at the site, the regulation, as currently written, establishes a 
permanent 50-yard security zone around Moorings A and B when no vessel 
is moored there. The zone is approximately 100 nautical miles from the 
nearest Coast Guard surveillance assets, a distance that hinders our 
ability to patrol it regularly.
    A recent review of the 50-yard zone indicates that patrolling it is 
unnecessary except when the Navy needs to ensure availability of the 
mooring space, which is signaled by the anchoring of mooring balls. The 
purpose of this proposal is to change the smaller zone from one that is 
activated all the time to one that is activated only when necessary. 
The proposed change would both reduce a burden to more accurately 
reflect current enforcement needs and eliminate our need to travel 100 
miles to patrol the zone when enforcement is unnecessary.
    In addition, we propose changing the section heading of this 
regulation to reflect CNMI's proper name and the fact that the section 
describes two security zones. We also propose to make it easier to 
distinguish the two zones by describing them in separate paragraphs in 
33 CFR 165.1403. Finally, we seek to clarify that while these 
regulations would be in effect at all times, the security zones would 
only be activated--and thus subject to enforcement--when necessary.

Discussion of Proposed Rule

    In order to narrow the scope of the 50-yard security zone 
established in 33 CFR 165.1403, we propose to add the condition that 
mooring balls be anchored and on station as a condition for that 
smaller zone to be activated and thus subject to enforcement. The 
mooring balls would only be anchored and on station when it is 
necessary to enforce the zone.
    Also, we propose to separate the two zone descriptions currently in 
paragraph (a) of Sec.  165.1403. The existing description of the large 
zone would appear in paragraph (a)(1) with the only change being that 
the words ``is in effect'' would be replaced by ``will be enforced.'' 
The description of the smaller zone, reflecting the mooring-balls 
activation condition discussed above, would appear in paragraph (a)(2).
    Finally, we propose to revise the section's title by pluralizing 
the word ``Zone,'' inserting ``of the'' after ``Commonwealth,'' and 
singularizing ``Marianas.'' The revised section heading would read: 
``Security Zones; Tinian, Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana 
Islands.''

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.
    The Coast Guard expects the economic impact of this proposed rule 
to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation is unnecessary. This 
expectation is based on the nature of the proposed change (diminishing 
an established security zone's enforcement period), which is likely to 
further minimize the economic impact of an established rule.

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have 
considered whether this proposed rule will 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 will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities. Due to the nature of the proposed change 
(diminishing an established security zone's enforcement period), we 
anticipate that it will further reduce any economic impact of the 
established rule.
    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 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small 
entities in understanding this proposed rule so that

[[Page 46187]]

they can better evaluate its effects on 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 Commander John Winter, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Guam, (671) 
355-4861. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities 
that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of 
the Coast Guard.

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 will not result in such 
expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this 
preamble.

Taking of Private Property

    This proposed 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 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 proposed rule is not an economically significant rule and 
does not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that 
may 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 does 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 made a preliminary determination that this action is not likely to 
have a significant effect on the human environment. Draft documentation 
supporting this preliminary determination is available in the docket 
where indicated under ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information 
that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact 
from this proposed rule.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reports and 
recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.

    For the reasons set out 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, 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. In Sec.  165.1403, revise the section heading and paragraph (a) 
to read as follows:


Sec.  165.1403  Security Zones; Tinian, Commonwealth of the Northern 
Mariana Islands.

    (a) Location. The following areas are security zones:
    (1) The waters of the Pacific Ocean off Tinian between 
14[deg]59'04.9'' N, 145[deg]34'58.6'' E to 14[deg]59'20.1'' N, 
145[deg]35'41.5'' E to 14[deg]59'09.8'' N, 145[deg]36'02.1'' E to 
14[deg]57'49.3'' N, 145[deg]36'28.7'' E to 14[deg]57'29.1'' N, 
145[deg]35'31.1'' E and back to 14[deg]59'04.9'' N, 145[deg]34'58.6'' 
E. This zone will be enforced when one, or more, of the Maritime 
Preposition Ships is in the zone or moored at Mooring A located at 
14[deg]58'57.0'' N and 145[deg]35'40.8'' E or Mooring B located at 
14[deg]58'15.9'' N, 145[deg]35'54.8'' E.
    (2) Additionally, a 50-yard security zone in all directions around 
Moorings A and B will be enforced when no vessels are moored thereto 
but mooring balls are anchored and on station.

    Note to paragraph (a): All positions of latitude and longitude 
are from International Spheroid, Astro Pier 1944 (Saipan) Datum 
(NOAA Chart 81071).

* * * * *


[[Page 46188]]


    Dated: August 6, 2007.
William Marhoffer,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Guam.
[FR Doc. E7-16203 Filed 8-16-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P