[Federal Register: March 4, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 43)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 10182-10183]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr04mr04-18]
[[Page 10182]]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 117
[CGD07-04-014]
RIN 1625-AA09
Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Socastee River (SR 544),
Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, Mile 371, Horry County, SC
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to remove the regulations governing
the operation of the Socastee (SR 544) Swing Bridge across the Atlantic
Intracoastal Waterway, mile 371, Horry County, South Carolina. This
proposed rule would require the bridge to open on signal.
DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or
before May 3, 2004.
ADDRESSES: You may mail comments and related material to Commander
(obr), Seventh Coast Guard District, 909 SE. 1st Ave., Room 432, Miami,
FL 33131. Comments and material received from the public, as well as
documents indicated in the preamble as being available in the docket,
are part of docket [CGD07-04-014] and are available for inspection or
copying at Commander (obr), Seventh Coast Guard District, between 8
a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Barry Dragon, Seventh Coast Guard
District, Bridge Branch, 909 SE. 1st Ave., Miami, FL 33131, telephone
number 305-415-6743.
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-
014], indicate the specific section of this document to which each
comment applies, and give the reason for each comment. Please submit
all comments and related material in an unbound format, no larger than
8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for copying. If you would like 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. However, you may
submit a request for a meeting by writing to Bridge Branch, Seventh
Coast Guard District, 909 SE. 1st Ave., Room 432, Miami, FL 33131,
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 South Carolina Department of Transportation has requested that
the Coast Guard remove the existing regulations governing the operation
of the Socastee (SR 544) Swing Bridge and allow the bridge to open on
signal. The request is made because of the close proximity of a new
high-level fixed bridge. The majority of vehicular traffic in the area
currently utilizes the high-level fixed bridge.
The Socastee (SR 544) Swing Bridge is located on the Atlantic
Intracoastal Waterway, mile 371, Horry County, South Carolina. The
current regulation governing the operation of the Socastee Swing Bridge
is published in 33 CFR 117.911(b) and requires the bridge to open on
signal; except that, from April 1 through June 30 and October 1 through
November 30 from 7 a.m. to 10 a.m. and 2 p.m. to 6 p.m. Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays, the draw need open only on the quarter
and three-quarter hour. From May 1 through June 30 and October 1
through October 31 from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m., Saturdays, Sundays and
Federal holidays, the draw need open only on the quarter and three-
quarter hour.
Discussion of Proposed Rule
The Coast Guard proposes to change the operating regulations of the
Socastee Swing Bridge to open on signal. A new high-level fixed bridge
has recently been constructed in close proximity to the swing bridge
and currently the majority of vehicular traffic utilizes this new
bridge. This action would remove the regulations that provide for
scheduled openings for the swing bridge and improve navigation for
vessels transiting the area.
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 under the policies
and procedures of the Department of Homeland Security is unnecessary.
By opening on signal, the swing bridge would meet the needs of
navigation and obviate the need to meet any scheduled openings.
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, because the proposed rule would remove
scheduled openings restrictive to vessel traffic. Vehicular traffic, on
the other hand, can use the new bridge nearby to transit over the
waterway.
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
address under ADDRESSES. In your comment, explain 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 consult the person listed under FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
There is also a point of contact for comment on actions by
employees of the Coast Guard. Small businesses may send comments on the
actions of
[[Page 10183]]
Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with
Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247).
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 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 would 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 effect 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. It has not been designated by the Administrator of the
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs as a significant energy
action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects
under Executive Order 13211.
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. Under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e), of
the Instruction, an ``Environmental Analysis Check List'' and a
``Categorical Exclusion Determination'' are not required for this rule.
List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117
Bridges.
Regulations
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 authority of Pub. L. 102-587, 106 Stat. 5039.
Sec. 117.911 [Amended]
2. In Sec. 117.911 remove and reserve paragraph (b).
Dated: February 19, 2004.
Harvey E. Johnson, Jr.,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Seventh Coast Guard
District.
[FR Doc. 04-4778 Filed 3-3-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P