[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 183 (Thursday, September 22, 2005)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 55534-55535]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-18929]



[[Page 55534]]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[CGD09-05-126]
RIN 1625-AA00


Safety Zone; Transfer of M/V WILLIAM G. MATHER, Cleveland, OH

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to establish a temporary safety zone 
for the transfer of the M/V MATHER from the Municipal Pier to Cleveland 
City Docks. This safety zone is intended to manage vessel traffic in 
order to provide for the safety of life and property on navigable 
waters during the event.

DATES: This rule is in effect from 10 a.m. (local) through 11 a.m. 
(local) on September 24, 2005.

ADDRESSES: Comments and material received from the public, as well as 
documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket 
CGD09-05-126 are part of this docket are available for inspection or 
copying at MSU Cleveland, 1055 East 9th Street, Cleveland, OH 44114 
between 8 a.m. and 3:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal 
holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: LT Nicole Starr, U.S. Coast Guard 
Marine Safety Unit Cleveland, at (216) 937-0128.

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. The exact date of the event 
was not known with sufficient time to allow for the publication of an 
NPRM followed by an effective date before the event.
    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 
contrary to the public interest of ensuring the safety of spectators 
and vessels during this event, and immediate action is necessary to 
prevent possible loss of life or property.

Background and Purpose

    This safety zone is necessary to protect the participants and 
spectator vessels during the transfer of the M/V WILLIAM G. MATHER from 
hazards associated with towing a museum ship that will not be under her 
own power during the transfer. The Captain of the Port has determined 
that this event poses a minor threat to the participants as well as 
spectator vessels due to the hazards associated with these events.
    The combination of inexperienced recreational boaters and large 
number of commercial vessels that transit this area could easily result 
in serious injuries or fatalities.

Discussion of Rule

    The Coast Guard is proposing a safety zone in Cleveland Harbor, 
Cleveland, Ohio. This safety zone will encompass all waters in 
Cleveland Harbor, to include the North Coast Harbor, originating at a 
line drawn from Pier 32, at position 41[deg]30'36'' N, 081[deg]42'56'' 
W, extending to position 41[deg]30'43'' N, 081[deg]42'03'' W, thence to 
Buoy 11 (LLNR 4135) at position 41[deg]30'49'' N, 081[deg]41'53'' W in 
Cleveland Harbor, thence to the Northeast corner of Municipal Pier at 
position 41[deg]30'43'' N, 081[deg]41'47'' W. These coordinates are 
based upon North American Datum 1983 (NAD 83). The Coast Guard will 
notify the public in advance by way of Ninth Coast Guard District Local 
Notice to Mariners, Marine Information Broadcasts, and for those who 
request it from Marine Safety Unit Cleveland, by facsimile.

Regulatory Evaluation

    This rule is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under section 
3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does 
not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 
6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not 
reviewed this rule under that Order. It is not ``significant'' under 
the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Homeland 
Security (DHS).
    We expect the economic impact of this rule to be so minimal that a 
full regulatory evaluation under paragraph 10(e) of the regulatory 
policies and procedures of DHS is unnecessary.
    This determination is based on the size and location of the safety 
zone within the water. Commercial vessels will not be hindered by the 
safety zone, as all commercial traffic will be diverted through the 
Lake Approach Channel. Recreational vessels will not be allowed to 
transit through the designated safety zone during the specified times.

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have 
considered whether this rule would have a significant impact on a 
substantial number of small entities. The term ``small entities'' 
comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are 
independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, 
and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
    The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule 
would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of 
small entities.
    This rule would affect the following entities, some of which might 
be small entities: The owners or operators of commercial vessels 
intending to transit a portion of the activated safety zone.
    This safety zone would not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: The 
proposed zone is only in effect for a few hours on the day of the 
event. Before the activation of the safety zone, the Coast Guard will 
issue maritime advisories available to users who may be impacted 
through notification in the Federal Register, the Ninth District Coast 
Guard Local Notice to Mariners, Marine Information Broadcasts and when 
requested by facsimile.
    If you think that your business, organization, or governmental 
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have 
a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see 
ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what 
degree this rule would economically affect it.

Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 
Fairness Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-121), we offered to assist small 
entities in understanding this rule so that they can better evaluate 
its effects and participate in the rulemaking process. If the rule 
would affect your small business, organization, or governmental 
jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or 
options for compliance, please contact Lieutenant Nicole Starr, U.S. 
Coast Guard Marine Safety Unit Cleveland, 1055 East 9th Street, 
Cleveland, OH 44114.
    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

[[Page 55535]]

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 would call for no new collection of information under the 
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, 
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local 
governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial 
cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under that Order 
and have determined that it does not have implications for federalism.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) 
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary 
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may 
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in 
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any 
one year. Though this proposed rule would not result in such an 
expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this 
preamble.

Taking of Private Property

    This rule would not affect a taking of private property or 
otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, 
Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected 
Property Rights.

Civil Justice Reform

    This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) 
of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, 
eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

Protection of Children

    The Coast Guard has analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, 
Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety 
Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and does not 
concern an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may 
disproportionately affect children.

Indian Tribal Governments

    This proposed rule does not have tribal implications under 
Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal 
Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on 
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal 
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and 
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. We 
invite your comments on how this proposed rule might impact tribal 
government, even if that impact may not constitute a ``tribal 
implication'' under that Order.

Energy Effects

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions 
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 
Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a ``significant 
energy action'' under that order because it is not a ``significant 
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to 
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use 
of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and 
Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy 
action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects 
under Executive Order 13211.

Technical Standards

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 
U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards 
in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, 
through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why 
using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or 
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical 
standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or 
operation; test methods; sampling procedure; and related management 
system practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus 
standards bodies.
    This rule 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. This event 
establishes a safety zone therefore paragraph (34)(g) of the 
Instruction applies.
    A preliminary ``Environmental Analysis Check List'' is available in 
the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. Comments on this section 
will be considered before we make the final decision on whether the 
rule should be categorically excluded from further environmental 
review.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine Safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, Waterways.

0
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

0
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.

0
2. A new temporary Sec.  165.T09-126 is added read as follows:


Sec.  165.T09-126  Safety Zone; 2005 transfer of Museum ship M/V 
WILLIAM G. MATHER, Cleveland Harbor, Cleveland, Ohio

    (a) Location. All waters in Cleveland Harbor, to include the North 
Coast Harbor, originating at a line drawn from Pier 32, at position 
41[deg]30'36'' N, 081[deg]42'56'' W, extending to position 
41[deg]30'43'' N, 081[deg]42'03'' W, thence to Buoy 11 (LLNR 4135) at 
position 41[deg]30'49'' N, 081[deg]41'53'' W in Cleveland Harbor, 
thence to the Northeast corner of Municipal Pier at position 
41[deg]30'43'' N, 081[deg]41'47'' W. These coordinates are based upon 
North American Datum 1983 (NAD 83).
    (b) Effective Period. This section is effective from 10 a.m. 
(local) through 11 a.m. (local) on September 24, 2005.
    (c) Regulations. Entry into, transit through or anchoring within 
this safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the 
Port Buffalo or his designated on-scene representative. The designated 
on-scene representative will be the Coast Guard Patrol Commander. The 
Coast Guard Patrol Commander may be contacted via VHF Channel 16.

S.J. Ferguson,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Buffalo.
[FR Doc. 05-18929 Filed 9-21-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P