Security Zone; Manbirtee Key, Port of Manatee, FL, 62613-62615 [E7-21761]

Download as PDF mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 214 / Tuesday, November 6, 2007 / Proposed Rules Tampa encompassed by a line connecting the following points: 27°54.74′ N, 082°26.47′ W; northwest to 27°55.25′ N, 082°26.73′ W; then northnorthwest to 27°55.60′ N, 082°26.80′ W; then north-northeast to 27°56.00′ N, 082°26.75′ W; then northeast to 27°56.58′ N, 082°26.53′ W; and north to 27°57.29′ N, 082°26.51′ W; west to 27°57.29′ N, 082°26.61′ W; then southerly to 27°56.65′ N, 082°26.63′ W; southwesterly to 27°56.58′ N, 082°26.69′ W; then southwesterly and terminating at 27°56.53′ N, 082°26.90′ W. * * * * * (14) Big Bend Power Plant, FL. All waters of Tampa Bay, from surface to bottom, adjacent to the Big Bend Power Facility, and within an area bounded by a line connecting the following points: 27°48′08″ N, 082°24′88″ W; then northwest to 27°48′15″ N, 082°24′96″ W; then southwest to 27°48′10″ N, 082°25′00″ W; then south-southwest to 27°47′85″ N, 082°25′03″ W; then southeast to 27°47′85″ N, 082°24′79″ W; then east to 27°47′55″ N, 082°24′04″ W; then north to 27°47′62″ N, 082°84′04″ W; then west to 27°47′60″ N, 082°24′72″ W; then north to 27°48′03″ N, 082°24′70″ W; then northwest to 27°48′08″ N, 082°24′88″ W, closing off entrance to Big Bend Power Facility and the attached cooling canal. (15) Weedon Island Power Plant, FL. All waters of Tampa Bay, from surface to bottom, extending 50-yards from the shore, seawall and piers around the Power Facility at Weedon Island encompassed by a line connecting the following points: 27°51′52″ N, 082°35′82″ W; then north and east along the shore to 27°51′54″ N, 082°35′78″ W; then north to 27°51′68″ N, 082°35′78″ W; then north to 27°51′75″ N, 082°35′78″ W, closing off entrance to the canal; then north to 27°51′89″ N, 082°35′82″ W; then west along the shore to 27°51′89″ N, 082°36′10″ W; then west to 27°51′89″ N, 082°36′14″ W, closing off entrance to the canal. (b) Definitions. As used in this section— Cruise ship means a vessel required to comply with 33 CFR part 120. Designated representative means Coast Guard Patrol Commanders including Coast Guard coxswains, petty officers and other officers operating Coast Guard vessels, and federal, state, and local officers designated by or assisting the Captain of the Port (COTP), in the enforcement of regulated navigation areas, safety zones, and security zones. (c) Regulation. (1) Entry into or remaining on or within the zones described in paragraph (a) of this VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:29 Nov 05, 2007 Jkt 214001 section is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port St. Petersburg or his designated representative. (2) Persons desiring to transit the area of the security zone may contact the Captain of the Port St. Petersburg or his designated representative on VHF channel 16 to seek permission to transit the area. If permission is granted, all persons and vessels must comply with the instructions of the Captain of the Port or designated representative. In the case of moving security zones, notification of activation of these zones will be given by Broadcast Notice to Mariners on VHF FM Marine Band Radio, Channel 22A. For vessels not equipped with a radio, there will also be on site notification via a designated representative of the Captain of the Port. Note to § 165.760 (c)(2): A graphical representation of all fixed security zones will be made available via the Coast Pilot and nautical charts. (3) Enforcement. Under § 165.33, no person may cause or authorize the operation of a vessel in the security zones contrary to the provisions of this section. * * * * * § 165.764 [Removed] 3. Remove and reserve § 165.764. Dated: October 29, 2007. J.A. Servidio, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port St. Petersburg. [FR Doc. E7–21760 Filed 11–5–07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910–15–P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket No. COTP St. Petersburg 07–226] RIN 1625–AA87 Security Zone; Manbirtee Key, Port of Manatee, FL Coast Guard, DHS. Notice of proposed rulemaking and public meeting. AGENCY: ACTION: SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to establish a new security zone in the Manbirtee Key area of Port of Manatee, Florida. The purpose of this security zone is to ensure the security of vessels, facilities, and the surrounding area. Entry into the security zone would be prohibited without permission of the Captain of the Port. DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or before PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 62613 December 6, 2007. A public meeting will be held starting at 10 a.m. on November 13, 2007. You may mail comments and related material to Coast Guard Sector St. Petersburg, Prevention Department, 155 Columbia Drive, Tampa, FL. 33606–3598. Coast Guard Sector St. Petersburg, Prevention Department maintains the public docket for this rule making. 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 Coast Guard Sector St. Petersburg, Prevention Department, 155 Columbia Drive, Tampa, FL. 33606– 3598 between 7:30 a.m. and 3:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The location of the public meeting is Port Manatee, 300 Tampa Bay Way, Palmetto, FL 34221. ADDRESSES: FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lieutenant Jessica Crandell at the Waterways Management Division, Sector St. Petersburg, FL (813) 228–2191 Ext 8146. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Request for Comments We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting comments and related material. If you do so, please include the docket number for this rulemaking (COTP 07–226), indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and give the reason for each comment. We recommend that you include your name and a mailing address, an e-mail address, or a phone number in the body of your document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your submission. For example, we may ask you to resubmit your comment if we are not able to read your original submission. Please submit all comments and related material in an unbound format, no larger than 81/2 by 11 inches, suitable for copying. If you would like to know they reached us, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. We may change this proposed rule in view of them. Public Meeting We will hold a public meeting to discuss any items of concern related to the proposed changes to the security zone outlined in this document. The date and time of this meeting is 10 a.m., November 13, 2007. The location of the E:\FR\FM\06NOP1.SGM 06NOP1 62614 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 214 / Tuesday, November 6, 2007 / Proposed Rules meeting is Port Manatee, 300 Tampa Bay Way, Palmetto, FL 34221. Background and Purpose The Maritime Transportation Security Act authorized the establishment of Area Maritime Security Committees (AMSC) that ‘‘advise, consult with, report to, and make recommendations’’ on matters relating to maritime security in an AMSC’s port area. See 46 U.S.C. 70112(a)(2) and 33 CFR 103.205. One topic the Tampa AMSC discussed is the existing security zones that were established immediately following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. See 68 FR 47852, August 12, 2003, and 68 FR 52340, September 3, 2003. In July 2007, using the newlydeveloped Maritime Security Risk Analysis tool, the Tampa AMSC working group evaluated risk to the maritime transportation system (MTS) within Tampa Bay, and assessed various risk mitigation options. The results of the risk assessment indicated the need to establish a new security zone in the vicinity of Manbirtee Key, FL. To assist in assessment of risk mitigation options in the vicinity of Manbirtee Key, FL, a focus group session was held with Coast Guard licensed mariners on July 25, 2007. mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS Discussion of Proposed Rule This proposed rule would create a security zone in the following area: All waters of Tampa Bay, from surface to bottom, surrounding Manbirtee Key, Tampa Bay, FL extending 500 yards from the island’s shoreline, in all directions, with the exception of the Port Manatee Channel. Entry into or remaining on or within this zone would be prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Sector St. Petersburg or his designated representative. Persons desiring to transit the area of the security zone may contact the Captain of the Port St. Petersburg or his designee on VHF channel 16 to seek permission to transit the area. If permission is granted, all persons and vessels must comply with the instructions of the Captain of the Port or his designated representative. Regulatory Evaluation This proposed rule is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. We expect the economic impact of this proposed rule to be so minimal that VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:29 Nov 05, 2007 Jkt 214001 a full Regulatory Evaluation is unnecessary. This proposed rule may have some impact on the public, but these potential impacts will be minimized for the following reasons: There is ample room for vessels to navigate around the security zone, and there are several locations for recreational and commercial fishing vessels to fish throughout the Tampa Bay Region. Also, the Captain of the Port may, on a case-by-case basis allow persons or vessels to enter a security zone. Small Entities Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601–612), we have considered whether this proposed rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term ‘‘small entities’’ comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because the zone is limited in size, leaving ample room for vessels to navigate around the zone. The zone will not significantly impact commuter and passenger vessel traffic patterns, and mariners will be notified of the zone via local notice to mariners and marine broadcasts. Also, the Captain of the Port may, on a case-by-case basis, allow persons or vessels to enter a security zone. 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 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 this proposed rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the office listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, for assistance in understanding this rule. The Coast PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard. Collection of Information This proposed rule would call 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 proposed rule under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for federalism. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule would not result in such expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble. Taking of Private Property This proposed rule would 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 proposed rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden. Protection of Children We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This 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 proposed rule does not have tribal implications under Executive E:\FR\FM\06NOP1.SGM 06NOP1 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 214 / Tuesday, November 6, 2007 / Proposed Rules Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this proposed rule. Energy Effects We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a ‘‘significant energy action’’ under that order because it is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211. Words of Issuance and Proposed Regulatory Text mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS 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 proposed rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards. Environment We have analyzed this proposed 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 made a preliminary determination that this action is not likely to have a significant effect on the human environment. A preliminary ‘‘Environmental Analysis Check List’’ supporting this preliminary determination is available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information that VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:29 Nov 05, 2007 Jkt 214001 List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165 Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways. For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows: PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows: Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05–1(g), 6.04–1, 6.04–6 and 160.5; Pub. L. 107–295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. 2. Add § 165.767 to read as follows: § 165.767 Security Zone; Manbirtee Key, Port of Manatee, Florida. (a) Regulated area. The following area is a security zone: All waters of Tampa Bay, from surface to bottom, surrounding Manbirtee Key, Tampa Bay, FL, extending 500 yards from the island’s shoreline, in all directions, with the exception of the Port Manatee Channel. (b) Definitions. As used in this section, designated representative means Coast Guard Patrol Commanders including Coast Guard coxswains, petty officers and other officers operating Coast Guard vessels, and federal, state, and local officers designated by or assisting the Captain of the Port (COTP), in the enforcement of regulated navigation areas, safety zones, and security zones. (c) Regulation. (1) Entry into or remaining on or within the security zone described in paragraph (a) of this section is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port St. Petersburg or his designated representative. (2) Persons desiring to transit the security zone may contact the Captain of the Port St. Petersburg or his designated representative on VHF channel 16 to seek permission to transit the area. If permission is granted, all persons and vessels must comply with the instructions of the Captain of the Port or the designated representative. (3) Enforcement. Under § 165.33, no person may cause or authorize the operation of a vessel in the security zone contrary to the provisions of this section. PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 62615 Dated: October 29, 2007. J.A. Servidio, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port St. Petersburg. [FR Doc. E7–21761 Filed 11–5–07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910–15–P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA–R08–OAR–2007–0622; FRL–8490–5] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; State of Colorado; Revised Denver PM10 Maintenance Plan Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. AGENCY: SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to take direct final action approving a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of Colorado. On September 25, 2006, the Governor’s designee submitted a revised plan for particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter, less than or equal to 10 microns (PM10) for the Denver metropolitan area for the PM10 National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). This revised maintenance plan addresses maintenance of the PM10 standard for a second ten-year period beyond redesignation, extends the horizon years, and contains revised transportation conformity budgets. EPA is approving the removal of Regulation No. 11, ‘‘Motor Vehicle Emissions Inspection Program’’ from Denver’s revised PM10 maintenance plan. In addition, EPA is approving a transportation budget trading protocol for estimating the PM10 and nitrogen oxides (NOx) for each conformity determination. This action is being taken under section 110 of the Clean Air Act. In the ‘‘Rules and Regulations’’ section of this Federal Register, EPA is approving the State’s SIP revision as a direct final rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial SIP revision and anticipates no adverse comments. A detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the preamble to the direct final rule. If EPA receives no adverse comments, EPA will not take further action on this proposed rule. If EPA receives adverse comments, EPA will withdraw the direct final rule and it will not take effect. EPA will address all public comments in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment E:\FR\FM\06NOP1.SGM 06NOP1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 214 (Tuesday, November 6, 2007)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 62613-62615]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-21761]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. COTP St. Petersburg 07-226]
RIN 1625-AA87


Security Zone; Manbirtee Key, Port of Manatee, FL

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking and public meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to establish a new security zone in 
the Manbirtee Key area of Port of Manatee, Florida. The purpose of this 
security zone is to ensure the security of vessels, facilities, and the 
surrounding area. Entry into the security zone would be prohibited 
without permission of the Captain of the Port.

DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or 
before December 6, 2007. A public meeting will be held starting at 10 
a.m. on November 13, 2007.

ADDRESSES: You may mail comments and related material to Coast Guard 
Sector St. Petersburg, Prevention Department, 155 Columbia Drive, 
Tampa, FL. 33606-3598. Coast Guard Sector St. Petersburg, Prevention 
Department maintains the public docket for this rule making. 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 Coast 
Guard Sector St. Petersburg, Prevention Department, 155 Columbia Drive, 
Tampa, FL. 33606-3598 between 7:30 a.m. and 3:30 p.m., Monday through 
Friday, except Federal holidays. The location of the public meeting is 
Port Manatee, 300 Tampa Bay Way, Palmetto, FL 34221.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lieutenant Jessica Crandell at the 
Waterways Management Division, Sector St. Petersburg, FL (813) 228-2191 
Ext 8146.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Request for Comments

    We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting 
comments and related material. If you do so, please include the docket 
number for this rulemaking (COTP 07-226), indicate the specific section 
of this document to which each comment applies, and give the reason for 
each comment. We recommend that you include your name and a mailing 
address, an e-mail address, or a phone number in the body of your 
document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your 
submission. For example, we may ask you to resubmit your comment if we 
are not able to read your original submission. Please submit all 
comments and related material in an unbound format, no larger than 81/2 
by 11 inches, suitable for copying. If you would like to know they 
reached us, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or 
envelope. We will consider all comments and material received during 
the comment period. We may change this proposed rule in view of them.

Public Meeting

    We will hold a public meeting to discuss any items of concern 
related to the proposed changes to the security zone outlined in this 
document. The date and time of this meeting is 10 a.m., November 13, 
2007. The location of the

[[Page 62614]]

meeting is Port Manatee, 300 Tampa Bay Way, Palmetto, FL 34221.

Background and Purpose

    The Maritime Transportation Security Act authorized the 
establishment of Area Maritime Security Committees (AMSC) that 
``advise, consult with, report to, and make recommendations'' on 
matters relating to maritime security in an AMSC's port area. See 46 
U.S.C. 70112(a)(2) and 33 CFR 103.205. One topic the Tampa AMSC 
discussed is the existing security zones that were established 
immediately following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. See 
68 FR 47852, August 12, 2003, and 68 FR 52340, September 3, 2003.
    In July 2007, using the newly-developed Maritime Security Risk 
Analysis tool, the Tampa AMSC working group evaluated risk to the 
maritime transportation system (MTS) within Tampa Bay, and assessed 
various risk mitigation options. The results of the risk assessment 
indicated the need to establish a new security zone in the vicinity of 
Manbirtee Key, FL. To assist in assessment of risk mitigation options 
in the vicinity of Manbirtee Key, FL, a focus group session was held 
with Coast Guard licensed mariners on July 25, 2007.

Discussion of Proposed Rule

    This proposed rule would create a security zone in the following 
area: All waters of Tampa Bay, from surface to bottom, surrounding 
Manbirtee Key, Tampa Bay, FL extending 500 yards from the island's 
shoreline, in all directions, with the exception of the Port Manatee 
Channel.
    Entry into or remaining on or within this zone would be prohibited 
unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Sector St. Petersburg or 
his designated representative. Persons desiring to transit the area of 
the security zone may contact the Captain of the Port St. Petersburg or 
his designee on VHF channel 16 to seek permission to transit the area. 
If permission is granted, all persons and vessels must comply with the 
instructions of the Captain of the Port or his designated 
representative.

Regulatory Evaluation

    This proposed rule is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under 
section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, 
and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits 
under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and 
Budget has not reviewed it under that Order.
    We expect the economic impact of this proposed rule to be so 
minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation is unnecessary. This proposed 
rule may have some impact on the public, but these potential impacts 
will be minimized for the following reasons: There is ample room for 
vessels to navigate around the security zone, and there are several 
locations for recreational and commercial fishing vessels to fish 
throughout the Tampa Bay Region. Also, the Captain of the Port may, on 
a case-by-case basis allow persons or vessels to enter a security zone.

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have 
considered whether this proposed rule would have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term ``small 
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations 
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their 
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 
50,000.
    The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed 
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities because the zone is limited in size, leaving 
ample room for vessels to navigate around the zone. The zone will not 
significantly impact commuter and passenger vessel traffic patterns, 
and mariners will be notified of the zone via local notice to mariners 
and marine broadcasts. Also, the Captain of the Port may, on a case-by-
case basis, allow persons or vessels to enter a security zone.
    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 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 this proposed rule so that they can better 
evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the 
rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental 
jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or 
options for compliance, please contact the office listed under FOR 
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, for assistance in understanding this rule. 
The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question 
or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

Collection of Information

    This proposed rule would call 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 proposed rule 
under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications 
for federalism.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) 
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary 
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may 
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in 
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any 
one year. Though this proposed rule would not result in such 
expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this 
preamble.

Taking of Private Property

    This proposed rule would 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 proposed rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 
3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize 
litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

Protection of Children

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13045, 
Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety 
Risks. This 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 proposed rule does not have tribal implications under 
Executive

[[Page 62615]]

Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal 
Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on 
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal 
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and 
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

Energy Effects

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

Technical Standards

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 
U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards 
in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, 
through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why 
using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or 
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical 
standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or 
operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management 
systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus 
standards bodies.
    This proposed rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we 
did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed 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 made a preliminary determination that this action is not likely to 
have a significant effect on the human environment. A preliminary 
``Environmental Analysis Check List'' supporting this preliminary 
determination is available in the docket where indicated under 
ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the 
discovery of a significant environmental impact from this proposed 
rule.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.

Words of Issuance and Proposed Regulatory Text

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes 
to amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

    1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701; 50 
U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1(g), 6.04-1, 6.04-6 and 160.5; Pub. L. 
107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation 
No. 0170.1.

    2. Add Sec.  165.767 to read as follows:


Sec.  165.767  Security Zone; Manbirtee Key, Port of Manatee, Florida.

    (a) Regulated area. The following area is a security zone: All 
waters of Tampa Bay, from surface to bottom, surrounding Manbirtee Key, 
Tampa Bay, FL, extending 500 yards from the island's shoreline, in all 
directions, with the exception of the Port Manatee Channel.
    (b) Definitions. As used in this section, designated representative 
means Coast Guard Patrol Commanders including Coast Guard coxswains, 
petty officers and other officers operating Coast Guard vessels, and 
federal, state, and local officers designated by or assisting the 
Captain of the Port (COTP), in the enforcement of regulated navigation 
areas, safety zones, and security zones.
    (c) Regulation. (1) Entry into or remaining on or within the 
security zone described in paragraph (a) of this section is prohibited 
unless authorized by the Captain of the Port St. Petersburg or his 
designated representative.
    (2) Persons desiring to transit the security zone may contact the 
Captain of the Port St. Petersburg or his designated representative on 
VHF channel 16 to seek permission to transit the area. If permission is 
granted, all persons and vessels must comply with the instructions of 
the Captain of the Port or the designated representative.
    (3) Enforcement. Under Sec.  165.33, no person may cause or 
authorize the operation of a vessel in the security zone contrary to 
the provisions of this section.

    Dated: October 29, 2007.
J.A. Servidio,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port St. Petersburg.1
 [FR Doc. E7-21761 Filed 11-5-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P