[Federal Register: July 15, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 135)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 40888-40889]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr15jy05-9]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 165
[CGD09-05-027]
RIN 1625-AA87
Security Zone; Cleveland Harbor, Cleveland, OH, Change of
Location
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.
ACTION: Temporary final rule; amendment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On July 1, 2005, the Coast Guard published a temporary final
rule establishing a security zone in Cleveland's inner harbor for the
visit of the HMCS Toronto. On July 8, 2005, the Coast Guard learned the
HMCS Toronto would be mooring at a different location. This rule
changes the location of the temporary security zone and clarifies its
duration Entry into this security zone is prohibited without permission
of the Captain of the Port Cleveland.
DATES: This rule is effective from 12:01 a.m. July 15, 2005, until
11:59 p.m., July 17, 2005.
ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in
the docket, are part of docket [CGD09-05-027] and are available for
inspection or copying at the U.S. Coast Guard Marine Safety Office
Cleveland, 1055 East Ninth Street, Cleveland, Ohio 44114, between the
hours of 7:30 a.m. and 3:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
Holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: LT Allen Turner, U.S. Coast Guard
Marine Safety Office 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 new location of where the
HMCS Toronto would dock was not known in sufficient time to allow for
the publication of an NPRM followed by publication of an effective rule
before the event. And delaying this rule would be contrary to the
public interest of ensuring the safety of dignitaries and vessels
during this event, and immediate action is necessary to prevent
possible loss of life or property.
For these same reasons, 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.
Background and Purpose
This security zone is necessary to ensure the safety of the vessel
and dignitaries visiting Cleveland from any potential hazards or
threats associated with foreign warships and dignitary visits.
The combination of large numbers of inexperienced recreational
boaters, congested waterways, and crossing commercially transited
waterways could result in an unnecessary security risk to any visiting
dignitaries.
Establishing security zones gives the Coast Guard and Law
Enforcement agencies an opportunity to secure an area before a
dignitary arrives.
Discussion of the Amendment to the Temporary Final Rule
The Coast Guard is establishing a security zone at Cleveland's
inner harbor in Cleveland, OH. This amendment to the rule changes the
location of the security zone to include all waters within a 300 radius
of Cleveland Port Authority (CPA) Dock 32 and all waters contained in
the North Coast Harbor. We have also changed the specific start and end
times to clarify the duration of this temporary security zone.
Entry into, transit through, or anchoring within this security zone
is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Cleveland 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. 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 Office 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 the regulatory policies and procedures
of DHS is unnecessary.
This determination is based on the size and location of the
security zone within the water. The security zone will hinder
commercial vessels, as they will not be able to transit within the
breakwater during the period this zone is in effect. Recreational
vessels will not be allowed to transit through the designated security
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 security zone.
This security 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 while the HMCS Toronto is in port.
Before the activation of the security zone, the Coast Guard notify
mariners through 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 (Pub. L. 104-121), we offered to assist small
entities in understanding this rule so that they can better evaluate
its effects and participate
[[Page 40889]]
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 Allen Turner, U.S. Coast Guard Marine Safety Office
Cleveland, 1055 East 9th Street, Cleveland, OH 44114. The Coast Guard
will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain
about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
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.
While not required, a preliminary ``Environmental Analysis Check
List'' is available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES for
your review.
0
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, and under authority in 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; Department of Homeland Security
Delegation No. 0170.1, the Coast Guard amends the temporary final rule
published July 1, 2005 (69 FR 38015) entitled, ``Security Zone;
Cleveland Harbor, Cleveland, Ohio''.
Sec. 165.T09-027 [Amended]
0
In rule FR Doc. 05-13072 published on July 1, 2005 (69 FR 38015) make
the following amendments to paragraphs (a) and (b) of Sec. 165.T09-
027. On page 38016, in the third column, remove the last 2 lines, and
on page 38017, in the first column, removed the first 12 lines, and
add, in their place, the following text:
(a) Location. The following area is a security zone: All waters
within a 300 yard radius of Cleveland port Authority Dock 32
(41[deg]30'37'' N, 081[deg]41'49'' W) and all waters contained in the
North Coast Harbor. All coordinates reference North American 83 Datum
(NAD 83).
(b) Effective period. This section is effective from 12:01 a.m.
July 15, 2005, until 11:59 p.m., July 17, 2005.
Dated: July 8, 2005.
W. Watson,
Lieutenant, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting Captain of the Port of Cleveland.
[FR Doc. 05-13955 Filed 7-14-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P