Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Bayou Lafourche, LA, 54946-54948 [E6-15561]

Download as PDF 54946 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 182 / Wednesday, September 20, 2006 / Proposed Rules 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. Section 117.465(a) is revised to read as follows: § 117.465 Lafourche Bayou. (a) The draws of the following bridges shall open on signal; except that, from August 15 through May 31, the draw need not open for the passage of vessels Monday through Friday except Federal holidays from 7 a.m. to 8:30 a.m.; from 2 p.m. to 4 p.m.; and from 4:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m.: (1) SR 308 (Golden Meadow) Bridge, mile 23.9, at Golden Meadow (2) Galliano Pontoon Bridge, mile 27.8, at Galliano (3) SR 308 (South Lafourche (Tarpon)) Bridge, mile 30.6, at Galliano (4) Cote Blanche Pontoon Bridge, mile 33.9, at Cutoff (5) Cutoff Vertical Lift Bridge, mile 36.3, at Cutoff (6) SR 310 (Larose Pontoon) Bridge, mile 39.1, at Larose * * * * * Dated: September 10, 2006. Joel R. Whitehead, Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard Commander, Eighth Coast Guard District. [FR Doc. E6–15558 Filed 9–19–06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910–15–P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 117 [CGD08–06–034] RIN 1625–AA09 Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Bayou Lafourche, LA Coast Guard, DHS. Notice of proposed rulemaking. AGENCY: rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSAL ACTION: SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to change the regulations governing the draw of the Valentine Pontoon Bridge across Bayou Lafourche, mile 44.7, in Lafourche Parish, Louisiana. The regulation will allow for the bridge to be unmanned and remain closed during hours of infrequent traffic with an advance notification requirement to open the bridge. DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or before November 20, 2006. ADDRESSES: You may mail comments and related material to Commander VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:27 Sep 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 (dpb), Eighth Coast Guard District, 500 Poydras Street, New Orleans, Louisiana 70130–3310. The Commander, Eighth Coast Guard District, Bridge Administration Branch 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 the Bridge Administration office between 7 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Frank, Bridge Administration Branch, telephone 504–671–2128. 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 [CGD08–06–034], 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. You may submit a request for a meeting by writing to Commander, Eighth Coast Guard District, Bridge Administration 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 U.S. Coast Guard, at the request of the Lafourche Parish Council, proposes to modify the existing operating schedules of the Valentine Pontoon Bridge across Bayou Lafourche, mile 44.7, in Lafourche Parish, Louisiana. The majority of the bridge’s openings occur between the hours of 6 a.m. and 6 p.m. The bridge owner proposes to continue to open the bridge on signal during these hours and to open the bridge on signal if at least four hours advance notification is given between the hours of 6 p.m. and 6 a.m. PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 Presently, the draw of the bridge opens on signal for the passage of traffic. Several large shipyards are located on Bayou Lafourche upstream of the bridge. The Lafourche Parish Council has contacted these facilities and has received letters of no objection to the proposed changes. A recent review of the bridge tender logs indicates that approximately 700 vessels transited through the bridge over the past year. Approximately 80% of the vessels transiting though the bridge site did so between the hours of 6 a.m. and 6 p.m. Additionally, it would appear that the majority of the night time openings for the bridge are for trawl vessels and they appear to increase during the months of May and August. Many of the trawl vessels appear to transit in clusters and pass through the bridge site on the same bridge opening. Presently, it is unclear as to whether or not a four-hour advance notification will place an undue burden on the vessel owners; however, the regulation will be written so that the bridge will be required to open on signal during the advance notification period if a temporary surge in water traffic occurs. Traffic counts were not included as part of the submittal from the bridge owner as the request is to reduce the requirement of having a bridge tender at the bridge 24 hours a day due to the limited number of vessel openings that occur during the hours of 6 p.m. to 6 a.m. Discussion of Proposed Rule The proposed rule would modify the existing regulations in 33 CFR 117.465. The modification to the regulations will require the bridge owner to open the bridge on signal from 6 a.m. until 6 p.m. daily for the passage of vessels. At all other times, the bridge will open for signal for the passage of vessels if at least four hours advance notification is given. This modification will allow the bridge owner to reduce their requirements to have a bridge tender at the bridge site at all times. The SR 3220 bridge, mile 49.2, at Lockport, is required to open on signal for the passage of vessels; except that from 6 p.m. to 10 a.m., the bridge draw shall open on signal if at least four hours advance notification is given. As the next bridge upstream from the Valentine Bridge already has a more restrictive regulation established, the new regulation will only directly affect those individuals whose vessels or facilities are located within this five mile stretch of the waterway. The two largest commercial facilities have already submitted letters of no objection to the proposed changes. E:\FR\FM\20SEP1.SGM 20SEP1 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 182 / Wednesday, September 20, 2006 / Proposed Rules Included in the regulation will be a clause similar to that which is included on the SR 3220 bridge that requires the bridge owner to open the bridge in less than four hours for an emergency and to open the bridge on signal if a temporary surge in water traffic occurs. Regulatory Evaluation This proposed rule is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. It is not ‘‘significant’’ under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Homeland Security. We expect the economic impact of this proposed rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation is unnecessary. Prior to proposing this rule, the Coast Guard analyzed the bridge usage records and determined that requiring four hours notice during off peak periods would have minimal impact on commercial vessel traffic. This proposed rule allows vessels ample opportunity to transit this waterway during the day and with minimal advanced notification at all other times. rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSAL Small Entities Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601–612), we have considered whether this proposed rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term ‘‘small entities’’ comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently 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: the owners and operators of vessels needing to transit the bridges during the requested closure periods. If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this proposed 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. VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:27 Sep 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 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 Eighth Coast Guard District Bridge Administration Branch at the address above. 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 proposed 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. PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 54947 Protection of Children We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This proposed 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. E:\FR\FM\20SEP1.SGM 20SEP1 54948 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 182 / Wednesday, September 20, 2006 / Proposed Rules Environment LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 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, we believe that this rule should be 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 Determination Check List’’ and a ‘‘Categorical Exclusion Determination’’ are not required for this rule. However, comments on this section still be considered before the final rule. Copyright Office List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117 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 § 117.465, paragraphs (b), (c), (d), (e), and (f) are redesignated paragraphs (c), (d), (e), (f) and (g). A new paragraph (b) is added to read as follows: Lafourche Bayou. * * * * (b) The draw of the Valentine bridge, mile 44.7 at Valentine, shall open on signal; except that, from 6 p.m. to 6 a.m., the draw shall open on signal if at least four hours advance notification is given. During the advance notification period, the draw shall open on less than four hours notice for an emergency and shall open on demand should a temporary surge in water traffic occur. * * * * * rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSAL * Dated: September 10, 2006. Joel R. Whitehead, Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Eighth Coast Guard District. [FR Doc. E6–15561 Filed 9–19–06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910–15–P VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:27 Sep 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 [Docket No. RM 2005–5] Retransmission of Digital Broadcast Signals Pursuant to the Cable Statutory License Copyright Office, Library of Congress. ACTION: Notice of Inquiry. AGENCY: SUMMARY: The Copyright Office is seeking comment on copyright issues associated with the secondary transmission of digital television broadcast signals by cable operators under the Copyright Act. DATES: Written comments are due November 6, 2006. Reply comments are due December 4, 2006. September 20, 2006. If hand delivered by a private party, an original and five copies of a comment or reply comment should be brought to Library of Congress, U.S. Copyright Office, 2221 S. Clark Street, 11th Floor, Arlington, VA. 22202, between 8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. The envelope should be addressed as follows: Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Copyright Office. If delivered by a commercial courier, an original and five copies of a comment or reply comment must be delivered to the Congressional Courier Acceptance Site (‘‘CCAS’’) located at 2nd and D Streets, NE, Washington, D.C. between 8:30 a.m. and 4 p.m. The envelope should be addressed as follows: Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Copyright Office, LM 430, James Madison Building, 101 Independence Avenue, SE, Washington, DC. Please note that CCAS will not accept delivery by means of overnight delivery services such as Federal Express, United Parcel Service or DHL. If sent by mail (including overnight delivery using U.S. Postal Service Express Mail), an original and five copies of a comment or reply comment should be addressed to U.S. Copyright Office, Copyright GC/I&R, P.O. Box 70400, Southwest Station, Washington, DC 20024. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ben Golant, Senior Attorney, and Tanya M. Sandros, Associate General Counsel, Copyright GC/I&R, P.O. Box 70400, Southwest Station, Washington, DC 20024. Telephone: (202) 707–8380. Telefax: (202) 707–8366. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 111 of the Copyright Act (‘‘Act’’), title ADDRESSES: Bridges. § 117.465 37 CFR Part 201 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 17 of the United States Code (‘‘Section 111’’) provides cable systems with a statutory license to retransmit a performance or display of a work embodied in a primary transmission made by a television station licensed by the Federal Communications Commission (‘‘FCC’’). Cable systems that retransmit broadcast signals in accordance with the provisions governing the statutory license set forth in Section 111 are required to pay royalty fees to the Copyright Office. Payments made under the cable statutory license are remitted semi– annually to the Copyright Office which invests the royalties in United States Treasury securities pending distribution of these funds to those copyright owners who are entitled to receive a share of the fees. The Motion Picture Association of America, Inc. (‘‘MPAA’’), its member companies and other producers and/or distributors of movies, series and specials broadcast by television stations (‘‘Program Suppliers’’) and the Office of the Commissioner of Baseball, the National Basketball Association, the National Football League, the National Collegiate Athletic Association, the National Hockey League and the Women’s National Basketball Association (‘‘Joint Sports Claimants’’ or ‘‘JSC’’) (collectively, ‘‘Copyright Owners’’) have requested that the Copyright Office commence a rulemaking to clarify the applicability of existing Copyright Office rules to the retransmission of digital broadcast signals under the statutory license set forth in Section 111 of the Copyright Act. The regulatory actions requested by Copyright Owners are properly within the authority of the Copyright Office. 17 U.S.C.111(d) and 702. However, the retransmission of digital broadcast signals under Section 111 raises many issues, some of which require further elucidation before amending Section 201.17 of title 37 of the Code of Federal Regulations (‘‘CFR’’ or ‘‘Section 201.17’’) and the associated cable Statement of Account forms (‘‘SOAs’’). We therefore initiate this Notice of Inquiry (‘‘NOI’’) to address the matters raised by the Copyright Owners’ Petition for Rulemaking1and to seek comment on other possible changes to the Copyright Office’s existing rules and cable SOA forms. 1 The petition and the attachments may be viewed on the Copyright Office website at: http:// copyright.gov/docs/cable/digitalsignals.pdf and http://copyright.gov/docs/cable/digitalsignalsattachments.pdf. E:\FR\FM\20SEP1.SGM 20SEP1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 182 (Wednesday, September 20, 2006)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 54946-54948]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-15561]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[CGD08-06-034]
RIN 1625-AA09


Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Bayou Lafourche, LA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to change the regulations governing 
the draw of the Valentine Pontoon Bridge across Bayou Lafourche, mile 
44.7, in Lafourche Parish, Louisiana. The regulation will allow for the 
bridge to be unmanned and remain closed during hours of infrequent 
traffic with an advance notification requirement to open the bridge.

DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or 
before November 20, 2006.

ADDRESSES: You may mail comments and related material to Commander 
(dpb), Eighth Coast Guard District, 500 Poydras Street, New Orleans, 
Louisiana 70130-3310. The Commander, Eighth Coast Guard District, 
Bridge Administration Branch 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 the Bridge Administration office between 7 a.m. and 3 p.m., 
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Frank, Bridge Administration 
Branch, telephone 504-671-2128.

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 [CGD08-06-
034], 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. You may submit a 
request for a meeting by writing to Commander, Eighth Coast Guard 
District, Bridge Administration 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 U.S. Coast Guard, at the request of the Lafourche Parish 
Council, proposes to modify the existing operating schedules of the 
Valentine Pontoon Bridge across Bayou Lafourche, mile 44.7, in 
Lafourche Parish, Louisiana. The majority of the bridge's openings 
occur between the hours of 6 a.m. and 6 p.m. The bridge owner proposes 
to continue to open the bridge on signal during these hours and to open 
the bridge on signal if at least four hours advance notification is 
given between the hours of 6 p.m. and 6 a.m. Presently, the draw of the 
bridge opens on signal for the passage of traffic.
    Several large shipyards are located on Bayou Lafourche upstream of 
the bridge. The Lafourche Parish Council has contacted these facilities 
and has received letters of no objection to the proposed changes. A 
recent review of the bridge tender logs indicates that approximately 
700 vessels transited through the bridge over the past year. 
Approximately 80% of the vessels transiting though the bridge site did 
so between the hours of 6 a.m. and 6 p.m. Additionally, it would appear 
that the majority of the night time openings for the bridge are for 
trawl vessels and they appear to increase during the months of May and 
August. Many of the trawl vessels appear to transit in clusters and 
pass through the bridge site on the same bridge opening. Presently, it 
is unclear as to whether or not a four-hour advance notification will 
place an undue burden on the vessel owners; however, the regulation 
will be written so that the bridge will be required to open on signal 
during the advance notification period if a temporary surge in water 
traffic occurs.
    Traffic counts were not included as part of the submittal from the 
bridge owner as the request is to reduce the requirement of having a 
bridge tender at the bridge 24 hours a day due to the limited number of 
vessel openings that occur during the hours of 6 p.m. to 6 a.m.

Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The proposed rule would modify the existing regulations in 33 CFR 
117.465. The modification to the regulations will require the bridge 
owner to open the bridge on signal from 6 a.m. until 6 p.m. daily for 
the passage of vessels. At all other times, the bridge will open for 
signal for the passage of vessels if at least four hours advance 
notification is given. This modification will allow the bridge owner to 
reduce their requirements to have a bridge tender at the bridge site at 
all times. The SR 3220 bridge, mile 49.2, at Lockport, is required to 
open on signal for the passage of vessels; except that from 6 p.m. to 
10 a.m., the bridge draw shall open on signal if at least four hours 
advance notification is given. As the next bridge upstream from the 
Valentine Bridge already has a more restrictive regulation established, 
the new regulation will only directly affect those individuals whose 
vessels or facilities are located within this five mile stretch of the 
waterway. The two largest commercial facilities have already submitted 
letters of no objection to the proposed changes.

[[Page 54947]]

    Included in the regulation will be a clause similar to that which 
is included on the SR 3220 bridge that requires the bridge owner to 
open the bridge in less than four hours for an emergency and to open 
the bridge on signal if a temporary surge in water traffic occurs.

Regulatory Evaluation

    This proposed rule is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under 
section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, 
and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits 
under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and 
Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. It is not ``significant'' 
under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of 
Homeland Security. We expect the economic impact of this proposed rule 
to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation is unnecessary.
    Prior to proposing this rule, the Coast Guard analyzed the bridge 
usage records and determined that requiring four hours notice during 
off peak periods would have minimal impact on commercial vessel 
traffic. This proposed rule allows vessels ample opportunity to transit 
this waterway during the day and with minimal advanced notification at 
all other times.

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have 
considered whether this proposed rule would have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term ``small 
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations 
that are independently 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: the owners and operators of vessels needing to transit the 
bridges during the requested closure periods.
    If you think that your business, organization, or governmental 
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this proposed 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 Eighth Coast Guard District 
Bridge Administration Branch at the address above. 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 proposed 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 proposed 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.

[[Page 54948]]

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, we believe that this rule should be 
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 
Determination Check List'' and a ``Categorical Exclusion 
Determination'' are not required for this rule. However, comments on 
this section still be considered before the final 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; 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.  117.465, paragraphs (b), (c), (d), (e), and (f) are 
redesignated paragraphs (c), (d), (e), (f) and (g). A new paragraph (b) 
is added to read as follows:


Sec.  117.465  Lafourche Bayou.

* * * * *
    (b) The draw of the Valentine bridge, mile 44.7 at Valentine, shall 
open on signal; except that, from 6 p.m. to 6 a.m., the draw shall open 
on signal if at least four hours advance notification is given. During 
the advance notification period, the draw shall open on less than four 
hours notice for an emergency and shall open on demand should a 
temporary surge in water traffic occur.
* * * * *

    Dated: September 10, 2006.
Joel R. Whitehead,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Eighth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. E6-15561 Filed 9-19-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P