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
2496 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 18, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 1—AVERAGE EXPECTED EXCEEDANCE RATE FOR THE ONE-HOUR OZONE STANDARD IN THE BOSTON-LAWRENCEWORCESTER, MA-NH AREA FOR 2005–2007 

EPA AQS ID Site Year 

Exceedances (days over 0.124 ppm) 

Actual Adjusted for 

missing data 

3-Year average 

expected exceedance rate 

Massachusetts: 

250250041 ..................... Boston-Long Island ............... 2005 

2006 

2007 

0 

0 

0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

250250042 ..................... Boston-Roxbury .................... 2005 

2006 

2007 

0 

0 

0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

250170009 ..................... Chelmsford ........................... 2005 

2006 

2007 

0 

0 

0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

250051002 ..................... Fairhaven .............................. 2005 

2006 

2007 

0 

2 

0 

0.0 

2.0 

0.0 

0.7 

250095005 ..................... Haverhill ................................ 2005 

2006 

2007 

0 

0 

0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

250092006 ..................... Lynn ...................................... 2005 

2006 

2007 

0 

0 

0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

250213003 ..................... Milton .................................... 2005 

2006 

2007 

1 

0 

0 

1.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.3 

250094004 ..................... Newbury ................................ 2005 

2006 

2007 

0 

0 

0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

250070001 ..................... Oak Bluffs ............................. 2005 

2006 

2007 

0 

2 

0 

0.0 

2.1 

0.0 

0.7 

250171102 ..................... Stow ...................................... 2005 

2006 

2007 

0 

0 

0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

250010002 ..................... Truro ..................................... 2005 

2006 

2007 

0 

0 

0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

250270015 ..................... Worcester ............................. 2005 

2006 

2007 

0 

0 

0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

New Hampshire 

330111011 ..................... Nashua ................................. 2005 

2006 

2007 

0 

0 

0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

[FR Doc. C1–2011–32059 Filed 1–17–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 1505–01–D 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2011–0987; FRL–9617–5] 

Revisions to the California State 

Implementation Plan, Antelope Valley 

Air Quality Management District and 

Imperial Valley Air Pollution Control 

District 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

revisions to the Antelope Valley Air 

Quality Management District 

(AVAQMD) and Imperial County Air 

Pollution Control District (ICAPCD) 

portions of the California State 

Implementation Plan (SIP). These 

revisions concern oxides of nitrogen 

(NOX) emissions from stationary gas 

turbines. We are proposing to approve 

local rules to regulate these emission 

sources under the Clean Air Act as 

amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act). 

DATES: Any comments on this proposal 

must arrive by February 17, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, 

identified by docket number EPA–R09– 

OAR–2011–0987, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line 

instructions. 

2. Email: steckel.andrew@epa.gov. 

3. Mail or deliver: Andrew Steckel 

(Air-4), U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, 

San Francisco, CA 94105–3901. 

Instructions: All comments will be 

included in the public docket without 

change and may be made available 

online at www.regulations.gov, 

including any personal information 

provided, unless the comment includes 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Information that 

you consider CBI or otherwise protected 

should be clearly identified as such and 

should not be submitted through 

www.regulations.gov or email. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS