Security Zone; Pearl Harbor and Adjacent Waters, Honolulu, HI, 4818-4820 [06-810]
Download as PDF
4818
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 19 / Monday, January 30, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
determination of whether an entity is
domestic or foreign is made
independently from the determination
of its corporate or non-corporate
classification. See §§ 301.7701–2 and
301.7701–3 for the rules governing the
classification of entities.
(b) Examples. The following examples
illustrate the rules of this section:
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Example 1. (i) Facts. Y is an entity that is
created or organized under the laws of
Country A as a public limited company. It is
also an entity that is organized as a limited
liability company (LLC) under the laws of
State B. Y is classified as a corporation for
Federal tax purposes under the rules of
§§ 301.7701–2, and 301.7701–3.
(ii) Result. Y is a domestic corporation
because it is an entity that is classified as a
corporation and it is organized as an entity
under the laws of State B.
Example 2. (i) Facts. P is an entity with
more than one owner organized under the
laws of Country A as an unlimited company.
It is also an entity that is organized as a
general partnership under the laws of State
B. P is classified as a partnership for Federal
tax purposes under the rules of §§ 301.7701–
2, and 301.7701–3.
(ii) Result. P is a domestic partnership
because it is an entity that is classified as a
partnership and it is organized as an entity
under the laws of State B.
AGENCY:
(c) Effective date.—(1) General rule.
Except as provided in paragraph (c)(2)
of this section, the rules of this section
apply as of August 12, 2004, to all
business entities existing on or after that
date.
(2) Transition rule. For business
entities created or organized under the
laws of more than one jurisdiction as of
August 12, 2004, the rules of this
section apply as of May 1, 2006. These
entities, however, may rely on the rules
of this section as of August 12, 2004.
§ 301.7701–5T
Par. 7. Section 301.7701–5T is
removed.
Approved: January 17, 2006.
Mark E. Matthews,
Deputy Commissioner for Services and
Enforcement.
Eric Solomon,
Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary of the
Treasury.
[FR Doc. 06–817 Filed 1–27–06; 8:45 am]
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with RULES
32 CFR Part 392
[DoD Instruction 5134.04]
Director of Small and Disadvantaged
Business Utilization
ACTION:
Department of Defense.
Final rule.
SUMMARY: This document removes
regulations from Title 32 of the Code of
Federal Regulations concerning the
Director of Small and Disadvantaged
Business Utilization. This part has
served the purpose for which it was
intended in the CFR and is no longer
necessary.
EFFECTIVE DATE:
January 30, 2006.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
L.M.
Bynum (703) 696–4970.
The
revised DoD Instruction 5134.04 is
available at https://www.dtic.mil/whs/
directives/corres/html/513404.htm.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
List of Subjects in 32 CFR Part 392
Organizations.
PART 392—[REMOVED]
Accordingly, by the authority of 10
U.S.C. 301, 32 CFR part 392 is removed.
I
Dated: January 24, 2006.
L.M. Bynum,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison
Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 06–814 Filed 1–27–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001–06–M
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Coast Guard
[Removed]
I
BILLING CODE 4830–01–P
VerDate Aug<31>2005
Office of the Secretary
14:05 Jan 27, 2006
Jkt 208001
33 CFR Part 165
[COTP Honolulu 06–002]
RIN 1625–AA87
Security Zone; Pearl Harbor and
Adjacent Waters, Honolulu, HI
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
SUMMARY: This temporary rule
establishes a 500-yard moving security
zone around the U.S. Forces vessel
SBX–1 during transit and float-off
operations in the waters adjacent to
Pearl Harbor, HI. The SBX–1 will transit
aboard the M/V BLUE MARLIN and will
be floated-off and escorted into Pearl
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Harbor. This security zone is necessary
to protect the SBX–1 from hazards
associated with other vessels or persons
approaching too close during the transit,
float-off, and escort operations. Entry of
persons or vessels into this temporary
security zone is prohibited unless
authorized by the Captain of the Port
(COTP).
DATES: This rule is effective from 12
a.m. (HST) on January 13, 2006 to 11:59
p.m. (HST) on January 31, 2006.
ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this
preamble as being available in the
docket are part of docket COTP
Honolulu 06–002 and are available for
inspection or copying at Coast Guard
Sector Honolulu between 7 a.m. and
3:30 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Lieutenant (Junior Grade) Quincey
Adams, U.S. Coast Guard Sector
Honolulu at (808) 842–2600.
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), the
Coast Guard finds that good cause exists
for not publishing an NPRM. The Coast
Guard was not given the final voyage
plan in time to initiate full rulemaking,
and the need for this temporary security
zone was not determined until less than
30 days before the SBX–1 will require
the zone’s protection. Publishing an
NPRM and delaying the effective date
would be contrary to the public interest
since the transit would occur before the
rulemaking process was complete,
thereby jeopardizing the security of the
people and property associated with the
operation. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the
Coast Guard finds that good cause exists
for making this rule effective less than
30 days after publication in the Federal
Register. The COTP finds this good
cause to be the immediate need for a
security zone to allay the waterborne
security threats surrounding the SBX–
1’s transit.
Background and Purpose
On January 9, 2006, U.S. Forces vessel
SBX–1 entered the Honolulu Captain of
the Port Zone while attached to the
loading platform of M/V BLUE
MARLIN. COTP Honolulu Order 06–001
established a security zone to protect its
float-off and transit into Pearl Harbor, HI
(165.T14–131 Security Zone; Pearl
Harbor and adjacent waters, Honolulu,
HI).
That temporary final rule expired on
January 12, 2006 at 11:59 p.m. The Navy
contacted the Coast Guard that day to
E:\FR\FM\30JAR1.SGM
30JAR1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 19 / Monday, January 30, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
request a security zone that will protect
the same operation through January 31,
2006 because unfavorable weather has
thus far prevented its completion. The
Coast Guard agrees that a temporary
moving 500-yard security zone around
the SBX–1 is necessary to protect it for
the entire operation.
Discussion of Rule
This temporary security zone is
effective from 12 a.m. (HST) on January
13, 2006 to 11:59 p.m. (HST) on January
31, 2006. It is located within the
Honolulu Captain of the Port Zone (See
33 CFR 3.70–10) and covers all waters
extending 500 yards in all directions
from U.S. Forces vessel SBX–1, from the
surface of the water to the ocean floor.
The security zone moves with the SBX–
1 while it is aboard M/V BLUE MARLIN
or being floated-off, then continues to
move with the SBX–1 while it is in
transit. The security zone becomes fixed
when the SBX–1 is anchored, positionkeeping, or moored.
The general regulations governing
security zones contained in 33 CFR
165.33 apply. Entry into, transit
through, or anchoring within this zone
is prohibited unless authorized by the
Captain of the Port or a designated
representative thereof. Any Coast Guard
commissioned, warrant, or petty officer,
and any other Captain of the Port
representative permitted by law, may
enforce the zone. The Captain of the
Port may waive any of the requirements
of this rule for any person, vessel, or
class of vessel upon finding that
application of the security zone is
unnecessary or impractical for the
purpose of maritime security. Vessels or
persons violating this rule are subject to
the penalties set forth in 33 U.S.C. 1232
and 50 U.S.C. 192.
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with RULES
Regulatory Evaluation
14:05 Jan 27, 2006
Small Entities
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
(5 U.S.C. 601–612), we have considered
whether this rule will 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. We
expect that there will be little or no
impact to small entities due to the
narrowly tailored scope of these security
zones.
Assistance for Small Entities
Under section 213(a) of the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104–121),
we offer to assist small entities in
understanding this rule so that they
could better evaluate its effects on them
and participate in the rulemaking
process.
Small businesses may send comments
on the actions of Federal employees
who enforce, or otherwise determine
compliance with, Federal regulations to
the Small Business and Agriculture
Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman
and the Regional Small Business
Regulatory Fairness Boards. The
Ombudsman evaluates these actions
annually and rates each agency’s
responsiveness to small business. If you
wish to comment on actions by
employees of the Coast Guard, call 1–
888–REG–FAIR (1–888–734–3247).
Collection of Information
This rule is not a ‘‘significant
regulatory action’’ under § 3(f) of
Executive Order 12866, Regulatory
Planning and Review, and does not
require an assessment of potential costs
and benefits under § 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 DHS is unnecessary.
This expectation is based on the short
duration of zones, the limited
geographic area affected by them, and
VerDate Aug<31>2005
their ability to move with the protected
vessels.
Jkt 208001
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
either preempts State law or imposes 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
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
4819
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
expenditure, we do discuss the effects of
this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
Taking of Private Property
This rule will not affect 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.
E:\FR\FM\30JAR1.SGM
30JAR1
4820
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 19 / Monday, January 30, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
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 is 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 M16475.1D,
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 limit the use of a
categorical exclusion under section
2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore,
under figure 2–1, paragraph (34)(g) of
the Commandant Instruction
M16475.1D, this rule is categorically
excluded from further environmental
documentation.
List of Subjects 33 CFR Part 165
Harbors, Marine Safety, Navigation
(water), Reporting and record-keeping
requirements, security measures,
Waterways.
surface of the water to the ocean floor,
is a security zone: All waters extending
500 yards in all directions from U.S.
Forces vessel SBX–1. The security zone
moves with the SBX–1 while it is
aboard M/V BLUE MARLIN or being
floated-off, then continues to move with
the SBX–1 while it is in transit. The
security zone becomes fixed when the
SBX–1 is anchored, position-keeping, or
moored.
(b) Effective Dates. This security zone
is effective from 12 a.m. (HST) on
January 13, 2006 to 11:59 p.m. (HST) on
January 31, 2006.
(c) Regulations. The general
regulations governing security zones
contained in 33 CFR 165.33 apply. Entry
into, transit through, or anchoring
within this zone is prohibited unless
authorized by the Captain of the Port or
a designated representative thereof.
(d) Enforcement. Any Coast Guard
commissioned, warrant, or petty officer,
and any other Captain of the Port
representative permitted by law, may
enforce this temporary security zone.
(e) Waiver. The Captain of the Port
may waive any of the requirements of
this rule for any person, vessel, or class
of vessel upon finding that application
of the security zone is unnecessary or
impractical for the purpose of maritime
security.
(f) Penalties. Vessels or persons
violating this rule are subject to the
penalties set forth in 33 U.S.C. 1232 and
50 U.S.C. 192.
Dated: January 12, 2006.
M.K. Brown,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the
Port, Honolulu.
[FR Doc. 06–810 Filed 1–27–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–15–P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
For the reasons discussed in the
preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33
CFR part 165 as follows:
I
Coast Guard
PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION
AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS
33 CFR Part 165
1. The authority citation for part 165
continues to read as follows:
[CGD09–06–001]
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.
Security Zone; Superbowl XL, Detroit
River, Detroit, MI
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with RULES
I
RIN 1625–AA87
I 2. Add § 165.T14–132 to read as
follows:
§ 165.T14–132 Security Zone; Pearl Harbor
and adjacent waters, Honolulu, HI
(a) Location. The following area,
within the Honolulu Captain of the Port
Zone (See 33 CFR 3.70–10), from the
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:05 Jan 27, 2006
Jkt 208001
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is
establishing a temporary security zone
on the Detroit River, Detroit, Michigan.
This zone is intended to restrict vessels
from a portion of the Detroit River in
order to ensure the safety of up to
450,000 people expected to attend
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Super Bowl XL at Ford Field as well as
related events at Cobo Hall, Hart Plaza
and the Renaissance Center in
downtown Detroit.
DATES: This rule is effective from 8 a.m.
(local) on January 31, 2006 through 8
a.m. (local) on February 6, 2006.
ADDRESSES: Comments and material
received from the public, as well as
documents indicated in this preamble as
being available in the docket, are part of
docket [CGD09–06–001] and are
available for inspection or copying at
U.S. Coast Guard Sector Detroit, 110 Mt.
Elliott Ave. Detroit, MI 48207 between
8 a.m. (local) and 4 p.m. (local), Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
LTJG Cynthia Channell, Waterways
Management, Sector Detroit, 110 Mt.
Elliott Ave., Detroit, MI 48207; (313)
568–9580.
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), the
Coast Guard finds that good cause exists
for not publishing an NPRM. The permit
application was not received in time to
publish an NPRM followed by a final
rule before the effective date. Under 5
U.S.C. 553(d)(3), good cause exists for
making this rule effective less than 30
days after publication in the Federal
Register. Delaying this rule would be
contrary to the public interest of
ensuring the security of the spectators
and participants during this event and
immediate action is necessary to
prevent possible loss of life or property.
The Coast Guard has not received any
complaints or negative comments
previously with regard to this event.
Background and Purpose
This temporary security zone is
necessary to ensure the safety of up to
450,000 people expected to attend
Super Bowl XL at Ford Field as well as
related events at Cobo Hall, Hart Plaza
and the Renaissance Center in
downtown Detroit.
All persons and vessels, other than
those approved by the Captain of the
Port Detroit, or his authorized
representative, are prohibited from
entering or moving within this security
zone. The Captain of the Port Detroit, or
his authorized on-scene representative,
may be contacted via VHF Channel 16
for further instructions before transiting
through the restricted area. The public
will be made aware of the existence of
this security zone and the restrictions
involved via Broadcast Notice to
Mariners.
E:\FR\FM\30JAR1.SGM
30JAR1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 19 (Monday, January 30, 2006)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 4818-4820]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-810]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 165
[COTP Honolulu 06-002]
RIN 1625-AA87
Security Zone; Pearl Harbor and Adjacent Waters, Honolulu, HI
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.
ACTION: Temporary final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This temporary rule establishes a 500-yard moving security
zone around the U.S. Forces vessel SBX-1 during transit and float-off
operations in the waters adjacent to Pearl Harbor, HI. The SBX-1 will
transit aboard the M/V BLUE MARLIN and will be floated-off and escorted
into Pearl Harbor. This security zone is necessary to protect the SBX-1
from hazards associated with other vessels or persons approaching too
close during the transit, float-off, and escort operations. Entry of
persons or vessels into this temporary security zone is prohibited
unless authorized by the Captain of the Port (COTP).
DATES: This rule is effective from 12 a.m. (HST) on January 13, 2006 to
11:59 p.m. (HST) on January 31, 2006.
ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in
the docket are part of docket COTP Honolulu 06-002 and are available
for inspection or copying at Coast Guard Sector Honolulu between 7 a.m.
and 3:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lieutenant (Junior Grade) Quincey
Adams, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Honolulu at (808) 842-2600.
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), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing an NPRM. The Coast Guard was not given
the final voyage plan in time to initiate full rulemaking, and the need
for this temporary security zone was not determined until less than 30
days before the SBX-1 will require the zone's protection. Publishing an
NPRM and delaying the effective date would be contrary to the public
interest since the transit would occur before the rulemaking process
was complete, thereby jeopardizing the security of the people and
property associated with the operation. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the
Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective
less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register. The COTP
finds this good cause to be the immediate need for a security zone to
allay the waterborne security threats surrounding the SBX-1's transit.
Background and Purpose
On January 9, 2006, U.S. Forces vessel SBX-1 entered the Honolulu
Captain of the Port Zone while attached to the loading platform of M/V
BLUE MARLIN. COTP Honolulu Order 06-001 established a security zone to
protect its float-off and transit into Pearl Harbor, HI (165.T14-131
Security Zone; Pearl Harbor and adjacent waters, Honolulu, HI).
That temporary final rule expired on January 12, 2006 at 11:59 p.m.
The Navy contacted the Coast Guard that day to
[[Page 4819]]
request a security zone that will protect the same operation through
January 31, 2006 because unfavorable weather has thus far prevented its
completion. The Coast Guard agrees that a temporary moving 500-yard
security zone around the SBX-1 is necessary to protect it for the
entire operation.
Discussion of Rule
This temporary security zone is effective from 12 a.m. (HST) on
January 13, 2006 to 11:59 p.m. (HST) on January 31, 2006. It is located
within the Honolulu Captain of the Port Zone (See 33 CFR 3.70-10) and
covers all waters extending 500 yards in all directions from U.S.
Forces vessel SBX-1, from the surface of the water to the ocean floor.
The security zone moves with the SBX-1 while it is aboard M/V BLUE
MARLIN or being floated-off, then continues to move with the SBX-1
while it is in transit. The security zone becomes fixed when the SBX-1
is anchored, position-keeping, or moored.
The general regulations governing security zones contained in 33
CFR 165.33 apply. Entry into, transit through, or anchoring within this
zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port or a
designated representative thereof. Any Coast Guard commissioned,
warrant, or petty officer, and any other Captain of the Port
representative permitted by law, may enforce the zone. The Captain of
the Port may waive any of the requirements of this rule for any person,
vessel, or class of vessel upon finding that application of the
security zone is unnecessary or impractical for the purpose of maritime
security. Vessels or persons violating this rule are subject to the
penalties set forth in 33 U.S.C. 1232 and 50 U.S.C. 192.
Regulatory Evaluation
This rule is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Sec.
3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does
not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under Sec.
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 DHS is unnecessary. This expectation is based on the
short duration of zones, the limited geographic area affected by them,
and their ability to move with the protected vessels.
Small Entities
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered whether this rule will 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. We expect that there will be little or no impact to small
entities due to the narrowly tailored scope of these security zones.
Assistance for Small Entities
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we offer to assist small
entities in understanding this rule so that they could better evaluate
its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process.
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247).
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 either preempts State law or imposes 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 expenditure, we do
discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
Taking of Private Property
This rule will not affect 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.
[[Page 4820]]
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 is 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 M16475.1D,
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 limit the
use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the Instruction.
Therefore, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g) of the Commandant
Instruction M16475.1D, this rule is categorically excluded from further
environmental documentation.
List of Subjects 33 CFR Part 165
Harbors, Marine Safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and record-
keeping 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. Add Sec. 165.T14-132 to read as follows:
Sec. 165.T14-132 Security Zone; Pearl Harbor and adjacent waters,
Honolulu, HI
(a) Location. The following area, within the Honolulu Captain of
the Port Zone (See 33 CFR 3.70-10), from the surface of the water to
the ocean floor, is a security zone: All waters extending 500 yards in
all directions from U.S. Forces vessel SBX-1. The security zone moves
with the SBX-1 while it is aboard M/V BLUE MARLIN or being floated-off,
then continues to move with the SBX-1 while it is in transit. The
security zone becomes fixed when the SBX-1 is anchored, position-
keeping, or moored.
(b) Effective Dates. This security zone is effective from 12 a.m.
(HST) on January 13, 2006 to 11:59 p.m. (HST) on January 31, 2006.
(c) Regulations. The general regulations governing security zones
contained in 33 CFR 165.33 apply. Entry into, transit through, or
anchoring within this zone is prohibited unless authorized by the
Captain of the Port or a designated representative thereof.
(d) Enforcement. Any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant, or petty
officer, and any other Captain of the Port representative permitted by
law, may enforce this temporary security zone.
(e) Waiver. The Captain of the Port may waive any of the
requirements of this rule for any person, vessel, or class of vessel
upon finding that application of the security zone is unnecessary or
impractical for the purpose of maritime security.
(f) Penalties. Vessels or persons violating this rule are subject
to the penalties set forth in 33 U.S.C. 1232 and 50 U.S.C. 192.
Dated: January 12, 2006.
M.K. Brown,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Honolulu.
[FR Doc. 06-810 Filed 1-27-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P