Special Local Regulations for Marine Events; Patapsco River, Inner Harbor, Baltimore, MD, 47159-47161 [E6-13494]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 158 / Wednesday, August 16, 2006 / Proposed Rules
6. On page 32495, column 3, in the
preamble, under the caption FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, lines 2
and 3 from the top of the column, the
language ‘‘Treena Garrett, (202) 622–
7180 (not toll-free numbers)’’ is
corrected to read ‘‘Kelly Banks, (202)
927–1443 (not toll-free numbers)’’.
7. On page 32495, column 3, in the
preamble, under the paragraph heading
‘‘Background and Explanation of
Provisions’’, line 5 from the bottom of
the paragraph, the language
‘‘7874(a)(2)(B) of the Code. The text of’’
is corrected to read ‘‘7874(a)(2)(B) of the
Internal Revenue Code. The text of’’.
8. On page 32495, column 3, in the
preamble, under the paragraph ‘‘Special
Analyses’’, line 5 from the bottom of the
paragraph, the language ‘‘of the Code,
this notice of proposed’’ is corrected to
read ‘‘of the Internal Revenue Code, this
notice of proposed’’.
9. On page 32496, column 1, in the
preamble, under the paragraph heading
‘‘Comments and Public Hearing’’, first
paragraph of the column, lines 2
through 5, the language ‘‘for October 24,
2006, at 10 a.m. in the auditorium,
Internal Revenue Building, 1111
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington,
DC.’’ is corrected to read ‘‘for October
31, 2006, at 10 a.m. in the auditorium,
Internal Revenue Service, New
Carrollton Federal Building, 5000 Ellin
Road, Lanham, MD 20706.’’
10. On page 32496, column 1, in the
preamble, under the paragraph heading
‘‘Comments and Public Hearing’’,
second paragraph of the column, lines 2
through 5, the language ‘‘for October 24,
2006, at 10 a.m. in the auditorium,
Internal Revenue Building, 1111
Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington
DC. Due to building’’ is corrected to
read ‘‘for October 31, 2006, at 10 a.m.
in the auditorium, Internal Revenue
Service, New Carrollton Federal
Building, 5000 Ellin Road, Lanham, MD
20706.’’
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS
Guy R. Traynor,
Chief, Publications and Regulations Branch,
Legal Processing Division, Office of Associate
Chief Counsel (Procedure and
Administration).
[FR Doc. E6–13424 Filed 8–15–06; 8:45 am]
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 100
[CGD05–06–078]
RIN 1625–AA08
Special Local Regulations for Marine
Events; Patapsco River, Inner Harbor,
Baltimore, MD
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
The Coast Guard proposes to
establish special local regulations
during the ‘‘Red Bull Flugtag
Baltimore’’, a marine event to be held
October 21, 2006, on the waters of the
Patapsco River, Inner Harbor, Baltimore,
MD. These special local regulations are
necessary to provide for the safety of life
on navigable waters during the event.
This action is intended to temporarily
restrict vessel traffic in a portion of the
Baltimore Inner Harbor during the
event.
SUMMARY:
Comments and related material
must reach the Coast Guard on or before
September 15, 2006.
ADDRESSES: You may mail comments
and related material to Commander
(dpi), Fifth Coast Guard District, 431
Crawford Street, Portsmouth, Virginia
23704–5004, hand-deliver them to
Room 415 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, Fifth
Coast Guard District, Inspections and
Investigations Branch, at (757) 398–
6204.
DATES:
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
BILLING CODE 4830–01–P
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 (CGD05–06–078),
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:49 Aug 15, 2006
Jkt 208001
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
47159
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 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 October 21, 2006, Red Bull North
America will sponsor ‘‘Red Bull Flugtag
Baltimore’’ at the Inner Harbor in
Baltimore, MD. The event will consist of
30 teams who attempt to fly a human
powered craft from an 80-foot long flight
deck that extends over the water
immediately adjacent to the southwest
corner of the promenade surrounding
the Baltimore Inner Harbor. The
regulated area originates at the
southwest corner of the Inner Harbor
adjacent to the Maryland Science Center
and extends outward over the water
within an approximately 150 yard arc.
Due to the need for vessel control
during the event, the Coast Guard will
temporarily restrict vessel traffic in the
event area to provide for the safety of
participants, spectators and other
transiting vessels.
Discussion of Proposed Rule
The Coast Guard proposes to establish
temporary special local regulations on
specified waters of the Patapsco River,
Inner Harbor, Baltimore, MD. The
regulations would be in effect from
10:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. on October 21,
2006. The effect would be to restrict
general navigation in the regulated area
during the event. Except for persons or
vessels authorized by the Coast Guard
Patrol Commander, no person or vessel
would be permitted enter or remain in
the regulated area. Vessel traffic may be
allowed to transit the regulated area at
slow speed when event activity is
halted, and when the Coast Guard Patrol
Commander determines it is safe to do
so. These regulations are needed to
control vessel traffic during the event to
E:\FR\FM\16AUP1.SGM
16AUP1
47160
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 158 / Wednesday, August 16, 2006 / Proposed Rules
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
regulation will prevent traffic from
transiting a portion of the Baltimore
Inner Harbor 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 and the
extensive advance notifications that will
be made to the maritime community via
the Local Notice to Mariners, marine
information broadcasts, and area
newspapers, so mariners can adjust
their plans accordingly. Additionally,
the regulated area has been narrowly
tailored to impose the least impact on
general navigation yet provide the level
of safety deemed necessary. Vessel
traffic may be able to transit the
regulated area at slow speed when event
activity is halted, when the Coast Guard
Patrol Commander deems it is safe to do
so.
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS
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 the effected portion of the
Baltimore Inner Harbor during the
event.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:49 Aug 15, 2006
Jkt 208001
Although this regulation prevents
traffic from transiting a small segment of
the Baltimore Inner Harbor 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 may be able to
transit the regulated area when event
activity is halted, 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.
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.
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.
Protection of Children
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
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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.
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.
E:\FR\FM\16AUP1.SGM
16AUP1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 158 / Wednesday, August 16, 2006 / Proposed Rules
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.
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS
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—REGATTAS AND MARINE
PARADES
1. The authority citation for part 100
continues to read as follows:
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:49 Aug 15, 2006
Jkt 208001
47161
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1233; Department of
Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
2. Add a temporary § 100.35T–05–078
to read as follows:
40 CFR Part 52
§ 100.35T–05–078 Patapsco River, Inner
Harbor, Baltimore, 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 Red Bull Flugtag
Baltimore under the auspices of a
Marine Event Permit issued to the event
sponsor and approved by Commander,
Coast Guard Sector Baltimore.
(4) Regulated area includes the waters
of the Patapsco River, Baltimore, MD,
Inner Harbor within the immediate
vicinity of the southwest corner of the
harbor adjacent to the Maryland Science
Center. The area is bounded on the
south and west by the shoreline
promenade, bounded on the north by a
line drawn along latitude 39°16′58″
North and bounded on the east by a line
drawn along longitude 076°36′36.5″
West. All coordinates reference Datum
NAD 1983.
(b) 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 shall:
(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 event area.
(c) Effective period. This section will
be enforced from 10:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.
on October 21, 2006.
Dated: July 28, 2006.
Larry L. Hereth,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander,
Fifth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. E6–13494 Filed 8–15–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–15–P
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
[EPA–R01–OAR–2004–NH–0001; A–1–FRL–
8210–6]
Approval and Promulgation of Air
Quality Implementation Plans; New
Hampshire; Withdrawal of Proposed
Rulemaking To Control Gasoline Fuel
Parameters and Remove the
Reformulated Gasoline Program From
Four Counties in New Hampshire
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Withdrawal of proposed rule.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: In a letter dated May 31, 2006,
the New Hampshire Department of
Environmental Services (DES) requested
withdrawal of their previously
submitted State Implementation Plan
(SIP) revision for oxygen flexible
reformulated gasoline (OFRFG). EPA
had proposed to approve this revision
on February 2, 2004 (69 FR 4903), and
received comments from five parties
which outlined concerns. For reasons
outlined below, New Hampshire has
withdrawn this SIP revision request.
Therefore, EPA is also withdrawing its
proposed approval of the SIP revision.
DATES: The proposed rule is withdrawn
as of August 16, 2006.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Robert C. Judge, EPA New England
(CAQ), 1 Congress Street, suite 1100,
Boston MA 02203; telephone, 617–918–
1045; fax, 617–918–0045;
judge.robert@epa.gov.
SUMMARY: On February 2, 2004 (69 FR
4903), EPA proposed approval of a State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revision
submitted by the New Hampshire
Department of Environmental Services
(DES) on October 31, 2002 and October
3, 2003, establishing fuel emissions
performance requirements for gasoline
distributed in southern New Hampshire
which includes Hillsborough,
Merrimack, Rockingham, and Strafford
Counties. Final EPA approval of this SIP
revision would ultimately result in New
Hampshire no longer utilizing Federal
reformulated gasoline (RFG) in this area
90 days after the effective date of the
rule. New Hampshire had hoped their
program would result in gasoline with
less methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE)
being distributed in the State.
On May 31, 2006, DES submitted a
letter by which the State of New
Hampshire withdrew their request to
adopt their own State specific fuel
program (OFRFG), and their request to
opt-out of the Federal reformulated
gasoline program. In this letter, New
E:\FR\FM\16AUP1.SGM
16AUP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 158 (Wednesday, August 16, 2006)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 47159-47161]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-13494]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 100
[CGD05-06-078]
RIN 1625-AA08
Special Local Regulations for Marine Events; Patapsco River,
Inner Harbor, Baltimore, MD
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to establish special local
regulations during the ``Red Bull Flugtag Baltimore'', a marine event
to be held October 21, 2006, on the waters of the Patapsco River, Inner
Harbor, Baltimore, MD. These special local regulations are necessary to
provide for the safety of life on navigable waters during the event.
This action is intended to temporarily restrict vessel traffic in a
portion of the Baltimore Inner Harbor during the event.
DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or
before September 15, 2006.
ADDRESSES: You may mail comments and related material to Commander
(dpi), Fifth Coast Guard District, 431 Crawford Street, Portsmouth,
Virginia 23704-5004, hand-deliver them to Room 415 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, Fifth
Coast Guard District, 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-
078), 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 October 21, 2006, Red Bull North America will sponsor ``Red Bull
Flugtag Baltimore'' at the Inner Harbor in Baltimore, MD. The event
will consist of 30 teams who attempt to fly a human powered craft from
an 80-foot long flight deck that extends over the water immediately
adjacent to the southwest corner of the promenade surrounding the
Baltimore Inner Harbor. The regulated area originates at the southwest
corner of the Inner Harbor adjacent to the Maryland Science Center and
extends outward over the water within an approximately 150 yard arc.
Due to the need for vessel control during the event, the Coast Guard
will temporarily restrict vessel traffic in the event area to provide
for the safety of participants, spectators and other transiting
vessels.
Discussion of Proposed Rule
The Coast Guard proposes to establish temporary special local
regulations on specified waters of the Patapsco River, Inner Harbor,
Baltimore, MD. The regulations would be in effect from 10:30 a.m. to
5:30 p.m. on October 21, 2006. The effect would be to restrict general
navigation in the regulated area during the event. Except for persons
or vessels authorized by the Coast Guard Patrol Commander, no person or
vessel would be permitted enter or remain in the regulated area. Vessel
traffic may be allowed to transit the regulated area at slow speed when
event activity is halted, and when the Coast Guard Patrol Commander
determines it is safe to do so. These regulations are needed to control
vessel traffic during the event to
[[Page 47160]]
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 regulation will
prevent traffic from transiting a portion of the Baltimore Inner Harbor
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
and the extensive advance notifications that will be made to the
maritime community via the Local Notice to Mariners, marine information
broadcasts, and area newspapers, so mariners can adjust their plans
accordingly. Additionally, the regulated area has been narrowly
tailored to impose the least impact on general navigation yet provide
the level of safety deemed necessary. Vessel traffic may be able to
transit the regulated area at slow speed when event activity is halted,
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 the effected
portion of the Baltimore Inner Harbor during the event.
Although this regulation prevents traffic from transiting a small
segment of the Baltimore Inner Harbor 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 may be
able to transit the regulated area when event activity is halted, 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 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.
[[Page 47161]]
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--REGATTAS AND MARINE PARADES
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. 100.35T-05-078 to read as follows:
Sec. 100.35T-05-078 Patapsco River, Inner Harbor, Baltimore, 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 Red Bull
Flugtag Baltimore under the auspices of a Marine Event Permit issued to
the event sponsor and approved by Commander, Coast Guard Sector
Baltimore.
(4) Regulated area includes the waters of the Patapsco River,
Baltimore, MD, Inner Harbor within the immediate vicinity of the
southwest corner of the harbor adjacent to the Maryland Science Center.
The area is bounded on the south and west by the shoreline promenade,
bounded on the north by a line drawn along latitude 39[deg]16'58''
North and bounded on the east by a line drawn along longitude
076[deg]36'36.5'' West. All coordinates reference Datum NAD 1983.
(b) 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 shall:
(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 event area.
(c) Effective period. This section will be enforced from 10:30 a.m.
to 5:30 p.m. on October 21, 2006.
Dated: July 28, 2006.
Larry L. Hereth,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Fifth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. E6-13494 Filed 8-15-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P
