Security Zone; Potomac River, Washington Channel, Washington, DC, 19152-19154 [E6-5522]
Download as PDF
19152
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 71 / Thursday, April 13, 2006 / Proposed Rules
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
hsrobinson on PROD1PC68 with PROPOSALS
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
proposed rule is categorically excluded,
under figure 2–1, paragraph (32)(e) of
the Instruction, from further
environmental documentation.
List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117
Bridges.
Regulations
For the reasons discussed in the
preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to
amend 33 CFR part 117 as follows:
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:29 Apr 12, 2006
Jkt 208001
PART 117—DRAWBRIDGE
OPERATION REGULATIONS
1. The authority citation for part 117
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 499; Department of
Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1; 33
CFR 1.05–1(g); section 117.255 also issued
under the authority of Pub. L. 102–587, 106
Stat. 5039.
2. Section 117.1005 is revised to read
as follows:
§ 117.1005
Chincoteague Channel.
The draw of the SR 175 Bridge, mile
3.5, at Chincoteague shall open on
demand from midnight to 6 a.m., and
every one and a half hours from 6 a.m.
to midnight; except from 7 a.m. to 5
p.m. on the last consecutive Wednesday
and Thursday in July, the draw need not
be opened.
Dated: March 31, 2006.
Larry L. Hereth,
Rear Admiral, United States Coast Guard,
Commander, Fifth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. E6–5521 Filed 4–12–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–15–P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 165
[CGD05–06–034]
RIN 1625–AA87
Security Zone; Potomac River,
Washington Channel, Washington, DC
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to
establish a temporary security zone in
certain waters of Washington Channel
on the Potomac River off Fort Lesley J.
McNair, Washington, DC during the
May 25, 2006, U.S. Coast Guard
Commandant’s Change of Command
ceremony. The security zone is
necessary to provide for the security and
safety of life and property of event
participants, spectators and mariners on
U.S. navigable waters during the event.
Entry into this zone is prohibited unless
authorized by the Captain of the Port,
Baltimore, Maryland, or designated
representative.
DATES: Comments and related material
must reach the Coast Guard on or before
May 15, 2006.
ADDRESSES: You may mail comments
and related material to Commander,
Coast Guard Sector Baltimore, 2401
Hawkins Point Road, Building 70,
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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 (CGD05–06–034),
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.
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 ongoing hostilities in Afghanistan
and Iraq, as well as continued threats by
al Qaeda and other similar organizations
to conduct armed attacks on U.S.
interests worldwide, have made it
prudent for U.S. ports and waterways to
be on a higher state of alert. 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,
E:\FR\FM\13APP1.SGM
13APP1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 71 / Thursday, April 13, 2006 / Proposed Rules
hsrobinson on PROD1PC68 with PROPOSALS
Maryland 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.
The Coast Guard will conduct a
Change of Command ceremony at Fort
McNair in Washington, DC. To address
the aforementioned security concerns
during the event, the Captain of the
Port, Baltimore, Maryland proposes to
establish a security zone upon certain
waters of the Washington Channel. This
proposed security zone will help the
Coast Guard to prevent vessels or
persons from engaging in waterborne
terrorist actions during the U.S. Coast
Guard Commandant’s Change of
Command ceremony. Due to the
catastrophic impact a terrorist attack
during the ceremony would have
against the large number of dignitaries,
and the surrounding area and
communities, a security zone is prudent
for this type of event.
Discussion of Proposed Rule
On Thursday, May 25, 2006, The U.S.
Coast Guard Commandant’s Change of
Command ceremony will be held at Fort
Lesley J. McNair, in Washington, DC.
The event will consist of several highranking dignitaries and a background
comprised of U.S. Coast Guard vessels
anchored adjacent to Fort McNair on the
confined waters of the Washington
Channel on the Potomac River. A
security zone is needed from 11 a.m.
through 4 p.m. on May 25, 2006 to
safeguard event participants and
prevent vessels or persons on certain
waters of the Washington Channel of the
Potomac River from approaching Fort
McNair and thereby bypassing the
security measures established on shore
during the event. U.S. Coast Guard
patrol vessels will be provided to
prevent the movement of persons and
vessels in an area approximately 200
yards wide and 450 yards long within
Washington Channel. Vessels underway
at the time this security zone is
implemented will immediately proceed
out of the zone. Entry into this zone is
prohibited unless authorized by the
Captain of the Port or his designated
representative. The Captain of the Port
will issue Broadcast Notices to Mariners
to publicize the security zone and notify
the public of changes in the status of the
zone. Such notices will continue until
the ceremony is complete.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:29 Apr 12, 2006
Jkt 208001
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. This temporary
rule affects a limited area of the
Washington Channel, approximately
200 yards wide and 450 yards long, for
approximately five hours. 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 and
vessels on certain waters of the
Washington Channel. Additionally, this
security zone is temporary in nature any
hardships experienced by persons or
vessels are outweighed by the national
interest in protecting high-ranking
dignitaries 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.
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 certain waters of the
Washington Channel, in an area
approximately 200 yards wide and 450
yards long, encompassed by lines
connecting the following points,
beginning at 38°52′03″ N, 077°01′07″ W,
thence to 38°52′03″ N, 077°01′14″ W,
thence to 38°51′50″ N, 077°01′14″ W,
thence to 38°51′50″ N, 077°01′07″ W,
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
19153
thence to 38°52′03″ N, 077°01′07″ W.
This security zone will not have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
because of the limited size and duration
of the zone. Before the effective period,
we would issue maritime advisories
widely available to users of the
Washington Channel.
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
E:\FR\FM\13APP1.SGM
13APP1
19154
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 71 / Thursday, April 13, 2006 / Proposed Rules
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.
hsrobinson on PROD1PC68 with PROPOSALS
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
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:29 Apr 12, 2006
Jkt 208001
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:
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.T05–034 to read as
follows:
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
§ 165.T05–034 Security Zone; Potomac
River, Washington Channel, 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
Washington Channel, from surface to
bottom, encompassed by lines
connecting the following points,
beginning at 38°52′03″ N, 077°01′07″ W,
thence to 38°52′03″ N, 077°01′14″ W,
thence to 38°51′50″ N, 077°01′14″ W,
thence to 38°51′50″ N, 077°01′07″ W,
thence to 38°52′03″ N, 077°01′07″ W.
These coordinates are based upon NAD
1983.
(c) Regulations. (1) All persons are
required to comply with the general
regulations governing security zones
found in § 165.33.
(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 11 a.m. through 4 p.m.
on May 25, 2006.
Dated: April 4, 2006.
Jonathan C. Burton,
Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting
Captain of the Port, Baltimore, Maryland.
[FR Doc. E6–5522 Filed 4–12–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–15–P
E:\FR\FM\13APP1.SGM
13APP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 71 (Thursday, April 13, 2006)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 19152-19154]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-5522]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 165
[CGD05-06-034]
RIN 1625-AA87
Security Zone; Potomac River, Washington Channel, Washington, DC
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to establish a temporary security
zone in certain waters of Washington Channel on the Potomac River off
Fort Lesley J. McNair, Washington, DC during the May 25, 2006, U.S.
Coast Guard Commandant's Change of Command ceremony. The security zone
is necessary to provide for the security and safety of life and
property of event participants, spectators and mariners on U.S.
navigable waters during the event. Entry into this zone is prohibited
unless authorized by the Captain of the Port, Baltimore, Maryland, or
designated representative.
DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or
before May 15, 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-
034), 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 ongoing hostilities in Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as
continued threats by al Qaeda and other similar organizations to
conduct armed attacks on U.S. interests worldwide, have made it prudent
for U.S. ports and waterways to be on a higher state of alert. 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,
[[Page 19153]]
Maryland 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.
The Coast Guard will conduct a Change of Command ceremony at Fort
McNair in Washington, DC. To address the aforementioned security
concerns during the event, the Captain of the Port, Baltimore, Maryland
proposes to establish a security zone upon certain waters of the
Washington Channel. This proposed security zone will help the Coast
Guard to prevent vessels or persons from engaging in waterborne
terrorist actions during the U.S. Coast Guard Commandant's Change of
Command ceremony. Due to the catastrophic impact a terrorist attack
during the ceremony would have against the large number of dignitaries,
and the surrounding area and communities, a security zone is prudent
for this type of event.
Discussion of Proposed Rule
On Thursday, May 25, 2006, The U.S. Coast Guard Commandant's Change
of Command ceremony will be held at Fort Lesley J. McNair, in
Washington, DC. The event will consist of several high-ranking
dignitaries and a background comprised of U.S. Coast Guard vessels
anchored adjacent to Fort McNair on the confined waters of the
Washington Channel on the Potomac River. A security zone is needed from
11 a.m. through 4 p.m. on May 25, 2006 to safeguard event participants
and prevent vessels or persons on certain waters of the Washington
Channel of the Potomac River from approaching Fort McNair and thereby
bypassing the security measures established on shore during the event.
U.S. Coast Guard patrol vessels will be provided to prevent the
movement of persons and vessels in an area approximately 200 yards wide
and 450 yards long within Washington Channel. Vessels underway at the
time this security zone is implemented will immediately proceed out of
the zone. Entry into this zone is prohibited unless authorized by the
Captain of the Port or his designated representative. The Captain of
the Port will issue Broadcast Notices to Mariners to publicize the
security zone and notify the public of changes in the status of the
zone. Such notices will continue until the ceremony is complete.
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. This temporary rule affects a
limited area of the Washington Channel, approximately 200 yards wide
and 450 yards long, for approximately five hours. 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 and vessels on certain waters of the
Washington Channel. Additionally, this security zone is temporary in
nature any hardships experienced by persons or vessels are outweighed
by the national interest in protecting high-ranking dignitaries 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.
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 certain waters of the Washington
Channel, in an area approximately 200 yards wide and 450 yards long,
encompassed by lines connecting the following points, beginning at
38[deg]52[min]03[sec] N, 077[deg]01[min]07[sec] W, thence to
38[deg]52[min]03[sec] N, 077[deg]01[min]14[sec] W, thence to
38[deg]51[min]50[sec] N, 077[deg]01[min]14[sec] W, thence to
38[deg]51[min]50[sec] N, 077[deg]01[min]07[sec] W, thence to
38[deg]52[min]03[sec] N, 077[deg]01[min]07[sec] W. This security zone
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities because of the limited size and duration of the zone.
Before the effective period, we would issue maritime advisories widely
available to users of the Washington Channel.
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
[[Page 19154]]
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:
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.T05-034 to read as follows:
Sec. 165.T05-034 Security Zone; Potomac River, Washington Channel,
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 Washington Channel, from surface to bottom, encompassed by lines
connecting the following points, beginning at 38[deg]52[min]03[sec] N,
077[deg]01[min]07[sec] W, thence to 38[deg]52[min]03[sec] N,
077[deg]01[min]14[sec] W, thence to 38[deg]51[min]50[sec] N,
077[deg]01[min]14[sec] W, thence to 38[deg]51[min]50[sec] N,
077[deg]01[min]07[sec] W, thence to 38[deg]52[min]03[sec] N,
077[deg]01[min]07[sec] W. These coordinates are based upon NAD 1983.
(c) Regulations. (1) All persons are required to comply with the
general regulations governing security zones found in Sec. 165.33.
(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 11 a.m.
through 4 p.m. on May 25, 2006.
Dated: April 4, 2006.
Jonathan C. Burton,
Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting Captain of the Port, Baltimore,
Maryland.
[FR Doc. E6-5522 Filed 4-12-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P