46014 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 8, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

nautical charts. Note that the 60 foot 

depth curve is readily identifiable on 

NOAA chart 13303 (Approaches to 

Penobscot Bay). 

(b) Regulations. (1) The general 

regulations contained in 33 CFR 165.23 

apply. 

(2) Entry into, transiting, diving, 

dredging, dumping, fishing, trawling, 

conducting salvage operations, 

remaining within or anchoring in this 

safety zone is prohibited unless 

authorized by the Captain of the Port 

Northern New England or his 

designated representatives. 

(3) The ‘‘designated representative’’ is 

any Coast Guard commissioned, 

warrant, or petty officer who has been 

designated by the Captain of the Port 

Northern New England to act on his 

behalf. 

(4) Vessel operators desiring to enter 

or operate within the safety zone may 

contact the Captain of the Port Northern 

New England or his designated 

representative at the Coast Guard Sector 

Northern New England Command 

Center via VHF Channel 16 or by phone 

at (207) 741–5465 to request permission. 

(5) Vessel operators given permission 

to enter or operate in the safety zones 

must comply with all directions given to 

them by the Captain of the Port 

Northern New England or his 

designated representatives. 

Dated: July 15, 2009. 

J.B. Mcpherson, 

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

Port, Sector Northern New England. 

[FR Doc. E9–21570 Filed 9–4–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–15–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 165 

[Docket No. USCG–2009–0383] 

RIN 1625–AA00 

Safety Zone; Paddle for Clean Water; 

San Diego; CA 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Temporary final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is 

establishing a safety zone upon the 

navigable waters of the Pacific Ocean, 

San Diego, CA, in support of a paddling 

regatta near the Ocean Beach Pier. This 

safety zone is necessary to provide for 

the safety of the participants, crew, 

spectators, participating vessels, and 

other vessels and users of the waterway. 

Persons and vessels are prohibited from 

entering into, transiting through, or 

anchoring within this safety zone unless 

authorized by the Captain of the Port, or 

his designated representative. 

DATES: This rule is effective on 

September 13, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: Comments and material 

received from the public, as well as 

documents mentioned in this preamble 

as being available in the docket, are part 

of docket USCG–2009–0383 and are 

available online by going to http:// 

www.regulations.gov, inserting USCG– 

2009–0383 in the ‘‘Keyword’’ box, and 

then clicking ‘‘Search.’’ This material is 

also available for inspection or copying 

at the 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, between 9 a.m. 

and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you have questions on this temporary 

rule, call or e-mail Petty Officer Shane 

Jackson, Waterways Management, Coast 

Guard; telephone 619–278–7262, e-mail 

Shane.E.Jackson@uscg.mil. If you have 

questions on viewing the docket, call 

Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, 

Docket Operations, telephone 202–366– 

9826. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Regulatory Information 

On June 29, 2009 we published a 

notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) 

entitled Safety zone; Paddle for Clean 

Water; San Diego; California in the 

Federal Register (74 FR 30991). We 

received 0 comments on the proposed 

rule. No public meeting was requested, 

and none was held. 

Background and Purpose 

The Surfrider Foundation San Diego 

Chapter is sponsoring the Paddle for 

Clean Water. The event will consist of 

900 to 1000 participants paddling 

around the Ocean Beach Pier. The 

sponsor will provide rescue vessels, as 

well as perimeter safety boats for the 

duration of this event. This safety zone 

is necessary to provide for the safety of 

the participants, crew, spectators, 

participating vessels, and other vessels 

and users of the waterway. 

Discussion of Rule 

The Coast Guard is establishing a 

safety zone that will be enforced on 

September 13, 2009 from 9 a.m. to 4 

p.m. The limits of the safety zone will 

be as follows: 

32°45.00′ N, 117°15.12′ W; 

32°45.10′ N, 117°15.30′ W; 

32°44.55′ N, 117°15.38′ W; 

32°44.43′ N, 117°15.19′ W; along the 

shoreline to 

32°45.00′ N, 117°15.12′ W. 

This safety zone is necessary to 

provide for the safety of the 

participants, crew, spectators, 

participating vessels, and other vessels 

and users of the waterway. Persons and 

vessels will be prohibited from entering 

into, transiting through, or anchoring 

within this safety zone unless 

authorized by the Captain of the Port or 

his designated representative. 

Regulatory Analyses 

We developed this 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 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 temporary final rule to be so 

minimal that a full Regulatory 

Evaluation is unnecessary. This 

determination is based on the size and 

location of the safety zone. Commercial 

vessels will not be hindered by the 

safety zone. Recreational vessels will 

not be allowed to transit through the 

designated safety zone during the 

specified times unless authorized to do 

so by the Captain of the Port or his 

designated representative. 

Small Entities 

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

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

whether this 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 rule will not have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

This determination is based on the size 

and location of the safety zone. 

Commercial vessels will not be 

hindered by the safety zone. 

Recreational vessels will not be allowed 

to transit through the designated safety 

zone during the specified times. 


CPrice-Sewell on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 8, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 46015 

Assistance for Small Entities 

Under section 213(a) of the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104–121), 

in the NPRM we offered to assist small 

entities in understanding the rule so 

that they could better evaluate its effects 

on them and participate in the 

rulemaking process. 

Small businesses may send comments 

on the actions of Federal employees 

who enforce, or otherwise determine 

compliance with, Federal regulations to 

the Small Business and Agriculture 

Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman 

and the Regional Small Business 

Regulatory Fairness Boards. The 

Ombudsman evaluates these actions 

annually and rates each agency’s 

responsiveness to small business. If you 

wish to comment on actions by 

employees of the Coast Guard, call 

1–888–REG–FAIR (1–888–734–3247). 

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 rule calls 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 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 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 rule will 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 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 rule under 

Executive Order 13045, Protection of 

Children from Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not 

an economically significant rule and 

does not create an environmental risk to 

health or risk to safety that may 

disproportionately affect children. 

Indian Tribal Governments 

This rule does not have Tribal 

implications under Executive Order 

13175, Consultation and Coordination 

with Indian Tribal Governments, 

because it does 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 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 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 concluded this action is one of a 

category of actions which 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 establishment of a safety zone. 

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. 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 a new temporary zone 

§ 165.T11–201 to read as follows: 

§ 165.T11–201 Safety zone; Paddle for 

Clean Water; San Diego; California 

(a) Location. The limits of the safety 

zone will be as follows: 

32°45.00′ N, 117°15.12′ W; 

32°45.10′ N, 117°15.30′ W; 

32°44.55′ N, 117°15.38′ W; 

32°44.43′ N, 117°15.19′ W; along the 

shoreline to 

32°45.00′ N, 117°15.12′ W. 

(b) Enforcement Period. This section 

will be enforced on September 13, 2009 

from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. If the event 

concludes prior to the scheduled 

termination time, the Captain of the Port 

will cease enforcement of this safety 

zone and will announce that fact via 

Broadcast Notice to Mariners. 


CPrice-Sewell on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES
46016 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 8, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

1Request of the United States Postal Service to 

Add Priority Mail Contract 16 to Competitive 

Product List and Notice of Filing (Under Seal) of 

Contract and Supporting Data, July 24, 2009 

(Request). 

2Attachment A to the Request. 

3Attachment B to the Request. 

4Attachment C to the Request. 

5Attachment D to the Request. 

6PRC Order No. 260, Notice and Order 

Concerning Priority Mail Contract 16 Negotiated 

Service Agreement, July 29, 2009 (Order No. 260). 

7Public Representative Comments in Response to 

United States Postal Service Request to Add Priority 

Mail Contract 16 to Competitive Product List, 

(Public Representative Comments). The 

Commission reads these comments as relating to 

Priority Mail Contract 16, notwithstanding 

inadvertent reference to Priority Mail Contract 15. 

(c) Definitions. The following 

definition applies to this section: 

designated representative, means any 

commissioned, warrant, and petty 

officers of the Coast Guard on board 

Coast Guard, Coast Guard Auxiliary, 

and local, State, and Federal law 

enforcement vessels who have been 

authorized to act on the behalf of the 

Captain of the Port. 

(d) Regulations. (1) Entry into, transit 

through or anchoring within this safety 

zone is prohibited unless authorized by 

the Captain of the Port of San Diego or 

his designated on-scene representative. 

(2) Mariners requesting permission to 

transit through the safety zone may 

request authorization to do so from the 

Command Center (COMCEN). The 

COMCEN may be contacted on VHF–FM 

Channel 16 or (619) 278–7033. 

(3) All persons and vessels shall 

comply with the instructions of the 

Coast Guard Captain of the Port or the 

designated representative. 

(4) Upon being hailed by U.S. Coast 

Guard patrol personnel by siren, radio, 

flashing light, or other means, the 

operator of a vessel shall proceed as 

directed. 

(5) The Coast Guard may be assisted 

by other Federal, State, or local 

agencies. 

Dated: August 18, 2009. 

D.L. Leblanc, 

Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of 

the Port San Diego. 

[FR Doc. E9–21439 Filed 9–4–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–15–P 

POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION 

39 CFR Part 3020 

[Docket Nos. MC2009–36 and CP2009–55; 

Order No. 279] 

New Postal Product 

AGENCY: Postal Regulatory Commission. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Commission is adding 

Priority Mail Contract 16 to the 

Competitive Product List. This action is 

consistent with changes in a recent law 

governing postal operations. 

Republication of the lists of market 

dominant and competitive products is 

also consistent with new requirements 

in the law. 

DATES: Effective September 8, 2009 and 

is applicable beginning August 17, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Stephen L. Sharfman, General Counsel, 

202–789–6820 and 

stephen.sharfman@prc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Regulatory 

History, 74 FR 39122 (August 5, 2009). 

I. Introduction 

II. Background 

III. Comments 

IV. Errata 

V. Commission Analysis 

VI. Ordering Paragraphs 

I. Introduction 

The Postal Service seeks to add a new 

product identified as Priority Mail 

Contract 16 to the Competitive Product 

List. For the reasons discussed below, 

the Commission approves the Request. 

II. Background 

On July 24, 2009, the Postal Service 

filed a formal request pursuant to 39 

U.S.C. 3642 and 39 CFR 3020.30 et seq. 

to add Priority Mail Contract 16 to the 

Competitive Product List.1 The Postal 

Service asserts that the Priority Mail 

Contract 16 product is a competitive 

product ‘‘not of general applicability’’ 

within the meaning of 39 U.S.C. 

3632(b)(3). This Request has been 

assigned Docket No. MC2009–36. 

The Postal Service 

contemporaneously filed a contract 

related to the proposed new product 

pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3632(b)(3) and 39 

CFR 3015.5. The contract has been 

assigned Docket No. CP2009–55. 

In support of its Request, the Postal 

Service filed the following materials: (1) 

A redacted version of the contract 

which, among other things, provides 

that the contract will expire 1 year from 

the effective date, which is proposed to 

be the day that the Commission issues 

all regulatory approvals; 2 (2) requested 

changes in the Mail Classification 

Schedule product list; 3 (3) a Statement 

of Supporting Justification as required 

by 39 CFR 3020.32; 4 and (4) 

certification of compliance with 39 

U.S.C. 3633(a).5 The Postal Service also 

references Governors’ Decision 09–6, 

filed in Docket No. MC2009–25, as 

authorization of the new product. 

Notice at 1. 

In the Statement of Supporting 

Justification, Mary Prince Anderson, 

Acting Manager, Sales and 

Communications, Expedited Shipping, 

asserts that the service to be provided 

under the contract will cover its 

attributable costs, make a positive 

contribution to coverage of institutional 

costs, and will increase contribution 

toward the requisite 5.5 percent of the 

Postal Service’s total institutional costs. 

Request, Attachment C, at 1. W. Ashley 

Lyons, Manager, Regulatory Reporting 

and Cost Analysis, Finance Department, 

certifies that the contract complies with 

39 U.S.C. 3633(a). See id., Attachment 

D. 

The Postal Service filed much of the 

supporting materials, including the 

supporting data and the unredacted 

contract, under seal. In its Request, the 

Postal Service maintains that the 

contract and related financial 

information, including the customer’s 

name and the accompanying analyses 

that provide prices, certain terms and 

conditions, and financial projections, 

should remain confidential. Id. at 2–3. 

In Order No. 260, the Commission 

gave notice of the two dockets, 

appointed a public representative, and 

provided the public with an opportunity 

to comment.6

III. Comments 

Comments were filed by the Public 

Representative.7 No comments were 

submitted by other interested parties. 

The Public Representative states that 

each ‘‘element of 39 U.S.C. 3633(a) 

appears to be met by Priority Mail 

Contract 16. Id. at 2. On the other hand, 

he observes ‘‘it is not clear that the 

* * * justification of this contract 

* * * comports with the requirements 

of 3632(b)(3).’’ Id. at 3. He submits that 

the term of the contract is ambiguous, 

particularly because the provision 

stating that the contract ‘‘shall expire 

one year from the effective date’’ is at 

odds with other clauses for annual 

adjustments. Id. at 3. While recognizing 

the Governors’ preapproved pricing 

shell, he also contends that ‘‘the 

contract expiration must be established 

definitively since it is an essential 

component of the contract’s 

classification as ‘a product.’ ’’ Id. 

The Public Representative notes that 

the Postal Service has duties to provide 

packaging and labels. Id. at 2–3. He also 

points out that the ‘‘contract appears to 

be silent on issues such as manifesting, 

electronically or otherwise.’’ Id. at 3. He 

adds that the Postal Service’s Request at 

Attachment C provides a statement of 

support that incorrectly refers to Priority 

Mail Contract 14, rather than 16. 


CPrice-Sewell on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES