Security Zone; High Capacity Passenger Vessels and Alaska Marine Highway System Vessels in Alaska, 9984-9987 [E6-2614]
Download as PDF
9984
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2006 / Proposed Rules
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 165
[CGD17–05–002]
RIN 1625–AA87
Security Zone; High Capacity
Passenger Vessels and Alaska Marine
Highway System Vessels in Alaska
Coast Guard, DHS.
Second supplemental notice of
proposed rulemaking; request for
comments.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is revising
its first supplemental notice of proposed
rule rulemaking published October 31,
2005, establishing permanent moving
security zones around all escorted High
Capacity Passenger Vessels (‘‘HCPV’’)
and escorted Alaska Marine Highway
System Vessels (‘‘AMHS vessels’’)
during their transit in the navigable
waters of the Seventeenth Coast Guard
District to exempt from the provisions of
this rule all commercial fishing vessels,
as defined by applicable United States
Code, only while actively engaged in
fishing.
Comments and related material
must reach the Coast Guard on or before
March 30, 2006.
ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this
preamble as being available in the
docket are part of docket CGD17–05–
002 and are available for inspection or
copying at United States Coast Guard,
District 17 (dpi), 709 West 9th Street,
Juneau, AK 99801 between 8 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: LT
Matthew York, District 17 (dpi), 709
West 9th Street, Juneau, AK 99801,
(907) 463–2821.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
DATES:
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Regulatory Information
We published a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM) entitled ‘‘Regulated
Navigation Area and Security Zones;
High Capacity Passenger Vessels in
Alaska’’ in the Federal Register (70 FR
11595, March 9, 2005), docket number
CGD17–05–002. That NPRM included
provisions for a 250-yard speed
restriction zone, a 25-yard security zone
around moored and anchored vessels,
and a waiver request process.
Additionally, we published a
Supplemental Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (SNPRM) entitled ‘‘Security
Zone; High Capacity Passenger Vessels
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:29 Feb 27, 2006
Jkt 208001
and Alaska Marine Highway System
Vessels in Alaska’’ in the Federal
Register (70 FR 62261, October 31,
2005), docket number CGD17–05–002
which removed those three provisions
from the proposed rule. The revised
proposed security zones are limited to
High Capacity Passenger Vessels (HCPV)
and Alaska Marine Highway System
Vessels (AMHS) vessels during transit
in the waters of the Seventeenth Coast
Guard District. These security zones
will only apply to HCPV and AMHS
vessels transiting under an escort as
defined in the SNPRM. These
permanent security zones have been
carefully designed to minimally impact
the public while providing protections
for HCPV and AMHS vessels.
This Second Supplemental Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (SSNPRM)
exempts all commercial fishing vessels,
as defined by 46 U.S.C. 2101(11a), only
while actively engaged in fishing.
Requests for Comments
The Coast Guard encourages
interested persons to participate in this
rulemaking by submitting written data,
views, or arguments. Persons submitting
comments should include their name
and addresses, identifying this
rulemaking (CGD17–05–002) and the
specific section of this document to
which each comment applies, and give
the reason for each comment. Please
submit all comments and attachments in
an unbound format, no larger than 81⁄2
by 11 inches, suitable for copying and
electronic filing. Persons wanting
acknowledgment of receipt of comment
should enclose a stamped, selfaddressed postcard or envelope.
Comments on this supplemental
NPRM must reach the Coast Guard on
or before March 30, 2006. The Coast
Guard will consider all comments
received during the comment period
and may change this proposed rule in
view of the comments.
The Coast Guard has not scheduled a
public hearing at this time. You may
request a public hearing by writing to
the Seventeenth Coast Guard District at
the address under ADDRESSES. The
request should include the reasons why
a hearing would be beneficial to the
rulemaking. If it is determined that an
opportunity for oral presentation will
aid this rulemaking, the Coast Guard
will schedule a public hearing at a time
and place announced in a separate
notice published in the Federal
Register.
Background and Purpose
Due to increased awareness that
future terrorist attacks are possible, the
Coast Guard, as Lead Federal Agency for
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Maritime Homeland Security, has
determined that the District Commander
and the Captain of the Port must have
the means to be aware of, detect, deter,
intercept, and respond to threats, acts of
aggression, and attacks by terrorists on
the American homeland while
maintaining our freedoms and
sustaining the flow of commerce.
Terrorists have demonstrated both
desire and ability to utilize multiple
means in different geographic areas to
successfully carry out their terrorist
missions, highlighted by the recent
subway bombings in London.
During the past 3 years, the Federal
Bureau of Investigation has issued
several advisories to the public
concerning the potential for terrorist
attacks within the United States. The
October 2002 attack on a tank vessel, M/
V LIMBURG, off the coast of Yemen and
the prior attack on the USS COLE
demonstrate a continuing threat to U.S.
maritime assets as described in the
President’s finding in Executive Order
13273 of August 21, 2002 (67 FR 56215,
September 3, 2002) and Continuation of
the National Emergency with Respect to
Certain Terrorist Attacks, (67 FR 58317,
September 13, 2002); and Continuation
of the National Emergency With Respect
To Persons Who Commit, Threaten To
Commit, Or Support Terrorism, (67 FR
59447, September 20, 2002).
Furthermore, the ongoing hostilities in
Afghanistan and Iraq have made it
prudent for U.S. port and waterway
users to be on a higher state of alert
because the Al Qaeda organization and
other similar organizations have
declared an ongoing intention to
conduct armed attacks on U.S. interests
worldwide.
In addition to escorting vessels, the
Coast Guard has determined the need
for additional security measures during
their transit. A security zone is a tool
available to the Coast Guard that may be
used to control maritime traffic
operating in the vicinity of these
vessels. The District Commander has
made a determination that it is
necessary to establish a security zone
around HCPV and AMHS vessels that
are escorted to safeguard people, vessels
and maritime traffic.
Discussion of Comments and Changes
For the supplemental notice of
proposed rulemaking dated 31 October
2005, the Coast Guard received 2
documents containing comments to the
proposed rule. Both documents were
from parties representing the
commercial fishing vessel trolling fleet.
Their comments requested that
commercial fishing vessels, while
engaged in trolling, be exempt from the
E:\FR\FM\28FEP1.SGM
28FEP1
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2006 / Proposed Rules
rule because they also claim to have
restricted maneuverability as any other
‘vessel engaged in fishing’ as defined by
the Convention on the International
Regulations for Preventing Collisions at
Sea, 1972 (72COLREGS), Rule 3. Our
responses to these comments are
discussed in the following paragraphs.
The Coast Guard does not agree that
all vessels engaged in trolling are
necessarily restricted in their ability to
maneuver so as to avoid collision as
required under Rule 8 of the COLREGS.
However, after careful consideration
and research, the Coast Guard does
accept the notion that a vessel engaged
in commercial trolling does not pose
any greater security risk than any other
commercial fishing vessel engaged in
fishing. Therefore, the Coast Guard has
redefined the rule to exempt ‘all
commercial fishing vessels’ as defined
by 46 U.S.C. 2101(11a) while actively
engaged in fishing. This includes any
vessel that commercially engages in the
catching, taking or harvesting of fish or
an activity that can reasonably be
expected to result in the catching, taking
or harvesting of fish. Therefore, all
commercial fishing vessels while
actively engaged in fishing within the
meaning of 46 U.S.C. 2101(11a) are
exempted from the provisions of this
rule.
One commenter expressed fear that
the 25-yard moored and 100-yard intransit restriction would be more
harmful to the fishing industry than
preventing someone from actually
causing harm to a HCPV. We believe
these concerns were raised and
adequately addressed in the Small
Entities section of the SNPRM (70 FR
62263 (October 31, 2005)) where we
certified under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this
rule would not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities, and in the
Discussion of Comments and Changes
section of the SNPRM (70 FR 62262
(October 31, 2005)) where we disagreed
based upon clear policy guidance
designed to prepare Coast Guard
members on how to react appropriately
when confronted with a use of force
situation. We do not believe there is a
need to be more prescriptive in this
area.
Additionally, this commenter
expressed concern on the practicality of
knowing when the security zone would
actually goes into effect. We believe this
concern was raised and adequately
addressed in the Discussion of
Comments and Changes section of the
SNPRM (70 FR 62262 (October 31,
2005)) where we described the security
zone going into effect only when there
is a Coast Guard asset on-scene, and in
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:29 Feb 27, 2006
Jkt 208001
the Regulatory Text of the SNPRM (70
FR 62264 (October 31, 2005)) where we
described that the local Captain of the
Port may notify the maritime and
general public by marine information
broadcast of the periods during which
individual security zones have been
activated. We do not believe there is a
need to be more prescriptive in this
area.
Finally, the commenter requested
clarification regarding vessel speeds,
what is necessary in order gain
permission to enter the security zone,
and regulation enforcement and
penalties. We believe these concerns
were raised and adequately addressed in
the Discussion of Comments and
Changes section of the SNPRM (70 FR
62262 (October 31, 2005)) where we
described that speed and course
adjustments must be made early enough
to allow for sufficient sea room for the
safe passage of the HCPV or AMHS
vessels. We also addressed this issue in
the Discussion of Proposed Rule section
of the SNPRM (70 FR 62263 (October
31, 2005)) where we described that
persons desiring to transit within 100
yards of an escorted HCPV or AHMS
vessel must first contact the designated
on-scene representative on VHF channel
16 or 13 and obtain permission. Finally,
in the Discussion of Comments and
Changes section of the SNPRM (70 FR
62262–62263 (October 31, 2005)), we
described the possibility of the Coast
Guard seeking both criminal penalties,
civil penalties, or both against violators
of the HCPV and AMHC security zones.
The specific penalties are in 33 CFR part
6, 33 U.S.C. 1221 et seq., and 50 U.S.C
191 et seq. We do not believe there is
a need to be more prescriptive in this
area.
Discussion of Proposed Rule
The Coast Guard is revising its first
supplemental notice of proposed rule
rulemaking exempt from the provisions
of this rule all commercial fishing
vessels, as defined by applicable United
States Code, only while actively
engaged in fishing. This proposed rule
would establish permanent 100-yard
security zones around HCPV and AMHS
vessels that are being escorted by a
Coast Guard surface, air, or by other
state or Federal law enforcement agency
designated by the Captain of the Port
(COTP) during their transit through the
Seventeenth Coast Guard District.
Persons desiring to transit within 100
yards of an escorted HCPV or AHMS
vessel in the Seventeenth Coast Guard
District must contact the designated on
scene representative on VHF channel 16
(156.800 MHz) or VHF channel 13
(156.650 MHz) and obtain permission to
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
9985
transit within 100 yards of the escorted
HCPV or AMHS vessels. The boundaries
of the Seventeenth Coast Guard District
are defined in 33 CFR 3.85–1(b). This
includes territorial waters 12 nautical
miles from the territorial sea baseline as
defined in 33 CFR part 2 subpart B.
Stationary vessels that are moored or
anchored must remain moored or
anchored when an escorted HCPV or
AMHS vessel approaches within 100
yards of the stationary vessel unless the
designated on scene representative has
granted approval for the stationary
vessel to do otherwise.
Regulatory Evaluation
Although one public comment stated
that this action constitutes a significant
regulatory action, the Coast Guard
disagrees based on the relatively small
size of the limited access area around
each ship and the minimal amount of
time that vessels will be restricted when
the zone is being enforced. In addition,
vessels that may need to enter the zones
may request permission on a case-bycase basis from the on scene designated
representatives. 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
(DHS).
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.
Small Entities
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
(5 U.S.C. 601–612), we have considered
whether this proposed 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.
Therefore, the Coast Guard certifies
under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed
rule, if adopted, will not have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
This permanent security zone only
applies to HCPV and AMHS vessels that
are transiting with an escort. It does not
apply when the vessels are moored or
E:\FR\FM\28FEP1.SGM
28FEP1
9986
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2006 / Proposed Rules
anchored. Furthermore, vessels desiring
to enter the security zone may contact
the designated on scene representative
and request permission to enter the
zone.
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 this proposed rule so
that they could better evaluate its effects
on them and participate in the
rulemaking process. If the proposed rule
would affect your small business,
organization, or governmental
jurisdiction and you have questions
concerning its provisions or options for
compliance, please contact LT Matthew
York, District 17 (dpi), 709 West 9th St,
Room 753, Juneau, Alaska 99801. The
Coast Guard will not retaliate against
small entities that question or complain
about this 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).
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 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 proposed rule
elsewhere in this preamble.
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Taking of Private Property
This proposed rule does 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.
16:29 Feb 27, 2006
Jkt 208001
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 does
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
Federalism
VerDate Aug<31>2005
Civil Justice Reform
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
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies.
This proposed rule does not use
technical standards. Therefore, we did
not consider the use of voluntary
consensus standards.
Environment
We have analyzed this proposed 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. 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.
2. Add § 165.1711 to read as follows:
§ 165.1711 Security Zones; Waters of the
Seventeenth Coast Guard District
(a) Definitions. As used in this
section—
(1) High Capacity Passenger Vessel
(‘‘HCPV’’) means a passenger vessel
greater than 100 feet in length that is
authorized to carry more than 500
passengers for hire.
(2) Alaska Marine Highway System
vessel (‘‘AMHS vessel’’) means any
vessel owned or operated by the Alaska
Marine Highway System, including, but
not limited to: M/V AURORA, M/V
CHENEGA, M/V COLUMBIA, M/V
FAIRWEATHER, M/V KENNICOTT, M/
V LECONTE, M/V LITUYA, M/V
MALASPINA, M/V MATANUSKA, M/V
TAKU, and the M/V TUSTUMENA.
(3) Designated on Scene
Representative means any U.S. Coast
E:\FR\FM\28FEP1.SGM
28FEP1
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2006 / Proposed Rules
Guard commissioned, warrant or petty
officer who has been authorized by the
District Commander or local Captain of
the Port (COTP), as defined in 33 CFR
part 3, subpart 3.85, to act on his or her
behalf, or other Federal, State or local
law enforcement Officers designated by
the COTP.
(4) Escorted HCPV or AMHS vessel
means a HCPV or AMHS vessel that is
accompanied by one or more Coast
Guard assets or Federal, State or local
law enforcement agency assets as listed
below:
(i) Coast Guard surface or air asset
displaying the Coast Guard insignia.
(ii) State, Federal or local law
enforcement assets displaying the
applicable agency markings and or
equipment associated with the agency.
(5) State Law Enforcement Officer
means any State or local government
law enforcement officer who has
authority to enforce State or local
criminal laws.
(6) Federal Law Enforcement Officer
means any Federal government law
enforcement officer who has authority
to enforce Federal criminal laws.
(b) Location. The following areas are
security zones: all waters within 100
yards around escorted High Capacity
Passenger Vessels or escorted Alaska
Marine Highway System vessels in the
navigable waters of the Seventeenth
Coast Guard District as defined in 33
CFR 3.85–1, from surface to bottom.
(c) Regulations. (1) No vessel may
approach within 100 yards of an
escorted HCPV or escorted AMHS vessel
during their transits within the
navigable waters of the Seventeenth
Coast Guard District.
(2) Moored or anchored vessels that
are overtaken by this moving zone must
remain stationary at their location until
the escorted vessel maneuvers at least
100 yards away.
(3) The local Captain of the Port may
notify the maritime and general public
by marine information broadcast of the
periods during which individual
security zones have been activated by
providing notice in accordance with 33
CFR 165.7.
(4) Persons desiring to transit within
100 yards of a moving, escorted HCPV
or AMHS vessel in the Seventeenth
Coast Guard District must contact the
designated on scene representative on
VHF channel 16 (156.800 MHz) or VHF
channel 13 (156.650 MHz) to receive
permission.
(5) If permission is granted to transit
within 100 yards of an escorted HCPV
or AMHS vessel, all persons and vessels
must comply with the instructions of
the designated on scene representative.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:29 Feb 27, 2006
Jkt 208001
(6) All commercial fishing vessels as
defined by 46 U.S.C. 2101(11a) while
actively engaged in fishing are
exempted from the provisions of this
rule.
Dated: February 10, 2006.
James C. Olson,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander,
Seventeenth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. E6–2614 Filed 2–27–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–15–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R07–OAR–2006–0086; FRL–8037–8]
Approval and Promulgation of
Implementation Plans; State of Iowa
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: EPA proposes to approve the
State Implementation Plan (SIP)
revision submitted by the state of Iowa
for the purpose of establishing
exemptions for indoor sources of air
pollution that are not directly vented to
the outside but have emissions that
leave the building through doors, vents
or other means. This revision also
clarifies that the permitting exemptions
do not relieve the owner or operator of
any source from any obligation to
comply with any other applicable
requirements. The state has determined
that air pollution emissions from this
equipment are negligible and these
exemptions are likely to result in no
significant impact on human health or
the environment.
DATES: Comments on this proposed
action must be received in writing by
March 30, 2006.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R07–
OAR–2006–0086 by one of the following
methods:
1. https://www.regulations.gov: Follow
the on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
2. E-mail: Hamilton.heather@epa.gov.
3. Mail: Heather Hamilton,
Environmental Protection Agency, Air
Planning and Development Branch, 901
North 5th Street, Kansas City, Kansas
66101.
4. Hand Delivery or Courier. Deliver
your comments to: Heather Hamilton,
Environmental Protection Agency, Air
Planning and Development Branch, 901
North 5th Street, Kansas City, Kansas
66101. Such deliveries are only
accepted during the Regional Office’s
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
9987
normal hours of operation. The Regional
Office’s official hours of business are
Monday through Friday, 8 to 4:30,
excluding legal holidays.
Please see the direct final rule that is
located in the Rules section of this
Federal Register for detailed
instructions on how to submit
comments.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Heather Hamilton at (913) 551–7039, or
by e-mail at Hamilton.heather@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the
final rules section of the Federal
Register, EPA is approving the state’s
SIP revision as a direct final rule
without prior proposal because the
Agency views this as a noncontroversial
revision amendment and anticipates no
relevant adverse comments to this
action. A detailed rationale for the
approval is set forth in the direct final
rule. If no relevant adverse comments
are received in response to this action,
no further activity is contemplated in
relation to this action. If EPA receives
relevant adverse comments, the direct
final rule will be withdrawn and all
public comments received will be
addressed in a subsequent final rule
based on this proposed action. EPA will
not institute a second comment period
on this action. Any parties interested in
commenting on this action should do so
at this time. Please note that if EPA
receives adverse comment on part of
this rule and if that part can be severed
from the remainder of the rule, EPA may
adopt as final those parts of the rule that
are not the subject of an adverse
comment. For additional information,
see the direct final rule that is located
in the rules section of this Federal
Register.
Dated: February 17, 2006.
James B. Gulliford,
Regional Administrator, Region 7.
[FR Doc. 06–1787 Filed 2–27–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 52 and 81
[EPA–R09–OAR–2005–AZ–0008; FRL–8022–
6]
Approval and Promulgation of
Implementation Plans and Designation
of Areas for Air Quality Planning
Purposes; Arizona
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
E:\FR\FM\28FEP1.SGM
28FEP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 39 (Tuesday, February 28, 2006)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 9984-9987]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-2614]
[[Page 9984]]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 165
[CGD17-05-002]
RIN 1625-AA87
Security Zone; High Capacity Passenger Vessels and Alaska Marine
Highway System Vessels in Alaska
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.
ACTION: Second supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking; request for
comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is revising its first supplemental notice of
proposed rule rulemaking published October 31, 2005, establishing
permanent moving security zones around all escorted High Capacity
Passenger Vessels (``HCPV'') and escorted Alaska Marine Highway System
Vessels (``AMHS vessels'') during their transit in the navigable waters
of the Seventeenth Coast Guard District to exempt from the provisions
of this rule all commercial fishing vessels, as defined by applicable
United States Code, only while actively engaged in fishing.
DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or
before March 30, 2006.
ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in
the docket are part of docket CGD17-05-002 and are available for
inspection or copying at United States Coast Guard, District 17 (dpi),
709 West 9th Street, Juneau, AK 99801 between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: LT Matthew York, District 17 (dpi),
709 West 9th Street, Juneau, AK 99801, (907) 463-2821.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Regulatory Information
We published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) entitled
``Regulated Navigation Area and Security Zones; High Capacity Passenger
Vessels in Alaska'' in the Federal Register (70 FR 11595, March 9,
2005), docket number CGD17-05-002. That NPRM included provisions for a
250-yard speed restriction zone, a 25-yard security zone around moored
and anchored vessels, and a waiver request process.
Additionally, we published a Supplemental Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (SNPRM) entitled ``Security Zone; High Capacity Passenger
Vessels and Alaska Marine Highway System Vessels in Alaska'' in the
Federal Register (70 FR 62261, October 31, 2005), docket number CGD17-
05-002 which removed those three provisions from the proposed rule. The
revised proposed security zones are limited to High Capacity Passenger
Vessels (HCPV) and Alaska Marine Highway System Vessels (AMHS) vessels
during transit in the waters of the Seventeenth Coast Guard District.
These security zones will only apply to HCPV and AMHS vessels
transiting under an escort as defined in the SNPRM. These permanent
security zones have been carefully designed to minimally impact the
public while providing protections for HCPV and AMHS vessels.
This Second Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (SSNPRM)
exempts all commercial fishing vessels, as defined by 46 U.S.C.
2101(11a), only while actively engaged in fishing.
Requests for Comments
The Coast Guard encourages interested persons to participate in
this rulemaking by submitting written data, views, or arguments.
Persons submitting comments should include their name and addresses,
identifying this rulemaking (CGD17-05-002) and the specific section of
this document to which each comment applies, and give the reason for
each comment. Please submit all comments and attachments in an unbound
format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for copying and
electronic filing. Persons wanting acknowledgment of receipt of comment
should enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope.
Comments on this supplemental NPRM must reach the Coast Guard on or
before March 30, 2006. The Coast Guard will consider all comments
received during the comment period and may change this proposed rule in
view of the comments.
The Coast Guard has not scheduled a public hearing at this time.
You may request a public hearing by writing to the Seventeenth Coast
Guard District at the address under ADDRESSES. The request should
include the reasons why a hearing would be beneficial to the
rulemaking. If it is determined that an opportunity for oral
presentation will aid this rulemaking, the Coast Guard will schedule a
public hearing at a time and place announced in a separate notice
published in the Federal Register.
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 District Commander and the Captain of
the Port must have the means to be aware of, detect, deter, intercept,
and respond to threats, acts of aggression, and attacks by terrorists
on the American homeland while maintaining our freedoms and sustaining
the flow of commerce. Terrorists have demonstrated both desire and
ability to utilize multiple means in different geographic areas to
successfully carry out their terrorist missions, highlighted by the
recent subway bombings in London.
During the past 3 years, the Federal Bureau of Investigation has
issued several advisories to the public concerning the potential for
terrorist attacks within the United States. The October 2002 attack on
a tank vessel, M/V LIMBURG, off the coast of Yemen and the prior attack
on the USS COLE demonstrate a continuing threat to U.S. maritime assets
as described in the President's finding in Executive Order 13273 of
August 21, 2002 (67 FR 56215, September 3, 2002) and Continuation of
the National Emergency with Respect to Certain Terrorist Attacks, (67
FR 58317, September 13, 2002); and Continuation of the National
Emergency With Respect To Persons Who Commit, Threaten To Commit, Or
Support Terrorism, (67 FR 59447, September 20, 2002). Furthermore, the
ongoing hostilities in Afghanistan and Iraq have made it prudent for
U.S. port and waterway users to be on a higher state of alert because
the Al Qaeda organization and other similar organizations have declared
an ongoing intention to conduct armed attacks on U.S. interests
worldwide.
In addition to escorting vessels, the Coast Guard has determined
the need for additional security measures during their transit. A
security zone is a tool available to the Coast Guard that may be used
to control maritime traffic operating in the vicinity of these vessels.
The District Commander has made a determination that it is necessary to
establish a security zone around HCPV and AMHS vessels that are
escorted to safeguard people, vessels and maritime traffic.
Discussion of Comments and Changes
For the supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking dated 31 October
2005, the Coast Guard received 2 documents containing comments to the
proposed rule. Both documents were from parties representing the
commercial fishing vessel trolling fleet. Their comments requested that
commercial fishing vessels, while engaged in trolling, be exempt from
the
[[Page 9985]]
rule because they also claim to have restricted maneuverability as any
other `vessel engaged in fishing' as defined by the Convention on the
International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1972
(72COLREGS), Rule 3. Our responses to these comments are discussed in
the following paragraphs.
The Coast Guard does not agree that all vessels engaged in trolling
are necessarily restricted in their ability to maneuver so as to avoid
collision as required under Rule 8 of the COLREGS. However, after
careful consideration and research, the Coast Guard does accept the
notion that a vessel engaged in commercial trolling does not pose any
greater security risk than any other commercial fishing vessel engaged
in fishing. Therefore, the Coast Guard has redefined the rule to exempt
`all commercial fishing vessels' as defined by 46 U.S.C. 2101(11a)
while actively engaged in fishing. This includes any vessel that
commercially engages in the catching, taking or harvesting of fish or
an activity that can reasonably be expected to result in the catching,
taking or harvesting of fish. Therefore, all commercial fishing vessels
while actively engaged in fishing within the meaning of 46 U.S.C.
2101(11a) are exempted from the provisions of this rule.
One commenter expressed fear that the 25-yard moored and 100-yard
in-transit restriction would be more harmful to the fishing industry
than preventing someone from actually causing harm to a HCPV. We
believe these concerns were raised and adequately addressed in the
Small Entities section of the SNPRM (70 FR 62263 (October 31, 2005))
where we certified under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule would not have
a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities, and in the Discussion of Comments and Changes section of the
SNPRM (70 FR 62262 (October 31, 2005)) where we disagreed based upon
clear policy guidance designed to prepare Coast Guard members on how to
react appropriately when confronted with a use of force situation. We
do not believe there is a need to be more prescriptive in this area.
Additionally, this commenter expressed concern on the practicality
of knowing when the security zone would actually goes into effect. We
believe this concern was raised and adequately addressed in the
Discussion of Comments and Changes section of the SNPRM (70 FR 62262
(October 31, 2005)) where we described the security zone going into
effect only when there is a Coast Guard asset on-scene, and in the
Regulatory Text of the SNPRM (70 FR 62264 (October 31, 2005)) where we
described that the local Captain of the Port may notify the maritime
and general public by marine information broadcast of the periods
during which individual security zones have been activated. We do not
believe there is a need to be more prescriptive in this area.
Finally, the commenter requested clarification regarding vessel
speeds, what is necessary in order gain permission to enter the
security zone, and regulation enforcement and penalties. We believe
these concerns were raised and adequately addressed in the Discussion
of Comments and Changes section of the SNPRM (70 FR 62262 (October 31,
2005)) where we described that speed and course adjustments must be
made early enough to allow for sufficient sea room for the safe passage
of the HCPV or AMHS vessels. We also addressed this issue in the
Discussion of Proposed Rule section of the SNPRM (70 FR 62263 (October
31, 2005)) where we described that persons desiring to transit within
100 yards of an escorted HCPV or AHMS vessel must first contact the
designated on-scene representative on VHF channel 16 or 13 and obtain
permission. Finally, in the Discussion of Comments and Changes section
of the SNPRM (70 FR 62262-62263 (October 31, 2005)), we described the
possibility of the Coast Guard seeking both criminal penalties, civil
penalties, or both against violators of the HCPV and AMHC security
zones. The specific penalties are in 33 CFR part 6, 33 U.S.C. 1221 et
seq., and 50 U.S.C 191 et seq. We do not believe there is a need to be
more prescriptive in this area.
Discussion of Proposed Rule
The Coast Guard is revising its first supplemental notice of
proposed rule rulemaking exempt from the provisions of this rule all
commercial fishing vessels, as defined by applicable United States
Code, only while actively engaged in fishing. This proposed rule would
establish permanent 100-yard security zones around HCPV and AMHS
vessels that are being escorted by a Coast Guard surface, air, or by
other state or Federal law enforcement agency designated by the Captain
of the Port (COTP) during their transit through the Seventeenth Coast
Guard District. Persons desiring to transit within 100 yards of an
escorted HCPV or AHMS vessel in the Seventeenth Coast Guard District
must contact the designated on scene representative on VHF channel 16
(156.800 MHz) or VHF channel 13 (156.650 MHz) and obtain permission to
transit within 100 yards of the escorted HCPV or AMHS vessels. The
boundaries of the Seventeenth Coast Guard District are defined in 33
CFR 3.85-1(b). This includes territorial waters 12 nautical miles from
the territorial sea baseline as defined in 33 CFR part 2 subpart B.
Stationary vessels that are moored or anchored must remain moored
or anchored when an escorted HCPV or AMHS vessel approaches within 100
yards of the stationary vessel unless the designated on scene
representative has granted approval for the stationary vessel to do
otherwise.
Regulatory Evaluation
Although one public comment stated that this action constitutes a
significant regulatory action, the Coast Guard disagrees based on the
relatively small size of the limited access area around each ship and
the minimal amount of time that vessels will be restricted when the
zone is being enforced. In addition, vessels that may need to enter the
zones may request permission on a case-by-case basis from the on scene
designated representatives. 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 (DHS).
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.
Small Entities
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered whether this proposed 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.
Therefore, the Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that
this proposed rule, if adopted, will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. This permanent
security zone only applies to HCPV and AMHS vessels that are transiting
with an escort. It does not apply when the vessels are moored or
[[Page 9986]]
anchored. Furthermore, vessels desiring to enter the security zone may
contact the designated on scene representative and request permission
to enter the zone.
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 this proposed rule so that they could better
evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process.
If the proposed rule would affect your small business, organization, or
governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its
provisions or options for compliance, please contact LT Matthew York,
District 17 (dpi), 709 West 9th St, Room 753, Juneau, Alaska 99801. The
Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or
complain about this 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 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 proposed rule elsewhere
in this preamble.
Taking of Private Property
This proposed rule does 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
does 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 proposed rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we
did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.
Environment
We have analyzed this proposed 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. 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.
2. Add Sec. 165.1711 to read as follows:
Sec. 165.1711 Security Zones; Waters of the Seventeenth Coast Guard
District
(a) Definitions. As used in this section--
(1) High Capacity Passenger Vessel (``HCPV'') means a passenger
vessel greater than 100 feet in length that is authorized to carry more
than 500 passengers for hire.
(2) Alaska Marine Highway System vessel (``AMHS vessel'') means any
vessel owned or operated by the Alaska Marine Highway System,
including, but not limited to: M/V AURORA, M/V CHENEGA, M/V COLUMBIA,
M/V FAIRWEATHER, M/V KENNICOTT, M/V LECONTE, M/V LITUYA, M/V MALASPINA,
M/V MATANUSKA, M/V TAKU, and the M/V TUSTUMENA.
(3) Designated on Scene Representative means any U.S. Coast
[[Page 9987]]
Guard commissioned, warrant or petty officer who has been authorized by
the District Commander or local Captain of the Port (COTP), as defined
in 33 CFR part 3, subpart 3.85, to act on his or her behalf, or other
Federal, State or local law enforcement Officers designated by the
COTP.
(4) Escorted HCPV or AMHS vessel means a HCPV or AMHS vessel that
is accompanied by one or more Coast Guard assets or Federal, State or
local law enforcement agency assets as listed below:
(i) Coast Guard surface or air asset displaying the Coast Guard
insignia.
(ii) State, Federal or local law enforcement assets displaying the
applicable agency markings and or equipment associated with the agency.
(5) State Law Enforcement Officer means any State or local
government law enforcement officer who has authority to enforce State
or local criminal laws.
(6) Federal Law Enforcement Officer means any Federal government
law enforcement officer who has authority to enforce Federal criminal
laws.
(b) Location. The following areas are security zones: all waters
within 100 yards around escorted High Capacity Passenger Vessels or
escorted Alaska Marine Highway System vessels in the navigable waters
of the Seventeenth Coast Guard District as defined in 33 CFR 3.85-1,
from surface to bottom.
(c) Regulations. (1) No vessel may approach within 100 yards of an
escorted HCPV or escorted AMHS vessel during their transits within the
navigable waters of the Seventeenth Coast Guard District.
(2) Moored or anchored vessels that are overtaken by this moving
zone must remain stationary at their location until the escorted vessel
maneuvers at least 100 yards away.
(3) The local Captain of the Port may notify the maritime and
general public by marine information broadcast of the periods during
which individual security zones have been activated by providing notice
in accordance with 33 CFR 165.7.
(4) Persons desiring to transit within 100 yards of a moving,
escorted HCPV or AMHS vessel in the Seventeenth Coast Guard District
must contact the designated on scene representative on VHF channel 16
(156.800 MHz) or VHF channel 13 (156.650 MHz) to receive permission.
(5) If permission is granted to transit within 100 yards of an
escorted HCPV or AMHS vessel, all persons and vessels must comply with
the instructions of the designated on scene representative.
(6) All commercial fishing vessels as defined by 46 U.S.C.
2101(11a) while actively engaged in fishing are exempted from the
provisions of this rule.
Dated: February 10, 2006.
James C. Olson,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Seventeenth Coast Guard
District.
[FR Doc. E6-2614 Filed 2-27-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P