Security Zone; Escorted Vessels in Captain of the Port Zone Jacksonville, FL, 78184-78186 [E8-30387]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
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 https://
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 https://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
https://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
