[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 38 (Monday, February 27, 2006)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 9744-9747]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-2714]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[CGD05-06-003]
RIN 1625-AA87


Security Zone; Chesapeake Bay, Between Sandy Point and Kent 
Island, MD

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to establish a temporary security 
zone on the waters of the Chesapeake Bay. This action is necessary to 
provide for the security of a large number of participants during the 
2006 Bay Bridge Walk across the William P. Lane, Jr. Memorial Bridge 
between Sandy Point and Kent Island, Maryland. The security zone will 
allow for control of a designated area of the Chesapeake Bay and 
safeguard the public at large.

DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or 
before March 29, 2006.

ADDRESSES: You may mail comments and related material to Commander, 
Coast Guard Sector Baltimore, 2401 Hawkins Point Road, Building 70, 
Waterways Management Division, Baltimore, Maryland 21226-1791. Coast 
Guard Sector Baltimore, Waterways

[[Page 9745]]

Management Division, 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 Coast Guard Sector Baltimore, Waterways Management Division, 
between 8 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal 
holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Ronald Houck, at Coast Guard 
Sector Baltimore, Waterways Management Division, at telephone number 
(410) 576-2674 or (410) 576-2693.

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 (CGD05-06-
003), 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 
they 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 Coast Guard Sector Baltimore, 
Waterways Management Division, 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

    The U.S. Maritime Administration (MARAD) in Advisory 02-07 advised 
U.S. shipping interests to maintain a heightened state of alert against 
possible terrorist attacks. MARAD more recently issued Advisory 03-06 
informing operators of maritime interests of increased threat 
possibilities to vessels and facilities and a higher risk of terrorist 
attack to the transportation community in the United States. The 
ongoing hostilities in Afghanistan and Iraq have made it prudent for 
U.S. ports and waterways to be on a higher state of alert because the 
al Qaeda organization and other similar organizations have declared an 
ongoing intention to conduct armed attacks on U.S. interests worldwide.
    Due to increased awareness that future terrorist attacks are 
possible, the Coast Guard as lead federal agency for maritime homeland 
security, has determined that the Captain of the Port Baltimore must 
have the means to be aware of, deter, detect, intercept, and respond to 
asymmetric threats, acts of aggression, and attacks by terrorists on 
the American homeland while still maintaining our freedoms and 
sustaining the flow of commerce. This security zone is part of a 
comprehensive port security regime designed to safeguard human life, 
vessels, and waterfront facilities against sabotage or terrorist 
attacks.
    In this particular rulemaking, to address the aforementioned 
security concerns during the highly-publicized public event, and to 
take steps to prevent the catastrophic impact that a terrorist attack 
against a large number of participants during the 2006 Bay Bridge Walk 
would have on the public interest, the Captain of the Port, Baltimore, 
Maryland proposes to establish a security zone upon all waters of the 
Chesapeake Bay, from the surface to the bottom, within 250 yards north 
of the north (westbound) span of the William P. Lane Jr. Memorial 
Bridge, and 250 yards south of the south (eastbound) span of the 
William P. Lane Jr. Memorial Bridge, from the western shore at Sandy 
Point to the eastern shore at Kent Island, Maryland. This security zone 
will help the Coast Guard to prevent vessels or persons from engaging 
in terrorist actions against a large number of participants during the 
event. Due to these heightened security concerns, and the catastrophic 
impact a terrorist attack on the William P. Lane Jr. Memorial Bridge 
during the 2006 Bay Bridge Walk would have on the large number of 
participants, and the surrounding area and communities, a security zone 
is prudent for this type of event.

Discussion of Proposed Rule

    On Sunday, May 7, 2006, the Maryland Transportation Authority will 
sponsor the 4.3-mile Bay Bridge Walk, to take place from Sandy Point 
State Park, Maryland at 9 a.m. local time. The event will consist of an 
estimated 50,000 participants walking across the William P. Lane Jr. 
Memorial Bridge (Chesapeake Bay Bridge) to Kent Island, Maryland. 
Vessels underway at the time this security zone is implemented will 
immediately proceed out of the zone. We will issue Broadcast Notices to 
Mariners to further publicize the security zone. This security zone is 
necessary to prevent vessels or persons on designated waters of the 
Chesapeake Bay from approaching the bridge and thereby bypassing the 
security measures for the event established by the Maryland Transit 
Authority Police. Vessels transiting through the security zone without 
loitering will be permitted to do so, and those with compelling 
interests that outweigh the port's security needs may be granted 
waivers from the requirements of the security 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 operational restrictions of the security zone are tailored to 
provide the minimal disruption of vessel operations necessary to 
provide immediate, improved security for persons, vessels, and the 
waters of the Chesapeake Bay, within 250 yards of the William P. Lane 
Jr. Memorial Bridge (Chesapeake Bay Bridge), located between Sandy 
Point and Kent Island, Maryland. Additionally, this security zone is 
temporary in nature and any hardships experienced by persons or vessels 
are outweighed by the national interest in protecting the public at 
large from the devastating consequences of acts of terrorism, and from 
sabotage or other subversive acts, accidents, or other causes of a 
similar nature.

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.

[[Page 9746]]

    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: the owners or operators of vessels intending 
to operate, remain or anchor within 250 yards of the William P. Lane 
Jr. Memorial Bridge (Chesapeake Bay Bridge), located between Sandy 
Point and Kent Island, Maryland. This security zone will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities 
because vessels transiting through the security zone without loitering 
may be permitted to do so, and those with compelling interests that 
outweigh the port's security needs may be granted waivers from the 
requirements of the security zone. Before the effective period, we 
would issue maritime advisories widely available to users of the 
Chesapeake Bay.
    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 
rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental 
jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or 
options for compliance, please contact Mr. Ronald L. Houck, at Coast 
Guard Sector Baltimore, Waterways Management Branch, at telephone 
number (410) 576-2674. 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 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 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 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.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 
made a preliminary determination 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 rule should be 
categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g), of the 
Instruction, from further environmental documentation because this 
rulemaking is a security zone less than one week in duration. A draft 
``Environmental Analysis Check List'' and a draft ``Categorical 
Exclusion Determination'' (CED) are available in the docket where 
indicated under ADDRESSES. Comments on this section will be considered 
before we make the final decision on whether the 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:

[[Page 9747]]

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 Sec.  165.T05-003 to read as follows:


Sec.  165.T05-003  Security Zone; Chesapeake Bay, between Sandy Point 
and Kent Island, MD.

    (a) Definitions. (1) The Captain of the Port, Baltimore, Maryland 
means the Commander, Coast Guard Sector Baltimore, Maryland or any 
Coast Guard commissioned, warrant, or petty officer who has been 
authorized by the Captain of the Port, Baltimore, Maryland to act on 
his or her behalf.
    (b) Location. The following area is a security zone: All waters of 
the Chesapeake Bay, from the surface to the bottom, within 250 yards 
north of the north (westbound) span of the William P. Lane Jr. Memorial 
Bridge, and 250 yards south of the south (eastbound) span of the 
William P. Lane Jr. Memorial Bridge, from the western shore at Sandy 
Point to the eastern shore at Kent Island, Maryland.
    (c) Regulations. (1) All persons are required to comply with the 
general regulations governing security zones found in Sec.  165.33 of 
this part.
    (2) Entry into or remaining in this zone is prohibited unless 
authorized by the Coast Guard Captain of the Port, Baltimore, Maryland.
    (3) Persons or vessels requiring entry into or passage through the 
security zone must first request authorization from the Captain of the 
Port, Baltimore to seek permission to transit the area. The Captain of 
the Port, Baltimore, Maryland can be contacted at telephone number 
(410) 576-2693. The Coast Guard vessels enforcing this section can be 
contacted on VHF Marine Band Radio, VHF channel 16 (156.8 MHz). Upon 
being hailed by a U.S. Coast Guard vessel by siren, radio, flashing 
light, or other means, the operator of a vessel shall proceed as 
directed. If permission is granted, all persons and vessels must comply 
with the instructions of the Captain of the Port, Baltimore, Maryland 
and proceed at the minimum speed necessary to maintain a safe course 
while within the zone.
    (4) Enforcement. The U.S. Coast Guard may be assisted in the patrol 
and enforcement of the zone by Federal, State, and local agencies.
    (d) Effective period. This section will be effective from 7 a.m. to 
5 p.m. local time on May 7, 2006.

    Dated: February 13, 2006.
Curtis A. Springer,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Baltimore, Maryland.
 [FR Doc. E6-2714 Filed 2-24-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P