Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Stickney Point (SR 72) Bridge, Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, Mile 68.6, Sarasota, FL, 58334-58336 [E6-16285]

Download as PDF 58334 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 191 / Tuesday, October 3, 2006 / Proposed Rules 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 ycherry on PROD1PC64 with PROPOSALS 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 VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:42 Oct 02, 2006 Jkt 211001 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.lD, and Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 5100.1, which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that there are no factors in this case that would limit the use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, we believe that this rule should be categorically excluded, under figure 2– 1, paragraph (32)(e), of the Instruction, from further environmental documentation. 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 rule. However, comments on this section will 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: PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 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 § 117.261 revise paragraphs (nn)–(pp) to read as follows: § 117.261 Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway from St. Marys River to Key Largo. * * * * * (nn) The Venetian Causeway Bridge (West), mile 1088.6, shall open on signal, except that from 7 am to 7 pm, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays, the bridge need only open on the hour and half-hour. (oo)–(pp) [Reserved.] * * * * * 3. Revise § 117.269 to read as follows: § 117.269 Biscayne Bay. The Venetian Causeway Bridge (East) shall open on signal, except that from 7 am to 7 pm, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays, the bridge need only open on the hour and half-hour. Dated: September 21, 2006. J.A. Watson, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Seventh Coast Guard District, Acting. [FR Doc. E6–16274 Filed 10–2–06; 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, Sarasota, FL Coast Guard, DHS. Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking. AGENCY: ACTION: SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is proposing a supplemental change to its notice of proposed rulemaking for modifying the Stickney Point (SR 72) drawbridge operating regulation. This proposal addresses changes based on comments received from a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking published on December 21, 2005, and a test deviation that was held from April 24, 2006 until July 21, 2006. E:\FR\FM\03OCP1.SGM 03OCP1 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 191 / Tuesday, October 3, 2006 / Proposed Rules Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or before November 2, 2006. ADDRESSES: You may mail comments and related material to Commander (dpb), Seventh Coast Guard District, 909 SE 1st Avenue, Room 432, Miami, Florida 33131–3050. Commander (dpb) maintains the public docket for this rulemaking. Comments and material received from the public, as well as documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket, will become part of this docket and will be available for inspection or copying at Commander (dpb), Seventh Coast Guard District, 909 SE 1st Avenue, Room 432, Miami, Florida 33131–3050 between 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Barry Dragon, Seventh Coast Guard District, Bridge Branch, telephone number 305–415–6743. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: DATES: 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 another public meeting. But you may submit a request for a meeting by writing to Bridge Branch, Seventh Coast Guard District 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. ycherry on PROD1PC64 with PROPOSALS Background and Purpose The existing regulation of the Stickney Point (SR 72) bridge, mile 68.6 at Sarasota, published in 33 CFR 117.5 requires the draw to open on signal. On December 21, 2005 a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking was published in the Federal Register (70 FR 75767). This proposal was for an on the hour and VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:42 Oct 02, 2006 Jkt 211001 half-hour opening schedule. We received 48 comments from the public. All of the comments were against changing the regulation to twice an hour openings. From April 24, 2006, until July 21, 2006, a test of a twenty minute opening schedule (as published in the Federal Register at 71 FR 16491) was conducted per the request of City officials of Sarasota. The test was conducted because city officials did not believe the current drawbridge regulation was meeting the needs of vehicular traffic. During the test, we received five public comments. Four of the comments were from motorists who were in favor of the twenty minute schedule and one comment was against changing the current regulation. Discussion of Proposed Rule This proposed rule would require the Stickney Point (SR 72) bridge, mile 68.6, at Sarasota to open on the hour, twenty minutes past the hour and forty minutes past the hour. The objective of this revision is to allow local vehicular traffic to plan their bridge crossings, especially during peak periods of increased road congestion. Regulatory Evaluation This proposed rule is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. It is not ‘‘significant’’ under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Homeland Security. We expect the economic impact of this proposed rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation is unnecessary. 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, some of which PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 58335 may be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels needing to transit the Intracoastal Waterway in the vicinity of the Stickney Point bridge, persons intending to drive over the bridge, and nearby business owners. The revision to the opening schedule would not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. Vehicle traffic and small business owners in the area might benefit from the improved traffic planning that regularly scheduled openings will offer this area. Although bridge openings will be less frequent, vessel traffic will still be able to transit the Intracoastal Waterway in the vicinity of the Stickney Point Bridge pursuant to the revised openings schedule. If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment to the Seventh Coast Guard District Bridge Branch at the address under ADDRESSES explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what degree this proposed rule would economically affect it. Assistance for Small Entities Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104–121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the Seventh Coast Guard District Bridge Branch at the address under ADDRESSES. 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. E:\FR\FM\03OCP1.SGM 03OCP1 58336 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 191 / Tuesday, October 3, 2006 / Proposed Rules 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. ycherry on PROD1PC64 with PROPOSALS 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 VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:42 Oct 02, 2006 Jkt 211001 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. 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. Technical Standards 2. Revise § 117.287(b–1) and add (c) to read as follows: 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, and Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 5100.1, which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that there are no factors in this case that would limit the use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, we believe that this rule should be categorically excluded, under figure 2– 1, paragraph (32)(e), of the Instruction, from further environmental documentation. 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 rule. However, comments on this section will 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: PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 § 117.287 Gulf Intracoastal Waterway. * * * * * (b–1) Stickney Point (SR 72) Bridge, mile 68.6. The draw need only open on the hour, 20-minutes after the hour, and 40-minutes after the 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, twenty minutes past the hour and forty 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, twenty minutes past the hour and forty minutes past the hour. * * * * * Dated: September 21, 2006. J. A. Watson, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Seventh Coast Guard District Acting. [FR Doc. E6–16285 Filed 10–2–06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910–15–P DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION 48 CFR Part 30 [FAR Case 2005–027; Docket 2006–0020; Sequence 9] RIN 9000–AK60 Federal Acquisition Regulation; FAR Case 2005–027, FAR Part 30—CAS Administration Department of Defense (DoD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). ACTION: Proposed rule. AGENCIES: SUMMARY: The Civilian Agency Acquisition Council and the Defense Acquisition Regulations Council (Councils) are proposing to amend the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) to implement recommendations to change the regulations related to the E:\FR\FM\03OCP1.SGM 03OCP1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 191 (Tuesday, October 3, 2006)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 58334-58336]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-16285]


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

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, Sarasota, FL

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is proposing a supplemental change to its 
notice of proposed rulemaking for modifying the Stickney Point (SR 72) 
drawbridge operating regulation. This proposal addresses changes based 
on comments received from a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking published on 
December 21, 2005, and a test deviation that was held from April 24, 
2006 until July 21, 2006.

[[Page 58335]]


DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or 
before November 2, 2006.

ADDRESSES: You may mail comments and related material to Commander 
(dpb), Seventh Coast Guard District, 909 SE 1st Avenue, Room 432, 
Miami, Florida 33131-3050. Commander (dpb) maintains the public docket 
for this rulemaking. Comments and material received from the public, as 
well as documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the 
docket, will become part of this docket and will be available for 
inspection or copying at Commander (dpb), Seventh Coast Guard District, 
909 SE 1st Avenue, Room 432, Miami, Florida 33131-3050 between 8 a.m. 
and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Barry Dragon, Seventh Coast Guard 
District, Bridge Branch, telephone number 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 another public meeting. But you may 
submit a request for a meeting by writing to Bridge Branch, Seventh 
Coast Guard District at the address under ADDRESSES explaining why one 
would be beneficial. If we determine that one would aid this 
rulemaking, we will hold one at a time and place announced by a later 
notice in the Federal Register.

Background and Purpose

    The existing regulation of the Stickney Point (SR 72) bridge, mile 
68.6 at Sarasota, published in 33 CFR 117.5 requires the draw to open 
on signal.
    On December 21, 2005 a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking was published 
in the Federal Register (70 FR 75767). This proposal was for an on the 
hour and half-hour opening schedule. We received 48 comments from the 
public. All of the comments were against changing the regulation to 
twice an hour openings.
    From April 24, 2006, until July 21, 2006, a test of a twenty minute 
opening schedule (as published in the Federal Register at 71 FR 16491) 
was conducted per the request of City officials of Sarasota. The test 
was conducted because city officials did not believe the current 
drawbridge regulation was meeting the needs of vehicular traffic.
    During the test, we received five public comments. Four of the 
comments were from motorists who were in favor of the twenty minute 
schedule and one comment was against changing the current regulation.

Discussion of Proposed Rule

    This proposed rule would require the Stickney Point (SR 72) bridge, 
mile 68.6, at Sarasota to open on the hour, twenty minutes past the 
hour and forty minutes past the hour. The objective of this revision is 
to allow local vehicular traffic to plan their bridge crossings, 
especially during peak periods of increased road congestion.

Regulatory Evaluation

    This proposed rule is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under 
section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, 
and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits 
under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and 
Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. It is not ``significant'' 
under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of 
Homeland Security.
    We expect the economic impact of this proposed rule to be so 
minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation is unnecessary.

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, some of which may be small entities: The owners or operators 
of vessels needing to transit the Intracoastal Waterway in the vicinity 
of the Stickney Point bridge, persons intending to drive over the 
bridge, and nearby business owners. The revision to the opening 
schedule would not have a significant impact on a substantial number of 
small entities. Vehicle traffic and small business owners in the area 
might benefit from the improved traffic planning that regularly 
scheduled openings will offer this area. Although bridge openings will 
be less frequent, vessel traffic will still be able to transit the 
Intracoastal Waterway in the vicinity of the Stickney Point Bridge 
pursuant to the revised openings schedule.
    If you think that your business, organization, or governmental 
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have 
a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment to the 
Seventh Coast Guard District Bridge Branch at the address under 
ADDRESSES explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what 
degree this proposed rule would economically affect it.

Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small 
entities in understanding this proposed rule so that they can better 
evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the 
rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental 
jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or 
options for compliance, please contact the Seventh Coast Guard District 
Bridge Branch at the address under ADDRESSES. 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.

[[Page 58336]]

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.lD, and Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 
5100.1, which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National 
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and 
have made a preliminary determination that there are no factors in this 
case that would limit the use of a categorical exclusion under section 
2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, we believe that this rule should 
be categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e), of the 
Instruction, from further environmental documentation. 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 rule. However, comments on this section will 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. Revise Sec.  117.287(b-1) and add (c) to read as follows:


Sec.  117.287  Gulf Intracoastal Waterway.

* * * * *
    (b-1) Stickney Point (SR 72) Bridge, mile 68.6. The draw need only 
open on the hour, 20-minutes after the hour, and 40-minutes after the 
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, twenty minutes past the hour and forty 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, twenty minutes past the hour and forty minutes 
past the hour.
* * * * *

    Dated: September 21, 2006.
J. A. Watson,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Seventh Coast Guard District 
Acting.
 [FR Doc. E6-16285 Filed 10-2-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P