Security Zone; Georgetown Channel, Potomac River, Washington, DC, 16531-16534 [E6-4789]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 63 / Monday, April 3, 2006 / Proposed Rules
§ 117.T293
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 temporary rule does
not use technical standards. Therefore,
we did not consider the use of voluntary
consensus standards.
Environment
We have analyzed this proposed
temporary 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 would limit the
use of a categorical exclusion under
section 2.B.2 of the Instruction.
Therefore, this proposed temporary rule
is categorically excluded, under figure
2–1, paragraph (32)(e) of the Instruction,
from further environmental
documentation. Under figure 2–1,
paragraph (32)(e) of the Instruction, an
‘‘Environmental Analysis Check List’’
and a ‘‘Categorical Exclusion
Determination’’ are not required for this
proposed temporary rule.
List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117
Bridges.
For the reasons discussed in the
preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to
amend 33 CFR part 117 as follows:
PART 117—DRAWBRIDGE
OPERATION REGULATIONS
cchase on PROD1PC60 with PROPOSALS
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 499; 33 CFR 1.05–1(g);
Department of Homeland Security Delegation
No. 0170.1; section 117.255 also issued under
the authority of Pub. L. 102–587, 106 Stat.
5039.
2. Add § 117.T293 to read as follows:
16:40 Mar 31, 2006
Jkt 208001
Dated: March 15, 2006.
D.B. Peterman,
RADM, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander,
Seventh Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. E6–4786 Filed 3–31–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–15–P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 165
[CGD05–06–014]
RIN 1625-AA87
Security Zone; Georgetown Channel,
Potomac River, Washington, DC
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to
establish a temporary security zone on
the waters of the upper Potomac River.
This action is necessary to provide for
the security of a large number of visitors
to the annual July 4th celebration on the
National Mall in Washington, DC. The
security zone will allow for control of a
designated area of the river and
safeguard spectators and high-ranking
officials.
Comments and related material
must reach the Coast Guard on or before
June 2, 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
DATES:
1. The authority citation for part 117
continues to read as follows:
VerDate Aug<31>2005
Indian Creek.
(a) The draw of the 63rd Street bridge,
mile 4.0 across Indian Creek, MiamiDade County, Florida will open a singleleaf as necessary on the hour from 8
a.m. to 12:10 a.m. and will remain
closed from 12:11 a.m. to 7:59 a.m.
except that the bridge will be closed to
navigation on the following dates: July
14 to July 17, 2006; August 1 to August
4, 2006; January 10 to January 13, 2007;
and January 29 to February 1, 2007.
(b) Notwithstanding paragraph (a) of
this section, from June 19 to June 24,
July 5 to July 10, December 4 to
December 9, and December 18 to
December 23, 2006 the waterway will be
closed to navigation except for hourly
openings as necessary between 8 a.m. to
6 p.m.
(c) Effective date: This temporary rule
is effective from 8 a.m. on June 19, 2006
through 6 p.m. on February 5, 2007.
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
16531
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 (CGD05–06–014),
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 that your submission reached
us, please enclose a stamped, selfaddressed 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 separate notice in the
Federal Register.
Background and Purpose
Due to increased awareness that
future terrorist attacks are possible,
including continued threats against U.S.
interests by Al-Queda and other terrorist
organizations, 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.
E:\FR\FM\03APP1.SGM
03APP1
16532
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 63 / Monday, April 3, 2006 / Proposed Rules
cchase on PROD1PC60 with PROPOSALS
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, and to take steps to prevent
the catastrophic impact that a terrorist
attack against a large number of
spectators and high-ranking officials
during the annual July 4th celebration
would have on the public interest, the
Coast Guard is proposing to establish a
security zone upon all waters of the
Georgetown Channel of the Potomac
River, from the surface to the bottom, 75
yards from the eastern shore measured
perpendicularly to the shore, between
the Long Railroad Bridge (the most
eastern bridge of the 5-span, Fourteenth
Street Bridge Complex) to the Theodore
Roosevelt Memorial Bridge and all
waters in between, totally including the
waters of the Georgetown Channel Tidal
Basin. This security zone will help the
Coast Guard to prevent vessels or
persons from engaging in terrorist
actions against a large number of
spectators and high-ranking officials
during the annual July 4th celebration.
Due to these heightened security
concerns, and the catastrophic impact a
terrorist attack on the National Mall in
Washington, DC during the annual July
4th celebration would have on the large
number of spectators and high-ranking
officials, and the surrounding area and
communities, a security zone is prudent
for this type of event.
Discussion of Proposed Rule
It is very likely that hundreds of
thousands of visitors will attend the July
4th celebration on the National Mall in
Washington, DC. The Captain of the
Port, Baltimore, Maryland proposes to
establish a security zone for the highlypublicized public event in Washington,
DC to address the aforementioned
security concerns and to take steps to
prevent the catastrophic impact that a
terrorist attack against a large gathering
of spectators and high-ranking officials
at or near the July 4th celebration on the
National Mall in Washington, DC,
would have. This security zone applies
to all waters of the Georgetown Channel
of the Potomac River, from the surface
to the bottom, 75 yards from the eastern
shore measured perpendicularly to the
shore, between the Long Railroad Bridge
(the most eastern bridge of the 5-span,
Fourteenth Street Bridge Complex) to
the Theodore Roosevelt Memorial
Bridge and all waters in between, totally
including the waters of the Georgetown
Channel Tidal Basin from 12:01 a.m.
through 11:59 p.m. local time on July 4,
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:40 Mar 31, 2006
Jkt 208001
2006. 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 Potomac
River (including the waters of the
Georgetown Channel Tidal Basin) from
going ashore and thereby bypassing the
security perimeter established by the U.
S. Park Police of the National Park
Service for the event.
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.
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.
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. This proposed rule would affect
the following entities, some of which
might be small entities: The owners or
operators of vessels intending to transit
or anchor in a portion of the Potomac
River (including the waters of the
Georgetown Channel Tidal Basin) from
12:01 a.m. to 11:59 p.m. on July 4, 2006.
This security zone will not have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities for
the following reasons. This rule will be
in effect for less than twenty-four hours.
Although the security zone will apply to
the entire width of the river, traffic may
be allowed to pass through the zone at
the direction of the Coast Guard Captain
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
of the Port, Baltimore, Maryland.
Additionally, before the effective
period, the Coast Guard will issue
maritime advisories widely available to
users of the river to allow mariners to
make alternative plans for transiting the
affected areas. Because the zone is of
limited size, it is expected that there
will be minimal disruption to the
maritime community. Smaller vessels
not constrained by their draft, which are
more likely to be small entities, may
request permission from the Captain of
the Port Baltimore, Maryland on a caseby-case basis to enter the zone.
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 proposed rule would affect your
small business, organization, or
governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or
options for compliance, please contact
the person listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT. 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
E:\FR\FM\03APP1.SGM
03APP1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 63 / Monday, April 3, 2006 / Proposed Rules
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.
cchase on PROD1PC60 with PROPOSALS
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.
We invite your comments on how this
proposed rule might impact tribal
governments, even if that impact may
not constitute a ‘‘tribal implication’’
under the Order.
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
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:40 Mar 31, 2006
Jkt 208001
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 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 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:
PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION
AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS
1. The authority citation for part 165
continues to read as follows:
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
16533
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.T05–014 to read as
follows:
§ 165.T05–014 Security Zone; Georgetown
Channel, Potomac River, Washington, DC
(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
Georgetown Channel of the Potomac
River, from the surface to the bottom, 75
yards from the eastern shore measured
perpendicularly to the shore, between
the Long Railroad Bridge (the most
eastern bridge of the 5-span, Fourteenth
Street Bridge Complex) to the Theodore
Roosevelt Memorial Bridge and all
waters in between, totally including the
waters of the Georgetown Channel Tidal
Basin.
(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.
(d) Effective period. This section will
be effective from 12:01 a.m. to 11:59
p.m. local time on July 4, 2006.
E:\FR\FM\03APP1.SGM
03APP1
16534
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 63 / Monday, April 3, 2006 / Proposed Rules
Dated: March 24, 2006.
Curtis A. Springer,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the
Port, Baltimore, Maryland.
[FR Doc. E6–4789 Filed 3–31–06; 8:45 am]
The
meetings are open to the public. The
Committee was established pursuant to
the Negotiated Rulemaking Act of 1990
(5 U.S.C. 561–570). The purpose of the
Committee is to consider developing a
special regulation for dogwalking at
Golden Gate National Recreation Area.
Interested persons may provide brief
oral/written comments to the Committee
during the Public Comment period of
the meeting or file written comments
with the GGNRA Superintendent.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
BILLING CODE 4910–15–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
National Park Service
36 CFR Chapter 1
Negotiated Rulemaking Advisory
Committee for Dog Management at
Golden Gate National Recreation Area
cchase on PROD1PC60 with PROPOSALS
ACTION:
Notice of meeting.
BILLING CODE 4312–FN–P
Notice is hereby given, in accordance
with the Federal Advisory Committee
Act (Pub. L. 92–463, 86 Stat. 770, 5
U.S.C. App 1, section 10), of the second
meeting of the Negotiated Rulemaking
Advisory Committee for Dog
Management at Golden Gate National
Recreation Area.
DATES: The Committee will meet on
April 18, 2006 at the Fort Mason
Officer’s Club in upper Fort Mason, in
San Francisco. The meeting will begin
at 3 p.m. This, and any subsequent
meetings, will be held to assist the
National Park Service in potentially
developing a special regulation for
dogwalking at Golden Gate National
Recreation Area.
The proposed agenda for this meeting
of the Committee may contain the
following items; however, the
Committee may modify its agenda
during the course of its work. The
Committee will provide for a public
comment period during the meeting.
1. Agenda review and adoption.
2. Approve previous meeting
summary.
3. Committee Protocols.
4. GGNRA Sideboards.
5. Interest statements from Committee
representatives.
6. Negotiated rulemaking process and
coordination with NEPA.
7. Goals and criteria.
8. Information needs.
9. Committee schedule and logistics.
10. Public comment.
11. Adjourn.
To request a sign language interpreter
for a meeting, please call the park TDD
line (415) 556–2766, a week in advance
of the meeting.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Superintendent, Golden Gate National
Recreation Area, Fort Mason, Building
201, San Francisco, CA 94123 or call the
Dog Management Information Line at
415–561–4728.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:40 Mar 31, 2006
Dated: March 28, 2006.
Bernard C. Fagan,
Deputy Chief, Office of Policy.
[FR Doc. 06–3182 Filed 3–31–06; 8:45 am]
Jkt 208001
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 50 and 51
[EPA–HQ–OAR–2005–0159; FRL–8052–8]
RIN 2060–AN40
Notice of Public Hearing for the
Proposed Rule—The Treatment of Data
Influenced by Exceptional Events
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Announcement of public
hearing.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: The EPA is announcing two
public hearings for the proposed rule on
‘‘The Treatment of Data Influenced by
Exceptional Events’’ which was
published in the Federal Register on
March 10, 2006.
DATES: The public hearings will be held
on April 18, 2006, and April 25, 2006.
Please refer to SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION for additional information
on the hearings.
ADDRESSES: Public Hearing: The public
hearings will be held at the following
locations:
1. Research Triangle Park, N.C.: Date
of hearing: April 18, 2006. The Sheraton
Imperial Hotel, 4700 Emperor Blvd.,
Durham, N.C. 27703, Phone: 919–941–
5050.
2. Denver, CO: Date of hearing: April
25, 2006. The Adams Mark Hotel, 1550
Court Place, Denver, CO 80202, Phone:
303–893–3333.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If
you would like to speak at the public
hearing or have questions concerning
the public hearing, please contact Ms.
Pamela Long at the address provided
below under SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION.
Questions concerning the proposed
rule entitled ‘‘The Treatment of Data
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Influenced by Exceptional Events’’
should be addressed to Mr. Larry
Wallace, Ph.D., U.S. EPA, Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards, Air
Quality Policy Division, (C539–01),
Research Triangle Park, N.C. 27711,
telephone number (919) 541–0906, email at Wallace.larry@epa.gov, or Mr.
Neil Frank, U.S. EPA, Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards, Air
Quality Assessment Division, (C304–
01), Research Triangle Park, N.C. 27711,
telephone number (919) 541–5560, and
e-mail address frank.neil@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The EPA
has proposed a rule to govern the review
and handling of air quality monitoring
data influenced by exceptional events.
Exceptional events are events for which
the normal planning and regulatory
process established by the Clean Air Act
is not appropriate. In this rulemaking
action, EPA is proposing to: Implement
section 319(b)(3)(B) and section
107(d)(3) authority to exclude air
quality monitoring data from regulatory
determinations related to exceedances
or violations of the National Ambient
Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and
avoid designating an area as
nonattainment, redesignating an area as
nonattainment, or reclassifying an
existing nonattainment area to a higher
classification if a State adequately
demonstrates that an exceptional event
has caused an exceedance or violation
of a NAAQS.
Public hearings: The proposal for
which EPA is holding the public
hearings was published in the Federal
Register on March 10, 2006 (71 FR
21592) and is available on the following
Web site: https://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/
t1pfpr.html. The public hearings will
provide interested parties the
opportunity to present data, views, or
arguments concerning the proposed
rule. The EPA may ask clarifying
questions during the oral presentations,
but will not respond to the
presentations at that time. Written
statements and supporting information
submitted during the comment period
will be considered with the same weight
as any oral comments and supporting
information presented at the public
hearings. Written comments must be
postmarked by May 10, 2006, which is
the closing date for the comment period,
as specified in the proposal for the rule.
The two public hearings will be held
in Research Triangle Park, N.C. on April
18, 2006 and Denver, CO on April 25,
2006. Both public hearings will begin at
9 a.m. (local time) and continue until 5
p.m. on each day, if necessary,
depending on the number of speakers.
The EPA may end the hearing early (no
E:\FR\FM\03APP1.SGM
03APP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 63 (Monday, April 3, 2006)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 16531-16534]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-4789]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 165
[CGD05-06-014]
RIN 1625-AA87
Security Zone; Georgetown Channel, Potomac River, Washington, DC
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 upper Potomac River. This action is necessary
to provide for the security of a large number of visitors to the annual
July 4th celebration on the National Mall in Washington, DC. The
security zone will allow for control of a designated area of the river
and safeguard spectators and high-ranking officials.
DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or
before June 2, 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 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-
014), 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
that your submission 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 separate notice in the Federal Register.
Background and Purpose
Due to increased awareness that future terrorist attacks are
possible, including continued threats against U.S. interests by Al-
Queda and other terrorist organizations, 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.
[[Page 16532]]
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, and to take steps to prevent the catastrophic impact
that a terrorist attack against a large number of spectators and high-
ranking officials during the annual July 4th celebration would have on
the public interest, the Coast Guard is proposing to establish a
security zone upon all waters of the Georgetown Channel of the Potomac
River, from the surface to the bottom, 75 yards from the eastern shore
measured perpendicularly to the shore, between the Long Railroad Bridge
(the most eastern bridge of the 5-span, Fourteenth Street Bridge
Complex) to the Theodore Roosevelt Memorial Bridge and all waters in
between, totally including the waters of the Georgetown Channel Tidal
Basin. This security zone will help the Coast Guard to prevent vessels
or persons from engaging in terrorist actions against a large number of
spectators and high-ranking officials during the annual July 4th
celebration. Due to these heightened security concerns, and the
catastrophic impact a terrorist attack on the National Mall in
Washington, DC during the annual July 4th celebration would have on the
large number of spectators and high-ranking officials, and the
surrounding area and communities, a security zone is prudent for this
type of event.
Discussion of Proposed Rule
It is very likely that hundreds of thousands of visitors will
attend the July 4th celebration on the National Mall in Washington, DC.
The Captain of the Port, Baltimore, Maryland proposes to establish a
security zone for the highly-publicized public event in Washington, DC
to address the aforementioned security concerns and to take steps to
prevent the catastrophic impact that a terrorist attack against a large
gathering of spectators and high-ranking officials at or near the July
4th celebration on the National Mall in Washington, DC, would have.
This security zone applies to all waters of the Georgetown Channel of
the Potomac River, from the surface to the bottom, 75 yards from the
eastern shore measured perpendicularly to the shore, between the Long
Railroad Bridge (the most eastern bridge of the 5-span, Fourteenth
Street Bridge Complex) to the Theodore Roosevelt Memorial Bridge and
all waters in between, totally including the waters of the Georgetown
Channel Tidal Basin from 12:01 a.m. through 11:59 p.m. local time on
July 4, 2006. 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 Potomac River (including the waters of the
Georgetown Channel Tidal Basin) from going ashore and thereby bypassing
the security perimeter established by the U. S. Park Police of the
National Park Service for the event.
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.
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.
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. This proposed rule would affect the following
entities, some of which might be small entities: The owners or
operators of vessels intending to transit or anchor in a portion of the
Potomac River (including the waters of the Georgetown Channel Tidal
Basin) from 12:01 a.m. to 11:59 p.m. on July 4, 2006.
This security zone will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities for the following reasons. This
rule will be in effect for less than twenty-four hours. Although the
security zone will apply to the entire width of the river, traffic may
be allowed to pass through the zone at the direction of the Coast Guard
Captain of the Port, Baltimore, Maryland. Additionally, before the
effective period, the Coast Guard will issue maritime advisories widely
available to users of the river to allow mariners to make alternative
plans for transiting the affected areas. Because the zone is of limited
size, it is expected that there will be minimal disruption to the
maritime community. Smaller vessels not constrained by their draft,
which are more likely to be small entities, may request permission from
the Captain of the Port Baltimore, Maryland on a case-by-case basis to
enter the zone.
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
proposed rule would affect your small business, organization, or
governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its
provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed
under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. 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
[[Page 16533]]
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. We
invite your comments on how this proposed rule might impact tribal
governments, even if that impact may not constitute a ``tribal
implication'' under the Order.
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 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 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:
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.T05-014 to read as follows:
Sec. 165.T05-014 Security Zone; Georgetown Channel, Potomac River,
Washington, DC
(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 Georgetown Channel of the Potomac River, from the surface to the
bottom, 75 yards from the eastern shore measured perpendicularly to the
shore, between the Long Railroad Bridge (the most eastern bridge of the
5-span, Fourteenth Street Bridge Complex) to the Theodore Roosevelt
Memorial Bridge and all waters in between, totally including the waters
of the Georgetown Channel Tidal Basin.
(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 12:01
a.m. to 11:59 p.m. local time on July 4, 2006.
[[Page 16534]]
Dated: March 24, 2006.
Curtis A. Springer,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Baltimore, Maryland.
[FR Doc. E6-4789 Filed 3-31-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P
