INDEX - HAWAII TRANSPORTATION

www.islandbreath.org


SUBJECT: SUPERFERRY LEGAL STATUS

SOURCE: JUAN WILSON juanwilson@mac.com

POSTED: 7 SEPTEMBER 2007 - 7:00pm HST

by Juan Wilson on 7 September 2007

Late this afternoon. Govling appointed Kauai Ciruit Court judge Randal Valenciano decided that the Temporary Restraining Order should be denied. What a surprise. They did have a politcal agenda.

See you at Kalapaki Beajh on September 10th.


SUBJECT: SUPERFERRY LEGAL STATUS

SOURCE: JUAN WILSON juanwilson@mac.com

POSTED: 6 SEPTEMBER 2007 - 6:00pm HST


image above: Dan Hempey leaves court, representing 1000 Friends of Kauai vs HDOT and HSF Corp

by Juan Wilson on 6 September 2007

Today in Kauai Circuit Court a hearing was held before Lingle appointed Judge Randal Valenciano, to determine if there should be a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) issued to keep the Superferry from sailing to Kauai between now and September 17th.

Daniel Hempey and Greg Meyer, represented the Plaintiff, 1000 Friends of Kauai. They argued that the Supreme Court decision, on 23 August 2007, voided the February 2005 determination by the Hawaii Department of Transportation (HDOT) that no Environmental Assessment (EA) need be made before the Superferry started operation.

Once the Superferry began operations to Kauai on August 27th, it acted without an EA and thus triggered the present law suit. HDOT should have sought a restraint of ferry services because a statewide EA was mandated.

The lawyers for the Defendants; William Wynoff (HDOT) and Lisa Munger (Superferry Corporation) argued on procedural grounds that the 120 day statute of limitation on responding to the action of HDOT in 2005 had elapsed and no case could be made.

Hempey argued that the Supreme Court decision that HDOT had erred in not requiring an EA and mandating a statewide effort reset the clock on the 120 day statute of limitation. The suit on the part of 1000 Friends of Kauai was filed immediately.

Hempey also argued that Superferry service might create irreparable environmental damage (like striking a monk seal at 40mph) between now and an injunction during the EA. The people of Hawaii are guaranteed in their constitution for assurance that actions that threaten to damage to the environment can be enjoined (forbidden) and that the authorities have a responsibility to do so.

Judge Valenciano asked the attorneys if they wanted more time granted to argue the technicalities on the statute of limitations and they decided they did. They were given until 11:00am Friday, September 7th (tomorrow) to submit their briefs. By tomorrow evening the judge will make a determination on the TRO.

On September 17th there will be another court date. The case to seek an injunction to bar the Superferry from operating to Kauai until the EA is complete will be heard. If 1000 Friends of Kauai win that the Superferry won't be coming here for a long long time. Anti-ferry supporters should come to court again on the 17th.

On the other hand, if the TRO fails tomorrow we will likely see the Superferry at the mouth of Nawiliwili Harbor early next week. Be prepared.



SUBJECT: SUPERFERRY LEGAL STATUS

SOURCE: RICHARD HOEPPNER richoep@aloha.net

POSTED: 5 SEPTEMBER 2007 - 4:45pm HST

Court Date Set for Kauai Superferry Hearing

image above: The Kauai Judiciary Complex

by Richard Hoeppner on 4 September 2007

Today 1000 Friends of Kauai passed a legal milestone by getting a hearing scheduled for Thursday, 9:00am HST on 6 September 2007. The hearing will be in Court Room Four in the new Kauai Judiciary Complex.

“The law requires the Superferry to prove it’s safe,” said Daniel Hempey, the group’s lead lawyer.

This hearing will be to seek a temporary restraining order (TRO) that would prohibit the landing of the Superferry on Kauai until an Environmental Assessment (EA) is complete.

Supporters should come to court at 9am on Thursday to make it clear there is respect for the law and interest in this Superferry issue.

Suggestion: Wear your Red EIS for Superferry T-shirt if you have it. It will be a good, silent message of what you support, as was done at the last informational meetings.

Gary Hooser would like to remind us that we need to be civil and NOT disruptive! Very important that we show solidarity and support, but not disruptive.

for further info: call Rich Hoeppner at (808) 639-1954


SUBJECT: SUPERFERRY LEGAL STATUS

SOURCE: DICK MAYER dickmayer@earthlink.net

POSTED: 29 AUGUST 2007 - 8:15pm HST

Report on HSF vs Maui Tomorrow case

image above: logo for Maui Tomorrow (www.maui-tomorrow.org)

[Editor's Note: It would seem that the "authorities" have a plan to deny easy access to channel. Remember Kaipu Asing's trip down to the jetty Tuesday at 1:00pm? They plan to close the entire jetty to the public. Thursday the County is meeting with the Coast Guard to come up with a coordinated plan. The next round between the surfers and the ferry will likely not go our way. Court action and media coverage will do us more good at this point. I don't think the GovLing will let the ferry go anywhere until after the 10th when she can guarantee "safety" in the harbor. After that, we will have a problem, unless we can influence the court on September 6th. We need to send support to Maui Tomorrow and urge them to try and widen the injunction to include Nawiliwili Harbor.]


by Dick Mayer 29 August 2007

Today Judge Cardoza dismissed the HSF motion to end his Temporary Restraining Order (TRO). The TRO will continue until at least Sept 6th.

Since the Supreme Court ruling on August 23, there is no question that an environmental review will need to be done. The question remaining is whether the HSF can operate before that review is completed.

On Sept 6th, Judge Cardoza will hear arguments as to whether the HSF will have to wait until all the environmental reviews are complete before initiating service.
That case could last several days. Sept. 6th, 7th, 10th, 11th and 12th have been set as the days for witnesses to appear and the case to be made.

At that point Judge Cardoza could issue an injunction stopping service until the environmental process is complete.

Attorney Isaac Hall was terrific in court. He had all his witnesses ready to go. However, the HSF and the Hawaii Department of Transportation were not ready and pleaded for a delay to prepare their case.

There are mounting legal financial costs for Maui Tomorrow, Sierra Club, and the Kahului Harbor Coalition, especially since the case may go an additional 5 days and witnesses have to be flown in.

If you wish to help and donate ($small or $$big) (it's tax deductible!), please send contributions (check or MasterCard/Visa) to:

Maui Tomorrow Foundation Inc.,
PO Box 299,
Makawao, Hawaii 96768

Or contact Irene Bowie, Maui Tomorrow Executive Director:
phone: 808.268.0303
e mail: director@maui-tomorrow.org


SUBJECT: SUPERFERRY NOT LEGAL

SOURCE: KIMO KANAKA kimo.kanaka@hotmail.com

POSTED: 29 AUGUST 2007 - 8:15pm HST

Timeline of Superferry Activity

January, 2005: Kaua'i County Council passes a resolution calling for an environmental impact statement for Hawaii Superferry.

March 2, 2005: A Senate committee kills a bill that would have required a lengthy and expensive environmental review, apparently agreeing with the state Transportation Department, which said an environmental impact statement is not required by law.

March 11, 2005: The Maui County Council approves a resolution urging the state Department of Transportation to conduct an environmental impact statement for the Hawaii Superferry.

March 21, 2005: Environmental groups file a lawsuit in state court to force state to conduct additional environmental studies before the Superferry project can proceed.

July 6, 2005: Lawsuit is dismissed by Maui Circuit Judge Joseph Cardoza, who said the Sierra Club, Maui Tomorrow and the Kahului Harbor Coalition didn't have standing to challenge the project.

August 2005: Environmental groups open a second legal front in their effort to require a full environmental impact statement, filing a lawsuit in U.S. District Court to fight a decision issued March 15 by the federal Maritime Administration that excludes the Superferry from federal environmental laws.

June 2006: Opponents of the Superferry hold roadside demonstrations to coincide with state Department of Transportation meetings on planned harbor improvements to accommodate the new interisland service.

October 31, 2006: The Big Island County Council calls for a delay in the launch of the Superferry until the state and the company do more to address concerns about the economic, social and environmental impacts.

01/19/2007: Hawaii Superferry Launches First Vessel

February 10, 2007: A joint state Senate committee hears testimony on Kaua'i — much of it from people wearing red shirts with anti-Superferry slogans — for requiring an environmental impact statement.

February 22, 2007: Hawaii state Environmental Council issued an opinion disagreeing with the Department of Transportation’s decision to exempt Hawaii Superferry from conducting an Environmental Impact Statement. Citing the presence of significant cumulative impacts, the council felt that a full environmental review was required by law, and should have been triggered by Hawaii Revised Statutes Chapter 343, the statute dealing with Environmental Impact Statements.

March 2007: Lawmakers kill a bill that would have forced the state to perform an environmental review of the impact on harbors.

April 10, 2007: Hawaii Superferry Completes Sea Trials in Gulf of Mexico

April 14, 2007: Hawaii Superferry Christens First Vessel with the Name "Alakai"

June 14, 2007: Hawaii Superferry's Alakai Sets Sail for Hawai‘i

June 17, /2007: The Alakai arrives in Panama

June 29, 2007: Hawaii Superferry Opens Reservations

Jue 30, 2007: Hawaii Superferry Arrives on O'ahu

August 23, 2007: The Hawaii Supreme Court rules that the state must conduct an environmental assessment on state-funded harbor improvements.

August 26, 2007: Hawaii Superferry begins service two days ahead of schedule in defiance of Hawaii Supreme Court ruling. Protests begin upon ferry's arrival in Nawiliwili Harbor, Kaua'i. 3 persons arrested.

August 27, 2007: Maui District Court Judge Cardoza issues a temporary restraining order effectively halting service to the Valley Isle until a hearing can be held Wednesday to determine whether the company can continue operations in the absence of an environmental review by the state.

August 27, 2007: Hawaii Superferry returns to Kaua'i amidst growing protest. A blockade of surfers successfully turns the ferry back to O'ahu after over three hours of tense standoff. 11 persons arrested.

August 28, 2007: Governor Linda Lingle intervenes and Hawaii Superferry cancels service to Kaua'i indefinetely.

August 29, 2007: Judge Cardoza on Maui continues injunction hearing to September 6th.

September 6, 2007: Determination of HSF service during Environmental ASssessment

September 10, 2007: Homeland Security penalties for 100 yard federal protection zone around ferry become active (including 10 year prison sentence)


SUBJECT: SUPERFERRY SECURITY ZONE

SOURCE: DICK MAYER dickmayer@earthlink.net

POSTED: 27 AUGUST 2007 - 11:00pm HST

[Editor's Note: It is interesting to note that this regulation procedures to protect the Superferry from terrorists (like the surfers in Nawiliwili Harbor) get more of an environmental impact statement than the Superferry itself]

Security Zones; Oahu, Maui, Hawaii, and Kauai, HI
[Federal Register: August 9, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 153)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 44775-44778]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr09au07-16]
===========================================================

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 165
[CGD14-07-001]
RIN 1625-AA87
Security Zones; Oahu, Maui, Hawaii, and Kauai, HI
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is changing the permanent security zones in
waters adjacent to the islands of Oahu, Maui, Hawaii, and Kauai, Hawaii. Review of the established zones indicated the need for some adjustment to better suit vessel and facility security in and around Hawaiian ports. The changes are intended to enhance the protection of personnel, vessels, and facilities from acts of sabotage or other subversive acts, accidents, or other causes of a similar nature.

DATES: This rule is effective September 10, 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 CGD14-07-001 and are available for inspection and copying at U.S. Coast Guard Sector Honolulu, Sand Island Parkway, Honolulu, Hawaii 96819-4398 between 7 a.m. and 3:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lieutenant (Junior Grade) Jasmin
Parker, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Honolulu at (808) 842-2600.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Regulatory Information
On June 19, 2007, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) entitled Security Zones; Oahu, Maui, Hawaii, and Kauai, HI in the Federal Register (72 FR 33711). We received no letters commenting on the proposed rule. No public meeting was requested, and none was held.

Background and Purpose
The terrorist attacks against the United States that occurred on September 11, 2001, have emphasized the need for the United States to establish heightened security measures in order to protect the public, ports and waterways, and the maritime transportation system from future acts of terrorism or other subversive acts. The terrorist organization al-Qaeda and other similar groups remain committed to conducting armed attacks against U.S. interests, including civilian targets within the United States. National security and intelligence officials warn that future terrorist attacks are likely.

In response to this threat, on December 19, 2005, the Coast Guard published a final rule establishing the current permanent security zones in designated waters surrounding the Hawaiian Islands (70 FR 75036, December 19, 2005). The current zones replaced zones established by a final rule issued in 2003 (68 FR 20344, April 25, 2003) which in turn replaced temporary zones that had been established, and then extended, in the waters surrounding the Hawaiian Islands soon after the
attacks (66 FR 52693, October 17, 2001). The existing permanent security zones have been in operation for more than 18 months.

We have recently completed a periodic review of port and harbor security procedures and considered the oral feedback that local vessel operators gave to Coast Guard units enforcing the zones. In response, the Coast Guard is reducing the scope of the Honolulu International Airport, North Section security zone. The Coast Guard is also establishing new zones at Kawaihae Harbor, Hawaii and Kahe Point, Oahu to address a new vessel operation and recent identification of a
critical facility. Additionally, we are clarifying the application of large cruise ship (LCS) security zones to the new Hawaii SuperFerry.

Our action with respect to the Honolulu International Airport, North Section zone (33 CFR 165.1407(a)(4)(i)) is to change it from one that is perpetually activated and enforced to one that is used only in response to a threat. This change, permitting a reduced security posture in the waters adjacent to Honolulu International Airport, is based on a 2006 reevaluation of airport protection requirements. The new arrangement offers us the opportunity to decrease disruption to maritime commerce and inconvenience to small entities by making the zone subject to activation and enforcement only under certain conditions rather than all the time.

All of the security zones described in this final rule are permanently established. We use the word ``activated'' to describe when these permanently established zones are subject to enforcement. Our addition of a Kawaihae Harbor security zone is due to the arrival of the Hawaii SuperFerry. In June 2004, Hornblower Marine Services, Inc. signed a Marine Management Operating [[Page 44776]]
Agreement and Construction Oversight contract for the new Hawaii SuperFerry operation, an inter-island ferry service. The service will transport passengers and vehicles to Hawaiian island ports, including Kawaihae Harbor on the island of Hawaii. Each day, these ferries will carry many passengers as well as cargo and vehicles, presenting the same security vulnerabilities as the large cruise ships that operate in those areas. Kawaihae Harbor, however, lacked a security zone to
protect such vessels, so we are creating one there.

Additionally, the definition of large cruise ship (LCS) in 33 CFR 165.1408(b), 165.1409(b), and 165.1410(b) did not adequately describe the Hawaii SuperFerry or any other vessel of similar size and carriage capacity. Therefore, the Coast Guard is revising the term large cruise ship to clarify that the presence of Superferry-type vessels triggers the activation and enforcement of the Maui, Hawaii, and Kauai security zones described in those three sections.

Our creation of a Kahe Point security zone is meant to protect the Hawaiian Electric Company power plant at Kahe Point, which produces a significant portion of the electricity for the island of Oahu. This beach-front power plant uses sea water piped in directly from the ocean to cool its turbines. Loss or damage to this cooling water system due to sabotage would reduce the power-generating capacity of the plant and overburden the other island facilities. The Kahe Point, Oahu zone is intended to enhance the plant's security.

Discussion of Comments and Changes
We did not receive any comments in response to our NPRM. Our review of the regulation text, however, revealed a typo in the proposed amendment of 33 CFR 165.1410(b). In that paragraph, the word ``ferries'' should have been singular, so we made that change for this final rule. No other 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 short activation and enforcement duration of the zones created or impacted by this rule, as well as the limited geographic area affected by them.

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. While we are aware that affected areas have small commercial entities, including canoe and boating clubs and small commercial businesses that provide recreational services, we anticipate that there will be little or no impact to these small entities due to the narrowly tailored scope of these changes.

Assistance for Small Entities
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we offered to assist small entities in understanding this 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 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 [[Page 44777]] 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 record keeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.• 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

• 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.

• 2. Amend Sec. 165.1407 to add paragraph (a)(7) and to revise the paragraph (d) heading and the introductory text of paragraph (d)(1) to read as follows:Sec. 165.1407 Security Zones; Oahu, HI.
(a) (7) Kahe Point, Oahu. All waters adjacent to the Hawaiian Electric Company power plant at Kahe Point within 500 yards of 21[deg] 21.30' N/ 158' 07.7[deg] W (lighted tower).

(d) Notice of enforcement or suspension of enforcement of security zones.

(1) The security zones described in paragraphs (a)(3) (Kalihi Channel and Keehi Lagoon, Oahu), (a)(4)(i) (Honolulu International Airport, North Section), (a)(4)(ii) (Honolulu International Airport,
South Section), and (a)(6) (Barbers Point Harbor, Oahu) of this section, will be enforced only upon the occurrence of one of the following events--

• 3. Amend Sec. 165.1408
to revise paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(2), (b), (c)(1), and (c)(2) to read as follows:Sec. 165.1408 Security Zones; Maui, HI.

(A)
(1) Kahului Harbor, Maui. All waters extending 100 yards in all directions from each large passenger vessel in Kahului Harbor, Maui, HI or within 3 nautical miles seaward of the Kahului Harbor COLREGS DEMARCATION (See 33 CFR 80.1460). This is a moving security zone when
the LPV is in transit and becomes a fixed zone when the LPV is anchored, position-keeping, or moored.

(2) Lahaina, Maui. All waters extending 100 yards in all directions from each large passenger vessel in Lahaina, Maui, whenever the LPV is within 3 nautical miles of Lahaina Light (LLNR 28460). The security zone around each LPV is activated and enforced whether the LPV is
underway, moored, position-keeping, or anchored, and will continue in effect until such time as the LPV departs Lahaina and the 3-mile enforcement area.

(B) Definitions. As used in this section, large passenger vessel or LPV means a cruise ship more than 300 feet in length that carries passengers for hire, and any passenger ferry more than 300 feet in length that carries passengers for hire.

(C) Regulations. (1) Under 33 CFR 165.33, entry into the security zones created by this section is prohibited unless authorized by the Coast Guard Captain of the Port, Honolulu or his or her designated representatives. When authorized passage through a large passenger vessel security zone, all vessels must operate at the minimum speed necessary to maintain a safe course and must proceed as directed by the Captain of the Port or his or her designated representatives. No person is allowed within 100 yards of an LPV that is underway, moored, position-keeping, or at anchor, unless authorized by the Captain of the Port or his or her designated representative.

(2) When conditions permit, the Captain of the Port, or his or her designated representative, may permit vessels that are at anchor, restricted in their ability to maneuver, or constrained by draft to
remain within an LPV security zone in order to ensure navigational safety.

• 4. Amend Sec. 165.1409 to revise paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(2), (b), (c)(1), and (c)(2) and to add paragraph (a)(3) to read as follows:Sec. 165.1409 Security Zones; Hawaii, HI.

(A)
(1) Hilo Harbor, Hawaii. All waters extending 100 yards in all directions from each large passenger vessel in Hilo Harbor, Hawaii, HI or within 3 nautical miles seaward of the Hilo Harbor COLREGS DEMARCATION (See 33 CFR 80.1480). This is a moving security zone when the LPV is in transit and becomes a fixed zone when the LPV is anchored, position-keeping, or moored.

(2) Kailua-Kona, Hawaii. All waters extending 100 yards in all directions from each large passenger vessel in Kailua-Kona, Hawaii, whenever the LPV is within 3 nautical miles of Kukailimoku Point. The 100-yard security zone around each LPV is activated and enforced
whether the LPV is underway, moored, position-keeping, or anchored and will continue in effect until such time as the LPV departs Kailua-Kona and the 3-mile enforcement area.

(3) Kawaihae Harbor, Hawaii. All waters extending 100 yards in all directions from each large passenger vessel in Kawaihae Harbor, Hawaii, or within 3 nautical miles seaward of the Kawaihae Harbor COLREGS [[Page 44778]] DEMARCATION (See 33 CFR 80.1470). The 100-yard security zone around each LPV is activated and enforced whether the LPV is underway, moored,
position-keeping, or anchored.

(B) Definitions.
As used in this section, large passenger vessel or LPV means a cruise ship more than 300 feet in length that carries passengers for hire, and any passenger ferry more than 300 feet in length that carries passengers for hire.

(C) Regulations.
(1) Under 33 CFR 165.33, entry into the security zones created by this section is prohibited unless authorized by the Coast Guard Captain of the Port, Honolulu or his or her designated representative. When authorized passage through a large passenger vessel security zone, all vessels must operate at the minimum speed necessary to maintain a safe course and must proceed as directed by the Captain of the Port or his or her designated representatives. No person is allowed within 100 yards of a large passenger vessel that is underway, moored, position-keeping, or at anchor, unless authorized by the Captain of the Port or his or her designated representatives.

(2) When conditions permit, the Captain of the Port, or his or her designated representatives, may permit vessels that are at anchor, restricted in their ability to maneuver, or constrained by draft to
remain within an LPV security zone in order to ensure navigational safety.
* * * * *
• 5. Amend Sec. 165.1410 to revise paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(2), (b), (c)(1), and (c)(2) to read as follows:Sec. 165.1410 Security Zones; Kauai, HI.

(A)
(1) Nawiliwili Harbor, Lihue, Kauai. All waters extending 100 yards in all directions from each large passenger vessel in Nawiliwili Harbor, Kauai, HI or within 3 nautical miles seaward of the Nawiliwili
Harbor COLREGS DEMARCATION (See 33 CFR 80.1450). This is a moving security zone when the LPV is in transit and becomes a fixed zone when the LPV is anchored, position-keeping, or moored.

(2) Port Allen, Kauai. All waters extending 100 yards in all directions from each large passenger vessel in Port Allen, Kauai, HI or within 3 nautical miles seaward of the Port Allen COLREGS DEMARCATION (See 33 CFR 80.1440). This is a moving security zone when the LPV is in
transit and becomes a fixed zone when the LPV is anchored, position-keeping, or moored.

(B) Definitions.
As used in this section, large passenger vessel or LPV means a cruise ship more than 300 feet in length that carries passengers for hire, and any passenger ferry more than 300 feet in length that carries passengers for hire.

(C) Regulations.
(1) Under 33 CFR 165.33, entry into the security zones created by this section is prohibited unless authorized by the Coast Guard Captain of the Port, Honolulu or his or her designated representative. When authorized passage through an LPV security zone, all vessels must operate at the minimum speed necessary to maintain a safe course and must proceed as directed by the Captain of the Port or his or her designated representative. No person is allowed within 100 yards of a large passenger vessel that is underway, moored, position- keeping, or at anchor, unless authorized by the Captain of the Port or his or her designated representative.

(2) When conditions permit, the Captain of the Port, or his or her designated representative, may permit vessels that are at anchor, restricted in their ability to maneuver, or constrained by draft to
remain within an LPV security zone in order to ensure navigational safety.

Dated: July 30, 2007.
Sally Brice-O'Hara,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Fourteenth Coast Guard
District.

[FR Doc. E7-15508 Filed 8-8-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P


click at right to comment Island Breath Blog


see also:
Island Breath: A Hawaiian's View 8/29/07
Island Breath: We Win Round Three 8/28/07
Island Breath: Plea to Reps and TRO 8/27/07
Island Breath: Rounds One & Two 8/23/07
Island Breath: Boycott the Superferry 8/17/07
Island Breath: Superferry Preparations 8/10/07
Island Breath: Hui-R Superferry Meeting 7/26/2007
Island Breath: Not So Super Ferry 7/24/07
Island Breath: Superferry Invasion 7/22/07
Island Breath: Superferry Noise 7/18/07
Island Breath: Superferry Delayed 5/25/07
Island Breath: Still No Superferry EIS 3/31/07
Island Breath: Superferry EIS Effort 3/25/2007
Island Breath: Superferry EIS Bill hearings 2/26/07
Island Breath: Superferry Promotion 2/24/07
Island Breath: Superferry Launched 1/28/07
Island Breath: Superferry in Trouble
12/12/006
Island Breath: Superferry Reference
11/6/06
Island Breath: Superferry Resistance
11/1/06
Island Breath: Superferry & Military
10/13/06
Island Breath: Superferry History
10/3/06
Island Breath: Stop the Superferry
8/29/06
Island Breath: Superferry Meetings
8/13/06
Island Breath: Superferry Redux
6/23/06
Island Breath: Superferry Problems
11/14/04


www.islandbreath.org

pau

ode --> ode -->