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