Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 163 / Wednesday, August 24, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 49487

Authority: Pub. L. 93–579, 88 Stat. 1896 (5 

U.S.C. 552a).

n 2. In § 505.5, paragraph (e)(20) is added 

to read as follows:

§ 505.5 Exemptions.

* * * * *

(e) Exempt Army records. * * *

* * * * *

(20) System identifier and name:

A0195–2c USACIDC DoD, DoD Criminal 

Investigation Task Force (CITF) Files. 

(i) Exemption: Parts of this system 

may be exempt pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 

552a(j)(2) if the information is compiled 

and maintained by a component of the 

agency, which performs as its principle 

function any activity pertaining to the 

enforcement of criminal laws. Any 

portion of this system of records which 

falls within the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 

552a(j)(2) may be exempt from the 

following subsections of 5 U.S.C. 

552a(c)(3), (c)(4), (d), (e)(1), (e)(2), (e)(3), 

(e)(4)(G), (H), and (I), (e)(5), (e)(8), (f), 

and (g). 

(ii) Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2). 

(iii) Reasons: (A) From subsection 

(c)(3) because the release of accounting 

of disclosure would inform a subject 

that he or she is under investigation. 

This information would provide 

considerable advantage to the subject in 

providing him or her with knowledge 

concerning the nature of the 

investigation and the coordinated 

investigative efforts and techniques 

employed by the cooperating agencies. 

This would greatly impede criminal law 

enforcement. 

(B) From subsection (c)(4) and (d), 

because notification would alert a 

subject to the fact that an open 

investigation on that individual is 

taking place, and might weaken the ongoing investigation, reveal investigative 

techniques, and place confidential 

informants in jeopardy. 

(C) From subsection (e)(1) because the 

nature of the criminal and/or civil 

investigative function creates unique 

problems in prescribing a specific 

parameter in a particular case with 

respect to what information is relevant 

or necessary. Also, information may be 

received which may relate to a case 

under the investigative jurisdiction of 

another agency. The maintenance of this 

information may be necessary to 

provide leads for appropriate law 

enforcement purposes and to establish 

patterns of activity that may relate to the 

jurisdiction of other cooperating 

agencies. 

(D) From subsection (e)(2) because 

collecting information to the fullest 

extent possible directly from the subject 

individual may or may not be practical 

in a criminal and/or civil investigation. 

(E) From subsection (e)(3) because 

supplying an individual with a form 

containing a Privacy Act Statement 

would tend to inhibit cooperation by 

many individuals involved in a criminal 

and/or civil investigation. The effect 

would be somewhat adverse to 

established investigative methods and 

techniques. 

(F) From subsections (e)(4)(G), (H), 

and (I) because this system of records is 

exempt from the access provisions of 

subsection (d).

(G) From subsection (e)(5) because the 

requirement that records be maintained 

with attention to accuracy, relevance, 

timeliness, and completeness would 

unfairly hamper the investigative 

process. It is the nature of law 

enforcement for investigations to 

uncover the commission of illegal acts 

at diverse stages. It is frequently 

impossible to determine initially what 

information is accurate, relevant, timely, 

and least of all complete. With the 

passage of time, seemingly irrelevant or 

untimely information may acquire new 

significance as further investigation 

brings new details to light. 

(H) From subsection (e)(8) because the 

notice requirements of this provision 

could present a serious impediment to 

law enforcement by revealing 

investigative techniques, procedures, 

and existence of confidential 

investigations. 

(I) From subsection (f) because the 

agency’s rules are inapplicable to those 

portions of the system that are exempt 

and would place the burden on the 

agency of either confirming or denying 

the existence of a record pertaining to a 

requesting individual might in itself 

provide an answer to that individual 

relating to an on-going investigation. 

The conduct of a successful 

investigation leading to the indictment 

of a criminal offender precludes the 

applicability of established agency rules 

relating to verification of record, 

disclosure of the record to that 

individual, and record amendment 

procedures for this record system. 

(J) From subsection (g) because this 

system of records should be exempt to 

the extent that the civil remedies relate 

to provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552a from 

which this rule exempts the system. 

(K) Consistent with the legislative 

purpose of the Privacy Act of 1974, the 

Department of the Army will grant 

access to nonexempt material in the 

records being maintained. Disclosure 

will be governed by the Department of 

the Army’s Privacy regulation, but will 

be limited to the extent that the identity 

of confidential sources will not be 

compromised; subjects of an 

investigation of an actual or potential 

criminal violation will not be alerted to 

the investigation; the physical safety of 

witnesses, informants and law 

enforcement personnel will not be 

endangered, the privacy of third parties 

will not be violated; and that the 

disclosure would not otherwise impede 

effective law enforcement. Whenever 

possible, information of the above 

nature will be deleted from the 

requested documents and the balance 

made available. The controlling 

principle behind this limited access is 

to allow disclosures except those 

indicated above. The decisions to 

release information from these systems 

will be made on a case-by-case basis 

necessary for effective law enforcement.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 05–16775 Filed 8–23–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 5001–06–P

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 165

[CGD05–05–101] 

RIN 1625–AA00

Safety Zone; Patapsco River, 

Northwest and Inner Harbors, 

Baltimore, MD

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is 

establishing a temporary safety zone in 

the Port of Baltimore, Maryland during 

the movement of the historic Sloop-ofWar U.S.S. CONSTELLATION. This 

action is necessary to provide for the 

safety of life on navigable waters during 

the dead ship tow of the vessel from its 

berth, to the Fort McHenry Angle on the 

Patapsco River, and return. This action 

will restrict vessel traffic in portions of 

Baltimore’s Inner Harbor, the Northwest 

Harbor, and the Patapsco River.

DATES: This rule is effective from 2 p.m. 

to 7 p.m. local time on September 9, 

2005.

ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this 

preamble as being available in the 

docket are part of docket CGD05–05–

101 and are available for inspection or 

copying at Commander, U.S. Coast 

Guard Sector, Waterways Management 

Division, 2401 Hawkins Point Road, 

Baltimore, Maryland 21226, between 9 

a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Ronald Houck, at Coast Guard Sector 

49488 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 163 / Wednesday, August 24, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

Baltimore, Waterways Management 

Division, at telephone number (410) 

576–2674.

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. Publishing 

an NPRM is impracticable due to the 

unique nature of the rule and the fastapproaching effective date. The historic 

Sloop-of-War U.S.S. CONSTELLATION 

will be towed ‘‘dead ship,’’ which 

means that the vessel will be underway 

without the benefit of mechanical or sail 

propulsion. Therefore, it is imperative 

that there be a clear transit route and a 

safe buffer zone around the U.S.S. 

CONSTELLATION and the vessels 

towing her. 

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. The Coast Guard expects a 

large recreational boating fleet to view 

the turn-around of the U.S.S. 

CONSTELLATION. To provide 

necessary safety measures to protect 

mariners against potential hazards 

associated with the turn-around, it is in 

the public interest to have a safety zone 

in place for the event which is 

scheduled to occur in less than 30 days. 

Background and Purpose 

On September 9, 2005, the U.S.S. 

CONSTELLATION Museum will 

conduct a turn-around of the historic 

Sloop-of-War U.S.S. CONSTELLATION 

in Baltimore, Maryland. The planned 

event includes the ‘‘dead ship’’ tow of 

the U.S.S. CONSTELLATION from its 

berth in Baltimore’s Inner Harbor to the 

Fort McHenry Angle of the Patapsco 

River, a tug assisted turn-around of the 

vessel, then a ‘‘dead ship’’ tow return to 

its berth in Baltimore’s Inner Harbor. In 

addition, an onboard salute with navy 

pattern cannon while off Fort McHenry 

National Monument and Historic Site is 

expected. 

The Coast Guard anticipates a large 

recreational boating fleet during this 

event, scheduled on a late Friday 

afternoon during summer in Baltimore, 

Maryland. Operators should expect 

significant vessel congestion along the 

planned route. 

The purpose of this rule is to promote 

maritime safety and protect participants 

and the boating public in the Port of 

Baltimore immediately prior to, during, 

and after the scheduled event. The rule 

will provide for a clear transit route for 

the participating vessels, and provide a 

safety buffer around the participating 

vessels while they are in transit. The 

rule will impact the movement of all 

vessels operating in the specified areas 

of the Port of Baltimore. 

Interference with normal port 

operations will be kept to the minimum 

considered necessary to ensure the 

safety of life on the navigable waters 

immediately before, during, and after 

the scheduled event. 

Discussion of Rule 

The historic Sloop-of-War U.S.S. 

CONSTELLATION is scheduled to 

conduct a ‘‘turn-around’’ on September 

9, 2005. The U.S.S. CONSTELLATION 

is scheduled to be towed from its berth, 

to Fort McHenry, and return, along a 

route of approximately 2.5 nautical 

miles (5 nautical miles total) that 

includes specified waters of Baltimore’s 

Inner Harbor, the Northwest Harbor and 

the Patapsco River. 

The safety of dead ship tow 

participants requires that spectator craft 

be kept at a safe distance from the 

intended route during this evolution. 

The Coast Guard is establishing a 

temporary moving safety zone around 

the U.S.S. CONSTELLATION ‘‘turnaround’’ participants on September 9, 

2005, to ensure the safety of participants 

and spectators immediately prior to, 

during, and following the dead ship 

tow. The safety zone will extend 200 

yards ahead of or 100 yards outboard or 

aft of the historic Sloop-of-War U.S.S. 

CONSTELLATION.

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. This finding is 

based on the limited size of the zone, 

the minimal time that vessels will be 

restricted from the zone, and that 

vessels may safely transit a portion of 

Baltimore’s Inner Harbor, the Northwest 

Harbor, and the Patapsco River, around 

the zone. In addition, the zone will be 

well publicized to allow mariners to 

make alternative plans for transiting the 

affected area, and vessels that may need 

to enter the zone may request 

permission on a case-by-case basis from 

the Captain of the Port (COTP) 

Baltimore, Maryland. 

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 would affect the following 

entities, some of which might be small 

entities: The owners or operators of 

vessels intending to operate or anchor in 

portions of Baltimore’s Inner Harbor, the 

Northwest Harbor, and the Patapsco 

River in the Port of Baltimore, 

Maryland. Because the zone is of 

limited size and duration, it is expected 

that there will be minimal disruption to 

the maritime community. Before the 

effective period, the Coast Guard will 

issue maritime advisories widely 

available to users of the river to allow 

mariners to make alternative plans for 

transiting the affected areas. In addition, 

smaller vessels, which are more likely to 

be small entities, may transit around the 

zones and may request permission from 

the COTP Baltimore on a case-by-case 

basis to enter the zone. 

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 the rule so that they 

could better evaluate its effects on them 

and participate in the rulemaking 

process. 

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). 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 163 / Wednesday, August 24, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 49489

Collection of Information 

This 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 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 rule will not result in such 

an expenditure, we do discuss the 

effects of this rule elsewhere in this 

preamble. 

Taking of Private Property 

This 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 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 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. 

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 

procedures; and related management 

systems 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 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 concluded 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, this 

rule is categorically excluded, under 

figure 2–1, paragraph (34)(g.), of the 

Instruction, from further environmental 

documentation. This rule established a 

safety zone. 

A final ‘‘Environmental Analysis 

Check List’’ and a final ‘‘Categorical 

Exclusion Determination’’ are available 

in the docket where indicated under 

ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation 

(water), Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Security measures, 

Waterways.

n 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

n 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, 6.04–1, 6.04–6, and 160.5; 

Pub. L. 107–295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department 

of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

n 2. Add § 165.T05–101 to read as 

follows:

§ 165.T05–101 Safety Zone; Patapsco 

River, Northwest and Inner Harbors, 

Baltimore, MD. 

(a) Definitions. For the purposes of 

this section— 

Captain of the Port, Baltimore, 

Maryland means the Commander, Coast 

Guard Sector Baltimore or any Coast 

Guard commissioned, warrant, or petty 

officer who has been authorized by the 

Captain of the Port, Baltimore, Maryland 

to act on his or her behalf. 

U.S.S. CONSTELLATION ‘‘turnaround’’ participants means the U.S.S. 

CONSTELLATION, its support craft and 

the accompanying towing vessels. 

(b) Location. The following area is a 

moving safety zone: all waters within 

200 yards ahead of or 100 yards 

outboard or aft of the historic Sloop-ofWar U.S.S. CONSTELLATION, while 

operating in Baltimore’s Inner Harbor, 

the Northwest Harbor and the Patapsco 

River, Baltimore, Maryland. 

(c) Regulations. (1) The general 

regulations governing safety zones, 

found in Sec. 165.23, apply to the safety 

zone described in paragraph (b) of this 

section. 

(2) With the exception of U.S.S. 

CONSTELLATION ‘‘turn-around’’ 

participants, entry into or remaining in 

this zone is prohibited, unless 

authorized by the Captain of the Port, 

Baltimore, Maryland. 

(3) Persons or vessels requiring entry 

into or passage through the moving 

safety zone must first request 

authorization from the Captain of the 

Port, Baltimore, Maryland to seek 

permission to transit the area. The 

Captain of the Port, Baltimore, Maryland 

can be contacted at telephone number 

(410) 576–2693 or on Marine Band 

Radio VHF Channel 16 (156.8 MHz). 

The Coast Guard vessels enforcing this 

49490 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 163 / Wednesday, August 24, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

section can be contacted on Marine 

Band Radio VHF Channel 16 (156.8 

MHz) Upon being hailed by a U.S. Coast 

Guard vessel by siren, radio, flashing 

light, or other means, the person or 

vessel shall proceed as directed. If 

permission is granted, all persons or 

vessels must comply with the 

instructions of the Captain of the Port, 

Baltimore, Maryland, and proceed at the 

minimum speed necessary to maintain a 

safe course while within the zone. 

(d) Enforcement. The U.S. Coast 

Guard may be assisted in the patrol and 

enforcement of the zone by Federal, 

State and local agencies. 

(e) Effective period. This section will 

be enforced from 2 p.m. to 7 p.m. local 

time on September 9, 2005.

Dated: August 11, 2005. 

Curtis A. Springer, 

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the 

Port, Baltimore, Maryland.

[FR Doc. 05–16792 Filed 8–23–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–15–P

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 165

[CGD11–05–006] 

RIN 1625–AA11

Regulated Navigation Area; Humboldt 

Bay Bar Channel and Humboldt Bay 

Entrance Channel, Humboldt Bay, CA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is 

establishing the Humboldt Bay Bar 

Channel and the Humboldt Bay 

Entrance Channel as a Regulated 

Navigation Area (RNA) for certain 

commercial vessels transporting oil or 

hazardous material as cargo. This action 

is necessary to reduce significant 

hazards to subject vessels, the port and 

the public that are present during 

periods of poor weather conditions. The 

RNA codifies existing Captain of the 

Port San Francisco Bay (COTP) policies 

for vessels transporting oil or certain 

dangerous cargoes in bulk within 

Humboldt Bay.

DATES: This rule is effective starting at 

12:01 a.m. on September 23, 2005.

ADDRESSES: Comments and material 

received from the public, as well as 

documents indicated in this preamble as 

being available in the docket are part of 

docket CGD11–05–006 and are available 

for inspection or copying at the 

Waterways Branch of the Marine Safety 

Office San Francisco Bay, Coast Guard 

Island, Alameda, California 94501, 

between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Lieutenant Ian Callander, Waterways 

Management Branch, U.S. Coast Guard 

Marine Safety Office San Francisco Bay, 

and (510) 437–3401.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Regulatory Information 

On May 13, 2005, we published a 

Notice of Proposed Rule Making 

(NPRM) entitled, Regulated Navigation 

Area; Humboldt Bay Bar Channel and 

Humboldt Bay Entrance Channel, 

Humboldt Bay, CA, in the Federal 

Register (70 FR 25511). We received one 

comment on the proposed rule. No 

public meeting was requested, and none 

was held. 

Vessels or persons violating this 

section are subject to the penalties set 

forth in 33 U.S.C. 1232 and 50 U.S.C. 

192. Pursuant to 33 U.S.C. 1232, any 

violation of the security zone described 

herein is punishable by civil penalties 

(not to exceed $32,500 per violation, 

where each day of a continuing 

violation is a separate violation), 

criminal penalties (imprisonment up to 

6 years and a maximum fine of 

$250,000) and in rem liability against 

the offending vessel. Any person who 

violates this section using a dangerous 

weapon, or who engages in conduct that 

causes bodily injury or fear of imminent 

bodily injury to any officer authorized 

to enforce this regulation also faces 

imprisonment up to 12 years. Vessels or 

persons violating this section are also 

subject to the penalties set forth in 50 

U.S.C. 192: seizure and forfeiture of the 

vessel to the United States, a maximum 

criminal fine of $10,000, and 

imprisonment up to 10 years. 

The Sector Commander will enforce 

this regulation and has the authority, as 

delegated by the Captain of the Port, San 

Francisco Bay, to take steps necessary to 

ensure the safe transit of vessels in 

Humboldt Bay. The Sector Commander 

can enlist the aid and cooperation of 

any Federal, State, county, and 

municipal agency to assist in the 

enforcement of the regulation. 

Background and Purpose 

Because Humboldt Bay has a breaking 

bar, a narrow entrance channel, and no 

general anchorages within the bay, 

transits of this area present significant 

hazards to vessels carrying oil or 

hazardous material as cargo. The 

potential hazards to the subject vessels 

and the consequences of casualties 

involving commercial vessels carrying 

oil or hazardous material as cargo 

warrant special procedures to reduce 

the potential for a collision or grounding 

and any subsequent release of a cargo 

covered by this regulation. 

In this particular rulemaking, the 

Coast Guard designates an area around 

the Humboldt Bay Bar as an RNA for the 

following purposes: (1) To establish the 

Coast Guard’s authority to prohibit 

vessels carrying oil or hazardous 

material as cargo from crossing the bar 

during unsafe conditions, (2) to 

establish waiver, notice, and vessel 

escort policies, and (3) to delegate the 

authority for enforcing these regulations 

to the Sector/Air Station Humboldt Bay 

Commander. 

Discussion of Comments and Changes 

We received one comment on the 

proposed rule. No public hearing was 

requested, and none was held. The 

comment we received noted that Group 

Humboldt Bay would be stood-down 

and incorporated into Sector/Air Station 

Humboldt Bay prior to the publishing of 

this final rule. ‘Group Humboldt Bay’ 

and ‘Group Commander’ have been 

replaced with ‘Sector/Air Station 

Humboldt Bay’ and ‘Sector Commander’ 

respectively in this final rule. Because 

this change does not have a substantive 

impact on the regulation, we feel that 

making this change does not warrant an 

extension to the public comment period 

provided by the NPRM. 

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 rule to be so minimal that a full 

Regulatory Evaluation under the 

regulatory policies and procedures of 

DHS is unnecessary. The effect of this 

regulation would not be significant for 

the following reasons: (1) Very few 

vessels carrying oil or certain dangerous 

cargoes transit the Humboldt Bay area, 

and (2) those vessels carrying oil or 

hazardous material as cargo have been 

complying with the COTP advisories 

that established the same procedures 

that are established in this regulation. 

Therefore, this rule would be a 

continuation of the already established 

policy of monitoring the entrance and 

departure of the above-mentioned