Safety Zone; Mission Bay Closure, San Diego, CA, 55974-55976 [2022-19777]
Download as PDF
55974
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 13, 2022 / Proposed Rules
section for
further instructions on submitting
comments.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If
you have questions about this proposed
rulemaking, call or email LTJG Shera
Kim, Waterways Management, U.S.
Coast guard Sector San Diego, Coast
Guard; telephone 619–278–7656, email
MarineEventsSD@uscg.mil.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
BILLING CODE 4510–86–C
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 165
[Docket Number USCG–2022–0731]
RIN 1625–AA00
Safety Zone; Mission Bay Closure, San
Diego, CA
AGENCY:
Coast Guard, Department of
Homeland Security (DHS).
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
§ Section
U.S.C. United States Code
The Coast Guard is proposing
to establish a temporary safety zone for
certain waters of Mission Bay. The
safety zone is needed to protect
personnel, vessels, and the marine
environment from potential hazards
created by the California Department of
Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) Oil Spill
Prevention and Response (OSPR)
Sensitive Site Strategy Evaluation
Program (SSSEP) boom deployment
exercise. Entry of vessels or persons into
this zone is prohibited unless
specifically authorized by the Captain of
the Port Sector San Diego. We invite
your comments on this proposed
rulemaking.
DATES: Comments and related material
must be received by the Coast Guard on
or before October 13, 2022.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
identified by docket number USCG–
2022–0731 using the Federal Decision
Making Portal at https://
www.regulations.gov. See the ‘‘Public
Participation and Request for
II. Background, Purpose, and Legal
Basis
On November 15, 2022, the Coast
Guard will be working in conjunction
with the California Department of Fish
and Wildlife and local Oil Spill
Response Organization to conduct boom
deployment exercises from 9 a.m. to 12
p.m. Contractors will bring up to 12000feet of floating oil boom aboard a
workboat and deploy Area Contingency
Plan (ACP)–6 Geographic Response
Strategies (GRS). The Captain of the Port
San Diego (COTP) has determined that
potential hazards associated with the
boom deployment exercise would be a
safety concern for anyone within a 100yard radius of the boom. The COTP is
proposing to establish a safety zone
from 9 a.m. to noon on November 15,
2022.
The purpose of this rulemaking is to
ensure the safety of vessels and the
navigable waters within a 100-yard
radius of the boom before, during, and
after the scheduled event. The Coast
SUMMARY:
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS
I. Table of Abbreviations
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:59 Sep 12, 2022
Jkt 256001
PO 00000
Frm 00049
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Guard is proposing this rulemaking
under authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034
(previously 33 U.S.C. 1231).
III. Discussion of Proposed Rule
The COTP is proposing to establish a
safety zone from 9 a.m. until noon on
November 15, 2022. The safety zone
would cover all navigable waters within
100 yards of a boom in Mission Bay
located across the entrance channel
from the shoreline north of Mariners
Cove inlet to a point south of Mission
Bay Drive bridge on the Quivira Basin
shoreline. The duration of the zone is
intended to ensure the safety of vessels
and these navigable waters before,
during, and after the scheduled 9 a.m.
until noon boom deployment exercise.
No vessel or person would be permitted
to enter the safety zone without
obtaining permission from the COTP or
a designated representative. The
regulatory text we are proposing appears
at the end of this document.
IV. Regulatory Analyses
We developed this proposed rule after
considering numerous statutes and
Executive orders related to rulemaking.
Below we summarize our analyses
based on a number of these statutes and
Executive orders, and we discuss First
Amendment rights of protestors.
A. Regulatory Planning and Review
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
direct agencies to assess the costs and
benefits of available regulatory
alternatives and, if regulation is
necessary, to select regulatory
approaches that maximize net benefits.
This NPRM has not been designated a
‘‘significant regulatory action,’’ under
Executive Order 12866. Accordingly,
the NPRM has not been reviewed by the
E:\FR\FM\13SEP1.SGM
13SEP1
EP13SE22.019
Comments’’ portion of the
[FR Doc. 2022–19229 Filed 9–12–22; 8:45 am]
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 13, 2022 / Proposed Rules
Office of Management and Budget
(OMB).
This regulatory action determination
is based on safety zone being of a
limited three hour duration, limited to
a relatively small geographic area, and
the presence of safety hazards in the
area encompassing the Mission Bay
Entrance.
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS
B. Impact on Small Entities
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of
1980, 5 U.S.C. 601–612, as amended,
requires Federal agencies to consider
the potential impact of regulations on
small entities during rulemaking. 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.
While some owners or operators of
vessels intending to transit the safety
zone may be small entities, for the
reasons stated in section IV.A above,
this proposed rule would not have a
significant economic impact on any
vessel owner or operator.
If you think that your business,
organization, or governmental
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity
and that this proposed 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.
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. If the
proposed rule would affect your small
business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction and you have questions
concerning its provisions or options for
compliance, please call or email the
person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section. 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.
C. Collection of Information
This proposed rule would not call for
a new collection of information under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(44 U.S.C. 3501–3520).
D. Federalism and Indian Tribal
Governments
A rule has implications for federalism
under Executive Order 13132
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:59 Sep 12, 2022
Jkt 256001
(Federalism), if it has a substantial
direct effect on the States, on the
relationship between the National
Government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government. We have analyzed
this proposed rule under that order and
have determined that it is consistent
with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements
described in Executive Order 13132.
Also, 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.
If you believe this proposed rule has
implications for federalism or Indian
tribes, please call or email the person
listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section.
E. 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
potential effects of this proposed rule
elsewhere in this preamble.
F. Environment
We have analyzed this proposed rule
under Department of Homeland
Security Directive 023–01, Rev. 1,
associated implementing instructions,
and Environmental Planning
COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which
guide the Coast Guard in complying
with the National Environmental Policy
Act of 1969 (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. This proposed
rule involves a safety zone lasting 3
hours that would prohibit entry within
100 yards of the boom. Normally such
actions are categorically excluded from
further review under paragraph L60(a)
of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS
Instruction Manual 023–01–001–01,
Rev. 1. We seek any comments or
information that may lead to the
PO 00000
Frm 00050
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
55975
discovery of a significant environmental
impact from this proposed rule.
G. Protest Activities
The Coast Guard respects the First
Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to call or email the
person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to
coordinate protest activities so that your
message can be received without
jeopardizing the safety or security of
people, places, or vessels.
V. Public Participation and Request for
Comments
We view public participation as
essential to effective rulemaking, and
will consider all comments and material
received during the comment period.
Your comment can help shape the
outcome of this rulemaking. If you
submit a comment, please include the
docket number for this rulemaking,
indicate the specific section of this
document to which each comment
applies, and provide a reason for each
suggestion or recommendation.
Submitting comments. We encourage
you to submit comments through the
Federal Decision Making Portal at
https://www.regulations.gov. To do so,
go to https://www.regulations.gov, type
USCG–2022–0731 in the search box and
click ‘‘Search.’’ Next, look for this
document in the Search Results column,
and click on it. Then click on the
Comment option. If you cannot submit
your material by using https://
www.regulations.gov, call or email the
person in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section of this proposed rule
for alternate instructions.
Viewing material in docket. To view
documents mentioned in this proposed
rule as being available in the docket,
find the docket as described in the
previous paragraph, and then select
‘‘Supporting & Related Material’’ in the
Document Type column. Public
comments will also be placed in our
online docket and can be viewed by
following instructions on the https://
www.regulations.gov Frequently Asked
Questions web page. We review all
comments received, but we will only
post comments that address the topic of
the proposed rule. We may choose not
to post off-topic, inappropriate, or
duplicate comments that we receive.
Personal information. We accept
anonymous comments. Comments we
post to https://www.regulations.gov will
include any personal information you
have provided. For more about privacy
and submissions to the docket in
response to this document, see DHS’s
eRulemaking System of Records notice
(85 FR 14226, March 11, 2020).
E:\FR\FM\13SEP1.SGM
13SEP1
55976
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 13, 2022 / Proposed Rules
List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation
(water), Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Security measures,
Waterways.
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R01–OAR–2017–0443; FRL–10193–
01–R1]
For the reasons discussed in the
preamble, the Coast Guard is proposing
to amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows:
PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION
AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS
Air Plan Approval; Rhode Island;
Prevention of Significant Deterioration
Infrastructure State Implementation
Plan Elements for the 2012 PM2.5
NAAQS
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
1. The authority citation for part 165
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 46 U.S.C. 70034, 70051; 33 CFR
1.05–1, 6.04–1, 6.04–6, and 160.5;
Department of Homeland Security Delegation
No. 00170.1, Revision No. 01.2.
2. Add § 165.T11–0731 to read as
follows:
■
§ 165.T11–0731
San Diego, CA.
Safety Zone; Mission Bay,
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS
(a) Location. The following area is a
safety zone: Mission Bay located across
the entrance channel from the shoreline
north of Mariners Cove inlet to a point
south of Mission Bay Drive bridge on
the Quivira Basin shoreline.
(b) Definitions. As used in this
section, designated representative
means a Coast Guard Patrol
Commander, including a Coast Guard
coxswain, petty officer, or other officer
operating a Coast Guard vessel and a
Federal, State, and local officer
designated by or assisting the Captain of
the Port Sector San Diego (COTP) in the
enforcement of the safety zone.
(c) Regulations. (1) Under the general
safety zone regulations in subpart C of
this part, you may not enter the safety
zone described in paragraph (a) of this
section unless authorized by the COTP
or the COTP’s designated representative.
(2) To seek permission to enter,
contact the COTP or the COTP’s
representative by VHF Channel 16.
Those in the safety zone must comply
with all lawful orders or directions
given to them by the COTP or the
COTP’s designated representative.
(d) Enforcement period. This section
will be enforced from 9 a.m. until noon
on November 15, 2022.
Dated: September 7, 2022.
J.W. Spitler,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the
Port Sector San Diego.
[FR Doc. 2022–19777 Filed 9–12–22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110–04–P
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:59 Sep 12, 2022
Jkt 256001
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is approving three
elements of a State Implementation Plan
(SIP) revision, which was submitted by
the State of Rhode Island on December
6, 2017. This revision addressed the
infrastructure requirements of the Clean
Air Act (CAA or the Act) for the 2012
annual fine particle (PM2.5) National
Ambient Air Quality Standard
(NAAQS). On May 31, 2022, EPA
approved much of the submission, but
did not act on three elements related to
the infrastructure requirement to have a
comprehensive Prevention of
Significant Deterioration (PSD) program.
In today’s action, EPA is approving the
three remaining elements of the state’s
December 2017 infrastructure SIP
submittal based on a previous EPA
approval of Rhode Island’s Air Pollution
Control Regulation (APCR) No. 9. This
action is being taken in accordance with
the Clean Air Act.
DATES: Written comments must be
received on or before October 13, 2022.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R01–
OAR–2017–0443 at https://
www.regulations.gov, or via email to
simcox.alison@epa.gov. For comments
submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the
online instructions for submitting
comments. Once submitted, comments
cannot be edited or removed from
Regulations.gov. For either manner of
submission, the EPA may publish any
comment received to its public docket.
Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be
accompanied by a written comment.
The written comment is considered the
official comment and should include
discussion of all points you wish to
make. The EPA will generally not
consider comments or comment
contents located outside of the primary
submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00051
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 9990
other file sharing system). For
additional submission methods, please
contact the person identified in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
For the full EPA public comment policy,
information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on
making effective comments, please visit
https://www.epa.gov/dockets/
commenting-epa-dockets. Publicly
available docket materials are available
at https://www.regulations.gov or at the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
EPA Region 1 Regional Office, Air and
Radiation Division, 5 Post Office
Square—Suite 100, Boston, MA. EPA
requests that if at all possible, you
contact the contact listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to
schedule your inspection. The Regional
Office’s official hours of business are
Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to
4:30 p.m., excluding legal holidays and
facility closures due to COVID–19.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Alison C. Simcox, Air Quality Branch,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
EPA Region 1, 5 Post Office Square—
Suite 100, (Mail code 05–2), Boston, MA
02109–3912, tel. (617) 918–1684, email
simcox.alison@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the
Final Rules section of this issue of the
Federal Register, EPA is approving the
State’s SIP submittal as a direct final
rule without prior proposal because the
Agency views this as a noncontroversial
submittal and anticipates no adverse
comments. A detailed rationale for the
approval is set forth in the direct final
rule. If no adverse comments are
received in response to this action, no
further activity is contemplated. If EPA
receives adverse comments, the direct
final rule will be withdrawn and all
public comments received will be
addressed in a subsequent final rule
based on this proposed rule. EPA will
not institute a second comment period.
Any parties interested in commenting
on this action should do so at this time.
Please note that if EPA receives adverse
comment on an amendment, paragraph,
or section of this rule and if that
provision may be severed from the
remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt
as final those provisions of the rule that
are not the subject of an adverse
comment.
For additional information, see the
direct final rule which is located in the
Rules section of this issue of the Federal
Register.
Dated: September 7, 2022.
David Cash,
Regional Administrator, EPA Region 1.
[FR Doc. 2022–19694 Filed 9–12–22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
E:\FR\FM\13SEP1.SGM
13SEP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 176 (Tuesday, September 13, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 55974-55976]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-19777]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 165
[Docket Number USCG-2022-0731]
RIN 1625-AA00
Safety Zone; Mission Bay Closure, San Diego, CA
AGENCY: Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is proposing to establish a temporary safety
zone for certain waters of Mission Bay. The safety zone is needed to
protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment from potential
hazards created by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife
(CDFW) Oil Spill Prevention and Response (OSPR) Sensitive Site Strategy
Evaluation Program (SSSEP) boom deployment exercise. Entry of vessels
or persons into this zone is prohibited unless specifically authorized
by the Captain of the Port Sector San Diego. We invite your comments on
this proposed rulemaking.
DATES: Comments and related material must be received by the Coast
Guard on or before October 13, 2022.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2022-0731 using the Federal Decision Making Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. See the ``Public Participation and Request for
Comments'' portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for further
instructions on submitting comments.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions about this
proposed rulemaking, call or email LTJG Shera Kim, Waterways
Management, U.S. Coast guard Sector San Diego, Coast Guard; telephone
619-278-7656, email [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Table of Abbreviations
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
Sec. Section
U.S.C. United States Code
II. Background, Purpose, and Legal Basis
On November 15, 2022, the Coast Guard will be working in
conjunction with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife and
local Oil Spill Response Organization to conduct boom deployment
exercises from 9 a.m. to 12 p.m. Contractors will bring up to 12000-
feet of floating oil boom aboard a workboat and deploy Area Contingency
Plan (ACP)-6 Geographic Response Strategies (GRS). The Captain of the
Port San Diego (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated
with the boom deployment exercise would be a safety concern for anyone
within a 100-yard radius of the boom. The COTP is proposing to
establish a safety zone from 9 a.m. to noon on November 15, 2022.
The purpose of this rulemaking is to ensure the safety of vessels
and the navigable waters within a 100-yard radius of the boom before,
during, and after the scheduled event. The Coast Guard is proposing
this rulemaking under authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034 (previously 33
U.S.C. 1231).
III. Discussion of Proposed Rule
The COTP is proposing to establish a safety zone from 9 a.m. until
noon on November 15, 2022. The safety zone would cover all navigable
waters within 100 yards of a boom in Mission Bay located across the
entrance channel from the shoreline north of Mariners Cove inlet to a
point south of Mission Bay Drive bridge on the Quivira Basin shoreline.
The duration of the zone is intended to ensure the safety of vessels
and these navigable waters before, during, and after the scheduled 9
a.m. until noon boom deployment exercise. No vessel or person would be
permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from
the COTP or a designated representative. The regulatory text we are
proposing appears at the end of this document.
IV. Regulatory Analyses
We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes
and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our
analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and
we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.
A. Regulatory Planning and Review
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. This NPRM has not been designated a ``significant
regulatory action,'' under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the NPRM
has not been reviewed by the
[[Page 55975]]
Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
This regulatory action determination is based on safety zone being
of a limited three hour duration, limited to a relatively small
geographic area, and the presence of safety hazards in the area
encompassing the Mission Bay Entrance.
B. Impact on Small Entities
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. 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.
While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the
safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section
IV.A above, this proposed rule would not have a significant economic
impact on any vessel owner or operator.
If you think that your business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this proposed 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.
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. If the proposed rule
would affect your small business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or
options for compliance, please call or email the person listed in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 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.
C. Collection of Information
This proposed rule would not call for a new collection of
information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-
3520).
D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132
(Federalism), if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on
the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on
the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels
of government. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that order and
have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order
13132.
Also, 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. If
you believe this proposed rule has implications for federalism or
Indian tribes, please call or email the person listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
E. 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 potential effects of
this proposed rule elsewhere in this preamble.
F. Environment
We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland
Security Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing
instructions, and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series),
which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (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. This proposed rule involves a safety
zone lasting 3 hours that would prohibit entry within 100 yards of the
boom. Normally such actions are categorically excluded from further
review under paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction
Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. We seek any comments or information that
may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from
this proposed rule.
G. Protest Activities
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to call or email the person listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so
that your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or
security of people, places, or vessels.
V. Public Participation and Request for Comments
We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking,
and will consider all comments and material received during the comment
period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If
you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which
each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or
recommendation.
Submitting comments. We encourage you to submit comments through
the Federal Decision Making Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. To
do so, go to https://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-2022-0731 in the
search box and click ``Search.'' Next, look for this document in the
Search Results column, and click on it. Then click on the Comment
option. If you cannot submit your material by using https://www.regulations.gov, call or email the person in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this proposed rule for alternate
instructions.
Viewing material in docket. To view documents mentioned in this
proposed rule as being available in the docket, find the docket as
described in the previous paragraph, and then select ``Supporting &
Related Material'' in the Document Type column. Public comments will
also be placed in our online docket and can be viewed by following
instructions on the https://www.regulations.gov Frequently Asked
Questions web page. We review all comments received, but we will only
post comments that address the topic of the proposed rule. We may
choose not to post off-topic, inappropriate, or duplicate comments that
we receive.
Personal information. We accept anonymous comments. Comments we
post to https://www.regulations.gov will include any personal
information you have provided. For more about privacy and submissions
to the docket in response to this document, see DHS's eRulemaking
System of Records notice (85 FR 14226, March 11, 2020).
[[Page 55976]]
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 is
proposing to amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows:
PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS
0
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 46 U.S.C. 70034, 70051; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-
6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No.
00170.1, Revision No. 01.2.
0
2. Add Sec. 165.T11-0731 to read as follows:
Sec. 165.T11-0731 Safety Zone; Mission Bay, San Diego, CA.
(a) Location. The following area is a safety zone: Mission Bay
located across the entrance channel from the shoreline north of
Mariners Cove inlet to a point south of Mission Bay Drive bridge on the
Quivira Basin shoreline.
(b) Definitions. As used in this section, designated representative
means a Coast Guard Patrol Commander, including a Coast Guard coxswain,
petty officer, or other officer operating a Coast Guard vessel and a
Federal, State, and local officer designated by or assisting the
Captain of the Port Sector San Diego (COTP) in the enforcement of the
safety zone.
(c) Regulations. (1) Under the general safety zone regulations in
subpart C of this part, you may not enter the safety zone described in
paragraph (a) of this section unless authorized by the COTP or the
COTP's designated representative.
(2) To seek permission to enter, contact the COTP or the COTP's
representative by VHF Channel 16. Those in the safety zone must comply
with all lawful orders or directions given to them by the COTP or the
COTP's designated representative.
(d) Enforcement period. This section will be enforced from 9 a.m.
until noon on November 15, 2022.
Dated: September 7, 2022.
J.W. Spitler,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Sector San Diego.
[FR Doc. 2022-19777 Filed 9-12-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P