Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Stickney Point (SR 72) Bridge, Gulf Intracoastal Waterway Mile 68.6, Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, Sarasota County, FL, 75767-75769 [E5-7631]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 244 / Wednesday, December 21, 2005 / Proposed Rules
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 as follows:
PART 117—DRAWBRIDGE
OPERATION REGULATIONS
1. The authority citation for part 117
continues to read as follows:
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS
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. In § 117.733, paragraph (b)(2) is
revised to read as follows:
§ 117.733 New Jersey Intracoastal
Waterway.
*
*
*
*
*
(b)(2) Year-round from 11 p.m. to 8
a.m., and at all times from December 1
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:51 Dec 20, 2005
Jkt 208001
to March 31, the draw need only open
if at least four hours notice is given.
*
*
*
*
*
Dated: December 5, 2005.
Larry L. Hereth,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander,
Fifth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. E5–7632 Filed 12–20–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–15–P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 117
[CGD07–05–158]
RIN 1625–AA09
Drawbridge Operation Regulations;
Stickney Point (SR 72) Bridge, Gulf
Intracoastal Waterway Mile 68.6, Gulf
Intracoastal Waterway, Sarasota
County, FL
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to
change the operating schedule of the
Stickney Point (SR 72) bridge across the
Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, mile 68.6 in
Sarasota County, Florida. This proposed
rule would require the drawbridge to
open on a 30-minute schedule from 6
a.m. until 10 p.m., Monday through
Friday except Federal holidays. 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
February 21, 2006.
ADDRESSES: You may mail comments
and related material to Commander
(dpb), 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.
Barry Dragon, Project Officer, Seventh
Coast Guard District, Bridge Branch, at
(305) 415–6743.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
75767
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 [CGD07–05–158],
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.
Background and Purpose
The current regulations governing the
Stickney Point (SR 72) bridge, mile 68.6,
at Sarasota County in 33 CFR 117.5
requires the drawbridge to open on
signal.
On September 29, 2005, Sarasota
County officials requested the Coast
Guard review the operation of the
Stickney Point bridge because they
contended the regulation is not meeting
the needs of vehicle traffic.
Discussion of Proposed Rule
This proposed rule would require the
Stickney Point (SR 72) bridge, mile 68.6,
at Sarasota County to open on the hour
and half-hour, from 6 a.m. to 10 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. This proposed schedule will
allow local vehicular traffic to plan for
drawbridge openings while providing
for the reasonable needs of navigation.
In order to record this change in the
Code of Federal Regulations, the current
regulation governing the Siesta Drive
bridge at 33 CFR 117.287(b–1) shall be
moved to 33 CFR 117.287(c) so that the
regulation governing the Stickney Point
bridge can be recorded at 33 CFR
117.287(b–1).
Regulatory Evaluation
This proposed rule is not a
‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under
section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866,
Regulatory Planning and Review, and
E:\FR\FM\21DEP1.SGM
21DEP1
75768
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 244 / Wednesday, December 21, 2005 / Proposed Rules
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 modify the existing bridge
schedule to allow for improved vehicle
traffic flow and provide scheduled
openings for vessel traffic.
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS
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 Stickney Point bridge,
persons intending to drive over the
bridge and nearby business owners.
Vehicle traffic and small business
owners in the area might benefit from
the increased traffic flow that regularly
scheduled openings will offer this area.
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 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
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:51 Dec 20, 2005
Jkt 208001
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.
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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
E:\FR\FM\21DEP1.SGM
21DEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 244 / Wednesday, December 21, 2005 / Proposed Rules
the Instruction, from further
environmental documentation. Under
figure 2–1, paragraph (32)(e) of the
Instruction, an ‘‘Environmental Analysis
Check List’’ and a ‘‘Categorical
Exclusion Determination’’ are not
required for this proposed rule.
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117
RIN 2135–AA22
Bridges.
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. In Sec. 117.287 revise para (b–1)
and (c) to read as follows:
Gulf Intracoastal Waterway.
*
*
*
*
*
(b–1) The draw of the Stickney Point
(SR 72) bridge, mile 68.6 at Sarasota
County shall open on the hour and halfhour, from 6 a.m. to 10 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
(c) The draw of the Siesta Drive
bridge, mile 71.6 at Sarasota, Florida
shall open on signal, except that from 7
a.m. to 6 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays, the draw need
open only on the hour, 20 minutes past
the hour, and 40 minutes past the hour.
On weekends and Federal holidays,
from 11 a.m. to 6 p.m., the draw need
open only on the hour, 20 minutes past
the hour and 40 minutes past the hour.
*
*
*
*
*
Dated: December 13, 2005.
D.B. Peterman,
RADM, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander,
Seventh Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. E5–7631 Filed 12–20–05; 8:45 am]
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS
BILLING CODE 4910–15–P
VerDate Aug<31>2005
33 CFR Part 401
[Docket No. SLSDC 2005–23248]
Seaway Regulations and Rules:
Periodic Update, Various Categories
Regulations
§ 117.287
Saint Lawrence Seaway Development
Corporation
14:51 Dec 20, 2005
Jkt 208001
Saint Lawrence Seaway
Development Corporation, DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: The Saint Lawrence Seaway
Development Corporation (SLSDC) and
the St. Lawrence Seaway Management
Corporation (SLSMC) of Canada, under
international agreement, jointly publish
and presently administer the St.
Lawrence Seaway Regulations and
Rules (Practices and Procedures in
Canada) in their respective jurisdictions.
Under agreement with the SLSMC, the
SLSDC is amending the joint regulations
by updating the Seaway Regulations and
Rules in various categories. The
proposed changes will update the
following sections of the Regulation and
Rules: Condition of Vessels;
Preclearance and Security for Tolls;
Seaway Navigation; Toll Assessment
and Payment; and Information and
Reports. These proposed amendments
are necessary to take account of updated
procedures and/or technology and will
enhance the safety of transits through
the Seaway. Several of the proposed
amendments are merely editorial or for
clarification of existing requirements.
DATES: Any party wishing to present
views on the proposed amendment may
file comments with the Corporation on
or before January 20, 2006.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
[identified by DOT DMS Docket Number
SLSDC 2005–23248] by any of the
following methods:
• Web site: https://dms.dot.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting
comments on the DOT electronic docket
site.
• Fax: 1–202–493–2251.
• Mail: Docket Management Facility;
U.S. Department of Transportation, 400
Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building,
Room PL–401, Washington, DC 20590–
001.
• Hand Delivery: Room PL–401 on
the plaza level of the Nassif Building,
400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington,
DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal
Holidays.
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to
https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
75769
online instructions for submitting
comments.
Instructions: All submissions must
include the agency name and docket
number or Regulatory Identification
Number (RIN) for this rulemaking. Note
that all comments received will be
posted without change to https://
dms.dot.gov, including any personal
information provided. Please see the
Privacy Act heading under Regulatory
Notices.
Docket: For access to the docket to
read background documents or
comments received, go to https://
dms.dot.gov at any time or to Room PL–
401 on the plaza level of the Nassif
Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal Holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Craig H. Middlebrook, Acting Chief
Counsel, Saint Lawrence Seaway
Development Corporation, 400 Seventh
Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590,
(202) 366–0091.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Saint
Lawrence Seaway Development
Corporation (SLSDC) and the St.
Lawrence Seaway Management
Corporation (SLSMC) of Canada, under
international agreement, jointly publish
and presently administer the St.
Lawrence Seaway Regulations and
Rules (Practices and Procedures in
Canada) in their respective jurisdictions.
Under agreement with the SLSMC, the
SLSDC is proposing to amend the joint
regulations by updating the Regulations
and Rules in various categories. The
proposed changes would update the
following sections of the Regulations
and Rules: Condition of Vessels;
Preclearance and Security for Tolls;
Seaway Navigation; Toll Assessment
and Payment; and Information and
Reports. These updates are necessary to
take account of updated procedures
and/or technology, which will enhance
the safety of transits through the
Seaway. Many of these proposed
changes are to clarify existing
requirements in the regulations. Where
new requirements or regulations are
being proposed, an explanation for such
a change is provided below.
Regulatory Notices
Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search
the electronic form of all comments
received into any of our dockets by the
name of the individual submitting the
comment (or signing the comment, if
submitted on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). You may
review DOT’s complete Privacy Act
Statement in the Federal Register
E:\FR\FM\21DEP1.SGM
21DEP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 244 (Wednesday, December 21, 2005)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 75767-75769]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E5-7631]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 117
[CGD07-05-158]
RIN 1625-AA09
Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Stickney Point (SR 72) Bridge,
Gulf Intracoastal Waterway Mile 68.6, Gulf Intracoastal Waterway,
Sarasota County, FL
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to change the operating schedule of
the Stickney Point (SR 72) bridge across the Gulf Intracoastal
Waterway, mile 68.6 in Sarasota County, Florida. This proposed rule
would require the drawbridge to open on a 30-minute schedule from 6
a.m. until 10 p.m., Monday through Friday except Federal holidays. 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 February 21, 2006.
ADDRESSES: You may mail comments and related material to Commander
(dpb), 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. Barry Dragon, Project Officer,
Seventh Coast Guard District, Bridge Branch, at (305) 415-6743.
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-
158], 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.
Background and Purpose
The current regulations governing the Stickney Point (SR 72)
bridge, mile 68.6, at Sarasota County in 33 CFR 117.5 requires the
drawbridge to open on signal.
On September 29, 2005, Sarasota County officials requested the
Coast Guard review the operation of the Stickney Point bridge because
they contended the regulation is not meeting the needs of vehicle
traffic.
Discussion of Proposed Rule
This proposed rule would require the Stickney Point (SR 72) bridge,
mile 68.6, at Sarasota County to open on the hour and half-hour, from 6
a.m. to 10 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. This
proposed schedule will allow local vehicular traffic to plan for
drawbridge openings while providing for the reasonable needs of
navigation. In order to record this change in the Code of Federal
Regulations, the current regulation governing the Siesta Drive bridge
at 33 CFR 117.287(b-1) shall be moved to 33 CFR 117.287(c) so that the
regulation governing the Stickney Point bridge can be recorded at 33
CFR 117.287(b-1).
Regulatory Evaluation
This proposed rule is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review,
and
[[Page 75768]]
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 modify
the existing bridge schedule to allow for improved vehicle traffic flow
and provide 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 Stickney Point bridge, persons intending to drive over the bridge
and nearby business owners. Vehicle traffic and small business owners
in the area might benefit from the increased traffic flow that
regularly scheduled openings will offer this area.
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 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
[[Page 75769]]
the Instruction, from further environmental documentation. Under figure
2-1, paragraph (32)(e) of the Instruction, an ``Environmental Analysis
Check List'' and a ``Categorical Exclusion Determination'' are not
required for this proposed rule.
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. In Sec. 117.287 revise para (b-1) and (c) to read as follows:
Sec. 117.287 Gulf Intracoastal Waterway.
* * * * *
(b-1) The draw of the Stickney Point (SR 72) bridge, mile 68.6 at
Sarasota County shall open on the hour and half-hour, from 6 a.m. to 10
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
(c) The draw of the Siesta Drive bridge, mile 71.6 at Sarasota,
Florida shall open on signal, except that from 7 a.m. to 6 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays, the draw need open only on the
hour, 20 minutes past the hour, and 40 minutes past the hour. On
weekends and Federal holidays, from 11 a.m. to 6 p.m., the draw need
open only on the hour, 20 minutes past the hour and 40 minutes past the
hour.
* * * * *
Dated: December 13, 2005.
D.B. Peterman,
RADM, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Seventh Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. E5-7631 Filed 12-20-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P
