[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 92 (Friday, May 13, 2005)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 25514-25516]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-9631]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[CGD09-05-014]
RIN 1625-AA87


Security Zone; Duluth Harbor, Duluth, MN

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to establish a temporary security 
zone in Duluth's inner harbor for the Commissioning ceremony of the 
Coast Guard Cutter ALDER. The security zone is necessary to ensure the 
security of dignitaries attending this ceremony on June 10, 2005. The 
security zone is intended to restrict vessels from a portion of Duluth 
Harbor in Duluth, Minnesota.

DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or 
before June 2, 2005.

ADDRESSES: You may mail comments and related material to U.S. Coast 
Guard Marine Safety Office Duluth, 600 South Lake Ave, Canal Park, 
Duluth, Minnesota 55802. U.S. Coast Guard Marine Safety Office (MSO) 
Duluth maintains the public docket for this rulemaking. You may also 
submit comments electronically to [email protected]. Comments 
and material received from the public, as well as documents indicated 
in this preamble as being available in the docket, will become part of 
this docket and will be available for inspection or copying at the U.S. 
Coast Guard Marine Safety Office Duluth, 600 South Lake Ave, Canal 
Park, Duluth, Minnesota 55802, between the hours of 7:30 a.m. and 3:30 
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: LT Greg Schultz, U.S. Coast Guard 
Marine Safety Office Duluth, at (218) 720-5285.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Request for Comments

    We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting 
comments and related material. If you do so, please include your name 
and address, identify the docket number for this rulemaking (CGD09-05-
014), indicate the specific section of this document to which each 
comment applies, and give the reason for each comment. Please submit 
all comments and related material in an unbound format, no larger than 
8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for copying. You may also submit comments 
electronically to [email protected]. If you would like to know 
that they reached us, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard 
or envelope. We will consider all comments and material received during 
the comment period. We may change this proposed rule in view of them.

[[Page 25515]]

Public Meeting

    We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a 
request for a meeting by writing to MSO Duluth at the address under 
ADDRESSES explaining why one would be beneficial. If we determine that 
one would aid this rulemaking, we will hold one at a time and place 
announced by a later notice in the Federal Register.

Background and Purpose

    An event such as a military vessel commissioning is a high interest 
event and will be attended by large numbers of spectators from both 
shore and on the water. In addition, it is expected at the time of 
publication of this proposed rule that certain dignitaries will be in 
attendance, however specific knowledge of the attendees is not yet 
known.
    A security zone is necessary to keep boaters from the specified 
area to provide for the security of the Coast Guard Cutter Alder and 
the dignitaries in attendance.

Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The Coast Guard is proposing a security zone in Duluth Harbor, 
Duluth, Minnesota. The Coast Guard will notify the public in advance by 
way of the Ninth Coast Guard District Local Notice to Mariners, the 
Broadcast Notice to Mariners, and, for those who request it, from MSO 
Duluth, by facsimile (fax).

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.
    The security zone will only be in effect for 5 hours on the day of 
the event and the zone is in such a location as to allow vessels to 
transit into Duluth Harbor.

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 will affect the following entities: the owners or 
operators of vessels intending to transit or anchor in this portion of 
Duluth Harbor from 10 a.m. (local) to 3 p.m. (local) June 10, 2005. 
This regulation will not have a significant economic impact for the 
following reasons. The regulation is only in effect for one day of the 
event. The designated area is being established to allow for maximum 
use of the waterway for commercial and recreational vessels. The Coast 
Guard will inform the public that the regulation is in effect via 
Marine Information Broadcasts.
    If you think 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 offer to assist small 
entities in understanding the rule so that they can better evaluate its 
effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. 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 MSO Duluth (see ADDRESSES).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 proposed 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 proposed 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 
expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this 
preamble.

Taking of Private Property

    This proposed 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 proposed 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 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.

Energy Effects

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13211, 
Actions Concerning Regulation 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

[[Page 25516]]

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 procedures; and related management 
systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus 
standards bodies.
    This proposed 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.
    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 to 
categorically exclude this rule 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 set out in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 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. A new temporary Sec.  165.T09-014 is added to read as follows:


165.T09-014  Security Zone; Duluth Harbor, Duluth, Minnesota.

    (a) Location. The following area is designated as a security zone: 
The waters of Duluth Harbor within a 500 foot radius from a fixed point 
located at 46[deg]46'17'' N, 92[deg]05'26'' W. These coordinates are 
based upon North American Datum (NAD 1983).
    (b) Effective time and date. This regulation is effective from 10 
a.m. (local) on June 10, 2005, through 3 p.m. (local), on June 10, 
2005.
    (c) Regulations. Entry into, transit through, or anchoring within 
the security zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the 
Port Duluth or the Coast Guard Patrol Commander.

    Dated: May 4, 2005.
H.M. Nguyen,
Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Duluth.
[FR Doc. 05-9631 Filed 5-12-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P