Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 26, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 24701 

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, from further 

environmental documentation because 

this rule establishes 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, and 160.5; 

Pub. L. 107–295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department 

of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. 

■ 2. Add temporary § 165.T11–194 to 

read as follows: 

§ 165.T11–194 Safety Zone; Coast Guard 

Air Station San Francisco Airborne Use of 

Force Judgmental Training Flights. 

(a) Location. The following area is a 

safety zone: All waters of San Pablo Bay, 

California from surface to bottom, 

encompassed by lines connecting the 

following points: Beginning at 38°05′11′′ 

N, 122°22′10′′ W; thence to 38°03′44′′ N, 

122°20′12′′ W; thence to 38°00′41′′ N, 

122°25′28′′ W; thence to 38°01′45′′ N, 

122°26′38′′ W; thence back to 38°05′11′′ 

N, 122°22′10′′ W (NAD 83). 

(b) Definitions. As used in this 

section, ‘‘designated representative’’ 

means a Coast Guard Patrol 

Commander, including a Coast Guard 

coxswain, petty officer, or other officer 

operating a Coast Guard vessel or a 

Federal, State, or local officer assisting 

the Captain of the Port (COTP) San 

Francisco in the enforcement of the 

safety zone. 

(c) Regulations. (1) Under the general 

regulations in § 165.23 of this title, entry 

into, transiting, or anchoring within this 

safety zone is prohibited unless 

authorized by the COTP or the COTP’s 

designated representative. 

(2) The safety zone is closed to all 

vessel traffic, except as may be 

permitted by the COTP or the COTP’s 

designated representative. 

(3) Vessel operators desiring to enter 

or operate within the safety zone must 

contact the COTP or the COTP’s 

representative to obtain permission to 

do so. Vessel operators given permission 

to enter or operate in the safety zone 

must comply with all directions given to 

them by the COTP or the COTP’s 

designated representative. Persons and 

vessels may request permission to enter 

the safety zone by contacting the Patrol 

Commander on VHF–16 or through the 

Coast Guard Command Center at 

telephone (415) 399–3547. 

(d) Effective period. This section is 

effective from 9 a.m. to 11 p.m., each 

day, May 5, 8, 19, 22; June 9, 11, 30; July 

2, 14, 17, 28, 31; and every Tuesday, 

Thursday, and Friday from August 1, 

2009 to December 31, 2009. 

Dated: May 1, 2009. 

P.M. Gugg, 

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

Port San Francisco. 

[FR Doc. E9–12064 Filed 5–22–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–15–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 165 

[Docket No. USCG–2009–0242] 

RIN 1625–AA00 

Safety Zone; Copper Canyon Clean Up; 

Lake Havasu, AZ 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Temporary final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is 

establishing a safety zone upon the 

navigable waters of Lake Havasu in 

support of the Copper Canyon Clean up. 

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 from 7 a.m. 

through 11 a.m. on May 26, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this 

preamble as being available in the 

docket are part of docket USCG–2009– 

0242 and are available online by going 

to http://www.regulations.gov, selecting 

the Advanced Docket Search option on 

the right side of the screen, inserting 

USCG–2009–0242 in the Docket ID box, 

pressing Enter, and then clicking on the 

item in the Docket ID column. They are 

also available for inspection or copying 

at two locations: 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, and the Coast 

Guard Sector San Diego, 2710 N. Harbor 

Drive, San Diego, CA 92101–1064 

between 8 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, except Federal holidays 

between 8 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, except Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you have questions on this temporary 

rule, call Petty Officer Shane Jackson, 

Waterways Management, U.S. Coast 

Guard Sector San Diego, CA at 

telephone (619) 278–7262. If you have 

questions on viewing the docket, call 

Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, 

Docket Operations, telephone 202–366– 

9826. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Regulatory Information 

The Coast Guard is issuing this 

temporary final rule without prior 

notice and opportunity to comment 

pursuant to authority under section 4(a) 

of the Administrative Procedure Act 

(APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision 

authorizes an agency to issue a rule 

without prior notice and opportunity to 

comment when the agency for good 

cause finds that those procedures are 

‘‘impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary 

to the public interest.’’ Under 5 U.S.C. 

553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that 

good cause exists for not publishing a 

notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) 

with respect to this rule because 

immediate action is necessary to ensure 

the safety of spectators, crew, 

participants, and other users and vessels 

of the waterway in the vicinity of the 

event on the dates and times this rule 

will be in effect and delay would be 

contrary to the public interest. 

Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast 

Guard finds that good cause exists for 

making this rule effective less than 30 

days after publication in the Federal 

Register. Any delay in the effective date 

of this rule would expose the divers to 

danger from transiting vessels. 

Background and Purpose 

The Lake Havasu Divers Association 

is sponsoring the Copper Canyon Clean 

up, which will involve 40 divers 

cleaning the river bottom in Lake 

Havasu. The safety zone will be a 500 

foot radius around the divers as they 

move along the river bottom. 

24702 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 26, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

This temporary safety zone is 

necessary to prevent vessels from 

transiting the area and to protect the 

divers and equipment from potential 

damage and injury. 

Discussion of Rule 

The Coast Guard is establishing a 

safety zone that will be enforced from 7 

a.m. to 11 a.m. on May 26, 2009. The 

limits of the safety zone will include all 

waters of Copper Canyon extending 

from the surface to the river bottom, 

within 500 feet of the divers. The safety 

zone is necessary to provide for the 

safety of the crew, spectators, 

participants, 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. 

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 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. 

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 rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities for the 

following reasons: Vessel traffic can 

pass safely around the safety zone. 

Before the effective period, the coast 

Guard will publish a local notice to 

mariners (LNM) and will issue 

broadcast notice to mariners (BNM) 

alerts via marine channel 16 VHF before 

the safety zone is enforced. 

Assistance for Small Entities 

Under section 213(a) of the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

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

we offer to assist small entities in 

understanding the rule so that they can 

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 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 26, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 24703 

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 0023–01 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 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 rule is categorically 

excluded, under figure 2–1, paragraph 

(34)(g), of the Instruction. This rule 

involves the establishment of a safety 

zone to provide for the safety of the 

participants, crew, spectators, 

participating vessels, and other vessels 

and users of the waterway. 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, and 160.5; 

Pub. L. 107–295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department 

of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. 

■ 2. Add new temporary zone 

§ 165.T11–179 to read as follows: 

§ 165.T11–179 Safety zone; Copper 

Canyon Clean up; Lake Havasu, Arizona 

(a) Location. The limits of the safety 

zone will include all waters of Copper 

Canyon extending from the surface to 

the river bottom, within 500 feet of the 

divers. 

(b) Enforcement Period. This section 

will be enforced from 7 a.m. to 11 a.m. 

on May 26, 2009. If the event concludes 

prior to the scheduled termination time, 

the Captain of the Port will cease 

enforcement of this safety zone. 

(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) All persons and vessels shall 

comply with the instructions of the 

Coast Guard Captain of the Port or the 

designated representative. 

(3) 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. 

(4) The Coast Guard may be assisted 

by other federal, state, or local agencies. 

Dated: May 4, 2009. 

T.H. Farris, 

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

Port San Diego. 

[FR Doc. E9–12062 Filed 5–22–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–15–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R03–OAR–2009–0058; FRL–8909–5] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; 

Maryland; Reasonably Available 

Control Technology Requirements for 

Volatile Organic Compounds: 

Correction 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule; correcting 

amendment. 

SUMMARY: This document corrects errors 

in the amendatory instructions 

regarding EPA’s action to convert 

Maryland regulations governing volatile 

organic compound (VOC) reasonable 

available control technology (RACT) 

from conditional limited approval to 

full approval. 

DATE: Effective Date: May 26, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jacqueline Lewis, (215) 814–2037, or by 

e-mail at lewis.jacqueline@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document wherever 

‘‘we’’ or ‘‘our’’ are used we mean EPA. 

On March 25, 2009 (74 FR 12556), we 

published a final rulemaking action 

announcing our approval of State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions to 

Maryland regulations (COMAR 

26.11.19.02G and COMAR 26.11.06.06) 

governing VOC RACT. In that 

document, we provided an incorrect 

amendatory instruction on page 12559 

regarding the removal of nonexistent 

tables in paragraphs 52.1072(d) and 

52.1073(e). This action corrects the 

erroneous amendatory instruction in 

part 52 for these paragraphs. 

In the Rule document E9–6654 

published in the Federal Register on 

March 25, 2009 (74 FR 12556), 

Amendatory Instruction Numbers 3 and 

4 on page 12559, second and third 

columns respectively are revised to read 

as follows: 

‘‘3. In § 52.1072, paragraph (d) is 

removed and reserved. 

4. In § 52.1073, paragraph (e) is 

removed and reserved.’’ 

Section 553 of the Administrative 

Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), 

provides that, when an agency for good 

cause finds that notice and public 

procedure are impracticable, 

unnecessary or contrary to the public 

interest, the agency may issue a rule 

without providing notice and an 

opportunity for public comment. We 

have determined that there is good 

cause for making today’s rule final 

without prior proposal and opportunity 

for comment because this rule is not 

substantive and imposes no regulatory 

requirements, but merely corrects a 

citation in a previous action. Thus, 

notice and public procedure are 

unnecessary. We find that this 

constitutes good cause under 5 U.S.C. 

553(b)(B). 

Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

Under Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 

(58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this 

action is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ and is therefore not subject to 

review by the Office of Management and 

Budget. For this reason, this action is 

also not subject to Executive Order 

13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning Regulations 

That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355 (May 

22, 2001)). Because the agency has made 

a ‘‘good cause’’ finding that this action 

is not subject to notice-and-comment 

requirements under the Administrative