10958 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 47 / Monday, March 12, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

advance payment of a reasonable 

estimate of the costs to the BBG. 

(b) Fees for records. Fees for 

producing records will include fees for 

searching, reviewing, and duplicating 

records, costs of attorney time spent in 

reviewing the request, and expenses 

generated by materials and equipment 

used to search for, produce, and copy 

the responsive information. Costs for 

employee time will be calculated on the 

basis of the hourly pay of the employee 

(including all pay, allowances, and 

benefits). Fees for duplication will be 

the same as those charged by the BBG 

in its Freedom of Information Act 

regulations at 22 CFR Part 503. 

(c) Witness fees. Fees for attendance 

by a witness will include fees, expenses, 

and allowances prescribed by the 

court’s rules. If no such fees are 

prescribed, witness fees will be 

determined based upon the rule of the 

Federal district court closest to the 

location where the witness will appear 

and on 28 U.S.C. 1821, as applicable. 

Such fees will include cost of time spent 

by the witness to prepare for testimony, 

in travel and for attendance in the legal 

proceeding, plus travel costs. 

(d) Payment of fees. A requester must 

pay witness fees for current BBG 

employees and any record certification 

fees by submitting to the General 

Counsel a check or money order for the 

appropriate amount made payable to the 

Treasury of the United States. In the 

case of testimony of former BBG 

employees, the requester must pay 

applicable fees directly to the former 

BBG employee in accordance with 28 

U.S.C. 1821 or other applicable statutes. 

(e) Waiver or reduction of fees. The 

General Counsel, in his or her sole 

discretion, may, upon a showing of 

reasonable cause, waive or reduce any 

fees in connection with the testimony, 

production, or certification of records. 

(f) De minimis fees. Fees will not be 

assessed if the total charge would be 

$10.00 or less. 

Subpart D—Penalties 

§ 504.15 Penalties. 

(a) An employee who discloses 

official records or information or gives 

testimony relating to official 

information, except as expressly 

authorized by the BBG, or as ordered by 

a Federal court after the BBG has had 

the opportunity to be heard, may face 

penalties as provided in any applicable 

enforcement statute. 

(b) A current BBG employee who 

testifies or produces official records and 

information in violation of this part 

shall be subject to disciplinary action 

and, if done for a valuable 

consideration, may subject that person 

to criminal prosecution. 

Dated: March 6, 2007. 

Carol F. Baker, 

Director, Office of Administration. 

[FR Doc. E7–4329 Filed 3–9–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8610–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 165 

[CGD05–07–015] 

RIN 1625–AA87 

Security Zone: America’s 400th 

Celebration, Jamestown, VA 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The United States Coast 

Guard is establishing a security zone 

encompassing waters within 2-nautical 

miles of Church Point at 37–12.45 N, 

076–46.66 W, Jamestown Island, VA, for 

America’s 400th Anniversary 

celebration. This action is intended to 

restrict vessel traffic within the security 

zone. This security zone is necessary to 

protect attendees of this event from 

potential maritime hazards and threats 

and enhance public and maritime 

security. 

DATES: Comments and related material 

must reach the Coast Guard on or before 

March 27, 2007. 

ADDRESSES: You may mail comments 

and related material to the attention of 

LCDR Thomas Tarrants at the address 

listed below. Documents indicated in 

this preamble as being available in the 

docket are part of docket CGD05–07–

015 and are available for inspection or 

copying at USCG Sector Hampton 

Roads, 4000 Coast Guard Blvd., 

Portsmouth, Virginia 23703, between 

9:30 a.m. and 2 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, except Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

LCDR Thomas Tarrants, Enforcement 

Branch Chief, U.S. Coast Guard Sector 

Hampton Roads, Virginia at (757) 483–

8571. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Request for Comments 

We encourage you to participate in 

this rulemaking by submitting 

comments and related material. If you 

do so, please include your name and 

address, identify the docket number for 

this rulemaking CGD05–07–015, 

indicate the specific section of this 

document to which each comment 

applies, and give the reason for each 

comment. Please submit all comments 

and related material in an unbound 

format, no larger than 81⁄2 by 11 inches, 

suitable for copying. If you would like 

to know that your submission reached 

us, please enclose a stamped, selfaddressed postcard or envelope. We will 

consider all comments and material 

received during the comment period. 

We may change this proposed rule in 

view of them. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), 

the Coast Guard finds that good cause 

exists for a comment period shorter than 

30 days. This security zone of short 

duration is needed to provide for the 

security of persons at the event, and a 

shortened comment period provides the 

public the ability to comment while 

ensuring the security zone is in place 

before the event. 

Public Meeting 

We do not now plan to hold a public 

meeting. But you may submit a request 

for a meeting by writing to Sector 

Hampton Roads at the address 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 separate notice in the Federal 

Register. 

Background and Purpose 

Following terrorist attacks on the 

United States in September 2001, there 

is now a heightened awareness that 

vessels or persons could engage in 

subversive activity against targets ashore 

in the United States. This regulation is 

necessary to protect attendees of 

America’s 400th Anniversary 

celebration on Jamestown Island, VA, 

from potential maritime threats. This 

temporary security zone will only be in 

effect from 3 p.m. on May 11th, 2007 

until 10 p.m. on May 13th, 2007. This 

zone will have minimal impact on 

vessel transits because vessels can 

request authorization from the Captain 

of the Port (COTP) to safely transit 

through the zone and they are not 

precluded from using any portion of the 

waterway except the security zone area 

itself. Additionally, public notifications 

announcing this regulation will be made 

via marine information broadcasts prior 

to the zone taking effect. 

Discussion of Rule 

The Coast Guard is proposing to 

establish a temporary security zone on 

specified waters to provide protection to 

dignitaries visiting Jamestown Island. 

The security zone will be effective from 

3 p.m. on May 11th, 2007, until 10 p.m. 

on May 13th, 2007. The security zone 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 47 / Monday, March 12, 2007 / Proposed Rules 10959 

will encompass all waters around 

Jamestown Island, VA within a 2- 

nautical mile radius of Church Point at 

37–12.45 N, 076–46.66 W. No persons 

or vessels may enter or remain in the 

regulated area without authorization by 

the Captain of the Port, Hampton Roads, 

or his designated representative. 

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. It is not 

‘‘significant’’ under the regulatory 

policies and procedures of the 

Department of Homeland Security 

(DHS). 

We expect the economic impact of 

this proposed rule to be so minimal that 

a full regulatory evaluation under the 

regulatory policies and procedures of 

DHS is unnecessary. Although this 

rulemaking restricts access to the 

regulated area, the effect of this 

rulemaking will not be significant 

because: (i) The COTP may authorize 

access to the security zone; (ii) the 

security zone will be in effect for a 

limited duration; (iii) the Coast Guard 

will make notifications via maritime 

advisories so mariners can adjust their 

plans accordingly. 

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 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. 

However, this proposed rule may 

affect the following entities, some of 

which may be small entities: The 

owners and operators of vessels 

intending to transit or anchor in the 

described portion of the security zone 

between 3 p.m. on May 11, 2007, to 10 

p.m. on May 13, 2007. The security zone 

will not have a significant impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

because the zone does not encompass a 

high vessel traffic area, and vessels can 

request authorization from the COTP to 

enter the zone. Maritime advisories will 

also be issued, so the mariners can 

adjust their plans accordingly. 

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 rule so that they can 

better evaluate its effects on them and 

participate in the rulemaking. If the 

rulemaking would affect your small 

business, organization, or governmental 

jurisdiction and you have questions 

concerning its provisions or options for 

compliance, please contact LCDR 

Thomas Tarrants, Enforcement Branch 

Chief, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Hampton 

Roads, Virginia at (757) 483–8571. 

Small businesses may send comments 

on the actions of Federal employees 

who enforce, or otherwise determine 

compliance with, Federal regulations to 

the Small Business and Agriculture 

Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman 

and Regional Small Business Regulatory 

Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman 

evaluates these actions annually and 

rates each agency’s responsiveness to 

small business. If you wish to comment 

on actions by employees of the U.S. 

Coast Guard, call 1–888–REG–FAIR (1–

888–734–3247). 

Collection of Information 

This proposed rule calls for no new 

collection of information under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

U.S.C. 3501–3520). 

Federalism 

A rule has implications for federalism 

under Executive Order 13132, 

Federalism, if it has a substantial direct 

effect on State or local governments and 

would either preempt State law or 

impose a substantial direct cost of 

compliance on them. We have analyzed 

this proposed rule under that Order and 

have determined that it does not have 

implications for federalism. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) requires 

Federal agencies to assess the effects of 

their discretionary regulatory actions. In 

particular, the Act addresses actions 

that may result in the expenditure by a 

State, local, or tribal government, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector of 

$100,000,000 or more in any one year. 

Though this proposed rule will not 

result in such expenditure, we do 

discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere 

in this preamble. 

Taking of Private Property 

This proposed rule will not 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 proposed rule is not an 

economically significant rule and does 

not create an environmental risk to 

health or risk to safety that may 

disproportionately affect children. 

Indian Tribal Governments 

This proposed rule does not have 

tribal implications under Executive 

Order 13175, Consultation and 

Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments, because it does not have 

a substantial direct effect on one or 

more Indian tribes, on the relationship 

between the Federal Government and 

Indian tribes, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities between the 

Federal Government and Indian tribes. 

Energy Effects 

We have analyzed this proposed rule 

under Executive Order 13211, Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use. We have 

determined that it is not a ‘‘significant 

energy action’’ under that order because 

it is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’

under Executive Order 12866 and is not 

likely to have a significant adverse effect 

on the supply, distribution, or use of 

energy. It has not been designated by the 

Administrator of the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs 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 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL
10960 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 47 / Monday, March 12, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

standards would be inconsistent with 

applicable law or otherwise impractical. 

Voluntary consensus standards are 

technical standards (e.g., specifications 

of materials, performance, design, or 

operation; test methods; sampling 

procedures; and related management 

systems practices) that are developed or 

adopted by voluntary consensus 

standards bodies. This proposed rule 

does not use technical standards. 

Therefore, we did not consider the use 

of voluntary consensus standards. 

Environment 

We have analyzed this proposed rule 

under Commandant Instruction 

M16475.1D and Department of 

Homeland Security Management 

Directive 5100.1, which guide the Coast 

Guard in complying with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and 

have concluded that there are no factors 

in this case that would limit the use of 

a categorical exclusion under section 

2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, we 

believe that this proposed rule should 

be categorically excluded, under figure 

2–1, paragraph (34)(g), of the 

Instruction, from further environmental 

documentation. A preliminary 

‘‘Environmental Analysis Check List’’ is 

available in the docket where indicated 

under ADDRESSES. Comments on this 

section will be considered before we 

make the final decision whether this 

rule should be categorically excluded 

from further environmental review. 

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; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 

1.05–1(g), 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. Add temporary § 165.T05–015, to 

read as follows: 

§ 165.T05–015 Security Zone: Jamestown 

Island, VA. 

(a) Location: The following area is a 

security zone: All waters within a 2- 

nautical-mile radius of Church Point at 

37–12.45N, 076–46.66W on Jamestown 

Island, VA. 

(b) Definition: As used in this section; 

Designated Representative means any 

U.S. Coast Guard commissioned, 

warrant or petty officer who has been 

authorized by the Captain of the Port, 

Hampton Roads, Virginia to act on his 

behalf. 

(c) Regulation. (1) In accordance with 

the general regulations in § 165.33 of 

this part, entry into this zone is 

prohibited unless authorized by the 

Captain of the Port, Hampton Roads, 

Virginia, or his designated 

representative. 

(2) The operator of any vessel in the 

immediate vicinity of this security zone 

shall: 

(i) Stop the vessel immediately upon 

being directed to do so by the Captain 

of the Port, Hampton Roads, Virginia, or 

his designated representative on board a 

vessel displaying a U.S. Coast Guard 

Ensign. 

(ii) Proceed as directed by the Captain 

of the Port, Hampton Roads, Virginia, or 

his designated representative on board a 

vessel displaying a U.S. Coast Guard 

Ensign. 

(3) The Captain of the Port, Hampton 

Roads, Virginia can be contacted at 

telephone number (757) 668–5555. 

(4) U.S. Coast Guard vessels enforcing 

the security zone can be contacted on 

VHF–FM marine band radio, channel 13 

(156.65 MHz) and channel 16 (156.8 

MHz). 

(d) Enforcement period: The security 

zone will be enforced from 3 p.m. until 

10 p.m. on May 11, 2007; from 9 a.m. 

to 11 p.m. on May 12, 2007; and from 

9 a.m. to 10 p.m. on May 13, 2007. 

(e) Effective Date: This regulation is 

effective from 3 p.m. on May 11, 2007, 

to 10 p.m. on May 13, 2007. 

Dated: February 27, 2007. 

Patrick B. Trapp, 

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

Port, Hampton Roads. 

[FR Doc. E7–4303 Filed 3–9–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–15–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2006–0635; FRL–8286–6] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; Revisions to the 

Nevada State Implementation Plan; 

Visible Emissions and Particulate 

Matter Rules 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

revisions to the Nevada Department of 

Conservation and Natural Resources 

portion of the Nevada State 

Implementation Plan. These revisions 

concern visible emissions and 

particulate matter regulations. EPA is 

proposing this action under the Clean 

Air Act obligation to take action on 

State submittals of revisions to state 

implementation plans. The intended 

effect is to approve updated visible 

emissions and particulate matter rules 

in the Nevada State Implementation 

Plan because doing so will not interfere 

with attainment or maintenance of the 

national ambient air quality standards 

or any other requirement of the Clean 

Air Act. EPA is taking comments on this 

proposal and plans to follow with a 

final action. 

DATES: Any comments must arrive by 

April 11, 2007. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, 

identified by docket number EPA–R09–

OAR–2006–0635, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

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

on-line instructions. 

2. E-mail: steckel.andrew@epa.gov. 

3. Mail or deliver: Andrew Steckel 

(Air–4), U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, 

San Francisco, CA 94105–3901. 

Instructions: All comments will be 

included in the public docket without 

change and may be made available 

online at www.regulations.gov, 

including any personal information 

provided, unless the comment includes 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Information that 

you consider CBI or otherwise protected 

should be clearly identified as such and 

should not be submitted through 

www.regulations.gov or e-mail. 

www.regulations.gov is an ‘‘anonymous 

access’’ system, and EPA will not know 

your identity or contact information 

unless you provide it in the body of 

your comment. If you send e-mail 

directly to EPA, your e-mail address 

will be automatically captured and 

included as part of the public comment. 

If EPA cannot read your comment due 

to technical difficulties and cannot 

contact you for clarification, EPA may 

not be able to consider your comment. 

Docket: The index to the docket for 

this action is available electronically at 

www.regulations.gov and in hard copy 

at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, 

San Francisco, California. While all 

documents in the docket are listed in 

the index, some information may be 

publicly available only at the hard copy 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL