Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 24 / Monday, February 7, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 6347

Instruction, from further environmental 

documentation.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117 

Bridges.

Regulations

■ For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 

CFR part 117 as follows:

PART 117—DRAWBRIDGE 

OPERATION REGULATIONS

■ 1. The authority citation for part 117 

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 499; Department of 

Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1; 33 

CFR 1.05–1(g); section 117.255 also issued 

under the authority of Pub. L. 102–587, 106 

Stat. 5039.

■ 2. Section 117.729 is temporarily 

amended from 8 a.m. on September 12, 

2005, through 6 p.m. on December 9, 

2005 by suspending paragraph (b) and 

adding a new paragraph (c) to read as 

follows:

§ 117.729 Mantua Creek.

* * * * *

(c) From 8 a.m. on September 12, 

2005, through 6 p.m. on December 9, 

2005, the S.R. 44 Bridge, mile 1.7, at 

Paulsboro, may remain closed to 

navigation.

Dated: January 25, 2005. 

Sally Brice-O’Hara, 

Rear Admiral, United States Coast Guard, 

Commander, Fifth Coast Guard District.

[FR Doc. 05–2233 Filed 2–4–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–15–P

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 

129§ starboard turn, westward onto the 

Turtle River, transit up river to the 

turning basin to negotiate a 180° 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 

6348 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 24 / Monday, February 7, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

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.

■ 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 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.

§ 165.735 [Removed]

■ 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