Skip to Content

Rule

Safety Zone; 1.5NM North of Glass Breakwater, Philippine Sea, GU

Document Details

Information about this document as published in the Federal Register.

Published Document

This document has been published in the Federal Register. Use the PDF linked in the document sidebar for the official electronic format.

Start Preamble

AGENCY:

Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION:

Temporary final rule.

SUMMARY:

The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone in the waters of the Philippine Sea. This safety zone is necessary to protect mariners who would otherwise transit or be within the affected area from possible safety hazards associated with this simulated floating mine neutralization exercise. Entry of persons or vessels into this temporary safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port (COTP).

DATES:

This rule is effective from 1 p.m. to 3 p.m. (Kilo, Local Time) on April 21, 2006.

ADDRESSES:

Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket are part of docket COTP Guam 06-004 and are available for inspection or copying at Coast Guard Sector Guam between 7:30 a.m. and 3:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

Start Further Info

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Lieutenant (Junior Grade) Jose M. Rosario, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Guam at (671) 339-2001 Extension 159.

End Further Info End Preamble Start Supplemental Information

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulatory Information

We did not publish a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for this regulation. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing an NPRM. Notice of this detonation operation was not received in time to engage in full rulemaking. Publishing an NPRM and delaying the effective date would be contrary to the public interest since the event would occur before the rulemaking process was complete, thereby jeopardizing the safety of the people and property unknowingly transiting or remaining in the area. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register. The COTP finds this good cause to be the immediate need for a safety zone to allay the aforementioned safety concerns surrounding the U.S. Air Force operations.

Background and Purpose

The Coast Guard expects that, on April 21, 2006, the U.S. Navy will conduct a simulated floating mine neutralization exercise within the Guam Captain of the Port Zone. The Coast Guard has determined that a temporary safety zone in the waters of the Philippine Sea, about 1.5NM north of Glass Breakwater, Guam, bounded by a circle with a 330-yard radius for vessels and 3000-yard radius for persons in the water is necessary to protect them from hazards associated with the exercise.

Discussion of Rule

This temporary safety zone is effective from 1 p.m. to 3 p.m. (Kilo, Local Time) on April 21, 2006. It is located within the Guam Captain of the Port Zone (See 33 CFR 3.70-15) and covers all waters bounded by a circle with a 330-yard radius for vessels and 3000-yard radius for persons in the water, centered at 13° 29′ 03″ North Latitude and 144°40′ 04″ East Longitude (NAD 1983), from the surface of the water to the ocean floor.

The general regulations governing safety zones contained in 33 CFR 165.23 apply. Entry into, transit through, or anchoring within this zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port or a designated representative thereof. Any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant, or petty officer, and any other Captain of the Port representative permitted by law, may enforce the zone. The Captain of the Port may waive any of the requirements of this rule for any person, vessel, or class of vessel upon finding that Start Printed Page 19651application of the safety zone is unnecessary or impractical for the purpose of maritime safety. Vessels or persons violating this rule are subject to the penalties set forth in 33 U.S.C. 1232 and 50 U.S.C. 192.

Regulatory Evaluation

This rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under § 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).

The Coast Guard expects the economic impact of this rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation under the regulatory policies and procedures of DHS is unnecessary. This expectation is based on the short duration of the zone and the limited geographic area affected by it.

Small Entities

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered whether this rule will 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 rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. We expect that there will be little or no impact to small entities due to the narrowly tailored scope of this safety zone.

Assistance for Small Entities

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we offer to assist small entities in understanding this rule so that they could better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process.

Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247).

Collection of Information

This rule calls 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 either preempts State law or imposes a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this 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 rule will not result in such expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.

Taking of Private Property

This rule will not affect 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 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 rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and does not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may disproportionately affect children.

Indian Tribal Governments

This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does 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 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 is 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 rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

Environment

We have analyzed this rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, 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 limit the use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g) of the Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, this rule is categorically excluded from further environmental documentation.

Start List of Subjects

List of Subjects 33 CFR Part 165

End List of Subjects Start Amendment Part

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends

End Amendment Part Start Part

PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

End Part Start Amendment Part

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

End Amendment Part Start Authority

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.

End Authority Start Amendment Part

Add § 165.T14-137 to read as follows:

End Amendment Part
Safety Zone; 1.5NM North of Glass Breakwater, Philippine Sea, Guam

(a) Location. The following area, from the surface of the water to the ocean floor, is a safety zone: All waters bounded by a circle with a 330-yard radius for vessels and 3000-yard radius for persons in the water, centered at 13° 29′ 03″ North Latitude and 144° 40′ 04″ East Longitude (NAD 1983).

(b) Effective Dates. This safety zone is effective from 1 p.m. to 3 p.m. (Kilo, Local Time) on April 21, 2006.

(c) Regulations. The general regulations governing security zones contained in 33 CFR 165.23 apply. Entry into, transit through, or anchoring within this zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port or a designated representative thereof.

(d) Enforcement. Any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant, or petty officer, and any other Captain of the Port representative permitted by law, may enforce this temporary safety zone.

(e) Waiver. The Captain of the Port may waive any of the requirements of this rule for any person, vessel, or class of vessel upon finding that application of the safety zone is unnecessary or impractical for the purpose of maritime security.

(f) Penalties. Vessels or persons violating this rule are subject to the penalties set forth in 33 U.S.C. 1232 and 50 U.S.C. 192.

Start Signature

Dated: April 4, 2006.

W.R. Marhoffer,

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Guam.

End Signature End Supplemental Information

[FR Doc. 06-3610 Filed 4-14-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-15-P