Security Zone; Tinian, Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, 46185-46188 [E7-16203]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
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: https://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:
• https://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
