Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, Anna Maria, FL, 48091-48092 [05-16229]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 157 / Tuesday, August 16, 2005 / Proposed Rules
The draw shall open on the quarter-hour
and three-quarter hour.
Dated: August 2, 2005.
D.B. Peterman,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander,
Seventh Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 05–16180 Filed 8–15–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–15–P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 117
[CGD07–05–097]
RIN 1625–AA09
Coast Guard, DHS.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to
change the operating regulations
governing the Cortez (SR 684) bridge
and the Anna Maria (SR 64) bridge
across the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway,
mile 89.2 in Anna Maria, Manatee
County, Florida. This proposed rule
would require the drawbridges to open
on a 30-minute schedule if vessels are
present. However, the drawbridges are
not required to open during the morning
and afternoon rush hours. This
proposed action may improve the
movement of vehicular traffic while not
unreasonably interfering with the
movement of vessel traffic.
DATES: Comments and related material
must reach the Coast Guard on or before
October 17, 2005.
ADDRESSES: You may mail comments
and related material to Commander
(obr), Seventh Coast Guard District, 909
SE. 1st Avenue, Room 432, Miami, FL,
33131, 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 are available for inspection or
copying at the Seventh Coast Guard
District Bridge Branch, between 7:30
a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.
Michael Lieberum, Project Officer,
Seventh Coast Guard District, Bridge
Branch, at (305) 415–6744.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
VerDate jul<14>2003
10:09 Aug 15, 2005
Jkt 205001
Request for Comments
Regulatory Evaluation
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 (CGD07–05–097),
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.
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. This proposed rule
would revise the existing bridge
schedule to allow for improved vehicle
traffic flow, while still providing ample
scheduled openings for vessel traffic.
Public Meeting
Drawbridge Operation Regulations;
Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, Anna
Maria, FL
48091
We do not now plan to hold a public
meeting. But you may submit a request
for a meeting by writing to the Seventh
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
The existing regulations of the Cortez
(SR 684) bridge, mile 87.4, and Anna
Maria (SR 64) bridge, mile 89.2 at Anna
Maria, published in 33 CFR
117.287(d)(1) and (2) require the draw to
open on signal, except that from 7 a.m.
to 6 p.m., the draw need open only on
the hour, twenty minutes past the hour
and forty minutes past the hour if
vessels are present.
On June 1, 2005, the City officials of
Holmes Beach in cooperation with the
cities of Anna Maria and Bradenton
Beach and the Town of Longboat Key
requested that the Coast Guard review
the existing regulations governing the
operation of the Cortez and Anna Maria
bridges, because they think the current
drawbridge regulations are not meeting
the needs of vehicle traffic.
Discussion of Proposed Rule
This proposed rule would require the
Cortez (SR 684) and Anna Maria (SR 64)
bridges, miles 87.4 and 89.2, at Anna
Maria to open on the hour and half-hour
if vessels are present, except that the
draws need not open from 7:35 a.m. to
8:29 a.m. and from 4:35 p.m. to 5:29
p.m. The objective of this revision is to
improve vehicle traffic flow on SR 684
and SR 64, especially during peak
periods of increased road congestion.
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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 business, 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 would affect
the following entities, some of which
may be small entities: The owners or
operators of vessels needing to transit
the Intracoastal Waterway in the
vicinity of the Cortez and Anna Maria
bridges, persons intending to drive over
the bridge, and nearby business owners.
The revision to the openings schedule
would not have a significant impact on
a substantial number of small entities
for the following reasons. Vehicle traffic
and small business owners in the area
might benefit from the improved traffic
flow that regularly scheduled openings
will offer this area. Although bridge
openings will be less frequent, vessel
traffic will still be able to transit the
Intracoastal Waterway in the vicinity of
the Cortez and Anna Maria bridges
pursuant to the revised openings
schedule.
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,
E:\FR\FM\16AUP1.SGM
16AUP1
48092
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 157 / Tuesday, August 16, 2005 / Proposed Rules
please submit a comment to the Seventh
Coast Guard District Bridge Branch at
the address under ADDRESSES explaining
why you think it qualifies and how and
to what degree this proposed 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 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.
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 would call for no
new collection of information under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3501–3520).
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.
Federalism
Energy Effects
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.
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.
Collection of Information
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.
VerDate jul<14>2003
10:09 Aug 15, 2005
Jkt 205001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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
M16475.1D, 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
proposed rule is categorically excluded,
under figure 2–1, paragraph (32)(e) of
the Instruction, from further
environmental documentation.
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; 33 CFR 1.05–1(g);
Department of Homeland Security Delegation
No. 0170.1; section 117.255 also issued under
the authority of Pub. L. 102–587, 106 Stat.
5039.
2. Revise § 117.287(d)(1) and (2) to
read as follows:
§ 117.287
Gulf Intracoastal Waterway.
*
*
*
*
*
(d)(1) The draw of the Cortez (SR 684)
bridge, mile 87.4, need open only on the
hour and half-hour; except that from
7:35 a.m. to 8:29 a.m. and 4:35 p.m. and
5:29 p.m. the draw need not open.
(2) The draw of the Anna Maria (SR
64) bridge, mile 89.2, need open only on
the hour and half-hour; except that from
7:35 a.m. to 8:29 a.m. and 4:35 p.m. to
5:29 p.m. the draw need not open.
*
*
*
*
*
Dated: August 3, 2005.
D.B. Peterman,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander,
Seventh Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 05–16229 Filed 8–15–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–15–P
E:\FR\FM\16AUP1.SGM
16AUP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 157 (Tuesday, August 16, 2005)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 48091-48092]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-16229]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 117
[CGD07-05-097]
RIN 1625-AA09
Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Gulf Intracoastal Waterway,
Anna Maria, FL
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to change the operating regulations
governing the Cortez (SR 684) bridge and the Anna Maria (SR 64) bridge
across the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, mile 89.2 in Anna Maria, Manatee
County, Florida. This proposed rule would require the drawbridges to
open on a 30-minute schedule if vessels are present. However, the
drawbridges are not required to open during the morning and afternoon
rush hours. This proposed action may improve the movement of vehicular
traffic while not unreasonably interfering with the movement of vessel
traffic.
DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or
before October 17, 2005.
ADDRESSES: You may mail comments and related material to Commander
(obr), Seventh Coast Guard District, 909 SE. 1st Avenue, Room 432,
Miami, FL, 33131, 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 are available for inspection or copying
at the Seventh Coast Guard District Bridge Branch, between 7:30 a.m.
and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Michael Lieberum, Project Officer,
Seventh Coast Guard District, Bridge Branch, at (305) 415-6744.
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-
097), 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 Seventh 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
The existing regulations of the Cortez (SR 684) bridge, mile 87.4,
and Anna Maria (SR 64) bridge, mile 89.2 at Anna Maria, published in 33
CFR 117.287(d)(1) and (2) require the draw to open on signal, except
that from 7 a.m. to 6 p.m., the draw need open only on the hour, twenty
minutes past the hour and forty minutes past the hour if vessels are
present.
On June 1, 2005, the City officials of Holmes Beach in cooperation
with the cities of Anna Maria and Bradenton Beach and the Town of
Longboat Key requested that the Coast Guard review the existing
regulations governing the operation of the Cortez and Anna Maria
bridges, because they think the current drawbridge regulations are not
meeting the needs of vehicle traffic.
Discussion of Proposed Rule
This proposed rule would require the Cortez (SR 684) and Anna Maria
(SR 64) bridges, miles 87.4 and 89.2, at Anna Maria to open on the hour
and half-hour if vessels are present, except that the draws need not
open from 7:35 a.m. to 8:29 a.m. and from 4:35 p.m. to 5:29 p.m. The
objective of this revision is to improve vehicle traffic flow on SR 684
and SR 64, especially during peak periods of increased road congestion.
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. This proposed rule would revise
the existing bridge schedule to allow for improved vehicle traffic
flow, while still providing ample scheduled openings for vessel
traffic.
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 business, 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 would affect the following
entities, some of which may be small entities: The owners or operators
of vessels needing to transit the Intracoastal Waterway in the vicinity
of the Cortez and Anna Maria bridges, persons intending to drive over
the bridge, and nearby business owners. The revision to the openings
schedule would not have a significant impact on a substantial number of
small entities for the following reasons. Vehicle traffic and small
business owners in the area might benefit from the improved traffic
flow that regularly scheduled openings will offer this area. Although
bridge openings will be less frequent, vessel traffic will still be
able to transit the Intracoastal Waterway in the vicinity of the Cortez
and Anna Maria bridges pursuant to the revised openings schedule.
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,
[[Page 48092]]
please submit a comment to the Seventh Coast Guard District Bridge
Branch at the address under ADDRESSES explaining why you think it
qualifies and how and to what degree this proposed 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 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 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
M16475.1D, 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 proposed rule is categorically excluded,
under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e) of the Instruction, from further
environmental documentation.
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; 33 CFR 1.05-1(g); Department of
Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1; section 117.255 also issued
under the authority of Pub. L. 102-587, 106 Stat. 5039.
2. Revise Sec. 117.287(d)(1) and (2) to read as follows:
Sec. 117.287 Gulf Intracoastal Waterway.
* * * * *
(d)(1) The draw of the Cortez (SR 684) bridge, mile 87.4, need open
only on the hour and half-hour; except that from 7:35 a.m. to 8:29 a.m.
and 4:35 p.m. and 5:29 p.m. the draw need not open.
(2) The draw of the Anna Maria (SR 64) bridge, mile 89.2, need open
only on the hour and half-hour; except that from 7:35 a.m. to 8:29 a.m.
and 4:35 p.m. to 5:29 p.m. the draw need not open.
* * * * *
Dated: August 3, 2005.
D.B. Peterman,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Seventh Coast Guard
District.
[FR Doc. 05-16229 Filed 8-15-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P