Safety Zone; Wantagh Parkway 3 Bridge Over the Sloop Channel, Town of Hempstead, NY, 30635-30638 [05-10591]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 102 / Friday, May 27, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 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 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 may 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 VerDate jul<14>2003 19:56 May 26, 2005 Jkt 205001 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. 30635 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.T07–147 to read as follows: 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. § 165.T07–147 Florida. 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. This rule is a safety zone and therefore fits the category described in 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. Dated: May 11, 2005. J.M. Farley, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Tampa, Florida. [FR Doc. 05–10588 Filed 5–26–05; 8:45 am] PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 Safety Zone; Tampa Bay, (a) Regulated area. The following area is a safety zone: The waters of Garrison Channel east of an imaginary line connecting point 1: 27°56′32″ N, 082°27′58″ W; south to point 2: 27°56′27″ N, 082°27′58″ W; and including Ybor Turning Basin, Ybor Channel, and all waters in Sparkman Channel north of an imaginary line connecting point 3: 27°55′32″ N, 082°26′55″ W, east to point 4: 27°55′32″ N, 082°26′47″ W. (b) Regulations. In accordance with the general regulations in § 165.23 of this part, entry into this zone is prohibited to all vessels and persons without the prior permission of the Coast Guard Captain of the Port Tampa or designated representative. (c) Date. This rule is effective from 8:30 p.m. until 9:20 p.m. on May 29, 2005. BILLING CODE 4910–15–P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [CGD01–05–050] RIN 1625–AA00 Safety Zone; Wantagh Parkway 3 Bridge Over the Sloop Channel, Town of Hempstead, NY AGENCY: E:\FR\FM\27MYR1.SGM Coast Guard, DHS. 27MYR1 30636 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 102 / Friday, May 27, 2005 / Rules and Regulations Temporary final rule; change in effective period. ACTION: SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is extending the effective period of a safety zone in the waters surrounding the Wantagh Parkway Number 3 Bridge across the Sloop Channel in Town of Hempstead, New York. This change will extend the effective period of the temporary final rule until December 31, 2005, allowing time for the completion of the bascule bridge being constructed over the Sloop Channel. This rule will continue to prevent vessels from transiting the Sloop Channel within 300 yards of the Wantagh Parkway Number 3 Bridge and continues to be necessary in order to protect vessels transiting in the area from hazards imposed by construction barges and equipment. Entry into this zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Long Island Sound, New Haven, Connecticut. DATES: The extended period of § 165.T01–155 is effective from 12 a.m. on June 1, 2005 until 11:59 p.m. on December 31, 2005. ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket are part of docket CGD01–05– 050 and will be available for inspection or copying at Group/MSO Long Island Sound, New Haven, CT, between 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lieutenant A. Logman, Chief, Waterways Management Division, Coast Guard Group/Marine Safety Office Long Island Sound at (203) 468–4429. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Regulatory History On January 12, 2005 we published a temporary final rule (TFR entitled ‘‘Safety Zone: Wantagh Parkway 3 Bridge Over the Sloop Channel, Town of Hempstead, NY’’ in the Federal Register (70 FR 2017). The effective period for this rule was from 12:01 a.m. on January 1, 2005 until 11:59 p.m. on May 31, 2005. We did not publish a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for this regulation. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3) and 553 (d)(3) the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing an NPRM and for making this regulation effective less than 30 days after Federal Register publication. Any delay encountered in this regulation’s effective date would be impracticable and contrary to public interest since immediate action is needed to restrict and control maritime traffic transiting in the vicinity of the Sloop Channel under the Wantagh Parkway Number 3 Bridge in the Town VerDate jul<14>2003 19:56 May 26, 2005 Jkt 205001 of Hempstead, Nassau County, Long Island, New York. In 2003, the Coast Guard approved bridge construction and issued a permit for bridge construction for the Wantagh Parkway Number 3 Bridge over the Sloop Channel. Contractors began work constructing the two bascule piers for the new bridge in early June 2004. A safety zone was not deemed necessary at the inception of the construction, as this channel is primarily used by smaller recreational vessels, which could maneuver outside of the channel. However, bridge construction equipment that remains under the Wantagh Parkway Number 3 Bridge poses a potential hazard greater than originally anticipated. A safety zone was deemed necessary and was established on October 9, 2004 through December 31, 2004, the date when construction impacting the navigable channel was estimated to be complete. A second safety zone was implemented from January 1, 2005 until May 31, 2005, after the New York State Department of Transportation advised the Coast Guard that construction of the Wantagh Parkway Number 3 Bridge was experiencing delays, requiring equipment to be in the channel in a manner that would leave the waterway unsafe to marine traffic until May 31, 2005. In a letter dated April 8, 2005, the New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) again requested an extension of the safety zone surrounding in the Sloop Channel until December 31, 2005. The contractor for this project has experienced significant delays in bridge construction. In order to continue construction in a more rapid and safe manner, barges will need to continuously block the channel under the bridge. The delay inherent in the NPRM process is contrary to the public interest and impracticable, because immediate action is needed to extend this safety zone to continue to prevent accidents by vessels transiting the area with the construction equipment. This is acutely necessary during the summer months, when recreational traffic will significantly increase in this area. Background and Purpose Currently, there is a fixed bridge, the Wantagh Parkway Number 3 Bridge over the Sloop Channel in the Town of Hempstead, New York. New York Department of Transportation determined that a moveable bridge would benefit the boating community. In 2003, the Coast Guard approved bridge construction and issued a permit for bridge construction for the Wantagh Parkway Number 3 Bridge over the PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 Sloop Channel. Contractors began work constructing the two-bascule piers for the new bridge in early June 2004. The equipment necessary for the construction of the bridge occupies the entire navigable channel. While there are side channels, which can be navigated, the equipment in the channel is extensive and poses a hazard to recreational vessels attempting to transit the waterway via the side channels under the bridge. Construction, requiring equipment in the navigable channel, was originally scheduled to end on December 31, 2004. A second safety zone was established until May 31, 2005 after the Coast Guard was notified that the project had experienced delays in construction. Significant additional delays in construction require this equipment to occupy the navigable channel until December 31, 2005. To ensure the continued safety of the boating community, the Coast Guard is extending the safety zone in place in all waters of the Sloop Channel within 300 yards of the bridge. This safety zone is necessary to protect the safety of the boating community who wish to utilize the Sloop Channel. Marine traffic may transit safely outside of the safety zone during the effective dates of the safety zone, allowing navigation in the Sloop Channel, except the portion delineated by this rule. Discussion of Rule This regulation extends the effective period of a temporary safety zone on the waters of the Sloop Channel within 300yards of the Wantagh Parkway Bridge. This action is intended to prohibit vessel traffic in a portion of the Sloop Channel in the Town of Hempstead, New York to provide for the safety of the boating community due to the hazards posed by significant construction equipment and barges located in the waterway for the construction of a new bascule bridge. The safety zone is being extended until 11:59 p.m. on December 31, 2005. Marine traffic may continue to transit safely outside of the safety zone during the effective dates of the safety zone, allowing navigation in the Sloop Channel, except the portion delineated by this rule. Vessels may utilize the Goose Neck Channel as an alternative route to using the Sloop Channel, adding minimal additional transit time. Entry into this zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port, Long Island Sound. Any violation of the safety zone described herein is punishable by, among others, civil and criminal E:\FR\FM\27MYR1.SGM 27MYR1 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 102 / Friday, May 27, 2005 / Rules and Regulations penalties, in rem liability against the offending vessel, and license sanctions. 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 will be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation under the regulatory policies and procedures of DHS is unnecessary. This regulation may have some impact on the public, but the potential impact will be minimized for the following reasons: Vessels may transit in all areas of the Sloop Channel and other than the area of the safety zone, and may utilize other routes with minimal increased transit time. Small Entities Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601–612), we have considered whether this rule will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term ‘‘small entities’’ comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule may affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to transit or anchor in those portions of the Sloop Channel in the Town of Hempstead, New York covered by the safety zone. For the reasons outlined in the Regulatory Evaluation section above, this rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what degree this rule would economically affect it. Assistance for Small Entities Under subsection 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement VerDate jul<14>2003 19:56 May 26, 2005 Jkt 205001 Fairness Act of 1996 [Pub. L. 104–121], the Coast Guard wants to assist small entities in understanding this rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If this rule will affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please call Lieutenant A. Logman, Waterways Management Officer, Group/Marine Safety Office Long Island Sound, at (203) 468–4429. 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. PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 30637 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 will not concern an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may 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 will 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. To help the Coast Guard establish regular and meaningful consultation and collaboration with Indian and Alaskan Native tribes, we published a notice in the Federal Register (66 FR 36361, July 11, 2001) requesting comments on how to best carry out the Order. We invite your comments on how this rule might impact tribal governments, even if that impact may not constitute a ‘‘tribal implication’’ under the Order. Energy Effects We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a ‘‘significant energy action’’ under that order because it is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. It has not been designated by the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs as a significant energy action, therefore it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211. Technical Standards The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through the Office of Management and Budget, with an E:\FR\FM\27MYR1.SGM 27MYR1 30638 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 102 / Friday, May 27, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 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. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Environment The Coast Guard considered the environmental impact of this rule and concluded that, under figure 2–1, paragraph 34(g), of Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, this rule is categorically excluded from further environmental documentation. A Categorical Exclusion Determination is available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a safety zone surrounding the El Segundo offshore marine terminal near Los Angeles, California. This action is necessary to ensure public safety and reduce the likelihood of a collision or other casualty involving a tank vessel moored at the offshore marine terminal. Entry into this zone will be prohibited unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port Los Angeles-Long Beach. List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165 DATES: Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways. For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows: I 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 and 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. Revise temporary § 165.T01–155(b) to read as follows: I § 165.T01–155 Safety Zone: Wantagh Parkway Number 3 Bridge over the Sloop Channel, Town of Hempstead, NY. * * * * * (b) Effective date. This section is effective from 12:01 a.m. on January 1, 2005 until 11:59 p.m. on December 31, 2005. * * * * * Dated: May 18, 2005. Peter J. Boynton, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Long Island Sound. [FR Doc. 05–10591 Filed 5–26–05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910–15–P VerDate jul<14>2003 19:56 May 26, 2005 Jkt 205001 Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [COTP Los Angeles-Long Beach 03–002] RIN 1625–AA00 Safety Zone; Offshore Marine Terminal, El Segundo, CA Coast Guard, DHS. Final rule. AGENCY: ACTION: This rule is effective June 27, 2005. 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 Los Angeles-Long Beach 03–002 and are available for inspection or copying at U.S. Coast Guard Marine Safety Office/Group Los Angeles-Long Beach, Waterways Management Division, 1001 South Seaside Avenue, Building 20, San Pedro, California, 90731 between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lieutenant Peter Gooding, Chief of Waterways Management Division, (310) 732–2020. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: ADDRESSES: Regulatory Information On July 10, 2003, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) entitled ‘‘Safety Zone; Offshore Marine Terminal, El Segundo, CA’’ in the Federal Register (68 FR 41091). We received nine letters commenting on the proposed rule. No public meeting was requested, and none was held. Background and Purpose The Chevron Texaco Shipping Company requested that the Coast Guard establish a safety zone around the El Segundo offshore marine terminal near Los Angeles, California, to promote the safety of life and property at the facility and on the adjacent waters PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 within the safety zone—including tank vessels and their crews, their apparatuses, and attending vessels and their crews. El Segundo offshore marine terminal is located approximately 1 nautical mile offshore El Segundo in Santa Monica Bay, between Marina Del Rey and Redondo Beach, California. The offshore marine terminal consists of several tanker mooring buoys and seafloor pipelines connected to the mainland terminal. Large tank vessels are secured to tanker mooring buoys using multiple sets of mooring lines. Underwater pipelines that extend seaward from the mainland terminal rise up from the ocean bottom and are secured to both the buoys and the tankers. As a result, there are numerous mooring lines, pipelines, and other critical apparatuses that exist above, below, and on the surface of the water presenting an especially hazardous condition for other vessels transiting through this area. The hazards have contributed to vessel casualties resulting in pollution and in at least one case, a fatality. These conditions are present at all times, whether or not a tanker is in the offshore marine terminal. Discussion of Comments and Changes The Coast Guard received a total of nine letters in response to the notice of proposed rulemaking. What follows is a review of, and the Coast Guard’s response to, the issues and questions that were presented by these commenters concerning the proposed regulations. (1) Four commenters indicated that buoys should be placed at the corners of the safety zone to give a visual indication to boaters passing nearby. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) publishes charts of this area. A notation of the safety zone will be placed on the chart to advise mariners of the safety zone. In addition, NOAA is publishing a new chart for the El Segundo area that will show much greater detail of the surrounding area. This chart should provide sufficient aid for boaters to identify the safety zone without the placement of buoys which may interfere with vessels permitted to enter the zone. (2) Two commenters indicated that publication of the safety zone needed to be widespread to ensure boaters are aware of the new zone. In addition to appearing in the Federal Register, news of this safety zone will be published in the Notice to Mariners, Coast Pilot, and local boating publications to ensure wide dissemination of information about this safety zone. E:\FR\FM\27MYR1.SGM 27MYR1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 102 (Friday, May 27, 2005)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 30635-30638]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-10591]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[CGD01-05-050]
RIN 1625-AA00


Safety Zone; Wantagh Parkway 3 Bridge Over the Sloop Channel, 
Town of Hempstead, NY

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

[[Page 30636]]


ACTION: Temporary final rule; change in effective period.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is extending the effective period of a safety 
zone in the waters surrounding the Wantagh Parkway Number 3 Bridge 
across the Sloop Channel in Town of Hempstead, New York. This change 
will extend the effective period of the temporary final rule until 
December 31, 2005, allowing time for the completion of the bascule 
bridge being constructed over the Sloop Channel. This rule will 
continue to prevent vessels from transiting the Sloop Channel within 
300 yards of the Wantagh Parkway Number 3 Bridge and continues to be 
necessary in order to protect vessels transiting in the area from 
hazards imposed by construction barges and equipment. Entry into this 
zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Long 
Island Sound, New Haven, Connecticut.

DATES: The extended period of Sec.  165.T01-155 is effective from 12 
a.m. on June 1, 2005 until 11:59 p.m. on December 31, 2005.

ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in 
the docket are part of docket CGD01-05-050 and will be available for 
inspection or copying at Group/MSO Long Island Sound, New Haven, CT, 
between 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal 
holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lieutenant A. Logman, Chief, Waterways 
Management Division, Coast Guard Group/Marine Safety Office Long Island 
Sound at (203) 468-4429.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulatory History

    On January 12, 2005 we published a temporary final rule (TFR 
entitled ``Safety Zone: Wantagh Parkway 3 Bridge Over the Sloop 
Channel, Town of Hempstead, NY'' in the Federal Register (70 FR 2017). 
The effective period for this rule was from 12:01 a.m. on January 1, 
2005 until 11:59 p.m. on May 31, 2005. We did not publish a notice of 
proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for this regulation. Under 5 U.S.C. 
553(b)(3) and 553 (d)(3) the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists 
for not publishing an NPRM and for making this regulation effective 
less than 30 days after Federal Register publication.
    Any delay encountered in this regulation's effective date would be 
impracticable and contrary to public interest since immediate action is 
needed to restrict and control maritime traffic transiting in the 
vicinity of the Sloop Channel under the Wantagh Parkway Number 3 Bridge 
in the Town of Hempstead, Nassau County, Long Island, New York. In 
2003, the Coast Guard approved bridge construction and issued a permit 
for bridge construction for the Wantagh Parkway Number 3 Bridge over 
the Sloop Channel. Contractors began work constructing the two bascule 
piers for the new bridge in early June 2004. A safety zone was not 
deemed necessary at the inception of the construction, as this channel 
is primarily used by smaller recreational vessels, which could maneuver 
outside of the channel. However, bridge construction equipment that 
remains under the Wantagh Parkway Number 3 Bridge poses a potential 
hazard greater than originally anticipated. A safety zone was deemed 
necessary and was established on October 9, 2004 through December 31, 
2004, the date when construction impacting the navigable channel was 
estimated to be complete. A second safety zone was implemented from 
January 1, 2005 until May 31, 2005, after the New York State Department 
of Transportation advised the Coast Guard that construction of the 
Wantagh Parkway Number 3 Bridge was experiencing delays, requiring 
equipment to be in the channel in a manner that would leave the 
waterway unsafe to marine traffic until May 31, 2005. In a letter dated 
April 8, 2005, the New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) 
again requested an extension of the safety zone surrounding in the 
Sloop Channel until December 31, 2005. The contractor for this project 
has experienced significant delays in bridge construction. In order to 
continue construction in a more rapid and safe manner, barges will need 
to continuously block the channel under the bridge.
    The delay inherent in the NPRM process is contrary to the public 
interest and impracticable, because immediate action is needed to 
extend this safety zone to continue to prevent accidents by vessels 
transiting the area with the construction equipment. This is acutely 
necessary during the summer months, when recreational traffic will 
significantly increase in this area.

Background and Purpose

    Currently, there is a fixed bridge, the Wantagh Parkway Number 3 
Bridge over the Sloop Channel in the Town of Hempstead, New York. New 
York Department of Transportation determined that a moveable bridge 
would benefit the boating community. In 2003, the Coast Guard approved 
bridge construction and issued a permit for bridge construction for the 
Wantagh Parkway Number 3 Bridge over the Sloop Channel. Contractors 
began work constructing the two-bascule piers for the new bridge in 
early June 2004. The equipment necessary for the construction of the 
bridge occupies the entire navigable channel. While there are side 
channels, which can be navigated, the equipment in the channel is 
extensive and poses a hazard to recreational vessels attempting to 
transit the waterway via the side channels under the bridge. 
Construction, requiring equipment in the navigable channel, was 
originally scheduled to end on December 31, 2004. A second safety zone 
was established until May 31, 2005 after the Coast Guard was notified 
that the project had experienced delays in construction. Significant 
additional delays in construction require this equipment to occupy the 
navigable channel until December 31, 2005. To ensure the continued 
safety of the boating community, the Coast Guard is extending the 
safety zone in place in all waters of the Sloop Channel within 300 
yards of the bridge. This safety zone is necessary to protect the 
safety of the boating community who wish to utilize the Sloop Channel. 
Marine traffic may transit safely outside of the safety zone during the 
effective dates of the safety zone, allowing navigation in the Sloop 
Channel, except the portion delineated by this rule.

Discussion of Rule

    This regulation extends the effective period of a temporary safety 
zone on the waters of the Sloop Channel within 300-yards of the Wantagh 
Parkway Bridge. This action is intended to prohibit vessel traffic in a 
portion of the Sloop Channel in the Town of Hempstead, New York to 
provide for the safety of the boating community due to the hazards 
posed by significant construction equipment and barges located in the 
waterway for the construction of a new bascule bridge. The safety zone 
is being extended until 11:59 p.m. on December 31, 2005. Marine traffic 
may continue to transit safely outside of the safety zone during the 
effective dates of the safety zone, allowing navigation in the Sloop 
Channel, except the portion delineated by this rule. Vessels may 
utilize the Goose Neck Channel as an alternative route to using the 
Sloop Channel, adding minimal additional transit time. Entry into this 
zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port, Long 
Island Sound.
    Any violation of the safety zone described herein is punishable by, 
among others, civil and criminal

[[Page 30637]]

penalties, in rem liability against the offending vessel, and license 
sanctions.

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 will be so 
minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation under the regulatory policies 
and procedures of DHS is unnecessary. This regulation may have some 
impact on the public, but the potential impact will be minimized for 
the following reasons: Vessels may transit in all areas of the Sloop 
Channel and other than the area of the safety zone, and may utilize 
other routes with minimal increased transit time.

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have 
considered whether this rule will have a significant economic impact on 
a substantial number of small entities. The term ``small entities'' 
comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are 
independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, 
and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
    The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will 
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities. This rule may affect the following entities, some of which 
may be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to 
transit or anchor in those portions of the Sloop Channel in the Town of 
Hempstead, New York covered by the safety zone. For the reasons 
outlined in the Regulatory Evaluation section above, this rule will not 
have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    If you think that your business, organization, or governmental 
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have 
a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see 
ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what 
degree this rule would economically affect it.

Assistance for Small Entities

    Under subsection 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory 
Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 [Pub. L. 104-121], the Coast Guard 
wants to assist small entities in understanding this rule so that they 
can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the 
rulemaking. If this rule will affect your small business, organization, 
or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its 
provisions or options for compliance, please call Lieutenant A. Logman, 
Waterways Management Officer, Group/Marine Safety Office Long Island 
Sound, at (203) 468-4429.
    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 will not concern an 
environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may 
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 will 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.
    To help the Coast Guard establish regular and meaningful 
consultation and collaboration with Indian and Alaskan Native tribes, 
we published a notice in the Federal Register (66 FR 36361, July 11, 
2001) requesting comments on how to best carry out the Order. We invite 
your comments on how this rule might impact tribal governments, even if 
that impact may not constitute a ``tribal implication'' under the 
Order.

Energy Effects

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions 
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 
Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a ``significant 
energy action'' under that order because it is not a ``significant 
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to 
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use 
of energy. It has not been designated by the Administrator of the 
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs as a significant energy 
action, therefore it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects 
under Executive Order 13211.

Technical Standards

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 
U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards 
in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, 
through the Office of Management and Budget, with an

[[Page 30638]]

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

    The Coast Guard considered the environmental impact of this rule 
and concluded that, under figure 2-1, paragraph 34(g), of Commandant 
Instruction M16475.1D, this rule is categorically excluded from further 
environmental documentation. A Categorical Exclusion Determination is 
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 and 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. Revise temporary Sec.  165.T01-155(b) to read as follows:


Sec.  165.T01-155  Safety Zone: Wantagh Parkway Number 3 Bridge over 
the Sloop Channel, Town of Hempstead, NY.

* * * * *
    (b) Effective date. This section is effective from 12:01 a.m. on 
January 1, 2005 until 11:59 p.m. on December 31, 2005.
* * * * *

    Dated: May 18, 2005.
Peter J. Boynton,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Long Island Sound.
[FR Doc. 05-10591 Filed 5-26-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.