Security Zone; Naval Base Point Loma; San Diego Bay, San Diego, CA, 6842-6844 [E9-2879]
Download as PDF
6842
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 27 / Wednesday, February 11, 2009 / Proposed Rules
Division, Associate Chief Counsel
(Procedure and Administration), at
Richard.A.Hurst@irscounsel.treas.gov.
A notice
of public hearing that appeared in the
Federal Register on Friday, October 31,
2008 (73 FR 64903), announced that a
public hearing was scheduled for
February 19, 2009, at 10 a.m., in the
auditorium, Internal Revenue Building,
1111 Constitution Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC. The subject of the
public hearing is under sections 108 and
721 of the Internal Revenue Code.
The public comment period for these
regulations expired on January 29, 2009.
Outlines of topics to be discussed at the
hearing were due on January 27, 2009.
The notice of proposed rulemaking and
notice of public hearing instructed those
interested in testifying at the public
hearing to submit an outline of the
topics to be addressed. As of Tuesday,
February 3, 2009, no one has requested
to speak. Therefore, the public hearing
scheduled for February 19, 2009, is
cancelled.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Guy Traynor,
Acting Chief, Publications and Regulations
Branch, Legal Processing Division, Associate
Chief Counsel, (Procedure and
Administration).
[FR Doc. E9–2830 Filed 2–10–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 165
[Docket No. USCG–2008–1016]
RIN 1625–AA87
Security Zone; Naval Base Point Loma;
San Diego Bay, San Diego, CA
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
AGENCY:
dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with PROPOSALS
ACTION:
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes the
expansion of a naval security zone. This
action would expand an existing
security zone, which in doing so would
encompass a nearby security zone in its
entirety. The subsumed security zone
would be removed. This action also
proposes the installation of water
barriers within the expanded security
zone. These water borne barriers will
provide a line of demarcation and a
defensive measure as a safeguard from
destruction, loss, or injury from
sabotage or other subversive acts,
accidents, or other causes of a similar
nature. No persons or vessel may enter
VerDate Nov<24>2008
13:29 Feb 10, 2009
Jkt 217001
or remain in the security zone without
the permission of the Captain of the
Port, the Commander of Naval Base
Point Loma, the Commander of Naval
Region Southwest, or a designated
representative of those individuals.
DATES: Comments and related material
must either be submitted to our online
docket via https://www.regulations.gov
on or before March 13, 2009 or reach the
Docket Management Facility by that
date.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
identified by docket number USCG–
2008–1016 using any one of the
following methods:
(1) Federal eRulemaking Portal:
https://www.regulations.gov
(2) Fax: 202–493–2251.
(3) Mail: 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–
0001.
(4) Hand delivery: Same as mail
address above, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays. The telephone number
is 202–366–9329.
To avoid duplication, please use only
one of these methods. For instructions
on submitting comments, see the
‘‘Public Participation and Request for
Comments’’ portion of the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section
below.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If
you have questions on this proposed
rule, call Lieutenant Commander Mike
Dolan, USCG, Waterways Management,
U.S. Coast Guard Sector San Diego at
619–278–7261. If you have questions on
viewing or submitting material to the
docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program
Manager, Docket Operations, telephone
202–366–9826.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Public Participation and Request for
Comments
We encourage you to participate in
this rulemaking by submitting
comments and related materials. All
comments received will be posted,
without change, to https://
www.regulations.gov and will include
any personal information you have
provided.
Submitting Comments
If you submit a comment, please
include the docket number for this
rulemaking (USCG–2008–1016),
indicate the specific section of this
document to which each comment
applies, and provide a reason for each
suggestion or recommendation. You
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
may submit your comments and
material online, or by fax, mail, or hand
delivery, but please use only one of
these means. We recommend that you
include your name and a mailing
address, an e-mail address, or a phone
number in the body of your document
so that we can contact you if we have
questions regarding your submission.
To submit your comment online, go to
https://www.regulations.gov, select the
Advanced Docket Search option on the
right side of the screen, insert ‘‘USCG–
2008–1016’’ in the Docket ID box, press
Enter, and then click on the balloon
shape in the Actions column. If you
submit your comments by mail or hand
delivery, submit them in an unbound
format, no larger than 81⁄2 by 11 inches,
suitable for copying and electronic
filing. If you submit them by mail and
would like to know that they reached
the Facility, please enclose a stamped,
self-addressed postcard or envelope. We
will consider all comments and material
received during the comment period
and may change the rule based on your
comments.
Viewing Comments and Documents
To view comments, as well as
documents mentioned in this preamble
as being available in the docket, go to
https://www.regulations.gov, select the
Advanced Docket Search option on the
right side of the screen, insert USCG–
2008–1016 in the Docket ID box, press
Enter, and then click on the item in the
Docket ID column. You may also visit
either the Docket Management Facility
in Room W12–140 on the ground floor
of the Department of Transportation
West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue
SE., Washington, DC, 20590, between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays; or the
U.S. Coast Guard Sector San Diego, 2710
N. Harbor Drive, San Diego, CA 92101
between 8 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
We have an agreement with the
Department of Transportation to use the
Docket Management Facility.
Privacy Act
Anyone can search the electronic
form of comments received into any of
our dockets by the name of the
individual submitting the comment (or
signing the comment, if submitted on
behalf of an association, business, labor
union, etc.). You may review a Privacy
Act notice regarding our public dockets
in the January 17, 2008 issue of the
Federal Register (73 FR 3316).
Public Meeting
We do not now plan to hold a public
meeting. But you may submit a request
E:\FR\FM\11FEP1.SGM
11FEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 27 / Wednesday, February 11, 2009 / Proposed Rules
for one to the Docket Management
Facility 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 U.S. Navy is requesting an
expansion of an existing security zone.
The new zone will allow for installation
of water barriers to provide a line of
demarcation and defensive measure as a
safeguard from destruction, loss, or
injury from sabotage or other subversive
acts, accidents, or other causes of
similar nature. The expanded security
zone would entirely subsume a nearby
existing security zone, which would be
removed.
dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with PROPOSALS
Discussion of Proposed Rule
The Coast Guard proposes an
expansion of an existing security zone
in the San Diego Bay for U.S. Navy. The
limits of the security zone would be as
follows: The water adjacent to Naval
Base Point Loma, San Diego, California,
enclosed by the following coordinates:
Beginning at 32°42.48′ N, 117°14.21′
W (Point A); 32°42.48′ N, 117°14.17′ W
(Point B); 32°42.17′ N, 117°14.00′ W
(Point C); 32°41.73′ N, 117°14.21′ W
(Point D); 32°41.53′ N, 117°14.23′ W
(Point E); 32°41.55′ N, 117°14.02′ W
(Point F); 32°41.17′ N, 117°13.95′ W
(Point G); 32°41.04′ N, 117°14.14′ W
(Point H); thence running generally
north along the shoreline to the place of
beginning (Point A).
This security zone is necessary to
provide as a safeguard against
destruction, loss, or injury from
sabotage or other subversive acts,
accidents, or other causes of a similar
nature. No persons or vessel may enter
or remain in the security zone without
the permission of the Commander,
Naval Base Point Loma; Commander,
Naval Region Southwest; the Captain of
the Port, or their respective designated
representatives.
This proposed security zone would
entirely overlap the existing security
zone at 33 CFR 165.1103, which would
be removed.
Regulatory Analyses
We developed this proposed 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 proposed rule is not a significant
regulatory action under section 3(f) of
VerDate Nov<24>2008
13:29 Feb 10, 2009
Jkt 217001
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.
This determination is based on the
size and location of the security zone.
Vessels do not routinely operate for
commercial purposes within the area
proposed by the security zone
expansion, which is currently within a
charted restricted area (33 CFR 334.870).
Additionally, vessel traffic may pass
safely around the security zone.
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 would 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.
This security zone would not have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
because vessel traffic may pass safely
around the security zone.
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 (Pub. L. 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 Lieutenant
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
6843
Commander Mike Dolan, USCG,
Waterways Management, U.S. Coast
Guard Sector San Diego at 619–278–
7233. The Coast Guard will not retaliate
against small entities that question or
complain about this proposed rule or
any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
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 proposed 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 create an
environmental risk to health or risk to
safety that might disproportionately
affect children.
E:\FR\FM\11FEP1.SGM
11FEP1
6844
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 27 / Wednesday, February 11, 2009 / Proposed Rules
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. The Administrator of the Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs
has not designated it as a significant
energy action. Therefore, it does not
require a Statement of Energy Effects
under Executive Order 13211.
dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with PROPOSALS
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 proposed rule does not use
technical standards. Therefore, we did
not consider the use of voluntary
consensus standards.
Environment
We have analyzed this proposed rule
under Department of Homeland
Security Management Directive 5100.1
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 made a preliminary determination
under the Instruction that this action is
not likely to have a significant effect on
the human environment. An
VerDate Nov<24>2008
13:29 Feb 10, 2009
Jkt 217001
environmental analysis checklist
supporting this preliminary
determination is available in the docket
where indicated under ADDRESSES. We
seek any comments or information that
may lead to the discovery of a
significant environmental impact from
this proposed rule.
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 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. 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.
2. Revise § 165.1102 to read as
follows:
§ 165.1102 Security Zone; Naval Base
Point Loma; San Diego Bay, San Diego, CA.
(a) Location. The following area is a
security zone: The water adjacent to the
Naval Base Point Loma, San Diego, CA,
enclosed by the following coordinates:
Beginning at 32°42.48′ N, 117°14.21′
W (Point A); 32°42.48′ N, 117°14.17′ W
(Point B); 32°42.17′ N, 117°14.00′ W
(Point C); 32°41.73′ N, 117°14.21′ W
(Point D); 32°41.53′ N, 117°14.23′ W
(Point E); 32°41.55′ N, 117°14.02′ W
(Point F); 32°41.17′ N, 117°13.95′ W
(Point G); 32°41.04′ N, 117°14.14′ W
(Point H); thence running generally
north along the shoreline to the place of
beginning (Point A).
(b) Regulations. (1) The general
regulations governing security zones
found in 33 CFR 165.33 apply to the
security zone described in paragraph (a)
of this section.
(2) Entry into, or remaining in, the
area of this zone is prohibited unless
authorized by the Captain of the Port
San Diego; Commanding Officer, Naval
Base Point Loma; or Commander, Navy
Region Southwest.
(3) Persons desiring to transit the area
of the security zone may request
permission from the Captain of the Port
San Diego at telephone number (619)
278–7033 or on VHF channel 16 (156.8
MHz) or from either the Commanding
Officer, Naval Base Point Loma or the
Commander, Navy Region Southwest by
calling the Navy Port Operation
Dispatch at telephone number (619)
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
556–1433 or on VHF-FM channels 16 or
12. If permission is granted, all persons
and vessels must comply with the
instructions of the Captain of the Port
San Diego or his or her designated
representative.
(c) Definitions. For purposes of this
section:
Captain of the Port San Diego means
the Commanding Office of the Coast
Guard Sector San Diego.
Commander, Navy Region Southwest
means Navy Region Commander
responsible for the Southwest Region.
Commanding Officer, Naval Base
Point Loma means the Installation
Commander of the naval base located on
Point Loma, San Diego, California.
Designated Representative means any
U.S. Coast Guard commissioned,
warrant, or petty officer who has been
designated by the Captain of the Port
San Diego to assist in the enforcement
of the security zone described in
paragraph (a) of this section.
Enforcement. The U.S. Coast Guard
may be assisted in the patrol and
enforcement of the security zone
described in paragraph (a) of this
section by the U.S. Navy and local law
enforcement agencies.
3. Remove § 165.1103.
Dated: December 22, 2008.
T.H. Farris,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the
Port San Diego.
[FR Doc. E9–2879 Filed 2–10–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–15–P
POSTAL SERVICE
39 CFR Part 955
Rules of Practice of the Postal Service
Board of Contract Appeals
Postal Service.
Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
SUMMARY: This document contains the
rules of procedure of the Postal Service
Board of Contract Appeals (Board)
which will govern all proceedings
before the Board. The Board was reestablished by the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006,
to hear and decide contract disputes
relative to a contract entered into by the
United States Postal Service or the
Postal Regulatory Commission. In
addition the Board has jurisdiction over
other matters assigned to it by the
Postmaster General, and over matters
otherwise authorized by applicable law.
The Board intends to issue final, revised
rules after considering all comments on
the proposed rules.
E:\FR\FM\11FEP1.SGM
11FEP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 27 (Wednesday, February 11, 2009)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 6842-6844]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-2879]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 165
[Docket No. USCG-2008-1016]
RIN 1625-AA87
Security Zone; Naval Base Point Loma; San Diego Bay, San Diego,
CA
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes the expansion of a naval security
zone. This action would expand an existing security zone, which in
doing so would encompass a nearby security zone in its entirety. The
subsumed security zone would be removed. This action also proposes the
installation of water barriers within the expanded security zone. These
water borne barriers will provide a line of demarcation and a defensive
measure as a safeguard from destruction, loss, or injury from sabotage
or other subversive acts, accidents, or other causes of a similar
nature. No persons or vessel may enter or remain in the security zone
without the permission of the Captain of the Port, the Commander of
Naval Base Point Loma, the Commander of Naval Region Southwest, or a
designated representative of those individuals.
DATES: Comments and related material must either be submitted to our
online docket via https://www.regulations.gov on or before March 13,
2009 or reach the Docket Management Facility by that date.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2008-1016 using any one of the following methods:
(1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov
(2) Fax: 202-493-2251.
(3) Mail: Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
(4) Hand delivery: Same as mail address above, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone
number is 202-366-9329.
To avoid duplication, please use only one of these methods. For
instructions on submitting comments, see the ``Public Participation and
Request for Comments'' portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section
below.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this proposed
rule, call Lieutenant Commander Mike Dolan, USCG, Waterways Management,
U.S. Coast Guard Sector San Diego at 619-278-7261. If you have
questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket, call Renee
V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 202-366-9826.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Public Participation and Request for Comments
We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting
comments and related materials. All comments received will be posted,
without change, to https://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided.
Submitting Comments
If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking (USCG-2008-1016), indicate the specific section of this
document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each
suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material
online, or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of
these means. We recommend that you include your name and a mailing
address, an e-mail address, or a phone number in the body of your
document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your
submission.
To submit your comment online, go to https://www.regulations.gov,
select the Advanced Docket Search option on the right side of the
screen, insert ``USCG-2008-1016'' in the Docket ID box, press Enter,
and then click on the balloon shape in the Actions column. If you
submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an
unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for
copying and electronic filing. If you submit them by mail and would
like to know that they reached the Facility, please enclose a stamped,
self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all comments and
material received during the comment period and may change the rule
based on your comments.
Viewing Comments and Documents
To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble
as being available in the docket, go to https://www.regulations.gov,
select the Advanced Docket Search option on the right side of the
screen, insert USCG-2008-1016 in the Docket ID box, press Enter, and
then click on the item in the Docket ID column. You may also visit
either the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground
floor of the Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays; or the U.S. Coast Guard
Sector San Diego, 2710 N. Harbor Drive, San Diego, CA 92101 between 8
a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. We
have an agreement with the Department of Transportation to use the
Docket Management Facility.
Privacy Act
Anyone can search the electronic form of comments received into any
of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or
signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). You may review a Privacy Act notice
regarding our public dockets in the January 17, 2008 issue of the
Federal Register (73 FR 3316).
Public Meeting
We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a
request
[[Page 6843]]
for one to the Docket Management Facility 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 U.S. Navy is requesting an expansion of an existing security
zone. The new zone will allow for installation of water barriers to
provide a line of demarcation and defensive measure as a safeguard from
destruction, loss, or injury from sabotage or other subversive acts,
accidents, or other causes of similar nature. The expanded security
zone would entirely subsume a nearby existing security zone, which
would be removed.
Discussion of Proposed Rule
The Coast Guard proposes an expansion of an existing security zone
in the San Diego Bay for U.S. Navy. The limits of the security zone
would be as follows: The water adjacent to Naval Base Point Loma, San
Diego, California, enclosed by the following coordinates:
Beginning at 32[deg]42.48' N, 117[deg]14.21' W (Point A);
32[deg]42.48' N, 117[deg]14.17' W (Point B); 32[deg]42.17' N,
117[deg]14.00' W (Point C); 32[deg]41.73' N, 117[deg]14.21' W (Point
D); 32[deg]41.53' N, 117[deg]14.23' W (Point E); 32[deg]41.55' N,
117[deg]14.02' W (Point F); 32[deg]41.17' N, 117[deg]13.95' W (Point
G); 32[deg]41.04' N, 117[deg]14.14' W (Point H); thence running
generally north along the shoreline to the place of beginning (Point
A).
This security zone is necessary to provide as a safeguard against
destruction, loss, or injury from sabotage or other subversive acts,
accidents, or other causes of a similar nature. No persons or vessel
may enter or remain in the security zone without the permission of the
Commander, Naval Base Point Loma; Commander, Naval Region Southwest;
the Captain of the Port, or their respective designated
representatives.
This proposed security zone would entirely overlap the existing
security zone at 33 CFR 165.1103, which would be removed.
Regulatory Analyses
We developed this proposed 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 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.
This determination is based on the size and location of the
security zone. Vessels do not routinely operate for commercial purposes
within the area proposed by the security zone expansion, which is
currently within a charted restricted area (33 CFR 334.870).
Additionally, vessel traffic may pass safely around the security zone.
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 would 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.
This security zone would not have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities because vessel traffic may pass
safely around the security zone.
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 (Pub. L. 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 Lieutenant Commander Mike Dolan,
USCG, Waterways Management, U.S. Coast Guard Sector San Diego at 619-
278-7233. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities
that question or complain about this proposed rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.
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 proposed 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
create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might
disproportionately affect children.
[[Page 6844]]
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. The Administrator of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy
action. Therefore, it does not 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 proposed rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we
did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.
Environment
We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland
Security Management Directive 5100.1 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 made a preliminary determination under the Instruction that this
action is not likely to have a significant effect on the human
environment. An environmental analysis checklist supporting this
preliminary determination is available in the docket where indicated
under ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information that may lead to
the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this proposed
rule.
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 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. 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.
2. Revise Sec. 165.1102 to read as follows:
Sec. 165.1102 Security Zone; Naval Base Point Loma; San Diego Bay,
San Diego, CA.
(a) Location. The following area is a security zone: The water
adjacent to the Naval Base Point Loma, San Diego, CA, enclosed by the
following coordinates:
Beginning at 32[deg]42.48[min] N, 117[deg]14.21[min] W (Point A);
32[deg]42.48[min] N, 117[deg]14.17[min] W (Point B); 32[deg]42.17[min]
N, 117[deg]14.00[min] W (Point C); 32[deg]41.73[min] N,
117[deg]14.21[min] W (Point D); 32[deg]41.53[min] N, 117[deg]14.23[min]
W (Point E); 32[deg]41.55[min] N, 117[deg]14.02[min] W (Point F);
32[deg]41.17[min] N, 117[deg]13.95[min] W (Point G); 32[deg]41.04[min]
N, 117[deg]14.14[min] W (Point H); thence running generally north along
the shoreline to the place of beginning (Point A).
(b) Regulations. (1) The general regulations governing security
zones found in 33 CFR 165.33 apply to the security zone described in
paragraph (a) of this section.
(2) Entry into, or remaining in, the area of this zone is
prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port San Diego;
Commanding Officer, Naval Base Point Loma; or Commander, Navy Region
Southwest.
(3) Persons desiring to transit the area of the security zone may
request permission from the Captain of the Port San Diego at telephone
number (619) 278-7033 or on VHF channel 16 (156.8 MHz) or from either
the Commanding Officer, Naval Base Point Loma or the Commander, Navy
Region Southwest by calling the Navy Port Operation Dispatch at
telephone number (619) 556-1433 or on VHF-FM channels 16 or 12. If
permission is granted, all persons and vessels must comply with the
instructions of the Captain of the Port San Diego or his or her
designated representative.
(c) Definitions. For purposes of this section:
Captain of the Port San Diego means the Commanding Office of the
Coast Guard Sector San Diego.
Commander, Navy Region Southwest means Navy Region Commander
responsible for the Southwest Region.
Commanding Officer, Naval Base Point Loma means the Installation
Commander of the naval base located on Point Loma, San Diego,
California.
Designated Representative means any U.S. Coast Guard commissioned,
warrant, or petty officer who has been designated by the Captain of the
Port San Diego to assist in the enforcement of the security zone
described in paragraph (a) of this section.
Enforcement. The U.S. Coast Guard may be assisted in the patrol and
enforcement of the security zone described in paragraph (a) of this
section by the U.S. Navy and local law enforcement agencies.
3. Remove Sec. 165.1103.
Dated: December 22, 2008.
T.H. Farris,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port San Diego.
[FR Doc. E9-2879 Filed 2-10-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P