[Federal Register: August 17, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 158)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 48274-48276]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr17au05-6]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 165
[CGD13-05-034]
RIN 1625-AA87
Security Zone; Port Townsend Waterway, Puget Sound, WA, Naval
Exercise
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.
ACTION: Temporary final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary security zone for
Naval and Army vessels while conducting ammunitions transfers in a
designated area near Indian Island, Washington. The Coast Guard is
taking this action to provide safety and security for Naval and Army
vessels from terrorism, sabotage, other subversive acts, to allow
sufficient maneuvering area for the vessel, and to maintain a
sufficient blast radius from land in an event of an accident. Entry
into this zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the
Port,
[[Page 48275]]
Puget Sound or his designated representatives.
DATES: This rule is effective from 6 a.m. PDT on August 9, 2005 to
11:59 p.m. PDT on August 20, 2005.
ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in
the docket are part of docket CGD13-05-034 and are available for
inspection or copying at the Waterways Management Division, Coast Guard
Sector Seattle, 1519 Alaskan Way South, Seattle, WA 98134, between 8
a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lieutenant Junior Grade Jessica Hagen,
Waterways Management Division, Coast Guard Sector Seattle, at (206)
217-6040.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Regulatory Information
We did not publish a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for this
regulation. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) and (d)(3), the Coast Guard finds
that good cause exists for not publishing an NPRM and for making this
rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal
Register. Publishing a NPRM would be contrary to public interest. Due
to the nature of the event, the Coast Guard was not notified by the
United States Navy of final details concerning the exercise until less
than 30 days prior to the date of the event. Moreover, immediate action
is necessary to safeguard Naval and Army vessels from terrorism,
sabotage, other subversive acts, or accident. If normal notice and
comment procedures were followed, this rule would not become effective
soon enough to provide necessary protection to the Port Townsend
Waterway and the Naval and Army vessels from the threats posed by
hostile entities. For this reason, following normal rulemaking
procedures in this case would be impracticable and contrary to the
public interest.
Background and Purpose
Hostile entities continue to operate with the intent to harm U.S.
National Security by attacking or sabotaging national security assets.
The President has continued the national emergencies he declared
following the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. 67 FR 58317 ((Sept.
13, 2002) (continuing national emergency with respect to terrorist
attacks)); 67 FR 59447 ((Sept. 20, 2002) (continuing national emergency
with respect to persons who commit, threaten to commit or support
terrorism)); 68 FR 55189 ((Sept. 22, 2003) (continuing national
emergency with respect to persons who commit, threaten to commit or
support terrorism)).
The President also has found pursuant to law, including the
Magnuson Act (50 U.S.C. 191 et. seq.), that the security of the United
States is and continues to be endangered following the attacks (E.O.
13,273, 67 FR 56215 (Sept. 3, 2002) (security endangered by
disturbances in international relations of U.S. and such disturbances
continue to endanger such relations)). Moreover, the ongoing
hostilities in Afghanistan and Iraq make 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.
The Coast Guard, through this action, intends to assist the U.S.
Navy in protecting assets in the Port Townsend Waterway by establishing
security zones and notification requirements that will exclude persons
and vessels from this waterway and from the immediate vicinity of these
vessels. Entry into this zone will be prohibited unless authorized by
the Captain of the Port or his designee. The Captain of the Port may be
assisted by other Federal, State, or local agencies.
Discussion of Rule
This temporary final rule is established to maintain a distance in
accordance with Naval Magazine Indian Island's (NAVMAG) ``Explosive
Safety Quantity-Distance'' (ESQD) Arcs, and for safety and security
concerns controls vessel movement in and around the Port Townsend
Waterway, Puget Sound, WA.
This temporary final rule establishes a security zone controlling
all vessel movement in the Port Townsend Waterway, Puget Sound, WA
which includes all waters enclosed in an area with the following
points: 48[deg]04'40'' N, 122[deg]44'31'' W; then northwesterly to
48[deg]04'59.5'' N, 122[deg]44'52'' W; then northwesterly to
48[deg]05'35'' N, 122[deg]45'17'' W; then southwesterly to
48[deg]05'20'' N, 122[deg]45'50'' W; then southeasterly to
48[deg]02'39'' N, 122[deg]44'46'' W; then easterly to 48[deg]02'42'' N,
122[deg]44'17'' W; then northerly along the shoreline of the Indian
Island to the point of origin. [Datum: NAD 1983].
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 (DHS).
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.
This zone will not have a significant economic impact due to its short
duration and small area. Because the impacts of this proposal are
expected to be minimal, 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.
If you believe 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 believe 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 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
[[Page 48276]]
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 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 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 concluded 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. The environmental analysis and Categorical
Exclusion Determination will be prepared and be available in the docket
for inspection and copying where indicated under ADDRESSES. All
standard environmental measures remain in effect.
List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
Temporary Final Rule
0
For the reasons set out in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends Part
165 of Title 33, Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:
PART 165--[AMENDED]
0
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.
0
2. From 6 a.m. PDT on August 9, 2005, to 11:59 p.m. PDT on August 20,
2005, a temporary Sec. 165.T13-014 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 165.T13-014 Security Zone Regulations, Port Townsend Waterway,
Puget Sound, Washington.
(a) Port Townsend Waterway Security Zone: A security zone
controlling all vessel movement exists in the Port Townsend Blair
waterway, Puget Sound, WA which includes all waters enclosed by the
following points: 48[deg]40'40'' N, 122[deg]44'31'' W; then
northwesterly to 48[deg]04'59.5'' N, 122[deg]44'52'' W; then
northwesterly to 48[deg]05'35'' N, 122[deg]45'17'' W; then
southwesterly to 48[deg]05'20'' N, 122[deg]45'50'' W; then
southeasterly to 48[deg]02'39'' N, 122[deg]44'46'' W; then easterly to
48[deg]02'42'' N, 122[deg]44'17'' W; then northerly along the shoreline
of the Indian Island to the point of origin. [Datum: NAD 1983].
(b) Regulations. The general regulations in 33 CFR part 165,
subpart D, apply to the security zone described in paragraph (a) of
this section. No person or vessel may enter this security zone unless
authorized by the Captain of the Port or his designated
representatives. Vessels and persons granted authorization to enter the
security zone must obey all lawful orders or directions of the Captain
of the Port or his designated representatives. The Captain of the Port
may be assisted by other federal, state, or local agencies in enforcing
this section pursuant to 33 CFR 6.04-11.
Dated: August 4, 2005.
Stephen P. Metruck,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Puget Sound.
[FR Doc. 05-16286 Filed 8-16-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P