[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 7 (Tuesday, January 11, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 1521-1523]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-309]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 165
[Docket No. USCG-2010-0423]
RIN 1625-AA87
Security Zone: Fleet Industrial Supply Center Pier, San Diego, CA
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is removing a security zone on the navigable
waters of San Diego Bay, San Diego, CA. The existing zone is around the
former Fleet Industrial Supply Center Pier. The pier is no longer owned
by the U.S. Navy and the existing security zone is no longer necessary
to provide for the security of the U.S. Naval vessels, their crews, and
the public from sabotage or other subversive acts, accidents, criminal
actions, or other causes of a similar nature.
DATES: This rule is effective February 10, 2011.
ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in
the docket are part of docket USCG-2010-0423 and are available online
by going to http://www.regulations.gov, inserting USCG-2010-0423 in the
``Keyword'' box, and then clicking ``Search.'' They are also available
for inspection or copying at the 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, between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or e-mail Commander Mike Dolan, Waterways Management, U.S. Coast
Guard Sector San Diego; telephone 619-278-7261, e-mail
[email protected]. If you have questions on viewing the docket,
call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone
202-366-9826.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Regulatory Information
The Coast Guard is issuing this final rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the
Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision
authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
It is unnecessary to seek comments on this rulemaking because the
purpose of this security zone--to provide for the security of the U.S.
Naval vessels, their crews, and the public from sabotage or other
subversive acts, accidents, criminal actions, or other causes of a
similar nature--no longer exists because the Navy no longer owns this
facility.
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for making this rule effective 30 days after publication in the
Federal Register. The pier is no longer owned by the U.S.
[[Page 1522]]
Navy and the existing security zone is no longer necessary.
Basis and Purpose
The Coast Guard is removing a security zone on the navigable waters
of the San Diego Bay, San Diego, CA. The existing security zone is
around the former Fleet Industrial Supply Center Pier. The security
zone encompasses all navigable waters within 100 feet of the former
Fleet Industrial Supply Center Pier. The pier is no longer owned by the
U.S. Navy and the security zone is no longer needed to protect U.S.
Naval vessels, their crews, and the public from sabotage or other
subversive acts, accidents, criminal actions or other causes of a
similar nature.
Discussion of Rule
The Coast Guard is removing a security zone. The current limits of
the security zone include all navigable waters within 100 feet of the
former Fleet Industrial Supply Center Pier enclosed by lines connecting
the following points: 32[deg]42'50'' N, 117[deg]10'25'' W;
32[deg]42'50'' N, 117[deg]10'38'' W; 32[deg]42'54'' N, 117[deg]10'38''
W; 32[deg]42'54'' N, 117[deg]10'25'' W.
The security zone is no longer necessary to protect U.S. Naval vessels,
their crews, and the public from sabotage or other subversive acts,
accidents, criminal actions, or other causes of a similar nature.
Regulatory Analyses
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on 13 of these statutes or executive orders.
Regulatory Planning and Review
This 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. The entities most likely to be affected
are pleasure craft engaged in recreational activities and sightseeing.
As such, the Coast Guard expects the economic impact of this rule to be
minimal.
Small Entities
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities. The term ``small entities''
comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are
independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields,
and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
This rule will affect the following entities, some of which might
be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to
transit or anchor in a portion of the San Diego Bay. The removal of
this security zone will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities for the following reason. Removing
the security zone will allow the public to access an area of the
waterway that is currently restricted.
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 rule calls 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 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 rule will not result in
such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere
in this preamble.
Taking of Private Property
This rule will 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 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 rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection
of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule
is not an economically significant rule and does not create an
environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may
disproportionately affect children.
Indian Tribal Governments
This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order
13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,
because it does 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 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
[[Page 1523]]
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 rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not
consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.
Environment
We have analyzed this 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 concluded
this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or
cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This
rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g.),
of the Instruction. This rule involves the removal of a security zone.
An environmental analysis checklist and a categorical exclusion
determination are available in the docket where indicated under
ADDRESSES.
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 amends
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: 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306,
3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5;
Pub. L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security
Delegation No. 0170.1.
Sec. 165.1121 [Removed and Reserved]
0
2. Remove and reserve Sec. 165.1121.
Dated: December 29, 2010.
P.J. Hill,
Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting Captain of the Port San Diego.
[FR Doc. 2011-309 Filed 1-10-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P