Skip to Content
Proposed Rule

Security Zones; Cruise Ships, San Pedro Bay, CA

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.

Unified Agenda

Security Zone Regulations

    • Next Action Undetermined
 

Table of Contents Back to Top

DATES: Back to Top

Comments and related material must be received by the Coast Guard on or before September 15, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Back to Top

You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-2011-0101 using any one of the following methods:

(1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://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: Back to Top

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: Back to Top

Public Participation and Request for Comments Back to Top

We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting comments and related materials. All comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any personal information you have provided.

Submitting Comments Back to Top

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 http://www.regulations.gov) or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. If you submit a comment online via http://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 http://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 81/2by 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 Back to Top

To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://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 Back to Top

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 Back to Top

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 Back to Top

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 Back to Top

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 § 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 Back to Top

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 Back to Top

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.

Assistance for Small Entities Back to Top

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 Back to Top

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 Back to Top

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 Back to Top

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 Back to Top

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 Back to Top

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 Back to Top

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 Back to Top

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 Back to Top

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 Back to Top

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 Back to Top

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 Back to Top

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows:

begin regulatory text

PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS Back to Top

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.

* * * * *

(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— 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.

end regulatory text

[FR Doc. 2011-20764 Filed 8-15-11; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 9110-04-P

Site Feedback