Security Zone; Waters Surrounding U.S. Forces Vessel SBX-1, HI, 1133-1135 [E8-19]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 4 / Monday, January 7, 2008 / Proposed Rules process for the non-tax administration purpose of marketing: (i) a RAL or a substantially similar product or service; (ii) a RAC or a substantially similar product or service; or (iii) audit insurance or a substantially similar product or service. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Proposed Effective Date RIN 1625–AA87 The Treasury Department and the IRS anticipate that these new proposed rules would apply for returns filed on or after January 1st of the year following the date of publication in the Federal Register as final or temporary regulations. Request for Comments Before a notice of proposed rulemaking is issued, consideration will be given to any written comments (a signed original and eight (8) copies) or electronic comments that are submitted timely to the IRS. All comments will be available for public inspection and copying. Specifically, comments are encouraged on the following questions: 1. If RALs and certain other products create a direct financial incentive for preparers to inflate tax refunds, are there alternative approaches that would eliminate or reduce this incentive? 2. If the marketing of RALs and certain other products exploit or have the potential to exploit certain taxpayers, is the approach described in this ANPRM better viewed as protecting taxpayers from exploitation or as restricting taxpayers’ ability to control their tax return information? If the latter, is there an alternative approach that would address the concerns described above? 3. Should RACs be treated the same way as RALs and audit insurance, or do RACs present lesser concerns? 4. Are there other products that present significant concerns for tax compliance or taxpayer exploitation that should be addressed by regulation? jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS Drafting Information The principal author of this advance notice of proposed rulemaking is Dillon Taylor, formerly of the Office of the Associate Chief Counsel (Procedure and Administration). For further information, contact Lawrence Mack of the Office of Associate Chief Counsel (Procedure and Administration) at 202– 622–4940 (not a toll-free call). Linda E. Stiff, Deputy Commissioner for Services and Enforcement. [FR Doc. 08–2 Filed 1–3–08; 8:58 am] BILLING CODE 4830–01–P VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:51 Jan 04, 2008 Jkt 214001 Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 Security Zone; Waters Surrounding U.S. Forces Vessel SBX–1, HI Coast Guard, DHS. Notice of proposed rulemaking. AGENCY: SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to establish a permanent 500-yard moving security zone around the U.S. Forces vessel SBX–1 during transit within the Honolulu Captain of the Port Zone. This zone is necessary to protect the SBX–1 from threats associated with vessels and persons approaching too close during transit. Entry of persons or vessels into this security zone would be prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port (COTP). DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or before February 6, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket number USCG–2007–0195 to the Docket Management Facility at the U.S. Department of Transportation. To avoid duplication, please use only one of the following methods: (1) Online: http:// www.regulations.gov. (2) Mail: Docket Management Facility (M–30), U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590– 0001. (3) Hand delivery: Room W12–140 on the Ground Floor of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone number is 202–366–9329. (4) Fax: 202–493–2251. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lieutenant (Junior Grade) Jasmin Parker, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Honolulu at (808) 842–2600. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Public Participation and Request for Comments We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting comments and related materials. All comments received will be posted, without change, to http:// www.regulations.gov and will include any personal information you have PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4702 provided. We have an agreement with the Department of Transportation (DOT) to use the Docket Management Facility. Please see DOT’s ‘‘Privacy Act’’ paragraph below. Submitting Comments [Docket No. USCG–2007–0195] ACTION: 1133 Sfmt 4702 If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking (USCG–2007–0195), indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and give the reason for each comment. We recommend that you include your name and a mailing address, an e-mail address, or a phone number in the body of your document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your submission. You may submit your comments and material by electronic means, mail, fax, or delivery to the Docket Management Facility at the address under ADDRESSES, but please submit your comments and material by only one means. If you submit them by mail or delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 81⁄2 by 11 inches, suitable for copying and electronic filing. If you submit them by mail and would like to know that they reached the Facility, 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. Viewing Comments and Documents To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov at any time, click on ‘‘Search for Dockets,’’ and enter the docket number for this rulemaking (USCG–2007–0195) in the Docket ID box, and click enter. You may also visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12–140 on the ground floor of the DOT West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Privacy Act Anyone can search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review the Department of Transportation’s Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477), or you may visit http:// DocketsInfo.dot.gov. E:\FR\FM\07JAP1.SGM 07JAP1 1134 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 4 / Monday, January 7, 2008 / Proposed Rules 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 will hold one at a time and place announced by a separate notice in the Federal Register. Background and Purpose The U.S. Forces vessel SBX–1 will enter the Honolulu Captain of the Port Zone and transit to Pearl Harbor, HI for maintenance at least once each year. The SBX–1 is easy to recognize because it contains a large white object shaped like an egg supported by a platform that is larger than a football field. The platform in turn is supported by six pillars similar to those on large oildrilling platforms. The Coast Guard’s reaction to such transits thus far has been to await a final voyage plan and then establish a security zone using a temporary final rule applicable to that particular voyage. Such action diminishes the public’s opportunity for formal comment and imposes a pressing administrative burden each time the SBX–1 arrives. This permanent SBX–1 security zone proposal affords solicitation of public comments and promotes relief from the emergency rulemakings currently necessary to protect these transits. jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS Discussion of Proposed Rule Our proposed security zone would be established permanently. It would be automatically activated, meaning it would be subject to enforcement, whenever the U.S. Forces vessel SBX– 1 is in U.S. navigable waters within the Honolulu Captain of the Port (COTP) Zone (see 33 CFR 3.70–10). The security zone would include all waters extending 500 yards in all directions from the SBX–1, from the surface of the water to the ocean floor. The security zone would move with the SBX–1 while it is in transit. The zone would become fixed around the SBX–1 while it is anchored, positionkeeping, or moored, and it would remain activated until the SBX–1 either departs U.S. navigable waters within the Honolulu COTP zone or enters the Honolulu Naval Defensive Sea Area established by Executive Order 8987 (6 FR 6675, December 24, 1941). The general regulations governing security zones contained in 33 CFR 165.33 would apply. Entry into, transit through, or anchoring within the zone while it is activated and enforced would VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:51 Jan 04, 2008 Jkt 214001 be prohibited unless authorized by the COTP or a designated representative thereof. Any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant, or petty officer, and any other COTP representative permitted by law, could enforce the zone. The COTP could waive any of the requirements of this rule for any person, vessel, or class of vessel upon finding that application of the security zone is unnecessary or impractical for the purpose of maritime security. Vessels or persons violating this rule 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 limited duration of the zone, the constricted geographic area affected by it, and its ability to move with the protected vessel. Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency’s responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1–888–REG–FAIR (1–888–734–3247). 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 either preempts State law or imposes 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. Small Entities Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 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. We expect that there will be little or no impact to small entities due to the narrowly tailored scope of this proposed security zone. 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 the rule elsewhere in this preamble. Assistance for Small Entities Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104–121), we offer 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. PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 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. E:\FR\FM\07JAP1.SGM 07JAP1 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 4 / Monday, January 7, 2008 / Proposed Rules Protection of Children Environment 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. 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. A preliminary ‘‘Environmental Analysis Check List’’ 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. 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. jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS 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 is 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. VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:51 Jan 04, 2008 Jkt 214001 List of Subjects 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. A new § 165.1411 to read as follows: § 165.1411 Security zone; waters surrounding U.S. Forces vessel SBX–1, HI. (a) Location. The following area, in U.S. navigable waters within the Honolulu Captain of the Port Zone (see 33 CFR 3.70–10), from the surface of the water to the ocean floor, is a security zone: All waters extending 500 yards in all directions from U.S. Forces vessel SBX–1. The security zone moves with the SBX–1 while it is in transit and becomes fixed when the SBX–1 is anchored, position-keeping, or moored. (b) Regulations. The general regulations governing security zones contained in 33 CFR 165.33 apply. Entry into, transit through, or anchoring within, this zone while it is activated, and thus subject to enforcement, is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port or a designated representative thereof. (c) Suspension of Enforcement. The Coast Guard will suspend enforcement of the security zone described in this section whenever the SBX–1 is within PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 1135 the Honolulu Defensive Sea Area (see 6 FR 6675). (d) Informational notice. The Captain of the Port of Honolulu will cause notice of the enforcement of the security zone described in this section to be made by broadcast notice to mariners. The SBX– 1 is easy to recognize because it contains a large white object shaped like an egg supported by a platform that is larger than a football field. The platform in turn is supported by six pillars similar to those on large oil-drilling platforms. (e) Authority to enforce. Any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant, or petty officer, and any other Captain of the Port representative permitted by law, may enforce the security zone described in this section. (f) Waiver. The Captain of the Port may waive any of the requirements of this rule for any person, vessel, or class of vessel upon finding that application of the security zone is unnecessary or impractical for the purpose of maritime security. (g) Penalties. Vessels or persons violating this rule are subject to the penalties set forth in 33 U.S.C. 1232 and 50 U.S.C. 192. Dated: December 6, 2007. V.B. Atkins Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Honolulu. [FR Doc. E8–19 Filed 1–4–08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910–15–P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service 36 CFR Part 294 RIN 0596–AC62 Special Areas; Roadless Area Conservation; Applicability to the National Forests in Idaho Forest Service, USDA. Notice of proposed rulemaking; request for comment. AGENCY: ACTION: SUMMARY: The Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), is proposing to establish a State-specific rule to provide management direction for conserving and enhancing the roadless characteristics for designated roadless areas in Idaho. The agency is particularly interested in receiving public input regarding the following topics: to what extent should the Forest Service allow building roads for the purpose of conducting limited forest health activities in areas designated as backcountry; are the limitations on sale E:\FR\FM\07JAP1.SGM 07JAP1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 4 (Monday, January 7, 2008)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 1133-1135]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-19]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2007-0195]
RIN 1625-AA87


Security Zone; Waters Surrounding U.S. Forces Vessel SBX-1, HI

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to establish a permanent 500-yard 
moving security zone around the U.S. Forces vessel SBX-1 during transit 
within the Honolulu Captain of the Port Zone. This zone is necessary to 
protect the SBX-1 from threats associated with vessels and persons 
approaching too close during transit. Entry of persons or vessels into 
this security zone would be prohibited unless authorized by the Captain 
of the Port (COTP).

DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or 
before February 6, 2008.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket 
number USCG-2007-0195 to the Docket Management Facility at the U.S. 
Department of Transportation. To avoid duplication, please use only one 
of the following methods:
    (1) Online: http://www.regulations.gov.
    (2) Mail: Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of 
Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New 
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
    (3) Hand delivery: Room W12-140 on the Ground Floor of the West 
Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The 
telephone number is 202-366-9329.
    (4) Fax: 202-493-2251.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lieutenant (Junior Grade) Jasmin 
Parker, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Honolulu at (808) 842-2600.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting 
comments and related materials. All comments received will be posted, 
without change, to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any 
personal information you have provided. We have an agreement with the 
Department of Transportation (DOT) to use the Docket Management 
Facility. Please see DOT's ``Privacy Act'' paragraph below.

Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this 
rulemaking (USCG-2007-0195), indicate the specific section of this 
document to which each comment applies, and give the reason for each 
comment. We recommend that you include your name and a mailing address, 
an e-mail address, or a phone number in the body of your document so 
that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your submission. 
You may submit your comments and material by electronic means, mail, 
fax, or delivery to the Docket Management Facility at the address under 
ADDRESSES, but please submit your comments and material by only one 
means. If you submit them by mail or delivery, submit them in an 
unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for 
copying and electronic filing. If you submit them by mail and would 
like to know that they reached the Facility, 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.

Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble 
as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov at 
any time, click on ``Search for Dockets,'' and enter the docket number 
for this rulemaking (USCG-2007-0195) in the Docket ID box, and click 
enter. You may also visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-
140 on the ground floor of the DOT West Building, 1200 New Jersey 
Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday 
through Friday, except Federal holidays.

Privacy Act

    Anyone can search the electronic form of all comments received into 
any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment 
(or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, 
business, labor union, etc.). You may review the Department of 
Transportation's Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register 
published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477), or you may visit http://
DocketsInfo.dot.gov.

[[Page 1134]]

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 will hold one at a time and 
place announced by a separate notice in the Federal Register.

Background and Purpose

    The U.S. Forces vessel SBX-1 will enter the Honolulu Captain of the 
Port Zone and transit to Pearl Harbor, HI for maintenance at least once 
each year. The SBX-1 is easy to recognize because it contains a large 
white object shaped like an egg supported by a platform that is larger 
than a football field. The platform in turn is supported by six pillars 
similar to those on large oil-drilling platforms.
    The Coast Guard's reaction to such transits thus far has been to 
await a final voyage plan and then establish a security zone using a 
temporary final rule applicable to that particular voyage. Such action 
diminishes the public's opportunity for formal comment and imposes a 
pressing administrative burden each time the SBX-1 arrives. This 
permanent SBX-1 security zone proposal affords solicitation of public 
comments and promotes relief from the emergency rulemakings currently 
necessary to protect these transits.

Discussion of Proposed Rule

    Our proposed security zone would be established permanently. It 
would be automatically activated, meaning it would be subject to 
enforcement, whenever the U.S. Forces vessel SBX-1 is in U.S. navigable 
waters within the Honolulu Captain of the Port (COTP) Zone (see 33 CFR 
3.70-10). The security zone would include all waters extending 500 
yards in all directions from the SBX-1, from the surface of the water 
to the ocean floor.
    The security zone would move with the SBX-1 while it is in transit. 
The zone would become fixed around the SBX-1 while it is anchored, 
position-keeping, or moored, and it would remain activated until the 
SBX-1 either departs U.S. navigable waters within the Honolulu COTP 
zone or enters the Honolulu Naval Defensive Sea Area established by 
Executive Order 8987 (6 FR 6675, December 24, 1941).
    The general regulations governing security zones contained in 33 
CFR 165.33 would apply. Entry into, transit through, or anchoring 
within the zone while it is activated and enforced would be prohibited 
unless authorized by the COTP or a designated representative thereof. 
Any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant, or petty officer, and any other 
COTP representative permitted by law, could enforce the zone. The COTP 
could waive any of the requirements of this rule for any person, 
vessel, or class of vessel upon finding that application of the 
security zone is unnecessary or impractical for the purpose of maritime 
security. Vessels or persons violating this rule 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 limited duration of the zone, the constricted geographic 
area affected by it, and its ability to move with the protected vessel.

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. We expect that there will be little or no 
impact to small entities due to the narrowly tailored scope of this 
proposed security zone.

Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we offer 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.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal 
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal 
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory 
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory 
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and 
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to 
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR 
(1-888-734-3247). 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 either preempts State law or imposes 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 the 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.

[[Page 1135]]

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 is 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 made a preliminary determination that this action is not likely to 
have a significant effect on the human environment. A preliminary 
``Environmental Analysis Check List'' 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), 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. A new Sec.  165.1411 to read as follows:


Sec.  165.1411  Security zone; waters surrounding U.S. Forces vessel 
SBX-1, HI.

    (a) Location. The following area, in U.S. navigable waters within 
the Honolulu Captain of the Port Zone (see 33 CFR 3.70-10), from the 
surface of the water to the ocean floor, is a security zone: All waters 
extending 500 yards in all directions from U.S. Forces vessel SBX-1. 
The security zone moves with the SBX-1 while it is in transit and 
becomes fixed when the SBX-1 is anchored, position-keeping, or moored.
    (b) Regulations. The general regulations governing security zones 
contained in 33 CFR 165.33 apply. Entry into, transit through, or 
anchoring within, this zone while it is activated, and thus subject to 
enforcement, is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port 
or a designated representative thereof.
    (c) Suspension of Enforcement. The Coast Guard will suspend 
enforcement of the security zone described in this section whenever the 
SBX-1 is within the Honolulu Defensive Sea Area (see 6 FR 6675).
    (d) Informational notice. The Captain of the Port of Honolulu will 
cause notice of the enforcement of the security zone described in this 
section to be made by broadcast notice to mariners. The SBX-1 is easy 
to recognize because it contains a large white object shaped like an 
egg supported by a platform that is larger than a football field. The 
platform in turn is supported by six pillars similar to those on large 
oil-drilling platforms.
    (e) Authority to enforce. Any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant, or 
petty officer, and any other Captain of the Port representative 
permitted by law, may enforce the security zone described in this 
section.
    (f) Waiver. The Captain of the Port may waive any of the 
requirements of this rule for any person, vessel, or class of vessel 
upon finding that application of the security zone is unnecessary or 
impractical for the purpose of maritime security.
    (g) Penalties. Vessels or persons violating this rule are subject 
to the penalties set forth in 33 U.S.C. 1232 and 50 U.S.C. 192.

    Dated: December 6, 2007.
V.B. Atkins
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Honolulu.
[FR Doc. E8-19 Filed 1-4-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P