Coast Guard, DHS.
The Coast Guard is removing one of two duplicate temporary rules that establish safety zones on the navigable waters of Hog Island Reach on the Cooper River, for demolition of the Grace Memorial and Silas Pearman Bridges and associated recovery operations.
This rule is effective June 7, 2006.
Comments and material received from the public, as well as documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket are part of docket [COTP Charleston 06-003] and are available for inspection or copying at Coast Guard Sector Charleston (WWM), 196 Tradd Street, Charleston, South Carolina 29401 between 7:30 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.Start Further Info
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Chief Warrant Officer James J. McHugh, Sector Charleston Office of Waterways Management, at (843) 724-7647.End Further Info End Preamble Start Supplemental Information
On January 19, 2006, we published a temporary final rule that created a temporary safety zone around the Grace Memorial and Silas Pearman Bridges on Hog Island Reach. (71 FR 3005) This safety zone includes all waters within the area bounded by the following coordinates: 32°48.566′ N, 079°55.211′ W to 32°48.389′ N, 079°54.256′ W to 32°47.824′ N, 079°54.401′ W thence to 32°47.994′ N, 079°55.359′ W.
Due to an administrative error, we published a second temporary safety zone for this location on May 25, 2006, at 71 FR 30062. This second temporary final rule has the same section number and establishes a safety zone at the same coordinates as the temporary final rule that published in January; however it has a different effective date and a slightly different title.
In order to avoid confusion and maintain the January effective date of the safe zone, we are removing the second temporary rule that published on May 25, 2006, at 71 FR 30062 and is entitled “Safety Zone; Cooper River, Hog Island Channel, Charleston, SC.”
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. This rule is not a significant regulatory action because it removes a second temporary final rule has the same section number and establishes a safety zone at the same coordinates as the temporary final rule that published in January.
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, because it removes one of two duplicate temporary rules that establish safety zones on the navigable waters of Hog Island Reach on the Cooper River, for demolition of the Grace Memorial and Silas Pearman Bridges and associated recovery operations.
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).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for federalism.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
Taking of Private Property
This rule will not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.
Civil Justice Reform
This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.
Protection of Children
We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Start Printed Page 32840Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and does not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may disproportionately affect children.
Indian Tribal Governments
This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
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.
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.
We have analyzed this 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 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. 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, because this rule removes a duplicate temporary rule from the Code of Federal Regulations.Start List of Subjects
List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165
- Marine safety
- Navigation (water)
- Reporting and recordkeeping requirements
- Security measures
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amendsEnd Amendment Part Start Part
PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREASEnd Part Start Amendment Part
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:End Amendment Part
2. Remove § 165.T07-003 entitled “Safety Zone, Hog Island Channel, Grace Memorial and Silas Pearman Bridges, Charleston, SC.”End Amendment Part Start Signature
Dated: May 31, 2006.
Stefan G. Venckus,
Chief, Office of Regulations and Administrative Law, United States Coast Guard.
[FR Doc. E6-8853 Filed 6-6-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P