[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 87 (Friday, May 6, 2005)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 23950-23953]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-9036]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[COTP Charleston 05-037]
RIN 1625-AA87


Security Zones; Charleston Harbor, Cooper River, SC

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes a permanent fixed security zone in 
the waters from the Don Holt, I-526 Bridge, on the Cooper River to the 
entrance of Foster Creek on the Cooper River, South Carolina. This 
security zone is necessary to protect the public and port from 
potential subversive acts during port embarkation operations. During 
enforcement of the security zone vessels would be prohibited from 
entering, transiting, anchoring, mooring, or

[[Page 23951]]

loitering within this zone, unless specifically authorized by the 
Captain of the Port, Charleston, South Carolina, or the Captain of the 
Port's designated representative.

DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or 
before May 26, 2005.

ADDRESSES: You may mail comments and related material to Marine Safety 
Office Charleston, 196 Tradd St., Charleston, SC 29401. Marine Safety 
Office Charleston maintains the public docket for this rulemaking. 
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 Charleston between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., 
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: LTJG Matthew Meskun, Chief of 
Waterways Management Division at 843-720-3240.

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 
Charleston 05-037), 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 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.

Public Meeting

    We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a 
request for a meeting by writing to Marine Safety Office Charleston 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 later notice in the Federal Register.

Background and Purpose

    This security zone is necessary to protect the safety of life and 
property on navigable waters and prevents potential terrorist threats 
aimed at military installations during strategic embarkation 
operations. The security zone would encompass all waters on the Cooper 
River, South Carolina, from the Don Holt I-526 Bridge to the entrance 
of Foster Creek. Two or more military vessels may be in port at the 
same time, and each of these vessels requires security zones. When this 
situation occurs, the security zone described above would be enforced 
and would ensure greater vessel security than enforcing individual 
security zones. Additionally, this proposed security zone has been in 
place on a temporary basis since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 
2001. The current temporary security zone, 33 CFR 165.T07-145, was 
published in the Federal Register January 6, 2005 (70 FR 1187).

Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The proposed security zone would encompass all waters on the Cooper 
River, South Carolina, from the Don Holt I-526 Bridge to the entrance 
of Foster Creek. The Charleston Captain of the Port would enforce the 
security zone on the Cooper River from time to time and in the interest 
of national security vessels that are carrying cargo for the Department 
of Defense.
    These vessels that carry DoD cargo need a level of security that 
requires the Cooper River to be closed to all traffic for a short 
period of time. Security assets would be on scene and mariners would be 
given as much advanced notice as possible. Marine Safety Office 
Charleston would notify the maritime community of closure periods via a 
broadcast notice to mariners on VHF Marine Band Radio, Channel 16 
(156.8 MHz), or Marine Safety Information Bulletins, or actual notice 
from on scene security assets enforcing the zone.

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.
    The limited geographic area encompassed by the security zone should 
not restrict the movement of commercial or recreational vessels through 
the Port of Charleston. Also, the Coast Guard Captain of the Port or 
the Captain of the Port's designated representative may allow an 
individual to transit the security zone subsequent to an individual's 
request.

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 would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities. This proposed rule would affect the following 
entities, some of which might be small entities: the owners or 
operators of vessels intending to transit a portion of the Cooper River 
while the security zone is in effect.
    This security zone would not have a significant economic impact on 
a substantial number of small entities because it would only be in 
place for short periods of time on an infrequent basis. Advanced notice 
would be provided to mariners so they can adjust their schedules due to 
enforcement of the security zone.
    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 economically affect it.

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 proposed rule so that they can better 
evaluate its 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 Mathew Meskun 
at Marine Safety Office Charleston at 843-720-3240. The Coast Guard 
will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain

[[Page 23952]]

about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

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. Though 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.

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. 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 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, 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 due to its limited duration in a fixed 
area.
    Under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g) of the Instruction, an 
``Environmental Analysis Check List'' and a ``Categorical Exclusion 
Determination'' are not required for this rule. Comments on this 
section will be considered before we make the final decision on whether 
to categorically exclude this rule 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; 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 Sec.  165.709 to read as follows:


Sec.  165.709  Security Zone; Charleston Harbor, Cooper River, South 
Carolina.

    (a) Regulated area. The Coast Guard is establishing a fixed 
security zone on all waters of the Cooper River, bank-to-bank and 
surface to bottom, from the Don Holt I-526 Bridge to the intersection 
of Foster Creek at a line on 32 degrees 58 minutes North Latitude.
    (b) Enforcement period. This section will be enforced when security 
assets are on scene and Marine Safety Office Charleston has notified 
the maritime community that an Enforcement Period is in effect. Marine 
Safety Office Charleston will notify the maritime community by 
broadcast notice to mariners on VHF Marine Band Radio, Channel 16 
(156.8 MHz), or Marine Safety Information Bulletins, or actual notice 
from on scene security assets enforcing the security zone.
    (c) Regulations. During enforcement of the security zone described 
in paragraph (a) of this section, vessels or persons are prohibited 
from entering, transiting, mooring, anchoring, or loitering within the 
security zone unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Charleston, 
South Carolina or his or her designated representative.
    (1) Persons desiring to transit the Regulated Area may contact the 
Captain of the Port via VHF-FM channel 16 or by telephone at (843) 720-
3240 and request permission to transit the security zone.
    (2) If permission to transit the security zone is granted, all 
persons and vessels must comply with the instructions of

[[Page 23953]]

the Captain of the Port or his or her designated representative.

    Dated: April 15, 2005.
John E. Cameron,
Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Charleston, South 
Carolina.
[FR Doc. 05-9036 Filed 5-5-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P