[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 117 (Tuesday, June 18, 2002)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 41341-41343]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-15386]



[[Page 41341]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[COTP Los Angeles-Long Beach 01-013]
RIN 2115-AA97


Security Zone; Port Hueneme Harbor, Ventura County, CA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.

ACTION: Temporary final rule; change in effective period.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is revising the effective period for a 
temporary security zone covering all waters within Port Hueneme Harbor 
in Ventura County, CA. This security zone is needed for national 
security reasons to protect the Naval Base Ventura County and the 
commercial port from potential subversive acts. Entry into this zone is 
prohibited unless specifically authorized by the Capitan of the Port 
Los Angeles-Long Beach, the Commanding Officer, Naval Base Ventura 
County, or their designated representatives.

DATES: The amendment to Sec. 165.T11-060 (c) in this rule is effective 
June 14, 2002. Section 165.T11-060, added at 67 FR 1099, January 9, 
2002, effective from 12:01 a.m. PST on December 21, 2001, to 11:59 p.m. 
PDT on June 15, 2002, as amended by this rule is extended in effect 
through June 15, 2003.

ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in 
the docket are part of docket COTP Los Angeles-Long Beach 01-013 and 
are available for inspection or copying at Coast Guard Marine Safety 
Office Los Angeles-Long Beach, 1001 South Seaside Avenue, Building 20, 
San Pedro, California, 90731, between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through 
Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lieutenant Junior Grade Rob Griffiths, 
Chief of Waterways Management, at (310) 732-2020.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulatory Information

    On January 9, 2002, we published a temporary final rule for Port 
Hueneme Harbor entitled ``Security Zone; Port Hueneme Harbor, Ventura 
County, California'' in the Federal Register (67 FR 1097) under 
Sec. 165.T11-060. The effective period for this rule was from December 
21, 2001, through June 15, 2002.
    We did not publish a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for this 
regulation. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good 
cause exists for not publishing an NPRM. Due to the terrorist attacks 
on September 11, 2001 and the warnings given by national security and 
intelligence officials, there is an increased risk that further 
subversive or terrorist activity may be launched against the United 
States. A heightened level of security has been established around 
naval facilities. The original TFR was urgently required to prevent 
possible terrorist strikes against the United States and more 
specifically the people, waterways, and properties in Port Hueneme 
Harbor and the Naval Base Ventura County. It was anticipated that we 
would assess the security environment at the end of the effective 
period to determine whether continuing security precautions were 
required and, if so, propose regulations responsive to existing 
conditions. We have determined the need for continued security 
regulations exists.
    The Coast Guard has determined that designation of a restricted 
area by the Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) under 33 CFR 334 is a more 
appropriate regulation in this case. A formal request has been 
submitted by the U.S. Navy to ACOE in order to begin public notice. The 
ACOE will utilize the extended effective period of this TFR to engage 
in notice and comment rulemaking to develop permanent regulations 
tailored to the present and foreseeable security environment. This TFR 
preserves the status quo within the harbor while permanent rules are 
developed.
    For the reasons stated in the paragraphs above under 5 U.S.C. 
553(d)(3), the Coast Guard also finds that good cause exists for making 
this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal 
Register.

Background and Purpose

    On September 11, 2001, terrorists launched attacks on commercial 
and public structures--the World Trade Center in New York and the 
Pentagon in Arlington, Virginia--killing large numbers of people and 
damaging properties of national significance. There is an increased 
risk that further subversive or terrorist activity may be launched 
against the United States based on warnings given by national security 
and intelligence officials. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) 
has issued warnings on October 11, 2001 and February 11, 2002 
concerning the potential for additional terrorist attacks within the 
United States. In addition, the ongoing hostilities in Afghanistan have 
made it prudent for important facilities and vessels to be on a higher 
state of alert because Osama Bin Ladin and his Al Qaeda organization, 
and other similar organizations, have publicly declared an ongoing 
intention to conduct armed attacks on U.S. interests worldwide.
    These heightened security concerns, together with the catastrophic 
impact that a terrorist attack against a Naval Facility would have to 
the public interest, makes these security zones prudent on the 
navigable waterways of the United States. To mitigate the risk of 
terrorist actions, the Coast Guard has increased safety and security 
measures on the navigable waterways of U.S. ports and waterways as 
further attacks may be launched from vessels within the area of Port 
Hueneme Harbor and the Naval Base Ventura County.
    In response to these terrorist acts, to prevent similar 
occurrences, and to protect the Naval Facilities at Port Hueneme Harbor 
and the Naval Base Ventura County, the Coast Guard will extend the 
period of this security zone in all waters within Port Hueneme Harbor. 
This security zone is necessary to prevent damage or injury to any 
vessel or waterfront facility, and to safeguard ports, harbors, or 
waters of the United States in Port Hueneme Harbor, Ventura County CA.
    As of today, the need for a security zone in Port Hueneme Harbor 
still exists. This temporary final rule will extend the Port Hueneme 
security zone issued December 21, 2001 to June 15, 2003. This will 
allow the Army Corps of Engineers to utilize the extended effective 
period of this TFR to engage in notice and comment rulemaking to 
develop permanent regulations tailored to the present and foreseeable 
security environment. This revision preserves the status quo within the 
Port Hueneme Harbor while permanent rules are developed.

Discussion of Rule

    This regulation that is extending the current security zone, 
prohibits all vessels from entering Port Hueneme Harbor, beyond the 
COLREGS demarcation line set forth in Subpart 80.1120 of Part 80 of 
Title 33 of the Code of Federal Regulations, without first filing a 
proper Advance Notification of Arrival as required by part 160 of title 
33 of the Code of Federal Regulations as well as obtaining clearance 
from Commanding Officer, Naval Base Ventura County ``Control 1''.
    This security zone is established pursuant to the authority of the 
Magnuson Act regulations promulgated by the President under 50 U.S.C. 
191, including subparts 6.01 and 6.04 of part 6 of title 33 of the Code 
of Federal Regulations. Vessels or persons

[[Page 41342]]

violating this section are subject to the penalties set forth in 50 
U.S.C. 192: seizure and forfeiture of the vessel, a monetary penalty of 
not more than $10,000, and imprisonment for not more than 10 years.
    This rule will be enforced by the Captain of the Port Los Angeles-
Long Beach, who may also enlist the aid and cooperation of any Federal, 
State, county, municipal, and private agencies to assist in the 
enforcement of this rule. Commanding Officer, Naval Base Ventura County 
``Control 1'' will control vessel traffic entering Port Hueneme Harbor.

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) because this zone will encompass 
a small portion of the waterway.

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have 
considered whether this rule would 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.
    For the same reasons stated in the section above, 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.

Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 
Fairness Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-121), we offered to assist small 
entities in understanding the rule so that they could better evaluate 
its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process. If the 
rule will affect your small business, organization, or government 
jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or 
options for compliance, please contact the person listed under FOR 
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT for assistance in understanding this rule.
    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).

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 an expenditure, we 
do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.

Taking of Private Property

    This rule will not effect 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 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 have 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 because we are establishing a security 
zone. A ``Categorical Exclusion Determination'' is available in the 
docket for inspection or copying where indicated under ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reports 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 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, 160.5; 49 CFR 1.46.

    2. In temporary Sec. 165.T11-060, revise paragraph (c) to read as 
follows:

[[Page 41343]]

Sec. 165.T11-060  Security Zone; Port Hueneme Harbor, Ventura County, 
California.

* * * * *
    (c) Effective period. This section is effective from 12:01 a.m. PDT 
on December 21, 2001, until 11:59 p.m. PDT on June 15, 2003.
* * * * *

    Dated: June 11, 2002.
J.M. Holmes,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Los Angeles-Long Beach.
[FR Doc. 02-15386 Filed 6-17-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P