Daily Rules, Proposed Rules, and Notices of the Federal Government
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
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 § 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.
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
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.
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
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.
This proposed rule would call for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 (
This proposed rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.
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
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:
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:
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 § 165.1710(a)(3) to read as follows:
(a) * * *
(i) The Valdez Narrows Optimum Track line is a line commencing at 61°05.38′ N, 146°37.38′ W; thence south westerly to 61°04.05′ N, 146°40.05′ W; thence southerly to 61°03.00′ N, 146°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.