Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 16 / Wednesday, January 25, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 4043 

has’’ is corrected to read ‘‘extent 

necessary. The IRS has’’. 

Cynthia E. Grigsby, 

Acting Chief, Publications and Regulations 

Branch, Legal Processing Division, Associate 

Chief Counsel, (Procedure and 

Administration). 

[FR Doc. 06–681 Filed 1–24–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4830–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 165 

[CGD 13–06–002] 

RIN 1625–AA00 

Safety Zone: North Portland Harbor 

Dredging Operations; Portland, OR 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Temporary final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is 

establishing a temporary safety zone on 

the Columbia River, in the vicinity of 

Hayden Island at North Portland Harbor. 

The Captain of the Port, Portland, 

Oregon is taking this action to safeguard 

individuals and vessels from safety 

hazards associated with dredging 

operations. Entry into this safety zone is 

prohibited unless authorized by the 

Captain of the Port. 

DATES: This rule is effective from 

January 17, 2005 8 a.m. (PST) through 

March 15, 2005 at 5 p.m. (PST). 

ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this 

preamble as being available in the 

docket are part of docket [CGD13–06–

002] and are available for inspection or 

copying at U. S. Coast Guard Sector 

Portland, 6767 North Basin Ave. 

Portland, Oregon 97217 between 7 a.m. 

and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Petty Officer Charity Keuter, c/o Captain 

of the Port Portland, 6767 N. Basin Ave. 

Portland, Oregon 97217 at 503–240–

9301. 

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) and 

5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds 

that good cause exists for not publishing 

an NPRM and for making this rule 

effective less than 30 days after 

publication in the Federal Register. The 

Coast Guard did not receive notice of 

this operation until 7 days prior to the 

beginning of the operation. The 

dredging operation will have a floating 

pipeline that will stretch from Port of 

Portland Terminal 6 to the lower end of 

Hayden Island and on to Kelly Point 

Park. This pipeline will be a hazard to 

navigation due to location and vessel 

traffic in the area. 

If normal notice and comment 

procedures were followed, this rule 

would not become effective until after 

the dates of the event. For this reason, 

following normal rulemaking 

procedures in this case would be 

impracticable and contrary to the public 

interest. 

Background and Purpose 

The Coast Guard is establishing a 

temporary safety zone regulation to 

allow for safe dredging operation. This 

operation is necessary for the 

improvement of the Port of Portland 

Terminal 6, since in the coming months 

a new crane will be brought in to allow 

the Port to accompany larger vessels and 

more containers. This safety zone will 

be in effect during the time of January 

17, 2006 to March 15, 2006 while the 

floating pipeline is in the water. This 

safety zone will be enforced by 

representatives of the Captain of the 

Port, Portland, Oregon. The Captain of 

the Port may be assisted by other 

Federal and local agencies. 

Discussion of Rule 

This rule, for safety concerns, will 

control individuals and vessel 

movement in a regulated area 

surrounding the dredging operation. 

Due to safety concerns and likely 

delays, entry into this zone is prohibited 

unless authorized by the Captain of the 

Port, Portland or his designated 

representative. Those boaters transiting 

between the Columbia River and North 

Portland Harbor are requested to use the 

upriver end of Hayden Island. The 

Captain of the Port may be assisted by 

other Federal and local agencies. 

Regulatory Evaluation 

This 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). 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 the DHS is unnecessary. 

This expectation is based on the fact 

that this rule will be in effect for the 

minimum time necessary to safely 

conduct the dredging operation. While 

this rule is in effect, traffic will be 

allowed to pass through the zone with 

the permission of the Captain of the Port 

or his designated representatives onscene, if safe to do so and that traffic can 

be rerouted to another entrance into the 

Oregon Slough at the upriver end of 

Hayden Island. 

Small Entities 

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(5 U.S.C. 601–612), we have considered 

whether this 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 rule will 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 or operators of 

vessels intending to transit the 

designated area at the corresponding 

time as drafted in this rule. This safety 

zone will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities for the 

following reasons. Traffic will be 

allowed to pass through the zone at 

selected times with the permission of 

the Captain of the Port or his designated 

representative on scene, if safe to do so 

and that boaters transiting the Oregon 

Slough can gain access to it by the 

upriver end of Hayden Island on the 

Columbia River. Before the effective 

period, we will issue maritime 

advisories widely available to users of 

the river. Because the impacts of this 

proposal are expected to be so minimal, 

the Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 

605(b) that this final rule will not have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

If you think that your business, 

organization, or governmental 

jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity 

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 

what degree this rule would 

economically affect it. 

Assistance for Small Entities 

Under section 213(a) of the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with RULES
4044 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 16 / Wednesday, January 25, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104–121), 

we offered to assist small entities in 

understanding the rule so that they 

could better evaluate its effects on them 

and participate in the rulemaking 

process. If the rule will affect your small 

business, organization, or governmental 

jurisdiction and you have questions 

concerning its provisions or options for 

compliance, please contact the person 

listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section. 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 

would either preempt State law or 

impose 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 

an expenditure, we do discuss the 

effects of this rule elsewhere in this 

preamble. 

Taking of Private Property 

This rule will 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 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 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 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.lD, 

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) (g), of the 

Instruction, from further environmental 

documentation. A final ‘‘Environmental 

Analysis Check List’’ and a final 

‘‘Categorical Exclusion Determination’’

will be available in the docket where 

indicated under ADDRESSES. 

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 amends 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. A temporary § 165.T13–001 is 

added to read as follows: 

§ 165.T13–001 Safety Zones: Oregon 

Slough Dredging Operations in the Captain 

of the Port Portland Zone. 

(a) Safety Zones. The following area is 

designated a safety zone 

(1) Location: All water of the 

Columbia River enclosed by the 

following points: 45°37′53′′ N 

122°44′03′′ W following the shoreline 

southwest to 45°38′54′′ N 122°45′28′′ W 

continuing west to 45°39′05′′ N 

122°45′36′′ W turning north to 45°39′12′′ 

N 122°45′28′′ W then northeast 

45°38′58′′ N 122°45′03′′ W then east to 

45°38′22′′ N 122°44′37′′ W then 

northeast to 45°37′53′′ N 122°43′58′′ W 

south back to the point of origin. 

(2) Effective time and date. 7 a.m. on 

January 17, 2006 to 7 p.m. on March 15, 

2006. 

(b) Regulations. In accordance with 

the general regulations in section 165.23 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 16 / Wednesday, January 25, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 4045 

of this part, no person or vessel may 

enter or remain in this zone unless 

authorized by the Captain of the Port or 

his designated representative. 

Dated: January 17, 2006. 

Patrick G. Gerrity, 

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

Port, Portland, OR. 

[FR Doc. 06–677 Filed 1–24–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–15–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[Region 2 Docket No. EPA–R02–OAR–2004–

NJ–0004, FRL–8020–6] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; New Jersey 

Consumer Products Rule 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is approving a revision to 

the New Jersey State Implementation 

Plan (SIP) for ozone concerning the 

control of volatile organic compounds. 

The SIP revision consists of 

amendments to Subchapter 24 

‘‘Prevention of Air Pollution From 

Consumer Products’’ of 7:27 of the New 

Jersey Administrative Codes, which are 

needed to meet the shortfall in 

emissions reduction identified by EPA 

in New Jersey’s 1-hour ozone attainment 

demonstration SIP. The intended effect 

of this action is to approve a control 

strategy required by the Clean Air Act, 

which will result in emission reductions 

that will help achieve attainment of the 

national ambient air quality standard for 

ozone. 

DATES: Effective Date: This rule will be 

effective February 24, 2006. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under the Federal 

Docket Management System (FDMS) 

which replaces the Regional Materials 

in EDOCKET (RME) docket system. The 

new FDMS is located at http:// 

www.regulations.gov and the docket ID 

for this action is EPA–R02–OAR–2004–

NJ–0004. All documents in the docket 

are listed in the FDMS index. Publicly 

available docket materials are available 

either electronically in FDMS or in hard 

copy at the Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region II Office, Air Programs 

Branch, 290 Broadway, 25th Floor, New 

York, New York 10007–1866. Copies of 

the documents relevant to this action 

are also available for public inspection 

during normal business hours, by 

appointment at the Air and Radiation 

Docket and Information Center, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Room B–108, 1301 Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC; and the 

New Jersey Department of 

Environmental Protection, Office of Air 

Quality Management, Bureau of Air 

Pollution Control, 401 East State Street, 

CN027, Trenton, New Jersey 08625. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul 

Truchan, Air Programs Branch, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 290 

Broadway, 25th Floor, New York, New 

York 10278, (212) 637–3711. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. What Action Is EPA Taking Today? 

EPA is approving a revision to New 

Jersey’s ozone State Implementation 

Plan (SIP) submitted on June 22, 2004. 

This SIP incorporates adopted rule 

amendments to Title 7, Chapter 27, 

Subchapter 24 ‘‘Prevention of Air 

Pollution from Consumer Products’’

which was adopted on April 7, 2004. 

Subchapter 24 contains two control 

programs, consumer products and 

portable fuel container spillage control. 

This adoption was published in the 

New Jersey Register on May 3, 2004 and 

became effective on June 6, 2004. The 

Subchapter 24 amendments are 

applicable to the entire State of New 

Jersey. The reader is referred to the 

proposed rulemaking (December 10, 

2004, 69 FR 71764) for additional 

details. 

Subchapter 24 contains provisions for 

accepting innovative products 

exemptions (IPEs), alternative 

compliance plans (ACPs), and variances 

that have been approved by the 

California Air Resources Board (CARB) 

or other states with adopted consumer 

product regulations based on the Ozone 

Transport Commission (OTC) ‘‘Model 

Rule for Consumer Products’’ dated 

November 29, 2001. While the 

provisions related to IPEs, ACP, and 

variances pursuant to subchapter 24 are 

acceptable, each specific application of 

those provisions cannot be recognized 

as meeting Federal requirements until it 

is approved by EPA as a SIP revision. 

II. What Comments Were Received and 

How Has EPA Responded to Them? 

EPA received one comment pertaining 

to the proposal for this action which 

supported this rulemaking. 

III. What Role Does This Rule Play in 

the Ozone SIP? 

When EPA evaluated New Jersey’s 1- 

hour ozone attainment demonstrations, 

EPA determined that additional 

emission reductions were needed for the 

State’s two severe nonattainment areas 

in order for the State to attain the 1-hour 

ozone standard with sufficient surety 

(December 16, 1999, 64 FR 70380). EPA 

provided that the states in the Ozone 

Transport Region could achieve these 

emission reductions through local or 

regional control programs. New Jersey 

decided to participate with the other 

states in the Northeast in an Ozone 

Transport Commission (OTC) regulatory 

development effort which developed six 

model control measures. This 

rulemaking incorporates two of the OTC 

model control measures into the New 

Jersey ozone SIP: Consumer products 

and portable fuel containers. The 

emission reductions from these control 

measures will provide a portion of the 

additional emission reductions needed 

to attain the 1-hour ozone standard. The 

emission reductions from these 

measures will also help to attain the 8- 

hour ozone standard. 

IV. What Are EPA’s Conclusions? 

EPA has evaluated the submitted 

Subchapter 24 submission for 

consistency with EPA regulations, 

policy and guidance. Consistent with 

EPA policy and guidance, EPA is 

approving the rule submitted as part of 

the New Jersey SIP with the exception 

that any specific application of 

provisions associated with IPEs, ACP, 

and variances, must be submitted as SIP 

revisions for EPA approval. This rule 

will strengthen the SIP by providing for 

additional VOC reductions. 

Accordingly, EPA is approving the 

Subchapter 24 revisions as adopted on 

April 7, 2004 and effective on June 6, 

2004 with the limitation identified 

above. 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews Under Executive Order 12866 

(58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this 

action is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ and therefore is not subject to 

review by the Office of Management and 

Budget. For this reason, this action is 

also not subject to Executive Order 

13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning Regulations 

That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355, May 

22, 2001). This action merely approves 

state law as meeting Federal 

requirements and imposes no additional 

requirements beyond those imposed by 

state law. Accordingly, the 

Administrator certifies that this rule 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities under the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this 

rule approves pre-existing requirements 

under state law and does not impose 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with RULES