46040 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 8, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

damage of property to the insurance 

company. 

§ 1485.31 Anti-fraud requirements. 

(a) All MAP participants. 

(1) All MAP participants annually 

shall submit to CCC for approval a 

detailed fraud prevention program. The 

fraud prevention program shall, at a 

minimum, include an annual review of 

physical controls and weaknesses, a 

standard process for investigating and 

remediation of suspected fraud cases, 

and training in risk management and 

fraud detection for all current and future 

employees. The MAP participant shall 

not conduct or permit any MAP 

promotion activities to occur unless and 

until CCC has communicated in writing 

approval of the MAP participant’s fraud 

prevention program. 

(2) The MAP participant, within five 

business days of receiving an allegation 

or information giving rise to a 

reasonable suspicion of 

misrepresentation or fraud that could 

give rise to a claim by CCC, shall report 

such allegation or information in 

writing to such USDA personnel as 

specified in the participant’s MAP 

program agreement and/or approval 

letter. The MAP participant shall 

cooperate fully in any USDA 

investigation of such allegation or 

occurrence of misrepresentation or 

fraud and shall comply with any 

directives given by CCC or USDA to the 

MAP participant for the prompt 

investigation of such allegation or 

occurrence. 

(b) MAP participants with brand 

programs. 

(1) The MAP participant may charge 

a fee to brand participants to cover the 

cost of the fraud prevention program. 

(2) The MAP participant shall repay 

to CCC funds paid to a brand participant 

through the MAP participant on claims 

that the MAP participant or CCC 

subsequently determines are 

unauthorized or otherwise nonreimbursable expenses within 30 days 

of the MAP participant’s determination 

or CCC’s disallowance. The MAP 

participant shall repay CCC by 

submitting a check to CCC or by 

offsetting the participant’s next 

reimbursement claim. The MAP 

participant shall make such payment in 

U.S. dollars, unless otherwise approved 

in advance by CCC. A MAP participant 

operating a brand program in strict 

accordance with an approved fraud 

prevention program, however, will not 

be liable to reimburse CCC for MAP 

funds paid on such claims if the claims 

were based on misrepresentations or 

fraud of the brand participant, its 

employees or agents, unless CCC 

determines that the MAP participant 

was grossly negligent in the operation of 

the brand program regarding such 

claims. CCC shall communicate any 

such determination to the MAP 

participant in writing. 

§ 1485.32 Program income. 

Any revenue or refunds generated 

from an activity, e.g., participation fees, 

proceeds of sales, refunds of value 

added taxes (VAT), the expenditures for 

which have been wholly or partially 

reimbursed with MAP funds, shall be 

used by the MAP participant in 

furtherance of its approved MAP 

activities in the program year in which 

the program income was received. 

Interest earned on funds advanced by 

CCC is not program income. 

§ 1485.33 Amendment. 

A program agreement may be 

amended only in writing with the 

consent of CCC and the MAP 

participant. 

§ 1485.34 Noncompliance with an 

agreement. 

If a MAP participant fails to comply 

with any term in its program agreement 

or approval letter, CCC may take one or 

more of the enforcement actions set 

forth in the applicable parts of this title 

and, if, appropriate, initiate a claim 

against the MAP participant, following 

the procedures set forth in this subpart. 

CCC may also initiate a claim against a 

MAP participant if program income or 

CCC-provided funds are lost due to an 

action or omission of the MAP 

participant. 

§ 1485.35 Suspension, termination, and 

closeout of agreements. 

A program agreement may be 

suspended or terminated in accordance 

with the applicable parts of this title. If 

an agreement is terminated, the 

applicable parts of this title will apply 

to the closeout of the agreement. 

§ 1485.36 Paperwork reduction 

requirements. 

The paperwork and recordkeeping 

requirements imposed by this subpart 

have been approved by OMB under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980. OMB 

has assigned control number 0551–0026 

for this information collection. 

Dated: August 19, 2009. 

Michael V. Michener, 

Administrator, Foreign Agricultural Service, 

and Executive Vice President, Commodity 

Credit Corporation. 

[FR Doc. E9–21552 Filed 9–4–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–10–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 165 

[Docket No. USCG–2009–0317] 

RIN 1625–AA87 

Security Zone; Calcasieu River and 

Ship Channel, LA 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to 

disestablish the permanent safety zone 

at Trunkline LNG in Lake Charles, LA 

and to replace it with a security zone 

with new boundaries. The Coast Guard 

also proposes to establish two 

additional permanent security zones on 

the waters of the Calcasieu River for the 

mooring basins at Cameron LNG in 

Hackberry, LA and PPG Industries in 

Lake Charles, LA. The Coast Guard also 

proposes to disestablish the moving 

safety zone for Liquified Natural Gas 

(‘‘LNG’’) vessels in the Calcasieu ship 

channel and replace it with a moving 

security zone of the same dimensions. 

These security zones are needed to 

protect vessels, waterfront facilities, the 

public, and other surrounding areas 

from destruction, loss, or injury caused 

by sabotage, subversive acts, accidents, 

or other actions of a similar nature. 

Unless exempted under this rule, entry 

into or movement within these security 

zones would be prohibited without 

permission from the Captain of the Port 

or a designated representative. 

DATES: Comments and related material 

must reach the Coast Guard on or before 

October 8, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

identified by Coast Guard docket 

number USCG–2009–0317 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 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 8, 2009 / Proposed Rules 46041 

below for instructions on submitting 

comments. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Lieutenant Clint Smith, Marine Safety 

Unit Lake Charles, LA, telephone (337) 

491–7800, or e-mail 

clinton.p.smith@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–2009–0317), 

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 

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–2009–0317’’ 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 8c 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, select the 

Advanced Docket Search option on the 

right side of the screen, insert USCG– 

2009–317 in the Docket ID box, press 

Enter, and then click on the item in the 

Docket ID 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 all 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 the 

Department of Transportation’s Privacy 

Act Statement in the Federal Register 

published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 

19477), or you may visit http:// 

DocketsInfo.dot.gov. 

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 explaining 

why one 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 

permanent security zones on the waters 

of the Calcasieu River in Lake Charles, 

LA; Hackberry, LA, and moving security 

zones around certain vessels. 

This proposed rule would establish 

new, distinct security zones on the 

waters of the Calcasieu River. These 

zones would protect waterfront 

facilities, persons, and vessels from 

subversive or terrorist acts. Vessels 

operating within the Captain of the Port 

Zone are potential targets of terrorist 

attacks, or platforms from which 

terrorist attacks may be launched upon 

from other vessels, waterfront facilities, 

and adjacent population centers. 

This proposed rule would also delete 

the moving safety zone for non-gas free 

Liquified Natural Gas (‘‘LNG’’) vessels 

transiting the Calcasieu Channel and 

Calcasieu River and add a moving 

security zone that may commence at any 

point while certain vessels are transiting 

the Calcasieu Channel or Calcasieu 

River on U.S. territorial waters in the 

Captain of the Port, Port Arthur zone. 

These security zones would be 

established to protect waterfront 

facilities, persons, and vessels from 

subversive or terrorist acts. Vessels 

operating within the Captain of the Port 

zone are potential targets of terrorist 

attacks, or potential launch platforms 

for terrorist attacks on other vessels, 

waterfront facilities, and adjacent 

population centers. 

Due to the potential for terrorist 

attacks, this proposed rule would allow 

the Captain of the Port to create moving 

security zones around certain vessels as 

deemed necessary, on a case-by-case 

basis. 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 zone. 

Vessels having a need to enter these 

security zones must obtain express 

permission from the Captain of the Port, 

Port Arthur or a designated 

representative prior to entry. 

These zones are being proposed for an 

area concentrated with commercial 

facilities considered critical to national 

security. This proposed rule is not 

designed to restrict access to vessels 

engaged, or assisting in commerce with 

waterfront facilities within fixed 

security zones, vessels operated by port 

authorities, vessels operated by 

waterfront facilities within the fixed 

security zones, and vessels operated by 

federal, state, county or municipal 

agencies. By limiting access to these 

areas the Coast Guard would reduce 

potential methods of attack on vessels, 

waterfront facilities, and adjacent 

population centers located within the 

zones. All vessels not exempted under 

the provisions of this proposed 

regulation desiring to enter these zones 

would be required to obtain express 

permission from the Captain of the Port, 

Port Arthur or a designated 

representative prior to entry. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

46042 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 8, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

Discussion of Proposed Rule 

The Captain of the Port proposes to 

revise 33 CFR 165.805 to establish 

permanent fixed security zones on the 

waters of the Calcasieu River for the 

mooring basins at Trunkline LNG in 

Lake Charles, LA; Cameron LNG in 

Hackberry, LA; and PPG Industries in 

Lake Charles, LA. The coordinates and 

locations of the fixed security zones use 

the North American Datum of 1983 

(NAD 1983) and are as follows: (1) 

Trunkline LNG basin, all waters 

encompassed by a line connecting the 

following points, beginning at 30°06′36′′ 

N, 93°17′36′′ W, south to a point 

30°06′33′′ N, 93°17′36′′ W, east to a point 

30°06′30′′ N, 93°17′02′′ W, north to a 

point 30°06′33′′ N, 93°17′01′′ W, then 

following the shoreline to the beginning 

point. (2) Cameron LNG basin, all 

waters encompassed by a line 

connecting the following points, 

beginning at 30°02′33′′ N, 93°19′53′′ W, 

east to a point at 30°02′34′′ N, 93°19′50′′ 

W, south to a point at 30°02′10′′ N, 

93°19′52′′ W and west to a point at 

30°02′10′′ N, 93°19′59′′ W, then 

following the shoreline to the beginning 

point. (3) PPG industries basin, all 

waters encompassed by a line 

connecting the following points, 

beginning at 30°13′11′′ N, 93°16′52′′ W, 

east to a point at 30°13′11′′ N, 93°16′51′′ 

W, northeast to a point at 30°13′29′′ N, 

93°16′34′′ W, then following the 

shoreline to the beginning point. 

In addition, the Captain of the Port 

proposes to establish moving security 

zones for certain vessels, for which the 

Captain of the Port deems enhanced 

security measures are necessary, on a 

case-by-case basis. These moving 

security zones would be activated for 

certain vessels within the Captain of the 

Port, Port Arthur zone transiting U.S. 

territorial waters and extend channel 

edge to channel edge on the Calcasieu 

Channel and shoreline to shoreline on 

the Calcasieu River, 2 miles ahead and 

1 mile astern of certain 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. 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 

165.805 would be prohibited from 

entering the proposed security zones 

unless authorized by the Captain of the 

Port, Port Arthur or a designated 

representative. For authorization to 

enter the proposed security zones 

vessels contact Marine Safety Unit Lake 

Charles at (337) 491–7800 or the onscene patrol vessel on VHF–FM channel 

13. 

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. 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 fixed 

security zones are not part of the 

navigable waterway or a commercial 

fishing ground and do not impede 

commercial traffic on the Calcasieu 

Waterway. The proposed moving 

security zone is limited in nature and 

would not create undue delay to vessel 

traffic in or around the Calcasieu River 

and Ship Channel. 

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 not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities for 

the following reasons: (1) The proposed 

rules for fixed security zones would not 

interfere with regular vessel traffic 

within the Calcasieu Ship Channel, 

Calcasieu River or the Intracoastal 

Waterway; and (2) the proposed rule for 

moving security zones are of limited 

duration and vessels may request 

permission to enter the security zone 

from the Captain of the Port or his 

representative. 

If you think that your business, 

organization, or governmental 

jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity 

and that this proposed 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 Lieutenant 

Clint Smith at (337) 491–7800. 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 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 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 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, 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 8, 2009 / Proposed Rules 46043 

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 

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 would 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 0023.1 

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 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), 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, and 160.5; 

Pub. L. 107–295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department 

of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. 

2. Revise § 165.805 to read as follows: 

§ 165.805 Security Zones; Calcasieu River 

and Ship Channel, Louisiana. 

(a) Location. 

(1) The following areas are designated 

as fixed security zones, (all coordinates 

are based upon North American Datum 

of 1983 [NAD 83]): 

(i) Trunkline LNG basin, all waters 

encompassed by a line connecting the 

following points, beginning at 30°06′36′′ 

N, 93°17′36′′ W, south to a point 

30°06′33′′ N, 93°17′36′′ W, east to a point 

30°06′30′′ N, 93°17′02′′ W, north to a 

point 30°06′33′′ N, 93°17′01′′ W, then 

following the shoreline to the beginning 

point. 

(ii) Cameron LNG basin, all waters 

encompassed by a line connecting the 

following points, beginning at 30°02′33′′ 

N, 093°19′53′′ W, east to a point at 

30°02′34′′ N, 093°19′50′′ W, south to a 

point at 30°02′10′′ N, 093°19′52′′ W and 

west to a point at 30°02′10′′ N, 93°19′59′′ 

W, then following the shoreline to the 

beginning point. 

(iii) PPG industries basin, all waters 

encompassed by a line connecting the 

following points, beginning at 30°13′11′′ 

N, 93°16′52′′ W, east to a point at 

30°13′11′′ N, 93°16′51′′ W, northeast to 

a point at 30°13′29′′ N, 93°16′34′′ W, 

then following the shoreline to the 

beginning point. 

(2) The following areas are moving 

security zones: All waters within the 

Captain of the Port, Port Arthur zone 

commencing at U.S. territorial waters 

and extending channel edge to channel 

edge on the Calcasieu Channel and 

shoreline to shoreline on the Calcasieu 

River, 2 miles ahead and 1 mile astern 

of certain 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. 

(b) Regulations: 

(1) Entry into or remaining in a fixed 

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 agencies. 

(2) Entry into or remaining in moving 

zones 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 agencies. 

(3) 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 representatives. 

(4) To request permission as required 

by these regulations, contact Marine 

Safety Unit Lake Charles at (337) 491– 

7800 or the on-scene patrol vessel. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

46044 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 8, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

1See Docket No. RM2008–5, PRC Order No. 151, 

Order Establishing Tax Rules and Accounting 

Practices for Competitive Products, December 18, 

2009 (Order No. 151). 

2Notice of United States Postal Service Regarding 

Proposed Methodology for the Allocation of Assets 

and Liabilities to Competitive Products, July 23, 

2009 (Notice). 

(5) 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. 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. 

(c) Informational broadcasts. The 

Captain of the Port, Port Arthur will 

inform the public when moving security 

zones have been established around 

vessels via Broadcast Notice to 

Mariners. 

Dated: June 15, 2009. 

J.J. Plunkett, 

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

Port, Port Arthur. 

[FR Doc. E9–21580 Filed 9–4–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–15–P 

POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION 

39 CFR Part 3060 

[Docket No. RM2009–9; Order No. 287] 

Competitive Postal Products 

AGENCY: Postal Regulatory Commission. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: This document announces a 

proposed rulemaking in response to a 

recent Postal Service filing of a 

proposed methodology for the allocation 

of assets and liabilities in theoretical 

competitive enterprise. 

DATES: Submit comments on or before 

October 23, 2009. Submit reply 

comments on or before November 23, 

2009. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments 

electronically via the Commission’s 

electronic Filing Online system at 

http://www.prc.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Stephen L. Sharfman, General Counsel, 

at 202–789–6820 or 

stephen.sharfman@prc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Regulatory 

History, 73 FR 79256 (December 24, 

2008). 

In PRC Order No. 151, which 

established financial accounting 

practices and tax rules for competitive 

products, the Commission directed the 

Postal Service to develop the assets and 

liabilities of the theoretical competitive 

products enterprise by identifying all 

asset and liability accounts within its 

Chart of Accounts used solely for the 

provision of (a) competitive products or 

(b) market dominant products, and for 

those not identified with either, to 

submit for Commission approval a 

proposed methodology detailing how 

each asset and liability account 

identified in the Chart of Accounts shall 

be allocated to the theoretical 

competitive products enterprise.1 See 

39 CFR 3060.12 and 3060.13; see also 

Order No. 151 at 17–18. 

In satisfaction of that requirement, on 

July 23, 2009, the Postal Service filed a 

proposed methodology for the allocation 

of assets and liabilities to the theoretical 

competitive enterprise.2 The Postal 

Service avers that, with ‘‘few 

exceptions,’’ the proposed methodology 

tracks that used by the Commission in 

PRC–LR–1 in Docket No. RM2008–5. Id. 

at 1–2. The differences concern the 

following entries: 

1. Asset: Supplies, Advances, and 

Prepayments—the Postal Service 

allocation is based on total revenues; the 

Commission did not propose an 

allocation; 

2. Liability: Payables and Accrued 

Expenses—the Postal Service allocation 

is based on total revenues; the 

Commission did not propose an 

allocation; 

3. Liability: Customer Deposit 

Accounts—the Postal Service allocation 

is based on total revenues; the 

Commission allocation is limited to a 

specific account, Expedited Mail 

Advance Deposit; 

4. Liability: Outstanding Postal Money 

Orders—the Postal Service allocation is 

based on actual Outstanding 

International Money Orders; the 

Commission did not propose an 

allocation; and 

5. Liability: Deferred Gains on Sales of 

Property—the Postal Service did not 

propose an allocation; the Commission 

allocation is based on Building 

Depreciation Expenses. 

The Notice, which is available on the 

Commission’s Web site, http:// 

www.prc.gov, includes a spreadsheet 

showing the Commission’s and the 

Postal Service’s proposed allocation 

procedures. The Notice also provides 

rationales for the Postal Service’s 

proposals. 

Interested persons are invited to 

comment on the Postal Service’s 

proposed methodology and may 

propose alternative methodologies. 

Comments are due no later than 45 days 

after publication of this order in the 

Federal Register. Reply comments are 

due no later than 75 days after 

publication of this order in the Federal 

Register. 

The Commission designates Patricia 

A. Gallagher to represent the interests of 

the general public in this proceeding. 

It is ordered: 

1. The Commission establishes Docket 

No. RM2009–9 to consider the matters 

related to the allocation of assets and 

liabilities to the theoretical competitive 

products enterprise. 

2. Interested persons may submit 

initial comments within 45 days of 

publication of this order in the Federal 

Register. 

3. Interested persons may submit 

reply comments within 75 days of 

publication of this Order in the Federal 

Register. 

4. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, Patricia 

A. Gallagher is designated to serve as 

the Public Representative representing 

the interests of the general public in this 

proceeding. 

5. The Secretary shall arrange for 

publication of this Notice in the Federal 

Register. 

Authority: 39 U.S.C. 503, 2011, 3633, 

3634. 

Issued: August 24, 2009. 

By the Commission. 

Judith M. Grady, 

Acting Secretary. 

[FR Doc. E9–21476 Filed 9–4–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7710–FW–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2009–0573; FRL–8953–6] 

Disapproval of State Implementation 

Plan Revisions, South Coast Air 

Quality Management District 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to 

disapprove a revision to the South Coast 

Air Quality Management District 

(SCAQMD) portion of the California 

State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

concerning volatile organic compound 

(VOC) emissions from polymeric foam 

manufacturing operations. We are 

proposing action on a local rule that 

regulates these emission sources under 

the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 

(CAA or the Act). We are taking 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS