Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/353471/Federal-Register-02-28089
Timestamp: 2020-07-15 06:40:05
Document Index: 251494950

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 275', '§ 275', 'arts 120', 'arts 120', 'arts 120', 'art 165', '§ 165', '§ 165', 'arts 120', 'arts 120', 'arts 120', '§ 165']

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 214 / Tuesday, November 5, 2002 / Proposed Rules | United States Environmental Protection Agency | United States Government
Federal Register-02-28089
saveSave Federal Register-02-28089 For Later
HOUSE HEARING, 105TH CONGRESS - EPA'S PARTICULATE MATTER AND OZONE RULEMAKING: IS EPA ABOVE THE LAW?
Notice: Draft Environmental Impact Statement: North Fork Rancheria; 305 Acre Trust Acquisition and Hotel/Casino Project, Madera County, CA
Rule: Air quality implementation plans: Preparation, adoption, and submittal&#8212; South Dakota
Notice: Meetings: Clean Water Act Programs, Federal Advisory Committee to Examine Detection and Quantitation Approaches in
AirPermittingIntro.pdf
PaEnvironmentDigest June 15, 2015
Proposed Rule: Ports and waterways safety; regulated navigation areas, safety zones, security zones, etc.:
Proposed Rule: Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR): Contractor code of ethics and business conduct
Proposed Rule: Air pollution control: State operating permits programs&#8212; Hawaii
Rule: Organization, functions, and authority delegations: Under Secretary for Research, Education, and Economics et al.
Par 3. The authority citation for part 275 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 18 U.S.C. 2342; 26 U.S.C. 5701, 5703, 5704, 5705, 5708, 5712, 5713, 5721, 5722, 5723, 5741, 5754, 5761, 5762, 5763, 6301, 6302, 6313, 6404, 7101, 7212, 7342,
7606, 7652, 7805; 31 U.S.C. 9301, 9303, 9304,
§ 275.37
Par. 4. Section 275.37 is removed and reserved.
Dated: September 16, 2002. Bradley A. Buckles, Director. Approved: October 25, 2002. Timothy E. Skud, Deputy Assistant Secretary (Regulatory, Tariff, and Trade Enforcement). [FR Doc. 02–27973 Filed 11–4–02; 8:45 am]
[COTP Miami–02–115]
RIN 2115–AA97
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT. ACTION: Notice of proposed rule making.
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is proposing to establish permanent security zones throughout the Captain of the Port of Miami’s area of responsibility. The security zones are needed for national security reasons to protect the public and ports from potential subversive acts. Entry into these zones would be prohibited, unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port, Miami, Florida, or his designated representative.
DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or before December 5, 2002. ADDRESSES: You may mail comments and related material to Commanding Officer, U.S. Coast Guard, Marine Safety Office, 100 MacArthur Causeway, Miami Beach, FL 33139–6940. Captain of the Port (Miami) maintains the public docket for this rulemaking. Comments and material received from the public,
as well as documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket, will become part of this docket and will be available for inspection or copying at Marine Safety Office Miami, 100 MacArthur Causeway, Miami Beach, FL 33139 between 7:30 a.m. and 3 p.m. Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
LTJG Jennifer Sadowski, Waterways Management Division Officer, Coast Guard Marine Safety Office Miami, at (305) 535–8750.
Request for Comments We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting comments and related material. If you do so, please include your name and address, identify the docket number for this rulemaking [COTP Miami-02–115], indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and give the reason for each comment. Please submit all comments and related material in an unbound format, no larger than 8 1 ⁄2 × 11 inches, suitable for copying. If you would like to know they reached us, please enclose a 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.
Public Meeting We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a request for a meeting by writing to Commanding Officer, Marine Safety Office Miami 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 terrorist attacks of September 2001 killed thousands of people and heightened the need for development of various security measures throughout the seaports of the United States, particularly around those vessels and facilities which are frequented by foreign nationals and maintain an interest to national security. The President has continued the national emergencies he declared following the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks (67 FR 58317 (Sep. 13, 2002) (continuing national emergency with respect to terrorist attacks), 67 FR 59447 (Sep. 20, 2002) (continuing national emergency with respect to persons who commit, threaten to commit or support terrorism)). The President also has
found pursuant to law, including the Magnuson Act (50 U.S.C. 191 et seq.), that the security of the United States is and continues to be endangered following the attacks (E.O. 13,273, 67 FR 56215 (Sep. 3, 2002) (security endangered by disturbances in international relations of U.S and such disturbances continue to endanger such relations)). Following these attacks by well-trained and clandestine terrorists, national security and intelligence officials have warned that future terrorist attacks are likely. The Captain of the Port (COTP) of Miami has determined that there is an increased risk that subversive activity could be launched by vessels or persons in close proximity to the Ports of Palm Beach, Miami, Port Everglades, and Key West, Florida. These security zones are necessary to protect the public, ports, and waterways of the United States from potential subversive acts. The Coast Guard Captain of the Port of Miami established temporary security zones in these areas following the September 11, 2001 attacks. Those temporary rules are as follows:
On September 11, 2001, the COTP issued a temporary final rule (TFR) (67 FR 9194, 9195, February 28, 2002, Docket # COTP Miami 01–093) establishing 100-yard security zones around certain vessels in the Port of Palm Beach, Miami, Port Everglades, and Key West, FL, that expired September 25, 2001. On September 25, 2001, the COTP issued another TFR (67 FR 1101, January 9, 2002, COTP Miami 01–115) that maintained these 100-yard security zones around certain vessels in the Ports of Palm Beach, Miami, Port Everglades, and Key West, FL, and added a reference to specific points (buoys) where moving zones were activated and deactivated. This second TFR expired on June 15, 2002. On October 7, 2001, the COTP issued
a TFR (67 FR 6652, February 13, 2002, COTP Miami 01–116) establishing fixed- security zones in Port Everglades and Miami, FL, that expired June 15, 2002. On October 11, 2001, the COTP issued
a TFR (67 FR 4177, January 29, 2002, COTP Miami 01–122) establishing a fixed-security zone for Port Everglades, FL, that expired June 15, 2002. All of the above security zones were extended by a TFR issued on June 13, 2002 (67 FR 46389, COTP Miami-02– 054) until December 15, 2002. That temporary final rule requested comments. As of June 26, 2002, the Coast Guard has not received any comments on that TFR.
16:41 Nov 04, 2002
The COTP Miami proposes to combine the security zones discussed above into a permanent rule. These zones are described below in the same order as they would appear in the proposed regulation, 33 CFR 165.761. Fixed and Moving Security Zones Around Vessels in the Ports of Palm Beach, Port Everglades, Miami, and Key West—Paragraph (a)(1) of this proposed rule would create 100-yard fixed and moving security zones in the Port of
Palm Beach, Palm Beach, FL; Port Everglades, Fort Lauderdale, FL; Port of Miami, Miami, FL; and Port of Key West, Key West, FL. These security zones would be activated when a passenger vessel, a vessel carrying cargoes of particular hazard or when a liquefied hazardous gas (LHG) vessel as defined in 33 CFR parts 120, 126 and
127 respectively, enter or moor within
one of these Ports. The security zones would be activated when a subject vessel passes the sea buoy for inbound transits, and is deactivated when the vessel departs the port and passes the sea buoy. Fixed Security Zone in the Port of Miami—Paragraph (a)(2) of this proposed rule would create a fixed security zone encompassing all waters between the Port of Miami and MacArthur Causeway. The fixed security zone would be activated when two or more passenger vessels, vessels
carrying cargoes of particular hazard, or vessels carrying liquefied hazardous gas (LHG) as defined in 33 CFR parts 120, 126, and 127 respectively, enter or moor within this zone. Fixed Security Zones in Port Everglades—Paragraph (a)(3) of this proposed rule would create a fixed security zone encompassing the waters of the Intracoastal Waterway between the northern tip of Port Everglades berth
22 and a point directly east across the
Intracoastal Waterway; and a line drawn
from the corner of Port Everglades berth
29 at point easterly across the
Intracoastal Waterway to John U. Lloyd Beach, State Recreational Area. The fixed security zone would be activated
when a passenger vessel, a vessel carrying cargoes of particular hazard or a liquefied hazardous gas (LHG) vessel as defined in 33 CFR parts 120, 126 and
This proposed rule is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under
section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. It is not ‘‘significant’’ under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Transportation (DOT) (44 FR 11040, February 26, 1979). The Coast Guard expects the economic impact of this rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation under paragraph 10e of the regulatory policies and procedures of DOT is unnecessary because we anticipate these security zones may only impact vessel traffic for short periods of times. Alternate vessel traffic routes have also been accounted for to assist in minimizing delays. Also, the Captain of the Port of Miami may allow persons or vessels to enter a security zone on a case-by-case basis.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601–612), we considered
whether this proposed rule would have
a significant economic effect upon 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 because we anticipate these security zones may only impact vessel traffic for short periods of times. Alternate vessel traffic routes have also been identified to assist in minimizing delays. Also, the Captain of the Port of Miami may allow persons or vessels to enter a security zone on a case-by-case basis. 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.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Public Law 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 LTJG Jennifer Sadowski at (305) 535–8750.
This proposed rule would call for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501–3520).
A rule has implication 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.
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. Although this proposed rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
We have considered the environmental impact of this proposed rule and concluded that, under figure 2– 1, paragraph (34)(g), of Commandant
Instruction M16475.1D, this rule is categorically excluded from further environmental documentation because no environmental changes will be affected with the security zone implementation. A ‘‘Categorical Exclusion Determination’’ is available in the docket where indicated under
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. We invite your comments on how this rule might impact tribal governments, even if that impact may not constitute
a ‘‘tribal implication’’ under the Order.
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
under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. It has not been designated by the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211.
1. The authority citation for part 165
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191;
CFR 1.05–1(g), 6.04–1, 6.04–6, and 160.5;
CFR 1.46.
2. Add new § 165.761 to read as
§ 165.761
Beach, Port Everglades, Port of Miami, and Port of Key West, Florida.
Security Zones; Port of Palm
(a) Location. The following areas are
(1) Fixed and moving security zones
around vessels in the Ports of Palm Beach, Port Everglades, Miami, and Key West—Moving security zones are established 100 yards around all passenger vessels, vessels carrying
cargoes of particular hazard, or vessels carrying liquefied hazardous gas (LHG)
as defined in 33 CFR parts 120, 126 and
127 respectively, during transits
entering or departing the Ports of Palm Beach, Port Everglades, Miami or Key West, Florida. These moving security zones are activated when the subject vessel passes: ‘‘LW’’ buoy, at approximate position 26°46.3′ N, 080°00.6′ W, when entering the Port of Palm Beach, passes ‘‘PE’’ buoy, at approximate position 26°05.5′ N, 080°04.8′ W, when entering Port Everglades; the ‘‘M’’ buoy, at approximate position 25°46.1′ N, 080°05.0′ W, when entering the Port of Miami; and ‘‘KW’’ buoy, at approximate position 24°27.7′ N, 081°48.1′ W, when entering the Port of Key West. Fixed security zones are established 100 yards around all passenger vessels, vessels
carrying cargoes of particular hazard or liquefied hazardous gas (LHG) as defined in 33 CFR parts 120, 126 and
127 respectively, while they are docked
in the Ports of Palm Beach, Port
Everglades, Miami or Key West, Florida.
(2) Fixed security zone in the Port of
Miami—A fixed security zone encompasses all waters between Watson
Park and Star Island on the MacArthur Causeway south to the Port of Miami. The western boundary is formed by an
imaginary line from points 25°46.79′ N, 080°10.90′ W, to 25°46.77′ N, 080°10.92′
W to 25°46.88′ N, 080°10.84′ W, and
ending on Watson Park at 25°47.00′ N, 080°10.67′ W. The eastern boundary is formed by an imaginary line from the traffic light located at Bridge road, in approximate position 25°46.33′ N, 080°09.12′ W, which leads to Star Island, and MacArthur Causeway directly extending across the Main Channel to the Port of Miami, at 25°46.26′ N, 080°09.18′ W. The fixed
security zone is activated when two or more passenger vessels, vessels carrying cargoes of particular hazard, or vessels carrying liquefied hazardous gas (LHG)
(i) Vessels may be allowed to transit
the Main Channel when only one passenger vessel or vessel carrying cargoes of particular hazard are berthed,
by staying on the north side of the law enforcement boats and cruise ship tenders which will mark a transit lane in channel.
(ii) When passenger vessels are not
berthed on the Main Channel,
navigation will be unrestricted. Law enforcement vessels can be contacted on VHF Marine Band Radio, Channel 16 (156.8 MHz).
(3) Fixed security zones in the Port
Everglades—A fixed security zone encompasses all waters west of an imaginary line starting at the northern most point 26°05.98′ N, 080°07.15′ W, near the west side of the 17th Street Causeway Bridge, to the southern most point 26°05.41′ N, 080°06.96′ W, on the northern tip of pier 22. An additional fixed security zone encompasses the Intracoastal Waterway between a line connecting point 26°05.41′ N, 080°06.97′ W, on the northern tip of berth 22 and a point directly east across the Intracoastal Waterway to 26°05.41′ N, 080°06.74′ W; and a line drawn from the corner of Port Everglades berth 29 at point 26°04.72′ N, 080°06.92′ W, easterly across the Intracoastal Waterway to John U. Lloyd Beach, State Recreational Area at point 26°04.72′ N, 080°06.81′ W. (i) Vessels may be allowed to transit the Intracoastal Waterway when passenger vessels or vessels carrying cargoes of particular hazard are berthed,
by staying east of the law enforcement boats and cruise ship tenders, which will mark a transit lane in the Intracoastal Waterway.
(ii) Periodically, vessels may be
required to temporarily hold their positions while large commercial traffic
operates in this area. Vessels in this
security zone must follow the orders of the COTP or his designated representative, who may be embarked in law enforcement or other vessels on scene. When passenger vessels are not berthed on the Intracoastal Waterway, navigation will be unrestricted. Law enforcement vessels can be contacted on VHF Marine Band Radio, Channel 16 (156.8 MHz).
(b) Regulations. (1) Prior to
commencing the movement, the person directing the movement of a passenger
vessel, a vessel carrying cargoes of particular hazard or when a vessel carrying liquefied hazardous gas (LHG) as defined in Title 33, Code of Federal Regulations parts 120, 126 and 127 respectively, are encouraged to make a security broadcast on VHF Marine Band Radio, Channel 13 (156.65 MHz) to advise mariners of the moving security zone activation and intended transit.
(2) In accordance with the general
regulations § 165.33 of this part, entry
into these zones is prohibited except as authorized by the Captain of the Port Miami or his designated representative. Other vessels such as pilot boats, cruise ship tenders, tug boats and contracted security vessels may assist the Coast Guard Captain of the Port under the direction of his designated representative by monitoring these zones strictly to advise mariners of the
restrictions. The Captain of the Port will notify the public via Marine Safety Radio Broadcast on VHF Marine Band Radio, Channel 13 (156.65 MHz) when the security zones are being enforced.
(3) Persons desiring to enter or transit
the area of the security zone may contact the Captain of the Port on VHF
Marine Band Radio, Channel 16 (156.8 MHz) to seek permission to transit the area. If permission is granted, all persons and vessels must comply with
the instructions of the Captain of the Port or his or her designated representative.
(4) The Captain of the Port Miami may
waive any of the requirements of this subpart for any vessel upon finding that
the vessel or class of vessel, operational conditions, or other circumstances are such that application of this subpart is unnecessary or impractical for the purpose of port security, safety or environmental safety.
(c) Definition. As used in this section,
cruise ship means a passenger vessel greater than 100 feet in length and over
100 gross tons that is authorized to carry more than 12 passengers for hire making voyages lasting more than 24 hours, except for a ferry.
(d) Authority. In addition to 33 U.S.C.
1231 and 50 U.S.C. 191, the authority for this section includes 33 U.S.C. 1226.
Dated: October 16, 2002. J.A. Watson, IV, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Miami. [FR Doc. 02–28089 Filed 11–4–02; 8:45 am]
[CA242–0373b; FRL–7395–9]
SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve revisions to the Imperial County Air
Pollution Control District’s (ICAPCD) portion of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). These revisions concern volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from Soil Decontamination Operations, Organic Solvent Degreasing Operations and Organic Solvents. We are proposing to approve local rules to regulate these emission sources under the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act).
DATES: Any comments on this proposal must arrive by December 5, 2002. ADDRESSES: Mail comments to Andy Steckel, Rulemaking Office Chief (AIR– 4), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105–3901. You can inspect copies of the submitted SIP revisions and EPA’s technical support documents (TSDs) at our Region IX office during normal business hours. You may also see copies of the submitted SIP revisions at the following locations:
California Air Resources Board, Stationary Source Division, Rule Evaluation Section, 1001 ‘‘I’’ Street, Sacramento, CA 95814. Imperial County APCD, 150 South 9th Street, El Centro, CA 92243–2850 A copy of the rule may also be available via the Internet at http:// www.arb.ca.gov/drdb/drdbltxt.htm. Please be advised that this is not an EPA website and may not contain the same version of the rule that was submitted to EPA.
Terry McCall, EPA Region IX, (415)
972–3976.
proposal addresses the following local rules: ICAPCD Rules 412, 413 and 417. In the Rules and Regulations section of this Federal Register, we are approving these local rules in a direct final action without prior proposal because we believe these SIP revisions are not controversial. If we receive adverse comments, however, we will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule and address the comments in subsequent action based on this proposed rule. Please note that if we receive adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, we may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment. We do not plan to open a second comment period, so anyone interested in commenting should do so at this time. If we do not receive adverse
comments, no further activity is planned. For further information, please see the direct final action.
Dated: September 30, 2002. Keith Takata, Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX. [FR Doc. 02–28078 Filed 11–4–02; 8:45 am]
[Region II Docket No. NJ54–246, FRL–7404–
SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by New Jersey, including revisions to the State’s enhanced motor vehicle inspection and maintenance (I/M) program. This revision updates New Jersey’s enhanced I/M performance standard modeling to reflect the State’s plan to extend the current new vehicle inspection exemption from one inspection cycle ( 2 years) to two inspection cycles (4 years). This evaluation is necessary for New Jersey to demonstrate that the proposed changes to the enhanced I/M program will not impact the State’s ability to continue to meet its enhanced I/M emission reduction goals for current and future years. EPA is proposing approval of New Jersey’s plan to extend the new car emission inspection exemption, and the State’s supporting revised performance standard modeling, which demonstrates that the enhanced I/M program continues to meet EPA’s low enhanced performance standard. DATES: Comments must be received on or before December 5, 2002. Public comments on this action are requested and will be considered before taking final action. ADDRESSES: All comments should be addressed to Raymond Werner, Branch Chief, Air Programs Branch, Environmental Protection Agency, 290 Broadway, 25th Floor, New York, New York 10007–1866. Copies of the documents relevant to this action are available for public inspection during normal business hours at the following locations:
Documents Similar To Federal Register-02-28089
Notice: Pollution control; consent judgments: Westwood Chemical Corp.
Notice: Aeronautical land-use assurance; waivers: Craig Field Airport, AL
Proposed Rule: Air quality implementation plans; approval and promulgation; various States: Hanford Central Characterization Project
November 2004 Kite Newsletter Audubon Society of the Everglades
FB76 Dequine History Formatted
USA College Selectivity
Ssep - Jan 2019
‏Mirant vs Caro
predictions of progress - reading recovery
script nida din
Article - Six Sigma for IT Management
umshiva
Gestión de Proyectos Revista
LFLB.pdf
Anonymous scqhkCPxJF
missionmp4113
UNESCO People on the Move Handbook Terms for Migration
Research_paper_on_VEHICLE_TRACKING_SYSTE.pdf
Sites AP Candidate Handbook
Mazzar - The Rise and Fall of the Failed-State Paradigm
Instruments of Foreign Trade
K1 Malalison Island
Gelo Plamenco
Plant - Weed Collection
Yves Essama
20180803 Proposed Scheme of Service for EMTs in Kenya
Brian Beauttah
Ritchie Labayo
The 1895 General Conference Bulletin
Arbitration_and_ADR__Chapter_7__Recourse_Against_ACHAPTER7COM485644
samv_marketing2.1
dabdoelgafoer