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: https://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:
https://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 https://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
https://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 https://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