[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 128 (Wednesday, July 3, 2002)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 44555-44557]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-16744]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[COTP CHARLESTON-02-065]
RIN 2115-AA97


Security Zones; Charleston Harbor, Cooper River, SC

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is maintaining temporary fixed security zones 
for the waters under the Highway 17 bridges over Charleston Harbor and 
the Don Holt I-526 Bridge over the Cooper River for an additional 6 
months. These security zones are needed for national security reasons 
to protect the public and ports from potential subversive acts. Vessels 
are prohibited from anchoring, mooring, or loitering within these 
zones, unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port, 
Charleston, South Carolina or his designated representative.

DATES: This regulation is effective from 12:01 a.m. on June 16, 2002 
until 11:59 p.m. December 16, 2002.

ADDRESSES: Comments and material received from the public, as well as 
documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket, 
are part of [COTP Charleston 02-065], will become part of this docket 
and will be available for inspection or copying at Marine Safety Office 
Charleston, between 7:30 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except 
Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: LT Erin Healey, Coast Guard Marine 
Safety Office Charleston, at (843) 747-7411.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulatory Information

    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause 
exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). 
Publishing a NPRM and delaying the effective date of this rule would be 
contrary to national security since immediate action is necessary to 
protect the public, ports and waterways of the United States.
    For the same reasons, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard 
finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 
30 days after publication in the Federal Register.

Background and Purpose

    Based on the September 11, 2001, terrorist attack on the World 
Trade Center in New York and the Pentagon in Arlington, VA, there is an 
increased risk that subversive terrorist activity could be launched by 
vessels or persons in close proximity to the Port of Charleston, S.C., 
against bridges within the security zones established by this rule. 
Following these attacks by well-trained and clandestine terrorists, 
national security and intelligence officials have warned that future 
terrorists attacks are likely. If a bridge were damaged or destroyed, 
the Port of Charleston would be isolated from access to the sea, 
crippling the local economy and negatively impacting national security. 
These temporary security zones are necessary to protect the safety of 
life and property on the navigable waters, prevent potential terrorist 
threats aimed at the bridges crossing the main shipping channels in the 
Port of Charleston, S.C. and to ensure the continued unrestricted 
access to the sea from the Port.
    On October 18, 2001, the Coast Guard issued a temporary final rule 
(Docket Number COTP Charleston 01-012, 67 FR 9194, 9195, February 28, 
2002) creating temporary security zones around these bridges. That rule 
expired on January 15, 2002. On February 28, 2002 the Coast Guard 
published another temporary final rule in the Federal Register 
continuing these security zones until June 15, 2002 (67 FR 9201). This 
temporary final rule we are publishing today will maintain security 
zones in these same areas until December 16, 2002.

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. It is not significant under the 
regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Transportation 
(DOT) (44 FR 11040; February 26, 1979).
    We expect the economic impact of this rule to be so minimal so that 
a full Regulatory Evaluation under paragraph 10e of the regulatory 
policies and procedures of DOT is unnecessary. The limited geographic 
area impacted by the security zones will not restrict the movement or 
routine operation of commercial or recreational vessels through the 
Port of Charleston. Also, an individual may request a waiver of these 
regulations from the Coast Guard Captain of the Port of Charleston.

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have 
considered

[[Page 44556]]

whether this rule would have a significant economic effect 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 because the limited geographic area encompassed by the 
security zones will not restrict the movement or routine operation of 
commercial or recreational vessels through the Port of Charleston. 
Also, an individual may request a waiver of these regulations from the 
Coast Guard Captain of the Port of Charleston.

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. If the 
rule will affect your small business and you have questions concerning 
its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person 
listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
    Small businesses may also 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).

Collection of Information

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

Federalism

    A rule has implication 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 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 relationships 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. 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.

Environment

    We considered the environmental impact of this rule and concluded 
that, under Figure 2-1, paragraph 34(g) of Commandant Instruction 
M16475.1D, this rule is categorically excluded from further 
environmental documentation. A ``Categorical Exclusion Determination'' 
is available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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


    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard is 
amending 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. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191, 33 CFR 1.05-1(g), 
6.04-1, 6.04-6 and 160.5; 49 CFR 1.46.

    2. A new temporary Sec. 165.T07-065 is added to read as follows:


Sec. 165.T07-065  Security Zones; Charleston Harbor, Cooper River, 
South Carolina.

    (a) Regulated areas. (1) A temporary fixed security zone is 
established for the waters around the Highway 17 bridges, to encompass 
all waters of the Cooper River within a line connecting the following 
points: 32 deg.48.23' N, 079 deg.55.3' W; 32 deg.48.1' N, 
079 deg.54.35' W; 32 deg.48.34' N, 079 055.25' W; 32 deg.48.2 deg.N, 
079 deg.54.35' W.
    (2) Another temporary fixed security zone is established for the 
waters around the Interstate 526 Bridge spans (Don Holt Bridge) in 
Charleston Harbor and on the Cooper River and will encompass all waters 
within a line connecting the following points: 32 deg.53.49' N, 
079 deg.58.05' W; 32 deg.53.42' N, 079 deg.57.48' W; 32 deg.53.53' N, 
079 deg.58.05' W; 32 deg.53.47' N, 079 deg.57.47' W.
    (b) Regulations. In accordance with the general regulations in 
Sec. 165.33 of this part, vessels are allowed to transit through these 
zones but are prohibited from mooring, anchoring, or loitering within 
these zones unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port.
    (c) Authority. In addition to 33 U.S.C. 1321 and 49 CFR 1.46, the 
authority for this section includes 33 U.S.C. 1226.
    (d) Effective dates. This section is effective from 12:01 a.m. on 
June 16,

[[Page 44557]]

2002 until 11:59 p.m. on December 16, 2002.

    Dated: June 12, 2002.
K.B. Janssen,
Lieutenant Commander, Coast Guard, Acting Captain of the Port.
[FR Doc. 02-16744 Filed 7-2-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P