41648 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 158 / Tuesday, August 18, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

the expansion of escort vessel 

requirements in the western region of 

the Strait of Juan de Fuca, and asked for 

the response to take into account all 

relevant studies conducted since 1995. 

We have been unable to locate any 

documentation of such a petition, but 

will entertain a new petition submitted 

under 33 CFR 1.05–20. Petitions should 

be addressed to the Executive Secretary, 

Marine Safety and Security Council 

(CG–0943), U.S. Coast Guard, 2100 

Second St., SW., Stop 7121, 

Washington, DC 20593–7121. 

One comment from the Makah Tribal 

Council, an Indian Tribe, requested 

government-to-government consultation 

with the Coast Guard prior to 

withdrawal. That consultation took 

place on April 23, 2009, and is 

documented as Document ID USCG– 

2006–23556–0050.1 in the docket for 

this rulemaking. 

One comment expressed support for 

our proposed withdrawal. 

PWSA Assessments 

Under PWSA, the principal Coast 

Guard tool for assessing and controlling 

risks in local waterways is the Ports and 

Waterways Safety Assessment 

(PAWSA). Since 1998, the Coast Guard 

has conducted almost 40 PAWSAs for 

waterways around the country, and in a 

typical year there is funding for three 

additional PAWSAs, with priority given 

to waterways likely to be at greatest risk. 

PAWSAs employ a uniform 

methodology that was developed by 

academic experts and refined through 

four years of workshops involving 

stakeholders from industry, port 

authorities, and the environmental 

community among others. The goal, 

throughout, was to develop a process 

that could evaluate risk and work 

toward long term solutions, tailored to 

local circumstances, that is both cost 

effective and meets the needs of 

waterway users and stakeholders. 

The PAWSA methodology provides a 

formal structure for identifying risk 

factors and evaluating potential 

mitigation measures through expert 

inputs. Each PAWSA is conducted in a 

public workshop setting that brings 

together local waterway users, 

environmentalists, public safety figures, 

economic experts, and other local 

stakeholders. The methodology supplies 

a weighting tool to take into account the 

relative expertise of each workshop 

participant. During the workshop, 

participants discuss and assign 

numerical ratings to the local 

waterway’s safety risks in the following 

areas: 

• Quality of local vessels and crews; 

• Number of vessels and their 

interaction with each other; 

• Winds, currents, and weather; 

• Physical properties affecting vessel 

maneuverability; 

• Likely immediate impacts of a 

waterway accident, such as a collision 

or hazardous material spill; and 

• Possible long term vessel traffic, 

economic, or environmental 

consequences of a waterway accident. 

Security risks are not included in the 

PAWSA risk analysis because they are 

analyzed separately by the Coast Guard 

through port vulnerability and security 

assessments. PAWSA workshop 

participants also discuss and assign 

numerical ratings to navigational 

systems, emergency response 

capabilities, and other measures 

currently in place, or that could be 

adopted, to control each risk. 

PAWSA computer software uses input 

from the workshop participants to 

generate risk assessments in several 

categories, and to assess the 

effectiveness of current or potential 

control measures. Workshop 

participants then review the computergenerated results, and can revise their 

input if they feel their initial ratings 

produced a false picture of local 

conditions. 

You can get more information about 

PAWSAs, including contact information 

for the Coast Guard’s Office of 

Waterways Management PAWSA 

Project Officer, at http://www.navcen.

uscg.gov/mwv/projects/pawsa/

PAWSA_home.htm, or read reports on 

any of the PAWSAs conducted to date 

at http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/mwv/

projects/pawsa/PAWSA_

FinalReports.htm. If you have comments 

or suggestions about PAWSAs generally, 

contact the Project Officer. If you think 

a specific waterway should be the focus 

of a future PAWSA, contact the Project 

Officer, or contact the relevant Coast 

Guard sector commander. In your 

recommendation, you should address 

the bulleted local waterway safety risks 

cited earlier in this discussion, as fully 

and specifically as possible. A list of 

Coast Guard sectors, as part of a 

comprehensive list of Coast Guard units, 

can be found at http://www.uscg.mil/ 

top/units/. 

Withdrawal 

The Coast Guard withdraws this 

rulemaking, which concerns the 

extension, to other U.S. waters and to 

other types of vessels, of those escort 

vessel requirements that apply to single 

hulled oil tankers in Prince William 

Sound, Alaska, and Puget Sound, 

Washington. We have concluded that a 

rulemaking of national scope under the 

authority of OPA 90 is neither necessary 

nor advisable given the availability of 

PWSA assessments of the needs, in 

specific local waters, for escort vessels 

or other protective measures. 

Authority 

We issue this notice of withdrawal 

under the authority of the Ports and 

Waterways Safety Act, 33 U.S.C. 1221 et 

seq., and section 4116(c) of the Oil 

Pollution Act of 1990, Public Law 101– 

380. 

Dated: August 11, 2009. 

F. J. Sturm, 

Acting Director, Commercial Regulations and 

Standards, U.S. Coast Guard. 

[FR Doc. E9–19705 Filed 8–17–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–15–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R05–OAR–2009–0294; FRL–8944–8] 

Approval of Implementation Plans of 

Michigan: Clean Air Interstate Rule 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

revisions to the Michigan abbreviated 

State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

submitted on July 16, 2007 and on June 

10, 2009. Together, the revisions 

address the requirements for an 

abbreviated Clean Air Interstate Rule 

(CAIR) SIP. EPA is also providing notice 

that the December 20, 2007 conditional 

approval of the July 16, 2007 submittal 

automatically converted to a 

disapproval. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before September 17, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05– 

OAR–2009–0294, by one of the 

following methods: 

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

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. E-mail: mooney.john@epa.gov. 

3. Fax: (312) 692–2551. 

4. Mail: John M. Mooney, Chief, 

Criteria Pollutant Section, Air Programs 

Branch (AR–18J), U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson 

Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. 

5. Hand Delivery: John M. Mooney, 

Chief, Criteria Pollutant Section, Air 

Programs Branch (AR–18J), U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 77 

West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, 

Illinois 60604. Deliveries are only 


cprice-sewell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 158 / Tuesday, August 18, 2009 / Proposed Rules 41649 

accepted during the regional office 

normal hours of operation, and special 

arrangements should be made for 

deliveries of boxed information. The 

regional office official hours of business 

are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 

4:30 p.m., excluding Federal holidays. 

Please see the direct final rule which 

is located in the Final Rules section of 

this Federal Register for detailed 

instructions on how to submit 

comments. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Douglas Aburano, Environmental 

Engineer, Criteria Pollutant Section, Air 

Programs Branch (AR–18J), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 

Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 353–6960, 

aburano.douglas@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the 

Final Rules section of this Federal 

Register, EPA is approving the State’s 

SIP submittal as a direct final rule 

without prior proposal because EPA 

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 

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; 

therefore, any parties interested in 

commenting on this action should do so 

at this time. Please note that if EPA 

receives adverse comment on an 

amendment, paragraph, or section of 

this 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. For additional 

information, see the direct final rule 

which is located in the Final Rules 

section of this Federal Register. 

Dated: August 4, 2009. 

Bharat Mathur, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5. 

[FR Doc. E9–19467 Filed 8–17–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[Docket No. FWS–R2–ES–2008–0131; MO 

9221050083–B2] 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Partial 90-Day Finding on 

a Petition To List 206 Species in the 

Midwest and Western United States as 

Threatened or Endangered with Critical 

Habitat 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of 90-day petition 

finding. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), announce a 

90-day finding on 38 species from a 

petition to list 206 species in the 

mountain-prairie region of the United 

States as threatened or endangered 

under the Endangered Species Act of 

1973, as amended (Act). For 9 of the 38 

species, we find that the petition did not 

present substantial information 

indicating that listing may be warranted. 

For 29 of the 38 species, we find that the 

petition does present substantial 

scientific or commercial information 

indicating that listing may be warranted. 

Therefore, with the publication of this 

notice, we are initiating a status review 

of the 29 species to determine if listing 

is warranted. To ensure that the review 

is comprehensive, we are soliciting 

scientific and commercial information 

regarding these 29 species. 

DATES: To allow us adequate time to 

conduct a status review, we request that 

we receive information on or before 

October 19, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit 

information by one of the following 

methods: 

• Federal rulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments to 

Docket no. FWS–R2–ES–2008–0131. 

• U.S. Mail or hand delivery: Public 

Comments Processing, Attn: FWS–R6– 

ES–2008–0131, Division of Policy and 

Directives Management, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, 

Suite 222, Arlington, VA 22203. 

We will post all information received 

on http://www.regulations.gov. This 

generally means that we will post any 

personal information you provide us 

(see the Information Solicited section 

below for more information). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ann 

Carlson, Listing Coordinator, MountainPrairie Regional Ecological Services 

Office (see ADDRESSES); telephone 303– 

236–4264. If you use a 

telecommunications device for the deaf 

(TDD), please call the Federal 

Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 

800–877–8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Information Solicited 

When we make a finding that a 

petition presents substantial 

information indicating that a species 

may be warranted, we are required to 

promptly commence a review of the 

status of the species. To ensure that the 

status review is complete and based on 

the best available scientific and 

commercial information, we are 

soliciting information concerning the 

status of the 29 species for which we 

found that the petition provides 

substantial information that listing may 

be warranted. We request information 

from the public, other concerned 

governmental agencies, Tribes, the 

scientific community, industry, or any 

other interested parties concerning the 

status of the species. We are seeking 

information regarding the species’ 

historical and current status and 

distribution, their biology and ecology, 

ongoing conservation measures for the 

species and their habitats, and threats to 

the species or their habitats. 

Please note that comments merely 

stating support or opposition to the 

action under consideration without 

providing supporting information, 

although noted, will not be considered 

in making a determination, as section 

4(b)(1)(A) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533 

(b)(1)(A)) directs that determinations as 

to whether any species is a threatened 

or endangered species must be made 

‘‘solely on the basis of the best scientific 

and commercial data available.’’ At the 

conclusion of the status review, we will 

issue a 12-month finding on the 

petition, as provided in section 

4(b)(3)(B) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 

1533(b)(3)(B)). 

You may submit your information 

concerning this 90-day finding or the 29 

species by one of the methods listed in 

the ADDRESSES section. We will not 

consider submissions sent by e-mail or 

fax or to an address not listed in the 

ADDRESSES section. 

If you submit information via http:// 

www.regulations.gov, your entire 

submission—including any personal 

identifying information—will be posted 

on the website. If your submission is 

made via a hardcopy that includes 

personal identifying information, you 

may request at the top of your document 

that we withhold this information from 

public review. However, we cannot 

guarantee that we will be able to do so. 


cprice-sewell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with PROPOSALS