26138 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 103 / Monday, June 1, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

deceptive in violation of Section 5 of the 

FTC Act in its law enforcement actions 

be incorporated into a proposed FTC 

rule? If so, what conduct should be 

included, how should it be addressed, 

and why? 

B. Should conduct by loan 

modification and foreclosure rescue 

service providers or advertisers that 

states have declared unlawful by statute 

or regulation or have challenged in law 

enforcement actions be incorporated 

into a proposed FTC rule? Why or why 

not? If so, what prohibitions and 

restrictions should be incorporated in a 

proposed FTC rule? 

1. Some states require providers to 

create written contracts and include key 

disclosures in these contracts. Should 

the Commission impose the same or 

similar disclosure requirements in a 

proposed FTC rule? If so, what 

disclosures should be included and 

why? 

2. Some states require providers to 

give consumers who enroll the right to 

rescind or cancel their agreements with 

the providers. Should the Commission 

include the same or similar rights of 

rescission or cancellation in a proposed 

rule? If so, what rescission and 

cancellation rights should be included 

and why? 

3. Some states have restricted the 

type, amount, and timing of the fees 

charged and refunds given by providers 

of loan modification and foreclosure 

rescue services. In particular, some 

states ban advance fees until all services 

promised or contracted for are 

completed. 

(i) Should the Commission address in 

a proposed FTC rule any fee or refunds 

practices of providers of loan 

modification and foreclosure rescue 

services? If so, what practices should be 

addressed, how they should be 

addressed, and why? 

(ii) Should the Commission ban the 

payment of advance fees for loan 

modification and foreclosure rescue 

services in a proposed FTC rule? If so, 

why or why not? What effect, if any, 

would an advance fee ban have on the 

willingness or ability of loan 

modification and foreclosure rescue 

services providers to do business? 

(iii) Should the Commission impose 

fee restrictions in a proposed FTC rule 

other than a ban on the advance fees 

that providers of loan modification and 

foreclosure rescue services receive? If 

so, what restrictions should be imposed 

and why? Would these restrictions 

prevent or mitigate the potential harm 

caused by payment of these fees? For 

example, to what extent might the 

possible harm from advance fees be 

prevented or mitigated by requiring 

providers to make specific disclosures 

regarding the timing, amount, or 

allocation of fees? Additionally, to what 

extent might such harm be prevented or 

mitigated by requiring providers to 

make more general disclosures 

regarding the nature and material 

restrictions of their services (e.g., the 

disclosures regarding the likelihood of 

success, timing of services or 

negotiations with mortgage servicers, 

refund restrictions, or any potentially 

negative ramifications of using the 

service)? 

4. Some states have foreclosure rescue 

laws which, in whole or in part, only 

apply once a consumer has received a 

notice of default. At what stage or stages 

of the process should a proposed FTC 

rule protect consumers? Should it take 

effect before consumers receive a notice 

of default, after the notice of default is 

received, or once foreclosure 

proceedings have begun? Why? 

5. Please identify any other state 

restrictions or challenged conduct 

which should (or should not) be 

addressed in a proposed FTC rule, and 

explain why. 

C. Are there any unfair or deceptive 

acts and practices by providers or 

advertisers of loan modification and 

foreclosure rescue services that neither 

the FTC nor the states have addressed 

that a proposed FTC rule should 

address? If so, how should these acts 

and practices be addressed and why? 

4. Scope of Covered Entities 

A. As described in the text, an FTC 

proposed rule would not cover banks, 

thrifts, federal credit unions, and nonprofits. To what extent do these types of 

entities provide or advertise loan 

modification and foreclosure rescue 

services? To what extent do these 

entities compete with entities that an 

FTC proposed rule would cover and 

what effect would an FTC proposed rule 

have on such competition? 

B. As described in the text, many 

states have exempted attorneys from 

laws (e.g., foreclosure consultant laws) 

which regulate the conduct of providers 

and advertisers of loan modification and 

foreclosure rescue services. What are the 

costs and benefits of exempting 

attorneys from these laws? What has 

been the effect of such exemptions on 

competition between attorneys and nonattorneys in providing or advertising 

loan modification and foreclosure 

rescue services? Should an FTC 

proposed rule include an exemption for 

attorneys or any other class of persons 

or entities? Why or why not? 

By direction of the Commission. 

Donald S. Clark 

Secretary 

[FR Doc. E9–12596 Filed 5–29–09: 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6750–01–S 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Parts 100 and 165 

[USCG–2009–0127] 

RIN 1625–AA00 

Safety Zones: Annual Events 

Requiring Safety Zones in the Captain 

of the Port Duluth Zone 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes 

establishment of safety zones for annual 

events in the Captain of the Port Duluth 

Zone. This rule proposes removal of a 

safety zone currently located in part 

100, and the addition of it to part 165. 

Further, this rule proposes new safety 

zones to be added to part 165. These 

safety zones are necessary to protect 

spectators, participants, and vessels 

from the hazards associated with 

fireworks displays. 

DATES: Comments and related materials 

must reach the Coast Guard on or before 

July 1, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

identified by Coast Guard docket 

number USCG–2009–0127 to the Docket 

Management Facility at the U.S. 

Department of Transportation. To avoid 

duplication, please use only one of the 

following methods: 

(1) Online: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. 

(2) 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. 

(3) Hand Delivery: Room W12–140 on 

the ground floor of the West Building, 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., 

Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. 

and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays. The telephone 

number is 202–366–9329. 

(4) Fax: 202–493–2251. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: LT 

Aaron Gross, Chief of Port Operations 

U.S. Coast Guard Sector Duluth; (218) 

720–5286 Ext. 111. 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 103 / Monday, June 1, 2009 / Proposed Rules 26139 

I. 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. We have an agreement with 

the Department of Transportation (DOT) 

to use the Docket Management Facility. 

A. Submitting Comments 

If you submit a comment, please 

include the docket number for this 

rulemaking (USCG–2009–0127), 

indicate the specific section of this 

document to which each comment 

applies, and give the reason for each 

comment. We recommend that you 

include your name, mailing address, 

and an e-mail address or other contact 

information in the body of your 

document to ensure that you can be 

identified as the submitter. This also 

allows us to contact you in the event 

further information is needed or if there 

are questions. For example, if we cannot 

read your submission due to technical 

difficulties and you cannot be 

contacted, your submission may not be 

considered. You may submit your 

comments and material by electronic 

means, mail, fax, or delivery to the 

Docket Management Facility at the 

address under ADDRESSES, but please 

submit your comments and material by 

only one means. If you submit them by 

mail or delivery, submit them in an 

unbound format, no larger than 81⁄2 by 

11 inches, suitable for copying and 

electronic filing. If you submit them 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. We may change 

this proposed rule in view of them. 

B. 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 at any time, 

click on ‘‘Search for Dockets,’’ and enter 

the docket number for this rulemaking 

(USCG–2009–0127) in the Docket ID 

box, and click enter. You may also visit 

the Docket Management Facility in 

Room W12–140 on the ground floor of 

the DOT West Building, 1200 New 

Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 

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

Monday through Friday, except Federal 

holidays. 

C. 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). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Public Meeting 

We do not now plan to hold a public 

meeting. But you may submit a request 

for a meeting by writing to Commanding 

Officer, Coast Guard Marine Safety Unit 

Duluth at the address under ADDRESSES

explaining why one 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. 

Background and Purpose 

This rule proposes the removal of the 

‘‘Duluth Fourth Fest Fireworks’’ safety 

zone currently published in § 100.901 

and adding it to proposed § 165.945. 

The Coast Guard proposes this change 

in an effort to consolidate all Captain of 

the Port Duluth Zone 4th of July 

fireworks display safety zones. 

Additionally, in § 165.945 we propose 

adding safety zones for fireworks in 

support of the Cornucopia Fireworks 

display, Cornucopia, Wisconsin; City of 

Bayfield Fireworks display, Bayfield, 

Wisconsin; Madeline Island Fireworks 

display, LaPointe, Wisconsin; and the 

Ashland Fireworks display, Ashland, 

Wisconsin. These safety zones are 

necessary to protect vessels and people 

from the hazards associated with 

fireworks displays. Such hazards 

include obstructions to the waterway, 

the explosive danger of fireworks and 

falling debris. 

Discussion of Proposed Rule 

The proposed rule is necessary to 

ensure the safety of vessels and people 

during annual firework events in the 

Captain of the Port Duluth area of 

responsibility that may pose a hazard to 

the public. This rule proposes the 

removal of a regulation currently 

published in 33 CFR 100.901 under 

Sector Sault Ste. Marie, and the addition 

of it to proposed § 165.945. It also 

proposes the addition of four new 

events never before published in the 

CFR. All of the events listed occur in the 

Captain of the Port Duluth Zone. 

The proposed safety zones will be 

enforced only immediately before, 

during, and after the aforementioned 

events. 

The Captain of the Port Duluth will 

notify the public that the zones in this 

proposal will be enforced by all 

appropriate means to the affected 

segments of the public including 

publication in the Federal Register. 

Such means of notification may also 

include, but are not limited to Broadcast 

Notice to Mariners or Local Notice to 

Mariners. The Captain of the Port will 

issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners 

notifying the public when enforcement 

of the safety zone established by this 

section is cancelled. 

All persons and vessels shall comply 

with the instructions of the Coast Guard 

Captain of the Port or the designated 

representative. Entry into, transiting, or 

anchoring within the safety zone is 

prohibited unless authorized by the 

Captain of the Port Duluth, or his 

designated representative. The Captain 

of the Port or his designated 

representative may be contacted via 

VHF Channel 16. 

Regulatory Evaluation 

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 is 

unnecessary. 

The Coast Guard’s use of these safety 

zones will be periodic and of short 

duration. These safety zones will only 

be enforced immediately before, during, 

and after the time the events occur. The 

Coast Guard expects insignificant 

adverse impact to mariners from the 

activation of these safety zones. 

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 

26140 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 103 / Monday, June 1, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

be small entities: The owners of 

operators of vessels intending to transit 

or anchor in the areas designated as 

safety zones in subparagraphs (1) 

through (5) during the dates and times 

the safety zones are being enforced. 

These safety zones would not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities for 

the following reasons: This proposed 

rule would be in effect for short periods 

of time, and only once per year, per 

zone. The safety zones have been 

designed to allow traffic to pass safely 

around the zone whenever possible and 

vessels will be allowed to pass through 

the zones with the permission of the 

Captain of the Port. 

If you think that your business, 

organization, or governmental 

jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity 

and that this proposed 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 proposed 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 proposed rule would affect your 

small business, organization, or 

governmental jurisdiction and you have 

questions concerning its provisions or 

options for compliance, please contact 

LT Aaron Gross, Chief of Port 

Operations, Coast Guard Marine Safety 

Unit Duluth, Duluth, MN at (218) 720– 

5286 Ext 111. 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 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 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 or more in any one year. 

Though this proposed rule will not 

result in such expenditure, we 

nevertheless discuss its effects 

elsewhere in this preamble. 

Taking of Private Property 

This proposed rule will not effect the 

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 proposed 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 

The Coast Guard recognizes the treaty 

rights of Native American Tribes. 

Moreover, the Coast Guard is committed 

to working with Tribal Governments to 

implement local policies and to mitigate 

tribal concerns. We have determined 

that this rule and fishing rights 

protection need not be incompatible. 

We have also determined that this 

proposed 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. 

Nevertheless, Indian Tribes that have 

questions concerning the provisions of 

this proposed rule or options for 

compliance are encouraged to contact 

the point of contact listed under FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. 

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 Commandant Instruction 

M16475.lD and Department of 

Homeland Security Management 

Directive 023–01, 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 not likely to have a 

significant effect on the human 

environment. An environmental 

analysis checklist supporting this 

preliminary determination is available 

in the docket where indicated under 

ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or 

information that may lead to the 

discovery of a significant environmental 

impact from this proposed rule. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 103 / Monday, June 1, 2009 / Proposed Rules 26141 

amend 33 CFR parts 100 and 165 as 

follows: 

List of Subjects 

33 CFR Part 100 

Regattas and Marine Parades. 

33 CFR Part 165 

Harbors, Marine Safety, Navigation 

(water), Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Security measures, 

Waterways. 

1. The authority citation for part 100 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1233. 

§ 100.901 [Amended] 

2. In Table 1 to § 100.901 Table, under 

the entry for ‘‘Sector Saulte Ste. Marie, 

MI’’ remove the following: ‘‘Duluth 

Fourth Fest Fireworks. 

Sponsor: Office of the Mayor, Duluth, 

MN. 

Date: 4th of July weekend. 

Location: That portion of the Duluth 

Harbor Basin Northern Section bounded 

on the south by a line drawn on a 

bearing of 087° true from the Cargill Pier 

through Duluth Basin Lighted Buoy #5 

(LLNR 15905) to the opposite shore on 

the north by the Duluth Aerial Bridge. 

That portion of Duluth Harbor Basin 

Northern Section within 600 yards of 

position 46°46′47′′ N 092°06′10′′ W.’’ 

PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION 

AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 

3. 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. 

4. Add § 165.945 to read as follows: 

§ 165.945 Safety Zones; Annual Fireworks 

Events in the Captain of the Port Duluth 

Zone. 

(a) Safety Zones. The following areas 

are designated Safety zones. 

(1) Duluth Fourth Fest, Duluth, MN. 

(i) Location. All waters of the Duluth 

Harbor Basin Northern Section within 

600 yards of position 46°46′47′′ N, 

092°06′10′′ W.; at Duluth, MN. 

(DATUM: NAD 83). 

(ii) Enforcement date. This section is 

enforced from 7 p.m. to 11 p.m. on July 

4 of each year. 

(2) Cornucopia Fireworks, 

Cornucopia, WI. (i) Location. All waters 

of Lake Superior bounded by the arc of 

a circle within a 100-foot radius from 

the Fireworks launch site with its center 

position: 46°48′36′′ N, 090°48′ 36′′ W.; at 

Cornucopia, WI. (DATUM: NAD 83). 

(ii) Enforcement date. This section is 

enforced from 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. on July 

4 of each year. 

(3) City of Bayfield Fireworks, 

Bayfield, WI. (i) Location. All waters of 

Lake Superior bounded by the arc of a 

circle with a 100-foot radius from the 

Fireworks launch site with its center in 

position: 46°48′ 36′′ N, 090°48′ 36′′ W.; 

Bayfield, WI. (DATUM: NAD 83). 

(ii) Enforcement date. This paragraph 

is enforced from 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. on 

July 4 of each year. 

(4) Madeline Island Fireworks, 

LaPointe, WI. (i) Location. All waters of 

Lake Superior bounded by the arc of a 

circle with a 250-foot radius from the 

fireworks launch site with its center in 

position: 46°46′42′′ N, 090°47′18′′ W.; at 

Lapointe, WI. (DATUM: NAD 83). 

(ii) Enforcement date. This paragraph 

is enforced from 9:15 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. 

on July 4 of each year. 

(5) Ashland Fireworks, Ashland, WI. 

(i) All waters of Lake Superior, near 

Ashland, Wisconsin, bounded by the arc 

of a circle with a 250-foot radius from 

the Fireworks launch site with its center 

in position: 46°46′42′′ N, 090°47′18′′ W.; 

Ashland, WI. (DATUM: NAD 83). 

(ii) Enforcement date. This paragraph 

is enforced from 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. on 

July 4 of each year. 

(b) Definitions. The following 

definitions apply to this section: 

(1) Designated Representative means 

any Coast Guard commissioned, 

warrant, or petty officer designated by 

the Captain of the Port Duluth to 

monitor a safety zone, permit entry into 

the zone, give legally enforceable orders 

to persons or vessels within the zones, 

and take other actions authorized by the 

Captain of the Port. 

(2) Public vessel means vessels 

owned, chartered, or operated by the 

United States, or by a State or political 

subdivision thereof. 

(c) Regulations. (1) In accordance with 

the general regulations in § 165.23 of 

this part, entry into, transiting, or 

anchoring within this safety zone is 

prohibited unless authorized by the 

Captain of the Port Duluth, or his 

designated representative. 

(2)(i) These safety zones are closed to 

all vessel traffic, except as may be 

permitted by the Captain of the Port, or 

his designated representative. 

(ii) All persons and vessels must 

comply with the instructions of the 

Coast Guard Captain of the Port, or his 

designated representative. 

(iii) Upon being hailed by the U.S. 

Coast Guard by siren, radio, flashing 

light or other means, the operator of a 

vessel shall proceed as directed. 

(3)(i) All vessels must obtain 

permission from the Captain of the Port, 

or his designated representative to enter, 

move within, or exit the safety zone 

established in this section when this 

safety zone is enforced. 

(ii) Vessels and persons granted 

permission to enter the safety zone must 

obey all lawful orders or directions of 

the Captain of the Port or a designated 

representative. 

(iii) While within a safety zone, all 

vessels must operate at the minimum 

speed necessary to maintain a safe 

course. 

(d) Exemption. Public vessels, as 

defined in paragraph (b) of this section, 

are exempt from the requirements in 

this section. 

(e) Waiver. For any vessel, the Captain 

of the Port Duluth, or his designated 

representative 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 public or environmental 

safety. 

(f) Notification. The Captain of the 

Port Duluth will notify the public by all 

appropriate means that the zones in this 

proposal will be enforced. Notification 

may include publication in the Federal 

Register, Broadcast Notice to Mariners, 

or Local Notice to Mariners. The 

Captain of the Port will issue a 

Broadcast Notice to Mariners notifying 

the public when enforcement of the 

safety zone established by this section is 

cancelled. 

Dated: May 19, 2009. 

M.P. Lebsack, 

Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of 

the Port Duluth. 

[FR Doc. E9–12603 Filed 5–29–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–15–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2008–0797–200824(b); 

FRL–8911–4] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans: South 

Carolina; Approval of Section 110(a)(1) 

Maintenance Plan for the 1997 8-Hour 

Ozone Standard for Cherokee County 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

a revision to the South Carolina State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) concerning 

the maintenance plan addressing the