Safety Zone: Fireworks on the Bay Celebration, Chesapeake Bay, Virginia Beach, VA, 32004-32006 [E6-8553]
Download as PDF
32004
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 106 / Friday, June 2, 2006 / Proposed Rules
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 proposed 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.
cchase on PROD1PC60 with PROPOSALS
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
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:22 Jun 01, 2006
Jkt 208001
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
proposed rule is categorically excluded,
under figure 2–1, paragraph (34)(g), of
the Instruction, from further
environmental documentation. This
proposed rule creates no additional
vessel traffic and thus imposes no
additional burdens on the environment
in Prince William Sound. It simply
regulates vessels transiting in the
Captain of the Port, Prince William
Sound Zone for security purposes so
that they may transit safely in the
vicinity of the Port of Valdez and the
TAPS Terminal. A draft ‘‘Environmental
Analysis Check List’’ and a draft
‘‘Categorical Exclusion Determination’’
(CED) are available in the docket where
indicated under ADDRESSES.
61°05.38′ N, 146°37.38′ W; thence south
westerly to 61°04.05′ N, 146°40.05′ W;
thence southerly to 61°03.00′ N,
146°41.20′ W.
(ii) This security zone encompasses
all waters 200 yards either side of the
Valdez Narrows Optimum Track line.
(iii) Whenever a tank vessel is
navigating on the Valdez Narrows
Optimum Track line, the security zone
is activated and subject to enforcement.
All vessels forward of a tank vessel’s
movement must vacate the security zone
surrounding the Optimum Track line.
Vessels may reenter the security zone
astern of a moving vessel provided that
a 200 yards separation is given, as
required in paragraph (a)(2) of this
section.
*
*
*
*
*
Dated: May 8, 2006.
M.S. Gardiner,
Commander, United States Coast Guard,
Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Prince
William Sound, Alaska.
[FR Doc. E6–8544 Filed 6–1–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–15–P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 165
List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165
[CCGD05–06–054]
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation
(water), Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Safety measures, Vessels,
Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the
preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to
amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows:
RIN 1625–AA00
PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION
AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is proposing
the establishment of a 500-foot safety
zone on the Chesapeake Bay in support
of the Fireworks on the Bay Celebration.
This event is will be held at First
Landing State Park, Virginia Beach, VA
on July 04, 2006, and if warranted due
to inclement weather, July 5, 2006. This
action is intended to restrict vessel
traffic on Chesapeake Bay as necessary
to protect mariners from the hazards
associated with fireworks displays.
DATES: Comments and related material
must reach the Coast Guard on or before
June 26, 2006.
ADDRESSES: You may mail comments
and related material to Commander,
Sector Hampton Roads, Norfolk Federal
Building, 200 Granby St., 7th Floor,
Attn: Lieutenant Bill Clark, Norfolk, VA
23510. Sector Hampton Roads maintains
the public docket for this rulemaking.
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. Revise § 165.1710(a)(3) to read as
follows:
§ 165.1710 Port Valdez and Valdez
Narrows, Valdez, Alaska—security zones.
(a) * * *
(3) Valdez Narrows, Port Valdez,
Valdez, Alaska. All waters within 200
yards of the Valdez Narrows Tanker
Optimum Track line, when a tank vessel
is navigating through the narrows.
(i) The Valdez Narrows Optimum
Track line is a line commencing at
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Safety Zone: Fireworks on the Bay
Celebration, Chesapeake Bay, Virginia
Beach, VA
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
E:\FR\FM\02JNP1.SGM
02JNP1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 106 / Friday, June 2, 2006 / Proposed Rules
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 the Federal
Building between 9 a.m. and 2 p.m.
eastern time, Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Lieutenant Bill Clark, Chief, Waterways
Management Division, Sector Hampton
Roads, at (757) 668–5580.
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 CGD05–06–054 and
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 plan to hold a public
meeting, but you may submit a request
for a meeting by writing to the United
States Coast Guard 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.
cchase on PROD1PC60 with PROPOSALS
Background and Purpose
On July 4, 2006, the Fireworks on the
Bay Celebration will be held on the
Chesapeake Bay in Virginia Beach, VA.
However, if warranted due to inclement
weather, this event will be postponed
until July 5, 2006. Due to the need to
protect mariners and spectators from the
hazards associated with the fireworks
display, vessel traffic will be
temporarily restricted within 500 feet of
the fireworks display.
Discussion of Proposed Rule
The Coast Guard is establishing safety
zone that encompasses all waters of
Chesapeake Bay within 500 feet of
position 36–55–02N/076–03–27W in the
vicinity of the First Landing State Park
in Virginia Beach, VA. This regulated
area will be established in the interest
of public safety during the Fireworks on
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:22 Jun 01, 2006
Jkt 208001
the Bay Celebration and will be
enforced from 9 p.m. to 10 p.m. eastern
time, on July 4, 2006, and if warranted
due to inclement weather, July 5, 2006.
General navigation in the safety zone
will be restricted during the event.
Except for participants and vessels
authorized by the Coast Guard Patrol
Commander, no person or vessel may
enter or remain in the regulated area.
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.
Although this regulation restricts
access to the regulated area, the effect of
this rule will not be significant because:
(i) The safety zone will be in effect for
a limited duration and (ii) the Coast
Guard will make notifications via
maritime advisories so mariners can
adjust their plans accordingly.
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 because the zone will be in
place for a limited duration of time and
maritime advisories will be issued
allowing the mariners to adjust their
plans accordingly. However, this rule
may affect the following entities, some
of which may be small entities: The
owners and operators of vessels
intending to transit or anchor in that
portion of the Chesapeake Bay from 9
p.m. to 10 p.m. eastern time, on July 4,
2006 and July 5, 2006.
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
32005
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 (Public Law 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 Lieutenant
Bill Clark, Chief, Waterways
Management Division, Sector Hampton
Roads, at (757) 668–5580.
The Coast Guard will not retaliate
against small entities that question or
complain about this rule or any policy
or action of the Coast Guard.
Collection of Information
This proposed rule would call for no
new collection of information under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3501–3520.).
Federalism
A rule has implications for federalism
under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct
effect on State or local governments and
would either preempt State law or
impose a substantial direct cost of
compliance on them. We have analyzed
this proposed rule under that Order and
have determined that it does not have
implications for federalism.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) requires
Federal agencies to assess the effects of
their discretionary regulatory actions. In
particular, the Act addresses actions
that may result in the expenditure by a
State, local, or tribal government, in the
aggregate, or by the private sector of
$100,000,000 or more in any one year.
Though this proposed rule would not
result in such 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
E:\FR\FM\02JNP1.SGM
02JNP1
32006
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 106 / Friday, June 2, 2006 / Proposed Rules
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.
cchase on PROD1PC60 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
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
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:22 Jun 01, 2006
Jkt 208001
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.
A preliminary ‘‘Environmental
Analysis Check List’’ is available in the
docket where indicated under
ADDRESSES. Comments on this section
will be considered before we make the
final decision on whether this rule
should be categorically excluded from
further environmental review.
List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation
(water), Reporting and record keeping
requirements, Security measures, and
Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the
preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to
amend 33 CFR Part 165 Subpart C as
follows:
(b) Definition. The following
definition applies to this section:
Captain of the Port Representative:
Means any U.S. Coast Guard
commissioned, warrant or petty officer
who has been authorized by the Captain
of the Port, Hampton Roads, Virginia to
act on his behalf.
(c) Regulation. (1) In accordance with
the general regulations in § 165.23 of
this part, entry into this safety zone is
prohibited unless authorized by the
Captain of the Port, Hampton Roads or
the Captain of the Port Representative.
(2) The operator of any vessel in the
immediate vicinity of this safety zone
shall:
(i) Stop the vessel immediately upon
being directed to do so by any
commissioned, warrant or petty officer
on shore or on board a vessel that is
displaying a U.S. Coast Guard Ensign.
(ii) Proceed as directed by any
commissioned, warrant or petty officer
on shore or on board a vessel that is
displaying a U.S. Coast Guard Ensign.
(A) The Captain of the Port, Hampton
Roads and the Sector Duty Officer at
Sector Hampton Roads in Portsmouth,
Virginia can be contacted at telephone
number (757) 668–5555 or (757) 484–
8192.
(B) The Coast Guard Representatives
enforcing the safety zone can be
contacted on VHF–FM 13 and 16.
(d) Effective date. This regulation is
effective from 9 p.m. to 10 p.m. eastern
time, on July 4, 2006 and, if warranted
due to inclement weather, July 5, 2006.
Dated: May 15, 2006.
Patrick B. Trapp,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the
Port, Hampton Roads.
[FR Doc. E6–8553 Filed 6–1–06; 8:45 am]
PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION
AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS
BILLING CODE 4910–15–P
1. The authority citation for part 165
continues to read as follows:
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
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 Temporary § 165.T05–054, to
read as follows:
§ 165.T05–054 Safety Zone: Fireworks on
the Bay Celebration, Chesapeake Bay,
Virginia Beach, VA.
(a) Location. The following area is a
safety zone: All waters of the
Chesapeake Bay in the Captain of the
Port, Hampton Roads zone as defined in
33 CFR § 3.25–10 within 500 feet of
position 36–55–02N/076–03–27W in the
vicinity of the First Landing State Park
in Virginia Beach, VA.
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
40 CFR Parts 70 and 71
[EPA–HQ–OAR–2003–0179; FRL–8178–1]
RIN 2060–AN74
Proposed Rule Interpreting the Scope
of Certain Monitoring Requirements for
State and Federal Operating Permits
Programs
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: The purpose of this action is
to request comments on a proposed
interpretation of certain existing Federal
air program operating permits
regulations. This proposed
E:\FR\FM\02JNP1.SGM
02JNP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 106 (Friday, June 2, 2006)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 32004-32006]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-8553]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 165
[CCGD05-06-054]
RIN 1625-AA00
Safety Zone: Fireworks on the Bay Celebration, Chesapeake Bay,
Virginia Beach, VA
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is proposing the establishment of a 500-foot
safety zone on the Chesapeake Bay in support of the Fireworks on the
Bay Celebration. This event is will be held at First Landing State
Park, Virginia Beach, VA on July 04, 2006, and if warranted due to
inclement weather, July 5, 2006. This action is intended to restrict
vessel traffic on Chesapeake Bay as necessary to protect mariners from
the hazards associated with fireworks displays.
DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or
before June 26, 2006.
ADDRESSES: You may mail comments and related material to Commander,
Sector Hampton Roads, Norfolk Federal Building, 200 Granby St., 7th
Floor, Attn: Lieutenant Bill Clark, Norfolk, VA 23510. Sector Hampton
Roads maintains the public docket for this rulemaking.
[[Page 32005]]
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 the Federal Building between 9 a.m. and 2 p.m. eastern time,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lieutenant Bill Clark, Chief,
Waterways Management Division, Sector Hampton Roads, at (757) 668-5580.
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-
054 and 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 plan to hold a public meeting, but you may submit a
request for a meeting by writing to the United States Coast Guard 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
On July 4, 2006, the Fireworks on the Bay Celebration will be held
on the Chesapeake Bay in Virginia Beach, VA. However, if warranted due
to inclement weather, this event will be postponed until July 5, 2006.
Due to the need to protect mariners and spectators from the hazards
associated with the fireworks display, vessel traffic will be
temporarily restricted within 500 feet of the fireworks display.
Discussion of Proposed Rule
The Coast Guard is establishing safety zone that encompasses all
waters of Chesapeake Bay within 500 feet of position 36-55-02N/076-03-
27W in the vicinity of the First Landing State Park in Virginia Beach,
VA. This regulated area will be established in the interest of public
safety during the Fireworks on the Bay Celebration and will be enforced
from 9 p.m. to 10 p.m. eastern time, on July 4, 2006, and if warranted
due to inclement weather, July 5, 2006. General navigation in the
safety zone will be restricted during the event. Except for
participants and vessels authorized by the Coast Guard Patrol
Commander, no person or vessel may enter or remain in the regulated
area.
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.
Although this regulation restricts access to the regulated area,
the effect of this rule will not be significant because: (i) The safety
zone will be in effect for a limited duration and (ii) the Coast Guard
will make notifications via maritime advisories so mariners can adjust
their plans accordingly.
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 because the zone will be in place for a
limited duration of time and maritime advisories will be issued
allowing the mariners to adjust their plans accordingly. However, this
rule may affect the following entities, some of which may be small
entities: The owners and operators of vessels intending to transit or
anchor in that portion of the Chesapeake Bay from 9 p.m. to 10 p.m.
eastern time, on July 4, 2006 and July 5, 2006.
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 (Public Law 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 Lieutenant Bill Clark, Chief,
Waterways Management Division, Sector Hampton Roads, at (757) 668-5580.
The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that
question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the
Coast Guard.
Collection of Information
This proposed rule would call for no new collection of information
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.).
Federalism
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local
governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial
direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this proposed rule
under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications
for federalism.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any
one year. Though this proposed rule would not result in such
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
[[Page 32006]]
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.
A preliminary ``Environmental Analysis Check List'' is available in
the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. Comments on this section
will be considered before we make the final decision on whether this
rule should be categorically excluded from further environmental
review.
List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and record
keeping requirements, Security measures, and Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes
to amend 33 CFR Part 165 Subpart C 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 Temporary Sec. 165.T05-054, to read as follows:
Sec. 165.T05-054 Safety Zone: Fireworks on the Bay Celebration,
Chesapeake Bay, Virginia Beach, VA.
(a) Location. The following area is a safety zone: All waters of
the Chesapeake Bay in the Captain of the Port, Hampton Roads zone as
defined in 33 CFR Sec. 3.25-10 within 500 feet of position 36-55-02N/
076-03-27W in the vicinity of the First Landing State Park in Virginia
Beach, VA.
(b) Definition. The following definition applies to this section:
Captain of the Port Representative: Means any U.S. Coast Guard
commissioned, warrant or petty officer who has been authorized by the
Captain of the Port, Hampton Roads, Virginia to act on his behalf.
(c) Regulation. (1) In accordance with the general regulations in
Sec. 165.23 of this part, entry into this safety zone is prohibited
unless authorized by the Captain of the Port, Hampton Roads or the
Captain of the Port Representative.
(2) The operator of any vessel in the immediate vicinity of this
safety zone shall:
(i) Stop the vessel immediately upon being directed to do so by any
commissioned, warrant or petty officer on shore or on board a vessel
that is displaying a U.S. Coast Guard Ensign.
(ii) Proceed as directed by any commissioned, warrant or petty
officer on shore or on board a vessel that is displaying a U.S. Coast
Guard Ensign.
(A) The Captain of the Port, Hampton Roads and the Sector Duty
Officer at Sector Hampton Roads in Portsmouth, Virginia can be
contacted at telephone number (757) 668-5555 or (757) 484-8192.
(B) The Coast Guard Representatives enforcing the safety zone can
be contacted on VHF-FM 13 and 16.
(d) Effective date. This regulation is effective from 9 p.m. to 10
p.m. eastern time, on July 4, 2006 and, if warranted due to inclement
weather, July 5, 2006.
Dated: May 15, 2006.
Patrick B. Trapp,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Hampton Roads.
[FR Doc. E6-8553 Filed 6-1-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P