[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 167 (Wednesday, August 28, 2002)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 55184-55186]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-21919]



[[Page 55184]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[COTP Jacksonville 02-066]
RIN 2115-AA97


Security Zones; Ports of Jacksonville, Canaveral, and Fernandina, 
FL

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to establish permanent security zones 
within the Captain of the Port Jacksonville, Florida's area of 
responsibility. The security zones would prohibit entry into, or 
movement within, 100 yards around all tank vessels, cruise ships, and 
military pre-positioning ships when these vessels enter, depart or moor 
within the ports of Jacksonville, Canaveral, and Fernandina. These 
security zones are needed to ensure public safety and prevent sabotage 
or terrorist acts against such vessels in these ports.

DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or 
before September 27, 2002.

ADDRESSES: Comments and material received from the public, as well as 
documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket, 
will become part of this docket and will be available for inspection or 
copying at Marine Safety Office Jacksonville, 7820 Arlington 
Expressway, Suite 400, Jacksonville, FL 32211, between 7:30 a.m. and 4 
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: LTJG Drew Casey, Coast Guard Marine 
Safety Office Jacksonville, at (904) 232-2640, Ext. 105.

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 [COTP 
Jacksonville 02-066] 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 8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for copying. If 
you would like to know 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 after considering comments received.

Public Meeting

    We do not plan to hold a public meeting. However, you may request a 
meeting by writing to Marine Safety Office Jacksonville at the address 
under ADDRESSES explaining why a meeting would be beneficial. If the 
Coast Guard determines that a public meeting will aid this rulemaking, 
a meeting will be held at a time and place announced by separate notice 
in the Federal Register.

Background and Purpose

    On September 12, 2001, one day after the September 11 terrorist 
attacks, the Coast Guard established a temporary rule establishing 100-
yard security zones around tank vessels, passenger vessels, and 
military pre-positioning ships entering, departing, or moored in the 
ports of Jacksonville and Canaveral. That rule, entitled ``Security 
Zones; Port of Jacksonville and Port Canaveral, FL'', was published in 
the Federal Register on September 26, 2001 (66 FR 49104) and expired on 
October 3, 2001.
    On October 17, 2001, the Coast Guard published a second temporary 
rule entitled, ``Security Zones; Port of Jacksonville and Port 
Canaveral, FL'', in the Federal Register (66 FR 52689) continuing these 
zones until June 15, 2002.
    On June 18, 2002, we published another temporary final rule in the 
Federal Register, entitled ``Security Zones; Ports of Jacksonville 
Canaveral, FL'', extending these security zones until November 15, 2002 
(67 FR 41339) to allow us to publish this notice of proposed 
rulemaking. This temporary final rule would be removed if a final rule 
is published and effective prior to the November 15, 2002 termination 
of the temporary final rule.
    These security zones are needed to prevent sabotage or terrorist 
acts against these vessels within the Captain of the Port 
Jacksonville's area of responsibility. Following the attacks of 
September 11, 2001, by well-trained and clandestine terrorists, 
national security and intelligence officials have warned that future 
terrorist attacks are likely.
    The Coast Guard proposes to establish permanent security zones 
around tank vessels, passenger vessels, and military pre-positioning 
ships entering, departing, or moored in the Ports of Jacksonville, 
Canaveral, and Fernandina as part of a comprehensive port security 
initiative designed to safeguard human life, vessels and waterfront 
facilities from sabotage or terrorist acts. These vessels are deemed 
particularly vulnerable to subversive or terrorist acts, and the 
consequences of such acts could result in significant loss of property 
and human life.

Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The proposed rule would prohibit persons and vessels from coming 
within 100 yards of all tank vessels, cruise ships and military pre-
positioned ships entering, departing, or moored within the ports of 
Jacksonville, Canaveral, and Fernandina. No persons or vessels will be 
allowed to enter or remain within these security zones without the 
permission of the Captain of the Port. These security zones are 
activated when the subject vessel passes the St. Johns River Sea Buoy, 
at approximate position 30 deg.23'35'' N, 81 deg.19'08'' W, when 
entering the Port of Jacksonville, or passes either Port Canaveral 
Channel Entrance Buoys 3 or 4, at respective 
approximate positions 28 deg.22.7' N, 80 deg.31.8' W and 28 deg.23.7' 
N, 80 deg.29.2' W, when entering Port Canaveral or passes St. Mary's 
River Sea Buoy, at approximate position 30 deg.40.8'' N, 81 deg.11.8'' 
W, when entering the Port of Fernandina. This proposed rule is 
identical to the temporary final rule currently in effect.

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 
Transportation (DOT) (44 FR 11040, February 26, 1979).
    While recognizing the potential impacts to the public, the Coast 
Guard believes the security zones are necessary for the reasons 
described above. However, we expect the economic impact of this 
proposed rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation under 
paragraph 10e of the regulatory policies and procedures of DOT is 
unnecessary. There is generally enough room for vessels to navigate 
around these proposed security zones. Where such room is not available 
and security conditions permit, the Captain of the Port will attempt to 
provide flexibility for individual vessels as needed.

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have 
considered whether this proposed rule would have

[[Page 55185]]

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 would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities. This proposed rule may affect the following 
entities, some of which may be small entities: the owners or operators 
of vessels intending to transit Jacksonville, Canaveral, and Fernandina 
harbors in the vicinity of tank vessels, cruise ships, and military 
pre-positioning ships. This proposed rule would not have a significant 
impact on a substantial number of small entities because the zones are 
limited in size, leaving in most cases 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 proposed zones via Local Notice to Mariners and marine 
broadcasts. Where such room is not available and security conditions 
permit, the Captain of the Port will attempt to provide flexibility for 
individual vessels to transit through the proposed zones as needed.
    If you think that your business, organization, or governmental 
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have 
a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see 
ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what 
degree this rule would affect it economically.

Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 
Fairness Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-121), we want to assist small 
entities in understanding this proposed rule so that they can better 
evaluate its proposed effects on them and participate in the 
rulemaking. If the proposed rule would affect your small business, 
organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions 
concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact 
LTJG Drew Casey, Marine Safety Office Jacksonville, at (904) 232-2640, 
Ext. 105.

Collection of Information

    This proposed rule would call 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. Although this proposed rule would not result in such an 
expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this 
preamble.

Taking of Private Property

    This proposed rule would not affect 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 rule is not an economically significant rule and would not 
create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might 
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 would 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. We 
invite your comments on how this proposed rule might impact tribal 
governments, even if that impact may not constitute a ``tribal 
implication'' under the Order. We invite your comments on how this 
proposed rule might impact tribal governments, even if that impact may 
not constitute a ``tribal implication'' under the Order.

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.

Environment

    The Coast Guard considered the environmental impact of this 
proposed rule and concluded that, under figure 2-1, (34)(g), of 
Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, 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), 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. 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.


Sec. 165.T-07-060  [Removed]

    2. Remove Sec. 165.T-07-060.
    3. Add Sec. 165.759 to read as follows:


Sec. 165.759  Security Zones; Ports of Jacksonville, Canaveral, and 
Fernandina, FL.

    (a) Location. Moving and fixed security zones are established 100 
yards around all tank vessels, cruise ships, or military pre-positioned 
ships entering, departing, or moored in the ports of Jacksonville, 
Canaveral, or Fernandina.

[[Page 55186]]

These security zones are activated when the subject vessel passes the 
St. Johns River Sea Buoy, at approximate position 30 deg.23'35'' N, 
81 deg.19'08'' W, when entering the Port of Jacksonville, or passes 
either Port Canaveral Channel Entrance Buoys 3 or 4, 
at respective approximate positions 28 deg.22.7' N, 80 deg.31.8' W and 
28 deg.23.7' N, 80 deg.29.2' W, when entering Port Canaveral or passes 
St. Mary's River Sea Buoy, at approximate position 30 deg.40.8' N, 
81 deg.11.8' W, when entering the Port of Fernandina.
    (b) Regulations. (1) In accordance with the general regulations in 
Secs. 165.30 and 165.33 of this part, entry into or movement within 
these zones is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port 
Jacksonville.
    (2) All vessel operators shall comply with the instructions of the 
COTP or the designated on-scene U.S. Coast Guard patrol personnel. On-
scene Coast Guard patrol personnel include commissioned, warrant, and 
petty officers of the Coast Guard on board Coast Guard, Coast Guard 
Auxiliary, local, State, and Federal law enforcement vessels.
    (3) No person may enter the waters within the boundaries of these 
security zones unless previously authorized by the Captain of the Port, 
Jacksonville or his authorized representative.
    (c) Definition. As used in this section, cruise ship means a 
passenger vessel greater than 100 feet in length that is authorized to 
carry more than 12 passengers for hire, except for a ferry.
    (d) Authority. In addition to 33 U.S.C. 1231 and 50 U.S.C. 191, the 
authority for this section includes 33 U.S.C. 1226.

    Dated: August 13, 2002.
M.M. Rosecrans,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Jacksonville.
[FR Doc. 02-21919 Filed 8-27-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P