51262 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 167 / Tuesday, August 30, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

example, deletion 5p syndrome, also called 

cri du chat syndrome), or inborn metabolic 

disorders (for example, Tay-Sachs disease), 

we need evidence from an acceptable 

medical source that includes a clinical 

description of the diagnostic physical 

features of your impairment, and the report 

of the definitive laboratory study (for 

example, genetic analysis or evidence of 

biochemical abnormalities) that is diagnostic 

of your impairment. When we do not have 

the actual laboratory report, we need 

evidence from an acceptable medical source 

that is persuasive that a positive diagnosis 

was confirmed by appropriate laboratory 

analysis at some time prior to our evaluation. 

To be persuasive, the report must state that 

the appropriate definitive laboratory study 

was conducted and that the results confirmed 

the diagnosis. The report must be consistent 

with other evidence in your case record. 

b. Other disorders. For infants born with 

other kinds of catastrophic congenital 

abnormalities (for example, anencephaly, 

cyclopia), we need evidence from an 

acceptable medical source that includes a 

clinical description of the diagnostic physical 

features of the impairment. 

C. How Do We Evaluate Impairments That 

Affect Multiple Body Systems and That Do 

Not Meet the Criteria of the Listings in This 

Body System? 

1. These listings are examples of 

impairments that commonly affect multiple 

body systems and that we consider 

significant enough to result in marked and 

severe functional limitations. If your severe 

impairment(s) does not meet the criteria of 

any of these listings, we must also consider 

whether your impairment(s) meets the 

criteria of a listing in another body system. 

2. There are many other impairments that 

can cause deviation from, or interruption of, 

the normal function of the body or interfere 

with development; for example, congenital 

anomalies, chromosomal disorders, 

dysmorphic syndromes, metabolic disorders, 

and perinatal infectious diseases. In these 

impairments, the degree of deviation or 

interruption may vary widely from child to 

child. Therefore, the resulting functional 

limitations and the progression of those 

limitations are more variable than with the 

catastrophic congenital abnormalities and 

diseases we include in these listings. For this 

reason, we evaluate the specific effects of 

these impairments on you under the listing 

criteria in any affected body system(s) on an 

individual case basis. Examples of such 

impairments include, but are not limited to, 

triple X syndrome (XXX syndrome), fragile X 

syndrome, phenylketonuria (PKU), caudal 

regression syndrome, and fetal alcohol 

syndrome. 

3. If you have a severe medically 

determinable impairment(s) that does not 

meet a listing, we will consider whether your 

impairment(s) medically equals a listing. If 

your impairment(s) does not meet or 

medically equal a listing, we will consider 

whether it functionally equals the listings. 

(See §§ 404.1526, 416.926, and 416.926a.) 

When we decide whether you continue to be 

disabled, we use the rules in § 416.994a. 

110.01 Category of Impairments, 

Impairments That Affect Multiple Body 

Systems 

110.06 Non-mosaic Down syndrome, 

established as described in 110.00B. 

110.08 A catastrophic congenital 

abnormality or disease, established as 

described in 110.00B, and: 

A. Death usually is expected within the 

first months of life, and the rare individuals 

who survive longer are profoundly impaired 

(for example, anencephaly, trisomy 13 or 18, 

cyclopia); 

or 

B. That interferes very seriously with 

development; for example, cri du chat 

syndrome (deletion 5p syndrome) or TaySachs disease (acute infantile form). 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 05–17114 Filed 8–29–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4191–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 165 

[CGD09–05–118] 

RIN 1625–AA00 

Safety Zone; Northerly Island, Chicago, 

IL 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Temporary final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is 

establishing a temporary safety zone for 

the Stormwater Conveyance System 

Construction Project located off of 

Northerly Island, Lake Michigan, 

Chicago, IL. The safety zone is necessary 

to protect vessels and persons from 

potential hazards during the initial 

tunneling phase of the project. This 

phase will involve extensive blasting 

operations. This safety zone is intended 

to restrict vessels from a portion of Lake 

Michigan in Chicago, IL. 

DATES: This rule is effective from 8 a.m. 

(local) on August 22, 2005 until 8 a.m. 

(local) on October 22, 2005. Captain of 

the Port Lake Michigan or the on scene 

Patrol Commander may terminate this 

event at anytime. 

ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this 

preamble as being available in the 

docket are part of the docket (CGD09–

05–118], and are available for inspection 

or copying at Commanding Officer, U.S. 

Coast Guard Marine Safety Unit 

Chicago, 215 W. 83rd Street Suite D, 

Burr Ridge, IL, 60527, between 8 a.m. 

and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

LTJG Cameron Land, U.S. Coast Guard 

Marine Safety Unit Chicago, at (630) 

986–2155. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Regulatory 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. This safety 

zone is temporary in nature and limited 

time existed for an NPRM. The Coast 

Guard was not made aware that this 

event was to take place with sufficient 

time to allow for publication of an 

NPRM followed by a final rule. 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. 

Delaying this rule would be 

impracticable and immediate action is 

necessary to ensure the safety of 

personnel and vessels during the 

operational period. During the 

enforcement of this safety zone, 

comments will be accepted and 

reviewed and may result in a 

modification to the rule. 

Background and Purpose 

A temporary safety zone is necessary 

to ensure the safety of vessels and 

persons from the hazards associated 

with a construction project on a 

navigable waterway. The Captain of the 

Port Lake Michigan has determined this 

project in close proximity to watercraft 

(Burnham Harbor) pose significant risks 

to public safety and property. Blasting 

operations in close proximity to the 

water could easily result in serious 

injuries or fatalities. Establishing a 

safety zone to control vessel movement 

around the location of the blasting site 

will help ensure the safety of persons 

and property and minimize the 

associated risks. Entry into, transiting, 

or anchoring within the safety zone is 

prohibited unless authorized by the 

Captain of the Port Lake Michigan or his 

designated On-Scene Representative via 

VHF radio Channel 16. 

Discussion of Rule 

The safety zone will encompass all 

waters of Lake Michigan bounded by the 

arc of a circle with a radius of 150-feet 

with its center at the shoreline of 

Northerly Island in the approximate 

position 41°51′12′′ N, 087°36′30′′ W. 

These coordinates are based upon North 

American Datum 1983 (NAD 1983). The 

size of this zone was determined using 

the safety guidelines and safety plan 

provided by the construction contractor 

and local knowledge concerning wind, 

waves, and currents. All commercial 

and recreational vessels must contact 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 167 / Tuesday, August 30, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 51263 

the Coast Guard Patrol Commander via 

VHF–FM Channel 16 to request 

permission to transit through the safety 

zone. 

Regulatory Evaluation 

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). 

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 finding is based on the relatively 

small percentage of vessels that would 

fall within the applicability of the 

regulation, the relatively small size of 

the limited area around the zone, the 

minimal amount of time that vessels 

will be restricted when the zone is being 

enforced. In addition, vessels that will 

need to enter the zone may request 

permission on a case-by-case basis from 

the Captain of the Port or the designated 

on-scene representative. 

Small Entities 

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(5 U.S.C. 601–612), we have considered 

whether 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 may affect the following 

entities, some of which might be small 

entities: The owners or operators of 

vessels intending to transit through the 

safety zone in and around the area. 

This proposed rule would not have a 

significant impact on a substantial 

number of small entities because the 

restrictions affect only a limited area for 

a short duration. Further, transit 

through the zone may be permitted with 

proper authorization from the Captain of 

the Port Lake Michigan or his 

designated representative. Additionally, 

the opportunity to engage in 

recreational activities outside the limits 

of the safety zone will not be disrupted. 

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 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 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–

800–734–3247. 

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). 

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 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. 

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 

51264 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 167 / Tuesday, August 30, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

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. 

Environment 

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 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 this 

rule should be categorically excluded, 

under figure 2–1, paragraph (34)(g), of 

the Instruction, from further 

environmental documentation. This 

safety zone fits paragraph 34(g) because 

it establishes a safety zone. 

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 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. Add § 165.T09.118 to read as 

follows: 

§ 165.T09.118 Safety Zone; Northerly 

Island, Chicago, IL 

(a) Location. The following is a safety 

zone: all waters of Lake Michigan 

bounded by the arc of a circle with a 

radius of 150-feet with its center at the 

shoreline of Northerly Island in the 

approximate position 41°51′12′′ N, 

087°36′30′′ W (NAD 1983). 

(b) Effective time and date. This rule 

is effective from 8 a.m. (local) August 

22, 2005 until 8 a.m. (local) on October 

22, 2005. 

(c) Regulations. In accordance with 

§ 165.23, entry into this zone is 

prohibited unless authorized by the 

Coast Guard Captain of the Port, Lake 

Michigan, or the designated On-Scene 

Representative. Section 165.23 also 

contains other general requirements. 

Dated: August 18, 2005. 

H.M. Hamilton, 

Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting 

Captain of the Port Lake Michigan. 

[FR Doc. 05–17160 Filed 8–29–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–15–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 165 

CGD09–05–108 

RIN 1625–AA00 

Safety Zone; Celebrate Baldwinsville 

Fireworks, Baldwinsville, NY 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Temporary final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is 

establishing a temporary safety zone 

encompassing the navigable waters of 

the Seneca River. This safety zone is 

necessary to ensure the safety of 

spectators and vessels from the hazards 

associated with fireworks displays. This 

safety zone is intended to restrict vessel 

traffic from a portion of the Seneca 

River, New York. 

DATES: This rule is effective from 10 

p.m. (local) until 10:30 p.m. (local) on 

September 17, 2005. 

ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this 

preamble as being available in the 

docket are part of docket CGD09–05–

108 and will be available for inspection 

or copying at: U.S. Coast Guard Marine 

Safety Office Buffalo, 1 Fuhrmann Blvd, 

Buffalo, New York 14203, between 8 

a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, except federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: LT 

Tracy Wirth, U. S. Coast Guard Sector 

Buffalo, at (716) 843–9573. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background and Purpose 

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553, a notice of 

rulemaking (NPRM) has not been 

published for this regulation and good 

cause exists for making it effective 

without publication of an NPRM in the 

Federal Register. Publishing a NPRM 

would be contrary to public interest 

since immediate action is necessary to 

ensure the safety of vessels and persons 

that transit in the vicinity of the Tacoma 

Narrows Bridge. If normal notice and 

comment procedures were followed, 

this rule would not become effective 

until after the date of the event. 

Temporary safety zones are necessary 

to ensure the safety of vessels and 

spectators from the hazards associated 

with fireworks displays. Based on recent 

accidents that have occurred in other 

Captain of the Port zones, and the 

explosive hazard of fireworks, the 

Captain of the Port Buffalo has 

determined fireworks launches in close 

proximity to watercraft pose significant 

risks to public safety and property. The 

likely combination of large numbers of 

recreational vessels, congested 

waterways, darkness punctuated by 

bright flashes of light, alcohol use, and 

debris falling into the water could easily 

result in serious injuries or fatalities. 

Establishing a safety zone to control 

vessel movement around the locations 

of the launch platforms will help ensure 

the safety of persons and property at 

these events and help minimize the 

associated risk. 

Discussion of Rule 

The safety zone consists of all 

navigable waters of the Seneca River 

within 800 foot radius of the fireworks 

barge moored/anchored in approximate 

position 43°09′27′′ N, 076°20′25′′ W. All 

Geographic coordinates are North 

American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83). The 

size of this zone was determined using 

the National Fire Prevention 

Association guidelines and local 

knowledge concerning wind, waves, 

and currents. 

The Coast Guard believes this 

regulation will not pose any new 

problems for commercial vessels 

transiting the area. In the unlikely event 

that shipping is affected by this 

regulation, commercial vessels may 

request permission from the Captain of 

the Port Buffalo to transit through the 

safety zone. 

Regulatory Evaluation 

This rule is not a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ under section 3(f) of 

Executive Order 12866 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) (44 FR 11040, February 26, 1979). 

We expect the economic impact of this 

rule to be so minimal that a full 

Regulatory Evaluation under paragraph