Security Zone; Chesapeake Bay, Between Sandy Point and Kent Island, MD, 69514-69517 [E6-19677]

Download as PDF 69514 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 231 / Friday, December 1, 2006 / Proposed Rules rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS1 This does not preclude the possibility, however, that unforeseen, intermittent FMLA leave may be a significant problem for some employers. The unexpected absence of certain employees may create problems in the workplace. For example, an unannounced absence can cause other workers or equipment to be idled. An unannounced absence can result in lost business or performance penalties to be imposed upon the employer. It is noteworthy that the two industries with the highest FMLA costs in the 2004 Employment Policy Foundation (‘‘EPF’’) survey were transportation (an industry which has performance penalties) and telecommunications (an industry where quality of service agreements are common).30 Anecdotal reports also indicate that some employers schedule extra workers for some positions to avoid the negative impacts of unforeseen, intermittent leave. • The Department also requests comment on the impact that unscheduled, intermittent leave has on productivity and profits. There is some indication that the use of unscheduled, intermittent FMLA leave is not evenly distributed across employers or even across the facilities of a given employer. Rather, it may be concentrated in some facilities and only becomes a problem for employers when the portion of workers taking unscheduled, intermittent FMLA leave in a given facility or operation exceeds some critical point. Some believe that the apparent concentration of workers taking unscheduled, intermittent FMLA leave may be due to poor management or other labor-relations problems. Others believe that as more and more workers in a particular facility take unscheduled leave, the likelihood that the remaining workers will become sick or injured and begin to take FMLA leave also increases. See, e.g., Workers’ Compensation and Family and Medical Leave Act Claim Contagion.31 • The Department requests that commenters submit information on the concentration of workers taking unscheduled, intermittent FMLA leave in specific industries and employers. 30 Mulvey, Janemarie, ‘‘The Cost and Characteristics of Family and Medical Leave,’’ Employment Policy Foundation Issue Backgrounder (Apr. 19, 2005). But see Institute for Women’s Policy Research, ‘‘Assessing the Family and Medical Leave Act: An Analysis of an Employment Policy Foundation Paper on Costs (June 29, 2005). 31 Gardner, Harold H., Kleinman, Nathan L., and Butler, Richard J., Workers’ Compensation and Family and Medical Leave Act Claim Contagion, Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Volume 20, Jan. 2000, at 89–112. VerDate Aug<31>2005 13:14 Nov 30, 2006 Jkt 211001 • The Department requests that commenters submit information on the factors contributing to large portions of the work force in some facilities taking unscheduled, intermittent FMLA leave. Finally, the problems associated with employees taking unscheduled, intermittent FMLA leave may be related to the salaried or hourly-pay status of the employees. Anecdotal reports indicate that employers do not appear to have problems when workers who are salaried and exempt from the Fair Labor Standards Act (‘‘FLSA’’) under 29 CFR part 541 take small blocks of unscheduled, intermittent FMLA leave so long as these workers complete their work. In fact, some employers may not even record absences of a couple hours or less because of the scheduling flexibility typically afforded to salaried workers, and because the absences often have no impact on such workers’ pay or productivity. Employers report they have both administrative and production problems when non-exempt (typically hourly-paid) workers take unscheduled, intermittent FMLA leave, especially when these workers do not notify their employers that they are not coming to work at their scheduled reporting time. Unlike salaried employees, many non-exempt employees may not be paid when they take unscheduled, intermittent FMLA leave. • The Department requests that commenters submit information related to the different treatment of FLSA exempt and nonexempt employees taking unscheduled, intermittent FMLA leave. • The Department also requests information on the different impact the leave taking by FLSA exempt and nonexempt employees may have on the workers who are taking leave and their employers. I. Additional Questions Related to the Coverage Estimates and Their Impacts • The Department requests public comment on the estimates and the methodology used to produce these estimates, including any available information that can be used to improve the estimates of the impact that FMLA leave has on employers and employees. IV. Conclusion The Department invites interested parties having knowledge of the FMLA to submit comments and welcomes any pertinent information that will provide a basis for ascertaining the effectiveness of the current implementing regulations and the Department’s administration of the Act. The issues posed in this notice are not meant to be an exclusive list of PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 issues for which the Department seeks commentary. Victoria A. Lipnic, Assistant Secretary for Employment Standards. Paul DeCamp, Administrator, Wage and Hour Division. [FR Doc. 06–9489 Filed 11–30–06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510–27–P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [CGD05–06–104] RIN 1625–AA87 Security Zone; Chesapeake Bay, Between Sandy Point and Kent Island, MD Coast Guard, DHS. Notice of proposed rulemaking. AGENCY: ACTION: SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is proposing to establish a permanent security zone on the waters of the Chesapeake Bay, within 250 yards north of the north span and 250 yards south of the south span of the William P. Lane Jr. Memorial Bridge, located between Sandy Point and Kent Island, Maryland. This action is necessary to provide for the security of a large number of participants during the annual Bay Bridge Walk across the William P. Lane Jr. Memorial Bridge, held annually on the first Sunday in May. The security zone will allow for control of vessels or persons within a specified area of the Chesapeake Bay and safeguard the public at large. DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or before March 1, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may mail comments and related material to Commander, Coast Guard Sector Baltimore, 2401 Hawkins Point Road, Building 70, Waterways Management Division, Baltimore, Maryland 21226–1791. Coast Guard Sector Baltimore, Waterways Management Division, maintains the public docket for this rulemaking. Comments and material received from the public, as well as documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket, will become part of this docket and will be available for inspection or copying at Coast Guard Sector Baltimore, Waterways Management Division, between 8 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. E:\FR\FM\01DEP1.SGM 01DEP1 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 231 / Friday, December 1, 2006 / Proposed Rules Mr. Ronald Houck, at Coast Guard Sector Baltimore, Waterways Management Division, at telephone number (410) 576–2674 or (410) 576–2693. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 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 (CGD05–06–104), 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. rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS1 Public Meeting We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a request for a meeting by writing to Coast Guard Sector Baltimore, Waterways Management Division, at the address under ADDRESSES explaining why one would be beneficial. If we determine that one would aid this rulemaking, we will hold one at a time and place announced by a later notice in the Federal Register. Background and Purpose The ongoing hostilities in Afghanistan and Iraq have made it prudent for U.S. ports and waterways to be on a higher state of alert because the al Qaeda organization and other similar organizations have declared an ongoing intention to conduct armed attacks on U.S. interests worldwide. Due to increased awareness that future terrorist attacks are possible, the Coast Guard, as lead federal agency for maritime homeland security, has determined that the Captain of the Port Baltimore must have the means to be aware of, deter, detect, intercept, and respond to asymmetric threats, acts of aggression, and attacks by terrorists on the American homeland while still maintaining our freedoms and sustaining the flow of commerce. This security zone is part of a comprehensive port security regime designed to safeguard human life, vessels, and waterfront facilities against sabotage or terrorist attacks. In this particular rulemaking, to address the aforementioned security VerDate Aug<31>2005 13:14 Nov 30, 2006 Jkt 211001 concerns during the highly-publicized public event, and to take steps to prevent the catastrophic impact that a terrorist attack against a large number of participants during the annual Bay Bridge Walk would have on the public interest, the Captain of the Port, Baltimore, Maryland proposes to establish a security zone upon all waters of the Chesapeake Bay, within 250 yards north of the north (westbound) span of the William P. Lane Jr. Memorial Bridge, and 250 yards south of the south (eastbound) span of the William P. Lane Jr. Memorial Bridge, from the western shore at Sandy Point to the eastern shore at Kent Island, Maryland. This security zone will help the Coast Guard to prevent vessels or persons from engaging in terrorist actions against a large number of participants during the event. Due to these heightened security concerns and the catastrophic impact a terrorist attack on the Chesapeake Bay Bridge during the annual Bay Bridge Walk would have on the large number of participants, and the surrounding area and communities, a security zone is prudent for this type of event. Discussion of Proposed Rule Each spring on the first Sunday in May, the Maryland Transportation Authority closes the eastbound span of the William P. Lane Jr. Memorial Bridge (also known as the Chesapeake Bay Bridge) to vehicular traffic to allow pedestrians to participate in the 4.3-mile Bay Bridge Walk across the bridge. The event takes place from Sandy Point State Park in Anne Arundel County, Maryland at 9 a.m. local time and consists of an estimated 50,000 participants walking across the Chesapeake Bay Bridge to Kent Island, in Queen Anne’s County, Maryland. The Bay Bridge Walk will be canceled in the event of rain, high winds or extreme weather. Vessels underway at the time this security zone is enforced will immediately proceed out of the zone. We will issue Broadcast Notices to Mariners to further publicize the security zone. This security zone is necessary to prevent vessels or persons from entering or remaining in the waters of the Chesapeake Bay 250 yards from each span of the William P. Lane Jr. Memorial Bridge. 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 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 69515 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. The operational restrictions of the security zone are tailored to provide the minimal disruption of vessel operations necessary to provide immediate, improved security for persons, vessels, and the waters of the Chesapeake Bay, within 250 yards of the William P. Lane Jr. Memorial Bridge, located between Sandy Point and Kent Island, Maryland. Additionally, this security zone is temporary in nature and any hardships experienced by persons or vessels are outweighed by the national interest in protecting the public at large from the devastating consequences of acts of terrorism, and from sabotage or other subversive acts, accidents, or other causes of a similar nature. Small Entities Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601–612), we have considered whether this proposed rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term ‘‘small entities’’ comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to operate, remain or anchor within 250 yards of the William P. Lane Jr. Memorial Bridge, located between Sandy Point and Kent Island, Maryland. This security zone will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because vessels transiting through the security zone without loitering may be permitted to do so, and those with compelling interests that outweigh the port’s security needs may be granted waivers from the requirements of the security zone. Before the effective period, we would issue maritime advisories widely available to users of the Chesapeake Bay. 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, E:\FR\FM\01DEP1.SGM 01DEP1 69516 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 231 / Friday, December 1, 2006 / Proposed Rules 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 Mr. Ronald L. Houck, at Coast Guard Sector Baltimore, Waterways Management Branch, at telephone number (410) 576– 2674. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard. 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 would call for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501–3520). 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. Federalism Energy Effects 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. 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. Collection of Information 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. rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS1 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. VerDate Aug<31>2005 13:14 Nov 30, 2006 Jkt 211001 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 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 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 guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that there are no factors in this case that would limit the use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, we believe that this rule should be categorically excluded, under figure 2–1, paragraph (34)(g), of the Instruction, from further environmental documentation because this rulemaking is a security zone. A draft ‘‘Environmental Analysis Check List’’ and a draft ‘‘Categorical Exclusion Determination’’ (CED) are available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. Comments on this section will be considered before we make the final decision on whether the rule should be categorically excluded from further environmental review. List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165 Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways. For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows: PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows: Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05–1(g), 6.04–1, 6.04–6, and 160.5; Pub. L. 107–295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. 2. Add § 165.507 to read as follows: § 165.507 Security Zone; Chesapeake Bay, between Sandy Point and Kent Island, MD. (a) Definitions. (1) The Captain of the Port, Baltimore, Maryland means the Commander, Coast Guard Sector Baltimore, Maryland or any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant, or petty officer who has been authorized by the Captain of the Port, Baltimore, Maryland to act on his or her behalf. (b) Location. The following area is a security zone: All waters of the E:\FR\FM\01DEP1.SGM 01DEP1 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 231 / Friday, December 1, 2006 / Proposed Rules Chesapeake Bay, from the surface to the bottom, within 250 yards north of the north (westbound) span of the William P. Lane Jr. Memorial Bridge, and 250 yards south of the south (eastbound) span of the William P. Lane Jr. Memorial Bridge, from the western shore at Sandy Point to the eastern shore at Kent Island, Maryland. (c) Regulations. (1) All persons are required to comply with the general regulations governing security zones found in § 165.33 of this part. (2) Entry into or remaining in this zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Coast Guard Captain of the Port, Baltimore, Maryland. (3) Persons or vessels requiring entry into or passage through the security zone must first request authorization from the Captain of the Port, Baltimore to seek permission to transit the area. The Captain of the Port, Baltimore, Maryland can be contacted at telephone number (410) 576–2693. The Coast Guard vessels enforcing this section can be contacted on VHF Marine Band Radio, VHF channel 16 (156.8 MHz). Upon being hailed by a U.S. Coast Guard vessel by siren, radio, flashing light, or other means, the operator of a vessel shall proceed as directed. If permission is granted, all persons and vessels must comply with the instructions of the Captain of the Port, Baltimore, Maryland and proceed at the minimum speed necessary to maintain a safe course while within the zone. (d) Enforcement. The U.S. Coast Guard may be assisted in the patrol and enforcement of the zone by Federal, State, and local agencies. (e) Enforcement period. This section will be enforced annually on the first Sunday in May from 7 a.m. to 5 p.m. local time. Dated: November 6, 2006. Jonathan C. Burton, Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting Captain of the Port, Baltimore, Maryland. [FR Doc. E6–19677 Filed 11–30–06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910–15–P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS1 [CGD05–06–105] RIN 1625–AA87 Security Zone; Georgetown Channel, Potomac River, Washington, DC Coast Guard, DHS. Notice of proposed rulemaking. AGENCY: ACTION: VerDate Aug<31>2005 13:14 Nov 30, 2006 Jkt 211001 SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to establish a permanent security zone on the waters of the upper Potomac River. This action is necessary to provide for the security of a large number of visitors to the annual July 4th celebration on the National Mall in Washington, DC. The security zone will allow for control of a designated area of the river and safeguard spectators and high-ranking officials. DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or before March 1, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may mail comments and related material to Commander, Coast Guard Sector Baltimore, 2401 Hawkins Point Road, Building 70, Waterways Management Division, Baltimore, Maryland 21226–1791. Coast Guard Sector Baltimore, Waterways Management Division, maintains the public docket for this rulemaking. Comments and material received from the public, as well as documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket, will become part of this docket and will be available for inspection or copying at Coast Guard Sector Baltimore, Waterways Management Division, between 8 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Ronald Houck, at Coast Guard Sector Baltimore, Waterways Management Division, at telephone number (410) 576–2674 or (410) 576–2693. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 69517 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 separate notice in the Federal Register. 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 (CGD05–06–105), 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 that your submission reached us, please enclose a stamped, selfaddressed 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. Background and Purpose Due to increased awareness that future terrorist attacks are possible, including continued threats against U.S. interests by Al-Queda and other terrorist organizations, the Coast Guard as lead federal agency for maritime homeland security has determined that the Captain of the Port Baltimore must have the means to be aware of, deter, detect, intercept, and respond to asymmetric threats, acts of aggression, and attacks by terrorists on the American homeland while still maintaining our freedoms and sustaining the flow of commerce. This security zone is part of a comprehensive port security regime designed to safeguard human life, vessels, and waterfront facilities against sabotage or terrorist attacks. In this particular rulemaking, to address the aforementioned security concerns, and to take steps to prevent the catastrophic impact that a terrorist attack against a large number of spectators and high-ranking officials during the annual July 4th celebration would have on the public interest, the Coast Guard is proposing to establish a security zone upon all waters of the Georgetown Channel of the Potomac River, from the surface to the bottom, 75 yards from the eastern shore measured perpendicularly to the shore, between the Long Railroad Bridge (the most eastern bridge of the 5-span, Fourteenth Street Bridge Complex) to the Theodore Roosevelt Memorial Bridge and all waters in between, totally including the waters of the Georgetown Channel Tidal Basin. This security zone will help the Coast Guard to prevent vessels or persons from engaging in terrorist actions against a large number of spectators and high-ranking officials during the annual July 4th celebration. Due to these heightened security concerns, and the catastrophic impact a terrorist attack on the National Mall in Washington, DC during the annual July 4th celebration would have on the large number of spectators and high-ranking officials, as well as the surrounding area and communities, a security zone is prudent for this type of event. Public Meeting We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a request for a meeting by writing to Coast Guard Sector Baltimore, Waterways Management Division, at the address Discussion of Proposed Rule It is very likely that hundreds of thousands of visitors will attend the July 4th celebration on the National Mall in Washington, DC. The Captain of the Port, Baltimore, Maryland proposes to PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\01DEP1.SGM 01DEP1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 231 (Friday, December 1, 2006)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 69514-69517]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-19677]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[CGD05-06-104]
RIN 1625-AA87


Security Zone; Chesapeake Bay, Between Sandy Point and Kent 
Island, MD

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is proposing to establish a permanent security 
zone on the waters of the Chesapeake Bay, within 250 yards north of the 
north span and 250 yards south of the south span of the William P. Lane 
Jr. Memorial Bridge, located between Sandy Point and Kent Island, 
Maryland. This action is necessary to provide for the security of a 
large number of participants during the annual Bay Bridge Walk across 
the William P. Lane Jr. Memorial Bridge, held annually on the first 
Sunday in May. The security zone will allow for control of vessels or 
persons within a specified area of the Chesapeake Bay and safeguard the 
public at large.

DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or 
before March 1, 2007.

ADDRESSES: You may mail comments and related material to Commander, 
Coast Guard Sector Baltimore, 2401 Hawkins Point Road, Building 70, 
Waterways Management Division, Baltimore, Maryland 21226-1791. Coast 
Guard Sector Baltimore, Waterways Management Division, maintains the 
public docket for this rulemaking. Comments and material received from 
the public, as well as documents indicated in this preamble as being 
available in the docket, will become part of this docket and will be 
available for inspection or copying at Coast Guard Sector Baltimore, 
Waterways Management Division, between 8 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday 
through Friday, except Federal holidays.

[[Page 69515]]


FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Ronald Houck, at Coast Guard 
Sector Baltimore, Waterways Management Division, at telephone number 
(410) 576-2674 or (410) 576-2693.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Request for Comments

    We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting 
comments and related material. If you do so, please include your name 
and address, identify the docket number for this rulemaking (CGD05-06-
104), indicate the specific section of this document to which each 
comment applies, and give the reason for each comment. Please submit 
all comments and related material in an unbound format, no larger than 
8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for copying. If you would like to know 
they reached us, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or 
envelope. We will consider all comments and material received during 
the comment period. We may change this proposed rule in view of them.

Public Meeting

    We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a 
request for a meeting by writing to Coast Guard Sector Baltimore, 
Waterways Management Division, at the address under ADDRESSES 
explaining why one would be beneficial. If we determine that one would 
aid this rulemaking, we will hold one at a time and place announced by 
a later notice in the Federal Register.

Background and Purpose

    The ongoing hostilities in Afghanistan and Iraq have made it 
prudent for U.S. ports and waterways to be on a higher state of alert 
because the al Qaeda organization and other similar organizations have 
declared an ongoing intention to conduct armed attacks on U.S. 
interests worldwide. Due to increased awareness that future terrorist 
attacks are possible, the Coast Guard, as lead federal agency for 
maritime homeland security, has determined that the Captain of the Port 
Baltimore must have the means to be aware of, deter, detect, intercept, 
and respond to asymmetric threats, acts of aggression, and attacks by 
terrorists on the American homeland while still maintaining our 
freedoms and sustaining the flow of commerce. This security zone is 
part of a comprehensive port security regime designed to safeguard 
human life, vessels, and waterfront facilities against sabotage or 
terrorist attacks.
    In this particular rulemaking, to address the aforementioned 
security concerns during the highly-publicized public event, and to 
take steps to prevent the catastrophic impact that a terrorist attack 
against a large number of participants during the annual Bay Bridge 
Walk would have on the public interest, the Captain of the Port, 
Baltimore, Maryland proposes to establish a security zone upon all 
waters of the Chesapeake Bay, within 250 yards north of the north 
(westbound) span of the William P. Lane Jr. Memorial Bridge, and 250 
yards south of the south (eastbound) span of the William P. Lane Jr. 
Memorial Bridge, from the western shore at Sandy Point to the eastern 
shore at Kent Island, Maryland. This security zone will help the Coast 
Guard to prevent vessels or persons from engaging in terrorist actions 
against a large number of participants during the event. Due to these 
heightened security concerns and the catastrophic impact a terrorist 
attack on the Chesapeake Bay Bridge during the annual Bay Bridge Walk 
would have on the large number of participants, and the surrounding 
area and communities, a security zone is prudent for this type of 
event.

Discussion of Proposed Rule

    Each spring on the first Sunday in May, the Maryland Transportation 
Authority closes the eastbound span of the William P. Lane Jr. Memorial 
Bridge (also known as the Chesapeake Bay Bridge) to vehicular traffic 
to allow pedestrians to participate in the 4.3-mile Bay Bridge Walk 
across the bridge. The event takes place from Sandy Point State Park in 
Anne Arundel County, Maryland at 9 a.m. local time and consists of an 
estimated 50,000 participants walking across the Chesapeake Bay Bridge 
to Kent Island, in Queen Anne's County, Maryland. The Bay Bridge Walk 
will be canceled in the event of rain, high winds or extreme weather. 
Vessels underway at the time this security zone is enforced will 
immediately proceed out of the zone. We will issue Broadcast Notices to 
Mariners to further publicize the security zone. This security zone is 
necessary to prevent vessels or persons from entering or remaining in 
the waters of the Chesapeake Bay 250 yards from each span of the 
William P. Lane Jr. Memorial Bridge.

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.
    The operational restrictions of the security zone are tailored to 
provide the minimal disruption of vessel operations necessary to 
provide immediate, improved security for persons, vessels, and the 
waters of the Chesapeake Bay, within 250 yards of the William P. Lane 
Jr. Memorial Bridge, located between Sandy Point and Kent Island, 
Maryland. Additionally, this security zone is temporary in nature and 
any hardships experienced by persons or vessels are outweighed by the 
national interest in protecting the public at large from the 
devastating consequences of acts of terrorism, and from sabotage or 
other subversive acts, accidents, or other causes of a similar nature.

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have 
considered whether this proposed rule would have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term ``small 
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations 
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their 
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 
50,000.
    The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed 
rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending 
to operate, remain or anchor within 250 yards of the William P. Lane 
Jr. Memorial Bridge, located between Sandy Point and Kent Island, 
Maryland. This security zone will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities because vessels 
transiting through the security zone without loitering may be permitted 
to do so, and those with compelling interests that outweigh the port's 
security needs may be granted waivers from the requirements of the 
security zone. Before the effective period, we would issue maritime 
advisories widely available to users of the Chesapeake Bay.
    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,

[[Page 69516]]

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 Mr. Ronald L. Houck, at Coast 
Guard Sector Baltimore, Waterways Management Branch, at telephone 
number (410) 576-2674. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small 
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or 
action of the Coast Guard.

Collection of Information

    This proposed rule would call for no new collection of information 
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, 
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local 
governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial 
direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this proposed rule 
under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications 
for federalism.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) 
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary 
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may 
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in 
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any 
one year. Though this proposed rule would not 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 guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National 
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and 
have made a preliminary determination that there are no factors in this 
case that would limit the use of a categorical exclusion under section 
2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, we believe that this rule should 
be categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g), of the 
Instruction, from further environmental documentation because this 
rulemaking is a security zone. A draft ``Environmental Analysis Check 
List'' and a draft ``Categorical Exclusion Determination'' (CED) are 
available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. Comments on 
this section will be considered before we make the final decision on 
whether the rule should be categorically excluded from further 
environmental review.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes 
to amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

    1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701; 50 
U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1(g), 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Pub. 
L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security 
Delegation No. 0170.1.

    2. Add Sec.  165.507 to read as follows:


Sec.  165.507  Security Zone; Chesapeake Bay, between Sandy Point and 
Kent Island, MD.

    (a) Definitions. (1) The Captain of the Port, Baltimore, Maryland 
means the Commander, Coast Guard Sector Baltimore, Maryland or any 
Coast Guard commissioned, warrant, or petty officer who has been 
authorized by the Captain of the Port, Baltimore, Maryland to act on 
his or her behalf.
    (b) Location. The following area is a security zone: All waters of 
the

[[Page 69517]]

Chesapeake Bay, from the surface to the bottom, within 250 yards north 
of the north (westbound) span of the William P. Lane Jr. Memorial 
Bridge, and 250 yards south of the south (eastbound) span of the 
William P. Lane Jr. Memorial Bridge, from the western shore at Sandy 
Point to the eastern shore at Kent Island, Maryland.
    (c) Regulations. (1) All persons are required to comply with the 
general regulations governing security zones found in Sec.  165.33 of 
this part.
    (2) Entry into or remaining in this zone is prohibited unless 
authorized by the Coast Guard Captain of the Port, Baltimore, Maryland.
    (3) Persons or vessels requiring entry into or passage through the 
security zone must first request authorization from the Captain of the 
Port, Baltimore to seek permission to transit the area. The Captain of 
the Port, Baltimore, Maryland can be contacted at telephone number 
(410) 576-2693. The Coast Guard vessels enforcing this section can be 
contacted on VHF Marine Band Radio, VHF channel 16 (156.8 MHz). Upon 
being hailed by a U.S. Coast Guard vessel by siren, radio, flashing 
light, or other means, the operator of a vessel shall proceed as 
directed. If permission is granted, all persons and vessels must comply 
with the instructions of the Captain of the Port, Baltimore, Maryland 
and proceed at the minimum speed necessary to maintain a safe course 
while within the zone.
    (d) Enforcement. The U.S. Coast Guard may be assisted in the patrol 
and enforcement of the zone by Federal, State, and local agencies.
    (e) Enforcement period. This section will be enforced annually on 
the first Sunday in May from 7 a.m. to 5 p.m. local time.

    Dated: November 6, 2006.
Jonathan C. Burton,
Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting Captain of the Port, Baltimore, 
Maryland.
 [FR Doc. E6-19677 Filed 11-30-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P