Safety and Security Zones; Tall Ships Celebration 2006, Great Lakes, Cleveland, OH, Bay City, MI, Green Bay, WI, Sturgeon Bay, WI, Chicago, IL, 31999-32002 [E6-8610]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 106 / Friday, June 2, 2006 / Proposed Rules
will post notices of meetings at the
locations listed under ADDRESSES. We
will make a written summary of each
meeting a part of the Administrative
Record.
IV. Procedural Determinations
Executive Order 12630—Takings
This rule does not have takings
implications. This determination is
based on the analysis performed for the
counterpart Federal regulation.
Executive Order 12866—Regulatory
Planning and Review
This rule is exempt from review by
the Office of Management and Budget
under Executive Order 12866.
Executive Order 12988—Civil Justice
Reform
The Department of the Interior has
conducted the reviews required by
section 3 of Executive Order 12988 and
has determined that this rule meets the
applicable standards of subsections (a)
and (b) of that section. However, these
standards are not applicable to the
actual language of State regulatory
programs and program amendments
because each program is drafted and
promulgated by a specific State, not by
OSM. Under sections 503 and 505 of
SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1253 and 1255) and
the Federal regulations at 30 CFR
730.11, 732.15, and 732.17(h)(10),
decisions on proposed State regulatory
programs and program amendments
submitted by the States must be based
solely on a determination of whether the
submittal is consistent with SMCRA and
its implementing Federal regulations
and whether the other requirements of
30 CFR parts 730, 731, and 732 have
been met.
cchase on PROD1PC60 with PROPOSALS
Executive Order 13132—Federalism
This rule does not have Federalism
implications. SMCRA delineates the
roles of the Federal and State
governments with regard to the
regulation of surface coal mining and
reclamation operations. One of the
purposes of SMCRA is to ‘‘establish a
nationwide program to protect society
and the environment from the adverse
effects of surface coal mining
operations.’’ Section 503(a)(1) of
SMCRA requires that State laws
regulating surface coal mining and
reclamation operations be ‘‘in
accordance with’’ the requirements of
SMCRA, and section 503(a)(7) requires
that State programs contain rules and
regulations ‘‘consistent with’’
regulations issued by the Secretary
pursuant to SMCRA.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:22 Jun 01, 2006
Jkt 208001
Executive Order 13175—Consultation
and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
In accordance with Executive Order
13175, we have evaluated the potential
effects of this rule on Federallyrecognized Indian tribes and have
determined that the rule does not have
substantial direct effects 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.
The basis for this determination is that
our decision is on a State regulatory
program and does not involve a Federal
regulation involving Indian lands.
Executive Order 13211—Regulations
That Significantly Affect The Supply,
Distribution, Or Use Of Energy
On May 18, 2001, the President issued
Executive Order 13211 which requires
agencies to prepare a Statement of
Energy Effects for a rule that is (1)
considered significant under Executive
Order 12866, and (2) likely to have a
significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy. Because
this rule is exempt from review under
Executive Order 12866 and is not
expected to have a significant adverse
effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy, a Statement of Energy Effects
is not required.
National Environmental Policy Act
This rule does not require an
environmental impact statement
because section 702(d) of SMCRA (30
U.S.C. 1292(d)) provides that agency
decisions on proposed State regulatory
program provisions do not constitute
major Federal actions within the
meaning of section 102(2)(C) of the
National Environmental Policy Act (42
U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)).
Paperwork Reduction Act
This rule does not contain
information collection requirements that
require approval by OMB under the
Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.
3507 et seq.).
Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Department of the Interior
certifies that this rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.). The State submittal,
which is the subject of this rule, is based
upon counterpart Federal regulations for
which an economic analysis was
prepared and certification made that
such regulations would not have a
significant economic effect upon a
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
31999
substantial number of small entities. In
making the determination as to whether
this rule would have a significant
economic impact, the Department relied
upon the data and assumptions for the
counterpart Federal regulations.
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act
This rule is not a major rule under 5
U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act.
This rule: (a) Does not have an annual
effect on the economy of $100 million;
(b) Will not cause a major increase in
costs or prices for consumers,
individual industries, Federal, State, or
local government agencies, or
geographic regions; and (c) Does not
have significant adverse effects on
competition, employment, investment,
productivity, innovation, or the ability
of U.S.-based enterprises to compete
with foreign-based enterprises. This
determination is based upon the
analysis performed under various laws
and executive orders for the counterpart
Federal regulations.
Unfunded Mandates
This rule will not impose an
unfunded mandate on State, local, or
tribal governments or the private sector
of $100 million or more in any given
year. This determination is based upon
the analysis performed under various
laws and executive orders for the
counterpart Federal regulations.
List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 948
Intergovernmental relations, Surface
mining, Underground mining.
Dated: May 11, 2006.
H. Vann Weaver,
Acting Regional Director, Appalachian
Region.
[FR Doc. E6–8620 Filed 6–1–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–05–P
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
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
E:\FR\FM\02JNP1.SGM
02JNP1
32000
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 106 / Friday, June 2, 2006 / Proposed Rules
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:
cchase on PROD1PC60 with PROPOSALS
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 81⁄2 by 11 inches,
suitable for copying. If you would like
to know that your submission reached
us, please enclose a stamped, selfaddressed 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
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:22 Jun 01, 2006
Jkt 208001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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 onscene 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.
E:\FR\FM\02JNP1.SGM
02JNP1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 106 / Friday, June 2, 2006 / Proposed Rules
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).
cchase on PROD1PC60 with PROPOSALS
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
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:22 Jun 01, 2006
Jkt 208001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
32001
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 § 165.T09–032 is
added read as follows:
§ 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:
E:\FR\FM\02JNP1.SGM
02JNP1
cchase on PROD1PC60 with PROPOSALS
32002
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 106 / Friday, June 2, 2006 / Proposed Rules
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 onscene 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 onscene official patrol should:
(1) Permit vessels constrained by their
navigational draft or restricted in their
ability to maneuver to pass within 25
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:22 Jun 01, 2006
Jkt 208001
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 onscene 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
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 165
[COTP Prince William Sound 02–012]
RIN 1625–AA87
Security Zones; Port Valdez and
Valdez Narrows, Valdez, AK
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to
revise its regulation entitled Port Valdez
and Valdez Narrows, Valdez, Alaska—
security zones. This change would
include more accurate position
information for the boundaries of tank
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
vessels navigating on the Valdez
Narrows Optimum Track Line, and
establish when the Valdez Narrows
Tanker Optimum Track line is activated
and subject to enforcement.
DATES: Comments and related material
must reach the Coast Guard on or before
July 3, 2006.
ADDRESSES: 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 Marine Safety Office Valdez,
105 Clifton, Valdez, AK 99686 between
7:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: LT
Duane Lemmon, Chief, Maritime
Homeland Security Department, U.S.
Coast Guard Marine Safety Office
Valdez, Alaska, (907) 835–7262.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Regulatory History
The Coast Guard is taking this action
to revise 33 CFR 165.1710(a)(3)(71 FR
2154, January 13, 2006) entitled Port
Valdez and Valdez Narrows, Valdez,
Alaska—security zones. This revision
would include more accurate position
information for the boundaries of tank
vessels navigating on the Valdez
Narrows Optimum Track Line, and
establish when the Valdez Narrows
Tanker Optimum Track line is activated
and subject to enforcement.
On November 7, 2001, we published
three temporary final rules in the
Federal Register (66 FR 56208, 56210,
56212) that created security zones
effective through June 1, 2002. The
section numbers and titles for these
zones are—
§ 165.T17–003—Security zone; TransAlaska Pipeline Valdez Terminal
Complex, Valdez, Alaska,
§ 165.T17–004—Security zone; Port
Valdez, and
§ 165.T17–005—Security zones; Captain
of the Port Zone, Prince William
Sound, Alaska.
Then on June 4, 2002, we published
a temporary final rule (67 FR 38389)
that established security zones to
replace these security zones. That rule
created temporary § 165.T17–009,
entitled ‘‘Port Valdez and Valdez
Narrows, Valdez, Alaska—security
zone’’.
Then on July 31, 2002, we published
a temporary final rule (67 FR 49582)
that established security zones to extend
the temporary security zones that would
have expired. This extension was to
allow for the completion of a noticeand-comment rulemaking to create
permanent security zones to replace the
temporary zones.
E:\FR\FM\02JNP1.SGM
02JNP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 106 (Friday, June 2, 2006)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 31999-32002]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-8610]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
