Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.
The Coast Guard proposes to establish a permanent safety zone on the navigable waters of Port Valdez within a 200-yard radius of the Alaska Marine Highway System (AMHS) Port Valdez Ferry Terminal. The purpose of the safety zone is to restrict all vessels
Comments and related material must be received by the Coast Guard on or before May 2, 2013.
You may submit comments identified by docket number using any one of the following methods:
(1)
(2)
(3)
See the “Public Participation and Request for Comments” portion of the
If you have questions on this rule, call or email Lieutenant Commander Danielle F. Wiley, Waterways Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard Marine Safety Unit Valdez, telephone 907–835–7223, email
We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting comments and related materials. All comments received will be posted without change to
If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material online at
To submit your comment online, go to
If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 8
To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
Anyone can search the electronic form of 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 a Privacy Act notice regarding our public dockets in the January 17, 2008, issue of the
We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a request for one on or before April 11, 2013, using one of the methods specified under
In order to prevent near miss collisions or delays in mooring during the commercial fishing openers, the Coast Guard began issuing temporary final rules to establish temporary safety zones during Commercial Salmon Fishery Openers in 2010. The Coast Guard received no comments or concerns from the public when the temporary final rules were in place.
This Notice of Proposed Rule Making would permanently establish a safety zone of the exact same size and position as that which was established under the temporary final rules.
The legal basis for the proposed rule is the Coast Guard's authority to establish limited access areas: 33 U.S.C 1231; 46 U.S.C Chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05–1, 6.04–1, 6.04–6, 160.5; Public Law 107–295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
A representative of the Alaska Marine Highway System requested that the Coast Guard establish a safety zone in the immediate vicinity of the AMHS Port Valdez Ferry Terminal whenever a Commercial Salmon Fishery Opener is declared, because of previous incidents of near collisions in the vicinity of the ferry terminal between AMHS ferry vessels and commercial fishing vessels. During Commercial Salmon Fishery Openers, increased vessel traffic in the vicinity of the AMHS Port Valdez Ferry Terminal adds additional congestion to the waterways and is a cause for navigational safety concerns, especially when the commercial fleet is active along the shoreline adjacent to the AMHS Port Valdez Ferry Terminal.
We believe a permanent safety zone is necessary to ensure the safety of vessels
The proposed rule would ensure the safety of all vessels in the area during periods of increased vessel traffic because of the Commercial Salmon Fishery Opener. The impact of this rule on commercial and recreational traffic is expected to be minimal because the proposed safety zone will restrict access to only a small portion of the navigable waters of Port Valdez and for a short duration.
The Coast Guard proposes to establish a 200-yard safety zone around the AMHS Port Valdez Ferry Terminal at position 61°07′26″ N; 146°21′50″ W in the navigable waters of Port Valdez. The purpose of the safety zone would be to restrict non-AMHS vessels from entering within a 200-yard radius of the AMHS Port Valdez Ferry Terminal whenever an AMHS ferry is underway within a 200-yard radius of the AMHS Terminal and there is a declared Commercial Salmon Fishery Opener that includes the navigable waters within 200 yards of the terminal. The proposed safety zone would only be enforced when an AMHS ferry is underway within 200 yards of the AMHS Port Valdez Ferry Terminal and there is a declared Commercial Salmon Fishery Opener in effect. The limited size and duration of the proposed safety zone is designed to minimize the impact on other vessels transiting the waters of Port Valdez.
The proposed rule would be enforced whenever an AMHS ferry vessel is underway within 200 yards of the AMHS Port Valdez Ferry Terminal. Enforcement of the safety zone would terminate when the ferry vessel is moored or when the vessel is more than 200 yards away from the terminal.
We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes or executive orders.
This proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders. The Coast Guard enforcement of this proposed safety zone will be of short duration. The proposed safety zone would be enforced for a limited amount of time, only when there is a declared Commercial Salmon Fishery Opener and there is an AMHS ferry underway within 200 yards of the AMHS Port Valdez Ferry Terminal. Vessels would be able to navigate around the proposed safety zone. Furthermore, vessels may be authorized to transit through the proposed safety zone with the permission of the COTP.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601–612), we have considered the impact of this proposed rule on small entities. 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.
This proposed rule would affect the following entities, some of which might be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to transit or anchor in a portion of the navigable waters of Port Valdez whenever a Commercial Salmon Fishery Opener is declared and there is an AMHS ferry underway within 200 yards of the AMHS Port Valdez Ferry Terminal.
This proposed safety zone would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons. This proposed safety zone would be activated, and thus subject to enforcement, only when there is an announced Commercial Salmon Fishery Opener and there is an AMHS ferry underway within 200 yards of the AMHS Port Valdez Terminal. Vessel traffic could pass safely around the proposed safety zone. Before the activation of the zone, we would issue maritime advisories widely available to users of the waterway.
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
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. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the
This proposed rule will not call for a 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 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 proposed rule under that Order and determined that this rule does not have implications for federalism.
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the
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 proposed rule would not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
This proposed rule would not cause a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.
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.
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.
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.
This proposed rule is not a “significant energy action” under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.
This proposed rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.
We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023–01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and have made a preliminary determination 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 proposed rule involves the establishment of a safety zone. This rule is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2–1 of the Commandant Instruction. A preliminary environmental analysis checklist supporting this determination and a Categorical Exclusion Determination are available in the docket where indicated under
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:
33 U.S.C. 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05–1, 6.04–1, 6.04–6, 160.5; Pub. L. 107–295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(1) The term “designated representative” means any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant or petty officer of the U. S. Coast Guard who has been designated by the Captain of the Port, Prince William Sound, to act on his or her behalf.
(2) The term “official patrol vessel” may consist of any Coast Guard, Coast Guard Auxiliary, state, or local law enforcement vessels assigned or approved by the COTP, Prince William Sound.
(3) The term “AMHS vessel” means any vessel owned or operated by the Alaska Marine Highway System, including, but not limited to: M/V AURORA, M/V CHENEGA, M/V COLUMBIA, M/V FAIRWEATHER, M/V KENNICOTT, M/V LECONTE, M/V LITUYA, M/V MALASPINA, M/V MATANUSKA, M/V TAKU and M/V TUSTUMENA.
(d)
(1) The general regulations contained in 33 CFR 165.23, as well as the following regulations, apply.
(2) No vessels, except for AMHS ferries and vessels owned or operated by AMHS will be allowed to transit the safety zone without the permission of the COTP, Prince William Sound or the designated representative during periods of enforcement.
(3) All persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of the COTP or the designated representative. Upon being hailed by a U.S. Coast Guard vessel or other official patrol vessel by siren, radio, flashing light or other means, the operator of the hailed vessel shall proceed as directed.
(4) Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within the regulated area may contact the COTP or the designated representative via VHF channel 16 or 907–835–7205 (Prince William Sound Vessel Traffic Service) to request permission to do so.
(5) The COTP, Prince William Sound may be aided by other Federal, state, borough and local law enforcement officials in the enforcement of this regulation. In addition, members of the Coast Guard Auxiliary may be present to inform vessel operators of this regulation.