19920 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 82 / Thursday, April 30, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

petition as a wine industry marketing 

effort. A local resident states that the 

proposed Paso Robles Westside 

viticultural area ‘‘includes a wide 

diversity of land, climate, geology and 

soils as to be a completely arbitrary 

division.’’ Other commenters contend, 

similar to the PRAVAC, that the 

recognized ‘‘west side’’ of the Paso 

Robles region encompasses only a 

western portion of the City of Paso 

Robles and the Adelaida District, not the 

significantly larger proposed Paso 

Robles Westside viticultural area. 

Dr. Thomas Rice, a certified 

professional soil scientist who provided 

soil information for the Paso Robles 

Westside viticultural area petition, 

submitted two comments opposing 

Notice No. 71 (comments 94 and 129). 

In his opposing comments, Dr. Rice 

states that some of his soils information 

‘‘has been inaccurately quoted’’ and that 

‘‘some erroneous conclusions regarding 

the soils in the Paso Robles AVA have 

been stated in the final petition.’’ He 

adds that ‘‘not a single soil series 

mapped by the USDA that occurs within 

the proposed Paso Robles Westside 

AVA is unique to that area.’’ He 

concludes by urging TTB ‘‘to reject the 

Paso Robles Westside petition based on 

its inaccurate, misleading and false 

statements related to topography and 

soils diversity within the larger Paso 

Robles AVA.’’ 

Opposing commenter Richard 

Hoenisch (comment 112), a plant 

pathologist at the University of 

California, Davis, and the education 

director for the western region of the 

National Plant Diagnostic Network, 

explains that he served for six years as 

the founding manager of the Tablas 

Creek Winery in Paso Robles. Mr. 

Hoenisch states that, based on his past 

and current experience and knowledge, 

the proposed Paso Robles Westside 

viticultural area ‘‘includes too many 

different geologies, soil types, and 

micro-climates.’’ Mr. Hoenisch 

concludes that the Paso Robles area 

contains many distinct and excellent 

potential viticultural area sites. 

Mr. Donald Schucraft, a certified 

consulting meteorologist with the 

Western Weather Group, explains in his 

opposing comment (comment 122) that 

in the mid-1990’s he led a team of 

meteorologists and physical scientists 

that established a network of automated 

weather stations in the Paso Robles 

region, and that these stations continue 

to provide key information for localized 

Paso Robles weather forecasts. Based on 

the data from these stations, Mr. 

Schucraft states that the Salinas River 

does not provide a suitable boundary 

line for the many different 

microclimates found in the Paso Robles 

viticultural area. He notes that there are 

distinct microclimates to the west of the 

Salinas River within the proposed Paso 

Robles Westside viticultural area, and 

that these microclimates change from 

north to south as well as to east to west. 

Seasonal rainfall, according to Mr. 

Schucraft, varies from 11 to 12 inches in 

the northern-most part of the proposed 

Paso Robles Westside viticultural area to 

27 to 28 inches in the southern-most 

part. Also, air temperatures, influenced 

by the marine air passing through the 

Templeton Gap, and wind speeds, 

influenced by the Salinas River Valley 

Basin, vary widely within the proposed 

viticultural area. Mr. Schucraft 

concludes that observed weather in the 

Paso Robles region fails to define the 

proposed Paso Robles Westside 

viticultural area as a single viticultural 

region, but instead supports the 

existence of multiple viticultural 

regions within the existing Paso Robles 

viticultural area. 

TTB Finding 

TTB notes that there is a marked lack 

of unanimity among the commenters 

concerning the appropriateness of 

establishing the proposed Paso Robles 

Westside viticultural area. While 

substantial petition evidence and a large 

number of comments support the 

establishment of the proposed 

viticultural area, we also received a 

significant number of comments setting 

forth information that refutes, or is 

otherwise inconsistent with that 

petition evidence. Some of those 

comments challenge the 

appropriateness of the Paso Robles 

Westside name. Other commenters, 

including scientific experts, contradict 

the geographical feature evidence 

presented in the petition and relied 

upon by TTB in Notice No. 71 as a basis 

for proposing the establishment of the 

Paso Robles Westside viticultural area. 

Given the conflicting information 

before us, we cannot conclude that a 

delimited grape-growing region exists 

that is recognized by the name ‘‘Paso 

Robles Westside,’’ or that the area 

described in Notice No. 71 is 

distinguishable by geographical 

features. Accordingly, TTB hereby 

withdraws its proposal to establish the 

Paso Robles Westside viticultural area. 

With regard to the petitions submitted 

by the PRAVAC to establish 11 smaller 

viticultural areas within the Paso Robles 

viticultural area, TTB will review those 

11 petitions independently from this 

regulatory action. A notice regarding the 

PRAVAC proposal to expand the 

existing Paso Robles viticultural area 

was published in the Federal Register 

on July 15, 2008 (see Notice No. 85, 73 

FR 40474). 

Signed: February 12, 2009. 

John J. Manfreda, 

Administrator. 

Approved: February 27, 2009. 

Timothy E. Skud, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary (Tax, Trade, and 

Tariff Policy). 

[FR Doc. E9–9855 Filed 4–29–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4810–31–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 165 

[USCG–2009–0110] 

RIN 1625–AA00 

Safety Zone; Thunder on Niagara, 

Niagara River, North Tonawanda, NY 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes 

establishment of a safety zone for a 

powerboat race in the Captain of the 

Port Buffalo zone. This proposed rule is 

intended to restrict vessels from areas of 

water during events that pose a hazard 

to public safety. The safety zone 

established by this proposed rule is 

necessary to protect spectators, 

participants, and vessels from the 

hazards associated with a powerboat 

race. 

DATES: Comments and related materials 

must be received by the Coast Guard on 

or before June 29, 2009. Requests for 

public meetings must be received by the 

Coast Guard on or before May 29, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

identified by docket number USCG– 

2009–0110 using 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 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 82 / Thursday, April 30, 2009 / Proposed Rules 19921 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section 

below for instructions on submitting 

comments. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you have questions on this proposed 

rule, contact Lieutenant Brian Sadler, 

Prevention Department, U.S. Coast 

Guard Sector Buffalo, at (716) 843–9573. 

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–2009–0110), 

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 deliver, 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 delivery, 

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, select the 

Advanced Docket Search option on the 

right side of the screen, insert ‘‘USCG– 

2009–0110 in the Docket ID box, press 

Enter, and 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 proposed rule in view of them. 

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– 

2009–0119 in the Docket ID box, press 

Enter, and then click on the item in the 

Docket ID column. You may also visit 

either 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; 

or the Coast Guard Sector Buffalo, 1 

Fuhrmann Blvd., Buffalo, NY 14203 

between 8 a.m. and 4 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 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 on or before May 29, 2009 using 

one of the four methods specified under 

ADDRESSES. Please explain why you 

believe a public meeting would be 

beneficial. If we determine that one 

would aid this rulemaking, we will hold 

one at a time and place announced by 

a later notice in the Federal Register. 

Background and Purpose 

Temporary safety zones are necessary 

to ensure the safety of vessels and 

spectators from the hazards associated 

with powerboat races. Based on recent 

accidents that have occurred in other 

Captain of the Port zones, the Captain of 

the Port Buffalo, has determined 

powerboat races pose significant risks to 

public safety and property. The likely 

combination of large numbers of 

recreational vessels, congested 

waterways, and alcohol use, could 

easily result in serious injuries or 

fatalities. 

Discussion of Proposed Rule 

The proposed rule and associated 

safety zone are necessary to ensure the 

safety of vessels and people during 

events in the Captain of the Port Buffalo 

area of responsibility that may pose a 

hazard to the public. The proposed 

safety zone is described in subparagraph 

(1) of this regulation. The proposed 

safety zone will be enforced only 

immediately before and during the 

event which poses hazard to the public 

and only upon notice by the Captain of 

the Port. The Captain of the Port Buffalo 

will cause notice of enforcement of the 

safety zone established by this section to 

be made by all appropriate means to the 

affected segments of the public 

including publication in the Federal 

Register as practicable, in accordance 

with 33 CFR 165.7(a). Such means of 

notification may also include, but are 

not limited to Broadcast Notice to 

Mariners or Local Notice to Mariners. 

The Captain of the Port will issue a 

Broadcast Notice to Mariners notifying 

the public when enforcement of the 

safety zone established by this section is 

suspended. 

Regulatory Analyses 

We developed this proposed rule after 

considering numerous statutes and 

executive orders related to rulemaking. 

Below we summarize our analyses 

based on 13 of these statutes or 

executive orders. 

Regulatory Planning and Review 

This proposed rule is not a significant 

regulatory action under section 3(f) of 

Executive Order 12866, Regulatory 

Planning and Review, and does not 

require an assessment of potential costs 

and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that 

Order. The Office of Management and 

Budget has not reviewed it under that 

Order. 

We expect the economic impact of 

this proposed rule to be so minimal that 

a full Regulatory Evaluation is 

unnecessary. The Coast Guard’s use of 

this safety zone will be periodic in 

nature, of short duration, and designed 

to minimize the impact on navigable 

waters. This safety zone will only be 

enforced immediately before and during 

the time the event occurs. Furthermore, 

this safety zone has been designed to 

allow vessels to transit unrestricted to 

portions of the waterway not affected by 

the safety zone. The Coast Guard 

expects insignificant adverse impact to 

mariners from the activation of this 

safety zone. 

Small Entities 

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(5 U.S.C. 601–612), we have considered 

19922 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 82 / Thursday, April 30, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

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 the area designated as the 

safety zone in subparagraph (1) during 

the date and time the safety zone is 

being enforced. This safety zone would 

not have a significant economic impact 

on a substantial number of small entities 

for the following reasons. The safety 

zone in this proposed rule would be in 

effect for short periods of time and only 

once per year. The proposed safety zone 

has been designed to allow traffic to 

pass safely around the zone whenever 

possible and vessels will be allowed to 

pass through the zone with the 

permission of the Captain of the Port. 

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 proposed rule would affect your 

small business, organization, or 

governmental jurisdiction and you have 

questions concerning its provisions or 

options for compliance, please contact 

LT Brian Sadler, Prevention 

Department, Coast Guard Sector Buffalo, 

Buffalo, NY at (716) 843–9573. 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 will not 

result in such expenditure, we do 

discuss the effects of this proposed rule 

elsewhere in this preamble. 

Taking of Private Property 

This proposed rule will not effect the 

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 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 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 0023–01 

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 

under the Instruction that this action is 

one of a category of actions which do 

not individually or cumulatively have a 

significant effect on the human 

environment. A preliminary 

environmental analysis checklist 

supporting this determination is 

available in the docket where indicated 

under ADDRESSES. We seek any 

comments or information that may lead 

to the discovery of a significant 

environmental impact from this 

proposed rule. 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 82 / Thursday, April 30, 2009 / Proposed Rules 19923 

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. Add § 165.T09–0110 to read as 

follows: 

§ 165.T09–0110 Safety Zone; Thunder on 

Niagara, Niagara River, North Tonawanda, 

NY. 

(a) Location. The following area is a 

temporary safety zone: all waters of the 

Upper Niagara River, North Tonawanda, 

NY within two miles of the Grand 

Island Bridge located at 42°03′36′′ N, 

078°54′45′′ W to 43°03′09′′ N, 078°55′21′′ 

W to 43°03′00′′ N, 078°53′42′′ W to 

43°02′42′′ N, 078°54′09′′ W. All 

Geographic coordinates are North 

American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83). 

(b) Effective Period. This regulation is 

effective from 11 a.m. August 29, 2009 

to 6 p.m. August 30, 2009. This zone 

will be enforced from 11 a.m. to 6 p.m. 

on August 29, 2009 and August 30, 

2009. 

(c) Regulations. 

(1) The general regulations contained 

in 33 CFR 165.23 apply. 

(2) All persons and vessels must 

comply with the instructions of the 

Coast Guard Captain of the Port or the 

designated on scene patrol personnel. 

Coast Guard patrol personnel include 

commissioned, warrant, and petty 

officers of the U.S. Coast Guard. Upon 

being hailed by a U.S. Coast Guard 

vessel via siren, radio, flashing light, or 

other means, the operator shall proceed 

as directed. 

(3) Commercial vessels may request 

permission from the Captain of the Port 

Buffalo to transit the safety zone. 

Approval will be made on a case-bycase basis. Requests must be made in 

advance and approved by the Captain of 

the Port before transits will be 

authorized. The Captain of the Port may 

be contacted via U.S. Coast Guard 

Sector Buffalo on Channel 16, VHF–FM. 

Dated: March 6, 2009. 

R.S. Burchell, 

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

Port Buffalo. 

[FR Doc. E9–9993 Filed 4–29–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–15–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 165 

[Docket No. USCG–2008–0125] 

RIN 1625–AA87 

Security Zone; Freeport Channel 

Entrance, Freeport, TX 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to 

establish moving security zones for 

certain vessels, for which the Captain of 

the Port, Houston-Galveston deems 

enhanced security measures necessary 

on a case-by-case basis. These moving 

security zones would extend 1,000 

yards ahead and astern and 500 yards 

on each side of certain vessels, which 

would display the international signal 

flag or pennant number five to signal a 

security zone is established around the 

vessel. The moving security zone may 

commence at any point after certain 

vessels bound for the Port of Freeport 

enter the U.S. territorial waters (12 

nautical miles) in the Captain of the Port 

(COTP) Houston-Galveston zone. These 

security zones are needed to safeguard 

the vessels, the public, and the 

surrounding area from sabotage or other 

subversive acts, accidents, or other 

events of a similar nature. Unless 

exempted under this rule, entry into or 

movement within these security zones 

would be prohibited without permission 

from the COTP Houston-Galveston. 

DATES: Comments and related material 

must reach the Coast Guard on or before 

June 1, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

identified by Coast Guard docket 

number USCG–2008–0125 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. 

(5) 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: 

Lieutenant Cliff Harder, Marine Safety 

Unit Galveston, telephone (409) 978– 

2700, extension 2705, or e-mail 

cliff.j.harder@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–2008–0125), 

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, select the 

Advanced Docket Search option on the 

right side of the screen, insert ‘‘USCG– 

2008–0124’’ in the Docket ID box, press 

Enter, and then click on the balloon 

shape in the Actions column. If you 

submit your comments by mail or hand