Regulated Navigation Area Removal; Brunswick, GA, Turtle River, in the Vicinity of the Sidney Lanier Bridge, 6347-6348 [05-2237]

Agencies

• Coast Guard
• DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 24 (Monday, February 7, 2005)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 6347-6348]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-2237]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[CGD7-04-153]
RIN 1625-AA11


Regulated Navigation Area Removal; Brunswick, GA, Turtle River, 
in the Vicinity of the Sidney Lanier Bridge

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is removing the regulated navigation area 
(RNA) in Brunswick, Georgia in the Turtle River in the vicinity of the 
Sidney Lanier Bridge. Due to the construction of the new Sidney Lanier 
Bridge and the removal of the old bridge structures, the maneuvers 
required by the RNA are no longer necessary to prevent allisions with 
the old bridge.

DATES: This rule is effective March 9, 2005.

ADDRESSES: You may mail comments and related material to USCG Marine 
Safety Office Savannah, 100 W. Oglethorpe Ave., Suite 1017, JGL Federal 
Building, Savannah, GA 31401. USCG Marine Safety Office Savannah 
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 USCG Marine 
Safety Office Savannah between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through 
Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: LT Aloysious Zealy, Planning Officer, 
MSO Savannah at 912-652-4353 ext. 240.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulatory Information

    We did not publish a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for this 
regulation. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) and (d)(3), the Coast Guard finds 
that good cause exists for not publishing a NPRM and for making this 
regulation effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal 
Register. Due to the construction of the new Sidney Lanier Bridge, the 
widening of the channel, and the removal of the old bridge structure, 
the maneuver required by the current RNA is no longer necessary. 
Because the old Sidney Lanier Bridge no longer exists, an NPRM to 
remove the RNA is unnecessary. Similarly, it is unnecessary to delay 
the effective date of the regulation beyond the date of publication on 
the Federal Register.

Background and Purpose

    The Regulated Navigation Area at 33 CFR 165.735 Brunswick, Georgia, 
Turtle River, Vicinity of Sidney Lanier Bridge was introduced in 1987 
to improve navigational safety after the old Sidney Lanier Bridge had 
suffered allisions in 1972 and 1987. The close proximity of the bridge 
to the turn from the East River onto the Turtle River, in conjunction 
with the heavy current and narrow channel width, provided insufficient 
time for many vessels departing the East River, outbound for sea under 
the old Sydney Lanier Bridge, to properly shape up for safe transit. 
The RNA requires every vessel over 500 GRT departing the Port of 
Brunswick for sea to depart only from the Turtle River, except during 
flood tide. Vessels over 500 GRT departing for sea southbound down the 
East River negotiate a 129Sec.  starboard turn, westward onto the 
Turtle River, transit up river to the turning basin to negotiate a 
180[deg] turn, and then transit down bound on the Turtle River through 
what was previously a 200' wide restricted channel.
    Due to the construction of the new Sidney Lanier Bridge and 
widening of the channel, the maneuver required by the current RNA is no 
longer necessary. The current navigation requirements of 33 CFR 165.735 
pose a greater risk of a vessel casualty due to the now unnecessary 
complex maneuvering. The rule removes the maneuvers required by the 
current RNA and will reduce the transit time of vessels bound for sea 
from the East River. Due to the removal of the old bridge structures, 
no other navigational or safety requirements are necessary.

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. This rule removes navigation restrictions 
currently imposed on mariners and make transit easier and quicker. The 
anticipated beneficial result forms the basis for the determination 
that the economic impact will be minimal.

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. The current Regulated Navigation Area imposes restrictions on 
vessels transiting the area. The mariners who pilot the affected 
vessels have requested this rule. The impact of this rule will be a 
beneficial one as it removes

[[Page 6348]]

restrictions, improves safety and enhances navigability.

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 this rule. If the rule affects your small 
business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have 
questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please 
contact LT Aloysious Zealy, Planning Officer, MSO Savannah at 912-652-
4353 ext. 240. 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.
    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).

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 will not result in such expenditure, we do 
discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.

Taking of Private Property

    This 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 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 would 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. Paragraph (34)(g) applies because this 
rule disestablishes a Regulated Navigation Area, an action expressly 
recognized by paragraph (34)(g).
    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), 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 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 1.01-1(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.

Sec.  165.735  [Removed]

0
2. Section 165.735 is removed.

    Dated: January 21, 2005.
D. Brian Peterman,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Seventh Coast Guard 
District.
[FR Doc. 05-2237 Filed 2-4-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P