Security Zone: HOVENSA Refinery, St. Croix, United States Virgin Islands, 7065-7067 [05-2595]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 27 / Thursday, February 10, 2005 / Proposed Rules Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on February 2, 2005. David A. Downey, Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. 05–2608 Filed 2–9–05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910–13–P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [COTP San Juan 05–007] RIN 1625–AA87 Security Zone: HOVENSA Refinery, St. Croix, United States Virgin Islands Coast Guard, DHS. Notice of proposed rulemaking. AGENCY: ACTION: SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to establish a permanent security zone in the vicinity of the HOVENSA refinery facility on St. Croix, U. S. Virgin Islands. The security zone is needed for national security reasons to protect the public and the HOVENSA facility from potential subversive acts. The proposed rule would exclude entry into the proposed permanent security zone by all vessels without permission of the U.S. Coast Guard Captain of the Port San Juan or a scheduled arrival in accordance with the Notice of Arrival requirements of 33 CFR part 160, subpart C. DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or before March 28, 2005. ADDRESSES: You may mail comments and related material to Sector San Juan, 5 Calle La Puntilla, San Juan, PR 00901. Sector San Juan Waterways Management will maintain 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 Resident Inspections Office in St. Croix, United States Virgin Island between 7 a.m. and 3:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lieutenant Junior Grade Katiuska Pabon of Sector San Juan Waterways Management at 787–289–0739. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Request for Comments We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting VerDate jul<14>2003 16:17 Feb 09, 2005 Jkt 205001 comments and related material. If you do so, please include your name and address, identify the docket number for this rulemaking (COTP San Juan–05– 007), 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 81⁄2 by 11 inches, suitable for copying. If you would like to know that your submission reached us, please enclose a stamped, selfaddressed 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 SECTOR San Juan 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 The Coast Guard has published similar temporary security zones in the Federal Register at 67 FR 2332, January 17, 2002; 67 FR 57952, September 13, 2002; 68 FR 22296, April 28, 2003; 68 FR 41081, July 10, 2003; 69 FR 6150, February 10, 2004; 69 FR 29232, May 21, 2004; and 70 FR 2950, January 19, 2005. Given the highly volatile nature of the substances stored at the HOVENSA facility, the Coast Guard recognizes that it could be a potential terrorist target and there is a continuing risk that subversive activity could be launched by vessels or persons in close proximity to the facility. This activity could be directed against tank vessels and the waterfront facility. This security zone is necessary to decrease the risk that subversive activity could be launched against the HOVENSA facility. The Captain of the Port San Juan is reducing risk by prohibiting all vessels without a scheduled arrival in accordance with the Notice of Arrival requirements of 33 CFR part 160, subpart C from entering within approximately 2 miles of the HOVENSA facility unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port San Juan. Discussion of Proposed Rule The proposed permanent security zone around the HOVENSA facility would be encompassed by a line connecting the following coordinates: 17°41′31″ North, 64°45′09″ West; 17°39′36″ North, 64°44′12″ West; PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 7065 17°40′00″ North, 64°43′36″ West; and 17°41′48″ North, 64°44′25″ West, and back to the point of origin. The security zone includes the waters extending approximately 2 miles seaward from the HOVENSA facility, Limetree Bay Channel and Limetree Bay. All coordinates are based upon North American Datum 1983 (NAD 1983). All vessels without a scheduled arrival in accordance with the Notice of Arrival requirements of 33 CFR part 160, subpart C are excluded from the zone unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port San Juan. 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. The burden imposed on the public by this rule is minimal and mariners may obtain permission to enter the zone from the Coast Guard Captain of the Port San Juan or by scheduling vessel arrival in accordance with the Notice of Arrival requirements of 33 CFR part 160, subpart C. 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 factual basis for this certification is as follows: (1) Owners of small charter fishing or diving operations that operate near the HOVENSA facility may be affected by the existence of this security zone. E:\FR\FM\10FEP1.SGM 10FEP1 7066 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 27 / Thursday, February 10, 2005 / Proposed Rules (2) This rule will not have a significant economic impact on the above mentioned or a substantial number of small entities because this zone covers an area that is not typically used by commercial fisherman. Additionally, vessels may be allowed to enter the zone on a case-by-case basis with the permission of the Captain of the Port San Juan. 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 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 Katiuska Pabon, Sector San Juan Waterways Management, 787–289– 0739. 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. 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 VerDate jul<14>2003 16:17 Feb 09, 2005 Jkt 205001 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 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. 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 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 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 rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2–1, paragraph (34)(g), of the Instruction, from further environmental documentation. The proposed rule satisfies the criteria for paragraph (34)(g) because it is a security zone. Under figure 2–1, paragraph (34)(g) of the Instruction, an ‘‘Environmental Analysis Check List’’ and a ‘‘Categorical Exclusion Determination’’ are not required for this rule. Comments on this section will be considered before we make the final decision on whether to categorically exclude this rule 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 § 165.766 to read as follows: E:\FR\FM\10FEP1.SGM 10FEP1 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 27 / Thursday, February 10, 2005 / Proposed Rules § 165.766 Security Zone: HOVENSA Refinery, St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands. (a) Regulated area. The Coast Guard is establishing a security zone in and around the HOVENSA Refinery on south coast of St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands. This security zone includes all waters from surface to bottom, encompassed by an imaginary line connecting the following points: Point 1: 17°41′31″ North, 64°45′09″ West, Point 2: 17°39′36″ North, 64°44′12″ West, Point 3: 17°40′00″ North, 64°43′36″ West, Point 4: 17°41′48″ North, 64°44′25″ West, and returning to the point of origin. These coordinates are based upon North American Datum 1983 (NAD 1983). (b) Regulations. (1) Under § 165.33, entry into or remaining in the security zone in paragraph (a) of this section is prohibited unless authorized by the Coast Guard Captain of the Port, Port of San Juan or vessels have a scheduled arrival in accordance with the Notice of Arrival requirements of 33 CFR part 160, subpart C. (2) Persons and vessels desiring to transit the Regulated Area may contact the U.S. Coast Guard Captain of the Port, San Juan, at telephone number 787–289–0739 or on VHF channel 16 (156.8 MHz) to seek permission to transit the area. If permission is granted, all persons and vessels must comply with the instructions of the Captain of the Port. Dated: January 31, 2005. D.P. Rudolph, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Sector San Juan. [FR Doc. 05–2595 Filed 2–9–05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910–15–P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Public Participation and Request for Comments Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 167 [USCG–2005–20102] Port Access Routes: Approaches to Portland, ME and Casco Bay Coast Guard, DHS. Notice of study; request for comments AGENCY: ACTION: SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is conducting a Port Access Route Study (PARS) to evaluate the continued applicability of and the need for modifications to current vessel routing measures in the approaches to Portland, Maine and Casco Bay. The goal of the study is to help reduce the risk of marine casualties and increase the VerDate jul<14>2003 16:17 Feb 09, 2005 Jkt 205001 efficiency of vessel traffic management in the study area. The recommendations of the study may lead to future rulemaking action or appropriate international agreements. DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Docket Management Facility on or before April 11, 2005. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket number USCG–2005–20102 to the Docket Management Facility at the U.S. Department of Transportation. To avoid duplication, please use only one of the following methods: (1) Web site: http://dms.dot.gov. (2) Mail: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590–0001. (3) Fax: 202–493–2251. (4) Delivery: Room PL–401 on the Plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone number is 202–366– 9329. (5) Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this notice of study, call John J. Mauro, Project Officer, First Coast Guard District, telephone 617–223–8355, or send e-mail to jmauro@d1.uscg.mil; or George Detweiler, Office of Vessel Traffic Management, Coast Guard, telephone 202–267–0574, or send e-mail to Gdetweiler@comdt.uscg.mil. If you have questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket, call Renee K. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 202–366–0271. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: We encourage you to participate in this study by submitting comments and related materials. All comments received will be posted, without change, to http://dms.dot.gov and will include any personal information you have provided. We have an agreement with the Department of Transportation (DOT) to use the Docket Management Facility. Please see DOT’s ‘‘Privacy Act’’ paragraph below. Submitting comments: If you submit a comment, please include your name and address, identify the docket number for this notice of study (USCG–2005– 20102), indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and give the reason for each comment. You may submit your comments and material by electronic PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 7067 means, mail, fax, or delivery to the Docket Management Facility at the address under ADDRESSES; but please submit your comments and material by only one means. If you submit them by mail or delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 81⁄2 by 11 inches, suitable for copying and electronic filing. If you submit them by mail and would like to know that they reached the Facility, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. Viewing comments and documents: To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://dms.dot.gov at any time and conduct a simple search using the docket number. You may also visit the Docket Management Facility in room PL–401 on the Plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Privacy Act: Anyone can search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review the Department of Transportation’s Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477), or you may visit http://dms.dot.gov. Definitions The following definitions are from the International Maritime Organization’s (IMO’s) publication ‘‘Ships’ Routeing’’ (except those marked by an asterisk) and should help you review this notice: Area to be avoided or (ATBA) means a routing measure comprising an area within defined limits in which either navigation is particularly hazardous or it is exceptionally important to avoid casualties and which should be avoided by all vessels, or certain classes of vessels. Deep-water route means a route within defined limits, which has been accurately surveyed for clearance of sea bottom and submerged obstacles as indicated on nautical charts. Inshore traffic zone means a routing measure comprising a designated area between the landward boundary of a traffic separation scheme and the adjacent coast, to be used in accordance with the provisions of Rule 10(d), as amended, of the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1972 (COLREGS). E:\FR\FM\10FEP1.SGM 10FEP1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 27 (Thursday, February 10, 2005)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 7065-7067]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-2595]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[COTP San Juan 05-007]
RIN 1625-AA87


Security Zone: HOVENSA Refinery, St. Croix, United States Virgin 
Islands

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to establish a permanent security 
zone in the vicinity of the HOVENSA refinery facility on St. Croix, U. 
S. Virgin Islands. The security zone is needed for national security 
reasons to protect the public and the HOVENSA facility from potential 
subversive acts. The proposed rule would exclude entry into the 
proposed permanent security zone by all vessels without permission of 
the U.S. Coast Guard Captain of the Port San Juan or a scheduled 
arrival in accordance with the Notice of Arrival requirements of 33 CFR 
part 160, subpart C.

DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or 
before March 28, 2005.

ADDRESSES: You may mail comments and related material to Sector San 
Juan, 5 Calle La Puntilla, San Juan, PR 00901. Sector San Juan 
Waterways Management will maintain 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 Resident Inspections Office in St. Croix, United States 
Virgin Island between 7 a.m. and 3:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, 
except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lieutenant Junior Grade Katiuska Pabon 
of Sector San Juan Waterways Management at 787-289-0739.

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 San 
Juan-05-007), 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 that your submission 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 SECTOR San Juan 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

    The Coast Guard has published similar temporary security zones in 
the Federal Register at 67 FR 2332, January 17, 2002; 67 FR 57952, 
September 13, 2002; 68 FR 22296, April 28, 2003; 68 FR 41081, July 10, 
2003; 69 FR 6150, February 10, 2004; 69 FR 29232, May 21, 2004; and 70 
FR 2950, January 19, 2005. Given the highly volatile nature of the 
substances stored at the HOVENSA facility, the Coast Guard recognizes 
that it could be a potential terrorist target and there is a continuing 
risk that subversive activity could be launched by vessels or persons 
in close proximity to the facility. This activity could be directed 
against tank vessels and the waterfront facility. This security zone is 
necessary to decrease the risk that subversive activity could be 
launched against the HOVENSA facility. The Captain of the Port San Juan 
is reducing risk by prohibiting all vessels without a scheduled arrival 
in accordance with the Notice of Arrival requirements of 33 CFR part 
160, subpart C from entering within approximately 2 miles of the 
HOVENSA facility unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the 
Port San Juan.

Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The proposed permanent security zone around the HOVENSA facility 
would be encompassed by a line connecting the following coordinates: 
17[deg]41'31'' North, 64[deg]45'09'' West; 17[deg]39'36'' North, 
64[deg]44'12'' West; 17[deg]40'00'' North, 64[deg]43'36'' West; and 
17[deg]41'48'' North, 64[deg]44'25'' West, and back to the point of 
origin. The security zone includes the waters extending approximately 2 
miles seaward from the HOVENSA facility, Limetree Bay Channel and 
Limetree Bay. All coordinates are based upon North American Datum 1983 
(NAD 1983). All vessels without a scheduled arrival in accordance with 
the Notice of Arrival requirements of 33 CFR part 160, subpart C are 
excluded from the zone unless specifically authorized by the Captain of 
the Port San Juan.

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. The burden imposed on the public 
by this rule is minimal and mariners may obtain permission to enter the 
zone from the Coast Guard Captain of the Port San Juan or by scheduling 
vessel arrival in accordance with the Notice of Arrival requirements of 
33 CFR part 160, subpart C.

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 factual basis for this certification is as follows:
    (1) Owners of small charter fishing or diving operations that 
operate near the HOVENSA facility may be affected by the existence of 
this security zone.

[[Page 7066]]

    (2) This rule will not have a significant economic impact on the 
above mentioned or a substantial number of small entities because this 
zone covers an area that is not typically used by commercial fisherman.
    Additionally, vessels may be allowed to enter the zone on a case-
by-case basis with the permission of the Captain of the Port San Juan.
    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 
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 Katiuska 
Pabon, Sector San Juan Waterways Management, 787-289-0739. 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.

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 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.

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 rule is categorically excluded, under 
figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g), of the Instruction, from further 
environmental documentation. The proposed rule satisfies the criteria 
for paragraph (34)(g) because it is a security zone.
    Under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g) of the Instruction, an 
``Environmental Analysis Check List'' and a ``Categorical Exclusion 
Determination'' are not required for this rule. Comments on this 
section will be considered before we make the final decision on whether 
to categorically exclude this rule 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.  165.766 to read as follows:

[[Page 7067]]

Sec.  165.766  Security Zone: HOVENSA Refinery, St. Croix, U.S. Virgin 
Islands.

    (a) Regulated area. The Coast Guard is establishing a security zone 
in and around the HOVENSA Refinery on south coast of St. Croix, U.S. 
Virgin Islands. This security zone includes all waters from surface to 
bottom, encompassed by an imaginary line connecting the following 
points: Point 1: 17[deg]41'31'' North, 64[deg]45'09'' West, Point 2: 
17[deg]39'36'' North, 64[deg]44'12'' West, Point 3: 17[deg]40'00'' 
North, 64[deg]43'36'' West, Point 4: 17[deg]41'48'' North, 
64[deg]44'25'' West, and returning to the point of origin. These 
coordinates are based upon North American Datum 1983 (NAD 1983).
    (b) Regulations. (1) Under Sec.  165.33, entry into or remaining in 
the security zone in paragraph (a) of this section is prohibited unless 
authorized by the Coast Guard Captain of the Port, Port of San Juan or 
vessels have a scheduled arrival in accordance with the Notice of 
Arrival requirements of 33 CFR part 160, subpart C.
    (2) Persons and vessels desiring to transit the Regulated Area may 
contact the U.S. Coast Guard Captain of the Port, San Juan, at 
telephone number 787-289-0739 or on VHF channel 16 (156.8 MHz) to seek 
permission to transit the area. If permission is granted, all persons 
and vessels must comply with the instructions of the Captain of the 
Port.

    Dated: January 31, 2005.
D.P. Rudolph,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Sector San Juan.
[FR Doc. 05-2595 Filed 2-9-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P