← All FR Documents ·← Back to 2024-10125
Final Rule

Security Zone; Electric Boat Shipyard, Narragansett Bay, Quonset Point, North Kingstown, RI

In Plain English

What is this Federal Register notice?

This is a final rule published in the Federal Register by Homeland Security Department, Coast Guard. Final rules have completed the public comment process and establish legally binding requirements.

Is this rule final?

Yes. This rule has been finalized. It has completed the notice-and-comment process required under the Administrative Procedure Act.

Who does this apply to?

Consult the full text of this document for specific applicability provisions. The affected parties depend on the regulatory scope defined within.

When does it take effect?

This document has been effective since September 8, 2025.

Why it matters: This final rule amends regulations in 33 CFR Part 165.

📋 Related Rulemaking

This final rule likely has a preceding Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), but we haven't linked it yet.

Our system will automatically fetch and link related NPRMs as they're discovered.

Regulatory History — 37 documents in this rulemaking

  1. Feb 21, 2024 2024-03486 Proposed Rule
    Security Zone; Port Valdez and Valdez Narrows, Valdez, AK
  2. Mar 11, 2024 2024-05089 Proposed Rule
    Security Zone; Cooper River, Charleston County, SC
  3. Apr 5, 2024 2024-07235 Final Rule
    Security Zone; Cooper River, Charleston, SC
  4. Apr 18, 2024 2024-08303 Final Rule
    Security Zone; 2024 NFL Draft, Detroit River, Detroit, MI
  5. Apr 29, 2024 2024-09103 Final Rule
    Security Zone; Port Valdez and Valdez Narrows, Valdez, AK
  6. May 9, 2024 2024-10125 Proposed Rule
    Security Zone, Lake Erie, Mentor (Mentor Headlands), Ohio
  7. May 10, 2024 2024-10225 Final Rule
    Safety Zone: Piers Park, Boston Inner Harbor, East Boston, MA
  8. Jun 21, 2024 2024-13781 Final Rule
    Safety Zone, Lake Erie, Mentor (Mentor Headlands), Ohio
  9. Jul 17, 2024 2024-15561 Final Rule
    Security Zones; 2024 Republican National Convention; Lake Michigan, Milwaukee...
  10. Aug 5, 2024 2024-17145 Final Rule
    Security Zone; Santa Monica Bay, Pacific Palisades, CA
  11. Aug 23, 2024 2024-18872 Final Rule
    Security Zone; Chicago River (Main Branch), North Branch Chicago River, South...
  12. Sep 27, 2024 2024-22106 Final Rule
    Security Zone; Monongahela River Mile Markers 0-43.5, Allegheny River Mile Ma...
  13. Oct 10, 2024 2024-23469 Final Rule
    Security Zone; Corpus Christi Ship Channel, Corpus Christi, TX
  14. Oct 30, 2024 2024-25199 Final Rule
    Security Zone; Corpus Christi Ship Channel, Corpus Christi, TX
  15. Nov 5, 2024 2024-25711 Final Rule
    Security Zone; Corpus Christi Ship Channel, Corpus Christi, TX
  16. Nov 7, 2024 2024-25891 Final Rule
    Security Zone; Corpus Christi Ship Channel, Corpus Christi, TX
  17. Nov 20, 2024 2024-27067 Final Rule
    Security Zone; Corpus Christi Ship Channel, Corpus Christi, TX
  18. Dec 5, 2024 2024-28477 Final Rule
    Security Zone; Corpus Christi Ship Channel, Corpus Christi, TX
  19. Dec 26, 2024 2024-30547 Final Rule
    Security Zone; Corpus Christi Ship Channel, Corpus Christi, TX
  20. Dec 27, 2024 2024-30598 Final Rule
    Security Zone, Port of Miami, Florida
  21. Jan 7, 2025 2025-00013 Final Rule
    Security Zone; Potomac River and Anacostia River, and Adjacent Waters; Washin...
  22. Mar 14, 2025 2025-04096 Proposed Rule
    Security Zones; Tampa Bay: Big Bend, Boca Grande, Crystal River, East Bay, Hi...
  23. Apr 3, 2025 2025-05712 Final Rule
    Security Zone; Cooper River, Charleston, SC
  24. Apr 25, 2025 2025-07067 Proposed Rule
    Security Zone; Electric Boat Shipyard, Narragansett Bay, Quonset Point, North...
  25. May 9, 2025 2025-08194 Proposed Rule
    Security Zone; Upper Mississippi River, Saint Louis, MO
  26. Jun 5, 2025 2025-10224 Final Rule
    Security Zones; Tampa Bay: Big Bend, Boca Grande, Crystal River, East Bay, Hi...
  27. Jul 10, 2025 2025-12819 Proposed Rule
    Security Zone; Intracoastal Waterway, Palm Beach, FL
  28. Jul 30, 2025 2025-14394 Proposed Rule
    Security Zone; Base San Juan, San Juan, PR
  29. Aug 4, 2025 2025-14689 Proposed Rule
    Security Zones; Tampa Bay: Big Bend, Boca Grande, Crystal River, East Bay, Hi...
  30. Aug 8, 2025 2025-15092 Final Rule
    Security Zone; Electric Boat Shipyard, Narragansett Bay, Quonset Point, North...
  31. Sep 5, 2025 2025-17092 Final Rule
    Security Zone; Intracoastal Waterway, Palm Beach, FL
  32. Oct 1, 2025 2025-19115 Final Rule
    Security Zone; Lower Mississippi River, Mile Marker 96.8 to 97.5 Above Head o...
  33. Nov 21, 2025 2025-20567 Final Rule
    Security Zones; Old Port Tampa, Sunshine Skyway Bridge, Manbirtee Key, Seapor...
  34. Dec 4, 2025 2025-21909 Final Rule
    Security Zone; Coast Guard Base San Juan, San Juan Harbor, Puerto Rico
  35. Dec 23, 2025 2025-23773 Proposed Rule
    Security Zones; Vessels Carrying Dangerous Cargo, Corpus Christi and La Quint...
  36. Jan 16, 2026 2026-00834 Final Rule
    Security Zone; Corpus Christi and La Quinta Ship Channel, Corpus Christi, TX
  37. Jan 23, 2026 2026-01248 Final Rule
    Security Zone; Corpus Christi and La Quinta Ship Channel, Corpus Christi, TX

Document Details

Document Number2025-15092
TypeFinal Rule
PublishedAug 8, 2025
Effective DateSep 8, 2025
RIN1625-AA87
Docket IDDocket Number USCG-2024-0994
Text FetchedYes

Agencies & CFR References

CFR References:

Linked CFR Parts

PartNameAgency
No linked CFR parts

Paired Documents

TypeProposedFinalMethodConf
No paired documents

Related Documents (by RIN/Docket)

Doc #TypeTitlePublished
2026-01248 Final Rule Security Zone; Corpus Christi and La Qui... Jan 23, 2026
2026-00834 Final Rule Security Zone; Corpus Christi and La Qui... Jan 16, 2026
2025-23773 Proposed Rule Security Zones; Vessels Carrying Dangero... Dec 23, 2025
2025-21909 Final Rule Security Zone; Coast Guard Base San Juan... Dec 4, 2025
2025-20567 Final Rule Security Zones; Old Port Tampa, Sunshine... Nov 21, 2025
2025-19115 Final Rule Security Zone; Lower Mississippi River, ... Oct 1, 2025
2025-17092 Final Rule Security Zone; Intracoastal Waterway, Pa... Sep 5, 2025
2025-14689 Proposed Rule Security Zones; Tampa Bay: Big Bend, Boc... Aug 4, 2025
2025-14394 Proposed Rule Security Zone; Base San Juan, San Juan, ... Jul 30, 2025

External Links

⏳ Requirements Extraction Pending

This document's regulatory requirements haven't been extracted yet. Extraction happens automatically during background processing (typically within a few hours of document ingestion).

Federal Register documents are immutable—once extracted, requirements are stored permanently and never need re-processing.

Full Document Text (2,164 words · ~11 min read)

Text Preserved
<RULE> DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY <SUBAGY>Coast Guard</SUBAGY> <CFR>33 CFR Part 165</CFR> <DEPDOC>[Docket Number USCG-2024-0994]</DEPDOC> <RIN>RIN 1625-AA87</RIN> <SUBJECT>Security Zone; Electric Boat Shipyard, Narragansett Bay, Quonset Point, North Kingstown, RI</SUBJECT> <HD SOURCE="HED">AGENCY:</HD> Coast Guard, DHS. <HD SOURCE="HED">ACTION:</HD> Final rule. <SUM> <HD SOURCE="HED">SUMMARY:</HD> The Coast Guard is establishing a security zone in the waters adjacent to the General Dynamics Electric Boat Corporation Quonset Point facility in Narragansett Bay, North Kingstown, RI. This is necessary to protect the facility, material, and adjacent areas from sabotage or other subversive acts, accidents or incidents of a similar nature. This rulemaking prohibits all persons and vessels from operating within the prescribed security zone without prior authorization by the Captain of the Port, Sector Southeastern New England or designated representative. </SUM> <DATES> <HD SOURCE="HED">DATES:</HD> This rule is effective September 8, 2025. </DATES> <HD SOURCE="HED">ADDRESSES:</HD> To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to <E T="03">https://www.regulations.gov,</E> type [USCG-2024-0994] in the search box and click “Search.” Next, in the Document Type column, select “Supporting & Related Material.” <FURINF> <HD SOURCE="HED">FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:</HD> If you have questions about this rule, call or email: Marine Science Technician 2nd Class Nicholas Easley, Waterways Management Division, Sector Southeastern New England, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 206-827-4160, email <E T="03">Nicholas.S.Easley@uscg.mil.</E> </FURINF> <SUPLINF> <HD SOURCE="HED">SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:</HD> <HD SOURCE="HD1">I. Table of Abbreviations</HD> <EXTRACT> <FP SOURCE="FP-1">CFR Code of Federal Regulations</FP> <FP SOURCE="FP-1">COTP Captain of the Port, Sector Southeastern New England</FP> <FP SOURCE="FP-1">DHS Department of Homeland Security</FP> <FP SOURCE="FP-1">FR Federal Register</FP> <FP SOURCE="FP-1">NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking</FP> <FP SOURCE="FP-1">§ Section </FP> <FP SOURCE="FP-1">U.S.C. United States Code</FP> </EXTRACT> <HD SOURCE="HD1">II. Background Information and Regulatory History</HD> On August 29, 2024, the U.S. Navy submitted a formal request to the Coast Guard to establish a security zone in the waters adjacent to the General Dynamics Electric Boat Corporation Quonset Point facility in North Kingstown, RI. In response, on April 25, 2025, the Coast Guard published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) titled Security Zone; Electric Boat Shipyard, Narragansett Bay, Quonset Point, North Kingstown, RI (90 FR 17360). There, we stated why we had issued the NPRM, and we invited comments on our proposed regulatory action related to this security zone. During the comment period that ended May 27, 2025, we received one comment. <HD SOURCE="HD1">III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule</HD> The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under the authority in 46 U.S.C. 70051 and 70124. The Captain of the Port, Sector Southeastern New England (COTP) has determined that it is in the best interest of national security to establish a permanent security zone to protect the facility, material storage areas, and adjacent areas from sabotage or other subversive acts, accidents or incidents of a similar nature. <HD SOURCE="HD1">IV. Discussion of Comments, Changes, and the Rule</HD> As noted above, we received one comment on our NPRM published April 25, 2025. The commenter stated that “if the security of this area decreases the traffic seen by boats in this area, I find that to be a positive outcome of this proposed rule,” but questioned “will this security entail that there are more boats patrolling the area,” and wondered how any such increased vessel traffic might impact the environment. In response, we note that the action we are taking in this rulemaking, establishment of the security zone, prohibits unauthorized vessel traffic within its boundaries, but neither authorizes nor prohibits authorized vessels to patrol the area. This action, which is independent of the decision that was made to site the facility where it is and of any environmental issues flowing from that decision, has no bearing on whether, or how many vessels patrol the area. There are no changes in the regulatory text of this rule from the proposed rule in the NPRM. This rule establishes a security zone for a portion of navigable waters on Narraganset Bay adjacent to the General Dynamics Electric Boat Corporation Quonset Point facility in North Kingstown, RI. Specifically, the security zone includes all navigable waters of Narragansett Bay, from surface to bottom, South of Quonset Point, North Kingstown, RI, enclosed by a line beginning at a point on the shoreline at 41°35′06.3″ N, 71°25′33.2″ W; then to 41°34′59.6″ N, 71°25′20.5″ W; then to 41°35′01.0″ N, 71°25′08.7″ W; then to 41°35′08.7″ N, 71°25′08.7″ W; then along the shoreline to the point of beginning. These coordinates are based on North American Datum 1983. Figure 1 provides a visual depiction of the security zone. <GPH SPAN="3" DEEP="300"> <GID>ER08AU25.000</GID> </GPH> This security zone will protect the facility, material storage areas, and adjacent areas from sabotage or other subversive acts, accidents or incidents of a similar nature, and to specify the horizontal datum employed to describe the geographic coordinates that establish the zone boundaries. <HD SOURCE="HD1">V. Regulatory Analyses</HD> 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. <HD SOURCE="HD2">A. Regulatory Planning and Review</HD> Executive Orders 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review) direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has not designated this rule a “significant regulatory action,” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, OMB has not reviewed it. The Coast Guard has determined that it is not a significant regulatory action. This regulatory action determination is based on the size and location of the regulated area. Vessel traffic will be able to safely transit around the security zone, which will impact a small, designated area of the Narragansett Bay. <HD SOURCE="HD2">B. Impact on Small Entities</HD> The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 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 received no comments from the Small Business Administration on this rulemaking. 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. While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the security zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator. 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 rule. If the rule will affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please call or email the person listed in the <E T="02">FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT</E> section. 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). 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. <HD SOURCE="HD2">C. Collection of Information</HD> This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). <HD SOURCE="HD2">D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments</HD> 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 rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132. 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 ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━ Preview showing 10k of 15k characters. Full document text is stored and available for version comparison. ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
This text is preserved for citation and comparison. View the official version for the authoritative text.