[Federal Register: November 21, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 224)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 65459-65460]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr21no07-10]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is changing a permanent security zone in
waters adjacent to the island of Tinian, Commonwealth of the Northern
Mariana Islands (CNMI). Review of the established zone indicates that
its scope is overly-broad and that it imposes an unnecessary and
unsustainable enforcement burden on the Coast Guard. This change is
intended to narrow the zone's scope so it more accurately reflects
current enforcement needs.
DATES: This rule is effective December 21, 2007.
ADDRESSES: Comments and material received from the public, as well as
documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket,
are part of docket COTP Guam 07-005 and 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:
Regulatory Information
On August 17, 2007, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM) entitled Security Zone; Tinian, Commonwealth of the Northern
Mariana Islands in the Federal Register (72 FR 46185). We received no
letters commenting on the proposed rule. No public meeting was
requested, and none was held.
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 rule is to change the smaller zone from one that is
activated all the time to one that is activated only when necessary.
This change reflects our current enforcement needs more accurately and
eliminates our need to travel 100 miles to patrol the zone when
enforcement is unnecessary.
In addition, we are 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 made it easier to distinguish the two zones
by describing them in separate paragraphs in 33 CFR 165.1403(a).
Finally, we are clarifying that, while these regulations are in effect
at all times, the security zones will only be activated--and thus
subject to enforcement--when necessary.
Discussion of Comments and Changes
We did not receive any comments in response to our NPRM. No changes
were made to the regulation text proposed in the NPRM.
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.
The Coast Guard expects the economic impact of this rule to be so
minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation is unnecessary. This
expectation is based on the nature of the 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 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 rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. Due to the nature of the 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 rule so that they can better evaluate
its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the 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.
[[Page 65460]]
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 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 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
and Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 5100.1, 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
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. That provision excludes regulations establishing or
changing security zones.
A final ``Environmental Analysis Check List'' and a final
``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), Reports and
recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
0
For the reasons set out in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR
part 165 as follows:
PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS
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, 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. 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.
0
(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 Sec. 165.1403(a): All positions of latitude and
longitude are from International Spheroid, Astro Pier 1944 (Saipan)
Datum (NOAA Chart 81071).
* * * * *
Dated: November 9, 2007.
William Marhoffer,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Guam.
[FR Doc. E7-22694 Filed 11-20-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P