Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Smith Creek at Wilmington, NC, 28069-28071 [E8-10801]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 95 / Thursday, May 15, 2008 / Proposed Rules
28069
information for law enforcement and
counterterrorism purposes, it is impossible to
determine in advance what information is
accurate, relevant, timely, and complete.
With the passage of time, seemingly
irrelevant or untimely information may
acquire new significance as further
investigation brings new details to light. The
restrictions imposed by (e)(5) would limit the
ability of those agencies’ trained investigators
and intelligence analysts to exercise their
judgment in conducting investigations and
impede the development of intelligence
necessary for effective law enforcement and
counterterrorism efforts.
(9) From subsection (e)(8) (Notice on
Individuals) because to require individual
notice of disclosure of information due to
compulsory legal process would pose an
impossible administrative burden on DHS
and other agencies and could alert the
subjects of counterterrorism or law
enforcement investigations to the fact of
those investigations then not previously
known.
(10) From subsection (e)(12) (Matching
Agreements) because requiring DHS to
provide notice of alterations to existing
matching agreements would impair DHS
operations by indicating which data elements
and information are valuable to DHS’s
analytical functions, thereby providing
harmful disclosure of information to
individuals who would seek to circumvent or
interfere with DHS’s missions.
(11) From subsection (g) (Civil Remedies)
to the extent that the system is exempt from
other specific subsections of the Privacy Act.
number USCG–2008–0302 to the Docket
Management Facility at the U.S.
Department of Transportation. To avoid
duplication, please use only one of the
following methods:
(1) Online: https://
www.regulations.gov.
(2) Mail: Docket Management Facility
(M–30), U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building Ground
Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590–
0001.
(3) Hand delivery: Room W12–140 on
the Ground Floor of the West Building,
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m.
and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The telephone
number is 202–366–9329.
(4) Fax: 202–493–2251.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If
you have questions on this proposed
rule, call Gary S. Heyer, Bridge
Management Specialist, Fifth Coast
Guard District, at (757) 398–6629. If you
have questions on viewing or submitting
material to the docket, call Renee V.
Wright, Program Manager, Docket
Operations, telephone 202–366–9826.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
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 and material received
during the comment period. We may
change this proposed rule in view of
them.
Public Participation and Request for
Comments
Hugo Teufel III,
Chief Privacy Officer.
33 CFR Part 117
We encourage you to participate in
this rulemaking by submitting
comments and related materials. All
comments received will be posted,
without change, to https://
www.regulations.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.
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://
DocketsInfo.dot.gov.
[USCG–2008–0302]
Submitting Comments
RIN 1625–AA09
If you submit a comment, please
include the docket number for this
rulemaking (USCG–2008–0302),
indicate the specific section of this
document to which each comment
applies, and give the reason for each
comment. We recommend that you
include your name and a mailing
address, an e-mail address, or a phone
number in the body of your document
so that we can contact you if we have
questions regarding your submission.
You may submit your comments and
material by electronic means, mail, fax,
or delivery to the Docket Management
Facility at the address under ADDRESSES;
but please submit your comments and
material by only one means. If you
submit them by mail or delivery, submit
them in an unbound format, no larger
[FR Doc. E8–10897 Filed 5–14–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410–10–P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Coast Guard
Drawbridge Operation Regulations;
Smith Creek at Wilmington, NC
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
AGENCY:
yshivers on PROD1PC62 with PROPOSALS
ACTION:
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to
change the drawbridge operation
regulations of the S117–S133 Bridge, at
mile 1.5, across Smith Creek at
Wilmington, NC. This proposal would
allow that the draw need not be opened
for the passage of vessels.
DATES: Comments and related material
must reach the Coast Guard on or before
June 30, 2008.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
identified by Coast Guard docket
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:04 May 14, 2008
Jkt 214001
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Viewing Comments and Documents
To view comments, as well as
documents mentioned in this preamble
as being available in the docket, go to
https://www.regulations.gov at any time.
Enter the docket number for this
rulemaking (USCG–2008–0302) in the
Search box, and click ‘‘Go>>.’’ You may
also visit either the Docket Management
Facility in Room W12–140 on the
ground floor of the DOT West Building,
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m.
and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays or at
Commander (dpb), Fifth Coast Guard
District, Federal Building, 1st Floor, 431
Crawford Street, Portsmouth, VA
23704–5004 between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays.
Public Meeting
Currently, no public meeting is
scheduled. But you may submit a
request for one to the Docket
Management Facility 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 North Carolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) is responsible
for the operation of the S117–S133
Bridge, at mile 1.5, across Smith Creek
at Wilmington, NC. The existing
operating regulation is set out in 33 CFR
117.841 which requires the draw to
open on signal if at least 24 hour notice
is given. In the closed-to-navigation
E:\FR\FM\15MYP1.SGM
15MYP1
28070
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 95 / Thursday, May 15, 2008 / Proposed Rules
position, the S117–S133 Bridge has a
vertical clearance of 12 feet, above mean
high water.
From the 1930s to the 1970s, Smith
Creek was the main waterway route for
commercial vessel traffic servicing
lumber mills and factories along the
waterfront in Wilmington NC. There are
no longer any commercial interests
requiring access upstream. NCDOT has
not received a request to open the bridge
in over 20 years for waterway
navigation, and it has been more than 35
years since the bridge was actually
manned by operators.
Due to the lack of requests for vessel
openings of the drawbridge for the past
20 years, NCDOT requested to change
the current operating regulations so that
the draw need not be opened for the
passage of vessels.
Discussion of Proposed Rule
The Coast Guard proposes to amend
33 CFR 117.841 which governs the
S117–S133 Bridge by revising the
paragraph to read that the draw need
not be opened for the passage of vessels.
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.
We expect the economic impact of
this proposed rule to be so minimal that
a full Regulatory Evaluation is
unnecessary. We reached this
conclusion based on the fact that
NCDOT has not received a request to
open the bridge in over 20 years for
waterway navigation and a six-month
notification prerequisite for mariners
would be required for vessel access.
yshivers on PROD1PC62 with PROPOSALS
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.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:04 May 14, 2008
Jkt 214001
This proposed rule would not have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
because NCDOT has not received a
request to open the bridge in over 20
years for waterway navigation. 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, (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.
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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
E:\FR\FM\15MYP1.SGM
15MYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 95 / Thursday, May 15, 2008 / Proposed Rules
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 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 this action is not likely to have a
significant effect on the human
environment because it simply
promulgates the operating regulations or
procedures for drawbridges. We seek
any comments or information that may
lead to the discovery of a significant
environmental impact from this
proposed rule.
List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117
Bridges.
Words of Issuance and Proposed
Regulatory Text
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; 33 CFR 1.05–1;
Department of Homeland Security Delegation
No. 0170.1.
2. Revise § 117.841 to read as follows:
§ 117.841
Smith Creek
yshivers on PROD1PC62 with PROPOSALS
The draw of the S117–S133 Bridge,
mile 1.5 at Wilmington, need not open
for the passage of vessels.
Dated: May 5, 2008.
Fred M. Rosa, Jr.,
Rear Admiral, United States Coast Guard,
Commander, Fifth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. E8–10801 Filed 5–14–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–15–P
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:04 May 14, 2008
Jkt 214001
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R06–OAR–2006–0867; FRL–8566–5]
Approval and Promulgation of Air
Quality Implementation Plans; Texas;
Control of Air Pollution by Permits for
New Construction or Modification
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve
a revision to the Texas State
Implementation Plan (SIP), submitted
by the Texas Commission on
Environmental Quality (TCEQ) on
October 9, 2006. The SIP revision EPA
is proposing to approve would require
decreased newspaper notice for
proposed air quality Standard Permits
with statewide applicability to the
following metropolitan areas: Austin,
Dallas, Houston, and any other regional
newspapers the TCEQ Executive
Director designates on a case-by-case
basis. TCEQ will publish notice of a
proposed air quality Standard Permit in
the Texas Register and will issue a press
release. In addition, TCEQ may also use
electronic means to inform state and
local officials of a proposed air quality
Standard Permit. EPA proposes to
approve these revisions pursuant to
section 110 of the Federal Clean Air Act
(Act).
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before June 16, 2008.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R06–
OAR–2006–0867, by one of the
following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line
instructions for submitting comments.
• U.S. EPA Region 6 ‘‘Contact Us’’
Web site: https://epa.gov/region6/
r6coment.htm. Please click on ‘‘6PD’’
(Multimedia) and select ‘‘Air’’ before
submitting comments.
• E-mail: Mr. Stanley M. Spruiell at
spruiell.stanley@epa.gov.
• Fax: Mr. Stanley M. Spruiell, Air
Permits Section (6PD–R), at fax number
214–665–7263.
• Mail: Stanley M. Spruiell, Air
Permits Section (6PD–R), Environmental
Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue,
Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 75202–2733.
• Hand or Courier Delivery: Stanley
M. Spruiell, Air Permits Section (6PD–
R), Environmental Protection Agency,
1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas,
Texas 75202–2733. Such deliveries are
accepted only between the hours of 8
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
28071
a.m. and 4 p.m. weekdays except for
legal holidays. Special arrangements
should be made for deliveries of boxed
information.
Instructions: Direct your comments to
Docket ID No. EPA–R06–OAR–2006–
0867. EPA’s policy is that all comments
received will be included in the public
docket without change and may be
made available online at https://
www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided, unless
the comment includes information
claimed to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise
protected through https://
www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The
https://www.regulations.gov Web site is
an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which
means EPA will not know your identity
or contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment.
If you send an e-mail comment directly
to EPA without going through https://
www.regulations.gov your e-mail
address will be automatically captured
and included as part of the comment
that is placed in the public docket and
made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA
recommends that you include your
name and other contact information in
the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA
cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact
you for clarification, EPA may not be
able to consider your comment.
Electronic files should avoid the use of
special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or
viruses.
Docket: All documents in the docket
are listed in the https://
www.regulations.gov index. Although
listed in the index, some information is
not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other
information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material,
will be publicly available only in hard
copy. Publicly available docket
materials are available either
electronically in https://
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at
the Air Planning Section (6PD–L),
Environmental Protection Agency, 1445
Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas
75202–2733. The file will be made
available by appointment for public
inspection in the Region 6 FOIA Review
Room between the hours of 8:30 a.m.
and 4:30 p.m. weekdays except for legal
holidays. Contact the person listed in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
paragraph below to make an
E:\FR\FM\15MYP1.SGM
15MYP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 95 (Thursday, May 15, 2008)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 28069-28071]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-10801]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 117
[USCG-2008-0302]
RIN 1625-AA09
Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Smith Creek at Wilmington, NC
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to change the drawbridge operation
regulations of the S117-S133 Bridge, at mile 1.5, across Smith Creek at
Wilmington, NC. This proposal would allow that the draw need not be
opened for the passage of vessels.
DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or
before June 30, 2008.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket
number USCG-2008-0302 to the Docket Management Facility at the U.S.
Department of Transportation. To avoid duplication, please use only one
of the following methods:
(1) Online: https://www.regulations.gov.
(2) Mail: Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
(3) Hand delivery: Room W12-140 on the Ground Floor of the West
Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The
telephone number is 202-366-9329.
(4) Fax: 202-493-2251.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this proposed
rule, call Gary S. Heyer, Bridge Management Specialist, Fifth Coast
Guard District, at (757) 398-6629. If you have questions on viewing or
submitting material to the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program
Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 202-366-9826.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Public Participation and Request for Comments
We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting
comments and related materials. All comments received will be posted,
without change, to https://www.regulations.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 the docket number for this
rulemaking (USCG-2008-0302), indicate the specific section of this
document to which each comment applies, and give the reason for each
comment. We recommend that you include your name and a mailing address,
an e-mail address, or a phone number in the body of your document so
that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your submission.
You may submit your comments and material by electronic means, mail,
fax, or delivery to the Docket Management Facility at the address under
ADDRESSES; but please submit your comments and material by only one
means. If you submit them by mail or delivery, submit them in an
unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ 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 and
material received during the comment period. We may change this
proposed rule in view of them.
Viewing Comments and Documents
To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble
as being available in the docket, go to https://www.regulations.gov at
any time. Enter the docket number for this rulemaking (USCG-2008-0302)
in the Search box, and click ``Go>>.'' You may also visit either the
Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the
DOT West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590,
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays or at Commander (dpb), Fifth Coast Guard District, Federal
Building, 1st Floor, 431 Crawford Street, Portsmouth, VA 23704-5004
between 8 a.m. and 4 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://
DocketsInfo.dot.gov.
Public Meeting
Currently, no public meeting is scheduled. But you may submit a
request for one to the Docket Management Facility 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 North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) is
responsible for the operation of the S117-S133 Bridge, at mile 1.5,
across Smith Creek at Wilmington, NC. The existing operating regulation
is set out in 33 CFR 117.841 which requires the draw to open on signal
if at least 24 hour notice is given. In the closed-to-navigation
[[Page 28070]]
position, the S117-S133 Bridge has a vertical clearance of 12 feet,
above mean high water.
From the 1930s to the 1970s, Smith Creek was the main waterway
route for commercial vessel traffic servicing lumber mills and
factories along the waterfront in Wilmington NC. There are no longer
any commercial interests requiring access upstream. NCDOT has not
received a request to open the bridge in over 20 years for waterway
navigation, and it has been more than 35 years since the bridge was
actually manned by operators.
Due to the lack of requests for vessel openings of the drawbridge
for the past 20 years, NCDOT requested to change the current operating
regulations so that the draw need not be opened for the passage of
vessels.
Discussion of Proposed Rule
The Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR 117.841 which governs the
S117-S133 Bridge by revising the paragraph to read that the draw need
not be opened for the passage of vessels.
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.
We expect the economic impact of this proposed rule to be so
minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation is unnecessary. We reached
this conclusion based on the fact that NCDOT has not received a request
to open the bridge in over 20 years for waterway navigation and a six-
month notification prerequisite for mariners would be required for
vessel access.
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 NCDOT has not received a
request to open the bridge in over 20 years for waterway navigation. 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, (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.
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
[[Page 28071]]
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 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 this action is not likely to
have a significant effect on the human environment because it simply
promulgates the operating regulations or procedures for drawbridges. We
seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a
significant environmental impact from this proposed rule.
List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117
Bridges.
Words of Issuance and Proposed Regulatory Text
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; 33 CFR 1.05-1; Department of Homeland
Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
2. Revise Sec. 117.841 to read as follows:
Sec. 117.841 Smith Creek
The draw of the S117-S133 Bridge, mile 1.5 at Wilmington, need not
open for the passage of vessels.
Dated: May 5, 2008.
Fred M. Rosa, Jr.,
Rear Admiral, United States Coast Guard, Commander, Fifth Coast Guard
District.
[FR Doc. E8-10801 Filed 5-14-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P