15834 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

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, 

and Department of Homeland Security 

Management Directive 5100.1 which 

guides the Coast Guard in complying 

with the National Environmental Policy 

Act of 1969 (NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321–

4370f), and have concluded that there 

are no factors in this case that would 

limit the use of a categorical exclusion 

under section 2.B.2 of the Instruction. 

Therefore, this rule is categorically 

excluded, under figure 2–1, paragraph 

(34)(h), of the Instruction, from further 

environmental documentation. Special 

local regulations issued in conjunction 

with a regatta or marine event permit 

are specifically excluded from further 

analysis and documentation under those 

sections. 

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 100 

Marine safety, Navigation (water), 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Waterways. 

■ For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 

CFR part 100 as follows: 

PART 100—SAFETY OF LIFE ON 

NAVIGABLE WATERS 

■ 1. The authority citation for Part 100 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1233. 

■ 2. Add temporary § 100.35–T05–028 

to read as follows: 

§ 100.35–T05–028 Roanoke River, 

Plymouth, North Carolina. 

(a) Regulated area. The regulated area 

includes all waters of Roanoke River 

commencing at the north river bank at 

latitude 35°52′20′′ N, longitude 

076°44′47′′ W, thence a line 180 degree 

due south across the river to the 

shoreline thence west along the 

shoreline to a position located at 

latitude 35°51′43′′ N, longitude 

076°43′45′′ W, thence 000 degrees due 

north across the river to the shoreline 

thence east along the shoreline to the 

point of origin. All coordinates 

reference Datum NAD 1983. 

(b) Definitions: 

(1) Coast Guard Patrol Commander 

means a commissioned, warrant, or 

petty officer of the Coast Guard who has 

been designated by the Commander, 

Coast Guard Sector North Carolina. 

(2) Official Patrol means any vessel 

assigned or approved by Commander, 

Coast Guard Sector North Carolina with 

a commissioned, warrant, or petty 

officer on board and displaying a Coast 

Guard ensign. 

(c) Special local regulations: 

(1) Except for persons or vessels 

authorized by the Coast Guard Patrol 

Commander, no person or vessel may 

enter or remain in the regulated area. 

(2) The operator of any vessel in the 

regulated area shall: 

(i) Stop the vessel immediately when 

directed to do so by any Official Patrol. 

(ii) Proceed as directed by any official 

patrol. 

(d) Enforcement period. This section 

will be enforced from 10 a.m. to 8:30 

p.m. on May 6, 2007. 

Dated: March 20, 2007. 

Larry L. Hereth, 

Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, 

Fifth Coast Guard District. 

[FR Doc. E7–6096 Filed 4–2–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–15–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 165 

[CGD05–06–105] 

RIN 1625–AA87 

Security Zone; Georgetown Channel, 

Potomac River, Washington, DC 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Final rule. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 15835 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is 

establishing 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: This rule is effective May 3, 

2007. 

ADDRESSES: Comments and material 

received from the public, as well as 

documents indicated in this preamble as 

being available in the docket, are part of 

docket CGD05–06–105 and are 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: 

Regulatory Information 

On December 1, 2006, we published 

a notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM) entitled ‘‘Security Zone; 

Georgetown Channel, Potomac River, 

Washington, DC’’ in the Federal 

Register (71 FR 69517). We received no 

letters commenting on the proposed 

rule. No public meeting was requested, 

and none was held. 

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. 

Discussion of Comments and Changes 

The Coast Guard received no 

comments on the proposed rule during 

the comment period published in the 

NPRM. No public meeting was 

requested and none was held. As a 

result, no change from the proposed 

regulatory text was made. 

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. The security zone is of limited 

size, located along the shoreline, and 

will only be enforced for one day of the 

year, resulting in minimal disruption to 

the maritime community. 

The Coast Guard received no 

comments on this aspect of the 

proposed rule during the comment 

period published in the NPRM. As a 

result, no change to the proposed 

regulatory text was made. 

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: 

The owners or operators of vessels 

intending to operate, remain or anchor 

in a portion of the Potomac River, 

within 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 from 12:01 a.m. to 

11:59 p.m. annually on July 4th. This 

security zone will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities for the 

following reasons. The zone is of 

limited size and located along the 

shoreline, therefore, it is expected that 

there will be minimal disruption to the 

maritime community. Before the 

enforcement period, the Coast Guard 

will issue maritime advisories widely 

available to users of the Potomac River. 

The Coast Guard received no 

comments on this aspect of the 

proposed rule during the comment 

period published in the NPRM. As a 

result, no change to the proposed 

regulatory text was made. 

Assistance for Small Entities 

Under section 213(a) of the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

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. However, we received no 

requests for assistance from any small 

entities. 

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). 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
15836 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

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 

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 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. This 

regulation establishes a security zone. A 

final ‘‘Environmental Analysis Check 

List’’ and a final ‘‘Categorical Exclusion 

Determination’’ are 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 

is revised 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, 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 § 165.508 to read as follows: 

§ 165.508 Security Zone; Georgetown 

Channel, Potomac River, Washington, DC. 

(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 

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. 

(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. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 15837 

(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 from 12:01 a.m. to 

11:59 p.m. local time annually on July 

4. 

Dated: March 16, 2007. 

Brian D. Kelley, 

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

Port, Baltimore, Maryland. 

[FR Doc. E7–6097 Filed 4–2–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–15–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 165 

[CCGD05–07–024] 

RIN 1625–AA00 

Safety Zone: Celebration 2007, 

Appomattox River, Hopewell, VA 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Temporary final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is 

establishing a 600 foot radius safety 

zone in the vicinity of Hopewell, VA 

centered on position 37°–19′–11′′ N/ 

077°–16′–55′′ W on May 12, 2007 in 

support of the Celebration 2007 event. 

This action is intended to restrict vessel 

traffic movement on the Appomattox 

River to protect mariners from the 

hazards associated with fireworks 

displays. 

DATES: This rule is effective from 8:30 

p.m. to 9:30 p.m. on May 12, 2007. 

ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this 

preamble as being available in the 

docket are part of docket [CGD05–07–

024] and are available for inspection or 

copying at Coast Guard Sector Hampton 

Roads, Norfolk Federal Building, 200 

Granby St., 7th Floor, Norfolk, VA 

23510 between 9 a.m. and 2 p.m., 

Monday through Friday, except Federal 

holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Lieutenant Junior Grade TaQuitia Winn, 

Assistant Chief, Waterways 

Management Division, Sector Hampton 

Roads at (757) 668–5580. 

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. 

Insufficient time existed for publication 

of an NPRM and a final rule. Delaying 

this rule would be contrary to the public 

interest since immediate action is 

needed to minimize potential danger to 

the public during the fireworks 

demonstration. 

Background and Purpose 

On May 12, 2007, the city of 

Hopewell, VA will sponsor a fireworks 

display on the Appomattox River at 

position 37°–19′–11′′ N/077°–16′–55′′ W. 

Due to the need to protect mariners and 

spectators from the hazards associated 

with the fireworks display, vessel traffic 

will be temporarily restricted within a 

600 foot radius of the fireworks barge. 

Discussion of Rule 

The Coast Guard is establishing a 600 

foot radius safety zone on specified 

waters of the Appomattox River around 

the fireworks barge, centered on 

position 37°–19′–11′′ N/077°–16′–55′′ W 

in the vicinity of City Point, Hopewell, 

VA. This safety zone will be established 

in the interest of public safety during 

the Celebration 2007 event and will be 

enforced from 8:30 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. on 

May 12, 2007. General navigation 

within the safety zone will be restricted 

during the specified date and times. 

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 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. Although this regulation restricts 

access to the safety zone, the effect of 

this rule will not be significant because: 

(i) The safety zone will be in effect for 

a limited duration; and (ii) 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 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 would not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities 

because the zone will only be in place 

for a limited duration and maritime 

advisories will be issued allowing the 

mariners to adjust their plans 

accordingly. However, this rule may 

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 Appomattox River subject 

to this rule from 8:30 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. 

on May 12, 2007. 

If you think the rule would affect your 

small business, organization, or 

governmental jurisdiction and you have 

questions concerning its provisions or 

options for compliance, please contact 

Lieutenant Junior Grade TaQuitia Winn, 

Assistant Chief, Waterways 

Management Division, Sector Hampton 

Roads at (757) 668–5580. 

Assistance for Small Entities 

Under section 213(a) of the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

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

we want to assist small entities in 

understanding the rule so that they can 

better evaluate its effects on them and 

participate in the rulemaking. 

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 action by 

employees of the Coast Guard, call 1–

888–REG–FAIR (1–888–734–3247). 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 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 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES