Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Coast Guard proposes to change the regulations governing the operation of the Boot Key Harbor bridge, mile 0.13, between Marathon and Boot Key, Monroe County, Florida. Due to the amount of vehicle traffic and the lack of openings during the proposed time period, this proposed action would improve the movement of vehicular traffic while not unreasonably interfering with the movement of vessel traffic. This proposed rule would allow the bridge to open on the hour between the hours of 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. At all other times, the bridge will open on demand following a 10-minute notification to the bridge tender. The draw shall open as soon as practicable for the passage of tugs with tows, public vessels of the United States and vessels in a situation where a delay would endanger life or property.
Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or before August 19, 2005.
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.Start Further Info
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mr. Gwin Tate, Project Officer, Seventh Coast Guard District, Bridge Branch, at (305) 415-6747.End Further Info End Preamble Start Supplemental 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 CGD07-05-063, 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 81/2 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.
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. Start Printed Page 41649
Background and Purpose
The operation of the Boot Key Harbor bridge, mile 0.13, at Marathon, is governed by 33 CFR 117.272, which requires the draw to open on signal; except that during the evening hours from 10 p.m. to 6 a.m., the draw shall open on signal if at least 2 hours notice is given. The City of Marathon requested that the Coast Guard temporarily change the operating schedule to ensure worker safety, as the bridge requires prompt corrective repairs and renovation. Our analysis of the bridge logs showed an average of only 12.2 openings per week over a one-year period during the hours of 7 a.m. through 7 p.m. In light of this information, the bridge owner amended his initial request and asked the Coast Guard to permanently change the regulation governing the Boot Key Harbor drawbridge due to the low number of openings during the one-year time period mentioned above.
Discussion of Proposed Rule
The Coast Guard proposes to modify the existing bridge operation regulation and create a permanent regulation that would allow the draw of the Boot Key Harbor Bridge to open on the hour from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. At all other times, the bridge will remain closed to navigation unless a 10-minute advance notification is provided to the bridge tender. The draw shall open as soon as practicable for tugs with tows, public vessels of the United States and vessels in a situation where a delay would endanger life or property.
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 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.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered whether this 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 rule will 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 vicinity of Boot Key Harbor. 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 vessels of the United States, tugs with tows, and vessels in distress would be allowed to pass 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.).
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 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.
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 Start Printed Page 41650energy 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.
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.
We have analyzed this rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, 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. This rule fits within paragraph (32)(e) because it pertains to operation regulations for bridges. Under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e), of the Instruction, an “Environmental Analysis Check List” is not required for this rule. Comments on this section will be considered before we make the final decision on whether to categorically exclude this rule from further environmental review.Start List of Subjects
List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR part 117 as follows:Start Part
PART 117—DRAWBRIDGE OPERATION REGULATIONS
1. The authority citation for part 117 continues to read as follows:
2. Revise § 117.272 to read as follows:
The draw of the Boot Key Harbor drawbridge, mile 0.13, between Marathon and Boot Key, shall open on the hour from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. At all other times, the bridge will open following a 10-minute notification to the bridge tender. The draw shall open on demand and as soon as practicable for the passage of tugs with tows, public vessels of the United States and vessels whereby a delay would endanger life or property.
Dated: July 12, 2005.
RADM, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Seventh Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 05-14247 Filed 7-19-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P