Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 85 / Wednesday, May 2, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 21869

The Coast Guard certifies under 5

U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule would not

have a significant economic impact on

a substantial number of small entities

because vessel traffic would be allowed

to pass through the zone with the

permission of the Captain of the Port.

Assistance for Small Entities

Under section 213(a) of the Small

Business Regulatory Enforcement

Fairness Act of 1996 (Public Law 104–

121), we offer to assist small entities in

understanding the rule so that they may

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

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 temporary regulation contains no

collection of information requirements

under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44

U.S.C. 3501–3520).

Federalism

The Coast Guard has analyzed this

temporary regulation under Executive

Order 13132 and has determined that

this rule does not have implications for

federalism under that Order.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) governs

the issuance of Federal regulations that

require unfunded mandates. An

unfunded mandate is a regulation that

requires a State, local, or tribal

government or the private sector to

incur direct costs without the Federal

Government’s having first provided the

funds to pay those costs. This rule

would not impose an unfunded

mandate.

Taking of Private Property

This rule would 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 the 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 concern 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.

Environment

The Coast Guard has considered the

environmental impact of this temporary

regulation and concluded that, under

Figure 2–1, paragraph (34)(g), of

Commandant Instruction M16475.1C, it

will have no significant environmental

impact and it is categorically excluded

from further environmental

documentation. A Categorical Exclusion

Determination and Environmental

Analysis Checklist will be available for

inspection and copying in the docket to

be maintained at the address listed in

ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation

(water), Reporting and record keeping

requirements, Security measures,

Waterways.

Regulation

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 33 CFR

Part 165 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191;

33 CFR 1.05–1(g) 6.04–1, 6.04–6, and 160.5;

49 CFR 1.46.

2. A new section 165.T11–037 is

added to read as follows:

§ 165.T11–037 Security Zone: San Diego,

CA.

(a) Location. The following area is a

security zone: the waters of San Diego

Bay extending approximately 100 feet

from the north, west, and south sides of

the Naval Supply Center Pier enclosed

by lines connecting the following

points: Beginning at 32°42′50′′ N,

117°10′25′′ W (Point A); to 32°42′50′′ N,

117°10′38′′ W (Point B); to 32°42′54′′ N,

117°10′38′′ W (Point C); to 32°42′54′′ N,

117°10′25′′ W (Point D).

(b) Effective Dates. This temporary

regulation is effective May 2, 2001

through October 29, 2001.

(c) In accordance with the general

regulations in section 165.33 of this

part, entry into the area of this zone is

prohibited unless authorized by the

Captain of the Port or the Commanding

Officer, Naval Base, San Diego. Section

165.33 also contains other general

requirements.

(d) The U.S. Navy may assist the U.S.

Coast Guard in the patrol and

enforcement of this security zone.

Dated: April 6, 2001.

S.P. Metruck,

Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of

the Port, San Diego.

[FR Doc. 01–10713 Filed 5–1–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–15–U

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[COTP San Diego 01–008]

RIN 2115–AA97

Security Zone; San Diego Bay

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is

establishing a temporary security zone

at Naval Base, San Diego, California, at

the request of the U.S. Navy. The

temporary security zone will expand

across the mouth of Chollas Creek. This

security zone is needed to ensure the

physical protection of naval vessels

moored at Naval Base, San Diego.

DATES: This temporary regulation is

effective May 2, 2001 through October

29, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Coast Guard Marine Safety

Office, 2716 North Harbor Drive, San

Diego, CA, 92101–1064, (619) 683–6495.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Lieutenant Kathleen Garza, USCG, c/o

U.S. Coast Guard Captain of the Port,

telephone (619) 683–6495.

21870 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 85 / Wednesday, May 2, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulatory Information

A notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM) for a permanent rulemaking of

this regulation is in process. However,

under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast

Guard finds that good cause exists for

making this regulation effective

immediately. Publishing a NPRM and

delaying the effective date would be

contrary to the interest of national

security. Due to the recent terrorist

attack on a U.S. Navy vessel, the Navy

has a heightened level of concern with

regards to all its vessels and their crews.

As a result, the Navy has determined a

need for increased security measures for

their vessels and crewmembers while

berthed at Naval Base, San Diego. To

accomplish this goal, a temporary

security zone is needed to protect

vessels while they are berthed at U.S.

Naval Base, San Diego. Due to the need

to protect these vessels and their crews,

delaying the effective date would be

contrary to national security. At the

same time, we are inviting public

comment on the security zone via the

publication of an NPRM. This

temporary regulation will be removed

once comments to the NPRM are

analyzed and a Final Rule is published.

Background and Purpose

The Coast Guard is establishing this

temporary security zone, to enclose the

mouth of Chollas Creek so that

unauthorized vessels or persons cannot

transit into Chollas Creek.

This temporary security zone is

needed to ensure the physical

protection of naval vessels moored in

the area. This security zone will also

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. In addition, the Navy has

been reviewing all aspects of its antiterrorism and force protection posture

in response to the attack on the USS

Cole. The modification and expansion

of this security zone will safeguard

vessels and waterside facilities from

destruction, loss, or injury from

sabotage or other subversive acts,

accidents, or other causes of a similar

nature. Entry into, transit through, or

anchoring within this security zone is

prohibited unless authorized by the

Captain of the Port, the Commander,

Naval Base San Diego, or the

Commanding Officer, Naval Station, San

Diego.

Vessels or persons violating this

section would be subject to the penalties

set forth in 50 U.S.C. 192 and 18 U.S.C.

3571: seizure and forfeiture of the

vessel, a monetary penalty of not more

than $250,000, and imprisonment for

not more than 10 years.

The U.S. Coast Guard may be assisted

in the patrol and enforcement of this

security zone by the U.S. Navy.

Regulatory Evaluation

This temporary regulation is not a

significant regulatory action under

section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866

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

Transportation (DOT) (44 FR 11040,

February 26, 1979). The Coast Guard

expects the economic impact of this

regulation to be so minimal that a full

Regulatory Evaluation under paragraph

10(e) of the regulatory policies and

procedures of DOT is unnecessary. This

regulation will have minimal additional

impact on vessel traffic because it is

only a slight modification and

expansion of the existing security zone

codified at 33 CFR 165.1102.

Small Entities

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

(5 U.S.C. 601–612), the Coast Guard

considered whether this regulation

would have significant 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 would not

have a significant economic impact on

a substantial number of small entities

because vessel traffic would be allowed

to pass through the zone with the

permission of the Captain of the Port.

Assistance for Small Entities

Under section 213(a) of the Small

Business Regulatory Enforcement

Fairness Act of 1996 (Public Law 104–

121), we offer to assist small entities in

understanding the rule so that they may

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

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 temporary regulation contains no

collection of information requirements

under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44

U.S.C. 3501–3520).

Federalism

The Coast Guard has analyzed this

temporary regulation under Executive

Order 13132 and has determined that

this rule does not have implications for

federalism under that Order.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

The Unfunded mandates Reform Act

of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) governs

the issuance of Federal regulations that

require unfunded mandates. An

unfunded mandate is a regulation that

requires a State, local, or tribal

government or the private sector to

incur direct costs without the Federal

Government’s having first provided the

funds to pay those costs. This rule

would not impose an unfunded

mandate.

Taking of Private Property

This temporary rule would not effect

a taking of private property or otherwise

have taking implications under

Executive Order 12630m Governmental

Actions and Interference with

Constitutionally Protected Property

Rights.

Civil Justice Reform

This temporary rule meets the

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 concern 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,

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 85 / Wednesday, May 2, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 21871

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.

Environment

The Coast Guard has considered the

environmental impact of this temporary

regulation and concluded that, under

Figure 2–1, paragraph (34)(g), of

Commandant Instruction M16475.1C, it

will have no significant environmental

impact and it is categorically excluded

from further environmental

documentation. A Categorical Exclusion

Determination and Environmental

Analysis Checklist will be available for

inspection and copying in the docket to

be maintained at the address listed in

ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation

(water), Reporting and record keeping

requirements, Security measures,

Waterways.

Regulation

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 33 CFR

Part 165 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191;

33 CFR 1.05–1(g) 6.04–1, 6.04–6, and 160.5;

49 CFR 1.46.

2. Add section 165.T11–036 to read as

follows:

§ 165.T11–036 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

the following points: Beginning at

32°41′16.5′′ N, 117°08′01′′ W (Point A);

thence running southwesterly to

32°41′06′′ N, 117°08′09.3′′ W (Point B);

thence running southeasterly along the

U.S. Pierhead Line to 32°39′36.9′′ N,

117°07′23.5′′ W (Point C); thence

running easterly to 32°39′38.5′′ N,

117°07′06.5′′ W (Point D); thence

running generally northwesterly along

the shoreline of the Naval Station to the

place of beginning.

(b) Effective Dates. This temporary

regulation is effective May 2, 2001

through October 29, 2001.

(c) Regulations. In accordance with

the general regulations in section 165.33

of this part, entry into the area of this

zone is prohibited unless authorized by

the Captain of the Port or the

Commanding Officer, Naval Base, San

Diego.

(d) The U.S. Navy may assist the U.S.

Coast Guard in the patrol and

enforcement of this security zone.

Dated: April 6, 2001.

S.P. Metruck,

Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of

the Port, San Diego.

[FR Doc. 01–10712 Filed 5–1–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–15–U

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS

AFFAIRS

38 CFR Part 3

RIN 2900–AJ99

Review of Benefit Claims Decisions

AGENCY: Department of Veterans Affairs.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This document concerns the

Department of Veterans Affairs’ (VA)

adjudication regulations. We are adding

new provisions to allow any claimants

who file a timely Notice of

Disagreement to obtain a de novo review

of their claims at the Veterans Service

Center level before deciding whether to

proceed with the traditional appeal

process. This is intended to provide a

more efficient means for resolving

disagreements concerning claims.

DATES: Effective Date: June 1, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bill

Russo, Attorney-Advisor, Compensation

and Pension Service, or John Bisset, Jr.,

Consultant, Compensation and Pension

Service, Regulations Staff, Veterans

Benefits Administration, 810 Vermont

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20420,

telephone (202) 273–7210 and (202)

273–7213, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On

February 18, 2000, VA published in the

Federal Register (65 FR 8329–8330), a

proposed rule which would establish

provisions at 38 CFR 3.2600 to allow

any claimants who file a timely Notice

of Disagreement to obtain a de novo

review (a new and complete review

with no deference given to the decision

being reviewed) by Veterans Service

Center personnel before deciding

whether to proceed with the traditional

appeal process. We received written

comments from American Veterans of

WWII, Korea and Vietnam (AMVETS),

Florida Department of Veterans’ Affairs,

National Organization of Veterans

Advocates, Paralyzed Veterans of

America, Veterans of Foreign Wars

(Department of Maine), three VA

employees and two concerned private

individuals.

Potential Changes to the Traditional

Appeal Process

We proposed to establish a new de

novo review procedure that would be

available to any claimant who files a

Notice of Disagreement with a decision

on a claim governed by 38 CFR part 3.

We did not, and do not, intend the new

de novo review procedure to change the

procedures or rights involved with

appealing such claims decisions to the

Board of Veterans’ Appeals. We intend

it to be an additional, optional

procedure to be conducted, if at all,

between a claimant’s filing a Notice of

Disagreement and VA’s issuance of a

Statement of the Case. If de novo review

under § 3.2600 is not requested with the

Notice of Disagreement or after the

Notice of Disagreement is filed but

within 60 days after VA mails notice of

the right of such review to the claimant,

then the appeal will proceed in

accordance with the traditional appeal

process. However, a claimant may not

pursue de novo review and the

traditional appeal simultaneously. A

traditional appeal is suspended until de

novo review is complete. Otherwise,

there would be a risk of duplicative

development and inconsistent decisions

made in the same claim.

Two commenters stated that the

proposed regulations are unclear as to

whether they change existing

procedures regarding filing and

processing of the Notice of

Disagreement and the issuance of the

Statement of the Case.

The final rule does not modify the

procedures of the traditional appeal

process. To make this clear, we are

amending the proposed rule in two

respects. At the end of § 3.2600(b), we

are adding language that provides that if

a claimant fails to timely request de

novo review under § 3.2600, VA will

proceed with the traditional appellate

process by issuing a Statement of the

Case. For clarity, we are also adding a

sentence to § 3.2600(b) to preclude any

extension of the time limit. Section

3.109(b) allows for a good cause

extension of time limits within which a

claimant is required to act to perfect a

claim or challenge an adverse VA

decision. Since the de novo review

process is an optional procedure, not a

required one, § 3.109(b) does not apply

to the period during which a claimant

may request the de novo review process.

Moreover, VA believes that a 60-day

time limit, without the possibility of

extension, is a reasonable amount of

time for a claimant to decide whether to

opt for the de novo review process.