Security Zone, Elba Island LNG Mooring Slip, Savannah River, Savannah, GA

AGENCY:

Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

The Coast Guard is establishing a permanent security zone due to recent changes in Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) tankship mooring arrangements following the activation of two new berths within a slip at the Southern LNG Facility on the Savannah River. The Security zone includes all the waters from surface to bottom of the northeastern most mooring dolphin, located at approximately 32°05.01′ N, 080°59.38′ W, to the southeastern most mooring dolphin, located at approximately 32°04.79′ N, 080°59.35′ W, and continues west along the North and South shoreline of the mooring slip to the shoreline of the right descending bank of the Savannah River. This regulation is necessary to protect life and property on the navigable waters of the Savannah River and within the LNG slip due to potential security risks associated with the LNG Facility.

DATES:

This rule is effective June 14, 2007.

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 [COTP Savannah 06-160], and are available for inspection or copying at Marine Safety Unit Savannah, Juliette 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 9, 2007, we published an interim rule with request for comments titled Security Zone, Elba Island LNG Mooring Slip, Savannah River, Savannah, GA in the Federal Register (72 FR 907). We received one comment on the rule. No public meeting was requested, and none was held.

Background and Purpose

In May of 2002, Southern LNG, Inc., submitted a letter of intent to expand the LNG facility on Elba Island that would nearly double the LNG storage capacity and substantially increase the number of LNG tankship arrivals. The expansion project, completed in early 2006, resulted in the creation of two new berths within a slip at the Southern LNG Facility on the Savannah River. The design of the new slip inadvertently creates a safe refuge off the Savannah River with unrestricted access to LNG berths. As a result, the LNG facility and arriving LNG vessels are put at risk of sabotage or other adverse action that could result in significant damage to property and loss of life.

This concern was confirmed by a recent incident where on June 6, 2006, a sailing vessel entered the LNG slip and anchored for six hours, one day before the scheduled arrival of an LNG carrier. This incident raised security concerns and prompted the LNG facility to conduct a visual inspection of the above water mooring features and a complete underwater survey, in turn delaying the LNG vessel. The visual inspection and underwater survey was necessary to ensure no objects that could potentially harm the vessel or facility were left in the slip. Although the incident did not result in any harm to the facility or vessel, it was recognized by the Coast Guard that a potential vulnerability exists in the security of the LNG slip.

Additionally, as the demand for natural gas continues to grow, Southern LNG plans to expand its current operation, potentially increasing both the size and frequency of LNG vessel arrivals and further concerns over a potential accidental spill or intentional release of LNG. The risks and hazards from an LNG spill will vary depending on the size of the spill, environmental conditions, and the site at which the spill occurs. Hazards can include cryogenic burns to the ship's crew and people nearby or potential damage to the LNG ship from contact with the cryogenic LNG. Vaporization of the liquid LNG can occur once a spill occurs and subsequent ignition of the vapor cloud could cause fires and overpressures that could injure people or cause damage to the tanker's structure, other LNG tanks, or nearby structures.

Therefore, the recent incident of June 6, 2006, discussed above, the hazards associated with the transportation of LNG, and the expansion of Elba Island LNG facility necessitates this rule. Additionally, this security zone is necessary to protect the berths and moored LNG vessels within the LNG slip from potential sabotage and unauthorized access prior to a LNG ship arrival.

Discussion of Comments and Changes

We received one comment concerning the position of the southeastern most mooring dolphin. The published position of the mooring dolphin was 32[deg]04.49′ North, 080[deg]59.20′ West. This was an incorrect position, and should have been 32[deg]04.79′ North, 080[deg]59.35′ West. The final rule has been revised to reflect the correct position of the southeastern most mooring dolphin.

Additionally, the Interim Rule with request for comments incorrectly referred to 33 CFR 165.13 as the cite for Security Zone General Regulations. The correct citation for Security Zone General Regulations is 33 CFR 165.33. The final rule is changed to reflect the correct General Regulation citation.

Aside from these two changes, we have adopted the interim rule as final.

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.

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. This security zone will only restrict access to a limited area, immediately surrounding a LNG facility, where vessels should not be operating due to the danger associated with the facility.

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. This interim rule would not result in such an expenditure.

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.

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 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, this rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g), of the Instruction, from further environmental documentation. A final “Environmental Analysis Checklist” 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
• Safety measures
• Waterways

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 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: 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 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. Revise § 165.751 to read as follows: