Special Local Regulations for Marine Events; Choptank River, Cambridge, MD, 39613-39616 [E6-10982]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 134 / Thursday, July 13, 2006 / Proposed Rules
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.
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSAL
Environment
We have analyzed this proposed rule
under Commandant Instruction
M16475.lD and Department of
Homeland Security Management
Directive 5100.1, which guides the
Coast Guard in complying with the
National Environmental Policy Act of
1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f),
and have concluded that there are no
factors in this case that would limit the
use of a categorical exclusion under
section 2.B.2 of the Instruction.
Therefore, this rule is categorically
excluded, under figure 2–1, paragraph
(34)(h), of the Instruction, from further
environmental documentation. Special
local regulations issued in conjunction
with a regatta or marine parade permit
are specifically excluded from further
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:46 Jul 12, 2006
Jkt 208001
analysis and documentation under that
section.
Under figure 2–1, paragraph (34)(h),
of the Instruction, an ‘‘Environmental
Analysis Check List’’ and a ‘‘Categorical
Exclusion Determination’’ are not
required for this rule. Comments on this
section will be considered before we
make the final decision on whether to
categorically exclude this rule from
further environmental review.
List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 100
Marine safety, Navigation (water),
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the
preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to
amend 33 CFR part 100 as follows:
PART 100—SAFETY OF LIFE ON
NAVIGABLE WATERS
1. The authority citation for part 100
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1233; Department of
Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
2. Section § 100.512 is revised to read
as follows:
§ 100.512 Chesapeakeman Ultra Triathlon,
Choptank River, Cambridge, MD.
(a) Regulated area. The regulated area
includes all waters of the Choptank
River within 200 yards either side of a
line drawn northwesterly from a point
on the shoreline at latitude 38°33′45″ N,
076°02′38″ W, thence to latitude
38°35′06″ N, 076°04′42″ W, a position
located at Great Marsh Park, Cambridge,
MD. All coordinates reference Datum
NAD 1983.
(b) Definitions. The following
definitions apply to this section;
(1) Coast Guard Patrol Commander
means a commissioned, warrant, or
petty officer of the Coast Guard who has
been designated by the Commander,
Coast Guard Sector Baltimore.
(2) Official Patrol means any vessel
assigned or approved by Commander,
Coast Guard Sector Baltimore with a
commissioned, warrant, or petty officer
on board and displaying a Coast Guard
ensign.
(3) Participant includes all persons
participating in the Chesapeakeman
Ultra Triathlon swim under the auspices
of the Marine Event Permit issued to the
event sponsor and approved by
Commander, Coast Guard Sector
Baltimore.
(c) Special local regulations. (1)
Except for event participants and
persons or vessels authorized by the
Coast Guard Patrol Commander, no
person or vessel may enter or remain in
the regulated area.
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
39613
(2) The operator of any vessel in the
regulated area must:
(i) Stop the vessel immediately when
directed to do so by any Official Patrol
and then proceed only as directed.
(ii) All persons and vessels shall
comply with the instructions of the
Official Patrol.
(iii) When authorized to transit the
regulated area, all vessels shall proceed
at the minimum speed necessary to
maintain a safe course that minimizes
wake near the swim course.
(d) Enforcement period. This section
will be enforced annually from 6:30 a.m.
to 2:30 p.m. on the last Saturday in
September. The Commander, Fifth Coast
Guard District will publish a Notice of
Enforcement in the Federal Register and
in the Fifth Coast Guard District Local
Notice to Mariners every year
announcing the dates and times this
section is in effect. In 2006 this section
will be enforced from 6:30 a.m. to 2:30
p.m. on September 30, 2006.
Dated: June 29, 2006.
L.L. Hereth,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander,
Fifth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. E6–10976 Filed 7–12–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–15–P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 100
[CGD05–06–065]
RIN 1625–AA08
Special Local Regulations for Marine
Events; Choptank River, Cambridge,
MD
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to
establish temporary special local
regulations during the ‘‘Cambridge
Offshore Challenge’’, a marine event to
be held over the waters of the Choptank
River at Cambridge, Maryland. These
special local regulations are necessary to
provide for the safety of life on
navigable waters during the event. This
action is intended to restrict vessel
traffic in the Choptank River during the
event.
DATES: Comments and related material
must reach the Coast Guard on or before
August 14, 2006.
ADDRESSES: You may mail comments
and related material to Commander
(dpi), Fifth Coast Guard District, 431
Crawford Street, Portsmouth, Virginia
E:\FR\FM\13JYP1.SGM
13JYP1
39614
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 134 / Thursday, July 13, 2006 / Proposed Rules
23704–5004, hand-deliver them to
Room 416 at the same address between
9 a.m. and 2 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays, or fax
them to (757) 398–6203. The
Inspections and Investigations Branch,
Fifth Coast Guard District, 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 the above
address between 9 a.m. and 2 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Dennis Sens, Project Manager,
Inspections and Investigations Branch,
at (757) 398–6204.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
control during the event, vessel traffic
will be temporarily restricted to provide
for the safety of participants, spectators
and transiting vessels.
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 (CGD05–06–065),
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.
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 proposed regulation
will prevent traffic from transiting a
portion of the Choptank River during
the event, the effect of this regulation
will not be significant due to the limited
duration that the regulated area will be
in effect. Extensive advance
notifications will be made to the
maritime community via Local Notice to
Mariners, marine information
broadcasts, and area newspapers, so
mariners can adjust their plans
accordingly. Additionally, the proposed
regulated area has been narrowly
tailored to impose the least impact on
general navigation yet provide the level
of safety deemed necessary. Vessel
traffic will be able to transit the
regulated area between heats, when the
Coast Guard Patrol Commander deems it
is safe to do so.
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSAL
Public Meeting
We do not now plan to hold a public
meeting. But you may submit a request
for a meeting by writing to the address
listed 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 September 23 and 24, 2006, the
Chesapeake Bay Powerboat Association
will sponsor the ‘‘2006 Cambridge
Offshore Challenge’’, on the waters of
the Choptank River at Cambridge,
Maryland. The event will consist of
approximately 40 offshore powerboats
conducting high-speed competitive
races between the Route 50 Bridge and
Oystershell Point, MD. A fleet of
approximately 250 spectator vessels is
expected to gather nearby to view the
competition. Due to the need for vessel
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:46 Jul 12, 2006
Jkt 208001
Discussion of Proposed Rule
The Coast Guard proposes to establish
temporary special local regulations on
specified waters of the Choptank River.
The temporary special local regulations
will be enforced from 10:30 a.m. to 4:30
p.m. on September 23 and 24, 2006, and
will restrict general navigation in the
regulated area during the event. Except
for participants and vessels authorized
by the Coast Guard Patrol Commander,
no person or vessel will be allowed to
enter or remain in the regulated area.
These regulations are needed to control
vessel traffic during the event to
enhance the safety of participants,
spectators and transiting vessels.
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
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
substantial number of small entities.
The term ‘‘small entities’’ comprises
small businesses, not-for-profit
organizations that are independently
owned and operated and are not
dominant in their fields, and
governmental jurisdictions with
populations of less than 50,000.
The Coast Guard certifies under 5
U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule
would not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities. This proposed rule would affect
the following entities, some of which
might be small entities: The owners or
operators of vessels intending to transit
or anchor in a portion of the Choptank
River during the event.
This proposed rule would not have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities for
the following reasons. This proposed
rule would be in effect for only a limited
period. Vessel traffic will be able to
transit the regulated area between heats,
when the Coast Guard Patrol
Commander deems it is safe to do so.
Before the enforcement period, we will
issue maritime advisories so mariners
can adjust their plans accordingly.
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 the address
listed under ADDRESSES. 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
E:\FR\FM\13JYP1.SGM
13JYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 134 / Thursday, July 13, 2006 / Proposed Rules
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 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.
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSAL
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,
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:46 Jul 12, 2006
Jkt 208001
39615
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.
List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 100
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.
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1233; Department of
Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
Environment
We have analyzed this proposed rule
under Commandant Instruction
M16475.lD, and Department of
Homeland Security Management
Directive 5100.1, which guides the
Coast Guard in complying with the
National Environmental Policy Act of
1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f),
and have concluded that there are no
factors in this case that would limit the
use of a categorical exclusion under
section 2.B.2 of the Instruction.
Therefore, this rule is categorically
excluded, under figure 2–1, paragraph
(34)(h), of the Instruction, from further
environmental documentation. Special
local regulations issued in conjunction
with a regatta or marine parade permit
are specifically excluded from further
analysis and documentation under that
section.
Under figure 2–1, paragraph (34)(h),
of the Instruction, an ‘‘Environmental
Analysis Check List’’ and a ‘‘Categorical
Exclusion Determination’’ are not
required for this rule. Comments on this
section will be considered before we
make the final decision on whether to
categorically exclude this rule from
further environmental review.
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Marine safety, Navigation (water),
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the
preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to
amend 33 CFR part 100 as follows:
PART 100—SAFETY OF LIFE ON
NAVIGABLE WATERS
1. The authority citation for part 100
continues to read as follows:
2. Add a temporary § 100.35–T05–065
to read as follows:
§ 100.35–T05–065
Cambridge, MD.
Choptank River,
(a) Definitions: The following
definitions apply to this section:
(1) Coast Guard Patrol Commander
means a commissioned, warrant, or
petty officer of the Coast Guard who has
been designated by the Commander,
Coast Guard Sector Baltimore.
(2) Official Patrol means any vessel
assigned or approved by Commander,
Coast Guard Sector Baltimore with a
commissioned, warrant, or petty officer
on board and displaying a Coast Guard
ensign.
(3) Participant includes all vessels
participating in the 2006 Cambridge
Offshore Challenge under the auspices
of the Marine Event Permit issued to the
event sponsor and approved by
Commander, Coast Guard Sector
Baltimore.
(b) Regulated area: A regulated area is
established for all waters of the
Choptank River, from shoreline to
shoreline, bounded to the west by the
Route 50 Bridge and bounded to the east
by a line drawn along longitude 076° W,
between Goose Point, MD and
Oystershell Point, MD. All coordinates
reference Datum: NAD 1983.
(c) Special local regulations: (1)
Except for event participants and
persons or vessels authorized by the
Coast Guard Patrol Commander, no
person or vessel may enter or remain in
the regulated area.
(2) The operator of any vessel in the
regulated area must:
(i) Stop the vessel immediately when
directed to do so by any Official Patrol.
(ii) Proceed as directed by any Official
Patrol.
(iii) When authorized to transit the
regulated area, all vessels shall proceed
at the minimum speed necessary to
maintain a safe course that minimizes
wake near the race course.
(d) Enforcement period. This section
will be enforced from 10:30 a.m. on
E:\FR\FM\13JYP1.SGM
13JYP1
39616
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 134 / Thursday, July 13, 2006 / Proposed Rules
September 23, 2006 to 4:30 p.m. on
September 24, 2006.
Dated: June 29, 2006.
L.L. Hereth,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander,
Fifth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. E6–10982 Filed 7–12–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–15–P
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS
AFFAIRS
38 CFR Part 3
RIN 2900–AM37
Home Schooling and Educational
Institution
Department of Veterans Affairs.
Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSAL
ACTION:
SUMMARY: The Department of Veterans
Affairs (VA) proposes to amend its
adjudication regulation regarding the
definition of a child for purposes of
establishing entitlement to additional
monetary benefits for a child who is
home-schooled. VA proposes to define
educational institutions to include
home-school programs that meet the
legal requirements of the States (by
complying with the compulsory
attendance laws of the States) in which
they are located.
DATES: Comments must be received by
VA on or before September 11, 2006.
ADDRESSES: Written comments may be
submitted by: mail or hand-delivery to
the Director, Regulations Management
(00REG1), Department of Veterans
Affairs, 810 Vermont Ave., NW., Room
1068, Washington, DC 20420; fax to
(202) 273–9026; or, through https://
www.Regulations.gov. Comments
should indicate that they are submitted
in response to ‘‘RIN 2900–AM37.’’ All
comments received will be available for
public inspection in the Office of
Regulation Policy and Management,
Room 1063B, between the hours of 8
a.m. and 4:30 p.m. Monday through
Friday (except holidays). Please call
(202) 273–9515 for an appointment.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Maya Ferrandino, Regulations Staff,
Compensation and Pension Service,
Veterans Benefits Administration,
Department of Veterans Affairs, 810
Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC
20420, (202) 273–7210.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A veteran
who is entitled to compensation under
the provisions of 38 U.S.C. 1114 or 1134
is also entitled, under certain
circumstances, to additional
compensation for dependents, including
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:46 Jul 12, 2006
Jkt 208001
a child. A veteran who is entitled to
pension under the provisions of 38
U.S.C. 1521 also is entitled to a higher
annual rate of pension because of his or
her dependents, including a child.
Additional dependency and indemnity
compensation and death pension may
also be payable based on the number of
the surviving spouse’s dependent
children. In addition, under certain
circumstances, a deceased veteran’s
children may be entitled to these
benefits in their own right.
A child is defined in 38 U.S.C.
101(4)(A)(iii) to include a person who is
unmarried, and, after attaining the age
of eighteen years and until completion
of education or training (but not after
attaining the age of twenty-three years),
is pursuing a course of instruction at an
approved educational institution. The
implementing regulation is at 38 CFR
3.57(a)(1)(iii).
Section 104(a) of title 38, United
States Code, provides that, for the
purpose of determining whether
benefits are payable (except those under
chapter 35, title 38, United States Code)
for a child over age eighteen and under
the age of twenty-three years who is
attending a school, college, academy,
seminary, technical institute, university
or other educational institution, the
Secretary may approve or disapprove
such educational institutions.
In a precedent opinion dated March
19, 1998 (VAOPGCPREC 3–98), VA’s
General Counsel interpreted the term
‘‘educational institution’’ to include
only institutions that are similar in type
to the institutions specifically
enumerated in 38 U.S.C. 104(a). The
General Counsel discussed the
definition of ‘‘institution’’ and
additionally concluded that a person
who is receiving instruction in a homeschool program is not pursuing a course
of instruction at an educational
institution and therefore does not
qualify as a child within the meaning of
38 U.S.C. 101(4)(A)(iii).
On March 8, 2000, VA published a
final rule amending 38 CFR
3.57(a)(1)(iii) to provide a definition of
education institution, and specifically
excluded home-school programs from
the scope of the term ‘‘educational
institution.’’ In publishing the
amendment as a final rule rather than
going through notice and comment
under the Administrative Procedure
Act, VA stated that the rule interpreted
statutory provisions and made nonsubstantive changes.
In Theiss v. Principi, 18 Vet. App. 204
(2004), the United States Court of
Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court)
invalidated VAOPGCPREC 3–98 and the
March 8, 2000 rulemaking that excluded
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
home-school programs from the
definition of ‘‘educational institution.’’
Although the holding in Theiss was
based on the Veterans Court’s
disagreement with VA’s decision to
publish the amendment to
§ 3.57(a)(1)(iii) as a final rule without
first inviting public comment, the Court
also discussed the underlying validity of
the rule’s exclusion of home-school
programs. The Court raised concerns
regarding the basis for the General
Counsel’s interpretation of ‘‘educational
institution’’ in VAOPGCPREC 3–98 and
the focus in that precedent opinion on
the characteristics that differentiated a
home-school program from the
specifically enumerated educational
institutions found in section 104(a) of
title 38. According to the Court, home
schooling has important aspects in
common with the enumerated programs
in section 104(a): ‘‘They are all
educational programs; they all have
instructors and instructional material;
and they all involve some form of
accreditation.’’ 18 Vet. App. at 211.
We propose to amend 38 CFR 3.57 to
define educational institution, and to
include home-school programs as
educational institutions. We propose
that the definition will apply to this
section and to 38 CFR 3.667, School
attendance, which is a corresponding
regulation regarding effective dates for
awards based on a child’s school
attendance.
The Court in Theiss discussed various
dictionary definitions for the term
‘‘educational institution.’’ ‘‘Educational
institution’’ has been defined as ‘‘[a]
school, seminary, college, university, or
other educational facility.’’ It is also
defined as ‘‘[a]n institution for the
teaching and improvement of its
students or pupils; a school, seminary,
college, or university * * * Art
galleries, museums, public libraries,
even labor union buildings have at
times been held to be educational
institutions.’’ A ‘‘facility’’ is defined as
‘‘a building, special room, etc. that
facilitates or makes possible some
activity.’’ The Court also noted that
‘‘institution’’ has been variously defined
as: an established organization or
corporation (as a college or university)
especially of a public character;
something that has been established,
particularly a place where an
educational or charitable enterprise is
conducted; and an ‘‘establishment
* * *devoted to the promotion of a
particular object.’’ The Court noted that
certain dictionaries define
‘‘establishment’’ to include ‘‘a
household’’, and define ‘‘organization’’
to include a group of persons organized
for a particular purpose. The Court
E:\FR\FM\13JYP1.SGM
13JYP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 134 (Thursday, July 13, 2006)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 39613-39616]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-10982]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 100
[CGD05-06-065]
RIN 1625-AA08
Special Local Regulations for Marine Events; Choptank River,
Cambridge, MD
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to establish temporary special local
regulations during the ``Cambridge Offshore Challenge'', a marine event
to be held over the waters of the Choptank River at Cambridge,
Maryland. These special local regulations are necessary to provide for
the safety of life on navigable waters during the event. This action is
intended to restrict vessel traffic in the Choptank River during the
event.
DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or
before August 14, 2006.
ADDRESSES: You may mail comments and related material to Commander
(dpi), Fifth Coast Guard District, 431 Crawford Street, Portsmouth,
Virginia
[[Page 39614]]
23704-5004, hand-deliver them to Room 416 at the same address between 9
a.m. and 2 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays, or fax
them to (757) 398-6203. The Inspections and Investigations Branch,
Fifth Coast Guard District, 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 the above address between 9 a.m. and 2 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dennis Sens, Project Manager,
Inspections and Investigations Branch, at (757) 398-6204.
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-
065), 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 the address listed 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 September 23 and 24, 2006, the Chesapeake Bay Powerboat
Association will sponsor the ``2006 Cambridge Offshore Challenge'', on
the waters of the Choptank River at Cambridge, Maryland. The event will
consist of approximately 40 offshore powerboats conducting high-speed
competitive races between the Route 50 Bridge and Oystershell Point,
MD. A fleet of approximately 250 spectator vessels is expected to
gather nearby to view the competition. Due to the need for vessel
control during the event, vessel traffic will be temporarily restricted
to provide for the safety of participants, spectators and transiting
vessels.
Discussion of Proposed Rule
The Coast Guard proposes to establish temporary special local
regulations on specified waters of the Choptank River. The temporary
special local regulations will be enforced from 10:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.
on September 23 and 24, 2006, and will restrict general navigation in
the regulated area during the event. Except for participants and
vessels authorized by the Coast Guard Patrol Commander, no person or
vessel will be allowed to enter or remain in the regulated area. These
regulations are needed to control vessel traffic during the event to
enhance the safety of participants, spectators and transiting vessels.
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 proposed regulation will prevent traffic from
transiting a portion of the Choptank River during the event, the effect
of this regulation will not be significant due to the limited duration
that the regulated area will be in effect. Extensive advance
notifications will be made to the maritime community via Local Notice
to Mariners, marine information broadcasts, and area newspapers, so
mariners can adjust their plans accordingly. Additionally, the proposed
regulated area has been narrowly tailored to impose the least impact on
general navigation yet provide the level of safety deemed necessary.
Vessel traffic will be able to transit the regulated area between
heats, when the Coast Guard Patrol Commander deems it is safe to do so.
Small Entities
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered whether this proposed rule would have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000.
The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed
rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. This proposed rule would affect the following
entities, some of which might be small entities: The owners or
operators of vessels intending to transit or anchor in a portion of the
Choptank River during the event.
This proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons. This
proposed rule would be in effect for only a limited period. Vessel
traffic will be able to transit the regulated area between heats, when
the Coast Guard Patrol Commander deems it is safe to do so. Before the
enforcement period, we will issue maritime advisories so mariners can
adjust their plans accordingly.
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 the address listed under
ADDRESSES. 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
[[Page 39615]]
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 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, and Department of Homeland Security Management Directive
5100.1, which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and
have concluded that there are no factors in this case that would limit
the use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the
Instruction. Therefore, this rule is categorically excluded, under
figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(h), of the Instruction, from further
environmental documentation. Special local regulations issued in
conjunction with a regatta or marine parade permit are specifically
excluded from further analysis and documentation under that section.
Under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(h), of the Instruction, an
``Environmental Analysis Check List'' and a ``Categorical Exclusion
Determination'' are not required for this rule. Comments on this
section will be considered before we make the final decision on whether
to categorically exclude this rule from further environmental review.
List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 100
Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes
to amend 33 CFR part 100 as follows:
PART 100--SAFETY OF LIFE ON NAVIGABLE WATERS
1. The authority citation for part 100 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1233; Department of Homeland Security
Delegation No. 0170.1.
2. Add a temporary Sec. 100.35-T05-065 to read as follows:
Sec. 100.35-T05-065 Choptank River, Cambridge, MD.
(a) Definitions: The following definitions apply to this section:
(1) Coast Guard Patrol Commander means a commissioned, warrant, or
petty officer of the Coast Guard who has been designated by the
Commander, Coast Guard Sector Baltimore.
(2) Official Patrol means any vessel assigned or approved by
Commander, Coast Guard Sector Baltimore with a commissioned, warrant,
or petty officer on board and displaying a Coast Guard ensign.
(3) Participant includes all vessels participating in the 2006
Cambridge Offshore Challenge under the auspices of the Marine Event
Permit issued to the event sponsor and approved by Commander, Coast
Guard Sector Baltimore.
(b) Regulated area: A regulated area is established for all waters
of the Choptank River, from shoreline to shoreline, bounded to the west
by the Route 50 Bridge and bounded to the east by a line drawn along
longitude 076[deg] W, between Goose Point, MD and Oystershell Point,
MD. All coordinates reference Datum: NAD 1983.
(c) Special local regulations: (1) Except for event participants
and persons or vessels authorized by the Coast Guard Patrol Commander,
no person or vessel may enter or remain in the regulated area.
(2) The operator of any vessel in the regulated area must:
(i) Stop the vessel immediately when directed to do so by any
Official Patrol.
(ii) Proceed as directed by any Official Patrol.
(iii) When authorized to transit the regulated area, all vessels
shall proceed at the minimum speed necessary to maintain a safe course
that minimizes wake near the race course.
(d) Enforcement period. This section will be enforced from 10:30
a.m. on
[[Page 39616]]
September 23, 2006 to 4:30 p.m. on September 24, 2006.
Dated: June 29, 2006.
L.L. Hereth,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Fifth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. E6-10982 Filed 7-12-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P
