Security Zones; Cruise Ships, Port of San Diego, CA, 4833-4835 [2011-1804]

Agencies

• Coast Guard
• DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 18 (Thursday, January 27, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 4833-4835]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-1804]


========================================================================
Proposed Rules
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of 
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these 
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in 
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.

========================================================================


Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 18 / Thursday, January 27, 2011 / 
Proposed Rules

[[Page 4833]]



DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2011-0038]
RIN 1625-AA87


Security Zones; Cruise Ships, Port of San Diego, CA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR 165.1108, Security 
Zones; Cruise Ships, Port of San Diego, California, by providing a 
common description of all security zones created by this section to 
encompass only navigable waters within a 100 yard radius around any 
cruise ship that is located within the San Diego port area landward of 
the sea buoys bounding the Port of San Diego. This notice of proposed 
rulemaking is necessary to provide for the safety of the cruise ship, 
vessels, and users of the waterway. Entry into these security zones 
will be prohibited unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the 
Port (COTP) San Diego, or his designated representative.

DATES: Comments and related material must be received by the Coast 
Guard on or before February 28, 2011.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2011-0038 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 four methods. 
See the ``Public Participation and Request for Comments'' portion of 
the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below for instructions on 
submitting comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this proposed 
rule, call or e-mail Commander Michael B. Dolan, Prevention, Coast 
Guard Sector San Diego, Coast Guard; telephone 619-278-7261, e-mail 
Michael.B.Dolan@uscg.mil. 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-2011-0038), 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 (via https://www.regulations.gov) or by fax, mail, or hand 
delivery, but please use only one of these means. If you submit a 
comment online via https://www.regulations.gov, it will be considered 
received by the Coast Guard when you successfully transmit the comment. 
If you fax, hand deliver, or mail your comment, it will be considered 
as having been received by the Coast Guard when it is received at the 
Docket Management Facility. We recommend that you include your name and 
a mailing address, an e-mail address, or a telephone 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, 
click on the ``submit a comment'' box, which will then become 
highlighted in blue. In the ``Document Type'' drop down menu select 
``Proposed Rule'' and insert ``USCG-2011-0038'' in the ``Keyword'' box. 
Click ``Search'' 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 comments 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, 
click on the ``read comments'' box, which will then become highlighted 
in blue. In the ``Keyword'' box insert ``USCG-2011-0038'' and click 
``Search.'' Click the ``Open Docket Folder'' in the ``Actions'' column. 
You may also visit 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. 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. You may submit a 
request for one using one of the four methods specified under 
ADDRESSES. Please explain why you believe a public meeting would be 
beneficial. If we

[[Page 4834]]

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.

Basis and Purpose

    Based on experience with actual security zone enforcement 
operations, the COTP San Diego has concluded that a security zone 
encompassing all navigable waters, extending from the surface to the 
sea floor, within a 100 yard radius around any cruise ship that is 
within the San Diego port area inside the sea buoys bounding the Port 
of San Diego would provide for the safety of the cruise ship, vessels, 
and users of the waterway.

Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The Coast Guard is establishing a permanent security zone 
regulation. The security zones created by this rule will encompass all 
navigable waters, extending from the surface to the sea floor, within a 
100 yard radius around any cruise ship that is within the San Diego 
port area inside the sea buoys bounding the Port of San Diego. These 
security zones are necessary to provide for the safety of the cruise 
ship, vessels, and users of the waterway. Entry into these zones will 
be prohibited unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port 
(COTP) San Diego, or his designated representative.
    Paragraph (b)(2) of the existing 33 CFR 165.1108 includes reference 
to the shore area. The COTP has determined that security zones for 
moored cruise ships in San Diego Harbor need not include any shore 
area, as passenger terminals used for cruise ship operations are 
regulated under regulations in 33 CFR part 105 issued under authority 
of the Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002 (Pub. L. 107-295). 
The Coast Guard has issued a temporary final rule that suspends Sec.  
165.1108 (b)(2) through June 20, 2011, while this rulemaking is 
conducted. See 75 FR 82243, December 30, 2010.
    This rule would revise both 33 CFR 165.1108 (b) and (c). In 
addition to clarifying the area covered by security zones created by 
Sec.  165.1108 (b), this proposed rule would simplify the regulation by 
not distinguishing between anchored cruise ships, moored cruise ships 
and cruise ships underway. Also, we propose to revise paragraph (c) to 
make it clearer that persons and vessels may not enter these security 
zones without first obtaining permission of the Captain of the Port San 
Diego.

Regulatory Analyses

    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.
    It is not ``significant'' under the regulatory policies and 
procedures of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). We expect the 
economic impact of this rule to be so minimal that full Regulatory 
Evaluation is unnecessary. Most of the entities likely to be affected 
are pleasure craft engaged in recreational activities and sightseeing. 
In addition, due to National Security interests, the implementation of 
this security zone regulation is necessary for the protection of the 
United States and its people. The size of the zones is the minimum 
necessary to provide adequate protection for cruise ships.

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 may be 
small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to transit 
or anchor in San Diego Bay within a 100-yard radius of cruise ships 
covered by this rule.
    This security zone regulation will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities because vessel traffic 
can pass safely around the zones.

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 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 (adjusted for 
inflation) 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 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 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,

[[Page 4835]]

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.

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 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 made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a 
category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a 
significant effect on the human environment. A preliminary 
environmental analysis checklist supporting this determination is 
available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. This proposed 
rule involves the establishment of security zones. 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 
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; 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. In Sec.  165.1108, revise paragraphs (b) and (c) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  165.1108  Security Zones; Moored Cruise Ships, Port of San Diego, 
California.

* * * * *
    (b) Location. The following areas are security zones: All navigable 
waters, extending from the surface to the sea floor, within a 100-yard 
radius around any cruise ship that is located within the San Diego port 
area landward of the sea buoys bounding the Port of San Diego.
    (c) Regulations. Under regulations in 33 CFR part 165, subpart D, a 
person or vessel may not enter into or remain in the security zones 
created by this section unless authorized by the Coast Guard Captain of 
the Port, San Diego (COTP) or a COTP designated representative. Persons 
desiring to transit these security zones may contact the COTP at 
telephone number (619) 683-6495 or on VHF-FM channel 16 (156.8 MHz) to 
seek permission to transit the area. If permission is granted, all 
persons and vessels must comply with the instructions of the Captain of 
the Port or his or her designated representative.
* * * * *

    Dated: January 20, 2011.
T.H. Farris,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port San Diego.
[FR Doc. 2011-1804 Filed 1-26-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P