[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 86 (Thursday, May 4, 2006)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 26292-26294]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-6740]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[CGD01-06-032]
RIN 1625-AA00


Safety Zone; City of Lynn, Fourth of July Fireworks Display, 
Nahant Bay, MA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to establish a temporary safety zone 
for the City of Lynn ``Fourth of July Fireworks'' occurring in Nahant 
Bay, Massachusetts. This safety zone is necessary to protect the life 
and property of the maritime public from the potential hazards 
associated with a fireworks display. The safety zone would temporarily 
prohibit entry into or movement within this portion of Nahant Bay 
during the closure period.

DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or 
before June 5, 2006.

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 will become part of this docket and will be 
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) 223-5007.

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 (CGD01-06-
032), 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\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; however, 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 rule proposes to establish a safety zone on the waters of 
Nahant Bay within a 400-yard radius of the fireworks barge located at 
approximate position 42[deg] 27'.686'' N, 070[deg]55'.101'' W. The 
safety zone would be in effect from 8 p.m. until 10:30 p.m. EDT on July 
3, 2006.
    The safety zone would temporarily restrict movement within the 
effected portion of Nahant Bay and is needed to protect the maritime 
public from the dangers posed by a fireworks display. Marine traffic 
may transit safely outside the safety zone during the effective period. 
The Captain of the Port does not anticipate any negative impact on 
vessel traffic due to this event. Public notifications will be made 
prior to the effective period of this proposed rule via safety marine 
information broadcasts and Local Notice to Mariners.

Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The Coast Guard proposes to establish a temporary safety zone in 
Nahant Bay. The safety zone would be in effect from 8 p.m. until 10:30 
p.m. EDT on July 3, 2006. Marine traffic may transit safely outside of 
the zone in the majority of Nahant Bay during the event. This safety 
zone would control vessel traffic during the fireworks display to 
protect the safety of the maritime public.
    Due to the limited time frame of the fireworks display, 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.
    We expect the economic impact of this proposed rule to be so 
minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation is unnecessary.
    Although this proposed rule would prevent traffic from transiting a 
portion of Nahant Bay during the closure period, the effects of this 
rule would not be significant for several reasons: Vessels will be 
excluded from the proscribed area for only two and one half hours, 
vessels will be able to transit around the zone in the unrestricted 
portion or Nahant Bay during the event, and advance notifications will 
be made to the local maritime community by marine information 
broadcasts and Local Notice to Mariners notifying them or the 
parameters and effective period of the zone.

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 may be small entities: the owners or operators of vessels 
intending to transit or anchor in the effected portion of Nahant Bay 
from 8 p.m. EDT on July 3, 2006 to 10:30 p.m. EDT on July 3, 2006.
    This safety zone 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 two and one half hours, 
vessel traffic could pass safely around the safety zone during the 
closure period, and advance notifications via safety marine 
informational broadcasts and Local Notice to Mariners will be made 
before and during the effective period.

[[Page 26293]]

    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.

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 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 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 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.

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 rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, 
and Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 5100.1, which 
guide 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 rule fits 
the category selected from paragraph (34)(g), as it would establish a 
safety zone. 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 this 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; 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. From 8 p.m. EDT until 10:30 p.m. EDT on July 3, 2006, add 
temporary Sec.  165.T06-032 to read as follows:


Sec.  165.T01-032  Safety Zone; City of Lynn Fourth of July Fireworks 
Display, Nahant Bay, Massachusetts

    (a) Location. The following area is a safety zone: All navigable 
waters of Nahant Bay within a 400-yard radius of the fireworks barge 
located at approximate position 42[deg]27'686'' N, 070[deg]55'101'' W.

[[Page 26294]]

    (b) Effective date. This section is effective from 8 p.m. until 
10:30 p.m. EDT on July 3, 2006.
    (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: April 21, 2006.
J.C. O'Connor III,
Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, Alternate Captain of the Port, Boston, 
Massachusetts.
[FR Doc. E6-6740 Filed 5-3-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P