Security Zone; Georgetown Channel, Potomac River, Washington, DC, 37677-37679 [05-12881]

Agencies

• Coast Guard
• DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 125 (Thursday, June 30, 2005)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 37677-37679]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-12881]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[CGD05-05-033]
RIN 1625-AA87


Security Zone; Georgetown Channel, Potomac River, Washington, DC

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary security zone on 
the waters of the upper Potomac River. This action is necessary to 
provide for the security of a large number of visitors to the annual 
July 4th celebration on the National Mall in Washington, DC. The 
security zone will allow for control of a designated area of the river 
and safeguard spectators and high-ranking officials.

DATES: This rule is effective from 12:01 a.m. to 11:59 p.m. local time 
on July 4, 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 CGD05-05-033 and are available for inspection or 
copying at Coast Guard Sector Baltimore, Waterways Management Division, 
between 8 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal 
holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Ronald Houck, at Coast Guard 
Sector Baltimore, Waterways Management Division, at telephone number 
(410) 576-2674 or (410) 576-2693.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulatory Information

    On May 6, 2005, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) 
entitled ``Security Zone; Georgetown Channel, Potomac River, 
Washington, DC'' in the Federal Register (70 FR 23948). We received 
seven pieces of written correspondence commenting on the proposed rule. 
Based on these comments we reduced the size of the security zone. 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. Immediate action is needed to 
protect the public from waterborne acts of sabotage or terrorism. Any 
delay in the effective date of this rule is contrary to the public 
interest.

Background and Purpose

    Due to increased awareness that future terrorist attacks are 
possible, the Coast Guard, as lead Federal agency for maritime homeland 
security, has determined that the Captain of the Port Baltimore must 
have the means to be aware of, deter, detect, intercept, and respond to 
asymmetric threats, acts of aggression, and attacks by terrorists on 
the American homeland while still maintaining our freedoms and 
sustaining the flow of commerce. This security zone is part of a 
comprehensive port security regime designed to safeguard human life, 
vessels, and waterfront facilities against sabotage or terrorist 
attacks.
    In this particular rulemaking, to address the aforementioned 
security concerns, and to take steps to prevent the catastrophic impact 
that a terrorist attack against a large number of spectators and high-
ranking officials during the annual July 4th celebration would have on 
the public interest, the Coast Guard is establishing a security zone 
that extends 75 yards from the eastern shore upon the waters of the 
Georgetown Channel of the Potomac River, from the surface to the 
bottom, between the Long Railroad Bridge (the most eastern bridge of 
the 5-span, Fourteenth Street Bridge Complex) to the Theodore Roosevelt 
Memorial Bridge and all waters in between, totally including the waters 
of the Georgetown Channel Tidal Basin.
    This security zone will help the Coast Guard to prevent vessels or 
persons from engaging in terrorist actions against a large number of 
spectators and high-ranking officials during the annual

[[Page 37678]]

July 4th celebration. Due to these heightened security concerns, and 
the catastrophic impact a terrorist attack on the National Mall in 
Washington, DC during the annual July 4th celebration would have on the 
large number of spectators and high-ranking officials, and the 
surrounding area and communities, a security zone is prudent for this 
type of event.

Discussion of Comments and Changes

    The Coast Guard received a total of seven pieces of written 
correspondence in response to the NPRM. No public meeting was requested 
and none was held. What follows is a review of, and the Coast Guard's 
response to, the issues and questions that were presented by these 
commenters concerning the proposed rule.
    (1) Seven commenters indicated that the proposed rule would 
effectively cut off the Potomac River north of the Roosevelt Bridge to 
all water traffic to recreational boaters.
    We have revised the security zone so that it only restricts vessels 
from transiting within 75 yards of the eastern shore of the Potomac 
River, traffic will be allowed to move along the west side of the 
river. Vessels wishing to anchor to watch the fireworks will be allowed 
to do so in the middle of the river, leaving the west side of the river 
open for through-traffic.
    (2) Two commenters indicated that the proposed rule would 
unnecessarily affect human powered watercraft, in which persons have 
viewed the fireworks from on the water in past years, and that such 
craft pose little risk to the spectators and high-ranking officials on 
the National Mall.
    As mentioned above, we do not intend to restrict these types of 
watercraft from entering, operating or remaining within areas along the 
Virginia side or the middle of the Potomac River.
    (3) Four commenters indicated that the proposed rule will have a 
negative economic impact on area marinas directly and indirectly 
impacted by the rulemaking.
    By allowing vessels and other watercraft to safely transit along 
the Virginia side of the Potomac River, the economic impact on area 
businesses will be limited.
    (4) Two commenters indicated that the proposed rule could have 
significant safety impacts on boating navigation.
    We make every effort to carefully consider the effects such a 
regulation has on the boating public, while safeguarding large numbers 
of spectators and high-ranking officials during this extremely 
publicized event. We believe vessel congestion will actually be 
reduced, since vessels and other watercraft not deemed a security 
threat will be allowed to safely transit along the Virginia side of the 
Potomac River. Also, in order to maintain a clear channel along the 
Virginia side of the Potomac River, vessels wishing to anchor will be 
allowed to do so in the middle of the river.
    (5) One commenter indicated that the proposed rule would be 
achieving the terrorists'' goals by restricting the boating public and 
if such a regulation was imposed and no credible threat existed, 
political repercussions for the Coast Guard may result.
    The revision of the security zone to extend only 75 yards off the 
eastern shore of the Potomac River allows the boating public to both 
safely transit the river and view the July 4th Celebration fireworks 
from the water.
    (6) One commenter indicated that the proposed rule would require 
boaters to contact the Captain of the Port Baltimore, which may not be 
practical in all cases.
    We do not feel that many vessels, if any, will need to enter the 
revised security zone. Vessels will be required to request permission 
from the Captain of the Port Baltimore if the operator feels they have 
a legitimate need to enter the security zone.
    No request for additional comments on the revised rule is made 
since we believe the revised security zone adequately addresses all the 
above comments.

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).
    This security zone will encompass only a small portion of the 
waterway.

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 will affect the following entities, some of which 
might be small entities: the owners or operators of vessels intending 
to transit or anchor in a portion of the Potomac River (including the 
waters of the Georgetown Channel Tidal Basin) from 12:01 a.m. to 11:59 
p.m. on July 4, 2005.
    This security zone will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities for the following reasons. This 
rule will be in effect for less than 24 hours. Before the effective 
period, the Coast Guard will issue maritime advisories widely available 
to users of the river to allow mariners to make plans for transiting 
the affected areas. Because the zone is of limited size, it is expected 
that there will be minimal disruption to the maritime community.

Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 
Fairness Act of 1996 (Public Law 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. However, 
we received no requests for assistance from any small entities.

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.

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

[[Page 37679]]

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 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.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 regulation establishes a security zone. A final 
``Environmental Analysis Check List'' and a final ``Categorical 
Exclusion Determination'' are available in the docket where indicated 
under ADDRESSES.

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, 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.


0
2. Add Sec.  165.T05-033 to read as follows:


Sec.  165.T05-033  Security Zone; Georgetown Channel, Potomac River, 
Washington, DC.

    (a) Definitions. (1) For purposes of this section, Captain of the 
Port, Baltimore, Maryland means the Commander, Coast Guard Sector 
Baltimore, Maryland or any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant, or petty 
officer who has been authorized by the Captain of the Port, Baltimore, 
Maryland to act on his or her behalf.
    (b) Location. The following area is a security zone: all waters of 
the Potomac River within 75 yards from the eastern shore, measured 
perpendicularly to the shore upon the waters of the Georgetown Channel 
of the Potomac River, from the surface to the bottom, between the Long 
Railroad Bridge (the most eastern bridge of the 5-span, Fourteenth 
Street Bridge Complex) to the Theodore Roosevelt Memorial Bridge, and 
all waters of the Georgetown Channel Tidal Basin.
    (c) Regulations. (1) The general regulations governing security 
zones, found in Sec.  165.33, apply to the security zone described in 
paragraph (b) of this section.
    (2) Entry into or remaining in this zone is prohibited unless 
authorized by the Coast Guard Captain of the Port, Baltimore, Maryland.
    (3) Persons or vessels requiring entry into or passage through the 
security zone must first request authorization from the Captain of the 
Port, Baltimore to seek permission to transit the area. The Captain of 
the Port, Baltimore, Maryland can be contacted at telephone number 
(410) 576-2693. The Coast Guard vessels enforcing this section can be 
contacted on VHF Marine Band Radio, VHF channel 16 (156.8 MHz). Upon 
being hailed by a U.S. Coast Guard vessel by siren, radio, flashing 
light, or other means, the operator of a vessel shall proceed as 
directed. If permission is granted, all persons and vessels must comply 
with the instructions of the Captain of the Port, Baltimore, Maryland 
and proceed at the minimum speed necessary to maintain a safe course 
while within the zone.
    (4) Enforcement. The U.S. Coast Guard may be assisted in the patrol 
and enforcement of the zone by Federal, State, and local agencies.
    (d) Effective period. This section will be effective from 12:01 
a.m. to 11:59 p.m. local time on July 4, 2005.

    Dated: June 14, 2005.
Curtis A. Springer,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Baltimore, Maryland.
[FR Doc. 05-12881 Filed 6-29-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P