52054 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 169 / Thursday, September 1, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

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, 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 parade permit are 

specifically excluded from further 

analysis and documentation under that 

section. 

Under figure 2–1, paragraph (34)(h), 

of the Instruction, an ‘‘Environmental 

Analysis Check List’’ and a ‘‘Categorical 

Exclusion Determination’’ are 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 100 

Marine safety, Navigation (water), 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Waterways. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to 

amend 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; Department of 

Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. 

2. Add temporary § 100.35–T05–107 

to read as follows: 

§ 100.35–T05–107 John H. Kerr Reservoir, 

Clarksville, Virginia. 

(a) Regulated area. The regulated area 

is established for the waters of the John 

H. Kerr Reservoir, adjacent to the State 

Route 15 Highway Bridge and 

Occoneechee State Park, Clarksville, 

Virginia, from shoreline to shoreline, 

bounded on the south by a line running 

northeasterly from a point along the 

shoreline at latitude 36°37′14′′ N, 

longitude 078°32′46.5′′ W, thence to 

latitude 36°37′39.2,′′ N, longitude 

078°32′08.8′′ W, and bounded on the 

north by the State Route 15 Highway 

Bridge. 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 

Hampton Roads. 

(2) Official Patrol means any vessel 

assigned or approved by Commander, 

Coast Guard Sector Hampton Roads 

with a commissioned, warrant, or petty 

officer on board and displaying a Coast 

Guard ensign. 

(3) Participant includes all vessels 

participating in the Clarksville 

Hydroplane Challenge under the 

auspices of the Marine Event Permit 

issued to the event sponsor and 

approved by Commander, Coast Guard 

Sector Hampton Roads. 

(c) Special local regulations. (1) 

Except for event participants and 

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 must: (i) Stop the vessel 

immediately when directed to do so by 

any Official Patrol and then proceed 

only as directed. 

(ii) All persons and vessels shall 

comply with the instructions of the 

Official Patrol. 

(iii) When authorized to transit the 

regulated area, all vessels shall proceed 

at the minimum speed necessary to 

maintain a safe course that minimizes 

wake near the race course. 

(d) Enforcement period. This section 

will be enforced from 7:30 a.m. to 6:30 

p.m. on October 1 and 2, 2005. 

Dated: August 22, 2005. 

S.H. Ratti, 

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting 

Commander, Fifth Coast Guard District. 

[FR Doc. 05–17428 Filed 8–31–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–15–U 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 100 

[CGD05–05–104] 

RIN 1625–AA08 

Special Local Regulations for Marine 

Events; Spa Creek, Annapolis, MD 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to 

establish permanent special local 

regulations for the ‘‘Tug-of-War’’, a 

marine event conducted over the waters 

of Spa Creek between Eastport and 

Annapolis, Maryland. Special local 

regulations are necessary to provide for 

the safety of life on navigable waters 

during the event. This action is 

intended to restrict vessel traffic in 

portions of Spa Creek during the event. 

DATES: Comments and related material 

must reach the Coast Guard on or before 

October 3, 2005. 

ADDRESSES: You may mail comments 

and related material to Commander 

(oax), Fifth Coast Guard District, 431 

Crawford Street, Portsmouth, Virginia 

23704–5004, hand-deliver them to 

Room 119 at the same address between 

9 a.m. and 2 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, except Federal holidays, or fax 

them to (757) 398–6203. The Auxiliary 

and Recreational Boating Safety Branch, 

Fifth Coast Guard District, 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 are part of docket 

CGD05–05–104, will become part of this 

docket and will be available for 

inspection or copying at the above 

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

Monday through Friday, except Federal 

holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Dennis Sens, Project Manager, Auxiliary 

and Recreational Boating Safety Branch, 

at (757) 398–6204. 

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 CGD05–05–104, 

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. 

Public Meeting 

We do not now plan to hold a public 

meeting. You may submit a request for 

a meeting by writing to the address 

under ADDRESSES explaining why one 

would be beneficial. If we determine 

that one would aid this rulemaking, we 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 169 / Thursday, September 1, 2005 / Proposed Rules 52055 

will hold one at a time and place 

announced by a later notice in the 

Federal Register. 

Background and Purpose 

Annually, the City of Annapolis 

sponsors the ‘‘Tug-of-War’’, across the 

waters of Spa Creek between Eastport 

and Annapolis, Maryland. The event 

consists of a tug of war between teams 

on the Eastport side of Spa Creek 

pulling against teams on the Annapolis 

side of Spa Creek. The opposing teams 

will pull a floating rope approximately 

1700 feet in length, spanning Spa Creek. 

A fleet of spectator vessels is 

anticipated. Due to the need for vessel 

control while the rope is spanned across 

Spa Creek, vessel traffic would be 

temporarily restricted to provide for the 

safety of participants, spectators and 

transiting vessels. 

Discussion of Proposed Rule 

The Coast Guard proposes to establish 

this permanent rule on specified waters 

of Spa Creek. The regulated area would 

include a 400 foot buffer on either side 

of the rope that spans Spa Creek from 

shoreline to shoreline. This rule would 

be enforced annually from 10:30 a.m. to 

2:30 p.m. on the first Saturday in 

November and would restrict general 

navigation in the regulated area during 

the event. Except for participants and 

vessels authorized by the Coast Guard 

Patrol Commander, no person or vessel 

could enter or remain in the regulated 

area. The Coast Guard Patrol 

Commander could stop the event to 

allow vessels to transit the regulated 

area. For 2005 only, the enforcement 

period of the regulation would be 

changed from the first Saturday in 

November to the last Saturday in 

October. 

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 proposed permanent 

rule prevents traffic from transiting a 

portion of Spa Creek during the event, 

the effect of this regulation will not be 

significant due to the limited duration 

that the regulated area will be in effect 

and the extensive advance notifications 

that will be made to the maritime 

community via marine information 

broadcasts, local radio stations and area 

newspapers so mariners can adjust their 

plans accordingly. Additionally, the 

proposed regulated area has been 

narrowly tailored to impose the least 

impact on general navigation yet 

provide the level of safety deemed 

necessary. Vessel traffic will be able to 

transit the regulated area when the 

Coast Guard Patrol Commander deems it 

is safe to do so. 

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 effect the 

following entities, some of which may 

be small entities: The owners or 

operators of vessels intending to transit 

or anchor in a portion of Spa Creek 

during the event. 

This proposed rule will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities for 

the following reasons. This rule will be 

in effect for only a 4-hour period. Vessel 

traffic will be able to transit the 

regulated area when the Coast Guard 

Patrol Commander deems it is safe to do 

so. Before the enforcement period, we 

will issue maritime advisories so 

mariners can adjust their plans 

accordingly. 

If you think that your business, 

organization, or governmental 

jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity 

and that this proposed 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), 

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 Dennis Sens, 

Project Manager, Auxiliary and 

Recreational Boating Safety Branch, at 

(757) 398–6204. 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 

52056 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 169 / Thursday, September 1, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

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, 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 100 

Marine safety, Navigation (water), 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Waterways. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to 

amend 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, Department of 

Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. 

2. Add § 100.534 to read as follows: 

§ 100.534 Tug-of-War; Spa Creek, 

Annapolis, Maryland. 

(a) Regulated area. A regulated area is 

established for the waters of Spa Creek 

from shoreline to shoreline, extending 

400 feet from either side of a rope 

spanning Spa Creek from a position at 

latitude 38°58′36.9′′ N, longitude 

076°29′03.8′′ W on the Annapolis 

shoreline to a position at latitude 

38°58′26.4′′ N, longitude 076°28′53.7′′ W 

on the Eastport shoreline. 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 

Baltimore. 

(2) Official Patrol means any vessel 

assigned or approved by Commander, 

Coast Guard Sector Baltimore with a 

commissioned, warrant, or petty officer 

on board and displaying a Coast Guard 

ensign. 

(3) Participant means all vessels 

participating in the ‘‘Tug of War’’ under 

the auspices of the Marine Event Permit 

issued to the event sponsor and 

approved by Commander, Coast Guard 

Sector Baltimore. 

(c) Special local regulations. (1) 

Except for event participants and 

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 must: 

(i) Stop the vessel immediately when 

directed to do so by any official patrol. 

(ii) Proceed as directed by any official 

patrol. 

(iii) Unless otherwise directed by the 

official patrol, operate at a minimum 

wake speed not to exceed six (6) knots. 

(d) Enforcement period. This section 

will be enforced annually from 10:30 

a.m. to 2:30 p.m. on the first Saturday 

in November. In 2005 the section will be 

enforced on the last Saturday in October 

instead of the first Saturday in 

November. 

Dated: August 18, 2005. 

L.L. Hereth, 

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

Fifth Coast Guard District. 

[FR Doc. 05–17427 Filed 8–31–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–15–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid 

Services 

42 CFR Parts 405, 410, 411, 413, 414, 

and 426 

[CMS–1502–CN] 

RIN 0938–AN84 

Medicare Program; Revisions to 

Payment Policies Under the Physician 

Fee Schedule for Calendar Year 2006; 

Corrections 

AGENCY: Centers for Medicare & 

Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; correction. 

SUMMARY: This document corrects errors 

in the proposed rule that appeared in 

the Federal Register on August 8, 2005 

entitled ‘‘Medicare Program; Revisions 

to Payment Policies Under the 

Physician Fee Schedule for Calendar 

Year 2006.’’

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Diane Milstead, (410) 786–3355. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

FR Doc. 05–15370, of August 8, 2005, 

contains the proposed rule to update the 

physician fee schedule for CY 2006 (70 

FR 45764). We identified several errors 

and are correcting them in the 

‘‘Correction of Errors’’ section below.