[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 29 (Wednesday, February 12, 2003)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 7075-7078]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-3463]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[COTP San Diego 03-008]
RIN 2115-AA97


Security Zone; San Diego Bay

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is temporarily expanding the geographical 
boundaries of the permanent security zone at Naval Base Coronado, 
California at the request of the U.S. Navy. The

[[Page 7076]]

additional size will accommodate the Navy's placement of anti-small 
boat barrier booms within the zone. Entry into this zone is prohibited 
unless authorized by the Captain of the Port (COTP) San Diego, the 
Commander, Naval Air Force, U.S. Pacific Fleet, the Commander, Navy 
Region Southwest, or the Commanding Officer, Naval Base Coronado.

DATES: This rule is effective from 11:59 p.m. on February 11, 2003 to 
11:59 p.m. on May 11, 2003.

ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in 
the docket, are part of docket [COTP San Diego 03-008], and are 
available for inspection or copying at U.S. Coast Guard Marine Safety 
Office San Diego, 2716 N. Harbor Drive, San Diego California 92101, 
between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal 
holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lieutenant Commander Rick Sorrell, 
Chief of Port Operations, Marine Safety Office San Diego, at (619) 683-
6495.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

Regulatory Information

    We did not publish a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for this 
temporary regulation. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds 
that good cause exists for not publishing an NPRM. While the Navy has 
been implementing many force protection measures since the attack on 
the U.S.S. Cole and the attacks of September 11, 2001, the Chief of 
Naval Operations has recently emphasized the need for the expanded use 
of anti-small boat barrier booms around Navy vessels in U.S. ports to 
protect against attacks similar to the one launched against the U.S.S. 
Cole. In addition, the Office of Homeland Security through its web site 
has described the current nationwide threat level as ``Elevated.'' 
According to the Office of Homeland Security, an Elevated Condition is 
declared when there is a significant risk of terrorist attacks. The 
Coast Guard believes that issuing an NPRM and thereby delaying 
implementation of the expanded security zone would be against the 
public interest during this elevated state of alert.
    Although we had anticipated using the effective period of the 
current temporary final rule to engage in notice and comment 
rulemaking, the Captain of the Port has decided to extend the effective 
period for 3 months to allow sufficient time to properly develop 
permanent regulations tailored to the present and foreseeable security 
environment. This extension preserves the status quo within the Port 
while a permanent rule is 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 regulation effective less than 30 days after publication in the 
Federal Register. Any delay in implementing this rule would be contrary 
to the public interest since immediate action is necessary to ensure 
the protection of the Naval vessels, their crew, and national security.
    Furthermore, in order to protect the interests of national 
security, the Coast Guard is promulgating this temporary regulation to 
provide for the safety and security of U.S. Naval vessels in the 
navigable waters of the United States. As a result, the establishment 
and enforcement of this security zone is a function directly involved 
in and necessary to military operations. Accordingly, based on the 
military function exception set forth in the Administrative Procedure 
Act, 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(1), notice and comment rule-making and advance 
publication, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b) and (d), are not required for 
this regulation.
    The Coast Guard has plans to make the expansion of the security 
zone permanent. Towards that end, the Coast Guard will initiate notice 
and comment rulemaking before issuing any final rule.

Background and Purpose

    The Coast Guard is expanding the security zone to allow the U.S. 
Navy to put in place anti-small boat barrier booms at Naval Base 
Coronado. The expansion of this security zone is needed to ensure the 
physical protection of naval vessels moored in the area by providing 
adequate standoff distance. The 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 Coronado and it will protect transiting recreational and 
commercial vessels, and their respective crews, from the navigational 
hazards posed by such military operations. In addition, the Navy has 
been reviewing all aspects of its anti-terrorism and force protection 
posture in response to the attack on the U.S.S. Cole and the terrorist 
attacks of September 11, 2001. The 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, Commander, Naval Air Force, U.S. Pacific Fleet, 
the Commander, U.S. Naval Base San Diego, or the Commander, Naval Base 
Coronado. 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.

Regulatory Evaluation

    This temporary final 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).
    The implementation of this security zone is necessary for the 
protection of the United States' national security interests. The size 
of the zone is the minimum necessary to allow for safe placement of the 
anti-small boat booms while providing adequate protection for U.S. 
Naval vessels, their crews, adjoining areas, and the public. The 
entities most likely to be affected, if any, are pleasure craft engaged 
in recreational activities and sightseeing in close proximity to the 
Naval Base. Any hardships experienced by persons or vessels wishing to 
approach the Naval Base are considered minimal compared to the national 
interest in protecting U.S. Naval vessels, their crews, and the public. 
The expansion of the security zone will not impact navigation in the 
shipping channel.

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), the Coast 
Guard considered whether this rule would have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term ``small 
entities'' include small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that 
are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their 
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations less than 
50,000.
    This security zone will not have a significant impact on a 
substantial number of small entities because these security zones are 
only closing small portions of the navigable waters adjacent to Naval 
Base Coronado. In

[[Page 7077]]

addition, there are no small entities shoreward of the security zone. 
For these reasons, and the ones discussed in the previous section, the 
Coast Guard certifies, under 5 U.S.C. 605(b), that this temporary final 
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities.

Assistance for Small Entities

    In accordance with section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory 
Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), the Coast Guard 
offers to assist small entities in understanding the rule so that they 
can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the 
rulemaking process. If your small business or organization is affected 
by this rule and you have questions concerning its provisions or 
options for compliance, please contact Lieutenant Commander Rick 
Sorrell, Chief of Port Operations, Marine Safety Office San Diego, at 
(619) 683-6495.
    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 and have 
determined that this rule 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 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.
    To help the Coast Guard establish regular and meaningful 
consultation and collaboration with Indian and Alaskan Native tribes, 
we published a notice in the Federal Register (66 FR 36361, July 11, 
2001) requesting comments on how to best carry out the Order. We invite 
your comments on how this proposed rule might impact tribal 
governments, even if that impact may not constitute a ``tribal 
implication'' under the Order.

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, which temporarily modifies an 
existing security zone, is categorically excluded from further 
environmental documentation. 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), Reporting and record 
keeping 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, and 160.5; 49 CFR 1.46.


Sec.  165.1104  [Suspended]

    2. Temporarily suspend Sec.  165.1104 from 11:59 p.m. on February 
11, 2003 to 11:59 p.m. on May 11, 2003.

    3. Add new temporary Sec.  165.T11-049 to read as follows:


Sec.  165.T11-049  Security Zone: San Diego Bay, CA.

    (a) Location. The following area is a security zone: on the waters 
along the northern shoreline of Naval Base Coronado, the area enclosed 
by the following points: Beginning at 32[deg]42' 53.0''N, 117[deg] 11' 
45.0W (Point A); thence running northerly to 32[deg] 42' 55.5''N, 
117[deg] 11'45.0''W, (Point B); thence running easterly to 32[deg] 42' 
55.8''N, 117[deg] 11' 29.2''W, (Point C); thence southeasterly to 
32[deg] 42' 49.0''N, 117[deg] 11' 17.0''W (Point D); thence 
southeasterly to 32[deg] 42' 41.5''N, 117[deg] 11' 04.5''W (Point E) 
thence running southerly to 32[deg] 42' 37.5''N, 117[deg] 11' 07.0'' W 
(Point F); thence running southerly to 32[deg] 42' 28.5''N, 117[deg] 
11' 11.0''W (Point G); thence running southeasterly to 32[deg] 42' 
22.0''N, 117[deg] 10' 48.0''W (Point H); thence running southerly to 
32[deg] 42' 13.0''N, 117[deg] 10' 51.0''W (Point I); thence running 
generally northwesterly along the shoreline of Naval Base Coronado to 
the place of beginning.

[[Page 7078]]

    (b) Effective Dates. This section is effective from 11:59 p.m. on 
February 11, 2003 to 11:59 p.m. on May 11, 2003.
    (c) Regulations. 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, the Commander, 
Naval Air Force, U.S. Pacific Fleet, the Commander, Navy Region 
Southwest, or the Commanding Officer, Naval Base Coronado. Section 
165.33 also contains other general requirements.
    (d) Enforcement. The U. S. Coast Guard may be assisted in the 
patrol and enforcement of this security zone by the U.S. Navy.

    Dated: January 28, 2003.
Stephen P. Metruck,
Commander, Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, San Diego.
[FR Doc. 03-3463 Filed 2-11-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P