Security Zone: America's 400th Celebration, Jamestown, VA

AGENCY:

Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION:

Notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY:

The United States Coast Guard is establishing a security zone encompassing waters within 2-nautical miles of Church Point at 37-12.45 N, 076-46.66 W, Jamestown Island, VA, for America's 400th Anniversary celebration. This action is intended to restrict vessel traffic within the security zone. This security zone is necessary to protect attendees of this event from potential maritime hazards and threats and enhance public and maritime security.

DATES:

Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or before March 27, 2007.

ADDRESSES:

You may mail comments and related material to the attention of LCDR Thomas Tarrants at the address listed below. Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket are part of docket CGD05-07-015 and are available for inspection or copying at USCG Sector Hampton Roads, 4000 Coast Guard Blvd., Portsmouth, Virginia 23703, between 9:30 a.m. and 2 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

LCDR Thomas Tarrants, Enforcement Branch Chief, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Hampton Roads, Virginia at (757) 483-8571.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Request for Comments

We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting comments and related material. If you do so, please include your name and address, identify the docket number for this rulemaking CGD05-07-015, indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and give the reason for each comment. Please submit all comments and related material in an unbound format, no larger than 81/2 by 11 inches, suitable for copying. If you would like to know that your submission reached us, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. We may change this proposed rule in view of them. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for a comment period shorter than 30 days. This security zone of short duration is needed to provide for the security of persons at the event, and a shortened comment period provides the public the ability to comment while ensuring the security zone is in place before the event.

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 Hampton Roads 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

Following terrorist attacks on the United States in September 2001, there is now a heightened awareness that vessels or persons could engage in subversive activity against targets ashore in the United States. This regulation is necessary to protect attendees of America's 400th Anniversary celebration on Jamestown Island, VA, from potential maritime threats. This temporary security zone will only be in effect from 3 p.m. on May 11th, 2007 until 10 p.m. on May 13th, 2007. This zone will have minimal impact on vessel transits because vessels can request authorization from the Captain of the Port (COTP) to safely transit through the zone and they are not precluded from using any portion of the waterway except the security zone area itself. Additionally, public notifications announcing this regulation will be made via marine information broadcasts prior to the zone taking effect.

Discussion of Rule

The Coast Guard is proposing to establish a temporary security zone on specified waters to provide protection to dignitaries visiting Jamestown Island. The security zone will be effective from 3 p.m. on May 11th, 2007, until 10 p.m. on May 13th, 2007. The security zone will encompass all waters around Jamestown Island, VA within a 2-nautical mile radius of Church Point at 37-12.45 N, 076-46.66 W. No persons or vessels may enter or remain in the regulated area without authorization by the Captain of the Port, Hampton Roads, or his designated representative.

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. It is not “significant” under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

We expect 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. Although this rulemaking restricts access to the regulated area, the effect of this rulemaking will not be significant because: (i) The COTP may authorize access to the security zone; (ii) the security zone will be in effect for a limited duration; (iii) the Coast Guard will make notifications via maritime advisories so mariners can adjust their plans accordingly.

Small Entities

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered whether this proposed 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 proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

However, this proposed rule may affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: The owners and operators of vessels intending to transit or anchor in the described portion of the security zone between 3 p.m. on May 11, 2007, to 10 p.m. on May 13, 2007. The security zone will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities because the zone does not encompass a high vessel traffic area, and vessels can request authorization from the COTP to enter the zone. Maritime advisories will also be issued, so the mariners can adjust their plans accordingly.

Assistance for Small Entities

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the rulemaking would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact LCDR Thomas Tarrants, Enforcement Branch Chief, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Hampton Roads, Virginia at (757) 483-8571.

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 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 U.S. Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247).

Collection of Information

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

Federalism

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

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

Taking of Private Property

This proposed rule will not 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 proposed rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

Protection of Children

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

Indian Tribal Governments

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

Energy Effects

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

Technical Standards

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

Environment

We have analyzed this proposed rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.1D and Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 5100.1, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded that there are no factors in this case that would limit the use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, we believe that this proposed rule should be categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g), of the Instruction, from further environmental documentation. A preliminary “Environmental Analysis Check List” is available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. Comments on this section will be considered before we make the final decision whether this rule should be categorically excluded from further environmental review.

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 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. Add temporary § 165.T05-015, to read as follows: