Proposed Rules. Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)

11,818 words·~54 min read·/register/2006/03/22/06-2695

A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.

BILLING CODE 4810-33-P; 6210-01-P; 6714-10-P; 6720-01-P; 7535-01-P; 6750-01-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2006-23645; Directorate Identifier 2006-CE-04-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Mitsubishi Heavy Industries MU-2B Series Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive

(AD)for certain Mitsubishi Heavy Industries

(MHI)MU-2B series airplanes. This proposed AD would require you to incorporate text from the service information into the Limitations Section of the FAA-approved Airplane Flight Manual (AFM). This proposed AD results from a recent safety evaluation that used a data-driven approach to analyze the design, operation, and maintenance of the MU-2B series airplanes in order to determine their safety and define what steps, if any, are necessary for their safe operation. Part of that evaluation was the identification of unsafe conditions that exist or could develop on the affected type design airplanes. We are issuing this proposed AD to detect and correct improper rigging of the propeller feathering linkage. The above issue, if uncorrected, could result in degraded performance and poor handling qualities with consequent loss of control of the airplane. DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by May 2, 2006. ADDRESSES: Use one of the following addresses to comment on this proposed AD: • DOT Docket Web site: Go to *http://dms.dot.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • Government-wide rulemaking Web site: Go to *http://www.regulations.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401, Washington, DC 20590-0001. • Fax: 1-202-493-2251. • Hand Delivery: Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Contact Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd., 4951 Airport Parkway, Suite 800, Addison, Texas 75001; telephone: 972-934-5480; facsimile: 972-934-5488 for the service information identified in this proposed AD. You may examine the comments on this proposed AD in the AD docket on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rao Edupuganti, Aerospace Engineer, ASW-150, Fort Worth Aircraft Certification Office, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, Texas 76193; telephone

(817)222-5284; fax

(817)222-5960. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments regarding this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under ADDRESSES . Include the docket number, “FAA-2006-23645; Directorate Identifier 2006-CE-04-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend the proposed AD in light of those comments. We will post all comments we receive, without change, to *http://dms.dot.gov* , including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed rulemaking. Using the search function of the DOT docket Web site, anyone can find and read the comments received into any of our dockets, including the name of the individual who sent the comment (or signed the comment on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review the DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the **Federal Register** published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78) or you may visit *http://dms.dot.gov.* Discussion Recent accidents and the service history of the Mitsubishi MU-2B series airplanes prompted FAA to conduct an MU-2B Safety Evaluation. This evaluation used a data-driven approach to analyze the design, operation, and maintenance of the MU-2B series airplanes in order to determine their safety and define what steps, if any, are necessary for their safe operation. The safety evaluation provided an in-depth review and analysis of MU-2B accidents, incidents, safety data, pilot training requirements, engine reliability, and commercial operations. In conducting this evaluation, the team employed new analysis tools that provided a much more detailed root cause analysis of the MU-2B problems than was previously possible. Part of that evaluation was the identification of unsafe conditions that exist or could develop on the affected type design airplanes. Field reports indicate an unsafe condition of improper rigging and/or adjustment of the propeller feathering linkage. Service centers found the unsafe condition during inspections. Incorrect adjustment of the feathering linkage could result in the linkage not pulling the feather valve far enough for the feathering system to function as designed. In the event of a negative torque sensing

(NTS)failure, coupled with incorrect adjustment of the feathering linkage, an inability to feather the propeller could result in asymmetric drag and control difficulties that are outside of the operational envelope of the aircraft. This condition, if not corrected, could result in degraded performance and poor handling qualities with consequent loss of control of the airplane. Relevant Service Information We have reviewed the following Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. service information: • Service Bulletin No. 229, dated February 20, 1996; and • Service Bulletin No. 090/76-003, dated January 22, 1997. The service information describes procedures for inspecting the feather valve and linkage function. Foreign Airworthiness Authority Information The MU-2B series airplane was initially certificated in 1965 and again in 1976 under two separate type certificates that consist of basically the same type design. Japan is the State of Design for TC No. A2PC, and the United States is the State of Design for TC No. A10SW. The affected models are as follows (where models are duplicated, specific serial numbers are specified in the individual TCs): Type certificate Affected models A10SW MU-2B-25, MU-2B-26, MU-2B-26A, MU-2B-35, MU-2B-36, MU-2B-36A, MU-2B-40, and MU-2B-60. A2PC MU-2B, MU-2B-10, MU-2B-15, MU-2B-20, MU-2B-25, MU-2B-26, MU-2B-30, MU-2B-35, and MU-2B-36. The Japan Civil Aviation Bureau, the airworthiness authority for Japan, issued Japanese AD No. TCD 4379-96, dated February 20, 1996, to ensure the continued airworthiness of the airplanes in Japan. FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD We are proposing this AD to address an unsafe condition that we determined is likely to exist or develop on other products of this same type design. The proposed AD would require you to incorporate information from the service bulletins into the Limitations Section of the FAA-approved AFM. The Agency is committed to updating the aviation community of expected costs associated with the MU-2B series airplane safety evaluation conducted in 2005. As a result of that commitment, the accumulating expected costs of all ADs related to the MU-2B series airplane safety evaluation may be found in the Final Report section at the following Web site: *http://www.faa.gov/aircraft/air_cert/design_approvals/small_airplanes/cos/mu2_foia_reading_library/.* Differences Between the Proposed AD and Service Information The compliance time in the proposed AD is different from the compliance times in the service information, and the proposed AD requires the insertion of text into the Limitations Section of the AFM. The requirements of the proposed AD, if adopted as a final rule, would take precedence over the provisions in the service information. Costs of Compliance We estimate that this proposed AD affects 397 airplanes in the U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to accomplish the proposed inspection: Labor cost Parts cost Total cost per airplane Total cost on U.S. operators 1 work hour × $80 = $80 Not applicable $80 $31,760 Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We have determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the proposed regulation: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD. See the ADDRESSES section for a location to examine the regulatory evaluation. Examining the Dockets You may examine the docket that contains the proposal, any comments received and any final disposition on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov* , or in person at the DOT Docket Offices between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Office (telephone 1-800-647-5227) is located on the plaza level of the Department of Transportation NASSIF Building at the street address stated in ADDRESSES . Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after the Docket Management Facility receives them. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety. The Proposed Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive: **Mitsubishi Heavy Industries:** Docket No. FAA-2006-23645; Directorate Identifier 2006-CE-04-AD. Comments Due Date

(a)The Federal Aviation Administration

(FAA)must receive comments on this proposed airworthiness directive

(AD)action by May 2, 2006. Affected ADs

(b)None. Applicability

(c)This AD affects the following airplane models and serial numbers that are certificated in any category: Type certificate Models Serial Nos.

(1)A2PC MU-2B, MU-2B-10, MU-2B-15, MU-2B-20, MU-2B-25, and MU-2B-26 008 through 312, 314 through 320, and 322 through 347.

(2)A2PC MU-2B-30, MU-2B-35, and MU-2B-36 501 through 651, 653 through 660, and 662 through 696.

(3)A10SW MU-2B-25, MU-2B-26, MU-2B-26A, and MU-2B-40 313SA, 321SA, and 348SA through 459SA.

(4)A10SW MU-2B-35, MU-2B-36, MU-2B-36A, and MU-2B-60 652SA, 661SA, and 697SA through 1569SA. Unsafe Condition

(d)This AD results from a recent safety evaluation that used a data-driven approach to analyze the design, operation, and maintenance of the MU-2B series airplanes in order to determine their safety and define what steps, if any, are necessary for their safe operation. Part of that evaluation was the identification of unsafe conditions that exist or could develop on the affected type design airplanes. The actions specified in this AD are intended to detect and correct improper rigging of the propeller feathering linkage. The above issue if uncorrected could result in degraded performance and poor handling qualities with consequent loss of control of the airplane. Compliance

(e)To address this problem, you must do the following: Actions Compliance Procedures Incorporate the following information into the Limitations Section of the FAA-approved Airplane Flight Manual (AFM):

(1)For airplanes listed in Type Certificate No. A2PC insert pages 3 and 4 from Mitsubishi Heavy Industries

(MHI)MU-2 Service Bulletin No. 229, dated February 20, 1996.

(2)For airplanes listed in Type Certificate No. A10SW insert page 3 of 3 from MHI MU-2 Service Bulletin No. 090/76-003, dated January 22, 1997. Within 100 hours time-in-service after the effective date of this AD. The owner/operator holding at least a private pilot certificate as authorized by section 43.7 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 43.7) may insert the information into the AFM as specified in paragraph

(e)of this AD. Make an entry into the aircraft records showing compliance with this portion of the AD in accordance with section 43.9 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 43.9). Note: The language in the service information states the procedure as an “inspection,” but the procedure is a “pilot check.” Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

(f)The Manager, Fort Worth Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, has the authority to approve alternative methods of compliance for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.

(g)For information on any already approved alternative methods of compliance or for information pertaining to this AD, contact Rao Edupuganti, Aerospace Engineer, ASW-150, Fort Worth ACO, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, Texas 76193; telephone

(817)222-5284; fax

(817)222-5960. Related Information

(h)Japan Civil Aviation Bureau Airworthiness Directives No. TCD 4379-96, dated February 20, 1996; and MHI Service Bulletins No. 229, dated February 20, 1996; and No. 090/76-003, dated January 22, 1997, also address the subject of this AD.

(i)To get copies of the documents referenced in this AD, contact Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd., 4951 Airport Parkway, Suite 800, Addison, Texas 75001; telephone: 972-934-5480; facsimile: 972-934-5488. To view the AD docket, go to the Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401, Washington, DC, or on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov* . The docket number is Docket No. FAA-2006-23645; Directorate Identifier 2006-CE-04-AD. Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on March 16, 2006. James E. Jackson, Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E6-4123 Filed 3-21-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Office of the Secretary 31 CFR Part 10 [REG-122380-02] RIN 1545-BA72 Regulations Governing Practice Before the Internal Revenue; Correction AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, Treasury. ACTION: Correction to notice of proposed rulemaking and notice of public hearing. SUMMARY: This document contains corrections to a notice of proposed rulemaking and notice of public hearing that was published in the **Federal Register** on Wednesday, February 8, 2006 (71 FR 6421). These proposed regulations affect individuals who practice before the Internal Revenue Service (Circular 230). The proposed amendments modify the general standards of practice before the Internal Revenue Service. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brinton T. Warren at

(202)622-7800 (not toll-free number). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The notice of proposed rulemaking and notice of public hearing (REG-122380-02) that are the subject of these corrections are under 31 CFR sections 10.1, 10.2, 10.5, 10.6, 10.7, 10.22, 10.25, 10.27, 10.29, 10.34, 10.35, 10.50, 10.51, 10.52, 10.60, 10.61, 10.62, 10.63, 10.65, 10.68, 10.70, 10.71, 10.72, 10.73, 10.76, 10.77, 10.78, 10.82, 10.90 and 10.91. Need for Correction As published, the notice of proposed rulemaking and notice of public hearing (REG-122380-02) contains errors that may prove to be misleading and are in need of clarification. Correction of Publication Accordingly, the publication of the notice of proposed rulemaking (REG-122380-02), that was the subject of FR Doc. 06-1106, is corrected as follows: 1. On page 6421, column 3, the regulation heading, line 5, (RIN 1545-AY05” is corrected to read “RIN 1545-BA72”. 2. On page 6421, column 3, under the paragraph heading “DATES”, line 3, the language, “by April 10, 2006. Outlines of topics to” is corrected to read “by April 28, 2006. Outlines of topics to”. 3. On page 6421, column 3, under the paragraph heading “DATES”, the last line, the language, “received by April 10, 2006.” is corrected to read “received by May 31, 2006.”. 4. On page 6426, column 2, in the preamble under the paragraph heading “Comments and Public Hearing”, third paragraph, line 5, the language, “comments by April 10, 2006 and an” is corrected to read “comments by April 28, 2006 and an”. 5. On page 6426, column 2, in the preamble under the paragraph heading “Comments and Public Hearing”, third paragraph the last line, the language, “April 10, 2006. A period of 10 minutes” is corrected to read “May 31, 2006. A period of 10 minutes”. Richard S. Carro, Senior Advisor to the General Counsel. [FR Doc. E6-4105 Filed 3-21-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4830-01-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 100 [CGD05-06-015] RIN 1625-AA08 Special Local Regulations for Marine Events; Onslow Bay, Beaufort Inlet, Morehead City State Port, Beaufort Harbor and Taylor Creek, NC AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to establish special local regulations during the “Pepsi Americas’ Sail 2006”, tall ships parade and race to be held on Onslow Bay, Beaufort Inlet, inland waters of the Morehead City State Port and Beaufort Waterfront. This special local regulation is necessary to provide for the safety of life on navigable waters during the event. This proposed action is intended to restrict vessel traffic in segments of coastal North Carolina in the vicinity of Onslow Bay, Beaufort Inlet, inland waters of Morehead City State Port and Beaufort Harbor during the parade of sail and tall ship race. DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or before April 21, 2006. 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, 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: CWO C.D. Humphrey, U.S. Coast Guard 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 (CGD05-06-015), 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 the address listed 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 During the period 30 June to July 5, 2006, Pepsi Americas' Sail 2006 LLC will host the North Carolina port call of the “Pepsi Americas’ Sail 2006”. A parade of sails and tall ships racing event are planned during this period to be conducted on the waters adjacent to Onslow Bay, Beaufort Inlet and the inland waters of Morehead City State Port and Beaufort Harbor, North Carolina. The first event will be the “Tall Ships Parade of Sails” on July 1, 2006 that will commence in Anchorage Area “ALFA” as depicted on NOAA Chart 11545 “Beaufort Inlet and Part of Core Sound”, and will enter Beaufort Inlet Channel at Beaufort Inlet Channel Lighted Buoy 7 and Beaufort Inlet Channel Lighted Buoy 8, and will proceed inbound to the Morehead City State Port turning basin thence to Beaufort Harbor Channel to Beaufort Harbor waterfront. The second event will be the “Tall Ships Race”, on July 3, 2006 that will take place on Onslow Bay from Beaufort Inlet Channel and continuing west approximately 11 nautical miles to a line drawn along longitude 076-54′ W. Because of the danger posed by numerous sailing vessels maneuvering in close proximity of each other during the proposed parade and race, special local regulations are necessary. For the safety concerns noted and to address the need for vessel control and vessel security, traffic will be temporarily restricted to provide for the safety of participants, spectators and transiting vessels. Discussion of Proposed Rule The Coast Guard proposes to establish temporary special local regulations on specified waters of Onslow Bay, Beaufort Inlet Channel, Morehead City State Port, Beaufort Harbor Channel and Taylor Creek. The July 1, 2006 “Tall Ships Parade of Sail” consist of Class “A”, “B” and “C” tall ships participating in a carefully organized and highly publicized, international tall ship parade. The tall ship division of classes include Class “A”, square-rigged vessels and all other vessels over 131 feet in length overall. Class “B” vessels are comprised of traditional rigged vessels with a length overall of less than 131 feet and with a waterline length of at least 30 feet. Class “C” vessels are modern rigged vessels with a length overall of less than 131 feet and with a waterline length of at least 30 feet, not carrying spinnaker like sails. The parade will consist of tall ships maneuvering in a predetermined area within anchorage area “ALFA” immediately adjacent and east of Beaufort Inlet Channel Lighted Buoy 8 and Beaufort Inlet Channel Lighted Buoy 10. The Ships will enter Beaufort Inlet Channel at Beaufort Inlet Lighted Buoy 7 and Beaufort Inlet Lighted Buoy 8, they will proceed inbound maintaining a 400 yard separation distance through Beaufort Inlet Channel to the Morehead City State Port turning basin, Class A ships will moor at the State Port facilities, Class B and C ships will reverse course and exit the turning basin enroute to Beaufort Harbor Channel and will moor at the Beaufort Waterfront on Taylor Creek. A fleet of spectator vessels is anticipated to gather nearby to view the parade. Because of the danger posed by numerous sailing vessels maneuvering in close proximity of each other during the proposed marine event, special local regulations are necessary. For the safety concerns noted and to address the need for vessel control and vessel security, traffic will be temporarily restricted to provide for the safety of participants, spectators and transiting vessels. The duration of the proposed parade of sails is anticipated to be approximately five hours. The July 3, 2006 “Tall Ships Race” will consist of participation from the visiting international Class “B” tall ships. The race will be in a predetermined area immediately west of Beaufort Inlet Channel extending approximately 11 nautical miles to a line drawn along longitude 076-54′ W. A fleet of spectator vessels is anticipated to gather nearby to view the race. Because of the danger posed by many sailing vessels maneuvering in close proximity of each other during the race, special local regulations are necessary. For the safety concerns noted and to address the need for vessel control, traffic will be temporarily restricted to provide for the safety of participants, spectators and transiting vessels. The duration of the proposed tall ships race is anticipated to be approximately six hours. The proposed temporary special local regulations will be enforced from 6:30 a.m. to 1 p.m. on July 1, 2006 for the “Tall Ships Parade of Sails”; and from 10:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. on July 3, 2006 for the “Tall Ships Class B race”. These regulations will restrict general navigation in the regulated area during the marine events. The Coast Guard, at its discretion, when practical, will allow the passage of vessels when the parade or race is not taking place. Except for participants and vessels authorized by the Coast Guard Patrol Commander, no person or vessel will be allowed to enter or remain in the regulated area during the enforcement period. These regulations are needed to control vessel traffic during the event to enhance the safety of participants, spectators and transiting vessels. 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 regulation will prevent traffic from transiting a segment of the Onslow Bay, Beaufort Inlet, Morehead City State Port and Beaufort Harbor during these events, the effect of this regulation will not be significant due to the limited duration that the regulated area will be enforced. Extensive advance notifications will be made to the maritime community via Local Notice to Mariners, marine information broadcasts, area newspapers and local radio stations, 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 proposed rule would affect the following entities, some of which might be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to transit these sections of the Onslow Bay, Beaufort Inlet, Morehead City State Port, Beaufort Harbor Channel and Taylor Creek during these events. This proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons. This proposed rule would be in effect for only a limited period. Although the regulated area will apply to two separate segments within and around the waters of Onslow Bay, Beaufort Inlet, Morehead City State Port and Beaufort Harbor, traffic may be allowed to pass through the regulated areas with the permission of the Coast Guard Patrol Commander. In the case where the Patrol Commander authorizes passage through a regulated area during an event, vessels shall proceed at the minimum speed necessary to maintain a safe course that minimizes wake near the event. Although this regulation prevents traffic from transiting the Onslow Bay, Beaufort Inlet, Morehead City State port and Beaufort Harbor Bay during these event, the effect of this regulation will not be significant because of its limited duration. Before the enforcement period, the Coast Guard 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 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 the address listed under ADDRESSES . 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 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 a temporary § 100.35-T06-015 to read as follows: § 100.35-T06-015 Onslow Bay, Beaufort Inlet, Morehead City State Port, Beaufort Harbor and Taylor Creek near Morehead City NC.

(a)*Regulated area* includes two segments within and around the waters of the Onslow Bay, Beaufort Inlet, Morehead City Turning Basin, Beaufort Harbor and Taylor Creek North Carolina.

(1)The first segment for the “Parade of Sail” is bounded by a line drawn from a position at latitude 34°39′36″ N, longitude 076°37′52″ W, thence southerly to a position at latitude 34°37′52″ N, longitude 076°37′52″ W, thence westerly to a position at latitude 34°37′36″ N, longitude 076°40′17″ W, thence southerly to a position at latitude 34°36′50″ N, longitude 076°40′42″ W, thence westerly to a position at latitude 34°36′57″ N, longitude 076°41′25″ W, thence northerly parallel to Beaufort Inlet Channel to latitude 34°40′37″ N, longitude 076°40′32″ W, thence northeasterly to latitude 34°41′21″ N, longitude 076°40′11″ W, thence northwesterly parallel to Cutoff Channel to latitude 34°41′43″ N, longitude 076°40′21″ W, thence northwesterly parallel to Morehead City Channel to latitude 34°42′46″ N, longitude 076°42′02″ W, thence westerly to latitude 34°42′46″ N, longitude 076°42′12″ W, thence northerly to latitude 34°42′54″ N, longitude 076°42′13″ W, thence easterly along Morehead City State Port berth seven, six, five and four to latitude 34°42′52″ N, longitude 076°41′33″ W, thence southeasterly to latitude 34°42′35″ N, longitude 076°41′20″ W, thence southeasterly parallel to Morehead City Channel to latitude 34°42′19″ N, longitude 076°40′49″ W at the entrance to Beaufort Harbor Channel, thence along the western bank of Beaufort Harbor Channel to latitude 34°42′54″ W, longitude 076°40′44″ W, thence easterly to the southern tip of Pivers Island, latitude 34°42′54″ N, longitude 076°40′24″ W, thence northerly along the shoreline of Pivers Island to latitude 34°43″08″ N, longitude 076°40′19″ W, thence northerly to intersection of the Beaufort Bascule Bridge and the shoreline at latitude 34°43′21″ N, longitude 076°40′12″ W, thence northerly along the shoreline to latitude 34°43′38″ N, longitude 076°40′17″ W, thence northwesterly to latitude 34°43′47″ N, longitude 076°40′22″ W, thence northeasterly to latitude 34°43′55″ N, longitude 076°40′15″ W, thence southerly along the shoreline to latitude 34°43′42″ N, longitude 076°40′04″ W, thence southerly parallel to Gallants Channel to the intersection of the Beaufort Bascule Bridge and the shoreline at latitude 34°43′21″ N, longitude 076°40′05″ W, thence southerly to Beaufort Waterfront at latitude 34°43′07″ N, longitude 076°40′10″ W, thence southeasterly along Beaufort waterfront to latitude 34°42′57″ N, longitude 076°39′55″ W, thence south to Carrot Island latitude 34°42′45″ N, longitude 076°39′55″ W, thence westerly following the shore line of Carrot Island to latitude 34°42′31″ W, longitude 076°40′44″ W, thence southeasterly to latitude 34°41′50″ N, longitude 076°40′08″ W, thence southerly to the western tip of Shackleford Banks at latitude 34°41′18″ N, longitude 076°39′57″ W, thence southerly to latitude 34°40′30″ N, longitude 076°39′50″ W, thence southerly parallel to Beaufort Inlet Channel to latitude 34°39′35″ N, longitude 076°40′00″ W, thence east to the point of origin.

(2)The second segment for the “Tall Ships Race” is bounded by a line drawn from a position at latitude 34°40′36″ N, longitude 076°41′00″ W, thence westerly parallel to Bogue Banks to latitude 34°40′21″ N, longitude 076°52′12″ W, thence southwesterly to latitude 34°39′00″ N, longitude 076°53′06″ W, thence southeasterly to latitude 34°33′18″ N, longitude 076°42′33″ W, thence northeasterly to latitude 34°34′18″ N, longitude 076°41′27″ W, thence northerly to the point of origin.

(3)All coordinates reference Datum NAD 1983.

(b)*Definitions.*

(1)Coast Guard Patrol Commander means any 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 person or vessel authorized by the Coast Guard Patrol Commander or approved by Commander, Coast Guard Sector North Carolina.

(3)Participant includes all vessels participating in the Pepsi Americas' Sail 2006 under the auspices of the Marine Event Permit issued to the event sponsor and approved by Commander, Coast Guard Sector North Carolina.

(c)*Special local regulations.*

(1)Except for the Official Patrol, 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)Any person in the regulated area must stop immediately when directed to do so by any Official Patrol and then proceed only as directed.

(3)The operator of any vessel in the regulated area must stop the vessel immediately when directed to do so by any Official Patrol and then proceed only as directed.

(4)All persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of the Official Patrol.

(5)When authorized to transit within the regulated area, all vessels shall proceed at the minimum speed necessary to maintain a safe course that minimizes wake near the parade, race course and near other persons and vessels.

(d)*Enforcement period.* This section will be enforced from 6:30 a.m. to 1 p.m. on July 1, 2006, for the “Parade of Sails”; and from 10:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. on July 3, 2006 for the “Tall Ships Race”. If the “Tall Ships Race” is postponed due to inclement weather, then the proposed temporary special local regulations will be enforced the same time period during one of the next two days, July 4, 2006 through July 5, 2006. Dated: March 3, 2006. Larry L. Hereth, Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Fifth Coast Guard District. [FR Doc. E6-4089 Filed 3-21-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-15-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [CGD09-06-004] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zone; Greater Cleveland Area Triathlon AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes the establishment of a safety zone for the annual Greater Cleveland area Triathlon located in the Captain of the Port Buffalo Zone. This safety zone is necessary to provide for the safety of life during the swimming portion of this event. This action is intended to restrict vessel traffic within the immediate vicinity of the event from 6 a.m. (local) until noon (local) on the 12th and 13th of August 2006. DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or before April 21, 2006. ADDRESSES: You may mail comments and related material to MSU Cleveland, 1055 East 9th Street, Cleveland, OH 44114. MSU Cleveland maintains the public docket for this rule making. Comments and material received from the public, as well as documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket CGD09-06-004, will become part of this docket and will be available for inspection or copying at MSU Cleveland, 1055 East 9th Street, Cleveland, OH 44114 between 8 a.m. and 3:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lieutenant Nicole Starr, U.S. Coast Guard Marine Safety Unit Cleveland, at

(216)937-0128. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Request for Comments We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting comments and related materials. If you do so, please include your name and address, identify the docket number for this rulemaking, 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 that your submission 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 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 This safety zone is necessary to manage vessel traffic in order to provide for the safety of life and property on navigable waters during the event. The combination of swimmers and the large number of inexperienced, recreational boaters that transit this area could easily result in serious injuries or fatalities. Discussion of Proposed Rule This safety zone is necessary to provide for the safety of life on navigable waters during the swimming portion of this event. This action is intended to restrict vessel traffic within the immediate vicinity of the event in a portion of Lake Erie. This safety zone is extending the currently established swim zone at Headlands Beach State Park in Painesville Township, Ohio. The safety zone will include all waters of Lake Erie within a line drawn from 41°45′19″ N, 081°17′38″ W to 41°45′22″ N, 081°17′46″ W then easterly to 41°45′55″ N, 081°17′09″ W and thence to 41°45′50″ N, 081°17′01″ W then following the shoreline to origin. These coordinates are based on North American Datum 1983 (NAD 83). The Coast Guard will notify the public in advance by way of Ninth Coast Guard District Local Notice to Mariners, Marine Information Broadcasts, and for those who request it from Marine Safety Unit Cleveland, by facsimile. 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 this rule 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 rule to be so minimal that a full regulatory evaluation under paragraph 10(e) of the regulatory policies and procedures of DHS is unnecessary. This determination is based on the size and location of the safety zone within the water. Vessels will not be allowed to transit through the designated safety zone only during the specified times. Small Entities Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered whether this rule would have a significant 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. This rule would affect the following entities, some of which might be small entities: the owners or operators of commercial vessels intending to transit a portion of the activated safety zone. This safety zone would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: the proposed zone is only in effect for 6 hours on the days of the event. Before the activation of the safety zone, the Coast Guard will issue maritime advisories available to users who may be impacted through notification in the **Federal Register** , the Ninth District Coast Guard Local Notice to Mariners, Marine Information Broadcasts and when requested by facsimile. 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), we offered to assist small entities in understanding this rule so that they can better evaluate its effects and participate in the rulemaking process. 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 Lieutenant Nicole Starr, U.S. Coast Guard Marine Safety Unit Cleveland, 1055 East 9th Street, Cleveland, OH 44114. 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 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 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 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 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 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 The Coast Guard has 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 does not concern an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may 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. We invite your comments on how this proposed rule might impact tribal government, even if that impact may not constitute a “tribal implication” under that Order. 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 procedure; and related management system 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)(g), of the Instruction, from further environmental documentation. This event establishes a safety zone therefore paragraph (34)(g) of the Instruction applies. A preliminary “Environmental Analysis Check List” is available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES . Comments on this section will be considered before we make the final decision on whether the rule should be categorically excluded 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. A new temporary § 165.T09-004 is added to read as follows: § 165.T09-004 Safety Zone; 2006 Headlands State Park, Lake Erie, Painesville Township, Ohio.

(a)*Location.* The Coast Guard will establish a safety zone for the annual Greater Cleveland Area Triathlon. All waters within a line drawn from 41°45′19″ N 081°17′38″ W to 41°45′22″ N 081°17′46″ W then easterly to 41°45′55″ N 081°17′09″ W and thence to 41°45′50″ N 081°17′01″ W then following the shoreline to origin. These coordinates are based on North American Datum 1983 (NAD 83).

(b)*Effective Period.* This section is effective from 6 a.m. (local) through noon (local) on the 12th and the 13th of August, 2006.

(c)*Regulations.* Entry into, transit through or anchoring within this safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his designated on-scene representative. The designated on-scene representative will be the Coast Guard Patrol Commander. The Coast Guard Patrol Commander may be contacted via VHF Channel 16. Dated: February 28, 2006. S.J. Ferguson, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Buffalo. [FR Doc. E6-4098 Filed 3-21-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-15-P 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

(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), 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 § 165.T05-016, to read as follows: § 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 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 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R05-OAR-2006-0124; FRL-8040-7] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Indiana AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve a request from the Indiana Department of Environmental Management

(IDEM)to revise the Indiana State Implementation Plan (SIP). The revision consists of the repeal of 326 IAC 6-1, and its replacement by new articles 326 IAC 6.5 and 326 IAC 6.8. 326 IAC 6.5 contains particulate matter emission limitations for sources in all counties in Indiana, with the exception of Lake County. Sources in Lake County are addressed in 326 IAC 6.8. The revision does not change any control requirements or any other provisions in 326 IAC 6-1. In the final rules section of this **Federal Register** , EPA is approving the SIP revision as a direct final rule without prior proposal, because EPA views this as a noncontroversial revision and anticipates no adverse comments. A detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the direct final rule. If we do not receive any adverse comments in response to these direct final and proposed rules, we do not contemplate taking any further action in relation to this proposed rule. If EPA receives adverse comments, we will withdraw the direct final rule and will respond to all public comments in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting on this action should do so at this time. DATES: Written comments must be received on or before April 21, 2006. ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by Regional Material in EDocket

(RME)ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-2006-0124 by one of the following methods: Federal eRulemaking Portal: *http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. Agency Web site: *http://docket.epa.gov/rmepub/* . RME, EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, is EPA's preferred method for receiving comments. Once in the system, select “quick search,” then key in the appropriate RME Docket identification number. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. E-mail: *mooney.john@epa.gov.* Fax:

(312)886-5824. Mail: You may send written comments to: John M. Mooney, Chief, Criteria Pollutant Section, (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. Hand delivery: Deliver your comments to: John M. Mooney, Chief, Criteria Pollutant Section (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 18th floor, Chicago, Illinois 60604. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office's normal hours of operation. The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. excluding Federal holidays. *Instructions:* Direct your comments to RME ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-2006-0124. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information

(CBI)or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through RME, regulations.gov, or e-mail. The EPA RME Web site and the Federal regulations.gov Web site are “anonymous access” systems, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through RME or regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional instructions on submitting comments, go to section I(B) of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document. *Docket:* All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the RME index at *http://www.epa.gov/rmepub/.* Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in RME or in hard copy at Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. (Please telephone Jonathan Nichols at

(312)353-7942 before visiting the Region 5 Office.) FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jonathan Nichols, Life Scientist, Criteria Pollutant Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), USEPA, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604,

(312)353-7942. *Nichols.jonathan@epa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. General Information A. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA? II. What Action Is EPA Taking Today? III. Where Can I Find More Information About This Proposal and the Corresponding Direct Final Rule? I. General Information A. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA? 1. *Submitting CBI.* Do not submit CBI to EPA through RME, regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. 2. *Tips for Preparing Your Comments.* When submitting comments, remember to: a. Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying information (subject heading, **Federal Register** date and page number). b. Follow directions—The agency may ask you to respond to specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal Regulations

(CFR)part or section number. c. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and substitute language for your requested changes. d. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you used. e. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced. f. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and suggest alternatives. g. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal threats. h. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified. II. What Action Is EPA Taking Today? EPA is proposing to approve revisions to the Indiana SIP in one area: To repeal 326 IAC 6-1, and to replace it with 326 IAC 6.5 “Particulate Matter Limitations for all counties with the exception of Lake County,” and 326 IAC 6.8 “Particulate Matter Limitations for Lake County.” This revision renumbers and simplifies the organizational structure of the rule. IDEM has done this in order to streamline future rule amendment processes by having a separate section for each company. This rule eliminates the submittal of hundreds of pages of paper for one emission limit amendment. The revision does not change any control requirements or any other provisions in 326 IAC 6-1. III. Where Can I Find More Information About This Proposal and the Corresponding Direct Final Rule? For additional information, see the Direct Final Rule which is located in the Rules section of this **Federal Register** . Copies of the request and the EPA's analysis are available electronically at RME or in hard copy at the above address. (Please telephone Jonathan Nichols at

(312)353-7942 before visiting the Region 5 Office.) Dated: February 17, 2006. Norman Niedergang, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5. [FR Doc. 06-2695 Filed 3-21-06; 8:45 am]

Connectionstraces to 17

Traces to 17 documents