Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 206 / Wednesday, October 26, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 61739 

ADDRESSES: Materials referred to in this 

document are available for inspection or 

copying at Commander (obr), Fifth Coast 

Guard District, Federal Building, 1st 

Floor, 431 Crawford Street, Portsmouth, 

VA 23704–5004 between 8 a.m. and 4 

p.m., Monday through Friday, except 

Federal holidays. The telephone number 

is (757) 398–6422. Commander (obr), 

Fifth Coast Guard District maintains the 

public docket for this temporary 

deviation. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bill 

H. Brazier, Bridge Management 

Specialist, Fifth Coast Guard District, at 

(757) 398–6422. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Route 

33/Knapps Narrows Bridge, a basculetype drawbridge, has a vertical 

clearance in the closed position to 

vessels of 7 feet, at mean high water. 

Covington Machine and Welding, Inc. 

(CMW), is the contractor engaged to 

perform these repairs for the Maryland 

State Highway Administration (SHA), 

the bridge owner. CMW, on behalf of 

SHA, requested a temporary deviation 

from the operating regulations for the 

Route 33/Knapps Narrows Bridge, set 

out in 33 CFR 117.5, that requires to 

bridge to open promptly and fully for 

the passage of vessels when a request to 

open is given. 

CMW requested the temporary 

deviation to close the Route 33/Knapps 

Narrow Bridge to navigation to facilitate 

replacing leaking oil seals in the main 

drive gear reducer and the hydraulic 

braking system of the draw span. The 

lift span will be locked in the closed-tonavigation position each day from 9 

p.m. to 5 a.m. beginning on Monday, 

October 24, 2005 until and including 

Friday, October 28, 2005. At all other 

times, the bridge will operate in 

accordance with 33 CFR 117.5. 

The Coast Guard has informed the 

known users of the waterway of the 

closure periods for the bridge so that 

these vessels can arrange their transits 

to minimize any impact caused by the 

temporary deviation. 

In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(c), 

this work will be performed with all due 

speed in order to return the bridge to 

normal operation as soon as possible. 

This deviation from the operating 

regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 

117.35. 

Dated: October 18, 2005. 

Waverly W. Gregory, Jr., 

Chief, Bridge Administration Branch, Fifth 

Coast Guard District. 

[FR Doc. 05–21322 Filed 10–25–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–15–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 165 

[COTP St. Petersburg 05–120] 

RIN 1625–AA00 

Safety Zone Regulation; Tampa Bay, 

FL 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Temporary final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is 

establishing a temporary safety zone on 

the waters of Tampa Bay, Florida, in the 

vicinity of the Clearwater Memorial 

bascule bridge. This safety zone is being 

established to protect mariners from the 

hazards associated with the blasting 

demolition of the concrete portions of 

the Clearwater Memorial bascule bridge. 

This rule is necessary to provide for the 

safety of life on the navigable waters of 

the United States. 

DATES: This rule is effective from 9:30 

a.m. on October 4, 2005 through 2 p.m. 

on November 8, 2005. 

ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this 

preamble as being available in the 

docket are part of docket [COTP St. 

Petersburg 05–120] and are available for 

inspection or copying at Coast Guard 

Sector St. Petersburg, Prevention 

Department, 155 Columbia Drive, 

Tampa, Florida 33606–3598 between 

7:30 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, except Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Lieutenant Junior Grade Jennifer 

Andrew at Coast Guard Sector St. 

Petersburg, Prevention Department, 

(813) 228–2191 Ext 8203. 

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), the 

Coast Guard finds that good cause exists 

for not publishing an NPRM. The 

necessary details for the blasting 

demolition of the Clearwater Memorial 

bascule bridge were not provided with 

sufficient time remaining to publish an 

NPRM. Publishing a NPRM and 

delaying its effective date would be 

contrary to the public interest since 

immediate action is needed to minimize 

potential danger to the public during the 

blasting demolition of the Clearwater 

Memorial bascule bridge. The Coast 

Guard will issue a broadcast notice to 

mariners to advise mariners of the 

restriction along with Coast Guard 

assets on scene who will also provide 

notice of the safety zone to mariners. 

For the same reasons, under 5 U.S.C. 

553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that 

good cause exists for making this rule 

effective less than 30 days after 

publication in the Federal Register. 

Background and Purpose 

PCL construction was contracted to 

build a fixed bridge to replace the 

Clearwater Memorial Causeway Bridge 

and remove the existing bridge. The 

fixed bridge was completed early 

September and the removal of the 

bascule bridge was commenced on 

September 12, 2005. On September 13, 

2005 PCL contacted Coast Guard Sector 

St. Petersburg Prevention Department to 

discuss blasting the large concrete 

portions of the bascule bridge directly 

adjacent to the navigation channel along 

with the concrete counterweights for the 

metal bridge leafs. PCL will conduct two 

separate blasts on two different days to 

break up the concrete into smaller 

sections for removal. The first blast will 

be conducted tentatively on October 5, 

2005, at approximately 7:30 a.m. This 

first blast will fracture the main 

concrete vertical portions adjacent to 

the channel from the top to three feet 

above the waterline. The second blast 

will be conducted tentatively on 

October 26, 2005, at approximately 7:30 

a.m. This second and final blast will 

fracture the remaining three feet and the 

16 feet of bridge below the waterline. 

The use of explosives and the proximity 

of the concrete bridge structure to the 

navigable channel present a hazard to 

mariners transiting the area. This safety 

zone is being established to ensure the 

safety of life on the navigable waters of 

the United States. 

Discussion of Rule 

The safety zone will extend out from 

the Clearwater Memorial Causeway 

bascule Bridge in a 1,000 foot radius. 

Vessels and persons not under contract 

or employees of PCL are prohibited from 

entering, anchoring or transiting within 

this zone unless authorized by the 

Captain of the Port St. Petersburg or his 

designated representative. This safety 

zone is effective from 7:30 a.m. on 

October 4, 2005, through 2 p.m. on 

November 8, 2005. The Coast Guard 

does not know the exact dates that this 

safety zone will be enforced at this time. 

Coast Guard Sector St. Petersburg will 

give notice of the enforcement of the 

safety zone by issuing a Broadcast 

Notice to Mariners beginning 24 to 48 

hours before the blasting is scheduled to 

begin. On-scene notice will be provided 

by local Coast Guard and Pinellas 

61740 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 206 / Wednesday, October 26, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

County Sheriff marine units enforcing 

the safety zone. 

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. The Coast Guard expects the 

economic impact of this proposal to be 

so minimal that a full Regulatory 

Evaluation under the regulatory policies 

and procedures of DHS is unnecessary 

because the safety zone will be in effect 

for a limited period of time and vessels 

may enter with the express permission 

of the Captain of the Port of St. 

Petersburg or his designated 

representative. 

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. 

This rule may affect the following 

entities, some of which may be small 

entities: The owners or operators of 

vessels intending to transit within a 

1,000 foot radius from the Clearwater 

Memorial Causeway bascule Bridge. 

This safety zone will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities for 

the following reasons. This rule will 

only be enforced in a location where 

traffic is minimal and for a limited time 

when vessel traffic is expected to be 

extremely low. Additionally, traffic will 

be allowed to enter the zone with the 

permission of the Captain of the Port St. 

Petersburg or his designated 

representative. 

Assistance for Small Entities 

Under section 213(a) of the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104–121), 

we offered to assist small entities in 

understanding the rule so that they 

could better evaluate its effects on them 

and participate in the rulemaking 

process. Small entities may contact the 

person listed under FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT for assistance in 

understanding and participating in this 

rulemaking. We also have a point of 

contact for commenting on actions by 

employees 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 

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, 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 206 / Wednesday, October 26, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 61741 

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. 

This rule is a safety zone and 

therefore fits the category described in 

paragraph (34)(g). 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), Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Security measures, 

Waterways. 

■ 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. A new section 165.T07–120 is 

added to read as follows: 

§ 165.T07–120 Safety zone; Tampa Bay, 

Florida. 

(a) Regulated Area. The Coast Guard 

is establishing a safety zone on the 

waters of the Intracoastal Waterway in 

the vicinity of the Clearwater Memorial 

Bascule bridge. The safety zone 

encompasses all waters within a 1,000 

foot radius of the Clearwater Memorial 

Bascule bridge located at 27°58′00′′ N, 

82°48′17′′ W. 

(b) Regulations. In accordance with 

the general regulations in § 165.23 of 

this part, entry into this Regulated Area 

is prohibited to all vessels and persons 

without the prior permission of the 

Coast Guard Captain of the Port St 

Petersburg or his designated 

representative. 

(c) Effective Period. This Safety Zone 

is effective from 7:30 a.m. on October 4, 

2005 through 2 p.m. on November 8, 

2005 and will be enforced when a Coast 

Guard and/or Pinellas County Sheriff 

marine unit is on scene. 

Dated: October 4, 2005. 

J.A. Servidio, 

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

Port, St Petersburg, Florida. 

[FR Doc. 05–21396 Filed 10–25–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–15–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[Docket # R08–OAR–2005–UT–0002; FRL–

7987–9] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; State of 

Utah; State Implementation Plan 

Corrections 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule; technical correction. 

SUMMARY: When EPA approved Utah 

State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

revisions for the Salt Lake City Carbon 

Monoxide (CO) Maintenance Plan and 

related Vehicle Inspection and 

Maintenance (I/M) Program for Salt 

Lake County, we inadvertently used an 

invalid acronym for the Utah Annotated 

Code. EPA is correcting this error with 

this document. 

DATES: This rule is effective on 

November 25, 2005. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Domenico Mastrangelo, Air and 

Radiation Program, Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, 

Mailcode 8P–AR, 999 18th Street, Suite 

200, Denver, Colorado 80202–2466, 

phone (303) 312–6436, and e-mail at: 

mastrangelo.domenico@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

(i) Throughout this document, 

wherever we, us or our is used it means 

the Environmental Protection Agency. 

(ii) The initials SIP mean or refer to 

State Implementation Plan. 

(iii) The word State means the State 

of Utah, unless the context indicates 

otherwise. 

Section 553 of the Administrative 

Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), 

provides that when an agency for good 

cause finds that notice and public 

procedures are impracticable, 

unnecessary, or contrary to the public 

interest, the agency may issue a rule 

without providing notice and an 

opportunity for public comment. We 

have determined that there is good 

cause for making today’s rule final 

without prior proposal and opportunity 

for comment because we are merely 

correcting an incorrect acronym in a 

previous rulemaking. Thus, notice and 

public comment procedures are 

unnecessary. We find that this 

constitutes good cause under 5 U.S.C. 

553(b)(B). 

I. Correction 

Correction for the Federal Register 

Document Published on August 1, 2005 

(70 FR 44055) 

On August 1, 2005 we published a 

final rule approving the revised Salt 

Lake City Carbon Monoxide 

Maintenance Plan and related revisions 

submitted by the Governor of Utah on 

October 19, 2004. When we published 

this rule, within the regulatory text we 

incorrectly referred to the Utah 

Annotated Code using the acronym 

UACR instead of UAC. Therefore, we 

are correcting the regulatory text in 40 

CFR 52.2320(c)(60) to replace all 

references to UACR with UAC. 

II. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 

51735, October 4, 1993), this action is 

not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ and 

therefore is not subject to review by the 

Office of Management and Budget. For 

this reason, this action is also not 

subject to Executive Order 13211, 

‘‘Actions Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355, May 

22, 2001). Because the agency has made 

a ‘‘good cause’’ finding that this action 

is not subject to notice-and-comment 

requirements under the Administrative 

Procedure Act or any other statute as 

indicated in the Supplementary 

Information section above, it is not 

subject to the regulatory flexibility 

provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), or to sections 

202 and 205 of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Pub. L. 

104–4, 209 Stat. 48 (1995)). In addition, 

this action does not significantly or 

uniquely affect small governments or 

impose a significant intergovernmental 

mandate, as described in sections 203 

and 204 of UMRA. 

This rule also does not have tribal 

implications because it will 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, 

as specified by Executive Order 13175 

(65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This 

action also does not have Federalism 

implications because it does not have 

substantial direct effects on the States, 

on the relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the