[Federal Register: January 22, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 14)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 3650-3652]
[DOCID:fr22ja08-9]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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 http://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lieutenant Jessica Crandell at the
Waterways Management Division, Sector St. Petersburg, FL<PHONE_NUMBER>
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
http://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 Sec.  165.764
(68 FR 47852, August 12, 2003), after a number of temporary security
zones.
    In July 2007, using the newly-developed 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

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

0
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

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.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.767 to read as follows:

Sec.  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.

    (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 Sec.  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