Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Elizabeth River, Eastern Branch, VA, 33405-33408 [05-11397]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 8, 2005 / Proposed Rules
24490). In the document, FDA reopened
the comment period until June 9, 2005,
for the agency’s proposed rule entitled
‘‘Prevention of Salmonella Enteritidis in
Shell Eggs During Production’’ that
published in the Federal Register of
September 22, 2004 (69 FR 56824). FDA
reopened the comment period to receive
comment and other information
regarding industry practices and
programs that prevent Salmonella
Enteritidis (SE)-monitored chicks from
becoming infected by SE during the
period of pullet rearing until placement
into laying hen houses. The agency is
taking this action in response to
requests for an extension to allow
interested persons additional time to
submit comments.
DATES: Submit written or electronic
comments by July 25, 2005.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments,
identified by Docket No. 2000N–0504,
by any of the following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
• Agency Web site: https://
www.fda.gov/dockets/ecomments.
Follow the instructions for submitting
comments on the agency Web site.
• E-mail: fdadockets@oc.fda.gov.
Include Docket No. 2000N–0504 in the
subject line of your e-mail message.
• FAX: 301–827–6870.
• Mail/Hand delivery/Courier [For
paper, disk, or CD–ROM submissions]:
Division of Dockets Management (HFA–
305), Food and Drug Administration,
5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville,
MD 20852.
Instructions: All submissions received
must include the agency name and
docket number or regulatory
information number for this rulemaking.
All comments received will be posted
without change to https://www.fda.gov/
ohrms/dockets/default.htm, including
any personal information provided. For
detailed instructions on submitting
comments and additional information
on the rulemaking process, see the
‘‘Comments’’ heading of the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of
this document.
Docket: For access to the docket to
read background documents or
comments received, go to https://
www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/
default.htm and insert the relevant
docket number, 2000N–0504, into the
‘‘Search’’ box and follow the prompts
and/or go to the Division of Dockets
Management, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm.
1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lou
Carson, Center for Food Safety and
Applied Nutrition (HFS–032), Food and
VerDate jul<14>2003
15:36 Jun 07, 2005
Jkt 205001
Drug Administration, 5100 Paint Branch
Pkwy., College Park, MD 20740, 301–
436–2130.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
In the Federal Register of May 10,
2005, FDA reopened the comment
period until June 9, 2005, for the
agency’s proposed rule entitled
‘‘Prevention of Salmonella Enteritidis in
Shell Eggs During Production’’ that
published in the Federal Register of
September 22, 2004. FDA reopened the
comment period to receive comment
and other information regarding
industry practices and programs that
prevent SE-monitored chicks from
becoming infected by SE during the
period of pullet rearing until placement
into laying hen houses. Specifically,
FDA requested additional comment and
supportive data or other information on
the following questions:
1. How many pullet growing facilities
are there in the United States? What is
the range in the number of houses on
those facilities?
• What percentage of pullet growers
are under programs or have practices
aimed at preventing SE-monitored
chicks from becoming infected by SE
during the period of pullet rearing until
placement into layer hen houses?
• Do State or regional Egg Quality
Assurance Programs include provisions
to prevent SE-monitored chicks from
becoming infected by SE during the
period of pullet rearing until placement
into layer hen houses? How effective
have the pullet programs (whatever the
programs entail—cleaning, testing, etc.)
been in reducing the prevalence of SE
in layer flocks? How is effectiveness
measured?
2. During pullet rearing, what
programs or industry practices are
currently taken to prevent SE-monitored
chicks from becoming infected by SE
during the period of pullet rearing until
placement into layer hen houses?
• Are pullets, or their environment,
tested for SE between the time they are
procured as chicks and the time they
enter layer houses? If so, when? When
tested, approximately how often do
pullets or pullet environments test
positive? What happens after a positive
test?
• Is vaccination used as a preventive
measure, if so, when and how?
• What cleaning and disinfecting
practices are common?
• Are measures taken to reduce the
prevalence of rodents and pests in the
pullet rearing houses?
Interested persons were given until
June 9, 2005, to submit comments and
supportive data or other information.
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
33405
The agency has received requests for
an extension of the reopened comment
period. The requests conveyed concern
that the current 30-day comment period
does not allow sufficient time to
develop meaningful responses for
submission.
FDA has considered the requests for
additional time to submit comments and
is extending the reopened comment
period for an additional 45 days, until
July 25, 2005. The agency believes that
a 45-day extension allows adequate time
for interested persons to submit
comments without significantly
delaying the agency’s progress in
publishing a final rule. However, the
agency does not anticipate granting any
further extensions of the reopened
comment period.
II. Comments
Interested persons may submit to the
Division of Dockets Management (see
ADDRESSES) written or electronic
comments regarding this document.
Submit a single copy of electronic
comments or two paper copies of any
mailed comments, except that
individuals may submit one paper copy.
Identify comments with the docket
number found in brackets in the
heading of this document. Received
comments may be seen in the Division
of Dockets Management between 9 a.m.
and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.
Dated: June 1, 2005.
Jeffrey Shuren,
Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 05–11407 Filed 6–7–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160–01–S
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 117
[CGD05–05–049]
RIN 1625–AA09
Drawbridge Operation Regulations;
Elizabeth River, Eastern Branch, VA
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to
change the regulations that govern the
operation of the Berkley Bridge across
the Eastern Branch of the Elizabeth
River, mile 0.4, in Norfolk, Virginia. The
proposal would extend the morning and
evening rush hour closure periods so
that the morning rush hour period starts
at 5 a.m. and ends at 9 a.m., and the
evening rush hour starts at 3 p.m. and
E:\FR\FM\08JNP1.SGM
08JNP1
33406
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 8, 2005 / Proposed Rules
ends at 7 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The proposed
change would relieve vehicular traffic
congestion during the weekday rush
hours while still providing for the
reasonable needs of navigation.
DATES: Comments and related material
must reach the Coast Guard on or before
July 25, 2005.
ADDRESSES: You may mail comments
and related material to Commander
(obr), Fifth Coast Guard District, Federal
Building, 1st Floor, 431 Crawford Street,
Portsmouth, VA 23704–5004. The Fifth
Coast Guard District 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 Commander
(obr), Fifth Coast Guard District between
8 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gary
Heyer, Bridge Management Specialist,
Fifth Coast Guard District, at (757) 398–
6629.
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 CGD05–05–049,
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
a return receipt, please enclose a
stamped, self-addressed postcard or
envelope. We will consider all
submittals received during the comment
period. We may change this proposed
rule in view of them.
Public Meeting
We do not now plan to hold a public
meeting. But you may submit a request
for a meeting by writing to Commander
(obr), Fifth Coast Guard District 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 behalf of the City of Norfolk, the
Virginia Department of Transportation
(VDOT) who owns and operates this lift-
VerDate jul<14>2003
15:36 Jun 07, 2005
Jkt 205001
type bridge, requested a change to the
existing regulations for the Berkley
Bridge. The current regulation allows
the Berkley Bridge, at mile 0.4 in
Norfolk, to remain closed one hour prior
to the published start of a scheduled
marine event regulated under §100.501,
and remain closed until one hour
following the completion of the event
unless the Patrol Commander
designated under §100.501 allows the
bridge to open for commercial vessel
traffic. In addition, the bridge shall open
on signal any time except from 5:30 a.m.
to 9 a.m. and from 3:30 p.m. to 6:30
p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays, and shall open at any
time for vessels with a draft of 22 feet
or more, provided that at least 12 hours
advance notice has been given to the
Berkley Bridge Traffic Control Room
and shall open on signal at any time for
a vessel in distress.
The purpose of this proposal is to
help alleviate the current highway
traffic congestion which has increased.
The Berkley Bridge is a principle
arterial route that serves as the major
evacuation highway in the event of
emergencies. Weekday vehicular traffic
counts submitted by VDOT revealed
that in 2002 and 2003, the Berkley
Bridge has experienced a six percent (or
78,898 car) increase in traffic flow
during the morning and evening rush
hours.
Also, on September 18, 2003, the
Hampton Roads area experienced severe
damage as a result of Hurricane Isabel.
Due to a heavy storm surge along the
entire coastal area, the Portsmouth
Midtown Tunnel was flooded. While
the tunnel was undergoing an
evaluation and repairs, a significant
amount of vehicular traffic that used the
tunnel on a daily basis was shifted onto
the Berkley Bridge. In its attempt to
manage this increase in road traffic and
associated safety concerns, VDOT
requested an immediate expansion of
the current authorized rush hour closure
periods of the Berkley Bridge. The Coast
Guard responded by issuing a temporary
final rule, until the repairs were
completed that extended the morning
and evening closure periods and
suspended the provision allowing
openings for deep-draft commercial
vessels. The temporary final rulemaking
implemented for the Berkley Bridge to
stay open a little longer in the morning
and evening was successful in easing
the commute for thousands of motorists.
As a result of the temporary
adjustments to the morning and evening
rush hour closure periods caused by
Hurricane Isabel, the current proposal
was offered to help alleviate the growing
vehicular traffic congestion and to
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
increase public safety, while still
balancing the needs of marine and
vehicular traffic.
Discussion of Proposed Rule
The Coast Guard proposes to amend
the regulations governing the Berkley
Bridge, mile 0.4, at Norfolk, VA, at 33
CFR 117.1007, by revising paragraphs
(c)(1) and (2) thereby, expanding the
time periods in which the drawbridge
may remain closed to vessels to be 5
a.m. to 9 a.m. and 3 p.m. to 7 p.m.
The proposal would change the
telephone number to the Berkley Bridge
Traffic Control Room from ‘‘(804) 494–
2424’’ to ‘‘(757) 494–2490’’. The
telephone number change would
accurately reflect the new telephone
number to this Bridge.
Also, the surplus language currently
stated in 33 CFR 117.1007(c)(4) would
be removed to be consistent with the
general operating regulations at 33 CFR
117.31. The provision delineated at 33
CFR 117.31(b)(2) already requires that
the draw shall open as soon as possible
for vessels in distress and is no longer
required to be published in each
specific bridge regulation. Text
modifications would be consistent with
the proposed changes to be made in
these paragraphs, as appropriate.
Regulatory Evaluation
This proposed 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 proposed rule to be so minimal that
a full Regulatory Evaluation under the
regulatory policies and procedures of
DHS is unnecessary. We reached this
conclusion based on the fact that the
proposed changes have only a minimal
impact on maritime traffic transiting the
bridge. Mariners can plan their trips in
accordance with the scheduled bridge
openings, to minimize delays.
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
E:\FR\FM\08JNP1.SGM
08JNP1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 8, 2005 / Proposed Rules
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 would not have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
because the rule only adds minimal
restrictions to the movement of
navigation, and mariners who plan their
transits in accordance with the
scheduled bridge openings can
minimize delay.
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 (Public Law 104–
121), we want to assist small entities in
understanding this proposed 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 Waverly W.
Gregory, Jr., Bridge Administrator, Fifth
Coast Guard District, (757) 398–6222.
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 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
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
VerDate jul<14>2003
15:36 Jun 07, 2005
Jkt 205001
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 would 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 proposed 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 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 would 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
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
33407
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 proposed 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
proposed rule is categorically excluded,
under figure 2–1, paragraph (32)(e) of
the Instruction, from further
environmental documentation because
it has been determined that the
promulgation of operating regulations
for drawbridges are categorically
excluded.
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 117.1007 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. Remove paragraphs §117.1007(c)(3)
and (c)(4) and revise paragraphs (c)(1)
and (c)(2) to read as follows:
E:\FR\FM\08JNP1.SGM
08JNP1
33408
§ 117.1007
Branch.
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 8, 2005 / Proposed Rules
Elizabeth River-Eastern
*
*
*
*
*
(c) * * *
(1) Shall open on signal at any time,
except from 5 a.m. to 9 a.m. and from
3 p.m. to 7 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.
(2) From 5 a.m. to 9 a.m. and from 3
p.m. to 7 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays, shall open at
any time for commercial vessels with a
draft of 22 feet or more, provided that
at least 12 hours advance notice has
been given to the Berkley Bridge Traffic
Control room at (757) 494–2490.
Dated: May 31, 2005.
Sally Brice-O’Hara,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander,
Fifth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 05–11397 Filed 6–7–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–15–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 52 and 81
[R03–OAR–2004–WV–0003; FRL–7922–2]
Approval and Promulgation of Air
Quality Implementation Plans; West
Virginia; Redesignation of the New
Manchester-Grant Magisterial District
SO2 Nonattainment Area and Approval
of the Maintenance Plan
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
EPA is proposing to approve
a request from the State of West Virginia
to redesignate the New ManchesterGrant Magisterial District in Hancock
County from nonattainment to
attainment of the national ambient air
quality standards (NAAQS) for sulfur
dioxide (SO2). EPA is also proposing to
approve a maintenance plan for the area
as a SIP revision which would put in
place a plan for maintaining the NAAQS
for SO2 for the next ten years. In the
Final Rules section of this Federal
Register, EPA is approving the State’s
SIP submittal as a direct final rule
without prior proposal because the
Agency views this as a noncontroversial
submittal and anticipates no adverse
comments. A more detailed description
of the state submittal and EPA’s
evaluation are included in a Technical
Support Document (TSD) prepared in
support of this rulemaking action. A
copy of the TSD is available, upon
request, from the EPA Regional Office
listed in the ADDRESSES section of this
document. If no adverse comments are
SUMMARY:
VerDate jul<14>2003
15:36 Jun 07, 2005
Jkt 205001
received in response to this action, no
further activity is contemplated. If EPA
receives adverse comments, the direct
final rule will be withdrawn and all
public comments received will be
addressed in a subsequent final rule
based on this proposed rule. EPA will
not institute a second comment period.
Any parties interested in commenting
on this action should do so at this time.
DATES: Comments must be received in
writing by July 8, 2005.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Regional Material in
Edocket (RME) ID Number R03–OAR–
2004–WV–0003 by one of the following
methods:
A. Federal eRulemaking Portal:
https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
B. Agency Web site: https://
www.docket.epa.gov/rmepub. RME,
EPA’s electronic public docket and
comment system, is EPA’s preferred
method for receiving comments. Follow
the on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
C. E-mail: campbell.dave@epa.gov.
D. Mail: R03–OAR–2004–WV–0003,
David Campbell, Chief, Air Quality
Planning Branch, Mailcode 3AP21, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region III, 1650 Arch Street,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.
E. Hand Delivery: At the previouslylisted EPA Region III address. Such
deliveries are only accepted during the
Docket’s normal hours of operation, and
special arrangements should be made
for deliveries of boxed information.
Instructions: Direct your comments to
RME ID No. R03–OAR–2004–WV–0003.
EPA’s policy is that all comments
received will be included in the public
docket without change, and may be
available online at https://
www.docket.epa.gov/rmepub/,
including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes
information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit
information that you consider to be CBI
or otherwise protected through RME,
regulations.gov or e-mail. The EPA RME
and the Federal regulations.gov Web
sites are an ‘‘anonymous access’’
system, which means EPA will not
know your identity or contact
information unless you provide it in the
body of your comment. If you send an
e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through RME or regulations.gov,
your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as
part of the comment that is placed in the
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
public docket and made available on the
Internet. If you submit an electronic
comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name and other contact
information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD–ROM
you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties
and cannot contact you for clarification,
EPA may not be able to consider your
comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form
of encryption, and be free of any defects
or viruses.
Docket: All documents in the
electronic docket are listed in the RME
index at https://www.docket.epa.gov/
rmepub/. Although listed in the index,
some information is not publicly
available, i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, is not placed on
the Internet and will be publicly
available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically in RME or
in hard copy during normal business
hours at the Air Protection Division,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region III, 1650 Arch Street,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.
Copies of the State submittal are
available at the West Virginia
Department of Environmental
Protection, Division of Air Quality, 7012
MacCorkle Avenue, SE., Charleston, WV
25304–2943.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Ellen Wentworth, (215) 814–2034, or by
e-mail at wentworth.ellen@epa.gov.
For
further information, please see the
information provided in the direct final
action, approving the redesignation
request and maintenance plan for the
New Manchester-Grant Magisterial
District, Hancock County, West Virginia
SO2 nonattainment area, with the same
title, that is located in the ‘‘Rules and
Regulations’’ section of this Federal
Register publication.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Dated: May 31, 2005.
Thomas Voltaggio,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. 05–11382 Filed 6–7–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
E:\FR\FM\08JNP1.SGM
08JNP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 109 (Wednesday, June 8, 2005)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 33405-33408]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-11397]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 117
[CGD05-05-049]
RIN 1625-AA09
Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Elizabeth River, Eastern
Branch, VA
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to change the regulations that govern
the operation of the Berkley Bridge across the Eastern Branch of the
Elizabeth River, mile 0.4, in Norfolk, Virginia. The proposal would
extend the morning and evening rush hour closure periods so that the
morning rush hour period starts at 5 a.m. and ends at 9 a.m., and the
evening rush hour starts at 3 p.m. and
[[Page 33406]]
ends at 7 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The
proposed change would relieve vehicular traffic congestion during the
weekday rush hours while still providing for the reasonable needs of
navigation.
DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or
before July 25, 2005.
ADDRESSES: You may mail comments and related material to Commander
(obr), Fifth Coast Guard District, Federal Building, 1st Floor, 431
Crawford Street, Portsmouth, VA 23704-5004. The Fifth Coast Guard
District 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
Commander (obr), Fifth Coast Guard District between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gary Heyer, Bridge Management
Specialist, Fifth Coast Guard District, at (757) 398-6629.
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 CGD05-05-
049, 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 a return
receipt, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope.
We will consider all submittals received during the comment period. We
may change this proposed rule in view of them.
Public Meeting
We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a
request for a meeting by writing to Commander (obr), Fifth Coast Guard
District 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 behalf of the City of Norfolk, the Virginia Department of
Transportation (VDOT) who owns and operates this lift-type bridge,
requested a change to the existing regulations for the Berkley Bridge.
The current regulation allows the Berkley Bridge, at mile 0.4 in
Norfolk, to remain closed one hour prior to the published start of a
scheduled marine event regulated under Sec. 100.501, and remain closed
until one hour following the completion of the event unless the Patrol
Commander designated under Sec. 100.501 allows the bridge to open for
commercial vessel traffic. In addition, the bridge shall open on signal
any time except from 5:30 a.m. to 9 a.m. and from 3:30 p.m. to 6:30
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays, and shall open at
any time for vessels with a draft of 22 feet or more, provided that at
least 12 hours advance notice has been given to the Berkley Bridge
Traffic Control Room and shall open on signal at any time for a vessel
in distress.
The purpose of this proposal is to help alleviate the current
highway traffic congestion which has increased. The Berkley Bridge is a
principle arterial route that serves as the major evacuation highway in
the event of emergencies. Weekday vehicular traffic counts submitted by
VDOT revealed that in 2002 and 2003, the Berkley Bridge has experienced
a six percent (or 78,898 car) increase in traffic flow during the
morning and evening rush hours.
Also, on September 18, 2003, the Hampton Roads area experienced
severe damage as a result of Hurricane Isabel. Due to a heavy storm
surge along the entire coastal area, the Portsmouth Midtown Tunnel was
flooded. While the tunnel was undergoing an evaluation and repairs, a
significant amount of vehicular traffic that used the tunnel on a daily
basis was shifted onto the Berkley Bridge. In its attempt to manage
this increase in road traffic and associated safety concerns, VDOT
requested an immediate expansion of the current authorized rush hour
closure periods of the Berkley Bridge. The Coast Guard responded by
issuing a temporary final rule, until the repairs were completed that
extended the morning and evening closure periods and suspended the
provision allowing openings for deep-draft commercial vessels. The
temporary final rulemaking implemented for the Berkley Bridge to stay
open a little longer in the morning and evening was successful in
easing the commute for thousands of motorists.
As a result of the temporary adjustments to the morning and evening
rush hour closure periods caused by Hurricane Isabel, the current
proposal was offered to help alleviate the growing vehicular traffic
congestion and to increase public safety, while still balancing the
needs of marine and vehicular traffic.
Discussion of Proposed Rule
The Coast Guard proposes to amend the regulations governing the
Berkley Bridge, mile 0.4, at Norfolk, VA, at 33 CFR 117.1007, by
revising paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) thereby, expanding the time periods
in which the drawbridge may remain closed to vessels to be 5 a.m. to 9
a.m. and 3 p.m. to 7 p.m.
The proposal would change the telephone number to the Berkley
Bridge Traffic Control Room from ``(804) 494-2424'' to ``(757) 494-
2490''. The telephone number change would accurately reflect the new
telephone number to this Bridge.
Also, the surplus language currently stated in 33 CFR
117.1007(c)(4) would be removed to be consistent with the general
operating regulations at 33 CFR 117.31. The provision delineated at 33
CFR 117.31(b)(2) already requires that the draw shall open as soon as
possible for vessels in distress and is no longer required to be
published in each specific bridge regulation. Text modifications would
be consistent with the proposed changes to be made in these paragraphs,
as appropriate.
Regulatory Evaluation
This proposed 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 proposed rule to be so
minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation under the regulatory policies
and procedures of DHS is unnecessary. We reached this conclusion based
on the fact that the proposed changes have only a minimal impact on
maritime traffic transiting the bridge. Mariners can plan their trips
in accordance with the scheduled bridge openings, to minimize delays.
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
[[Page 33407]]
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 would not have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities because the rule only adds
minimal restrictions to the movement of navigation, and mariners who
plan their transits in accordance with the scheduled bridge openings
can minimize delay.
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 (Public Law 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this proposed 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 Waverly W. Gregory, Jr., Bridge
Administrator, Fifth Coast Guard District, (757) 398-6222. 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 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 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 would 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 proposed 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 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 would 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 proposed 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 proposed rule is categorically excluded, under figure
2-1, paragraph (32)(e) of the Instruction, from further environmental
documentation because it has been determined that the promulgation of
operating regulations for drawbridges are categorically excluded.
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 117.1007 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. Remove paragraphs Sec. 117.1007(c)(3) and (c)(4) and revise
paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) to read as follows:
[[Page 33408]]
Sec. 117.1007 Elizabeth River-Eastern Branch.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(1) Shall open on signal at any time, except from 5 a.m. to 9 a.m.
and from 3 p.m. to 7 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays.
(2) From 5 a.m. to 9 a.m. and from 3 p.m. to 7 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays, shall open at any time for commercial
vessels with a draft of 22 feet or more, provided that at least 12
hours advance notice has been given to the Berkley Bridge Traffic
Control room at (757) 494-2490.
Dated: May 31, 2005.
Sally Brice-O'Hara,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Fifth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 05-11397 Filed 6-7-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P
