11120 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 35 / Wednesday, February 24, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

the examining physician at the CBD 

diagnostic center, such as pulmonary 

function testing (as outlined by the 

American Thoracic Society criteria), 

bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL), and 

transbronchial biopsy. If any of the tests 

deemed appropriate by the examining 

physician are not available at the CBD 

diagnostic center, they may be 

performed at another location that is 

mutually agreed upon by the employer 

and the employee. 

* * * * * 

PART 1926—SAFETY AND HEALTH 

REGULATIONS FOR CONSTRUCTION 

Subpart Z—Toxic and Hazardous 

Substances 

■ 3. The authority citation for 29 CFR 

part 1926, subpart Z, continues to read 

as follows: 

Authority: 40 U.S.C. 3704; 29 U.S.C. 653, 

655, 657; and Secretary of Labor’s Order No. 

12–71 (36 FR 8754), 8–76 (41 FR 25059), 9– 

83 (48 FR 35736), 1–90 (55 FR 9033), 6–96 

(62 FR 111), 3–2000 (65 FR 50017), 5–2002 

(67 FR 65008), 5–2007 (72 FR 31160), 4–2010 

(75 FR 55355), or 1–2012 (77 FR 3912) as 

applicable; and 29 CFR part 1911. 

■ 4. In § 1926.1124, revise paragraph 

(k)(7)(ii) to read as follows: 

§ 1926.1124 Beryllium. 

* * * * * 

(k) * * * 

(7) * * * 

(ii) The employer must ensure that, as 

part of the evaluation, the employee is 

offered any tests deemed appropriate by 

the examining physician at the CBD 

diagnostic center, such as pulmonary 

function testing (as outlined by the 

American Thoracic Society criteria), 

bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL), and 

transbronchial biopsy. If any of the tests 

deemed appropriate by the examining 

physician are not available at the CBD 

diagnostic center, they may be 

performed at another location that is 

mutually agreed upon by the employer 

and the employee. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2021–02809 Filed 2–23–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–26–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 165 

[Docket Number USCG–2021–0034] 

RIN 1625–AA00 

Safety Zone; Duluth-Superior Harbor, 

Duluth, MN and Superior, WI 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Temporary final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is 

establishing a temporary safety zone for 

certain waters of Duluth-Superior 

Harbor encompassed by a box from 

Connor’s Point Marina in Superior, WI 

to Rice’s Point in Duluth, MN and 

extending 100 yards from four (4) barges 

placed across the waterway. This action 

is necessary to protect the safety of life 

on these navigable waters of DuluthSuperior Harbor near the Blatnik Bridge 

for an extreme sports event. This 

rulemaking would prohibit persons, 

vehicles, and vessels from entering, 

transiting, or anchoring in the safety 

zone unless authorized by the Captain 

of the Port Duluth or a designated 

representative. 

DATES: This rule is effective February 

24, 2021 through March 5, 2021. 

ADDRESSES: To view documents 

mentioned in this preamble as being 

available in the docket, go to https://

www.regulations.gov, type USCG–2021– 

0034 in the ‘‘SEARCH’’ box and click 

‘‘SEARCH.’’ Click on Open Docket 

Folder on the line associated with this 

rule. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you have questions about this proposed 

rulemaking, call or email LT Abbie 

Lyons, Chief, Incident Management 

Division, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 

218–725–3818, email Abbie.E.Lyons@

uscg.mil. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Table of Abbreviations 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

DHS Department of Homeland Security 

FR Federal Register 

NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking 

§ Section 

U.S.C. United States Code 

II. Background Information and 

Regulatory History 

The Coast Guard is issuing this 

temporary rule without prior notice and 

opportunity to comment pursuant to 

authority under section 4(a) of the 

Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 

U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision 

authorizes an agency to issue a rule 

without prior notice and opportunity to 

comment when the agency for good 

cause finds that those procedures are 

‘‘impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary 

to the public interest.’’ Under 5 U.S.C. 

553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that 

good cause exists for not publishing a 

notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) 

with respect to this rule because the 

temporary rule takes place after the 

closure of the Sault Saint Marie Locks 

on a frozen waterway with no 

anticipated vessel traffic. Further, 

delaying the effective date of this rule 

would be impracticable because 

immediate action is needed to respond 

to the potential safety hazards 

associated with the events taking place 

during Red Bull’s filming of the 

snowmachine stunts across the 

waterway. 

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. For the same reasons 

discussed in the preceeding paragraph, 

waiting for a 30-day notice period to run 

would be impracticable and contrary to 

the public interest. 

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule 

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule 

under authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034 

(previously 33 U.S.C. 1231). The 

Captain of the Port Duluth (COTP) has 

determined that this rule is necessary to 

protect the safety of people, vessels, 

vehicles, and the navigable waters 

within the safety zone immediately 

before, during, and after the scheduled 

event. 

IV. Discussion of the Rule 

The COTP establishing a safety zone 

from 9 a.m. through 4 p.m. daily from 

February 25, 2021 through March 5, 

2021. The safety zone covers all 

navigable waters from Connor’s Point 

Marina, along the Blatnik Bridge 

(Interstate 535 Bridge) to Rice’s Point 

Landing, extending 100 yards on either 

side of the barges along the waterway. 

The duration of the zone is intended to 

protect the safety of persons, vehicles, 

vessels, and these navigable waters 

immediately before, during, and after 

the scheduled event. No vessel, vehicle, 

or person would be permitted to enter 

the safety zone without obtaining 

permission from the COTP or a 

designated representative. 

V. Regulatory Analyses 

We developed this rule after 

considering numerous statutes and 

Executive orders related to rulemaking. 

Below we summarize our analyses 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 35 / Wednesday, February 24, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 11121 

based on a number of these statutes and 

Executive orders, and we discuss First 

Amendment rights of protestors. 

A. Regulatory Planning and Review 

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 

direct agencies to assess the costs and 

benefits of available regulatory 

alternatives and, if regulation is 

necessary, to select regulatory 

approaches that maximize net benefits. 

Executive Order 13771 directs agencies 

to control regulatory costs through a 

budgeting process. This NPRM has not 

been designated a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action,’’ under Executive 

Order 12866. Accordingly, the NPRM 

has not been reviewed by the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB), and 

pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt 

from the requirements of Executive 

Order 13771. 

This regulatory action determination 

is based on on the size, location, 

duration, and time-of-day of the safety 

zone. There is no expected vessel traffic 

on Lake Superior due to the closure of 

the Sault Saint Marie Locks and buildup 

of ice. Moreover, the Coast Guard would 

issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners via 

VHF–FM marine channel 16 about the 

zone, and under certain conditions, the 

rule would allow vessels to transit to 

seek permission to enter the zone from 

the COTP or a designated 

representative. 

B. Impact on Small Entities 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 

1980, 5 U.S.C. 601–612, as amended, 

requires Federal agencies to consider 

the potential impact of regulations on 

small entities during rulemaking. 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 proposed rule would not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

There is no expected vessel traffic on 

Lake Superior due to the closure of the 

Sault Saint Marie Locks and buildup of 

ice, so there this proposed rule would 

not have a significant economic impact 

on any vessel owner or operator. 

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. If the rule 

would affect your small business, 

organization, or governmental 

jurisdiction and you have questions 

concerning its provisions or options for 

compliance, please call or email the 

person listed in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

Small businesses may send comments 

on the 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). 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. 

C. Collection of Information 

This rule will not call for a new 

collection of information under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

U.S.C. 3501–3520). 

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal 

Governments 

A rule has implications for federalism 

under Executive Order 13132, 

Federalism, if it has a substantial direct 

effect on the States, on the relationship 

between the National Government and 

the States, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government. We have 

analyzed this rule under that Order and 

have determined that it is consistent 

with the fundamental federalism 

principles and preemption requirements 

described in Executive Order 13132. 

Also, 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. 

E. 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 (adjusted for inflation) or 

more in any one year. Though this rule 

will not result in such an expenditure, 

we do discuss the effects of this rule 

elsewhere in this preamble. 

F. Environment 

We have analyzed this rule under 

Department of Homeland Security 

Directive 023–01, Rev. 1, associated 

implementing instructions, and 

Environmental Planning COMDTINST 

5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast 

Guard in complying with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 

U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and have 

determined that this action is one of a 

category of actions that do not 

individually or cumulatively have a 

significant effect on the human 

environment. This proposed rule 

involves a safety zone lasting four hours 

over six consecutive days that would 

prohibit entry within 100 yards of the 

barges alongside Blatnik Bridge 

(Interstate 535 Bridge). Normally such 

actions are categorically excluded from 

further review under paragraph L60(a) 

of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS 

Instruction Manual 023–01–001–01, 

Rev. 1. We seek any comments or 

information that may lead to the 

discovery of a significant environmental 

impact from this proposed rule. 

G. Protest Activities 

The Coast Guard respects the First 

Amendment rights of protesters. 

Protesters are asked to call or email the 

person listed in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section to 

coordinate protest activities so that your 

message can be received without 

jeopardizing the safety or security of 

people, places, or vessels. 

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165 

Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation 

(water), Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Security measures, 

Waterways. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Coast Guard is proposing 

to amend 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: 46 U.S.C. 70034, 70051; 33 CFR 

1.05–1, 6.04–1, 6.04–6, and 160.5; 

Department of Homeland Security Delegation 

No. 0170.1. 

■ 2. Add § 165.T09–0034 to read as 

follows: 

§ 165.T09–0034 Safety Zone; DuluthSuperior Harbor, Duluth, MN and Superior, 

WI. 

(a) Location. The following area is a 

safety zone: All waters of DuluthSuperior Harbor, from surface to bottom, 

encompassed by a box from Connor’s 

Point Marina in Superior, WI to Rice’s 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
11122 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 35 / Wednesday, February 24, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

Point in Duluth, MN extending 100 

yards from the four (4) barges placed 

across the waterway. 

(b) Regulations. (1) In accordance 

with the general regulations in § 165.23 

of this part, entry into, transiting, or 

anchoring within this safety zone is 

prohibited unless authorized by the 

Captain of the Port (COTP) Duluth or a 

designated on-scene representative. 

(2) This safety zone is closed to all 

vessel traffic, except as may be 

permitted by the COTP Duluth or a 

designated on-scene representative. 

(3) The ‘‘on-scene representative’’ of 

the COTP Duluth is any Coast Guard 

commissioned, warrant or petty officer 

who has been designated by the COTP 

Duluth to act on his behalf. 

(4) To seek permission to enter, 

contact the COTP Duluth or the COTP 

Duluth’s representative by contacting 

Station Duluth at 218–529–3100. Those 

in the safety zone must comply with all 

lawful orders or directions given to 

them by the COTP or the COTP’s 

designated representative. 

(c) Enforcement periods. This section 

will be enforced from 9 a.m. through 4 

p.m. daily from February 25, 2021 

through March 5, 2021. 

Dated: February 17, 2021. 

Frances M. Smith, 

Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of 

the Port Duluth. 

[FR Doc. 2021–03536 Filed 2–23–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 165 

[Docket Number USCG–2021–0070] 

RIN 1625–AA87 

Security Zone; San Diego Bay, San 

Diego, CA 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Temporary final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is 

establishing a temporary security zone 

for navigable waters in the vicinity of 

U.S. Coast Guard Sector San Diego, CA. 

The security zone is necessary to protect 

the official party and the surrounding 

waterway and structures from terrorist 

acts, sabotage or other subversive acts, 

accidents or other causes of a similar 

nature. Entering, transiting through, 

anchoring in, or remaining within this 

security zone is prohibited unless 

authorized by the Captain of the Port 

Sector San Diego or a designated 

representative. 

DATES: This rule is effective from 6 a.m. 

on March 10, 2021 through 6 p.m. on 

March 11, 2021. This rule will be 

enforced from 6 a.m. through 6 p.m. on 

each of these dates. 

ADDRESSES: To view documents 

mentioned in this preamble as being 

available in the docket, go to https://

www.regulations.gov, type USCG–2021– 

0070 in the ‘‘SEARCH’’ box and click 

‘‘SEARCH.’’ Click on Open Docket 

Folder on the line associated with this 

rule. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you have questions on this rule, call or 

email Lieutenant John Santorum, 

Waterways Management, U.S. Coast 

Guard Sector San Diego, CA; telephone 

619–278–7656, email 

D11MarineEventsSD@uscg.mil. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Table of Abbreviations 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

DHS Department of Homeland Security 

FR Federal Register 

NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking 

§ Section 

U.S.C. United States Code 

II. Background Information and 

Regulatory History 

The Coast Guard is issuing this 

temporary rule without prior notice and 

opportunity to comment pursuant to 

authority under section 4(a) of the 

Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 

U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision 

authorizes an agency to issue a rule 

without prior notice and opportunity to 

comment when the agency for good 

cause finds that those procedures are 

‘‘impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary 

to the public interest.’’ Under 5 U.S.C. 

553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that 

good cause exists for not publishing a 

notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) 

with respect to this rule because it 

would be contrary to the public interest. 

Providing a public notice and comment 

period would be contrary to the security 

zone’s intended objective of protecting 

the official party and the public. 

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. Delaying the effective date of 

this rule is contrary to the public 

interest because the Coast Guard must 

establish this security zone by March 

10, 2021 to ensure the safety and 

security during the official’s visit. 

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule 

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule 

under authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034 

(previously 33 U.S.C. 1231). The 

Captain of the Port Sector San Diego 

(COTP) has determined that the 

official’s visit presents a potential target 

for terrorist acts, sabotage, or other 

subversive acts, accidents, or other 

causes of a similar nature. Given the 

close proximity of the waterways to the 

official’s visit site, this security zone is 

necessary to protect the official party, 

the public, and the surrounding 

waterways in the vicinity of U.S. Coast 

Guard Sector San Diego. 

IV. Discussion of the Rule 

This rule establishes a security zone 

from 6 a.m. on March 10, 2021 through 

6 p.m. on March 11, 2021. The security 

zone will be enforced from 6 a.m. 

through 6 p.m. on both of these dates. 

The security zone will cover all 

navigable waters of the San Diego Bay 

bound landward of a line by connecting 

the following points: Beginning at 

latitude 32°43′37.2′′ N, longitude 

117°10′45.0′′ W (point A); thence 

southeasterly to latitude 32°43′36.2′′ N, 

longitude 117°10′41.5′′ W (point B); 

thence southwesterly to latitude 

32°43′20.2′′ N, longitude 117°10′49.5′′ W 

(point C); thence northwesterly to 

latitude 32°43′25.7′′ N, longitude 

117°11′04.6′′ W (point D); thence 

northeasterly to latitude 32°43′35.7′′ N, 

longitude 117°10′59.5′′ W (point E); 

thence generally easterly along the air 

station boundary to the point of 

beginning (point A). No vessel may 

enter, transit through, anchor in, or 

remain in the zone during its 

enforcement unless permission is 

obtained from the COTP or a designated 

representative. The duration of the zone 

is intended to protect the Commandant 

and the Commandant’s party in the 

vicinity of this waterway. 

V. Regulatory Analyses 

We developed this rule after 

considering numerous statutes and 

Executive orders related to rulemaking. 

Below we summarize our analyses 

based on a number of these statutes and 

Executive orders, and we discuss First 

Amendment rights of protestors. 

A. Regulatory Planning and Review 

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 

direct agencies to assess the costs and 

benefits of available regulatory 

alternatives and, if regulation is 

necessary, to select regulatory 

approaches that maximize net benefits. 

Executive Order 13771 directs agencies 

to control regulatory costs through a 

budgeting process. This rule has not 

been designated a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action,’’ under Executive 

Order 12866. Accordingly, this rule has 

not been reviewed by the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB), and 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES