[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 21 (Thursday, January 31, 2002)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 4664-4665]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-2358]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[CGD11-01-010]
RIN 2115-AA97


Security Zone; San Diego Bay

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is expanding the geographical boundaries of 
the permanent security zone at Naval Base, San Diego, California, at 
the request of the U.S. Navy. The proposed security zone will expand 
across the mouth of Chollas Creek. The modification and expansion of 
this security zone is needed to ensure the physical protection of naval 
vessels moored at Naval Base, San Diego.

DATES: This rule becomes effective December 17, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Documents as indicated in this preamble are available for 
inspection or copying at the Coast Guard Marine Safety Office, 2716 
North Harbor Drive, San Diego, CA 92101-1064 between 7:30 a.m. and 4 
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lieutenant Christopher Hochschild, 
Vessel Traffic Management Section, 11th Coast Guard District, telephone 
(510) 437-2940; e-mail [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulatory History

    On April 23, 2001, the Coast Guard published a notice of proposed 
rulemaking (NPRM) entitled Security Zone; San Diego Bay in the Federal 
Register (66 FR 20412) to amend Sec. 165.1102 in Title 33 of the Code 
of Federal Regulations (CFR). Two months later, technical amendments 
were made to Title 33 of the CFR, including a redesignation of 
Sec. 165.1102 as 165.1101 (66 FR 33637, 33642, June 25, 2001). The 
Coast Guard did not receive any letters commenting on the proposed 
rule. No public hearing was requested, and none was held.
    In keeping with the requirements of 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast 
Guard finds that good cause exists for making this regulation effective 
immediately. The Coast Guard balanced the necessity for immediate 
implementation against the principles of fundamental fairness which 
require that all effected persons be afforded a reasonable time to 
prepare for the effective date of the rule. In light of the events of 
September 11, 2001, the Coast Guard believes it is in the national 
interest to immediately implement the rule to avoid any gap in security 
zone coverage.
    The Coast Guard further believes that it has provided the public 
adequate notice and time to adapt to the security zone's implementation 
through the NPRM. In addition, the California Coastal Commission, in 
its Coast Zone Management Act Determination of October 16, 2001 
discussed the minimal impact the zone will have on the public: ``These 
areas [including the subject security zone] are not typically used for 
recreational or commercial boating, and the restrictions will not 
adversely affect navigation or boating in San Diego Bay.''
    The Coast Guard was delayed slightly in implementing this final 
rule because the attacks on the World Trade Center in New York and the 
Pentagon in Washington, DC caused the Coast Guard and the Navy to re-
examine the whole scheme of security zones contemplated for San Diego 
to ensure they adequately met force protection and national defense 
needs.

Background and Purpose

    The Coast Guard is modifying the security zone, enlarging it by 
approximately 300 square yards to enclose the mouth of Chollas Creek so 
that unauthorized vessels or persons cannot transit into Chollas Creek.
    The modification and expansion of this security zone is needed to 
ensure the physical protection of naval vessels moored in the area. The 
modification and expansion of this security zone will also prevent 
recreational and commercial craft from interfering with military 
operations involving all naval vessels home-ported at Naval Base, San 
Diego and it will protect transiting recreational and commercial 
vessels, and their respective crews, from the navigational hazards 
posed by such military operations. The Navy has been reviewing all 
aspects of its anti-terrorism and force protection posture in response 
to the attack on the USS COLE.
    The attacks of September 11, 2001 and the heightened state of 
military alert resulting therefrom add substantial urgency to the 
creation of this security zone. The modification and expansion of this 
security zone will safeguard vessels and waterside facilities from 
destruction, loss, or injury from sabotage or other subversive acts, 
accidents, or other causes of a similar nature. Entry into, transit 
through, or anchoring within this security zone is prohibited unless 
authorized by the Captain of the Port or the Commander, Navy Region 
Southwest.
    Vessels or persons violating this section would be subject to the 
penalties set forth in 50 U.S.C. 192 and 18 U.S.C. 3571: seizure and 
forfeiture of the vessel, a monetary penalty of not more than $250,000, 
and imprisonment for not more than 10 years.
    The U.S. Coast Guard may be assisted in the patrol and enforcement 
of this security zone by the U.S. Navy.

Discussion of Comments and Changes

    No comments were received during the NPRM comment period.
    To reflect a naming change resulting from the Navy's 1998 
regionalization process, the Coast Guard has made the following minor 
technical amendment to the final rule which did not appear in the NPRM: 
In paragraph (a) of the final rule, Naval Station, San Diego has been 
re-named as Naval Base, San Diego. In paragraph (b) of the final rule, 
Commander, Naval Base San Diego has been re-named as Commander, Navy 
Region Southwest. Also in paragraph (b), Commanding Officer, Naval 
Station, San Diego has been deleted.

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. It is not ``significant'' under the 
regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Transportation 
(DOT)(44 FR 11040, February 26, 1979). This rule will have minimal 
additional impact on vessel traffic because it is only a slight 
modification and expansion of the existing security zone codified at 33 
CFR 165.1102.

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have 
considered whether this rule would have a

[[Page 4665]]

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.

Collection of Information

    This final rule calls for no new collection of information under 
the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

Federalism

    The Coast Guard has analyzed this final rule under Executive Order 
13132 and has 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) 
governs the issuance of Federal regulations that require unfunded 
mandates. An unfunded mandate is a regulation that requires State, 
local, or tribal government or the private sector to incur direct costs 
without the Federal Government's having first provided the funds to pay 
those costs.

Taking of Private Property

    This final 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 final rule meets the 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

    The Coast Guard has analyzed this final 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 final 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. It has not been designated by the Administrator of the 
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs as a significant energy 
action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects 
under Executive Order 13211.

Environment

    We considered the environmental impact of this rule and concluded 
that under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g) of Commandant Instruction 
M16475.lD, this rule is categorically excluded from further 
environmental documentation. This rule is only a slight expansion of an 
area which already has the same restrictions discussed in the rule, and 
it does not alter any physical state of the surrounding waters. A 
Categorical Exclusion Determination and an Environmental Analysis 
Checklist are available in the docket at the location specified under 
the ADDRESSES portion of this rulemaking.

List of Subjects in 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 amends 
33 CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

    1. The authority citation for 33 CFR Part 165 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1(g) 6.04-
1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; 49 CFR 1.46.


    2. In Sec. 165.1101, revise paragraphs (a) and (b) and add a new 
paragraph (c) to read as follows:


Sec. 165.1101  Security Zone: San Diego Bay, California.

    (a) Location. The following area is a security zone: the water area 
within Naval Base, San Diego enclosed by the following points: 
Beginning at 32 deg.41'16.5" N, 117 deg.08'01" W (Point A); thence 
running southwesterly to 32 deg.41'06" N, 117 deg.08'09.3" W (Point B); 
thence running southeasterly along the U.S. Pierhead Line to 
32 deg.39'36.9" N, 117 deg.07'23.5" W (Point C); thence running 
easterly to 32 deg.39'38.5" N, 117 deg.07'06.5" W (Point D); thence 
running generally northwesterly along the shoreline of the Naval Base 
to the place of beginning.
    (b) In accordance with the general regulations in Sec. 165.33 of 
this part, entry into the area of this zone is prohibited unless 
authorized by the Captain of the Port or the Commander, Navy Region 
Southwest. Section 165.33 also contains other general requirements.
    (c) The U.S. Coast Guard may be assisted in the patrol and 
enforcement of this security zone by the U.S. Navy.

    Dated: December 17, 2001.
E.R. Riutta,
Vice Admiral, Coast Guard, Commander, Eleventh Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 02-2358 Filed 1-30-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-U