[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 132 (Thursday, July 10, 2003)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 41091-41093]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-17461]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[COTP Los Angeles-Long Beach 03-002]
RIN 1625-AA00


Safety Zone; Offshore Marine Terminal, El Segundo, CA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to establish a safety zone 
surrounding the El Segundo offshore marine terminal near Los Angeles, 
California. This action is necessary to ensure public safety and reduce 
the likelihood of a collision or explosion involving a tank vessel 
moored at the offshore marine terminal. Entry into this zone will be 
prohibited unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port 
Los Angeles-Long Beach.

DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or 
before September 8, 2003.

ADDRESSES: You may mail comments and related material to U.S. Coast 
Guard Marine Safety Office/Group Los Angeles-Long Beach, Waterways 
Management Division, 1001 South Seaside Avenue, Building 20, San Pedro, 
California, 90731. The Waterways Management Division maintains the 
public docket for this rulemaking. Comments and material received from 
the public, as well as 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 the Waterways Management 
Division between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except 
Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lieutenant Junior Grade Rob Griffiths, 
Assistant Chief of Waterways Management Division, at (310) 732-2020.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Request for Comments

    We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting 
comments and related material. If you do so, please include your name 
and address, identify the docket number for this rulemaking (COTP Los 
Angeles-Long Beach 03-002), indicate the specific section of this 
document to which each comment applies, and give the reason for each 
comment. Please submit all comments and related material in an unbound 
format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for copying. If 
you would like to know they reached us, please enclose a stamped, self-
addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all comments and 
material received during the comment period. We may change this 
proposed rule in view of them.

Public Meeting

    We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a 
request for a meeting by writing to Waterways Management at the address 
under ADDRESSES explaining why one would be beneficial. If we determine 
that one would aid this rulemaking, we will hold one at a time and 
place announced by a later notice in the Federal Register.

Background and Purpose

    ChevronTexaco Shipping Company has requested that the Coast Guard 
establish a safety zone around the El Segundo offshore marine terminal 
near Los Angeles, California, to promote the safety of life and 
property at the facility and on the adjacent waters within the safety 
zone including tank vessels and their crews, their apparatuses, 
attending vessels and their crews.
    El Segundo offshore marine terminal is located approximately one 
nautical mile offshore El Segundo in Santa Monica Bay, between Marina 
Del Rey and Redondo Beach, California. The offshore marine terminal 
consists of several tanker mooring buoys and seafloor pipelines 
connected to the mainland terminal. Large tank vessels are secured to 
tanker mooring buoys using multiple sets of mooring lines. Underwater 
pipelines that extend seaward from the mainland terminal rise up from 
the ocean bottom and are

[[Page 41092]]

secured to both the buoys and the tankers. As a result, there are 
numerous mooring lines, pipelines, and other critical apparatuses that 
exist above, below, and on the surface of the water presenting an 
especially hazardous condition for other vessels transiting through 
this area. These conditions are present at all times, whether or not a 
tanker is in the offshore marine terminal.

Discussion of Proposed Rule

    This proposed safety zone will prohibit all but explicitly 
authorized vessels from entering and navigating through the waters of 
El Segundo offshore marine terminal near Los Angeles, California. 
Specifically, no vessel may enter or navigate through the proposed 
safety zone except tank vessels using the terminal area and the related 
pipeline for loading or unloading operations, commercial tugs, 
lighters, barges, launches, or other commercial vessels engaged in 
servicing the terminal facilities or the tank vessels therein, or 
public vessels of the United States. This proposed safety zone is 
necessary to provide for the safety of the tank vessels and their crew 
as well as the people, ports, waterways, and properties located nearby. 
The Ports and Waterways Safety Act (PWSA), as set forth in 33 U.S.C. 
1221, et seq., allows the Coast Guard to take actions to ensure the 
safety of vessels and structures on or in the navigable waters of the 
United States. The Act also allows for regulations that protect 
navigable waters of the United States and the resources therein.
    This proposed safety zone is defined as the waters of Santa Monica 
Bay, from surface to bottom, enclosed by lines forming a rectangle 
around the El Segundo offshore marine terminal. The coordinates of the 
proposed safety zone are set forth in the regulatory text and are based 
on the North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 1983).
    Vessels or persons violating proposed Sec.  165.1156 would be 
subject to the penalties set forth in section 13 of the PWSA (33 U.S.C. 
1232). Pursuant to 33 U.S.C. 1232, any violation of the proposed 
regulation establishing the safety zone described herein would be 
punishable by civil penalties (not to exceed $27,500 per violation, 
where each day of a continuing violation is a separate violation), 
criminal penalties (imprisonment up to 6 years and a maximum fine of 
$250,000), and in rem liability against the offending vessel. Any 
person who violates this proposed section using a dangerous weapon or 
who engages in conduct that causes bodily injury or fear of imminent 
bodily injury to any officer authorized to enforce this regulation, 
also would face imprisonment up to 12 years. Under 46 U.S.C. 
7703(1)(A), a master's license would be subject to revocation or 
suspension for violation of this proposed amendment to 33 CFR part 165. 
The Captain of the Port will enforce this proposed zone and may be 
assisted by other Federal, State, or local agencies.

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 of the regulatory 
policies and procedures of DHS is unnecessary.
    This proposed safety zone will encompass only a small portion of 
the waterway and vessel traffic can pass safely around the affected 
area. In addition, vessels may be allowed to enter this zone on a case-
by-case basis with permission of the Captain of the Port.

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. We expect this rule will affect the following 
entities, some of which may be small entities: the owners and operators 
of private and commercial vessels intending to transit or anchor in 
Santa Monica Bay near El Segundo. The impact to these entities would 
not, however, be significant since this zone encompasses a small 
portion of the waterway and vessels may safely pass around the affected 
area. In addition, vessels may be allowed to enter this zone on a case-
by-case basis with permission of the Captain of the Port.
    If you think that your business, organization, or governmental 
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this 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 rule would economically affect it.

Assistance for Small Entities

    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 proposed rule so that they can better 
evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the 
rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental 
jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or 
options for compliance, please contact Lieutenant Junior Grade Rob 
Griffiths, Assistant Chief, Waterways Management Division, (310) 732-
2020.

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 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

[[Page 41093]]

Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.

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 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.

Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Commandant Instruction 
M16475.1D, which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National 
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)(46 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have 
concluded that, there are no factors in this case which would limit the 
use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the Instruction. 
Therefore, this rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, 
paragraph (34)(g), of the instruction from further environmental 
documentation because we are proposing to establish a safety zone.
    A draft ``Environmental Analysis Check List'' and a draft 
``Categorical Exclusion Determination'' are available in the docket 
where indicated under ADDRESSES. Comments on this section will be 
considered before we make a final decision on whether the rule should 
be categorically excluded from further environmental review.

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 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. Add Sec.  165.1156 to read as follows:


Sec.  165.1156  Safety Zone; Offshore Marine Terminal, El Segundo, CA.

    (a) Location. The following area is a safety zone: All waters of 
Santa Monica Bay, from surface to bottom, enclosed by a line beginning 
at latitude 33[deg]54'59'' N, longitude 118[deg]26'50'' W; then to 
latitude 33[deg]54'59'' N, longitude 118[deg]27'34'' W; then to 
latitude 33[deg]54'00'' N, longitude 118[deg]27'34'' W; then to 
latitude 33[deg]54'00'' N, longitude 118[deg]26'50'' W; then to the 
point of beginning (NAD 1983).
    (b) Regulations. (1) In accordance with the general regulations in 
Sec.  165.23 of this part, entry into or movement within this zone is 
prohibited except for:
    (i) Commercial vessels authorized to use the offshore marine 
terminal for loading or unloading;
    (ii) Commercial tugs, lighters, barges, launches, or other vessels 
authorized to engage in servicing the offshore marine terminal or 
vessels therein;
    (iii) Public vessels of the United States.
    (2) Persons desiring to transit the area of the safety zone may 
contact the Captain of the Port at telephone number 1-800-221-8724 or 
on VHF-FM channel 16 (156.8 MHz). If permission is granted, all persons 
and vessels must comply with the instructions of the Captain of the 
Port or his or her designated representative.
    (3) Nothing in this section shall be construed as relieving the 
owner or person in charge of any vessel from complying with the 
Navigation Rules as defined in 33 CFR Chapter I, subchapters D and E 
and safe navigation practice.

    Dated: June 30, 2003.
John M. Holmes,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Los Angeles-Long Beach.
[FR Doc. 03-17461 Filed 7-9-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P