Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 29, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 49821 

rule or otherwise does so at their own 

risk. 

(5) Waiver. For any vessel, the Ninth 

Coast Guard District Commander, or his 

designated representatives, may waive 

any of the requirements of this section, 

upon finding that operational 

conditions or other circumstances are 

such that application of this section is 

unnecessary or impractical for the 

purposes of vessel and mariner safety. 

Dated: September 18, 2009. 

D.R. Callahan, 

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, 

Ninth Coast Guard District, Acting. 

[FR Doc. E9–23443 Filed 9–28–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–15–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 165 

[Docket No. USCG–2009–0474] 

RIN 1625–AA00 

Safety Zone; Parker US Open 

Nationals; Parker, AZ 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Temporary final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is 

establishing a safety zone upon the 

navigable waters of Lake Moovalya 

reigon on the lower Colorado River in 

support of the Parker US Open 

Nationals. This safety zone is necessary 

to provide for the safety of the 

participants, crew, spectators, 

participating vessels, and other 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 from 8 a.m. 

on October 9, 2009 through 6 p.m. on 

October 11, 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–2009–0474 and are 

available online by going to http:// 

www.regulations.gov, inserting USCG– 

2009–0474 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, USCG, Waterways 

Management, U.S. Coast Guard Sector 

San Diego at telephone 619–278–7262, 

e-mail Shane.E.Jackson@uscg.mil. 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: 

Regulatory Information 

On July 6, 2009 we published a notice 

of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) 

entitled Safety zone; Parker US Open 

Nationals; Parker, AZ in the Federal 

Register (74 FR 31900). We received no 

comments on the proposed rule. No 

public meeting was requested, and none 

was held. 

Background and Purpose 

This temporary safety zone is 

established in support of the Parker US 

Open Nationals, a marine event that 

includes participating vessels along an 

established and marked course upon the 

Colorado River in Parker, AZ. This 

temporary safety zone is necessary to 

provide for the safety of the crews, 

spectators, and participants of the race 

and is also necessary to protect other 

vessels and users of the waterway. 

Discussion of Comments and Changes 

There were no comments submitted 

and no changes were made to the 

regulation. 

Discussion of Rule 

The Coast Guard is establishing a 

safety zone that will be enforced from 8 

a.m. to 6 p.m. on October 9, 2009 

through October 11, 2009. The limits of 

this temporary safety zone are as 

follows: Starting at the Bluewater 

Marina in Parker, AZ, extending 

approximately 6 miles to La Paz County 

Park. This safety zone is necessary to 

provide for the safety of the crews, 

spectators, and participants of the 

Parker US Open Nationals and to 

protect 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. It is not ‘‘significant’’ under the 

regulatory policies and procedures of 

the Department of Homeland Security 

(DHS). We expect the economic impact 

of this rule to be so minimal that a full 

Regulatory Evaluation is unnecessary. 

The safety zone is of a limited duration, 

ten hours per day for a period of three 

days, and is limited to a relatively small 

geographic area. 

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. 

The safety zone will affect the following 

entities some of which may be small 

entities: the owners and operators of 

pleasure craft engaged in recreational 

activities and sightseeing. This safety 

zone will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities because the 

safety zone is limited in scope and 

duration as it is in effect for ten hours 

per day for a period of three days. 

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 


CPrice-Sewell on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES
49822 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 29, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

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. This rule involves 

establishment of a safety zone. 

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; Public 

Law 107–295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of 

Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. 

■ 2. Add a new temporary zone 

§ 165.T11–205 to read as follows: 

§ 165.T11–205 Safety zone; Parker US 

Open Nationals; Parker, AZ 

(a) Location. The limits of this 

temporary safety zone are as follows: 

Bluewater Marina in Parker, AZ, 

extending approximately 6 miles to La 

Paz County Park. 

(b) Enforcement Period. This section 

will be enforced from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. 

on October 9, 2009 through October 11, 

2009. 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. 

(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 

Patrol Commander (PATCOM). The 

PATCOM may be contacted on VHF–FM 

Channel 16. 


CPrice-Sewell on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 29, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 49823 

1See PRC Order No. 262, Order Concerning Filing 

of Additional Global Expedited Package Services 1 

Negotiated Services Agreement, July 29, 2009 

(Order No. 262). 

2United States Postal Service Response to Order 

No. 262 Concerning Termination Date of Additional 

Global Expedited Package Services 1 Negotiated 

Service Agreement and Request for Clarification, 

July 30, 2009, at 2 (Request). No party filed a 

response to the Request. 

3Notice of United States Postal Service Filing of 

Functionally Equivalent Global Expedited Package 

Services 1 Negotiated Service Agreement, July 16, 

2009, at 2, 7 (Notice). 

4The Postal Service references PRC Order No. 

227 issued in Docket No. CP2009–35 and states that 

‘‘[t]he only additional difference between the 

agreement currently presented in this instant docket 

and the one presented in Docket No. CP2009–35 is 

the tender provision, which is described further 

below. Id. at 4, n.6. 

5This designation would also apply to GEPS 

contracts filed subsequent to the one in Docket No. 

CP2009–50, namely Docket Nos. CP2009–51, 

CP2009–52, CP2009–53, CP2009–58, and CP2009– 

59. 

6The Postal Service requests that the Inbound 

Direct Entry (IDE) contract filed in Docket No. 

CP2009–62 be considered the new baseline 

agreement for future IDE contracts. Absent a 

showing otherwise, the Commission intends to act 

on this request in a similar manner. 

7See e.g., Docket Nos. MC2009–34 and CP2009– 

24, Request of the United States Postal Service to 

Add Express Mail Contract 4 to Competitive 

Product List and Notice of Establishment of Rates 

and Class Not of General Applicability, July 6, 2009. 

(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: June 16, 2009. 

T.H. Farris, 

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

Port San Diego. 

[FR Doc. E9–23441 Filed 9–28–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–15–P 

POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION 

39 CFR Part 3020 

[Docket No. CP2009–50; Order No. 290] 

New Postal Product 

AGENCY: Postal Regulatory Commission. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Commission is adding 

Global Expedited Package Services 1 

(CP2008–4) to the Competitive Product 

List. In addition, Global Expedited 

Package Services 2 will also be included 

as a new category. 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 29, 2009 and 

is applicable beginning August 28, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Stephen L. Sharfman, General Counsel, 

202–789–6820 or 

stephen.sharfman@prc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Regulatory 

History, 74 FR 36538 (July 23, 2009). 

I. Introduction 

II. Discussion 

III. Ordering Paragraphs 

I. Introduction 

In Order No. 262, the Commission 

authorized the inclusion of an 

additional Global Expedited Package 

Service (GEPS) contract within the 

Global Expedited Package Services 1 

(GEPS 1) product.1 The Postal Service 

seeks clarification of that order.2 In its 

initial filing in this docket, the Postal 

Service sought to have the instant 

contract designated as the new baseline 

agreement for purposes of determining 

the functional equivalence of future 

GEPS contracts.3 The issue was not 

addressed substantively in Order No. 

262. Noting that the GEPS 1 contract 

currently serving as the baseline will 

terminate and be removed from the 

Competitive Product List, the Postal 

Service requests clarification 

‘‘concerning the contract and docket 

number that it should use for future 

filings of additional contracts to be 

added to the GEPS 1 product.’’ Request 

at 2. By this order, the Commission 

grants clarification. 

II. Discussion 

In its initial Notice, the Postal Service 

asserts the new GEPS 1 contract is 

functionally equivalent to previous 

GEPS contracts, that it should be 

included within the GEPS 1 product, 

‘‘and it should become the new baseline 

agreement for determining whether 

future contracts are functionally 

equivalent.’’ Notice at 2. In support of 

its contention that the instant contract is 

functionally equivalent, the Postal 

Service states that it shares similar cost 

and market characteristics with 

previously filed GEPS 1 contracts. Id. at 

4. It also contends that the contract 

meets the criteria established in 

Governors’ Decision 08–7. Furthermore, 

the Postal Service identifies various 

similarities with other GEPS 1 contracts, 

e.g., mailers are small and mediumsized businesses, the contract is for one 

year, and payment by permit imprint, as 

well as various differences, e.g., volume 

or postage commitments. Id. at 4–5. In 

addition, the Postal Service identifies 

various provisions, which it 

characterizes as minor or incidental, 

which differ from those contained in the 

initial GEPS 1 contract. These include, 

for example, clarifying the availability 

of other postal products, simplifying 

notice of mailing requirements, and 

changes not related to either party’s 

obligation under the agreement. Id. at 

5–7. 

In its Notice, the Postal Service does 

not expand on its request that the 

instant contract ‘‘be considered the 

baseline agreement for determining 

functional equivalence for additional 

agreements.’’ Id. at 7.4 Apparently, 

because the initial GEPS 1 contract is 

terminating and provisions have been 

added to subsequent GEPS 1 contracts, 

the Postal Service suggests that the 

instant GEPS 1 contract be designated as 

the baseline for purposes of determining 

the functional equivalence of future 

GEPS contracts. 

The Commission’s expectation in 

labeling the initial GEPS contract (in 

Docket No. CP2008–5) as GEPS 1 was 

that it would be followed sequentially 

by additional GEPS contracts, e.g., GEPS 

2, GEPS 3, etc., that exhibited sufficient 

variation from the initial contract to 

warrant being classified as a new 

product. Given that the initial GEPS 1 

contract is expiring and that the instant 

contract contains additional provisions, 

the Commission will label the latter as 

GEPS 2.5 Following the current practice, 

the Postal Service shall identify all 

significant differences between any new 

GEPS contract and the GEPS 2 product. 

Such differences would include terms 

and conditions that impose new 

obligations or new requirements on any 

party to the contract. The docket 

referenced in the caption should be 

Docket No. CP2009–50, in lieu of Docket 

No. CP2008–4. Following the current 

practice, a redacted copy of Governors’ 

Decision 08–7 should be included in the 

new filing along with an electronic link 

to it.6

Future requests to implement a new 

baseline agreement should be filed as an 

MC docket since it will result in adding 

a new product to the product list and 

may result in removing a product from 

the product list.7

III. Ordering Paragraphs 

It is ordered: 

1. The GEPS contract filed in Docket 

No. CP2009–50 is added to the 

Competitive Product List as a new 

product, Global Expedited Package 


CPrice-Sewell on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES