Security Zone; Suisun Bay, Concord, CA, 3299-3302 [05-1232]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 14 / Monday, January 24, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
NOTE
If a light is on, check system configuration
and take appropriate action.
LWR CARGO FIRE/CREW REST
AREA SMOKE Detectors.
TEST/ARM
Move FIRE/SMK DET switch to TEST and
hold. Observe the REST AREA SMK DET,
FWD SMK DET, CREW REST AREA SMOKE,
FWD CARGO FIRE, AFT SMK DET, HEAT
DET and AFT CARGO FIRE lights are on. At
the pilot’s overhead annunciator panel,
observe CARGO FIRE and CREW REST
AREA SMOKE lights are on. At the
glareshield, observe both MASTER WARN
lights are on.
Release switch to ARM position.
If one or more lights failed to come on
during the test, pull circuit breakers D–3
(CARGO CREW REST SMOKE DETS & INDS)
and D–4 (CARGO OVERHEAT). Reset after
two seconds.
Re-accomplish test.
If test is not successful, contact
maintenance.’’
Optional Terminating Action
(i) Replacement of Meggitt Model 602
smoke detectors P/N 8930–( ) with modified
smoke detectors in accordance with Meggitt
Safety Systems Service Information Letter
8930–26–01, dated November 8, 2004,
terminates the operational limitation
required by paragraph (h) of this AD. After
all P/N 8930–( ) smoke detectors have been
replaced on the airplane, the operational
limitation specified in paragraph (h) of this
AD may be removed from the AFM.
Alternative Methods of Compliance
(AMOCs)
(j) The Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft
Certification Office, FAA, has the authority to
approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in
accordance with the procedures found in 14
CFR 39.19.
ACTION:
Final rule; correction.
SUMMARY: This document makes a
correction to Airworthiness Directive
(AD) 2004–26–04. That AD applies to
Pratt & Whitney (PW) JT8D–200 series
turbofan engines. That AD was
published in the Federal Register on
January 5, 2005 (70 FR 677). This
document corrects a compliance time in
Table 1 of the AD. In all other respects,
the original document remains the
same.
DATES:
Effective February 9, 2005.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Keith Lardie, Aerospace Engineer,
Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine
and Propeller Directorate, 12 New
England Executive Park, Burlington, MA
01803–5299; telephone (781) 238–7189;
fax (781) 238–7199.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A final
rule AD, FR Doc. 05–84, that applies to
PW JT8D–200 series turbofan engines,
was published in the Federal Register
on January 5, 2005 (70 FR 677). The
following correction is needed:
§ 39.13
[Corrected]
On page 678, in Table 1, right-hand
column, ‘‘At the next engine shop visit
after the effective date of this AD, but no
later than December 31, 2004’’ is
corrected to read ‘‘Before further flight’’.
I
Issued in Burlington, MA, on January 14,
2005.
Francis A. Favara,
Acting Manager, Engine and Propeller
Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 05–1215 Filed 1–21–05; 8:45 am]
Material Incorporated by Reference
(k) None.
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
Issued in Renton, Washington, on January
12, 2005.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate,
Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 05–1206 Filed 1–21–05; 8:45 am]
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
[COTP San Francisco Bay 04–007]
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 165
RIN 1625–AA87
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
ACTION:
[Docket No. 92–ANE–15–AD; Amendment
39–13916; AD 2004–26–04]
RIN 2120–AA64
Airworthiness Directives; Pratt &
Whitney JT8D–200 Series Turbofan
Engines; Correction
Federal Aviation
Administration, DOT.
AGENCY:
15:24 Jan 21, 2005
Coast Guard, DHS.
Final rule.
AGENCY:
14 CFR Part 39
VerDate jul<14>2003
Security Zone; Suisun Bay, Concord,
CA
Jkt 205001
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is
establishing fixed security zones in the
navigable waters of the United States
around each of the three piers at the
Military Ocean Terminal Concord
(MOTCO), California (formerly United
States Naval Weapons Center Concord,
California), any combination of which
can be enforced by the Captain of the
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
3299
Port (COTP) San Francisco Bay during
the onloading or offloading of military
equipment and ordnance, depending on
which pier, or piers, are being used. In
light of recent terrorist actions against
the United States, these security zones
are necessary to ensure the safe
onloading and offloading of military
equipment and to ensure the safety of
the public from potential subversive
acts. The security zones prohibit all
persons and vessels from entering,
transiting through or anchoring within
portions of the Suisun Bay within 500
yards of any MOTCO pier, or piers,
where military onload or offload
operations are taking place, unless
authorized by the COTP or his
designated representative.
DATES: This rule is effective February
23, 2005.
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 04–007 and are available
for inspection or copying at the
Waterways Branch of the Marine Safety
Office San Francisco Bay, Coast Guard
Island, Alameda, California, 94501,
between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Lieutenant Doug Ebbers, U.S. Coast
Guard Marine Safety Office San
Francisco Bay, at (510) 437–3073.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Regulatory Information
On July 19, 2004, we published a
notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
in the Federal Register (69 FR 42950)
proposing to establish permanent
security zones around the three piers at
the MOTCO facility. This NPRM
incorrectly stated that lighted buoys
would be used to mark the perimeter of
the proposed security zones and that the
MOTCO Piers were numbered from east
to west instead of west to east. Because
of these errors, a supplemental NPRM
was published in the Federal Register
(69 FR 55125) on September 13, 2004 to
correct the errors in the initial NPRM
and provide 60 more days for the public
to comment. We received no letters
commenting on the proposed rule. No
public hearing was requested, and none
was held.
Penalties for Violating Security Zone
Vessels or persons violating this
security zone will be subject to the
penalties set forth in 33 U.S.C. 1232 and
50 U.S.C. 192. Pursuant to 33 U.S.C.
1232, any violation of the security zone
described herein, is punishable by civil
penalties (not to exceed $32,500 per
E:\FR\FM\24JAR1.SGM
24JAR1
3300
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 14 / Monday, January 24, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
violation, where each day of a
continuing violation is a separate
violation), criminal penalties
(imprisonment up to 6 years and a
maximum fine of $250,000), and in rem
liability against the offending vessel.
Any person who violates this section,
using a dangerous weapon, or who
engages in conduct that causes bodily
injury or fear of imminent bodily injury
to any officer authorized to enforce this
regulation, also faces imprisonment up
to 12 years. Vessels or persons violating
this section are also subject to the
penalties set forth in 50 U.S.C. 192:
Seizure and forfeiture of the vessel to
the United States, a maximum criminal
fine of $10,000, and imprisonment up to
10 years.
The Captain of the Port will enforce
these zones and may enlist the aid and
cooperation of any Federal, State,
county, municipal, and private agency
to assist in the enforcement of the
regulation.
Background and Purpose
In its effort to thwart potential
terrorist activity, the Coast Guard has
increased safety and security measures
on U.S. ports and waterways. As part of
the Diplomatic Security and
Antiterrorism Act of 1986 (Public Law
99–399), Congress amended section 7 of
the Ports and Waterways Safety Act
(PWSA), 33 U.S.C. 1226, to allow the
Coast Guard to take actions, including
the establishment of security and safety
zones, to prevent or respond to acts of
terrorism against individuals, vessels, or
public or commercial structures. The
Coast Guard also has authority to
establish security zones pursuant to the
Act of June 15, 1917, as amended by the
Magnuson Act of August 9, 1950 (50
U.S.C. 191 et seq.) and implementing
regulations promulgated by the
President in subparts 6.01 and 6.04 of
part 6 of title 33 of the Code of Federal
Regulations.
In this particular rulemaking, to take
steps to prevent the catastrophic impact
that a terrorist attack against the
MOTCO facility would have on the
people, ports, waterways, and properties
of the Port Chicago and Suisun Bay
areas, the Coast Guard is establishing
three security zones in the navigable
waters of the United States within 500
yards of any MOTCO pier, or piers,
where military onload or offload
operations are taking place. These
security zones are necessary to
safeguard vessels, cargo, crew, the
MOTCO terminal, and the surrounding
property from sabotage or other
subversive acts, accidents or criminal
acts. These zones are also necessary to
VerDate jul<14>2003
15:24 Jan 21, 2005
Jkt 205001
protect military operations from
compromise and interference.
Previously, for each military
operation at MOTCO, a temporary final
rule would be written and published to
establish a temporary security zone
around the entire MOTCO facility, and
the maritime public would be advised of
the security zone using a Broadcast
Notice to Mariners (BNM). In this
rulemaking, we are creating three
smaller security zones that surround
only the pier, or piers, being used for a
military onload or offload, and the
security zone(s) will only be enforced
during an onload or offload operation.
This allows the Coast Guard to provide
additional security for the facility
during military operations without
having to publish a temporary final rule
each time an operation occurs, while
minimizing the negative impacts to
vessel traffic, fishing, and other
activities in Suisun Bay. Five hundred
yards around the pier(s) is estimated to
be an adequate zone size to provide
increased security for military
operations by providing a standoff
distance for blast and collision, a
surveillance and detection perimeter,
and a margin of response time for
security personnel.
This rule, for security reasons,
prohibits the entry of any vessel or
person inside the security zone without
specific authorization from the Captain
of the Port or his designated
representative. Due to heightened
security concerns and the catastrophic
impact a terrorist attack on this facility
would have on the public, environment,
transportation system, surrounding
areas, and nearby communities,
establishing security zones is a prudent
and necessary action for this facility.
Discussion of Comments and Changes
We received no letters commenting on
either the initial proposed rule or the
revised rule we proposed in our
September 2004 supplemental NPRM
(69 FR 55125). No public hearing was
requested, and none was held.
Therefore, we made no change from the
rule we proposed in our supplemental
NPRM.
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
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
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 rule
restricts access to the waters
encompassed by the security zones, the
effect of this regulation is not significant
because: (i) The zones only encompass
small portions of the waterway; (ii)
smaller vessels are able to pass safely
around the zones; and (iii) larger vessels
may be allowed to enter these zones on
a case-by-case basis with permission of
the Captain of the Port or his designated
representative.
The size of the security zones are the
minimum necessary to provide adequate
protection for MOTCO, vessels engaged
in operations at MOTCO, their crews,
other vessels operating in the vicinity,
and the public. The entities most likely
to be affected are commercial vessels
transiting to or from Suisun Bay via the
Port Chicago Reach section of the
channel and pleasure craft engaged in
recreational activities and sightseeing.
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 for
several reasons: (i) Small vessel traffic is
able to pass safely around the area, (ii)
vessels engaged in recreational
activities, sightseeing and commercial
fishing have ample space outside of the
security zones to engage in these
activities, and (iii) vessels may receive
authorization to transit through the
zones by the Captain of the Port or his
designated representative on a case-bycase basis. In addition, small entities
and the maritime public will be advised
of these security zones via public notice
to mariners and by Coast Guard patrol
personnel.
Assistance for Small Entities
Under section 213(a) of the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Public Law 104–
121), we offered to assist small entities
in understanding the rule so that they
E:\FR\FM\24JAR1.SGM
24JAR1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 14 / Monday, January 24, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
could better evaluate its effects on them
and participate in the rulemaking
process.
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 Cast Guard, call 1–
800–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 does not result in such
an expenditure, we do discuss the
effects of this rule elsewhere in this
preamble.
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
VerDate jul<14>2003
15:24 Jan 21, 2005
Jkt 205001
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. The Administrator of the Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs
has not designated it 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,
which guides the Coast Guard in
complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
3301
(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 because it would
establish security zones. A draft
‘‘Environmental Analysis Check List’’
and a draft ‘‘Categorical Exclusion
Determination’’ (CED) will be 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.
I 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:
I
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.
I
2. Add § 165.1199, to read as follows:
§ 165.1199 Security Zones; Military Ocean
Terminal Concord (MOTCO), Concord,
California.
(a) Location. The security zone(s)
encompass the navigable waters of
Suisun Bay, California, extending from
the surface to the sea floor, within 500
yards of the three Military Ocean
Terminal Concord (MOTCO) piers in
Concord, California.
(b) Regulations. (1) The Captain of the
Port (COTP) San Francisco Bay will
enforce the security zone(s) established
by this section during military onload or
offload operations only upon notice.
Upon notice of enforcement by the
COTP, entering, transiting through or
anchoring in the zone(s) is prohibited
unless authorized by the COTP or his
designated representative. Upon notice
of suspension of enforcement by the
COTP, all persons and vessels are
granted general permissions to enter,
transit, and exit the security zone(s).
(2) If more than 1 pier is involved in
onload or offload operations at the same
time, the 500-yard security zone for
each involved pier will be enforced.
(3) Persons desiring to transit the area
of a security zone may contact the Patrol
Commander on scene on VHF–FM
channel 13 or 16 or the COTP at
E:\FR\FM\24JAR1.SGM
24JAR1
3302
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 14 / Monday, January 24, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
telephone number 415–399–3547 to
seek permission to transit the area. If
permission is granted, all persons and
vessels must comply with the
instructions of the COTP or his
designated representative.
(c) Enforcement. All persons and
vessels must comply with the
instructions of the Coast Guard Captain
of the Port or the designated on-scene
patrol personnel. Patrol personnel
comprise commissioned, warrant, and
petty officers of the Coast Guard
onboard Coast Guard, Coast Guard
Auxiliary, local, state, and federal law
enforcement vessels. The U.S. Coast
Guard may be assisted in the patrol and
enforcement of the security zones by
local law enforcement and the MOTCO
police as necessary. Upon being hailed
by U.S. Coast Guard patrol personnel by
siren, radio, flashing light, or other
means, the operator of a vessel must
proceed as directed.
(d) Notice of enforcement or
suspension of enforcement of security
zone(s). The COTP San Francisco Bay
will cause notification of enforcement of
the security zone(s) to be made by
issuing a Local Notice to Mariners and
a Broadcast Notice to Mariners to inform
the affected segments of the public.
During periods that the security zone(s)
are being enforced, Coast Guard patrol
personnel will notify mariners to keep
out of the security zone(s) as they
approach the area. In addition, Coast
Guard Group San Francisco Bay
maintains a telephone line that is
maintained 24 hours a day, 7 days a
week. The public can contact Group San
Francisco Bay at (415) 399–3530 to
obtain information concerning
enforcement of this rule. When the
security zone(s) are no longer needed,
the COTP will cease enforcement of the
security zone(s) and issue a Broadcast
Notice to Mariners to notify the public.
Upon notice of suspension of
enforcement, all persons and vessels are
granted general permissions to enter,
move within and exit the security
zone(s).
Dated: January 12, 2005.
Gerald M. Swanson,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the
Port, San Francisco Bay, California.
[FR Doc. 05–1232 Filed 1–21–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–15–P
VerDate jul<14>2003
15:24 Jan 21, 2005
Jkt 205001
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Research and Special Programs
Administration
49 CFR Parts 171, 173, 174, 176, and
177
[Docket No. RSPA–03–16370 (HM–233)]
RIN 2137–AD84
Hazardous Materials; Incorporation of
Exemptions Into Regulations
Research and Special Programs
Administration (RSPA), DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: This final rule amends the
Hazardous Materials Regulations by
incorporating into the regulations the
provisions of certain widely used
exemptions which have established a
history of safety and which may be
converted into regulations for general
use. We are also making minor revisions
to the requirements for use of
packagings authorized under
exemptions. The revisions provide
wider access to the benefits of the
provisions granted in these exemptions
and eliminate the need for the current
exemption holders to reapply for
renewal of the exemption, thus reducing
paperwork burdens and facilitating
commerce while maintaining an
acceptable level of safety.
DATES: Effective Date: The effective date
of these amendments is March 25, 2005.
Incorporation by Reference Date: The
incorporation by reference of certain
publications listed in these amendments
is approved by the Director of the
Federal Register as of March 25, 2005.
Voluntary Compliance Date: RSPA is
authorizing immediate voluntary
compliance. However, RSPA may
further revise this rule as a result of
appeals it may receive for this rule.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gigi
Corbin, Office of Hazardous Materials
Standards, (202) 366–8553 or Diane
LaValle, Office of Hazardous Materials
Exemptions and Approvals, (202) 366–
4535, Research and Special Programs
Administration, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 400 Seventh Street,
SW., Washington, DC 20590–0001.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
The Research and Special Programs
Administration (RSPA) (hereafter, ‘‘we’’
or ‘‘us’’) is amending the Hazardous
Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR
Parts 171–180) to incorporate a number
of changes based on existing
exemptions. This rulemaking is part of
an ongoing effort to identify commonly
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
used exemptions that have an
established history of safety and may be
converted into regulations. Adoption of
these exemptions as rules of general
applicability provides wider access to
benefits of the provisions granted in
these exemptions. Additionally, these
changes eliminate the need for the
current holders to reapply for extension
of the exemptions every two years and
for us to process these renewal requests.
In addition, we are making minor
revisions to the requirements for use of
packagings authorized under
exemptions. We have identified the
following subjects as suitable for
incorporation into the HMR in this final
rule:
Salvage cylinders: The use of nonDOT specification salvage cylinders for
the overpacking and transportation in
commerce of damaged or leaking
cylinders of certain pressurized and
non-pressurized hazardous materials
has been authorized under various
exemptions for several years. The
exemptions affected are DOT–E 9507,
9781, 9991, 10022, 10110, 10151, 10323,
10372, 10504, 10519, 10789, 10987,
11257, 11459, 12698, 12790, and 12898.
This final rule also responds to a
petition for rulemaking (P–1168)
submitted by the Chlorine Institute, Inc.
Meter provers: A mechanical
displacement meter prover is a
mechanical device, permanently
mounted on a truck or trailer, consisting
of a piping system that is used to
calibrate the accuracy and performance
of meters that measure the quantity of
product being pumped or transferred at
facilities such as drilling locations,
refineries, tank farms and loading racks.
Exemptions provide relief from both
bulk and non-bulk specification
packaging requirements for mechanical
displacement meter provers that are
either truck or trailer mounted. The
hazardous materials provided for are in
Class 3 and Division 2.1. The
exemptions affected are DOT–E 8278,
9004, 9048, 9162, 9287, 9305, 9352,
10228, 10596, 10765, 12047, and 12808.
Segregation: Exemptions provide
relief from the segregation requirements
in §§ 174.81, 176.83 and 177.848 which
prohibit storage, loading, and
transportation of (1) cyanides, cyanide
mixtures or solutions with acids; and (2)
Division 4.2 materials with Class 8
liquids, on the same transport vehicle.
The exemptions affected are DOT–E
9723, 9769, 10441, 10933, 11153, and
11294.
RSPA received six comments in
response to the NPRM. These comments
were submitted by representatives of
trade organizations, hazardous materials
shippers and carriers, and packaging
E:\FR\FM\24JAR1.SGM
24JAR1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 14 (Monday, January 24, 2005)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 3299-3302]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-1232]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 165
[COTP San Francisco Bay 04-007]
RIN 1625-AA87
Security Zone; Suisun Bay, Concord, CA
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing fixed security zones in the
navigable waters of the United States around each of the three piers at
the Military Ocean Terminal Concord (MOTCO), California (formerly
United States Naval Weapons Center Concord, California), any
combination of which can be enforced by the Captain of the Port (COTP)
San Francisco Bay during the onloading or offloading of military
equipment and ordnance, depending on which pier, or piers, are being
used. In light of recent terrorist actions against the United States,
these security zones are necessary to ensure the safe onloading and
offloading of military equipment and to ensure the safety of the public
from potential subversive acts. The security zones prohibit all persons
and vessels from entering, transiting through or anchoring within
portions of the Suisun Bay within 500 yards of any MOTCO pier, or
piers, where military onload or offload operations are taking place,
unless authorized by the COTP or his designated representative.
DATES: This rule is effective February 23, 2005.
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 04-007 and are available for inspection or
copying at the Waterways Branch of the Marine Safety Office San
Francisco Bay, Coast Guard Island, Alameda, California, 94501, between
9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lieutenant Doug Ebbers, U.S. Coast
Guard Marine Safety Office San Francisco Bay, at (510) 437-3073.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Regulatory Information
On July 19, 2004, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM) in the Federal Register (69 FR 42950) proposing to establish
permanent security zones around the three piers at the MOTCO facility.
This NPRM incorrectly stated that lighted buoys would be used to mark
the perimeter of the proposed security zones and that the MOTCO Piers
were numbered from east to west instead of west to east. Because of
these errors, a supplemental NPRM was published in the Federal Register
(69 FR 55125) on September 13, 2004 to correct the errors in the
initial NPRM and provide 60 more days for the public to comment. We
received no letters commenting on the proposed rule. No public hearing
was requested, and none was held.
Penalties for Violating Security Zone
Vessels or persons violating this security zone will be subject to
the penalties set forth in 33 U.S.C. 1232 and 50 U.S.C. 192. Pursuant
to 33 U.S.C. 1232, any violation of the security zone described herein,
is punishable by civil penalties (not to exceed $32,500 per
[[Page 3300]]
violation, where each day of a continuing violation is a separate
violation), criminal penalties (imprisonment up to 6 years and a
maximum fine of $250,000), and in rem liability against the offending
vessel. Any person who violates this section, using a dangerous weapon,
or who engages in conduct that causes bodily injury or fear of imminent
bodily injury to any officer authorized to enforce this regulation,
also faces imprisonment up to 12 years. Vessels or persons violating
this section are also subject to the penalties set forth in 50 U.S.C.
192: Seizure and forfeiture of the vessel to the United States, a
maximum criminal fine of $10,000, and imprisonment up to 10 years.
The Captain of the Port will enforce these zones and may enlist the
aid and cooperation of any Federal, State, county, municipal, and
private agency to assist in the enforcement of the regulation.
Background and Purpose
In its effort to thwart potential terrorist activity, the Coast
Guard has increased safety and security measures on U.S. ports and
waterways. As part of the Diplomatic Security and Antiterrorism Act of
1986 (Public Law 99-399), Congress amended section 7 of the Ports and
Waterways Safety Act (PWSA), 33 U.S.C. 1226, to allow the Coast Guard
to take actions, including the establishment of security and safety
zones, to prevent or respond to acts of terrorism against individuals,
vessels, or public or commercial structures. The Coast Guard also has
authority to establish security zones pursuant to the Act of June 15,
1917, as amended by the Magnuson Act of August 9, 1950 (50 U.S.C. 191
et seq.) and implementing regulations promulgated by the President in
subparts 6.01 and 6.04 of part 6 of title 33 of the Code of Federal
Regulations.
In this particular rulemaking, to take steps to prevent the
catastrophic impact that a terrorist attack against the MOTCO facility
would have on the people, ports, waterways, and properties of the Port
Chicago and Suisun Bay areas, the Coast Guard is establishing three
security zones in the navigable waters of the United States within 500
yards of any MOTCO pier, or piers, where military onload or offload
operations are taking place. These security zones are necessary to
safeguard vessels, cargo, crew, the MOTCO terminal, and the surrounding
property from sabotage or other subversive acts, accidents or criminal
acts. These zones are also necessary to protect military operations
from compromise and interference.
Previously, for each military operation at MOTCO, a temporary final
rule would be written and published to establish a temporary security
zone around the entire MOTCO facility, and the maritime public would be
advised of the security zone using a Broadcast Notice to Mariners
(BNM). In this rulemaking, we are creating three smaller security zones
that surround only the pier, or piers, being used for a military onload
or offload, and the security zone(s) will only be enforced during an
onload or offload operation. This allows the Coast Guard to provide
additional security for the facility during military operations without
having to publish a temporary final rule each time an operation occurs,
while minimizing the negative impacts to vessel traffic, fishing, and
other activities in Suisun Bay. Five hundred yards around the pier(s)
is estimated to be an adequate zone size to provide increased security
for military operations by providing a standoff distance for blast and
collision, a surveillance and detection perimeter, and a margin of
response time for security personnel.
This rule, for security reasons, prohibits the entry of any vessel
or person inside the security zone without specific authorization from
the Captain of the Port or his designated representative. Due to
heightened security concerns and the catastrophic impact a terrorist
attack on this facility would have on the public, environment,
transportation system, surrounding areas, and nearby communities,
establishing security zones is a prudent and necessary action for this
facility.
Discussion of Comments and Changes
We received no letters commenting on either the initial proposed
rule or the revised rule we proposed in our September 2004 supplemental
NPRM (69 FR 55125). No public hearing was requested, and none was held.
Therefore, we made no change from the rule we proposed in our
supplemental NPRM.
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 rule restricts access to the
waters encompassed by the security zones, the effect of this regulation
is not significant because: (i) The zones only encompass small portions
of the waterway; (ii) smaller vessels are able to pass safely around
the zones; and (iii) larger vessels may be allowed to enter these zones
on a case-by-case basis with permission of the Captain of the Port or
his designated representative.
The size of the security zones are the minimum necessary to provide
adequate protection for MOTCO, vessels engaged in operations at MOTCO,
their crews, other vessels operating in the vicinity, and the public.
The entities most likely to be affected are commercial vessels
transiting to or from Suisun Bay via the Port Chicago Reach section of
the channel and pleasure craft engaged in recreational activities and
sightseeing.
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 for several reasons: (i) Small vessel traffic is able to pass
safely around the area, (ii) vessels engaged in recreational
activities, sightseeing and commercial fishing have ample space outside
of the security zones to engage in these activities, and (iii) vessels
may receive authorization to transit through the zones by the Captain
of the Port or his designated representative on a case-by-case basis.
In addition, small entities and the maritime public will be advised of
these security zones via public notice to mariners and by Coast Guard
patrol personnel.
Assistance for Small Entities
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-121), we offered to assist small
entities in understanding the rule so that they
[[Page 3301]]
could better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the
rulemaking process.
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 Cast Guard, call 1-800-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 does not result in such an expenditure, we
do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
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. The Administrator of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs has not designated it 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,
which guides 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 because it would establish security zones.
A draft ``Environmental Analysis Check List'' and a draft ``Categorical
Exclusion Determination'' (CED) will be 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.
0
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
0
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.
0
2. Add Sec. 165.1199, to read as follows:
Sec. 165.1199 Security Zones; Military Ocean Terminal Concord
(MOTCO), Concord, California.
(a) Location. The security zone(s) encompass the navigable waters
of Suisun Bay, California, extending from the surface to the sea floor,
within 500 yards of the three Military Ocean Terminal Concord (MOTCO)
piers in Concord, California.
(b) Regulations. (1) The Captain of the Port (COTP) San Francisco
Bay will enforce the security zone(s) established by this section
during military onload or offload operations only upon notice. Upon
notice of enforcement by the COTP, entering, transiting through or
anchoring in the zone(s) is prohibited unless authorized by the COTP or
his designated representative. Upon notice of suspension of enforcement
by the COTP, all persons and vessels are granted general permissions to
enter, transit, and exit the security zone(s).
(2) If more than 1 pier is involved in onload or offload operations
at the same time, the 500-yard security zone for each involved pier
will be enforced.
(3) Persons desiring to transit the area of a security zone may
contact the Patrol Commander on scene on VHF-FM channel 13 or 16 or the
COTP at
[[Page 3302]]
telephone number 415-399-3547 to seek permission to transit the area.
If permission is granted, all persons and vessels must comply with the
instructions of the COTP or his designated representative.
(c) Enforcement. All persons and vessels must comply with the
instructions of the Coast Guard Captain of the Port or the designated
on-scene patrol personnel. Patrol personnel comprise commissioned,
warrant, and petty officers of the Coast Guard onboard Coast Guard,
Coast Guard Auxiliary, local, state, and federal law enforcement
vessels. The U.S. Coast Guard may be assisted in the patrol and
enforcement of the security zones by local law enforcement and the
MOTCO police as necessary. Upon being hailed by U.S. Coast Guard patrol
personnel by siren, radio, flashing light, or other means, the operator
of a vessel must proceed as directed.
(d) Notice of enforcement or suspension of enforcement of security
zone(s). The COTP San Francisco Bay will cause notification of
enforcement of the security zone(s) to be made by issuing a Local
Notice to Mariners and a Broadcast Notice to Mariners to inform the
affected segments of the public. During periods that the security
zone(s) are being enforced, Coast Guard patrol personnel will notify
mariners to keep out of the security zone(s) as they approach the area.
In addition, Coast Guard Group San Francisco Bay maintains a telephone
line that is maintained 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. The public can
contact Group San Francisco Bay at (415) 399-3530 to obtain information
concerning enforcement of this rule. When the security zone(s) are no
longer needed, the COTP will cease enforcement of the security zone(s)
and issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners to notify the public. Upon
notice of suspension of enforcement, all persons and vessels are
granted general permissions to enter, move within and exit the security
zone(s).
Dated: January 12, 2005.
Gerald M. Swanson,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, San Francisco Bay,
California.
[FR Doc. 05-1232 Filed 1-21-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P