![[logo] US EPA](http://www.epa.gov/epafiles/images/logo_epaseal.gif){kind=logo}
Security Zones; Port Valdez and Valdez Narrows, Valdez, AK
Note: EPA no longer updates this information, but it may be useful as a reference or resource.
[Federal Register: June 2, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 106)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 32002-32004]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr02jn06-22]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 165
[COTP Prince William Sound 02-012]
RIN 1625-AA87
Security Zones; Port Valdez and Valdez Narrows, Valdez, AK
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to revise its regulation entitled
Port Valdez and Valdez Narrows, Valdez, Alaska-- security zones. This
change would include more accurate position information for the
boundaries of tank vessels navigating on the Valdez Narrows Optimum
Track Line, and establish when the Valdez Narrows Tanker Optimum Track
line is activated and subject to enforcement.
DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or
before July 3, 2006.
ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in
the docket will become part of this docket and will be available for
inspection or copying at Marine Safety Office Valdez, 105 Clifton,
Valdez, AK 99686 between 7:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: LT Duane Lemmon, Chief, Maritime
Homeland Security Department, U.S. Coast Guard Marine Safety Office
Valdez, Alaska, (907) 835-7262.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Regulatory History
The Coast Guard is taking this action to revise 33 CFR
165.1710(a)(3)(71 FR 2154, January 13, 2006) entitled Port Valdez and
Valdez Narrows, Valdez, Alaska--security zones. This revision would
include more accurate position information for the boundaries of tank
vessels navigating on the Valdez Narrows Optimum Track Line, and
establish when the Valdez Narrows Tanker Optimum Track line is
activated and subject to enforcement.
On November 7, 2001, we published three temporary final rules in
the Federal Register (66 FR 56208, 56210, 56212) that created security
zones effective through June 1, 2002. The section numbers and titles
for these zones are--
Sec. 165.T17-003--Security zone; Trans-Alaska Pipeline Valdez Terminal
Complex, Valdez, Alaska,
Sec. 165.T17-004--Security zone; Port Valdez, and
Sec. 165.T17-005--Security zones; Captain of the Port Zone, Prince
William Sound, Alaska.
Then on June 4, 2002, we published a temporary final rule (67 FR
38389) that established security zones to replace these security zones.
That rule created temporary Sec. 165.T17-009, entitled ``Port Valdez
and Valdez Narrows, Valdez, Alaska--security zone''.
Then on July 31, 2002, we published a temporary final rule (67 FR
49582) that established security zones to extend the temporary security
zones that would have expired. This extension was to allow for the
completion of a notice-and-comment rulemaking to create permanent
security zones to replace the temporary zones.
[[Page 32003]]
On October 23, 2002, we published the notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM) that sought public comment on establishing permanent security
zones similar to the temporary security zones (67 FR 65074). The
comment period for that NPRM ended December 23, 2002. Although no
comments were received that would result in changes to the proposed
rule an administrative omission was found that resulted in the need to
issue a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM) to address a
collection of information issue regarding of the proposed rule (68 FR
14935, March 27, 2003).
Then on May 19, 2004, we published a Second Supplemental Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (SSNPRM)(69 FR 28871) incorporating changes to the
Trans-Alaska Pipeline (TAPS) Valdez Terminal complex (Terminal),
Valdez, Alaska security zone coordinates described in the NPRM (67 FR
65074). These changes included more accurate position information for
the boundaries of the security zone. The comment period for that SNPRM
ended on July 30, 2004. Although no comments were received that would
result in changes to the SSNPRM, we have learned over the last 3 years
while enforcing the temporary security zones (see those mentioned above
and 68 FR 26490 (May 16, 2003) and 68 FR 62009 (October 31, 2003)) that
the TAPS Terminal security zone is actually larger than it needs to be
and that a smaller zone would allow the Coast Guard to monitor and
enforce the zone more effectively. To make the security zone smaller,
we proposed changes to the TAPS Terminal security zone coordinates in a
Third Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (TSNPRM) (70 FR 58646,
October 7, 2005). In that TSNPRM, we also proposed removing unnecessary
text from the description of the Valdez Narrows, Port Valdez, Valdez,
Alaska security zone in proposed 33 CFR 165.1710(a)(3). We received no
comments on the proposed rule published October 7, 2005.
On January, 13, 2006, we published a final rule in the Federal
Register (71 FR 2152) that established permanent security zones
encompassing the Trans-Alaska Pipeline (TAPS) Valdez Terminal Complex,
Valdez, Alaska, and TAPS tank vessels and the Valdez Narrows, Port
Valdez, Alaska. These security zones are necessary to protect the TAPS
Terminal and vessels from damage or injury from sabotage, destruction
or other subversive acts. This rule was effective February 13, 2006.
Regulatory Evaluation
This proposed 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. It is not ``significant''
under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of
Homeland Security (DHS).
We expect the economic impact of this proposed rule to be so
minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation under the regulatory policies
and procedures of DHS is unnecessary.
Economic impact is expected to be minimal because there are
alternative routes for vessels to use when the zone is enforced,
permits to enter the zone are available, and the Tank Vessel Moving
Security Zone is in effect for a short duration.
Small Entities
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered whether this proposed 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 proposed
rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. The number of small entities impacted by this
proposed rule is expected to be minimal because there are alternative
routes for vessels to use when the zone is enforced, permission to
enter the zone is available, and the Tank Vessel Moving Security Zone
is in effect for a short duration. Since the time frame this proposed
rule is in effect may cover commercial harvests of fish in the area,
the entities most likely affected are commercial and native subsistence
fishermen. The Captain of the Port will consider applications for entry
into the security zone on a case-by-case basis; therefore, it is likely
that very few, if any, small entities will be impacted by this proposed
rule. Those interested may apply for a permit to enter the zone by
contacting Marine Safety Office, Valdez at the above contact number.
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 proposed rule would economically affect it.
Assistance for Small Entities
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this proposed rule so that they can better
evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the
proposed rule would affect your small business, organization, or
governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its
provisions or options for compliance, please contact LTJG Duane Lemmon,
Marine Safety Office Valdez, Alaska at (907) 835-7218.
Collection of Information
This proposed rule would call 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 proposed 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 proposed rule would not result in such an
expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this proposed rule elsewhere
in this preamble.
Taking of Private Property
This proposed 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.
[[Page 32004]]
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.
Protection of Children
We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13045,
Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks. This proposed 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.
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 power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
Energy Effects
We have analyzed this proposed 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 proposed rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we
did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.
Environment
We have analyzed this proposed rule under Commandant Instruction
M16475.lD, which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and
have concluded that there are no factors in this case that would limit
the use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the
Instruction. Therefore, this proposed rule is categorically excluded,
under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g), of the Instruction, from further
environmental documentation. This proposed rule creates no additional
vessel traffic and thus imposes no additional burdens on the
environment in Prince William Sound. It simply regulates vessels
transiting in the Captain of the Port, Prince William Sound Zone for
security purposes so that they may transit safely in the vicinity of
the Port of Valdez and the TAPS Terminal. A draft ``Environmental
Analysis Check List'' and a draft ``Categorical Exclusion Determination''
(CED) 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, Safety measures, Vessels, 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
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; 50
U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1(g), 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Pub.
L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security
Delegation No. 0170.1.
2. Revise Sec. 165.1710(a)(3) to read as follows:
Sec. 165.1710 Port Valdez and Valdez Narrows, Valdez, Alaska--
security zones.
(a) * * *
(3) Valdez Narrows, Port Valdez, Valdez, Alaska. All waters within
200 yards of the Valdez Narrows Tanker Optimum Track line, when a tank
vessel is navigating through the narrows.
(i) The Valdez Narrows Optimum Track line is a line commencing at
61[deg]05.38' N, 146[deg]37.38' W; thence south westerly to
61[deg]04.05' N, 146[deg]40.05' W; thence southerly to 61[deg]03.00' N,
146[deg]41.20' W.
(ii) This security zone encompasses all waters 200 yards either
side of the Valdez Narrows Optimum Track line.
(iii) Whenever a tank vessel is navigating on the Valdez Narrows
Optimum Track line, the security zone is activated and subject to
enforcement. All vessels forward of a tank vessel's movement must
vacate the security zone surrounding the Optimum Track line. Vessels
may reenter the security zone astern of a moving vessel provided that a
200 yards separation is given, as required in paragraph (a)(2) of this
section.
* * * * *
Dated: May 8, 2006.
M.S. Gardiner,
Commander, United States Coast Guard, Coast Guard, Captain of the Port,
Prince William Sound, Alaska.
[FR Doc. E6-8544 Filed 6-1-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P