Coast Guard, DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Coast Guard proposes establishing a temporary security zone in the waters of the Potomac River off Fort Lesley J. McNair, Washington, DC during the May 31, 2002, U.S. Coast Guard Chief of Staff's retirement ceremony. The security zone is necessary to provide for the security and safety of life and property of event participants, spectators and mariners on U.S. navigable waters during the event. Entry into this zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port, Baltimore, Maryland, or designated representative.Start Printed Page 19366
Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or before May 20, 2002.
You may mail comments and related material to the Port Safety, Security and Waterways Management Branch, at Commander, U.S. Coast Guard Activities Baltimore, 2401 Hawkins Point Road, Baltimore, Maryland, 21226-1791. U.S. Coast Guard Activities Baltimore, Port Safety, Security and Waterways Management Branch maintains the public docket for this rulemaking. 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 U.S. Coast Guard Activities Baltimore, Port Safety, Security and Waterways Management Branch between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.Start Further Info
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Ronald L. Houck, Port Safety, Security and Waterways Management Branch, at telephone number (410) 576-2674.End Further Info End Preamble Start Supplemental 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 (CGD05-02-018), 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. If you would like to know your submission 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.
We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a request for a meeting by writing to Commander, U.S. Coast Guard Activities Baltimore 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 separate notice in the Federal Register.
Background and Purpose
The Coast Guard will conduct a retirement ceremony along the Washington Channel at Washington, DC. A security zone is needed to protect dignitaries taking part in the high-level military ceremony from potential threats posed by waterborne acts of sabotage or other subversive acts. The purpose of the proposed regulation is to promote maritime safety and protect participants and spectators during the event. These regulations will impact the movement of all vessels operating in the specified area on the Washington Channel at Washington, DC.
Discussion of Proposed Rule
The U.S. Coast Guard Chief of Staff's retirement ceremony will be held at Fort Lesley J. McNair, Washington, D.C. on May 31, 2002. The event will consist of a background comprised of the U.S. Coast Guard Cutter EAGLE anchored adjacent to Fort McNair on the confined waters of the Washington Channel of the Potomac River. A security zone is needed from 9 a.m. to 2 p.m. on May 31, 2002 to safeguard event participants and spectators. U.S. Coast Guard patrol vessels will be provided to prevent the movement of persons and vessels in an area approximately 200 yards wide and 450 yards long within Washington Channel. Entry into this zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port or his or her designated representative. The Captain of the Port will notify the public of changes in the status of the zone by a Marine Safety Radio Broadcast.
This proposed 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 Transportation (DOT) (44 FR 11040, February 26, 1979).
We expect the economic impact of this proposed rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation under paragraph 10e of the regulatory policies and procedures of DOT is unnecessary. This temporary rule affects a limited area for approximately five hours, and will not completely close the navigable channel. Therefore, the Coast Guard expects the economic impact of this proposal to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation under paragraph 10(e) of the regulatory policies and procedures of DOT is unnecessary.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered whether this proposed 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 proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Because this proposal will only be in effect for a limited amount of time, and extensive advisories will be made to the affected maritime community so that they may adjust their schedules accordingly, the Coast Guard expects the impact of this proposal to be minimal.
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 want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the proposed rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact Ronald L. Houck, Port Safety, Security and Waterways Management Branch, at telephone number (410) 576-2674.
Collection of Information
This proposed rule would call for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
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. Start Printed Page 19367
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 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 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 proposed rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and would not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might 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 governments, even if that impact may not constitute a “tribal implication” under the Order.
We have analyzed this proposed 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. 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.
We have considered the environmental impact of this proposed rule and concluded that, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g), of Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, this rule is categorically excluded from further environmental documentation because of the limited duration and scope of the regulation. A “Categorical Exclusion Determination” is available in the docket where indicted under ADDRESSES.Start List of Subjects
List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165
- Marine safety
- Navigation (water)
- Reporting and recordkeeping requirements
- Security measures
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows:Start Part
PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:
(a) Location. The following area is a security zone: all waters of the Potomac River, from surface to bottom, encompassed by lines connecting the following points, beginning at 38° 52′03″ N, 077° 01′07″ W, thence to 38° 52′03″ N, 077° 01′14″ W, thence to 38° 51′50″ N, 077° 01′16″ W, thence to 38° 51′50″ N, 077° 01′07″ W, thence to 38° 52′03″ N, 077° 01′07″ W. These coordinates are based upon NAD 1983.
(b) Regulations. (1) In accordance with § 165.33, entry into this zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Coast Guard Captain of the Port, Baltimore, Maryland, or his or her designated representative. Section 165.33 also contains other general requirements.
(2) Persons desiring to transit the area of the security zone may contact the Captain of the Port at telephone number (410) 576-2693 or on VHF channel 16 (156.8 MHz) or VHF channel 22 (157.1 MHz) to seek permission to transit the area. If permission is granted, all persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of the Captain of the Port or his or her designated representative.
(d) Effective period. This section is effective from 9 a.m. through 2 p.m. on May 31, 2002.
Dated: April 4, 2002.
R. B. Peoples,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard,
Captain of the Port, Baltimore, Maryland.
[FR Doc. 02-9679 Filed 4-18-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P