Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 183 / Thursday, September 22, 2005 / Proposed Rules 55607 

Comments Due Date 

(a) The Federal Aviation Administration 

must receive comments on this AD action by 

October 24, 2005. 

Affected ADs 

(b) None. 

Applicability 

(c) This AD applies to Model C–212–CC 

series airplanes, certificated in any category, 

modified in accordance with Supplemental 

Type Certificate (STC) ST02177AK, or by 

field approval using STC ST02177AK as a 

basis for the field approval. 

Unsafe Condition 

(d) This AD was prompted by our 

determination that affected airplanes, when 

carrying both cargo and passengers in the 

same compartment, cannot achieve the 

required level of performance. We are issuing 

this AD to prevent a hazardous quantity of 

smoke, flames, and/or fire extinguishing 

agent from the cargo compartment from 

entering a compartment occupied by 

passengers or crew. 

Compliance 

(e) You are responsible for having the 

actions required by this AD performed within 

the compliance times specified, unless the 

actions have already been done. 

Modification 

(f) As of 12 months after the effective date 

of this AD, no person may operate an 

airplane in the combi configuration, unless 

the actions specified by either paragraph 

(f)(1) or (f)(2) are done in accordance with a 

method approved by the Manager, Anchorage 

Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA. 

(1) Modify the airplane to incorporate a 

protective liner between the passengers and 

the cargo and to ensure compliance with 

section 25.855 (‘‘Cargo or baggage 

compartment’’) of the Federal Aviation 

Regulations (14 CFR 25.855). 

(2) Comply with the terms and conditions 

specified in paragraphs (f)(2)(i) through 

(f)(2)(vi) of this AD. 

(i) There are means to extinguish or control 

a fire without requiring a crewmember to 

enter the compartment. 

(ii) There are means to exclude hazardous 

quantities of smoke, flames, or extinguishing 

agent from any compartment occupied by the 

crew or passengers. 

(iii) There is a separate approved smoke 

detector or fire detector system to give 

warning at the pilot or flight engineer station. 

(iv) Crew members must receive training in 

the use of the fire extinguishers and the cargo 

fire containment covers; they must also 

receive training in the use of the approved 

procedure for the elimination of smoke and 

fumes that is specified in the AFM. 

(v) Two additional fire extinguishers must 

be carried on the airplane. 

(vi) Limitations (f)(2)(i) through (f)(2)(v) 

must be documented as operating limitations 

in the limitations section of the Airplane 

Flight Manual Supplement. 

Special Flight Permits 

(g) Special flight permits may be issued in 

accordance with sections 21.197 and 21.199 

of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 

21.197 and 21.199) to operate the airplane to 

a location where the airplane can be 

modified (if the operator elects to do so), 

provided no passengers are onboard. 

Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs) 

(h) The Manager, Anchorage Aircraft 

Certification Office, FAA, has the authority to 

approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in 

accordance with the procedures found in 14 

CFR 39.19. 

Issued in Renton, Washington, on 

September 16, 2005. 

Ali Bahrami, 

Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, 

Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 05–18908 Filed 9–21–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 165 

[COTP San Francisco Bay 05–007] 

RIN 1625–AA87 

Security Zones; San Francisco Bay, 

San Pablo Bay, Carquinez Strait, 

Suisun Bay, CA 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to 

establish fixed security zones in the 

waters extending approximately 100 

yards around six separate oil refinery 

piers in the San Francisco Bay area. 

These security zones are an integral part 

of the Coast Guard’s efforts to protect 

these facilities and the surrounding 

areas from destruction or damage due to 

accidents, subversive acts, or other 

causes of a similar nature. The proposed 

security zones would prohibit all 

persons and vessels from entering, 

transiting through or anchoring within 

portions of the designated waters of San 

Francisco Bay, San Pablo Bay, 

Carquinez Strait, and Suisun Bay, 

unless authorized by the Captain of the 

Port (‘‘COTP’’) or his designated 

representative. These zones will be 

subject to discretionary and random 

patrol and monitoring by Coast Guard, 

federal, state and local law enforcement 

assets. 

DATES: Comments and related material 

must reach the Coast Guard on or before 

November 21, 2005. 

ADDRESSES: You can mail comments 

and related material to the Waterways 

Safety Branch, U.S. Coast Guard Sector 

San Francisco, Coast Guard Island, 

Alameda, California 94501. The 

Waterways Safety Branch maintains the 

public docket for this rulemaking. 

Comments and material received from 

the public, as well as documents 

indicated in this preamble as being 

available in the docket, will become part 

of this docket and will be available for 

inspection or copying at the Waterways 

Safety Branch between 9 a.m. and 4 

p.m., Monday through Friday, except 

Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Lieutenant Ian Callander, U.S. Coast 

Guard Sector San Francisco, at (510) 

437–3401 or the Sector San Francisco 

Command Center, at (415) 399–3547. 

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 (COTP 05–007), 

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. 

Public Meeting 

We do not now plan to hold a public 

meeting. But you may submit a request 

for a meeting by writing to the 

Waterways Safety Branch 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 

As part of the Diplomatic Security 

and Antiterrorism Act of 1986 (Pub. L. 

99–399), Congress amended section 7 of 

the Ports and Waterways Safety Act 

(PWSA), 33 U.S.C. 1226, to allow the 

Coast Guard to take actions, including 

the establishment of security and safety 

zones, to prevent or respond to acts of 

terrorism against individuals, vessels, or 

public or commercial structures. The 

Coast Guard also has authority to 

establish security zones pursuant to the 

Act of June 15, 1917, as amended by the 

Magnuson Act of August 9, 1950 (50 

U.S.C. 191 et seq.) and implementing 

55608 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 183 / Thursday, September 22, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

regulations promulgated by the 

President in subparts 6.01 and 6.04 of 

part 6 of title 33 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations. 

To address the aforementioned 

security concerns and to take steps to 

prevent the catastrophic impact that a 

terrorist attack against an oil facility pier 

would have on the public and the 

environment, we propose to establish 

security zones in the waters within 

approximately 100 yards of six oil 

refinery piers. These zones are 

necessary to protect the people, ports, 

waterways, and properties of San 

Francisco Bay, San Pablo Bay, 

Carquinez Strait, and Suisun Bay areas. 

Discussion of Proposed Rule 

The Coast Guard proposes to establish 

a separate fixed security zone around 

each of six oil refinery piers. The zones 

will encompass the waters extending 

from the surface to the sea floor, within 

an area approximately 100 yards around 

the selected oil refinery piers located 

within San Francisco Bay, California. 

The specific coordinates defining these 

zones are given in paragraph (a) of 

proposed 33 CFR 165.1197. 

For the Chevron-Texaco oil facility, 

the proposed security zone would 

extend approximately 100 yards into the 

waters of San Francisco Bay around the 

Chevron Long Wharf, located in 

Richmond, California. 

For the Conoco-Phillips oil facility, 

the proposed security zone would 

extend approximately 100 yards into the 

waters of San Pablo Bay around the 

Conoco-Philips Wharf, located in 

Rodeo, California. 

For the Shell Martinez oil facility, the 

proposed security zone would extend 

approximately 100 yards into the waters 

of Carquinez Strait around the Shell 

Terminal, located in Martinez, 

California. 

For the Tesoro-Amorco oil facility, the 

proposed security zone would extend 

approximately 100 yards into the waters 

of Carquinez Strait around the Amorco 

Pier, located in Martinez, California. 

For the Valero oil facility, the 

proposed security zone would extend 

approximately 100 yards into the waters 

of Carquinez Strait around the Valero 

Pier, located in Benicia, California. 

For the Tesoro-Avon oil facility, the 

proposed security zone would extend 

approximately 100 yards into the waters 

of Suisun Bay around the Avon Pier, 

located in Martinez, California. 

These zones will be subject to 

discretionary and random patrol and 

monitoring by Coast Guard, federal, 

state and local law enforcement assets. 

In December 2002, the Coast Guard 

established permanent moving security 

zones around all tank vessels within 

San Francisco Bay to enhance security 

during their transit, mooring and 

anchorage (67 FR 79854, December 31, 

2002). This proposed rule would extend 

this level of security to oil refinery piers 

by restricting access to the waters 

surrounding the piers. Each of these 

proposed security zones would provide 

a margin of safety for ongoing 

operations at the refinery piers. 

Vessels or persons violating this 

section would be subject to the penalties 

set forth in 33 U.S.C. 1232 and 50 U.S.C. 

192. Pursuant to 33 U.S.C. 1232, any 

violation of the security zones described 

herein, is punishable by civil penalties 

(not to exceed $32,500 per violation, 

where each day of a continuing 

violation is a separate violation), 

criminal penalties (imprisonment up to 

6 years and a maximum fine of 

$250,000) and in rem liability against 

the offending vessel. Any person who 

violates this section using a dangerous 

weapon, or who engages in conduct that 

causes bodily injury or fear of imminent 

bodily injury to any officer authorized 

to enforce this regulation also faces 

imprisonment up to 12 years. Vessels or 

persons violating this section are also 

subject to the penalties set forth in 50 

U.S.C. 192: seizure and forfeiture of the 

vessel to the United States, a maximum 

criminal fine of $10,000, and 

imprisonment up to 10 years. The 

Captain of the Port may enlist the aid 

and cooperation of any Federal, State, 

county, municipal, or private agency to 

assist in the enforcement of the 

regulation. 

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 

proposed rule restricts access to the 

waters encompassed by the security 

zones, the effect of this proposed rule 

would not be significant because: (i) The 

zones would encompass only small 

portions of the waterways, (ii) vessels 

would be able to pass safely around the 

zones, and (iii) vessels may be allowed 

to enter these zones on a case-by-case 

basis with permission of the Captain of 

the Port or his designated 

representative. 

The size of the proposed zones are the 

minimum necessary to provide adequate 

protection for the oil refinery piers, 

vessels engaged in operations at the oil 

facility piers, their crews, other vessels 

operating in the vicinity, and the public. 

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 may affect 

the following entities, some of which 

may be small entities: owners and 

operators of private vessels intending to 

fish or sightsee near the oil refinery 

piers. 

The proposed security zones would 

not have a significant economic impact 

on a substantial number of small entities 

for several reasons: (i) Vessel traffic 

would be able to pass safely around the 

area, (ii) vessels engaged in recreational 

activities, sightseeing and commercial 

fishing would have ample space outside 

of the security zones to engage in these 

activities, and (iii) vessels may receive 

authorization to transit through the 

zones by the Captain of the Port or his 

designated representative on a case-bycase basis. In addition to publication in 

the Federal Register, small entities and 

the maritime public would be advised of 

these security zones via public notice to 

mariners. 

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 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 183 / Thursday, September 22, 2005 / Proposed Rules 55609 

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 

Lieutenant Ian Callander, Waterways 

Safety Branch, U.S. Coast Guard Sector 

San Francisco, at (510) 437–3701 or the 

Sector San Francisco Command Center, 

at (415) 399–3547. 

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 would not 

result in such an expenditure, we do 

discuss the effects of this proposed rule 

elsewhere in this preamble. 

Taking of Private Property 

This proposed rule would 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 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 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.lD, which guides 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, this 

proposed rule is categorically excluded, 

under figure 2–1, paragraph (34)(g), of 

the Instruction, from further 

environmental documentation because 

it would establish security zones. 

A draft ‘‘Environmental Analysis 

Check List’’ and a draft ‘‘Categorical 

Exclusion Determination’’ (CED) will be 

available in the docket where indicated 

under ADDRESSES. Comments on this 

section will be considered before we 

make the final decision on whether the 

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 § 165.1197, to read as follows: 

§ 165.1197 Security Zones; San Francisco 

Bay, San Pablo Bay, Carquinez Strait, 

Suisun Bay, California. 

(a) Locations. The following areas are 

security zones: 

(1) Chevron Long Wharf, San 

Francisco Bay. This security zone 

includes all waters extending from the 

surface to the sea floor within 

approximately 100 yards of the Chevron 

Long Wharf, Richmond, CA, and 

encompasses all waters in San Francisco 

Bay within a line connecting the 

following geographical positions—

Latitude Longitude 

37°55′52.2′′ N 122°24′04.7′′ W 

37°55′41.8′′ N 122°24′07.1′′ W 

37°55′26.8′′ N 122°24′35.9′′ W 

37°55′47.1′′ N 122°24′55.5′′ W 

37°55′42.9′′ N 122°25′03.5′′ W 

37°55′11.2′′ N 122°24′32.8′′ W 

37°55′14.4′′ N 122°24′27.5′′ W 

37°55′19.7′′ N 122°24′23.7′′ W 

37°55′22.2′′ N 122°24′26.2′′ W 

37°55′38.5′′ N 122°23′56.9′′ W 

37°55′47.8′′ N 122°23′53.3′′ W 

and along the shoreline back to the 

beginning point. 

(2) Conoco-Phillips Wharf, San Pablo 

Bay. This security zone includes all 

waters extending from the surface to the 

55610 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 183 / Thursday, September 22, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

sea floor within approximately 100 

yards of the Conoco-Phillips Wharf, 

Rodeo, CA, and encompasses all waters 

in San Pablo Bay within a line 

connecting the following geographical 

positions—

Latitude Longitude 

38°03′06.0′′ N 122°15′32.4′′ W 

38°03′20.7′′ N 122°15′35.8′′ W 

38°03′21.8′′ N 122°15′29.8′′ W 

38°03′29.1′′ N 122°15′31.8′′ W 

38°03′23.8′′ N 122°15′55.8′′ W 

38°03′16.8′′ N 122°15′53.2′′ W 

38°03′18.6′′ N 122°15′45.2′′ W 

38°03′04.0′′ N 122°15′42.0′′ W 

and along the shoreline back to the 

beginning point. 

(3) Shell Terminal, Carquinez Strait. 

This security zone includes all waters 

extending from the surface to the sea 

floor within approximately 100 yards of 

the Shell Terminal, Martinez, CA, and 

encompasses all waters in San Pablo 

Bay within a line connecting the 

following geographical position—

Latitude Longitude 

38°01′39.8′′ N 122°07′40.3′′ W 

38°01′54.0′′ N 122°07′43.0′′ W 

38°01′56.9′′ N 122°07′37.9′′ W 

38°02′02.7′′ N 122°07′42.6′′ W 

38°01′49.5′′ N 122°08′08.7′′ W 

38°01′43.7′′ N 122°08′04.2′′ W 

38°01′50.1′′ N 122°07′50.5′′ W 

38°01′36.3′′ N 122°07′47.6′′ W 

and along the shoreline back to the 

beginning point. 

(4) Amorco Pier, Carquinez Strait. 

This security zone includes all waters 

extending from the surface to the sea 

floor within approximately 100 yards of 

the Amorco Pier, Martinez, CA, and 

encompasses all waters in the Carquinez 

Strait within a line connecting the 

following geographical positions—

Latitude Longitude 

38°02′03.1′′ N 122°07′11.9′′ W 

38°02′05.6′′ N 122°07′18.9′′ W 

38°02′07.9′′ N 122°07′14.9′′ W 

38°02′13.0′′ N 122°07′19.4′′ W 

38°02′05.7′′ N 122°07′35.9′′ W 

38°02′00.5′′ N 122°07′31.1′′ W 

38°02′01.8′′ N 122°07′27.3′′ W 

38°01′55.0′′ N 122°07′11.0′′ W 

and along the shoreline back to the 

beginning point. 

(5) Valero Pier, Carquinez Strait. This 

security zone includes all waters 

extending from the surface to the sea 

floor within approximately 100 yards of 

the Valero Pier, Benicia, CA, and 

encompasses all waters in the Carquinez 

Strait within a line connecting the 

following geographical positions—

Latitude Longitude 

38°02′37.6′′ N 122°07′51.5′′ W 

38°02′34.7′′ N 122°07′48.9′′ W 

38°02′44.1′′ N 122°07′34.9′′ W 

38°02′48.0′′ N 122°07′37.9′′ W 

38°02′47.7′′ N 122°07′42.1′′ W 

and along the shoreline back to the 

beginning point. 

(6) Avon Pier, Suisun Bay. This 

security zone includes all waters 

extending from the surface to the sea 

floor within approximately 100 yards of 

the Avon Pier, Martinez, CA, and 

encompasses all waters in Suisun Bay 

within a line connecting the following 

geographical positions—

Latitude Longitude 

38°02′24.6′′ N 122°04′52.9′′ W 

38°02′54.0′′ N 122°05′19.5′′ W 

38°02′55.8′′ N 122°05′16.1′′ W 

38°03′02.1′′ N 122°05′19.4′′ W 

38°02′55.1′′ N 122°05′42.6′′ W 

38°02′48.8′′ N 122°05′39.2′′ W 

38°02′52.4′′ N 122°05′27.7′′ W 

38°02′46.5′′ N 122°05′22.4′′ W 

and along the shoreline back to the 

beginning point. 

(b) Regulations. (1) In accordance 

with the general regulations in § 165.33, 

entry into the security zones described 

in paragraph (a) of this section is 

prohibited, unless specifically 

authorized by the Captain of the Port 

San Francisco Bay, or his designated 

representative. 

(2) Persons desiring to transit the area 

of a security zone may contact the 

Captain of the Port at telephone number 

(415) 399–3547 or on VHF–FM channel 

16 (156.8 MHz) to seek permission to 

transit the area. If permission is granted, 

all persons and vessels must comply 

with the instructions of the Captain of 

the Port or his designated 

representative. 

(c) Enforcement. The U.S. Coast 

Guard may be assisted in the patrol and 

enforcement of these security zones by 

federal, state and local law enforcement 

assets. 

Dated: September 9, 2005. 

W.J. Uberti, 

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

Port, San Francisco Bay, California. 

[FR Doc. 05–18935 Filed 9–21–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–15–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 

[R05–OAR–2005–IL–0002; FRL–7972–8] 

Designation of Areas for Air Quality 

Planning Purposes; Illinois; Lyons 

Township PM–10 Redesignation and 

Maintenance Plan 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

the State of Illinois’ request to 

redesignate to attainment the Lyons 

Township (McCook) area currently 

designated as nonattainment of the 

National Ambient Air Quality Standard 

(NAAQS) for particulate matter with an 

aerodynamic diameter less than or equal 

to a nominal 10 micrometers (PM–10). 

We are also proposing to approve the 

Lyons Township maintenance plan, 

submitted by the Illinois Environmental 

Protection Agency (IEPA) on August 2, 

2005, as a revision to the PM–10 State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) for this area. 

In the final rules section of this 

Federal Register, EPA is approving the 

SIP revision as a direct final rule 

without prior proposal, because EPA 

views this as a noncontroversial 

revision and anticipates no adverse 

comments. A detailed rationale for the 

approval is set forth in the direct final 

rule. If we do not receive any adverse 

comments in response to these direct 

final and proposed rules, we do not 

contemplate taking any further action in 

relation to this proposed rule. If EPA 

receives adverse comments, we will 

withdraw the direct final rule and will 

respond to all public comments in a 

subsequent final rule based on this 

proposed rule. EPA will not institute a 

second comment period on this action. 

Any parties interested in commenting 

on this action should do so at this time. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before October 24, 2005. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, 

identified by Regional Material in 

EDocket (RME) ID No. R05–OAR–2005–

IL–0002 by one of the following 

methods: 

Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Agency Web site: http:// 

docket.epa.gov/rmepub/. 

RME, EPA’s electronic public docket 

and comment system, is EPA’s preferred 

method for receiving comments. Once 

in the system, select ‘‘quick search,’’

then key in the appropriate RME Docket