Security Zones; Port of Port Lavaca-Point Comfort, Point Comfort, TX and Port of Corpus Christi Inner Harbor, Corpus Christi, TX, 9263-9265 [05-3605]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 37 / Friday, February 25, 2005 / Proposed Rules
Executive Order 13132, ‘‘Federalism’’
Executive Order 12866, ‘‘Regulatory
Planning and Review’’
The Director of Administration and
Management, Office of the Secretary of
Defense, hereby determines that Privacy
Act rules for the Department of Defense
are not significant rules. The rules do
not (1) Have an annual effect on the
economy of $100 million or more or
adversely affect on the economy; a
sector of the economy; productivity;
competition; jobs; the environment;
public health or safety; or State, local,
or tribal governments or communities;
(2) Create a serious inconsistency or
otherwise interfere with an action taken
or planned by another Agency; (3)
Materially alter the budgetary impact of
entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan
programs, or the rights and obligation of
recipients thereof; or (4) Raise novel
legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President’s priorities, or
the principles set forth in this Executive
order.
Public Law 96–354, ‘‘Regulatory
Flexibility Act’’ (5 U.S.C. Chapter 6)
The Director of Administration and
Management, Office of the Secretary of
Defense, hereby certifies that Privacy
Act rules for the Department of Defense
do not have significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities
because they are concerned only with
the administration of Privacy Act
systems of records within the
Department of Defense.
Public Law 96–511, ‘‘Paperwork
Reduction Act’’ (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35)
The Director of Administration and
Management, Office of the Secretary of
Defense, hereby certifies that Privacy
Act rules for the Department of Defense
impose no information requirements
beyond the Department of Defense and
that the information collected within
the Department of Defense is necessary
and consistent with 5 U.S.C. 552a,
known as the Privacy Act of 1974.
Section 202, Public Law 104–4,
‘‘Unfunded Mandates Reform Act’’
The Director of Administration and
Management, Office of the Secretary of
Defense, hereby certifies that the
Privacy Act rulemaking for the
Department of Defense does not involve
a Federal mandate that may result in the
expenditure by State, local and tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or by the
private sector, of $100 million or more
and that such rulemaking will not
significantly or uniquely affect small
governments.
VerDate jul<14>2003
16:21 Feb 24, 2005
Jkt 205001
The Director of Administration and
Management, Office of the Secretary of
Defense, hereby certifies that the
Privacy Act rules for the Department of
Defense do not have federalism
implications. The rules do not have
substantial direct effects 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.
List of Subjects in 32 CFR Part 701
Privacy.
Accordingly, 32 CFR part 701 is
proposed to be amended to read as
follows:
PART 701—[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for 32 CFR
part 701, Subpart G continues to read as
follows:
Authority: Pub. L. 93–579, 88 Stat. 1896 (5
U.S.C. 552a).
2. Section 701.118 is amended by
revising paragraph (h) to read as
follows:
§ 701.118 Exemptions for specific Navy
record systems.
*
*
*
*
*
(h) System identifier and name:
N12410–2, NCIS Training Academy
Records.
(1) Exemption: (i) Testing or
examination material used solely to
determine individual qualifications for
appointment or promotion in the federal
or military service, if the disclosure
would compromise the objectivity or
fairness of the test or examination
process may be exempt pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 552a(k)(6), if the disclosure
would compromise the objectivity or
fairness of the test or examination
process. Therefore, information within
this system of records may be exempt
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a, subsection
(d).
(ii) Portions of this system of records
are exempt from the following
subsection of the Privacy Act: (d).
(2) Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(6).
(3) Reason: From subsection (d)
because this system relates to testing or
examination materials used solely to
determine individual qualifications for
appointment or promotion in the
Federal service. Access to or
amendment of this information by the
data subject would compromise the
objectivity and fairness of the NCIS test
and evaluation system.
*
*
*
*
*
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
9263
Dated: February 18, 2005.
Jeannette Owings-Ballard,
OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer,
Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 05–3670 Filed 2–25–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001–06–M
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 165
[COTP Corpus Christi–04–006]
RIN 1625–AA87
Security Zones; Port of Port LavacaPoint Comfort, Point Comfort, TX and
Port of Corpus Christi Inner Harbor,
Corpus Christi, TX
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to
remove an established security zone in
the port of Port Lavaca-Point Comfort.
Under the Maritime Transportation
Security Act of 2002, owners or
operators of local facilities are required
to take specific action to improve
facility security. As such, a security
zone around local facilities will no
longer be necessary under normal
conditions. This proposed rule would
remove an established security zone.
DATES: Comments and related material
must reach the Coast Guard on or before
March 28, 2005.
ADDRESSES: You may mail comments
and related material to Marine Safety
Office Corpus Christi, 555 N.
Carancahua, Suite 500, Corpus Christi,
TX 78478. Marine Safety Office Corpus
Christi maintains the public docket for
this rulemaking. Comments and
material received from the public, as
well as documents indicated in this
preamble as being available in the
docket, will become part of this docket
and will be available for inspection or
copying at Marine Safety Office Corpus
Christi, 555 N. Carancahua, Suite 500,
Corpus Christi, TX 78478, between 7:30
a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Lieutenant Junior Grade (LTJG) Jay
Michalczak, Marine Safety Office
Corpus Christi, at (361) 888–3162, ext.
313.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Request for Comments
We encourage you to participate in
this rulemaking by submitting
E:\FR\FM\25FEP1.SGM
25FEP1
9264
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 37 / Friday, February 25, 2005 / Proposed Rules
comments and related material. If you
do so, please include your name and
address, identify the docket number for
this rulemaking [COTP Corpus Christi–
04–006], indicate the specific section of
this document to which each comment
applies, and give the reason for each
comment. Please submit all comments
and related material in an unbound
format, no larger than 81⁄2 by 11 inches,
suitable for copying. If you would like
to know they reached us, please enclose
a stamped, self-addressed postcard or
envelope. We will consider all
comments and material received during
the comment period. We may change
this proposed rule in view of them.
Public Meeting
We do not plan to hold a public
meeting. However, you may submit a
request for a meeting by writing to
Marine Safety Office Corpus Christi, 555
N. Carancahua, Suite 500, Corpus
Christi, TX 78478 explaining why one
would be beneficial. If we determine
that a public meeting would aid this
rulemaking, we will hold one at a time
and place announced by a later notice
in the Federal Register.
Background and Purpose
On October 17, 2002, the Coast Guard
published a final rule entitled ‘‘Security
Zones; Port of Port Lavaca-Point
Comfort, Point Comfort, TX and Port of
Corpus Christi Inner Harbor, Corpus
Christi, TX’’, in the Federal Register (67
FR 64046). That final rule established
two security zones that appear in 33
CFR 165.809. The first security zone
was entitled ‘‘Port of Port Lavaca-Point
Comfort’’ and included all waters
between the Dredge Island Bridge at
28°39′30″ N, 96°34′20″ W and a line
drawn between points 28°38′10″ N,
96°33′15″ W and 28°38′10″ N, 96°34′45″
W, including the Point Comfort turning
basin and adjacent Alcoa Channel. The
second security zone was entitled ‘‘Port
of Corpus Christi Inner Harbor and
included all waters of the Corpus Christi
Inner Harbor from the Inner Harbor
Bridge (U.S. Hwy 181) to, and including
the Viola Turning Basin.
Under the authority of the Maritime
Transportation Security Act of 2002, the
Coast Guard published a final rule on
October 22, 2003, entitled ‘‘Facility
Security’’ in the Federal Register (68 FR
60515) that established 33 CFR part 105.
That final rule became effective
November 21, 2003, and provides
security measures for certain facilities,
including those facilities that exist on
waterways in the Port of Port LavacaPoint Comfort area. Section 105.200 of
33 CFR requires owners or operators of
these facilities to designate security
VerDate jul<14>2003
16:21 Feb 24, 2005
Jkt 205001
officers for facilities, develop security
plans based on security assessments and
surveys, implements security measures
specific to the facility’s operations, and
comply with requirements based on an
increase in Maritime Security Levels.
Under 33 CFR 105.115, the owners or
operators of these facilities must have
submitted to the Captain of the Port, by
December 31, 2003, and for certain
facilities impacted by 33 CFR
105.115(c), by December 16, 2004, a
Facility Security Plan as described in
subpart D of 33 CFR part 105, or if
intending to operate under an approved
Alternative Security Program as
described in 33 CFR 101.130, a letter
signed by the facility owner or operator
stating which approved Alternative
Security Program the owner or operator
intends to use. Section 105.115 of 33
CFR part 105 also requires facility
owners or operators to be in compliance
with 33 CFR 105 on or before July 1,
2004, or for those facilities subject to 33
CFR 105.115(c), on or before March 16,
2005.
As a result of these enhanced security
measures, the security zone for the Port
of Port Lavaca-Point Comfort will no
longer be necessary under normal
conditions. This determination was also
based upon a risk assessment conducted
for the Port of Port Lavaca-Point
Comfort by the Coast Guard.
Unlike the Port of Port Lavaca-Point
Comfort, a security zone continues to be
needed for the Port of Corpus Christi
Inner Harbor. This determination was
based upon the high volume of vessel
traffic in the Port of Corpus Christi as
well as a risk assessment conducted by
the Coast Guard.
DHS is unnecessary as this proposed
rule removes a portion of a regulation
that is no longer necessary.
Discussion of Proposed Rule
This proposed rule would amend 33
CFR 165.809 to remove the Port of Port
Lavaca-Point Comfort security zone
listed in paragraph (a)(1) of that section.
No other substantive amendments to 33
CFR 168.809 would occur.
Collection of Information
This proposed rule calls for no new
collection of information under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3501–3520).
Regulatory Evaluation
This proposed 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.
We expect the economic impact of
this proposed rule to be so minimal that
a full Regulatory Evaluation under the
regulatory policies and procedures of
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Small Entities
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
(5 U.S.C. 601–612), we have considered
whether this proposed 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 proposed rule
would not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
Assistance for Small Entities
Under section 213(a) of the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Public Law 104–
121), we want to assist small entities in
understanding the rule so that they can
better evaluate its effects on them and
participate in the rulemaking process. If
the proposed rule would affect your
small business, organization, or
government jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or
options for compliance, please contact
Lieutenant Junior Grade Jay Michalczak,
Waterway Management Section, Marine
Safety Office Corpus Christi, at (361)
888–3162 Ext 313. 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.
Federalism
A proposed 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 proposed 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
E:\FR\FM\25FEP1.SGM
25FEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 37 / Friday, February 25, 2005 / Proposed Rules
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 proposed rule would not
result in such expenditure, we do
discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere
in this preamble.
Taking of Private Property
This proposed 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 proposed 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 proposed rule
under Executive Order 13045,
Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks. This proposed rule is not an
economically significant rule and will
not create an environmental risk to
health or risk to safety that might
disproportionately affect children.
Indian Tribal Governments
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.
Energy Effects
We have analyzed this proposed 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.
VerDate jul<14>2003
16:21 Feb 24, 2005
Jkt 205001
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.
9265
2. In § 165.809, revise the section
heading and paragraph (a) to read as
follows:
§ 165.809 Security Zone; Port of Corpus
Christi Inner Harbor, Corpus Christi, TX.
(a) Location. The following area is
designated as a security zone: all waters
of the Corpus Christi Inner Harbor from
the Inner Harbor Bridge (U.S. Hwy 181)
to, and including the Viola Turning
Basin.
*
*
*
*
*
Dated: February 11, 2005.
K.C. Kiefer,
Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of
the Port Corpus Christi, Acting.
[FR Doc. 05–3605 Filed 2–24–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–15–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
Environment
40 CFR Part 62
We have analyzed this rule under
Commandant Instruction M16475.1D,
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 this rule is not
expected to result in any significant
adverse environmental impact as
described in NEPA.
Under figure 2–1, paragraph (34)(g), of
the Instruction, an ‘‘Environmental
Analysis Check List’’ and a ‘‘Categorical
Exclusion Determination’’ are not
required for this rule.
[R01–OAR–2004–CT–0004; A–1–FRL–7877–
7]
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 proposes 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: 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.
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Approval and Promulgation of State
Plans for Designated Facilities and
Pollutants: Connecticut; Plan for
Controlling Emissions From Existing
Municipal Waste Combustors
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) proposes to approve the
sections 111(d)/129 State Plan
submitted by the Connecticut
Department of Environmental Protection
(DEP) on September 16, 2004. This State
Plan is for carrying out and enforcing
provisions that are at least as protective
as the Emissions Guidelines (EG)
applicable to certain existing Municipal
Waste Combustors (MWCs) in
accordance with sections 111 and 129 of
the Clean Air Act. The Connecticut DEP
submitted the Plan to satisfy certain
Federal Clean Air Act requirements.
DATES: EPA must receive written
comments on this proposed rule March
28, 2005.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Regional Material in
EDocket (RME) ID Number R01–OAR–
2004–CT–0004 by one of the following
methods:
1. Federal eRulemaking Portal:
https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
online instructions for submitting
comments.
2. Agency Web site: https://
docket.epa.gov/rmepub/ Regional
Material in EDocket (RME), EPA’s
E:\FR\FM\25FEP1.SGM
25FEP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 37 (Friday, February 25, 2005)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 9263-9265]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-3605]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 165
[COTP Corpus Christi-04-006]
RIN 1625-AA87
Security Zones; Port of Port Lavaca-Point Comfort, Point Comfort,
TX and Port of Corpus Christi Inner Harbor, Corpus Christi, TX
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to remove an established security
zone in the port of Port Lavaca-Point Comfort. Under the Maritime
Transportation Security Act of 2002, owners or operators of local
facilities are required to take specific action to improve facility
security. As such, a security zone around local facilities will no
longer be necessary under normal conditions. This proposed rule would
remove an established security zone.
DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or
before March 28, 2005.
ADDRESSES: You may mail comments and related material to Marine Safety
Office Corpus Christi, 555 N. Carancahua, Suite 500, Corpus Christi, TX
78478. Marine Safety Office Corpus Christi maintains the public docket
for this rulemaking. Comments and material received from the public, as
well as documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the
docket, will become part of this docket and will be available for
inspection or copying at Marine Safety Office Corpus Christi, 555 N.
Carancahua, Suite 500, Corpus Christi, TX 78478, between 7:30 a.m. and
4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lieutenant Junior Grade (LTJG) Jay
Michalczak, Marine Safety Office Corpus Christi, at (361) 888-3162,
ext. 313.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Request for Comments
We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting
[[Page 9264]]
comments and related material. If you do so, please include your name
and address, identify the docket number for this rulemaking [COTP
Corpus Christi-04-006], indicate the specific section of this document
to which each comment applies, and give the reason for each comment.
Please submit all comments and related material in an unbound format,
no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for copying. If you would
like to know they reached us, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed
postcard or envelope. We will consider all comments and material
received during the comment period. We may change this proposed rule in
view of them.
Public Meeting
We do not plan to hold a public meeting. However, you may submit a
request for a meeting by writing to Marine Safety Office Corpus
Christi, 555 N. Carancahua, Suite 500, Corpus Christi, TX 78478
explaining why one would be beneficial. If we determine that a public
meeting would aid this rulemaking, we will hold one at a time and place
announced by a later notice in the Federal Register.
Background and Purpose
On October 17, 2002, the Coast Guard published a final rule
entitled ``Security Zones; Port of Port Lavaca-Point Comfort, Point
Comfort, TX and Port of Corpus Christi Inner Harbor, Corpus Christi,
TX'', in the Federal Register (67 FR 64046). That final rule
established two security zones that appear in 33 CFR 165.809. The first
security zone was entitled ``Port of Port Lavaca-Point Comfort'' and
included all waters between the Dredge Island Bridge at 28[deg]39'30''
N, 96[deg]34'20'' W and a line drawn between points 28[deg]38'10'' N,
96[deg]33'15'' W and 28[deg]38'10'' N, 96[deg]34'45'' W, including the
Point Comfort turning basin and adjacent Alcoa Channel. The second
security zone was entitled ``Port of Corpus Christi Inner Harbor and
included all waters of the Corpus Christi Inner Harbor from the Inner
Harbor Bridge (U.S. Hwy 181) to, and including the Viola Turning Basin.
Under the authority of the Maritime Transportation Security Act of
2002, the Coast Guard published a final rule on October 22, 2003,
entitled ``Facility Security'' in the Federal Register (68 FR 60515)
that established 33 CFR part 105. That final rule became effective
November 21, 2003, and provides security measures for certain
facilities, including those facilities that exist on waterways in the
Port of Port Lavaca-Point Comfort area. Section 105.200 of 33 CFR
requires owners or operators of these facilities to designate security
officers for facilities, develop security plans based on security
assessments and surveys, implements security measures specific to the
facility's operations, and comply with requirements based on an
increase in Maritime Security Levels. Under 33 CFR 105.115, the owners
or operators of these facilities must have submitted to the Captain of
the Port, by December 31, 2003, and for certain facilities impacted by
33 CFR 105.115(c), by December 16, 2004, a Facility Security Plan as
described in subpart D of 33 CFR part 105, or if intending to operate
under an approved Alternative Security Program as described in 33 CFR
101.130, a letter signed by the facility owner or operator stating
which approved Alternative Security Program the owner or operator
intends to use. Section 105.115 of 33 CFR part 105 also requires
facility owners or operators to be in compliance with 33 CFR 105 on or
before July 1, 2004, or for those facilities subject to 33 CFR
105.115(c), on or before March 16, 2005.
As a result of these enhanced security measures, the security zone
for the Port of Port Lavaca-Point Comfort will no longer be necessary
under normal conditions. This determination was also based upon a risk
assessment conducted for the Port of Port Lavaca-Point Comfort by the
Coast Guard.
Unlike the Port of Port Lavaca-Point Comfort, a security zone
continues to be needed for the Port of Corpus Christi Inner Harbor.
This determination was based upon the high volume of vessel traffic in
the Port of Corpus Christi as well as a risk assessment conducted by
the Coast Guard.
Discussion of Proposed Rule
This proposed rule would amend 33 CFR 165.809 to remove the Port of
Port Lavaca-Point Comfort security zone listed in paragraph (a)(1) of
that section. No other substantive amendments to 33 CFR 168.809 would
occur.
Regulatory Evaluation
This proposed 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.
We expect the economic impact of this proposed rule to be so
minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation under the regulatory policies
and procedures of DHS is unnecessary as this proposed rule removes a
portion of a regulation that is no longer necessary.
Small Entities
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered whether this proposed 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 proposed
rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
Assistance for Small Entities
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding the rule so that they can better evaluate its
effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process. If the
proposed rule would affect your small business, organization, or
government jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its
provisions or options for compliance, please contact Lieutenant Junior
Grade Jay Michalczak, Waterway Management Section, Marine Safety Office
Corpus Christi, at (361) 888-3162 Ext 313. 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 proposed rule calls for no new collection of information under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
Federalism
A proposed 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
proposed 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
[[Page 9265]]
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 proposed
rule would not result in such expenditure, we do discuss the effects of
this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
Taking of Private Property
This proposed 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 proposed 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 proposed rule under Executive Order 13045,
Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks. This proposed rule is not an economically significant rule and
will not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that
might disproportionately affect children.
Indian Tribal Governments
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.
Energy Effects
We have analyzed this proposed 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 M16475.1D,
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 this rule is not expected to result
in any significant adverse environmental impact as described in NEPA.
Under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g), of the Instruction, an
``Environmental Analysis Check List'' and a ``Categorical Exclusion
Determination'' are not required for this rule.
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 proposes
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: 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. In Sec. 165.809, revise the section heading and paragraph (a)
to read as follows:
Sec. 165.809 Security Zone; Port of Corpus Christi Inner Harbor,
Corpus Christi, TX.
(a) Location. The following area is designated as a security zone:
all waters of the Corpus Christi Inner Harbor from the Inner Harbor
Bridge (U.S. Hwy 181) to, and including the Viola Turning Basin.
* * * * *
Dated: February 11, 2005.
K.C. Kiefer,
Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Corpus Christi,
Acting.
[FR Doc. 05-3605 Filed 2-24-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P
