Skip to Content


Security Zone; Escorted Vessels in Captain of the Port Zone Jacksonville, FL

Document Details

Information about this document as published in the Federal Register.

Published Document

This document has been published in the Federal Register. Use the PDF linked in the document sidebar for the official electronic format.

Start Preamble


Coast Guard, DHS.


Final rule.


The Coast Guard is making permanent an interim rule establishing a security zone around any vessel being escorted by one or more Coast Guard assets, or other Federal, State, or local law enforcement assets within the Captain of the Port Zone Jacksonville, FL. This action is necessary to ensure the safe transit of escorted vessels as well as the safety and security of personnel and port facilities. No vessel or person is allowed inside the security zone unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Jacksonville, FL or a designated representative.


This rule is effective January 21, 2009.


Comments and material received from the public, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, are part of docket USCG-2008-0203 and are available online by going to, selecting the Advanced Docket Search option on the right side of the screen, inserting USCG-2008-0203 in the Docket ID box, pressing Enter, and then clicking on the item in the Docket ID column. This material is also available for inspection or copying at two locations: The 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, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays and the Coast Guard Sector Jacksonville Prevention Department, 4200 Ocean Street, Atlantic Beach, Florida, 32233, between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

Start Further Info


If you have questions on this rule, call Lieutenant Commander Mark Gibbs at Coast Guard Sector Jacksonville Prevention Department, Florida. Contact telephone is 904-564-7563. If you have questions on viewing the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 202-366-9826.

End Further Info End Preamble Start Supplemental Information


Regulatory Information

On May 19, 2008, we published an Interim Rule with request for comments (IR) entitled Security Zone; Escorted Vessels in Captain of the Port Zone Jacksonville, Florida in the Federal Register (73 FR 28707). We received one letter commenting on the rule. No public meeting was requested, and none was held.

Background and Purpose

The terrorist attacks of September 2001 heightened the need for development of various security measures throughout the seaports of the United States, particularly around vessels and facilities whose presence or movement creates a heightened vulnerability to terrorist acts; or those for which the consequences of terrorist acts represent a threat to national security. The President of the United States has found that the security of the United States is and continues to be endangered following the attacks of September 11 (E.O. 13,273, 67 FR 56215, Sept. 3, 2002 and 73 FR 54489, Sept. 22, 2008). Additionally, national security and intelligence officials continue to warn that future terrorist attacks are likely.

King's Bay, GA, and the Ports of Jacksonville, FL, and Canaveral, FL frequently receive vessels that require additional security, including, but not limited to, vessels that carry sensitive Department of Defense cargoes, vessels that carry dangerous cargoes, and foreign naval vessels. The Captain of the Port (COTP) Jacksonville has determined that these vessels have a significant vulnerability to subversive activity by vessels or persons or, in Start Printed Page 78185some cases, themselves pose a risk to a port and the public, within the Jacksonville Captain of the Port Zone, as described in 33 CFR 3.35-20. This rule enables the COTP Jacksonville to provide effective port security, while minimizing the public's confusion and easing the administrative burden of implementing separate temporary security zones for each escorted vessel.

Discussion of Comments and Changes

On May 19, 2008, the Coast Guard published the IR that established a security zone around any vessel being escorted by one or more Coast Guard assets, or other Federal, State, or local law enforcement assets within the Captain of the Port Zone Jacksonville, FL. One letter was received in response to the IR. The comments in the letter are beyond the scope of this rulemaking, but are relevant to another ongoing rulemaking: Security Zone; West Basin, Port Canaveral Harbor, Cape Canaveral, FL (Docket No. USCG-2008-0752). The Coast Guard will take these comments into consideration for that rulemaking.

Regulatory Analyses

We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on 13 of these statutes or executive orders.

Regulatory Planning and Review

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.

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 limited geographic area impacted by the security zone will not restrict the movement or routine operation of commercial or recreational vessels through the Ports within the Captain of the Port Zone Jacksonville.

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 may affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to transit in the vicinity of escorted vessels. This rule would not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities because the zones are limited in size, in most cases leaving ample space for vessels to navigate around them. The zones will not significantly impact commercial and passenger vessel traffic patterns, and mariners will be notified of the zones via Broadcast Notice to Mariners. Where such space is not available and security conditions permit, the Captain of the Port will attempt to provide flexibility for individual vessels to transit through the zones as needed.

Assistance for Small Entities

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), in the IR 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.

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).


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 Start Printed Page 78186standards 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.


We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 5100.1 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded under the Instruction 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 figure2-1, paragraph (34)(g), of the Instruction, from further environmental documentation.

An environmental analysis checklist and a categorical exclusion determination are available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES.

Start List of Subjects

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

End List of Subjects Start Amendment Part

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard adopts the interim rule published at

End Amendment Part Start Signature

Dated: November 18, 2008.

P. F. Thomas,

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Zone Jacksonville, Florida.

End Signature End Supplemental Information

[FR Doc. E8-30387 Filed 12-19-08; 8:45 am]