![[logo] US EPA](http://www.epa.gov/epafiles/images/logo_epaseal.gif){kind=logo}
Safety Zone; Vermilion River, Vermilion, OH. VYC Fleet Parade.
Note: EPA no longer updates this information, but it may be useful as a reference or resource.
[Federal Register: January 19, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 12)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 3027-3029]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr19ja06-20]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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