[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 159 (Friday, August 17, 2007)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 46185-46188]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-16203]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[COTP Guam 07-005]
RIN 1625-AA87


Security Zone; Tinian, Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana 
Islands

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to change a permanent security zone 
in waters adjacent to the island of Tinian, Commonwealth of the 
Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI). Review of this

[[Page 46186]]

established zone indicates that its scope is overly-broad and that it 
imposes an unnecessary and unsustainable enforcement burden on the 
Coast Guard. This proposed change is intended to narrow the zone's 
scope so it more accurately reflects current enforcement needs.

DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or 
before September 17, 2007.

ADDRESSES: You may mail comments and related material to Commanding 
Officer, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Guam, PSC 455 Box 176, FPO, AP 968540-
1056. Sector Guam 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, are 
available for inspection and copying at Coast Guard Sector Guam between 
7 a.m. and 3:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lieutenant Commander John Winter, U.S. 
Coast Guard Sector Guam at (671) 355-4861.

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 Guam 
07-005), 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 Sector Guam at the address under 
ADDRESSES explaining why one would be beneficial. If we determine that 
one would aid this rulemaking, we would hold one at a time and place 
announced by separate notice in the Federal Register.

Background and Purpose

    The security zones at Tinian codified in 33 CFR 165.1403 were first 
established on November 14, 1986 (51 FR 42220, November 24, 1986), as 
requested by the U.S. Navy in order to prevent injury or damage to 
persons and equipment incident to the mooring of the first Maritime 
Preposition Ships in the port. In addition to describing a larger 
security zone that is enforced when a Maritime Position Ship is moored 
at the site, the regulation, as currently written, establishes a 
permanent 50-yard security zone around Moorings A and B when no vessel 
is moored there. The zone is approximately 100 nautical miles from the 
nearest Coast Guard surveillance assets, a distance that hinders our 
ability to patrol it regularly.
    A recent review of the 50-yard zone indicates that patrolling it is 
unnecessary except when the Navy needs to ensure availability of the 
mooring space, which is signaled by the anchoring of mooring balls. The 
purpose of this proposal is to change the smaller zone from one that is 
activated all the time to one that is activated only when necessary. 
The proposed change would both reduce a burden to more accurately 
reflect current enforcement needs and eliminate our need to travel 100 
miles to patrol the zone when enforcement is unnecessary.
    In addition, we propose changing the section heading of this 
regulation to reflect CNMI's proper name and the fact that the section 
describes two security zones. We also propose to make it easier to 
distinguish the two zones by describing them in separate paragraphs in 
33 CFR 165.1403. Finally, we seek to clarify that while these 
regulations would be in effect at all times, the security zones would 
only be activated--and thus subject to enforcement--when necessary.

Discussion of Proposed Rule

    In order to narrow the scope of the 50-yard security zone 
established in 33 CFR 165.1403, we propose to add the condition that 
mooring balls be anchored and on station as a condition for that 
smaller zone to be activated and thus subject to enforcement. The 
mooring balls would only be anchored and on station when it is 
necessary to enforce the zone.
    Also, we propose to separate the two zone descriptions currently in 
paragraph (a) of Sec.  165.1403. The existing description of the large 
zone would appear in paragraph (a)(1) with the only change being that 
the words ``is in effect'' would be replaced by ``will be enforced.'' 
The description of the smaller zone, reflecting the mooring-balls 
activation condition discussed above, would appear in paragraph (a)(2).
    Finally, we propose to revise the section's title by pluralizing 
the word ``Zone,'' inserting ``of the'' after ``Commonwealth,'' and 
singularizing ``Marianas.'' The revised section heading would read: 
``Security Zones; Tinian, Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana 
Islands.''

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.
    The Coast Guard expects the economic impact of this proposed rule 
to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation is unnecessary. This 
expectation is based on the nature of the proposed change (diminishing 
an established security zone's enforcement period), which is likely to 
further minimize the economic impact of an established rule.

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have 
considered whether this proposed rule will 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 will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities. Due to the nature of the proposed change 
(diminishing an established security zone's enforcement period), we 
anticipate that it will further reduce any economic impact of the 
established rule.
    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

[[Page 46187]]

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 
Lieutenant Commander John Winter, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Guam, (671) 
355-4861. 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 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 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 will not result in such 
expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this 
preamble.

Taking of Private Property

    This proposed rule will 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 proposed 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 proposed 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 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 this action is not likely to 
have a significant effect on the human environment. Draft documentation 
supporting this preliminary determination is available in the docket 
where indicated under ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information 
that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact 
from this proposed rule.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

    For the reasons set out 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, 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.

    2. In Sec.  165.1403, revise the section heading and paragraph (a) 
to read as follows:


Sec.  165.1403  Security Zones; Tinian, Commonwealth of the Northern 
Mariana Islands.

    (a) Location. The following areas are security zones:
    (1) The waters of the Pacific Ocean off Tinian between 
14[deg]59'04.9'' N, 145[deg]34'58.6'' E to 14[deg]59'20.1'' N, 
145[deg]35'41.5'' E to 14[deg]59'09.8'' N, 145[deg]36'02.1'' E to 
14[deg]57'49.3'' N, 145[deg]36'28.7'' E to 14[deg]57'29.1'' N, 
145[deg]35'31.1'' E and back to 14[deg]59'04.9'' N, 145[deg]34'58.6'' 
E. This zone will be enforced when one, or more, of the Maritime 
Preposition Ships is in the zone or moored at Mooring A located at 
14[deg]58'57.0'' N and 145[deg]35'40.8'' E or Mooring B located at 
14[deg]58'15.9'' N, 145[deg]35'54.8'' E.
    (2) Additionally, a 50-yard security zone in all directions around 
Moorings A and B will be enforced when no vessels are moored thereto 
but mooring balls are anchored and on station.

    Note to paragraph (a): All positions of latitude and longitude 
are from International Spheroid, Astro Pier 1944 (Saipan) Datum 
(NOAA Chart 81071).

* * * * *


[[Page 46188]]


    Dated: August 6, 2007.
William Marhoffer,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Guam.
[FR Doc. E7-16203 Filed 8-16-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P