Security Zone; Tinian, Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, 65459-65460 [E7-22694]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 224 / Wednesday, November 21, 2007 / Rules and Regulations would receive nothing, or virtually nothing in exchange for giving up its claim. Section 12. For a claim against the United States, the term ‘‘offer in compromise’’ as used in this Directive is any settlement of such a claim, except settlements in which the United States would receive nothing, or virtually nothing, in exchange for conceding the claim against it; and the term to ‘‘settle administratively,’’ means a settlement in which the United States would receive nothing, or virtually nothing, for conceding the claim against it. Section 13. This Directive supersedes Tax Division Directive No. 105, effective June 14, 1995. Section 14. This Directive shall become effective on November 21, 2007. Dated: October 26, 2007. Richard T. Morrison, Acting Assistant Attorney General. [FR Doc. E7–22702 Filed 11–20–07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410–16–P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [COTP Guam 07–005] RIN 1625–AA87 Security Zone; Tinian, Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands Coast Guard, DHS. Final rule. AGENCY: rmajette on PROD1PC64 with RULES ACTION: SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is changing a permanent security zone in waters adjacent to the island of Tinian, Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI). Review of the established zone indicates that its scope is overly-broad and that it imposes an unnecessary and unsustainable enforcement burden on the Coast Guard. This change is intended to narrow the zone’s scope so it more accurately reflects current enforcement needs. DATES: This rule is effective December 21, 2007. ADDRESSES: Comments and material received from the public, as well as documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket, are part of docket COTP Guam 07–005 and are available for inspection and copying at Coast Guard Sector Guam between 7 a.m. and 3:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lieutenant Commander John Winter, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Guam at (671) 355–4861. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:23 Nov 20, 2007 Jkt 214001 Regulatory Information On August 17, 2007, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) entitled Security Zone; Tinian, Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands in the Federal Register (72 FR 46185). We received no letters commenting on the proposed rule. No public meeting was requested, and none was held. Background and Purpose The security zones at Tinian codified in 33 CFR 165.1403 were first established on November 14, 1986 (51 FR 42220, November 24, 1986), as requested by the U.S. Navy in order to prevent injury or damage to persons and equipment incident to the mooring of the first Maritime Preposition Ships in the port. In addition to describing a larger security zone that is enforced when a Maritime Position Ship is moored at the site, the regulation, as currently written, establishes a permanent 50-yard security zone around Moorings A and B when no vessel is moored there. The zone is approximately 100 nautical miles from the nearest Coast Guard surveillance assets, a distance that hinders our ability to patrol it regularly. A recent review of the 50-yard zone indicates that patrolling it is unnecessary except when the Navy needs to ensure availability of the mooring space, which is signaled by the anchoring of mooring balls. The purpose of this rule is to change the smaller zone from one that is activated all the time to one that is activated only when necessary. This change reflects our current enforcement needs more accurately and eliminates our need to travel 100 miles to patrol the zone when enforcement is unnecessary. In addition, we are changing the section heading of this regulation to reflect CNMI’s proper name and the fact that the section describes two security zones. We also made it easier to distinguish the two zones by describing them in separate paragraphs in 33 CFR 165.1403(a). Finally, we are clarifying that, while these regulations are in effect at all times, the security zones will only be activated—and thus subject to enforcement—when necessary. Discussion of Comments and Changes We did not receive any comments in response to our NPRM. No changes were made to the regulation text proposed in the NPRM. Regulatory Evaluation This rule is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 65459 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 rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation is unnecessary. This expectation is based on the nature of the change (diminishing an established security zone’s enforcement period), which is likely to further minimize the economic impact of an established rule. Small Entities Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601–612), we have considered whether this 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 rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Due to the nature of the change (diminishing an established security zone’s enforcement period), we anticipate that it will further reduce any economic impact of the established rule. If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what degree this rule would economically affect it. Assistance for Small Entities Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104–121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact Lieutenant Commander John Winter, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Guam, (671) 355–4861. 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. E:\FR\FM\21NOR1.SGM 21NOR1 65460 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 224 / Wednesday, November 21, 2007 / Rules and Regulations Collection of Information This rule calls for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501– 3520). Federalism A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for federalism. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble. Taking of Private Property This 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 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. rmajette on PROD1PC64 with RULES Protection of Children We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and does not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may disproportionately affect children. Indian Tribal Governments This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:23 Nov 20, 2007 Jkt 214001 Energy Effects List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165 We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a ‘‘significant energy action’’ under that order because it is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211. Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reports and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways. Technical Standards The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards. Environment We have analyzed this rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.lD and Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 5100.1, which guide 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. That provision excludes regulations establishing or changing security zones. A final ‘‘Environmental Analysis Check List’’ and a final ‘‘Categorical Exclusion Determination’’ are available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 For the reasons set out in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows: I PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows: I 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. In § 165.1403, revise the section heading and paragraph (a) to read as follows: I § 165.1403 Security Zones; Tinian, Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. (a) Location. The following areas are security zones: (1) The waters of the Pacific Ocean off Tinian between 14°59′04.9″ N, 145°34′58.6″ E to 14°59′20.1″ N, 145°35′41.5″ E to 14°59′09.8″ N, 145°36′02.1″ E to 14°57′49.3″ N, 145°36′28.7″ E to 14°57′29.1″ N, 145°35′31.1″ E and back to 14°59′04.9″ N, 145°34′58.6″ E. This zone will be enforced when one, or more, of the Maritime Preposition Ships is in the zone or moored at Mooring A located at 14°58′57.0″ N and 145°35′40.8″ E or Mooring B located at 14°58′15.9″ N, 145°35′54.8″ E. I (2) Additionally, a 50-yard security zone in all directions around Moorings A and B will be enforced when no vessels are moored thereto but mooring balls are anchored and on station. Note to § 165.1403(a): All positions of latitude and longitude are from International Spheroid, Astro Pier 1944 (Saipan) Datum (NOAA Chart 81071). * * * * * Dated: November 9, 2007. William Marhoffer, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Guam. [FR Doc. E7–22694 Filed 11–20–07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910–15–P E:\FR\FM\21NOR1.SGM 21NOR1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 224 (Wednesday, November 21, 2007)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 65459-65460]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-22694]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[COTP Guam 07-005]
RIN 1625-AA87


Security Zone; Tinian, Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana 
Islands

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is changing a permanent security zone in 
waters adjacent to the island of Tinian, Commonwealth of the Northern 
Mariana Islands (CNMI). Review of the established zone indicates that 
its scope is overly-broad and that it imposes an unnecessary and 
unsustainable enforcement burden on the Coast Guard. This change is 
intended to narrow the zone's scope so it more accurately reflects 
current enforcement needs.

DATES: This rule is effective December 21, 2007.

ADDRESSES: Comments and material received from the public, as well as 
documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket, 
are part of docket COTP Guam 07-005 and are available for inspection 
and copying at Coast Guard Sector Guam between 7 a.m. and 3:30 p.m., 
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lieutenant Commander John Winter, U.S. 
Coast Guard Sector Guam at (671) 355-4861.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulatory Information

    On August 17, 2007, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking 
(NPRM) entitled Security Zone; Tinian, Commonwealth of the Northern 
Mariana Islands in the Federal Register (72 FR 46185). We received no 
letters commenting on the proposed rule. No public meeting was 
requested, and none was held.

Background and Purpose

    The security zones at Tinian codified in 33 CFR 165.1403 were first 
established on November 14, 1986 (51 FR 42220, November 24, 1986), as 
requested by the U.S. Navy in order to prevent injury or damage to 
persons and equipment incident to the mooring of the first Maritime 
Preposition Ships in the port. In addition to describing a larger 
security zone that is enforced when a Maritime Position Ship is moored 
at the site, the regulation, as currently written, establishes a 
permanent 50-yard security zone around Moorings A and B when no vessel 
is moored there. The zone is approximately 100 nautical miles from the 
nearest Coast Guard surveillance assets, a distance that hinders our 
ability to patrol it regularly.
    A recent review of the 50-yard zone indicates that patrolling it is 
unnecessary except when the Navy needs to ensure availability of the 
mooring space, which is signaled by the anchoring of mooring balls. The 
purpose of this rule is to change the smaller zone from one that is 
activated all the time to one that is activated only when necessary. 
This change reflects our current enforcement needs more accurately and 
eliminates our need to travel 100 miles to patrol the zone when 
enforcement is unnecessary.
    In addition, we are changing the section heading of this regulation 
to reflect CNMI's proper name and the fact that the section describes 
two security zones. We also made it easier to distinguish the two zones 
by describing them in separate paragraphs in 33 CFR 165.1403(a). 
Finally, we are clarifying that, while these regulations are in effect 
at all times, the security zones will only be activated--and thus 
subject to enforcement--when necessary.

Discussion of Comments and Changes

    We did not receive any comments in response to our NPRM. No changes 
were made to the regulation text proposed in the NPRM.

Regulatory Evaluation

    This rule is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under section 
3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does 
not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 
6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not 
reviewed it under that Order.
    The Coast Guard expects the economic impact of this rule to be so 
minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation is unnecessary. This 
expectation is based on the nature of the change (diminishing an 
established security zone's enforcement period), which is likely to 
further minimize the economic impact of an established rule.

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have 
considered whether this 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 rule will 
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities. Due to the nature of the change (diminishing an established 
security zone's enforcement period), we anticipate that it will further 
reduce any economic impact of the established rule. If you think that 
your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as 
a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic 
impact on it, please submit a comment (see ADDRESSES) explaining why 
you think it qualifies and how and to what degree this rule would 
economically affect it.

Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small 
entities in understanding this rule so that they can better evaluate 
its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the rule 
would affect your small business, organization, or governmental 
jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or 
options for compliance, please contact Lieutenant Commander John 
Winter, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Guam, (671) 355-4861. 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.

[[Page 65460]]

Collection of Information

    This rule calls for no new collection of information under the 
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, 
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local 
governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial 
direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under 
that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for 
federalism.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) 
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary 
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may 
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in 
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any 
one year. Though this rule will not result in such expenditure, we do 
discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.

Taking of Private Property

    This 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 rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) 
of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, 
eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

Protection of Children

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection 
of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule 
is not an economically significant rule and does not create an 
environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may 
disproportionately affect children.

Indian Tribal Governments

    This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 
13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, 
because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more 
Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and 
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities 
between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

Energy Effects

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions 
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 
Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a ``significant 
energy action'' under that order because it is not a ``significant 
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to 
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use 
of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and 
Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy 
action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects 
under Executive Order 13211.

Technical Standards

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 
U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards 
in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, 
through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why 
using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or 
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical 
standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or 
operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management 
systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus 
standards bodies.
    This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not 
consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.lD 
and Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 5100.1, which 
guide 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. That provision excludes regulations establishing or 
changing security zones.
    A final ``Environmental Analysis Check List'' and a final 
``Categorical Exclusion Determination'' are available in the docket 
where indicated under ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reports and 
recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.

0
For the reasons set out in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR 
part 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

0
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701; 50 
U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Pub. L. 
107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation 
No. 0170.1.


0
2. In Sec.  165.1403, revise the section heading and paragraph (a) to 
read as follows:


Sec.  165.1403  Security Zones; Tinian, Commonwealth of the Northern 
Mariana Islands.

    (a) Location. The following areas are security zones:
    (1) The waters of the Pacific Ocean off Tinian between 
14[deg]59'04.9'' N, 145[deg]34'58.6'' E to 14[deg]59'20.1'' N, 
145[deg]35'41.5'' E to 14[deg]59'09.8'' N, 145[deg]36'02.1'' E to 
14[deg]57'49.3'' N, 145[deg]36'28.7'' E to 14[deg]57'29.1'' N, 
145[deg]35'31.1'' E and back to 14[deg]59'04.9'' N, 145[deg]34'58.6'' 
E. This zone will be enforced when one, or more, of the Maritime 
Preposition Ships is in the zone or moored at Mooring A located at 
14[deg]58'57.0'' N and 145[deg]35'40.8'' E or Mooring B located at 
14[deg]58'15.9'' N, 145[deg]35'54.8'' E.
0
(2) Additionally, a 50-yard security zone in all directions around 
Moorings A and B will be enforced when no vessels are moored thereto 
but mooring balls are anchored and on station.

    Note to Sec.  165.1403(a): All positions of latitude and 
longitude are from International Spheroid, Astro Pier 1944 (Saipan) 
Datum (NOAA Chart 81071).

* * * * *

    Dated: November 9, 2007.
William Marhoffer,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Guam.
 [FR Doc. E7-22694 Filed 11-20-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P