Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for the Independence Day Fireworks on July 3, 2005 on Ipswich Bay in Ipswich, Massachusetts. The safety zone will prohibit entry into or movement within a portion of Ipswich Bay during the closure period. The safety zone is necessary to protect the life and property of the maritime public from the potential hazards posed by a fireworks display.
This rule is effective from 8:30 p.m. e.d.t. on July 3, 2005 to 10:30 p.m. e.d.t. on July 3, 2005.
Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket are part of docket CGD01-05-053 and are available for inspection or copying at Sector Boston, 427 Commercial Street, Boston, MA, between 8 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.Start Further Info
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Chief Petty Officer Paul English, Sector Boston, Waterways Safety and Response Division, at (617) 223-5750.End Further Info End Preamble Start Supplemental Information
We did not publish a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for this regulation. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing an NPRM. An NPRM was not published for this regulation because the logistics for the fireworks presentation were not determined with sufficient time to draft and publish an NPRM. Any delay encountered in this regulation's effective date would be contrary to the public interest since the safety zone is needed to prevent traffic from transiting a portion of Ipswich Bay during the fireworks display and to provide for the safety of life on navigable waters.
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register. Any delay encountered in this regulation's effective date would be contrary to the public interest since the safety zone is needed to prevent traffic from transiting a portion of Ipswich Bay during the fireworks event thus ensuring that the maritime public is protected from any potential harm associated with such an event. Additionally, the zone should have a negligible impact on vessel transits due to the fact that vessels will be limited from the area for only 2 hours, and vessels can still transit in the majority of Ipswich Bay during the event.
Background and Purpose
This temporary rule establishes a safety zone in Ipswich Bay within a four hundred (400)-yard radius of the fireworks launch site located at approximate position 42°41′.5″ N, 070°46′.55″ W. The safety zone will in effect from 8:30 p.m. e.d.t. until 10:30 p.m. e.d.t. on July 3, 2005.
The zone will restrict movement within this portion of Ipswich Bay and is needed to protect the maritime public from the dangers posed by a fireworks display. Marine traffic may transit safely outside of the safety zone during the effective period. The Captain of the Port does not anticipate any negative impact on vessel traffic due to this event. Public notifications will be made prior to the effective period via safety marine information broadcasts and local notice to mariners.
Discussion of Rule
The safety zone is in effect from 8:30 p.m. e.d.t. until 10:30 p.m. e.d.t. July 3, 2005. Marine traffic may transit safely outside of the safety zone in the majority of Ipswich Bay during the event. Because of the limited time-frame of the effective period and because the zone leaves the majority of Ipswich Bay open for navigation, the Captain of the Port anticipates minimal negative impact on vessel traffic due to this event. Public notifications will be made prior to the effective period via Local Notice to Mariners and marine information broadcasts.
This 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).
The Coast Guard expects the economic impact of this rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation of the regulatory policies and procedures of DHS is unnecessary. Although this rule will prevent traffic from transiting a portion of Ipswich Bay during the effective periods, the effects of this rule will not be significant for several reasons: Vessels will be excluded from the area of the safety zone for only 2 hours, vessels will be able to operate in the majority of Ipswich Bay during the effective period, and advance notifications will be made to the local maritime community by marine information broadcasts and Local Notice to Mariners.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered Start Printed Page 38014whether this 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 rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
This rule will affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: the owners or operators of vessels intending to transit or anchor in a portion of Ipswich Bay from 8:30 p.m. e.d.t. to 10:30 p.m. e.d.t. on July 3, 2005.
This safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: this rule will be in effect for only 2 hours, vessel traffic can safely pass around the safety zone, and advance notifications will be made to the local maritime community by marine information broadcasts and Local Notice to Mariners.
Assistance for Small Entities
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we offered to assist small entities in understanding the rule so that they could better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process. Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247).
Collection of Information
This rule calls for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
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 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 rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
Taking of Private Property
This rule will 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 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 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 create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may disproportionately affect children.
Indian Tribal Governments
This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does 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 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.
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 rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.
We have analyzed this 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 concluded 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, this rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g) of the Instruction, from further environmental documentation. This rule fits the category selected from paragraph (34)(g), as it would establish a safety zone.
A final “Environmental Analysis Check List” and a final “Categorical Exclusion Determination” will be available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES.Start List of Subjects
List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165
- Marine safety
- Navigation (water)
- Reporting and recordkeeping requirements
- Security measures
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:Start Part
PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREASEnd Part Start Amendment Part
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:End Amendment Part Start Amendment Part
2. Add temporary § 165.T05-053 to read as follows:End Amendment Part
(a) Location. The following area is a safety zone: All waters of Ipswich Bay in a four hundred (400)-yard radius of the fireworks launch site located at approximate position 42°41′.5″ N, 070°46′.55″ W.
(b) Effective Date. This section is effective from 8:30 p.m. e.d.t. until 10:30 p.m. e.d.t. on July 3, 2005.
(c) Regulations. (1) In accordance with the general regulations in section 165.23 of this part, entry into or movement within this zone will be prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Boston.
(2) All vessel operators shall comply with the instructions of the COTP or the designated on-scene U.S. Coast Guard patrol personnel. On-scene Coast Guard patrol personnel include commissioned, warrant, and petty officers of the Coast Guard on board Coast Guard, Coast Guard Auxiliary, local, state, and federal law enforcement vessels.
Dated: June 16, 2005.
James L. McDonald,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Boston, Massachusetts.
[FR Doc. 05-13065 Filed 6-30-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P