Safety and Security Zones; Fifth Coast Guard District, 11598-11600 [05-4602]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
11598
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 45 / Wednesday, March 9, 2005 / Proposed Rules
State Law Enforcement Officer means
any peace officer as defined in Alaska
Statute § 01.10.060.
Vessel means every description of
watercraft or other artificial contrivance
used, or capable of being used, as a
means of transportation on water,
except public vessels.
(b) Location. (1) Regulated navigation
area. The following area is a regulated
navigation area (RNA): All navigable
waters of United States within the
boundaries of the Coast Guard District
17(Alaska).
(2) Security zone. A security zone is
established around and under, and is
centered on, each high capacity
passenger (HCP) vessel within the RNA
described in paragraph (b)(1) of this
section, and extends l00 yards from the
vessel while it is underway and 25
yards from the vessel while it is moored
or anchored. A security zone enforced
when a HCP vessel enters the RNA and
remains enforced until the HCP vessel
leaves the RNA. This is a moving
security zone when the HCP vessel is in
transit and a fixed zone when the HCP
vessel is moored or anchored. A security
zone will not extend beyond the
boundary of the RNA in this section.
(c) Regulations. (1) Under 33 CFR
165.33, no person or vessel may enter
into the security zones established
under this section unless authorized by
the Coast Guard District 17 Commander,
the cognizant Captain of the Port, or the
on-scene official patrol.
(2) When a HCP vessel in the RNA
approaches within 100 yards of a vessel
that is moored or anchored in a
designated anchorage area, the
stationary vessel must stay moored or
anchored while it remains within the
HCP vessel’s security zone unless it is
either ordered by or given permission
from the Coast Guard District 17
Commander, the cognizant Captain of
the Port, or the on-scene official patrol
to do otherwise.
(3) The COTP will inform the public
of the existence of security zone around
and under HCP vessels in the RNA by
Marine Safety Information Broadcasts.
(4) Vessels that seek to enter a
security zone or exceed speed limits
established in this section, may contact
the on-scene official patrol (if there is
one) or the cognizant COTP to request
permission.
(5) A vessel in the RNA operating
within 250 yards of a HCP vessel must
proceed at the minimum speed
necessary to maintain a safe course,
unless required to maintain speed by
the navigation rules. All persons and
vessels within 250 yards of a HCP vessel
in the RNA must be attentive to and
comply with the orders of the District
VerDate jul<14>2003
17:24 Mar 08, 2005
Jkt 205001
Commander, cognizant COTP, or
designated on-scene official patrol.
(6) When conditions permit, the
District Commander, cognizant COTP,
or designated on-scene official patrol
should:
(i) Permit vessels constrained by their
navigational draft or restricted in their
ability to maneuver to enter the security
zone in order to ensure a safe passage
in accordance with the Navigation
Rules; and
(ii) Grant waiver of any of the
requirements of this section for any
vessel or class of vessels upon finding
that a vessel or class of vessels,
operational conditions or other
circumstances are such that application
of this section is unnecessary or
impractical for the purpose of security,
safety, or environmental safety.
Applications for waiver should be
directed initially to the cognizant COTP.
To be effective, all waivers must be
granted in writing by the District
Commander or cognizant COTP.
(d) Contact information. (1) Vessels
seeking permission under paragraphs
(c)(2), (c)(4), or (c)(6) of this section
should contact the cognizant COTP or
on-scene official patrol to make a timely
request.
(2) The on-scene official patrol (if
there is one) or the cognizant COTP or
his or her designated representatives
may be contacted by the following
means:
(i) Channel 13 or 16, VHF–FM.
(ii) By telephone: Southeast Alaska
(907) 957–0150; Prince William Sound
(907) 835–7205; and Western Alaska
(907) 271–6700.
(3) The District Command Center’s 24hour non-emergency telephone number
is (907) 463–2001.
(e) Enforcement. Any Coast Guard
commissioned, warrant or petty officer
may enforce the rules in this section. In
the navigable waters of the United
States to which this section applies,
when immediate action is required and
representatives of the Coast Guard are
not present or not present in sufficient
force to provide effective enforcement of
this section in the vicinity of a HCP
vessel, any Federal Law Enforcement
Officer or State Law Enforcement
Officer may enforce the rules contained
in this section pursuant to 33 CFR 6.04–
11. In addition, the District Commander,
cognizant COTP, or on-scene official
patrol may be assisted by other Federal,
State or local agencies in enforcing this
section.
(f) Authority. In addition to 33 U.S.C.
1231 and 50 U.S.C. 191, the authority
for this section includes 33 U.S.C. 1226.
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Dated: February 7, 2005.
James C. Olson,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander,
Seventeenth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 05–4598 Filed 3–8–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–15–P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 165
[CGD05–05–010]
RIN 1625–AA00 and 1625–AA87
Safety and Security Zones; Fifth Coast
Guard District
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to
remove three established safety/security
zone regulations for Chesapeake Bay,
Maryland, Captain of the Port Hampton
Roads and Atlantic Ocean, Chesapeake
and Delaware Canal, Delaware Bay,
Delaware River and its tributaries. The
Commander of the Fifth Coast Guard
District recently issued a District-wide
security zone regulation for escorted
vessels that will make these three
previously established safety/security
zone regulations unnecessary. This
proposed rule would eliminate any
duplication between the three
established safety/security zone
regulations and the recently established
District-wide security zone regulation
for escorted vessels.
DATES: Comments and related material
must reach the Coast Guard on or before
April 8, 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 CGD05–05–010 and are available
for inspection or copying at the Fifth
Coast Guard District, Marine Safety
Division, 431 Crawford Street,
Portsmouth, Virginia, 23704 between 8
a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Lieutenant E.J. Terminella, Fifth Coast
Guard District, at (757) 398–7783.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Request for Comments
We encourage you to participate in
this rulemaking by submitting
comments and related material. If you
do so, please include your name and
address, identify the docket number for
this rulemaking [CGD05–05–010],
E:\FR\FM\09MRP1.SGM
09MRP1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 45 / Wednesday, March 9, 2005 / Proposed Rules
indicate the specific section of this
document to which each comment
applies, and give the reason for each
comment. Please submit all comments
and related material in an unbound
format, no larger than 81⁄2 by 11 inches,
suitable for copying. If you would like
to know they reached us, 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. We
anticipate making the final rule effective
less than 30 days after publication. This
would be done pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553
(d) which provides exceptions to the
requirement not to make a rule effective
less than 30 days after publication,
including for rules, like this proposed
one, that relieve restrictions.
Public Meeting
We do not plan to hold a public
meeting. However, you may submit a
request for a meeting by writing to the
Fifth Coast Guard District, Marine
Safety Division, 431 Crawford Street,
Portsmouth, Virginia 23704 explaining
why one would be beneficial. If we
determine that a public meeting would
aid this rulemaking, we will hold one at
a time and place announced by a later
notice in the Federal Register.
Background and Purpose
In 2003 and 2004, the Coast Guard
promulgated three safety/security zones
regulations found at 33 CFR 165.500, 33
CFR 165.503 and 33 CFR 165.511. The
first rule is entitled ‘‘Safety/Security
Zones; Chesapeake Bay, Maryland’’, was
published in the Federal Register (68
FR 43311) on July 22, 2003, and is also
found at 33 CFR 165.500. That final rule
established moving safety and security
zones 500 yards around all cruise ships
and vessels transporting CDC, LNG or
LPG while transiting or moored in the
COTP Baltimore zone.
The second rule entitled ‘‘Security
Zone; Captain of the Port Hampton
Roads,’’ was published in the Federal
Register (69 FR 40769) on July 7, 2004,
and is also found at 33 CFR 165.503.
That final rule established moving
safety and security zones 500 yards
around all passenger vessels or vessels
carrying a CDC within the Captain of the
Port Hampton Roads zone. Section
165.503 requires vessels to travel at the
minimum speed necessary to navigate
safely within the outer 400 yards of the
zone, and not to enter the inner 100
yards of the zone without permission of
the COTP.
The third rule entitled ‘‘Security
Zone; Atlantic Ocean, Chesapeake and
Delaware Canal, Delaware Bay,
VerDate jul<14>2003
17:24 Mar 08, 2005
Jkt 205001
Delaware River and its tributaries’’ was
published in the Federal Register (69
FR 56697) on September 22, 2004, and
is also found at 33 CFR 165.511. That
final rule established moving safety and
security zones in a 500-yard radius
around escorted passenger vessels in the
Captain of the Port, Philadelphia zone
as defined in 33 CFR 3.25–05. Section
165.511 requires vessels to travel at the
minimum speed necessary to navigate
safely within the outer 400 yards of the
zone, and not to enter the inner 100
yards of the zone without permission of
the COTP.
On February 28, 2005, the
Commander, Fifth Coast Guard District
signed a final rule—which appears
elsewhere in today’s Federal Register,
docket number CGD05–05–171—
establishing moving security zones
around all escorted vessels which is
found at docket CGD05–05–171. This
final rule will become effective April 13,
2005. That final rule applies to all
escorted vessels transiting or moored in
the waters of the Fifth Coast Guard
District. That rule places a 500-yard
security zone around all vessels that are
being escorted by a Coast Guard surface,
air or Coast Guard Auxiliary asset, or by
a local law enforcement agency during
their transit through the Fifth Coast
Guard District. Only vessels traveling at
the minimum safe speed may transit in
the 500-yard zone and no persons or
vessels are allowed within 100 yards of
any escorted vessel, without the
permission of the District Commander,
Captain of the Port or their designated
representatives, while the vessel is
within the Fifth Coast Guard District.
Once that final rule signed by the
Commander, Fifth Coast Guard District,
becomes effective on April 13, 2005, the
safety/security zones for Chesapeake
Bay, Maryland, Captain of the Port
Hampton Roads and Atlantic Ocean,
Chesapeake and Delaware Canal,
Delaware Bay, Delaware River and its
tributaries will no longer be necessary.
That final rule to be codified at 33 CFR
165.518 accomplishes the same security
as the three zones this rule proposes to
remove (33 CFR 165.500, 33 CFR
165.503 and 33 CFR 165.511) and
maintains consistency throughout the
Fifth Coast Guard District.
Discussion of Proposed Rule
This proposed rule would amend 33
CFR part 165 by removing the security
zones regulations currently found at 33
CFR 165.500, 33 CFR 165.503 and 33
CFR 165.511. The removal of these three
regulations, combined with the final
rule ‘‘Security Zone; Fifth Coast Guard
District’’ published elsewhere in today’s
Federal Register, will provide
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
11599
consistent enforcement of moving
security zones around all escorted
vessels during their entire transit
through the Fifth Coast Guard District.
This will prevent confusion for mariners
and vessels transiting across the various
Captain of the Port zones located in the
Fifth Coast Guard District.
Regulatory Evaluation
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. It is not
‘‘significant’’ under the regulatory
policies and procedures of the
Department of Homeland Security.
We expect 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 as this proposed
rule removes a portion of a regulation
that is no longer necessary.
Small Entities
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
(5 U.S.C. 601–612), we have considered
whether this propsed 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 proposed rule
would not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
Assistance for Small Entities
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 the rule so that they can
better evaluate its effects on them and
participate in the rulemaking process. If
the proposed rule would affect your
small business, organization, or
government jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or
options for compliance, please contact
Lieutenant Junior Grade Jay Michalczak,
Waterway Management Section, Marine
Safety Office Corpus Christi, at (361)
888–3162, Ext 313. The Coast Guard
will not retaliate against small entities
that question or complain about this
E:\FR\FM\09MRP1.SGM
09MRP1
11600
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 45 / Wednesday, March 9, 2005 / Proposed Rules
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).
Federalism
A proposed 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 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 would not
result in such expenditure, we do
discuss the effects of this 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.
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 will
not create an environmental risk to
health or risk to safety that might
disproportionately affect children.
Indian Tribal Governments
This proposed rule does not have
tribal implications under Executive
Order 13175, Consultation and
Coordination with Indian Tribal
VerDate jul<14>2003
17:24 Mar 08, 2005
Jkt 205001
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.
Energy Effects
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.
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.
Environment
We have analyzed this rule under
Commandant Instruction M16475.1D,
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 because this rule is not
expected to result in any significant
adverse environmental impact as
described in NEPA.
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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.
For the reasons discussed in the
preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to
amend 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. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C.
Chapter 701; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 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.
§ 165.500
[Removed]
2. Remove § 165.500.
§ 165.503
[Removed]
3. Remove § 165.503.
165.511
[Removed]
4. Remove § 165.511.
Dated: February 28, 2005.
Sally Brice-O’Hara,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander,
Fifth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 05–4602 Filed 3–8–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–15–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
50 CFR Part 622
[Docket No. 050228048–5048–01; I.D.
021705A]
RIN 0648–AS19
Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of
Mexico, and South Atlantic; Reef Fish
Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico;
Vermilion Snapper Rebuilding Plan
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Proposed rule; request for
comments.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: NMFS issues proposed
regulations to implement Amendment
23 to the Fishery Management Plan
(FMP) for the Reef Fish Resources of the
Gulf of Mexico (Amendment 23)
E:\FR\FM\09MRP1.SGM
09MRP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 45 (Wednesday, March 9, 2005)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 11598-11600]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-4]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 165
[CGD05-05-010]
RIN 1625-AA00 and 1625-AA87
Safety and Security Zones; Fifth Coast Guard District
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to remove three established safety/
security zone regulations for Chesapeake Bay, Maryland, Captain of the
Port Hampton Roads and Atlantic Ocean, Chesapeake and Delaware Canal,
Delaware Bay, Delaware River and its tributaries. The Commander of the
Fifth Coast Guard District recently issued a District-wide security
zone regulation for escorted vessels that will make these three
previously established safety/security zone regulations unnecessary.
This proposed rule would eliminate any duplication between the three
established safety/security zone regulations and the recently
established District-wide security zone regulation for escorted
vessels.
DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or
before April 8, 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 CGD05-05-010 and are available for inspection or
copying at the Fifth Coast Guard District, Marine Safety Division, 431
Crawford Street, Portsmouth, Virginia, 23704 between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lieutenant E.J. Terminella, Fifth
Coast Guard District, at (757) 398-7783.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Request for Comments
We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting
comments and related material. If you do so, please include your name
and address, identify the docket number for this rulemaking [CGD05-05-
010],
[[Page 11599]]
indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment
applies, and give the reason for each comment. Please submit all
comments and related material in an unbound format, no larger than 8\1/
2\ by 11 inches, suitable for copying. If you would like to know they
reached us, 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.
We anticipate making the final rule effective less than 30 days after
publication. This would be done pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553 (d) which
provides exceptions to the requirement not to make a rule effective
less than 30 days after publication, including for rules, like this
proposed one, that relieve restrictions.
Public Meeting
We do not plan to hold a public meeting. However, you may submit a
request for a meeting by writing to the Fifth Coast Guard District,
Marine Safety Division, 431 Crawford Street, Portsmouth, Virginia 23704
explaining why one would be beneficial. If we determine that a public
meeting would aid this rulemaking, we will hold one at a time and place
announced by a later notice in the Federal Register.
Background and Purpose
In 2003 and 2004, the Coast Guard promulgated three safety/security
zones regulations found at 33 CFR 165.500, 33 CFR 165.503 and 33 CFR
165.511. The first rule is entitled ``Safety/Security Zones; Chesapeake
Bay, Maryland'', was published in the Federal Register (68 FR 43311) on
July 22, 2003, and is also found at 33 CFR 165.500. That final rule
established moving safety and security zones 500 yards around all
cruise ships and vessels transporting CDC, LNG or LPG while transiting
or moored in the COTP Baltimore zone.
The second rule entitled ``Security Zone; Captain of the Port
Hampton Roads,'' was published in the Federal Register (69 FR 40769) on
July 7, 2004, and is also found at 33 CFR 165.503. That final rule
established moving safety and security zones 500 yards around all
passenger vessels or vessels carrying a CDC within the Captain of the
Port Hampton Roads zone. Section 165.503 requires vessels to travel at
the minimum speed necessary to navigate safely within the outer 400
yards of the zone, and not to enter the inner 100 yards of the zone
without permission of the COTP.
The third rule entitled ``Security Zone; Atlantic Ocean, Chesapeake
and Delaware Canal, Delaware Bay, Delaware River and its tributaries''
was published in the Federal Register (69 FR 56697) on September 22,
2004, and is also found at 33 CFR 165.511. That final rule established
moving safety and security zones in a 500-yard radius around escorted
passenger vessels in the Captain of the Port, Philadelphia zone as
defined in 33 CFR 3.25-05. Section 165.511 requires vessels to travel
at the minimum speed necessary to navigate safely within the outer 400
yards of the zone, and not to enter the inner 100 yards of the zone
without permission of the COTP.
On February 28, 2005, the Commander, Fifth Coast Guard District
signed a final rule--which appears elsewhere in today's Federal
Register, docket number CGD05-05-171--establishing moving security
zones around all escorted vessels which is found at docket CGD05-05-
171. This final rule will become effective April 13, 2005. That final
rule applies to all escorted vessels transiting or moored in the waters
of the Fifth Coast Guard District. That rule places a 500-yard security
zone around all vessels that are being escorted by a Coast Guard
surface, air or Coast Guard Auxiliary asset, or by a local law
enforcement agency during their transit through the Fifth Coast Guard
District. Only vessels traveling at the minimum safe speed may transit
in the 500-yard zone and no persons or vessels are allowed within 100
yards of any escorted vessel, without the permission of the District
Commander, Captain of the Port or their designated representatives,
while the vessel is within the Fifth Coast Guard District.
Once that final rule signed by the Commander, Fifth Coast Guard
District, becomes effective on April 13, 2005, the safety/security
zones for Chesapeake Bay, Maryland, Captain of the Port Hampton Roads
and Atlantic Ocean, Chesapeake and Delaware Canal, Delaware Bay,
Delaware River and its tributaries will no longer be necessary. That
final rule to be codified at 33 CFR 165.518 accomplishes the same
security as the three zones this rule proposes to remove (33 CFR
165.500, 33 CFR 165.503 and 33 CFR 165.511) and maintains consistency
throughout the Fifth Coast Guard District.
Discussion of Proposed Rule
This proposed rule would amend 33 CFR part 165 by removing the
security zones regulations currently found at 33 CFR 165.500, 33 CFR
165.503 and 33 CFR 165.511. The removal of these three regulations,
combined with the final rule ``Security Zone; Fifth Coast Guard
District'' published elsewhere in today's Federal Register, will
provide consistent enforcement of moving security zones around all
escorted vessels during their entire transit through the Fifth Coast
Guard District. This will prevent confusion for mariners and vessels
transiting across the various Captain of the Port zones located in the
Fifth Coast Guard District.
Regulatory Evaluation
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. It is not ``significant''
under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of
Homeland Security.
We expect 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 as this proposed rule removes a
portion of a regulation that is no longer necessary.
Small Entities
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered whether this propsed 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 proposed
rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
Assistance for Small Entities
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 the rule so that they can better evaluate its
effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process. If the
proposed rule would affect your small business, organization, or
government jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its
provisions or options for compliance, please contact Lieutenant Junior
Grade Jay Michalczak, Waterway Management Section, Marine Safety Office
Corpus Christi, at (361) 888-3162, Ext 313. The Coast Guard will not
retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this
[[Page 11600]]
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).
Federalism
A proposed 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
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 would not result in such
expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this 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.
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
will not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that
might 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 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.
Energy Effects
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.
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.
Environment
We have analyzed this rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.1D,
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 because this rule is not expected to result
in any significant adverse environmental impact as described in NEPA.
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.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes
to amend 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. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701; 50
U.S.C. 191, 195; 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.
Sec. 165.500 [Removed]
2. Remove Sec. 165.500.
Sec. 165.503 [Removed]
3. Remove Sec. 165.503.
165.511 [Removed]
4. Remove Sec. 165.511.
Dated: February 28, 2005.
Sally Brice-O'Hara,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Fifth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 05-4602 Filed 3-8-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P
