![[logo] US EPA](http://www.epa.gov/epafiles/images/logo_epaseal.gif){kind=logo}
Safety and Security Zones; Tall Ships Celebration 2006, Great Lakes, Cleveland, OH, Bay City, MI, Green Bay, WI, Sturgeon Bay, WI, Chicago, IL
Note: EPA no longer updates this information, but it may be useful as a reference or resource.
[Federal Register: June 2, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 106)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 31999-32002]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr02jn06-21]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 165
[CGD09-06-032]
RIN 1625-AA00
Safety and Security Zones; Tall Ships Celebration 2006, Great Lakes,
Cleveland, OH, Bay City, MI, Green Bay, WI, Sturgeon Bay, WI, Chicago, IL
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 32000]]
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to establish safety and security
zones around Tall Ships visiting the Great Lakes during Tall Ships
Celebration 2006. These safety and security zones will provide for the
regulation of vessel traffic in the vicinity of Tall Ships in the
navigable waters of the United States. The Coast Guard is taking this
action to safeguard participants and spectators from the safety hazards
associated with the limited maneuverability of these tall ships and to
ensure public safety during Tall Ships events.
DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or
before June 22, 2006.
ADDRESSES: You may mail comments and related material to Ninth Coast
Guard District (dpw-1), 1240 E. 9th Street, Room 2069, Cleveland, OH
44199. The Ninth Coast Guard District Waterways Planning and
Development Section (dpw-1) 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 between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: CDR K. Phillips, Waterways Planning
and Development Section, Prevention Department Ninth Coast Guard
District, Cleveland, OH at (216) 902-6045.
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-
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 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 Ninth Coast Guard District
Waterways Planning and Development Section 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.
Background and Purpose
During the Tall Ships Celebration 2006, Tall Ships will be
participating in parades and then mooring in the harbors of Cleveland,
OH, Bay City, MI, Green Bay, WI, Sturgeon Bay, WI, and Chicago, IL.
Safety and security zones will be established around Tall Ships
participating in these events on 12:01 a.m. (local time) July 10, 2006
and terminate on 12:01 a.m. (local time) August 23, 2006.
These safety and security zones are necessary to protect the public
from the hazards associated with limited maneuverability of tall
sailing ships and to protect the Tall Ships from potential harm. Due to
the high profile nature and extensive publicity associated with this
event, each Captain of the Port (COTP) expects a large number of
spectators in confined areas adjacent to and on Lake Erie, Saginaw Bay,
Lake Huron, Green Bay and Lake Michigan. Therefore, the Coast Guard is
proposing to implement a safety and security zone around each ship to
ensure the safety of both participants and spectators in these areas.
The combination of large numbers of recreational boaters, congested
waterways, boaters crossing commercially transited waterways and low
maneuverability of the Tall Ships could easily result in serious
injuries or fatalities.
Discussion of Proposed Rule
Upon the navigable waters of the United States, no vessel or person
is allowed within 100 yards of a Tall Ship that is underway or at
anchor, unless authorized by the cognizant Captain of the Port or on-
scene official patrol. When within a Tall Ship safety and security zone
vessels must operate at the minimum speed necessary to maintain a safe
course and must proceed as directed by the on-scene official patrol.
Even if operating within a Tall Ship safety and security zone pursuant
to permission from the on-scene official patrol, no vessel or person is
allowed within 25 yards of a Tall Ship. In addition, upon the navigable
waters of the United States, no vessel or person is allowed within 25
yards of any Tall Ship that is moored.
When conditions permit, vessels constrained by their navigational
draft or restricted in their ability to maneuver may be allowed by the
on-scene official patrol to pass within 100 yards of a tall ship in
order to ensure a safe passage in accordance with the Navigational Rules.
When conditions permit, vessels that must transit via a navigable
channel or waterway may be allowed by the on-scene patrol to pass
within 100 yards of an anchored Tall Ship or within 25 yards of a
moored Tall Ship with minimal delay consistent with security.
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 and security zones and the minimal time and limited area from
which vessels will be restricted. Vessels may transit through the
safety zone with permission from the official on-scene patrol.
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 might be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending
to transit or anchor in a portion of the safety and security zones.
These safety and security zones will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the
following reasons: The zones are relatively small and vessels may
transit through the safety zone with permission from the official on-
scene patrol.
[[Page 32001]]
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 CDR K. Phillips,
Waterways Planning and Development Section, Ninth Coast Guard District,
Cleveland, OH at (216) 902-6045. 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 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
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.
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, 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. A new temporary Sec. 165.T09-032 is added read as follows:
Sec. 165.T09-032 Safety and Security Zone; Huntington Cleveland
Harbor Fest, Tall Ship Festival, Green Bay, Wisconsin, Sturgeon Bay,
Wisconsin, Tall Ships Chicago 2006, Tall Ship Celebration, Saginaw
River, Bay City, MI.
(a) Definitions. The following definitions apply to this section:
[[Page 32002]]
Navigation Rules means the Navigation Rules, International and
Inland (See, 1972 COLREGS and 33 U.S.C. 2001 et seq.).
Official Patrol means those persons designated by Captain of the
Port Buffalo, Detroit, Sault Ste. Marie and Lake Michigan to monitor a
Tall Ship safety and security zone, permit entry into the zone, give
legally enforceable orders to persons or vessels within the zone and
take other actions authorized by the cognizant Captain of the Port.
Persons authorized in paragraph (i) to enforce this section are
designated as the Official Patrol.
Public Vessel means vessels owned, chartered, or operated by the
United States, or by a State or political subdivision thereof.
Tall Ship means any sailing vessel participating in the 2006 Tall
Ships Challenge in the Great Lakes. The following vessels are
participating in the 2006 Tall Ships Challenge: Sailing Vessel (S/V)
Appledore IV, S/V Denis Sullivan, S/V Appledore V, S/V Friends Good
Will, S/V Highlander Sea, S/V Niagara, S/V Madeline, S/V Nina, S/V
Picton Castle, S/V Pathfinder, S/V Playfiar, S/V Providence, S/V Pride
of Baltimore, S/V St. Lawrence II, S/V Red Witch, S/V Royaliste, S/V
Windy, S/V Unicorn, and S/V Windy II.
(b) Safety and Security zone. The following areas are safety and
security zones: all navigable waters of United States located in the
Ninth Coast Guard District within a 100 yard radius of any Tall Ship
sailing vessel.
(c) Effective Period. This section is effective from 12:01 a.m.
(local) on Wednesday July 11th, 2006 through 12:01 a.m. (local) on
August, 10th 2006.
(d) Regulations. When within a Tall Ship safety and security zone
all vessels must operate at the minimum speed necessary to maintain a
safe course and must proceed as directed by the on-scene official
patrol. No vessel or person is allowed within 25 yards of a Tall Ship
that is underway, at anchor, or moored, unless authorized by the
cognizant Captain of the Port, his designated representative, or on-
scene official patrol.
(e) Navigation Rules. The Navigation Rules shall apply at all times
within a Tall Ships security and safety zone.
(f) To request authorization to operate within 25 yards of a large
passenger vessel that is underway or at anchor, contact the on-scene
official patrol on VHF-FM channel 16.
(g) When conditions permit, the on-scene official patrol should:
(1) Permit vessels constrained by their navigational draft or
restricted in their ability to maneuver to pass within 25 yards of a
Tall Ship in order to ensure a safe passage in accordance with the
Navigation Rules; and
(2) Permit vessels that must transit via a navigable channel or
waterway to pass within 25 yards of a Tall Ship that is anchored or
moored with minimal delay consistent with safety and security.
(h) When a Tall Ship approaches within 25 yards of any vessel that
is moored or anchored, the stationary vessel must stay moored or
anchored while it remains within the Tall Ship's safety and security
zone unless it is either ordered by, or given permission by Captain of
the Port Buffalo, Detroit, Sault Ste. Marie or Lake Michigan, his
designated representative, or the on-scene official patrol to do otherwise.
(i) Enforcement. Any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant or petty
officer may enforce the rules in this section.
(j) Exemption. Public vessels as defined in paragraph (a) of this
section are exempt from complying with paragraphs (b), (d), (f), (g),
and (h) of this section.
(k) Waiver. Captain of the Port Buffalo, Detroit, Sault Ste. Marie
and Lake Michigan, may, within their respective Captain of the Port
zones, waive any of the requirements of this section for any vessel or
class of vessels upon finding that a vessel or class of vessels,
operational conditions or other circumstances are such that application
of this section is unnecessary or impractical for the purpose of port
security, safety or environmental safety.
Dated: May 23, 2006.
T.W. Sparks,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting Commander, Ninth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. E6-8610 Filed 6-1-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P