Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 77 / Monday, April 23, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 20053 

Dated: April 6, 2007. 

Patrick B. Trapp, 

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the 

Port, Hampton Roads. 

[FR Doc. E7–7670 Filed 4–20–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–15–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 165 

[CGD05–07–015] 

RIN 1625–AA00 

Security Zone: America’s 400th 

Celebration, Jamestown, VA 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Temporary final rule. 

SUMMARY: The United States Coast 

Guard is establishing a security zone 

encompassing waters within 2-nautical 

miles of Church Point at 37–12.45N, 

076–46.66W, Jamestown Island, VA, for 

America’s 400th Anniversary 

celebration. This action is intended to 

restrict vessel traffic within the security 

zone. This security zone is necessary to 

protect attendees of this event from 

potential maritime hazards and threats 

and enhance public and maritime 

security. 

DATES: This rule is effective from 3 p.m. 

on May 11, 2007 until 10 p.m. on May 

13, 2007. 

ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this 

preamble as being available in the 

docket are part of docket CGD05–07–

015 and are available for inspection or 

copying at USCG Sector Hampton 

Roads, 4000 Coast Guard Blvd., 

Portsmouth, Virginia 23703, between 

9:30 a.m. and 2 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, except Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

LCDR Thomas Tarrants, Enforcement 

Branch Chief, U.S. Coast Guard Sector 

Hampton Roads, Virginia at (757) 483–

8571. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Regulatory Information 

On March 12, 2007, we published a 

notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) 

entitled ‘‘Security Zone: America’s 

400th Celebration, Jamestown, VA,’’ in 

the Federal Register (72 FR 10958). We 

received no letters commenting on the 

proposed rule. No public hearing was 

requested, and none was held. 

Background and Purpose 

Following terrorist attacks on the 

United States in September 2001, there 

is now a heightened awareness that 

vessels or persons could engage in 

subversive activity against targets ashore 

in the United States. This regulation is 

necessary to protect attendees of 

America’s 400th Anniversary 

celebration on Jamestown Island, VA, 

from potential maritime threats. This 

temporary security zone will only be in 

effect from 3 p.m. on May 11, 2007 until 

10 p.m. on May 13th, 2007. This zone 

will have minimal impact on vessel 

transits because vessels can request 

authorization from the Captain of the 

Port (COTP) to safely transit through the 

zone and they are not precluded from 

using any portion of the waterway 

except the security zone area itself. 

Additionally, public notifications 

announcing this regulation will be made 

via marine information broadcasts prior 

to the zone taking effect. 

Discussion of Comments and Changes 

The Coast Guard received no 

comments from the public regarding the 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. As no 

public comments were received, no 

changes were made to the Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking. 

Discussion of Rule 

The Coast Guard is establishing a 

temporary security zone on specified 

waters to provide protection to 

dignitaries visiting Jamestown Island. 

The security zone will be effective from 

3 p.m. on May 11, 2007, until 10 p.m. 

on May 13, 2007. The security zone will 

be enforced from 3 p.m. until 10 p.m. 

on May 11, 2007; from 9 a.m. to 11 p.m. 

on May 12, 2007; and from 9 a.m. to 10 

p.m. on May 13, 2007. 

The security zone will encompass all 

waters around Jamestown Island, VA 

within a 2-nautical mile radius of 

Church Point at 37–12.45N, 076–

46.66W. No persons or vessels may 

enter or remain in the regulated area 

without authorization by the Captain of 

the Port, Hampton Roads, or his 

designated representative. 

Regulatory Evaluation 

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). 

We expect the economic impact of 

this rule to be so minimal that a full 

regulatory evaluation under the 

regulatory policies and procedures of 

DHS is unnecessary. Although this 

rulemaking restricts access to the 

regulated area, the effect of this 

rulemaking will not be significant 

because: (i) The COTP may authorize 

access to the security zone; (ii) the 

security zone will be in effect for a 

limited duration; (iii) the Coast Guard 

will make notifications via maritime 

advisories so mariners can adjust their 

plans accordingly. 

Small Entities 

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. 

However, this rule may affect the 

following entities, some of which may 

be small entities: the owners and 

operators of vessels intending to transit 

or anchor in the described portion of the 

security zone between 3 p.m. on May 

11, 2007, to 10 p.m. on May 13, 2007. 

The security zone will not have a 

significant impact on a substantial 

number of small entities because the 

zone does not encompass a high vessel 

traffic area, and vessels can request 

authorization from the COTP to enter 

the zone. Maritime advisories will also 

be issued, so the mariners can adjust 

their plans accordingly. 

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 rule so that they can 

better evaluate its effects on them and 

participate in the rulemaking. If the 

rulemaking would affect your small 

business, organization, or governmental 

jurisdiction and you have questions 

concerning its provisions or options for 

compliance, please contact LCDR 

Thomas Tarrants, Enforcement Branch 

Chief, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Hampton 

Roads, Virginia at (757) 483–8571. 

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 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC74 with RULES
20054 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 77 / Monday, April 23, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

and 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 U.S. 

Coast Guard, call 1–888–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). 

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 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 

expenditure, we do discuss the effects of 

this rule elsewhere in this preamble. 

Taking of Private Property 

This rule will not affect 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 may 

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. 

Energy Effects 

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. It has not been designated by the 

Administrator of the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs 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 rule does not use 

technical standards. Therefore, we did 

not consider the use of voluntary 

consensus standards. 

Environment 

We have analyzed this rule under 

Commandant Instruction M16475.1D 

and Department of Homeland Security 

Management Directive 5100.1, which 

guide 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, we believe that this rule 

should be categorically excluded, under 

figure 2–1, paragraph (34)(g), of the 

Instruction, from further environmental 

documentation. A final ‘‘Environmental 

Analysis Check List’’ and a final 

‘‘Categorical Exclusion Determination’’

will be available in the docket where 

indicated under ADDRESSES. 

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165 

Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation 

(water), Reporting & recordkeeping 

requirements, Security measures, 

Waterways. 

■ For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to 

amend 33 CFR part 165 subpart D 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 temporary § 165.T05–015, to 

read as follows: 

§ 165.T05–015 Security Zone: Jamestown 

Island, VA. 

(a) Location. The following area is a 

security zone: All waters within a 2- 

nautical mile radius of Church Point at 

37–12.45N, 076–46.66W on Jamestown 

Island, VA. 

(b) Definition. As used in this section; 

Designated representative means any 

U.S. Coast Guard commissioned, 

warrant or petty officer who has been 

authorized by the Captain of the Port, 

Hampton Roads, Virginia to act on his 

behalf. 

(c) Regulation. (1) In accordance with 

the general regulations in 165.33 of this 

part, entry into this zone as described in 

paragraph (a) is prohibited unless 

authorized by the Captain of the Port, 

Hampton Roads, Virginia, or his 

designated representative. 

(2) The operator of any vessel in the 

immediate vicinity of this security zone 

shall: 

(i) Stop the vessel immediately upon 

being directed to do so by the Captain 

of the Port, Hampton Roads, Virginia, or 

his designated representative on board a 

vessel displaying a U.S. Coast Guard 

Ensign. 

(ii) Proceed as directed by the Captain 

of the Port, Hampton Roads, Virginia, or 

his designated representative on board a 

vessel displaying a U.S. Coast Guard 

Ensign. 

(3) The Captain of the Port, Hampton 

Roads, Virginia can be contacted at 

telephone number (757) 668–5555. 

(4) U.S. Coast Guard vessels enforcing 

the security zone can be contacted on 

VHF–FM marine band radio, channel 13 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC74 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 77 / Monday, April 23, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 20055 

(156.65 MHz) and channel 16 (156.8 

MHz). 

(d) Enforcement period. The security 

zone will be enforced from 3 p.m. until 

10 p.m. on May 11, 2007; from 9 a.m. 

to 11 p.m. on May 12, 2007; and from 

9 a.m. to 10 p.m. on May 13, 2007. 

(e) Effective period. This regulation is 

effective from 3 p.m. on May 11, 2007, 

to 10 p.m. on May 13, 2007. 

Dated: April 6, 2007. 

Patrick B. Trapp, 

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the 

Port, Hampton Roads. 

[FR Doc. E7–7669 Filed 4–20–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–15–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials 

Safety Administration 

49 CFR Part 192 

[Docket No. PHMSA–2005–22642] 

RIN 2137–AE09 

Pipeline Safety: Design and 

Construction Standards To Reduce 

Internal Corrosion in Gas 

Transmission Pipelines 

AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous 

Materials Safety Administration 

(PHMSA), Department of 

Transportation. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This final rule requires 

operators to use design and construction 

features in new and replaced gas 

transmission pipelines to reduce the 

risk of internal corrosion. The design 

and construction features required by 

this rule will reduce the risk of internal 

corrosion and related pipeline failures 

by reducing the potential for 

accumulation of liquids and facilitating 

operation and maintenance practices 

that address internal corrosion. 

DATES: This final rule takes effect May 

23, 2007. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Barbara Betsock by phone at (202) 366–

4361, by fax at (202) 366–4566, or by email at barbara.betsock@dot.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

We initiated this rulemaking 

proceeding in response to a 2003 

recommendation of the National 

Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) and 

corresponding advice of the Technical 

Pipeline Safety Standards Committee 

(TPSSC). The NTSB recommendation 

arose out of its investigation of the 

August 19, 2000 gas transmission 

pipeline explosion near Carlsbad, New 

Mexico in which 12 people were killed. 

In its accident investigation report, 

PAR–03–01, issued February 11, 2003, 

the NTSB concluded that the immediate 

cause of the Carlsbad pipeline failure 

was severe internal corrosion. The 

NTSB recommended that PHMSA (1) 

require that new and replaced gas 

transmission pipelines be designed and 

constructed with features to mitigate 

internal corrosion; (2) require operators 

to ensure that their internal corrosion 

control programs address water and 

other contaminants in the corrosion 

process; and (3) change its Federal 

inspection to ensure adequate 

assessments of pipeline operator safety 

programs. In 2004 and 2005, the NTSB 

closed as acceptable PHMSA actions to 

respond to the second and third 

recommendations. This rulemaking 

proceeding responds to the first 

recommendation. 

On December 15, 2005, PHMSA 

published a notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NPRM) in the Federal 

Register (70 FR 74262) proposing to 

require operators to use design and 

construction features to reduce the risk 

of internal corrosion in transmission 

pipelines. As we explained in the 

NPRM, the proposed rule was intended 

to prevent the risk of internal corrosion 

by applying knowledge and experience 

about the causes and prevention of 

corrosion to design of pipelines. The 

incorporation of design features to 

address internal corrosion improves the 

ability of the operator to prevent 

internal corrosion and facilitates 

maintenance activities to control 

internal corrosion. 

The basic requirements of this final 

rule are similar to those proposed in the 

NPRM. New and replaced gas 

transmission pipelines must be 

configured to reduce the risk that 

liquids will collect in the line; have 

effective liquid removal features; and 

allow use of corrosion monitoring 

devices in locations with significant 

potential for internal corrosion. When 

an operator changes the configuration of 

a pipeline, the operator must consider 

and address the impact the changes will 

have on the risk of internal corrosion in 

an existing downstream pipeline. This 

final rule does not supersede or negate 

the requirement to address internal 

corrosion during operation and 

maintenance activities. Designing and 

building a pipeline in accordance with 

the final rule will not prevent internal 

corrosion unless the operator also 

follows a well-planned maintenance 

program. For example, incorporating 

equipment to measure gas quality will 

not prevent internal corrosion unless it 

is used and the operator acts on the 

results. 

Advisory Committee Consideration 

PHMSA briefed the TPSSC in June 

2005 and considered the Committee’s 

advice in developing the NPRM. 

PHMSA presented the NPRM and 

regulatory evaluation to the TPSSC for 

formal consideration at their meeting on 

June 28, 2006. At that meeting, members 

expressed concern that the proposed 

documentation requirements were 

burdensome. TPSSC members asked for 

information about whether PHMSA 

intended to require detailed 

documentation of every action taken 

during design and construction; what 

alternatives commenters suggested; and 

how the NTSB reached its 

recommendation. PHMSA provided 

additional information in the form of a 

concept paper on the documentation 

needed for compliance, an expanded 

summary of comments, and excerpts 

from the NTSB report on the Carlsbad 

incident. PHMSA briefed the TPSSC at 

a meeting on August 26, 2006 and 

outlined changes we intended to make 

in response to comments. A few 

members expressed individual concerns 

about particular issues. These concerns 

are addressed in the remainder of this 

preamble. The TPSSC voted 

unanimously to support the NPRM as 

technically feasible, reasonable, costeffective and practicable, provided the 

final rule included the changes PHMSA 

outlined at the meeting. In addition, the 

TPSSC advised PHMSA to hold 

discussions in an open forum on 

enforcement criteria, including protocol 

development and recordkeeping. The 

final rule is consistent with the 

discussion at the TPSSC meeting. In 

accordance with the TPSSC’s advice, 

PHMSA intends to convene an open 

forum soon after the final rule is issued. 

Comments on the NPRM 

PHMSA received public comments on 

the NPRM from 18 commenters, 13 of 

them operators of gas transmission 

pipelines. The Gas Piping Technology 

Committee, Interstate Natural Gas 

Association of America, American Gas 

Association, the Texas Pipeline 

Association, and the Iowa Utilities 

Board also commented. Commenters 

agreed with the basic concept of the 

proposal—addressing internal corrosion 

risks during design and construction. 

Most commenters viewed the 

documentation requirements of the 

proposed rule as burdensome. Some 

expressed confusion about what an 

operator would have to do to comply. 

As an example, some questioned 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC74 with RULES