Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, Anna Maria, FL, 65443-65445 [E6-18799]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 216 / Wednesday, November 8, 2006 / Proposed Rules
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 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.
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 117
[CGD07–05–097]
RIN 1625–AA09
Drawbridge Operation Regulations;
Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, Anna
Maria, FL
Public Meeting
Coast Guard, DHS.
ACTION: Supplemental notice of
proposed rulemaking.
AGENCY:
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is proposing
a supplemental change to its notice of
proposed rulemaking for modifying the
Cortez and Anna Maria drawbridge
operating regulations. This
supplemental notice of proposed
rulemaking is necessary to address
written concerns from the public
regarding the original notice of
proposed rulemaking and oral
comments received during a public
meeting. Additionally, city officials
from Anna Maria, Brandenton Beach
and Longboat Key contributed their
input to this rulemaking in an effort to
relieve vehicular congestion on the
above bridges.
DATES: Comments and related material
must reach the Coast Guard on or before
December 8, 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.
Michael Lieberum, Seventh Coast Guard
District, Bridge Branch, telephone
number 305–415–6744.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Request for Comments
We encourage you to participate in
this rulemaking by submitting
comments and related material. If you
do so, please include your name and
address, identify the docket number for
this rulemaking [CGD07–05–097],
indicate the specific section of this
VerDate Aug<31>2005
13:35 Nov 07, 2006
Jkt 211001
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 regulations of the Cortez
(SR 684) Bridge, mile 87.4, and Anna
Maria (SR 64) Bridge, mile 89.2 at Anna
Maria, published in 33 CFR
117.287(d)(1) and (2) require the draws
to open on signal, except that from 7
a.m. to 6 p.m., the draws need open
only on the hour, twenty minutes past
the hour and forty minutes past the hour
if vessels are present.
On June 1, 2005, the city officials of
Holmes Beach, in cooperation with the
cities of Anna Maria and Bradenton
Beach and the Town of Longboat Key,
requested that the Coast Guard review
the existing regulations governing the
operation of the Cortez and Anna Maria
Bridges due to their concern that the
current drawbridge regulations were not
meeting the needs of vehicle traffic.
On August 16, 2005, we published a
notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
entitled Drawbridge Operation
Regulations; Gulf Intracoastal
Waterway, Anna Maria, FL in the
Federal Register (70 FR 48091). We
received 30 comments on the proposed
rule. A public meeting was held on
March 29, 2006, in Holmes Beach,
Florida. Approximately 40 people
attended the meeting and 15 people
provided oral comments.
On May 15, 2006, based on comments
received from the public, the Mayors of
the Cities of Anna Maria, Bradenton
Beach and Holmes Beach unanimously
agreed to request the bridge openings be
restricted to half-hour openings from
January 15th through May 15th each
year.
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
65443
Discussion of Comments and Changes
The Coast Guard received a total of 45
comments to the Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking and the Public Meeting.
The responses were supplied by 30
written comments and 15 oral
comments. A few of the commenters,
both verbal and written, commented on
several different aspects of the proposed
regulation.
We received 18 responses in favor of
the proposal, 7 comments against the
morning and afternoon curfew hours, 6
comments against the nighttime
closures, 2 comments requested
staggered hours between the two bridges
rather than both opening on the same
schedule, 6 comments for changes in the
winter season only and 9 comments
against the proposed 30-minute
schedules. Two comments suggested
that there should be no regulations on
these bridges and they should open on
demand.
Discussion of Proposed Rule
This proposed rule would require the
Cortez (SR 684) and Anna Maria (SR 64)
bridges, miles 87.4 and 89.2, at Anna
Maria to open on signal, except that
from May 16 through January 14, from
6 a.m. to 7 p.m., the draw need open
only on the hour, twenty minutes past
the hour and forty minutes past the
hour. From January 15 through May 15,
the draws need open only on the hour
and half-hour from 6 a.m. to 7 p.m. The
objective of this revision is to improve
vehicle traffic flow on SR 684 and SR
64, 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. This is because vessel
traffic will still be able to transit the
Intracoastal Waterway in the vicinity of
the Cortez and Anna Maria bridges
pursuant to the revised openings
schedule.
Small Entities
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
(5 U.S.C. 601–612), we have considered
whether this proposed rule would have
E:\FR\FM\08NOP1.SGM
08NOP1
65444
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 216 / Wednesday, November 8, 2006 / Proposed Rules
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 Cortez and Anna Maria
bridges, persons intending to drive over
the bridges, and nearby business
owners. The revision to the openings
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 flow
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 Cortez and Anna Maria bridges
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.
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS
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.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
13:35 Nov 07, 2006
Jkt 211001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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
E:\FR\FM\08NOP1.SGM
08NOP1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 216 / Wednesday, November 8, 2006 / Proposed Rules
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 § 117.287(d)(1) and (2) to
read as follows:
§ 117.287
Gulf Intracoastal Waterway.
*
*
*
*
*
(d)(1) Cortez (SR 684) Bridge, mile
87.4. The draw shall open on signal,
except that from 6 a.m. to 7 p.m., the
draw need only open on the hour, 20minutes after the hour, and 40-minutes
after the hour. From January 15 to May
15, from 6 a.m. to 7 p.m., the draw need
only open on the hour and half-hour.
(2) Anna Maria (SR 64) (Manatee
Avenue West) Bridge, mile 89.2. The
draw shall open on signal, except that
from 6 a.m. to 7 p.m., the draw need
only open on the hour, 20-minutes after
the hour, and 40-minutes after the hour.
From January 15 to May 15, from 6 a.m.
to 7 p.m., the draw need only open on
the hour and half-hour.
*
*
*
*
*
Dated: October 24, 2006.
D.W. Kunkel,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander,
Seventh Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. E6–18799 Filed 11–7–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–15–P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 151
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS
[USCG–2006–26136]
Potential Revision of Mandatory
Ballast Water Management Reporting
Requirements
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice; request for public
comments.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
VerDate Aug<31>2005
13:35 Nov 07, 2006
Jkt 211001
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard requests
public comments on our current ballast
water management reporting and
recordkeeping requirements. To provide
additional opportunity for public
comment, public meetings will be held
in the Great Lakes and Gulf of Mexico
regions. All stakeholders and interested
parties are encouraged to submit
comments to the docket and to attend a
public meeting in or near their region.
DATES: Comments and related material
must reach the Docket Management
Facility on or before March 16, 2007.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
identified by Coast Guard docket
number USCG–2006–26136 to the
Docket Management Facility at the U.S.
Department of Transportation. To avoid
duplication, please use only one of the
following methods:
(1) Web Site: https://dms.dot.gov.
(2) Mail: Docket Management Facility,
U.S. Department of Transportation, 400
Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC
20590–0001.
(3) Fax: 202–493–2251.
(4) Delivery: Room PL–401 on the
Plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400
Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC,
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
The telephone number is 202–366–
9329.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If
you have questions on this notice,
contact LT Heather St. Pierre, Project
Manager, Environmental Standards
Division, Coast Guard, via telephone at
202–372–1432 or via e-mail at
Heather.J.St.Pierre@uscg.mil. If you
have questions on viewing or submitting
material to the docket, call Renee V.
Wright, Program Manager, Docket
Operations, telephone 202–493–0402.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Request for Comments
All comments received will be posted,
without change, to https://dms.dot.gov
and will include any personal
information you have provided. We
have an agreement with the Department
of Transportation (DOT) to use the
Docket Management Facility. Please see
DOT’s ‘‘Privacy Act’’ paragraph below.
Submitting comments: If you submit a
comment, please include your name and
address, identify the docket number for
this notice (USCG–2006–26136) and
give the reason for each comment. You
may submit your comments by
electronic means, mail, fax, or delivery
to the Docket Management Facility at
the address under ADDRESSES; but
please submit your comments by only
one means. If you submit them by mail
or delivery, submit them in an unbound
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
65445
format, no larger than 81⁄2 by 11 inches,
suitable for copying and electronic
filing. If you submit them by mail and
would like to know that they reached
the Facility, please enclose a stamped,
self-addressed postcard or envelope. We
will consider all comments received
during the comment period.
Viewing comments and documents:
To view comments, go to https://
dms.dot.gov at any time, click on
‘‘Simple Search,’’ enter the last five
digits of the docket number for this
notice, and click on ‘‘Search.’’ You may
also visit the Docket Management
Facility in room PL–401 on the Plaza
level of the Nassif Building, 400
Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC,
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
Privacy Act: Anyone can search the
electronic form of all comments
received into any of our dockets by the
name of the individual submitting the
comment (or signing the comment, if
submitted on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). You may
review the Department of
Transportation’s Privacy Act Statement
in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477), or you
may visit https://dms.dot.gov.
Background and Purpose
In accordance with the
Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance
Prevention and Control Act of 1990 (as
reauthorized and amended by the
National Invasive Species Act of 1996
(NISA)), the Coast Guard promulgated
ballast water management (BWM)
regulations in 33 CFR part 151, subparts
C and D. As part of NISA, Congress
authorized the Coast Guard to require
BWM reporting and recordkeeping so
that we can monitor discharge trends
and practices as well as monitor
compliance with BWM regulations.
Subpart C of 33 CFR part 151 applies
to vessels carrying ballast water after
operating outside of the U.S. Exclusive
Economic Zone (EEZ) that enter the
Snell Lock at Massena, New York, or
vessels that navigate north of the George
Washington Bridge on the Hudson
River. In accordance with 33 CFR
151.1516 and 151.2041(b)(1)–(2), vessels
entering the Great Lakes or Hudson
River, north of the George Washington
Bridge, must submit BWM reports at
least 24 hours prior to arrival.
The regulations in subpart D apply to
all vessels, foreign and domestic,
equipped with ballast tanks that operate
in U.S. waters and are bound for U.S.
ports or places. 33 CFR 151.2041
contains specific BWM reporting
requirements. To accompany these
regulations, we also published
E:\FR\FM\08NOP1.SGM
08NOP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 216 (Wednesday, November 8, 2006)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 65443-65445]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-18799]
[[Page 65443]]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 117
[CGD07-05-097]
RIN 1625-AA09
Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Gulf Intracoastal Waterway,
Anna Maria, 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 Cortez and Anna Maria
drawbridge operating regulations. This supplemental notice of proposed
rulemaking is necessary to address written concerns from the public
regarding the original notice of proposed rulemaking and oral comments
received during a public meeting. Additionally, city officials from
Anna Maria, Brandenton Beach and Longboat Key contributed their input
to this rulemaking in an effort to relieve vehicular congestion on the
above bridges.
DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or
before December 8, 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. Michael Lieberum, Seventh Coast
Guard District, Bridge Branch, telephone number 305-415-6744.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Request for Comments
We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting
comments and related material. If you do so, please include your name
and address, identify the docket number for this rulemaking [CGD07-05-
097], 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 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 regulations of the Cortez (SR 684) Bridge, mile 87.4,
and Anna Maria (SR 64) Bridge, mile 89.2 at Anna Maria, published in 33
CFR 117.287(d)(1) and (2) require the draws to open on signal, except
that from 7 a.m. to 6 p.m., the draws need open only on the hour,
twenty minutes past the hour and forty minutes past the hour if vessels
are present.
On June 1, 2005, the city officials of Holmes Beach, in cooperation
with the cities of Anna Maria and Bradenton Beach and the Town of
Longboat Key, requested that the Coast Guard review the existing
regulations governing the operation of the Cortez and Anna Maria
Bridges due to their concern that the current drawbridge regulations
were not meeting the needs of vehicle traffic.
On August 16, 2005, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM) entitled Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Gulf Intracoastal
Waterway, Anna Maria, FL in the Federal Register (70 FR 48091). We
received 30 comments on the proposed rule. A public meeting was held on
March 29, 2006, in Holmes Beach, Florida. Approximately 40 people
attended the meeting and 15 people provided oral comments.
On May 15, 2006, based on comments received from the public, the
Mayors of the Cities of Anna Maria, Bradenton Beach and Holmes Beach
unanimously agreed to request the bridge openings be restricted to
half-hour openings from January 15th through May 15th each year.
Discussion of Comments and Changes
The Coast Guard received a total of 45 comments to the Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking and the Public Meeting. The responses were supplied
by 30 written comments and 15 oral comments. A few of the commenters,
both verbal and written, commented on several different aspects of the
proposed regulation.
We received 18 responses in favor of the proposal, 7 comments
against the morning and afternoon curfew hours, 6 comments against the
nighttime closures, 2 comments requested staggered hours between the
two bridges rather than both opening on the same schedule, 6 comments
for changes in the winter season only and 9 comments against the
proposed 30-minute schedules. Two comments suggested that there should
be no regulations on these bridges and they should open on demand.
Discussion of Proposed Rule
This proposed rule would require the Cortez (SR 684) and Anna Maria
(SR 64) bridges, miles 87.4 and 89.2, at Anna Maria to open on signal,
except that from May 16 through January 14, from 6 a.m. to 7 p.m., the
draw need open only on the hour, twenty minutes past the hour and forty
minutes past the hour. From January 15 through May 15, the draws need
open only on the hour and half-hour from 6 a.m. to 7 p.m. The objective
of this revision is to improve vehicle traffic flow on SR 684 and SR
64, 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. This is
because vessel traffic will still be able to transit the Intracoastal
Waterway in the vicinity of the Cortez and Anna Maria bridges pursuant
to the revised openings schedule.
Small Entities
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered whether this proposed rule would have
[[Page 65444]]
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 Cortez and Anna Maria bridges, persons intending to drive over
the bridges, and nearby business owners. The revision to the openings
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 flow 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 Cortez and Anna Maria bridges 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.
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
[[Page 65445]]
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(d)(1) and (2) to read as follows:
Sec. 117.287 Gulf Intracoastal Waterway.
* * * * *
(d)(1) Cortez (SR 684) Bridge, mile 87.4. The draw shall open on
signal, except that from 6 a.m. to 7 p.m., the draw need only open on
the hour, 20-minutes after the hour, and 40-minutes after the hour.
From January 15 to May 15, from 6 a.m. to 7 p.m., the draw need only
open on the hour and half-hour.
(2) Anna Maria (SR 64) (Manatee Avenue West) Bridge, mile 89.2. The
draw shall open on signal, except that from 6 a.m. to 7 p.m., the draw
need only open on the hour, 20-minutes after the hour, and 40-minutes
after the hour. From January 15 to May 15, from 6 a.m. to 7 p.m., the
draw need only open on the hour and half-hour.
* * * * *
Dated: October 24, 2006.
D.W. Kunkel,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Seventh Coast Guard
District.
[FR Doc. E6-18799 Filed 11-7-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P
