Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 53 / Friday, March 18, 2011 / Proposed Rules 14829 

authorizations signed on or after 

October 19, 2009. 

(g) Effective date. This section is 

effective on the date that the final 

regulations are published in the Federal 

Register. 

Steven T. Miller, 

Deputy Commissioner for Services and 

Enforcement. 

[FR Doc. 2011–6449 Filed 3–17–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4830–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 165 

[Docket No. USCG–2011–0114] 

RIN 1625–AA00 

Safety Zone; 2011 Hylebos Bridge 

Restoration, Hylebos Waterway, 

Tacoma, WA 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Coast Guard is 

proposing to establish a temporary 

safety zone extending 50 yards to the 

north and south of the Hylebos Bridge, 

Tacoma, WA in both directions along 

the entire length of the Hylebos Bridge 

to ensure the safety of the boating public 

during the Hylebos Bridge restoration 

project. This safety zone is necessary to 

protect vessels transiting in the vicinity 

of the Hylebos Bridge from falling debris 

resulting from concrete removal 

performed as part of the bridge 

restoration. 

DATES: Comments and related material 

must be received by the Coast Guard on 

or before May 17, 2011. Requests for 

public meetings must be received by the 

Coast Guard on or before April 18, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

identified by docket number USCG– 

2011–0114 using any one of the 

following methods: 

(1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

http://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 Ensign Anthony P. 

LaBoy, USCG Sector Puget Sound 

Waterways Management Division, Coast 

Guard; telephone 206–217–6323, e-mail 

SectorPugetSoundWWM@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 http:// 

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–2011–0114), 

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 http:// 

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 http:// 

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 

http://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–2011–0114’’ 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 

http://www.regulations.gov, click on the 

‘‘read comments’’ box, which will then 

become highlighted in blue. In the 

‘‘Keyword’’ box insert ‘‘USCG–2011– 

0114’’ 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 

We do not now 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. 

For information on facilities or 

services for individuals with disabilities 

or to request special assistance at the 

public meeting, contact Ensign Anthony 

P. LaBoy at the telephone number or email address indicated under the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of 

this notice. 

Basis and Purpose 

The Hylebos Bridge restoration 

involves removal of deteriorated 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
14830 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 53 / Friday, March 18, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

concrete from the Hylebos Bridge and 

refinishing the bridge’s surface. The 

project poses a safety risk to any vessel 

traffic in the vicinity below the bridge 

due to potential falling debris. The 

hydro demolition machine that will be 

used can remove up to 16 inches of 

concrete in a single pass presenting a 

major safety hazard to vessels, persons, 

or property below. This safety zone 

would be enforced daily from 6 a.m. 

until 6 p.m. from August 20, 2011 

through August 22, 2011, unless 

canceled sooner by the Captain of the 

Port. 

Discussion of Proposed Rule 

The City of Tacoma Public Works has 

requested a closure of the waterway to 

prevent property damage and/or 

personal injury to the maritime public 

during concrete removal portions of the 

Hylebos Bridge restoration. The Coast 

Guard is proposing this safety zone to 

ensure the safety of the maritime public 

during concrete removal and will do so 

by prohibiting any person or vessel from 

entering or remaining in the safety zone 

unless authorized by the Captain of the 

Port, Puget Sound or Designated 

Representative. 

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. 

The Coast Guard bases this finding on 

the fact that the safety zone is small in 

size, short in duration, and maritime 

traffic will be able to transit this area 

during times when the zone is not 

enforced. Maritime traffic may also 

request permission to transit through 

the zone from the Captain of the Port, 

Puget Sound or Designated 

Representative. 

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 

or anchor in a portion of the Hylebos 

Waterway from 6 a.m. until 6 p.m. from 

August 20, 2011 through August 22, 

2011. This safety zone will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities, 

because the safety zone is short in 

duration, is minimal in size, and 

maritime traffic will be allowed to 

transit through the safety zone with the 

permission of the Captain of the Port, 

Puget Sound or Designated 

Representative. 

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 Ensign 

Anthony P. LaBoy at the telephone 

number or e-mail address indicated 

under the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section of this notice. 

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 

expenditure, we do discuss the effects of 

this rule elsewhere in this preamble. 

Taking of Private Property 

This proposed rule would not cause 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 would 

not create an environmental risk to 

health or risk to safety that might 

disproportionately affect children. 

Indian Tribal Governments 

This proposed rule does not have 

tribal implications under Executive 

Order 13175, Consultation and 

Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments, because it would not have 

a substantial direct effect on one or 

more Indian tribes, on the relationship 

between the Federal Government and 

Indian tribes, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities between the 

Federal Government and Indian tribes. 

Energy Effects 

We have analyzed this proposed rule 

under Executive Order 13211, Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use. We have 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 53 / Friday, March 18, 2011 / Proposed Rules 14831 

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 that do not individually or 

cumulatively have a significant effect on 

the human environment. A preliminary 

environmental analysis checklist 

supporting this determination will be 

made available in the docket where 

indicated under ADDRESSES. This 

proposed rule involves the 

establishment of a safety zone. 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(g), 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 § 165.T13–177 to read as 

follows: 

§ 165.T13–177 Safety Zone; 2011 Hylebos 

Bridge Restoration, Hylebos Waterway, 

Tacoma, Washington. 

(a) Location. The following area is a 

safety zone: All waters extending 50 

yards to the north and south, along the 

entire length of the Hylebos Bridge in 

Tacoma, WA. 

(b) Regulations. In accordance with 

the general regulations in 33 CFR Part 

165, Subpart C, no person or vessel may 

enter or remain in the safety zone 

without permission of the Captain of the 

Port or Designated Representative. See 

33 CFR Part 165, Subpart C, for 

additional requirements. Vessel 

operators wishing to enter the zone 

during the enforcement period must 

request permission for entry by 

contacting Vessel Traffic Service Puget 

Sound on VHF channel 14, or the Sector 

Puget Sound Joint Harbor Operations 

Center at (206) 217–6001. 

(c) Authorization. All vessel operators 

who desire to transit through or remain 

in the safety zone must obtain 

permission from the Captain of the Port 

or Designated Representative. The 

Captain of the Port may be assisted by 

federal, state, or local agencies as 

needed. 

(d) Enforcement Period. This rule is 

enforced daily from 6 a.m. until 6 p.m. 

from August 20, 2011 through August 

22, 2011 unless canceled sooner by the 

Captain of the Port. 

Dated: March 1, 2011. 

S.J. Ferguson, 

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the 

Port, Puget Sound. 

[FR Doc. 2011–6337 Filed 3–17–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R07–OAR–2011–0279; FRL–9283–2] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plan; Kansas; 

Proposed Disapproval of Interstate 

Transport State Implementation Plan 

Revision for the 2006 24-Hour PM2.5

NAAQS 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: Pursuant to our authority 

under the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act), 

EPA is proposing to disapprove the 

portion of the Kansas CAA 

‘‘Infrastructure’’ State Implementation 

Plan (SIP) submittal addressing 

significant contribution to 

nonattainment or interference with 

maintenance in another State with 

respect to the 2006 24-hour fine particle 

(PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards NAAQS). On April 12, 2010, 

Kansas submitted a State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) intended to 

address the infrastructure SIP 

requirements for ‘‘infrastructure.’’ The 

submittal also included language to 

address the interstate transport 

requirements under the CAA. In this 

action, EPA is proposing to disapprove 

the portion of the Kansas SIP revision 

intended to address requirements 

prohibiting a State’s emissions from 

significantly contributing to 

nonattainment or interfering with 

maintenance of the NAAQS in any other 

State. The rationale for the proposed 

action is described in this proposal. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before April 18, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R07– 

OAR–2011–0279 by one of the following 

methods: 

1. http://www.regulations.gov: Follow 

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. E-mail: kramer.elizabeth@epa.gov. 

3. Mail: Ms. Elizabeth Kramer, Air 

Planning & Development, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 7, 901 North 5th Street, Kansas 

City, Kansas 66101. 

4. Hand Delivery or Courier: Deliver 

your comments to: Ms. Elizabeth 

Kramer, Air Planning & Development, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 7, 901 North 5th Street, Kansas 

City, Kansas 66101. Such deliveries are 

only accepted during the Regional 

Office’s normal hours of operation. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS