Drawbridge Operation Regulations; 63rd Street Bridge, Indian Creek, Miami, Miami-Dade County, FL, 16529-16531 [E6-4786]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 63 / Monday, April 3, 2006 / Proposed Rules 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. cchase on PROD1PC60 with PROPOSALS 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 VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:40 Mar 31, 2006 Jkt 208001 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. For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR part 117 as follows: 16529 across Indian Creek, mile 4.0 in MiamiDade County, Florida. This proposed rule will allow the bridge to remain closed during certain periods. This proposed temporary regulation is needed while the bridge undergoes rehabilitation. It will require the bridge to open on a regulated schedule during the rehabilitation project. Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or before May 15, 2006. DATES: § 117.911 Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, Little River to Savannah River. 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: ADDRESSES: 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. In § 117.911, paragraph (b) is revised to read as follows: * * * * (b) Little River Bridge Intracoastal Waterway mile 347.3, Horry County, S.C. The draw of the Little River (S–20) bridge, mile 347.3 at Horry County will open as necessary on the hour, twenty minutes past the hour, and forty minutes past the hour, from 6 a.m. to 6 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. At all other times, the bridge will open upon demand. * * * * * Dated: March 15, 2006. D. B. Peterman, RADM, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Seventh Coast Guard District. [FR Doc. E6–4787 Filed 3–31–06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910–15–P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 117 [CGD07–06–041] 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 [CGD07–06–041], 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 if 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 temporary rule in view of them. RIN 1625–AA09 Public Meeting Drawbridge Operation Regulations; 63rd Street Bridge, Indian Creek, Miami, Miami-Dade County, FL 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. Coast Guard, DHS. Notice of proposed rulemaking. AGENCY: ACTION: SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to temporarily change the operating regulation of the 63rd Street Bridge PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\03APP1.SGM 03APP1 16530 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 63 / Monday, April 3, 2006 / Proposed Rules Background and Purpose The existing regulations of the 63rd Street bridge, mile 4.0, Miami-Dade County is published in 33 CFR 117.5 and requires the span to open on signal. On January 17, 2006, the owner of the bridge requested that the Coast Guard temporarily change the existing regulations of the 63rd Street Bridge to allow for rehabilitation in a safe and efficient manner. The bridge closure dates detailed below have been staggered to allow for the movement of navigation before and after each closure period. cchase on PROD1PC60 with PROPOSALS Discussion of Proposed Rule This proposed temporary rule would require the draw of the 63rd Street bridge, mile 4.0 across Indian Creek, Miami-Dade County, Florida to open as necessary a single-leaf on the hour from 8 a.m. to 12:10 a.m. and to remain closed from 12:11 a.m. to 7:59 a.m. except that from July 14 to July 17, 2006, August 1 to August 4, 2006, January 10 to January 13, 2007, and January 29 to February 1, 2007, the bridge will be closed to navigation. From June 19 to June 24, July 5 to July 10, December 4 to December 9, and December 18 to December 23, 2006 the waterway will remain closed to navigation except for hourly openings as necessary between 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. The bridge closure dates have been staggered to allow for the movement of navigation before and after each closure period. Regulatory Evaluation This proposed temporary 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 temporary rule would modify the existing bridge schedule to allow for the rehabilitation of the bridge 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 temporary rule would have a significant economic VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:40 Mar 31, 2006 Jkt 208001 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 temporary rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This proposed temporary rule would affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: the owners or operators of vessels needing to transit from the marinas on the south of the bridge to the Intracoastal Waterway, persons intending to drive over the bridge and nearby business owners. 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. 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 temporary rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble. 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 temporary 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 We have analyzed this proposed temporary 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. Collection of Information This proposed temporary 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 temporary rule under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for federalism. PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 Taking of Private Property This proposed temporary 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 temporary 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. Indian Tribal Governments This proposed temporary 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 temporary 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 E:\FR\FM\03APP1.SGM 03APP1 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 63 / Monday, April 3, 2006 / Proposed Rules § 117.T293 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 temporary rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards. Environment We have analyzed this proposed temporary 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 temporary rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2–1, paragraph (32)(e) of 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 temporary rule. List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117 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 cchase on PROD1PC60 with PROPOSALS 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. Add § 117.T293 to read as follows: 16:40 Mar 31, 2006 Jkt 208001 Dated: March 15, 2006. D.B. Peterman, RADM, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Seventh Coast Guard District. [FR Doc. E6–4786 Filed 3–31–06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910–15–P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [CGD05–06–014] RIN 1625-AA87 Security Zone; Georgetown Channel, Potomac River, Washington, DC Coast Guard, DHS. Notice of proposed rulemaking. AGENCY: ACTION: SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to establish a temporary security zone on the waters of the upper Potomac River. This action is necessary to provide for the security of a large number of visitors to the annual July 4th celebration on the National Mall in Washington, DC. The security zone will allow for control of a designated area of the river and safeguard spectators and high-ranking officials. Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or before June 2, 2006. ADDRESSES: You may mail comments and related material to Commander, Coast Guard Sector Baltimore, 2401 Hawkins Point Road, Building 70, Waterways Management Division, Baltimore, Maryland 21226–1791. Coast Guard Sector Baltimore, Waterways DATES: 1. The authority citation for part 117 continues to read as follows: VerDate Aug<31>2005 Indian Creek. (a) The draw of the 63rd Street bridge, mile 4.0 across Indian Creek, MiamiDade County, Florida will open a singleleaf as necessary on the hour from 8 a.m. to 12:10 a.m. and will remain closed from 12:11 a.m. to 7:59 a.m. except that the bridge will be closed to navigation on the following dates: July 14 to July 17, 2006; August 1 to August 4, 2006; January 10 to January 13, 2007; and January 29 to February 1, 2007. (b) Notwithstanding paragraph (a) of this section, from June 19 to June 24, July 5 to July 10, December 4 to December 9, and December 18 to December 23, 2006 the waterway will be closed to navigation except for hourly openings as necessary between 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. (c) Effective date: This temporary rule is effective from 8 a.m. on June 19, 2006 through 6 p.m. on February 5, 2007. PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 16531 Management Division, 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 Coast Guard Sector Baltimore, Waterways Management Division, between 8 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Ronald Houck, at Coast Guard Sector Baltimore, Waterways Management Division, at telephone number (410) 576–2674 or (410) 576–2693. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Request for Comments We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting comments and related material. If you do so, please include your name and address, identify the docket number for this rulemaking (CGD05–06–014), indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and give the reason for each comment. Please submit all comments and related material in an unbound format, no larger than 81⁄2 by 11 inches, suitable for copying. If you would like to know that your submission reached us, please enclose a stamped, selfaddressed 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 Coast Guard Sector Baltimore, Waterways Management Division, 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 separate notice in the Federal Register. Background and Purpose Due to increased awareness that future terrorist attacks are possible, including continued threats against U.S. interests by Al-Queda and other terrorist organizations, the Coast Guard as lead federal agency for maritime homeland security, has determined that the Captain of the Port Baltimore must have the means to be aware of, deter, detect, intercept, and respond to asymmetric threats, acts of aggression, and attacks by terrorists on the American homeland while still maintaining our freedoms and sustaining the flow of commerce. E:\FR\FM\03APP1.SGM 03APP1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 63 (Monday, April 3, 2006)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 16529-16531]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-4786]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[CGD07-06-041]
RIN 1625-AA09


Drawbridge Operation Regulations; 63rd Street Bridge, Indian 
Creek, Miami, Miami-Dade County, FL

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to temporarily change the operating 
regulation of the 63rd Street Bridge across Indian Creek, mile 4.0 in 
Miami-Dade County, Florida. This proposed rule will allow the bridge to 
remain closed during certain periods. This proposed temporary 
regulation is needed while the bridge undergoes rehabilitation. It will 
require the bridge to open on a regulated schedule during the 
rehabilitation project.

DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or 
before May 15, 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. 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 [CGD07-06-
041], 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 if 
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 temporary 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 16530]]

Background and Purpose

    The existing regulations of the 63rd Street bridge, mile 4.0, 
Miami-Dade County is published in 33 CFR 117.5 and requires the span to 
open on signal.
    On January 17, 2006, the owner of the bridge requested that the 
Coast Guard temporarily change the existing regulations of the 63rd 
Street Bridge to allow for rehabilitation in a safe and efficient 
manner. The bridge closure dates detailed below have been staggered to 
allow for the movement of navigation before and after each closure 
period.

Discussion of Proposed Rule

    This proposed temporary rule would require the draw of the 63rd 
Street bridge, mile 4.0 across Indian Creek, Miami-Dade County, Florida 
to open as necessary a single-leaf on the hour from 8 a.m. to 12:10 
a.m. and to remain closed from 12:11 a.m. to 7:59 a.m. except that from 
July 14 to July 17, 2006, August 1 to August 4, 2006, January 10 to 
January 13, 2007, and January 29 to February 1, 2007, the bridge will 
be closed to navigation.
    From June 19 to June 24, July 5 to July 10, December 4 to December 
9, and December 18 to December 23, 2006 the waterway will remain closed 
to navigation except for hourly openings as necessary between 8 a.m. to 
6 p.m.
    The bridge closure dates have been staggered to allow for the 
movement of navigation before and after each closure period.

Regulatory Evaluation

    This proposed temporary 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 temporary rule 
would modify the existing bridge schedule to allow for the 
rehabilitation of the bridge 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 temporary 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 
temporary rule would not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities. This proposed temporary rule 
would affect the following entities, some of which may be small 
entities: the owners or operators of vessels needing to transit from 
the marinas on the south of the bridge to the Intracoastal Waterway, 
persons intending to drive over the bridge and nearby business owners.
    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 (Public Law 104-121), we want to assist small 
entities in understanding this proposed temporary 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 temporary 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 
temporary 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 temporary 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 temporary 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 temporary 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 temporary 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 temporary 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 temporary 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

[[Page 16531]]

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 temporary rule does not use technical standards. 
Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus 
standards.

Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed temporary 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 temporary rule is 
categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e) of 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 temporary rule.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117

    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; 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. Add Sec.  117.T293 to read as follows:


Sec.  117.T293  Indian Creek.

    (a) The draw of the 63rd Street bridge, mile 4.0 across Indian 
Creek, Miami-Dade County, Florida will open a single-leaf as necessary 
on the hour from 8 a.m. to 12:10 a.m. and will remain closed from 12:11 
a.m. to 7:59 a.m. except that the bridge will be closed to navigation 
on the following dates: July 14 to July 17, 2006; August 1 to August 4, 
2006; January 10 to January 13, 2007; and January 29 to February 1, 
2007.
    (b) Notwithstanding paragraph (a) of this section, from June 19 to 
June 24, July 5 to July 10, December 4 to December 9, and December 18 
to December 23, 2006 the waterway will be closed to navigation except 
for hourly openings as necessary between 8 a.m. to 6 p.m.
    (c) Effective date: This temporary rule is effective from 8 a.m. on 
June 19, 2006 through 6 p.m. on February 5, 2007.

    Dated: March 15, 2006.
D.B. Peterman,
RADM, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Seventh Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. E6-4786 Filed 3-31-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P