[Federal Register: January 16, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 11)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 2554-2557]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr16ja04-21]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 165
[COTP San Diego 03-032]
RIN 1625-AA00
Security Zone: Coronado Bay Bridge, San Diego, CA
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to establish permanent security zones
[[Page 2555]]
encompassing the navigable waters of San Diego Bay within 25 yards of
all piers, abutments, fenders and pilings of the Coronado Bay Bridge.
These temporary security zones are needed for national security reasons
to protect the public ports from potential subversive actions. Persons
and vessels would be prohibited from entering into, transiting through,
loitering, or anchoring within these security zones unless authorized
by the Captain of the Port, or his designated representative.
DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or
before March 16, 2004.
ADDRESSES: You may mail comments and related material to Coast Guard
Marine Safety Office San Diego, 2716 North Harbor Drive, San Diego, CA
92101-1064. The Port Operations Department maintains the public docket
for this rulemaking. Comments and material received from the public, as
well as documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the
docket, will become part of this docket and will be available for
inspection or copying at the Marine Safety Office San Diego, Port
Operations Department between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Chief Petty Officer Todd Taylor, USCG,
c/o U.S. Coast Guard Captain of the Port, telephone (619) 683-6495.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Request for Comments
We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting
comments and related material. If you do so, please include your name
and address, identify the docket number for this rulemaking (03-032),
indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment
applies, and give the reason for each comment. Please submit all
comments and related material in an unbound format, no larger than 8\1/
2\ by 11 inches, suitable for copying. If you would like to know that
your submission reached us, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed
postcard or envelope. We will consider all comments and material
received during the comment period. We may change this proposed rule in
view of them.
Public Meeting
We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a
request for a meeting by writing to Marine Safety Office San Diego,
Port Operations Department, at the address under ADDRESSES explaining
why one would be beneficial. If we determine that one would aid this
rulemaking, we will hold one at a time and place announced by a
separate notice in the Federal Register.
Background and Purpose
Since the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the World Trade
Center in New York, the Pentagon in Arlington, Virginia, and Flight 93,
the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has issued several warnings
concerning the potential for additional terrorist attacks within the
United States. In addition, the ongoing hostilities in Afghanistan and
Iraq have made it prudent for U.S. ports to be on higher state of alert
because the Al-Qaeda organization and other similar organizations have
declared an ongoing intention to conduct armed attacks on U.S.
interests worldwide.
In its effort to thwart terrorist activity, the Coast Guard has
increased safety and security measures on U.S. ports and waterways. As
part of the Diplomatic Security and Antiterrorism Act of 1986 (Pub. L.
99-399), Congress amended section 7 of the Ports and Waterways Safety
Act (PAWSA), 33 U.S.C. 1226, to allow the Coast Guard to take actions,
including the establishment of security and safety zones, to prevent or
respond to acts of terrorism against individuals, vessels, or public or
commercial structures.
In this particular rulemaking, to address the aforementioned
security concerns and to take steps to prevent the catastrophic impact
that a terrorist attack against the Coronado Bridge would have on the
public interest, the Coast Guard proposes to establish security zones
around the Coronado Bridge. These security zones would help the Coast
Guard to prevent vessels or persons from engaging in terrorist actions
against these bridges. Due to these heightened security concerns and
the catastrophic impact a terrorist attack on these bridges would have
on the public transportation system and surrounding areas and
communities, security zones are prudent for these structures.
This notice of proposed rulemaking is intended to notify the public
that the Coast Guard intends to create permanent security zones around
the Coronado Bay Bridge.
Discussion of Proposed Rule
In this proposed rule, the Coast Guard would establish fixed
security zones extending, from the surface to the sea floor, 25 yards
in the waters around all piers, abutments, fenders and pilings of the
Coronado Bridge, San Diego Bay, California. Entry into these security
zones would be prohibited, unless doing so would be necessary for safe
navigation or you have the permission of the Captain of the Port.
Vessels and people would be allowed to enter an established security
zone on a case-by-case basis with authorization from the Captain of the
Port.
Vessels or persons violating this section would be subject to the
penalties set forth in 33 U.S.C. 1232. Pursuant to 33 U.S.C. 1232, any
violation of the security zone described herein could be punishable by
civil penalties, criminal penalties (including imprisonment up to 6
years), and in rem liability against the offending vessel. Any person
who would violate this proposed regulation using a dangerous weapon or
who would engage in conduct that causes bodily injury or fear of
imminent bodily injury to any officer authorized to enforce this
regulation, would also face imprisonment up to 12 years.
Coast Guard personnel would enforce this regulation and the Captain
of the Port may be assisted by other Federal, State, or local agencies
in the patrol and enforcement of the regulation. This regulation is
proposed under the authority of 33 U.S.C. 1226 in addition to the
authority contained in 33 U.S.C. 1231.
Regulatory Evaluation
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. It is not ``significant''
under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of
Homeland Security (DHS).
We expect the economic impact of this proposed rule to be so
minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation under the regulatory policies
and procedures of DHS is unnecessary. Although the proposed rule would
restrict access to portions of the navigable waterways around the
bridge, the effect of this regulation would not be significant because:
(i) The zones would encompass only a small portion of the waterway;
(ii) Vessels would be able to pass safely around the zones; and (iii)
Vessels would be allowed to enter these zones on a case-by-case basis
with permission of the Captain of the Port, or his designated
representative.
The sizes of the proposed zones are the minimum necessary to
provide adequate protection for the bridges, vessels operating in the
vicinity, their
[[Page 2556]]
crew and passengers, adjoining areas and the public. The entities most
likely to be affected are commercial vessels transiting the main ship
channel en route the southern San Diego Bay and Chula Vista ports and
pleasure craft engaged in recreational activities and sightseeing.
Small Entities
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered whether this proposed rule would have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000.
The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed
rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. The security zones would not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
for several reasons: small vessel traffic could pass safely around the
security zones and vessels engaged in recreational activities,
sightseeing and commercial fishing would have ample space outside of
the security zones to engage in these activities. Small entities and
the maritime public would be advised of these security zones via public
notice to mariners.
If you think that your business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have
a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what
degree this rule would economically affect it.
Assistance for Small Entities
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we offer to assist small
entities in understanding the rule so that they could better evaluate
its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process. If the
rule will affect your small business, organization, or government
jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or
options for compliance, please contact the person listed under FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT for assistance in understanding this rule.
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
Arule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local
governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial
direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this proposed rule
under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications
for federalism.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any
one year. Though this proposed rule would not result in such
expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this
preamble.
Taking of Private Property
This proposed rule would not effect a taking of private property or
otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630,
Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected
Property Rights.
Civil Justice Reform
This proposed rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and
3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize
litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.
Protection of Children
We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13045,
Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and would not
create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might
disproportionately affect children.
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.
Environment
We have analyzed this proposed rule under Commandant Instruction
M16475.lD, which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have
concluded that there are no factors in this case that would limit the
use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the Instruction.
Therefore, this rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1,
paragraph (34)(g) of the Instruction, from further environmental
documentation because we are establishing a security zone.
A draft ``Environmental Analysis Check List'' and a draft
``Categorical Exclusion Determination'' (CED) are available in the
docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. Comments on this section will
be considered before we make the final decision on whether the rule
should be categorically excluded from further environmental review.
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. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701; 50
U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1(g), 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. Add Sec. 165.1110 to read as follows:
[[Page 2557]]
Sec. 165.1110 Security Zone: Coronado Bay Bridge, San Diego, CA.
(a) Location. All navigable waters of San Diego Bay, from the
surface to the sea floor, within 25 yards of all piers, abutments,
fenders and pilings of the Coronado Bay Bridge. These security zones
will not restrict the main navigational channel nor will it restrict
vessels from transiting through the channel.
(b) Regulations. (1) Under Sec. 165.33, entry into, transit
through, loitering, or anchoring within any of these security zones by
all persons and vessels is prohibited, unless authorized by the Captain
of the Port, or his designated representative. Mariners seeking
permission to transit through a security zone may request authorization
to do so from Captain of the Port or his designated representative. The
Coast Guard can be contacted on San Diego Bay via VHF-FM channel 16.
(2) Vessels may enter a security zone if it is necessary for safe
navigation and circumstances do not allow sufficient time to obtain
permission from the Captain of the Port.
Dated: December 16, 2003.
Stephen P. Metruck,
Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, San Diego.
[FR Doc. 04-1058 Filed 1-15-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P