[Federal Register: December 3, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 232)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 70209-70211]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr03de04-13]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 117
[CGD07-04-124]
RIN 1625-AA09
Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Skidaway Bridge (SR 204),
Intracoastal Waterway, Mile 592.9, Savannah, Chatham County, GA
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to change the operating regulations
of the Skidaway Bridge (SR 204) across the Intracoastal Waterway, mile
592.9 in Savannah, Georgia. This proposed rule would allow the
drawbridge to not open from 6:30 a.m. to 9 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. to 6:30
p.m., daily. Due to the amount of vehicle traffic and the lack of
openings during the requested time period, this proposed action would
improve the movement of vehicular traffic while not unreasonably
interfering with the movement of vessel traffic. Public vessels of the
United States, tugs with tows, and vessels in distress would be passed
at anytime.
DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or
before February 1, 2005.
ADDRESSES: You may mail comments and related material to Commander
(obr), Seventh Coast Guard District, 909 S.E. 1st Avenue, Room 432,
Miami, FL, 33131-3050, who 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 (obr), Seventh Coast Guard District, between 7:30
a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Gwin Tate, Project Officer,
Seventh Coast Guard District, Bridge Branch, at (305) 415-6747.
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 (CGD07-04-
124), indicate the specific section of this document to which each
comment applies, and give the reason for each
[[Page 70210]]
comment. Please submit all comments and related material in an unbound
format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for copying. If
you would like 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 a public meeting. But you may submit a
request for a meeting by writing to the Bridge Branch 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 operation of the Skidaway Bridge (SR 204), mile 592.9, at
Savannah, is governed by 33 CFR 117.5 which requires the draw to open
on signal. On April 22, 2004, Chatham County requested that the Coast
Guard review the existing regulation governing the operation of the
Skidaway Bridge, because the County contended that the regulation was
not meeting the needs of vehicle traffic. The Coast Guard proposes to
make the recommended schedule permanent. This recommended schedule will
meet the reasonable needs of navigation and improve vehicular traffic
movement.
Discussion of Proposed Rule
The Coast Guard proposes to modify the existing bridge operating
regulation and create a permanent rule that would allow the Skidaway
Bridge to remain closed from 6:30 a.m. to 9 a.m. and from 4:30 p.m. to
6:30 p.m. daily. Public vessels of the United States, tugs with tows,
and vessels in distress shall be passed at anytime.
Regulatory Evaluation
This proposed rule is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review,
and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits
under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and
Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. It is not ``significant''
under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of
Homeland Security (DHS).
We expect the economic impact of this proposed rule to be so
minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation under the regulatory policies
and procedures of DHS is unnecessary. This proposed rule would modify
the existing bridge schedule to allow for efficient vehicle traffic
flow and still meet the reasonable needs of navigation.
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 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 Skidaway Bridge, persons intending to drive over the bridge and
nearby business owners. This regulation would not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because the
movement of vehicular traffic will be significantly improved while at
the same time the impact to vessel traffic is for short and reasonable
durations. Moreover, Public vessesl of the United States, tugs with
tows, and vessels in distress would be passed at anytime.
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 (Public Law 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 person listed under FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. 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
[[Page 70211]]
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, which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have
concluded 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, this proposed rule is categorically excluded, under figure
2-1, paragraph (32)(e) of the Instruction, from further environmental
documentation. The rule fits within paragraph (32)(e) because it
promulgates operating regulations or procedures for a drawbridge. Under
figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e) of the Instruction, an ``Environmental
Analysis Check List'' and a ``Categorical Exclusion Determination'' are
not required for this proposed 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; 33 CFR 1.05-1(g); Department of
Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1; section 117.255 also issued
under the authority of Pub. L. 102-587, 106 Stat. 5039.
2. In Sec. 117.353, paragraph (c) is added to read as follows:
Sec. 117.353 Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, Savannah River to St.
Marys River.
* * * * *
(c) Skidaway Bridge, SR 204, mile 592.9 near Savannah. The draw
shall open on signal, except that from 6:30 a.m. to 9 a.m. and 4:30
p.m. and 6:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, the draw need not open. The
draw shall open on signal on Federal holidays.
Dated: November 23, 2004.
David B. Peterman,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Seventh Coast Guard
District.
[FR Doc. 04-26587 Filed 12-2-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P