Security Zone; Escorted Vessels in Captain of the Port Zone Jacksonville, FL, 78184-78186 [E8-30387]

Download as PDF mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES 78184 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 246 / Monday, December 22, 2008 / Rules and Regulations materials; (2) the compliance deadline for transmission providers to post the written procedures implementing the Standards on their Internet Web sites under section 358.7(d); (3) the compliance deadline for distribution of procedures to the employees listed in section 358.8(b)(2); and, (4) the compliance deadline for recordation of information exchanges under section 358.7(h). EEI and INGAA further request an initial grace period until February 27, 2009 for the training of new employees that are hired before the transmission provider develops the new training materials and procedures. Thus, the deadline for training employees hired before January 30, 2009 would be extended to February 27, 2009, but all new hires on or after January 30, 2009 would receive training within 30 days of their employment date. 3. EEI and INGAA state that a significant commitment of time and resources is necessary to analyze the changes made under Order No. 717, to revise procedures and training materials, to implement the changes in the compliance programs, and to train new employees. And, because the current deadlines fall during the end-ofyear holiday season, many employees that are needed to complete these tasks and meet these compliance deadlines have already committed to take annual leave over the holidays. 4. The Commission recognizes that due to the publication date of Order No. 717 in the Federal Register, the current compliance deadlines do fall during the end-of-year holiday season, making it difficult for companies to have the staff and resources available to meet the compliance requirements of the Order. Accordingly, upon consideration of the concerns raised by EEI and INGAA, the Commission will grant EEI’s and INGAA’s requests (1) to extend the time for compliance with 18 CFR 358.8(c)(1), 358.7(d), 358.7(h), and 358.8(b)(2) to January 30, 2009; and (2) for a grace period until February 27, 2009 for training of new employees hired before January 30, 2009. 5. As a separate matter, this order is intended to serve as a notice to participants in this proceeding that they should contact for now Mason Emnett in the Office of General Counsel (OGC) at 202–502–6540 for all future requests for further information on Order No. 717, and should also watch for future notices of other OGC contacts. Likewise, any inquiries regarding the interpretation of the Standards should be directed to the Commission’s Help VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:38 Dec 19, 2008 Jkt 217001 Desk 5 and should not be directed to the Commission’s Enforcement Hotline, unless the caller wishes to report a violation of the Standards. The Commission Orders The Commission hereby grants the requested extensions of certain compliance deadlines in Order No. 717, as discussed in the body of the order. By the Commission. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary. [FR Doc. E8–30257 Filed 12–19–08; 8:45 am] Management Facility (M–30), U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays and the Coast Guard Sector Jacksonville Prevention Department, 4200 Ocean Street, Atlantic Beach, Florida, 32233, between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. 33 CFR Part 165 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule, call Lieutenant Commander Mark Gibbs at Coast Guard Sector Jacksonville Prevention Department, Florida. Contact telephone is 904–564–7563. If you have questions on viewing the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 202–366– 9826. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: [Docket No. USCG–2008–0203] Regulatory Information RIN 1625–AA87 On May 19, 2008, we published an Interim Rule with request for comments (IR) entitled Security Zone; Escorted Vessels in Captain of the Port Zone Jacksonville, Florida in the Federal Register (73 FR 28707). We received one letter commenting on the rule. No public meeting was requested, and none was held. BILLING CODE 6717–01–P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard Security Zone; Escorted Vessels in Captain of the Port Zone Jacksonville, FL Coast Guard, DHS. Final rule. AGENCY: ACTION: SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is making permanent an interim rule establishing a security zone around any vessel being escorted by one or more Coast Guard assets, or other Federal, State, or local law enforcement assets within the Captain of the Port Zone Jacksonville, FL. This action is necessary to ensure the safe transit of escorted vessels as well as the safety and security of personnel and port facilities. No vessel or person is allowed inside the security zone unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Jacksonville, FL or a designated representative. DATES: This rule is effective January 21, 2009. ADDRESSES: Comments and material received from the public, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, are part of docket USCG–2008–0203 and are available online by going to http:// www.regulations.gov, selecting the Advanced Docket Search option on the right side of the screen, inserting USCG– 2008–0203 in the Docket ID box, pressing Enter, and then clicking on the item in the Docket ID column. This material is also available for inspection or copying at two locations: The Docket 5 Questions can be submitted to the Help Desk via an online form available at http://www.ferc.gov/ contact-us/compliance-help-desk.asp. PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 Background and Purpose The terrorist attacks of September 2001 heightened the need for development of various security measures throughout the seaports of the United States, particularly around vessels and facilities whose presence or movement creates a heightened vulnerability to terrorist acts; or those for which the consequences of terrorist acts represent a threat to national security. The President of the United States has found that the security of the United States is and continues to be endangered following the attacks of September 11 (E.O. 13,273, 67 FR 56215, Sept. 3, 2002 and 73 FR 54489, Sept. 22, 2008). Additionally, national security and intelligence officials continue to warn that future terrorist attacks are likely. King’s Bay, GA, and the Ports of Jacksonville, FL, and Canaveral, FL frequently receive vessels that require additional security, including, but not limited to, vessels that carry sensitive Department of Defense cargoes, vessels that carry dangerous cargoes, and foreign naval vessels. The Captain of the Port (COTP) Jacksonville has determined that these vessels have a significant vulnerability to subversive activity by vessels or persons or, in E:\FR\FM\22DER1.SGM 22DER1 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 246 / Monday, December 22, 2008 / Rules and Regulations some cases, themselves pose a risk to a port and the public, within the Jacksonville Captain of the Port Zone, as described in 33 CFR 3.35–20. This rule enables the COTP Jacksonville to provide effective port security, while minimizing the public’s confusion and easing the administrative burden of implementing separate temporary security zones for each escorted vessel. Discussion of Comments and Changes On May 19, 2008, the Coast Guard published the IR that established a security zone around any vessel being escorted by one or more Coast Guard assets, or other Federal, State, or local law enforcement assets within the Captain of the Port Zone Jacksonville, FL. One letter was received in response to the IR. The comments in the letter are beyond the scope of this rulemaking, but are relevant to another ongoing rulemaking: Security Zone; West Basin, Port Canaveral Harbor, Cape Canaveral, FL (Docket No. USCG–2008–0752). The Coast Guard will take these comments into consideration for that rulemaking. Regulatory Analyses We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on 13 of these statutes or executive orders. mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES Regulatory Planning and Review 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. We expect the economic impact of this rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation under the regulatory policies and procedures of DHS is unnecessary. The limited geographic area impacted by the security zone will not restrict the movement or routine operation of commercial or recreational vessels through the Ports within the Captain of the Port Zone Jacksonville. Small Entities Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601–612), we have considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term ‘‘small entities’’ comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:38 Dec 19, 2008 Jkt 217001 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. This rule may affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to transit in the vicinity of escorted vessels. This rule would not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities because the zones are limited in size, in most cases leaving ample space for vessels to navigate around them. The zones will not significantly impact commercial and passenger vessel traffic patterns, and mariners will be notified of the zones via Broadcast Notice to Mariners. Where such space is not available and security conditions permit, the Captain of the Port will attempt to provide flexibility for individual vessels to transit through the zones as needed. Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104–121), in the IR we offered to assist small entities in understanding the rule so that they could better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process. 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 an expenditure, we do discuss the Frm 00037 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble. Taking of Private Property This rule will not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights. 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 Assistance for Small Entities PO 00000 78185 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 E:\FR\FM\22DER1.SGM 22DER1 78186 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 246 / Monday, December 22, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 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 Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 5100.1 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, 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 under the Instruction 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. An environmental analysis checklist and a 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), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways. ■ For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard adopts the interim rule published at 73 FR 28707, May 19, 2008, as final without change. Dated: November 18, 2008. P. F. Thomas, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Zone Jacksonville, Florida. [FR Doc. E8–30387 Filed 12–19–08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910–15–P POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION 39 CFR Part 3020 mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES [Docket Nos. MC2009–12 and CP2009–14; Order No. 149] Administrative Practice and Procedure, Postal Service Postal Regulatory Commission. Final rule. AGENCY: ACTION: VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:38 Dec 19, 2008 Jkt 217001 SUMMARY: The Commission is adding Express Mail and Priority Mail Contract 2 to the Competitive Product List. This action is consistent with changes in a recent law governing postal operations and a recent Postal Service request. Republication of the lists of market dominant and competitive products is also consistent with new requirements in the law. DATES: Effective December 22, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stephen L. Sharfman, General Counsel, 202–789–6820 and stephen.sharfman@prc.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Regulatory History, 73 FR 74213 (December 5, 2008). I. Background The Postal Service seeks to add a new product identified as Express Mail & Priority Mail Contract 2 to the Competitive Product List. For the reasons discussed below, the Commission approves the Request. On November 25, 2008, the Postal Service filed a formal request pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 39 CFR 3020.30 et seq. to add Express Mail & Priority Mail Contract 2 to the Competitive Product List.1 The Postal Service asserts that the Express Mail & Priority Mail Contract 2 product is a competitive product ‘‘not of general applicability’’ within the meaning of 39 U.S.C. 3632(b)(3). This Request has been assigned Docket No. MC2009–12. The Postal Service contemporaneously filed a contract related to the proposed new product pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3632(b)(3) and 39 CFR 3015.5. The contract has been assigned Docket No. CP2009–14. In support of its Request, the Postal Service filed the following materials: (1) A redacted version of the Governors’ Decision authorizing the new product which also includes an analysis of Express Mail & Priority Mail Contract 2 and certification of the Governors’ vote; 2 (2) a redacted version of the contract which, among other things, provides that the contract will expire 3 years from the effective date, which is proposed to be 1 day after the Commission issues all regulatory approvals; 3 (3) requested changes in the Mail Classification Schedule product 1 Request of the United States Postal Service to Add Express Mail & Priority Mail Contract 2 to Competitive Product List and Notice of Establishment of Rates and Class Not of General Applicability, November 25, 2008 (Request). 2 Attachment A to the Request. The analysis that accompanies the Governors’ Decision notes, among other things, that the contract is not risk free, but concludes that the risks are manageable. 3 Attachment B to the Request. PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 list; 4 (4) a Statement of Supporting Justification as required by 39 CFR 3020.32; 5 and (5) certification of compliance with 39 U.S.C. 3633(a).6 In the Statement of Supporting Justification, Kim Parks, Manager, Sales and Communications, Expedited Shipping, asserts that the service to be provided under the contract will cover its attributable costs, make a positive contribution to coverage of institutional costs, and will increase contribution toward the requisite 5.5 percent of the Postal Service’s total institutional costs. Request, Attachment D, at 1. W. Ashley Lyons, Manager, Corporate Financial Planning, Finance Department, certifies that the contract complies with 39 U.S.C. 3633(a). See id. Attachment E. The Postal Service filed much of the supporting materials, including the unredacted Governors’ Decision and the unredacted Express Mail & Priority Mail Contract 2, under seal. In its Request, the Postal Service maintains that the contract and related financial information, including the customer’s name and the accompanying analyses that provide prices, terms, conditions, and financial projections, should remain confidential. Id. at 2–3. In Order No. 143, the Commission gave notice of the two dockets, appointed a public representative, and provided the public with an opportunity to comment.7 II. Comments Comments were filed by the Public Representative.8 No filings were submitted by other interested parties. The Public Representative states that the Postal Service’s filing complies with applicable Commission rules of practice and procedure, and concludes that the Express Mail & Priority Mail Contract 2 agreement comports with the requirements of title 39. Public Representative Comments at 4. He further states that the agreement appears beneficial to the general public. Id. at 1. III. Commission Analysis The Commission has reviewed the Request, the contract, the financial analysis provided under seal that 4 Attachment C to the Request. D to the Request. 6 Attachment E to the Request. 7 PRC Order No. 142, Notice and Order Concerning Express Mail & Priority Mail Contract 2 Negotiated Service Agreement, December 2, 2008 (Order No. 143). 8 Public Representative Comments in Response to United States Postal Service Request to Add Express Mail & Priority Mail Contract 2 to Competitive Product List and Notice of Establishment of Rates and Class Not of General Applicability, December 10, 2008 (Public Representative Comments). 5 Attachment E:\FR\FM\22DER1.SGM 22DER1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 246 (Monday, December 22, 2008)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 78184-78186]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-30387]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2008-0203]
RIN 1625-AA87


Security Zone; Escorted Vessels in Captain of the Port Zone 
Jacksonville, FL

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is making permanent an interim rule 
establishing a security zone around any vessel being escorted by one or 
more Coast Guard assets, or other Federal, State, or local law 
enforcement assets within the Captain of the Port Zone Jacksonville, 
FL. This action is necessary to ensure the safe transit of escorted 
vessels as well as the safety and security of personnel and port 
facilities. No vessel or person is allowed inside the security zone 
unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Jacksonville, FL or a 
designated representative.

DATES: This rule is effective January 21, 2009.

ADDRESSES: Comments and material received from the public, as well as 
documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, 
are part of docket USCG-2008-0203 and are available online by going to 
http://www.regulations.gov, selecting the Advanced Docket Search option 
on the right side of the screen, inserting USCG-2008-0203 in the Docket 
ID box, pressing Enter, and then clicking on the item in the Docket ID 
column. This material is also available for inspection or copying at 
two locations: The 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, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., 
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays and the Coast Guard 
Sector Jacksonville Prevention Department, 4200 Ocean Street, Atlantic 
Beach, Florida, 32233, between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through 
Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule, 
call Lieutenant Commander Mark Gibbs at Coast Guard Sector Jacksonville 
Prevention Department, Florida. Contact telephone is 904-564-7563. If 
you have questions on viewing the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program 
Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 202-366-9826.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulatory Information

    On May 19, 2008, we published an Interim Rule with request for 
comments (IR) entitled Security Zone; Escorted Vessels in Captain of 
the Port Zone Jacksonville, Florida in the Federal Register (73 FR 
28707). We received one letter commenting on the rule. No public 
meeting was requested, and none was held.

Background and Purpose

    The terrorist attacks of September 2001 heightened the need for 
development of various security measures throughout the seaports of the 
United States, particularly around vessels and facilities whose 
presence or movement creates a heightened vulnerability to terrorist 
acts; or those for which the consequences of terrorist acts represent a 
threat to national security. The President of the United States has 
found that the security of the United States is and continues to be 
endangered following the attacks of September 11 (E.O. 13,273, 67 FR 
56215, Sept. 3, 2002 and 73 FR 54489, Sept. 22, 2008). Additionally, 
national security and intelligence officials continue to warn that 
future terrorist attacks are likely.
    King's Bay, GA, and the Ports of Jacksonville, FL, and Canaveral, 
FL frequently receive vessels that require additional security, 
including, but not limited to, vessels that carry sensitive Department 
of Defense cargoes, vessels that carry dangerous cargoes, and foreign 
naval vessels. The Captain of the Port (COTP) Jacksonville has 
determined that these vessels have a significant vulnerability to 
subversive activity by vessels or persons or, in

[[Page 78185]]

some cases, themselves pose a risk to a port and the public, within the 
Jacksonville Captain of the Port Zone, as described in 33 CFR 3.35-20. 
This rule enables the COTP Jacksonville to provide effective port 
security, while minimizing the public's confusion and easing the 
administrative burden of implementing separate temporary security zones 
for each escorted vessel.

Discussion of Comments and Changes

    On May 19, 2008, the Coast Guard published the IR that established 
a security zone around any vessel being escorted by one or more Coast 
Guard assets, or other Federal, State, or local law enforcement assets 
within the Captain of the Port Zone Jacksonville, FL. One letter was 
received in response to the IR. The comments in the letter are beyond 
the scope of this rulemaking, but are relevant to another ongoing 
rulemaking: Security Zone; West Basin, Port Canaveral Harbor, Cape 
Canaveral, FL (Docket No. USCG-2008-0752). The Coast Guard will take 
these comments into consideration for that rulemaking.

Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and 
executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses 
based on 13 of these statutes or executive orders.

Regulatory Planning and Review

    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.
    We expect the economic impact of this rule to be so minimal that a 
full Regulatory Evaluation under the regulatory policies and procedures 
of DHS is unnecessary. The limited geographic area impacted by the 
security zone will not restrict the movement or routine operation of 
commercial or recreational vessels through the Ports within the Captain 
of the Port Zone Jacksonville.

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have 
considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities. The term ``small entities'' 
comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are 
independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, 
and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
    The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will 
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities. This rule may affect the following entities, some of which 
may be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to 
transit in the vicinity of escorted vessels. This rule would not have a 
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities because 
the zones are limited in size, in most cases leaving ample space for 
vessels to navigate around them. The zones will not significantly 
impact commercial and passenger vessel traffic patterns, and mariners 
will be notified of the zones via Broadcast Notice to Mariners. Where 
such space is not available and security conditions permit, the Captain 
of the Port will attempt to provide flexibility for individual vessels 
to transit through the zones as needed.

Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), in the IR we offered to assist 
small entities in understanding the rule so that they could better 
evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process.

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 an expenditure, we 
do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.

Taking of Private Property

    This rule will not effect a taking of private property or otherwise 
have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental 
Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property 
Rights.

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

[[Page 78186]]

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 Department of Homeland Security 
Management Directive 5100.1 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, 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 
under the Instruction 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.
    An environmental analysis checklist and a 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), Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.

0
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard adopts the 
interim rule published at 73 FR 28707, May 19, 2008, as final without 
change.

    Dated: November 18, 2008.
P. F. Thomas,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Zone Jacksonville, 
Florida.
[FR Doc. E8-30387 Filed 12-19-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P