Skip to Content


Security Zone; Long Beach, CA

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, DHS.


Temporary final rule.


The Coast Guard proposes to establish a security zone in the waters adjacent to Pier T126 in San Pedro Bay, Long Beach, CA. This action is needed to protect the U.S. Naval vessel(s) and their crew(s) during military outload evolutions at Pier T126 from sabotage, or other subversive acts, accidents, criminal actions or other causes of a similar nature. Entry, transit, or anchoring in this zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port (COTP) Los Angeles-Long Beach, or his designated representative.


This rule is effective from 6 a.m. (PDT) on August 2, 2003, to 6 a.m. (PDT) on September 1, 2003.


Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket are part of docket [COTP Los Angeles-Long Beach 03-007] and are available for inspection or copying at U.S. Coast Guard Marine Safety Office/Start Printed Page 48556Group Los Angeles-Long Beach, 1001 South Seaside Avenue, Building 20, San Pedro, California, 90731 between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

Start Further Info


Lieutenant Ryan Manning, USCG, Chief of Waterways Management Division, at (310) 732-2020.

End Further Info End Preamble Start Supplemental Information


Regulatory Information

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. Final dates and other logistical details for the event were not provided to the Coast Guard in time to draft and publish an NPRM or a temporary final rule 30 days prior to the event, as the event would occur before the rulemaking process was complete. Any delay in implementing this rule would be contrary to the public interest since immediate action is necessary to protect persons, vessels and others in the maritime community from the hazards associated with the offloading operations.

For the same reasons stated above, 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.

Background and Purpose

The United States Navy will conduct military outload operations from Long Beach Pier T126. These operations involve the offloading of equipment onboard a Military Sealift Command (MSC) vessel for the furtherance of our national security. These offload evolutions are often directed at a moments notice. In an effort to protect the offload evolution and provide adequate notice to the public, the Captain of the Port of Los Angeles-Long Beach proposes to establish a temporary security zone around the Long Beach Pier T126 which will be actively enforced when the military offload evolution occurs.

As part of the Diplomatic Security and Antiterrorism Act of 1986 (Pub. L. 99-399), Congress amended The Ports and Waterways Safety Act (PWSA) 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. 33 U.S.C. 1226. The terrorist acts against the United States on September 11, 2001, have increased the need for safety and security measures on U.S. ports and waterways.

In response to these terrorist acts, and in order to prevent similar occurrences, the Coast Guard proposes to establish a temporary security zone in the navigable waters of the United States adjacent to the Long Beach Pier T126. The action proposed under this rule is necessary to protect the U.S. Naval vessel(s) and their crew(s) during these military outload evolutions at Long Beach Pier T126 from sabotage, or other subversive acts, accidents, criminal actions or other causes of a similar nature.

Discussion of Rule

Due to National Security interests, the implementation of this security zone is necessary for the protection of the United States and its people. The size of the zone is the minimum necessary to provide adequate protection for the U.S. Naval vessel(s), their crew(s), adjoining areas, and the public.

The military outload evolutions involve the transfer of military equipment from a MSC vessel to a shore side staging area. The security zone will accompany other security measures implemented at Long Beach Pier T126 waterfront facility.

Due to complex planning, national security reasons, and coordination with all military schedules, information regarding the precise location and date of the military outload will not be circulated, however, prior to the outload evolution, the public will be notified that the security zone is in effect and will be enforced actively. The notice of active enforcement of the security zone will be announced via broadcast notice to mariners, local notice to mariners, or by any other means that is deemed appropriate.

This security zone is established pursuant to the authority of the Magnuson Act regulations promulgated by the President under 50 U.S.C. 191, including subparts 6.01 and 6.04 of part 6 of title 33 of the Code of Federal Regulations. Vessels or persons violating this section are subject to he penalties set forth in 50 U.S.C. 192 which include seizure and forfeiture of the vessel, a monetary penalty of not more than $12,500, and imprisonment for not more than 10 years.

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 Homeland Security (DHS).

Although this regulation restricts access to the zone, the effect of this regulation will not be significant because: (i) The zone will encompass only a small portion of the waterway; (ii) vessels will be able to pass safely around the zones; and (iii) vessels may be allowed to enter these zones on a case-by-case basis with permission of the Captain of the Port, or his designated representative.

Most of the entities likely to be affected are pleasure craft engaged in recreational activities and sightseeing. Any hardships experienced by persons or vessels are considered minimal compared to the national interest in protecting the U.S. Naval vessel, their crew, and the public. Accordingly, full regulatory evaluation under the regulatory policies and procedures of the DHS is unnecessary.

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. Most of the traffic in this area is recreational traffic and sightseers. The economic impact is minimal by having them gain permission to transit through the zone from the COTP or his representative. The Coast Guard has coordinated with known private business owners in an effort to reduce any substantial impact on business.

Assistance for Small Entities

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-121), we offered 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 your small business or organization is affected by this rule 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. Start Printed Page 48557

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).

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).


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 expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.

Taking of Private Property

This rule will not affect 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 require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211.


We have considered the environmental impact of this rule and concluded that under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g), of Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, this rule is categorically excluded from further environmental documentation because we are establishing a security zone. A “Categorical Exclusion Determination” and checklist are available in the docket for inspection or copying where indicated under ADDRESSES.

Start List of Subjects

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

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

End Amendment Part 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. 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.

End Authority Start Amendment Part

2. Add a new § 165.T11-075 to read as follows:

End Amendment Part
Security Zone; Waters Adjacent to Long Beach Pier T126.

(a) Location. The security zone consists of all waters, extending from the surface to the sea floor, within a 500-yard radius of a MSC vessel, while the vessel is moored at Long Beach T126.

(b) Regulations. (1) In accordance with the general regulations in § 165.33 of this part, entry into, transit through, or anchoring within the security zone by all vessels is prohibited during military outloads, unless authorized by the Captain of the Port, or his designated representative. All other general regulations of § 165.33 of this part apply in the security zone established by this section.

(2) Persons desiring to transit the area of the security zone may contact the Captain of the Port at telephone number 1-800-221-USCG 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.

(c) Enforcement. The U.S. Coast Guard may be assisted in the patrol and enforcement of the security zone by the Long Beach Police Department.

Start Signature

Dated: July 30, 2003.

Peter V. Neffenger,

Captain, Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Los Angeles-Long Beach, California.

End Signature End Supplemental Information

[FR Doc. 03-20770 Filed 8-13-03; 8:45 am]