[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 7 (Tuesday, January 11, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 1521-1523]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-309]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2010-0423]
RIN 1625-AA87


Security Zone: Fleet Industrial Supply Center Pier, San Diego, CA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is removing a security zone on the navigable 
waters of San Diego Bay, San Diego, CA. The existing zone is around the 
former Fleet Industrial Supply Center Pier. The pier is no longer owned 
by the U.S. Navy and the existing security zone is no longer necessary 
to provide for the security of the U.S. Naval vessels, their crews, and 
the public from sabotage or other subversive acts, accidents, criminal 
actions, or other causes of a similar nature.

DATES: This rule is effective February 10, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in 
the docket are part of docket USCG-2010-0423 and are available online 
by going to http://www.regulations.gov, inserting USCG-2010-0423 in the 
``Keyword'' box, and then clicking ``Search.'' They are also available 
for inspection or copying at the Docket Management Facility (M-30), 
U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room 
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule, 
call or e-mail Commander Mike Dolan, Waterways Management, U.S. Coast 
Guard Sector San Diego; telephone 619-278-7261, e-mail 
[email protected]. If you have questions on viewing the docket, 
call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 
202-366-9826.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulatory Information

    The Coast Guard is issuing this final rule without prior notice and 
opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the 
Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision 
authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and 
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those 
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public 
interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good 
cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). 
It is unnecessary to seek comments on this rulemaking because the 
purpose of this security zone--to provide for the security of the U.S. 
Naval vessels, their crews, and the public from sabotage or other 
subversive acts, accidents, criminal actions, or other causes of a 
similar nature--no longer exists because the Navy no longer owns this 
facility.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause 
exists for making this rule effective 30 days after publication in the 
Federal Register. The pier is no longer owned by the U.S.

[[Page 1522]]

Navy and the existing security zone is no longer necessary.

Basis and Purpose

    The Coast Guard is removing a security zone on the navigable waters 
of the San Diego Bay, San Diego, CA. The existing security zone is 
around the former Fleet Industrial Supply Center Pier. The security 
zone encompasses all navigable waters within 100 feet of the former 
Fleet Industrial Supply Center Pier. The pier is no longer owned by the 
U.S. Navy and the security zone is no longer needed to protect U.S. 
Naval vessels, their crews, and the public from sabotage or other 
subversive acts, accidents, criminal actions or other causes of a 
similar nature.

Discussion of Rule

    The Coast Guard is removing a security zone. The current limits of 
the security zone include all navigable waters within 100 feet of the 
former Fleet Industrial Supply Center Pier enclosed by lines connecting 
the following points: 32[deg]42'50'' N, 117[deg]10'25'' W; 
32[deg]42'50'' N, 117[deg]10'38'' W; 32[deg]42'54'' N, 117[deg]10'38'' 
W; 32[deg]42'54'' N, 117[deg]10'25'' W.
The security zone is no longer necessary to protect U.S. Naval vessels, 
their crews, and the public from sabotage or other subversive acts, 
accidents, criminal actions, or other causes of a similar nature.

Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and 
executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses 
based on 13 of these statutes or executive orders.

Regulatory Planning and Review

    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. The entities most likely to be affected 
are pleasure craft engaged in recreational activities and sightseeing. 
As such, the Coast Guard expects the economic impact of this rule to be 
minimal.

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.
    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.
    This rule will affect the following entities, some of which might 
be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to 
transit or anchor in a portion of the San Diego Bay. The removal of 
this security zone will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities for the following reason. Removing 
the security zone will allow the public to access an area of the 
waterway that is currently restricted.

Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we offer to assist small 
entities in understanding the rule so that they can better evaluate its 
effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process.
    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). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small 
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or 
action of the Coast Guard.

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 (adjusted for 
inflation) 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 cause 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. The Administrator of the Office of Information and 
Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy 
action. Therefore, it does not

[[Page 1523]]

require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211.

Technical Standards

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 
U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards 
in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, 
through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why 
using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or 
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical 
standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or 
operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management 
systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus 
standards bodies.
    This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not 
consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security 
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which 
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental 
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded 
this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or 
cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This 
rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g.), 
of the Instruction. This rule involves the removal of a security zone.
    An environmental analysis checklist and a categorical exclusion 
determination are 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

0
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306, 
3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; 
Pub. L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security 
Delegation No. 0170.1.


Sec.  165.1121  [Removed and Reserved]

0
2. Remove and reserve Sec.  165.1121.

    Dated: December 29, 2010.
P.J. Hill,
Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting Captain of the Port San Diego.
[FR Doc. 2011-309 Filed 1-10-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P