[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 102 (Friday, May 27, 2005)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 30656-30658]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-10595]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[CGD01-05-044]
RIN 1625-AA00


Safety Zone; Yankee Homecoming Fireworks, Newburyport, MA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes establishing a temporary safety zone 
for the Yankee Homecoming Fireworks in Newburyport, Massachusetts. The 
safety zone is necessary to protect the life and property of the 
maritime public from the potential hazards posed by a fireworks 
display. The safety zone would temporarily prohibit entry into or 
movement within this portion of the Merrimack River during its 
effective period.

DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or 
before June 27, 2005.

[[Page 30657]]


ADDRESSES: You may mail comments and related material to Sector Boston 
427 Commercial Street, Boston, MA. Sector Boston maintains the public 
docket for this rulemaking. Comments and material received from the 
public, as well as documents indicated in this preamble as being 
available in the docket are part of docket CGD01-05-044 and are 
available for inspection or copying at Sector Boston, 427 Commercial 
Street, Boston, MA between the hours of 8 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday 
through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Chief Petty Officer Paul English, 
Sector Boston, Waterways Management Division, at (617) 223-3010.

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 the rulemaking (CGD01-05-
044), 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 materials in an unbound format, no larger than 
8.5 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 may change this proposed rule in view of them.

Public Meeting

    We do not plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a 
request for a meeting by writing to Sector Boston 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 proposed rule would establish a safety zone on the waters of 
the Merrimack River Bay within a two hundred yard radius of Cashman 
Park located at approximate position 42[deg]48.58'' N, 070[deg]52.41'' 
W. The safety zone would be in effect from 8:30 p.m. until 10:30 p.m. 
on August 6, 2005.
    This safety zone is necessary to protect the life and property of 
the maritime public from the dangers posed by this fireworks display. 
It would protect the public by temporarily prohibiting entry into or 
movement within this portion of the Merrimack River.

Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The Coast Guard proposes establishing a temporary safety zone in a 
portion of the Merrimack River. The temporary safety zone would be in 
effect from 8:30 p.m. until 10:30 p.m. EDT on August 6, 2005. Marine 
traffic may transit safely outside of the safety zone during the event 
thereby allowing navigation of the Merrimack River except for the 
portion delineated by this rule. This safety zone will control vessel 
traffic during the fireworks event to protect the safety of the 
maritime public.
    Given the limited time frame of the firework display and because 
the zone leaves the majority of the Merrimack River open for 
navigation, the Captain of the Port anticipates minimal negative impact 
on vessel traffic due to this event. Public notifications will be made 
prior to the effective period via local media, local notice to mariners 
and marine information broadcasts.

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).
    The Coast Guard expects the economic impact of this proposed rule 
to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation under paragraph 10e 
of the regulatory policies and procedures of DHS is unnecessary.
    Although this regulation prevents vessel traffic from transiting 
into a portion of the Merrimack River during this event, the effect of 
this regulation will not be significant for several reasons: Vessels 
will be excluded from the area of the safety zone for only two hours; 
vessels will be able to operate in the majority of the Merrimack River 
during this time period; and advance notifications will be made to the 
local maritime community by marine information broadcasts and Local 
Notice to Mariners.

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), the Coast 
Guard 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 rule will 
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities. This proposed rule would affect the following entities, some 
of which may be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels 
intending to transit or anchor in the effected portion of the Merrimack 
River from 8:30 p.m. until 10:30 p.m. EDT August 6, 2005.
    This safety zone would not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: Vessel 
traffic can safely pass outside of the safety zone during the effective 
period, the period is limited in duration, and advance notification via 
safety marine informational broadcast and local notice to mariners.
    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 effect it.

Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 
Fairness Act of 1996 (Public Law 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 effect your small business, organization, or governmental 
jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or 
options for compliance, please contact Chief Petty Officer Paul English 
at 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 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

[[Page 30658]]

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 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 does not 
pose 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 does not have a substantial direct effect on 
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal 
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and 
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

Energy Effects

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13211, 
Actions Considering 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 Coast Guard 
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 2.B.2 of the 
Instruction. Therefore, we believe that this rule is 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. This rule fits the category selected from paragraph (34)(g), 
as it would establish a safety zone. 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 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 Sec.  165.T01-044 to read as follows:


Sec.  165.T01-044  Safety Zone; Yankee Homecoming Fireworks, 
Newburyport, Massachusetts.

    (a) Location. The following area is a safety zone: All waters of 
the Merrimack River within a 200 yard radius of Cashman Park, at 
approximate position 42[deg]48.58'' N, 070[deg]52.41'' W.
    (b) Effective date. This section is effective from 8:30 p.m. until 
10:30 p.m. EDT on August 6, 2005.
    (c) Regulations. (1) In accordance with the general regulations in 
section 165.23 of this part, entry into or movement within this zone is 
prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Boston.
    (2) All vessel operators shall comply with the instructions of the 
COTP or the designated on-scene U.S. Coast Guard patrol personnel. On-
scene Coast Guard patrol personnel include commissioned, warrant, and 
petty officers of the Coast Guard on board Coast Guard, Coast Guard 
Auxiliary, local, state, and federal law enforcement vessels.

    Dated: May 16, 2005.
James L. McDonald,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Boston, Massachusetts.
[FR Doc. 05-10595 Filed 5-26-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P