Safety Zone: North Portland Harbor Dredging Operations; Portland, OR, 4043-4045 [06-677]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 16 / Wednesday, January 25, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
has’’ is corrected to read ‘‘extent
necessary. The IRS has’’.
Cynthia E. Grigsby,
Acting Chief, Publications and Regulations
Branch, Legal Processing Division, Associate
Chief Counsel, (Procedure and
Administration).
[FR Doc. 06–681 Filed 1–24–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 165
[CGD 13–06–002]
RIN 1625–AA00
Safety Zone: North Portland Harbor
Dredging Operations; Portland, OR
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is
establishing a temporary safety zone on
the Columbia River, in the vicinity of
Hayden Island at North Portland Harbor.
The Captain of the Port, Portland,
Oregon is taking this action to safeguard
individuals and vessels from safety
hazards associated with dredging
operations. Entry into this safety zone is
prohibited unless authorized by the
Captain of the Port.
DATES: This rule is effective from
January 17, 2005 8 a.m. (PST) through
March 15, 2005 at 5 p.m. (PST).
ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this
preamble as being available in the
docket are part of docket [CGD13–06–
002] and are available for inspection or
copying at U. S. Coast Guard Sector
Portland, 6767 North Basin Ave.
Portland, Oregon 97217 between 7 a.m.
and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Petty Officer Charity Keuter, c/o Captain
of the Port Portland, 6767 N. Basin Ave.
Portland, Oregon 97217 at 503–240–
9301.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with RULES
Regulatory Information
We did not publish a notice of
proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for this
regulation. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) and
5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds
that good cause exists for not publishing
an NPRM and for making this rule
effective less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register. The
Coast Guard did not receive notice of
this operation until 7 days prior to the
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:58 Jan 24, 2006
Jkt 208001
beginning of the operation. The
dredging operation will have a floating
pipeline that will stretch from Port of
Portland Terminal 6 to the lower end of
Hayden Island and on to Kelly Point
Park. This pipeline will be a hazard to
navigation due to location and vessel
traffic in the area.
If normal notice and comment
procedures were followed, this rule
would not become effective until after
the dates of the event. For this reason,
following normal rulemaking
procedures in this case would be
impracticable and contrary to the public
interest.
Background and Purpose
The Coast Guard is establishing a
temporary safety zone regulation to
allow for safe dredging operation. This
operation is necessary for the
improvement of the Port of Portland
Terminal 6, since in the coming months
a new crane will be brought in to allow
the Port to accompany larger vessels and
more containers. This safety zone will
be in effect during the time of January
17, 2006 to March 15, 2006 while the
floating pipeline is in the water. This
safety zone will be enforced by
representatives of the Captain of the
Port, Portland, Oregon. The Captain of
the Port may be assisted by other
Federal and local agencies.
Discussion of Rule
This rule, for safety concerns, will
control individuals and vessel
movement in a regulated area
surrounding the dredging operation.
Due to safety concerns and likely
delays, entry into this zone is prohibited
unless authorized by the Captain of the
Port, Portland or his designated
representative. Those boaters transiting
between the Columbia River and North
Portland Harbor are requested to use the
upriver end of Hayden Island. The
Captain of the Port may be assisted by
other Federal and local agencies.
Regulatory Evaluation
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. It is not ‘‘significant’’ under the
regulatory policies and procedures of
the Department of Homeland Security
(DHS). The Coast Guard expects the
economic impact of this rule to be so
minimal that a full regulatory evaluation
under the regulatory policies and
procedures of the DHS is unnecessary.
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
4043
This expectation is based on the fact
that this rule will be in effect for the
minimum time necessary to safely
conduct the dredging operation. While
this rule is in effect, traffic will be
allowed to pass through the zone with
the permission of the Captain of the Port
or his designated representatives onscene, if safe to do so and that traffic can
be rerouted to another entrance into the
Oregon Slough at the upriver end of
Hayden Island.
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 affect the following
entities, some of which may be small
entities: the owners or operators of
vessels intending to transit the
designated area at the corresponding
time as drafted in this rule. This safety
zone will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities for the
following reasons. Traffic will be
allowed to pass through the zone at
selected times with the permission of
the Captain of the Port or his designated
representative on scene, if safe to do so
and that boaters transiting the Oregon
Slough can gain access to it by the
upriver end of Hayden Island on the
Columbia River. Before the effective
period, we will issue maritime
advisories widely available to users of
the river. Because the impacts of this
proposal are expected to be so minimal,
the Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C.
605(b) that this final rule will not have
a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
If you think that your business,
organization, or governmental
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity
that this rule would have a significant
economic impact on it, please submit a
comment (see ADDRESSES) explaining
why you think it qualifies and how and
what degree this rule would
economically affect it.
Assistance for Small Entities
Under section 213(a) of the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement
E:\FR\FM\25JAR1.SGM
25JAR1
4044
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 16 / Wednesday, January 25, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104–121),
we offered to assist small entities in
understanding the rule so that they
could better evaluate its effects on them
and participate in the rulemaking
process. If the rule will 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. 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).
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.
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with RULES
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.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:58 Jan 24, 2006
Jkt 208001
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
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.
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
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
Commandant Instruction M16475.lD,
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. A final ‘‘Environmental
Analysis Check List’’ and a final
‘‘Categorical Exclusion Determination’’
will be 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.
I 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:
I
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.
I 2. A temporary § 165.T13–001 is
added to read as follows:
§ 165.T13–001 Safety Zones: Oregon
Slough Dredging Operations in the Captain
of the Port Portland Zone.
(a) Safety Zones. The following area is
designated a safety zone
(1) Location: All water of the
Columbia River enclosed by the
following points: 45°37′53″ N
122°44′03″ W following the shoreline
southwest to 45°38′54″ N 122°45′28″ W
continuing west to 45°39′05″ N
122°45′36″ W turning north to 45°39′12″
N 122°45′28″ W then northeast
45°38′58″ N 122°45′03″ W then east to
45°38′22″ N 122°44′37″ W then
northeast to 45°37′53″ N 122°43′58″ W
south back to the point of origin.
(2) Effective time and date. 7 a.m. on
January 17, 2006 to 7 p.m. on March 15,
2006.
(b) Regulations. In accordance with
the general regulations in section 165.23
E:\FR\FM\25JAR1.SGM
25JAR1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 16 / Wednesday, January 25, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
of this part, no person or vessel may
enter or remain in this zone unless
authorized by the Captain of the Port or
his designated representative.
Dated: January 17, 2006.
Patrick G. Gerrity,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the
Port, Portland, OR.
[FR Doc. 06–677 Filed 1–24–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–15–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[Region 2 Docket No. EPA–R02–OAR–2004–
NJ–0004, FRL–8020–6]
Approval and Promulgation of
Implementation Plans; New Jersey
Consumer Products Rule
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with RULES
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is approving a revision to
the New Jersey State Implementation
Plan (SIP) for ozone concerning the
control of volatile organic compounds.
The SIP revision consists of
amendments to Subchapter 24
‘‘Prevention of Air Pollution From
Consumer Products’’ of 7:27 of the New
Jersey Administrative Codes, which are
needed to meet the shortfall in
emissions reduction identified by EPA
in New Jersey’s 1-hour ozone attainment
demonstration SIP. The intended effect
of this action is to approve a control
strategy required by the Clean Air Act,
which will result in emission reductions
that will help achieve attainment of the
national ambient air quality standard for
ozone.
DATES: Effective Date: This rule will be
effective February 24, 2006.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a
docket for this action under the Federal
Docket Management System (FDMS)
which replaces the Regional Materials
in EDOCKET (RME) docket system. The
new FDMS is located at https://
www.regulations.gov and the docket ID
for this action is EPA–R02–OAR–2004–
NJ–0004. All documents in the docket
are listed in the FDMS index. Publicly
available docket materials are available
either electronically in FDMS or in hard
copy at the Environmental Protection
Agency, Region II Office, Air Programs
Branch, 290 Broadway, 25th Floor, New
York, New York 10007–1866. Copies of
the documents relevant to this action
are also available for public inspection
during normal business hours, by
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:58 Jan 24, 2006
Jkt 208001
appointment at the Air and Radiation
Docket and Information Center,
Environmental Protection Agency,
Room B–108, 1301 Constitution
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC; and the
New Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection, Office of Air
Quality Management, Bureau of Air
Pollution Control, 401 East State Street,
CN027, Trenton, New Jersey 08625.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul
Truchan, Air Programs Branch,
Environmental Protection Agency, 290
Broadway, 25th Floor, New York, New
York 10278, (212) 637–3711.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. What Action Is EPA Taking Today?
EPA is approving a revision to New
Jersey’s ozone State Implementation
Plan (SIP) submitted on June 22, 2004.
This SIP incorporates adopted rule
amendments to Title 7, Chapter 27,
Subchapter 24 ‘‘Prevention of Air
Pollution from Consumer Products’’
which was adopted on April 7, 2004.
Subchapter 24 contains two control
programs, consumer products and
portable fuel container spillage control.
This adoption was published in the
New Jersey Register on May 3, 2004 and
became effective on June 6, 2004. The
Subchapter 24 amendments are
applicable to the entire State of New
Jersey. The reader is referred to the
proposed rulemaking (December 10,
2004, 69 FR 71764) for additional
details.
Subchapter 24 contains provisions for
accepting innovative products
exemptions (IPEs), alternative
compliance plans (ACPs), and variances
that have been approved by the
California Air Resources Board (CARB)
or other states with adopted consumer
product regulations based on the Ozone
Transport Commission (OTC) ‘‘Model
Rule for Consumer Products’’ dated
November 29, 2001. While the
provisions related to IPEs, ACP, and
variances pursuant to subchapter 24 are
acceptable, each specific application of
those provisions cannot be recognized
as meeting Federal requirements until it
is approved by EPA as a SIP revision.
II. What Comments Were Received and
How Has EPA Responded to Them?
EPA received one comment pertaining
to the proposal for this action which
supported this rulemaking.
III. What Role Does This Rule Play in
the Ozone SIP?
When EPA evaluated New Jersey’s 1hour ozone attainment demonstrations,
EPA determined that additional
emission reductions were needed for the
State’s two severe nonattainment areas
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
4045
in order for the State to attain the 1-hour
ozone standard with sufficient surety
(December 16, 1999, 64 FR 70380). EPA
provided that the states in the Ozone
Transport Region could achieve these
emission reductions through local or
regional control programs. New Jersey
decided to participate with the other
states in the Northeast in an Ozone
Transport Commission (OTC) regulatory
development effort which developed six
model control measures. This
rulemaking incorporates two of the OTC
model control measures into the New
Jersey ozone SIP: Consumer products
and portable fuel containers. The
emission reductions from these control
measures will provide a portion of the
additional emission reductions needed
to attain the 1-hour ozone standard. The
emission reductions from these
measures will also help to attain the 8hour ozone standard.
IV. What Are EPA’s Conclusions?
EPA has evaluated the submitted
Subchapter 24 submission for
consistency with EPA regulations,
policy and guidance. Consistent with
EPA policy and guidance, EPA is
approving the rule submitted as part of
the New Jersey SIP with the exception
that any specific application of
provisions associated with IPEs, ACP,
and variances, must be submitted as SIP
revisions for EPA approval. This rule
will strengthen the SIP by providing for
additional VOC reductions.
Accordingly, EPA is approving the
Subchapter 24 revisions as adopted on
April 7, 2004 and effective on June 6,
2004 with the limitation identified
above.
V. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews Under Executive Order 12866
(58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
action is not a ‘‘significant regulatory
action’’ and therefore is 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). This action merely approves
state law as meeting Federal
requirements and imposes no additional
requirements beyond those imposed by
state law. Accordingly, the
Administrator certifies that this rule
will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities under the Regulatory Flexibility
Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this
rule approves pre-existing requirements
under state law and does not impose
E:\FR\FM\25JAR1.SGM
25JAR1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 16 (Wednesday, January 25, 2006)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 4043-4045]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-677]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 165
[CGD 13-06-002]
RIN 1625-AA00
Safety Zone: North Portland Harbor Dredging Operations; Portland,
OR
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.
ACTION: Temporary final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone on the
Columbia River, in the vicinity of Hayden Island at North Portland
Harbor. The Captain of the Port, Portland, Oregon is taking this action
to safeguard individuals and vessels from safety hazards associated
with dredging operations. Entry into this safety zone is prohibited
unless authorized by the Captain of the Port.
DATES: This rule is effective from January 17, 2005 8 a.m. (PST)
through March 15, 2005 at 5 p.m. (PST).
ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in
the docket are part of docket [CGD13-06-002] and are available for
inspection or copying at U. S. Coast Guard Sector Portland, 6767 North
Basin Ave. Portland, Oregon 97217 between 7 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Petty Officer Charity Keuter, c/o
Captain of the Port Portland, 6767 N. Basin Ave. Portland, Oregon 97217
at 503-240-9301.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Regulatory Information
We did not publish a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for this
regulation. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) and 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast
Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing an NPRM and for
making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the
Federal Register. The Coast Guard did not receive notice of this
operation until 7 days prior to the beginning of the operation. The
dredging operation will have a floating pipeline that will stretch from
Port of Portland Terminal 6 to the lower end of Hayden Island and on to
Kelly Point Park. This pipeline will be a hazard to navigation due to
location and vessel traffic in the area.
If normal notice and comment procedures were followed, this rule
would not become effective until after the dates of the event. For this
reason, following normal rulemaking procedures in this case would be
impracticable and contrary to the public interest.
Background and Purpose
The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone regulation
to allow for safe dredging operation. This operation is necessary for
the improvement of the Port of Portland Terminal 6, since in the coming
months a new crane will be brought in to allow the Port to accompany
larger vessels and more containers. This safety zone will be in effect
during the time of January 17, 2006 to March 15, 2006 while the
floating pipeline is in the water. This safety zone will be enforced by
representatives of the Captain of the Port, Portland, Oregon. The
Captain of the Port may be assisted by other Federal and local
agencies.
Discussion of Rule
This rule, for safety concerns, will control individuals and vessel
movement in a regulated area surrounding the dredging operation. Due to
safety concerns and likely delays, entry into this zone is prohibited
unless authorized by the Captain of the Port, Portland or his
designated representative. Those boaters transiting between the
Columbia River and North Portland Harbor are requested to use the
upriver end of Hayden Island. The Captain of the Port may be assisted
by other Federal and local agencies.
Regulatory Evaluation
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. It is not ``significant'' under the
regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Homeland
Security (DHS). The Coast Guard expects the economic impact of this
rule to be so minimal that a full regulatory evaluation under the
regulatory policies and procedures of the DHS is unnecessary. This
expectation is based on the fact that this rule will be in effect for
the minimum time necessary to safely conduct the dredging operation.
While this rule is in effect, traffic will be allowed to pass through
the zone with the permission of the Captain of the Port or his
designated representatives on-scene, if safe to do so and that traffic
can be rerouted to another entrance into the Oregon Slough at the
upriver end of Hayden Island.
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 affect the following entities, some of which
may be small entities: the owners or operators of vessels intending to
transit the designated area at the corresponding time as drafted in
this rule. This safety zone will not have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons.
Traffic will be allowed to pass through the zone at selected times with
the permission of the Captain of the Port or his designated
representative on scene, if safe to do so and that boaters transiting
the Oregon Slough can gain access to it by the upriver end of Hayden
Island on the Columbia River. Before the effective period, we will
issue maritime advisories widely available to users of the river.
Because the impacts of this proposal are expected to be so minimal, the
Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this final rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
If you think that your business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity that this rule would have a
significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and what
degree this rule would economically affect it.
Assistance for Small Entities
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
[[Page 4044]]
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we offered to assist small
entities in understanding the rule so that they could better evaluate
its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process. If the
rule will 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. 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).
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 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 Commandant Instruction M16475.lD,
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. A final ``Environmental Analysis Check
List'' and a final ``Categorical Exclusion Determination'' will be
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.
0
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
0
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.
0
2. A temporary Sec. 165.T13-001 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 165.T13-001 Safety Zones: Oregon Slough Dredging Operations in
the Captain of the Port Portland Zone.
(a) Safety Zones. The following area is designated a safety zone
(1) Location: All water of the Columbia River enclosed by the
following points: 45[deg]37[min]53[sec] N 122[deg]44[min]03[sec] W
following the shoreline southwest to 45[deg]38[min]54[sec] N
122[deg]45[min]28[sec] W continuing west to 45[deg]39[min]05[sec] N
122[deg]45[min]36[sec] W turning north to 45[deg]39[min]12[sec] N
122[deg]45[min]28[sec] W then northeast 45[deg]38[min]58[sec] N
122[deg]45[min]03[sec] W then east to 45[deg]38[min]22[sec] N
122[deg]44[min]37[sec] W then northeast to 45[deg]37[min]53[sec] N
122[deg]43[min]58[sec] W south back to the point of origin.
(2) Effective time and date. 7 a.m. on January 17, 2006 to 7 p.m.
on March 15, 2006.
(b) Regulations. In accordance with the general regulations in
section 165.23
[[Page 4045]]
of this part, no person or vessel may enter or remain in this zone
unless authorized by the Captain of the Port or his designated
representative.
Dated: January 17, 2006.
Patrick G. Gerrity,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Portland, OR.
[FR Doc. 06-677 Filed 1-24-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P