[Federal Register: January 24, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 15)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 3060-3061]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr24ja07-17]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 165
[CGD09-06-174]
RIN 1625-AA00
Safety Zones; M/V ROY A. JODREY, St. Lawrence River, Wellesley
Island, NY
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is removing the established safety zone around
the wreck of the M/V ROY A. JODREY, St. Lawrence River, Wellesley
Island, NY. The safety zone was necessary for restricting recreational
diving while conducting oil removal operations aboard the sunken
vessel. The safety zone is no longer needed and the Coast Guard is
removing the regulation.
DATES: This section becomes effective on February 23, 2007.
ADDRESSES: Comments and material received from the public, as well as
documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket,
are part of docket CGD9-06-174 and are available for inspection or
copying at U.S. Coast Guard Sector Buffalo, 1 Fuhrmann Blvd., Buffalo,
NY 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, (716) 843-9573.
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
publishing an NPRM is unnecessary because this rule removes a safety
zone that is no longer needed.
Background and Purpose
The rule established a safety zone around the sunken M/V ROY A.
JODREY, St. Lawrence River, Wellesley Island, NY (67 FR 65042 (October
23, 2002).). The safety zone was necessary for restricting recreational
diving while conducting oil removal operations aboard the sunken
vessel. The zone covered all waters and adjacent shoreline encompassed
by the arc of a circle with a 150-yard radius of the wreck M/V ROY A
JODREY, with its center in 44[deg]19.55 N, 075[deg]56.00 W (NAD83). The
safety zone is no longer needed and the Coast Guard is removing the
regulation.
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), because we are
disestablishing the safety zone around wreck M/V ROY A JODREY.
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 because this rule removes an obsolete safety zone.
Assistance for Small Entities
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 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, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or
options for
[[Page 3061]]
compliance, please contact Sector Buffalo (see ADDRESSES).
Small businesses may send comments on 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 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 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 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 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
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 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. 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.
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 rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.1D,
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.
Under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g), of the Instruction, an
``Environmental Analysis Check List'' and a ``Categorical Exclusion
Determination'' are not required for this rule because we are
disestablishing a safety zone.
List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
0
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 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.
Sec. 165.917 [Removed]
0
2. Section 165.917 is removed.
Dated: January 4, 2007.
S.J. Ferguson,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Buffalo, Sector Buffalo.
[FR Doc. E7-1004 Filed 1-23-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P