[Federal Register: November 21, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 224)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 67315-67317]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr21no06-15]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 165
[CGD07-06-187]
RIN 1625-AA11
Regulated Navigation Area; San Carlos Bay, FL
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to establish a temporary regulated
navigation area (RNA) on the waters of San Carlos Bay, Florida. The
regulated navigation area (RNA) is needed to minimize the risk of
potential bridge allisions by vessels utilizing the main channel under
span ``A'' (bascule portion) of the Sanibel Island Causeway Bridge and
enhance the safety of vessels transiting the area and vehicles crossing
over the bridge. This proposed rule would apply vessel traffic
regulations to vessels in the RNA.
DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or
before December 21, 2006.
ADDRESSES: You may mail comments and related material to Coast Guard
Sector St. Petersburg, Prevention Department, 155 Columbia Drive,
Tampa, Florida 33606-3598. The Waterways Management Division 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 Coast Guard Sector St.
Petersburg between 7:30 a.m. and 3:30 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lieutenant Ronaydee Marquez at Coast
Guard Sector St. Petersburg, (813) 228-2191, Ext. 8307.
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 your name
and address, identify the docket number for this rulemaking (CGD07-06-
187), indicate the specific section of this document to which each
comment applies, and give the reason for each comment. Please submit
all comments and related material in an unbound format, no larger than
8\1/2\ 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 do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a
request for a meeting by writing to Coast Guard Sector St. Petersburg
at the address under ADDRESSES explaining why one would be beneficial.
If we determine that one would aid this rulemaking, we will hold one at
a time and place announced by a later notice in the Federal Register.
Background and Purpose
On November 18, 2003, the Lee County Board of Commissioners issued
an emergency declaration that conditions of the Sanibel Island Causeway
Bridge posed an immediate threat to the safety of the traveling public.
Immediate initial action was required to minimize the risk of potential
bridge allisions of vessels utilizing the main channel under span ``A''
(bascule portion) and enhance the safety of vessels transiting the area
and vehicles crossing over the bridge. The Coast Guard established an
RNA (68 FR 68518, December 9, 2003) in the vicinity of the bridge from
November 29, 2003, through November 28, 2004.
On November 2, 2004, Sanibel County engineers reevaluated the
Sanibel Island Bridge and determined that the bridge continued to pose
a threat to the safety of the traveling public. The RNA was
subsequently extended from November 28, 2004, to November 28, 2005 (69
FR 70374, December 6, 2004). In January 2006, the RNA was again made
effective, this time until 8 a.m., January 7, 2007 (71 FR 11507, March
8, 2006). Repairs to the bridge are still on-going, and could take
several years to complete. Therefore, this proposed rule would maintain
a regulated navigation area in place from January 2007 to January 2008.
Discussion of Proposed Rule
The proposed regulated navigation area would encompass the main
channel under the ``A'' span (bascule portion) of the Sanibel Island
Causeway Bridge out to 100 feet on either side of the bridge inclusive
of the main shipping channel. All vessels would be required to transit
the area at no-wake speed. However, nothing in this proposed rule
negates the requirement to operate at a safe speed as provided in the
Navigation Rules and Regulations. A
[[Page 67316]]
one-way traffic scheme would be imposed within the regulated navigation
area. Overtaking would be prohibited. Tug and barge traffic would be
allowed to transit the regulated navigation area at slack water only.
Tugs with barges would be required to be arranged in a push-ahead
configuration, with barges made up in tandem, or as a side tow. Tugs
would be required to be of adequate horsepower to fully maneuver the
barges. Stern towing would be prohibited except by assistance towing
vessels, subject to certain conditions. Assistance towing vessels would
be allowed to conduct stern tows when the disabled vessel being towed
is less than or equal to 30 feet in length. For disabled vessels
greater than 30 feet in length, assistance towing vessels would be
allowed to use a towing arrangement in which one assistance towing
vessel is in the lead, towing the disabled vessel, and another
assistance towing vessel is astern of the disabled vessel. Side tows
are also permitted. Assistance towing vessels would be required to be
of adequate horsepower to maneuver the vessel under tow and may transit
the RNA at slack water only. These proposed regulations would minimize
the risk of potential bridge allisions by vessels utilizing the main
channel under span ``A'' (bascule portion) of the Sanibel Island
Causeway Bridge, and enhance the safety of vessels transiting the area
and vehicles crossing over the bridge.
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. The Coast
Guard bases this finding on the following: Vessels may still transit
the area, the waterway is not a major commercial route, and the Coast
Guard expects only modest delays due to the nature of the marine
traffic that traditionally uses this waterway.
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 would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. This proposed rule may affect the following
entities, some of which might be small entities: The owners or
operators of vessels intending to transit a portion of San Carlos Bay.
This proposed regulated navigation area would not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the
following reasons: Vessels may still transit the area; the waterway is
not a major commercial route, and the Coast Guard expects only modest
delays due to the nature of the marine traffic that traditionally uses
the waterway.
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 person listed under FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. 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 an
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 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
[[Page 67317]]
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 and Department of Homeland Security Management Directive
5100.1, which guide 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 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, we believe that this proposed rule
should be categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g),
of the Instruction, from further environmental documentation. This
proposed rule fits in paragraph (34)(g) because it is a regulated
navigation area. A preliminary ``Environmental Analysis Check List'' is
available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. Comments on
this section will be considered before we make the final decision
whether this rule should be categorically excluded from further
environmental review.
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 new temporary Sec. 165.T07-187 to read as follows:
Sec. 165.T07-187 Regulated Navigation Area, San Carlos Bay, Florida.
(a) Regulated area. The following area is a regulated navigation
area (RNA): The waters bounded by the following points: NW Corner:
26[deg]28'59'' N, 082[deg]00'54'' W; NE Corner: 26[deg]28'59'' N,
082[deg]00'52'' W; SE Corner: 26[deg]28'57'' N, 082[deg]00'51'' W; SW
Corner: 26[deg]28'57'' N, 082[deg]00'53'' W.
(b) Regulations. (1) A vessel in the RNA established under
paragraph (a) of this section will operate at no-wake speed. Nothing in
this rule is to be construed as to negate the requirement to at all
times operate at a safe speed as provided in the Navigation Rules and
Regulations.
(2) A one-way traffic scheme is established. Vessel traffic may
proceed in one direction at a time through the RNA. Overtaking is
prohibited.
(3) Tugs with barges must be arranged in a push-ahead
configuration, with the barges made up in tandem, or as side tows. Tugs
must be of adequate horsepower to maneuver the barges. Tug and barge
traffic may transit the RNA at slack water only.
(4) Stern tows are prohibited except for assistance towing vessels,
subject to certain conditions. Assistance towing vessels may conduct
stern tows of disabled vessels that are less than or equal to 30 feet
in length. For vessels that are greater than 30 feet in length,
assistance towing vessels may use a towing arrangement in which one
assistance towing vessel is in the lead, towing the disabled vessel,
and another assistance towing vessel is astern of the disabled vessel.
Side tows are also permitted. All assistance towing vessels operating
within the regulated navigation area must be of adequate horsepower to
maneuver the vessel under tow and the transit must be at slack water
only.
(c) Definitions. The following definitions apply to this section:
(1) Assistance towing means assistance provided to disabled
vessels.
(2) Assistance towing vessels means commercially registered or
documented vessels that have been specially equipped to provide
commercial services in the marine assistance industry.
(3) Disabled vessel means a vessel, which, while being operated,
has been rendered incapable of proceeding under its own power and is in
need of assistance.
(4) Overtaking means a vessel shall be deemed to be overtaking when
coming up with another vessel from a direction more than 22.5 degrees
abaft her beam, that is, in such a position with reference to the
vessel she is overtaking, that at night she would be able to see only
the stern light of the vessel but neither of her sidelights.
(5) Slack water means the state of a tidal current when its speed
is near zero, especially the moment when a reversing current changes
direction and its speed is zero. The term also is applied to the entire
period of low speed near the time of turning of the current when it is
too weak to be of any practical importance in navigation.
(6) Vessel means every description of watercraft, including non-
displacement craft and seaplanes, used or capable of being used as a
means of transportation on the water.
(d) Violations. Persons in violation of these regulations will be
subject to civil penalty under 33 U.S.C. 1232 of this part, to include
a maximum civil penalty of $32,500 per violation.
(e) Effective period. This section is effective from 8 a.m. on
January 7, 2007, until 8 a.m. on January 6, 2008.
Dated: October 31, 2006.
D.W. Kunkel,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Seventh Coast Guard
District.
[FR Doc. E6-19680 Filed 11-20-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P