[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 106 (Friday, June 2, 2006)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 32002-32004]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-8544]


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

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