Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 240 / Wednesday, December 15, 2004 / Proposed Rules 75013

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 affect a 

taking of private property or otherwise 

have taking implications under E.O. 

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 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. 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 

environment documentation because it 

has been determined that the 

promulgation of operating regulations or 

procedures for drawbridges are 

categorically excluded.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117 

Bridges.

Regulations 

For the reasons set out 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. Section 117.799 is amended by 

adding a new paragraph (g)(3) to read as 

follows:

§ 117.799 Long Island, New York Inland 

Waterway from East Rockaway Inlet to 

Shinnecock Canal.

* * * * *

(g) * * * (3) From 10 p.m. to 

midnight on July 3 each year the draw 

need not open for the passage of vessel 

traffic.

* * * * *

Dated: December 6, 2004. 

David P. Pekoske, 

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

First Coast Guard District.

[FR Doc. 04–27470 Filed 12–14–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–15–P

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 117 

[CGD01–04–143] 

RIN 2115–AE47 

Drawbridge Operation Regulations; 

Taunton River, MA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to 

change the drawbridge operating 

regulations governing the operation of 

the Brightman Street Bridge, mile 1.8, 

across the Taunton River between Fall 

River and Somerset, Massachusetts. 

This proposed change to the drawbridge 

operation regulations would allow the 

bridge to remain closed for the passage 

of pleasure craft traffic from 7 a.m. to 

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

Monday through Friday, except 

holidays, from June 1 through August 

31. The draw would open on signal at 

all times for commercial vessel traffic. 

This action is expected to help relieve 

vehicular traffic delays during the 

morning and afternoon commuter time 

periods while continuing to meet the 

reasonable needs of navigation.

DATES: Comments must reach the Coast 

Guard on or before February 14, 2005.

ADDRESSES: You may mail comments to 

Commander (obr), First Coast Guard 

District Bridge Branch, 408 Atlantic 

Avenue, Boston, Massachusetts 02110, 

or deliver them to the same address 

between 7 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, except, Federal 

holidays. The telephone number is (617) 

223–8364. The First Coast Guard 

District, Bridge Branch, maintains the 

public docket for this rulemaking. 

Comments and material received from 

the public, as well as documents 

75014 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 240 / Wednesday, December 15, 2004 / Proposed Rules 

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 First Coast 

Guard District, Bridge Branch, 7 a.m. to 

3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except 

Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joe 

Arca, Project Officer, First Coast Guard 

District, (212) 668–7165.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Request for Comments 

We encourage you to participate in 

this rulemaking by submitting 

comments or related material. If you do 

so, please include your name and 

address, identify the docket number for 

this rulemaking (CGD01–04–143), 

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 if 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 First 

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 

The Brightman Street Bridge has a 

vertical clearance in the closed position 

of 27 feet at mean high water and 31 feet 

at mean low water. The existing 

drawbridge operation regulations are 

listed at 33 CFR 117.619(b). 

The Town of Somerset and the 

Massachusetts State Police asked the 

Coast Guard and the bridge owner, 

Massachusetts Highway Department, for 

assistance with vehicular traffic delays 

resulting from unregulated bridge 

openings during the morning and 

afternoon rush hours at the Brightman 

Street Bridge.

The Coast Guard, in response to the 

above request, issued a temporary 

deviation from the drawbridge operation 

regulations (69 FR 35244) on June 24, 

2004, with a request for public 

comment. 

The temporary deviation was in effect 

for a period of 90-days to test an 

alternate operation schedule which is 

the same schedule proposed in this 

notice of proposed rulemaking. 

Under the temporary deviation 

effective from July 1, 2004 through 

September 28, 2004, the Brightman 

Street Bridge remained closed for the 

passage of pleasure craft from 7 a.m. to 

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

Monday through Friday. Commercial 

vessel traffic was allowed to pass 

through the bridge on signal at all times 

during the 90-day test period. 

The drawbridge operation schedule 

implemented during the 90-day test 

period successfully alleviated vehicular 

traffic delays with no known adverse 

effects on navigation. The Coast Guard 

received no comment letters in response 

to the temporary deviation. 

Discussion of Proposal 

This proposed change would amend 

33 CFR 117.619 by revising paragraph 

(b), which lists the Brightman Street 

Bridge drawbridge operation 

regulations. This proposed change 

would allow the Brightman Street 

Bridge to remain closed to pleasure craft 

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

p.m., Monday through Friday, except 

holidays, from June 1 through August 

31. 

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 

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 Transportation (DOT) (44 

FR 11040, Feb. 26, 1979). 

We expect the economic impact of 

this proposed rule to be so minimal that 

a full Regulatory Evaluation, under 

paragraph 10e of the regulatory policies 

and procedures of DOT, is unnecessary. 

This conclusion is based on the fact 

that the bridge will continue to open at 

all times for commercial vessel traffic. 

Small Entities 

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(5 U.S.C. 601–612), we 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 

section 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 conclusion is based on the fact 

that the bridge will continue to open for 

commercial vessel traffic at all times. 

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. 

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 

Arule 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 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 E.O. 

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. 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 240 / Wednesday, December 15, 2004 / Proposed Rules 75015

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 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. 

Environment 

We considered the environmental 

impact of this proposed rule and 

concluded that, under figure 2–1, 

paragraph (32)(e), of Commandant 

Instruction M16475.1d, this proposed 

rule is categorically excluded from 

further environmental documentation 

because promulgation of drawbridge 

regulations have been found not to have 

a significant effect on the environment. 

A written ‘‘Categorical Exclusion 

Determination’’ is not required for this 

rule.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117 

Bridges.

Regulations 

For the reasons set out 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; 49 CFR 1.46; 33 

CFR 1.05–1(g); section 117.255 also issued 

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

Stat. 5039.

2. Section 117.619 is amended by 

revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:

§ 117.619 Taunton River.

* * * * *

(b) The Brightman Street Bridge, at 

mile 1.8, between Fall River and 

Somerset, shall open on signal, except 

that: 

(1) From June 1 through August 31, 

the draw need not open for the passage 

of pleasure craft, from 7 a.m. to 9:30 

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

Monday through Friday, except 

holidays. The draw shall open on signal 

for commercial vessel traffic at all times. 

(2) From November 1 through March 

31, between 6 p.m. and 6 a.m. daily, the 

draw shall open if at least a one-hour 

advance notice is given by calling the 

number posted at the bridge. 

(3) From 6 p.m. on December 24 to 

midnight on December 25, and from 6 

p.m. on December 31 to midnight on 

January 1, the draw shall open on signal 

if at least a two-hour advance notice is 

given by calling the number posted at 

the bridge.

* * * * *

Dated: December 3, 2004. 

David P. Pekoske, 

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

First Coast Guard District.

[FR Doc. 04–27472 Filed 12–14–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–15–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 63

[R06–OAR–2004–LA–0001; FRL–7847–7] 

Approval of the Clean Air Act Section 

112(l) Program for Hazardous Air 

Pollutants and Delegation of Authority 

to the State of Louisiana

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The Louisiana Department of 

Environmental Quality (LDEQ) has 

submitted a request for receiving 

delegation of EPA authority for 

implementation and enforcement of 

National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs) 

for all sources (both part 70 and nonpart 70 sources). The requests apply to 

certain NESHAPs promulgated by EPA, 

as incorporated by reference by LDEQ 

(40 CFR part 63 standards) as of July 1, 

2003. The delegation of authority under 

this notice does not apply to sources 

located in Indian Country. EPA is 

providing notice that it approved by 

letter the delegation of certain NESHAPs 

to LDEQ on October 18, 2004, and is 

amending LDEQ’s delegation of 

authority by adding additional part 63 

subparts to the delegation.

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before January 14, 2005.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to 

Mr. Jeff Robinson, Air Permits Section 

(6PD–R), Environmental Protection 

Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, 

Dallas, Texas 75202–2733. Comments 

may also be submitted electronically or 

through hand delivery/courier by 

following the detailed instructions in 

the Addresses section of the direct final 

rule located in the final rules section of 

the Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Jeff Robinson, Air Permits Section, 

Multimedia Planning and Permitting 

Division (6PD–R), U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region 6, 1445 Ross 

Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75202–

2733, at (214) 665–6435, or at 

robinson.jeffrey@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the 

final rules section of this Federal 

Register, EPA is approving LDEQ’s 

request for delegation of authority to 

implement and enforce certain 

NESHAPs for all sources (both Part 70 

and non-Part 70 sources). LDEQ has 

adopted certain NESHAPs into 

Louisiana’s state regulations. In 

addition, EPA is waiving its notification 

requirements so sources will only need 

to send notifications and reports to 

LDEQ. 

The EPA is taking direct final action 

without prior proposal because EPA 

views this as a noncontroversial action 

and anticipates no adverse comments. A 

detailed rationale for this approval is set 

forth in the preamble to the direct final 

rule. If no adverse comments are 

received in response to this action rule, 

no further activity is contemplated. If 

EPA receives adverse comments, the 

direct final rule will be withdrawn, and 

all public comments received will be 

addressed in a subsequent final rule 

based on this proposed rule. EPA will 

not institute a second comment period 

on this action. Any parties interested in 

commenting must do so at this time. 

Please note that if EPA receives adverse 

comment on an amendment, paragraph, 

or section of this rule and if that