[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 90 (Thursday, May 9, 2002)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 31128-31129]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-11619]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[CGD07-01-048]
RIN 2115-AA97


Security Zone; St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is removing the security zones around 
commercial tank and freight vessels moored at the HOVENSA facility in 
St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands. The zones were created for national 
security reasons and to protect the public and port of Limetree Bay 
(HOVENSA) from subversive acts. The zone is no longer needed because 
the HOVENSA facility has upgraded security measures, installed 
controlled access points and implemented internal security procedures 
for permitting crewmembers to leave vessels moored at their facility.

DATES: Temporary Sec. 165.T07-002 is removed effective May 9, 2002.

ADDRESSES: Documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in 
the docket are part of docket [CGD07-01-048] and are available for 
inspection or copying at Marine Safety Office San Juan, San Martin 
Street #90, RODVAl Building, Suite 400, Guaynabo, PR 00968 between 7 
a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lieutenant Commander Robert Lefevers, 
U.S. Coast Guard Marine Safety Office, San Juan, Puerto Rico, (787) 
706-2444.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulatory Information

    We did not publish a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for this 
regulation. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that 
publishing an NPRM is unnecessary because this rule removes temporary 
security zones that are no longer needed because the HOVENSA facility 
has implemented internal security procedures for deciding which 
crewmembers are permitted to leave their vessels and enter the 
facility's property. For the same burden-lifting reason, under 5 U.S.C. 
553(d)(3), we find good cause exists to make this rule effective less 
than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register.

Background and Purpose

    On September 28, 2001, the first in a series of temporary rules 
creating security zones around commercial tank and freight vessels 
moored at the HOVENSA facility in St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands was 
published in the Federal Register (66 FR 49534). The zones created by 
that first rule were scheduled to terminate October 15, 2001, but they 
were revived twice--by a temporary rule issued in October 2001 (that 
was sent to Washington, D.C. for publication in the Federal Register 
but that was delayed in the mail [CGD07-01-125; 67 FR 9194, 9197, 
February 28, 2002]), and another issued in January 2002 (67 FR 4911, 
February 1, 2002).
    When it was issued, the current temporary rule that created 
temporary section 165.T07-002 of Title 33 of the Code of Federal 
Regulations, was scheduled to expire on June 15, 2002. Temporary 
section 165.T07-002 requires all persons aboard commercial tank and 
freight vessels to remain onboard when moored at the HOVENSA facility 
in St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands unless they have permission from the 
Captain of the Port to transit the security zone around the vessel.
    These security zones were needed to prevent subversive acts and to 
protect the public and the port of HOVENSA. The security zones are no 
longer needed because HOVENSA has implemented internal security 
procedures for deciding which persons can depart the vessels moored at 
their facility. Therefore, the Coast Guard is removing this security 
zone regulation effective May 9, 2002.

Regulatory Evaluation

    This rule 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).

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we 
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.

[[Page 31129]]

    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 because this rule removes an obsolete safety 
zone.

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 could better evaluate 
its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process. Small 
entities may contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 
CONTACT for assistance in understanding and participating in this 
rulemaking. We also have a point of contact for commenting on actions 
by employees of the Coast Guard. Small business 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 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 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 concern an 
environmental risk to health or safety that may disproportionately 
affect children.

Environment

    The Coast Guard has considered the environmental impact of this 
proposed rule and concluded that, under figure 2-1, paragraph 34(g), of 
Commandant Instruction M16475.lC, this proposed rule is categorically 
excluded from further environmental documentation.

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 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. It has not been designated by the Administrator of the 
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs as a significant energy 
action.
    Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under 
Executive Order 13211.

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 for 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, 160.5; 49 CFR 1.46.


Sec. 165.T07-002  [Removed]

    2. Section 165.T07-002 is removed.

    Dated: April 18, 2002.
J.A. Servidio,
Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port.
[FR Doc. 02-11619 Filed 5-8-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-U