Comment on FR Doc # E9-30659

Comments on COE- 2009-0056 Philip Gallmeier PO Box 2952 Fort Walton Beach Florida 32549 Email: filftwalton@cox.net 1) There is a discrepancy with what Eglin AFB is stating in the media and what the notice/regulation revisions indicate of when these restricted zones will be closed. Eglin AFB representative Mr. David McLemore , Eglin’s antiterrorism officer, is indicating that some of these zones will be open when the threat level is not critical but public must provide proper id to security patrols (Northwest Florida Daily News and conversation with Mr. McLemore.) The notice in several areas: 334.710, 334.740., 334.742, 334.744 (items 3. 6. , 7. , and 8 respective) state that restrictions will be in effect 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Then enforcement is listed as …. “As he/she may designate. “ If indeed the restricted areas will be open until a “high threat level” is achieved then this needs to be stated in the regulations. Wording to that affect is in item 2(c)(2) and should be incorporated throughout the proposed revisions specifically for the items noted above. 2) Mr. McLemore stated that entry to the restricted zones would be allowed (see 1 above) but persons must present a valid ID such as a driver’s license. If this is indeed a requirement to enter the restricted zones this must be stated in all the proposed revisions to the regulations. 3) If indeed entry into the restricted areas are to be enforced 24/7 then I have objections to all revisions and would like to be contacted to understand the discrepancy between what Mr. McLemore has said and what is to be implemented. 4) Specifically for 334.740. How far off shore will the restricted zones be. This is not indicated in the notice or revisions. Therefore how will the general public know how close they can approach the shoreline. The notice and revisions need to be rewritten to indicate the distance off shore for this restricted area. 5) Specifically for 334.710 3.(b) states the area will be “used intermittently during daylight hours”. This “use” needs more detailed description so that the general public and boaters can be aware of the bounds of the DoD uses. 6) While the notice might have been issued within regulations there was no dissemination of this notice locally in a timely manner. Most folks I know do not read the Federal Register. There were two brief articles in the papers in the last week before comments were due. Better notification could have been effected by Army Corps of Engineers by contacting all local papers in the affected area to advise that this notice was published. Due to the non-notification locally of these restrictions in a timely manner and the possible effects of interstate comments by the Corp of Engineers am requesting extend the comment period by 30 days. 7) The instructions in the notice to comment on the notice are obscure and inconcise. When following the instructions at the beginning of the notice ( I get 50 hits Search Database: Federal Register, Volume 74 (2009) For: "33CFR334.700" Total Hits: 50 This is totally inadequate for the general public to be able to comment on the proposals. Is it meant to confuse and deny the public? A better instruction was given by Mr. Jon Griffin with the link: http://www.regulations.gov and the docket number. The docket number given by Mr. Griffnin was SAJ-2009-0056 which resulted in no hits, while the COE-2009-0056 With this I got 90,000 hits. Only because I knew the comment period which narrowed the search down. Additionally there was no listing of the docket number in the notice itself. Overall the process to comment is obscure and hints of wishing of failure. Therefore am request a reissue of the notification with more accurate and simple instructions for the public to comment on this notice.