Coast Guard, DHS.
The Coast Guard is designating San Francisco Bay, San Pablo Bay, Carquinez Strait, Suisun Bay, Sacramento River, San Joaquin River, and the connecting waters as a Regulated Navigation Area for the purpose of prohibiting vessels carrying Liquefied Hazardous Gas (LHG) from anchoring in the San Francisco Bay area and requiring them to proceed directly to their intended offload facility. By establishing these requirements, this rule limits the amount of time vessels carrying LHG spend in the heavily populated San Francisco Bay area in order to reduce the chances that vessels carrying LHG could be subject to a terrorist attack or involved in an accident within these waters.
This rule is effective June 28, 2004.
Comments and material received from the public, as well as documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket, are part of docket CGD11 04-001, and are available for inspection or copying at the Waterways Branch of the Marine Safety Office San Francisco Bay, Coast Guard Start Printed Page 30204Island, Alameda, California, 94501, between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.Start Further Info
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Lieutenant Doug Ebbers, Waterways Management Branch, U.S. Coast Guard Marine Safety Office San Francisco Bay, at (510) 437-3073.End Further Info End Preamble Start Supplemental Information
On February 19, 2004, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) entitled “Regulated Navigation Area; San Francisco Bay, San Pablo Bay, Carquinez Strait, Suisun Bay, Sacramento River, San Joaquin River, and Connecting Waters, CA” in the Federal Register (69 FR 7717). In that NPRM, we proposed to designate the listed waters as a Regulated Navigation Area for the purposes of prohibiting vessels carrying LHG from anchoring, requiring them to proceed directly to their intended offload facility, and thereby limiting the amount of time these vessels remained within the heavily populated San Francisco Bay area. We did not receive any letters commenting on the proposed rule. No public hearing was requested, and none was held. We did make one small change in this final rule to expand the definition of LHG to include the hazards normally associated with liquefied hazardous gas.
Penalties for Violating the Regulated Navigation Area
Vessels or persons violating the precepts of this regulated navigation area will be subject to the penalties set forth in 33 U.S.C. 1232 and 50 U.S.C. 192. Pursuant to 33 U.S.C. 1232 any violation of the regulated navigation area described herein, is punishable by civil penalties (not to exceed $32,500 per violation, where each day of a continuing violation is a separate violation), criminal penalties (imprisonment up to 6 years and a maximum fine of $250,000), and in rem liability against the offending vessel. Any person who violates this section, using a dangerous weapon, or who engages in conduct that causes bodily injury or fear of imminent bodily injury to any officer authorized to enforce this regulation, also faces imprisonment up to 12 years. Vessels or persons violating this section are also subject to the penalties set forth in 50 U.S.C. 192: Seizure and forfeiture of the vessel to the United States, a maximum criminal fine of $10,000, and imprisonment up to 10 years.
The Captain of the Port will enforce this regulated navigation area and may enlist the aid and cooperation of any Federal, State, county, municipal, or private agency to assist in the enforcement of the regulation.
Background and Purpose
Since the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center in New York, the Pentagon in Arlington, Virginia and Flight 93, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has issued several warnings concerning the potential for additional terrorist attacks within the United States. In addition, the ongoing hostilities in Afghanistan and the conflict in Iraq have made it prudent for U.S. ports to be on a higher state of alert because Al-Qaeda and other organizations have declared an ongoing intention to conduct armed attacks on U.S. interests worldwide.
The threat of maritime attacks is real as evidenced by the attack on the USS Cole and the subsequent attack in October 2002 against a tank vessel off the coast of Yemen. These threats manifest a continuing threat to U.S. assets as described in the President's finding in Executive Order 13273 of August 21, 2002 (67 FR 56215, September 3, 2002) that the security of the U.S. is endangered by the September 11, 2001 attacks and that such aggression continues to endanger the international relations of the United States. See also Continuation of the National Emergency with Respect to Certain Terrorist Attacks (67 FR 58317, September 13, 2002), and Continuation of the National Emergency with Respect to Persons Who Commit, Threaten To Commit, Or Support Terrorism (67 FR 59447, September 20, 2002).
Additionally, the U.S. Maritime Administration (MARAD) in Advisory 02-07 advised U.S. shipping interests to maintain a heightened status of alert against possible terrorist attacks. MARAD more recently issued Advisory 03-05 informing operators of maritime interests of increased threat possibilities to vessels and facilities and a higher risk of terrorist attack to the transportation community in the United States. The ongoing foreign hostilities have made it prudent for U.S. ports and waterways to be on a higher state of alert because the Al-Qaeda organization and other similar organizations have declared and ongoing intention to conduct armed attacks on U.S. interests worldwide.
Collectively, the items noted in the previous discussion represent a hazardous condition threatening the safety of the port and its facilities as well as other users of the waterway. Further, due to increased awareness that future terrorist attacks are possible, the Coast Guard as lead federal agency for maritime homeland security, has determined that the District Commander must have the means to deter threats to the port while sustaining the flow of commerce. A Regulated Navigation Area is a tool available to the Coast Guard that may be used to control vessel traffic through ports, harbors, or other waters.
As part of the Diplomatic Security and Antiterrorism Act of 1986 (Pub. L. 99-399), Congress amended section 7 of the Ports and Waterways Safety Act (PWSA), 33 U.S.C. 1226, to allow the Coast Guard to take actions, including the establishment of regulated navigation areas, to prevent or respond to acts of terrorism against individuals, vessels, or public or commercial structures. The Coast Guard also has authority to establish regulated navigation areas pursuant to the Act of June 15, 1917, as amended by the Magnuson Act of August 9, 1950 (50 U.S.C. 191 et seq.), and implementing regulations promulgated by the President in subparts 6.01 and 6.04 of part 6 of title 33 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
In this particular rulemaking, to address the aforementioned security and safety concerns and to take steps to prevent a terrorist incident involving vessels carrying Liquefied Hazardous Gas (LHG), the Coast Guard is designating San Francisco Bay, San Pablo Bay, Carquinez Strait, Suisun Bay, Sacramento River, San Joaquin River, and the connecting waters as a Regulated Navigation Area for the purpose of prohibiting vessels carrying LHG from anchoring or unnecessarily remaining within these areas. Since September of 2001, as part of the efforts to increase the safety and security of the Port of San Francisco Bay, the Captain of the Port (COTP) has been issuing COTP Orders to prohibit LHG carrying vessels from anchoring prior to discharging their cargo. As such, this rule codifies the established policy of prohibiting LHG carrying vessels from anchoring in San Francisco Bay, San Pablo Bay, Carquinez Strait, Suisun Bay, Sacramento River, San Joaquin River, and the connecting waters.
This regulated navigation area is needed to protect the public, ports, and the environment from the potential damage that would be caused if an LHG vessel were to become the target of a subversive act or be involved in an accident or other event of a similar nature. Prohibiting vessels carrying LHG from anchoring unless specifically authorized to do otherwise by the Captain of the Port or his designated representative will limit the amount of time these vessels are underway in the San Francisco Bay area and reduce the Start Printed Page 30205associated potential hazards posed by their cargo. Due to heightened security concerns and the catastrophic impact a terrorist attack on a vessel carrying LHG would have on the vessel, crew, surrounding area and the public, the regulations established by this rule are prudent for this location.
This 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).
Although this regulation prohibits LHG vessels from anchoring within the regulated navigation area and requires them to proceed directly to their intended offload facility, the effect of this regulation is not significant because vessels carrying LHG have been directed by COTP orders not to anchor within San Francisco Bay, San Pablo Bay, Carquinez Strait, Suisun Bay, Sacramento River, San Joaquin River, and connecting waters in California since September of 2001. Therefore, this rule is a continuation of the established policy of prohibiting LHG vessels from anchoring in the San Francisco Bay area, and having it published simply removes the need to issue a COTP order each time an LHG vessel enters the bay. In addition, LHG vessels will be allowed to anchor on a case-by-case basis with permission of the Captain of the Port, or his designated representative.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered whether this 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 rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because the rule only effects LHG vessels within San Francisco Bay, San Pablo Bay, Carquinez Strait, Suisun Bay, Sacramento River, San Joaquin River, and connecting waters in California, it allows these vessels to complete their intended purpose of delivering LHG cargo, and the rule is a continuation of a policy that has been in effect since September of 2001.
Assistance for Small Entities
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we offered to assist small entities in understanding the rule so that they could better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process.
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 1-800-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247).
Collection of Information
This rule calls for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
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 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 rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
Taking of Private Property
This 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 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 rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and does not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might disproportionately affect children.
Indian Tribal Governments
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.
We have analyzed this 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.
We have analyzed this 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 because we are establishing a Regulated Navigation Area. An “Environmental Analysis Check List” and a draft “Categorical Exclusion Determination” (CED) will be Start Printed Page 30206available in the docket where located under ADDRESSES.Start List of Subjects
List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165End List of Subjects Start Amendment Part
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amendsEnd Amendment Part Start Part
PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREASEnd Part Start Amendment Part
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:End Amendment Part Start Amendment Part
2. Add § 165.1185, to read as follows:End Amendment Part
(a) Location. All waters of San Francisco Bay, San Pablo Bay, Carquinez Strait, Suisun Bay, Sacramento River, San Joaquin River, and connecting waters in California are a Regulated Navigation Area.
(b) Definitions. “Liquefied hazardous gas (LHG)” is a liquid containing one or more of the products listed in Table 127.005 of 33 CFR 127.005 that is carried in bulk on board a tank vessel as a liquefied gas product. The hazards normally associated with these products include toxic or flammable properties or a combination of both.
(c) Regulations. All vessels loaded with a cargo of liquefied hazardous gas (LHG) within this Regulated Navigation Area must proceed directly to their intended cargo reception facility to discharge their LHG cargo, unless:
(1) The vessel is otherwise directed or permitted by the Captain of the Port. The Captain of the Port can be reached at telephone number (415) 399-3547 or on VHF-FM channel 16 (156.8 MHz). If permission is granted, all persons and vessels must comply with the instructions of the Captain of the Port or his or her designated representative.
(2) The vessel is in an emergency situation and unable to proceed as directed in paragraph (a) of this section without endangering the safety of persons, property, or the environment.
Dated: May 17, 2004.
Kevin J. Eldridge,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, District Commander, Eleventh Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 04-12008 Filed 5-26-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P