SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

COTP Captain of the Port

DHS Department of Homeland Security

FR Federal Register

NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking

§ Section

U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background and Authority

In the past, a variety of waterside activities directly adjacent to or subsurface in the vicinity of Coast Guard assets have required immediate response actions to safeguard the personnel and property of U.S. Coast Guard Base Los Angeles—Long Beach on Terminal Island in San Pedro, CA. ( printed page 64115) The Captain of the Port (COTP) Los Angeles—Long Beach has identified a need to create a permanent security zone to address safety and security risks for personnel and property. On August 12, 2026, the Coast Guard published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) titled Security Zone; U.S. Coast Guard Base, Los Angeles Harbor Main Channel, Los Angeles, CA (91 FR 52037). In that NPRM, we stated why we issued the NPRM and invited comments on our proposed regulatory action related to this security zone.

Under the authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034, the COTP has determined that this rule is necessary to protect Coast Guard personnel, cutters, and property in and adjacent to the navigable waters within the security zone. No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the security zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or their designated representative.

Because of the potential security hazards that exist due to the proximity of Coast Guard Base Los Angeles—Long Beach to the heavily utilized Los Angeles Harbor Main Channel, the Coast Guard finds that under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register because it is impracticable and contrary to the public interest. We must establish this security zone by October 6, 2026, to protect military personnel, vessels, and property at Coast Guard Base Los Angeles—Long Beach.

III. Discussion of Comments and the Rule

During the comment period that ended on September 11, 2026, we received four comments on our NRPM published August 12, 2026. The Coast Guard appreciates the comments received and has considered the concerns raised regarding the process for mariners requesting to enter the zone, the duration of the regulation, the statutory authority, enforcement consequences, and the geographic description.

The first and fourth comments were generally in support of the security zone but suggested a clearer standard for granting or denying requests to enter, setting response time expectations, and requesting a process of challenging a denial of entry. The Coast Guard intentionally does not prescribe an exhaustive authorization process because the security zone is designed to permit real-time, discretionary control of access based on current security conditions. Ultimately, the Coast Guard revised the final rule to clarify that the response times will be immediate, as the telephone number referenced in section (c)(2) of the rule is manned 24/7.

The first and fourth comments also suggested that the Coast Guard include a periodic sunset provision or a mandatory five-year review. The Coast Guard has determined that the identified security vulnerability is ongoing rather than limited to a specific event or operational period and therefore, a permanent regulatory framework is appropriate. Incident-specific details are not necessary to establish the continuing security need and disclosure of such information could reveal operationally sensitive information.

Further, the first and fourth comments suggested that the cite to 46 U.S.C. 70051 is inappropriate. Section 70051 authorizes the regulation of vessel movement and related measures to protect vessels, harbors, ports, waterfront facilities, and other areas subject to U.S. jurisdiction. The Coast Guard interpretation of 46 U.S.C. 70051 does not require a separate Presidential declaration of a national emergency for this particular security zone.

The first comment stated that the potential penalty amounts are ambiguous. However, violations are subject to the penalties provided by applicable Federal law, with the applicable enforcement consequences determined based on the facts and circumstances of each particular case.

The second comment received was not within the scope of the regulation.

The third comment was in support of the security zone but requested clarification regarding the process for a vessel operator when requesting authorization for planned and emergency transit in the zone. The Coast Guard emphasizes that this process follows the customary procedure for requesting entry from the Captain of the Port into a security zone.

The Coast Guard has modified the regulatory description of the security zone's boundaries, found under Paragraph (a) of the regulatory text, by removing an extraneous coordinate along the southern boundary of the security zone: 33°43.304′ N, 118°16.062′ W. It was determined that this coordinate was not necessary to define the security zone, as another coordinate located north-east of this point would be sufficient to define the boundary. In addition, the ordering of the coordinates describing the boundaries of the security zone was updated for clarity.

This rule establishes a permanent security zone, encompassing all navigable waters within 40 yards of U.S. Coast Guard Base Los Angeles—Long Beach. No vessel or person is permitted to enter the security zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or their designated representative.

IV. Regulatory Analyses

We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders.

A. 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. Section 605 of the RFA allows an agency to certify a rule, in lieu of preparing an analysis, if the rulemaking is not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

The Coast Guard certifies that, although some small entities may intend to transit the security zone referenced above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Vessel traffic will be able to safely transit around this security zone, and the security zone will only impact a small, designated area. In addition, the Coast Guard will issue a Local Notice to Mariners and Marine Safety Information Bulletin to notify the public, which will allow small entities to adjust their transit plans, and the rule allows vessels to request permission to enter the zone from the COTP.

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), if this rule will affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions, contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

Small businesses may send comments to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards by calling 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247).

B. Collection of Information

This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). ( printed page 64116)

C. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in that Order.

Also, 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.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

As required by The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538), the Coast Guard certifies that this rule will not result in an annual expenditure of $100,000,000 or more (adjusted for inflation) by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector.

E. Environment

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), and have determined 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 rule is a security zone. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket.

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