Coast Guard, DHS.
Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Coast Guard proposes amendments to its regulation establishing security zones that are enforceable in connection with the arrival or departure of international leaders for United Nations meetings in New York, NY. New regulated navigation areas would be established and some security zones would be modified, and the regulation would be rearranged. The proposed amendments would assist the Coast Guard in protecting public safety and visiting dignitaries during these events, and thus promote the Coast Guard's maritime safety and maritime security missions.
Comments and related material must be received by the Coast Guard on or before May 20, 2013.
Requests for public meetings must be received by the Coast Guard on or before April 26, 2013.
You may submit comments identified by docket number using any one of the following methods:
(1)
(2)
(3)
See the “Public Participation and Request for Comments” portion of the
If you have questions on this rule, call or email Mr. Jeff Yunker, Coast Guard Sector New York, Waterways Management Division; telephone (718)
We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting comments and related materials. All comments received will be posted without change to
If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material online at
To submit your comment online, go to
If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 8
To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
Anyone can search the electronic form of 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 a Privacy Act notice regarding our public dockets in the January 17, 2008, issue of the
We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a request for one on or before April 26, 2013, using one of the methods specified under
On September 11, 2012, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) entitled “Security Zones; Dignitary Arrival/Departure and United Nations Meetings, New York, NY” in the
One commenter said it would be good to know evacuation routes and protocols during incidents at the United Nations (UN) so the public could avoid the situation. UN evacuation protocols are outside of the purview of this rulemaking.
One commenter said we should consider limiting access to security zone enforcement notifications, to prevent subversives or terrorists from gaining an advantage via these notifications. By law, we must make such notifications public. We disagree that they provide information that would otherwise be unavailable to potential bad actors, because UN meetings and dignitary visits are well publicized in the commercial media and other open sources. This commenter also said we should clarify how a vessel may obtain permission to enter an in-force security zone and whether this permission is temporary or permanent, and that vessels should be able to obtain pre-established clearance to travel through in-force security zones. Our proposed amendments clearly describe how to obtain entry permission, which is for the duration of the enforcement period. Pre-establishing clearance is not advisable since the specific terms on which entry may be authorized will vary depending on the exact nature of each dignitary's visit. Lastly, this commenter said we should develop a contingency plan for emergency scenarios that addresses acute high volume boat traffic and evacuation. This is outside the purview of this rulemaking.
One commenter said our Randalls and Wards Islands coordinates are incorrect. We verified the published coordinates and confirmed they are correct, with no changes necessary.
One commenter said that permanently prohibiting freedom of movement takes a vote of elected officials in place of a regulation. The Coast Guard's legal authority to establish RNAs and security zones is outlined in the Basis and Purpose section.
One commenter said the UN should relocate to Dubai and that the UN building should be converted to apartments or condominiums. This is outside the purview of this rulemaking.
The New York City Water Trail Association Steering Committee stated that last minute changes to security zone activation times of even a few minutes can make adjusting plans difficult or impossible for small, human-powered boats, borne by the tide. Dignitary schedule changes are outside of the Coast Guard's authority. We will provide as much advance information, and publish it as widely, as it is possible for us to do under the circumstances and when practicable. The commenter also raised concerns about the inclusion of the Bronx Kill in the proposed Randalls and Wards Island security
The legal basis for the proposed rule is 33 U.S.C 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C Chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05–1, 6.04–1, 6.04–6, 160.5; and Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1, which collectively authorize the Coast Guard to establish RNAs and security zones. The purpose of this rulemaking is to regulate navigation in waters near the United Nations (UN) during UN visits by international leaders. The purpose of this supplemental NPRM is to notify the public that we have determined an RNA to be a legally more appropriate tool than a security zone for certain areas described in the NPRM.
The Coast Guard proposes amending the existing security zone regulation relating to the arrival and departure of dignitaries for UN meetings in New York City, 33 CFR 165.164. Our proposals are substantively similar to the proposals contained in our 2012 NPRM, but we are proposing some rearrangement and non-substantive revision of § 165.164, and we are proposing redesignating some existing or proposed security zones as regulated navigation areas. Please see the NPRM for a further discussion of how we have enforced § 165.164 security zones in the past. We have now determined that an RNA is the more appropriate means to regulate the movement of vessels or individuals instead of the security zones originally proposed or already codified at 33 CFR 165.164. We would designate the Wall Street Heliport, Randalls and Wards Islands, and United Nations Full River Closure security zones as RNAs. The Marine Air Terminal, United Nations, and United Nations West Channel Closure security zones would remain designated as security zones as they do not completely restrict vessel traffic on that portion of the Bowery Bay and East River during enforcement of the security zones.
We would reorganize § 165.164 and add descriptive designations to name each of the several locations covered by that regulation.
We propose revising § 165.164(a)(1) relating to the Wall Street Heliport. We would remove a reference to Pier 13, which no longer exists, but otherwise the boundaries of the designated area would not change. The existing security zone would become a regulated navigation area.
We would add new § 165.164(a)(2) and establish an RNA on the waters of the East River and Bronx Kill in the vicinity of Randalls and Wards Islands. The RNA would be approximately 2,150 yards long and 860 yards wide, and would encompass approximately 0.21 square nautical miles. It would be enforced from 30 minutes before a dignitary's arrival until 15 minutes after the dignitary's departure from the area.
We propose no changes to § 165.164(a)(3), other than to designate it as the Marine Air Terminal, La Guardia Airport Security Zone.
We propose designating the security zone created by § 165.164(a)(4) as the United Nations Security Zone, and we propose rewording the description of this zone's boundaries for clarity, without changing its geographical coordinates. In new paragraph (d), we propose stating that this zone is in force at all times.
We propose transferring the security zone described in existing § 165.164(a)(5) to paragraph (a)(6), and designating it the United Nations Full River Closure RNA. The content of existing paragraph (a)(6) would be addressed in new paragraph (d). When enforced, the UN Full River Closure RNA would fully close the East River to vessel traffic within its boundaries. We would create a new security zone in paragraph (a)(5), to be designated the United Nations West Channel Closure Security Zone. When in force, it would close only a portion of the western channel of the river. Vessels capable of transiting the shallower waters of the eastern channel could do so.
The content of existing paragraph (a)(7) would be addressed in new paragraph (d).
We propose adding a new § 165.164(b) to define terms used in the regulation. The content of existing paragraph (b) would be moved to paragraph (c).
We propose adding a new § 165.164(d) to describe how and when each regulated navigation area or security zone would be enforced, and how the public will be notified that enforcement is in effect.
Finally, we propose adding a new § 165.164(e) to describe how vessel operators may obtain permission to enter or operate within a regulated navigation area or security zone.
We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes or executive orders.
This proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, and
This determination is based on the limited time that vessels would be restricted from the Randalls and Wards Islands RNA. The RNA would be activated for approximately 60 minutes approximately six times per year or when necessary. The Coast Guard expects minimal adverse impact to mariners from the RNA's activation based on the limited duration of the enforcement period, the limited geographic area affected and because affected mariners may request authorization from the COTP or the designated on-scene representative to transit the RNA.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601–612), we have considered the impact of this proposed rule on small entities. 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.
This proposed rule would affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: The owners and operators of vessels intending to transit or anchor in a portion of the East River or Bronx Kill, in the vicinity of Randalls or Wards Islands, NY during the enforcement periods.
These RNA's will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: The RNA is of limited size and duration. Persons or vessels may request permission to transit the RNA from the COTP or the designated on-scene representative.
Additionally, before and during the enforcement period, the Coast Guard would issue maritime advisories widely available to users of the waterway, including marine information broadcasts, and distribute a written notice online at
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
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. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the
This proposed rule will not call for a 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 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 proposed rule under that Order and determined that this rule does not have implications for federalism.
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the
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 proposed rule would not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
This proposed rule would not cause a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.
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.
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.
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.
This proposed rule is not a “significant energy action” under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.
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 Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023–01 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 made a preliminary determination 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 rule may be categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2–1 of the Commandant Instruction. An
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows:
33 U.S.C. 1231; 46 U.S.C Chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05–1, 6.04–1, 6.04–6, 160.5; Pub. L. 107–295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
(a)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)