Ports and waterways safety: Bayou Casotte, Pascagoula, MS; security zone,
[Federal Register: July 7, 2003 (Volume 68, Number 129)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 40231-40233]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr07jy03-39]
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 165
[COTP Mobile-03-013]
RIN 1625-AA00
Security Zone; Bayou Casotte, Pascagoula, MS
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to establish a permanent security zone encompassing all waters of Bayou Casotte east of a line drawn from position 30[deg]19'09'' N, 88[deg]30'63'' W to position 30[deg]20'42'' N, 88[deg]30'51'' W at the Chevron Pascagoula Refinery. This security zone is necessary to protect Chevron Pascagoula refinery, persons, and vessels from subversive or terrorist acts. Entry of persons or vessels into this security zone will be prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Mobile, or a designated representative.
DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or before September 5, 2003.
ADDRESSES: You may mail comments and related material to Marine Safety Office Mobile, Brookley Complex, Bldg 102, South Broad Street, Mobile, AL 36615-1390. Marine Safety Office Mobile maintains 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 Marine Safety Office Mobile, Brookley Complex, Bldg 102, South Broad Street, Mobile, AL 36615-1390 between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lieutenant (LT) Carolyn Beatty, Operations Department, Marine Safety Office Mobile, AL, at (251) 441- 5771.
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
[[Page 40232]]
address, identify the docket number for this rulemaking [COTP Mobile- 03-013], 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 Marine Safety Office Mobile 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
On September 11, 2001, both towers of the World Trade Center and the Pentagon were attacked by terrorists. The President has continued the national emergency he declared following those attacks (67 FR 58317, Sept. 13, 2002) (continuing the emergency declared with respect to terrorist attacks) and (67 FR 59447, Sept. 20, 2002) (continuing emergency with respect to persons who commit, threaten to commit or support terrorism). The President also has found pursuant to law, including the Magnuson Act (50 U.S.C. 191 et seq.), that the security of the United States is and continues to be endangered following the terrorist attacks (E.O. 13,273, 67 FR 56215, Sept. 3, 2002) (security of U.S. endangered by disturbances in international relations of U.S and such disturbances continue to endanger such relations). National security and intelligence officials have warned that future terrorist attacks against civilian targets are anticipated. In response to these terrorist acts and warnings, heightened awareness for the security and safety of all vessels, ports, and harbors is necessary.
On March 22, 2003, the Captain of the Port Mobile established a temporary security zone for the Chevron Pascagoula Refinery (COTP Mobile-03-009, 68 FR 23594). That temporary final rule was published in the Federal Register on May 5, 2003, and expires on September 22, 2003.
The Captain of the Port has determined there is a need for this security zone to remain in effect indefinitely because of the continued threat of terrorism and the nature of the material handled at the refinery. The proposed rule would establish a permanent security zone identical to the existing temporary zone.
Discussion of Proposed Rule
A security zone is proposed for all waters of Bayou Casotte east of a line drawn from position 30[deg]19'09'' N, 88[deg]30'63'' W; to position 30[deg]20'42'' N, 88[deg]30'51'' W, at the Chevron Pascagoula Refinery. These coordinates are based upon [NAD 83]. All persons and vessels would be prohibited from entering or remaining in this zone without permission of the Captain of the Port Mobile or a designated representative.
The zone is designed to increase protection around the Chevron Pascagoula Refinery in Pascagoula, MS. It increases the opportunity for detection of a waterborne attack on the facility and consequently enhances public health and safety, providing greater defense and security at this location and its surrounding areas. The location of this security zone will limit access to only the waters immediately adjacent to the facility and will permit vessels to safety navigate around the zone. The establishment of this security zone will have minimal impact on maritime traffic in the vicinity of the facility.
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.
This proposed rule would not obstruct the regular flow of vessel traffic and will allow vessel traffic to pass safely around the security zone. Vessels may be permitted to enter the security zone on a case-by-case basis.
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 Coast Guard is unaware of any small entities that would be impacted by this proposed rule. The navigable channel remains open to all vessel traffic. We have received no comments or objections regarding the existing security zone covering the same area.
If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this proposed rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see 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 they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process. 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 LT Carolyn Beatty, Operations Department, Marine Safety Office Mobile, AL, at (251) 441- 5771.
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
[[Page 40233]]
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 will 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 proposed rule is not an economically significant rule and does not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may 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. We invite your comments on how this proposed rule might impact tribal governments, even if that impact may not constitute a ``tribal implication'' under the Order.
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.
Environment
We have analyzed this proposed rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, 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 categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, this proposed rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g), of the instruction, from further environmental documentation because this rule is not expected to result in any significant environmental impact as described in NEPA. A final ``Environmental Analysis Check List'' and a final ``Categorical Exclusion Determination'' are available where indicated under ADDRESSES. Comments on this section will be considered before we make the final decision on whether the rule should be categorically excluded 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
-
The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1(g), 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.
-
Add Sec. 165.824 to read as follows:
Sec. 165.824 Security Zone; Chevron Pascagoula Refinery, Pascagoula, MS.
(a) Location. The following area is a security zone: all waters of Bayou Casotte east of a line drawn from position 30[deg]19'09'' N, 88[deg]30'63'' W to position 30[deg]20'42'' N 88[deg]30'51'' W at the Chevron Pascagoula Refinery. These coordinates are based upon [NAD 83].
(b) Regulations: (1) Entry into or remaining in this zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Coast Guard Captain of the Port Mobile or a designated representative.
(2) Persons desiring to transit the area of the security zone may contact the Captain of the Port Mobile at telephone number (251) 441- 5121 or on VHF channel 16 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 Mobile or a designated representative.
(c) Authority. In addition to 33 U.S.C. 1231, the authority for this section includes 33 U.S.C. 1226.
Dated: June 19, 2003. Gary T. Croot, Commander, Coast Guard, Acting, Captain of the Port Mobile.
[FR Doc. 03-16972 Filed 7-3-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-U
