Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Homeland Security

###### Coast Guard

          - 33 CFR Part 165
          - [Docket Number USCG-2024-0157]
          - RIN 1625-AA87

# AGENCY:

Coast Guard, DHS.

# ACTION:

Notice of proposed rulemaking.

# SUMMARY:

The current Trans-Alaska Pipeline (TAPS) 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 proposing to amend 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. We invite your comments on this proposed rulemaking.

# DATES:

Comments and related material must be received by the Coast Guard on or before March 22, 2024.

# ADDRESSES:

                        You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-2024-0157 using the Federal Decision-                              ( print page 13016)                            Making Portal at                         *https://www.regulations.gov.*                         See the “Public Participation and Request for Comments” portion of the                         **SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION**                         section for further instructions on submitting comments. This notice of proposed rulemaking with its plain-language, 100-word-or-less proposed rule summary will be available in this same docket.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        If you have questions about this proposed rulemaking, call or email Lieutenant Junior Grade Abigail Ferrara, Marine Safety Unit Valdez, U.S. Coast Guard. Telephone 907-835-7209, email                         *Abigail.C.Ferrara@uscg.mil.*

# 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

§ Section 

TAPS Trans-Alaska Pipeline

U.S.C. United States Code

## II. Background, Purpose, and Legal Basis

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 proposing this rulemaking under authority in 46 U.S.C. 70051 and 70124.

## III. Discussion of Proposed Rule

The COTP is proposing to amend the current security zone found in 33 CFR 165.1710(a)(1) to excise the 2000-yard inland portion of the zone. This would result in the security zone encompassing only the water up to the shoreline. The regulatory text we are proposing appears at the end of this document.

## IV. Regulatory Analyses

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 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 NPRM 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, the NPRM 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 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.

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.

                    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 rulemaking would economically affect it.                

                    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 proposed 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. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this proposed rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.                

### C. Collection of Information

This proposed rule would 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 proposed 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 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. If you believe this proposed rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please call or email the person listed in the                     **FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT**                     section.                

### E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

                    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires                           ( print page 13017)                        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 potential effects of this proposed rule elsewhere in this preamble.                

### F. Environment

We have analyzed this proposed 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 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 excising the 2000-yard inland portion TAPS Terminal security zone. Normally such actions are categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(b) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this proposed rule.

## V. Public Participation and Request for Comments

We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking and will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. 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.

*Submitting comments.*                     We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal Decision-Making Portal at                     *https://www.regulations.gov.*                     To do so, go to                     *https://www.regulations.gov,*                     type USCG-2024-0157 in the search box and click “Search.” Next, look for this document in the Search Results column, and click on it. Then click on the Comment option. If you cannot submit your material by using                     *https://www.regulations.gov,*                     call or email the person in the                     **FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT**                     section of this proposed rule for alternate instructions.                

*Viewing material in docket.*                     To view documents mentioned in this proposed rule as being available in the docket, find the docket as described in the previous paragraph, and then select “Supporting & Related Material” in the Document Type column. Public comments will also be placed in our online docket and can be viewed by following instructions on the                     *https://www.regulations.gov*                     Frequently Asked Questions web page. Also, if you click on the Dockets tab and then the proposed rule, you should see a “Subscribe” option for email alerts. The option will notify you when comments are posted, or a final rule is published.                

We review all comments received, but we will only post comments that address the topic of the proposed rule. We may choose not to post off-topic, inappropriate, or duplicate comments that we receive.

*Personal information.*                     We accept anonymous comments. Comments we post to                     *https://www.regulations.gov*                     will include any personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and submissions to the docket in response to this document, see DHS's eRulemaking System of Records notice (85 FR 14226, March 11, 2020).                

# 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 is proposing to amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows:

# PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

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.

2. Revise § 165.1710(a)(1) to read as follows: 

§ 165.1710 

(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°05′03.6″ N, 146°25′42″ W; thence northerly to yellow buoy at 61°06′00″ N, 146°25′42″ W; thence east to the yellow buoy at 61°06′00″ N, 146°21′30″ W; thence south to 61°05′06″ N, 146°21′30″ W; thence west along the shoreline to the beginning point.                    

* * * * *

Dated: February 14, 2024.

S.K. Rousseau,

Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Prince William Sound.

[FR Doc. 2024-03486 Filed 2-20-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 9110-04-P