[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 157 (Friday, August 14, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 48787-48790]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-20110]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 165
[Docket Number USCG-2015-0330]
RIN 1625-AA87
Security Zone; Military Ocean Terminal Concord (MOTCO); Concord,
California
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is proposing revisions to the existing
conditional security zone regulation currently in place in the
navigable waters of Suisun Bay, California, near Concord, California
around each of the three piers at the Military Ocean Terminal Concord
(MOTCO), California (formerly United States Naval Weapons Center
Concord, California). This proposed action is intended to clarify
responsibilities and authorities for enforcement of the security zone.
DATES: Comments and related material must be received by the Coast
Guard on or before September 14, 2015. Requests for public meetings
must be received by the Coast Guard on or before August 21, 2015.
ADDRESSES: Documents mentioned in this preamble are part of Docket
Number USCG-2015-0330. To view documents mentioned in this preamble as
being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type
the docket number in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on
``Open Docket Folder'' on the line associated with this rulemaking. 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.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number, using any one
of the following methods:
(1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
(2) Fax: (202) 493-2251.
(3) Mail or Delivery: 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. Deliveries
accepted between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
federal holidays. The telephone number is 202-366-9329. See the
``Public Participation and Request for Comments'' portion of the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below for further instructions on
submitting comments. To avoid duplication, please use only one of these
three methods.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this proposed
rule, call or email Lieutenant Marcia Medina, Sector San Francisco,
U.S. Coast Guard; telephone (415) 399-7443, email [email protected]. If you have questions on viewing or submitting
material to the docket, call Cheryl Collins, Program Manager, Docket
Operations, telephone (202) 366-9826.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Acronyms
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
[[Page 48788]]
COTP Captain of the Port San Francisco
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
MOTCO Military Ocean Terminal Concord
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
A. Public Participation and Request for Comments
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.
1. Submitting Comments
If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking, 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 at
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, 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 email 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,
type the docket number in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.''
Click on ``Submit a Comment'' on the line associated with this notice
of proposed rulemaking.
If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them
in an unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 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.
2. Viewing Comments and Documents
To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble
as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov,
type the docket number in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.''
Click on ``Open Docket Folder'' on the line associated with this notice
of proposed rulemaking. 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.
3. Privacy Act
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).
4. Public Meeting
We do not plan to hold a public meeting due to the nature of the
existing security zone and the limited impact to the public. But you
may submit a request for one, using one of the methods specified under
ADDRESSES. Please submit your request by August 21, 2015, and 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.
B. Regulatory History and Information
On August 27, 1996, the Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers
published a final rule in the Federal Register (61 FR 43969)
establishing a restricted area \1\ around the MOTCO piers (33 CFR
334.1110). Although the restricted area prohibits public access to the
piers at all times, it lacks a conditional boundary extension to be
enforced during the presence of munitions laden vessels and/or military
onload/offload activities. Prior to January 24, 2005, the Coast Guard
would address this lack of a conditional boundary by publishing a
temporary security zone of sufficient size in the area for each
operation at MOTCO (see e.g., 68 FR 33382).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ A ``restricted area'' is defined in Sec. 334.2 as ``[a]
defined water area for the purpose of prohibiting or limiting public
access to the area. Restricted areas generally provide security for
Government property and/or protection to the public from the risks
of damage or injury arising from the Government's use of that
area.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On January 24, 2005, to address this issue on a more permanent
basis, the Coast Guard published a final rule in the Federal Register
(70 FR 3299) establishing a conditional 500-yard security zone around
MOTCO's piers to be enforced during military onload/offload operations
(33 CFR 165.1199). The security zone provides necessary security for
military operations by providing a standoff distance for blast and
collision, a surveillance and detection perimeter, and a margin of
response time for security personnel.
C. Basis and Purpose
The legal basis for this rule is 33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33
CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security
Delegation No. 0170.1, which collectively authorize the Coast Guard to
establish security zones. This authority is separate from the
Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers authority to provide
appropriate security in defense of their waterfront facilities and for
vessels moored thereto in accordance with the restricted area in 33 CFR
334.1110.
The purpose of this rulemaking is to advance the Coast Guard's
efforts to thwart potential terrorist activity through security
measures on U.S. ports and waterways.
D. Discussion of the Proposed Rule
The current regulation at Sec. 165.1199 contains several items
that are the subject of the revisions proposed in this NPRM. The
proposed revisions to Sec. 165.1199 would clarify the regulations in a
concise, understandable format.
First, the Coast Guard proposes to revise Sec. 165.1199(c) by
clarifying the Coast Guard's enforcement role during active loading
operations, and the ability of the COTP to designate other
representatives as having authority to enforce the security zone. The
Coast Guard proposes to replace the existing term ``patrol personnel,''
in favor of a more appropriate term, ``designated representative,''
which includes federal, state and local officials designated by the
COTP. This revision would clarify that the COTP may designate law
enforcement officials other than Coast Guard personnel to patrol and
enforce the security zone.
The Coast Guard also proposes to revise the security zone so that
it is enforceable at any time a vessel loaded with munitions is present
at a pier (in addition to during military onload/offload operations).
Without this revision, the existing security zone is enforceable during
military onload or offload operations only.
Additionally, the Coast Guard proposes to remove the existing
provision regarding ``Local Notice to Mariners'' as a means of
notifying the
[[Page 48789]]
public that the security zone will be enforced. The security concern
related to providing advance notification of the presence of an
explosive load at a military base outweighs the benefit of advance
notice of the security zone. Instead, the Coast Guard would notify the
public of security zone enforcement (and suspensions of enforcement)
via Broadcast Notice to Mariners and/or actual notice on-scene during
military onloads or offloads. This revision would better align the
notification method of this security zone with the notification method
for the existing safety zone in the area (see Sec. 165.1198).
Finally, in addition to the above revisions, the Coast Guard
proposes to make minor technical editorial adjustments to Sec.
165.1199 for ease of reading and comprehension.
E. Regulatory Analyses
We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes
and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our
analyses based on a number of these statutes or executive orders.
1. Regulatory Planning and Review
This proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action under
section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review,
as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential
costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or
under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and
Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders.
Security zone enforcement would be limited in duration, and limited
to a narrowly tailored geographic area. In addition, although this
proposed rule would restrict access to the waters encompassed by the
security zone, the effect of this proposed rule would not be
significant because the local waterway users will be notified via
Broadcast Notice to Mariners and/or actual notice on-scene during
military onloads or offloads. The entities most likely to be affected
are waterfront facilities, commercial vessels, and pleasure craft
engaged in recreational activities.
2. Impact on Small Entities
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. 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 proposed rule may affect owners and operators of waterfront
facilities, commercial vessels, and pleasure craft engaged in
recreational activities and sightseeing. The security zone would not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities for the following reasons. The security zone would be
activated, and thus subject to patrol and enforcement, for a limited
duration. When the security zone is activated, vessel traffic would be
directed to pass safety around the security zone. The maritime public
would be advised when transiting near the activated zone.
If you think that your business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this proposed 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.
3. Assistance for Small Entities
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this proposed rule. If the rule would affect
your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you
have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance,
please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT, above. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this proposed rule or any
policy or action of the Coast Guard.
4. Collection of Information
This proposed rule would not call for a new collection of
information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-
3520).
5. Federalism
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and
determined that this rule does not have implications for federalism.
6. Protest Activities
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that
your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or
security of people, places or vessels.
7. 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 (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.
8. Taking of Private Property
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.
9. 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.
10. Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks
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.
11. 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
[[Page 48790]]
power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian
tribes.
12. Energy Effects
This proposed rule is not a ``significant energy action'' under
Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.
13. Technical Standards
This proposed rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we
did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.
14. Environment
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. This proposed rule
involves a security zone of limited size and duration. This proposed
rule is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph
34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. A preliminary
environmental analysis checklist supporting this determination and a
Categorical Exclusion Determination are available in the docket where
indicated under ADDRESSES. 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
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes
to amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows:
PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS
0
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-
1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No.
0170.1.
0
2. Revise Sec. 165.1199 to read as follows:
Sec. 165.1199 Security Zones; Military Ocean Terminal Concord
(MOTCO), Concord, California.
(a) Location. The security zone(s) reside(s) within the navigable
waters of Suisun Bay, California, extending from the surface to the sea
floor, within 500 yards of the three Military Ocean Terminal Concord
(MOTCO) piers in Concord, California.
(b) Definitions. As used in this section, ``designated
representative'' means any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant, or petty
officer or any Federal, state, or local law enforcement officer who has
been designated by the Captain of the Port San Francisco (COTP) to act
on the COTP's behalf. The COTP's representative may be on a Coast Guard
vessel, a Coast Guard Auxiliary vessel, a Federal, state, or local law
enforcement vessel, or a location on shore.
(c) Regulations. (1) The security zone(s) described in paragraph
(a) of this section will be in force during active military onloading
and/or offloading operations and at any time a vessel loaded with
munitions is present at a pier.
(2) When one or more piers are involved in onload or offload
operations at the same time, there will be a 500-yard security zone for
each involved pier.
(3) Under the general regulations in subpart D of this part, entry
into, transiting or anchoring within the security zone(s) described in
paragraph (a) of this section is prohibited during times of enforcement
unless authorized by the COTP or a designated representative.
(4) Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within the
security zone(s) during times of enforcement must contact the COTP or a
designated representative on VHF-16 or through the 24-hour Command
Center at telephone (415) 399-3547 to obtain permission to do so.
Vessel operators given permission to enter or operate in the security
zone(s) must comply with all directions given to them by the COTP or a
designated representative.
(5) Upon being hailed by the COTP or designated representative by
siren, radio, flashing light, or other means, the operator of a vessel
approaching the security zone(s) must proceed as directed to avoid
entering the security zone(s).
(d) Notice of enforcement or suspension of enforcement of security
zone(s). During periods that one or more security zones are enforced,
the COTP or a designated representative will issue a Broadcast Notice
to Mariners and/or notify mariners via actual notice on-scene. In
addition, COTP maintains a telephone line that is maintained 24 hours a
day, 7 days a week. The public can contact COTP at (415) 399-3547 to
obtain information concerning enforcement of this section. When the
security zones are no longer needed, the COTP or designated
representative will cease enforcement of the security zones. Upon
suspension of enforcement, all persons and vessels are granted general
permissions to enter, move within, and exit the security zones, but
should remain cognizant of the applicable restricted area designated in
33 CFR 334.1110.
Dated: July 1, 2015.
Gregory G. Stump,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port San Francisco.
[FR Doc. 2015-20110 Filed 8-13-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P