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