03-32079. Security Zones; Charleston Harbor, Cooper River, SC

AGENCY:

Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION:

Temporary final rule; request for comments.

SUMMARY:

The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary fixed security zone in the waters under the Don Holt I-526 Bridge on the Cooper River to the entrance of Foster Creek on the Cooper River. This security zone is needed for national security reasons to protect the public and ports from potential subversive acts during port embarkation operations. Vessels are prohibited from entering, transiting, anchoring, mooring, or loitering within this zone, unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port, Charleston, South Carolina or his designated representative.

DATES:

This regulation is effective from 8 a.m. on December 10, 2003, until 8 a.m. on June 1, 2004. Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or before March 30, 2004.

ADDRESSES:

You may mail comments and related material to Coast Guard Marine Safety Office Charleston, 196 Tradd Street, Charleston, South Carolina 29401. Coast Guard 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, are part of (COTP Charleston 03-171), will become part of this docket and will be available for inspection or copying at Marine Safety Office Charleston, between 7:30 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

LT Kevin Floyd, Coast Guard Marine Safety Office Charleston, at [phone].

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 (CGD07-03-171), indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and give the reason for each comment. The Coast Guard is especially interested in comments concerning the size and boundaries of this security zone and any economic impact this rule may have on you .

Please submit all comments and related material in an unbound format, no larger than 81/2 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 rule in view of them.

Good Cause

Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM). Publishing an NPRM would be contrary to public safety interests and national security. These regulations are needed to protect the public, the ports and waterways and the national security of the United States from the potential of subversive acts against vessels and port facilities and infrastructure during port embarkation operations occurring within the security zone. For the security concerns noted, it is in the public interest to have these regulations in effect during the port embarkation operations. In addition, notifications will be made via marine information broadcasts.

For the same reasons, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register.

Background and Purpose

Based on the September 11, 2001, terrorist attack on the World Trade Center in New York and the Pentagon in Arlington, Virginia, there is an increased risk that subversive terrorist activity could be launched by vessels or persons in close proximity to the Port of Charleston, South Carolina, against military installations or operations occurring within the security zone. This temporary security zone is necessary to protect the safety of life and property on the navigable waters, prevent potential terrorist threats aimed at military installations during strategic port of embarkation operations occurring within the security zone. The temporary security zone will encompass all waters under the Don Holt I-526 Bridge over the Cooper River to the entrance of Foster Creek on the Cooper River.

Regulatory Evaluation

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. It is not significant under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Homeland Security.

We expect the economic impact of this rule to be so minimal so 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 Port of Charleston. Also, an individual may request a waiver of these regulations from the Coast Guard Captain of the Port.

Small Entities

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered whether this rule would have a significant economic effect 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 because the limited geographic area encompassed by the security zone will not restrict the movement or routine operation of commercial or recreational vessels through the Port of Charleston. Also, an individual may request a waiver of these regulations from the Coast Guard Captain of the Port of Charleston.

Assistance for Small Entities

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), 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. If the rule will affect your small business and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

Small businesses may also send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247).

Collection of Information

This rule calls for no new collection of information requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

Federalism

A rule has implication 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. Although this rule will not result in such 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 relationships 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. 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

We considered the environmental impact of this rule and concluded that, under Figure 2-1, paragraph 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 amends 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(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. A new temporary § 165.T07-171 is added to read as follows:

§ 165.T07-171

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

(a) Regulated area. The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary fixed security zone on all waters of the Cooper River, from bank to bank, under the Don Holt I-526 Bridge to the entrance of Foster Creek.

(b) Regulations. In accordance with the general regulations § 165.33 of this part, vessels are prohibited from entering, transiting, mooring, anchoring, or loitering within this zone unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port Charleston, South Carolina or his designated representative.

(c) Effective period. This section is effective from 8 a.m. on December 10, 2003, until 8 a.m. on June 1, 2004.

Dated: December 1, 2003.

Gary W. Merrick,

Commander, U. S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port.