Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Lewes and Rehoboth Canal, Mispillion River, DE, 58776-58778 [E6-16427]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
58776
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 193 / Thursday, October 5, 2006 / Proposed Rules
concurrence in the Secretarial
Determination within one year of the
date of the request, the Secretary may,
at the request of the applicant tribe or
the Governor, grant an extension of up
to 180 days.
(d) If no extension is granted or if the
Governor does not respond during the
extension period, the applicant tribe
will be notified in writing that the
Secretarial Determination is no longer
valid and that its application is no
longer under consideration.
§ 292.23 Can the public review the
application for a Secretarial Determination?
Subject to restrictions on disclosure
required by the Freedom of Information
Act (5 U.S.C. 552), the Privacy Act (5
U.S.C. 552a), and the Trade Secrets Act
(18 U.S.C. 1905), the tribe’s application
and all supporting documents will be
available for review at the local BIA
agency or Regional Office having
administrative jurisdiction over the
land.
Information Collection
§ 292.24 Do information collections in this
part have Office of Management and Budget
approval?
The information collection
requirements in §§ 292.16, 292.17, and
292.18 have been approved by the
Office of Management and Budget
(OMB). The information collection
control number is 1076–0158. A Federal
agency may not collect or sponsor, and
a person is not required to respond to,
a collection of information unless it
displays a currently valid OMB control.
[FR Doc. E6–16490 Filed 10–4–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–4N–P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 117
[CGD05–06–089]
RIN 1625–AA09
Drawbridge Operation Regulations;
Lewes and Rehoboth Canal, Mispillion
River, DE
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
AGENCY:
ycherry on PROD1PC64 with PROPOSALS
ACTION:
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to
change the drawbridge operation
regulations of three Delaware
Department of Transportation (DelDOT)
bridges: The Savannah Road/SR 18
Bridge, at mile 1.7, in Lewes, the SR
14A Bridge, at mile 6.7, in Rehoboth,
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:51 Oct 04, 2006
Jkt 211001
and the S14 Bridge, at mile 11.0, across
Mispillion River at Milford, DE. This
proposal would allow the bridges to
open on signal if 24 hours advance
notice is given. This proposal would
provide longer advance notification for
vessel openings from 2 hours to 24
hours while still providing for the
reasonable needs of navigation.
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), Fifth Coast Guard District,
Federal Building, 1st Floor, 431
Crawford Street, Portsmouth, VA
23704–5004. The Fifth Coast Guard
District 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), Fifth
Coast Guard District between 8 a.m. and
4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Waverly W. Gregory, Jr., Bridge
Administrator, Fifth Coast Guard
District, at (757) 398–6222.
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 CGD05–06–089,
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
a return receipt, please enclose a
stamped, self-addressed postcard or
envelope. We will consider all
submittals 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 Commander
(obr), Fifth 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.
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Background and Purpose
Delaware Department of
Transportation (DelDOT), who owns
and operates the Savannah Road/SR 18
Bridge, at mile 1.7, in Lewes, the SR
14A Bridge, at mile 6.7, in Rehoboth,
and the S14 Bridge, at mile 11.0, across
Mispillion River at Milford, requested
longer advance notification for vessel
openings from 2 hours to 24 hours for
the following reasons:
Lewes and Rehoboth Canal
In the closed-to-navigation position,
the Savannah Road/SR 18 Bridge, at
mile 1.7, in Lewes and the SR 14A
Bridge, at mile 6.7, in Rehoboth, have
vertical clearances of 15 feet and 16 feet,
above mean high water, respectively.
The existing operating regulations for
these drawbridges are set out in 33 CFR
117.239, which requires the bridges to
open on signal from May 1 through
October 31 from 7 a.m. to 8 p.m. and
from 8 p.m. to 7 a.m. if at least two
hours notice is given. From November 1
through April 30, the draws shall open
if at least 24 hours notice given.
DelDOT provided information to the
Coast Guard about the conditions and
reduced operational capabilities of the
draw spans. Due to the infrequency of
requests for vessel openings of the
drawbridge for the past 10 years,
DelDOT requested to change the current
operating regulations by requiring the
draw spans to open on signal if at least
24 hours notice is given year-round.
Mispillion River
The S14 Bridge, at mile 11.0 in at
Milford, has a vertical clearance of five
feet, above mean high water, in the
closed-to-navigation position. The
existing regulation is listed at 33 CFR
117.241, which requires the bridge to
open on signal if at least two hours
notice is given. Due to the infrequency
of requests for vessel openings of the
drawbridge for the past 10 years,
DelDOT requested to change the current
operating regulations by requiring the
draw spans to open on signal if at least
24 hours notice is given year-round.
Discussion of Proposed Rule
Lewes and Rehoboth Canal
The Coast Guard proposes to revise 33
CFR 117.239, which governs the
Delaware highway bridges, at miles 1.7
and 6.7, both at Rehoboth. The bridge
names, the statute mile points and the
localities in the paragraph would be
changed from the ‘‘Delaware highway
bridges miles 2.0 and 7.0 both at
Rehoboth’’ to the ‘‘Savannah Road/SR18
Bridge, at mile 1.7, in Lewes’’ and the
‘‘SR 14A Bridge, at mile 6.7, in
E:\FR\FM\05OCP1.SGM
05OCP1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 193 / Thursday, October 5, 2006 / Proposed Rules
Rehoboth’’. These changes will
accurately reflect the proper information
for these drawbridges.
The current paragraph would be
divided into paragraphs (a) and (b).
Paragraph (a) would contain the
proposed rule for the Savannah Road/
SR 18 Bridge, at mile 1.7, in Lewes and
would state that the draw shall open on
signal if at least 24 hours notice is given.
Paragraph (b) would contain the
proposed rule for the SR 14A Bridge, at
mile 6.7, in Rehoboth. The proposal
would require the drawbridge to open
on signal if at least 24 hours notice is
given.
Mispillion River
The Coast Guard proposes to amend
33 CFR 117.241, which governs the S14
Bridge, at mile 11.0, at Milford by
revising the paragraph to read that the
draw shall open on signal if at least 24
hours notice is given.
Text modifications to be consistent
with other proposed changes would be
made in these paragraphs, as
appropriate.
ycherry on PROD1PC64 with PROPOSALS
Regulatory Evaluation
This proposed rule is not a
‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under
section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866,
Regulatory Planning, and Review, and
does not require an assessment of
potential costs and benefits under
section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office
of Management and Budget has not
reviewed it under that Order. It is not
‘‘significant’’ under the regulatory
policies and procedures of the
Department of Homeland Security
(DHS).
We expect the economic impact of
this proposed rule to be so minimal that
a full Regulatory Evaluation under the
regulatory policies and procedures of
DHS is unnecessary. We reached this
conclusion based on the fact that the
proposed changes have only a minimal
impact on maritime traffic transiting the
bridge. Mariners can plan their trips in
accordance with the proposed
scheduled bridge openings, to minimize
delays.
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.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:51 Oct 04, 2006
Jkt 211001
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 not have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
because the rule only adds minimal
restrictions to the movement of
navigation, and mariners who plan their
transits in accordance with the
proposed scheduled bridge openings
can minimize delay.
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 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 Waverly W.
Gregory, Jr., Bridge Administrator, Fifth
Coast Guard District, and (757) 398–
6222. 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
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
58777
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.
E:\FR\FM\05OCP1.SGM
05OCP1
58778
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 193 / Thursday, October 5, 2006 / Proposed Rules
§ 117.239
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.
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
ycherry on PROD1PC64 with PROPOSALS
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 § 117.239 to read as follows:
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:51 Oct 04, 2006
Jkt 211001
Lewes and Rehoboth Canal.
(a) The draw of the Savannah Road/
SR 18 Bridge, at mile 1.7, in Lewes shall
open on signal if at least 24 hours notice
is given.
(b) The draw of the SR 14A Bridge, at
mile 6.7, in Rehoboth shall open on
signal if at least 24 hours notice is given.
3. Revise § 117.241 to read as follows:
§ 117.241
Mispillion River.
The draw of the S14 Bridge, at mile
11.0, at Milford shall open on signal if
at least 24 hours notice is given.
Dated: September 18, 2006.
L.L. Hereth,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander,
Fifth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. E6–16427 Filed 10–4–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–15–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
50 CFR Part 635
[Docket No. 060925247–6247–01; I.D.
091106B]
RIN 0648–AU84
Atlantic Highly Migratory Species;
Atlantic Commercial Shark
Management Measures
Michael Clark, Highly Migratory Species
Management Division via:
• E-mail: SF1.091106B@noaa.gov.
• Mail: 1315 East-West Highway,
Silver Spring, MD 20910. Please mark
on the outside of the envelope
‘‘Comments on Proposed Rule for 2007
1st Trimester Season Lengths and
Quotas.’’
• Fax: 301–713–1917.
• Federal e-Rulemaking portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Include in the
subject line the following identifier: I.D.
091106B.
The hearing locations are:
1. October 19, 2006 from 6–8 p.m.
City of Madeira Beach, 300 Municipal
Drive, Madeira Beach, FL 33708.
2. October 23, 2006 from 6–8 p.m.
Town Hall, 407 Budleigh Street,
Manteo, NC 27954.
3. October 25, 2006 from 6–8 p.m.
Comfort Inn and Suites Port Canaveral
Area, 3901 N. Atlantic Avenue, Cocoa
Beach, FL 32931.
Copies of the draft Environmental
Assessment (EA) and other relevant
document are available from the HMS
website (https://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/
hms/), or by contacting Michael Clark
(see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Michael Clark or Karyl Brewster-Geisz
by phone: 301–713–2347 or by fax: 301–
713–1917.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
AGENCY:
Background
SUMMARY: This proposed rule would
establish the 2007 first trimester season
quotas for large coastal sharks (LCS),
small coastal sharks (SCS), and pelagic
sharks. The proposed rule also would
modify the existing mid-Atlantic shark
closed area in 2007. In addition, this
rule proposes the opening and closing
dates for the LCS fishery based on
adjustments to the trimester quotas. The
intended effect of these proposed
actions is to provide advance notice of
quotas and season dates for the Atlantic
commercial shark fishery and address
over- and underharvests that occurred
in the Atlantic shark fishery in the first
trimester of 2006.
DATES: Written comments will be
accepted until November 1, 2006.
Public hearings will be held from 6–
8 p.m. on each of the following dates:
October 19, 23, and 25.
ADDRESSES: Written comments on the
proposed rule may be submitted to
The Atlantic shark fishery is managed
under the authority of the MagnusonStevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens
Act). NMFS recently finalized a
Consolidated Highly Migratory Species
Fishery Management Plan (HMS FMP)
that consolidated and replaced previous
FMPs for Atlantic Billfish and Atlantic
Tunas, Swordfish, and Sharks. The
HMS FMP is implemented by
regulations at 50 CFR part 635.
Currently, the Atlantic shark annual
quotas, with the exception of pelagic
sharks, are split among three regions
based on historic landings (1999 - 2003).
Consistent with 50 CFR 635.27(b)(1)(iii)
and (iv), the annual LCS quota (1,017 mt
dw) is split among the three regions as
follows: 52 percent to the Gulf of
Mexico, 41 percent to the South
Atlantic, and 7 percent to the North
Atlantic. The annual SCS quota (454 mt
dw) is split among the three regions as
follows: 10 percent to the Gulf of
Mexico, 87 percent to the South
Atlantic, and 3 percent to the North
Atlantic.
The regional quotas for LCS and SCS
were divided equally between the
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Proposed rule; request for
comments.
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\05OCP1.SGM
05OCP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 193 (Thursday, October 5, 2006)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 58776-58778]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-16427]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 117
[CGD05-06-089]
RIN 1625-AA09
Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Lewes and Rehoboth Canal,
Mispillion River, DE
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to change the drawbridge operation
regulations of three Delaware Department of Transportation (DelDOT)
bridges: The Savannah Road/SR 18 Bridge, at mile 1.7, in Lewes, the SR
14A Bridge, at mile 6.7, in Rehoboth, and the S14 Bridge, at mile 11.0,
across Mispillion River at Milford, DE. This proposal would allow the
bridges to open on signal if 24 hours advance notice is given. This
proposal would provide longer advance notification for vessel openings
from 2 hours to 24 hours while still providing for the reasonable needs
of navigation.
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), Fifth Coast Guard District, Federal Building, 1st Floor, 431
Crawford Street, Portsmouth, VA 23704-5004. The Fifth Coast Guard
District 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), Fifth Coast Guard District between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Waverly W. Gregory, Jr., Bridge
Administrator, Fifth Coast Guard District, at (757) 398-6222.
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-
089, 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 a return
receipt, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope.
We will consider all submittals 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 Commander (obr), Fifth 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
Delaware Department of Transportation (DelDOT), who owns and
operates the Savannah Road/SR 18 Bridge, at mile 1.7, in Lewes, the SR
14A Bridge, at mile 6.7, in Rehoboth, and the S14 Bridge, at mile 11.0,
across Mispillion River at Milford, requested longer advance
notification for vessel openings from 2 hours to 24 hours for the
following reasons:
Lewes and Rehoboth Canal
In the closed-to-navigation position, the Savannah Road/SR 18
Bridge, at mile 1.7, in Lewes and the SR 14A Bridge, at mile 6.7, in
Rehoboth, have vertical clearances of 15 feet and 16 feet, above mean
high water, respectively. The existing operating regulations for these
drawbridges are set out in 33 CFR 117.239, which requires the bridges
to open on signal from May 1 through October 31 from 7 a.m. to 8 p.m.
and from 8 p.m. to 7 a.m. if at least two hours notice is given. From
November 1 through April 30, the draws shall open if at least 24 hours
notice given.
DelDOT provided information to the Coast Guard about the conditions
and reduced operational capabilities of the draw spans. Due to the
infrequency of requests for vessel openings of the drawbridge for the
past 10 years, DelDOT requested to change the current operating
regulations by requiring the draw spans to open on signal if at least
24 hours notice is given year-round.
Mispillion River
The S14 Bridge, at mile 11.0 in at Milford, has a vertical
clearance of five feet, above mean high water, in the closed-to-
navigation position. The existing regulation is listed at 33 CFR
117.241, which requires the bridge to open on signal if at least two
hours notice is given. Due to the infrequency of requests for vessel
openings of the drawbridge for the past 10 years, DelDOT requested to
change the current operating regulations by requiring the draw spans to
open on signal if at least 24 hours notice is given year-round.
Discussion of Proposed Rule
Lewes and Rehoboth Canal
The Coast Guard proposes to revise 33 CFR 117.239, which governs
the Delaware highway bridges, at miles 1.7 and 6.7, both at Rehoboth.
The bridge names, the statute mile points and the localities in the
paragraph would be changed from the ``Delaware highway bridges miles
2.0 and 7.0 both at Rehoboth'' to the ``Savannah Road/SR18 Bridge, at
mile 1.7, in Lewes'' and the ``SR 14A Bridge, at mile 6.7, in
[[Page 58777]]
Rehoboth''. These changes will accurately reflect the proper
information for these drawbridges.
The current paragraph would be divided into paragraphs (a) and (b).
Paragraph (a) would contain the proposed rule for the Savannah Road/SR
18 Bridge, at mile 1.7, in Lewes and would state that the draw shall
open on signal if at least 24 hours notice is given.
Paragraph (b) would contain the proposed rule for the SR 14A
Bridge, at mile 6.7, in Rehoboth. The proposal would require the
drawbridge to open on signal if at least 24 hours notice is given.
Mispillion River
The Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR 117.241, which governs the
S14 Bridge, at mile 11.0, at Milford by revising the paragraph to read
that the draw shall open on signal if at least 24 hours notice is
given.
Text modifications to be consistent with other proposed changes
would be made in these paragraphs, as appropriate.
Regulatory Evaluation
This proposed rule is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning, and Review,
and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits
under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and
Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. It is not ``significant''
under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of
Homeland Security (DHS).
We expect the economic impact of this proposed rule to be so
minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation under the regulatory policies
and procedures of DHS is unnecessary. We reached this conclusion based
on the fact that the proposed changes have only a minimal impact on
maritime traffic transiting the bridge. Mariners can plan their trips
in accordance with the proposed scheduled bridge openings, to minimize
delays.
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 not have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities because the rule only adds
minimal restrictions to the movement of navigation, and mariners who
plan their transits in accordance with the proposed scheduled bridge
openings can minimize delay.
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 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 Waverly W. Gregory, Jr., Bridge
Administrator, Fifth Coast Guard District, and (757) 398-6222. The
Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or
complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
Collection of Information
This proposed rule would call for no new collection of information
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
Federalism
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local
governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial
direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this proposed rule
under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications
for federalism.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any
one year. Though this proposed rule will not result in such an
expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this
preamble.
Taking of Private Property
This proposed rule would not affect a taking of private property or
otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630,
Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected
Property Rights.
Civil Justice Reform
This proposed rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and
3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize
litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.
Protection of Children
We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13045,
Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and would not
create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might
disproportionately affect children.
Indian Tribal Governments
This proposed rule does not have tribal implications under
Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
Energy Effects
We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13211,
Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a ``significant
energy action'' under that order because it is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy
action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects
under Executive Order 13211.
[[Page 58778]]
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.
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. 117.239 to read as follows:
Sec. 117.239 Lewes and Rehoboth Canal.
(a) The draw of the Savannah Road/SR 18 Bridge, at mile 1.7, in
Lewes shall open on signal if at least 24 hours notice is given.
(b) The draw of the SR 14A Bridge, at mile 6.7, in Rehoboth shall
open on signal if at least 24 hours notice is given.
3. Revise Sec. 117.241 to read as follows:
Sec. 117.241 Mispillion River.
The draw of the S14 Bridge, at mile 11.0, at Milford shall open on
signal if at least 24 hours notice is given.
Dated: September 18, 2006.
L.L. Hereth,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Fifth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. E6-16427 Filed 10-4-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P
