### 2495 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 18, 2012 / Proposed Rules

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:


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

TABLE 

### 1—AVERAGE 

### E XPECTED 

### E XCEEDANCE 

### RATE FOR THE 

### O NE 

### -H OUR 

### OZONE 

### S TANDARD IN THE 

### B OSTON 

### -LAWRENCE 

### WORCESTER 

### , MA-NH A REA FOR 

### 2005–2007

EPA AQS ID Site Year Exceedances (days over 0.124 ppm)

Actual Adjusted for missing data 3-Year averageexpected 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 (NO X) 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.