Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 232 / Friday, December 3, 2004 / Proposed Rules 70209

check of the VOR indicated that the 

house did not cause a problem; 

however, large vehicles parked near the 

VOR facility were interfering with the 

integrity of the signal. As such, portions 

of the airways have been NOTAMed out 

of service. Additionally, subsequent to 

this NOTAM action the Drummond 

VOR was decommissioned on January 

13, 2004. 

The Proposal 

The FAA is proposing an amendment 

to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations 

(14 CFR) part 71 (part 71) to revise V–

2, V–257, and V–343 southeast of 

Missoula, MT. Specifically, this notice 

is proposing to eliminate segments of V–

2 and V–343. It would also establish 

new airway segments on V–2 (between 

Missoula, MT, and Helena, MT) and V–

257 (between SCAAT intersection and 

the Coppertown VOR). 

The FAA has determined that this 

proposed regulation only involves an 

established body of technical 

regulations for which frequent and 

routine amendments are necessary to 

keep them operationally current. 

Therefore, this proposed regulation: (1) 

is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’

under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not 

a ‘‘significant rule’’ under Department of 

Transportation (DOT) Regulatory 

Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; 

February 26, 1979); and (3) does not 

warrant preparation of a regulatory 

evaluation as the anticipated impact is 

so minimal. Since this is a routine 

matter that will only affect air traffic 

procedures and air navigation, it is 

certified that this proposed rule, when 

promulgated, will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities under the 

criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

Airspace, Incorporation by reference, 

Navigation (air).

The Proposed Amendment 

In consideration of the foregoing, the 

Federal Aviation Administration 

proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as 

follows:

PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, 

B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR 

TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND 

REPORTING POINTS 

1. The authority citation for part 71 

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 

40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959–

1963 Comp., p. 389.

§ 71.1 [Amended] 

2. The incorporation by reference in 

14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.9M, 

Airspace Designations and Reporting 

Points, dated August 30, 2004, and 

effective September 16, 2004, is 

amended as follows:

Paragraph 6010(a) Domestic VOR Federal 

Airways

* * * * *

V–2 [Revised] 

From Seattle, WA; Ellensburg, WA; Moses 

Lake, WA; Spokane, WA; Mullan Pass, ID; 

Missoula, MT; Helena, MT; INT Helena 119°

and Livingston, MT, 322° radials; Livingston; 

Billings, MT; Miles City, MT; 24 miles, 90 

miles, 55 MSL, Dickinson, ND; 10 miles, 60 

miles, 38 MSL, Bismarck, ND; 14 miles, 62 

miles, 34 MSL, Jamestown, ND; Fargo, ND; 

Alexandria, MN; Gopher, MN; Nodine, MN; 

Lone Rock, WI; Madison, WI; Badger, WI; 

Muskegon, MI; Lansing, MI; Salem, MI; INT 

Salem 093° and Aylmer, ON, Canada, 254°

radials; Aylmer; INT Aylmer 086° and 

Buffalo, NY, 259° radials; Buffalo; Rochester, 

NY; Syracuse, NY; Utica, NY; Albany, NY; 

INT Albany 084° and Gardner, MA, 284°

radials; to Gardner. The airspace within 

Canada is excluded.

* * * * *

V–257 [Revised] 

From Phoenix, AZ, via INT Phoenix 348°

and Drake, AZ, 141° radials; Drake; INT 

Drake 003° and Grand Canyon, AZ, 211°

radials; Grand Canyon; 38 miles 12 AGL, 24 

miles 125 MSL, 16 miles 95 MSL, 26 miles 

12 AGL, Bryce Canyon, UT; INT Bryce 

Canyon 338° and Delta, UT, 186° radials, 

Delta; 39 miles, 105 MSL INT Delta 004° and 

Malad City, ID, 179° radials; 20 miles, 118 

MSL, Malad City; Pocatello, ID; DuBois, ID; 

Dillon, MT; Coppertown, MT; INT 002° and 

Great Falls, MT, 222° radials; Great Falls; 73 

miles, 56 MSL, Havre, MT. The airspace 

within Restricted Area R–6403 is excluded.

* * * * *

V–343 [Revised] 

From Dubois, ID; Bozeman, MT.

* * * * *

Issued in Washington, DC, November 26, 

2004. 

Reginald C. Matthews, 

Manager, Airspace and Rules.

[FR Doc. 04–26585 Filed 12–2–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 117

[CGD07–04–124] 

RIN 1625–AA09

Drawbridge Operation Regulations; 

Skidaway Bridge (SR 204), Intracoastal 

Waterway, Mile 592.9, Savannah, 

Chatham County, GA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to 

change the operating regulations of the 

Skidaway Bridge (SR 204) across the 

Intracoastal Waterway, mile 592.9 in 

Savannah, Georgia. This proposed rule 

would allow the drawbridge to not open 

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

to 6:30 p.m., daily. Due to the amount 

of vehicle traffic and the lack of 

openings during the requested time 

period, this proposed action would 

improve the movement of vehicular 

traffic while not unreasonably 

interfering with the movement of vessel 

traffic. Public vessels of the United 

States, tugs with tows, and vessels in 

distress would be passed at anytime.

DATES: Comments and related material 

must reach the Coast Guard on or before 

February 1, 2005.

ADDRESSES: 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.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Gwin Tate, Project Officer, Seventh 

Coast Guard District, Bridge Branch, at 

(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 (CGD07–04–124), 

indicate the specific section of this 

document to which each comment 

applies, and give the reason for each 

70210 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 232 / Friday, December 3, 2004 / Proposed Rules 

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 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 operation of the Skidaway Bridge 

(SR 204), mile 592.9, at Savannah, is 

governed by 33 CFR 117.5 which 

requires the draw to open on signal. On 

April 22, 2004, Chatham County 

requested that the Coast Guard review 

the existing regulation governing the 

operation of the Skidaway Bridge, 

because the County contended that the 

regulation was not meeting the needs of 

vehicle traffic. The Coast Guard 

proposes to make the recommended 

schedule permanent. This 

recommended schedule will meet the 

reasonable needs of navigation and 

improve vehicular traffic movement. 

Discussion of Proposed Rule 

The Coast Guard proposes to modify 

the existing bridge operating regulation 

and create a permanent rule that would 

allow the Skidaway Bridge to remain 

closed from 6:30 a.m. to 9 a.m. and from 

4:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m. daily. Public 

vessels of the United States, tugs with 

tows, and vessels in distress shall 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 

(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 efficient vehicle 

traffic flow and still meet the reasonable 

needs of navigation. 

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 

may be small entities: The owners or 

operators of vessels needing to transit 

the Intracoastal Waterway in the 

vicinity of the Skidaway Bridge, persons 

intending to drive over the bridge and 

nearby business owners. 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 

vessesl of the United States, tugs with 

tows, and vessels in distress would be 

passed 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). 

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 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 232 / Friday, December 3, 2004 / Proposed Rules 70211

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.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. The rule 

fits within paragraph (32)(e) because it 

promulgates operating regulations or 

procedures for a drawbridge. 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.

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; 33 CFR 1.05–1(g); 

Department of Homeland Security Delegation 

No. 0170.1; section 117.255 also issued under 

the authority of Pub. L. 102–587, 106 Stat. 

5039.

2. In § 117.353, paragraph (c) is added 

to read as follows:

§ 117.353 Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, 

Savannah River to St. Marys River.

* * * * *

(c) Skidaway Bridge, SR 204, mile 

592.9 near Savannah. The draw shall 

open on signal, except that from 6:30 

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

p.m., Monday through Friday, the draw 

need not open. The draw shall open on 

signal on Federal holidays.

Dated: November 23, 2004. 

David B. Peterman, 

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

Seventh Coast Guard District.

[FR Doc. 04–26587 Filed 12–2–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–15–P

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 165

[CGD05–04–210] 

RIN 1625–AA00

Security Zone; Potomac and Anacosta 

Rivers, Washington, DC and Arlington 

and Fairfax Counties, Virginia

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to 

establish a temporary security zone from 

January 14 through January 25, 2005, 

encompassing certain waters of the 

Potomac and Anacosta Rivers in order 

to safeguard a large number of highranking officials and spectators from 

terrorist acts and incidents. This action 

is necessary to provide for the security 

of persons and property, and prevent 

terrorist acts or incidents during the 

2005 Presidential Inauguration activities 

in Washington, DC. This rule would 

prohibit vessels and persons from 

entering the security zone and require 

vessels and persons in the security zone 

to depart the security zone, unless 

specifically exempt under the 

provisions in this rule or granted 

specific permission from the Coast 

Guard Captain of the Port Baltimore.

DATES: Comments and related material 

must reach the Coast Guard on or before 

January 3, 2005.

ADDRESSES: You may mail comments 

and related material to Commander, 

Coast Guard Activities Baltimore, 2401 

Hawkins Point Road, Building 70, 

Waterways Management Branch, 

Baltimore, Maryland 21226–1791. Coast 

Guard Activities Baltimore, 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 Coast Guard 

Activities Baltimore, Waterways 

Management Branch, between 8 a.m. 

and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Ronald Houck, at Coast Guard Activities 

Baltimore, Waterways Management 

Branch, at telephone number (410) 576–

2674 or (410) 576–2693.

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 (CGD05–04–210), 

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. If, as we anticipate, we 

make this temporary final rule effective 

less than 30 days after publication in the 

Federal Register, we will explain in that 

publication, as required by 5 U.S.C. 

(d)(3), our good cause for doing so. 

Public Meeting 

We do not now plan to hold a public 

meeting. But you may submit a request