Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Illinois Waterway, Joliet, IL, 19029-19030 [05-7326]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 69 / Tuesday, April 12, 2005 / Proposed Rules
please enclose a stamped, self-addressed
postcard or envelope. We will consider
all comments and material received
during the comment period. We may
change this proposed rule in view of
them.
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 117
[CGD08–05–014]
RIN 1625–AA09
Drawbridge Operation Regulation;
Illinois Waterway, Joliet, IL
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to
change the regulation governing the
Jefferson Street Bridge, mile 287.9, and
Cass Street Bridge, mile 288.1, across
the Illinois Waterway at Joliet, Illinois.
The drawbridges need not open for river
traffic and may remain in the closed-tonavigation position from 8:30 a.m. to
11:30 a.m. on May 15, 2005. This
proposed rule would allow the
scheduled running of a foot race as part
of a local community event.
DATES: Comments and related material
must reach the Coast Guard on or before
May 12, 2005.
ADDRESSES: You may mail comments
and related material to Commander,
Eighth Coast Guard District, Bridge
Branch, 1222 Spruce Street, St. Louis,
MO 63103–2832. Commander (obr)
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
room 2.107f in the Robert A. Young
Federal Building, Eighth Coast Guard
District, between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.
Roger K. Wiebusch, Bridge
Administrator, (314) 539–3900,
extension 2378.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Request for Comments
We encourage you to participate in
this rulemaking by submitting
comments and related material. If you
do so, please include your name and
address, identify the docket number for
this rulemaking (CGD–08–05–014),
indicate the specific section of this
document to which each comment
applies, and give the reason for each
comment. Please submit all comments
and related material in an unbound
format, no larger than 81⁄2 by 11 inches,
suitable for copying. If you would like
confirmation that they reached us,
VerDate jul<14>2003
16:24 Apr 11, 2005
Jkt 205001
19029
temporary change has been written in
such a manner as to allow for minimal
interruption of the drawbridges regular
operation.
Public Meeting
We do not plan to hold a public
meeting. But you may submit a request
for a meeting by writing to the Eighth
Coast Guard District, Bridge, Branch, at
the address under ADDRESSES explaining
why one would be beneficial. If we
determine that one would aid this
rulemaking, we will hold one at a time
and place announced by a later notice
in the Federal Register.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
(5 U.S.C. 601–612), we have considered
whether this proposed 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 proposed rule
would not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities. This proposed rule will be in
effect for only 3 hours early on a Sunday
morning, and the Coast Guard expects
the impact of this action to be minimal.
If you think that your business,
organization, or governmental
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity
and that this rule would have a
significant economic impact on it,
please submit a comment (see
ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it
qualifies and how and to what degree
this rule would economically affect it.
Background and Purpose
On February 10, 2005, the Illinois
Department of Transportation requested
a temporary change to the operation of
the Jefferson Street Bridge, mile 287.9,
and the Cass Street Bridge, mile 288.1,
Illinois Waterway, to allow the
drawbridges to remain in the closed-tonavigation position for a three hour
period for a timed 8K run in the City of
Joliet, Illinois. The drawbridges have a
vertical clearance of 16.5 feet above
normal pool in the closed-to-navigation
position. Navigation on the waterway
consists primarily of commercial tows
and recreational watercraft that will be
minimally impacted by the limited
closure period of three hours. Presently,
the draws open on signal, except that
they need not open from 7:30 a.m. to
8:30 a.m. and from 4:15 p.m. to 5:15
p.m., Monday through Saturday. The
Illinois Department of Transportation
requested the drawbridges be permitted
to remain in the closed-to-navigation
position from 8:30 a.m. until 11:30 a.m.
on Sunday, May 15, 2005. This
temporary change to the drawbridge’s
operation has been coordinated with the
commercial waterway operators.
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).
The Coast Guard expects that this
temporary change to operation of the
Jefferson Street Bridge and the Cass
Street Bridge will have minimal
economic impact on commercial traffic
operating on the Illinois Waterway. This
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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 proposed rule so that
they could 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 Mr. Roger K.
Wiebusch, Bridge Administrator, Eighth
Coast Guard District, Bridge Branch, at
(314) 539–3900, extension 2378.
Collection of Information
This proposed rule would call 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 proposed rule under that Order and
E:\FR\FM\12APP1.SGM
12APP1
19030
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 69 / Tuesday, April 12, 2005 / Proposed Rules
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 proposed 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 proposed rule will not affect a
taking of private property or otherwise
have taking implications under
Executive Order 12630, Government
Actions and Interference with
Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights.
Civil Justice Reform
This proposed rule meets applicable
standards in section 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 proposed 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 proposed 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 proposed 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
VerDate jul<14>2003
16:24 Apr 11, 2005
Jkt 205001
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 proposed rule does not use
technical standards. Therefore, we did
not consider the use of voluntary
consensus standards.
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. From 8:30 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. on
May 15, 2005, in § 117.393, suspend
paragraph (c) and add a new paragraph
(f) to read as follows:
§ 117.393
Illinois Waterway.
*
*
*
*
*
(f) The draws of the McDonough
Street Bridge, mile 287.3; Jackson Street
bridge, mile 288.4; and Ruby Street
bridge, mile 288.7; all of Joliet, shall
open on signal. However, the draws of
Jefferson Street bridge, mile 287.9, and
Cass Street bridge, mile 288.1 need not
open.
Dated: April 4, 2005.
R.F. Duncan,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard Commander,
Eighth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 05–7326 Filed 4–11–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–15–P
Environment
We have analyzed this rule under
Commandant Instruction M16475.1D,
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 (32)(e) of the
Instruction, from further environmental
documentation. Paragraph 32(e)
excludes the promulgation of operating
regulations or procedures for
drawbridges from the environmental
documentation requirements of the
National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA). Since this proposed regulation
would alter the normal operating
conditions of the drawbridges, it falls
within this exclusion. A ‘‘Categorical
Exclusion Determination’’ is available in
the docket for inspection or copying
where indicated under ADDRESSES.
List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117
Bridges.
Regulations
For the reasons discussed in the
preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to
amend 33 CFR part 117 as follows:
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[R04–OAR–2004–GA–0002–200504(b); FRL–
7898–4]
Approval and Promulgation of
Implementation Plans Georgia:
Approval of Revisions to the Georgia
State Implementation Plan
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: The EPA is approving the
State Implementation Plan (SIP)
revisions submitted by the State of
Georgia, through the Georgia
Environmental Protection Division
(GAEPD), on December 18, 2003. These
revisions pertain to rules for Enhanced
Inspection and Maintenance (I/M).
These revisions were the subject of a
public hearing held on November 5,
2003, adopted by the Board of Natural
Resources on December 3, 2003, and
became State effective on December 25,
2003. In the Final Rules Section of this
Federal Register, the EPA is approving
the State’s SIP revision as a direct final
rule without prior proposal because the
Agency views this as a noncontroversial
submittal and anticipates no adverse
E:\FR\FM\12APP1.SGM
12APP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 69 (Tuesday, April 12, 2005)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 19029-19030]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-7326]
[[Page 19029]]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 117
[CGD08-05-014]
RIN 1625-AA09
Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Illinois Waterway, Joliet, IL
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to change the regulation governing
the Jefferson Street Bridge, mile 287.9, and Cass Street Bridge, mile
288.1, across the Illinois Waterway at Joliet, Illinois. The
drawbridges need not open for river traffic and may remain in the
closed-to-navigation position from 8:30 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. on May 15,
2005. This proposed rule would allow the scheduled running of a foot
race as part of a local community event.
DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or
before May 12, 2005.
ADDRESSES: You may mail comments and related material to Commander,
Eighth Coast Guard District, Bridge Branch, 1222 Spruce Street, St.
Louis, MO 63103-2832. Commander (obr) 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 room 2.107f in the Robert A. Young Federal
Building, Eighth Coast Guard District, between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Roger K. Wiebusch, Bridge
Administrator, (314) 539-3900, extension 2378.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Request for Comments
We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting
comments and related material. If you do so, please include your name
and address, identify the docket number for this rulemaking (CGD-08-05-
014), indicate the specific section of this document to which each
comment applies, and give the reason for each comment. Please submit
all comments and related material in an unbound format, no larger than
8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for copying. If you would like
confirmation that they reached us, please enclose a stamped, self-
addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all comments and
material received during the comment period. We may change this
proposed rule in view of them.
Public Meeting
We do not plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a
request for a meeting by writing to the Eighth Coast Guard District,
Bridge, Branch, at the address under ADDRESSES explaining why one would
be beneficial. If we determine that one would aid this rulemaking, we
will hold one at a time and place announced by a later notice in the
Federal Register.
Background and Purpose
On February 10, 2005, the Illinois Department of Transportation
requested a temporary change to the operation of the Jefferson Street
Bridge, mile 287.9, and the Cass Street Bridge, mile 288.1, Illinois
Waterway, to allow the drawbridges to remain in the closed-to-
navigation position for a three hour period for a timed 8K run in the
City of Joliet, Illinois. The drawbridges have a vertical clearance of
16.5 feet above normal pool in the closed-to-navigation position.
Navigation on the waterway consists primarily of commercial tows and
recreational watercraft that will be minimally impacted by the limited
closure period of three hours. Presently, the draws open on signal,
except that they need not open from 7:30 a.m. to 8:30 a.m. and from
4:15 p.m. to 5:15 p.m., Monday through Saturday. The Illinois
Department of Transportation requested the drawbridges be permitted to
remain in the closed-to-navigation position from 8:30 a.m. until 11:30
a.m. on Sunday, May 15, 2005. This temporary change to the drawbridge's
operation has been coordinated with the commercial waterway operators.
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).
The Coast Guard expects that this temporary change to operation of
the Jefferson Street Bridge and the Cass Street Bridge will have
minimal economic impact on commercial traffic operating on the Illinois
Waterway. This temporary change has been written in such a manner as to
allow for minimal interruption of the drawbridges regular operation.
Small Entities
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered whether this proposed 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 proposed
rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. This proposed rule will be in effect for only
3 hours early on a Sunday morning, and the Coast Guard expects the
impact of this action to be minimal.
If you think that your business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have
a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what
degree this rule would economically affect it.
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 proposed rule so that they could 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 Mr. Roger K. Wiebusch, Bridge
Administrator, Eighth Coast Guard District, Bridge Branch, at (314)
539-3900, extension 2378.
Collection of Information
This proposed rule would call 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 proposed rule
under that Order and
[[Page 19030]]
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 proposed 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 proposed rule will not affect a taking of private property or
otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630,
Government Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected
Property Rights.
Civil Justice Reform
This proposed rule meets applicable standards in section 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 proposed 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 proposed 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 proposed 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 proposed 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 M16475.1D,
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 (32)(e) of the Instruction, from further
environmental documentation. Paragraph 32(e) excludes the promulgation
of operating regulations or procedures for drawbridges from the
environmental documentation requirements of the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA). Since this proposed regulation would alter the
normal operating conditions of the drawbridges, it falls within this
exclusion. A ``Categorical Exclusion Determination'' is available in
the docket for inspection or copying where indicated under ADDRESSES.
List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117
Bridges.
Regulations
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes
to amend 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. From 8:30 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. on May 15, 2005, in Sec. 117.393,
suspend paragraph (c) and add a new paragraph (f) to read as follows:
Sec. 117.393 Illinois Waterway.
* * * * *
(f) The draws of the McDonough Street Bridge, mile 287.3; Jackson
Street bridge, mile 288.4; and Ruby Street bridge, mile 288.7; all of
Joliet, shall open on signal. However, the draws of Jefferson Street
bridge, mile 287.9, and Cass Street bridge, mile 288.1 need not open.
Dated: April 4, 2005.
R.F. Duncan,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard Commander, Eighth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 05-7326 Filed 4-11-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P