United States Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
Final rule; extension of compliance date.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), through the United States Coast Guard (Coast Guard), issues this final rule to extend compliance dates for the redesignation of secure areas. The Coast Guard is delaying the date by which facilities wishing to redefine their secure areas must submit an amendment to their facility security plan. Amendments to facility security plans are now due by September 4, 2007.
This final rule is effective July 13, 2007.
Comments and material received from the public, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, are part of dockets TSA-2006-24191 and USCG-2006-24196, and are available for inspection or copying at the Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. You may also find this docket on the Internet at http://dms.dot.gov.Start Further Info
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
If you have questions on this rule, call LCDR Jonathan Maiorine, telephone 1-877-687-2243. If you have questions on viewing the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 202-493-0402.End Further Info End Preamble Start Supplemental Information
I. Regulatory History
On May 22, 2006, The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) through the United States Coast Guard (Coast Guard) and the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) published a joint notice of proposed rulemaking entitled “Transportation Worker Identification Credential (TWIC) Implementation in the Maritime Sector; Hazardous Materials Endorsement for a Commercial Driver's License” in the Federal Register (71 FR 29396). This was followed by a 45 day comment period and four public meetings. The Coast Guard and TSA issued a joint final rule, under the same title, on January 25, 2007 (72 FR 3492) (hereinafter referred to as the original TWIC final rule). The preamble to that final rule contains a discussion of all the comments received on the NPRM, as well as a discussion of the provisions found in the original TWIC final rule, which became effective on March 26, 2007.
II. Background and Purpose
A complete discussion of the background and purpose of the original TWIC final rule may be found beginning at 72 FR 3494. This final rule is being issued in order to amend the original TWIC final rule to reflect delays in the issuance of guidance.
III. Discussion of Change
The Coast Guard is delaying the date by which facilities wishing to redefine their secure areas must submit an amendment to their facility security plan. The original final rule required these submissions to be made to the appropriate Captain of the Port (COTP) by July 25, 2007. The Coast Guard issued its Navigation and Vessel Inspection Circular (NVIC) containing guidance on which facilities are eligible for this redefinition, and what would be an acceptable new definition of “secure area,” on July 6, 2007. In order to provide facility owners and operators time to take this guidance into account before submitting their revised plan, we are delaying the deadline for these submission until September 4, 2007. This amendment may be found at 33 CFR 105.115.
IV. Regulatory Requirements
A. Administrative Procedure Act
We did not publish a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for this final rule. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing an NPRM, because providing opportunity for public comment is unnecessary and would be contrary to the public interest. The provision being amended by this final rule without prior notice and comment eases a restriction on the public by providing the public (owners and operators of facilities regulated by 33 CFR part 105) with more time to comply with the regulatory requirements. For the same reason, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register. Start Printed Page 38487
B. Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review)
The original TWIC final rule was a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review and therefore it was reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget. E.O. 12866 requires an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Final Assessment for the original TWIC final rule is available in both the TSA and Coast Guard dockets where indicated under the ADDRESSES section of this preamble. A summary of that assessment was included in the original TWIC final rule at 72 FR 3570-3572.
This final rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. We expect the economic impact of this rule to be minimal and a full Regulatory Evaluation unnecessary.
We anticipate that these changes will not substantially increase TWIC related compliance costs to the affected entities and in most cases will provide advantages through deadline extensions.
C. 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.
We do not expect this rule to substantially increase TWIC related compliance costs, as it extends a deadline. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
D. Assistance for Small Entities
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding the rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking.
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247).]
E. 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).
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.
G. 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 will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
H. 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.
I. 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.
J. 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 may disproportionately affect children.
K. 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.
L. 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.
M. 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.
The provisions of this rule have been analyzed under the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Management Directive (MD) 5100.1, Environmental Planning Program, which is the DHS policy and procedures for implementing the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and related E.O.s and requirements. The changes being made by this final rule have no effect on the environmental analysis that accompanied the promulgation of the original TWIC final rule. That analysis can be found at 72 FR 3576-3577. Start Printed Page 38488
Accordingly, there are no extraordinary circumstances presented by this rule that would limit the use of a categorical exclusion (CATEX) under MD 5100.1, Appendix A, paragraph 3.2. The implementation of this rule, like the implementation of the original TWIC final rule, is categorically excluded under the following CATEX listed in MD 5100.1, Appendix A, Table 1: CATEX A1 (personnel, fiscal, management and administrative activities); CATEX A3 (promulgation of rules, issuance of rulings or interpretations); and CATEX A4 (information gathering, data analysis and processing, information dissemination, review, interpretation and development of documents). CATEX B3 (proposed activities and operations to be conducted in an existing structure that would be compatible with and similar in scope to ongoing functional uses) and CATEX B 11 (routine monitoring and surveillance activities that support law enforcement or homeland security and defense operations) would also be applicable.Start List of Subjects
List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 105End List of Subjects Start Amendment Part
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amendsEnd Amendment Part Start Part
PART 105—MARITIME SECURITY: FACILITIESEnd Part Start Amendment Part
1. The authority citation for part 105 continues to read as follows:End Amendment Part
2. Amend § 105.115(c) by removing the date “July 25, 2007” and adding in its place the date “September 4, 2007”.End Amendment Part Start Signature
Dated: July 10, 2007.
Acting Assistant Commandant for Prevention.
[FR Doc. 07-3447 Filed 7-11-07; 12:11 pm]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P