56308 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

5. In § 52.137, paragraph (a)(26) is 

added to read as follows: 

§ 52.137 Contents of applications; 

technical information. 

* * * * * 

(a) * * * 

(26) For applications for standard 

design approvals which are subject to 10 

CFR 52.500, the information required by 

10 CFR 52.500. 

* * * * * 

6. In § 52.157, paragraph (f)(32) is 

added to read as follows: 

§ 52.157 Contents of applications; 

technical information in final safety analysis 

report. 

* * * * * 

(f) * * * 

(32) For applications for 

manufacturing licenses which are 

subject to 10 CFR 52.500, the 

information required by 10 CFR 52.500. 

7. In § 52.303, paragraph (b) is revised 

to read as follows: 

§ 52.303 Criminal penalties. 

* * * * * 

(b) The regulations in part 52 that are 

not issued under Sections 161b, 161i, or 

161o for the purposes of Section 223 are 

as follows: §§ 52.0, 52.1, 52.2, 52.3, 52.7, 

52.8, 52.9, 52.10, 52.11, 52.12, 52.13, 

52.15, 52.16, 52.17, 52.18, 52.21, 52.23, 

52.24, 52.27, 52.28, 52.29, 52.31, 52.33, 

52.39, 52.41, 52.43, 52.45, 52.46, 52.47, 

52.48, 52.51, 52.53, 52.54, 52.55, 52.57, 

52.59, 52.61, 52.63, 52.71, 52.73, 52.75, 

52.77, 52.79, 52.80, 52.81, 52.83, 52.85, 

52.87, 52.93, 52.97, 52.98, 52.103, 

52.104, 52.105, 52.107, 52.109, 52.131, 

52.133, 52.135, 52.136, 52.137, 52.139, 

52.141, 52.143, 52.145, 52.147, 52.151, 

52.153, 52.155, 52.156, 52.157, 52.158, 

52.159, 52.161, 52.163, 52.165, 52.167, 

52.171, 52.173, 52.175, 52.177, 52.179, 

52.181, 52.301, 52.303, 52.500, and 

52.502. 

8. A new subpart K—Additional 

Requirements and § 52.500 are added to 

read as follows: 

Subpart K—Additional Requirements 

Sec. 

52.500 Aircraft impact assessment. 

52.502 Control of changes to FSAR 

information. 

Subpart K—Additional Requirements 

§ 52.500 Aircraft impact assessment. 

(a) The requirements of this section 

apply to all standard design 

certifications issued after [EFFECTIVE 

DATE OF FINAL RULE] that do not 

reference a standard design approval; 

standard design approvals issued after 

[EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE]; 

combined licenses issued after 

[EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE] 

that do not reference a standard design 

certification, standard design approval, 

or manufactured reactor; and 

manufacturing licenses issued after 

[EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE] 

that do not reference a standard design 

certification or standard design 

approval. 

(b) Each applicant for a standard 

design certification not referencing a 

standard design approval; a standard 

design approval; a combined license not 

referencing a standard design 

certification, standard design approval, 

manufacture reactor; or a manufacturing 

license not referencing a standard 

design certification or standard design 

approval shall perform a design-specific 

assessment of the effects on the 

designed facility of the impact of a large, 

commercial aircraft. Such assessment 

must be based on the Commission’s 

specified aircraft characteristics used to 

define the beyond-design-basis impact 

of a large, commercial aircraft used for 

long distance flights in the United 

States, with aviation fuel loading 

typically used in such flights, and an 

impact speed and angle of impact 

considering the ability of both 

experienced and inexperienced pilots to 

control large, commercial aircraft at the 

low altitude representative of a nuclear 

power plant’s low profile. 

(c) Based upon the insights gained 

from the aircraft impact assessment as 

stated in paragraph (b) of this section, 

the application must include a 

description and evaluation of the design 

features, functional capabilities, and 

strategies to avoid or mitigate the effects 

of the applicable, beyond-design-basis 

aircraft impact. The evaluation of such 

design features, functional capabilities, 

and strategies must include core cooling 

capability, containment integrity, and 

spent fuel pool integrity. The 

application must describe how such 

design features, functional capabilities, 

and strategies avoid or mitigate, to the 

extent practicable, the effects of the 

applicable aircraft impact with reduced 

reliance on operator actions. 

§ 52.502 Control of changes to FSAR 

information. 

(a) For standard design certifications 

which are subject to 10 CFR 52.500, 

generic changes to the information 

required by 10 CFR 52.47(a)(28) to be 

included in the final safety analysis 

report are governed by the applicable 

requirements of 10 CFR 52.63. 

(b) For combined license applicants or 

holders which are not subject to 10 CFR 

52.500 but reference a standard design 

certification which is subject to 10 CFR 

52.500, proposed departures from the 

information required by 10 CFR 

52.47(a)(28) to be included in the final 

safety analysis report for the standard 

design certification are governed by the 

change control requirements in the 

applicable design certification rule. 

(c) For combined licenses which are 

subject to 10 CFR 52.500, if the licensee 

changes the information required by 10 

CFR 52.79(a)(47) to be included in the 

final safety analysis report, then the 

licensee shall re-perform that portion of 

the evaluation required by 10 CFR 

52.500(c) addressing the changed 

feature, capability, or strategy, and 

describe, in the re-evaluation, how the 

modified design features, functional 

capabilities, and strategies avoid or 

mitigate, to the extent practicable, the 

effects of the applicable aircraft impact 

with reduced reliance on operator 

actions. 

(d) For manufacturing licenses which 

are subject to 10 CFR 52.500, generic 

changes to the information required by 

10 CFR 52.157(f)(32) to be included in 

the final safety analysis report are 

governed by the applicable 

requirements of 10 CFR 52.171. 

(e) For combined license applicants or 

holders which are not subject to 10 CFR 

52.500 but reference a manufactured 

reactor which is subject to 10 CFR 

52.500, proposed departures from the 

information required by 10 CFR 

52.157(f)(32) to be included in the final 

safety analysis report for the 

manufacturing license are governed by 

the applicable requirements in 10 CFR 

52.171(b)(2). 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 27th day 

of September 2007. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Annette L. Vietti-Cook, 

Secretary of the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 07–4886 Filed 10–2–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 165 

[Docket No. USCG–2007–29354] 

RIN 1625–AA87 

Security Zone; Nawiliwili Harbor, 

Kauai, HI 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to 

create a security zone in the waters of 

Nawiliwili Harbor, Kaui, and on the 

land of the jetty south of Nawiliwili 


ebenthall on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules 56309 

Park, including the jetty access road 

commonly known as Jetty Road. This 

zone is intended to enable the Coast 

Guard and its law enforcement partners 

to better protect people, vessels, and 

facilities in and around Nawiliwili 

Harbor in the face of non-compliant 

obstructers who have impeded, and 

threaten to continue impeding, the safe 

passage of the Hawaii Superferry in 

Nawiliwili Harbor. This rule would 

complement, but not replace or 

supersede, existing regulations that 

establish a moving 100-yard security 

zone around large passenger vessels like 

the Hawaii Superferry. 

DATES: Comments and related material 

must reach the Coast Guard on or before 

October 24, 2007. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

and related material, identified by Coast 

Guard docket number USCG–2007–

29354, to the Docket Management 

Facility at the U.S. Department of 

Transportation. To avoid duplication, 

please use only one of the following 

methods: 

(1) Online: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. 

(2) 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. 

(3) Hand delivery: Room W12–140 on 

the Ground Floor of the West Building, 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., 

Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. 

and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays. The telephone 

number is 202–366–9329. 

(4) Fax: 202–493–2251. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Lieutenant (Junior Grade) Quincy 

Adams, U.S. Coast Guard Sector 

Honolulu at (808) 522–8264. 

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 the docket number 

for this rulemaking (USCG–2007–

29354), indicate the specific section of 

this document to which each comment 

applies, and give the reason for each 

comment. We recommend that you 

include your name, mailing address, 

and an e-mail address or other contact 

information in the body of your 

document to ensure that you can be 

identified as the submitter. This also 

allows us to contact you in the event 

further information is needed or if there 

are questions. For example, if we cannot 

read your submission due to technical 

difficulties and you cannot be 

contacted, your submission may not be 

considered. 

All comments received will be posted, 

without change, to http:// 

www.regulations.gov and will include 

any personal information you have 

provided. We have an agreement with 

the Department of Transportation (DOT) 

to use the Docket Management Facility. 

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. 

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 

they reached us, please enclose a 

stamped, self-addressed 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. If, 

as we anticipate, we make this 

temporary final rule effective less than 

30 days after publication in the Federal 

Register, we will explain in that 

publication, as required by 5 U.S.C. 

553(d)(3), our good cause for doing so. 

Public Meeting 

We do not now plan to hold a public 

meeting. But you may submit a request 

for one to Lieutenant (Junior Grade) 

Quincy Adams at U.S. Coast Guard 

Sector Honolulu, Sand Island Parkway, 

Honolulu, Hawaii 96819–4398, 

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 

The Hawaii Superferry (HSF) is a 349- 

foot large passenger vessel documented 

by the U.S. Coast Guard with an 

endorsement for coastwise trade, and 

certificated for large passenger vessel 

service in the United States. The HSF, 

operating Hawaii’s first inter-island 

vehicle-passenger service, is intended to 

provide service among the islands of 

Oahu, Maui and Kauai. 

The HSF enters Kauai at Nawiliwili 

Harbor, a federally maintained 

waterway. During the HSF’s inaugural 

commercial trip to Kauai on August 26, 

2007, nearly 40 swimmers and 

obstructers on kayaks and surfboards 

blocked Nawiliwili Harbor’s navigable 

channel entrance to prevent the lawful 

entry of the HSF into Kauai. Many of the 

obstructers entered the water from the 

jetty that is south of Nawiliwili Park, 

which is adjacent to the Matson 

shipping facility in Nawiliwili Harbor. 

Other demonstrators ashore on the jetty 

threw rocks and bottles at Coast Guard 

personnel who were conveying detained 

obstructers to shore. Coast Guard 

Station Kauai resources were eventually 

able to clear the channel for the HSF’s 

arrival while also ensuring the personal 

safety of the waterborne obstructers. The 

HSF was able to dock on August 26, 

2007. 

On the following day, August 27, 

2007, approximately 70 persons entered 

the water again to block the channel 

entrance, thereby preventing the HSF 

from docking in Nawiliwili Harbor. Due 

to the difficulty of maneuvering in the 

small area of Nawiliwili, and in the 

interest of ensuring the safety of the 

protesters, the HSF’s master chose not to 

enter the channel until the Coast Guard 

cleared the channel of obstructers. 

However, because the vessel remained 

outside the harbor, and because the 

obstructers did not approach within 100 

yards of the vessel, the existing security 

zone for large passenger vessels (33 CFR 

165.1410) did not provide the Coast 

Guard with the authority to control 

obstructer entry into Nawiliwili Harbor 

or clear the channel of obstructers 

before the HSF commenced its transit 

into the harbor. 

After waiting 3 hours, and with nearly 

20 obstructers still in the water actively 

blocking the HSF, the HSF was forced 

to return to Oahu without mooring in 

Kauai. This decision was made by the 

Superferry’s master, in consultation 

with company officials. 

As a result of the events of August 26 

through 27, 2007, the HSF voluntarily 

suspended operations between Oahu 

and Kauai on August 28, 2007. HSF’s 

goal, however, was and is to resume 

operations between Oahu and Kauai as 

soon as possible. As of September 26, 

2007, there are no, nor have there been, 

state court injunctions or other legal 

prohibitions on the HSF resuming 

operations between Oahu and Kauai. 

Responding to these unexpected 

events, the Coast Guard’s Fourteenth 

District Commander established a 

temporary fixed security zone in 

Nawiliwili Harbor. That emergency 

rulemaking established a temporary 

security zone in order to prevent 

persons and vessels from endangering 

themselves and HSF passengers and 

crew by attempting to impede the 

vessel’s passage after it commences the 

difficult transit into the harbor. That 

rule, which became effective September 

1, 2007, was issued by the Coast Guard’s 

Fourteenth District Commander on 

August 31, 2007 (72 FR 50877, 

September 5, 2007). 

Several events have occurred since 

August 31, 2007, that have precluded 


ebenthall on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS
56310 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

the HSF from resuming commercial 

service between Oahu and Kauai, 

notwithstanding the existence of an 

effective temporary rule that permits 

activation of a fixed security zone to 

clear Nawiliwili Harbor for its arrivals 

and departures. The HSF’s parent 

company is involved in litigation in 

Maui that has resulted in a temporary 

restraining order prohibiting HSF 

commercial service between Oahu and 

Maui. That litigation is still unresolved. 

Also, several groups have initiated a 

lawsuit in Kauai to enjoin the 

Superferry from operating between 

Oahu and Kauai; that lawsuit is still 

ongoing as well. The HSF was 

scheduled to resume commercial service 

between Oahu and Kauai on September 

26, 2006, but voluntarily decided not to 

resume service on that date due to 

considerations of safety and the public 

interest. As before, however, the HSF 

could resume operations to Kauai at any 

time, since there are no federal or state 

legal impediments to such operations. 

The purpose of this proposed 

temporary rule is several-fold. First, by 

designating significant portions of the 

waters of Nawiliwili Harbor as a 

security zone, activated for enforcement 

60 minutes before the HSF’s arrival into 

the zone through 10 minutes after its 

departure from the zone, the temporary 

rule would provide the Coast Guard and 

its law enforcement partners the 

authority to prevent persons and vessels 

from endangering themselves and the 

HSF passengers and crew by attempting 

to impede the vessel’s passage after it 

commences the difficult transit into the 

harbor. Extending the security zone to 

Nawiliwili Jetty and its access road 

would provide law enforcement 

personnel with the authority necessary 

to control access into the water so the 

HSF may enter and depart the harbor 

safely and unimpeded by obstructers. 

Furthermore, closing off the jetty and its 

access road would prevent violent 

protesters from continuing to impede 

law enforcement operations and 

endanger law enforcement personnel by 

throwing rocks, bottles, and other 

dangerous objects. Finally, the security 

zone would make land adjacent to the 

harbor available for law enforcement 

purposes, and in fact would be used by 

the Patrol Commander (the person in 

overall command of all waterborne law 

enforcement assets present in 

Nawiliwili Harbor enforcing the security 

zone) as the command post during any 

Superferry protests. 

This NPRM proposes a rule that 

would be the successor to the original 

temporary final rule that is set to expire 

on October 31, 2007. There is continued 

uncertainty regarding when, if ever, the 

HSF might resume service into 

Nawiliwili Harbor. The resolve of 

obstructers to continue attempting to 

impede the Superferry’s passage into 

and through Nawiliwili Harbor, should 

it indeed resume service there, has been 

vocally manifested. Therefore, the Coast 

Guard has determined there is a need to 

ensure that law enforcement personnel 

will still have a fixed security zone 

available to them beyond the expiration 

date of the original temporary final rule 

to facilitate the safe arrival of the HSF, 

should it again return to Nawiliwili 

Harbor. This is the reason for this 

proposed rulemaking. 

The proposed rule would be in effect 

from November 1, 2007, until December 

31, 2007. It is reasonably anticipated 

that the need for a fixed security zone 

of this nature will no longer be needed 

on Kauai after December 31, 2007, 

though the Coast Guard may, if 

necessary, draft further rules as 

necessary and appropriate to ensure safe 

operation of the HSF in and around 

Nawiliwili Harbor. 

Discussion of Proposed Rule 

This proposed rule would create a 

security zone in most of the waters of 

Nawiliwili Harbor, and on Nawiliwili 

Jetty in Nawiliwili Harbor. The security 

zone would be activated for 

enforcement 60 minutes before the 

Hawaii Superferry’s arrival into the 

zone, and would remain activated for 10 

minutes after the Hawaii Superferry’s 

departure from the zone. The activation 

of the zone for enforcement would be 

announced by marine information 

broadcast and by a red flag, illuminated 

after sunset, displayed from Pier One 

and the Harbor Facility Entrance on 

Jetty Road. During its period of 

activation and enforcement, entry into 

the land and water areas of the security 

zone would be prohibited without the 

permission of the Captain of the Port, 

Honolulu, or his or her designated 

representative. 

In preparing this proposed temporary 

rulemaking, the Coast Guard made sure 

to consider the rights of lawful 

protestors. To that end, the Coast Guard 

excluded from the security zone two 

regions which create a sizeable area of 

water in which demonstrators may 

lawfully assemble and convey their 

message in a safe manner to their 

intended audience. These areas include 

the waters west of a line running from 

the southeastern-most point of the 

breakwater of Nawiliwili Small Boat 

Harbor due south to the south shore of 

the harbor, and the waters from 

Kalapaki Beach south to a line 

extending from the western most point 

of Kukii Point due west to the Harbor 

Jetty. These areas of the harbor not 

included in the security zone are 

completely accessible to anyone who 

desires to enter the water, and are fully 

visible to observers ashore, at the HSF 

mooring facility, aboard the HSF when 

transiting the harbor, and from the air. 

The Coast Guard also took into 

account the lawful users of Nawiliwili 

Harbor in its creation of this rule. As 

previously noted, the rule will only be 

activated 1 hour before the HSF’s arrival 

into port, and will be deactivated 10 

minutes after the HSF departs the port. 

The harbor is fully available to all users 

during the period when the zone is not 

activated. Furthermore, the rule affords 

persons desirous of using the harbor, 

even during a period when the zone is 

activated, with the opportunity to 

request permission of the Captain of the 

Port to do so. 

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. This expectation is based 

on the short activation and enforcement 

duration of the security zone created by 

this temporary rule, as well as the 

limited geographic area affected by the 

security zone. 

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. While we are aware that the 

affected area has small entities, 

including canoe and boating clubs and 

small commercial businesses that 

provide recreational services, we 

anticipate that there will be little or no 

impact to these small entities due to the 

narrowly tailored scope of the 

temporary rule, and to the fact that such 


ebenthall on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules 56311 

entities can request permission from the 

Captain of the Port to enter the security 

zone when it is activated. 

If you think that your business, 

organization, or governmental 

jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity 

and that this 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 

(Junior Grade) Quincy Adams, U.S. 

Coast Guard Sector Honolulu, (808) 

522–8264. 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 an expenditure, we do 

discuss the effects of this 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. While some obstructers 

used small children in obstruction 

tactics, both on land and on shore, 

during the August 26 and 27 Superferry 

arrivals into Kauai, and while online 

forums and other sources indicate that 

organizers are actively recruiting 

adolescents and small children with the 

intent of putting them into harm’s way 

as obstructers of the Superferry’s 

passage should it ever again approach 

and enter Nawiliwili Harbor, any 

heightened harm faced by children as a 

result of these tactics has no relation to 

the creation of this rule. Instead, those 

heightened risks are entirely the product 

of persons who recruit and employ 

adolescents and children to put 

themselves at risk of death or serious 

physical injury by attempting to 

physically obstruct the passage of a 

large passenger vessel in a small harbor. 

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 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 made a preliminary determination 

that this action is not likely to have a 

significant effect on the human 

environment. Draft documentation 

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: 


ebenthall on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS
56312 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. 

Chapter 701; 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 a new temporary § 165.T14–

161 to read as follows: 

§ 165.T14–161 Security Zone; Nawiliwili 

Harbor, Kauai, HI. 

(a) Location. The following land areas, 

and water areas from the surface of the 

water to the ocean floor, are a security 

zone that is activated as described in 

paragraph (c) of this section, and 

enforced subject to the provisions of 

paragraph (d) of this section: All waters 

of Nawiliwili Harbor, Kauai, shoreward 

of the Nawiliwili Harbor COLREGS 

DEMARCATION LINE (See 33 CFR 

80.1450), excluding the waters west of 

a line running from the southeastern 

most point of the breakwater of 

Nawiliwili Small Boat Harbor due south 

to the south shore of the harbor, and 

excluding the waters from Kalapaki 

Beach south to a line extending from the 

western most point of Kukii Point due 

west to the Harbor Jetty. The land of the 

jetty south of Nawiliwili Park including 

the jetty access road, commonly known 

as Jetty Road, is included within the 

security zone. 

(b) Effective period. This section is 

effective from November 1, 2007, 

through December 31, 2007. It will be 

activated for enforcement pursuant to 

paragraph (c) of this section. 

(c) Enforcement periods. The zone 

described in paragraph (a) of this 

section will be activated for 

enforcement 60 minutes before the 

Hawaii Superferry’s arrival into the 

zone and remain activated for 10 

minutes after the Hawaii Superferry’s 

departure from the zone. The activation 

of the zone for enforcement will be 

announced by marine information 

broadcast, and by a red flag, illuminated 

between sunset and sunrise, displayed 

from Pier One and the Harbor Facility 

Entrance on Jetty Road. 

(d) Regulations. (1) Under 33 CFR 

165.33, entry by persons or vessels into 

the security zone created by this section 

and activated as described in paragraph 

(c) of this section is prohibited unless 

authorized by the Coast Guard Captain 

of the Port, Honolulu or his or her 

designated representatives. Operation of 

any type of vessel, including every 

description of watercraft or other 

artificial contrivance used, or capable of 

being used, as a means of transportation 

on water, within the security zone is 

prohibited. If a vessel is found to be 

operating within the security zone 

without permission of the Captain of the 

Port, Honolulu, and refuses to leave, the 

vessel is subject to seizure and 

forfeiture. 

(2) All persons and vessels permitted 

in the security zone must comply with 

the instructions of the Coast Guard 

Captain of the Port or the designated onscene-patrol personnel. These personnel 

comprise commissioned, warrant, and 

petty officers of the Coast Guard and 

other persons permitted by law to 

enforce this regulation. Upon being 

hailed by an authorized vessel or law 

enforcement officer using siren, radio, 

flashing light, loudhailer, voice 

command, or other means, the operator 

of a vessel must proceed as directed. 

(3) If authorized passage through the 

security zone, a vessel must operate at 

the minimum speed necessary to 

maintain a safe course and must 

proceed as directed by the Captain of 

the Port or his or her designated 

representatives. While underway with 

permission of the Captain of the Port or 

his or her designated representatives, no 

person or vessel is allowed within 100 

yards of a the Hawaii Super Ferry when 

it is underway, moored, positionkeeping, or at anchor, unless authorized 

by the Captain of the Port or his or her 

designated representatives. 

(4) When conditions permit, the 

Captain of the Port, or his or her 

designated representatives, may permit 

vessels that are at anchor, restricted in 

their ability to maneuver, or constrained 

by draft to remain within the security 

zone in order to ensure navigational 

safety. 

(e) Enforcement officials. Any Coast 

Guard commissioned, warrant, or petty 

officer, and any other person permitted 

by law, may enforce the regulations in 

this section. 

Dated: September 26, 2007. 

Sally Brice-O’Hara, 

Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, 

Fourteenth Coast Guard District. 

[FR Doc. 07–4893 Filed 9–28–07; 3:29 pm] 

BILLING CODE 4910–15–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2007–0601–200730; FRL–

8477–2] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans and Designation 

of Areas for Air Quality Planning 

Purposes; North Carolina; 

Redesignation of the Raleigh-DurhamChapel Hill 8-Hour Ozone 

Nonattainment Area to Attainment for 

Ozone 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: On June 7, 2007, the State of 

North Carolina, through the North 

Carolina Department of Environment 

and Natural Resources (NCDENR), 

submitted a request to redesignate the 

Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill 8-hour 

ozone nonattainment area to attainment 

for the 8-hour ozone National Ambient 

Air Quality Standard (NAAQS); and to 

approve a State Implementation Plan 

(SIP) revision containing a maintenance 

plan for the Raleigh-Durham-Chapel 

Hill Area. The Raleigh-Durham-Chapel 

Hill 8-hour ozone nonattainment area 

(the ‘‘Triangle Area’’) is comprised of 

Durham, Franklin, Granville, Johnston, 

Orange, Person and Wake Counties in 

their entireties, and Baldwin, Center, 

New Hope and Williams Townships in 

Chatham County. In this action, EPA is 

proposing to approve the 8-hour ozone 

redesignation request for the Triangle 

Area. Additionally, EPA is proposing to 

approve the 8-hour ozone maintenance 

plan for the Triangle Area, including the 

motor vehicle emissions budgets 

(MVEBs) for nitrogen oxides (NOX) and 

an insignificance determination for 

volatile organic compounds (VOC) 

emissions from motor vehicles. This 

proposed approval of North Carolina’s 

redesignation request is based on EPA’s 

determination that North Carolina has 

demonstrated that the Triangle Area has 

met the criteria for redesignation to 

attainment specified in the Clean Air 

Act (CAA), including the determination 

that the entire Triangle 8-hour ozone 

nonattainment area has attained the 8- 

hour ozone standard. Further, in this 

action, EPA is also describing the status 

of its transportation conformity 

adequacy determination for the new 

2008 and 2017 MVEBs for NOX, and for 

the insignificance determination for 

VOC contribution from motor vehicle 

emissions to the 8-hour ozone pollution, 

that are contained in the 8-hour ozone 

maintenance plan for the Triangle Area. 


ebenthall on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS