Skip to Content


Anchorages, Regulated Navigation Areas, Safety and Security Zones; Boston Marine Inspection Zone and Captain of the Port Zone

Document Details

Information about this document as published in the Federal Register.

Document Statistics
Document page views are updated periodically throughout the day and are cumulative counts for this document including its time on Public Inspection. Counts are subject to sampling, reprocessing and revision (up or down) throughout the day.
Published Document

This document has been published in the Federal Register. Use the PDF linked in the document sidebar for the official electronic format.

Start Preamble


Coast Guard, DOT.


Temporary final rule.


The Coast Guard is revising a temporary final rule (§ 165.T01-171) published September 27, 2001. This change will extend the effective period for four temporary safety and security zones in this rule until June 30, 2002, allowing us adequate time to conduct a rulemaking to make these four safety and security zones permanent. The anchorage area restrictions (§ 110.T01-162) and regulated navigation areas (§ 165.T01-162) created by the rule published September 27, 2001 will expire as provided in that rule on March 16, 2002.


Section 165.T01-171 is revised effective March 15, 2002 and will remain effective until June 30, 2002.


MSO Boston 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 MSO Boston between 8 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

Start Further Info


LT Dave Sherry, Maritime Security Operations, MSO Boston, at 617-223-3030.

End Further Info End Preamble Start Supplemental Information


Regulatory History

We did not publish a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for this regulation. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing an NPRM. On September 11, 2001, two commercial aircraft were hijacked from Logan Airport in Boston, Massachusetts and flown into the World Trade Center in New York, New York inflicting catastrophic human casualties and property damage. A similar attack was conducted on the Pentagon with a plane launched from Newark, NJ on the same day. National security and intelligence officials warn that future terrorist attacks against civilian targets may be anticipated.

For these same reasons, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register. This rulemaking is urgently required to prevent future terrorist strikes within and adjacent to waters within the areas protected by these safety and security zones. The delay inherent in the NPRM process is contrary to the public interest insofar as it may render individuals, vessels and facilities within and adjacent area vulnerable to subversive activity, sabotage or terrorist attack.

Background and Purpose

On September 27, 2001, we published a temporary final rule creating anchorage area restrictions, three regulated navigation areas and five safety and security zones in the Boston Marine Inspection Zone and Captain of the Port Zone. (66 FR 49280). One of the safety and security zones, § 165.T01-171 (a)(4), for Pilgrim Nuclear Power Plant has been removed by a different temporary final rule (67 FR 1607, January 14, 2002), which was followed by an NRPM for a permanent rule (67 FR 4218, January 29, 2002).

We have determined that the anchorage area restrictions and three regulated navigation areas will not be Start Printed Page 11578needed after their current expiration date, March 16, 2002.

As indicated by an NPRM we published last month, and in the reasons supporting our finding of good cause, we do see a need to continued the four remaining safety and security zones in temporary 33 CFR 165.T01-171. (67 FR 8915, February 27, 2002). We are extending the effective period of these zones until June 30, 2002, to allow us to issue a supplemental NPRM with a longer comment period on the proposal to make these safety and security zones permanent.

Safety and Security Zones

The rule extends the effective period for four distinct safety and security zones, having identical boundaries. Three of these zones are being established by reference to a radius around a particular coordinate or easily identifiable landmark. One zone is being established by reference to readily identifiable boundaries. All of the zones are being established in order to protect the waterfront facilities, terminals, power plants, as well as persons and vessels from subversive or terrorist acts. No person or vessel may enter or remain in the prescribed safety and security zones at any time without the permission of the Captain of the Port. Each person or vessel in a safety and security zone shall obey any direction or order of the Captain of the Port.

The Captain of the Port may take possession and control of any vessel in a safety and security zone and/or remove any person, vessel, article or thing from a security zone. No person may board, take or place any article or thing on board any vessel or waterfront facility in a security zone without permission of the Captain of the Port. Any violation of any safety or security zone described herein, is punishable by, among others, civil penalties (not to exceed $25,000 per violation, where each day of a continuing violation is a separate violation), criminal penalties (imprisonment for not more than 10 years and a fine of not more than $100,000), in rem liability against the offending vessel, and license sanctions.

Regulatory Evaluation

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. It is not “significant” under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Transportation (DOT)(44 FR 11040, February 26, 1979).

We expect the economic impact of this rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation under paragraph 10e of the regulatory policies and procedures of DOT is unnecessary. This regulation may have some impact on the public, but these potential impacts will be minimized for the following reasons: there is ample room for vessels to navigate around some of the safety and security zones in Boston Harbor and the zone in Salem Harbor; and the local maritime community will be informed of the zones via marine information broadcasts. While recognizing the potential impacts, the Coast Guard still deems that these safety and security zones are need to protect the ports of Boston and Salem and the public.

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 does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule may affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: the owners or operators of vessels intending to transit or anchor in a portion of Boston and Salem Harbor in which entry would be prohibited by safety or security zones.

This rule does not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities because the majority of the zones are limited in size, leaving ample room for vessels to navigate around the zones. The zones will not significantly impact commuter and passenger vessel traffic patterns, and mariners will be notified of the zones via local notice to mariners and marine broadcasts. Also, the Captain of the Port will make broad allowances for individuals to enter the zones during periods when the potential threats to the Port of Boston are deemed to be low.

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 (Public Law 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If this rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact LT Dave Sherry, Maritime Security Operations, Marine Safety Office Boston, at 617-223-3030.

Collection of information

This rule does not call for new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).


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 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 does 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 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. Start Printed Page 11579

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 might 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. We invite your comments on how this rule might impact tribal governments, even if that impact may not constitute a “tribal implication” under the Order.

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. It has not been designated by the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211.


The Coast Guard considered the environmental impact of this rule and concluded that, under figure 2-1, (34)(g), of Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, this rule is categorically excluded from further environmental documentation. A “Categorical Exclusion Determination” is available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES.

Start List of Subjects

List of Subjects 33 CFR Part 165

  • Harbors
  • Marine safety
  • Navigation (water)
  • Reporting and recordkeeping requirements
  • Security measures
  • Waterways
End List of Subjects Start Part


End Part Start Amendment Part

1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:

End Amendment Part Start Authority

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191, 33 CFR 1.05-1(g), 6.04-1, 6.04-6, 160.5; 49 CFR 1.46

End Authority Start Amendment Part

2. Revise § 165.T01-171 published at 66 FR 49283-49284 to read as follows:

End Amendment Part
Safety and Security Zones: Boston Marine Inspection Zone and Captain of the Port Zone.

(a) Location. The following are established as safety and security zones:

(1) All waters of the Mystic River within a five hundred (500) yard radius of the Distrigas terminal pier in Everett, MA.

(2) All waters of Boston Harbor, including the Reserved Channel, west of a line connecting the Southeastern tip of the North Jetty and the Northeastern corner of the Paul W. Conley Marine Terminal pier.

(3) All waters of Boston Inner Harbor within a two hundred (200) yard radius of Pier 2 at the Coast Guard Integrated Support Command Boston, Boston, MA.

(4) All waters of Salem Harbor within a five hundred (500) yard radius of the PG & E U.S. Generating power plant pier in Salem, MA.

(b) Effective dates. This section is effective from September 18, 2001 until June 30, 2002.

(c) Regulations. (1) The general regulations contained in 33 CFR 165.23 and 165.33 apply.

(2) All persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of the Coast Guard Captain of the Port or the designated on-scene-patrol personnel. These personnel comprise commissioned, warrant, and petty officers of the Coast Guard. Upon being hailed by a U. S. Coast Guard vessel by siren, radio, flashing light, or other means, the operator of a vessel shall proceed as directed.

Start Signature

Dated: March 12, 2002.

G. N. Naccara,

Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, District Commander, First U.S. Coast Guard District.

End Signature End Supplemental Information

[FR Doc. 02-6459 Filed 3-13-02; 3:48 pm]