Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Boot Key Harbor, Marathon, FL, 41648-41650 [05-14247]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
41648
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 138 / Wednesday, July 20, 2005 / Proposed Rules
consider your request for removal of the offlimits restriction now in effect at your
establishment.
This decision does not preclude further
appeals or appearances before the AFDCB at
any of its scheduled meetings.
Correspondence pertaining to this matter
should be addressed to the President, Armed
Forces Disciplinary Control Board, (cite
address).
Sincerely,
John J. Smith
Colonel, U.S. Army, President, Armed Forces
Disciplinary Control Board.
Annex G—AFDCB Letter of Removal of OffLimits Restriction
(Letterhead)
Proprietor
Dear Sir: This letter is to inform you that
the off-limits restriction against (name of
establishment) is removed effective (date).
Members of the Armed Forces are permitted
to patronize your establishment as of that
date.
The corrective actions taken in response to
the concerns of the Armed Forces
Disciplinary Control Board are appreciated.
Sincerely,
John J. Smith
Colonel, U.S. Army, President, Armed Forces
Disciplinary Control Board.
Annex H—AFDCB Notification of Removal of
Off-Limits Restriction
(Letterhead)
Proprietor
Dear Sir: This letter is to inform you that
your request for removal of the off-limits
restriction now in effect at (name of
establishment) was favorably considered by
the Armed Forces Disciplinary Control Board
(AFDCB).
This restriction will be removed effective
(date). Members of the Armed Forces will be
permitted to patronize your establishment as
of that date.
The corrective actions taken in response to
the concerns of the AFDCB are appreciated.
Sincerely,
John J. Smith
Colonel, U.S. Army, President, Armed Forces
Disciplinary Control Board.
Annex I—Format for AFDCB Meeting
Minutes
(Letterhead)
MEMORANDUM FOR
SUBJECT: Armed Forces Disciplinary Control
Board
1. Pursuant to authority contained in AR
190–24/AFI 31–213/ OPNAVINST 1620.2A/
MCO 1620.2C/and COMDTINST 1620.1D,
Armed Forces Disciplinary Control Boards
and Off-Installation Liaison and Operations,
the (area) Armed Forces Disciplinary Control
Board convened at (place), (date)
2. The following voting members were
present: (List names, titles, and addresses.)
3. The following military members were
present: (List names, titles, and addresses.)
4. The following civilian advisory members
were present: (List names, titles, and
addresses.)
VerDate jul<14>2003
14:55 Jul 19, 2005
Jkt 205001
5. Order of business:
a. Call to order.
b. Welcome.
c. Introduction of members and guests.
d. Explanation of purpose of board.
e. Reading of minutes.
f. Unfinished or continuing business.
g. New business (subparagraph as
necessary).
h. Recommendations.
(1) List of areas and establishments being
placed in an off-limits restriction. Include
complete name and address (or adequate
description of an area) of any establishment
listed.
(2) List of areas and establishments being
removed from off-limits restrictions. Include
complete name and address (or adequate
description of an area) of any establishment
listed.
(3) Other matters or problems of mutual
concern.
i. Time, date, and place for next board
meeting.
j. Adjournment of the board.
(Board Recorder’s Name)
(Rank, Branch of Service)
Recorder, Armed Forces
Disciplinary Control Board
Approved:
(Board President’s Name)
(Rank, Branch of Service)
President, Armed Forces Disciplinary Control
Board.
(Note: The minutes of the board proceedings
will be forwarded by official correspondence
from the board president to the sponsoring
commander for approval of the board’s
recommendations. By return endorsement,
the sponsoring commander will either
approve or disapprove the board’s
recommendations.)
[FR Doc. 05–14213 Filed 7–19–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3710–08–P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 117
[CGD07–05–063]
RIN 1625–AA09
Drawbridge Operation Regulations;
Boot Key Harbor, Marathon, FL
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to
change the regulations governing the
operation of the Boot Key Harbor bridge,
mile 0.13, between Marathon and Boot
Key, Monroe County, Florida. Due to the
amount of vehicle traffic and the lack of
openings during the proposed time
period, this proposed action would
improve the movement of vehicular
traffic while not unreasonably
interfering with the movement of vessel
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
traffic. This proposed rule would allow
the bridge to open on the hour between
the hours of 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. At all other
times, the bridge will open on demand
following a 10-minute notification to the
bridge tender. The draw shall open as
soon as practicable for the passage of
tugs with tows, public vessels of the
United States and vessels in a situation
where a delay would endanger life or
property.
Comments and related material
must reach the Coast Guard on or before
August 19, 2005.
DATES:
You may mail comments
and related material to Commander
(obr), Seventh Coast Guard District, 909
S.E. 1st Avenue, Room 432, Miami, FL,
33131–3050, who 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), Seventh
Coast Guard District, between 7:30 a.m.
and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.
ADDRESSES:
Mr.
Gwin Tate, Project Officer, Seventh
Coast Guard District, Bridge Branch, at
(305) 415–6747.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
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 CGD07–05–063,
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
to know 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 now plan to hold a public
meeting. But you may submit a request
for a meeting by writing to the 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.
E:\FR\FM\20JYP1.SGM
20JYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 138 / Wednesday, July 20, 2005 / Proposed Rules
Background and Purpose
The operation of the Boot Key Harbor
bridge, mile 0.13, at Marathon, is
governed by 33 CFR 117.272, which
requires the draw to open on signal;
except that during the evening hours
from 10 p.m. to 6 a.m., the draw shall
open on signal if at least 2 hours notice
is given. The City of Marathon requested
that the Coast Guard temporarily change
the operating schedule to ensure worker
safety, as the bridge requires prompt
corrective repairs and renovation. Our
analysis of the bridge logs showed an
average of only 12.2 openings per week
over a one-year period during the hours
of 7 a.m. through 7 p.m. In light of this
information, the bridge owner amended
his initial request and asked the Coast
Guard to permanently change the
regulation governing the Boot Key
Harbor drawbridge due to the low
number of openings during the one-year
time period mentioned above.
Discussion of Proposed Rule
The Coast Guard proposes to modify
the existing bridge operation regulation
and create a permanent regulation that
would allow the draw of the Boot Key
Harbor Bridge to open on the hour from
7 a.m. to 7 p.m. At all other times, the
bridge will remain closed to navigation
unless a 10-minute advance notification
is provided to the bridge tender. The
draw shall open as soon as practicable
for tugs with tows, public vessels of the
United States and vessels in a situation
where a delay would endanger life or
property.
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.
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. This proposed rule
would modify the existing bridge
schedule to allow for efficient vehicle
traffic flow and still meet the reasonable
needs of navigation.
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
VerDate jul<14>2003
14:55 Jul 19, 2005
Jkt 205001
41649
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.
This proposed rule would affect the
following entities, some of which may
be small entities: The owners or
operators of vessels needing to transit
the vicinity of Boot Key Harbor. This
regulation would not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities because the
movement of vehicular traffic will be
significantly improved while at the
same time the impact to vessel traffic is
for short and reasonable durations.
Moreover, Public vessels of the United
States, tugs with tows, and vessels in
distress would be allowed to pass at
anytime.
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.
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.
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 the person
listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT. 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.
Protection of Children
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
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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 expenditure, we do
discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere
in this preamble.
Taking of Private Property
This proposed rule would 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 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.
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
E:\FR\FM\20JYP1.SGM
20JYP1
41650
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 138 / Wednesday, July 20, 2005 / Proposed Rules
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.
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. Revise § 117.272 to read as follows:
§ 117.272
Boot Key Harbor.
The draw of the Boot Key Harbor
drawbridge, mile 0.13, between
Marathon and Boot Key, shall open on
the hour from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. At all
other times, the bridge will open
following a 10-minute notification to the
bridge tender. The draw shall open on
demand and as soon as practicable for
the passage of tugs with tows, public
vessels of the United States and vessels
whereby a delay would endanger life or
property.
Dated: July 12, 2005.
D.B. Peterman,
RADM, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander,
Seventh Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 05–14247 Filed 7–19–05; 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 made a preliminary determination
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
(32)(e), of the Instruction, from further
environmental documentation. This rule
fits within paragraph (32)(e) because it
pertains to operation regulations for
bridges. Under figure 2–1, paragraph
(32)(e), of the Instruction, an
‘‘Environmental Analysis Check List’’ is
not required for this rule. Comments on
this section will be considered before
we make the final decision on whether
to categorically exclude this rule from
further environmental review.
List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117
Bridges.
VerDate jul<14>2003
14:55 Jul 19, 2005
Jkt 205001
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS
Copyright Office
37 CFR Parts 201 and 256
[Docket No. 2005–2 CARP CRA]
Adjustment of Cable Statutory License
Royalty Rates
Copyright Office, Library of
Congress.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: The Copyright Office of the
Library of Congress is submitting for
public comment a settlement proposal
for the adjustment of certain royalty
rates for use of the cable statutory
license.
Comments and Notices of Intent
to Participate are due by August 19,
2005.
DATES:
If hand delivered by a
private party, an original and five copies
of a comment and a Notice of Intent to
Participate should be brought to Room
LM–401 of the James Madison Memorial
Building between 8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m.
ADDRESSES:
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
and the envelope should be addressed
as follows: Office of the General
Counsel/CARP, U.S. Copyright Office,
James Madison Memorial Building,
Room LM–401, 101 Independence
Avenue, S.E., Washington, DC 20559–
6000. If delivered by a commercial
courier, an original and five copies of a
comment and a Notice of Intent to
Participate must be delivered to the
Congressional Courier Acceptance Site
located at 2nd and D Streets, N.E.,
between 8:30 a.m. and 4 p.m. The
envelope should be addressed as
follows: Office of the General Counsel/
CARP, Room LM–403, James Madison
Memorial Building, 101 Independence
Avenue, S.E., Washington, DC. If sent by
mail (including overnight delivery using
U.S. Postal Service Express Mail), an
original and five copies of a comment
and a Notice of Intent to Participate
should be addressed to: Copyright
Arbitration Royalty Panel (CARP), P.O.
Box 70977, Southwest Station,
Washington, DC 20024. Comments and
Notices of Intent to Participate may not
be delivered by means of overnight
delivery services such as Federal
Express, United Parcel Service, etc., due
to delays in processing receipt of such
deliveries.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Tanya M. Sandros, Associate General
Counsel, or Gina Giuffreda, Attorney–
Advisor, Copyright Arbitration Royalty
Panel (CARP), P.O. Box 70977,
Southwest Station, Washington, D.C.
20024. Telephone: (202) 707–8380.
Telefax (202) 252–3423.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
Section 111 of the Copyright Act, 17
U.S.C., creates a statutory license for
cable systems that retransmit to their
subscribers over–the–air broadcast
signals. Royalty fees for this license are
calculated as percentages of a cable
system’s gross receipts received from
subscribers for receipt of broadcast
signals. A cable system’s individual
gross receipts determine the applicable
percentages. These percentages, and the
gross receipts limitations, are published
in 37 CFR part 256 and are subject to
adjustment at five–year intervals. 17
U.S.C. 801(b)(2)(A) & (D).1 This is a
window year for such an adjustment.
A cable rate adjustment is initiated by
the filing of a petition from a party with
a significant interest in the rates. The
Library received two such petitions. The
1 Unless otherwise noted, all references are to
chapter 8 of title 17 of the United States Code as
in effect prior to May 31, 2005, the effective date
of the Copyright Royalty and Distribution Reform
Act of 2004.
E:\FR\FM\20JYP1.SGM
20JYP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 138 (Wednesday, July 20, 2005)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 41648-41650]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-14247]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 117
[CGD07-05-063]
RIN 1625-AA09
Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Boot Key Harbor, Marathon, FL
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to change the regulations governing
the operation of the Boot Key Harbor bridge, mile 0.13, between
Marathon and Boot Key, Monroe County, Florida. Due to the amount of
vehicle traffic and the lack of openings during the proposed time
period, this proposed action would improve the movement of vehicular
traffic while not unreasonably interfering with the movement of vessel
traffic. This proposed rule would allow the bridge to open on the hour
between the hours of 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. At all other times, the bridge
will open on demand following a 10-minute notification to the bridge
tender. The draw shall open as soon as practicable for the passage of
tugs with tows, public vessels of the United States and vessels in a
situation where a delay would endanger life or property.
DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or
before August 19, 2005.
ADDRESSES: You may mail comments and related material to Commander
(obr), Seventh Coast Guard District, 909 S.E. 1st Avenue, Room 432,
Miami, FL, 33131-3050, who 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), Seventh Coast Guard District, between 7:30
a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Gwin Tate, Project Officer,
Seventh Coast Guard District, Bridge Branch, at (305) 415-6747.
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 CGD07-05-
063, 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 to know
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 now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a
request for a meeting by writing to the 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.
[[Page 41649]]
Background and Purpose
The operation of the Boot Key Harbor bridge, mile 0.13, at
Marathon, is governed by 33 CFR 117.272, which requires the draw to
open on signal; except that during the evening hours from 10 p.m. to 6
a.m., the draw shall open on signal if at least 2 hours notice is
given. The City of Marathon requested that the Coast Guard temporarily
change the operating schedule to ensure worker safety, as the bridge
requires prompt corrective repairs and renovation. Our analysis of the
bridge logs showed an average of only 12.2 openings per week over a
one-year period during the hours of 7 a.m. through 7 p.m. In light of
this information, the bridge owner amended his initial request and
asked the Coast Guard to permanently change the regulation governing
the Boot Key Harbor drawbridge due to the low number of openings during
the one-year time period mentioned above.
Discussion of Proposed Rule
The Coast Guard proposes to modify the existing bridge operation
regulation and create a permanent regulation that would allow the draw
of the Boot Key Harbor Bridge to open on the hour from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m.
At all other times, the bridge will remain closed to navigation unless
a 10-minute advance notification is provided to the bridge tender. The
draw shall open as soon as practicable for tugs with tows, public
vessels of the United States and vessels in a situation where a delay
would endanger life or property.
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.
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. This proposed rule would modify
the existing bridge schedule to allow for efficient vehicle traffic
flow and still meet the reasonable needs of navigation.
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. This proposed rule would affect the following entities, some
of which may be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels
needing to transit the vicinity of Boot Key Harbor. This regulation
would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities because the movement of vehicular traffic will be
significantly improved while at the same time the impact to vessel
traffic is for short and reasonable durations. Moreover, Public vessels
of the United States, tugs with tows, and vessels in distress would be
allowed to pass at anytime.
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 the person listed under FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. 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
expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this
preamble.
Taking of Private Property
This proposed rule would 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 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
[[Page 41650]]
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 made a preliminary determination 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 (32)(e), of the
Instruction, from further environmental documentation. This rule fits
within paragraph (32)(e) because it pertains to operation regulations
for bridges. Under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e), of the Instruction,
an ``Environmental Analysis Check List'' is not required for this rule.
Comments on this section will be considered before we make the final
decision on whether to categorically exclude this rule from further
environmental review.
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. Revise Sec. 117.272 to read as follows:
Sec. 117.272 Boot Key Harbor.
The draw of the Boot Key Harbor drawbridge, mile 0.13, between
Marathon and Boot Key, shall open on the hour from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. At
all other times, the bridge will open following a 10-minute
notification to the bridge tender. The draw shall open on demand and as
soon as practicable for the passage of tugs with tows, public vessels
of the United States and vessels whereby a delay would endanger life or
property.
Dated: July 12, 2005.
D.B. Peterman,
RADM, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Seventh Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 05-14247 Filed 7-19-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P
