[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 246 (Monday, December 22, 2008)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 78184-78186]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-30387]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2008-0203]
RIN 1625-AA87


Security Zone; Escorted Vessels in Captain of the Port Zone 
Jacksonville, FL

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is making permanent an interim rule 
establishing a security zone around any vessel being escorted by one or 
more Coast Guard assets, or other Federal, State, or local law 
enforcement assets within the Captain of the Port Zone Jacksonville, 
FL. This action is necessary to ensure the safe transit of escorted 
vessels as well as the safety and security of personnel and port 
facilities. No vessel or person is allowed inside the security zone 
unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Jacksonville, FL or a 
designated representative.

DATES: This rule is effective January 21, 2009.

ADDRESSES: Comments and material received from the public, as well as 
documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, 
are part of docket USCG-2008-0203 and are available online by going to 
http://www.regulations.gov, selecting the Advanced Docket Search option 
on the right side of the screen, inserting USCG-2008-0203 in the Docket 
ID box, pressing Enter, and then clicking on the item in the Docket ID 
column. This material is also available for inspection or copying at 
two locations: The Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department 
of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New 
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., 
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays and the Coast Guard 
Sector Jacksonville Prevention Department, 4200 Ocean Street, Atlantic 
Beach, Florida, 32233, between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through 
Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule, 
call Lieutenant Commander Mark Gibbs at Coast Guard Sector Jacksonville 
Prevention Department, Florida. Contact telephone is 904-564-7563. If 
you have questions on viewing the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program 
Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 202-366-9826.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulatory Information

    On May 19, 2008, we published an Interim Rule with request for 
comments (IR) entitled Security Zone; Escorted Vessels in Captain of 
the Port Zone Jacksonville, Florida in the Federal Register (73 FR 
28707). We received one letter commenting on the rule. No public 
meeting was requested, and none was held.

Background and Purpose

    The terrorist attacks of September 2001 heightened the need for 
development of various security measures throughout the seaports of the 
United States, particularly around vessels and facilities whose 
presence or movement creates a heightened vulnerability to terrorist 
acts; or those for which the consequences of terrorist acts represent a 
threat to national security. The President of the United States has 
found that the security of the United States is and continues to be 
endangered following the attacks of September 11 (E.O. 13,273, 67 FR 
56215, Sept. 3, 2002 and 73 FR 54489, Sept. 22, 2008). Additionally, 
national security and intelligence officials continue to warn that 
future terrorist attacks are likely.
    King's Bay, GA, and the Ports of Jacksonville, FL, and Canaveral, 
FL frequently receive vessels that require additional security, 
including, but not limited to, vessels that carry sensitive Department 
of Defense cargoes, vessels that carry dangerous cargoes, and foreign 
naval vessels. The Captain of the Port (COTP) Jacksonville has 
determined that these vessels have a significant vulnerability to 
subversive activity by vessels or persons or, in

[[Page 78185]]

some cases, themselves pose a risk to a port and the public, within the 
Jacksonville Captain of the Port Zone, as described in 33 CFR 3.35-20. 
This rule enables the COTP Jacksonville to provide effective port 
security, while minimizing the public's confusion and easing the 
administrative burden of implementing separate temporary security zones 
for each escorted vessel.

Discussion of Comments and Changes

    On May 19, 2008, the Coast Guard published the IR that established 
a security zone around any vessel being escorted by one or more Coast 
Guard assets, or other Federal, State, or local law enforcement assets 
within the Captain of the Port Zone Jacksonville, FL. One letter was 
received in response to the IR. The comments in the letter are beyond 
the scope of this rulemaking, but are relevant to another ongoing 
rulemaking: Security Zone; West Basin, Port Canaveral Harbor, Cape 
Canaveral, FL (Docket No. USCG-2008-0752). The Coast Guard will take 
these comments into consideration for that rulemaking.

Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and 
executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses 
based on 13 of these statutes or executive orders.

Regulatory Planning and Review

    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.
    We expect the economic impact of this rule to be so minimal that a 
full Regulatory Evaluation under the regulatory policies and procedures 
of DHS is unnecessary. The limited geographic area impacted by the 
security zone will not restrict the movement or routine operation of 
commercial or recreational vessels through the Ports within the Captain 
of the Port Zone Jacksonville.

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have 
considered whether this 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 rule will 
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities. This rule may affect the following entities, some of which 
may be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to 
transit in the vicinity of escorted vessels. This rule would not have a 
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities because 
the zones are limited in size, in most cases leaving 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 zones via Broadcast Notice to Mariners. Where 
such space is not available and security conditions permit, the Captain 
of the Port will attempt to provide flexibility for individual vessels 
to transit through the zones as needed.

Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), in the IR 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.

Collection of Information

    This 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 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 an 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 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 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

[[Page 78186]]

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 rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not 
consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security 
Management Directive 5100.1 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which 
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental 
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded 
under the Instruction 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.
    An environmental analysis checklist and a categorical exclusion 
determination are 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.

0
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard adopts the 
interim rule published at 73 FR 28707, May 19, 2008, as final without 
change.

    Dated: November 18, 2008.
P. F. Thomas,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Zone Jacksonville, 
Florida.
[FR Doc. E8-30387 Filed 12-19-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P