Security Zone; Georgetown Channel, Potomac River, Washington, DC, 16531-16534 [E6-4789]

Download as PDF 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: http://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