Security Zone; Chesapeake Bay, Between Sandy Point and Kent Island, MD, 9744-9747 [E6-2714]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
9744
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 38 / Monday, February 27, 2006 / Proposed Rules
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,
phone: (202) 395–7856, fax: (202) 395–
7285.
V. Environmental Statement
14. The Commission is required to
prepare an Environmental Assessment
or an Environmental Impact Statement
for any action that may have a
significant adverse effect on the human
environment.22 The Commission has
categorically excluded certain actions
from this requirement as not having a
significant effect on the human
environment. Included in the exclusion
are rules that are clarifying, corrective,
or procedural or that do not
substantially change the effect of the
regulations being amended.23 The
actions proposed herein for the
increased duration of information
retention fall within categorical
exclusions in the Commission’s
regulations for rules that are procedural
in nature. Therefore, an environmental
assessment is unnecessary and has not
been prepared in this proposed
rulemaking.
wwhite on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL
VI. Comment Procedures
15. The Commission invites interested
persons to submit comments on the
increased duration of record retention
from three to five years proposed in this
notice to be adopted, including any
related matters or alternative proposals
that commenters may wish to discuss.
Comments are due March 29, 2006.
Reply comments are due fifteen days
thereafter. Comments must refer to
Docket No. RM06–14–000 and must
include the commenter’s name, the
organization they represent, if
applicable, and their address in their
comments. Comments may be filed
either in electronic or paper format.
16. Comments may be filed
electronically via the eFiling link on the
Commission’s Web site at https://
www.ferc.gov. The Commission accepts
most standard word processing formats
and commenters may attach additional
files with supporting information in
certain other file formats. Commenters
filing electronically do not need to make
a paper filing. Commenters that are not
able to file comments electronically
must send an original and 14 copies of
their comments to: Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, Secretary of the
Commission, 888 First Street NE.,
Washington, DC, 20426.
17. All comments will be placed in
the Commission’s public files and may
22 Regulations
Implementing the National
Environmental Policy Act, Order No. 486, 52 FR
47897 (1987), FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶30,783 (1987).
23 18 CFR 380.4(a)(2)(ii) (2005).
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:44 Feb 24, 2006
Jkt 208001
be viewed, printed, or downloaded
remotely as described in the Document
Availability section below. Commenters
on this proposal are not required to
serve copies of their comments on other
commenters.
VII. Document Availability
18. In addition to publishing the full
text of this document in the Federal
Register, the Commission provides all
interested persons an opportunity to
view and/or print the contents of this
document via the Internet through the
Commission’s Home Page (https://
www.ferc.gov) and in the Commission’s
Public Reference Room during normal
business hours (8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.
Eastern time) at 888 First Street, NE.,
Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426.
19. From the Commission’s Home
Page on the Internet, this information is
available in the eLibrary. The full text
of this document is available on
eLibrary both in PDF and Microsoft
Word format for viewing, printing, and/
or downloading. To access this
document in eLibrary, type the docket
number excluding the last three digits of
this document in the docket number
field.
20. User assistance is available for
eLibrary and the Commission’s Web site
during normal business hours. For
assistance, please contact Online
Support at 1–866–208–3676 (toll free) or
202–502–6652 (e-mail at
FERCOnlineSupport@FERC.gov), or the
Public Reference Room at 202–502–
8371, TTY 202–502–8659 (e-mail at
public.referenceroom@ferc.gov).
List of Subjects
Electric power rates, Electric utilities,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
18 CFR Part 284
Continental Shelf, Natural Gas,
Reporting and Recordkeeping
Requirements.
By direction of the Commission.
Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
In consideration of the foregoing, the
Commission proposes to amend parts 35
and 284 Chapter I, Title 18, Code of
Federal Regulations, as follows:
PART 35—FILING OF RATE
SCHEDULES AND TARIFFS
1. The authority citation for part 35
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 791a–825r, 2601–
2645; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 42 U.S.C. 7101–7352.
Frm 00005
Fmt 4702
[Amended]
2. In § 35.37, paragraph (d), the word
‘‘three’’ is removed and the word ‘‘five’’
is added in its place.
PART 284—CERTAIN SALES AND
TRANSPORTATION OF NATURAL GAS
UNDER THE NATURAL GAS POLICY
ACT OF 1978 AND RELATED
AUTHORITIES
1. The authority citation for part 284
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 15 U.S.C. 717–717w, 3301–
3432; 42 U.S.C. 7101–7532; 43 U.S.C. 1331–
1356.
§ 284.288
[Amended]
2. In § 284.288, paragraph (b), the
word ‘‘three’’ is removed and the word
‘‘five’’ is added in its place.
§ 284.403
[Amended]
3. In § 284.403, paragraph (b), the
word ‘‘three’’ is removed and the word
‘‘five’’ is added in its place.
[FR Doc. 06–1721 Filed 2–24–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 165
[CGD05–06–003]
RIN 1625–AA87
Security Zone; Chesapeake Bay,
Between Sandy Point and Kent Island,
MD
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
AGENCY:
18 CFR Part 35
PO 00000
§ 35.37
Sfmt 4702
ACTION:
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to
establish a temporary security zone on
the waters of the Chesapeake Bay. This
action is necessary to provide for the
security of a large number of
participants during the 2006 Bay Bridge
Walk across the William P. Lane, Jr.
Memorial Bridge between Sandy Point
and Kent Island, Maryland. The security
zone will allow for control of a
designated area of the Chesapeake Bay
and safeguard the public at large.
DATES: Comments and related material
must reach the Coast Guard on or before
March 29, 2006.
ADDRESSES: You may mail comments
and related material to Commander,
Coast Guard Sector Baltimore, 2401
Hawkins Point Road, Building 70,
Waterways Management Division,
Baltimore, Maryland 21226–1791. Coast
Guard Sector Baltimore, Waterways
E:\FR\FM\27FEP1.SGM
27FEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 38 / Monday, February 27, 2006 / Proposed Rules
Management Division, maintains the
public docket 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 Coast Guard
Sector Baltimore, Waterways
Management Division, between 8 a.m.
and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.
Ronald Houck, at Coast Guard Sector
Baltimore, Waterways Management
Division, at telephone number (410)
576–2674 or (410) 576–2693.
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 (CGD05–06–003),
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.
wwhite on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL
Public Meeting
We do not now plan to hold a public
meeting. But you may submit a request
for a meeting by writing to Coast Guard
Sector Baltimore, Waterways
Management Division, 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
The U.S. Maritime Administration
(MARAD) in Advisory 02–07 advised
U.S. shipping interests to maintain a
heightened state of alert against possible
terrorist attacks. MARAD more recently
issued Advisory 03–06 informing
operators of maritime interests of
increased threat possibilities to vessels
and facilities and a higher risk of
terrorist attack to the transportation
community in the United States. The
ongoing hostilities in Afghanistan and
Iraq have made it prudent for U.S. ports
and waterways to be on a higher state
of alert because the al Qaeda
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:44 Feb 24, 2006
Jkt 208001
organization and other similar
organizations have declared an ongoing
intention to conduct armed attacks on
U.S. interests worldwide.
Due to increased awareness that
future terrorist attacks are possible, the
Coast Guard as lead federal agency for
maritime homeland security, has
determined that the Captain of the Port
Baltimore must have the means to be
aware of, deter, detect, intercept, and
respond to asymmetric threats, acts of
aggression, and attacks by terrorists on
the American homeland while still
maintaining our freedoms and
sustaining the flow of commerce. This
security zone is part of a comprehensive
port security regime designed to
safeguard human life, vessels, and
waterfront facilities against sabotage or
terrorist attacks.
In this particular rulemaking, to
address the aforementioned security
concerns during the highly-publicized
public event, and to take steps to
prevent the catastrophic impact that a
terrorist attack against a large number of
participants during the 2006 Bay Bridge
Walk would have on the public interest,
the Captain of the Port, Baltimore,
Maryland proposes to establish a
security zone upon all waters of the
Chesapeake Bay, from the surface to the
bottom, within 250 yards north of the
north (westbound) span of the William
P. Lane Jr. Memorial Bridge, and 250
yards south of the south (eastbound)
span of the William P. Lane Jr.
Memorial Bridge, from the western
shore at Sandy Point to the eastern
shore at Kent Island, Maryland. This
security zone will help the Coast Guard
to prevent vessels or persons from
engaging in terrorist actions against a
large number of participants during the
event. Due to these heightened security
concerns, and the catastrophic impact a
terrorist attack on the William P. Lane
Jr. Memorial Bridge during the 2006 Bay
Bridge Walk would have on the large
number of participants, and the
surrounding area and communities, a
security zone is prudent for this type of
event.
Discussion of Proposed Rule
On Sunday, May 7, 2006, the
Maryland Transportation Authority will
sponsor the 4.3-mile Bay Bridge Walk,
to take place from Sandy Point State
Park, Maryland at 9 a.m. local time. The
event will consist of an estimated
50,000 participants walking across the
William P. Lane Jr. Memorial Bridge
(Chesapeake Bay Bridge) to Kent Island,
Maryland. Vessels underway at the time
this security zone is implemented will
immediately proceed out of the zone.
We will issue Broadcast Notices to
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
9745
Mariners to further publicize the
security zone. This security zone is
necessary to prevent vessels or persons
on designated waters of the Chesapeake
Bay from approaching the bridge and
thereby bypassing the security measures
for the event established by the
Maryland Transit Authority Police.
Vessels transiting through the security
zone without loitering will be permitted
to do so, and those with compelling
interests that outweigh the port’s
security needs may be granted waivers
from the requirements of the security
zone.
Regulatory Evaluation
This proposed rule is not a
‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under
section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866,
Regulatory Planning and Review, and
does not require an assessment of
potential costs and benefits under
section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office
of Management and Budget has not
reviewed it under that Order. 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.
The operational restrictions of the
security zone are tailored to provide the
minimal disruption of vessel operations
necessary to provide immediate,
improved security for persons, vessels,
and the waters of the Chesapeake Bay,
within 250 yards of the William P. Lane
Jr. Memorial Bridge (Chesapeake Bay
Bridge), located between Sandy Point
and Kent Island, Maryland.
Additionally, this security zone is
temporary in nature and any hardships
experienced by persons or vessels are
outweighed by the national interest in
protecting the public at large from the
devastating consequences of acts of
terrorism, and from sabotage or other
subversive acts, accidents, or other
causes of a similar nature.
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.
E:\FR\FM\27FEP1.SGM
27FEP1
9746
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 38 / Monday, February 27, 2006 / Proposed Rules
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: the owners or operators of
vessels intending to operate, remain or
anchor within 250 yards of the William
P. Lane Jr. Memorial Bridge (Chesapeake
Bay Bridge), located between Sandy
Point and Kent Island, Maryland. This
security zone will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities because vessels
transiting through the security zone
without loitering may be permitted to
do so, and those with compelling
interests that outweigh the port’s
security needs may be granted waivers
from the requirements of the security
zone. Before the effective period, we
would issue maritime advisories widely
available to users of the Chesapeake
Bay.
If you think that your business,
organization, or governmental
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity
and 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 to what degree
this rule would economically affect it.
Assistance for Small Entities
Under section 213(a) of the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104–121),
we want to assist small entities in
understanding this proposed rule so that
they can better evaluate its effects on
them and participate in the rulemaking.
If the rule would affect your small
business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction and you have questions
concerning its provisions or options for
compliance, please contact Mr. Ronald
L. Houck, at Coast Guard Sector
Baltimore, Waterways Management
Branch, at telephone number (410) 576–
2674. 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.
wwhite on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL
Collection of Information
This proposed rule would call for no
new collection of information under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3501–3520).
Federalism
A rule has implications for federalism
under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct
effect on State or local governments and
would either preempt State law or
impose a substantial direct cost of
compliance on them. We have analyzed
this proposed rule under that Order and
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:44 Feb 24, 2006
Jkt 208001
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.
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.
Energy Effects
Environment
We have analyzed this proposed 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 made a preliminary determination
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, we believe that
this rule should be categorically
excluded, under figure 2–1, paragraph
(34)(g), of the Instruction, from further
environmental documentation because
this rulemaking is a security zone less
than one week in duration. A draft
‘‘Environmental Analysis Check List’’
and a draft ‘‘Categorical Exclusion
Determination’’ (CED) are available in
the docket where indicated under
ADDRESSES. Comments on this section
will be considered before we make the
final decision on whether the rule
should be categorically excluded from
further environmental review.
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
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:
Protection of Children
We have analyzed this proposed rule
under Executive Order 13045,
Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks. This rule is not an economically
significant rule and would not create an
environmental risk to health or risk to
safety that might disproportionately
affect children.
Indian Tribal Governments
This proposed rule does not have
tribal implications under Executive
Order 13175, Consultation and
Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it would not have
a substantial direct effect on one or
more Indian tribes, on the relationship
between the Federal Government and
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of
power and responsibilities between the
Federal Government and Indian tribes.
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\27FEP1.SGM
27FEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 38 / Monday, February 27, 2006 / Proposed Rules
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. Add § 165.T05–003 to read as
follows:
wwhite on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL
§ 165.T05–003 Security Zone; Chesapeake
Bay, between Sandy Point and Kent Island,
MD.
(a) Definitions. (1) The Captain of the
Port, Baltimore, Maryland means the
Commander, Coast Guard Sector
Baltimore, Maryland or any Coast Guard
commissioned, warrant, or petty officer
who has been authorized by the Captain
of the Port, Baltimore, Maryland to act
on his or her behalf.
(b) Location. The following area is a
security zone: All waters of the
Chesapeake Bay, from the surface to the
bottom, within 250 yards north of the
north (westbound) span of the William
P. Lane Jr. Memorial Bridge, and 250
yards south of the south (eastbound)
span of the William P. Lane Jr.
Memorial Bridge, from the western
shore at Sandy Point to the eastern
shore at Kent Island, Maryland.
(c) Regulations. (1) All persons are
required to comply with the general
regulations governing security zones
found in § 165.33 of this part.
(2) Entry into or remaining in this
zone is prohibited unless authorized by
the Coast Guard Captain of the Port,
Baltimore, Maryland.
(3) Persons or vessels requiring entry
into or passage through the security
zone must first request authorization
from the Captain of the Port, Baltimore
to seek permission to transit the area.
The Captain of the Port, Baltimore,
Maryland can be contacted at telephone
number (410) 576–2693. The Coast
Guard vessels enforcing this section can
be contacted on VHF Marine Band
Radio, VHF channel 16 (156.8 MHz).
Upon being hailed by a U.S. Coast
Guard vessel by siren, radio, flashing
light, or other means, the operator of a
vessel shall proceed as directed. If
permission is granted, all persons and
vessels must comply with the
instructions of the Captain of the Port,
Baltimore, Maryland and proceed at the
minimum speed necessary to maintain a
safe course while within the zone.
(4) Enforcement. The U.S. Coast
Guard may be assisted in the patrol and
enforcement of the zone by Federal,
State, and local agencies.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:44 Feb 24, 2006
Jkt 208001
(d) Effective period. This section will
be effective from 7 a.m. to 5 p.m. local
time on May 7, 2006.
Dated: February 13, 2006.
Curtis A. Springer,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the
Port, Baltimore, Maryland.
[FR Doc. E6–2714 Filed 2–24–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–15–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R03–OAR–2005–0499; FRL–8036–9]
Approval and Promulgation of Air
Quality Implementation Plans;
Pennsylvania; NOX RACT
Determinations for Five Individual
Sources
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: EPA proposes to approve
revisions to the Pennsylvania State
Implementation Plan (SIP). The
revisions were submitted by the
Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Protection (PADEP) to
establish and require reasonably
available control technology (RACT) for
five major sources of nitrogen oxides
(NOX) pursuant to the Commonwealth
of Pennsylvania’s (Pennsylvania or the
Commonwealth) SIP-approved generic
RACT regulations. EPA is proposing to
approve these revisions in accordance
with the Clean Air Act (CAA).
DATES: Written comments must be
received on or before March 29, 2006.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID Number EPA–
R03–OAR–2005–0499 by one of the
following methods:
A. https://www.regulations.gov. Follow
the on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
B. E-mail: morris.makeba@epa.gov.
C. Mail: EPA–R03–OAR–2005–0499,
Makeba Morris, Chief, Air Quality
Planning Branch, Mailcode 3AP21, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region III, 1650 Arch Street,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.
D. Hand Delivery: At the previouslylisted EPA Region III address. Such
deliveries are only accepted during the
Docket’s normal hours of operation, and
special arrangements should be made
for deliveries of boxed information.
Instructions: Direct your comments to
Docket ID No. EPA–R03–OAR–2005–
0499. EPA’s policy is that all comments
received will be included in the public
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
9747
docket without change, and may be
made available online at https://
www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided, unless
the comment includes information
claimed to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise
protected through https://
www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The
https://www.regulations.gov, is an
‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which
means EPA will not know your identity
or contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment.
If you send an e-mail comment directly
to EPA without going through https://
www.regulations.gov, your e-mail
address will be automatically captured
and included as part of the comment
that is placed in the public docket and
made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA
recommends that you include your
name and other contact information in
the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA
cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact
you for clarification, EPA may not be
able to consider your comment.
Electronic files should avoid the use of
special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or
viruses.
Docket: All documents in the
electronic docket are listed in the https://
www.regulations.gov index. Although
listed in the index, some information is
not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other
information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material,
is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy
form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either
electronically in https://
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy
during normal business hours at the Air
Protection Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region III, 1650
Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
19103. Copies of the State submittal are
available at the Pennsylvania
Department of Environmental
Protection, Bureau of Air Quality, P.O.
Box 8468, 400 Market Street, Harrisburg,
Pennsylvania 17105.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
LaKeshia N. Robertson, (215) 814–2113,
or by e-mail at
robertson.lakeshia@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On
November 21, 2005, PADEP submitted
revisions to the Pennsylvania SIP. These
E:\FR\FM\27FEP1.SGM
27FEP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 38 (Monday, February 27, 2006)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 9744-9747]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-2714]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 165
[CGD05-06-003]
RIN 1625-AA87
Security Zone; Chesapeake Bay, Between Sandy Point and Kent
Island, MD
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to establish a temporary security
zone on the waters of the Chesapeake Bay. This action is necessary to
provide for the security of a large number of participants during the
2006 Bay Bridge Walk across the William P. Lane, Jr. Memorial Bridge
between Sandy Point and Kent Island, Maryland. The security zone will
allow for control of a designated area of the Chesapeake Bay and
safeguard the public at large.
DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or
before March 29, 2006.
ADDRESSES: You may mail comments and related material to Commander,
Coast Guard Sector Baltimore, 2401 Hawkins Point Road, Building 70,
Waterways Management Division, Baltimore, Maryland 21226-1791. Coast
Guard Sector Baltimore, Waterways
[[Page 9745]]
Management Division, maintains the public docket 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 Coast Guard Sector Baltimore, Waterways Management Division,
between 8 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Ronald Houck, at Coast Guard
Sector Baltimore, Waterways Management Division, at telephone number
(410) 576-2674 or (410) 576-2693.
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 (CGD05-06-
003), 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 Coast Guard Sector Baltimore,
Waterways Management Division, 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
The U.S. Maritime Administration (MARAD) in Advisory 02-07 advised
U.S. shipping interests to maintain a heightened state of alert against
possible terrorist attacks. MARAD more recently issued Advisory 03-06
informing operators of maritime interests of increased threat
possibilities to vessels and facilities and a higher risk of terrorist
attack to the transportation community in the United States. The
ongoing hostilities in Afghanistan and Iraq have made it prudent for
U.S. ports and waterways to be on a higher state of alert because the
al Qaeda organization and other similar organizations have declared an
ongoing intention to conduct armed attacks on U.S. interests worldwide.
Due to increased awareness that future terrorist attacks are
possible, the Coast Guard as lead federal agency for maritime homeland
security, has determined that the Captain of the Port Baltimore must
have the means to be aware of, deter, detect, intercept, and respond to
asymmetric threats, acts of aggression, and attacks by terrorists on
the American homeland while still maintaining our freedoms and
sustaining the flow of commerce. This security zone is part of a
comprehensive port security regime designed to safeguard human life,
vessels, and waterfront facilities against sabotage or terrorist
attacks.
In this particular rulemaking, to address the aforementioned
security concerns during the highly-publicized public event, and to
take steps to prevent the catastrophic impact that a terrorist attack
against a large number of participants during the 2006 Bay Bridge Walk
would have on the public interest, the Captain of the Port, Baltimore,
Maryland proposes to establish a security zone upon all waters of the
Chesapeake Bay, from the surface to the bottom, within 250 yards north
of the north (westbound) span of the William P. Lane Jr. Memorial
Bridge, and 250 yards south of the south (eastbound) span of the
William P. Lane Jr. Memorial Bridge, from the western shore at Sandy
Point to the eastern shore at Kent Island, Maryland. This security zone
will help the Coast Guard to prevent vessels or persons from engaging
in terrorist actions against a large number of participants during the
event. Due to these heightened security concerns, and the catastrophic
impact a terrorist attack on the William P. Lane Jr. Memorial Bridge
during the 2006 Bay Bridge Walk would have on the large number of
participants, and the surrounding area and communities, a security zone
is prudent for this type of event.
Discussion of Proposed Rule
On Sunday, May 7, 2006, the Maryland Transportation Authority will
sponsor the 4.3-mile Bay Bridge Walk, to take place from Sandy Point
State Park, Maryland at 9 a.m. local time. The event will consist of an
estimated 50,000 participants walking across the William P. Lane Jr.
Memorial Bridge (Chesapeake Bay Bridge) to Kent Island, Maryland.
Vessels underway at the time this security zone is implemented will
immediately proceed out of the zone. We will issue Broadcast Notices to
Mariners to further publicize the security zone. This security zone is
necessary to prevent vessels or persons on designated waters of the
Chesapeake Bay from approaching the bridge and thereby bypassing the
security measures for the event established by the Maryland Transit
Authority Police. Vessels transiting through the security zone without
loitering will be permitted to do so, and those with compelling
interests that outweigh the port's security needs may be granted
waivers from the requirements of the security zone.
Regulatory Evaluation
This proposed rule is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review,
and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits
under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and
Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. 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.
The operational restrictions of the security zone are tailored to
provide the minimal disruption of vessel operations necessary to
provide immediate, improved security for persons, vessels, and the
waters of the Chesapeake Bay, within 250 yards of the William P. Lane
Jr. Memorial Bridge (Chesapeake Bay Bridge), located between Sandy
Point and Kent Island, Maryland. Additionally, this security zone is
temporary in nature and any hardships experienced by persons or vessels
are outweighed by the national interest in protecting the public at
large from the devastating consequences of acts of terrorism, and from
sabotage or other subversive acts, accidents, or other causes of a
similar nature.
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.
[[Page 9746]]
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: the owners or operators of vessels intending
to operate, remain or anchor within 250 yards of the William P. Lane
Jr. Memorial Bridge (Chesapeake Bay Bridge), located between Sandy
Point and Kent Island, Maryland. This security zone will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
because vessels transiting through the security zone without loitering
may be permitted to do so, and those with compelling interests that
outweigh the port's security needs may be granted waivers from the
requirements of the security zone. Before the effective period, we
would issue maritime advisories widely available to users of the
Chesapeake Bay.
If you think that your business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and 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 to what
degree this rule would economically affect it.
Assistance for Small Entities
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this proposed rule so that they can better
evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the
rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or
options for compliance, please contact Mr. Ronald L. Houck, at Coast
Guard Sector Baltimore, Waterways Management Branch, at telephone
number (410) 576-2674. 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.
Collection of Information
This proposed rule would call for no new collection of information
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
Federalism
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local
governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial
direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this proposed rule
under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications
for federalism.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any
one year. Though this proposed rule would not result in such an
expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this
preamble.
Taking of Private Property
This proposed rule would not effect a taking of private property or
otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630,
Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected
Property Rights.
Civil Justice Reform
This proposed rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and
3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize
litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.
Protection of Children
We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13045,
Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and would not
create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might
disproportionately affect children.
Indian Tribal Governments
This proposed rule does not have tribal implications under
Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
Energy Effects
We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13211,
Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a ``significant
energy action'' under that order because it is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy
action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects
under Executive Order 13211.
Technical Standards
The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15
U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards
in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress,
through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why
using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or
operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management
systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies.
This proposed rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we
did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.
Environment
We have analyzed this proposed rule under 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
made a preliminary determination 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, we believe that this rule should be
categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g), of the
Instruction, from further environmental documentation because this
rulemaking is a security zone less than one week in duration. A draft
``Environmental Analysis Check List'' and a draft ``Categorical
Exclusion Determination'' (CED) are available in the docket where
indicated under ADDRESSES. Comments on this section will be considered
before we make the final decision on whether the rule should be
categorically excluded 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:
[[Page 9747]]
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. Add Sec. 165.T05-003 to read as follows:
Sec. 165.T05-003 Security Zone; Chesapeake Bay, between Sandy Point
and Kent Island, MD.
(a) Definitions. (1) The Captain of the Port, Baltimore, Maryland
means the Commander, Coast Guard Sector Baltimore, Maryland or any
Coast Guard commissioned, warrant, or petty officer who has been
authorized by the Captain of the Port, Baltimore, Maryland to act on
his or her behalf.
(b) Location. The following area is a security zone: All waters of
the Chesapeake Bay, from the surface to the bottom, within 250 yards
north of the north (westbound) span of the William P. Lane Jr. Memorial
Bridge, and 250 yards south of the south (eastbound) span of the
William P. Lane Jr. Memorial Bridge, from the western shore at Sandy
Point to the eastern shore at Kent Island, Maryland.
(c) Regulations. (1) All persons are required to comply with the
general regulations governing security zones found in Sec. 165.33 of
this part.
(2) Entry into or remaining in this zone is prohibited unless
authorized by the Coast Guard Captain of the Port, Baltimore, Maryland.
(3) Persons or vessels requiring entry into or passage through the
security zone must first request authorization from the Captain of the
Port, Baltimore to seek permission to transit the area. The Captain of
the Port, Baltimore, Maryland can be contacted at telephone number
(410) 576-2693. The Coast Guard vessels enforcing this section can be
contacted on VHF Marine Band Radio, VHF channel 16 (156.8 MHz). Upon
being hailed by a U.S. Coast Guard vessel by siren, radio, flashing
light, or other means, the operator of a vessel shall proceed as
directed. If permission is granted, all persons and vessels must comply
with the instructions of the Captain of the Port, Baltimore, Maryland
and proceed at the minimum speed necessary to maintain a safe course
while within the zone.
(4) Enforcement. The U.S. Coast Guard may be assisted in the patrol
and enforcement of the zone by Federal, State, and local agencies.
(d) Effective period. This section will be effective from 7 a.m. to
5 p.m. local time on May 7, 2006.
Dated: February 13, 2006.
Curtis A. Springer,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Baltimore, Maryland.
[FR Doc. E6-2714 Filed 2-24-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P
