Security Zones; Cruise Ships, San Pedro Bay, CA, 50710-50713 [2011-20764]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
50710
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 158 / Tuesday, August 16, 2011 / Proposed Rules
will be included in the docket for this
rulemaking and considered.
Other Laws and Executive Orders
Affecting Rulemaking
Public Availability of Comments
Before including your address, phone
number, e-mail address, or other
personal identifying information in your
comment, you should be aware that
your entire comment including your
personal identifying information may be
made publicly available at any time.
While you can ask us in your comment
to withhold your personal identifying
information from public review, we
cannot guarantee that we will be able to
do so.
When a State submits a program
amendment to OSM for review, our
regulations at 30 CFR 732.17(h) require
us to publish a notice in the Federal
Register indicating receipt of the
proposed amendment, its text or a
summary of its terms, and an
opportunity for public comment. We
conclude our review of the proposed
amendment after the close of the public
comment period and determine whether
the amendment should be approved,
approved in part, or not approved. At
that time, we will also make the
determinations and certifications
required by the various laws and
executive orders governing the
rulemaking process and include them in
the final rule.
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Public Hearing
If you wish to speak at the public
hearing, contact the person listed under
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT by
4 p.m., c.d.t. on August 31, 2011. If you
are disabled and need reasonable
accommodations to attend a public
hearing, contact the person listed under
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. We
will arrange the location and time of the
hearing with those persons requesting
the hearing. If no one requests an
opportunity to speak, we will not hold
a hearing.
To assist the transcriber and ensure an
accurate record, we request, if possible,
that each person who speaks at the
public hearing provide us with a written
copy of his or her comments. The public
hearing will continue on the specified
date until everyone scheduled to speak
has been given an opportunity to be
heard. If you are in the audience and
have not been scheduled to speak and
wish to do so, you will be allowed to
speak after those who have been
scheduled. We will end the hearing after
everyone scheduled to speak and others
present in the audience who wish to
speak, have been heard.
Public Meeting
If only one person requests an
opportunity to speak, we may hold a
public meeting rather than a public
hearing. If you wish to meet with us to
discuss the amendments, please request
a meeting by contacting the person
listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT. All such meetings are open to
the public; if possible, we will post
notices of meetings at the locations
listed under ADDRESSES. We will make
a written summary of each meeting a
part of the administrative record.
IV. Procedural Determinations
Executive Order 12866—Regulatory
Planning and Review
This rule is exempted from review by
the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) under Executive Order 12866.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
12:46 Aug 15, 2011
Jkt 223001
List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 943
Intergovernmental relations, Surface
mining, Underground mining.
Dated: June 23, 2011.
Len Meier,
Acting Regional Director, Mid-Continent
Region.
[FR Doc. 2011–20548 Filed 8–15–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–05–P
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 165
[Docket No. USCG–2011–0101]
RIN 1625–AA87
Security Zones; Cruise Ships, San
Pedro Bay, CA
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
AGENCY:
The Coast Guard proposes to
amend 33 CFR 165.1154, Security
Zones; Cruise Ships, San Pedro Bay,
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 Pedro Bay port
area landward of the sea buoys
bounding the Port of Los Angeles or Port
of Long Beach or at designated
anchorages within 3 nautical miles of
the Federal breakwater. 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 would be
prohibited unless specifically
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4702
If
you have questions on this proposed
rule, call or e-mail Ensign Stephen M.
Sanders, Prevention, Coast Guard Sector
Los Angeles—Long Beach, Coast Guard;
telephone 310–521–3862, e-mail
Stephen.M.Sanders@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:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
ACTION:
authorized by the Captain of the Port
(COTP) Los Angeles—Long Beach, or
his designated representative.
DATES: Comments and related material
must be received by the Coast Guard on
or before September 15, 2011.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
identified by docket number USCG–
2011–0101 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.
Sfmt 4702
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–2011–0101),
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
E:\FR\FM\16AUP1.SGM
16AUP1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 158 / Tuesday, August 16, 2011 / Proposed Rules
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–2011–0101’’ 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 81⁄2 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–
0101’’ 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.
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
12:46 Aug 15, 2011
Jkt 223001
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
for one using one of the four methods
specified under ADDRESSES. Please
explain why you believe a public
meeting 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.
Basis and Purpose
Based on experience with actual
security zone enforcement operations,
the COTP Los Angeles—Long Beach 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 in the following
locations is necessary to provide for the
safety of the cruise ship, as well as other
vessels and users of these navigable
waters: Within the San Pedro Bay port
area inside the sea buoys bounding the
Port of Los Angeles or Port of Long
Beach, or at a designated anchorage
within 3 nautical miles seaward of the
Federal breakwater.
Discussion of Proposed Rule
The Coast Guard proposes to establish
a security zone regulation. The security
zones proposed by this NPRM would
encompass only navigable waters within
a 100-yard radius around any cruise
ship that is located within the San
Pedro Bay port area landward of the sea
buoys bounding the Port of Los Angeles
or Port of Long Beach or at designated
anchorages within 3 nautical miles
seaward of the Federal breakwater. 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 would be prohibited unless
specifically authorized by the Captain of
the Port (COTP) Los Angeles—Long
Beach, or his designated representative.
Paragraph (b)(1) and (b)(2) of the
existing 33 CFR 165.1154 includes
reference to the shore area and cruise
ships anchored at designated
anchorages either inside or outside at
designated anchorages within 3 nautical
miles of the Federal breakwater. The
COTP has determined that security
zones for moored cruise ships in Los
Angeles—Long Beach Harbors 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
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
50711
Transportation Security Act of 2002
(Pub. L. 107–295). In addition to
clarifying the area covered by security
zones created by § 165.1154 (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 clear that
persons and vessels may not enter these
security zones without first obtaining
permission of the Captain of the Port.
Regulatory Analyses
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. 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.
This rule will impose no more burden
than the current regulation. 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 proposed rule
would 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
Los Angeles—Long Beach ports 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.
E:\FR\FM\16AUP1.SGM
16AUP1
50712
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 158 / Tuesday, August 16, 2011 / Proposed Rules
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.
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
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.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
12:46 Aug 15, 2011
Jkt 223001
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.
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.
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
Frm 00010
Fmt 4702
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. 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;
Public Law 107–295, 116 Stat. 2064;
Department of Homeland Security Delegation
No. 0170.1.
2. In § 165.1154, revise paragraphs (b)
and (c) to read as follows:
§ 165.1154 Security Zones; Moored Cruise
Ships, San Pedro Bay, California.
*
Technical Standards
PO 00000
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.
Sfmt 4702
*
*
*
*
(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 Pedro Bay area landward of the
sea buoys bounding the port of Los
Angeles or Port of Long Beach or at
designated anchorages within 3 nautical
miles seaward of the Federal
Breakwaters.
(c) Regulations. Under regulations in
33 CFR part 165, subpart D, a person or
vessel may not entry into or remain in
the security zones created by this
section unless authorized by the Coast
Guard Captain of the Port Los Angeles—
E:\FR\FM\16AUP1.SGM
16AUP1
50713
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 158 / Tuesday, August 16, 2011 / Proposed Rules
Long Beach (COTP) or a COTP
designated representative.
(1) Persons desiring to transit these
security zones may contact the COTP at
telephone number (310) 521–3801 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.
(2) When a cruise ship approaches
within 100 yards of a vessel that is
moored, or anchored, the stationary
vessel must stay moored or anchored
while it remains within the cruise ship’s
security zone unless it is either ordered
by, or given permission from, the COTP
Los Angeles-Long Beach to do
otherwise.
*
*
*
*
*
Dated: March 8, 2011.
R.R. Laferriere,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the
Port Los Angeles—Long Beach.
[FR Doc. 2011–20764 Filed 8–15–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110–04–P
in the Federal Register of August 4,
2011, concerning rates for pilotage on
the Great Lakes. This correction
provides four rows that were missing
from Table 36 in the earlier document
and corrects a misspelled column
heading in Table 37 of that document.
For
questions on this notice contact Mr.
Todd Haviland, Management & Program
Analyst, Office of Great Lakes Pilotage,
Commandant (CG–5522), Coast Guard;
telephone 202–372–2037, e-mail
Todd.A.Haviland@uscg.mil, or fax 202–
372–1909.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Coast Guard
46 CFR Part 401
[USCG–2011–0328]
RIN 1625–AB70
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
2012 Rates for Pilotage on the Great
Lakes
Correction
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of proposed rulemaking;
correction.
In proposed rule FR Doc. 2011–19746,
on page 47109 in the issue of August 4,
2011, the second column heading in
Table 37 should read ‘‘Table
Multiplier.’’ Also on that page, correct
Table 36 to read as follows:
AGENCY:
ACTION:
This document corrects the
preamble to a proposed rule published
SUMMARY:
TABLE 36—PROPOSED ADJUSTMENT OF PILOTAGE RATES, AREAS IN DISTRICT TWO
Rate
multiplier
2011 Rate
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Area 4—Lake Erie:
6 hour period .............................................................................................
Docking or undocking ................................................................................
Any point on Niagara River below Black Rock Lock ................................
Area 5—Southeast Shoal to Port Huron, MI between any point on or in:
Toledo or any point on Lake Erie W. of Southeast Shoal ........................
Toledo or any point on Lake Erie W. of Southeast Shoal & Southeast
Shoal ......................................................................................................
Toledo or any point on Lake Erie W. of Southeast Shoal & Detroit River
Toledo or any point on Lake Erie W. of Southeast Shoal & Detroit Pilot
Boat ........................................................................................................
Port Huron Change Point & Southeast Shoal (when pilots are not
changed at the Detroit Pilot Boat) .........................................................
Port Huron Change Point & Toledo or any point on Lake Erie W. of
Southeast Shoal (when pilots are not changed at the Detroit Pilot
Boat) .......................................................................................................
Port Huron Change Point & Detroit River .................................................
Port Huron Change Point & Detroit Pilot Boat ..........................................
Port Huron Change Point & St. Clair River ...............................................
St. Clair River ............................................................................................
St. Clair River & Southeast Shoal (when pilots are not changed at the
Detroit Pilot Boat) ...................................................................................
St. Clair River & Detroit River/Detroit Pilot Boat .......................................
Detroit, Windsor, or Detroit River ..............................................................
Detroit, Windsor, or Detroit River & Southeast Shoal ...............................
Detroit, Windsor, or Detroit River & Toledo or any point on Lake Erie W.
of Southeast Shoal ................................................................................
Detroit, Windsor, or Detroit River & St. Clair River ...................................
Detroit Pilot Boat & Southeast Shoal ........................................................
Detroit Pilot Boat & Toledo or any point on Lake Erie W. of Southeast
Shoal ......................................................................................................
Detroit Pilot Boat & St. Clair River ............................................................
VerDate Mar<15>2010
12:46 Aug 15, 2011
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Adjusted rate
for 2012
$791
609
1,554
×
×
×
0.964
0.964
0.964
=
=
=
$762
587
1,497
1,412
×
0.972
=
1,372
2,389
3,102
×
×
0.972
0.972
=
=
2,231
3,014
2,389
×
0.972
=
2,321
4,162
×
0.972
=
4,044
4,821
3,126
2,432
1,729
1,412
×
×
×
×
×
0.972
0.972
0.972
0.972
0.972
=
=
=
=
=
4,684
3,037
2,363
1,680
1,372
4,162
3,126
1,412
2,389
×
×
×
×
0.972
0.972
0.972
0.972
=
=
=
=
4,044
3,037
1,372
2,321
3,102
3,126
1,729
×
×
×
0.972
0.972
0.972
=
=
=
3,014
3,037
1,680
2,389
3,126
×
×
0.972
0.972
=
=
2,321
3,037
E:\FR\FM\16AUP1.SGM
16AUP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 158 (Tuesday, August 16, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 50710-50713]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-20764]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 165
[Docket No. USCG-2011-0101]
RIN 1625-AA87
Security Zones; Cruise Ships, San Pedro Bay, CA
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR 165.1154, Security
Zones; Cruise Ships, San Pedro Bay, 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 Pedro Bay port area landward of the sea
buoys bounding the Port of Los Angeles or Port of Long Beach or at
designated anchorages within 3 nautical miles of the Federal
breakwater. 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 would be prohibited unless specifically
authorized by the Captain of the Port (COTP) Los Angeles--Long Beach,
or his designated representative.
DATES: Comments and related material must be received by the Coast
Guard on or before September 15, 2011.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2011-0101 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 Ensign Stephen M. Sanders, Prevention, Coast Guard
Sector Los Angeles--Long Beach, Coast Guard; telephone 310-521-3862, e-
mail Stephen.M.Sanders@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-2011-0101), 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
[[Page 50711]]
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-2011-0101'' 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-2011-0101'' 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. But 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 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 Los Angeles--Long Beach 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 in the following locations is necessary to provide for the safety
of the cruise ship, as well as other vessels and users of these
navigable waters: Within the San Pedro Bay port area inside the sea
buoys bounding the Port of Los Angeles or Port of Long Beach, or at a
designated anchorage within 3 nautical miles seaward of the Federal
breakwater.
Discussion of Proposed Rule
The Coast Guard proposes to establish a security zone regulation.
The security zones proposed by this NPRM would encompass only navigable
waters within a 100-yard radius around any cruise ship that is located
within the San Pedro Bay port area landward of the sea buoys bounding
the Port of Los Angeles or Port of Long Beach or at designated
anchorages within 3 nautical miles seaward of the Federal breakwater.
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 would be prohibited unless specifically
authorized by the Captain of the Port (COTP) Los Angeles--Long Beach,
or his designated representative.
Paragraph (b)(1) and (b)(2) of the existing 33 CFR 165.1154
includes reference to the shore area and cruise ships anchored at
designated anchorages either inside or outside at designated anchorages
within 3 nautical miles of the Federal breakwater. The COTP has
determined that security zones for moored cruise ships in Los Angeles--
Long Beach Harbors 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). In addition to
clarifying the area covered by security zones created by Sec. 165.1154
(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 clear that persons and vessels may not enter these security zones
without first obtaining permission of the Captain of the Port.
Regulatory Analyses
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. 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. This rule
will impose no more burden than the current regulation. 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 proposed
rule would 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 Los Angeles--Long Beach ports 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.
[[Page 50712]]
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,
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. 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; Public
Law 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security
Delegation No. 0170.1.
2. In Sec. 165.1154, revise paragraphs (b) and (c) to read as
follows:
Sec. 165.1154 Security Zones; Moored Cruise Ships, San Pedro Bay,
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 Pedro Bay
area landward of the sea buoys bounding the port of Los Angeles or Port
of Long Beach or at designated anchorages within 3 nautical miles
seaward of the Federal Breakwaters.
(c) Regulations. Under regulations in 33 CFR part 165, subpart D, a
person or vessel may not entry into or remain in the security zones
created by this section unless authorized by the Coast Guard Captain of
the Port Los Angeles--
[[Page 50713]]
Long Beach (COTP) or a COTP designated representative.
(1) Persons desiring to transit these security zones may contact
the COTP at telephone number (310) 521-3801 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.
(2) When a cruise ship approaches within 100 yards of a vessel that
is moored, or anchored, the stationary vessel must stay moored or
anchored while it remains within the cruise ship's security zone unless
it is either ordered by, or given permission from, the COTP Los
Angeles-Long Beach to do otherwise.
* * * * *
Dated: March 8, 2011.
R.R. Laferriere,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Los Angeles--Long Beach.
[FR Doc. 2011-20764 Filed 8-15-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
