Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 102 / Thursday, May 27, 2010 / Proposed Rules 29695 

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 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. 

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 

Information and Regulatory Affairs has 

not designated this 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 023–01, 

and 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 made a preliminary determination 

that this action is one of a category of 

actions which do not individually or 

cumulatively have a significant effect on 

the human environment because it 

simply promulgates the operating 

regulations or procedures for 

drawbridges. 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 117 

Bridges. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to 

amend 33 CFR part 117 as follows: 

PART 117—DRAWBRIDGE 

OPERATION REGULATIONS 

1. The authority citation for part 117 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 499; 33 CFR 1.05–1; 

Department of Homeland Security Delegation 

No. 0170.1. 

2. Revise § 117.181 to read as follows: 

§ 117.181 Oakland Inner Harbor Tidal 

Canal. 

The draws of the Alameda County 

highway drawbridges at Park Street, 

mile 5.2; Fruitvale Avenue, mile 5.6; 

and High Street, mile 6.0; and the U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers railroad 

drawbridge, mile 5.6 at Fruitvale 

Avenue, shall open on signal between 

the hours of 9 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. and 

upon 4 hours advance notice between 

the hours 4:30 p.m. and 9 a.m. During 

Interstate rush hours, 8 a.m. to 9 a.m. 

and 4:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, except Federal holidays, 

the draws need not be opened for the 

passage of vessels. However, the draws 

shall open during the above rush hour 

periods for vessels which must, for 

reasons of safety, move on a tide or 

slack water, if at least four hours notice 

is given to the bridge owner. For the 

four hour advance notice requirement; 

waterway users may contact the 

Fruitvale Ave drawbridge operator via 

telephone at (510) 533–7858 or VHF– 

FM marine radio, or by contacting the 

bridge operator during daytime bridge 

operating hours. 

Dated: May 12, 2010. 

J.R. Castillo, 

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

Eleventh Coast Guard District. 

[FR Doc. 2010–12737 Filed 5–26–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 165 

[Docket No. USCG–2009–0316] 

RIN 1625–AA87 

Security Zones; Sabine Bank Channel, 

Sabine Pass Channel and SabineNeches Waterway, TX 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS

29696 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 102 / Thursday, May 27, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

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, Port Arthur deems enhanced 

security measures are necessary. In 

addition, the Coast Guard proposes a 

100-foot security zone around LNG 

carriers while they are moored at the 

Golden Pass LNG facility in Sabine, TX 

and/or the Sabine Pass LNG facility 

located in Cheniere, LA. 

DATES: Comments and related material 

must be received by the Coast Guard on 

or before June 28, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

identified by docket number USCG– 

2009–0316 using any one of the 

following methods: 

(1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

http://www.regulations.gov. 

(2) Fax: 202–493–2251. 

(3) Mail: Docket Management Facility 

(M–30), U.S. Department of 

Transportation, West Building Ground 

Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590– 

0001. 

(4) Hand delivery: Same as mail 

address above, between 9 a.m. and 5 

p.m., Monday through Friday, except 

Federal holidays. The telephone number 

is 202–366–9329. 

To avoid duplication, please use only 

one of these four methods. See the 

‘‘Public Participation and Request for 

Comments’’ portion of the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section 

below for instructions on submitting 

comments. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you have questions on this proposed 

rule, call or e-mail Mr. Scott Whalen, 

Marine Safety Unit Port Arthur, Coast 

Guard; telephone 409–719–5086, e-mail 

scott.k.whalen@uscg.mil. If you have 

questions on viewing or submitting 

material to the docket, call Renee V. 

Wright, Program Manager, Docket 

Operations, telephone 202–366–9826. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Public Participation and Request for 

Comments 

We encourage you to participate in 

this rulemaking by submitting 

comments and related materials. All 

comments received will be posted 

without change to http:// 

www.regulations.gov and will include 

any personal information you have 

provided. 

Submitting Comments 

If you submit a comment, please 

include the docket number for this 

rulemaking (USCG–2009–0316), 

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, click on the 

‘‘submit a comment’’ box, which will 

then become highlighted in blue. In the 

‘‘Document Type’’ drop down menu 

select ‘‘Proposed Rule’’ and insert 

‘‘USCG–2009–0316’’ in the ‘‘Keyword’’ 

box. Click ‘‘Search’’ then click on the 

balloon shape in the ‘‘Actions’’ column. 

If you submit your comments by mail or 

hand delivery, submit them in an 

unbound format, no larger than 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 rule based on your 

comments. 

Viewing Comments and Documents 

To view comments, as well as 

documents mentioned in this preamble 

as being available in the docket, go to 

http://www.regulations.gov, click on the 

‘‘read comments’’ box, which will then 

become highlighted in blue. In the 

‘‘Keyword’’ box insert ‘‘USCG–2009– 

0316’’ and click ‘‘Search.’’ Click the 

‘‘Open Docket Folder’’ in the ‘‘Actions’’ 

column. You may also visit the Docket 

Management Facility in Room W12–140 

on the ground floor of the Department 

of Transportation West Building, 1200 

New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, 

DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., 

Monday through Friday, except Federal 

holidays. We have an agreement with 

the Department of Transportation to use 

the Docket Management Facility. 

Privacy Act 

Anyone can search the electronic 

form of 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 

At this time, we do not plan to hold 

a public meeting, but you may submit 

a request for one 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 

Heightened awareness of potential 

terrorist acts requires enhanced security 

of our ports, harbors, and vessels. To 

enhance security, the Captain of the 

Port, Port Arthur proposes to establish 

security zones around certain vessels. 

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. 

Due to the potential for terrorist 

attacks, this proposed rule would allow 

the Captain of the Port to create fixed 

security zones around moored LNG 

carriers and moving security zones 

around certain vessels as deemed 

necessary. By limiting access to these 

areas, the Coast Guard is reducing 

potential methods of attack on these 

vessels, and potential use of the vessels 

to launch attacks on waterfront facilities 

and adjacent population centers located 

within the Captain of the Port, Port 

Arthur zone. Vessels having a need to 

enter these security zones must obtain 

permission from the Captain of the Port 

or his designated representative prior to 

entry. 

Discussion of Proposed Rule 

The Coast Guard proposes to establish 

moving security zones for certain 

vessels, for which the Captain of the 

Port deems enhanced security measures 

are necessary. Mariners will be notified 

of the activation of a moving security 

zone by Broadcast Notice to Mariners. 

Active moving security zones may also 

be identified by the presence of escort 

vessels displaying flashing blue law 

enforcement lights. 

The moving security zones would be 

activated for certain vessels within the 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 102 / Thursday, May 27, 2010 / Proposed Rules 29697 

Captain of the Port zone commencing at 

U.S. territorial waters through Sabine 

Bank Channel, Sabine Pass Channel and 

the Sabine-Neches Waterway, extending 

from the surface to the bottom. These 

moving security zones would extend 

channel edge to channel edge on the 

Sabine Bank and Sabine Pass Channel 

and shoreline to shoreline on the 

Sabine-Neches Waterway, 2 miles ahead 

and 1 mile astern of the designated 

vessels while in transit. Meeting, 

crossing or overtaking situations are not 

permitted within the security zone 

unless specifically authorized by the 

Captain of the Port. 

In addition, the Coast Guard proposes 

a 100-foot security zone around LNG 

carriers while they are moored at the 

Golden Pass LNG facility in Sabine, TX 

and/or the Sabine Pass LNG facility 

located in Cheniere, LA. 

These proposed security zones would 

be part of a comprehensive port security 

regime designed to safeguard human 

life, vessels, and waterfront facilities 

against sabotage or terrorist attacks. 

All vessels not exempted under 

paragraph (b) of the proposed section 

165.819 would be prohibited from 

entering or remaining in these security 

zones unless authorized by the Captain 

of the Port, Port Arthur or his 

designated representative. For 

authorization to enter the proposed 

security zones, vessels could contact the 

Captain of the Port’s on-scene 

representative or Vessel Traffic Service 

Port Arthur on VHF Channel 01A or 

65A, by telephone at (409) 719–5070, or 

by facsimile at (409) 719–5090. 

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 basis of this finding is 

that the proposed fixed security zones 

around moored LNG carriers would be 

of limited size and duration and the 

affected area would not hinder or delay 

regular vessel traffic. The moving 

security zone wound be limited and 

would not create undue delay to vessel 

traffic because vessel traffic may request 

permission to enter the zone from the 

Captain of the Port. 

Small Entities 

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

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

whether this proposed rule would have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

The term ‘‘small entities’’ comprises 

small businesses, not-for-profit 

organizations that are independently 

owned and operated and are not 

dominant in their fields, and 

governmental jurisdictions with 

populations of less than 50,000. 

The Coast Guard certifies under 5 

U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule 

would not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. This proposed rule would affect 

the following entities, some of which 

might be small entities: The owners or 

operators of vessels intending to transit 

through the fixed or moving security 

zones. The proposed fixed security 

zones would be of limited size and 

duration and the affected area would 

not hinder or delay regular vessel traffic; 

The proposed rule for moving security 

zone would not create undue delay to 

vessel traffic because vessel traffic may 

request permission to enter the zone. 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 Mr. Scott 

Whalen, Marine Safety Unit Port Arthur, 

Coast Guard; telephone (409) 719–5086, 

e-mail scott.k.whalen@uscg.mil. The 

Coast Guard will not retaliate against 

small entities that question or complain 

about this proposed 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 (adjusted for inflation) 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. 

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 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS

29698 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 102 / Thursday, May 27, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

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 023–01 

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 

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. This proposed rule 

involves establishing security zones. 

Therefore, this rule would be 

categorically excluded under Figure 

2–1, paragraph (34)(g) of Commandant 

Instruction M16475.1D, which 

addresses regulations establishing, 

disestablishing, or changing Regulated 

Navigation Areas and security or safety 

zones. We seek any comments or 

information that may lead to the 

discovery of a significant environmental 

impact from this proposed rule. 

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165 

Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation 

(water), Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Security measures, 

Waterways. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to 

amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows: 

PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION 

AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 

1. The authority citation for part 165 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 

33 CFR 1.05–1, 6.04–1, 6.04–6, 160.5; Pub. L. 

107–295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of 

Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. 

2. Add new § 165.819 to read as 

follows: 

§ 165.819 Security Zone; Sabine Bank 

Channel, Sabine Pass Channel and SabineNeches Waterway, TX. 

(a) Location. 

(1) The following areas are designated 

as fixed security zones: All waters 

within a 100-feet radius of LNG carriers 

moored at: 

(i) Golden Pass LNG facility located in 

Sabine, TX, in position 29°45′52′′ N 

093°55′25′′ W; and/or 

(ii) Sabine Pass LNG facility located 

in Cheniere, LA, in position 29°44′31′′ N 

093°52′18′′ W. 

(2) The following areas are designated 

as moving security zones: All waters of 

the Captain of the Port, Port Arthur 

Zone commencing at U.S. territorial 

waters and extending from the surface 

to the bottom, channel edge to channel 

edge on the Sabine Bank and Sabine 

Pass Channels and shoreline to 

shoreline on the Sabine-Neches 

Waterway, 2 miles ahead and 1 mile 

astern of certain designated vessels 

while in transit within in the Captain of 

the Port, Port Arthur zone. Mariners 

would be notified of designated vessels 

by Broadcast Notice to Mariners and the 

presence of escort vessels displaying 

flashing blue law enforcement lights. 

(b) Regulations. 

(1) Entry into or remaining in a fixed 

security zone described in paragraph 

(a)(1) of this section is prohibited for all 

vessels except: 

(i) Commercial vessels operating at 

waterfront facilities within these zones; 

(ii) Commercial vessels transiting 

directly to or from waterfront facilities 

within these zones; 

(iii) Vessels providing direct 

operational or logistical support to 

commercial vessels within these zones; 

(iv) Vessels operated by the 

appropriate port authority or by 

facilities located within these zones; 

and 

(v) Vessels operated by federal, state, 

county, or municipal law enforcement 

agencies. 

(2) Entry into or remaining in a 

moving security zone described in 

paragraph (a)(2) of this section is 

prohibited for all vessels except: 

(i) Moored vessels or vessels anchored 

in a designated anchorage area. A 

moored or an anchored vessel in a 

security zone described in paragraph 

(a)(2) of this section must remain 

moored or anchored unless it obtains 

permission from the Captain of the Port 

to do otherwise; 

(ii) Commercial vessels operating at 

waterfront facilities located within the 

zone; 

(iii) Vessels providing direct 

operational support to commercial 

vessels within a moving security zone; 

(iv) Vessels operated by federal, state, 

county, or municipal law enforcement 

agencies. 

(3) Meeting, crossing or overtaking 

situations are not permitted within the 

security zone described in paragraph 

(a)(2) of this section unless specifically 

authorized by the Captain of the Port. 

(4) Other persons or vessels requiring 

entry into security zones described in 

this section must request permission 

from the Captain of the Port, Port Arthur 

or designated representative. 

(5) To request permission to enter a 

security zone described in this section, 

contact Vessel Traffic Service Port 

Arthur on VHF Channel 01A or 65A; by 

telephone at (409) 719–5070; by fax at 

(409) 719–5090; or contact the Captain 

of the Port’s designated on-scene patrol 

vessel on VHF channel 13 or 16. 

(6) All persons and vessels within a 

security zone described in this section 

must comply with the instructions of 

the Captain of the Port, Port Arthur, 

designated on-scene U.S. Coast Guard 

patrol personnel or other designated 

representatives. Designated on-scene 

U.S. Coast Guard patrol personnel 

include commissioned, warrant, and 

petty officers of the U.S. Coast Guard. 

Designated representatives include 

federal, state, local and municipal law 

enforcement agencies. 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 102 / Thursday, May 27, 2010 / Proposed Rules 29699 

Dated: April 22, 2010. 

J.J. Plunkett, 

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

Port, Port Arthur. 

[FR Doc. 2010–12738 Filed 5–26–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2009–0612–200914(b); 

FRL–9155–4] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans: Florida; 

Approval of Section 110(a)(1) 

Maintenance Plan for the 1997 8-Hour 

Ozone Standard for the Jacksonville, 

Tampa Bay, and Southeast Florida 

Areas 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

revisions to the Florida State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) concerning 

the maintenance plans addressing the 

1997 8-hour ozone standards for the 

Jacksonville, Tampa Bay, and Southeast 

Florida 1997 8-hour ozone attainment 

areas in Florida, hereafter referred to as 

the ‘‘Jacksonville Area,’’ ‘‘Tampa Bay 

Area,’’ and ‘‘Southeast Florida Area,’’ 

respectively. The Jacksonville Area is 

comprised of Duval County; the Tampa 

Bay Area comprises Hillsborough and 

Pinellas Counties; and the Southeast 

Florida Area comprises Broward, Dade, 

and Palm Beach Counties. These 

maintenance plans were submitted to 

EPA on July 2, 2009, by the State of 

Florida, through the Florida Department 

of Environmental Protection, and ensure 

the continued attainment of the 1997 8- 

hour ozone national ambient air quality 

standards (NAAQS) through the year 

2014 in the Jacksonville, Tampa Bay, 

and Southeast Florida Areas. EPA is 

proposing to approve the SIP revisions 

pursuant to section 110 of the Clean Air 

Act. These maintenance plans appear to 

meet all the statutory and regulatory 

requirements, and are consistent with 

EPA’s guidance. On March 12, 2008, 

EPA issued revised ozone standards. On 

September 16, 2009, EPA announced it 

would reconsider the 2008 NAAQS for 

ozone and proposed a new schedule for 

designations for a reconsidered 

standard. EPA published a proposed 

rulemaking on January 19, 2010, for 

reconsideration of the 2008 NAAQS, 

and expects to finalize the reconsidered 

NAAQS by August 2010. The current 

proposed action, however, is being 

taken to address requirements under the 

1997 8-hour ozone standards. 

Requirements for the Jacksonville, 

Tampa Bay, and Southeast Florida 

Areas under the 2010 reconsidered 

ozone standards will be addressed in 

the future. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before June 28, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04– 

OAR–2009–0612, by one of the 

following methods: 

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

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. E-mail: benjamin.lynorae@epa.gov. 

3. Fax: (404) 562–9019. 

4. Mail: ‘‘EPA–R04–OAR–2009–0612,’’ 

Regulatory Development Section, Air 

Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and 

Toxics Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. 

5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Lynorae 

Benjamin, Chief, Regulatory 

Development Section, Air Planning 

Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics 

Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. Such 

deliveries are only accepted during the 

Regional Office’s normal hours of 

operation. The Regional Office’s official 

hours of business are Monday through 

Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding federal 

holidays. 

Please see the direct final rule which is 

located in the Rules section of this 

Federal Register for detailed 

instructions on how to submit 

comments. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Twunjala Bradley, Regulatory 

Development Section, Air Planning 

Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics 

Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. The 

telephone number is (404) 562–9352. 

Ms. Bradley can also be reached via 

electronic mail at 

bradley.twunjala@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the 

Final Rules Section of this Federal 

Register, EPA is approving the State’s 

SIP revision as a direct final rule 

without prior proposal because the 

Agency views this as a noncontroversial 

submittal and anticipates no adverse 

comments. A detailed rationale for the 

approval is set forth in the direct final 

rule. If no adverse comments are 

received in response to this rule, no 

further activity is contemplated. If EPA 

receives adverse comments, the direct 

final rule will be withdrawn and all 

public comments received will be 

addressed in a subsequent final rule 

based on this proposed rule. EPA will 

not institute a second comment period 

on this document. Any parties 

interested in commenting on this 

document should do so at this time. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Intergovernmental 

relations, Incorporation by reference, 

Ozone, Nitrogen dioxides, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements, 

Volatile organic compounds. 

Dated: May 11, 2010. 

Beverly H. Banister, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

[FR Doc. 2010–12659 Filed 5–26–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

Centers for Disease Control and 

Prevention 

42 CFR Part 84 

[Docket Number NIOSH–0137] 

RIN 0920–AA33 

Total Inward Leakage Requirements 

for Respirators 

AGENCY: The National Institute for 

Occupational Safety and Health 

(NIOSH) of the Centers for Disease 

Control and Prevention (CDC), 

Department of Health and Human 

Services (HHS). 

ACTION: Notice of public meeting. 

SUMMARY: The National Institute for 

Occupational Safety and Health 

(NIOSH) of the Centers for Disease 

Control and Prevention (CDC), will hold 

a second public meeting concerning the 

proposed rule for Total Inward Leakage 

Requirements for Respirators that was 

published in the Federal Register on 

Friday, October 30, 2009 (74 FR 56141). 

The purpose of the meeting is to allow 

participants to make presentations to 

NIOSH, share results of any new 

research that may be available or in 

process in the area of filtering facepiece 

or other half-mask respirator inward 

leakage measurement, and offer any 

additional comments on the anticipated 

economic impact of the proposed rule. 

Public Meeting Time and Date: 8:30 

a.m.–4 p.m. EDT, or after the last public 

commenter has spoken, whichever is 

earlier, July 29, 2010. 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS