15734 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 58 / Monday, March 27, 1995 / Proposed Rules

above-listed systems of records would impair

the ability of the OTS and other law

enforcement agencies to conduct

investigations and inquiries into violations

under their respective jurisdictions. Making

accountings available to violators would alert

those individuals to the fact that the OTS or

another law enforcement authority is

conducting an investigation or inquiry into

their activities, and such accountings could

reveal the geographic location of the

investigation or inquiry, the nature and

purpose of the investigation or inquiry and

the nature of the information disclosed, and

dates on which that investigation or inquiry

was active. Violators possessing such

knowledge would thereby be able to take

appropriate measures to avoid detection or

apprehension by altering their operations,

transferring their activities to other locations

or destroying or concealing evidence which

would form the basis for prosecution or the

imposition of civil sanctions.

(e) 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(1) requires that an

agency maintain in its records only such

information about an individual as is

relevant and necessary to accomplish a

purpose of the agency required to be

accomplished by statute or executive order.

The term ‘‘maintain’’ as defined in 5 U.S.C.

552a(a)(3) includes ‘‘collect’’ and

‘‘disseminate.’’ At the time that information

is collected by the OTS there is often

insufficient time to determine whether the

information is relevant and necessary to

accomplish a purpose of the OTS; in many

cases information collection may not be

immediately susceptible to a determination

of whether the information is relevant and

necessary, particularly in the early stages of

investigation or inquiry; and in many cases

information which initially appears to be

irrelevant and unnecessary may, upon further

evaluation or upon continuation of the

investigation or inquiry, prove to have

particular relevance to an enforcement

program of the OTS. Further, not all

violations of law uncovered during an OTS

investigation or inquiry fall within the

jurisdiction of the OTS; in order to promote

effective law enforcement it often becomes

necessary and desirable to disseminate

information pertaining to such violations to

other law enforcement agencies which have

jurisdiction over the offense to which the

information relates. The OTS should not be

placed in a position of having to ignore

information relating to violations of law not

within its jurisdiction where that information

comes to the attention of the OTS through the

conduct of a lawful OTS investigation or

inquiry. The OTS therefore believes that it is

appropriate to exempt the above-listed

systems of records from provisions of 5

U.S.C. 552a(e)(1).

Dated: December 15, 1994.

Jonathan L. Fiechter,

Acting Director.

Dated: March 6, 1995.

Alex Rodriguez,

Deputy Assistant Secretary (Administration).

[FR Doc. 95–7342 Filed 3–24–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6720–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 162

[CGD09–95–002]

RIN 2115–AF04

Amendment to Inland Waterways

Navigation Regulations Establishing

Speed Limits on Connecting Waters

From Lake Huron to Lake Erie

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to

amend the speed limits for vessels, less

than 100 gross tons, operating in the

nondisplacement mode on connecting

waters from Lake Huron to Lake Erie.

The normal speed limits in this area are

determined in large part by concerns

about wake damage. However, lesser

wakes are created by nondisplacement

vessels and it appears that the normal

speed limits unnecessarily impede their

passage. The Coast Guard allowed

nondisplacement vessels to operate at

higher speeds under similar conditions

during two temporary test periods from

April 1, 1993 to November 30, 1994,

with satisfactory results. The Coast

Guard invites public comment on this

proposed regulation.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before May 26, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Comments and supporting

materials should be mailed or delivered

to Lieutenant Katherine E. Weathers,

Assistant Chief, Port and Environmental

Safety Branch, Ninth Coast Guard

District, Room 2069, 1240 E. Ninth

street, Cleveland, Ohio, 44199–2060.

Please reference the name of the

proposal and the docket number in the

heading above. If you wish receipt of

your mailed comment to be

acknowledged, please include a

stamped self-addressed envelope or

postcard for that purpose. Comments

and materials received will be available

for public inspection at the above

location from 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.

Monday through Friday.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Lieutenant Katherine E. Weathers,

Assistant Chief, Port and Environmental

Safety Branch, Ninth Coast Guard

District, Room 2069, 1240 E. Ninth

Street, Cleveland, Ohio, 44199–2060,

(216) 522–3994.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Request for Comments

The Coast Guard encourages

interested persons to participate in this

rulemaking by submitting comments

which may consist of data, views,

arguments, or proposals for

amendments to the proposed

regulations. The Coast Guard does not

currently plan to have a public hearing.

however, consideration will be given to

holding a public hearing if it is

requested. Such a request should

indicate how a public hearing would

contribute substantial information or

views which cannot be received in

written form. If it appears that a public

hearing would contribute to this

rulemaking, the Coast Guard will

announce such a hearing by a later

notice in the Federal Register. The

Coast Guard will consider all comments

received before the closing date

indicated above, and may amend or

revoke this proposal in response to such

comments.

Background and Purpose

Current regulations in 33 CFR 162.138

which apply to connecting waters from

Lake Huron to Lake Erie set the

maximum speed for vessels 20 meters or

more in length at limits ranging from 4

to 12 statute miles per hour in various

areas. One of the primary purposes of

these speed regulations is to limit wake

damage, but they were not written to

account for the substantially lesser

wake-generating characteristics of

nondisplacement vessels. In fact, certain

vessels designed for nondisplacement

operation which have conducted test

operations in the waterway would

generate larger wakes at the lower speed

now required because they would be

forced to operate in a displacement

mode. Also, the vessels which have

conducted test operations in the

waterway operate in a nondisplacement

mode by means of a planing action on

a catamaran hull, thus obtaining a

hydrodynamic lift without use of

projecting foils, and have demonstrated

their suitability for safe operation in

confined and relatively shallow areas.

During the 1993 and 1994 navigation

season, the Commander of the Ninth

Coast Guard District temporarily

amended 33 CFR 162.138 in order to

allow trial runs of these

nondisplacement vessels (33 CFR

162.T139, 58 FR 17526, April 5, 1993

and 59 FR 16563 April 7, 1994). A

corresponding exemption was granted

by the Central Region of the Canadian

Coast Guard, which has authority over

the Canadian waters in the same area.

The two year trial period has proven

successful and the Coast Guard has

therefore determined that there should

now be a permanent amendment to the

regulations in order to prevent an

unnecessary restriction on the operation

of such vessels. The trial period allowed
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 58 / Monday, March 27, 1995 / Proposed Rules 15735

nondisplacement vessels less than 100

gross tons to operate in the

nondisplacement mode at speeds of not

more than 40 statute miles per hour.

During the 1993 trial period, one

complaint was received alleging

excessive wake. Upon investigation, it

appeared that the vessel gave the

impression of creating an excessive

wake because of its relatively high rate

of speed during a sharp turn. The Coast

Guard was unable to determine if in fact

an excessive wake was generated in that

one case. There was no damage, and the

operator agreed to modify similar

maneuvers in the future in order to

avoid any problem. No subsequent

complaints of any kind were received by

the Canadian Coast Guard or the U.S.

Coast Guard. During the 1994 trial

period, there were no complaints

received by either the Canadian Coast

Guard or the U.S. Coast Guard. It should

be noted that this proposed amendment

to the speed regulations for

nondisplacement vessels does not in

any way excuse the general obligation to

exercise good seamanship when

maneuvering in close quarters or the

responsibility for damage which might

be caused by a wake which is excessive

in a location close to other vessels or

shore structures.

Therefore, based on this successful

trial period, and the concurrence from

the Director General of the Canadian

Coast Guard Central Region, the U.S.

Coast Guard is now proposing a

permanent change to the speed

regulations.

The Coast Guard is setting an upper

limit of 40 statute miles per hour for

nondisplacement vessels 20 meters or

more in length but less than 100 gross

tons, and is allowing such

nondisplacement vessels to overtake

other vessels when otherwise safe. All

other navigational regulations will

remain in force, and the use of this

special rule for nondisplacement vessels

is subject to the prior approval of the

Captain of the Port in order to insure

that the special rule is only used by

vessels which are of suitable design and

which are in fact operated safely in this

waterway.

Drafting Information

The principal persons involved in

drafting this document are Lieutenant

Katherine E. Weathers, Assistant Chief

of the Port and Environmental Safety

Branch, and Commander M. Eric

Reeves, Chief of the Port and

Environmental Safety Branch.

Environment

The Coast Guard has considered the

environmental impact of this regulation

and concluded that, under section

2.B.2.c of Coast Guard Commandant

Instruction M16475.1B, it is

categorically excluded from further

environmental documentation, and has

so certified in the docket file.

Federalism

This action has been analyzed in

accordance with the principles and

criteria contained in Executive Order

12612, and it has been determined that

this regulation does not have sufficient

federalism implications to warrant the

preparation of a Federalism Assessment.

This regulation is not intended to

preempt any state or local regulation

which may also be applicable to vessels

operating in the nondisplacement mode.

Regulatory Evaluation

This regulation is considered to be

nonsignificant under Executive Order

12866 on Regulatory Planning and

Review and nonsignificant under

Department of Transportation regulatory

policies and procedures (44 FR 11034 of

February 26, 1979). The Coast Guard

expects the economic impact of this rule

be so minimal that a full Regulatory

Evaluation under paragraph 10e is

unnecessary.

Small Entities

The economic impact of this

regulation is expected to be so minimal

that a full regulatory evaluation is

unnecessary. Since the impact of this

regulation is expected to be minimal,

the Coast Guard certifies that, if

adopted, it will not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities. The effect of

this regulation is to ease what has now

been determined to be an unnecessarily

restrictive regulation as applied to one

business developing the use of

nondisplacement vessels in the area.

Collection of Information

This regulation will impose no

collection of information requirements

under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 162

Inland waterways, Navigation.

Regulations

In consideration of the foregoing the

Coast Guard proposes to amend Part 162

of title 33, Code of Federal Regulations

as follows:

PART 162—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for Part 162

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 49 CFR 1.46.

2. In § 162.134, paragraph (f) is added

to read as follows:

§ 162.134 Connecting waters from Lake

Huron to Lake Erie; traffic rules.

* * * * *

(f) The prohibitions in this section on

overtaking in certain areas do not apply

to vessels operating in the

nondisplacement mode. In this section,

‘‘nondisplacement mode’’ means a

mode of operation in which the vessel

is supported by hydrodynamic forces,

rather than displacement of its weight in

the water, to an extent such that the

wake would otherwise be generated by

the vessel is significantly reduced.

3. Section 162.138 is revised to read

as follows:

§ 162.138 Connecting waters from Lake

Huron to Lake Erie; speed rules.

(a) (1) Maximum speed limit for

vessels in normal displacement mode.

Except when required for the safety of

the vessel or any other vessel, vessels of

20 meters or more in length operating in

normal displacement mode shall

proceed at a speed not greater than—

(i) 12 statute miles per hour (10.4

knots) between Fort Gratiot Light and

St. Clair Flats Canal Light 2;

(ii) 12 statute miles per hour (10.4

knots) between Peche Island Light and

Detroit River Light; and

(iii) 4 statute miles per hour (3.5

knots) in the River Rouge.

(2) The maximum speed limit is 5.8

statute miles per hour (5 knots) in the

navigable channel south of Peche Island

(under Canadian jurisdiction).

(b) Maximum speed limit for vessels

operating in nondisplacement mode.)

Except when required for the safety of

the vessel or any other vessel, vessels 20

meters or more in length but under 100

gross tons operating in the

nondisplacement mode and meeting the

requirements set out in paragraph (c) of

this section, may operate at a speed not

exceeding 40 miles per hour (34.8

knots)—

(1) During daylight hours (sunrise to

sunset),

(2) When conditions otherwise safely

allow, and

(3) When approval has been granted

by the Coast Guard Captain of the Port,

Detroit or Commander of the Ninth

Coast Guard District prior to each transit

of the area. In this section,

‘‘nondisplacement mode’’ means a

mode of operation in which the vessel

is supported by hydrodynamic forces,

rather than displacement of its weight in

the water, to an extent such that the

wake which would otherwise be

generated by the vessel is significantly

reduced.
15736 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 58 / Monday, March 27, 1995 / Proposed Rules

(c) The Captain of the Port or the

District Commander may deny approval

for operations under paragraph (b) of

this section if it appears that the design

and operating characteristics of the

vessels in question are not safe for the

designated waterways, or if it appears

that operations under this special rule

have become unsafe for any reason.

(d) Temporary speed limits. The

District Commander may temporarily

establish speed limits or temporarily

amend existing speed limit regulations

on the waters described in § 162.130(a).

Dated: March 1, 1995.

Rudy K. Peschel,

Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard Commander,

Ninth District Guard District.

[FR Doc. 95–7370 Filed 3–24–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–14–M

33 CFR Part 165

[CGD01–95–026]

RIN 2115–AA97

Safety Zone: Brick Founder’s Day

Fireworks, Metedeconk River, Brick,

New Jersey

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to

establish a safety zone for the Brick

Founder’s Day fireworks display located

in the Metedeconk River, Brick, New

Jersey. The safety zone would be in

effect on Saturday June 3, 1995, from 8

p.m. until 10:30 p.m., unless extended

or terminated sooner by the Captain of

the Port, New York. The proposed safety

zone would close all waters of the

Metedeconk River within a 300 yard

radius from the center of the fireworks

platform located on Windward Beach,

Brick, New Jersey.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before April 26, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be

mailed to U.S. Coast Guard Group, New

York, Bldg. 108, Governors Island, New

York 10004–5096, or may be delivered

to the Maritime Planning Staff, Bldg.

108, between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m.,

Monday through Friday, except Federal

holidays. Any person wishing to visit

the office must contact the Maritime

Planning Staff at (212) 668–7934 to

obtain advance clearance due to the fact

that Governors Island is a military

installation with limited access.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Lieutenant (Junior Grade) K. Messenger,

Maritime Planning Staff Chief, Coast

Guard Group New York (212) 668–7934.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Request for Comments

The Coast Guard encourages

interested persons to participate in this

rulemaking by submitting written data,

views, or arguments. A 30 day comment

period is deemed to be sufficiently

reasonable notice to all interested

persons. Since this proposed

rulemaking is neither complex nor

technical, a longer comment period is

deemed to be unnecessary and contrary

to the public interest. Any delay in

publishing a final rule would effectively

cancel this event. Cancellation of this

event would be contrary to public

interest.

Persons submitting comments should

include their names and addresses,

identify this notice (CGD01–95–026)

and the specific section of the proposal

to which their comments apply, and

give reasons for each comment. Persons

wanting acknowledgment of receipt of

comments should enclose a stamped,

self-addressed postcard or envelope.

The Coast Guard will consider all

comments received during the comment

period. It may change this proposal in

view of the comments. The Coat Guard

plans no public hearing; however,

persons may request a public hearing by

writing to the Maritime Planning Staff at

the address under ADDRESSES. If it is

determined that the opportunity for oral

presentations will aid this rulemaking,

the Coast Guard will hold a public

hearing at a time and place announced

by a later notice in the Federal Register.

Drafting Information

The drafters of this notice are LTJG K.

Messenger, Project Manager, Coast

Guard Group New York and LCDR J.

Stieb, Project Attorney, First Coast

Guard District, Legal Office.

Background and Purpose

On February 23, 1995, the Brick

Township Chamber of Commerce

submitted an Application for Approval

of Marine Event for a fireworks program

on Windward Beach in the Metedeconk

River. This regulation would establish a

safety zone in the waters of the

Metedeconk River on June 3, 1995, from

8 p.m. until 10:30 p.m., unless extended

or terminated sooner by the Captain of

the Port New York. This safety zone

would preclude all vessels from

transiting the Metedeconk River within

a 300 yard radius of the fireworks

platform located on a pier in the

approximate position 40°03′25′′N

latitude 074°06′47′′W longitude at

Windward Beach, Brick, New Jersey. It

is needed to protect mariners from the

hazards associated with fireworks

exploding in the area.

Regulatory Evaluation

This proposal 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. It has been exempted from review

by the Office of Management and

Budget 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). The Coast Guard

expects the economic impact of this

proposal to be so minimal that a full

Regulatory Evaluation under paragraph

10(e) of the regulatory policies and

procedures of DOT is unnecessary. This

safety zone would close a portion of the

Metedeconk River to all vessel traffic on

June 3, 1995, from 8 p.m. until 10:30

p.m., unless extended or terminated

sooner by the Captain of the Port New

York. Although this regulation would

prevent traffic from transiting this area,

the effect of this regulation would not be

significant for several reasons. Due to

the limited duration of the event; the

late hour of the event; that mariners can

transit to the south of this area; and the

extensive, advance advisories that will

be made, the Coast Guard expects the

economic impact of this regulation to be

so minimal that a Regulatory Evaluation

is unnecessary.

Small Entities

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

(5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), the Coast Guard

must consider whether this proposal

will have a significant economic impact

on a substantial number of small

entities. ‘‘Small entities’’ include

independently owned and operated

small businesses that are not dominant

in their field and that otherwise qualify

as ‘‘small business concerns’’ under

Section 3 of the Small Business Act (15

U.S.C. 632).

For reasons set forth in the above

Regulatory Evaluation, the Coast Guard

expects the impact of this proposal to be

minimal. The Coast Guard certifies

under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposal

will not have a significant economic

impact on a substantial number of small

entities.

Collection of Information

This proposal contains no collection

of information requirements under the

Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.

3501).