Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2004 / Proposed Rules 69561

Subpart C—Approved American 

Viticultural Areas 

§ 9.___ Texoma. 

(a) Name. The name of the viticultural 

area described in this section is 

‘‘Texoma’’. For purposes of part 4 of this 

chapter, ‘‘Texoma’’ is a term of 

viticultural significance. 

(b) Approved maps. The two USGS, 

1:250,000 scale, topographic maps used 

to determine the boundaries of the 

Texoma viticultural area are titled—

(1) Sherman, Texas; Oklahoma, 1954, 

revised 1977; and 

(2) Texarkana, Tex.; Ark.; Okla.; La., 

1953, revised 1972. 

(c) Boundary. The Texoma viticultural 

area is located in Montague, Cooke, 

Grayson, and Fannin counties, Texas. 

The area’s boundaries are defined as 

follows—

(1) The point of beginning is the 

northwest corner of Montague County 

on the Sherman map. From this point, 

the boundary line—

(2) Follows the Red River eastward 

along the Texas-Oklahoma State line to 

the northeast corner of Fannin County 

on the Texarkana map; 

(3) Continues southward along the 

eastern Fannin County line to a point, 

approximately three miles west of Petty, 

Texas, where a power line crosses the 

county line; 

(4) Continues southwest in a straight 

line for approximately 13 miles to the 

intersection of State Routes 34 and 50 in 

Ladonia, Texas; 

(5) Follows State Route 34 west to its 

intersection with State Route 68 on the 

Sherman map;

(6) From that intersection, continues 

west-southwesterly in a straight line to 

the intersection of U.S. Highway 69 and 

State Route 78 at Leonard, Texas; 

(7) Continues northwest on U.S. 

Highway 69 for approximately 6 miles 

to its intersection with State Route 121 

at Trenton, Texas; 

(8) From that intersection, continues 

westerly in a straight line to the 

intersection of State Routes 160 and 

121, and continues west on State Route 

121 to its intersection with U.S. 

Highway 75 at Van Alstyne, Texas; 

(9) Continues south along U.S. 

Highway 75 to the Grayson County line; 

(10) Continues west along the 

southern Grayson County line and then 

the southern Cooke County line to the 

line’s intersection with Interstate 35; 

(11) Continues north along Interstate 

35 to its intersection with State Route 

922 at Valley View, Texas; 

(12) Follows State Route 922 west for 

approximately 17 miles to Rosston, 

Texas; 

(13) Continues west-southwest from 

Rosston in a straight line for 

approximately 19 miles to the 

intersection of U.S. Highway 287 and 

State Route 101 at Sunset, Texas; 

(14) Follows U.S. 287 northwest 

approximately 17 miles to the western 

Montague County line; and 

(15) Continues north along the 

western Montague County line to the 

starting point at the northwest corner of 

Montague County.

Signed: November 10, 2004. 

Arthur J. Libertucci, 

Administrator.

[FR Doc. 04–26329 Filed 11–29–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4810–31–P

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 117

[CGD07–04–108] 

RIN 1625–AA09

Drawbridge Operation Regulations; 

Biscayne Bay, Atlantic Intracoastal 

Waterway, Miami River, and Miami 

Beach Channel, Miami-Dade County, 

FL

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to 

temporarily change the regulations 

governing the operation of the east and 

west spans of the Venetian Causeway 

bridges across the Miami Beach Channel 

on the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, 

the Miami Avenue bridge and the 

Brickell Avenue bridge across the 

Miami River, Miami-Dade County. This 

proposed rule would allow these 

bridges to remain in the closed position 

during the running of the Miami 

Tropical Marathon on January 30, 2005.

DATES: Comments and related material 

must reach the Coast Guard on or before 

December 30, 2004.

ADDRESSES: You may mail comments 

and related material to Commander 

(obr), Seventh Coast Guard District, 909 

SE. 1st Ave, Suite 432, Miami, FL 

33131–3050. 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 this docket and will be 

available for inspection or copying at 

the Bridge Branch, Seventh Coast Guard 

District, between 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., 

Monday through Friday, except Federal 

holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Gwin Tate, Project Manager, Seventh 

Coast Guard District, Bridge Branch, 

305–415–6747.

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 [CGD07–04–108], 

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 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 Miami Marathon Director 

requested that the Coast Guard 

temporarily change the existing 

regulations governing the operation of 

the east and west spans of the Venetian 

Causeway bridges, the Brickell Avenue 

bridge and the Miami Avenue bridge to 

allow them to remain in the closed 

position during the running of the 

Miami Tropical Marathon on Sunday, 

January 30, 2005. The closure times 

range from 6:05 a.m. through 12:05 p.m. 

The marathon route will pass over these 

four bridges and any bridge opening 

would disrupt the race. Based on the 

limited amount of time the bridges 

would be closed, the proposed rule 

would still provide for the reasonable 

needs of navigation on the day of the 

event.

The east and west spans of the 

Venetian Causeway bridges are located 

between Miami and Miami Beach. The 

current regulation governing the 

operation of the east span of the 

Venetian Causeway bridge is published 

in 33 CFR 117.269 and requires the 

bridge to open on signal; except that, 

from November 1 through April 30 from 

69562 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2004 / Proposed Rules 

7:15 a.m. to 8:45 a.m. and from 4:45 

p.m. to 6:15 p.m. Monday through 

Friday, the draw need not open. 

However, the draw opens at 7:45 a.m., 

8:15 a.m., 5:15 p.m., and 5:45 p.m., if 

any vessels are waiting to pass. The 

draw opens on signal on Thanksgiving 

Day, Christmas Day, New Year’s Day 

and Washington’s Birthday. The draw 

opens at anytime for public vessels of 

the United States, tugs with tows, 

regularly scheduled cruise vessels, and 

vessels in distress. The regulation 

governing the west span of the Venetian 

Causeway bridge is published in 33 CFR 

117.261 and requires the bridge to open 

on signal; except that, from November 1 

through April 30, Monday through 

Friday except Federal holidays, from 7 

a.m. to 9 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. to 6:30 

p.m., the draw need open only on the 

hour and the half-hour. 

The regulation governing the Miami 

Avenue bridge, mile 0.3, at Miami, is 

published at 33 CFR 117.305(c) and 

requires that the bridge open on signal; 

except that, from 7:35 a.m. to 8:59 a.m., 

12:05 p.m. to 12:59 p.m. and 4:35 p.m. 

to 5:59 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays, the draw need 

not open for the passage of vessels. 

The regulation governing the draw of 

the Brickell Avenue bridge, mile 0.1, at 

Miami, is published in 33 CFR 

117.305(d) and requires that the bridge 

open on signal; except that, from 7 a.m. 

to 7 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays, the draw need 

open only on the hour and half-hour. 

From 7:35 a.m. to 8:59 a.m., 12:05 p.m. 

to 12:59 p.m. and 4:35 p.m. to 5:59 p.m., 

Monday through Friday except Federal 

holidays, the draw need not open for the 

passage of vessels. 

This proposed rule would not 

adversely affect the reasonable needs of 

navigation due to the limited time, six 

hours, that the bridges would remain in 

the closed position. 

Discussion of Proposed Rule 

The Coast Guard proposes to 

temporarily change the operating 

regulations of the east and west spans of 

the Venetian Causeway bridges, the 

Miami Avenue bridge and the Brickell 

Avenue bridge on January 30, 2005. 

This proposed rule would allow the east 

span of the Venetian Causeway bridge to 

remain closed from 6:05 a.m. to 8:40 

a.m. on January 30, 2005. The proposed 

rule would allow the west span of the 

Venetian Causeway to remain closed 

from 6:15 a.m. to 9:20 a.m. on January 

30, 2005. The Miami Avenue bridge 

would remain closed from 6:25 a.m. to 

10 a.m. on January 30, 2005. The 

Brickell Avenue bridge would remain 

closed from 7:10 a.m. to 11:59 a.m. on 

January 30, 2005. Public vessels of the 

United States and vessels in distress 

would be passed at anytime. 

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 DHS is 

unnecessary. The short duration of time 

during the morning of January 30, 2005, 

that the bridges would remain in the 

closed position to facilitate the running 

of the marathon would have little, if 

any, economic impact.

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 

might be small entities: the owners or 

operators of vessels that would require 

passage through these bridges during 

the morning hours of January 5, 2005. 

These vessels would not be able to pass 

through these bridges during the 

effective times of this proposed rule. 

However, due to the limited effective 

times of this proposed rule and the 

nominal amount of marine traffic 

expected during the early and late 

morning hours on a Sunday at this time 

of year, 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 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 in 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 the preamble. 

Taking of Private Property 

This proposed rule will 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, 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2004 / Proposed Rules 69563

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 does 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 

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 amends 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; 

section 117.255 also issued under authority 

of Pub. L. 102–587, 106 Stat. 5039.

2. From 6:15 a.m. until 9:20 a.m. on 

January 30, 2005, in § 117.261, 

paragraph (nn) is suspended and a new 

paragraph (tt) is added to read as 

follows:

§ 117.261 Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway 

from St. Marys River to Key Largo.

* * * * *

(tt) West Span of the Venetian 

Causeway, mile 1088.6 at Miami. The 

draw need not open from 6:15 a.m. until 

9:20 a.m. on January 30, 2005. Public 

vessels of the United States and vessels 

in distress shall be passed at any time. 

3. From 6:05 a.m. until 8:40 a.m. on 

January 30, 2005, in § 117.269, 

temporarily designate the existing 

regulatory text as paragraph (a); suspend 

paragraph (a); and add a new paragraph 

(b) to read as follows:

§ 117.269 Biscayne Bay.

* * * * *

(b) The draw of the east span of the 

Venetian Causeway bridge across Miami 

Beach Channel need not open from 6:05 

a.m. to 8:40 a.m. on January 30, 2005. 

Public vessels of the United States and 

vessels in distress shall be passed at any 

time. 

4. From 6:25 a.m. until 10 a.m. on 

Sunday, January 30, 2005, in § 117.305, 

paragraphs (c) and (d) are suspended 

and new paragraphs (e) and (f) are 

added to read as follows:

§ 117.305 Miami River.

* * * * *

(e) The draw of each bridge from the 

mouth of the Miami River, to and 

including the NW. 27th Avenue bridge, 

mile 3.7 at Miami, except the Miami 

Avenue and Brickell Avenue bridges, 

shall open on signal. 

(f) The Miami Avenue bridge, across 

the Miami River, need not open from 

6:25 a.m. to 10 a.m. on Sunday, January 

30, 2005, and the Brickell Avenue 

bridge, across the Miami River, need not 

open from 7:10 a.m. to 12:05 p.m. on 

Sunday, January 30, 2005. Public 

vessels of the United States and vessels 

in an emergency involving danger to life 

or property shall be passed at any time.

Dated: November 17, 2004. 

D. Brian Peterman, 

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

Seventh Coast Guard District.

[FR Doc. 04–26339 Filed 11–29–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–15–P

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Army, Corps of 

Engineers 

33 CFR Part 330

RIN 0710–AA60

Nationwide Permit Program

AGENCY: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 

DoD.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers is proposing to amend its 

nationwide permit regulations. We are 

proposing to modify the nationwide 

permit regulations so that district 

engineers can issue nationwide permit 

verification letters that expire on the 

same date the nationwide permit 

expires. This amendment will allow 

district engineers to issue that 

nationwide permit verifications are 

valid throughout the period of time the 

nationwide permit is in effect, to 

provide regulatory flexibility and 

efficiency. We are also proposing to 

increase the 30-day pre-construction 

notification review period to 45 days, to 

conform with nationwide permit general 

condition 13. Since the nationwide 

permit regulations were last amended in 

1991, there have been changes to related