[Federal Register: July 27, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 143)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 43281-43283]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr27jy05-6]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 165
[COTP Charleston 05-037]
RIN 1625-AA87
Security Zones; Charleston Harbor, Cooper River, SC
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a fixed security zone in the
waters from the Don Holt, I-526 Bridge, on the Cooper River to the
entrance of Foster Creek on the Cooper River, South Carolina. This
security zone is necessary to protect the public and port from
potential subversive acts during port embarkation operations. Vessels
are prohibited from entering, transiting, anchoring, mooring, or
loitering within this zone, unless specifically authorized by the
Captain of the Port, Charleston, South Carolina or the Captain of the
Port's designated representative.
DATES: This rule is effective on June 1, 2005.
ADDRESSES: Comments and material received from the public, as well as
documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket,
are part of docket [COTP Charleston 05-037] and are available for
inspection or copying at the Marine Safety Office Charleston between 8
a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: LTJG Matthew Meskun, Chief of
Waterways Management Division at 843-720-3240.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Regulatory Information
On May 6, 2005, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
entitled ``Security Zones; Charleston Harbor, Cooper River, SC'' in the
Federal Register (70 FR 23950). We received no letters commenting on
the proposed rule. No public meeting was requested, and none was held.
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. A similar temporary final rule (70
FR 1187, January 6, 2005) is in place but will expire on June 1, 2005.
Delaying the effective date would be contrary to the public interest as
this final rule is necessary to prevent terrorist acts and to protect
military and civilian personnel should a terrorist act occur.
Background and Purpose
This security zone is necessary to protect the safety of life and
property on navigable waters and prevents potential terrorist threats
aimed at military installations during strategic embarkation
operations. The security zone will encompass all waters from the Don
Holt I-526 Bridge over the Cooper River to the entrance of Foster Creek
on the Cooper River. Occasionally multiple military vessels are in port
at the same time, all of which require security zones. When this
occurs, the safest way to secure the assets is to close this portion of
the river. Additionally, this security zone has been in place on a
temporary basis since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. The
current temporary security zone, 33 CFR 165.T07-145, was published in
the Federal Register January 6, 2005 (70 FR 1187).
Discussion of Comments and Changes
No substantive issues were raised during the comment period and no
changes were made from the proposed regulatory text.
Discussion of Rule
The security zone will encompass all waters from the Don Holt I-526
Bridge over the Cooper River to the entrance of Foster Creek on the
Cooper River. The Charleston Captain of the Port will enforce the
security zone on the Cooper River from time to time and in the interest
of national security vessels that are carrying cargo for the Department
of Defense (DoD).
These vessels that carry DoD cargo need a level of security that
requires the Cooper River to be closed to all traffic for short periods
of time. Security assets would be on scene and mariners will be given
as much advanced notice as possible. Marine Safety Office Charleston
will notify the maritime community of closure periods via a broadcast
notice to mariners on VHF Marine Band Radio, Channel 16 (156.8 MHz), or
Marine Safety Information Bulletins, or actual notice from on scene
security assets enforcing the zone.
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 Homeland
Security (DHS).
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 encompassed by the security zone should
not restrict the movement of commercial or recreational vessels through
the Port of Charleston. Also, the Coast Guard Captain of the Port or
the Captain of the Port's designated representative may allow an
individual to transit the security zone subsequent to an individual's
request.
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
would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities. This rule would affect the following entities, some of
which might be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels
intending to transit a portion of the Cooper River while the security
zone is in effect.
This security zone will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities because it will only be in place
for short periods of time on an infrequent basis. As much advanced
notice will be provided to mariners in order to accommodate for any
enforcement of the security zone.
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),
[[Page 43282]]
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.
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).
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).
Federalism
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. No comments were made regarding 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. No
comments were made on this section.
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. No comments were made on this section.
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. No comments were made on this
section. ?>
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. No comments were made on this
section.
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. No comments were made
on this section.
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. No comments were made on this section.
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 standards 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. No comments were
made on this section.
Environment
We have analyzed this 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 concluded 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
figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g), of the Instruction, from further
environmental documentation. This rule fits within paragraph (34)(g)
because it is a security zone.
Under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g) of the Instruction, an
``Environmental Analysis Check List'' and a ``Categorical Exclusion
Determination'' are not required for this rule.
List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
0
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33
CFR part 165 as follows:
PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS
0
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701; 50
U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1(g), 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Pub. L.
107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation
No. 0170.1.
0
2. Add Sec. 165.709 to read as follows:
Sec. 165.709 Security Zone; Charleston Harbor, Cooper River, South
Carolina.
(a) Regulated area. The Coast Guard is establishing a fixed
security zone on all waters of the Cooper River, bank-to-bank and
surface to bottom, from the Don Holt I-526 Bridge to the intersection
of Foster Creek at a line on 32 degrees 58 minutes North Latitude.
(b) Enforcement period. This section will be enforced when security
assets are on scene and Marine Safety Office Charleston has notified
the maritime community that an Enforcement Period is in effect. Marine
Safety Office Charleston will notify the maritime community by
broadcast notice to mariners on VHF Marine Band Radio, Channel 16
(156.8 MHz), or Marine
[[Page 43283]]
Safety Information Bulletins, or actual notice from on scene security
assets enforcing the security zone.
(c) Regulations. During enforcement of the security zone described
in paragraph (a) of this section, vessels or persons are prohibited
from entering, transiting, mooring, anchoring, or loitering within the
security zone unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Charleston,
South Carolina or his or her designated representative.
(1) Persons desiring to transit the Regulated Area may contact the
Captain of the Port via VHF-FM channel 16 or by telephone at (843) 720-
3240 and request permission to transit the security zone.
(2) If permission to transit the security zone is granted, all
persons and vessels must comply with the instructions of the Captain of
the Port or his or her designated representative.
Dated: June 1, 2005.
John E. Cameron,
Captain,U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Charleston, South
Carolina.
[FR Doc. 05-14857 Filed 7-26-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P