Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 190 / Tuesday, September 30, 2008 / Proposed Rules 56773 

rata share are the exclusive means for 

calculating the amount of insured losses 

for Program purposes. The pro rata 

share is subject to the following: 

(a) The pro rata share is determined 

based on the estimated or actual final 

claim settlement amount that would 

otherwise be paid. If partial payments 

have already been made as of the 

effective date of the PRLP, then the pro 

rata share for that loss is the greater of 

the amount already paid or the amount 

computed by applying the PRLP to the 

estimated or actual final claim 

settlement amount. 

(b) If an insurer that has not yet made 

payments in excess of its insurer 

deductible estimates that it will exceed 

its insurer deductible making payments 

based on the application of the PRLP to 

its insured losses, then the insurer shall 

apply the PRLP as of the effective date 

specified in § 50.92(b). 

(c) If an insurer that has not yet made 

payments in excess of its insurer 

deductible estimates that it will not 

exceed its insurer deductible making 

payments based on the application of 

the PRLP to its insured losses, then the 

insurer may make payments on the 

same basis as prior to the effective date 

of the PRLP. If such insurer thereafter 

reaches its insurer deductible, then the 

insurer shall apply the PRLP to its 

remaining insured losses. When such an 

insurer submits a claim for the Federal 

share of compensation, the amount of 

the insurer’s losses will be deemed to be 

the amount it would have paid if it had 

applied the PRLP as of the effective 

date, and the Federal share of 

compensation will be calculated on that 

amount. However, an insurer may 

request an exception if it can 

demonstrate that its estimate was 

invalidated as a result of insured losses 

from a subsequent act of terrorism. 

§ 50.94 Data call authority. 

For the purpose of determining initial 

or recalculated PRLPs Treasury may 

issue a data call to insurers for insured 

loss information. Submission of data in 

response to a data call shall be on a form 

promulgated by Treasury. 

§ 50.95 Final amount. 

(a) Treasury shall determine if, as a 

final pro ration, remaining insured loss 

payments, as well as adjustments to 

previous insured loss payments, can be 

made by insurers based on an adjusted 

PRLP, and aggregate insured losses still 

remain within the cap on annual 

liability. In such a circumstance, 

Treasury will notify insurers as to the 

final PRLP and its application to 

insured losses. 

(b) If paragraph (a) of this section 

applies, Treasury may require, as part of 

the insurer submission for the Federal 

share of compensation for insured 

losses, supplementary explanation 

regarding how additional payments will 

be provided on previously settled 

insured losses. 

(c) An insurer that has pro rated its 

insured losses, but that has not met its 

insurer deductible, remains liable for 

loss payments that in the aggregate bring 

the insurer’s total insured loss payments 

up to an amount equal to the lesser of 

its insured losses without proration or 

its insurer deductible. 

§ 50.53 [Amended] 

3. Section 50.53 is amended by 

adding paragraph (b)(5) to read as 

follows: 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(5) A certification that if Treasury has 

determined a Pro rata Loss Percentage 

(PRLP) (see § 50.92), the insurer has 

complied with applying the PRLP to 

insured loss payments, where required. 

* * * * * 

David G. Nason, 

Assistant Secretary (Financial Institutions). 

[FR Doc. E8–22940 Filed 9–29–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4810–25–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 165 

[Docket No. USCG–2008–0440] 

RIN 1625–AA87 

Security Zone; Coast Guard Base San 

Juan, San Juan Harbor, Puerto Rico 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to 

establish a permanent security zone in 

the vicinity of the Coast Guard Base in 

San Juan, Puerto Rico. The security zone 

is needed for national security reasons 

to protect the public and the Coast 

Guard base from potential subversive 

acts. The proposed rule would exclude 

entry into the security zone by all 

vessels and personnel without 

permission of the U.S. Coast Guard 

Captain of the Port San Juan. 

DATES: Comments and related material 

must reach the Coast Guard on or before 

December 1, 2008. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

identified by Coast Guard docket 

number USCG–2008–0440 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: If 

you have questions on this proposed 

rule, call Ensign Rachael Love of Sector 

San Juan, Prevention Operations 

Department at (787) 289–2071. 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. We have an agreement with 

the Department of Transportation (DOT) 

to use the Docket Management Facility. 

Please see DOT’s ‘‘Privacy Act’’ 

paragraph below. 

Submitting Comments 

If you submit a comment, please 

include the docket number for this 

rulemaking (USCG–2008–0440), 

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 and a mailing 

address, an e-mail address, or a phone 

number in the body of your document 

so that we can contact you if we have 

questions regarding your submission. 

You may submit your comments and 

material by electronic means, mail, fax, 

or delivery to the Docket Management 

Facility at the address under ADDRESSES; 

but please submit your comments and 

material by only one means. If you 

submit them by mail or delivery, submit 

them in an unbound format, no larger 


ebenthall on PROD1PC60 with PROPOSALS
56774 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 190 / Tuesday, September 30, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

than 81⁄2 by 11 inches, suitable for 

copying and electronic filing. If you 

submit them 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. We may 

change this proposed rule in view of 

them. 

Viewing Comments and Documents 

To view comments, as well as 

documents mentioned in this preamble 

as being available in the docket, go to 

http://www.regulations.gov at any time. 

Enter the docket number for this 

rulemaking (USCG–2008–0440) in the 

Search box, and click ‘‘Go>>.’’ You may 

also visit either the Docket Management 

Facility in Room W12–140 on the 

ground floor of the DOT West Building, 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., 

Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. 

and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays; or the U.S. 

Coast Guard Sector San Juan, 5 Calle La 

Puntilla, San Juan, Puerto Rico, 00901 

between 7 a.m. and 3:30 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, except Federal holidays. 

Privacy Act 

Anyone can search the electronic 

form of all comments received into any 

of our dockets by the name of the 

individual submitting the comment (or 

signing the comment, if submitted on 

behalf of an association, business, labor 

union, etc.). You may review a Privacy 

Act, system of records notice regarding 

our public dockets in the January 17, 

2008 issue of the Federal Register (73 

FR 3316). 

Public Meeting 

We do not now plan to hold a public 

meeting. But you may submit a request 

for one to the Docket Management 

Facility 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 later notice in the Federal Register. 

Background and Purpose 

The Coast Guard docking facilities at 

La Puntilla in Old San Juan are home to 

six Coast Guard cutters and six Coast 

Guard small boats. Incidents of 

unknown vessels mooring up to the 

Coast Guard piers has occurred twice in 

the past year. In addition, suspected 

surveillance in the form of photography 

has been performed by unknown 

individuals located in close proximity 

to the Coast Guard base on more than 

one occasion. These incidents pose a 

potential threat to national security and 

may lead to subversive acts against the 

personnel or equipment located at the 

Coast Guard base. 

This rulemaking attempts to solve the 

problem by prohibiting all persons and 

vessels from entering in, transiting 

through or remaining in a security zone 

extending 100 yards seaward from the 

water’s edge of the Coast Guard La 

Puntilla facility. 

Discussion of Proposed Rule 

This proposed rule would require all 

people and vessels to remain at least 

100 yards from the water’s edge of the 

Coast Guard facility, starting at the 

north end of the Coast Guard base Pier 

ALFA, continuing south around the 

base ending at the northwestern side of 

La Puntilla. This would prevent vessels 

from mooring on the Coast Guard piers 

and unauthorized individuals from 

being within close proximity to the 

Coast Guard base. 

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. 

This proposed rule is not a significant 

regulatory action because the security 

zone only extends 100 yards from Base 

San Juan and does not impede any 

regular vessel traffic (i.e., cruise ships, 

ferries, small passenger vessels, etc.). 

Vessels will be able to transit safely 

around the zone. In the event that a 

vessel or person feels the need to 

temporarily transit through the 

proposed security zone, the COTP will 

handle the requests on a case-by-case 

basis. 

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 

or anchor in the proposed zone. The 

impact would not be economically 

significant because vessels would be 

able to transit around the zone. The 

proposed area does not encompass any 

portions of any shipping channels and 

would only affect those vessels 

transiting the area adjacent to the Coast 

Guard facility. 

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 proposed rule would affect your 

small business, organization, or 

governmental jurisdiction and you have 

questions concerning its provisions or 

options for compliance, please contact 

Ensign Rachael Love of Sector San Juan, 

Prevention Operations Department at 

(787) 289–2071. 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. 


ebenthall on PROD1PC60 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 190 / Tuesday, September 30, 2008 / Proposed Rules 56775 

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. 

Indian Tribal Governments 

This proposed rule does not have 

tribal implications under Executive 

Order 13175, Consultation and 

Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments, because it would not have 

a substantial direct effect on one or 

more Indian tribes, on the relationship 

between the Federal Government and 

Indian tribes, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities between the 

Federal Government and Indian tribes. 

Energy Effects 

We have analyzed this proposed rule 

under Executive Order 13211, Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use. We have 

determined that it is not a ‘‘significant 

energy action’’ under that order because 

it is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ 

under Executive Order 12866 and is not 

likely to have a significant adverse effect 

on the supply, distribution, or use of 

energy. The Administrator of the Office 

of Information and Regulatory Affairs 

has not designated it as a significant 

energy action. Therefore, it does not 

require a Statement of Energy Effects 

under Executive Order 13211. 

Technical Standards 

The National Technology Transfer 

and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 

U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use 

voluntary consensus standards in their 

regulatory activities unless the agency 

provides Congress, through the Office of 

Management and Budget, with an 

explanation of why using these 

standards would be inconsistent with 

applicable law or otherwise impractical. 

Voluntary consensus standards are 

technical standards (e.g., specifications 

of materials, performance, design, or 

operation; test methods; sampling 

procedures; and related management 

systems practices) that are developed or 

adopted by voluntary consensus 

standards bodies. 

This proposed rule does not use 

technical standards. Therefore, we did 

not consider the use of voluntary 

consensus standards. 

Environment 

We have analyzed this proposed rule 

under Department of Homeland 

Security Management Directive 5100.1 

and Commandant Instruction 

M16475.lD, which guide the Coast 

Guard in complying with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and 

have made a preliminary determination 

under the Instruction that this action is 

not likely to have a significant effect on 

the human environment. A preliminary 

environmental analysis check list 

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: 

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 § 165.776 to read as follows: 

§ 165.776 Security Zone; Coast Guard 

Base San Juan, San Juan Harbor, Puerto 

Rico. 

(a) Location. The following area is a 

security zone: All waters from surface to 

bottom, encompassed by an imaginary 

line connecting the following points, 

beginning at 18°27′39′′ N, 066°06′56′′ W; 

then east to Point 2 at 18°27′39′′ N, 

066°06′52′′ W; then South to Point 3 at 

18°27′35′′ N, 066°06′52′′ W; then 

Southwest to Point 4 at 18°27′30′′ N, 

066°06′59′′ W; then northeast to Point 5 

at 18°27′35′′ N, 066°07′07′′ W; then 

north to Point 6 at 18°27′46′′ N, 

066°07′10′′ W; then back to shore at the 

northwest end of the CG facility at Point 

7 at 18°27′46′′ N, 066°07′07′′ W. These 

coordinates are based upon North 

American Datum 1983. 

(b) Definitions. As used in this 

section— 

Vessel means every description of 

watercraft or other artificial contrivance 

used, or capable of being used, as a 

means of transportation on water, 

except U.S. Coast Guard or U.S. naval 

vessels. 

(c) Regulations. (1) No person or 

vessel may enter into the security zone 

described in paragraph (a) of this 

section unless authorized by the Captain 

of the Port San Juan. 

(2) Vessels seeking to enter the 

security zone established in this section 

may contact the COTP on VHF channel 

16 or by telephone at (787) 289–2041 to 

request permission. 

Dated: September 9, 2008. 

E. Pino, 

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting Captain 

of the Port San Juan. 

[FR Doc. E8–22890 Filed 9–29–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–15–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 271 

[EPA–R10–RCRA–2008–0588; FRL–8722–5] 

Idaho: Proposed Authorization of State 

Hazardous Waste Management 

Program Revision 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: Idaho has applied to EPA for 

final authorization of certain changes to 

its hazardous waste program under the 

Resource Conservation and Recovery 


ebenthall on PROD1PC60 with PROPOSALS