[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 55 (Wednesday, March 22, 2006)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 14434-14436]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-4097]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[CGD05-05-016]
RIN 1625-AA00


Safety Zone: Fireworks Display, Morehead City Harbor, Morehead 
City, NC

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes the establishment of a 1000 foot 
safety zone around a fireworks display for the Pepsi Americas' Sail 
2006 occurring on July 4, 2006, on the Morehead City Harbor, Morehead 
City, NC. This action is intended to restrict vessel traffic on the 
Morehead City Harbor. This safety zone is necessary to protect mariners 
from the hazards associated with fireworks displays.

DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or 
before April 17, 2006.

ADDRESSES: You may mail comments and related material to Commander, 
Sector North Carolina, 2301 East Fort Macon Road, Atlantic Beach, NC 
28512. Sector North Carolina 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 Federal Building Fifth Coast Guard District between 9 
a.m. and 2 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: CWO Christopher Humphrey, Prevention 
Department, Sector North Carolina, at (252) 247-4525.

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 CGD05-05-
016, 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 Commander, Sector North Carolina at 
the address under ADDRESSES explaining why one would be beneficial. If 
we determine that one would aid this rulemaking, we will hold one at a 
time and place announced by a later notice in the Federal Register.

Background and Purpose

    On July 4, 2006, the Pepsi Americas' Sail 2006 fireworks display 
will be held on the Morehead City Harbor in Morehead City, NC. 
Spectators will be observing from both the shore and from vessels. Due 
to the need of protection of mariners and spectators from the hazards 
associated with the fireworks display, vessel traffic will be 
temporarily restricted.

Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The Coast Guard is establishing a safety zone on specified waters 
of the Morehead City Harbor. The regulated area will consist of a 1000-
ft safety zone around a fireworks display from the northern shore of 
Brandt Island for the Pepsi Americas' Sail 2006, in Morehead City, NC. 
The safety zone will be enforced from 8:30 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. on July 
4, 2006. General navigation in the safety zone will be restricted 
during the event. Except for participants and vessels authorized by the 
Coast Guard Patrol Commander, no person or vessel may enter or remain 
in the regulated area.

Regulatory Evaluation

    This proposed rule is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under 
section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, 
and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits 
under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and 
Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. It is not ``significant'' 
under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of 
Homeland Security (DHS).
    We expect the economic impact of this proposed rule to be so 
minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation under the regulatory policies 
and procedures of DHS is unnecessary. Although this regulation 
restricts access to the regulated area, the effect of this rule will 
not be significant because: (i) The COTP may authorize access to the 
safety zone; (ii) the safety zone will be in effect for a limited 
duration; and (iii) the Coast Guard will make notifications via 
maritime advisories so mariners can adjust their plans accordingly.

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have 
considered whether this proposed rule would have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term ``small 
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations 
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their 
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 
50,000.
    The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed 
rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities.
    This rule will affect the following entities, some of which may be 
small entities: the owners and operators of vessels intending to 
transit or anchor in that portion of the Morehead City Harbor 8:30 p.m. 
to 10:30 p.m. on July 4, 2006. The safety zone will not have a 
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities, because 
the zone will only be in place for a few hours and maritime advisories 
will be issued, so the 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),

[[Page 14435]]

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 CWO 
Christopher Humphrey, Preventing Department, Sector North Carolina, at 
(252) 247-4525. 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 
M16475.1D, which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National 
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and 
have 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)(h), of the 
Instruction, from further environmental documentation. Under figure 2-
1, paragraph (34)(h), of the Instruction, an ``Environmental Analysis 
Check List'' is 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 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 Temporary Sec.  165.T05-016, to read as follows:


Sec.  165.T05-016  Safety Zone: Morehead City Harbor, Morehead City, 
NC.

    (a) Location. The following area is a safety zone: All waters 
within 1000 feet of the fireworks display at Brandt Island, Morehead 
City, NC in the Captain of the Port, Sector North Carolina zone as 
defined in 33 CFR 3.25-20.
    (b) Definition. Captain of the Port: Means any U.S. Coast Guard 
commissioned, warrant or petty officer who has been authorized by the 
Captain of the Port, Sector North Carolina to act on his behalf.
    (c) Regulation. (1) In accordance with the general regulations in 
165.23 of this part, entry into this zone is prohibited unless 
authorized by the Captain of the Port, Sector North Carolina, NC, or 
his designated representatives.
    (2) The operator of any vessel in the immediate vicinity of this 
safety zone shall:
    (i) Stop the vessel immediately upon being directed to do so by any 
commissioned, warrant or petty officer

[[Page 14436]]

on board a vessel displaying a U.S. Coast Guard Ensign.
    (ii) Proceed as directed by any commissioned, warrant or petty 
officer on board a vessel displaying a U.S. Coast Guard Ensign.
    (3) The Captain of the Port, Sector North Carolina and the 
Commander at the Prevention Department, Morehead City, North Carolina 
can be contacted at telephone Number (252) 247-4570 or (252) 247-4520.
    (4) The Coast Guard Vessels enforcing the safety zone can be 
contacted on VHF-FM 13 and 16.
    (d) Effective date. This regulation is effective from 8 p.m. to 11 
p.m. on July 4, 2006.

    Dated: March 8, 2006.
William D. Lee,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Sector North Carolina.
[FR Doc. E6-4097 Filed 3-21-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P