Daily Rules, Proposed Rules, and Notices of the Federal Government
We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting comments and related materials. All comments received will be posted without change to
If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material online at
To submit your comment online, go to
If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 8
To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
Anyone can search the electronic form of 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 a Privacy Act notice regarding our public dockets in the January 17, 2008, issue of the
We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a request for one, using one of the methods specified under
On five previous occasions, the Coast Guard established a similar temporary security zone to the one being proposed by this NPRM on the waters of the East River and Bronx Kill in the vicinity of Randalls Island. These five temporary security zones were effective on the following dates: March 29, 2011, November 30, 2011, January 19, 2012, March 1, 2012, and May 14, 2012. In four of those instances, the Coast Guard was unable to publish the temporary security zone in the
On June 8, 2000, the Coast Guard proposed to establish two permanent security zones near the United Nations Headquarters located on the East River at East 43rd Street, Manhattan, New York (65 FR 36393). We received no letters commenting on the proposed rule and no public hearing was requested and none was held. On August 2, 2000, we published a final rule (FR) in the
The legal basis for the proposed rule is 33 U.S.C 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C Chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1, which collectively authorize the Coast Guard to establish security zones.
On five occasions since March 2011, the United States Secret Service has requested that the Coast Guard establish a temporary security zone on the waters of the East River and Bronx Kill during the arrival and departure of the President of the United States to and from Randalls and Wards Islands, New York.
The purpose of the proposed security zone is to facilitate the security and safety of the President and Vice President of the United States, and visiting heads of foreign states and other dignitaries during their visit to New York City.
The purpose of the revision to the Wall Street Heliport security zone is to identify the northern boundary of the security zone on the Manhattan shoreline at Wall Street. This is necessary due to the removal of Pier 13 that is currently referenced in 33 CFR 165.164(a)(1).
The purpose of the revisions to the United Nations security zone is to clarify enforcement times for the security zone, provide a more detailed description of the security zones, and provide a better understanding of the transit restrictions that would be enacted.
The COTP New York proposes to establish a security zone on the waters of the East River and Bronx Kill in the vicinity of Randalls and Wards Islands, New York. The security zone is approximately 2,150 yards long and 860 yards wide. The security zone encompasses approximately 0.21 square nautical miles.
This proposed security zone would be activated 30 minutes before the dignitaries' arrival into the zone and would remain in effect until 15 minutes after the dignitaries' departure from the zone.
The proposed security zone on the East River in the vicinity of Randalls Island is necessary to facilitate the security and safety of the President of the United States and other dignitaries when they are in the vicinity of Randalls Island.
The proposed revision to the Wall Street Heliport security zone, paragraph (a)(1) of § 165.164, is necessary due to the removal of Pier 13 in Manhattan. This pier is currently used as a reference point to describe the northern boundary of the current security zone. This proposed revision would not change the size of the security zone. It would simply identify the position on the Manhattan shoreline of the current security zone boundary.
The proposed addition of paragraph (c)(2) of § 165.164 is necessary to clarify that the security zone in paragraph (a)(4), restricting access to the western half of the west channel at the United Nations, is in effect at all times.
The proposed addition of the United Nations West Channel Closure, proposed 33 CFR 165.164(a)(5), is necessary to provide a more detailed description of the security zones that would be enacted during the annual United Nations General Assembly meetings. This would provide mariners a better understanding of the vessel transit restrictions that would be enacted and whether they would have the option of transiting the shallower waters of the eastern channel of the East River at Roosevelt Island during some portions of the United Nations General Assembly.
We are also proposing paragraph headings for each of the security zone locations in the regulation. This will provide an improved description of the location of each security zone allowing mariners to quickly determine if they would be impacted by the activation of that security zone.
We are proposing to move the activation times in paragraph (a)(6) of § 165.164 to proposed 33 CFR 165.164(c)(2), and amend the regulation to make the United Nations security zone effective at all times. We are also proposing to amend the means of notification in paragraph (a)(7) of § 165.164 and are proposing to insert a paragraph heading entitled “Notification of Enforcement” in proposed 33 CFR 165.164(d).
We are proposing a “Definitions” paragraph to help reduce confusion in our use of the words “dignitary” and “designated representative.”
We are proposing a “Contact Information” paragraph to provide more detailed instructions on requesting authorization for mariners to enter or operate within the security zones.
Additionally, we are proposing a paragraph entitled “Vessel Operator and Persons Authorized within a Security Zone” to explain how the U.S. Coast Guard expects these individuals to respond after they have requested permission to enter the activated security zones.
We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes or executive orders.
This proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders.
This determination is based on the limited time that vessels would be restricted from the Randalls and Wards Islands zone. The security zone would be activated for approximately 60 minutes approximately six times per year or when necessary. The Coast Guard expects minimal adverse impact to mariners from the zone's activation based on the limited duration of the enforcement period, the limited geographic area affected and because affected mariners may request authorization from the COTP or the designated on-scene representative to transit the zone.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered the impact of this proposed rule on small entities. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
This proposed rule would affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: The owners and operators of vessels intending to transit or anchor in a portion of the East River or Bronx Kill, in the vicinity of Randalls or Wards Islands, NY during the effective period.
This security zone would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: The security zone is of limited size and duration. Persons or vessels may request permission to
Additionally, before and during the effective period, the Coast Guard would issue maritime advisories widely available to users of the waterway, including marine information broadcasts, and distribute a written notice online at
If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
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 proposed rule. 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 the person listed in the
This proposed rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and have determined that this rule does not have implications for federalism.
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the “For Further Information Contact” section to coordinate protest activities so that your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or security of people, places or vessels.
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 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule would not result in such expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
This proposed rule would not cause a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.
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.
We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and would not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might disproportionately affect children.
This proposed rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it would 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.
This proposed rule is not a “significant energy action” under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use 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.
This proposed rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.
We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide 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 one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This proposed rule involves the establishment of one security zone and two revisions of another security zone. This rule is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. An environmental analysis checklist will be available in the docket where indicated under
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:
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:
33 U.S.C. 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, 160.5; Pub. L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
2. Revise § 165.164 to read as follows:
As used in this section—
(1) In accordance with the general regulations in 33 CFR part 165, no person or vessel may enter or move within a security zone created by this section while it is activated unless granted permission to do so by the COTP New York or the designated representative.
(2) The security zone described in paragraph (a)(4) of this section is in effect at all times.