[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 244 (Wednesday, December 21, 2005)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 75767-75769]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E5-7631]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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, Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, 
Sarasota County, FL

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to change the operating schedule of 
the Stickney Point (SR 72) bridge across the Gulf Intracoastal 
Waterway, mile 68.6 in Sarasota County, Florida. This proposed rule 
would require the drawbridge to open on a 30-minute schedule from 6 
a.m. until 10 p.m., Monday through Friday except Federal holidays. This 
proposed action may improve the movement of vehicular traffic while not 
unreasonably interfering with the movement of vessel traffic.

DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or 
before February 21, 2006.

ADDRESSES: You may mail comments and related material to Commander 
(dpb), Seventh Coast Guard District, 909 SE. 1st Avenue, Room 432, 
Miami, FL 33131, 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 are available for inspection or copying 
at the Seventh Coast Guard District Bridge Branch, between 7:30 a.m. 
and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Barry Dragon, Project Officer, 
Seventh Coast Guard District, Bridge Branch, at (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 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 current regulations governing the Stickney Point (SR 72) 
bridge, mile 68.6, at Sarasota County in 33 CFR 117.5 requires the 
drawbridge to open on signal.
    On September 29, 2005, Sarasota County officials requested the 
Coast Guard review the operation of the Stickney Point bridge because 
they contended the regulation is not meeting the needs of vehicle 
traffic.

Discussion of Proposed Rule

    This proposed rule would require the Stickney Point (SR 72) bridge, 
mile 68.6, at Sarasota County to open on the hour and half-hour, from 6 
a.m. to 10 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. This 
proposed schedule will allow local vehicular traffic to plan for 
drawbridge openings while providing for the reasonable needs of 
navigation. In order to record this change in the Code of Federal 
Regulations, the current regulation governing the Siesta Drive bridge 
at 33 CFR 117.287(b-1) shall be moved to 33 CFR 117.287(c) so that the 
regulation governing the Stickney Point bridge can be recorded at 33 
CFR 117.287(b-1).

Regulatory Evaluation

    This proposed rule is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under 
section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, 
and

[[Page 75768]]

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 improved vehicle traffic flow 
and provide scheduled openings for vessel traffic.

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 business, 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 Stickney Point bridge, persons intending to drive over the bridge 
and nearby business owners. Vehicle traffic and small business owners 
in the area might benefit from the increased traffic flow that 
regularly scheduled openings will offer this area.
    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 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 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 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 
M16475.1D, which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National 
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and 
have 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

[[Page 75769]]

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 proposed 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 the authority of Pub. L. 102-587, 106 Stat. 5039.

    2. In Sec. 117.287 revise para (b-1) and (c) to read as follows:


Sec.  117.287  Gulf Intracoastal Waterway.

* * * * *
    (b-1) The draw of the Stickney Point (SR 72) bridge, mile 68.6 at 
Sarasota County shall open on the hour and half-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, 20 minutes past the hour, and 40 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, 20 minutes past the hour and 40 minutes past the 
hour.
* * * * *

    Dated: December 13, 2005.
D.B. Peterman,
RADM, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Seventh Coast Guard District.
 [FR Doc. E5-7631 Filed 12-20-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P