[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 87 (Tuesday, May 6, 2003)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 23935-23937]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-11165]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[CGD01-03-012]
RIN 1625-AA00 (Formerly RIN 2115-AA97)


Safety and Security Zones; New London Harbor, CT--Security Zone

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to revise the boundaries of the 
security zone in the waters adjacent to the General Dynamics Electric 
Boat Corporation (EB) facility in Groton, CT. The proposed rule is 
necessary to better protect the facility, U.S. Naval Vessels and other 
vessels located at the facility, material storage areas, and adjacent 
residential and industrial areas from sabotage or other subversive 
acts, accidents or incidents of a similar nature, and to specify the 
horizontal datum employed to describe the geographic coordinates that 
establish zone boundaries. This security zone would exclude all vessels 
from operating within the prescribed security zone without first 
obtaining authorization from the Captain of the Port, Long Island 
Sound.

DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or 
before July 7, 2003.

ADDRESSES: You may mail comments and related material to Waterways 
Management, Coast Guard Group/Marine Safety Office Long Island Sound, 
120 Woodward Avenue, New Haven, CT 06512. Coast Guard Group/MSO Long 
Island Sound maintains the public docket for this rulemaking. Comments 
and material received from the public, as well as documents indicated 
in this preamble as being available in the docket, will become part of 
this docket and will be available for inspection or copying at Group/
MSO Long Island Sound, New Haven, CT, between 9 a.m.

[[Page 23936]]

and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lieutenant A. Logman, Waterways 
Management Officer, Coast Guard Group/Marine Safety Office Long Island 
Sound at (203) 468-4429.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Request for Comments

    We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting 
comments and related material. If you do so, please include your name 
and address, identify the docket number for this rulemaking (CGD01-03-
012), indicate the specific section of this document to which each 
comment applies, and give the reason for each comment. Please submit 
all comments and related material in an unbound format, no larger than 
8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for copying. If you would like to know 
your submission reached us, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed 
postcard or envelope. We will consider all comments and material 
received during the comment period. We may change this proposed rule in 
view of them.

Public Meeting

    We do not now plan to hold a public meeting, but you may submit a 
request for a meeting by writing to Coast Guard Group/Marine Safety 
Office Long Island Sound at the address under ADDRESSES explaining why 
one would be beneficial. If we determine that one would aid this 
rulemaking, we will hold one at a time and place announced by a later 
notice in the Federal Register.

Background and Purpose

    The Captain of the Port previously established a security zone in 
the waters adjacent to the General Dynamics Electric Boat Corporation 
(EB) facility in Groton, CT in order to protect the facility from 
subversive attack. The existing security zone is described in 33 CFR 
165.140(a)(1). This proposed rule would expand the safety zone's 
southern boundaries to encompass waters adjacent to the southern end of 
the EB facility. The proposed rule would expressly reference the 
geographic coordinates describing the zone boundaries in terms of North 
American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83).

Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The EB facility is located on the Thames River in Groton, 
Connecticut. Electric Boat designs, constructs and provides lifecycle 
support of U.S. Navy submarines. A security zone has been in place 
around this facility for several years. Its coordinates are codified in 
33 CFR 165.140(a)(1).
    The current security zone does not encompass waters adjacent to the 
EB facility waterfront, and leaves vital vessel construction and 
material storage areas at the facility's southern end vulnerable to 
unauthorized access, sabotage, terrorist or other subversive acts. The 
proposed rule would expand the security zone boundaries to encompass 
waters adjacent to the southern end of the EB facilities. This added 
area will result in a zone that greatly increases the security of the 
facility by protecting vital vessel construction and material storage 
areas. These measures are necessary to safeguard the EB facilities, 
employees, vessels, adjacent industrial facilities and residential 
areas from sabotage or terrorist acts.
    The proposed zone has been tailored to fit the needs of security, 
while minimizing the impact on the maritime community. The proposed 
rule explicitly adopts North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83) to 
identify the geographic coordinates establishing the proposed security 
zone.
    No person or vessel may enter or remain in a prescribed security 
zone at any time without the permission of the COTP. Each person or 
vessel in the security zone shall obey any direction or order of the 
COTP. The COTP may take possession and control of any vessel in a 
security zone and/or remove any person, vessel, article or thing from a 
security zone. No person may board, take or place any article or thing 
on board any vessel or waterfront facility in a security zone without 
permission of the COTP.
    Any violation of the security zone proposed herein is punishable 
by, among others, civil penalties (not to exceed $27,500 per violation, 
where each day of a continuing violation is a separate violation), 
criminal penalties (imprisonment for not more than 10 years and a fine 
of not more than $250,000), in rem liability against the offending 
vessel, and license sanctions. This regulation is proposed under the 
authority contained in 50 U.S.C. 191, 33 U.S.C. 1223, 1225, and 1226, 
and the regulations promulgated thereunder.

Regulatory Evaluation

    This proposed 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 
Homeland Security (DHS).
    We expect the economic impact of this proposed rule to be so 
minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation under the regulatory policies 
and procedures of DHS is unnecessary. This proposed regulation may have 
some impact on the public, but the potential impacts will be minimized 
for the following reasons: The security zone encompasses only a small 
portion of the Thames River, including pier and industrial areas not 
suitable for commercial or recreational vessel transit; there is no 
impact on the navigable channel in the Thames River by the increased 
security zone area at the southern portion of the Electric Boat 
property; the security zone minimally impacts the channel, but this 
slight overlap is necessary to provide sufficient security for naval 
vessels and Electric Boat infrastructure, and leaves ample room for 
vessels to navigate around the security zone in the channel; moreover, 
the proposed zone's encroachment on the navigable channel is actually 
less than that posed by the existing security zone. While recognizing 
the potential for some minimal impact from the proposed rule, the Coast 
Guard considers it de minimus in comparison to the compelling national 
interest in protecting the naval vessels under construction and 
undergoing maintenance at the Electric Boat Facility, as well as 
protecting adjacent industrial facilities and residential areas from 
possible acts of terrorism, sabotage or other subversive acts, 
accidents, or other causes of a similar nature.

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have 
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.
    The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed 
rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities. This proposed rule may affect the following 
entities, some of which may be small entities: The owners or operators 
of vessels intending to transit or anchor in the security zone.
    For the reasons outlined in the Regulatory Evaluation section 
above,

[[Page 23937]]

this proposed rule would not have a significant impact on a substantial 
number of small entities.
    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 subsection 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory 
Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), the Coast Guard 
wants 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 proposed rule would affect your small business, 
organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions 
concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please call 
Lieutenant A. Logman, Waterways Management Officer, Group/Marine Safety 
Office Long Island Sound, at (203) 468-4429.
    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 proposed rule would call 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 proposed rule would not result in such an 
expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this 
preamble.

Taking of Private Property

    This proposed rule would 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 proposed 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 proposed rule under Executive Order 13045, 
Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety 
Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and would not 
concern an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may 
disproportionately affect children.

Indian Tribal Governments

    This proposed rule does not have tribal implications under 
Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal 
Governments, because it would 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 proposed 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

    The Coast Guard considered the environmental impact of this 
proposed rule and concluded that, under figure 2-1, paragraph 34(g), of 
Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, this proposed rule is categorically 
excluded from further environmental documentation. 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 proposes 
to amend 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; Department of Homeland Security 
Delegation No. 0170.

    2. Revise Sec.  165.140(a)(1) to read as follows:


Sec.  165.140  New London Harbor, Connecticut--security zone.

* * * * *
    (a)(1) Security Zone A. The waters of the Thames River west of the 
Electric Boat Corporation Shipyard enclosed by a line beginning at a 
point on the shoreline at 41[deg]20'16'' N, 72[deg]04'47'' W; then 
running west to 41[deg]20'16'' N, 72[deg]04'57'' W; then running north 
to 41[deg]20'26'' N, 72[deg]04'57'' W; then northwest to 
41[deg]20'28.7'' N, 72[deg]05'01.7'' W; then north-northwest to 
41[deg]20'53.3'' N, 72[deg]05'04.8'' W; then north-northeast to 
41[deg]21'02.9'' N, 72[deg]05'04.9''W; then east to a point on shore at 
41[deg]21'02.9'' N, 72[deg]04'58.2'' W. All coordinates are NAD 83.
* * * * *

    Dated: April 11, 2003.
Joseph J. Coccia,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Long Island Sound.
[FR Doc. 03-11165 Filed 5-5-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P