Safety Zone Regulation; Tampa Bay, FL, 61739-61741 [05-21396]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 206 / Wednesday, October 26, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
[COTP St. Petersburg 05–120]
assets on scene who will also provide
notice of the safety zone to mariners.
For the same reasons, 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.
RIN 1625–AA00
Background and Purpose
Materials referred to in this
document are available for inspection or
copying at Commander (obr), Fifth Coast
Guard District, Federal Building, 1st
Floor, 431 Crawford Street, Portsmouth,
VA 23704–5004 between 8 a.m. and 4
p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays. The telephone number
is (757) 398–6422. Commander (obr),
Fifth Coast Guard District maintains the
public docket for this temporary
deviation.
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Bill
H. Brazier, Bridge Management
Specialist, Fifth Coast Guard District, at
(757) 398–6422.
AGENCY:
ADDRESSES:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
The Route
33/Knapps Narrows Bridge, a basculetype drawbridge, has a vertical
clearance in the closed position to
vessels of 7 feet, at mean high water.
Covington Machine and Welding, Inc.
(CMW), is the contractor engaged to
perform these repairs for the Maryland
State Highway Administration (SHA),
the bridge owner. CMW, on behalf of
SHA, requested a temporary deviation
from the operating regulations for the
Route 33/Knapps Narrows Bridge, set
out in 33 CFR 117.5, that requires to
bridge to open promptly and fully for
the passage of vessels when a request to
open is given.
CMW requested the temporary
deviation to close the Route 33/Knapps
Narrow Bridge to navigation to facilitate
replacing leaking oil seals in the main
drive gear reducer and the hydraulic
braking system of the draw span. The
lift span will be locked in the closed-tonavigation position each day from 9
p.m. to 5 a.m. beginning on Monday,
October 24, 2005 until and including
Friday, October 28, 2005. At all other
times, the bridge will operate in
accordance with 33 CFR 117.5.
The Coast Guard has informed the
known users of the waterway of the
closure periods for the bridge so that
these vessels can arrange their transits
to minimize any impact caused by the
temporary deviation.
In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(c),
this work will be performed with all due
speed in order to return the bridge to
normal operation as soon as possible.
This deviation from the operating
regulations is authorized under 33 CFR
117.35.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Dated: October 18, 2005.
Waverly W. Gregory, Jr.,
Chief, Bridge Administration Branch, Fifth
Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 05–21322 Filed 10–25–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–15–P
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:58 Oct 25, 2005
Jkt 208001
61739
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 165
Safety Zone Regulation; Tampa Bay,
FL
ACTION:
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule.
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is
establishing a temporary safety zone on
the waters of Tampa Bay, Florida, in the
vicinity of the Clearwater Memorial
bascule bridge. This safety zone is being
established to protect mariners from the
hazards associated with the blasting
demolition of the concrete portions of
the Clearwater Memorial bascule bridge.
This rule is necessary to provide for the
safety of life on the navigable waters of
the United States.
DATES: This rule is effective from 9:30
a.m. on October 4, 2005 through 2 p.m.
on November 8, 2005.
ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this
preamble as being available in the
docket are part of docket [COTP St.
Petersburg 05–120] and are available for
inspection or copying at Coast Guard
Sector St. Petersburg, Prevention
Department, 155 Columbia Drive,
Tampa, Florida 33606–3598 between
7:30 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Lieutenant Junior Grade Jennifer
Andrew at Coast Guard Sector St.
Petersburg, Prevention Department,
(813) 228–2191 Ext 8203.
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), the
Coast Guard finds that good cause exists
for not publishing an NPRM. The
necessary details for the blasting
demolition of the Clearwater Memorial
bascule bridge were not provided with
sufficient time remaining to publish an
NPRM. Publishing a NPRM and
delaying its effective date would be
contrary to the public interest since
immediate action is needed to minimize
potential danger to the public during the
blasting demolition of the Clearwater
Memorial bascule bridge. The Coast
Guard will issue a broadcast notice to
mariners to advise mariners of the
restriction along with Coast Guard
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
PCL construction was contracted to
build a fixed bridge to replace the
Clearwater Memorial Causeway Bridge
and remove the existing bridge. The
fixed bridge was completed early
September and the removal of the
bascule bridge was commenced on
September 12, 2005. On September 13,
2005 PCL contacted Coast Guard Sector
St. Petersburg Prevention Department to
discuss blasting the large concrete
portions of the bascule bridge directly
adjacent to the navigation channel along
with the concrete counterweights for the
metal bridge leafs. PCL will conduct two
separate blasts on two different days to
break up the concrete into smaller
sections for removal. The first blast will
be conducted tentatively on October 5,
2005, at approximately 7:30 a.m. This
first blast will fracture the main
concrete vertical portions adjacent to
the channel from the top to three feet
above the waterline. The second blast
will be conducted tentatively on
October 26, 2005, at approximately 7:30
a.m. This second and final blast will
fracture the remaining three feet and the
16 feet of bridge below the waterline.
The use of explosives and the proximity
of the concrete bridge structure to the
navigable channel present a hazard to
mariners transiting the area. This safety
zone is being established to ensure the
safety of life on the navigable waters of
the United States.
Discussion of Rule
The safety zone will extend out from
the Clearwater Memorial Causeway
bascule Bridge in a 1,000 foot radius.
Vessels and persons not under contract
or employees of PCL are prohibited from
entering, anchoring or transiting within
this zone unless authorized by the
Captain of the Port St. Petersburg or his
designated representative. This safety
zone is effective from 7:30 a.m. on
October 4, 2005, through 2 p.m. on
November 8, 2005. The Coast Guard
does not know the exact dates that this
safety zone will be enforced at this time.
Coast Guard Sector St. Petersburg will
give notice of the enforcement of the
safety zone by issuing a Broadcast
Notice to Mariners beginning 24 to 48
hours before the blasting is scheduled to
begin. On-scene notice will be provided
by local Coast Guard and Pinellas
E:\FR\FM\26OCR1.SGM
26OCR1
61740
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 206 / Wednesday, October 26, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
County Sheriff marine units enforcing
the safety zone.
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. The Coast Guard expects the
economic impact of this proposal to be
so minimal that a full Regulatory
Evaluation under the regulatory policies
and procedures of DHS is unnecessary
because the safety zone will be in effect
for a limited period of time and vessels
may enter with the express permission
of the Captain of the Port of St.
Petersburg or his designated
representative.
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.
This rule may affect the following
entities, some of which may be small
entities: The owners or operators of
vessels intending to transit within a
1,000 foot radius from the Clearwater
Memorial Causeway bascule Bridge.
This safety zone will not have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities for
the following reasons. This rule will
only be enforced in a location where
traffic is minimal and for a limited time
when vessel traffic is expected to be
extremely low. Additionally, traffic will
be allowed to enter the zone with the
permission of the Captain of the Port St.
Petersburg or his designated
representative.
Assistance for Small Entities
Under section 213(a) of the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104–121),
we offered to assist small entities in
understanding the rule so that they
could better evaluate its effects on them
and participate in the rulemaking
process. Small entities may contact the
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:58 Oct 25, 2005
Jkt 208001
person listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT for assistance
in
understanding and participating in this
rulemaking. We also have a point of
contact for commenting on actions by
employees 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
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.
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
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
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,
E:\FR\FM\26OCR1.SGM
26OCR1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 206 / Wednesday, October 26, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
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). An ‘‘Environmental
Analysis Check List’’ and a ‘‘Categorical
Exclusion Determination’’ are not
required for this rule.
List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165
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. A new section 165.T07–120 is
added to read as follows:
Safety zone; Tampa Bay,
(a) Regulated Area. The Coast Guard
is establishing a safety zone on the
waters of the Intracoastal Waterway in
the vicinity of the Clearwater Memorial
Bascule bridge. The safety zone
encompasses all waters within a 1,000
foot radius of the Clearwater Memorial
Bascule bridge located at 27°58′00″ N,
82°48′17″ W.
(b) Regulations. In accordance with
the general regulations in § 165.23 of
this part, entry into this Regulated Area
is prohibited to all vessels and persons
without the prior permission of the
Coast Guard Captain of the Port St
Petersburg or his designated
representative.
(c) Effective Period. This Safety Zone
is effective from 7:30 a.m. on October 4,
2005 through 2 p.m. on November 8,
2005 and will be enforced when a Coast
Guard and/or Pinellas County Sheriff
marine unit is on scene.
14:58 Oct 25, 2005
Jkt 208001
40 CFR Part 52
[Docket # R08–OAR–2005–UT–0002; FRL–
7987–9]
Approval and Promulgation of Air
Quality Implementation Plans; State of
Utah; State Implementation Plan
Corrections
When EPA approved Utah
State Implementation Plan (SIP)
revisions for the Salt Lake City Carbon
Monoxide (CO) Maintenance Plan and
related Vehicle Inspection and
Maintenance (I/M) Program for Salt
Lake County, we inadvertently used an
invalid acronym for the Utah Annotated
Code. EPA is correcting this error with
this document.
DATES: This rule is effective on
November 25, 2005.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Domenico Mastrangelo, Air and
Radiation Program, Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8,
Mailcode 8P–AR, 999 18th Street, Suite
200, Denver, Colorado 80202–2466,
phone (303) 312–6436, and e-mail at:
mastrangelo.domenico@epa.gov.
SUMMARY:
For the reasons discussed in the
preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33
CFR part 165 as follows:
VerDate Aug<31>2005
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule; technical correction.
I
public comment procedures are
unnecessary. We find that this
constitutes good cause under 5 U.S.C.
553(b)(B).
I. Correction
BILLING CODE 4910–15–P
AGENCY:
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation
(water), Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Security measures,
Waterways.
§ 165.T07–120
Florida.
Dated: October 4, 2005.
J.A. Servidio,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the
Port, St Petersburg, Florida.
[FR Doc. 05–21396 Filed 10–25–05; 8:45 am]
61741
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
(i) Throughout this document,
wherever we, us or our is used it means
the Environmental Protection Agency.
(ii) The initials SIP mean or refer to
State Implementation Plan.
(iii) The word State means the State
of Utah, unless the context indicates
otherwise.
Section 553 of the Administrative
Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B),
provides that when an agency for good
cause finds that notice and public
procedures are impracticable,
unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest, the agency may issue a rule
without providing notice and an
opportunity for public comment. We
have determined that there is good
cause for making today’s rule final
without prior proposal and opportunity
for comment because we are merely
correcting an incorrect acronym in a
previous rulemaking. Thus, notice and
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Correction for the Federal Register
Document Published on August 1, 2005
(70 FR 44055)
On August 1, 2005 we published a
final rule approving the revised Salt
Lake City Carbon Monoxide
Maintenance Plan and related revisions
submitted by the Governor of Utah on
October 19, 2004. When we published
this rule, within the regulatory text we
incorrectly referred to the Utah
Annotated Code using the acronym
UACR instead of UAC. Therefore, we
are correcting the regulatory text in 40
CFR 52.2320(c)(60) to replace all
references to UACR with UAC.
II. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR
51735, October 4, 1993), this action is
not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ and
therefore is not subject to review by the
Office of Management and Budget. For
this reason, this action is also not
subject to Executive Order 13211,
‘‘Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355, May
22, 2001). Because the agency has made
a ‘‘good cause’’ finding that this action
is not subject to notice-and-comment
requirements under the Administrative
Procedure Act or any other statute as
indicated in the Supplementary
Information section above, it is not
subject to the regulatory flexibility
provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility
Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), or to sections
202 and 205 of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Pub. L.
104–4, 209 Stat. 48 (1995)). In addition,
this action does not significantly or
uniquely affect small governments or
impose a significant intergovernmental
mandate, as described in sections 203
and 204 of UMRA.
This rule also does not have tribal
implications 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,
as specified by Executive Order 13175
(65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This
action also does not have Federalism
implications because it does not have
substantial direct effects on the States,
on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the
E:\FR\FM\26OCR1.SGM
26OCR1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 206 (Wednesday, October 26, 2005)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 61739-61741]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-21396]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 165
[COTP St. Petersburg 05-120]
RIN 1625-AA00
Safety Zone Regulation; Tampa Bay, FL
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.
ACTION: Temporary final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone on the
waters of Tampa Bay, Florida, in the vicinity of the Clearwater
Memorial bascule bridge. This safety zone is being established to
protect mariners from the hazards associated with the blasting
demolition of the concrete portions of the Clearwater Memorial bascule
bridge. This rule is necessary to provide for the safety of life on the
navigable waters of the United States.
DATES: This rule is effective from 9:30 a.m. on October 4, 2005 through
2 p.m. on November 8, 2005.
ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in
the docket are part of docket [COTP St. Petersburg 05-120] and are
available for inspection or copying at Coast Guard Sector St.
Petersburg, Prevention Department, 155 Columbia Drive, Tampa, Florida
33606-3598 between 7:30 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lieutenant Junior Grade Jennifer
Andrew at Coast Guard Sector St. Petersburg, Prevention Department,
(813) 228-2191 Ext 8203.
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), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing an NPRM. The necessary details for the
blasting demolition of the Clearwater Memorial bascule bridge were not
provided with sufficient time remaining to publish an NPRM. Publishing
a NPRM and delaying its effective date would be contrary to the public
interest since immediate action is needed to minimize potential danger
to the public during the blasting demolition of the Clearwater Memorial
bascule bridge. The Coast Guard will issue a broadcast notice to
mariners to advise mariners of the restriction along with Coast Guard
assets on scene who will also provide notice of the safety zone to
mariners.
For the same reasons, 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.
Background and Purpose
PCL construction was contracted to build a fixed bridge to replace
the Clearwater Memorial Causeway Bridge and remove the existing bridge.
The fixed bridge was completed early September and the removal of the
bascule bridge was commenced on September 12, 2005. On September 13,
2005 PCL contacted Coast Guard Sector St. Petersburg Prevention
Department to discuss blasting the large concrete portions of the
bascule bridge directly adjacent to the navigation channel along with
the concrete counterweights for the metal bridge leafs. PCL will
conduct two separate blasts on two different days to break up the
concrete into smaller sections for removal. The first blast will be
conducted tentatively on October 5, 2005, at approximately 7:30 a.m.
This first blast will fracture the main concrete vertical portions
adjacent to the channel from the top to three feet above the waterline.
The second blast will be conducted tentatively on October 26, 2005, at
approximately 7:30 a.m. This second and final blast will fracture the
remaining three feet and the 16 feet of bridge below the waterline. The
use of explosives and the proximity of the concrete bridge structure to
the navigable channel present a hazard to mariners transiting the area.
This safety zone is being established to ensure the safety of life on
the navigable waters of the United States.
Discussion of Rule
The safety zone will extend out from the Clearwater Memorial
Causeway bascule Bridge in a 1,000 foot radius. Vessels and persons not
under contract or employees of PCL are prohibited from entering,
anchoring or transiting within this zone unless authorized by the
Captain of the Port St. Petersburg or his designated representative.
This safety zone is effective from 7:30 a.m. on October 4, 2005,
through 2 p.m. on November 8, 2005. The Coast Guard does not know the
exact dates that this safety zone will be enforced at this time. Coast
Guard Sector St. Petersburg will give notice of the enforcement of the
safety zone by issuing a Broadcast Notice to Mariners beginning 24 to
48 hours before the blasting is scheduled to begin. On-scene notice
will be provided by local Coast Guard and Pinellas
[[Page 61740]]
County Sheriff marine units enforcing the safety zone.
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. The Coast Guard expects the economic
impact of this proposal to be so minimal that a full Regulatory
Evaluation under the regulatory policies and procedures of DHS is
unnecessary because the safety zone will be in effect for a limited
period of time and vessels may enter with the express permission of the
Captain of the Port of St. Petersburg or his designated representative.
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. This rule may affect the following entities, some of which
may be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to
transit within a 1,000 foot radius from the Clearwater Memorial
Causeway bascule Bridge. This safety zone will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the
following reasons. This rule will only be enforced in a location where
traffic is minimal and for a limited time when vessel traffic is
expected to be extremely low. Additionally, traffic will be allowed to
enter the zone with the permission of the Captain of the Port St.
Petersburg or his designated representative.
Assistance for Small Entities
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we offered to assist small
entities in understanding the rule so that they could better evaluate
its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process. Small
entities may contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT for assistance in understanding and participating in this
rulemaking. We also have a point of contact for commenting on actions
by employees 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 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 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,
[[Page 61741]]
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). 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.
0
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33
CFR part 165 as follows:
PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS
0
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701; 50
U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1(g), 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Pub.
L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security
Delegation No. 0170.1.
0
2. A new section 165.T07-120 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 165.T07-120 Safety zone; Tampa Bay, Florida.
(a) Regulated Area. The Coast Guard is establishing a safety zone
on the waters of the Intracoastal Waterway in the vicinity of the
Clearwater Memorial Bascule bridge. The safety zone encompasses all
waters within a 1,000 foot radius of the Clearwater Memorial Bascule
bridge located at 27[deg]58'00'' N, 82[deg]48'17'' W.
(b) Regulations. In accordance with the general regulations in
Sec. 165.23 of this part, entry into this Regulated Area is prohibited
to all vessels and persons without the prior permission of the Coast
Guard Captain of the Port St Petersburg or his designated
representative.
(c) Effective Period. This Safety Zone is effective from 7:30 a.m.
on October 4, 2005 through 2 p.m. on November 8, 2005 and will be
enforced when a Coast Guard and/or Pinellas County Sheriff marine unit
is on scene.
Dated: October 4, 2005.
J.A. Servidio,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, St Petersburg, Florida.
[FR Doc. 05-21396 Filed 10-25-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P