[Federal Register: September 10, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 174)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 51555-51557]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr10se07-1]
========================================================================
Rules and Regulations
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents
having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed
to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published
under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.
The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents.
Prices of new books are listed in the first FEDERAL REGISTER issue of each
week.
========================================================================
[[Page 51555]]
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 165
[Docket No. CGD07-05-138]
RIN 1625-AA11
Regulated Navigation Area: Savannah River, Savannah, GA
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On January 19, 2007, the Coast Guard published an interim rule
with request for comments, which revised the regulated navigation area
in Savannah, Georgia, to address changes in Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG)
tankship mooring locations following the creation of two new berths
within a slip at the Southern LNG facility on the Savannah River. The
final rule only addressed facility and vessel requirements when an LNG
vessel was underway or moored parallel to the navigational channel
outside of the slip. The interim rule was necessary to describe
requirements for three different potential mooring situations following
the LNG facilities expansion. This final rule adopts the interim rule
requirements without change for the following mooring situations at the
LNG facility: An LNG tankship moored outside of the slip, one or more
LNG tankships moored inside the slip, and LNG tankships moored both
inside and outside of the slip.
DATES: Effective October 10, 2007 the interim rule amending 33 CFR part
165 which was published at 72 FR 2448 on January 19, 2007, is adopted
as a final rule.
ADDRESSES: 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 [CGD07-05-138], and are available for inspection or
copying at Marine Safety Unit Savannah, Gordon Low Federal Building,
Suite 1017, 100 W. Oglethorpe, Savannah, Georgia 31401, between 7:30
a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lieutenant Robert Webb, Waterways
Management Officer, Marine Safety Unit Savannah; (912) 652-4353.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Regulatory Information
On January 19, 2007, the Coast Guard published an interim rule with
request for comments entitled ``Regulated Navigation Area: Savannah
River, Savannah, GA'' in the Federal Register (72 FR 2448). The Coast
Guard received two letters commenting on the interim rule. No public
meeting was requested, and none was held.
Background and Purpose
In May 2002, Southern LNG Inc., submitted a letter of intent to
expand the LNG facility on Elba Island that would nearly double LNG
storage capacity and substantially increase the number of LNG tankship
arrivals. The Coast Guard's positive endorsement was contingent upon
the relocation of the primary LNG mooring facility in order to reduce
the risk of allision and subsequent breaching of an LNG tankship's
cargo tank(s). To meet this Coast Guard requirement, Southern LNG Inc.,
initiated a project to create a protected docking slip designed to
allow simultaneous LNG transfers from vessels. This expansion,
completed early in 2006, significantly reduced the level of risk
associated with LNG tankship operations and vessels passing by the LNG
facility. This rule addresses the three possible tankship mooring
configurations now available to LNG tankships. The three possible
tankship mooring configurations available to LNG tankships are LNG
vessels moored--
Inside the slip,
Outside the slip, or a
Combination of inside and outside the slip.
Discussion of Comments and Changes
The Coast Guard received four comments from two commenters during
the interim rule comment period (72 FR 2448). One commenter requested
consideration as a small entity and a ``variation in the 2nm/70 yard
restriction''. It appears that the commenter's vessel may meet the
definition of a small entity; however, the Coast Guard does not believe
the rule will cause significant economic impact to the commenter.
The requirement to maintain a 2 nautical mile distance from LNG
tankships, carrying LNG in excess of heel, only applies to vessels
1,600 gross tons and larger. The commenter's vessel is well under 1,600
gross tons and would only have to meet the requirements outlined in
paragraphs (d)(1)(ii) and (d)(6)(vi) of the rule. Paragraph (d)(1)(ii)
states that all vessels less than 1,600 gross tons shall keep clear of
transiting LNG tankships and paragraph (d)(6)(vi) prohibits vessels
less than 1,600 gross tons from approaching within 70 yards (210 feet)
of a LNG tankship, carrying LNG in excess of heel, without the
permission of the Captain of the Port. The width of the navigable
channel where the commenter's vessel is expected to encounter a LNG
tankship, and is directed to keep clear, is no less than 500 feet
(166.7 yards). The Coast Guard believes the width of the channel
provides an adequate distance for vessels under 1,600 gross tons to
keep clear of a LNG tankship and therefore would not delay the
commenter's vessel or cause significant economic impact.
Also, the requirement for vessels under 1,600 gross tons not to
approach within 70 yards of a LNG tankship, carrying LNG in excess of
heel, without permission of the COTP is applicable when approaching a
moored LNG tankship. The route of the commenter's vessel does not
typically include passing the LNG facility and therefore it is not
likely that they will encounter a situation where they would approach a
moored LNG tankship. The width of the navigation channel at the LNG
facility is no less than 500 feet therefore, if a circumstance arose
where the commenter's vessel did have to pass the LNG facility, the
width of the channel would provide more than enough distance for the
commenter's vessel to maintain the minimum 70 yard requirement. The
Coast Guard does not believe this rule will cause the commenter
significant economic impact because it is not likely the commenter's
vessel will encounter a situation where they pass the LNG facility and
the
[[Page 51556]]
channel is wide enough to maintain the 70 yard requirement without
impacting the commenter's vessel.
The second commenter submitted several comments. The commenter
stated that it was their belief that the docking pilots would better
serve the LNG vessel and facility if stationed on the escort tugs after
berthing the LNG vessel in the slip. After careful review and
consultation with local docking management, the requirement for a
bridge watch consisting of a docking pilot or licensed deck officer on
board the moored LNG vessel remains. The Coast Guard believes that the
docking pilot's reaction time and situational awareness to an emergency
situation on the LNG tankship will be greater if he or she remains on
board the LNG tankship.
The second commenter also stated they believe the docking pilots
would be better off assisting a vessel, transiting the RNA, which has
developed an emergency situation requiring tug assistance. Following
careful review of this comment, we believe the Federal Pilot or
Savannah River Pilot piloting a passing vessel 1,600 gross tons or
greater that has an emergency, is better equipped to coordinate tug
assistance in the course of their actions to address the emergency and
bring a stricken vessel under control than a docking pilot on board an
assist tug.
The second commenter also stated that they believe the docking
pilots will be in violation of Georgia Code Sections 52-6-45 and 52-6-
54 if they are on board an LNG vessel ordered to get underway in the
event of an emergency departure. After careful review, consultation,
and in agreement with the Savannah River Pilots and local docking
management, the Coast Guard does not believe Georgia Code Sections 52-
6-45 and 52-6-54 are applicable nor that docking pilots will be in
violation of these state codes by remaining on board a LNG tankship
ordered to get underway in an emergency.
Georgia Code (O.C.G.A.) Section 52-6-45 (2006) is entitled
``Vessels to be under direction and control of licensed pilots;
exemptions; use of docking pilots.'' O.C.G.A. section 52-6-45(a) states
``[E]xcept as otherwise provided in this Code section, every vessel
shall be under the direction and control of a pilot licensed by this
state when underway in the bays, rivers, harbors, and ports of this
state and the approaches thereto.'' O.C.G.A. section 52-6-45(b) lists
categories exempted of the requirements in section 52-6-45(a) one of
which is ``[V]essels in distress or jeopardy, except that such vessel
shall take a state licensed pilot as soon as one arrives at the
vessel.'' Furthermore, paragraph (c) in Sec. 52-6-45 states
``[N]othing in this Code section shall be construed to prohibit a
vessel from utilizing the services of a docking pilot in addition to
the state licensed pilot required under this chapter during docking and
undocking maneuvers with the assistance of one or more tugboats.''
O.C.G.A. section 52-6-54 makes it unlawful for anyone to act as a
pilot without a license or interfere or disturb a licensed pilot in the
performance of their duties. Additionally, paragraph (c) of O.C.G.A.
section 52-6-54 states ``[N]otwithstanding any other provisions of this
Code section, any person may assist a vessel in distress which has no
pilot on board if such person delivers up the vessel to the first
licensed pilot who comes on board and offers to conduct it.''
The requirement for a docking pilot to remain on board a moored LNG
ship at the facility is a necessary requirement needed to assist LNG
ships in an emergency situation; emergency situations have occurred at
the facility--as previously discussed in the Interim Rule with requests
for comments (72 FR 2448). O.C.G.A. section 52-6-45 and O.C.G.A.
section 52-6-54 allow for licensed pilots and docking pilots to operate
on board a vessel in conjunction with one another. These Georgia Code
sections also allow for anyone to assist a vessel in distress without a
pilot on board as long as that person does not interfere with a
licensed pilot that shows up on scene to assist the vessel. It is for
these reasons above that the requirement for a bridge watch consisting
of a docking pilot or licensed deck officer on board the moored LNG
vessel remains.
This final rule adopts the requirements published in the interim
rule (72 FR 2448) without change. The final rule is necessary to ensure
the safety of LNG vessels, the facility, the waterway, and the public
due to the three different mooring situations now possible following
the LNG facilities expansion.
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.
Delays for inbound and outbound traffic due to LNG transits will be
reduced through this rule and through pre-transit conferences between
the pilots and the Coast Guard Captain of the Port. Additional
financial benefits of this rule are that LNG tankships transiting in
heel will not be required to have two escort towing vessels and LNG
tankships moored only inside the LNG facility slip will only be
required to provide 2 standby towing vessels vice the current
requirement of 3 towing vessels.
The requirement of having one of the escort towing vessels be FiFi
Class 1 equipped does not impose an additional financial burden due to
a FiFi Class 1 escort towing vessel is currently being utilized for
this purpose.
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.
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 this proposal so that they could better
evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking.
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 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.
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
[[Page 51557]]
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 would not result in such an expenditure, we
do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
Taking of Private Property
This rule would 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.
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.lD
and Department of Homeland Security Management Division 5100.0, 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, this rule is 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'' are available in the
docket where indicated under ADDRESSES.
List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS
0
Accordingly, the interim rule amending 33 CFR part 165 which was
published at 72 FR 2448 on January 19, 2007, is adopted as a final rule
without change.
Dated: August 14, 2007.
D.W. Kunkel,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Seventh Coast Guard
District. 1
[FR Doc. E7-17631 Filed 9-7-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P