Security Zone; Port Valdez and Valdez Narrows, Valdez, AK, 33231-33232 [2024-09103]

Agencies

• Coast Guard
• DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

[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 [www.gpo.gov]
[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 https://www.regulations.gov, 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 
[email protected].

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