Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Coast Guard proposes to establish a permanent 500-yard moving security zone around the U.S. Forces vessel SBX-1 during transit within the Honolulu Captain of the Port Zone. This zone is necessary to protect the SBX-1 from threats associated with vessels and persons approaching too close during transit. Entry of persons or vessels into this security zone would be prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port (COTP).
Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or before February 6, 2008.
You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket number USCG-2007-0195 to the Docket Management Facility at the U.S. Department of Transportation. To avoid duplication, please use only one of the following methods:
(1) Online: http://www.regulations.gov.
(2) Mail: Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
(3) Hand delivery: Room W12-140 on the Ground Floor of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone number is 202-366-9329.
(4) Fax: 202-493-2251.Start Further Info
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Lieutenant (Junior Grade) Jasmin Parker, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Honolulu at (808) 842-2600.End Further Info End Preamble Start Supplemental Information
Public Participation and Request for Comments
We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting comments and related materials. All comments received will be posted, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any personal information you have provided. We have an agreement with the Department of Transportation (DOT) to use the Docket Management Facility. Please see DOT's “Privacy Act” paragraph below.
If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking (USCG-2007-0195), indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and give the reason for each comment. We recommend that you include your name and a mailing address, an e-mail address, or a phone number in the body of your document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your submission. You may submit your comments and material by electronic means, mail, fax, or delivery to the Docket Management Facility at the address under ADDRESSES, but please submit your comments and material by only one means. If you submit them by mail or delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 81/2 by 11 inches, suitable for copying and electronic filing. If you submit them by mail and would like to know that they reached the Facility, 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.
Viewing Comments and Documents
To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov at any time, click on “Search for Dockets,” and enter the docket number for this rulemaking (USCG-2007-0195) in the Docket ID box, and click enter. You may also visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the DOT West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
Anyone can search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review the Department of Transportation's Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477), or you may visit http://DocketsInfo.dot.gov.Start Printed Page 1134
We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a request for a meeting by writing to Sector Honolulu 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 U.S. Forces vessel SBX-1 will enter the Honolulu Captain of the Port Zone and transit to Pearl Harbor, HI for maintenance at least once each year. The SBX-1 is easy to recognize because it contains a large white object shaped like an egg supported by a platform that is larger than a football field. The platform in turn is supported by six pillars similar to those on large oil-drilling platforms.
The Coast Guard's reaction to such transits thus far has been to await a final voyage plan and then establish a security zone using a temporary final rule applicable to that particular voyage. Such action diminishes the public's opportunity for formal comment and imposes a pressing administrative burden each time the SBX-1 arrives. This permanent SBX-1 security zone proposal affords solicitation of public comments and promotes relief from the emergency rulemakings currently necessary to protect these transits.
Discussion of Proposed Rule
Our proposed security zone would be established permanently. It would be automatically activated, meaning it would be subject to enforcement, whenever the U.S. Forces vessel SBX-1 is in U.S. navigable waters within the Honolulu Captain of the Port (COTP) Zone (see 33 CFR 3.70-10). The security zone would include all waters extending 500 yards in all directions from the SBX-1, from the surface of the water to the ocean floor.
The security zone would move with the SBX-1 while it is in transit. The zone would become fixed around the SBX-1 while it is anchored, position-keeping, or moored, and it would remain activated until the SBX-1 either departs U.S. navigable waters within the Honolulu COTP zone or enters the Honolulu Naval Defensive Sea Area established by Executive Order 8987 (6 FR 6675, December 24, 1941).
The general regulations governing security zones contained in 33 CFR 165.33 would apply. Entry into, transit through, or anchoring within the zone while it is activated and enforced would be prohibited unless authorized by the COTP or a designated representative thereof. Any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant, or petty officer, and any other COTP representative permitted by law, could enforce the zone. The COTP could waive any of the requirements of this rule for any person, vessel, or class of vessel upon finding that application of the security zone is unnecessary or impractical for the purpose of maritime security. Vessels or persons violating this rule would be subject to the penalties set forth in 33 U.S.C. 1232 and 50 U.S.C. 192.
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.
The Coast Guard expects 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 expectation is based on the limited duration of the zone, the constricted geographic area affected by it, and its ability to move with the protected vessel.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered whether this proposed rule will 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 will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. We expect that there will be little or no impact to small entities due to the narrowly tailored scope of this proposed security zone.
Assistance for Small Entities
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we offer to assist small entities in understanding this proposed 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). 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 proposed rule calls 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 either preempts State law or imposes 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.
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 will not result in such expenditure, we do discuss the effects of the rule elsewhere in this preamble.
Taking of Private Property
This proposed rule will 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.Start Printed Page 1135
Protection of Children
We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This proposed 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 proposed 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.
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. 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.
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 is 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 proposed rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.
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 this action is not likely to have a significant effect on the human environment. A preliminary “Environmental Analysis Check List” supporting this preliminary determination is available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this proposed rule.Start List of Subjects
List of Subjects 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:
2. A new § 165.1411 to read as follows:
(a) Location. The following area, in U.S. navigable waters within the Honolulu Captain of the Port Zone (see 33 CFR 3.70-10), from the surface of the water to the ocean floor, is a security zone: All waters extending 500 yards in all directions from U.S. Forces vessel SBX-1. The security zone moves with the SBX-1 while it is in transit and becomes fixed when the SBX-1 is anchored, position-keeping, or moored.
(b) Regulations. The general regulations governing security zones contained in 33 CFR 165.33 apply. Entry into, transit through, or anchoring within, this zone while it is activated, and thus subject to enforcement, is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port or a designated representative thereof.
(c) Suspension of Enforcement. The Coast Guard will suspend enforcement of the security zone described in this section whenever the SBX-1 is within the Honolulu Defensive Sea Area (see 6 FR 6675).
(d) Informational notice. The Captain of the Port of Honolulu will cause notice of the enforcement of the security zone described in this section to be made by broadcast notice to mariners. The SBX-1 is easy to recognize because it contains a large white object shaped like an egg supported by a platform that is larger than a football field. The platform in turn is supported by six pillars similar to those on large oil-drilling platforms.
(e) Authority to enforce. Any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant, or petty officer, and any other Captain of the Port representative permitted by law, may enforce the security zone described in this section.
(f) Waiver. The Captain of the Port may waive any of the requirements of this rule for any person, vessel, or class of vessel upon finding that application of the security zone is unnecessary or impractical for the purpose of maritime security.
Dated: December 6, 2007.
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Honolulu.
[FR Doc. E8-19 Filed 1-4-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P