[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 12 (Thursday, January 19, 2006)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 3027-3029]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-584]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[CGD09-06-140]
RIN 1625-AA00


Safety Zone; Vermilion River, Vermilion, OH. VYC Fleet Parade.

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes establishing a temporary safety zone 
for the VYC Fleet Parade on the Vermilion River between the mouth of 
the river and the Conrail Railroad Bridge, to extend the entire width 
of the river. This safety zone is needed to protect persons and vessels 
from the potential safety hazards associated with the Fleet Parade. 
Entry into this zone is prohibited to all vessels unless authorized by 
the Captain of the Port, Buffalo or a designated representative.

DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or 
before February 21, 2006.

ADDRESSES: Comments and material received from the public, as well as 
documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket 
CGD09-06-140 are part of this docket are 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 (LT) 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 parade vessels, narrow navigational area, 
and large number of inexperienced recreational boaters that transit 
this area could easily result in serious injuries or fatalities.

Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The Coast Guard proposes establishing a temporary safety zone for 
the VYC Fleet Parade on the Vermilion River between the mouth of the 
river (41[deg]25'42'' N and 081[deg]21'54'' W) and the Conrail Railroad 
Bridge (Mile 0.19), to extend the entire width of the river on May 29, 
2006 from 2 p.m. (local) through 3 p.m. (local). These coordinates are 
based upon 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.

[[Page 3028]]

    This determination is based on the size and location of the safety 
zone within the water. Commercial vessels will not be hindered by the 
safety zone, as all commercial traffic will be diverted through the 
Lake Approach Channel. Recreational vessels will not be allowed to 
transit through the designated safety zone 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 one hour on the day 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 (Public Law 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 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 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 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 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 rule proposed 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

[[Page 3029]]

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, 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 Sec.  165.T09-140 is added to read as follows:


Sec.  165.T09-140  Safety Zone; 2006 Vermilion River, Mouth of the 
river to Mile 0.79, Vermilion, Ohio. VYC Fleet Parade.

    (a) Location. The Coast Guard proposes establishing a temporary 
safety zone for the VYC Fleet Parade on the Vermilion River between the 
mouth of the river (41[deg]25'42'' N and 081[deg]21'54'' W) and the 
Conrail Railroad Bridge (Mile 0.19), to extend the entire width of the 
river. These coordinates are based upon North American Datum 1983 (NAD 
83).
    (b) Effective Period. This section is effective from 2 p.m. (local) 
through 3 p.m. (local) on May 29, 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: January 9, 2006.
S.J. Ferguson,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Buffalo.
 [FR Doc. E6-584 Filed 1-18-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P