3648 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 14 / Tuesday, January 22, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with RULESER22JA08.004</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 14 / Tuesday, January 22, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 3649 

[FR Doc. 08–172 Filed 1–18–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–C 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with RULESER22JA08.005</GPH>
3650 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 14 / Tuesday, January 22, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 165 

[Docket No. USCG–2007–0061, formerly 

COTP St. Petersburg 07–226] 

RIN 1625–AA87 

Security Zone; Manbirtee Key, Port of 

Manatee, FL 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is 

establishing a new security zone in the 

Manbirtee Key area of Port 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 is 

prohibited without the permission of 

the Captain of the Port. 

DATES: This rule is effective February 

21, 2008. 

ADDRESSES: 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 number USCG–2007–0061 

(formerly COTP St. Petersburg 07–226) 

and are 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 rulemaking documents 

and comment received online are also 

available at www.regulations.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Lieutenant Jessica Crandell at the 

Waterways Management Division, 

Sector St. Petersburg, FL (813) 228–2191 

Ext. 8146. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Regulatory Information 

On November 6, 2007, we published 

a notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM) entitled Security Zone; 

Manbirtee Key, Port of Manatee, FL in 

the Federal Register (72 FR 62613). We 

received no letters in the mail 

commenting on the proposed rule and 

one comment in the 

www.regulations.gov electronic docket. 

A public meeting was held on 

November 13, 2007, at 10 a.m. and no 

comments were made. A copy of the 

transcript is available through the 

http://www.regulations.gov Web site. 

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 following the terrorist 

attacks of September 11, 2001. These 

existing security zones, created to 

address identified security issues, were 

established September 3, 2003, codified 

in 33 CFR 165.760 (68 FR 52340, 

September 3, 2003), and September 1, 

2003, codified in § 165.764 (68 FR 

47852, August 12, 2003), after a number 

of temporary security zones. 

In July 2007, using the newlydeveloped Maritime Security Risk 

Analysis tool, the 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. 

Discussion of Comments 

The Coast Guard received one 

question during the comment period: 

‘‘What infrastructure are you [Coast 

Guard] protecting?’’ The purpose of the 

security zone is to protect pipeline 

infrastructures within 500 yards of the 

shore of Manbirtee Key. No changes 

from the proposed rule were made in 

response to this comment. 

Discussion of Rule 

This final rule creates 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 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 final rule to be so minimal that a 

full Regulatory Evaluation is 

unnecessary. This final 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. 

Properly vetted personnel who comply 

with additional requirements may gain 

authorization for entry through a port 

zone watch program. Also, the Captain 

of the Port may, on a case-by-case basis 

allow persons or vessels to enter a 

security zone. 

The changes to the regulatory text that 

incorporate the response to the inquiry 

received during the comment period do 

not have any economic impact. The 

navigational charts of the area already 

indicate the submerged pipeline. 

Adding this description to the 

regulatory text has no impact on 

commerce. 

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. No 

comments were received during the 

comment period regarding potential 

impacts on small entities. 

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 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 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 14 / Tuesday, January 22, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 3651 

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 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. The 

changes to the regulatory text which 

address the inquiry made during the 

comment period do not have an impact 

on federalism. The navigational charts 

of the area already indicate the 

submerged pipeline. Adding this 

description to the regulatory text has no 

impact on commerce. 

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 

Risks 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. 

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, we 

believe that this rule should be 

categorically excluded, under figure 2–

1, paragraph (34)(g), of the Instruction, 

from further environmental 

documentation. A final ‘‘Environmental 

Analysis Check List’’ and a final 

‘‘Categorical Exclusion Determination’’

are available in the docket where 

indicated under ADDRESSES during the 

comment period. No comments were 

received regarding the impact to the 

environment in response to the 

proposed rule or the preliminary 

environmental analysis checklist for this 

security zone. 

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165 

Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation 

(water), Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Security measures, 

Waterways. 

Words of Issuance and Regulatory Text 

■ 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 

■ 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, from 

surface to bottom, surrounding 

Manbirtee Key, Tampa Bay, FL 

extending 500 yards from the island’s 

shoreline, in all directions, not to 

include 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 is prohibited unless authorized by 

the Captain of the Port Sector St. 

Petersburg or his designee. 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with RULES
3652 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 14 / Tuesday, January 22, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

(2) Persons desiring to transit the 

security zone may contact the Captain of 

the Port Sector 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 

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. 

Dated: January 10, 2008. 

J.A. Servidio, 

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the 

Port Sector St. Petersburg. 

[FR Doc. E8–1013 Filed 1–18–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–15–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 76 

[MM Docket No. 99–325; FCC 07–33] 

Digital Audio Broadcasting Systems 

and Their Impact on the Terrestrial 

Radio Broadcast Service 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Final rule; announcement of 

effective date. 

SUMMARY: This document announces the 

effective dates of rules published in the 

Federal Register. The rules relate to 

Digital Audio Broadcasting Systems, 

and the notification that those entities 

must provide the Federal 

Communications Commission when 

they commence broadcasting digital 

signals. 

DATES: The final rules published on 

August 15, 2007 (72 FR 45670), 

amending 47 CFR 73.404(b), 73.404(e), 

and 73.1201, are effective January 22, 

2008. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

additional information on this 

proceeding, contact Ann Gallagher, 

Ann.Gallagher@fcc.gov, 202–418–2716, 

of the Media Bureau, Audio Division, or 

Brendan Murray, 

Brendan.Murray@fcc.gov, (202) 418–

2120, of the Media Bureau, Policy 

Division. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a 

Second Report and Order released on 

May 31, 2007, FCC 07–33, and 

published in the Federal Register on 

August 15, 2007, 72 FR 45670, the 

Federal Communications Commission 

adopted a new rule which contained 

information collection requirements 

subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act. 

The Second Report and Order stated 

that the rule changes requiring OMB 

approval would become effective 

immediately upon announcement in the 

Federal Register of OMB approval. On 

December 10, 2007, the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) 

approved the information collection 

requirements contained in 47 CFR 

73.404(b), 73.404(e), and 73.1201. This 

information collection is assigned OMB 

Control Nos. 3060–0466 and 3060–1034. 

This publication satisfies the statement 

that the Commission would publish a 

document announcing the effective date 

of the rule changes requiring OMB 

approval. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Marlene H. Dortch, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. E8–1008 Filed 1–18–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with RULES