[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 59 (Thursday, March 27, 2003)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 14899-14901]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-7298]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[COTP San Diego 03-003]
RIN 1625-AA00


Safety Zone; Oceanside Harbor, CA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard establishes a temporary safety zone within the 
navigable waters of the Pacific Ocean in Oceanside Harbor, California 
for the California Half Ironman Triathlon. This temporary safety zone 
is necessary to provide for the safety of the participants (swimmers) 
and spectators of the race, to protect the participating vessels, and 
to protect other vessels and users of the waterway. Persons and vessels 
are prohibited from entering into, transiting through, or anchoring 
within this safety zone unless authorized by the Captain of the Port, 
or his designated representative.

DATES: This rule is effective from 5:30 a.m. (p.s.t.) to 10 a.m. 
(p.s.t.) on April 5, 2003.

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 (COTP San Diego 03-012) and are available for 
inspection or copying at Marine Safety Office San Diego; 2716 N. Harbor 
Drive, San Diego, CA 92101-

[[Page 14900]]

1064 between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal 
holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Petty Officer Austin Murai, USCG, c/o 
U.S. Coast Guard Captain of the Port, telephone (619) 683-6495.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Regulatory Information

    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 complex planning 
for this event many details were not finalized in time to publish a 
notice of proposed rulemaking. Publishing a NPRM and delaying the 
effective date would be contrary to the public interest since the event 
would occur before the rulemaking process was complete.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause 
exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after 
publication in the Federal Register. In addition to the reasons stated 
above, it would be contrary to the public interest since action is 
needed to ensure the protection of the public during the California 
Half Ironman Triathlon.

Background and Purpose

    The California Half Ironman Triathlon is an up and coming event 
located in Oceanside, California. Parts of this event are located on 
the waters defined as Oceanside Harbor, including the entrance channel. 
This event includes participant swimmers and staff members of the race.
    In order to provide a safe environment for the California Half 
Ironman Triathlon, the COTP is placing the waters of the harbor and the 
entrance channel under a safety zone. This zone will provide for the 
safety of all participants, staff, spectators and other users of the 
waterways.

Discussion of Rule

    Ironman North America is sponsoring the California Half Ironman 
Triathlon in Oceanside, CA. The water portion of the triathlon will 
occur in the navigable waters of Oceanside Harbor, including the 
channel entrance.
    In order to provide for the safety of the swimmers, the Triathlon 
Support Staff, the spectators and other users of the waterways, the 
COTP will be issuing a safety zone for Oceanside Harbor and the 
entrance channel.
    Persons and vessels are prohibited from entering into, transiting 
through, or anchoring within this safety zone unless authorized by the 
Captain of the Port, or his designated representative

Regulatory Evaluation

    This proposed rule is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under 
section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 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 Homeland Security.
    Due to the temporary safety zone's short duration of four and one 
half (4\1/2\) hours for just one day, the Coast Guard expects the 
economic impact of this rule to be so minimal that full regulatory 
evaluation under paragraph 10(e) of the regulatory policies and 
procedures of DOT is unnecessary.

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we 
considered whether this proposed 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 set forth in the above Regulatory Evaluation, 
the Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule is not 
expected to have a significant economic impact on any substantial 
number of entities, regardless of size.
    If you think that your business, organization, or governmental 
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have 
a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see 
ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what 
degree this rule would economically affect it.

Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 
Fairness Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-121), we want to assist small 
entities in understanding this proposed rule so that they can better 
evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the 
rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental 
jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or 
options for compliance, please contact Petty Officer Austin Murai, 
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 
(1888-734-3247).

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 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

[[Page 14901]]

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 considered the environmental impact of this proposed rule and 
concluded that, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g), of Commandant 
Instruction M16475.lC, this proposed rule is categorically excluded 
from further environmental documentation because we are proposing to 
establish a safety zone. A ``Categorical Exclusion Determination'' is 
available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES.

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 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. From 5:30 a.m. on April 5, 2003 to 10 a.m. on April 5, 2003, add 
a new Sec.  165.T11-039 to read as follows:


Sec.  165.T11-039  Safety Zone; Oceanside Harbor, CA

    (a) Location. The area described as follows is a safety zone: the 
waters of Oceanside Harbor, CA, including the entrance channel.
    (b) Effective dates. This safety zone will be enforced from 5:30 
a.m. (PST) to 10 a.m. (PST) on April 5, 2003. If the event concludes 
prior to the scheduled termination time, the Captain of the Port will 
cease enforcement of this safety zone and will announce that fact via 
Broadcast Notice to Mariners.
    (c) Regulations. In accordance with the general regulations in 
Sec.  165.23 of this part, entry into, transit through, or anchoring 
within this zone by all vessels is prohibited, unless authorized by the 
Captain of the Port, or his designated representative. Mariners 
requesting permission to transit through the safety zone may request 
authorization to do so from the Patrol Commander, who will be 
designated by the COTP. The Patrol Commander may be contacted by VHF-FM 
Channel 16.

    Dated: March 17, 2003.
Stephen P. Metruck,
Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, San Diego.
[FR Doc. 03-7298 Filed 3-26-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P