Skip to Content

Proposed Rule

Security Zone; San Diego Bay, CA

Document Details

Information about this document as published in the Federal Register.

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.


Notice of proposed rulemaking.


The Coast Guard proposes to expand the geographical boundaries of the permanent security zone at Naval Base San Diego. This action is required to provide adequate area for the U.S. Navy to install an upgraded barrier system and provide the minimum required separation distances between the barrier and protected assets at Naval Station San Diego. The proposed security zone would run adjacent to the navigation channel between Pier 14 and Pier 5. From the edge of the navigation channel west of Pier 5, the proposed security zone extends to a point 650 feet opposite of Pier 1.

The existing security zone at Naval Station San Diego, implemented on April 15, 2003, does not provide the area necessary for this upgraded barrier system.


Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or before October 13, 2004.


You may mail comments and related material to Coast Guard Sector San Diego, 2716 North Harbor Drive, San Diego, California, 92101. Sector San Diego, Prevention Department maintains the public docket for these rulemakings. 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 Coast Guard Sector San Diego, 2716 North Harbor Drive, San Diego, California, 92101, between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

Start Further Info


MSTC Todd Taylor at (619) 683-6495.

End Further Info End Preamble Start Supplemental Information


Request for Comments

We encourage you to participate in these rulemakings by submitting comments and related material. If you do so, please include your name and address, identify the docket number for this rulemaking (COTP San Diego 04-019), indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and give the reason for each comment. Please submit all comments Start Printed Page 55123and related material in an unbound format, no larger than 81/2 by 11 inches, suitable for copying. If you would like to know your submission reached us, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. We may change these proposed rules in view of them.

Public Meeting

We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a request for a meeting by writing to Marine Safety Office San Diego at the address under ADDRESSES explaining why one would be beneficial. If we determine that one would aid these rulemakings, we will hold one at a time and place announced by a later notice in the Federal Register.

Background and Purpose

On May 12, 2003, the Coast Guard published a final rule creating a permanent security zone at Naval Station San Diego (68 FR 25288). This security zone allowed the U.S. Navy to install a small barrier system to protect critical assets at Naval Station San Diego. The U.S. Navy now intends to install a permanent waterfront boat barrier to protect all assets berthed at Naval Station San Diego. The existing security zone does not provide enough area to install the permanent barrier and provide the required minimum separation distance between the barrier and protected assets.

Discussion of the Proposed Rule

Existing U.S. Navy Instructions (OPNAVINST 5530.14C Chapter 2) identify a minimum separation distance of 400 feet between the Port Security Barrier and protected assets. Because the security zone must not enter the navigation channel, a 400-foot separation is not practical along the south end of the waterfront between Pier 5 and Pier 13. Between those piers, the Coast Guard proposes extending the security zone to the edge of the navigation channel. From Pier 5 north to Pier 1, the Coast Guard proposes extending the security zone to a point 650 feet opposite the northern end of Pier 1. From that point, the security zone would extend to the starting point of the existing security zone. From Pier 5 north, the proposed security zone is shoreside of the navigation channel.

The modification and expansion of this security zone will prevent recreational and commercial craft from interfering with military operations involving all naval vessels home-ported at Naval Base San Diego, and it will protect transiting recreational and commercial vessels, and their respective crews, from the navigational hazards posed by such military operations. It will also safeguard vessels and waterside facilities from destruction, loss, or injury from sabotage or other subversive acts, accidents, or other causes of a similar nature.

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.

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 $32,500 per violation, where each day of a continuing violation is a separate violation), criminal penalties (imprisonment up to 5-10 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, also faces 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, and a civil penalty of not more than $25,000 for each day of a continuing violation.

The Captain of the Port will enforce this zone 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.

Regulatory Evaluation

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. It is not significant under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

We expect the economic impact of this proposed rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation under the regulatory policies and procedures of DHS is unnecessary.

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 U.S. Naval vessels, their crews, adjoining areas, and the public. The entities most likely to be affected, if any, 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 U.S. Naval vessels, their crews, and the public.

Small Entities

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered whether this proposed 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 rules would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because the expanded zone will still allow sufficient room for vessels to transit the channel unimpeded.

If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that these rules 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 these rules would economically affect it.

Assistance for Small Entities

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Start Printed Page 55124Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding these proposed rules so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemakings. If the proposed rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact MSTC Todd Taylor, Sector San Diego at (619) 683-6495. 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 proposed rule would call 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 proposed 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 proposed rule would not result in such expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.

Taking of Private Property

This proposed rule would 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 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

We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. The rule is not economically significant and would not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might disproportionately affect children.

Indian Tribal Governments

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

Energy Effects

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 the rule 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 rule has not been designated by the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs as significant energy actions. Therefore, it does not 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 proposed rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.


We have analyzed this proposed rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, 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.

The U.S. Navy has separately considered the impact of their proposed project including the placement of anti-small boat barrier booms. The Coast Guard's analysis pertains solely to the expanded placement of the small markers designating the security zones already in the waterway. A draft “Environmental Analysis Check List” and a draft “Categorical Exclusion Determination” (CED) are available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. Comments on this section will be considered before we make the final decision on whether the rule should be categorically excluded from further environmental review.

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

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

Start Part


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

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

2. Revise § 165.1101 to read as follows:

Security Zone: San Diego Bay, CA.

(a) Location. The following area is a security zone: the water area within Naval Station, San Diego enclosed by a line connecting the following points: Beginning at 32°41′16.5″ N, 117°08′01″ W (Point A); thence running southwesterly to 32°41′00.0″ N, Start Printed Page 55125117°08′12.7″ W (Point B); to 32°40′36.0″ N 117°07′49.1″ W (Point C); to 32°40′27.4″ N, 117°07′34.6″ W (Point D); to 32°39′36.4″ N, 117°07′24.8″ W (Point E); to 32°39′38.5″ N 117°07′06.5″ W, (Point F); thence running generally northwesterly along the shoreline of the Naval Station to the beginning point. All coordinates referenced use datum: NAD 1983.

(b) Regulations. (1) In accordance with the general regulations in § 165.33 of this part, entry into the area of this zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port San Diego; Commander, Naval Base San Diego; Commander, Navy Region Southwest; or the Commanding Officer, Naval Station, San Diego.

(2) Persons desiring to transit the area of the security zone may contact the Captain of the Port at telephone number 619-683-6495 or on VHF 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) Authority. In addition to 33 U.S.C. 1231 and 50 U.S.C. 191, the authority for this section includes 33 U.S.C. 1226.

(d) Enforcement. The U.S. Coast Guard may be assisted in the patrol and enforcement of this security zone by the U. S. Navy.

Start Signature

Dated: August 25, 2004.

John E. Long,

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, San Diego.

End Signature End Part End Supplemental Information

[FR Doc. 04-20545 Filed 9-10-04; 8:45 am]