[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 43 (Thursday, March 4, 2004)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 10182-10183]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-4778]



[[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