
[Federal Register: March 12, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 49)]
[Rules and Regulations]               
[Page 13129-13131]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr12mr08-29]                         

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

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: U.S. Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a permanent security zone 
around the U.S. Forces vessel SBX-1 during transits 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 is 
prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port (COTP).

DATES: This rule is effective April 11, 2008.

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-2007-0195 and are available online at 
www.regulations.gov. 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 U.S. Coast 
Guard Sector Honolulu, 400 Sand Island Parkway, Honolulu, Hawaii 96819-
4398 between 7 a.m. and 3:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except 
Federal holidays.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulatory Information

    On January 7, 2008, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking 
(NPRM) entitled Security Zone; Waters Surrounding U.S. Forces Vessel 
SBX-1, HI in the Federal Register (73 FR 1133).

[[Page 13130]]

We received one letter commenting on the proposed rule. No public 
meeting was requested, and none was held.

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 
diminished the public's opportunity for formal comment and imposed a 
pressing administrative burden each time the SBX-1 arrived. This 
permanent SBX-1 security zone affords the public consistent regulation 
regarding the SBX-1 and promotes relief from the emergency rulemakings 
currently necessary to protect each transit.

Discussion of Comments and Changes

    The Coast Guard received one comment regarding this proposed rule 
through www.regulations.gov. The commenter wrote that the size of the 
security zone seems to be excessive, and that it may interfere with the 
transit of recreational boaters. This person suggested that those who 
approach the SBX-1 may be doing so just to get a better look at it. The 
commenter also asked whether the Coast Guard conducted a study to 
determine SBX-1's protection needs.
    Coast Guard's Response: While the zone is large, it is the same 
size as Naval vessel protective zones. That comparison determined the 
size of the zone; no further study was conducted for this particular 
vessel. The SBX-1's transits are infrequent, so the size of the 
security zone typically will not affect normal recreational boating 
traffic. We have considered reducing the zone but determined that 
reduction would present an unacceptable level of risk. Additionally, we 
have determined that the need to provide an adequate security buffer 
for the vessel outweighs the public's interest in a better view of it.

Discussion of Rule

    This security zone is established permanently. It is automatically 
activated, meaning it is subject to enforcement, whenever the U.S. 
Forces vessel SBX-1 is in U.S. navigable waters within the Honolulu 
COTP Zone (see 33 CFR 3.70-10). The security zone includes 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 moves with the SBX-1 while it is in transit. The 
zone becomes fixed around the SBX-1 while it is anchored, position-
keeping, or moored, and it remains 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 COTP will notify the public of 
the enforcement of the zone through a broadcast notice to mariners.
    The general regulations governing security zones contained in 33 
CFR 165.33 apply. Entry into, transit through, or anchoring within the 
zone while it is activated and enforced is 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, is authorized to enforce the zone. The 
COTP 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. 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 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 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 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. We expect that there will be little or no impact to small 
entities due to the narrowly tailored scope of this 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 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. 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 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

[[Page 13131]]

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 standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or 
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical 
standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or 
operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management 
systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus 
standards bodies.
    This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not 
consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.lD 
which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National 
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and 
have concluded that there are no factors in this case that would limit 
the use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the 
Instruction. Therefore, this rule is categorically excluded, under 
figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g), of the Instruction, from further 
environmental documentation because it is a security zone. A final 
``Environmental Analysis Check List'' and a final ``Categorical 
Exclusion Determination'' are available in the docket where indicated 
under ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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


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

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

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

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


0
2. 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: March 3, 2008.
Barry A. Compagnoni,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Honolulu.
[FR Doc. E8-4946 Filed 3-11-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-15-P
