15218 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 54 / Monday, March 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

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 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 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 determination that this 

action is one of a category of actions that 

do not individually or cumulatively 

have a significant effect on the human 

environment. This rule is categorically 

excluded, under figure 2–1, paragraph 

(34)(g), of the Instruction. This rule 

involves amending a security zone 

regulation by removing the reference to 

shore area in security zones for moored 

cruise ships. An environmental analysis 

checklist and a categorical exclusion 

determination are available in the 

docket where indicated under 

ADDRESSES. 

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 amends 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. 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, and 160.5; 

Pub. L. 107–295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department 

of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. 

■ 2. In § 165.1108, reinstate temporarily 

suspended paragraph (b)(2), and then 

revise paragraphs (b) and (c) to read as 

follows: 

§ 165.1108 Security Zones; Moored Cruise 

Ships, Port of San Diego, California. 

* * * * * 

(b) Location. The following areas are 

security zones: All navigable waters, 

extending from the surface to the sea 

floor, within a 100-yard radius around 

any cruise ship that is located within 

the San Diego port area landward of the 

sea buoys bounding the Port of San 

Diego. 

(c) Regulations. Under regulations in 

33 CFR part 165, subpart D, a person or 

vessel may not enter into or remain in 

the security zones created by this 

section unless authorized by the Coast 

Guard Captain of the Port, San Diego 

(COTP) or a COTP designated 

representative. Persons desiring to 

transit these security zones may contact 

the COTP at telephone number (619) 

278–7033 or on VHF–FM 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. 

* * * * * 

§ 165.T11–386 [Removed] 

■ 3. Remove § 165.T11–386. 

Dated: March 7, 2011. 

T.H. Farris, 

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

Port San Diego. 

[FR Doc. 2011–6579 Filed 3–16–11; 4:15 pm] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

POSTAL SERVICE 

39 CFR Part 965 

Rules of Practice in Proceedings 

Relative to Mail Disputes 

AGENCY: Postal Service. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Postal Service is 

amending the rules of practice of the 

Office of the Judicial Officer to clarify 

that parties may submit arguments as 

well as sworn statements in support of 

their claims to disputed mail. In 

addition, the rules are being amended to 

clarify some provisions and update 

obsolete language. 

DATES: Effective Date: March 30, 2011. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Administrative Judge Gary E. Shapiro, 

(703) 812–1910. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Supporting statements. The rules 

governing proceedings relative to mail 

disputes are found in 39 CFR part 965. 

Formerly, § 965.5 provided that each 

party shall file a sworn statement of the 

facts supporting its claim to the 

disputed mail together with a copy of 

each document on which it relies in 

making such claim. The revised rule 

clarifies that the submission also may 

include argument as to why the factual 

statement and supporting documents 

should result in that party’s claim to the 

disputed mail being accepted. The 

change concerning inclusion of 

argument in the parties’ mail dispute 

submissions is intended to reflect 

longstanding practice to that effect. 

Clarifying this matter should avoid 

confusion from unclear wording that 

could, and in one recent case did lead 

a disputant to believe that only factual 

presentation and not argument is 

permitted by the rules. Corresponding 

changes are made to section 965.6. 

Editorial changes. Several other 

changes are made to various sections of 

the rules for the purpose of clarifying 

the rules, updating the rules, or 

conforming the rules to current practice. 

None of the changes affects the 

substantive rights of disputants. 

Changes in sections 965.1, 965.2, 965.3, 

965.4(b)(2), 965.8(a), and 965.14 reflect 

current practice and eliminate reference 

to obsolete language. Section 965.9(c) is 

eliminated as unnecessary. 

Effective date. These revisions are 

changes in agency rules of practice 

before the Judicial Officer and do not 

substantially affect any rights or 

obligations of private parties. Therefore, 

it is appropriate for their adoption by 

the Postal Service to become effective at 

an early date; and these revised rules 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 54 / Monday, March 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 15219 

will govern proceedings docketed on or 

after March 30, 2011. 

List of Subjects in 39 CFR Part 965 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Mail disputes, Postal 

Service. 

Accordingly, the Postal Service 

adopts amendments to 39 CFR part 965 

as set forth below. 

PART 965—RULES OF PRACTICE IN 

PROCEEDINGS RELATIVE TO MAIL 

DISPUTES 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 965 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 39 U.S.C. 204, 401. 

■ 2. Section 965.1 is revised to read as 

follows: 

§ 965.1 Authority for rules. 

These rules of practice are issued by 

the Judicial Officer of the U.S. Postal 

Service pursuant to authority delegated 

by the Postmaster General. 

■ 3. Section 965.2 is revised to read as 

follows: 

§ 965.2 Scope of rules. 

The rules in this part shall be 

applicable to mail dispute cases 

forwarded to the Judicial Officer 

pursuant to Postal Operations Manual 

section 616.21. 

■ 4. Section 965.3 is revised to read as 

follows: 

§ 965.3 Notice to parties. 

Upon receipt of a mail dispute case, 

the Recorder, Office of the Judicial 

Officer, United States Postal Service, 

2101 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 600, 

Arlington, VA 22201–3078, will send a 

notice of docketing and submission due 

date to the parties together with a copy 

of these rules. 

■ 5. Section 965.4 is amended by 

revising paragraph (b)(2) to read as 

follows: 

§ 965.4 Presiding officers. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(2) Render an initial decision, if the 

presiding officer is not the Judicial 

Officer; or if the presiding officer is the 

Judicial Officer, issue a tentative or a 

final decision or order. 

■ 6. Section 965.5 is revised to read as 

follows: 

§ 965.5 Initial submissions by parties. 

Within 15 days after receipt of the 

Recorder’s notice, each party shall file 

with the Recorder a sworn statement of 

the facts supporting its claim to receipt 

of the mail together with a copy of each 

document on which it relies in making 

such claim, and any arguments 

supporting its claim. 

■ 7. Section 965.6 is revised to read as 

follows: 

§ 965.6 Comments by parties. 

Within 10 days of receipt of the other 

party’s initial submission under § 965.5, 

each party may file with the Recorder an 

additional statement or rebuttal 

argument setting forth in detail its 

disagreements, if any, with its 

opponent’s initial submission. Such 

rebuttal may include any additional 

documents relevant to the dispute. 

■ 8. Section 965.8 is amended by 

revising paragraph (a) to read as follows: 

§ 965.8 Hearings. 

(a) Generally, mail dispute cases are 

resolved based on written submissions. 

However, in the discretion of the 

presiding officer an oral hearing may be 

conducted where in the opinion of the 

presiding officer, the case cannot be 

resolved by a review of the documentary 

evidence. 

* * * * * 

§ 965.9 [Amended] 

■ 9. Section 965.9 is amended by 

removing paragraph (c). 

■ 10. Section 965.12 is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 965.12 Appeal. 

Within 10 days after receipt by the 

parties of the initial or tentative 

decision, either party may file an appeal 

to the Judicial Officer. The Judicial 

Officer, or by delegation the Associate 

Judicial Officer, in his or her sole 

discretion, also may review the initial or 

tentative decision on his or her own 

initiative. If an appeal is denied, the 

initial or tentative decision becomes the 

final agency decision upon the issuance 

of such denial. If an appeal is not filed 

and the Judicial Officer, or by delegation 

the Associate Judicial Officer does not 

review the initial or tentative decision 

on his or her own initiative, a final 

order will be issued. The Judicial 

Officer’s decision on appeal or his or 

her final order is the final agency 

decision with no further agency review 

or appeal rights. 

■ 11. Section 965.14 is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 965.14 Public information. 

The Librarian of the Postal Service 

maintains for public inspection in the 

Library copies of all initial, tentative, 

and final agency decisions and orders. 

Copies of decisions also are available on 

the Judicial Officer’s section of the 

official Web site of the U.S. Postal 

Service. The Recorder maintains the 

complete official record of every 

proceeding. 

Stanley F. Mires, 

Chief Counsel, Legislative. 

[FR Doc. 2011–6332 Filed 3–18–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7710–12–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 81 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2008–0306; FRL–9284–3] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; Designation of 

Areas for Air Quality Planning 

Purposes; State of California; PM–10; 

Technical Amendment 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule; technical 

amendment. 

SUMMARY: EPA is making a technical 

amendment to the Code of Federal 

Regulations to reflect the final actions 

published by the Agency on November 

12, 2008 in connection with the 

designations of the San Joaquin Valley 

Air Basin and East Kern areas for 

particulate matter of ten microns or less 

(PM–10). 

DATES: This technical amendment is 

effective on March 21, 2011. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Doris Lo, EPA Region IX, (415) 972– 

3959, lo.doris@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On 

November 12, 2008, among other 

actions, EPA approved the State of 

California’s request under the Clean Air 

Act (CAA or the Act) to revise the 

designation for the San Joaquin Valley 

serious nonattainment area for 

particulate matter of ten microns or less 

(PM–10) by splitting the area into two 

separate nonattainment areas: The San 

Joaquin Valley Air Basin (SJVAB) 

serious nonattainment area and the East 

Kern serious nonattainment area. See 73 

FR 66759 (November 12, 2008). In the 

November 12, 2008 final rule, EPA also 

redesignated the SJVAB to attainment 

for the PM–10 national ambient air 

quality standard (NAAQS). 

In relevant part, the amendatory 

language on page 66773 of the 

November 12, 2008 final rule states: ‘‘In 

§ 81.305 the ‘‘California—PM–10’’ table 

is amended under Fresno, Kern, Kings, 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES