[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 126 (Friday, July 1, 2005)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 38015-38017]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-13072]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[CGD09-05-027]
RIN 1625-AA87


Security Zone; Cleveland Harbor, Cleveland, Ohio

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary security zone in 
Cleveland's inner harbor for the visit of the HMCS Toronto. The 
security zone is necessary to ensure the security of this vessel and 
dignitaries visiting Cleveland, Ohio. Entry into this security zone is 
prohibited without permission of the Captain of the Port Cleveland.

DATES: This rule is effective from midnight (local) July 14, 2005, 
until midnight, 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 exact date of the event 
was not known in sufficient time to allow for the publication of an 
NPRM followed by publication of an effective date 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 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 Rule

    The Coast Guard is establishing a security zone at Cleveland's 
inner harbor in Cleveland, OH. The security zone includes all waters 
from Cleveland Port Authority (CPA) Dock 20 along the shoreline east to 
CPA dock 24. Then from dock 24 extends north to the break wall just 
east of buoy 14. The security zone follows the break wall west to the 
``Lake Approach Channel'' Structure 3 (flashing green 4s), then south 
to CPA dock 20 as marked by structure 5 (flashing green 2.5s).
    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

[[Page 38016]]

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 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.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and record 
keeping requirements, 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.

0
2. A new temporary Sec.  165.T09-027 is added read as follows:


Sec.  165.T09-027  Security Zone; Cleveland Harbor, Cleveland, Ohio.

    (a) Location. The following area is a security zone: All waters of 
Cleveland

[[Page 38017]]

Harbor from an origin of 41[deg]30'14'' N 081[deg] 42' 41'' W to a line 
drawn to 41[deg]30'28'' N 081[deg]42'48'' W to a line drawn to 
41[deg]30'44'' N 081[deg]42'21'' W to a line drawn to 41[deg]30'22'' N 
081[deg]42'21'' W then along the shoreline back to the point of origin. 
All coordinates reference North American 83 Datum (NAD 83).
    (b) Effective period. This section is effective from midnight 
(local) July 14, 2005 until midnight, July 17, 2005.
    (c) Regulations. Entry into, transit through, or anchoring within 
the security zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the 
Port Cleveland or the Coast Guard Patrol Commander.

    Dated: June 21, 2005.
Lorne W. Thomas,
Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Cleveland.
[FR Doc. 05-13072 Filed 6-30-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P