[Federal Register: December 16, 2002 (Volume 67, Number 241)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 76991-76993]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr16de02-10]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 165
[COTP Charleston-02-146]
RIN 2115-AA97
Security Zones; Charleston Harbor, Cooper River, SC
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.
ACTION: Temporary final rule; request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is maintaining the temporary fixed security
zones for the waters under the Highway 17 bridges over Charleston
Harbor and the Don Holt I-526 Bridge over the Cooper River. These
security zones are needed for national security reasons to protect the
public and ports from potential subversive acts. Vessels are prohibited
from anchoring, mooring, or loitering within these zones, unless
specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port, Charleston, South
Carolina or his designated representative.
DATES: This regulation is effective on December 17, 2002 until 11:59
p.m. July 15, 2003. Comments and related material must reach the Coast
Guard on or before February 14, 2003.
ADDRESSES: You may mail comments and related material to Coast Guard
Marine Safety Office Charleston, 196 Tradd Street, Charleston, South
Carolina 29401. Coast Guard Marine Safety Office Charleston 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, are part of [COTP Charleston 02-146],
will become part of this docket and will be available for inspection or
copying at Marine Safety Office Charleston, between 7:30 a.m. and 4
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: LT Kevin D. Floyd, Coast Guard Marine
Safety Office Charleston, at (843) 747-7411.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Regulatory Information
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for not publishing a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM).
Publishing a NPRM and delaying the effective date of this rule would be
contrary to national security since immediate action is necessary to
protect the public, ports and waterways of the United States.
For the same reasons, 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.
Background and Purpose
Based on the September 11, 2001, terrorist attack on the World
Trade Center in New York and the Pentagon in Arlington, VA, there is an
increased risk that subversive terrorist activity could be launched by
vessels or persons in close proximity to the Port of Charleston, S.C.,
against bridges within the security zones continued by this rule. If a
bridge were damaged or destroyed, the Port of Charleston would be
isolated from access to the sea, crippling the local economy and
negatively impacting national security. These temporary security zones
are necessary to protect the safety of life and property on the
navigable waters, prevent potential terrorist threats aimed at the
bridges crossing the main shipping channels in the Port of Charleston,
S.C. and to ensure the continued unrestricted access to the sea from
the Port.
[[Page 76992]]
A similar temporary rule was published in the Federal Register on
October 18, 2001 (67 FR 9194, 9195, February 28, 2002) creating
temporary security zones around these bridges. That rule expired on
January 15, 2002. Those security zones were extended by another
temporary rule published on February 22, 2002 (67 FR 9201) which
expired on June 15, 2002. Those security zones were again extended by a
temporary rule published in the Federal Register on July 3, 2002 (67 FR
44555) and will expire on December 16, 2002.
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 Transportation
(DOT) (44 FR 11040; February 26, 1979). We expect the economic impact
of this rule to be so minimal so that a full Regulatory Evaluation
under paragraph 10e of the regulatory policies and procedures of DOT is
unnecessary. The limited geographic area impacted by the security zones
will not restrict the movement or routine operation of commercial or
recreational vessels through the Port of Charleston. Also, an
individual may request a waiver of these regulations from the Coast
Guard Captain of the Port.
Small Entities
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), the Coast
Guard must consider whether this rule would have a significant economic
effect 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 because the limited geographic area encompassed by the
security zones will not restrict the movement or routine operation of
commercial or recreational vessels through the Port of Charleston.
Also, an individual may request a waiver of these regulations from the
Coast Guard Captain of the Port of Charleston.
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. If the
rule will affect your small business and you have questions concerning
its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person
listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
Small businesses may also 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).
Collection of Information
This rule calls for no new collection of information requirements
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
Federalism
A rule has implication 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. Although this rule will not result in such 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 relationships 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. 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.
Environment
We considered the environmental impact of this 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. A ``Categorical Exclusion Determination''
is available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES.
List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reports and
recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
[[Page 76993]]
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard is
amending 33 CFR Part 165, as follows:
PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS
1. The authority citation for Part 165 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1(g),
6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; 49 CFR 1.46.
2. A new temporary Sec. 165.T07-146 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 165.T07-146 Security Zones; Charleston Harbor, Cooper River,
South Carolina.
(a) Regulated area. (1) A temporary fixed security zone is
established for the waters around the Highway 17 bridges, to encompass
all waters of the Cooper River within a line connecting the following
points: 32 deg.48.23' N, 079 deg.55.3' W; 32 deg.48.1' N, 079
deg.54.35' W; 32 deg.48.34' N, 079 deg.55.25' W; 32 deg.48.2' N, 079
deg.54.35' W.
(2) Another temporary fixed security zone is established for the
waters around the Interstate 526 Bridge spans (Don Holt Bridge) in
Charleston Harbor and on the Cooper River and will encompass all waters
within a line connecting the following points: 32 deg.53.49' N, 079
deg.58.05' W; 32 deg.53.42' N, 079 deg.57.48' W; 32 deg.53.53' N, 079
deg.58.05' W; 32 deg.53.47' N, 079 deg.57.47' W.
(b) Regulations. In accordance with the general regulations 165.33
of this part, vessels are allowed to transit through these zones but
are prohibited from mooring, anchoring, or loitering within these zones
unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port.
(c) Authority. In addition to 33 U.S.C. 1321 and 49 CFR 1.46, the
authority for this section includes 33 U.S.C. 1226.
(d) Effective dates. This section is effective on December 17, 2002
until 11:59 p.m. on July 15, 2003.
Dated: December 2, 2002.
G.W. Merrick,
Commander, Coast Guard, Captain of the Port.
[FR Doc. 02-31600 Filed 12-13-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P