[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 109 (Wednesday, June 7, 2006)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 32839-32840]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-8853]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[COTP Charleston 06-003]
RIN 1625-AA00


Safety Zone; Cooper River, Hog Island Channel, Charleston SC

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: 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.

DATES: This rule is effective June 7, 2006.

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 [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.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Chief Warrant Officer James J. McHugh, 
Sector Charleston Office of Waterways Management, at (843) 724-7647.

SUPPLEMENTARY 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[deg]48.566' N, 079[deg]55.211' W to 
32[deg]48.389' N, 079[deg]54.256' W to 32[deg]47.824' N, 
079[deg]54.401' W thence to 32[deg]47.994' N, 079[deg]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.''

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. 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.

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, 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).

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

[[Page 32840]]

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 
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.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.


0
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 
CFR part 165, subpart C as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

0
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.


Sec.  165.T07-003  [Removed]

0
2. Remove Sec.  165.T07-003 entitled ``Safety Zone, Hog Island Channel, 
Grace Memorial and Silas Pearman Bridges, Charleston, SC.''

    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