Security Zones; Charleston Harbor, Cooper River, SC, 43281-43283 [05-14857]

Agencies

• Coast Guard
• DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 143 (Wednesday, July 27, 2005)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 43281-43283]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-14857]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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