Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, Anna Maria, FL, 65443-65445 [E6-18799]

Download as PDF 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: http://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 http://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 http:// 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 http://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