Proposed Rules. Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)

Agency: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT
Action: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
Citation: FR Doc. 06-4393 · RIN 2120-AA66 · Docket No. FAA-2006-23926; Airspace Docket No. 06-AAL-10 · 14 CFR 71

Summary

This action proposes to amend the Norton Sound Low Offshore Airspace Area in Alaska. Specifically, this action proposes to modify the Norton Sound Low Offshore Airspace Area in the vicinity of the Shishmaref Airport, AK, by lowering the offshore airspace floor to 1,200 feet mean sea level (MSL) within a 30-mile radius of the airport. Additionally, this action proposes to modify the airspace in the vicinity of Nome Airport, AK, by lowering the airspace floor to 700 feet MSL within a 25-mile radius of the airport, and 1,200 feet MSL within a 77.4-mile radius of the Nome VORTAC. The FAA is proposing this action to provide additional controlled airspace for aircraft instrument flight rules (IFR) operations at the Nome and Shishmaref Airports.

Dates

Comments must be received on or before June 26, 2006.

Supplementary Information

Comments Invited Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. Communications should identify both docket numbers (FAA Docket No. FAA-2006-23926 and Airspace Docket No. 06-AAL-10) and be submitted in triplicate to the Docket Management System (see ADDRESSES section for address and phone number). You may also submit comments through the Internet at http://dms.dot.gov . Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to FAA Docket No. FAA-2006-23926 and Airspace Docket No. 06-AAL-10.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter. All communications received on or before the specified closing date for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this action may be changed in light of comments received. All comments submitted will be available for examination in the public docket both before and after the closing date for comments. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket. Availability of NPRMs An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the Internet at http://dms.dot.gov. Recently published rulemaking documents can also be accessed through the FAA's Web page at http://www.faa.gov , or the Federal Register's Web page at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html. You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see ADDRESSES section for address and phone number) between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal business hours at the office of the Regional Air Traffic Division, Federal Aviation Administration, 222 West 7th Avenue 14, Anchorage, AK 99513. Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future NPRMs should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking, (202) 267-9677, for a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Distribution System, which describes the application procedure. The Proposal The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 to modify the Norton Sound Low Offshore Airspace Area, AK, by lowering the floor to 1,200 feet MSL within a 30-mile radius of two geographic points near the Shishmaref Airport, AK. Additionally, this action proposes lowering the controlled airspace floor to 700 feet MSL within a 25-mile radius of the Nome Airport and to 1,200 feet MSL within a 77.4-mile radius of the Nome VORTAC. The purpose of this proposal is to establish controlled airspace to support IFR operations at the Nome and Shishmaref Airports, Alaska. Additional controlled airspace extending upward from 700 feet and 1,200 feet MSL above the surface in international airspace would be created by this action. The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. Therefore, this proposed regulation: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under Department of Transportation (DOT) Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this proposed rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. ICAO Considerations As part of this proposal relates to navigable airspace outside the United States, this notice is submitted in accordance with the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) International Standards and Recommended Practices. The application of International Standards and Recommended Practices by the FAA, Office of System Operations Airspace and AIM, Airspace & Rules, in areas outside the United States domestic airspace, is governed by the Convention on International Civil Aviation. Specifically, the FAA is governed by Article 12 and Annex 11, which pertain to the establishment of necessary air navigational facilities and services to promote the safe, orderly, and expeditious flow of civil air traffic. The purpose of Article 12 and Annex 11 is to ensure that civil aircraft operations on international air routes are performed under uniform conditions. The International Standards and Recommended Practices in Annex 11 apply to airspace under the jurisdiction of a contracting state, derived from ICAO. Annex 11 provisions apply when air traffic services are provided and a contracting state accepts the responsibility of providing air traffic services over high seas or in airspace of undetermined sovereignty. A contracting state accepting this responsibility may apply the International Standards and Recommended Practices that are consistent with standards and practices utilized in its domestic jurisdiction. In accordance with Article 3 of the Convention, state-owned aircraft are exempt from the Standards and Recommended Practices of Annex 11. The United States is a contracting state to the Convention. Article 3(d) of the Convention provides that participating state aircraft will be operated in international airspace with due regard for the safety of civil aircraft. Since this action involves, in part, the designation of navigable airspace outside the United States, the Administrator is consulting with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense in accordance with the provisions of Executive Order 10854. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71 Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air). The Proposed Amendment In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows: PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS 1. The authority citation for part 71 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389. § 71.1 [Amended] 2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of Federal Aviation Administration Order 7400.9N, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated September 1, 2005, and effective September 15, 2005, is amended as follows: Paragraph 6007 Offshore Airspace Areas. Norton Sound Low, AK [Amended] That airspace extending upward from 700 feet MSL within a 25-mile radius of the Nome Airport; and that airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet MSL within a 45-mile radius of Deering Airport, AK, within a 35-mile radius of lat. 60°21′17″ N., long. 165°04′01″ W., within a 30-mile radius of lat. 66°09′58″ N., long. 166°30′03″ W., within a 30-mile radius of lat. 66°19′55″ N., long. 165°40′32″ W. and within a 77.4-mile radius of the Nome VORTAC; and airspace extending upward from 14,500 feet MSL within an area bounded by a line beginning at lat. 59°59′57″ N., long. 168°00′08″ W.; to lat. 62°35′00″ N., long. 175°00′00″ W.; to lat. 65°00′00″ N., long. 168°58′23″ W.; to lat. 68°00′00″ N., long. 168°58′23″ W.; to a point 12 miles offshore at lat. 68°00′00″ N.; thence by a line 12 miles from and parallel to the shoreline to lat. 56°42′59″ N., long. 160°00′00″ W.; to lat. 58°06′57″ N., long. 160°00′00″ W.; to lat. 57°45′57″ N., long. 161°46′08″ W.; to the point of beginning. Issued in Washington, DC, on May 5, 2006. Edith V. Parish, Manager, Airspace and Rules. [FR Doc. E6-7155 Filed 5-10-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [COTP Hampton Roads 06-046] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zone; Live-Fire Gun Exercise, Southeast of Ocean City, MD, Atlantic Ocean AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to establish a safety zone on June 19, 20 and 21, 2006 from 7 a.m. to 3 p.m. for a live-fire gun exercise approximately 9 nautical miles southeast of Ocean City, MD. This action is intended to restrict vessel traffic on the Atlantic Ocean as necessary to protect mariners from the hazards associated with gunnery exercise. Entry into this Coast Guard safety zone would be prohibited, unless authorized by the Captain of the Port or a designated representative. DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or before June 12, 2006. ADDRESSES: You may mail comments and related material to the Norfolk Federal Building, 200 Granby Street, Suite 700, Norfolk, Virginia 23510. Sector Hampton Roads 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 Sector Field Office Eastern Shore between 9 a.m. and 2 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: LT Bill Clark, Waterways Division, Sector Hampton Roads, (757) 668-5581. 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 CGD05-06-046, 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 Sector Hampton Roads at the address under ADDRESSES explaining why one would be beneficial. If we determine that one would aid this rulemaking, we will hold one at a time and place announced by a separate notice in the Federal Register . Regulatory Information The Coast Guard is proposing to establish this safety zone to conduct training essential to carrying out Coast Guard missions relating to military operations and national security. Accordingly, this proposed safety zone falls within the military function exception to the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(1). Notice and comment rulemaking under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) and an effective date of 30 days after publication under 5 U.S.C. 553(d) are not required for this rulemaking. However, we have determined that it would be beneficial to accept public comments on this proposed rule. Therefore, we will be accepting comments until June 12, 2006. By issuing this notice of proposed rulemaking and accepting public comments, the Coast Guard does not waive its use of the military-function exception to notice and comment rulemaking under 5 U.S.C. 553(b). Background and Purpose This rule is necessary to protect the public from the hazards associated with gunnery exercises. When established, this zone will provide the Coast Guard adequate coverage of the area affected by small arms fire. No other related rules have been issued in relation this proposed rule. Discussion of Proposed Rule The Coast Guard is establishing a safety zone on June 19, 20 and 21, 2006 from 7 a.m. to 3 p.m. on specified waters of the Atlantic Ocean, approximately 9 nautical miles southeast of Ocean City, MD. The regulated area will consist of a circular zone, four nautical miles in radius, centered on position 38-13.0 N/074-58.0 W. This safety zone will be enforced when gunnery exercises are being conducted by Coast Guard vessels. All vessel traffic will be temporarily restricted from transiting through this area while the safety zone is in effect unless otherwise authorized by the Captain of the Port's designated representative. 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. We expect the economic impact of this proposed rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation is unnecessary. Although this regulation restricts access to the regulated area, the effect of this rule will not be significant as the safety zone will be in effect for a limited duration of time and the Coast Guard will provide the public adequate notification via maritime advisories and local notice to mariners in order for mariners to 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 will affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: The owners and operators of vessels intending to transit in that portion of the Atlantic Ocean while the regulated area is in affect. The safety zone will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities because: (i) The zone will only be in place for a limited duration of time; (ii) mariners will be allowed to transit through at the discretion of the Captain of the Port's designated representative; and (iii) maritime advisories will be issued allowing mariners to 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 proposed rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact LTJG Brian Sullivan, Sector Field Office Eastern Shore, (757) 336-2859. 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 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 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. We invite your comments on how this proposed rule might impact tribal governments, even if that impact may not constitute a “tribal implication” under the 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 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)(g), of the Instruction, from further environmental documentation. 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 § 165.T06-046 to read as follows: § 165.T06-046 Safety zone; live-fire gun exercise Southeast of Ocean City, MD, Atlantic Ocean. (a) Location. The following area is a safety zone: All waters of the Atlantic Ocean, from surface to bottom, within a 4 nautical mile radius of position 38-13.0 N/074-58.0 W, approximately 9 nautical miles southeast of Ocean City, MD., which lies within the Captain of the Port, Hampton Roads zone as defined in 33 CFR 3.25-10. (b) Definitions. (1) “ Designated representative ” means a U.S. Coast Guard commissioned, warrant or petty officer who has been authorized by the Captain of the Port, Hampton Roads, Virginia to act on his behalf and a Federal, State, and local officer designated by or assisting the Captain of the Port (COTP), Hampton Roads, in the enforcement of the safety zone. (2) [Reserved] (c) Regulations. (1) Under the general regulations in § 165.23, entry into, transiting, or anchoring within this safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the COTP, Hampton Roads, or the COTP's designated representative. (2) The safety zone is closed to all vessel traffic, except as may be permitted by the COTP or the COTP's designated representative. (3) Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within the safety zone must contact the COTP or the COTP's representative to obtain permission to do so. Vessel operators given permission to enter or operate in the safety zone must comply with all directions given to them by the COTP or the COTP's designated representative. (d) Enforcement and suspension of enforcement of certain safety zones. (1) The safety zone in paragraph (a) of this section will be enforced only when a Coast Guard vessel is operating in the safety zone for the purpose of conducting gunnery exercises. (2) The Captain of the Port, Hampton Roads, will provide notice of the enforcement of the safety zones listed in paragraph (a) of this section and notice of suspension of enforcement by the means appropriate to affect the widest publicity, including broadcast notice to mariners and publication in the local notice to mariners. (e) Effective period. This section is effective from 7 a.m. on June 19, 2006 until 3 p.m. on June 21, 2006. Dated: April 26, 2006. Patrick B. Trapp, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Hampton Roads. [FR Doc. E6-7205 Filed 5-10-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-15-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [CGD09-06-025] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zone; TCF Bank Milwaukee Air Expo, Milwaukee, WI AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to implement a temporary safety zone for the TCF Bank Milwaukee Air Expo. This safety zone is necessary to safeguard vessels and spectators from hazards associated with air shows. This proposed rule is intended to restrict vessel traffic from a portion of Lake Michigan and Milwaukee Harbor. DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or before May 24, 2006. ADDRESSES: You may mail comments and related material to Commander, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Lake Michigan (CGD09-06-025), 2420 South Lincoln Memorial Drive, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53207. Sector Lake Michigan Prevention Department 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 Sector Lake Michigan between 7 a.m. and 3:30 p.m. (local), Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Chief Warrant Officer Brad Hinken, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Lake Michigan, at (414) 747-7154. 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 (CGD09-06-025), 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 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 Sector Lake Michigan at the address under ADDRESSES explaining why one would be beneficial. If we determine that one would aid this rulemaking, we will hold one at a time and place announced by a later notice in the Federal Register. Background and Purpose This safety zone is necessary to protect the public from the hazards associated with air shows. Due to the high profile nature and extensive publicity associated with this event, the Captain of the Port (COTP) expects a significantly large number of spectators in confined areas adjacent to and on Lake Michigan. As such, the COTP is proposing to implement a safety zone to ensure the safety of both participants and spectators in these areas. The combination of large numbers of inexperienced recreational boaters, congested waterways, boaters crossing commercially transited waterways, and low flying aircraft could easily result in serious injuries or fatalities. Discussion of Proposed Rule The Coast Guard is proposing a safety zone on the waters of Lake Michigan near Sheboygan, Wisconsin. The safety zone will include all waters within the following coordinates: starting at 41°01.606′ N, 087°53.041′ W; then northeast to 43°03.335′ N, 087°51.679′ W; then northwest to 43°03.583′ N, 087°52.265′ W; then going southwest to 43°01.856′ N, 087°53.632′ W; then returning back to point of origin. The Coast Guard will notify the public in advance by way of the Ninth Coast Guard District Local Notice to Mariners, the Broadcast Notice to Mariners, and, for those who request it from Sector Lake Michigan, by facsimile (fax). 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. This determination is based upon the size and location of the safety zone within the waterway. Recreational vessels may transit through the safety zone with permission from the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan or his designated on-scene patrol commander. 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 safety zone would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: the safety zone would be enforced for only a few hours per day on each day of the event and vessel traffic can safely pass outside of the proposed safety zone during the event. Before the effective period, we would issue maritime advisories widely available to users of the lake. If you think 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 Sector Lake Michigan (see ADDRESSES ). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this proposed 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 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. 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 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)(g), of the Instruction, from further environmental documentation. 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 to categorically exclude this rule from further environmental review. List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165 Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and record keeping 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. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191, 33 CFR 1.05-1(g), 6.04-1, 6.04-6 and 160.5, Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170. 2. A new temporary § 165.T09-025 is added to read as follows: § 165.T09-025 Safety Zone; TCF Bank Milwaukee Air Expo Milwaukee, Wisconsin. (a) Location. The following area is a Safety Zone: All waters within the following coordinates: starting at 43°01.606′ N, 087°53.041′ W; then northeast to 43°03.335′ N, 087°51.679′ W; then northwest to 43°03.583′ N, 087°52.265′ W; then going southwest to 43°01.856′ N, 087°53.632′ W; then returning back to point of origin. These coordinates are based upon North American Datum 1983. (b) Effective Dates and Times. This safety zone is effective from 1 p.m. (local) on July 14, 2006 through 5 p.m. on July 17, 2006. This safety zone will be enforced between the hours of 1 p.m. (local) to 5 p.m. (local) on July 14 through 17, 2006. The Captain of the Port Lake Michigan or the on scene Patrol Commander may terminate this event at anytime. (c) Regulations. In accordance with the general regulations in section 165.23 of this part, entry into this zone is subject to the following requirements: (1) This safety zone is closed to all marine traffic, except as may be permitted by the Captain of the Port or his duly appointed representative. (2) The “duly appointed representative” of the Captain of the Port is any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant or petty officer who has been designated by the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan, to act on his behalf. The representative of the Captain of the Port will be aboard either a Coast Guard or Coast Guard Auxiliary vessel. (3) Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within the Safety Zone shall contact the Captain of the Port or his representative to obtain permission to do so. Vessel operators given permission to enter or operate in the Safety Zone shall comply with all directions given to them by the Captain of the Port or his representative. (4) The Captain of the Port may be contacted by telephone via the Sector Lake Michigan Operations Center at (414) 747-7182 during working hours. Vessels assisting in the enforcement of the Safety Zone may be contacted on VHF-FM channels 16 or 23A. Vessel operators may determine the restrictions in effect for the safety zone by coming alongside a vessel patrolling the perimeter of the Safety Zone. (5) Coast Guard Sector Lake Michigan will issue a Marine Safety Information Broadcast Notice to Mariners to notify the maritime community of the Safety Zone and restriction imposed. Dated: April 26, 2006. S.P. LaRochelle, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Sector Lake Michigan. [FR Doc. 06-4393 Filed 5-10-06; 8:45 am]