The U.S. Coast Guard has proposed establishing a permanent safety zone in navigable waters west of Cyril E. King Airport in St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands, to address hazards posed by low-flying aircraft to nearby vessels. Published in the Federal Register on January 7, 2026, this notice of proposed rulemaking aims to prohibit unauthorized entry into a designated area, ensuring protection for personnel, vessels, and the marine environment. The proposal builds on temporary rules implemented in 2025 and seeks public input by February 6, 2026, highlighting the ongoing need to balance aviation safety with maritime navigation in a high-traffic area. This development underscores federal efforts to mitigate risks in coastal zones adjacent to airports, potentially setting a model for similar sites nationwide.
Background and Rationale
The proposal stems from concerns about vessels transiting close to the runway at Cyril E. King Airport, where low-flying aircraft create potential collision hazards. On August 25, 2025, the Coast Guard issued a temporary final rule establishing a safety zone, effective through September 30, 2025, as documented in 90 FR 41301. This was later extended via a temporary interim rule to December 31, 2025, per 90 FR 52565. These interim measures addressed an immediate need to restrict access between private port authority-managed yellow buoys and the runway's end.
The current notice of proposed rulemaking provides a formal opportunity for public comment before finalizing a permanent regulation. It invokes authority under 46 U.S.C. 70034, which empowers the Coast Guard to establish safety zones to protect navigable waters. Lieutenant Commander Rachel E. Thomas, Sector San Juan's Waterways Management Division Chief, serves as the contact for inquiries, emphasizing the agency's focus on preventive safety measures. The rationale centers on mitigating risks from aircraft operating at low altitudes over waters frequented by recreational and commercial vessels, a common issue in island environments like the U.S. Virgin Islands.
Key Provisions of the Proposed Rule
The safety zone would encompass all navigable waters within 400 yards from shore directly west of the airport's runway, bounded by two yellow buoys at coordinates 18°20.288' N, 64°59.343' W and 18°20.116' N, 64°59.343' W. Entry into this area would be prohibited without permission from the Captain of the Port (COTP) Sector San Juan or a designated representative, such as a Coast Guard patrol commander or local enforcement officer.
Vessels seeking access must contact the COTP via telephone at (787) 289-2041 or VHF-FM radio channel 16. The rule would be enforced continuously, with support from federal, state, and local agencies. This setup allows flexibility for emergencies or authorized activities while maintaining strict controls. The proposal aligns with general safety zone regulations in 33 CFR part 165, subpart C, which outline enforcement and compliance requirements.
Regulatory Analyses and Impacts
In assessing the proposal, the Coast Guard evaluated its effects under several statutes and executive orders. The Regulatory Flexibility Act analysis concludes that the rule would not significantly impact small entities, as vessels can transit around the zone, and permissions are available. The agency certifies this under 5 U.S.C. 605(b), noting that broadcast notices via VHF-FM channel 16 will inform mariners, minimizing disruptions to small businesses like charter operators or fishing outfits.
No new collection of information is required under the Paperwork Reduction Act, and the rule complies with federalism principles per Executive Order 13132, with no substantial effects on Indian tribal governments under Executive Order 13175. The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act assessment confirms no annual expenditures exceeding $100 million for state, local, or tribal governments or the private sector.
Environmentally, the proposal qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act, as detailed in Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01 and COMDTINST 5090.1. It falls under paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1, indicating no significant individual or cumulative impacts on the human environment. A Record of Environmental Consideration is available in the docket.
Perspectives and Potential Implications
Stakeholders may view the proposal differently. Aviation authorities and airport operators likely support it for enhancing flight safety, reducing the risk of bird strikes or vessel interference during takeoffs and landings. Maritime users, including local boaters and tour operators, might express concerns about restricted access in a popular area, potentially affecting tourism or fishing routes. The public comment period allows these voices to influence the final rule, as encouraged in the Federal Register notice.
Short-term implications include continued enforcement of the temporary zone until a final rule is adopted, maintaining status quo safety. Long-term, a permanent zone could standardize navigation protocols, possibly inspiring similar regulations at other coastal airports. Broader political forces, such as federal oversight of U.S. territories and Department of Homeland Security priorities, play a role, reflecting a commitment to infrastructure protection without overreach.
Legal precedents include prior Coast Guard safety zones near airports, such as those in Hawaii or Florida, where similar proximity issues led to restricted waterways. These cases demonstrate the agency's consistent approach to hazard mitigation under Title 46 of the U.S. Code.
In conclusion, the proposed safety zone represents a proactive step to harmonize aviation and maritime activities in St. Thomas. Key takeaways include the zone's specific boundaries, enforcement mechanisms, and minimal economic impacts. Potential next steps involve reviewing public comments submitted via regulations.gov under docket USCG-2025-1105, which could lead to modifications before finalization. Ongoing debates may center on balancing safety with economic interests, while challenges like enforcement in remote waters persist. This rulemaking highlights the evolving interplay between federal regulations and local needs in U.S. territories.
