33928 Federal Register / Vol. 6, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2001 / Proposed Rules

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44

U.S.C. 3501–3520).

Federalism

We have analyzed this proposed rule

under Executive Order 13132,

Federalism, and have determined that

this rule does not have implications for

federalism under that Order.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) governs

the issuance of Federal regulations that

require unfunded mandates. An

unfunded mandate is a regulation that

requires a State, local, or tribal

government or the private sector to

incur direct costs without the Federal

Government’s having first provided the

funds to pay those costs. This proposed

rule would not impose an unfunded

mandate.

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.

Environment

We have considered the

environmental impact of this proposed

rule and concluded that, under figure 2–

1, paragraph 34(g) of Commandant

Instruction M16475.lC, this rule is

categorically excluded from further

environmental documentation. A

‘‘Categorical Exclusion Determination’’

is available in the docket where

indicated under ADDRESSES.

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.

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. It has not been designated by the

Administrator of the Office of

Information and Regulatory Affairs as a

significant energy action. Therefore, it

does not require a Statement of Energy

Effects under Executive Order 13211.

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. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191,

33 CFR 1.05–1(g), 6.04–1, 6.04–6 and 160.5;

49 CFR 1.46.

2. A new temporary section 165.T09–

926 is added to read as follows:

§ 165.T09–926 Safety Zone, Waters off

Sister Bay Marina, Sister Bay, Wisconsin

(a) Location. The following area is a

Safety Zone:

(1) The safety zone will encompass all

waters bounded by the arc of a circle

with a 420-foot radius with its center in

approximate position 45° 10.60′ N, 087°

06.60′ W, located off Sister Bay marina.

(b) Effective Dates and Times. This

safety zone is effective on September

1st, 2001 from 8:30 p.m. to 10:00 p.m.

(CST).

(c) Regulations. In accordance with

the general regulations in Section

165.23 of this part, entry into this zone

is subject to the following requirements:

(1) This safety zone is closed to all

marine traffic, except as may be

permitted by the Captain of the Port or

his duly appointed representative.

(2) The ‘‘duly appointed

representative’’ of the Captain of the

Port is any Coast Guard commissioned,

warrant or petty officer who has been

designated by the Captain of the Port,

Milwaukee, Wisconsin to act on his

behalf. The representative of the Captain

of the Port will be aboard either a Coast

Guard or Coast Guard Auxiliary vessel.

(3) Vessel operators desiring to enter

or operate within the Safety Zone shall

contact the Captain of the Port or his

representative to obtain permission to

do so. Vessel operators given permission

to enter or operate in the Safety Zone

shall comply with all directions given to

them by the Captain of the Port or his

representative.

(4) The Captain of the Port may be

contacted by telephone via the

Command Duty Officer at (414) 747–

7155 during working hours. Vessels

assisting in the enforcement of the

Safety Zone may be contacted on VHF–

FM channels 16 or 21A. Vessel

operators may determine the restrictions

in effect for the safety zone by coming

alongside a vessel patrolling the

perimeter of the Safety Zone.

(5) Coast Guard Group Milwaukee

will issue a Marine Safety Information

Broadcast Notice to Mariners to notify

the maritime community of the Safety

Zone and restriction imposed.

Dated: June 15, 2001.

M.R. DeVries,

Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of

the Port Milwaukee.

[FR Doc. 01–15999 Filed 6–25–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–15–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[CGD09–01–037]

RIN 2115–AA97

Safety Zone; Kalamazoo Lake,

Saugatuck, Michigan

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to

establish a safety zone for a fireworks

display on Kalamazoo Lake, Saugatuck,

Michigan. This action is necessary to

provide for the safety of life and

property on navigable waters during this

event. This action is intended to restrict

vessel traffic in a portion of Kalamazoo

Lake.

DATES: Comments and related material

must reach the Coast Guard on or before

July 11, 2001.

Federal Register / Vol. 6, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2001 / Proposed Rules 33929

ADDRESSES: You may mail comments

and related material to: Commanding

Officer, U.S. Coast Guard Marine Safety

Office Chicago, 215 W. 83rd Street,

Suite D, Burr Ridge, Illinois 60521.

Marine Safety Office Chicago 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 at MSO Chicago

between 7:30 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday

through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

MST2 Mike Hogan, U.S. Coast Guard

Marine Safety Office Chicago, 215 W.

83rd Street, Suite D, Chicago, Illinois

60521, (630) 986–2175.

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 [CGD09–01–037],

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 they 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 MSO

Chicago 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 later notice in the Federal Register.

Background and Purpose

The Coast Guard proposes to establish

a temporary safety zone that will be

activated for a fireworks display. The

proposed safety zone will include the

waters of Kalamazoo Lake bounded by

the arc of a circle with a 1000-foot

radius with its center in approximate

position 42° 38′52.5′′ N, 086° 12′18.15′′

W (NAD 1983).

Based on recent accidents that have

occurred in other Captain of the Port

zones and the explosive hazard

associated with this event, the Captain

of the Port has determined that

fireworks launches in close proximity to

watercraft pose a significant risk to

public safety and property. The likely

combination of large numbers of

inexperienced recreational boaters,

congested waterways, darkness

punctuated by bright flashes of light,

and debris falling into the water could

easily result in serious injuries or

fatalities. Establishing a safety zone to

control vessel movement within a 1000-

foot radius of the fireworks launch

platform will help ensure the safety of

persons and property at these events

and help minimize the associated risk.

Establishing temporary safety zones

by notice and comment rulemaking

gives the public the opportunity to

comment on the proposed zones,

provides better notice than

promulgating temporary rules annually,

and decreases the amount of annual

paperwork required for these events.

The Coast Guard has not previously

received notice of any impact caused by

these events.

Discussion of Proposed Rule

The proposed size of this safety zone

was determined using National Fire

Protection Association and local area

fire department standards, combined

with the Coast Guard’s knowledge of

waterway conditions in these areas.

The proposed safety zone would be in

effect from 8 p.m. (local) to 11:30 p.m.

(local), July 28, 2001. Vessels may only

enter, remain in, or transit through this

safety zone during this time frame if

authorized by the Captain of the Port

Chicago, or designated on scene Coast

Guard patrol personnel, as provided for

in 33 CFR 165.23.

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 Transportation (DOT) (44

FR 11040, February 26, 1979).

We expect the economic impact of

this proposed rule to be so minimal that

a full Regulatory Evaluation under

paragraph 10e of the regulatory policies

and procedures of DOT is unnecessary.

This determination is based on the

minimal time that vessels will be

restricted from the zones, and all of the

zones are in areas where the Coast

Guard expects insignificant adverse

impact to mariners from the zones’

activation.

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 commercial vessels

intending to transit a portion of an

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 a few hours on

the day of the event. Vessel traffic can

safely pass outside the proposed safety

zone during the events. In cases where

traffic congestion is greater than

expected, traffic may be allowed to pass

through the safety zone under Coast

Guard escort with the permission of the

Captain of the Port Chicago. Before the

effective period, we will issue maritime

advisories widely available to users of

the Port of Chicago by the Ninth Coast

Guard District Local Notice to Mariners,

Marine information broadcasts, and

facsimile broadcasts may also be made.

Additionally, the Coast Guard has not

received any negative reports from small

entities affected during these displays in

previous years.

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 want 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,

33930 Federal Register / Vol. 6, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2001 / Proposed Rules

organization, or governmental

jurisdiction and you have questions

concerning its provisions or options for

compliance, please contact Marine

Safety Office Chicago (see ADDRESSES.)

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

We have analyzed this proposed rule

under Executive Order 13132,

Federalism, and have determined that

this rule does not have implications for

federalism under that Order.

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.

Environment

We have considered the

environmental impact of this proposed

rule and concluded that, under figure 2–

1, paragraph 34 (g), of Commandant

Instruction M16475.lC, this rule is

categorically excluded from further

environmental documentation. A

‘‘Categorical Exclusion Determination’’

is available in the docket where

indicated under ADDRESSES.

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.

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. It has not been designated by the

Administrator of the Office of

Information and Regulatory Affairs as a

significant energy action. Therefore, it

does not require a Statement of Energy

Effects under Executive Order 13211.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

Harbors, Marine Safety, Navigation

(water), Reporting and record keeping

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. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191,

33 CFR 1.05–1(g), 6.04–1, 6.04–6, 160.5; 49

CFR 1.46.

2. Add section 165.T09–925 to read as

follows:

§ 165.T09–925 Safety Zone: Kalamazoo

Lake, Saugatuck, MI

(a) The following area is designated a

safety zone:

(i) Location. The waters of Kalamazoo

Lake bounded by the arc of a circle with

a 1000-foot radius with its center in the

middle of the fireworks launch barge, in

approximate position 42° 38′52.5′′ N,

086° 12′18.15′′ W (NAD 1983).

(ii) Effective dates. This regulation is

effective from 8 p.m. (local) to 11:30

p.m. (local) on July 28, 2001.

(b) Regulations.

(1) The general regulations contained

in 33 CFR 165.23 apply.

(2) All persons and vessels shall

comply with the instructions of the

Coast Guard Captain of the Port or the

designated on scene patrol personnel.

Coast Guard patrol personnel include

commissioned, warrant, and petty

officers of the U.S. Coast Guard. Upon

being hailed by a U.S. Coast Guard

vessel via siren, radio, flashing light, or

other means, the operator shall proceed

as directed.

Dated: May 24, 2001.

R.E. Sebald,

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the

Port Chicago.

[FR Doc. 01–16019 Filed 6–25–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–15–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[CA242–0240; FRL–7002–9]

Revisions to the California State

Implementation Plan, Imperial County

Air Pollution Control District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing a

disapproval of revisions to the Imperial

County Air Pollution Control District’s

(ICAPCD) portion of the California State

Implementation Plan (SIP). These

revisions concern visible emissions (VE)

from many different sources of air

pollution. We are proposing action on

Rule 401—Opacity of Emissions, a local

rule regulating different emission

sources under the Clean Air Act as

amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act). We

are taking comments on this proposal

and plan to follow with a final action.

DATES: Any comments must arrive by

July 26, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Mail comments to Andy

Steckel, Rulemaking Office Chief (AIR–

4), U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne

Street, San Francisco, CA 94105–3901.

You can inspect copies of the

submitted SIP revisions and EPA’s

technical support documents (TSDs) at

our Region IX office during normal

business hours. You may also see copies

of the submitted SIP revisions at the

following locations:

California Air Resources Board,

Stationary Source Division, Rule

Evaluation Section, 1001 ‘‘I’’ Street,

Sacramento, CA 95814.