Security Zones; Sabine Bank Channel, Sabine Pass Channel and Sabine-Neches Waterway, TX, 29695-29699 [2010-12738]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 102 / Thursday, May 27, 2010 / Proposed Rules
Collection of Information
This proposed rule would call for no
new collection of information under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3501–3520.).
between the Federal Government and
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of
power and responsibilities between the
Federal Government and Indian tribes.
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.
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
Information and Regulatory Affairs has
not designated this as a significant
energy action. Therefore, it does not
require a Statement of Energy Effects
under Executive Order 13211.
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 an expenditure, we do
discuss the effects of this 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.
WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD 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
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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:33 May 26, 2010
Jkt 220001
Energy Effects
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 Department of Homeland
Security Management Directive 023–01,
and 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 one of a category of
actions which do not individually or
cumulatively have a significant effect on
the human environment because it
simply promulgates the operating
regulations or procedures for
drawbridges. We seek any comments or
information that may lead to the
discovery of a significant environmental
impact from this proposed rule.
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
29695
List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117
Bridges.
For the reasons discussed in the
preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to
amend 33 CFR part 117 as follows:
PART 117—DRAWBRIDGE
OPERATION REGULATIONS
1. The authority citation for part 117
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 499; 33 CFR 1.05–1;
Department of Homeland Security Delegation
No. 0170.1.
2. Revise § 117.181 to read as follows:
§ 117.181
Canal.
Oakland Inner Harbor Tidal
The draws of the Alameda County
highway drawbridges at Park Street,
mile 5.2; Fruitvale Avenue, mile 5.6;
and High Street, mile 6.0; and the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers railroad
drawbridge, mile 5.6 at Fruitvale
Avenue, shall open on signal between
the hours of 9 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. and
upon 4 hours advance notice between
the hours 4:30 p.m. and 9 a.m. During
Interstate rush hours, 8 a.m. to 9 a.m.
and 4:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays,
the draws need not be opened for the
passage of vessels. However, the draws
shall open during the above rush hour
periods for vessels which must, for
reasons of safety, move on a tide or
slack water, if at least four hours notice
is given to the bridge owner. For the
four hour advance notice requirement;
waterway users may contact the
Fruitvale Ave drawbridge operator via
telephone at (510) 533–7858 or VHF–
FM marine radio, or by contacting the
bridge operator during daytime bridge
operating hours.
Dated: May 12, 2010.
J.R. Castillo,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander,
Eleventh Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2010–12737 Filed 5–26–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110–04–P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 165
[Docket No. USCG–2009–0316]
RIN 1625–AA87
Security Zones; Sabine Bank Channel,
Sabine Pass Channel and SabineNeches Waterway, TX
AGENCY:
E:\FR\FM\27MYP1.SGM
Coast Guard, DHS.
27MYP1
29696
ACTION:
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 102 / Thursday, May 27, 2010 / Proposed Rules
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to
establish moving security zones for
certain vessels for which the Captain of
the Port, Port Arthur deems enhanced
security measures are necessary. In
addition, the Coast Guard proposes a
100-foot security zone around LNG
carriers while they are moored at the
Golden Pass LNG facility in Sabine, TX
and/or the Sabine Pass LNG facility
located in Cheniere, LA.
DATES: Comments and related material
must be received by the Coast Guard on
or before June 28, 2010.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
identified by docket number USCG–
2009–0316 using any one of the
following methods:
(1) Federal eRulemaking Portal:
https://www.regulations.gov.
(2) Fax: 202–493–2251.
(3) Mail: Docket Management Facility
(M–30), U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building Ground
Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590–
0001.
(4) Hand delivery: Same as mail
address above, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays. The telephone number
is 202–366–9329.
To avoid duplication, please use only
one of these four methods. See the
‘‘Public Participation and Request for
Comments’’ portion of the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section
below for instructions on submitting
comments.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If
you have questions on this proposed
rule, call or e-mail Mr. Scott Whalen,
Marine Safety Unit Port Arthur, Coast
Guard; telephone 409–719–5086, e-mail
scott.k.whalen@uscg.mil. If you have
questions on viewing or submitting
material to the docket, call Renee V.
Wright, Program Manager, Docket
Operations, telephone 202–366–9826.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS
Public Participation and Request for
Comments
We encourage you to participate in
this rulemaking by submitting
comments and related materials. All
comments received will be posted
without change to https://
www.regulations.gov and will include
any personal information you have
provided.
Submitting Comments
If you submit a comment, please
include the docket number for this
rulemaking (USCG–2009–0316),
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:33 May 26, 2010
Jkt 220001
indicate the specific section of this
document to which each comment
applies, and provide a reason for each
suggestion or recommendation. You
may submit your comments and
material online (via https://
www.regulations.gov) or by fax, mail, or
hand delivery, but please use only one
of these means. If you submit a
comment online via https://
www.regulations.gov, it will be
considered received by the Coast Guard
when you successfully transmit the
comment. If you fax, hand deliver, or
mail your comment, it will be
considered as having been received by
the Coast Guard when it is received at
the Docket Management Facility. We
recommend that you include your name
and a mailing address, an e-mail
address, or a telephone number in the
body of your document so that we can
contact you if we have questions
regarding your submission.
To submit your comment online, go to
https://www.regulations.gov, click on the
‘‘submit a comment’’ box, which will
then become highlighted in blue. In the
‘‘Document Type’’ drop down menu
select ‘‘Proposed Rule’’ and insert
‘‘USCG–2009–0316’’ in the ‘‘Keyword’’
box. Click ‘‘Search’’ then click on the
balloon shape in the ‘‘Actions’’ column.
If you submit your comments by mail or
hand delivery, submit them in an
unbound format, no larger than 81⁄2; by
11 inches, suitable for copying and
electronic filing. If you submit
comments by mail and would like to
know that they reached the Facility,
please enclose a stamped, self-addressed
postcard or envelope. We will consider
all comments and material received
during the comment period and may
change the rule based on your
comments.
Viewing Comments and Documents
To view comments, as well as
documents mentioned in this preamble
as being available in the docket, go to
https://www.regulations.gov, click on the
‘‘read comments’’ box, which will then
become highlighted in blue. In the
‘‘Keyword’’ box insert ‘‘USCG–2009–
0316’’ and click ‘‘Search.’’ Click the
‘‘Open Docket Folder’’ in the ‘‘Actions’’
column. You may also visit the Docket
Management Facility in Room W12–140
on the ground floor of the Department
of Transportation West Building, 1200
New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington,
DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. We have an agreement with
the Department of Transportation to use
the Docket Management Facility.
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Privacy Act
Anyone can search the electronic
form of comments received into any of
our dockets by the name of the
individual submitting the comment (or
signing the comment, if submitted on
behalf of an association, business, labor
union, etc.). You may review a Privacy
Act notice regarding our public dockets
in the January 17, 2008 issue of the
Federal Register (73 FR 3316).
Public Meeting
At this time, we do not plan to hold
a public meeting, but you may submit
a request for one using one of the four
methods specified under ADDRESSES.
Please explain why you believe a public
meeting would be beneficial. If we
determine that one would aid this
rulemaking, we will hold one at a time
and place announced by a later notice
in the Federal Register.
Background and Purpose
Heightened awareness of potential
terrorist acts requires enhanced security
of our ports, harbors, and vessels. To
enhance security, the Captain of the
Port, Port Arthur proposes to establish
security zones around certain vessels.
These security zones are needed to
safeguard the vessels, the public, and
the surrounding area from sabotage or
other subversive acts, accidents, or other
events of a similar nature.
Due to the potential for terrorist
attacks, this proposed rule would allow
the Captain of the Port to create fixed
security zones around moored LNG
carriers and moving security zones
around certain vessels as deemed
necessary. By limiting access to these
areas, the Coast Guard is reducing
potential methods of attack on these
vessels, and potential use of the vessels
to launch attacks on waterfront facilities
and adjacent population centers located
within the Captain of the Port, Port
Arthur zone. Vessels having a need to
enter these security zones must obtain
permission from the Captain of the Port
or his designated representative prior to
entry.
Discussion of Proposed Rule
The Coast Guard proposes to establish
moving security zones for certain
vessels, for which the Captain of the
Port deems enhanced security measures
are necessary. Mariners will be notified
of the activation of a moving security
zone by Broadcast Notice to Mariners.
Active moving security zones may also
be identified by the presence of escort
vessels displaying flashing blue law
enforcement lights.
The moving security zones would be
activated for certain vessels within the
E:\FR\FM\27MYP1.SGM
27MYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 102 / Thursday, May 27, 2010 / Proposed Rules
Captain of the Port zone commencing at
U.S. territorial waters through Sabine
Bank Channel, Sabine Pass Channel and
the Sabine-Neches Waterway, extending
from the surface to the bottom. These
moving security zones would extend
channel edge to channel edge on the
Sabine Bank and Sabine Pass Channel
and shoreline to shoreline on the
Sabine-Neches Waterway, 2 miles ahead
and 1 mile astern of the designated
vessels while in transit. Meeting,
crossing or overtaking situations are not
permitted within the security zone
unless specifically authorized by the
Captain of the Port.
In addition, the Coast Guard proposes
a 100-foot security zone around LNG
carriers while they are moored at the
Golden Pass LNG facility in Sabine, TX
and/or the Sabine Pass LNG facility
located in Cheniere, LA.
These proposed security zones would
be part of a comprehensive port security
regime designed to safeguard human
life, vessels, and waterfront facilities
against sabotage or terrorist attacks.
All vessels not exempted under
paragraph (b) of the proposed section
165.819 would be prohibited from
entering or remaining in these security
zones unless authorized by the Captain
of the Port, Port Arthur or his
designated representative. For
authorization to enter the proposed
security zones, vessels could contact the
Captain of the Port’s on-scene
representative or Vessel Traffic Service
Port Arthur on VHF Channel 01A or
65A, by telephone at (409) 719–5070, or
by facsimile at (409) 719–5090.
WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS
Regulatory Analyses
We developed this proposed rule after
considering numerous statutes and
executive orders related to rulemaking.
Below we summarize our analyses
based on 13 of these statutes or
executive orders.
Regulatory Planning and Review
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.
We expect the economic impact of
this proposed rule to be so minimal that
a full Regulatory Evaluation is
unnecessary. The basis of this finding is
that the proposed fixed security zones
around moored LNG carriers would be
of limited size and duration and the
affected area would not hinder or delay
regular vessel traffic. The moving
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:33 May 26, 2010
Jkt 220001
29697
security zone wound be limited and
would not create undue delay to vessel
traffic because vessel traffic may request
permission to enter the zone from the
Captain of the Port.
Collection of Information
This proposed rule would call for no
new collection of information under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3501–3520).
Small Entities
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.
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 would affect
the following entities, some of which
might be small entities: The owners or
operators of vessels intending to transit
through the fixed or moving security
zones. The proposed fixed security
zones would be of limited size and
duration and the affected area would
not hinder or delay regular vessel traffic;
The proposed rule for moving security
zone would not create undue delay to
vessel traffic because vessel traffic may
request permission to enter the zone. 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
they can better evaluate its effects on
them and participate in the rulemaking.
If the rule would affect your small
business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction and you have questions
concerning its provisions or options for
compliance, please contact Mr. Scott
Whalen, Marine Safety Unit Port Arthur,
Coast Guard; telephone (409) 719–5086,
e-mail scott.k.whalen@uscg.mil. The
Coast Guard will not retaliate against
small entities that question or complain
about this proposed rule or any policy
or action of the Coast Guard.
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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 (adjusted for inflation) or
more in any one year. Though this
proposed rule would not result in such
an expenditure, we do discuss the
effects of this 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
E:\FR\FM\27MYP1.SGM
27MYP1
29698
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 102 / Thursday, May 27, 2010 / Proposed Rules
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.
WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS
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 Department of Homeland
Security Management Directive 023–01
and Commandant Instruction
M16475.lD, which guide 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 one of a category of
actions which do not individually or
cumulatively have a significant effect on
the human environment. A preliminary
environmental analysis checklist
supporting this determination is
available in the docket where indicated
under ADDRESSES. This proposed rule
involves establishing security zones.
Therefore, this rule would be
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:33 May 26, 2010
Jkt 220001
categorically excluded under Figure
2–1, paragraph (34)(g) of Commandant
Instruction M16475.1D, which
addresses regulations establishing,
disestablishing, or changing Regulated
Navigation Areas and security or safety
zones. 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), 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, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195;
33 CFR 1.05–1, 6.04–1, 6.04–6, 160.5; Pub. L.
107–295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of
Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
2. Add new § 165.819 to read as
follows:
§ 165.819 Security Zone; Sabine Bank
Channel, Sabine Pass Channel and SabineNeches Waterway, TX.
(a) Location.
(1) The following areas are designated
as fixed security zones: All waters
within a 100-feet radius of LNG carriers
moored at:
(i) Golden Pass LNG facility located in
Sabine, TX, in position 29°45′52″ N
093°55′25″ W; and/or
(ii) Sabine Pass LNG facility located
in Cheniere, LA, in position 29°44′31″ N
093°52′18″ W.
(2) The following areas are designated
as moving security zones: All waters of
the Captain of the Port, Port Arthur
Zone commencing at U.S. territorial
waters and extending from the surface
to the bottom, channel edge to channel
edge on the Sabine Bank and Sabine
Pass Channels and shoreline to
shoreline on the Sabine-Neches
Waterway, 2 miles ahead and 1 mile
astern of certain designated vessels
while in transit within in the Captain of
the Port, Port Arthur zone. Mariners
would be notified of designated vessels
by Broadcast Notice to Mariners and the
presence of escort vessels displaying
flashing blue law enforcement lights.
(b) Regulations.
(1) Entry into or remaining in a fixed
security zone described in paragraph
(a)(1) of this section is prohibited for all
vessels except:
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
(i) Commercial vessels operating at
waterfront facilities within these zones;
(ii) Commercial vessels transiting
directly to or from waterfront facilities
within these zones;
(iii) Vessels providing direct
operational or logistical support to
commercial vessels within these zones;
(iv) Vessels operated by the
appropriate port authority or by
facilities located within these zones;
and
(v) Vessels operated by federal, state,
county, or municipal law enforcement
agencies.
(2) Entry into or remaining in a
moving security zone described in
paragraph (a)(2) of this section is
prohibited for all vessels except:
(i) Moored vessels or vessels anchored
in a designated anchorage area. A
moored or an anchored vessel in a
security zone described in paragraph
(a)(2) of this section must remain
moored or anchored unless it obtains
permission from the Captain of the Port
to do otherwise;
(ii) Commercial vessels operating at
waterfront facilities located within the
zone;
(iii) Vessels providing direct
operational support to commercial
vessels within a moving security zone;
(iv) Vessels operated by federal, state,
county, or municipal law enforcement
agencies.
(3) Meeting, crossing or overtaking
situations are not permitted within the
security zone described in paragraph
(a)(2) of this section unless specifically
authorized by the Captain of the Port.
(4) Other persons or vessels requiring
entry into security zones described in
this section must request permission
from the Captain of the Port, Port Arthur
or designated representative.
(5) To request permission to enter a
security zone described in this section,
contact Vessel Traffic Service Port
Arthur on VHF Channel 01A or 65A; by
telephone at (409) 719–5070; by fax at
(409) 719–5090; or contact the Captain
of the Port’s designated on-scene patrol
vessel on VHF channel 13 or 16.
(6) All persons and vessels within a
security zone described in this section
must comply with the instructions of
the Captain of the Port, Port Arthur,
designated on-scene U.S. Coast Guard
patrol personnel or other designated
representatives. Designated on-scene
U.S. Coast Guard patrol personnel
include commissioned, warrant, and
petty officers of the U.S. Coast Guard.
Designated representatives include
federal, state, local and municipal law
enforcement agencies.
E:\FR\FM\27MYP1.SGM
27MYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 102 / Thursday, May 27, 2010 / Proposed Rules
Dated: April 22, 2010.
J.J. Plunkett,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the
Port, Port Arthur.
[FR Doc. 2010–12738 Filed 5–26–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110–04–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R04–OAR–2009–0612–200914(b);
FRL–9155–4]
Approval and Promulgation of Air
Quality Implementation Plans: Florida;
Approval of Section 110(a)(1)
Maintenance Plan for the 1997 8-Hour
Ozone Standard for the Jacksonville,
Tampa Bay, and Southeast Florida
Areas
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
EPA is proposing to approve
revisions to the Florida State
Implementation Plan (SIP) concerning
the maintenance plans addressing the
1997 8-hour ozone standards for the
Jacksonville, Tampa Bay, and Southeast
Florida 1997 8-hour ozone attainment
areas in Florida, hereafter referred to as
the ‘‘Jacksonville Area,’’ ‘‘Tampa Bay
Area,’’ and ‘‘Southeast Florida Area,’’
respectively. The Jacksonville Area is
comprised of Duval County; the Tampa
Bay Area comprises Hillsborough and
Pinellas Counties; and the Southeast
Florida Area comprises Broward, Dade,
and Palm Beach Counties. These
maintenance plans were submitted to
EPA on July 2, 2009, by the State of
Florida, through the Florida Department
of Environmental Protection, and ensure
the continued attainment of the 1997 8hour ozone national ambient air quality
standards (NAAQS) through the year
2014 in the Jacksonville, Tampa Bay,
and Southeast Florida Areas. EPA is
proposing to approve the SIP revisions
pursuant to section 110 of the Clean Air
Act. These maintenance plans appear to
meet all the statutory and regulatory
requirements, and are consistent with
EPA’s guidance. On March 12, 2008,
EPA issued revised ozone standards. On
September 16, 2009, EPA announced it
would reconsider the 2008 NAAQS for
ozone and proposed a new schedule for
designations for a reconsidered
standard. EPA published a proposed
rulemaking on January 19, 2010, for
reconsideration of the 2008 NAAQS,
and expects to finalize the reconsidered
NAAQS by August 2010. The current
proposed action, however, is being
WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:33 May 26, 2010
Jkt 220001
taken to address requirements under the
1997 8-hour ozone standards.
Requirements for the Jacksonville,
Tampa Bay, and Southeast Florida
Areas under the 2010 reconsidered
ozone standards will be addressed in
the future.
DATES: Written comments must be
received on or before June 28, 2010.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04–
OAR–2009–0612, by one of the
following methods:
1. https://www.regulations.gov: Follow
the on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
2. E-mail: benjamin.lynorae@epa.gov.
3. Fax: (404) 562–9019.
4. Mail: ‘‘EPA–R04–OAR–2009–0612,’’
Regulatory Development Section, Air
Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and
Toxics Management Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960.
5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Lynorae
Benjamin, Chief, Regulatory
Development Section, Air Planning
Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics
Management Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. Such
deliveries are only accepted during the
Regional Office’s normal hours of
operation. The Regional Office’s official
hours of business are Monday through
Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding federal
holidays.
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.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Twunjala Bradley, Regulatory
Development Section, Air Planning
Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics
Management Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. The
telephone number is (404) 562–9352.
Ms. Bradley can also be reached via
electronic mail at
bradley.twunjala@epa.gov.
In the
Final Rules 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
submittal and anticipates no adverse
comments. A detailed rationale for the
approval is set forth in the direct final
rule. If no adverse comments are
received in response to this rule, no
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
29699
further activity is contemplated. If EPA
receives adverse comments, the direct
final rule will be withdrawn and all
public comments received will be
addressed in a subsequent final rule
based on this proposed rule. EPA will
not institute a second comment period
on this document. Any parties
interested in commenting on this
document should do so at this time.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Intergovernmental
relations, Incorporation by reference,
Ozone, Nitrogen dioxides, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements,
Volatile organic compounds.
Dated: May 11, 2010.
Beverly H. Banister,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2010–12659 Filed 5–26–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES
Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention
42 CFR Part 84
[Docket Number NIOSH–0137]
RIN 0920–AA33
Total Inward Leakage Requirements
for Respirators
AGENCY: The National Institute for
Occupational Safety and Health
(NIOSH) of the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention (CDC),
Department of Health and Human
Services (HHS).
ACTION: Notice of public meeting.
SUMMARY: The National Institute for
Occupational Safety and Health
(NIOSH) of the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention (CDC), will hold
a second public meeting concerning the
proposed rule for Total Inward Leakage
Requirements for Respirators that was
published in the Federal Register on
Friday, October 30, 2009 (74 FR 56141).
The purpose of the meeting is to allow
participants to make presentations to
NIOSH, share results of any new
research that may be available or in
process in the area of filtering facepiece
or other half-mask respirator inward
leakage measurement, and offer any
additional comments on the anticipated
economic impact of the proposed rule.
Public Meeting Time and Date: 8:30
a.m.–4 p.m. EDT, or after the last public
commenter has spoken, whichever is
earlier, July 29, 2010.
E:\FR\FM\27MYP1.SGM
27MYP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 102 (Thursday, May 27, 2010)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 29695-29699]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-12738]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 165
[Docket No. USCG-2009-0316]
RIN 1625-AA87
Security Zones; Sabine Bank Channel, Sabine Pass Channel and
Sabine-Neches Waterway, TX
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.
[[Page 29696]]
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to establish moving security zones
for certain vessels for which the Captain of the Port, Port Arthur
deems enhanced security measures are necessary. In addition, the Coast
Guard proposes a 100-foot security zone around LNG carriers while they
are moored at the Golden Pass LNG facility in Sabine, TX and/or the
Sabine Pass LNG facility located in Cheniere, LA.
DATES: Comments and related material must be received by the Coast
Guard on or before June 28, 2010.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2009-0316 using any one of the following methods:
(1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
(2) Fax: 202-493-2251.
(3) Mail: Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
(4) Hand delivery: Same as mail address above, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone
number is 202-366-9329.
To avoid duplication, please use only one of these four methods.
See the ``Public Participation and Request for Comments'' portion of
the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below for instructions on
submitting comments.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this proposed
rule, call or e-mail Mr. Scott Whalen, Marine Safety Unit Port Arthur,
Coast Guard; telephone 409-719-5086, e-mail scott.k.whalen@uscg.mil. If
you have questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket,
call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone
202-366-9826.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Public Participation and Request for Comments
We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting
comments and related materials. All comments received will be posted
without change to https://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided.
Submitting Comments
If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking (USCG-2009-0316), indicate the specific section of this
document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each
suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material
online (via https://www.regulations.gov) or by fax, mail, or hand
delivery, but please use only one of these means. If you submit a
comment online via https://www.regulations.gov, it will be considered
received by the Coast Guard when you successfully transmit the comment.
If you fax, hand deliver, or mail your comment, it will be considered
as having been received by the Coast Guard when it is received at the
Docket Management Facility. We recommend that you include your name and
a mailing address, an e-mail address, or a telephone number in the body
of your document so that we can contact you if we have questions
regarding your submission.
To submit your comment online, go to https://www.regulations.gov,
click on the ``submit a comment'' box, which will then become
highlighted in blue. In the ``Document Type'' drop down menu select
``Proposed Rule'' and insert ``USCG-2009-0316'' in the ``Keyword'' box.
Click ``Search'' then click on the balloon shape in the ``Actions''
column. If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit
them in an unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\; by 11 inches,
suitable for copying and electronic filing. If you submit comments by
mail and would like to know that they reached the Facility, please
enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will
consider all comments and material received during the comment period
and may change the rule based on your comments.
Viewing Comments and Documents
To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble
as being available in the docket, go to https://www.regulations.gov,
click on the ``read comments'' box, which will then become highlighted
in blue. In the ``Keyword'' box insert ``USCG-2009-0316'' and click
``Search.'' Click the ``Open Docket Folder'' in the ``Actions'' column.
You may also visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on
the ground floor of the Department of Transportation West Building,
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. We have an
agreement with the Department of Transportation to use the Docket
Management Facility.
Privacy Act
Anyone can search the electronic form of comments received into any
of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or
signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). You may review a Privacy Act notice
regarding our public dockets in the January 17, 2008 issue of the
Federal Register (73 FR 3316).
Public Meeting
At this time, we do not plan to hold a public meeting, but you may
submit a request for one using one of the four methods specified under
ADDRESSES. Please explain why you believe a public meeting would be
beneficial. If we determine that one would aid this rulemaking, we will
hold one at a time and place announced by a later notice in the Federal
Register.
Background and Purpose
Heightened awareness of potential terrorist acts requires enhanced
security of our ports, harbors, and vessels. To enhance security, the
Captain of the Port, Port Arthur proposes to establish security zones
around certain vessels. These security zones are needed to safeguard
the vessels, the public, and the surrounding area from sabotage or
other subversive acts, accidents, or other events of a similar nature.
Due to the potential for terrorist attacks, this proposed rule
would allow the Captain of the Port to create fixed security zones
around moored LNG carriers and moving security zones around certain
vessels as deemed necessary. By limiting access to these areas, the
Coast Guard is reducing potential methods of attack on these vessels,
and potential use of the vessels to launch attacks on waterfront
facilities and adjacent population centers located within the Captain
of the Port, Port Arthur zone. Vessels having a need to enter these
security zones must obtain permission from the Captain of the Port or
his designated representative prior to entry.
Discussion of Proposed Rule
The Coast Guard proposes to establish moving security zones for
certain vessels, for which the Captain of the Port deems enhanced
security measures are necessary. Mariners will be notified of the
activation of a moving security zone by Broadcast Notice to Mariners.
Active moving security zones may also be identified by the presence of
escort vessels displaying flashing blue law enforcement lights.
The moving security zones would be activated for certain vessels
within the
[[Page 29697]]
Captain of the Port zone commencing at U.S. territorial waters through
Sabine Bank Channel, Sabine Pass Channel and the Sabine-Neches
Waterway, extending from the surface to the bottom. These moving
security zones would extend channel edge to channel edge on the Sabine
Bank and Sabine Pass Channel and shoreline to shoreline on the Sabine-
Neches Waterway, 2 miles ahead and 1 mile astern of the designated
vessels while in transit. Meeting, crossing or overtaking situations
are not permitted within the security zone unless specifically
authorized by the Captain of the Port.
In addition, the Coast Guard proposes a 100-foot security zone
around LNG carriers while they are moored at the Golden Pass LNG
facility in Sabine, TX and/or the Sabine Pass LNG facility located in
Cheniere, LA.
These proposed security zones would be part of a comprehensive port
security regime designed to safeguard human life, vessels, and
waterfront facilities against sabotage or terrorist attacks.
All vessels not exempted under paragraph (b) of the proposed
section 165.819 would be prohibited from entering or remaining in these
security zones unless authorized by the Captain of the Port, Port
Arthur or his designated representative. For authorization to enter the
proposed security zones, vessels could contact the Captain of the
Port's on-scene representative or Vessel Traffic Service Port Arthur on
VHF Channel 01A or 65A, by telephone at (409) 719-5070, or by facsimile
at (409) 719-5090.
Regulatory Analyses
We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes
and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our
analyses based on 13 of these statutes or executive orders.
Regulatory Planning and Review
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.
We expect the economic impact of this proposed rule to be so
minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation is unnecessary. The basis of
this finding is that the proposed fixed security zones around moored
LNG carriers would be of limited size and duration and the affected
area would not hinder or delay regular vessel traffic. The moving
security zone wound be limited and would not create undue delay to
vessel traffic because vessel traffic may request permission to enter
the zone from the Captain of the Port.
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 would affect the following
entities, some of which might be small entities: The owners or
operators of vessels intending to transit through the fixed or moving
security zones. The proposed fixed security zones would be of limited
size and duration and the affected area would not hinder or delay
regular vessel traffic; The proposed rule for moving security zone
would not create undue delay to vessel traffic because vessel traffic
may request permission to enter the zone. 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 they can better
evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the
rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or
options for compliance, please contact Mr. Scott Whalen, Marine Safety
Unit Port Arthur, Coast Guard; telephone (409) 719-5086, e-mail
scott.k.whalen@uscg.mil. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against
small entities that question or complain about this proposed rule or
any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
Collection of Information
This proposed rule would call for no new collection of information
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
Federalism
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 (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule would not
result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this 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
[[Page 29698]]
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 Department of Homeland
Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction
M16475.lD, which guide 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 one of a
category of actions which do not individually or cumulatively have a
significant effect on the human environment. A preliminary
environmental analysis checklist supporting this determination is
available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. This proposed
rule involves establishing security zones. Therefore, this rule would
be categorically excluded under Figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g) of
Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, which addresses regulations
establishing, disestablishing, or changing Regulated Navigation Areas
and security or safety zones. 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), 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, 3306,
3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, 160.5; Pub.
L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security
Delegation No. 0170.1.
2. Add new Sec. 165.819 to read as follows:
Sec. 165.819 Security Zone; Sabine Bank Channel, Sabine Pass Channel
and Sabine-Neches Waterway, TX.
(a) Location.
(1) The following areas are designated as fixed security zones: All
waters within a 100-feet radius of LNG carriers moored at:
(i) Golden Pass LNG facility located in Sabine, TX, in position
29[deg]45'52'' N 093[deg]55'25'' W; and/or
(ii) Sabine Pass LNG facility located in Cheniere, LA, in position
29[deg]44'31'' N 093[deg]52'18'' W.
(2) The following areas are designated as moving security zones:
All waters of the Captain of the Port, Port Arthur Zone commencing at
U.S. territorial waters and extending from the surface to the bottom,
channel edge to channel edge on the Sabine Bank and Sabine Pass
Channels and shoreline to shoreline on the Sabine-Neches Waterway, 2
miles ahead and 1 mile astern of certain designated vessels while in
transit within in the Captain of the Port, Port Arthur zone. Mariners
would be notified of designated vessels by Broadcast Notice to Mariners
and the presence of escort vessels displaying flashing blue law
enforcement lights.
(b) Regulations.
(1) Entry into or remaining in a fixed security zone described in
paragraph (a)(1) of this section is prohibited for all vessels except:
(i) Commercial vessels operating at waterfront facilities within
these zones;
(ii) Commercial vessels transiting directly to or from waterfront
facilities within these zones;
(iii) Vessels providing direct operational or logistical support to
commercial vessels within these zones;
(iv) Vessels operated by the appropriate port authority or by
facilities located within these zones; and
(v) Vessels operated by federal, state, county, or municipal law
enforcement agencies.
(2) Entry into or remaining in a moving security zone described in
paragraph (a)(2) of this section is prohibited for all vessels except:
(i) Moored vessels or vessels anchored in a designated anchorage
area. A moored or an anchored vessel in a security zone described in
paragraph (a)(2) of this section must remain moored or anchored unless
it obtains permission from the Captain of the Port to do otherwise;
(ii) Commercial vessels operating at waterfront facilities located
within the zone;
(iii) Vessels providing direct operational support to commercial
vessels within a moving security zone;
(iv) Vessels operated by federal, state, county, or municipal law
enforcement agencies.
(3) Meeting, crossing or overtaking situations are not permitted
within the security zone described in paragraph (a)(2) of this section
unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port.
(4) Other persons or vessels requiring entry into security zones
described in this section must request permission from the Captain of
the Port, Port Arthur or designated representative.
(5) To request permission to enter a security zone described in
this section, contact Vessel Traffic Service Port Arthur on VHF Channel
01A or 65A; by telephone at (409) 719-5070; by fax at (409) 719-5090;
or contact the Captain of the Port's designated on-scene patrol vessel
on VHF channel 13 or 16.
(6) All persons and vessels within a security zone described in
this section must comply with the instructions of the Captain of the
Port, Port Arthur, designated on-scene U.S. Coast Guard patrol
personnel or other designated representatives. Designated on-scene U.S.
Coast Guard patrol personnel include commissioned, warrant, and petty
officers of the U.S. Coast Guard. Designated representatives include
federal, state, local and municipal law enforcement agencies.
[[Page 29699]]
Dated: April 22, 2010.
J.J. Plunkett,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Port Arthur.
[FR Doc. 2010-12738 Filed 5-26-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
