|
A Cryptome DVD is offered by Cryptome. Donate $25 for a DVD of the Cryptome 11.5-years archives of 43,000 files from June 1996 to January 2008 (~4.5 GB). Click Paypal or mail check/MO made out to John Young, 251 West 89th Street, New York, NY 10024. Archives include all files of cryptome.org, jya.com, cartome.org, eyeball-series.org and iraq-kill-maim.org. Cryptome offers with the Cryptome DVD an INSCOM DVD of about 18,000 pages of counter-intelligence dossiers declassified by the US Army Information and Security Command, dating from 1945 to 1985. No additional contribution required -- $25 for both. The DVDs will be sent anywhere worldwide without extra cost. |
7 January 2008
SBX-1 Eyeball: http://eyeball-series.org/sbx1-birdseye.htm
[Federal Register: January 7, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 4)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 1133-1135]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr07ja08-16]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 165
[Docket No. USCG-2007-0195]
RIN 1625-AA87
Security Zone; Waters Surrounding U.S. Forces Vessel SBX-1, HI
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to establish a permanent 500-yard
moving security zone around the U.S. Forces vessel SBX-1 during transit
within the Honolulu Captain of the Port Zone. This zone is necessary to
protect the SBX-1 from threats associated with vessels and persons
approaching too close during transit. Entry of persons or vessels into
this security zone would be prohibited unless authorized by the Captain
of the Port (COTP).
DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or
before February 6, 2008.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket
number USCG-2007-0195 to the Docket Management Facility at the U.S.
Department of Transportation. To avoid duplication, please use only one
of the following methods:
(1) Online: http://www.regulations.gov.
(2) Mail: Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
(3) Hand delivery: Room W12-140 on the Ground Floor of the West
Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The
telephone number is 202-366-9329.
(4) Fax: 202-493-2251.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lieutenant (Junior Grade) Jasmin
Parker, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Honolulu at (808) 842-2600.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Public Participation and Request for Comments
We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting
comments and related materials. All comments received will be posted,
without change, to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided. We have an agreement with the
Department of Transportation (DOT) to use the Docket Management
Facility. Please see DOT's ``Privacy Act'' paragraph below.
Submitting Comments
If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking (USCG-2007-0195), indicate the specific section of this
document to which each comment applies, and give the reason for each
comment. We recommend that you include your name and a mailing address,
an e-mail address, or a phone number in the body of your document so
that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your submission.
You may submit your comments and material by electronic means, mail,
fax, or delivery to the Docket Management Facility at the address under
ADDRESSES, but please submit your comments and material by only one
means. If you submit them by mail or delivery, submit them in an
unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for
copying and electronic filing. If you submit them by mail and would
like to know that they reached the Facility, 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
proposed rule in view of them.
Viewing Comments and Documents
To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble
as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov at
any time, click on ``Search for Dockets,'' and enter the docket number
for this rulemaking (USCG-2007-0195) in the Docket ID box, and click
enter. You may also visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-
140 on the ground floor of the DOT West Building, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
Privacy Act
Anyone can search the electronic form of all comments received into
any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment
(or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). You may review the Department of
Transportation's Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register
published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477), or you may visit http://DocketsInfo.dot.gov
.
[[Page 1134]]
Public Meeting
We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a
request for a meeting by writing to Sector Honolulu at the address
under ADDRESSES explaining why one would be beneficial. If we determine
that one would aid this rulemaking, we will hold one at a time and
place announced by a separate notice in the Federal Register.
Background and Purpose
The U.S. Forces vessel SBX-1 will enter the Honolulu Captain of the
Port Zone and transit to Pearl Harbor, HI for maintenance at least once
each year. The SBX-1 is easy to recognize because it contains a large
white object shaped like an egg supported by a platform that is larger
than a football field. The platform in turn is supported by six pillars
similar to those on large oil-drilling platforms.
The Coast Guard's reaction to such transits thus far has been to
await a final voyage plan and then establish a security zone using a
temporary final rule applicable to that particular voyage. Such action
diminishes the public's opportunity for formal comment and imposes a
pressing administrative burden each time the SBX-1 arrives. This
permanent SBX-1 security zone proposal affords solicitation of public
comments and promotes relief from the emergency rulemakings currently
necessary to protect these transits.
Discussion of Proposed Rule
Our proposed security zone would be established permanently. It
would be automatically activated, meaning it would be subject to
enforcement, whenever the U.S. Forces vessel SBX-1 is in U.S. navigable
waters within the Honolulu Captain of the Port (COTP) Zone (see 33 CFR
3.70-10). The security zone would include all waters extending 500
yards in all directions from the SBX-1, from the surface of the water
to the ocean floor.
The security zone would move with the SBX-1 while it is in transit.
The zone would become fixed around the SBX-1 while it is anchored,
position-keeping, or moored, and it would remain activated until the
SBX-1 either departs U.S. navigable waters within the Honolulu COTP
zone or enters the Honolulu Naval Defensive Sea Area established by
Executive Order 8987 (6 FR 6675, December 24, 1941).
The general regulations governing security zones contained in 33
CFR 165.33 would apply. Entry into, transit through, or anchoring
within the zone while it is activated and enforced would be prohibited
unless authorized by the COTP or a designated representative thereof.
Any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant, or petty officer, and any other
COTP representative permitted by law, could enforce the zone. The COTP
could waive any of the requirements of this rule for any person,
vessel, or class of vessel upon finding that application of the
security zone is unnecessary or impractical for the purpose of maritime
security. Vessels or persons violating this rule would be subject to
the penalties set forth in 33 U.S.C. 1232 and 50 U.S.C. 192.
Regulatory Evaluation
This proposed 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 proposed rule
to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation under the regulatory
policies and procedures of DHS is unnecessary. This expectation is
based on the limited duration of the zone, the constricted geographic
area affected by it, and its ability to move with the protected vessel.
Small Entities
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered whether this proposed 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 proposed
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. We expect that there will be little or no
impact to small entities due to the narrowly tailored scope of this
proposed security zone.
Assistance for Small Entities
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we offer to assist small
entities in understanding this proposed rule so that they could better
evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process.
Small businesses may 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). 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.
Collection of Information
This proposed 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 either preempts State law or imposes a substantial
direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this proposed 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 proposed rule will not result in such
expenditure, we do discuss the effects of the rule elsewhere in this
preamble.
Taking of Private Property
This proposed 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 proposed 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.
[[Page 1135]]
Protection of Children
We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13045,
Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks. This proposed 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 proposed 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 proposed 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 is 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 proposed rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we
did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.
Environment
We have analyzed this proposed 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 made a preliminary determination that this action is not likely to
have a significant effect on the human environment. A preliminary
``Environmental Analysis Check List'' supporting this preliminary
determination is available in the docket where indicated under
ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the
discovery of a significant environmental impact from this proposed
rule.
List of Subjects 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 proposes
to amend 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 Sec. 165.1411 to read as follows:
Sec. 165.1411 Security zone; waters surrounding U.S. Forces vessel
SBX-1, HI.
(a) Location. The following area, in U.S. navigable waters within
the Honolulu Captain of the Port Zone (see 33 CFR 3.70-10), from the
surface of the water to the ocean floor, is a security zone: All waters
extending 500 yards in all directions from U.S. Forces vessel SBX-1.
The security zone moves with the SBX-1 while it is in transit and
becomes fixed when the SBX-1 is anchored, position-keeping, or moored.
(b) Regulations. The general regulations governing security zones
contained in 33 CFR 165.33 apply. Entry into, transit through, or
anchoring within, this zone while it is activated, and thus subject to
enforcement, is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port
or a designated representative thereof.
(c) Suspension of Enforcement. The Coast Guard will suspend
enforcement of the security zone described in this section whenever the
SBX-1 is within the Honolulu Defensive Sea Area (see 6 FR 6675).
(d) Informational notice. The Captain of the Port of Honolulu will
cause notice of the enforcement of the security zone described in this
section to be made by broadcast notice to mariners. The SBX-1 is easy
to recognize because it contains a large white object shaped like an
egg supported by a platform that is larger than a football field. The
platform in turn is supported by six pillars similar to those on large
oil-drilling platforms.
(e) Authority to enforce. Any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant, or
petty officer, and any other Captain of the Port representative
permitted by law, may enforce the security zone described in this
section.
(f) Waiver. The Captain of the Port may waive any of the
requirements of this rule for any person, vessel, or class of vessel
upon finding that application of the security zone is unnecessary or
impractical for the purpose of maritime security.
(g) Penalties. Vessels or persons violating this rule are subject
to the penalties set forth in 33 U.S.C. 1232 and 50 U.S.C. 192.
Dated: December 6, 2007.
V.B. Atkins
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Honolulu.
[FR Doc. E8-19 Filed 1-4-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P