Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 214 / Friday, November 5, 2004 / Proposed Rules 64553

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, 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 

rule is categorically excluded, under 

figure 2–1, paragraph (34)(f), of the 

Instruction, from further environmental 

documentation because we are 

proposing to create an anchorage area. 

A draft ‘‘Environmental Analysis 

Check List’’ and a draft ‘‘Categorical 

Exclusion Determination’’ are available 

in the docket where indicated under 

ADDRESSES. Comments on this section 

will be considered before we make the 

final decision on whether the rule 

should be categorically excluded from 

further environmental review.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 110

Anchorage grounds.

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to 

amend 33 CFR part 110 as follows:

PART 110—ANCHORAGE 

REGULATIONS 

1. The authority citation for part 110 

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 471, 1221 through 

1236, 2030, 2035, and 2071; 33 CFR 1.05–

1(g); Department of Homeland Security 

Delegation No. 0170.1.

2. In § 110.216 add new paragraphs 

(a)(3) and (b)(6) to read as follows:

§ 110.216 Pacific Ocean at Santa Catalina 

Island, Calif. 

(a) * * *

(3) Avalon Bay. (i) Anchorage A. The 

waters within an area described as 

follows: A circle of 1350 feet radius 

centered at latitude 33°20′59.0′′ N., 

longitude 118°18′56.2′′ W. 

(ii) Anchorage B. The waters within 

an area described as follows: A circle of 

1350 feet radius centered at latitude 

33°20′38.3′′ N., longitude 118°18′35.8′′

W. 

(iii) Anchorage C. The waters within 

an area described as follows: A circle of 

1350 feet radius centered at latitude 

33°21′21.0′′ N., longitude 118°19′16.7′′

W. 

(b) * * *

(6) The Avalon Bay anchorage is 

reserved for large passenger vessels of 

over 1600 gross tons, unless otherwise 

authorized by the Captain of the Port 

Los Angeles-Long Beach.

Dated: October 25, 2004. 

Kevin J. Eldridge, 

Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, 

Eleventh Coast Guard District.

[FR Doc. 04–24685 Filed 11–4–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–15–P

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 117

[CGD08–04–036] 

RIN 1625–AA09

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; St. 

Croix River, MN

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to 

change the regulation governing the 

Stillwater Highway Drawbridge, across 

the St. Croix River at Mile 23.4, at 

Stillwater, Minnesota. The drawbridge 

need not open for river traffic and may 

remain in the closed-to-navigation 

position from midnight, October 14, 

2005 until midnight, March 15, 2006. 

This proposed rule would allow time to 

perform maintenance/repairs to the 

bridge.

DATES: Comments and related material 

must reach the Coast Guard on or before 

December 6, 2004.

ADDRESSES: You may mail comments 

and related material to Commander, 

Eighth Coast Guard District, Bridge 

Branch, 1222 Spruce Street, St. Louis, 

MO 63103–2832. Commander (obr) 

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 

room 2.107f in the Robert A. Young 

Federal Building, Eighth Coast Guard 

District, between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., 

Monday through Friday, except Federal 

holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Roger K. Wiebusch, Bridge 

Administrator, (314) 539–3900, 

extension 2378.

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 (CGD08–04–036), 

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. 

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 Eighth 

Coast Guard District, 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 

On September 13, 2004, the 

Minnesota Department of 

Transportation requested a temporary 

change to the operation of the Stillwater 

Highway Drawbridge across the St. 

Croix River, Mile 23.4 at Stillwater, 

Minnesota to allow the drawbridge to 

remain in the closed-to-navigation 

position for 152 consecutive days for 

critical repairs and maintenance. 

Navigation on the waterway consists 

primarily of commercial and 

recreational watercraft and will not be 

significantly impacted due to the 

reduced navigation in winter months. 

Presently, the draw opens from October 

16 until May 14 with 24 hours advance 

notice for passage of river traffic. The 

Minnesota Department of 

Transportation requested the 

drawbridge be permitted to remain 

closed-to-navigation from midnight, 

October 14, 2005 until midnight, March 

15, 2006. 

Regulatory Evaluation 

This 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 

64554 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 214 / Friday, November 5, 2004 / Proposed Rules 

regulatory policies and procedures of 

the Department of Homeland Security 

(DHS). 

The Coast Guard expects that this 

temporary change to operation of the 

Stillwater Highway Drawbridge will 

have minimal economic impact on 

traffic operating on the St. Croix River. 

This temporary change has been written 

in such a manner as to allow for 

minimal interruption of the 

drawbridge’s regular operation. 

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. 

This proposed rule will not have a 

negligible impact on vessel traffic. The 

primary users of the St. Croix River in 

Stillwater, Minnesota, are commercial 

and recreational vessel operators. With 

the onset of winter conditions most 

activity on the St. Croix River is 

curtailed and there are few, if any, 

significant navigation demands for 

opening the drawspan. 

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.

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 (Pub. L. 104–121), 

we want to assist small entities in 

understanding this proposed rule so that 

they could 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 Mr. Roger K. 

Wiebusch, Bridge Administrator, Eighth 

Coast Guard District, Bridge Branch, at 

(314) 539–3900, extension 2378. 

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 will 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 does not create an 

environmental risk to health or risk to 

safety that may 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.

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 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 

rule is categorically excluded, under 

figure 2–1, paragraph (32)(e), of the 

Instruction, from further environmental 

documentation. Paragraph 32(e) 

excludes the promulgation of operating 

regulations or procedures for 

drawbridges from the environmental 

documentation requirements of the 

National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA). Since this proposed regulation 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 214 / Friday, November 5, 2004 / Proposed Rules 64555

would alter the normal operating 

conditions of the drawbridge, it falls 

within this exclusion. A ‘‘Categorical 

Exclusion Determination’’ is available in 

the docket for inspection or copying 

where indicated under ADDRESSES.

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. From midnight, October 14, 2005, 

until midnight March 15, 2006, in 

§ 117.667 suspend paragraph (b) and 

add a new paragraph (d) to read as 

follows:

§ 117.667 St. Croix River.

* * * * *

(d) The Stillwater Highway 

Drawbridge, Mile 23.4, St. Croix River, 

at Stillwater, need not open for river 

traffic and may be maintained in the 

closed-to-navigation position.

Dated: October 8, 2004. 

J.W. Stark, 

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting 

Commander, Eighth Coast Guard District.

[FR Doc. 04–24688 Filed 11–4–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–15–P

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 165

[COTP San Francisco Bay 04–023] 

RIN 1625–AA00

Safety Zone; Mission Creek Waterway, 

China Basin, San Francisco Bay, CA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is proposing 

to establish a temporary safety zone in 

the navigable waters of the Mission 

Creek Waterway in China Basin 

surrounding the construction site of the 

Fourth Street Bridge, San Francisco, 

California. This temporary safety zone is 

necessary to protect persons and vessels 

from hazards associated with bridge 

construction activities scheduled to last 

from February 15, 2005 to December 31, 

2005. The safety zone will temporarily 

prohibit use of the Mission Creek 

Waterway surrounding the Fourth Street 

Bridge; specifically, no persons or 

vessels will be permitted to come within 

100 yards of either side of the bridge or 

pass beneath the bridge during 

construction, unless authorized by the 

Captain of the Port, or his designated 

representative.

DATES: Comments and related material 

must reach the Coast Guard on or before 

January 4, 2005.

ADDRESSES: You may mail comments 

and related material to the Waterways 

Management Branch, U.S. Coast Guard 

Marine Safety Office San Francisco Bay, 

Coast Guard Island, Alameda, California 

94501. The Waterways Management 

Branch 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 the Waterways Management 

Branch between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., 

Monday through Friday, except Federal 

holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Lieutenant Doug Ebbers, U.S. Coast 

Guard Marine Safety Office San 

Francisco Bay, at (510) 437–3073.

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 (COTP San Francisco 

04–023), 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 that your submission reached 

us, please enclose a stamped, selfaddressed 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 

Waterways Management 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 separate 

notice in the Federal Register. 

Background and Purpose 

The San Francisco Department of 

Public Works is requesting a waterway 

closure on Mission Creek for the 

purpose of performing significant work 

to the Fourth Street Bridge. The Fourth 

Street Bridge was erected across the 

Mission Creek Waterway at the China 

Basin in 1917, and was determined 

eligible for listing in the National 

Register of Historic Places in 1985 as 

part of the California Department of 

Transportation (Caltrans) Historic 

Bridge Inventory. Caltrans, Division of 

Structures, evaluated the Fourth Street 

Bridge and recommended that the 

bridge be brought up to current seismic 

safety standards. The three objectives of 

the rehabilitation project are to: (1) 

Seismically retrofit the structure while 

not significantly altering the historical 

appearance of the bridge; (2) repair the 

damage to the concrete approaches and 

several steel and concrete members of 

the movable span, and (3) reinitiate light 

rail service across the bridge. The 

Federal Highway Administration, the 

State of California and the City of San 

Francisco are funding the Fourth Street 

Bridge Retrofit Project. 

The first phase of this project 

included the removal of the lift span, 

which took place between May 1 and 

July 28, 2003. During that period, the 

channel was closed at the Fourth Street 

Bridge to boating traffic by a temporary 

final rule that was published in the 

Federal Register on May 13, 2003 (68 

FR 25500) and a subsequent change in 

effective period temporary final rule 

that was published on July 9, 2003 (68 

FR 40772). Those two rules established 

a safety zone that extended 100 yards on 

either side of the Fourth Street Bridge. 

The second phase of the construction 

project includes rebuilding the north 

and south approaches and the new 

counterweight and its enclosing pit; but 

does not require that the waterway be 

closed to boating traffic. The safety zone 

being proposed in this rule is for the last 

phase of construction, which includes 

replacing the lift span and aligning the 

bridge to accept the light rail track 

system. This final phase is scheduled to 

begin on February 15, 2005, and end on 

December 31, 2005. The proposed safety 

zone of 100 yards on either side of the 

Fourth Street Bridge is needed during 

this period to protect boating traffic 

public from the dangers posed by the 

construction operations and to allow the 

construction operations to be 

completed.