Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 123 / Monday, June 29, 2009 / Proposed Rules 30991 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 165 

[Docket No. USCG–2009–0383] 

RIN 1625–AA00 

Safety Zone; Paddle for Clean Water; 

San Diego, CA 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes a 

safety zone upon the navigable waters of 

the Pacific Ocean, San Diego, CA, in 

support of a paddling regatta near the 

Ocean Beach Pier. 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: Comments and related material 

must be received by the Coast Guard on 

or before July 29, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

identified by docket number USCG– 

2009–0383 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 e-mail Petty Officer Shane 

Jackson, Waterways Management, Coast 

Guard; telephone 619–278–7262, e-mail 

Shane.E.Jackson@uscg.mil. If you have 

questions on viewing 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–2009–0383), 

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 http:// 

www.regulations.gov, it will be 

considered received by the Coast Guard 

when you successfully transmit the 

comment. If you fax, hand delivery, 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 e-mail 

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, select the 

Advanced Docket Search option on the 

right side of the screen, insert ‘‘USCG– 

2009–0383’’ in the Docket ID box, press 

Enter, and 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, select the 

Advanced Docket Search option on the 

right side of the screen, insert USCG– 

2009–0383 in the Docket ID box, press 

Enter, and then click on the item in the 

Docket ID 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 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. 

Background and Purpose 

The Surfrider Foundation San Diego 

Chapter is sponsoring the Paddle for 

Clean Water. The event will consist of 

900 to 1000 participants paddling 

around the Ocean Beach Pier. The 

sponsor will provide rescue vessels, as 

well as perimeter safety boats for the 

duration of this event. 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. 

Discussion of Proposed Rule 

The Coast Guard proposes 

establishing a safety zone that would be 

enforced on September 13, 2009 from 9 

a.m. to 4 p.m. The limits of the safety 

zone would be as follows: 

32°45.00′ N, 117°15.12′ W; 

32°45.10′ N, 117°15.30′ W; 

32°44.55′ N, 117°15.38′ W; 

32°44.43′ N, 117°15.19′ W; along the 

shoreline to 

32°45.00′ N, 117°15.12′ W. 

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 will be prohibited from entering 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS
30992 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 123 / Monday, June 29, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

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 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 is 

unnecessary. This determination is 

based on the size and location of the 

safety zone. Commercial vessels would 

not be hindered by the safety zone. 

Recreational vessels would not be 

allowed to transit through the 

designated safety zone during the 

specified times unless authorized to do 

so by the Captain of the Port or his 

designated representative. 

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. 

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. 

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 Petty Officer 

Shane Jackson, USCG, Waterways 

Management, U.S. Coast Guard Sector 

San Diego at (619) 278–7262. 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 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 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 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. 

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 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 123 / Monday, June 29, 2009 / Proposed Rules 30993 

1See 49 CFR 571.108, S7.10.1, Table I–a. 

the human environment. A preliminary 

environmental analysis checklist 

supporting this determination is 

available in the docket where indicated 

under ADDRESSES. This proposed rule 

involves establishing a safety zone 

under figure 2–1, paragraph (34)(g), of 

the Instruction. 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 165 

Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation 

(water), Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Security measures, 

Waterways. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to 

amend 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, 160.5; Pub. L. 

107–295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of 

Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. 

2. Add a new temporary zone 

§ 165.T11–201 to read as follows: 

§ 165.T11–201 Safety zone; Paddle for 

Clean Water; San Diego; California 

(a) Location. The limits of the safety 

zone would be as follows: 

32°45.00′ N, 117°15.12′ W; 

32°45.10′ N, 117°15.30′ W; 

32°44.55′ N, 117°15.38′ W; 

32°44.43′ N, 117°15.19′ W; along the 

shoreline to 

32°45.00′ N, 117°15.12′ W. 

(b) Enforcement Period. This section 

will be enforced on September 13, 2009 

from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. If the event 

concludes prior to the scheduled 

termination time, the Captain of the Port 

will cease enforcement of this safety 

zone and will announce that fact via 

Broadcast Notice to Mariners. 

(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) Mariners requesting permission to 

transit through the safety zone may 

request authorization to do so from the 

Command Center (COMCEN). The 

COMCEN may be contacted on VHF–FM 

Channel 16. 

(3) All persons and vessels shall 

comply with the instructions of the 

Coast Guard Captain of the Port or the 

designated representative. 

(4) 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. 

(5) The Coast Guard may be assisted 

by other Federal, State, or local 

agencies. 

Dated: June 17, 2009. 

D.L. Leblanc, 

Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting 

Captain of the Port San Diego. 

[FR Doc. E9–15187 Filed 6–26–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–15–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

49 CFR Part 571 

[Docket No. NHTSA–2001–8876] 

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 

No. 108; Lamp, Reflective Devices and 

Associated Equipment 

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT. 

ACTION: Denial of petition for 

rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: This document denies a 

petition for rulemaking submitted by 

General Motors on December 20, 2001. 

The petitioner requested that the agency 

amend the Federal motor vehicle safety 

standard (FMVSS) on lamps, reflective 

devices, and associated equipment to 

require the installation of daytime 

running lamps on passenger cars, 

multipurpose passenger vehicles, 

trucks, and buses that have a gross 

vehicle weight rating under 4,536 

kilograms (10,000 lbs). NHTSA has 

reviewed the petition and performed an 

extensive analysis of real world crash 

data. Based on the results of our study 

we were unable to find solid evidence 

of an overall safety benefit associated 

with daytime running lamps and are 

therefore denying the petition for 

rulemaking. The agency maintains its 

neutral position with respect to the 

safety benefits from the use of daytime 

running lamps. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

non-legal issues, you may call Mr. 

Markus Price, Office of Crash Avoidance 

Standards (Phone: 202–366–0098; FAX: 

202–366–7002). 

For legal issues, you may call Mr. Ari 

Scott, Office of the Chief Counsel 

(Phone: 202–366–2992; FAX: 202–366– 

3820). 

You may send mail to these officials 

at: National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Summary 

II. Background 

III. Petition 

IV. Agency Analysis and Decision 

a. NHTSA Studies and Comparison 

b. Differences in Statistical Methodology 

V. Conclusion 

I. Summary 

This document denies a 2001 petition 

from General Motors (GM) requesting 

that the National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration (NHTSA) mandate the 

installation of daytime running lamps 

(DRLs) on all vehicles with a gross 

vehicle weight rating (GVWR) under 

4,536 kilograms (10,000 lbs). The 

rationale for denying the petition is that, 

overall, studies of the effectiveness of 

DRLs have not indicated that they are an 

effective means of preventing crashes. 

While GM presented studies that appear 

to indicate a degree of effectiveness, 

NHTSA’s own studies contradict that 

finding. Furthermore, for reasons 

described in detail below, a careful 

analysis of the various studies of DRL 

effectiveness indicates flaws in the 

studies GM cites and that NHTSA 

should place greater weight on its own 

studies. Given the information currently 

available, the agency has been unable to 

determine if there are any demonstrable 

safety benefits associated with 

mandating DRLs, and therefore has 

decided that leaving them as a 

manufacturer option is the best course 

of action. 

II. Background 

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 

Standard (FMVSS) No. 108; Lamps, 

reflective devices, and associated 

equipment, establishes lighting 

requirements for motor vehicles. 

Daytime Running Lamps (DRLs) are 

steady burning lamps that illuminate 

when the regular headlamps are not 

required for driving. While FMVSS No. 

108 does not require DRLs, it does 

specify requirements that they must 

meet if a vehicle manufacturer 

voluntarily decides to install them.1

The requirements for DRLs were first 

established on January 11, 1993 in 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS