Security Zone: Portland Rose Festival on Willamette River, 24342-24344 [05-9154]
Download as PDF
24342
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 88 / Monday, May 9, 2005 / Proposed Rules
FAA’s Determination and Proposed
Requirements of the Supplemental
NPRM
The changes discussed above expand
the scope of the original NPRM;
therefore, we have determined that it is
necessary to reopen the comment period
to provide additional opportunity for
public comment on this supplemental
NPRM.
Differences Between the Supplemental
NPRM and Service Information
Although the service bulletin
specifies that operators may contact the
manufacturer for disposition of certain
repair conditions, this proposed AD
would require operators to repair those
conditions according to a method
approved by the FAA.
Although the service bulletin
describes procedures for reporting
compliance to the manufacturer, this
supplemental NPRM would not make
such a requirement. We do not need this
information from operators.
Costs of Compliance
There are about 350 airplanes of the
affected design in the worldwide fleet.
This proposed AD would affect about
250 airplanes of U.S. registry. The
proposed inspection would take about 1
work hour per airplane, at an average
labor rate of $65 per work hour. Based
on these figures, the estimated cost of
this supplemental NPRM on U.S.
operators is $16,250, or $65 per
airplane.
Authority for This Rulemaking
Title 49 of the United States Code
specifies the FAA’s authority to issue
rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I,
Section 106, describes the authority of
the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more
detail the scope of the Agency’s
authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under
the authority described in Subtitle VII,
Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701,
‘‘General requirements.’’ Under that
section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in
air commerce by prescribing regulations
for practices, methods, and procedures
the Administrator finds necessary for
safety in air commerce. This regulation
is within the scope of that authority
because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on
products identified in this rulemaking
action.
Regulatory Findings
We have determined that this
proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order
VerDate jul<14>2003
15:24 May 06, 2005
Jkt 205001
13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the
States, on the relationship between the
national Government and the States, or
on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I
certify that the proposed regulation:
1. Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory
action’’ under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a ‘‘significant rule’’ under the
DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures
(44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
3. Will not have a significant
economic impact, positive or negative,
on a substantial number of small entities
under the criteria of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act.
We prepared a regulatory evaluation
of the estimated costs to comply with
this supplemental NPRM. See the
ADDRESSES section for a location to
examine the regulatory evaluation.
up and gave off smoke due to inadequate
short circuit protection on the blower motor
electrical circuit. We are issuing this AD to
prevent smoke and fumes in the cockpit in
the event that a blower motor seizes and
overheats due to excessive current draw.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation
safety, Safety.
Contacting the Manufacturer
(g) Where the service bulletin specifies
contacting the manufacturer for information
if any difficulties are encountered while
accomplishing the service bulletin, this AD
requires you to contact the Manager, Wichita
Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA.
The Proposed Amendment
Accordingly, under the authority
delegated to me by the Administrator,
the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part
39 as follows:
PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS
DIRECTIVES
1. The authority citation for part 39
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
§ 39.13
[Amended]
2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding
the following new airworthiness
directive (AD):
Raytheon Aircraft Company: Docket No.
FAA–2005–20111; Directorate Identifier
2004–NM–154–AD.
Comments Due Date
(a) The Federal Aviation Administration
must receive comments on this AD action by
June 3, 2005.
Affected ADs
(b) None.
Unsafe Condition
(d) This AD was prompted by a report
indicating that a cockpit ventilation and
avionics cooling system blower motor seized
Frm 00017
Inspection and Corrective Actions
(f) Within 600 flight hours or 6 months
after the effective date of this AD, whichever
occurs first, inspect to determine the current
rating of the circuit breakers of certain
cockpit ventilation and avionics cooling
system blowers; and, before further flight,
replace the circuit breakers and modify the
blower wiring, as applicable; by doing all the
actions in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions of Raytheon
Service Bulletin SB 24–3272, Revision 1,
dated October 2000; except as provided by
paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD.
No Reporting Requirement
(h) Although the service bulletin
referenced in this AD specifies to submit
certain information to the manufacturer, this
AD does not include this requirement.
Alternative Methods of Compliance
(AMOCs)
(i) The Manager, Wichita ACO, has the
authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if
requested in accordance with the procedures
found in 14 CFR 39.19.
Issued in Renton, Washington, on April 29,
2005.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate,
Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 05–9189 Filed 5–6–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Coast Guard
Applicability
(c) This AD applies to Raytheon Model
HS.125 series 700A airplanes, BAe.125 Series
800A airplanes, and Model Hawker 800 and
Hawker 800XP airplanes; certificated in any
category; equipped with Brailsford TBL–2.5
blowers; as identified in Raytheon Service
Bulletin SB 24–3272, Revision 1, dated
October 2000.
PO 00000
Compliance
(e) You are responsible for having the
actions required by this AD performed within
the compliance times specified, unless the
actions have already been done.
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
33 CFR Part 165
[CGD13–05–007]
RIN 1625–AA87
Security Zone: Portland Rose Festival
on Willamette River
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to
amend the Portland Rose Festival on
E:\FR\FM\09MYP1.SGM
09MYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 88 / Monday, May 9, 2005 / Proposed Rules
Willamette River security zone. This
regulation is enforced annually during
the Portland, Oregon Rose Festival on
the waters of the Willamette River
between the Hawthorne and Steel
Bridges. The proposed change would
clarify the annual enforcement period
for this regulation. This change is
intended to better inform the boating
public and to improve the level of safety
at this event. Entry into the area
established is prohibited unless
authorized by the Captain of the Port.
DATES: Comments and related material
must reach the Coast Guard on or before
May 31, 2005.
ADDRESSES: You may mail comments
and related material to U.S. Coast Guard
Marine Safety Office, c/o Captain of the
Port, 6767 North Basin Avenue
Portland, OR 97217. Marine Safety
Office Portland, Oregon, maintains the
public docket [CGD13–05–007] for this
rulemaking. Comments and material
received from the public, as well as
documents indicated in this preamble as
being available in the docket, will
become part of this docket and will be
available for inspection or copying at
Marine Safety Office Portland, Oregon,
between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: LT
Tad Drozdowski, c/o Captain of the Port
Portland, OR 6767 North Basin Avenue
Portland, OR 97217 at (503) 240–9301.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Request for Comments
We encourage you to participate in
this rulemaking by submitting
comments and related material. If you
do so, please include your name and
address, identify the docket number for
this rulemaking (CGD13–05–007),
indicate the specific section of this
document to which each comment
applies, and give the reason for each
comment. Please submit all comments
and related material in an unbound
format, no larger than 81⁄2 by 11 inches,
suitable for copying. If you would like
to know they reached us, 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.
Public Meeting
We do not now plan to hold a public
meeting. But you may submit a request
for a meeting by writing to Marine
Safety Office Portland, Oregon, 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
VerDate jul<14>2003
15:24 May 06, 2005
Jkt 205001
and place announced by a later notice
in the Federal Register.
Background and Purpose
Each year in June, the annual
Portland, Oregon, Rose Festival is held
on the waters of the Willamette River
near Portland, Oregon. On May 29,
2003, the Coast Guard published a final
rule (68 FR 31979) establishing a
security zone, in 33 CFR 165.1312, for
the security of naval vessels on a
portion of the Willamette River during
the fleet week of the Rose Festival. The
security zone in 33 CFR 165.1312 is
enforced each year during the event to
provide for public safety by controlling
the movement of vessel traffic in the
regulated area. The current regulation
does not accurately describe the
enforcement period.
Discussion of Proposed Rule
In this proposed rule, the Coast Guard
would amend 33 CFR 165.1312,
‘‘Security Zone; Portland Rose Festival
on Willamette River’’, to require
compliance with the regulation each
year in June from the first Wednesday
in June falling on the 4th or later
through the following Monday in June.
The location of the security zone would
remain unchanged.
This proposed rule, for safety and
security concerns, would control vessel
movements in a security zone
surrounding vessels participating in the
annual Portland, Oregon, Rose Festival.
U.S. Naval Vessels are covered under 33
CFR part 165 subpart G—Protection of
Naval Vessels, however, the Portland,
Oregon, Rose Festival is a major
maritime event that draws many
different vessels including Navy, Coast
Guard, Army Corps of Engineers, and
Canadian Maritime Forces. It is crucial
that the same level of security be
provided to all participating vessels.
Entry into this zone is prohibited
unless authorized by the Captain of the
Port, Portland, Oregon, or his designated
representatives.
Regulatory Evaluation
This proposed rule is not a
‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under
section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866
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. It is not
‘‘significant’’ under the regulatory
policies and procedures of the
Department of Homeland Security
(DHS).
We expect the economic impact of
this proposed rule to be so minimal that
a full Regulatory Evaluation under the
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
24343
regulatory policies and procedures of
DHS is unnecessary. This expectation is
based on the fact that the regulated area
of the Willamette River is a small area,
enforced for a short period of time, and
it is established for the benefit and
safety of the recreational boating public.
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.
Vessels desiring to transit this area of
the Willamette River may do so by
scheduling their trips in the early
morning or evening when the
restrictions on general navigation
imposed by this section would not be in
effect. For these reasons, the Coast
Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b)
that this change would not have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
Therefore, 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. Comments
submitted in response to this finding
will be evaluated under the criteria in
the ‘‘Regulatory Information’’ section of
this preamble.
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
the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section. 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.
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
E:\FR\FM\09MYP1.SGM
09MYP1
24344
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 88 / Monday, May 9, 2005 / Proposed Rules
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).
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 the rule 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 does not create an
environmental risk to health or risk to
safety that may disproportionately affect
children.
VerDate jul<14>2003
15:24 May 06, 2005
Jkt 205001
Indian Tribal Governments
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.
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.ID, which guides the Coast
Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and
have concluded that there are no factors
in this case that would limit the use of
a categorical exclusion under section
2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, this
rule is categorically excluded, under
figure 2–1, paragraph (34)(g) of the
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Instruction from further environmental
documentation. Under figure 2–1,
paragraph (34)(g), of the Instruction, an
‘‘Environmental Analysis Check List’’ is
not required for this rule. Comments on
this section will be considered before
we make the final decision on whether
to categorically exclude this rule from
further environmental review.
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; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR
1.05–1(g), 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. In § 165.1312 revise paragraph (d)
to read as follows:
§ 165.1312 Security Zone; Portland Rose
Festival on Willamette River.
*
*
*
*
*
(d) Enforcement period. This section
is enforced annually in June from the
first Wednesday in June falling on the
4th or later through the following
Monday in June. The event will be 6
days in length and the specific dates of
enforcement will be published each year
in the Federal Register. In 2005, the
zone will be enforced on Wednesday,
June 8, through Monday, June 13.
Dated: April 20, 2005.
Daniel T. Pippenger,
Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting
Captain of the Port, Portland, OR.
[FR Doc. 05–9154 Filed 5–6–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–15–U
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 165
[COTP San Francisco Bay 05–006]
RIN 1625–AA87
Security Zone; San Francisco Bay,
Oakland Estuary, Alameda, CA
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to
revise the perimeter of the existing
E:\FR\FM\09MYP1.SGM
09MYP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 88 (Monday, May 9, 2005)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 24342-24344]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-9154]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 165
[CGD13-05-007]
RIN 1625-AA87
Security Zone: Portland Rose Festival on Willamette River
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to amend the Portland Rose Festival
on
[[Page 24343]]
Willamette River security zone. This regulation is enforced annually
during the Portland, Oregon Rose Festival on the waters of the
Willamette River between the Hawthorne and Steel Bridges. The proposed
change would clarify the annual enforcement period for this regulation.
This change is intended to better inform the boating public and to
improve the level of safety at this event. Entry into the area
established is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port.
DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or
before May 31, 2005.
ADDRESSES: You may mail comments and related material to U.S. Coast
Guard Marine Safety Office, c/o Captain of the Port, 6767 North Basin
Avenue Portland, OR 97217. Marine Safety Office Portland, Oregon,
maintains the public docket [CGD13-05-007] for this rulemaking.
Comments and material received from the public, as well as documents
indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket, will
become part of this docket and will be available for inspection or
copying at Marine Safety Office Portland, Oregon, between 8 a.m. and 4
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: LT Tad Drozdowski, c/o Captain of the
Port Portland, OR 6767 North Basin Avenue Portland, OR 97217 at (503)
240-9301.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Request for Comments
We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting
comments and related material. If you do so, please include your name
and address, identify the docket number for this rulemaking (CGD13-05-
007), indicate the specific section of this document to which each
comment applies, and give the reason for each comment. Please submit
all comments and related material in an unbound format, no larger than
8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for copying. If you would like to know
they reached us, 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.
Public Meeting
We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a
request for a meeting by writing to Marine Safety Office Portland,
Oregon, 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
Each year in June, the annual Portland, Oregon, Rose Festival is
held on the waters of the Willamette River near Portland, Oregon. On
May 29, 2003, the Coast Guard published a final rule (68 FR 31979)
establishing a security zone, in 33 CFR 165.1312, for the security of
naval vessels on a portion of the Willamette River during the fleet
week of the Rose Festival. The security zone in 33 CFR 165.1312 is
enforced each year during the event to provide for public safety by
controlling the movement of vessel traffic in the regulated area. The
current regulation does not accurately describe the enforcement period.
Discussion of Proposed Rule
In this proposed rule, the Coast Guard would amend 33 CFR 165.1312,
``Security Zone; Portland Rose Festival on Willamette River'', to
require compliance with the regulation each year in June from the first
Wednesday in June falling on the 4th or later through the following
Monday in June. The location of the security zone would remain
unchanged.
This proposed rule, for safety and security concerns, would control
vessel movements in a security zone surrounding vessels participating
in the annual Portland, Oregon, Rose Festival. U.S. Naval Vessels are
covered under 33 CFR part 165 subpart G--Protection of Naval Vessels,
however, the Portland, Oregon, Rose Festival is a major maritime event
that draws many different vessels including Navy, Coast Guard, Army
Corps of Engineers, and Canadian Maritime Forces. It is crucial that
the same level of security be provided to all participating vessels.
Entry into this zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain
of the Port, Portland, Oregon, or his designated representatives.
Regulatory Evaluation
This proposed rule is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 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. It is not ``significant'' under the regulatory
policies and procedures of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
We expect the economic impact of this proposed rule to be so
minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation under the regulatory policies
and procedures of DHS is unnecessary. This expectation is based on the
fact that the regulated area of the Willamette River is a small area,
enforced for a short period of time, and it is established for the
benefit and safety of the recreational boating public.
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.
Vessels desiring to transit this area of the Willamette River may
do so by scheduling their trips in the early morning or evening when
the restrictions on general navigation imposed by this section would
not be in effect. For these reasons, the Coast Guard certifies under 5
U.S.C. 605(b) that this change would not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Therefore, 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. Comments submitted in response to
this finding will be evaluated under the criteria in the ``Regulatory
Information'' section of this preamble.
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 the person listed
in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 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.
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
[[Page 24344]]
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).
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 the rule 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 does not
create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may
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 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 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.ID, which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have
concluded that there are no factors in this case that would limit the
use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the Instruction.
Therefore, this rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1,
paragraph (34)(g) of the Instruction from further environmental
documentation. Under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g), of the Instruction,
an ``Environmental Analysis Check List'' is not required for this rule.
Comments on this section will be considered before we make the final
decision on whether to categorically exclude this rule from further
environmental review.
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; 50
U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1(g), 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. In Sec. 165.1312 revise paragraph (d) to read as follows:
Sec. 165.1312 Security Zone; Portland Rose Festival on Willamette
River.
* * * * *
(d) Enforcement period. This section is enforced annually in June
from the first Wednesday in June falling on the 4th or later through
the following Monday in June. The event will be 6 days in length and
the specific dates of enforcement will be published each year in the
Federal Register. In 2005, the zone will be enforced on Wednesday, June
8, through Monday, June 13.
Dated: April 20, 2005.
Daniel T. Pippenger,
Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting Captain of the Port, Portland, OR.
[FR Doc. 05-9154 Filed 5-6-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-U