Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 18, 2012 / Proposed Rules 2493 

is not required, and this petition results 

in a regulation, the notice of availability 

of the Agency’s finding of no significant 

impact and the evidence supporting that 

finding will be published with the 

regulation in the Federal Register in 

accordance with 21 CFR 25.51(b). 

Dated: January 6, 2012. 

Dennis M. Keefe, 

Director, Office of Food Additive Safety, 

Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition. 

[FR Doc. 2012–797 Filed 1–17–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4160–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 100 

[Docket No. USCG–2011–1120] 

RIN 1625–AA08 

Special Local Regulations for Marine 

Events; Spa Creek and Annapolis 

Harbor, Annapolis, MD 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to 

establish special local regulations 

during the swim segment of the 

‘‘TriRock Triathlon Series’’, a marine 

event to be held on the waters of Spa 

Creek and Annapolis Harbor on May 12, 

2012. These special local regulations are 

necessary to provide for the safety of life 

on navigable waters during the event. 

This action is intended to temporarily 

restrict vessel traffic in a portion of the 

Spa Creek and Annapolis Harbor during 

the event. 

DATES: Comments and related material 

must be received by the Coast Guard on 

or before February 17, 2012. Requests 

for public meetings must be received by 

the Coast Guard on or before the end of 

the comment period. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

identified by docket number USCG– 

2011–1120 using any one of the 

following methods: 

(1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

http://www.regulations.gov. 

(2) Fax: (202) 493–2251. 

(3) Mail: 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– 

0001. 

(4) Hand delivery: Same as mail 

address above, between 9 a.m. and 

5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except 

Federal holidays. The telephone number 

is (202) 366–9329. 

To avoid duplication, please use only 

one of these four methods. See the 

‘‘Public Participation and Request for 

Comments’’ portion of the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section 

below for instructions on submitting 

comments. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you have questions on this proposed 

rule, call or email Mr. Ronald Houck, 

U.S. Coast Guard Sector Baltimore, MD; 

telephone (410) 576–2674, email 

Ronald.L.Houck@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: 

Public Participation and Request for 

Comments 

We encourage you to participate in 

this rulemaking by submitting 

comments and related materials. All 

comments received will be posted 

without change to http:// 

www.regulations.gov and will include 

any personal information you have 

provided. 

Submitting Comments 

If you submit a comment, please 

include the docket number for this 

rulemaking (USCG–2011–1120), 

indicate the specific section of this 

document to which each comment 

applies, and provide a reason for each 

suggestion or recommendation. You 

may submit your comments and 

material online (via http:// 

www.regulations.gov) or by fax, mail, or 

hand delivery, but please use only one 

of these means. If you submit a 

comment online via 

www.regulations.gov, it will be 

considered received by the Coast Guard 

when you successfully transmit the 

comment. If you fax, hand deliver, or 

mail your comment, it will be 

considered as having been received by 

the Coast Guard when it is received at 

the Docket Management Facility. We 

recommend that you include your name 

and a mailing address, an email address, 

or a telephone number in the body of 

your document so that we can contact 

you if we have questions regarding your 

submission. 

To submit your comment online, go to 

http://www.regulations.gov, click on the 

‘‘submit a comment’’ box, which will 

then become highlighted in blue. In the 

‘‘Document Type’’ drop down menu 

select ‘‘Proposed Rule’’ and insert 

‘‘USCG–2011–1120’’ in the ‘‘Keyword’’ 

box. Click ‘‘Search’’ then click on the 

balloon shape in the ‘‘Actions’’ column. 

If you submit your comments by mail or 

hand delivery, submit them in an 

unbound format, no larger than 81⁄2 by 

11 inches, suitable for copying and 

electronic filing. If you submit 

comments by mail and would like to 

know that they reached the Facility, 

please enclose a stamped, self-addressed 

postcard or envelope. We will consider 

all comments and material received 

during the comment period and may 

change the rule based on your 

comments. 

Viewing Comments and Documents 

To view comments, as well as 

documents mentioned in this preamble 

as being available in the docket, go to 

http://www.regulations.gov, click on the 

‘‘read comments’’ box, which will then 

become highlighted in blue. In the 

‘‘Keyword’’ box insert ‘‘USCG–2011– 

1120’’ and click ‘‘Search.’’ Click the 

‘‘Open Docket Folder’’ in the ‘‘Actions’’ 

column. You may also visit the Docket 

Management Facility in Room W12–140 

on the ground floor of the Department 

of Transportation West Building, 1200 

New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, 

DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., 

Monday through Friday, except Federal 

holidays. We have an agreement with 

the Department of Transportation to use 

the Docket Management Facility. 

Privacy Act 

Anyone can search the electronic 

form of comments received into any of 

our dockets by the name of the 

individual submitting the comment (or 

signing the comment, if submitted on 

behalf of an association, business, labor 

union, etc.). You may review a Privacy 

Act notice regarding our public dockets 

in the January 17, 2008, issue of the 

Federal Register (73 FR 3316). 

Public Meeting 

We do not now plan to hold a public 

meeting. But you may submit a request 

for one on or before the end of the 

comment period, using one of the four 

methods specified under ADDRESSES. 

Please explain why you believe a public 

meeting 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. 

Basis and Purpose 

On Saturday, May 12, 2012, 

Competitor Group Inc. of San Diego, 

California, will sponsor the ‘‘TriRock 

Triathlon Series’’ in Annapolis, 

Maryland. The swim segment of the 

event will occur from 6:30 a.m. to 9:15 

a.m. and will be located in Spa Creek 

and Annapolis Harbor. Up to 300 

swimmers will operate on a 500-meter 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
2494 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 18, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

course located between the Annapolis 

City Dock and the confluence of the Spa 

Creek with the Severn River. The 

swimmers will be supported by 

sponsor-provided watercraft. The start 

and finish will be located at the 

Annapolis City Dock. A portion of the 

swim course will impede the federal 

navigation channel. Due to the need for 

vessel control during the event, the 

Coast Guard will temporarily restrict 

vessel traffic in the event area to provide 

for the safety of participants, spectators 

and other transiting vessels. 

Discussion of Proposed Rule 

The Coast Guard proposes to establish 

temporary special local regulations on 

specified waters of Spa Creek and 

Annapolis Harbor. The regulations will 

be in effect from 6 a.m. to 9:45 a.m. on 

May 12, 2012. The regulated area, 

approximately 450 yards in length, 

extends across the entire width of Spa 

Creek and Annapolis Harbor, within 

lines connecting the following 

positions: from position latitude 

38°58′34′′ N, longitude 076°29′05′′ W, 

thence to position latitude 38°58′27′′ N, 

longitude 076°28′55′′ W, and from 

position latitude 38°58′40′′ N, longitude 

076°28′49′′ W to position latitude 

38°58′32′′ N, longitude 076°28′45′′ W. 

The effect of this proposed rule will be 

to restrict general navigation in the 

regulated area during the event. These 

regulations are needed to control vessel 

traffic during the event to enhance the 

safety of participants, spectators and 

transiting vessels. 

Regulatory Analyses 

We developed this proposed 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 proposed 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 proposed rule to be so minimal 

that a full Regulatory Evaluation under 

the regulatory policies and procedures 

of DHS is unnecessary. Although this 

regulation will prevent traffic from 

transiting a portion of Spa Creek and 

Annapolis Harbor during the event, the 

effect of this regulation will not be 

significant due to the limited duration 

that the regulated area will be in effect 

and the extensive advance notifications 

that will be made to the maritime 

community via the Local Notice to 

Mariners and marine information 

broadcasts, so mariners can adjust their 

plans accordingly. 

Small Entities 

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

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

whether this proposed 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 proposed rule 

would not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. This proposed rule would affect 

the following entities, some of which 

might be small entities: The owners or 

operators of vessels intending to transit 

or anchor in the effected portions of Spa 

Creek and Annapolis Harbor during the 

event. 

Although this regulation prevents 

traffic from transiting a portion of the 

Spa Creek and Annapolis Harbor during 

the event, this proposed rule will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities 

for the following reasons: Though the 

regulated area extends across the entire 

width of the waterway, this proposed 

rule would be in effect for only a limited 

period; and before the enforcement 

period, we will issue maritime 

advisories so mariners can adjust their 

plans accordingly. All Coast Guard 

vessels enforcing this regulated area can 

be contacted on marine band radio 

VHF–FM channel 16 (156.8 MHz). 

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. 

Assistance for Small Entities 

Under section 213(a) of the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 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 Coast Guard 

Sector Baltimore, MD. The Coast Guard 

will not retaliate against small entities 

that question or complain about this 

proposed rule or any policy or action of 

the Coast Guard. 

Collection of Information 

This proposed rule would call 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 proposed 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 (adjusted for inflation) or 

more in any one year. Though this 

proposed rule would not result in such 

an expenditure, we do discuss the 

effects of this rule elsewhere in this 

preamble. 

Taking of Private Property 

This proposed rule would not cause 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 proposed 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 proposed rule 

under Executive Order 13045, 

Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety 

Risks. This rule is not an economically 

significant rule and would not create an 

environmental risk to health or risk to 

safety that might disproportionately 

affect children. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 18, 2012 / Proposed Rules 2495 

Indian Tribal Governments 

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. 

Energy Effects 

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 

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 proposed 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 preliminary determination 

that this action is one of a category of 

actions which do not individually or 

cumulatively have a significant effect on 

the human environment. This proposed 

rule involves implementation of 

regulations within 33 CFR Part 100 

applicable to organized marine events 

on the navigable waters of the United 

States that could negatively impact the 

safety of waterway users and shore side 

activities in the event area. The category 

of water activities includes but is not 

limited to sail boat regattas, boat 

parades, power boat racing, swimming 

events, crew racing, canoe and sail 

board racing. We seek any comments or 

information that may lead to the 

discovery of a significant environmental 

impact from this proposed rule. 

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 100 

Marine safety, Navigation (water), 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Waterways. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to 

amend 33 CFR part 100 as follows: 

PART 100—SAFETY OF LIFE ON 

NAVIGABLE WATERS 

1. The authority citation for part 100 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1233. 

2. Add a temporary section, § 100.35– 

T05–1120 to read as follows: 

§ 100.35–T05–1120 Special Local 

Regulations for Marine Events; Spa Creek 

and Annapolis Harbor, Annapolis, MD. 

(a) Regulated area. The following 

location is a regulated area: All waters 

of the Spa Creek and Annapolis Harbor, 

within lines connecting the following 

positions: from position latitude 

38°58′34′′ N, longitude 076°29′05′′ W, 

thence to position latitude 38°58′27′′ N, 

longitude 076°28′55′′ W, and from 

position latitude 38°58′40′′ N, longitude 

076°28′49′′ W to position latitude 

38°58′32′′ N, longitude 076°28′45′′ W. 

All coordinates reference Datum NAD 

1983. 

(b) Definitions: (1) Coast Guard Patrol 

Commander means a commissioned, 

warrant, or petty officer of the U.S. 

Coast Guard who has been designated 

by the Commander, Coast Guard Sector 

Baltimore. 

(2) Official Patrol means any vessel 

assigned or approved by Commander, 

Coast Guard Sector Baltimore with a 

commissioned, warrant, or petty officer 

on board and displaying a Coast Guard 

ensign. 

(c) Special local regulations: (1) The 

Coast Guard Patrol Commander may 

forbid and control the movement of all 

vessels and persons in the regulated 

area. When hailed or signaled by an 

official patrol vessel, a vessel or person 

in the regulated area shall immediately 

comply with the directions given. 

Failure to do so may result in expulsion 

from the area, citation for failure to 

comply, or both. 

(2) All Coast Guard vessels enforcing 

this regulated area can be contacted on 

marine band radio VHF–FM channel 16 

(156.8 MHz). 

(3) The Coast Guard will publish a 

notice in the Fifth Coast Guard District 

Local Notice to Mariners and issue a 

marine information broadcast on VHF– 

FM marine band radio announcing 

specific event date and times. 

(d) Enforcement period: This section 

will be enforced from 6 a.m. to 9:45 a.m. 

on May 12, 2012. 

Dated: December 19, 2011. 

Mark P. O’Malley, 

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

Port Baltimore. 

[FR Doc. 2012–784 Filed 1–17–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R01–OAR–2011–0879; A–1–FRL– 

9505–9] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; 

Massachusetts and New Hampshire; 

Determination of Attainment of the 

One-Hour Ozone Standard 

Correction 

In proposed rule document 2011– 

32059 beginning on page 77739 the 

issue of Wednesday, December 14, 2011 

make the following correction: 

On page 77741, Table 1 should read 

as follows: 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS