Anchorages and Security Zones; Oahu, Maui, HI, and Kauai, HI

AGENCY:

Coast Guard, DOT.

ACTION:

Temporary final rule.

SUMMARY:

The Coast Guard is establishing security zones in designated waters adjacent to the islands of Oahu, Maui, Hawaii, and Kauai, HI for a period of six months. These security zones are necessary to protect personnel, vessels, and facilities from acts of sabotage, terrorist acts, other subversive acts, or other causes of a similar nature and will extend from the surface of the water to the ocean floor. Entry into these zones is prohibited unless authorized by the Coast Guard Captain of the Port Honolulu, HI.

DATES:

This section is effective from 6 a.m. HST April 19, 2002, until 4 p.m. HST October 19, 2002.

ADDRESSES:

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 Marine Safety Office Honolulu, 433 Ala Moana Blvd., Honolulu, Hawaii 96813, between 7 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

LTJG E. G. Cantwell, Coast Guard Marine Safety Office Honolulu, Hawaii, at (808) 522-8260.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulatory Information

On March 20, 2002, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) entitled “Anchorages and Security Zones; Oahu, Maui, Hawaii, and Kauai, HI” in the Federal Register (67 FR 12938). We did not receive any letters commenting on the proposed rule. No public hearing was requested and none was held.

Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less that 30 days after publication in the Federal Register. Delaying this rule would be contrary to the public interest since immediate action is needed to protect persons, vessels, and facilities in various areas on the islands of Oahu, Maui, Hawaii, and Kauai, HI from acts of sabotage, terrorist attack, or other subversive acts. Under these circumstances, following the normal rulemaking procedures would be impracticable.

Background and Purpose

Recent terrorist incidents in New York and Washington, DC have called for the implementation of additional measures to protect national security interests. This rule is similar to a rule published January 31, 2002 (67 FR 4656), creating security zones in these areas until April 19, 2002. This rule is intended to provide for the safety and security of the public, maritime commerce, and transportation, by establishing security zones in designated harbors, anchorages, facilities, and adjacent navigable waters of the Unites States.

The zones provide the Captain of the Port Honolulu with the means to adequately respond to acts of sabotage, terrorist attack, and any other subversive acts. These security zones extend from the surface of the water to the ocean floor. Entry into these zones is prohibited unless authorized by the Coast Guard Captain of the Port Honolulu.

Discussion of Comments and Changes

The Coast Guard did not receive any comments following our publication of the notice of proposed rulemaking (67 FR 12938, March 20, 2002). Therefore, we are adopting the proposed rule without changes.

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 Transportation (DOT)(44 FR 11040, February 26, 1979).

The Coast Guard expects the economic impact of this rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation under paragraph 10e of the regulatory policies and procedures of DOT is unnecessary. This expectation is based on the geographic zone sizes are the minimum necessary to adequately protect the public, maritime commerce, and transportation. Any vessel may request permission from the Captain of the Port to enter into or move within the zones. Any inconvenience experienced by persons or vessels will be brief and minimal in light of the measures necessary to protect the public, maritime commerce, and transportation from sabotage, terrorist attack, and other subversive acts.

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. For the same reasons discussed under Regulatory Evaluation above, the Coast Guard expects the impact of this regulation to be minimal.

If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule will 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 will economically affect it.

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 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 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 will not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might 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 will 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. We invite your comments on how this rule might impact tribal governments, even if that impact may not constitute a “tribal implication” under the Order

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 have 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

33 CFR Part 110

• Anchorage grounds

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 amends 33 CFR parts 110 and 165 as follows:

PART 110—ANCHORAGE REGULATIONS

1. The authority citation for part 110 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 471, 1221 through 1236, 2030, 2035, 2071; 49 CFR 1.46 and 33 CFR 1.05-1(g).

2. From 6 a.m. April 19, 2002, until 4 p.m. October 19, 2002, in § 110.235, add a new paragraph (c) to read as follows:

PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

3. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191, 33 CFR 1.05-1(g), 6.04-1, 6.04-6, 160.5; 49 CFR 1.46.

4. A new § 165.T14-069 is temporarily added to read as follows: