Rule2024-09103
Security Zone; Port Valdez and Valdez Narrows, Valdez, AK
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
April 29, 2024
Effective
May 29, 2024
Issuing agencies
Homeland Security DepartmentCoast Guard
Abstract
The current Trans-Alaska Pipeline Valdez Terminal complex (Terminal) security zone encompasses a waterside portion and 2000 yards inland, which includes the shoreside portion of the terminal and adjacent land. The Coast Guard is amending the TAPS Terminal security zone to exclude the land portion from the security zone. The Coast Guard has never exercised any legal authority, nor has it enforced regulations within the inland portion of the security zone.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 89 Issue 83 (Monday, April 29, 2024)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 83 (Monday, April 29, 2024)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 33231-33232]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2024-09103]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 165
[Docket Number USCG-2024-0157]
RIN 1625-AA87
Security Zone; Port Valdez and Valdez Narrows, Valdez, AK
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The current Trans-Alaska Pipeline Valdez Terminal complex
(Terminal) security zone encompasses a waterside portion and 2000 yards
inland, which includes the shoreside portion of the terminal and
adjacent land. The Coast Guard is amending the TAPS Terminal security
zone to exclude the land portion from the security zone. The Coast
Guard has never exercised any legal authority, nor has it enforced
regulations within the inland portion of the security zone.
DATES: This rule is effective May 29, 2024.
ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>, type USCG-
2024-0157 in the search box and click ``Search.'' Next, in the Document
Type column, select ``Supporting & Related Material.''
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions about this rule,
call or email Lieutenant Junior Grade Abigail Ferrara, Marine Safety
Unit Valdez, US Coast Guard. Telephone 907-835-7209, email
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#105172797771797c3e533e5675626271627150656373773e7d797c"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="d594b7bcb2b4bcb9fb96fb93b0a7a7b4a7b495a0a6b6b2fbb8bcb9">[email protected]</span></a>.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Table of Abbreviations
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
COTP Captain of the Port Prince William Sound
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
Sec. Section
TAPS Trans-Alaska Pipeline
U.S.C. United States Code
II. Background Information and Regulatory History
In response to the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, the
Coast Guard instituted several temporary security zones in the Trans-
Alaska Pipeline (TAPS) Terminal and Port Valdez areas. Between 2002 and
2004, Coast Guard published several proposed and supplemental proposed
rulemakings to establish security zones in the area. This culminated
with a final rule (71 FR 2152) published on January 13, 2006, which
established the current permanent security zones in 33 CFR 165.1710.
The current TAPS Terminal security zone encompasses a waterside
portion and 2000 yards inland, which includes the shoreside portion of
the terminal and adjacent land. The Coast Guard has never exercised any
legal authority, nor has it enforced regulations within the inland
portion of the security zone. The Captain of the Port Prince William
Sound (COTP) determined that the current practice of non-enforcement
within the inland portion of the security zone could create confusion
for future stakeholders and the public. It would be an arbitrary and
unreasonable burden upon the facility and industry employees who have
freely entered the inland portion without COTP permission for decades
if a COTP were to begin enforcing their authority over the inland
portion of the security zone in the future.
The Coast Guard is issuing this rulemaking under authority in 46
U.S.C. 70051 and 70124.
On February 20, 2024, the Coast Guard published a notice of
proposed rulemaking (NPRM) titled Security Zone; Port Valdez and Valdez
narrows, Valdez, AK (89 FR 13015). There we stated why we issued the
NPRM and invited comments on our proposed regulatory action related to
this security zone. During the comment period that ended March 22,
2024, we received no comments.
III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule
The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C.
70051 and 70124. The COTP determined that the current practice of non-
enforcement within the inland portion of the security zone could create
confusion for future stakeholders and the public. It would be an
arbitrary and unreasonable burden upon the facility and industry
employees who have freely entered the inland portion without COTP
permission for decades if a COTP were to begin enforcing their
authority over the inland portion of the security zone in the future.
The purpose of this rule is to prevent future confusion.
IV. Discussion of Comments, Changes, and the Rule
As noted above, we received no comments on our NPRM published
February 20, 2024. There are no changes in the regulatory text of this
rule from the proposed rule in the NPRM.
The COTP is amending the current security zone found in 33 CFR
165.1710(a)(1) to excise the 2000-yard inland portion of the zone. This
will result in the security zone encompassing only the water up to the
shoreline. The regulatory text we are amending appears at the end of
this document.
V. Regulatory Analyses
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders.
A. Regulatory Planning and Review
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. This rule has not been designated a ``significant
regulatory action,'' under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, as
amended by Executive Order 14094 (Modernizing Regulatory Review).
Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB).
This regulatory action determination is based on the size and
location of the current waterside portion security zone remaining the
same. Moreover, the landside portion of the facility has had other
security regulations in place for roughly two decades.
B. Impact on Small Entities
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
[[Page 33232]]
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 received no comments from the Small Business
Administration on this rulemaking. The Coast Guard certifies under 5
U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities.
This regulatory change would not affect any small entities, as the
COTP does not enforce the requirements for the landside portion of the
security zone, and the waterside security zone coordinates will remain
unchanged.
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 rule. If the rule would affect your
small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please
call or email the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.
Small businesses 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
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business 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). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.
C. Collection of Information
This rule will not call for a new collection of information under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132
(Federalism), if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on
the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on
the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels
of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have
determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order
13132.
Also, 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.
E. 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 (adjusted for
inflation) 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.
F. Environment
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and
Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast
Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of
a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a
significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves
excising the 2000-yard inland portion TAPS Terminal security zone. It
is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(b) of
Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1.
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
0
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 46 U.S.C. 70034, 70051, 70124; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-
1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No.
00170.1, Revision No. 01.3.
0
2. Revise Sec. 165.1710 paragraph (a)(1) to read as follows:
Sec. 165.1710 Port Valdez and Valdez Narrows, Valdez, Alaska--
security zones.
(a) * * *
(1) Trans-Alaska Pipeline (TAPS) Valdez Terminal complex
(Terminal), Valdez, Alaska and TAPS tank vessels. All waters enclosed
within a line beginning on the southern shoreline of Port Valdez at
61[deg]05'03.6'' N, 146[deg]25'42'' W; thence northerly to yellow buoy
at 61[deg]06'00'' N, 146[deg]25'42'' W; thence east to the yellow buoy
at 61[deg]06'00'' N, 146[deg]21'30'' W; thence south to 61[deg]05'06''
N, 146[deg]21'30'' W; thence west along the shoreline to the beginning
point.
* * * * *
Dated: April 23, 2024.
S.K. Rousseau,
Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Prince William Sound.
[FR Doc. 2024-09103 Filed 4-26-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on April 29, 2024.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.