Safety Zone; Vermilion River, Vermilion, OH. VYC Fleet Parade., 3027-3029 [E6-584]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 12 / Thursday, January 19, 2006 / Proposed Rules
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.
Dated: December 7, 2005.
David P. Pekoske,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander,
First Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. E6–583 Filed 1–18–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–15–P
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)(f), of the Instruction, from further
environmental documentation. This rule
fits the category selected from paragraph
(34)(f) as it would establish a special
anchorage area.
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 110
Anchorage grounds.
For the reasons discussed in the
preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to
amend 33 CFR part 110 as follows:
PART 110—ANCHORAGE
REGULATIONS
1. The authority citation for part 110
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 471; 1221 through
1236, 2030, 2035 and 2071; 33 CFR 1.05–1(g);
and Department of Homeland Security
Delegation No. 0170.1.
2. In § 110.60 add new paragraph (p–
3) to read as follows:
§ 110.60
Port of New York and vicinity.
hsrobinson on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
*
*
*
*
*
(p) * * *
(p–3) Hudson River, at Village of
Haverstraw. That portion of the Hudson
River bound by the following points:
41°11′25.2″ N, 073°57′19.9″ W; thence to
41°11′34.2″ N, 073°57′00.8″ W; thence to
41°11′41.9″ N, 073°57′07.5″ W; thence to
41°11′31.8″ N, 073°57′26.5″ W; thence to
41°11′30.8″ N, 073°57′24.9″ W; thence to
the point of origin (NAD 1983).
*
*
*
*
*
VerDate Aug<31>2005
13:29 Jan 18, 2006
Jkt 208001
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.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
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 81⁄2 by
11 inches, suitable for copying. If you
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
3027
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°25′42″ N and 081°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.
E:\FR\FM\19JAP1.SGM
19JAP1
3028
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 12 / Thursday, January 19, 2006 / Proposed Rules
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.
hsrobinson on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
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
VerDate Aug<31>2005
13:29 Jan 18, 2006
Jkt 208001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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
E:\FR\FM\19JAP1.SGM
19JAP1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 12 / Thursday, January 19, 2006 / Proposed Rules
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 § 165.T09–140 is
added to read as follows:
hsrobinson on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
§ 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°25′42″ N and 081°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
VerDate Aug<31>2005
13:29 Jan 18, 2006
Jkt 208001
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R06–OAR–2005–TX–0014; FRL–8022–
3]
Approval and Promulgation of Air
Quality Implementation Plans; Texas;
Revisions to Control Volatile Organic
Compound (VOC) Emissions; VOC
Control for Facilities in the Dallas/Fort
Worth (DFW) Ozone Nonattainment
Area
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve
Texas State Implementation Plan (SIP)
revisions. The revisions pertain to
regulations to control VOC emissions
from VOC transfer operations and
solvent using processes. The revisions
allow use of gasoline vapor recovery
systems approved by Texas, and add
new requirements to control VOC
emissions from motor vehicle fuel
dispensing facilities and surface coating
facilities in Ellis, Johnson, Kaufman,
Parker, and Rockwall Counties. These
counties are part of the DFW 8-hour
ozone standard nonattainment area. The
revisions also amend regulations on use
of cleaning solvents. We are proposing
to approve the revisions pursuant to
sections 110, 116 and part D of the
Federal Clean Air Act (CAA). The
control of VOC emissions will help to
attain and maintain the 8-hour national
ambient air quality standard (NAAQS)
for ozone in Texas. Approval will make
the revised regulations Federally
enforceable.
Written comments should be
received on or before February 21, 2006.
ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to
Mr. Thomas Diggs, Chief, Air Planning
Section (6PD–L), Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 6, 1445 Ross
Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas
75202–2733. Comments may also be
submitted electronically or through
hand delivery/courier by following the
detailed instructions in the ADDRESSES
section of the direct final rule located in
the rules section of this Federal
Register.
DATES:
Carl
Young, Air Planning Section (6PD–L),
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700,
Dallas, Texas 75202–2733, telephone
214–665–6645; fax number 214–665–
7263; e-mail address
young.carl@epa.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
3029
In the
final rules section of this Federal
Register, EPA is approving the State’s
SIP submittal as a direct final rule
without prior proposal because the
Agency views this as a noncontroversial
submittal and anticipates no relevant
adverse comments. A detailed rationale
for the approval is set forth in the direct
final rule. If no relevant adverse
comments are received in response to
this action, no further activity is
contemplated. If EPA receives relevant
adverse comments, the direct final rule
will be withdrawn and all public
comments received will be addressed in
a subsequent final rule based on this
proposed rule. EPA will not institute a
second comment period. Any parties
interested in commenting on this action
should do so at this time. Please note
that if EPA receives adverse comment
on an amendment, paragraph, or section
of the rule, and if that provision may be
severed from the remainder of the rule,
EPA may adopt as final those provisions
of the rule that are not the subject of an
adverse comment.
For additional information, see the
direct final rule which is located in the
rules section of this Federal Register.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Dated: January 6, 2006.
Lawrence E. Starfield,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 6.
[FR Doc. 06–434 Filed 1–18–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 20
[WT Docket No. 05–265; DA 05–3183]
Reexamination of Roaming Obligations
of Commercial Mobile Radio Service
Providers
Federal Communications
Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule; extension of
reply comment period.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: In this document, the
Wireless Telecommunications Bureau
extends the period for reply comment
on the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(NPRM) in this proceeding. The
deadline to file reply comments is
extended from December 27, 2005 to
January 26, 2006. The action is taken to
respond to a joint request filed on behalf
of a number of carriers and trade
associations, representing a crosssection of the wireless industry, to
extend the reply comment deadline by
30 days.
E:\FR\FM\19JAP1.SGM
19JAP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 12 (Thursday, January 19, 2006)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 3027-3029]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing 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