Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Lewes and Rehoboth Canal, Mispillion River, DE, 58776-58778 [E6-16427]

Download as PDF 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during the extension period, the applicant tribe will be notified in writing that the Secretarial Determination is no longer valid and that its application is no longer under consideration.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: http:// 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 (http://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