[Federal Register: October 3, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 191)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 58334-58336]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr03oc06-31]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 117
[CGD07-05-158]
RIN 1625-AA09
Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Stickney Point (SR 72) Bridge,
Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, Mile 68.6, Sarasota, 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 Stickney Point (SR 72)
drawbridge operating regulation. This proposal addresses changes based
on comments received from a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking published on
December 21, 2005, and a test deviation that was held from April 24,
2006 until July 21, 2006.
[[Page 58335]]
DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or
before November 2, 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. Barry Dragon, Seventh Coast Guard
District, Bridge Branch, 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 [CGD07-05-
158], 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 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 regulation of the Stickney Point (SR 72) bridge, mile
68.6 at Sarasota, published in 33 CFR 117.5 requires the draw to open
on signal.
On December 21, 2005 a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking was published
in the Federal Register (70 FR 75767). This proposal was for an on the
hour and half-hour opening schedule. We received 48 comments from the
public. All of the comments were against changing the regulation to
twice an hour openings.
From April 24, 2006, until July 21, 2006, a test of a twenty minute
opening schedule (as published in the Federal Register at 71 FR 16491)
was conducted per the request of City officials of Sarasota. The test
was conducted because city officials did not believe the current
drawbridge regulation was meeting the needs of vehicular traffic.
During the test, we received five public comments. Four of the
comments were from motorists who were in favor of the twenty minute
schedule and one comment was against changing the current regulation.
Discussion of Proposed Rule
This proposed rule would require the Stickney Point (SR 72) bridge,
mile 68.6, at Sarasota to open on the hour, twenty minutes past the
hour and forty minutes past the hour. The objective of this revision is
to allow local vehicular traffic to plan their bridge crossings,
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.
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 Stickney Point bridge, persons intending to drive over the
bridge, and nearby business owners. The revision to the opening
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 planning 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 Stickney Point Bridge
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.
[[Page 58336]]
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 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(b-1) and add (c) to read as follows:
Sec. 117.287 Gulf Intracoastal Waterway.
* * * * *
(b-1) Stickney Point (SR 72) Bridge, mile 68.6. The draw need only
open on the hour, 20-minutes after the hour, and 40-minutes after the
hour, from 6 a.m. to 10 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays.
(c) The draw of the Siesta Drive Bridge, mile 71.6 at Sarasota,
Florida shall open on signal, except that from 7 a.m. to 6 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays, the draw need open only on the
hour, twenty minutes past the hour and forty minutes past the hour. On
weekends and Federal holidays, from 11 a.m. to 6 p.m., the draw need
open only on the hour, twenty minutes past the hour and forty minutes
past the hour.
* * * * *
Dated: September 21, 2006.
J. A. Watson,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Seventh Coast Guard District
Acting.
[FR Doc. E6-16285 Filed 10-2-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P