Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule; change in effective period.
The Coast Guard is revising the effective period of the temporary security zones extending 25 yards in the U.S. navigable waters around all piers, abutments, fenders and pilings of the Golden Gate Bridge and the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge, San Francisco Bay, California. These security zones are needed for national security reasons to protect the public and ports from potential subversive acts. Entry into these security zones is prohibited, unless doing so is necessary for safe navigation, to conduct official business such as scheduled maintenance or retrofit operations, or unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port San Francisco Bay, or his designated representative.
The amendment to 33 CFR 165.T11-078(f) in this rule is effective September 30, 2003. Section 165.T11-078, added at 68 FR 13230, March 19, 2003, effective from 11 a.m. PST on February 13, 2003, to 11:59 p.m. PDT on September 30, 2003, as amended in this rule, is extended in effect to 11:59 p.m. PST on March 31, 2004.
Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket are part of docket [COTP San Francisco Bay 03-003] and are available for inspection or copying at Coast Guard Marine Safety Office San Francisco Bay, Coast Guard Island, Alameda, California, 94501, between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.Start Further Info
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Lieutenant Doug Ebbers, Waterways Branch U.S. Coast Guard Marine Safety Office San Francisco Bay, at (510) 437-3073.End Further Info End Preamble Start Supplemental Information
On March 19, 2003, we published a temporary final rule (TFR) for the Golden Gate and San Francisco-Oakland Bay bridges entitled “Security Zones; San Francisco Bay, CA” in the Federal Register (68 FR 13228) under 33 CFR 165.T11-078. It has been in effect since February 13, 2003, and is set to expire 11:59 p.m. PDT on September 30, 2003.
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. In addition, 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, for the following reasons. The threat of maritime attacks is real as evidenced by the October 2002 attack of a tank vessel off the coast of Yemen and the continuing threat to U.S. assets as described in the President's finding, found at Executive Order 13273 of August 21, 2002 (67 FR 56215, September 3, 2002) that the security of the U.S. is endangered as evidenced by the September, 11, 2001 attacks and that such disturbances continue to endanger the international relations of the United States. See also Continuation of the National Emergency with Respect to Certain Terrorist Attacks, (67 FR 58317, September 13, 2002); Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect To Persons Who Commit, Threaten To Commit, Or Support Terrorism, (67 FR 59447, September 20, 2002). Additionally, a Maritime Advisory was issued to: Operators of U.S. Flag and Effective U.S. controlled Vessels and other Maritime Interests, detailing the current threat of attack, MARAD 02-07 (October 10, 2002). Consequently, a heightened level of security has been established around all high visibility targets in San Francisco Bay and Delta ports. The measures contemplated by this rule are intended to prevent future terrorist attacks against individuals and facilities on or adjacent to the Golden Gate or San Francisco-Oakland Bay bridges. Any delay in the effective date of this TFR is impractical and contrary to the public interest.
The original temporary final rule was urgently required to prevent possible terrorist strikes against the United States and more specifically the people, waterways, and properties on and near the Golden Gate or San Francisco-Oakland Bay bridges. It was anticipated that we would assess the security environment at the end of the enforcement period to determine whether continuing security precautions were required and, if so, propose regulations responsive to existing conditions. We have determined that the need for continued security regulations exists.
The measures contemplated by this extension to the original temporary final rule are intended to facilitate ongoing response efforts and prevent future terrorist attack. The Coast Guard will utilize the extended enforcement period created by this TFR to confer with the bridge owners to determine if permanent fixed security zones around all piers, abutments, fenders and pilings of the Golden Gate Bridge and the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge are appropriate. If a threat assessment confirms the need for permanent zones, we will publish a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) that will allow for a public comment period and develop permanent regulations tailored to the present and foreseeable security environment with the Captain of the Port (COTP) San Francisco Bay. This Start Printed Page 55313revision preserves the status quo within the Ports while threat assessments are conducted and—if it is determined they are necessary—permanent regulations are developed.
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 a 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 (PWSA), 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. The Coast Guard also has authority to establish security zones pursuant to the Act of June 15, 1917, as amended by the Magnuson Act of August 9, 1950 (50 U.S.C. 191 et seq.), and implementing regulations promulgated by the President in subparts 6.01 and 6.04 of part 6 of title 33 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
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 Golden Gate Bridge or the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge would have on the public, the Coast Guard is revising the enforcement period of the temporary security zones extending 25 yards in the U.S. navigable waters around all piers, abutments, fenders and pilings of the Golden Gate Bridge and the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge, San Francisco Bay, California. These security zones help the Coast Guard to prevent vessels or persons from engaging in terrorist actions against these two bridges.
As of today, the need for security zones around the Golden Gate Bridge and the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge still exists. This temporary final rule will extend the enforcement period of security zones that were set to expire September 30, 2003, for and additional 6 months. The amended effective dates will be from September 30, 2003, to March 31, 2004. This period will allow the bridge owners to conduct a threat assessment to determine if permanent security zones are appropriate. In addition, if permanent security zones are deemed appropriate, this period will allow the Coast Guard time to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) in the Federal Register, which will include a public comment period, and for a final rule to be put into effect without there being an interruption in the protection provided by these security zones.
Discussion of Rule
On March 19, 2003, we published the temporary final rule [COTP San Francisco Bay 03-003] titled “Security Zones; San Francisco Bay, CA” in the Federal Register (68 FR 13228). That rule established 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 Golden Gate Bridge and the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge, San Francisco Bay, California.
The Coast Guard will utilize the extended enforcement period of these security zones to work with bridge owners to determine if permanent security zones are appropriate and, if so, to engage in notice-and-comment rulemaking to develop permanent regulations tailored to the present and foreseeable security environment with the Captain of the Port (COTP) San Francisco Bay.
In this regulation, the Coast Guard is extending the enforcement period of the current security zones for the Golden Gate Bridge and the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge, San Francisco Bay, California. These security zones will encompass all waters, extending from the surface to the sea floor, within 25 yards around all piers, abutments, fenders and pilings of the two bridges. Vessels and people may 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 will be subject to the penalties set forth in 33 U.S.C. 1232 and 50 U.S.C. 192. Pursuant to 33 U.S.C. 1232, any violation of the security zone described herein, is punishable by civil penalties (not to exceed $27,500 per violation, where each day of a continuing violation is a separate violation), criminal penalties (imprisonment up to 6 years and a maximum fine of $250,000), and in rem liability against the offending vessel. Any person who violates this section using a dangerous weapon or who engages in conduct that causes bodily injury or fear of imminent bodily injury to any officer authorized to enforce this regulation will also face imprisonment up to 12 years. Vessels or persons violating this section are also subject to the penalties set forth in 50 U.S.C. 192: seizure and forfeiture of the vessel to the United States, a maximum criminal fine of $10,000, and imprisonment up to 10 years as well as a civil penalty of not more than $25,000 for each day of a continuing violation.
The Captain of the Port will enforce these zones and may enlist the aid and cooperation of any Federal, State, county, municipal, and private agency to assist in the enforcement of the regulation. This regulation is proposed under the authority of 33 U.S.C. 1226 in addition to the authority contained in 50 U.S.C. 191 and 33 U.S.C. 1231.
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 zones, the effect of this regulation will not be significant because: (i) The zones 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.
The sizes of the zones are the minimum necessary to provide adequate protection for the bridges and the nearby public. The entities most likely to be affected are commercial vessels transiting the main ship channel en route to the San Francisco Bay and Delta ports and pleasure craft engaged in recreational activities and sightseeing.
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 Start Printed Page 55314governmental 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 may be small entities: the owners or operators of vessels intending to transit or anchor near the Golden Gate Bridge or the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge. The security zones will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for several reasons: small vessel traffic can pass safely around the area and vessels engaged in recreational activities, sightseeing and commercial fishing have ample space outside of the security zones to engage in these activities. Small entities and the maritime public will be advised of these security zones via public notice to mariners.
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.
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 an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
Taking of Private Property
This rule will 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.
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.
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 analyzed this rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, 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 final “Environmental Analysis Check List” and a “Categorical Exclusion Determination” is available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES.Start List of Subjects
List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165
- Marine safety
- Navigation (water)
- Reporting and recordkeeping requirements
- Security measures
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amendsEnd Amendment Part Start Part
PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREASEnd Part Start Amendment Part
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:End Amendment Part Start Amendment Part
2. Revise paragraph (f) of temporary § 165.T11-078, to read as follows:End Amendment Part
(f) Effective period. This section is effective at 11 a.m. PST on February 13, 2003, and will terminate at 11:59 p.m. PST on March 31, 2004.
Dated: September 8, 2003.
Gerald M. Swanson,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, San Francisco Bay, California.
[FR Doc. 03-23771 Filed 9-24-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P