[Federal Register: February 7, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 24)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 6347-6348]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr07fe05-13]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 165
[CGD7-04-153]
RIN 1625-AA11
Regulated Navigation Area Removal; Brunswick, GA, Turtle River,
in the Vicinity of the Sidney Lanier Bridge
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is removing the regulated navigation area
(RNA) in Brunswick, Georgia in the Turtle River in the vicinity of the
Sidney Lanier Bridge. Due to the construction of the new Sidney Lanier
Bridge and the removal of the old bridge structures, the maneuvers
required by the RNA are no longer necessary to prevent allisions with
the old bridge.
DATES: This rule is effective March 9, 2005.
ADDRESSES: You may mail comments and related material to USCG Marine
Safety Office Savannah, 100 W. Oglethorpe Ave., Suite 1017, JGL Federal
Building, Savannah, GA 31401. USCG Marine Safety Office Savannah
maintains the public docket for this rulemaking. Comments and material
received from the public, as well as documents indicated in this
preamble as being available in the docket, will become part of this
docket and will be available for inspection or copying at USCG Marine
Safety Office Savannah between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: LT Aloysious Zealy, Planning Officer,
MSO Savannah at 912-652-4353 ext. 240.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Regulatory Information
We did not publish a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for this
regulation. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) and (d)(3), the Coast Guard finds
that good cause exists for not publishing a NPRM and for making this
regulation effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal
Register. Due to the construction of the new Sidney Lanier Bridge, the
widening of the channel, and the removal of the old bridge structure,
the maneuver required by the current RNA is no longer necessary.
Because the old Sidney Lanier Bridge no longer exists, an NPRM to
remove the RNA is unnecessary. Similarly, it is unnecessary to delay
the effective date of the regulation beyond the date of publication on
the Federal Register.
Background and Purpose
The Regulated Navigation Area at 33 CFR 165.735 Brunswick, Georgia,
Turtle River, Vicinity of Sidney Lanier Bridge was introduced in 1987
to improve navigational safety after the old Sidney Lanier Bridge had
suffered allisions in 1972 and 1987. The close proximity of the bridge
to the turn from the East River onto the Turtle River, in conjunction
with the heavy current and narrow channel width, provided insufficient
time for many vessels departing the East River, outbound for sea under
the old Sydney Lanier Bridge, to properly shape up for safe transit.
The RNA requires every vessel over 500 GRT departing the Port of
Brunswick for sea to depart only from the Turtle River, except during
flood tide. Vessels over 500 GRT departing for sea southbound down the
East River negotiate a 129Sec. starboard turn, westward onto the
Turtle River, transit up river to the turning basin to negotiate a
180[deg] turn, and then transit down bound on the Turtle River through
what was previously a 200' wide restricted channel.
Due to the construction of the new Sidney Lanier Bridge and
widening of the channel, the maneuver required by the current RNA is no
longer necessary. The current navigation requirements of 33 CFR 165.735
pose a greater risk of a vessel casualty due to the now unnecessary
complex maneuvering. The rule removes the maneuvers required by the
current RNA and will reduce the transit time of vessels bound for sea
from the East River. Due to the removal of the old bridge structures,
no other navigational or safety requirements are necessary.
Regulatory Evaluation
This rule is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under section
3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does
not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section
6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not
reviewed it under that Order. It is not ``significant'' under the
regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Homeland
Security (DHS).
We expect the economic impact of this rule to be so minimal that a
full Regulatory Evaluation under the regulatory policies and procedures
of DHS is unnecessary. This rule removes navigation restrictions
currently imposed on mariners and make transit easier and quicker. The
anticipated beneficial result forms the basis for the determination
that the economic impact will be minimal.
Small Entities
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities. The term ``small entities''
comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are
independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields,
and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. The current Regulated Navigation Area imposes restrictions on
vessels transiting the area. The mariners who pilot the affected
vessels have requested this rule. The impact of this rule will be a
beneficial one as it removes
[[Page 6348]]
restrictions, improves safety and enhances navigability.
Assistance for Small Entities
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule. If the rule affects your small
business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please
contact LT Aloysious Zealy, Planning Officer, MSO Savannah at 912-652-
4353 ext. 240. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency?s responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247).
Collection of Information
This rule calls for no new collection of information under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.).
Federalism
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local
governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial
direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under
that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for
federalism.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any
one year. Though this rule will not result in such expenditure, we do
discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
Taking of Private Property
This rule will not affect a taking of private property or otherwise
have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental
Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights.
Civil Justice Reform
This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2)
of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation,
eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.
Protection of Children
We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection
of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule
is not an economically significant rule and would not create an
environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might
disproportionately affect children.
Indian Tribal Governments
This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order
13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,
because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more
Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
Energy Effects
We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a ``significant
energy action'' under that order because it is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy
action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects
under Executive Order 13211.
Technical Standards
The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15
U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards
in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress,
through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why
using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or
operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management
systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies.
This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not
consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.
Environment
We have analyzed this rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.lD,
which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and
have concluded that there are no factors in this case that would limit
the use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the
Instruction. Therefore, this rule is categorically excluded, under
figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g), of the Instruction, from further
environmental documentation. Paragraph (34)(g) applies because this
rule disestablishes a Regulated Navigation Area, an action expressly
recognized by paragraph (34)(g).
Under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g), of the Instruction, an
``Environmental Analysis Check List'' and a ``Categorical Exclusion
Determination'' are not required for this rule.
List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), recordkeeping
requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
0
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33
CFR Part 165 as follows:
PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS
0
1. The authority for part 165 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701; 50
U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.01-1(g), 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Pub.
L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security
Delegation No. 0170.1.
Sec. 165.735 [Removed]
0
2. Section 165.735 is removed.
Dated: January 21, 2005.
D. Brian Peterman,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Seventh Coast Guard
District.
[FR Doc. 05-2237 Filed 2-4-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P