9768 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 43 / Friday, March 6, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

other waterway traffic will not be 

negatively impacted by the project. 

Vessels that can transit the bridge, 

while in the closed-to-navigation 

position, may continue to do so at any 

time. 

In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), 

the drawbridge must return to its regular 

operating schedule immediately at the 

end of the designated time period. This 

deviation from the operating regulations 

is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35. 

Dated: January 30, 2009. 

P.F. Zukunft, 

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

Eleventh Coast Guard District. 

[FR Doc. E9–4811 Filed 3–5–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–15–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 165 

[Docket No. USCG–2008–0440] 

RIN 1625–AA87 

Security Zone; Coast Guard Base San 

Juan, San Juan Harbor, PR 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is 

establishing a permanent security zone 

of 100 yards around the Coast Guard 

Base in San Juan, Puerto Rico. The 

security zone is needed for national 

security reasons to protect the public 

and the Coast Guard base from potential 

subversive acts. This rule would 

exclude entry into the security zone by 

all vessels and personnel without 

permission of the U.S. Coast Guard 

Captain of the Port San Juan (COTP). 

DATES: This rule is effective April 6, 

2009. 

ADDRESSES: Comments and material 

received from the public, as well as 

documents mentioned in this preamble 

as being available in the docket, are part 

of docket USCG–2008–0440 and are 

available online by going to http:// 

www.regulations.gov, selecting the 

Advanced Docket Search option on the 

right side of the screen, inserting USCG– 

2008–0440 in the Docket ID box, 

pressing Enter, and then clicking on the 

item in the Docket ID column. This 

material is also available for inspection 

or copying at two locations: The 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, between 9 a.m. 

and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays and the USCG 

Sector San Juan, Prevention Operations 

Department, 5 Calle La Puntilla, San 

Juan, Puerto Rico 00901 between 7:30 

a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, except Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you have questions on this rule, call 

Lieutenant Junior Grade Rachael Love of 

Sector San Juan, Prevention Operations 

Department at (787) 289–2071. If you 

have questions on viewing the docket, 

call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, 

Docket Operations, telephone 202–366– 

9826. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Regulatory Information 

On September 30, 2008, we published 

a notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM) entitled Security Zone; Coast 

Guard Base San Juan, San Juan Harbor, 

Puerto Rico in the Federal Register (73 

FR 56773). We received no letters 

commenting on the proposed rule. No 

public meeting was requested, and none 

was held. 

Background and Purpose 

The Coast Guard docking facilities at 

La Puntilla in Old San Juan are home to 

six Coast Guard cutters and six Coast 

Guard small boats. Incidents of 

unknown vessels mooring up to the 

Coast Guard piers have occurred twice 

in the past year. In addition, suspected 

surveillance in the form of photography 

has been performed by unknown 

individuals located in close proximity 

to the Coast Guard base on more than 

one occasion. These incidents pose a 

potential threat to national security and 

may lead to subversive acts against the 

personnel or equipment located at the 

Coast Guard base. 

This rulemaking attempts to solve the 

problem by prohibiting all persons and 

vessels from entering in, transiting 

through or remaining in a security zone 

extending 100 yards seaward from the 

water’s edge of the Coast Guard La 

Puntilla facility. 

Discussion of Comments and Changes 

No comments were received as a 

result of publishing the NPRM; therefore 

no changes have been made to the 

regulatory text. 

Regulatory Analyses 

We developed this rule after 

considering numerous statutes and 

executive orders related to rulemaking. 

Below we summarize our analyses 

based on 13 of these statutes or 

executive orders. 

Regulatory Planning and Review 

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. 

This rule is not a significant 

regulatory action because the security 

zone only extends 100 yards from Base 

San Juan and does not impede any 

regular vessel traffic (i.e., cruise ships, 

ferries, small passenger vessels, etc.). 

Vessels will be able to transit safely 

around the zone. In the event that a 

vessel or person feels the need to 

temporarily transit through the 

proposed security zone, the COTP will 

handle the requests on a case-by-case 

basis. 

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. 

This rule would affect the following 

entities, some of which might be small 

entities: The owners or operators of 

vessels intending to transit or anchor in 

the proposed zone. The impact would 

not be economically significant because 

vessels would be able to transit around 

the zone. The zone does not encompass 

any portions of any shipping channels 

and would only affect those vessels 

transiting the area adjacent to the Coast 

Guard facility. 

Assistance for Small Entities 

Under section 213(a) of the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104–121), 

in the NPRM 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. 

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 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 43 / Friday, March 6, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 9769 

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). 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 rule calls for no new collection 

of information under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501– 

3520). 

Federalism 

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. 

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. 

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 rule does not use technical 

standards. Therefore, we did not 

consider the use of voluntary consensus 

standards. 

Environment 

We have analyzed this rule under 

Department of Homeland Security 

Management Directive 5100.1 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 concluded that this action is one 

of a category of actions that do not 

individually or cumulatively have a 

significant effect on the human 

environment. Therefore, this rule is 

categorically excluded, under section 

2.B.2, figure 2–1, paragraph (34)(g), of 

the Instruction. Paragraph (34)(g) covers 

regulations establishing, disestablishing, 

or changing security zones. This rule 

involves establishing a security zone at 

the Coast Guard Base in San Juan, 

Puerto Rico. 

Neither an environmental assessment 

nor an environmental impact statement 

is required. An environmental analysis 

checklist and a categorical exclusion 

determination are available in the 

docket where indicated under 

ADDRESSES. 

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 amends 33 

CFR part 165 as follows: 

PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION 

AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 165 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. 

Chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 

33 CFR 1.05–1, 6.04–1, 6.04–6, 160.5; Pub. L. 

107–295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of 

Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. 

■ 2. Add § 165.776 to read as follows: 

§ 165.776 Security Zone; Coast Guard 

Base San Juan, San Juan Harbor, Puerto 

Rico 

(a) Location. The following area is a 

security zone: All waters from surface to 

bottom, encompassed by an imaginary 

line connecting the following points, 

beginning at 18°27′39′′ N, 066°06′56′′ W; 

then east to Point 2 at 18°27′39′′ N, 

066°06′52′′ W; then south to Point 3 at 

18°27′35′′ N, 066°06′52′′ W; then 

southwest to Point 4 at 18°27′30′′ N, 

066°06′59′′ W; then northeast to Point 5 

at 18°27′25′′ N, 066°07′07′′ W; then 

north to Point 6 at 18°27′46′′ N, 

066°07′10′′ W; then back to shore at the 

northwest end of the CG facility at Point 

7 at 18°27′46′′ N, 066°07′07′′ W. These 

coordinates are based upon North 

American Datum 1983. 

(b) Definitions. As used in this 

section— 

Vessel means every description of 

watercraft or other artificial contrivance 

used, or capable of being used, as a 

means of transportation on water, 

except U.S. Coast Guard or U.S. naval 

vessels. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES

9770 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 43 / Friday, March 6, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

(c) Regulations. (1) No person or 

vessel may enter into the security zone 

described in paragraph (a) of this 

section unless authorized by the Captain 

of the Port San Juan. 

(2) Vessels seeking to enter the 

security zone established in this section 

may contact the COTP on VHF channel 

16 or by telephone at (787) 289–2041 to 

request permission. 

Dated: February 5, 2009. 

E. Pino, 

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the 

Port San Juan. 

[FR Doc. E9–4812 Filed 3–5–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–15–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 622 

[Docket No. 001005281–0369–02] 

RIN 0648–XN55 

Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of 

Mexico, and South Atlantic; Coastal 

Migratory Pelagic Resources of the 

Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic; 

Closure 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Temporary rule; closure. 

SUMMARY: NMFS closes the commercial 

fishery for king mackerel in the Florida 

east coast subzone. This closure is 

necessary to protect the Gulf king 

mackerel resource. 

DATES: The closure is effective 12:01 

a.m., local time, March 6, 2009, until 

12:01 a.m., local time, April 1, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Susan Gerhart, telephone: 727–824– 

5305, e-mail: Susan.Gerhart@noaa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

fishery for coastal migratory pelagic fish 

(king mackerel, Spanish mackerel, cero, 

cobia, little tunny, and, in the Gulf of 

Mexico only, dolphin and bluefish) is 

managed under the Fishery 

Management Plan for the Coastal 

Migratory Pelagic Resources of the Gulf 

of Mexico and South Atlantic (FMP). 

The FMP was prepared by the Gulf of 

Mexico and South Atlantic Fishery 

Management Councils (Councils) and is 

implemented under the authority of the 

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act 

(Magnuson-Stevens Act) by regulations 

at 50 CFR part 622. 

Based on the Councils’ recommended 

total allowable catch and the allocation 

ratios in the FMP, on April 30, 2001 (66 

FR 17368, March 30, 2001) NMFS 

implemented a commercial quota of 

2.25 million lb (1.02 million kg) for the 

eastern zone (Florida) of the Gulf 

migratory group of king mackerel. That 

quota is further divided into separate 

quotas for the Florida east coast subzone 

and the northern and southern Florida 

west coast subzones. The commercial 

quota implemented for the Florida east 

coast subzone is 1,040,625 lb (472,020 

kg) (50 CFR 622.42(c)(1)(i)(A)(1)). 

Under 50 CFR 622.43(a)(3), NMFS is 

required to close any segment of the 

king mackerel commercial fishery when 

its quota has been reached, by filing a 

notification at the Office of the Federal 

Register. NMFS has determined that the 

commercial quota for Gulf group king 

mackerel in the Florida east coast 

subzone will be reached on March 6, 

2009. Accordingly, the commercial 

fishery for king mackerel in the Florida 

east coast subzone is closed at 12:01 

a.m., local time, March 6, 2009, until 

12:01 a.m., local time, April 1, 2009. 

From November 1 through March 31 

the Florida east coast subzone of the 

Gulf group king mackerel is that part of 

the eastern zone north of 25°20.4′ N. lat. 

(a line directly east from the MiamiDade/Monroe County, FL, boundary) to 

29°25′ N. lat. (a line directly east from 

the Flagler/Volusia County, FL, 

boundary). Beginning April 1, the 

boundary between Atlantic and Gulf 

groups of king mackerel shifts south and 

west to the Monroe/Collier County 

boundary on the west coast of Florida. 

From April 1 through October 31, king 

mackerel harvested along the east coast 

of Florida, including all of Monroe 

County, are considered to be Atlantic 

group king mackerel. 

Classification 

This action responds to the best 

available information recently obtained 

from the fishery. The Assistant 

Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA, 

(AA), finds good cause to waive the 

requirement to provide prior notice and 

opportunity for public comment 

pursuant to the authority set forth at 5 

U.S.C. 553(b)(B) as such prior notice 

and opportunity for public comment is 

unnecessary and contrary to the public 

interest. Such procedures would be 

unnecessary because the rule itself has 

already been subject to notice and 

comment, and all that remains is to 

notify the public of the closure. 

Allowing prior notice and opportunity 

for public comment is contrary to the 

public interest because of the need to 

immediately implement this action in 

order to protect the fishery because the 

capacity of the fishing fleet allows for 

rapid harvest of the quota. Prior notice 

and opportunity for public comment 

will require time and would potentially 

result in a harvest well in excess of the 

established quota. 

For the aforementioned reasons, the 

AA also finds good cause to waive the 

30-day delay in the effectiveness of this 

action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). 

This action is taken under 50 CFR 

622.43(a) and is exempt from review 

under Executive Order 12866. 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. 

Dated: March 2, 2009. 

Emily H. Menashes, 

Acting Director, Office of Sustainable 

Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. E9–4789 Filed 3–3–09; 4:15 pm] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 648 

[Docket No. 090206152–9249–01] 

RIN 0648–AX61 

Fisheries of the Northeastern United 

States; Atlantic Deep-Sea Red Crab 

Fishery; Emergency Rule 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Temporary rule; emergency 

action; request for comments. 

SUMMARY: NMFS is implementing 

emergency measures to reduce the target 

total allowable catch (TAC) and 

associated days-at-sea (DAS) allocations 

in the Atlantic deep-sea red crab fishery, 

based on new scientific information. 

The red crab stock was assessed by the 

Data Poor Stocks Working Group in the 

fall of 2008, and a final report published 

in January 2009 indicates that the 

current estimate of maximum 

sustainable yield (MSY) for red crab is 

no longer reliable. The actions of this 

final rule are necessary to comply with 

the objectives of the Deep-Sea Red Crab 

Fishery Management Plan (FMP), as 

well as to ensure compliance with the 

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act 

(Magnuson-Stevens Act). This action is 

intended to prevent unsustainable 

fishing of the red crab resource. 

DATES: This rule is effective April 6, 

2009, through September 2, 2009. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES