[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 135 (Friday, July 15, 2005)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 40888-40889]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-13955]


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

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