Security Zones; Oahu, Maui, Hawaii, and Kauai, HI, 33711-33715 [E7-11748]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
ebenthall on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 117 / Tuesday, June 19, 2007 / Proposed Rules
731 (relating to distributions by a
partnership), or section 1368 (relating to
distributions by a S corporation); and
(B) All cash and cash equivalents
available for distribution at the time of
sale, including for example, reserve
funds whether operating or replacement
reserves.
(ii) Anti-abuse rule. The
Commissioner will interpret and apply
the rules in this paragraph (c)(6) as
necessary and appropriate to prevent
manipulation of the qualified contract
amount. For example, cash distributions
include payments to owners or related
parties within the meaning of section
267(b) or section 707(b) for any
operating expenses in excess of amounts
reasonable under the circumstances.
(d) Administrative responsibilities of
the Agency—(1) In general. An Agency
may exercise administrative discretion
in evaluating and acting upon an
owner’s request to find a buyer to
acquire the building. Examples of
administrative discretion may include
but are not limited to the following:
(i) Concluding that the owner’s
request lacks essential information and
denying the request until such
information is provided.
(ii) Refusing to consider an owner’s
representations without substantiating
documentation verified with the
Agency’s records.
(iii) Suspending the one-year period
for finding a buyer until the owner
provides requested information.
(iv) Determining how many
subsequent requests to find a buyer, if
any, may be submitted if the owner has
previously submitted a request for a
qualified contract and then rejects or
fails to act upon the qualified contract
furnished by the Agency.
(v) Assessing and charging the seller
certain administrative fees for the
performance of services in obtaining a
qualified contract (for example, real
estate appraiser costs).
(vi) Requiring other conditions
applicable to the qualified contract
consistent with this section.
(2) Actual offer. Upon receipt of a
written request from the owner to find
a person to acquire the building, the
Agency must offer the building for sale
at the determined qualified contract
amount to the general public in order
for the qualified contract to satisfy the
requirements of this section unless the
Agency has already identified a willing
buyer who submitted a contract to
purchase the building.
(e) Effective/applicability date. This
section is applicable on the date the
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:19 Jun 18, 2007
Jkt 211001
final regulations are published in the
Federal Register.
Kevin M. Brown,
Deputy Commissioner for Services and
Enforcement.
[FR Doc. E7–11725 Filed 6–18–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 165
[CGD14–07–001]
RIN 1625–AA87
Security Zones; Oahu, Maui, Hawaii,
and Kauai, HI
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to
change the permanent security zones in
waters adjacent to the islands of Oahu,
Maui, Hawaii, and Kauai, Hawaii.
Review of the established zones
indicates the need for some adjustment
to better suit vessel and facility security
in and around Hawaiian ports. The
proposed changes are intended to
enhance the protection of personnel,
vessels, and facilities from acts of
sabotage or other subversive acts,
accidents, or other causes of a similar
nature.
DATES: Comments and related material
must reach the Coast Guard on or before
July 19, 2007.
ADDRESSES: You may mail comments
and related material to Commanding
Officer, U.S. Coast Guard Sector
Honolulu, Sand Island Parkway,
Honolulu, Hawaii 96819–4398. Sector
Honolulu maintains the public docket
for this rulemaking. Comments and
material received from the public, as
well as documents indicated in this
preamble as being available in the
docket, are available for inspection and
copying at Coast Guard Sector Honolulu
between 7 a.m. and 3:30 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Lieutenant (Junior Grade) Jasmin Parker,
U. S. Coast Guard Sector Honolulu at
(808) 842–2600.
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
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
33711
this rulemaking (CGD14–07–001),
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 that your submission reached
us, please enclose a stamped, selfaddressed 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.
Public Meeting
We do not now plan to hold a public
meeting. But you may submit a request
for a meeting by writing to Sector
Honolulu at the address under
ADDRESSES explaining why one would
be beneficial. If we determine that one
would aid this rulemaking, we would
hold one at a time and place announced
by separate notice in the Federal
Register.
Background and Purpose
The terrorist attacks against the
United States that occurred on
September 11, 2001, have emphasized
the need for the United States to
establish heightened security measures
in order to protect the public, ports and
waterways, and the maritime
transportation system from future acts of
terrorism or other subversive acts. The
terrorist organization al-Qaeda and other
similar groups remain committed to
conducting armed attacks against U.S.
interests, including civilian targets
within the United States. National
security and intelligence officials warn
that future terrorist attacks are likely.
In response to this threat, on
December 19, 2005, the Coast Guard
published a final rule establishing
permanent security zones in designated
waters surrounding the Hawaiian
Islands (70 FR 75036, December 19,
2005). These zones replaced the
temporary zones that had been
established, and then extended, in the
waters surrounding the Hawaiian
Islands soon after the attacks (66 FR
52693, October 17, 2001). The existing
permanent security zones have been in
operation for over a year.
We have recently completed a
periodic review of port and harbor
security procedures and considered the
oral feedback that local vessel operators
gave to Coast Guard units enforcing the
zones. In response, the Coast Guard is
proposing to reduce the scope of the
Honolulu International Airport, North
Section security zone. The Coast Guard
is also proposing new zones at
E:\FR\FM\19JNP1.SGM
19JNP1
ebenthall on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS
33712
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 117 / Tuesday, June 19, 2007 / Proposed Rules
Kawaihae Harbor, Hawaii and Kahe
Point, Oahu to address a new vessel
operation and recent identification of a
critical facility. Additionally, we are
proposing changes that would clarify
the application of large cruise ship
(LCS) security zones to the new Hawaii
SuperFerry.
Our proposal with respect to the
Honolulu International Airport, North
Section zone (33 CFR 165.1407(a)(4)(i))
is to change it from one that is
perpetually activated and enforced to
one that is used only in response to a
threat. This proposed change,
permitting a reduced security posture in
the waters adjacent to Honolulu
International Airport, is based on a 2006
reevaluation of airport protection
requirements. The new arrangement
offers us an opportunity to decrease
disruption to maritime commerce and
inconvenience to small entities by
making the zone subject to activation
and enforcement only under certain
conditions rather than all the time.
As are the security zones currently in
place, this and the revised security
zones described below would be
permanently established. We use the
word ‘‘activated’’ to describe when
these permanently established zones
would be subject to enforcement.
Our proposal to add a Kawaihae
Harbor security zone is due to the
arrival of the Hawaii SuperFerry. In
June 2004, Hornblower Marine Services,
Inc. signed a Marine Management
Operating Agreement and Construction
Oversight contract for the new Hawaii
SuperFerry operation, an inter-island
ferry service. The service will transport
passengers and vehicles to Hawaiian
island ports, including Kawaihae Harbor
on the island of Hawaii. Each day, these
ferries will carry many passengers as
well as cargo and vehicles, presenting
the same security vulnerabilities as the
large cruise ships that operate in those
areas. Kawaihae Harbor, however, lacks
a security zone to protect such vessels,
so our proposal is to create one there.
Additionally, the definition of large
cruise ship (LCS) in 33 CFR 165.1408(b),
165.1409(b), and 165.1410(b) does not
adequately describe the Hawaii
SuperFerry or any other vessel of
similar size and carriage capacity.
Therefore, the Coast Guard proposes to
revise the term large cruise ship to
clarify that the presence of SuperFerrytype vessels triggers the activation and
enforcement of the Maui, Hawaii, and
Kauai security zones described in those
three sections.
Our proposed creation of a Kahe Point
security zone is meant to protect the
Hawaiian Electric Company power plant
at Kahe Point, which produces a
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:19 Jun 18, 2007
Jkt 211001
significant portion of the electricity for
the island of Oahu. This beach-front
power plant uses sea water piped in
directly from the ocean to cool its
turbines. Loss or damage to this cooling
water system due to sabotage would
reduce the power-generating capacity of
the plant and overburden the other
island facilities. Our proposed zone
would enhance its security.
Discussion of Proposed Rule
The existing security zones in the
Honolulu Captain of the Port Zone (see
33 CFR 3.70–10) consist of two
categories: (1) Those activated and
enforced at all times; and (2) those
activated and enforced only upon the
occurrence of an event specified in the
rule. Whenever a security zone is
activated and enforced, persons and
vessels are prohibited from entering the
zone without the express permission of
the Captain of the Port.
The security zone located at Honolulu
International Airport, North Section (33
CFR 165.1407(a)(4)(i)) is currently
activated and enforced at all times. Our
proposal is to decrease disruption to
maritime commerce and reduce the
inconvenience to small entities by redesignating this zone as one that is
activated and enforced only upon the
occurrence of one of the following
events:
1. Whenever the Maritime Security
(MARSEC) level, as defined in 33 CFR
part 101, is raised to 2 or higher; or,
2. Whenever the Captain of the Port
is made aware of any threat that may
cause a transportation security incident
or other serious maritime incident,
including but not limited to any
incident that may cause loss of life,
environmental damage, transportation
system disruption, or economic
disruption in a particular area.
The Captain of the Port would cause
notice of either of these two
enforcement-triggering events to be
published in the Federal Register. The
Captain of the Port would use actual
notice, local notice to mariners, and
broadcast notice to mariners to advise
the public when these security zones are
activated and enforced. By the same
means, the Captain of the Port would
also announce suspension of
enforcement.
In order to clarify that SuperFerrytype vessels would receive the same
protection as large cruse ships in Maui
(under 33 CFR 165.1408), Hawaii (under
33 CFR 165.1409), and Kauai (under 33
CFR 165.1410), the Coast Guard
proposes to change the term large cruise
ship in those sections to large passenger
vessel (LPV).
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
To protect SuperFerry-type vessels
during their use of Kawaihae Harbor,
the Coast Guard is proposing to create
an LPV security zone there. This
security zone would be activated and
enforced upon the presence of an LPV.
A large passenger vessel would be either
a cruise ship or ferry that is more than
300 feet in length.
The zone would encompass the
waters extending 100 yards in all
directions from an LPV. When an LPV
is anchored, position-keeping, or
moored, the security zone would remain
fixed, extending 100 yards in all
directions from the vessel.
Additionally, the Coast Guard is
proposing to create a security zone at
Kahe Point, Oahu. It would be in the
waters adjacent to the Hawaiian Electric
Company power plant at Kahe Point
within 500 yards of the lighted tower at
specified coordinates. This zone would
be activated and enforced only upon the
occurrence of one of the following
events:
1. Whenever the Maritime Security
(MARSEC) level, as defined in 33 CFR
part 101, is raised to 2 or higher; or,
2. Whenever the Captain of the Port
is made aware of any threat that may
cause a transportation security incident
or other serious maritime incident,
including but not limited to any
incident that may cause loss of life,
environmental damage, transportation
system disruption, or economic
disruption in a particular area.
The Captain of the Port would cause
notice of either of these two
enforcement-triggering events to be
published in the Federal Register. The
Captain of the Port would use actual
notice, local notice to mariners, and
broadcast notice to mariners to advise
the public when the security zone is
activated and enforced. By the same
means, the Captain of the Port would
also announce suspension of
enforcement.
Entry into this proposed security zone
while it is activated and enforced would
be prohibited unless authorized by the
Coast Guard Captain of the Port,
Honolulu, Hawaii. The Captain of the
Port or his or her representatives would
enforce this security zone. The Captain
of the Port may be assisted by other
federal or state agencies to the extent
permitted by law.
For all seaplane traffic entering or
transiting the proposed security zone, a
seaplane’s compliance with all Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA)
regulations regarding flight-plan
approval would be deemed adequate
permission to transit this waterway
security zone. No communication
between the aircraft and the Coast
E:\FR\FM\19JNP1.SGM
19JNP1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 117 / Tuesday, June 19, 2007 / Proposed Rules
Guard would be necessary upon
compliance with FAA regulations
regarding the flight plan.
The proposed Kahe Point security
zone would be established pursuant to
the authority of the Magnuson Act, 50
U.S.C. 191, et seq., and regulations
promulgated by the President under
Title 33, Part 6 of the Code of Federal
Regulations. Vessels or persons
violating this section would be subject
to the penalties set forth in 33 U.S.C.
1232 and 50 U.S.C. 192.
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.
The Coast Guard expects 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.
This expectation is based on the short
activation and enforcement duration of
the zones created or impacted by this
proposal, as well as the limited
geographic area affected by them.
ebenthall on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS
Small Entities
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
(5 U.S.C. 601–612), we have considered
whether this proposed rule will 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
will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities. While we are aware that
affected areas have small commercial
entities, including canoe and boating
clubs and small commercial businesses
that provide recreational services, we
anticipate that there will be little or no
impact to these small entities due to the
narrowly tailored scope of these
proposed changes.
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
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:19 Jun 18, 2007
Jkt 211001
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 (Public Law 104–
121), we want to assist small entities in
understanding this proposed rule so that
they can better evaluate its effects on
them and participate in the rulemaking.
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
Lieutenant (Junior Grade) Jasmin Parker,
U.S. Coast Guard Sector Honolulu, (808)
842–2600. 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 will 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
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
33713
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 may
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 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 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
E:\FR\FM\19JNP1.SGM
19JNP1
33714
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 117 / Tuesday, June 19, 2007 / Proposed Rules
3. Amend § 165.1408 to revise
paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(2), (b), (c)(1), and
(c)(2) to read as follows:
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 made a preliminary determination
that this action is not likely to have a
significant effect on the human
environment. Draft documentation
supporting this preliminary
determination is available in the docket
where indicated under ADDRESSES. We
seek any comments or information that
may lead to the discovery of a
significant environmental impact from
this proposed rule.
List of Subjects 33 CFR Part 165
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation
(water), Reports and recordkeeping
requirements, Security measures,
Waterways.
For the reasons set out 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, 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. Amend § 165.1407 to add
paragraph (a)(7) and to revise the
paragraph (d) heading and paragraph
(d)(1) introductory text to read as
follows:
ebenthall on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS
§ 165.1407
Security Zones; Oahu, HI.
(a) * * *
(7) Kahe Point, Oahu. All waters
adjacent to the Hawaiian Electric
Company power plant at Kahe Point
within 500 yards of 21°21.30′ N/
158°07.7′ W (lighted tower).
*
*
*
*
*
(d) Notice of enforcement or
suspension of enforcement of security
zones. (1) The security zones described
in paragraphs (a)(3) (Kalihi Channel and
Keehi Lagoon, Oahu), (a)(4)(i) (Honolulu
International Airport, North Section),
(a)(4)(ii) (Honolulu International
Airport, South Section), and (a)(6)
(Barbers Point Harbor, Oahu) of this
section, will be enforced only upon the
occurrence of one of the following
events—
*
*
*
*
*
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:19 Jun 18, 2007
Jkt 211001
§ 165.1408
Security Zones; Maui, HI.
(a) * * *
(1) Kahului Harbor, Maui. All waters
extending 100 yards in all directions
from each large passenger vessel in
Kahului Harbor, Maui, HI or within 3
nautical miles seaward of the Kahului
Harbor COLREGS DEMARCATION (See
33 CFR 80.1460). This is a moving
security zone when the LPV is in transit
and becomes a fixed zone when the LPV
is anchored, position-keeping, or
moored.
(2) Lahaina, Maui. All waters
extending 100 yards in all directions
from each large passenger vessel in
Lahaina, Maui, whenever the LPV is
within 3 nautical miles of Lahaina Light
(LLNR 28460). The security zone around
each LPV is activated and enforced
whether the LPV is underway, moored,
position-keeping, or anchored, and will
continue in effect until such time as the
LPV departs Lahaina and the 3-mile
enforcement area.
(b) Definitions. As used in this
section, large passenger vessel or LPV
means a cruise ship more than 300 feet
in length that carries passengers for hire,
and any passenger ferry more than 300
feet in length that carries passengers for
hire.
(c) Regulations. (1) Under 33 CFR
165.33, entry into the security zones
created by this section is prohibited
unless authorized by the Coast Guard
Captain of the Port, Honolulu or his or
her designated representatives. When
authorized passage through a large
passenger vessel security zone, all
vessels must operate at the minimum
speed necessary to maintain a safe
course and must proceed as directed by
the Captain of the Port or his or her
designated representatives. No person is
allowed within 100 yards of an LPV that
is underway, moored, position-keeping,
or at anchor, unless authorized by the
Captain of the Port or his or her
designated representative.
(2) When conditions permit, the
Captain of the Port, or his or her
designated representative, may permit
vessels that are at anchor, restricted in
their ability to maneuver, or constrained
by draft to remain within an LPV
security zone in order to ensure
navigational safety.
*
*
*
*
*
4. Amend § 165.1409 to revise
paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(2), (b), (c)(1), and
(c)(2) and to add paragraph (a)(3) to read
as follows:
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
§ 165.1409
Security Zones; Hawaii, HI.
(a) * * *
(1) Hilo Harbor, Hawaii. All waters
extending 100 yards in all directions
from each large passenger vessel in Hilo
Harbor, Hawaii, HI or within 3 nautical
miles seaward of the Hilo Harbor
COLREGS DEMARCATION (See 33 CFR
80.1480). This is a moving security zone
when the LPV is in transit and becomes
a fixed zone when the LPV is anchored,
position-keeping, or moored.
(2) Kailua-Kona, Hawaii. All waters
extending 100 yards in all directions
from each large passenger vessel in
Kailua-Kona, Hawaii, whenever the LPV
is within 3 nautical miles of
Kukailimoku Point. The 100-yard
security zone around each LPV is
activated and enforced whether the LPV
is underway, moored, position-keeping,
or anchored and will continue in effect
until such time as the LPV departs
Kailua-Kona and the 3-mile enforcement
area.
(3) Kawaihae Harbor, Hawaii. All
waters extending 100 yards in all
directions from each large passenger
vessel in Kawaihae Harbor, Hawaii, or
within 3 nautical miles seaward of the
Kawaihae Harbor COLREGS
DEMARCATION (See 33 CFR 80.1470).
The 100-yard security zone around each
LPV is activated and enforced whether
the LPV is underway, moored, positionkeeping, or anchored.
(b) Definitions. As used in this
section, large passenger vessel or LPV
means a cruise ship more than 300 feet
in length that carries passengers for hire,
and any passenger ferry more than 300
feet in length that carries passengers for
hire.
(c) Regulations. (1) Under 33 CFR
165.33, entry into the security zones
created by this section is prohibited
unless authorized by the Coast Guard
Captain of the Port, Honolulu or his or
her designated representative. When
authorized passage through a large
passenger vessel security zone, all
vessels must operate at the minimum
speed necessary to maintain a safe
course and must proceed as directed by
the Captain of the Port or his or her
designated representatives. No person is
allowed within 100 yards of a large
passenger vessel that is underway,
moored, position-keeping, or at anchor,
unless authorized by the Captain of the
Port or his or her designated
representatives.
(2) When conditions permit, the
Captain of the Port, or his or her
designated representatives, may permit
vessels that are at anchor, restricted in
their ability to maneuver, or constrained
by draft to remain within an LPV
E:\FR\FM\19JNP1.SGM
19JNP1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 117 / Tuesday, June 19, 2007 / Proposed Rules
security zone in order to ensure
navigational safety.
*
*
*
*
*
5. Amend § 165.1410 to revise
paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(2), (b), (c)(1), and
(c)(2) to read as follows:
ebenthall on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS
§ 165.1410
BILLING CODE 4910–15–P
Security Zones; Kauai, HI.
(a) * * *
(1) Nawiliwili Harbor, Lihue, Kauai.
All waters extending 100 yards in all
directions from each large passenger
vessel in Nawiliwili Harbor, Kauai, HI
or within 3 nautical miles seaward of
the Nawiliwili Harbor COLREGS
DEMARCATION (See 33 CFR 80.1450).
This is a moving security zone when the
LPV is in transit and becomes a fixed
zone when the LPV is anchored,
position-keeping, or moored.
(2) Port Allen, Kauai. All waters
extending 100 yards in all directions
from each large passenger vessel in Port
Allen, Kauai, HI or within 3 nautical
miles seaward of the Port Allen
COLREGS DEMARCATION (See 33 CFR
80.1440). This is a moving security zone
when the LPV is in transit and becomes
a fixed zone when the LPV is anchored,
position-keeping, or moored.
(b) Definitions. As used in this
section, large passenger vessel or LPV
means a cruise ship more than 300 feet
in length that carries passengers for hire,
and any passenger ferries more than 300
feet in length that carries passengers for
hire.
(c) Regulations. (1) Under 33 CFR
165.33, entry into the security zones
created by this section is prohibited
unless authorized by the Coast Guard
Captain of the Port, Honolulu or his or
her designated representative. When
authorized passage through an LPV
security zone, all vessels must operate at
the minimum speed necessary to
maintain a safe course and must
proceed as directed by the Captain of
the Port or his or her designated
representative. No person is allowed
within 100 yards of a large passenger
vessel that is underway, moored,
position-keeping, or at anchor, unless
authorized by the Captain of the Port or
his or her designated representative.
(2) When conditions permit, the
Captain of the Port, or his or her
designated representative, may permit
vessels that are at anchor, restricted in
their ability to maneuver, or constrained
by draft to remain within an LPV
security zone in order to ensure
navigational safety.
*
*
*
*
*
VerDate Aug<31>2005
Dated: June 6, 2007.
Sally Brice-O’Hara,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander,
Fourteenth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. E7–11748 Filed 6–18–07; 8:45 am]
15:19 Jun 18, 2007
Jkt 211001
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
RIN 1018–AU78
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants; Designation of Critical
´
Habitat for the Guajon
(Eleutherodactylus cooki)
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Revised proposed rule;
reopening of comment period,
availability of draft economic analysis,
and amended Required Determinations.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service), announce a
revised proposed critical habitat
´
designation for the guajon
(Eleutherodactylus cooki). We are
reopening the public comment period to
accept comments on proposed
additional critical habitat units and
revised required determinations, and
also to announce the availability of and
accept comments on our draft economic
analysis of the proposed designation of
critical habitat under the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act).
We are allowing all interested parties an
opportunity to comment simultaneously
on the original proposed rule, the
proposed additional critical habitat
units, the revised required
determinations, and the associated draft
economic analysis. If you submitted
comments previously on the original
proposed rule, you need not resubmit
them, as we will incorporate them into
the public record and fully consider
them as we prepare the final rule. We
are proposing five additional critical
habitat units totaling 43.4 acres (ac)
(17.5 hectares (ha)). With their
inclusion, we are proposing 17 critical
habitat units for the species, for a total
of 260.6 ac (105.6 ha). The amendments
we propose in this document are in
addition to, and not in lieu of, the
proposed designation we published in
our original proposed rule of October 5,
2006. The draft economic analysis, that
includes the additional units, finds that
potential future costs associated with
´
conservation activities for the guajon are
estimated at $4.34 million in
undiscounted dollars, $4.28 million
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
33715
when discounted at 3 percent, and $4.23
million when discounted at 7 percent
over the 20 year period 2007–2026.
Annualized future costs are $288,000
and $399,000 using a 3 percent and 7
percent discount rate, respectively.
DATES: We will accept public comments
until July 19, 2007.
ADDRESSES: If you wish to comment,
you may submit your comments and
information concerning this proposal,
´
identified by ‘‘Attn: Guajon Proposed
Rule,’’ by any one of the following
methods:
1. Mail: You may submit written
comments and information to Edwin E.
˜
Muniz, Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and
´
Wildlife Service, Boqueron Field Office,
´
P.O. Box 491, Boqueron, Puerto Rico
00622.
2. Hand delivery: You may handdeliver written comments to us at the
following address: Cabo Rojo National
Wildlife Refuge Visitor Center,
´
Boqueron Field Office, PR–301, km. 5.1,
´
Boqueron, PR.
3. E–mail: You may send comments
by electronic mail (e–mail) to
jorge_saliva@fws.gov. Please see the
Public Comments Solicited section
below for file format and other
information about electronic filing.
1. Facsimile: You may fax your
comments to 787–851–7440.
5. Federal Rulemaking Portal: Submit
comments via the Federal Rulemaking
portal at https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions on the site for
submitting comments.
Please see the Public Comments
Solicited section below for more
information about submitting comments
or viewing our received materials.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
´
Jorge E. Saliva, Ph.D., Boqueron Field
´
Office, P.O. Box 491, Boqueron, PR
00622 (telephone 787–851–7297 x 224;
facsimile (787–851–7440)). Persons who
use the telecommunications device for
the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal
Information Relay Service (FIRS) at
800–877–8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Public Comments Solicited
We are accepting written comments
and information during this reopened
comment period. We solicit comments
on the original proposed critical habitat
´
designation for the guajon published in
the Federal Register on October 5, 2006
(71 FR 58954), the inclusion of the
additional units proposed in this
document, and our draft economic
analysis of the proposed designation.
We will consider information and
recommendations from all interested
E:\FR\FM\19JNP1.SGM
19JNP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 117 (Tuesday, June 19, 2007)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 33711-33715]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-11748]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 165
[CGD14-07-001]
RIN 1625-AA87
Security Zones; Oahu, Maui, Hawaii, and Kauai, HI
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to change the permanent security
zones in waters adjacent to the islands of Oahu, Maui, Hawaii, and
Kauai, Hawaii. Review of the established zones indicates the need for
some adjustment to better suit vessel and facility security in and
around Hawaiian ports. The proposed changes are intended to enhance the
protection of personnel, vessels, and facilities from acts of sabotage
or other subversive acts, accidents, or other causes of a similar
nature.
DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or
before July 19, 2007.
ADDRESSES: You may mail comments and related material to Commanding
Officer, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Honolulu, Sand Island Parkway,
Honolulu, Hawaii 96819-4398. Sector Honolulu maintains the public
docket for this rulemaking. Comments and material received from the
public, as well as documents indicated in this preamble as being
available in the docket, are available for inspection and copying at
Coast Guard Sector Honolulu between 7 a.m. and 3:30 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lieutenant (Junior Grade) Jasmin
Parker, U. S. Coast Guard Sector Honolulu at (808) 842-2600.
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 (CGD14-07-
001), 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 that
your submission 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.
Public Meeting
We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a
request for a meeting by writing to Sector Honolulu at the address
under ADDRESSES explaining why one would be beneficial. If we determine
that one would aid this rulemaking, we would hold one at a time and
place announced by separate notice in the Federal Register.
Background and Purpose
The terrorist attacks against the United States that occurred on
September 11, 2001, have emphasized the need for the United States to
establish heightened security measures in order to protect the public,
ports and waterways, and the maritime transportation system from future
acts of terrorism or other subversive acts. The terrorist organization
al-Qaeda and other similar groups remain committed to conducting armed
attacks against U.S. interests, including civilian targets within the
United States. National security and intelligence officials warn that
future terrorist attacks are likely.
In response to this threat, on December 19, 2005, the Coast Guard
published a final rule establishing permanent security zones in
designated waters surrounding the Hawaiian Islands (70 FR 75036,
December 19, 2005). These zones replaced the temporary zones that had
been established, and then extended, in the waters surrounding the
Hawaiian Islands soon after the attacks (66 FR 52693, October 17,
2001). The existing permanent security zones have been in operation for
over a year.
We have recently completed a periodic review of port and harbor
security procedures and considered the oral feedback that local vessel
operators gave to Coast Guard units enforcing the zones. In response,
the Coast Guard is proposing to reduce the scope of the Honolulu
International Airport, North Section security zone. The Coast Guard is
also proposing new zones at
[[Page 33712]]
Kawaihae Harbor, Hawaii and Kahe Point, Oahu to address a new vessel
operation and recent identification of a critical facility.
Additionally, we are proposing changes that would clarify the
application of large cruise ship (LCS) security zones to the new Hawaii
SuperFerry.
Our proposal with respect to the Honolulu International Airport,
North Section zone (33 CFR 165.1407(a)(4)(i)) is to change it from one
that is perpetually activated and enforced to one that is used only in
response to a threat. This proposed change, permitting a reduced
security posture in the waters adjacent to Honolulu International
Airport, is based on a 2006 reevaluation of airport protection
requirements. The new arrangement offers us an opportunity to decrease
disruption to maritime commerce and inconvenience to small entities by
making the zone subject to activation and enforcement only under
certain conditions rather than all the time.
As are the security zones currently in place, this and the revised
security zones described below would be permanently established. We use
the word ``activated'' to describe when these permanently established
zones would be subject to enforcement.
Our proposal to add a Kawaihae Harbor security zone is due to the
arrival of the Hawaii SuperFerry. In June 2004, Hornblower Marine
Services, Inc. signed a Marine Management Operating Agreement and
Construction Oversight contract for the new Hawaii SuperFerry
operation, an inter-island ferry service. The service will transport
passengers and vehicles to Hawaiian island ports, including Kawaihae
Harbor on the island of Hawaii. Each day, these ferries will carry many
passengers as well as cargo and vehicles, presenting the same security
vulnerabilities as the large cruise ships that operate in those areas.
Kawaihae Harbor, however, lacks a security zone to protect such
vessels, so our proposal is to create one there.
Additionally, the definition of large cruise ship (LCS) in 33 CFR
165.1408(b), 165.1409(b), and 165.1410(b) does not adequately describe
the Hawaii SuperFerry or any other vessel of similar size and carriage
capacity. Therefore, the Coast Guard proposes to revise the term large
cruise ship to clarify that the presence of SuperFerry-type vessels
triggers the activation and enforcement of the Maui, Hawaii, and Kauai
security zones described in those three sections.
Our proposed creation of a Kahe Point security zone is meant to
protect the Hawaiian Electric Company power plant at Kahe Point, which
produces a significant portion of the electricity for the island of
Oahu. This beach-front power plant uses sea water piped in directly
from the ocean to cool its turbines. Loss or damage to this cooling
water system due to sabotage would reduce the power-generating capacity
of the plant and overburden the other island facilities. Our proposed
zone would enhance its security.
Discussion of Proposed Rule
The existing security zones in the Honolulu Captain of the Port
Zone (see 33 CFR 3.70-10) consist of two categories: (1) Those
activated and enforced at all times; and (2) those activated and
enforced only upon the occurrence of an event specified in the rule.
Whenever a security zone is activated and enforced, persons and vessels
are prohibited from entering the zone without the express permission of
the Captain of the Port.
The security zone located at Honolulu International Airport, North
Section (33 CFR 165.1407(a)(4)(i)) is currently activated and enforced
at all times. Our proposal is to decrease disruption to maritime
commerce and reduce the inconvenience to small entities by re-
designating this zone as one that is activated and enforced only upon
the occurrence of one of the following events:
1. Whenever the Maritime Security (MARSEC) level, as defined in 33
CFR part 101, is raised to 2 or higher; or,
2. Whenever the Captain of the Port is made aware of any threat
that may cause a transportation security incident or other serious
maritime incident, including but not limited to any incident that may
cause loss of life, environmental damage, transportation system
disruption, or economic disruption in a particular area.
The Captain of the Port would cause notice of either of these two
enforcement-triggering events to be published in the Federal Register.
The Captain of the Port would use actual notice, local notice to
mariners, and broadcast notice to mariners to advise the public when
these security zones are activated and enforced. By the same means, the
Captain of the Port would also announce suspension of enforcement.
In order to clarify that SuperFerry-type vessels would receive the
same protection as large cruse ships in Maui (under 33 CFR 165.1408),
Hawaii (under 33 CFR 165.1409), and Kauai (under 33 CFR 165.1410), the
Coast Guard proposes to change the term large cruise ship in those
sections to large passenger vessel (LPV).
To protect SuperFerry-type vessels during their use of Kawaihae
Harbor, the Coast Guard is proposing to create an LPV security zone
there. This security zone would be activated and enforced upon the
presence of an LPV. A large passenger vessel would be either a cruise
ship or ferry that is more than 300 feet in length.
The zone would encompass the waters extending 100 yards in all
directions from an LPV. When an LPV is anchored, position-keeping, or
moored, the security zone would remain fixed, extending 100 yards in
all directions from the vessel.
Additionally, the Coast Guard is proposing to create a security
zone at Kahe Point, Oahu. It would be in the waters adjacent to the
Hawaiian Electric Company power plant at Kahe Point within 500 yards of
the lighted tower at specified coordinates. This zone would be
activated and enforced only upon the occurrence of one of the following
events:
1. Whenever the Maritime Security (MARSEC) level, as defined in 33
CFR part 101, is raised to 2 or higher; or,
2. Whenever the Captain of the Port is made aware of any threat
that may cause a transportation security incident or other serious
maritime incident, including but not limited to any incident that may
cause loss of life, environmental damage, transportation system
disruption, or economic disruption in a particular area.
The Captain of the Port would cause notice of either of these two
enforcement-triggering events to be published in the Federal Register.
The Captain of the Port would use actual notice, local notice to
mariners, and broadcast notice to mariners to advise the public when
the security zone is activated and enforced. By the same means, the
Captain of the Port would also announce suspension of enforcement.
Entry into this proposed security zone while it is activated and
enforced would be prohibited unless authorized by the Coast Guard
Captain of the Port, Honolulu, Hawaii. The Captain of the Port or his
or her representatives would enforce this security zone. The Captain of
the Port may be assisted by other federal or state agencies to the
extent permitted by law.
For all seaplane traffic entering or transiting the proposed
security zone, a seaplane's compliance with all Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) regulations regarding flight-plan approval would
be deemed adequate permission to transit this waterway security zone.
No communication between the aircraft and the Coast
[[Page 33713]]
Guard would be necessary upon compliance with FAA regulations regarding
the flight plan.
The proposed Kahe Point security zone would be established pursuant
to the authority of the Magnuson Act, 50 U.S.C. 191, et seq., and
regulations promulgated by the President under Title 33, Part 6 of the
Code of Federal Regulations. Vessels or persons violating this section
would be subject to the penalties set forth in 33 U.S.C. 1232 and 50
U.S.C. 192.
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.
The Coast Guard expects 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. This expectation is
based on the short activation and enforcement duration of the zones
created or impacted by this proposal, as well as the limited geographic
area affected by them.
Small Entities
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered whether this proposed rule will 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 will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. While we are aware that affected areas have
small commercial entities, including canoe and boating clubs and small
commercial businesses that provide recreational services, we anticipate
that there will be little or no impact to these small entities due to
the narrowly tailored scope of these proposed changes.
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 (Public Law 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this proposed rule so that they can better
evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. 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 Lieutenant (Junior
Grade) Jasmin Parker, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Honolulu, (808) 842-2600.
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 will 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
does not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that
may 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 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 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
[[Page 33714]]
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 made a preliminary determination that this action is not likely to
have a significant effect on the human environment. Draft documentation
supporting this preliminary determination is available in the docket
where indicated under ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information
that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact
from this proposed rule.
List of Subjects 33 CFR Part 165
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reports and
recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
For the reasons set out 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, 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. Amend Sec. 165.1407 to add paragraph (a)(7) and to revise the
paragraph (d) heading and paragraph (d)(1) introductory text to read as
follows:
Sec. 165.1407 Security Zones; Oahu, HI.
(a) * * *
(7) Kahe Point, Oahu. All waters adjacent to the Hawaiian Electric
Company power plant at Kahe Point within 500 yards of 21[deg]21.30' N/
158[deg]07.7' W (lighted tower).
* * * * *
(d) Notice of enforcement or suspension of enforcement of security
zones. (1) The security zones described in paragraphs (a)(3) (Kalihi
Channel and Keehi Lagoon, Oahu), (a)(4)(i) (Honolulu International
Airport, North Section), (a)(4)(ii) (Honolulu International Airport,
South Section), and (a)(6) (Barbers Point Harbor, Oahu) of this
section, will be enforced only upon the occurrence of one of the
following events--
* * * * *
3. Amend Sec. 165.1408 to revise paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(2), (b),
(c)(1), and (c)(2) to read as follows:
Sec. 165.1408 Security Zones; Maui, HI.
(a) * * *
(1) Kahului Harbor, Maui. All waters extending 100 yards in all
directions from each large passenger vessel in Kahului Harbor, Maui, HI
or within 3 nautical miles seaward of the Kahului Harbor COLREGS
DEMARCATION (See 33 CFR 80.1460). This is a moving security zone when
the LPV is in transit and becomes a fixed zone when the LPV is
anchored, position-keeping, or moored.
(2) Lahaina, Maui. All waters extending 100 yards in all directions
from each large passenger vessel in Lahaina, Maui, whenever the LPV is
within 3 nautical miles of Lahaina Light (LLNR 28460). The security
zone around each LPV is activated and enforced whether the LPV is
underway, moored, position-keeping, or anchored, and will continue in
effect until such time as the LPV departs Lahaina and the 3-mile
enforcement area.
(b) Definitions. As used in this section, large passenger vessel or
LPV means a cruise ship more than 300 feet in length that carries
passengers for hire, and any passenger ferry more than 300 feet in
length that carries passengers for hire.
(c) Regulations. (1) Under 33 CFR 165.33, entry into the security
zones created by this section is prohibited unless authorized by the
Coast Guard Captain of the Port, Honolulu or his or her designated
representatives. When authorized passage through a large passenger
vessel security zone, all vessels must operate at the minimum speed
necessary to maintain a safe course and must proceed as directed by the
Captain of the Port or his or her designated representatives. No person
is allowed within 100 yards of an LPV that is underway, moored,
position-keeping, or at anchor, unless authorized by the Captain of the
Port or his or her designated representative.
(2) When conditions permit, the Captain of the Port, or his or her
designated representative, may permit vessels that are at anchor,
restricted in their ability to maneuver, or constrained by draft to
remain within an LPV security zone in order to ensure navigational
safety.
* * * * *
4. Amend Sec. 165.1409 to revise paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(2), (b),
(c)(1), and (c)(2) and to add paragraph (a)(3) to read as follows:
Sec. 165.1409 Security Zones; Hawaii, HI.
(a) * * *
(1) Hilo Harbor, Hawaii. All waters extending 100 yards in all
directions from each large passenger vessel in Hilo Harbor, Hawaii, HI
or within 3 nautical miles seaward of the Hilo Harbor COLREGS
DEMARCATION (See 33 CFR 80.1480). This is a moving security zone when
the LPV is in transit and becomes a fixed zone when the LPV is
anchored, position-keeping, or moored.
(2) Kailua-Kona, Hawaii. All waters extending 100 yards in all
directions from each large passenger vessel in Kailua-Kona, Hawaii,
whenever the LPV is within 3 nautical miles of Kukailimoku Point. The
100-yard security zone around each LPV is activated and enforced
whether the LPV is underway, moored, position-keeping, or anchored and
will continue in effect until such time as the LPV departs Kailua-Kona
and the 3-mile enforcement area.
(3) Kawaihae Harbor, Hawaii. All waters extending 100 yards in all
directions from each large passenger vessel in Kawaihae Harbor, Hawaii,
or within 3 nautical miles seaward of the Kawaihae Harbor COLREGS
DEMARCATION (See 33 CFR 80.1470). The 100-yard security zone around
each LPV is activated and enforced whether the LPV is underway, moored,
position-keeping, or anchored.
(b) Definitions. As used in this section, large passenger vessel or
LPV means a cruise ship more than 300 feet in length that carries
passengers for hire, and any passenger ferry more than 300 feet in
length that carries passengers for hire.
(c) Regulations. (1) Under 33 CFR 165.33, entry into the security
zones created by this section is prohibited unless authorized by the
Coast Guard Captain of the Port, Honolulu or his or her designated
representative. When authorized passage through a large passenger
vessel security zone, all vessels must operate at the minimum speed
necessary to maintain a safe course and must proceed as directed by the
Captain of the Port or his or her designated representatives. No person
is allowed within 100 yards of a large passenger vessel that is
underway, moored, position-keeping, or at anchor, unless authorized by
the Captain of the Port or his or her designated representatives.
(2) When conditions permit, the Captain of the Port, or his or her
designated representatives, may permit vessels that are at anchor,
restricted in their ability to maneuver, or constrained by draft to
remain within an LPV
[[Page 33715]]
security zone in order to ensure navigational safety.
* * * * *
5. Amend Sec. 165.1410 to revise paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(2), (b),
(c)(1), and (c)(2) to read as follows:
Sec. 165.1410 Security Zones; Kauai, HI.
(a) * * *
(1) Nawiliwili Harbor, Lihue, Kauai. All waters extending 100 yards
in all directions from each large passenger vessel in Nawiliwili
Harbor, Kauai, HI or within 3 nautical miles seaward of the Nawiliwili
Harbor COLREGS DEMARCATION (See 33 CFR 80.1450). This is a moving
security zone when the LPV is in transit and becomes a fixed zone when
the LPV is anchored, position-keeping, or moored.
(2) Port Allen, Kauai. All waters extending 100 yards in all
directions from each large passenger vessel in Port Allen, Kauai, HI or
within 3 nautical miles seaward of the Port Allen COLREGS DEMARCATION
(See 33 CFR 80.1440). This is a moving security zone when the LPV is in
transit and becomes a fixed zone when the LPV is anchored, position-
keeping, or moored.
(b) Definitions. As used in this section, large passenger vessel or
LPV means a cruise ship more than 300 feet in length that carries
passengers for hire, and any passenger ferries more than 300 feet in
length that carries passengers for hire.
(c) Regulations. (1) Under 33 CFR 165.33, entry into the security
zones created by this section is prohibited unless authorized by the
Coast Guard Captain of the Port, Honolulu or his or her designated
representative. When authorized passage through an LPV security zone,
all vessels must operate at the minimum speed necessary to maintain a
safe course and must proceed as directed by the Captain of the Port or
his or her designated representative. No person is allowed within 100
yards of a large passenger vessel that is underway, moored, position-
keeping, or at anchor, unless authorized by the Captain of the Port or
his or her designated representative.
(2) When conditions permit, the Captain of the Port, or his or her
designated representative, may permit vessels that are at anchor,
restricted in their ability to maneuver, or constrained by draft to
remain within an LPV security zone in order to ensure navigational
safety.
* * * * *
Dated: June 6, 2007.
Sally Brice-O'Hara,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Fourteenth Coast Guard
District.
[FR Doc. E7-11748 Filed 6-18-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P
