26038 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 88 / Tuesday, May 8, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

other specific subsections of the Privacy 

Act. 

Dated: April 27, 2007. 

Lee J. Lofthus, 

Assistant Attorney General for 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E7–8764 Filed 5–7–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–AW–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 117 

[CGD05–07–026] 

RIN 1625–AA09 

Drawbridge Operation Regulations; 

Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway (AIWW), 

Sunset Beach, NC 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is proposing 

to change the drawbridge operating 

regulations that govern the S.R. 1172 

Bridge, at Atlantic Intracoastal 

Waterway mile 337.9, Sunset Beach, 

NC. This proposal would allow the 

bridge to open on the hour on signal for 

pleasure vessels from 7 a.m. to 9 p.m. 

year round. The reason for this change 

would be to improve the schedule for 

both roadway and waterway users. 

DATES: Comments and related material 

must reach the Coast Guard on or before 

June 22, 2007. 

ADDRESSES: You may mail comments 

and related material to Commander 

(dpb), Fifth Coast Guard District, 

Federal Building, 1st Floor, 431 

Crawford Street, Portsmouth, VA 

23704–5004. The Fifth Coast Guard 

District 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 (dpb), Fifth 

Coast Guard District between 8 a.m. and 

4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except 

Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gary 

Heyer, Bridge Management Specialist, 

Fifth Coast Guard District, at (757) 398–

6629. 

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 CGD05–07–026, 

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 

a return receipt, please enclose a 

stamped, self-addressed postcard or 

envelope. We will consider all 

submittals 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 Commander 

(dpb), Fifth 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 S.R. 1172 Bridge at Sunset Beach 

has zero vertical clearance to vessels 

when in the closed position at mean 

high water. 

The North Carolina Department of 

Transportation (NCDOT) owns and 

operates this single-lane, floating steelbarge, swing-span referred to as a 

pontoon drawbridge. Current 

regulations set out at 33 CFR 117.821 

(a)(5) require the bridge to open on 

signal for commercial vessels at all 

times; and on the hour on signal for 

pleasure vessels between 7 a.m. and 7 

p.m., April 1 to November 30, except 

that on Saturdays, Sundays, and Federal 

holidays, from June 1 through 

September 30, the bridge shall open on 

signal on the hour between 7 a.m. and 

9 p.m. 

NCDOT and the residents of the Town 

of Sunset Beach requested a change to 

the operating regulations for the S.R. 

1172 Bridge in an effort to improve the 

schedule for both roadway and 

waterway users. The S.R. 1172 Bridge 

provides the only route on and off 

Sunset Beach Island. This proposal 

would not change the requirement for 

the bridge to open on signal at any time 

for commercial vessels. 

The Coast Guard reviewed the bridge 

logs for 2005 and 2006 provided by 

NCDOT which illustrate a small 

decrease in the numbers of vessels 

passing through the bridge during the 

spring, summer, and fall over the past 

year. Most vessels transiting the area in 

the spring and fall are operated by 

owners commonly referred to as 

‘‘snowbirds’’. Owners of these transitory 

recreational vessels are either traveling 

north to south towards a warmer climate 

in the fall or south to north towards a 

cooler climate in the spring which can 

result in frequent bridge openings due 

to increased vessel numbers. During the 

spring and fall months, the flow of 

recreational vessels is constant. 

There were approximately 10,461 and 

11,429 vessel passages occurring in 

2006 and 2005, respectively, over an 

eight-month period (during the peak 

boating season from April to November) 

according to records furnished by the 

NCDOT. (See Table A) 

TABLE A 

JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEPT OCT NOV DEC 

Bridge Openings for 2006 

233 191 307 392 436 394 451 392 349 386 326 317 

Boat Passages for 2006 

273 157 463 1207 1659 1538 1486 1024 921 1234 1392 481 

Bridge Openings for 2005 

218 165 313 322 441 439 474 413 327 393 331 297 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC62 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 88 / Tuesday, May 8, 2007 / Proposed Rules 26039 

TABLE A—Continued 

JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEPT OCT NOV DEC 

Boat Passages for 2005 

294 211 532 1041 1767 1438 1639 1152 834 1302 2256 538 

Based on the above information, we 

have proposed to change the regulations 

that govern the S.R. 1172 Bridge in 

regards to pleasure vessels to open on 

the hour on signal between 7 a.m. and 

9 p.m., year-round. At all other times, 

the draw shall open on demand. The 

proposal will facilitate pleasure vessels 

in navigating the Atlantic Intracoastal 

Waterway, while also helping to ease 

vehicular traffic congestion. The bridge 

will continue to open on signal at any 

time for commercial vessels. 

Discussion of Proposed Rule 

The Coast Guard proposes to amend 

33 CFR 117.821, by revising paragraph 

(a)(5) for pleasure vessels to read ‘‘shall 

open on the hour on signal from 7 a.m. 

to 9 p.m.’’

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 is 

unnecessary. We reached this 

conclusion based on the fact that the 

proposed changes have only a minimal 

impact on maritime traffic transiting the 

bridge. Mariners can plan their trips in 

accordance with the scheduled bridge 

openings to minimize delays. 

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 not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

because the rule only adds minimal 

restrictions to the movement of 

navigation, and mariners who plan their 

transits in accordance with the 

scheduled bridge openings can 

minimize delay. 

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 Waverly W. 

Gregory, Jr., Bridge Administrator, Fifth 

Coast Guard District, (757) 398–6222. 

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 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. 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC62 with PROPOSALS
26040 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 88 / Tuesday, May 8, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

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, and Department of 

Homeland Security Management 

Directive 5100.1, which guides the 

Coast Guard in complying with the 

National Environmental Policy Act of 

1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), 

and have made a preliminary 

determination 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, we 

believe that this rule should be 

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. However, comments on this 

section will be considered before the 

final 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; 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 § 117.821, paragraph (a)(5) is 

revised to read as follows: 

§ 117.821 Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, 

Albermarle Sound to Sunset Beach. 

* * * * * 

(a) * * * 

(5) S.R. 1172 Bridge, mile 337.9, at 

Sunset Beach, NC, shall open on the 

hour on signal between 7 a.m. to 9 p.m. 

* * * * * 

Dated: April 9, 2007. 

L.L. Hereth, 

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

Fifth Coast Guard District. 

[FR Doc. E7–8723 Filed 5–7–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–15–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R07–OAR–2007–0347; FRL–8309–6] 

Approval And Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; Iowa; Clean Air 

Interstate Rule 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

a revision to the Iowa State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted on 

August 15, 2006. This revision 

addresses the requirements of EPA’s 

Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) 

promulgated on May 12, 2005, and 

subsequently revised on April 28, 2006, 

and December 13, 2006. EPA is 

proposing to determine that the SIP 

revision fully implements the CAIR 

requirements for Iowa. Therefore, as a 

consequence of the SIP approval, EPA 

will also withdraw the CAIR Federal 

Implementation Plans (FIPs) concerning 

SO2, NOX annual, NOX ozone season 

emissions for Iowa. The CAIR FIPs for 

all States in the CAIR region were 

promulgated on April 28, 2006, and 

subsequently revised on December 13, 

2006. 

CAIR requires States to reduce 

emissions of sulfur dioxide (SO2) and 

nitrogen oxides (NOX) that significantly 

contribute to, and interfere with 

maintenance of, the national ambient air 

quality standards for fine particulates 

and/or ozone in any downwind state. 

CAIR establishes State budgets for SO2

and NOX and requires States to submit 

SIP revisions that implement these 

budgets in States that EPA concluded 

did contribute to nonattainment in 

downwind states. States have the 

flexibility to choose which control 

measures to adopt to achieve the 

budgets, including participating in the 

EPA-administered cap-and-trade 

programs. In the SIP revision that EPA 

is proposing to approve, Iowa would 

meet CAIR requirements by 

participating in the EPA-administered 

cap-and-trade programs addressing SO2, 

NOX annual, and NOX ozone season 

emissions. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before June 7, 2007. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R07–

OAR–2007–0347, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. http://www.regulations.gov: Follow 

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. E-mail: jay.michael@epa.gov. 

3. Mail: Michael Jay, Environmental 

Protection Agency, Air Planning and 

Development Branch, 901 North 5th 

Street, Kansas City, Kansas 66101. 

4. Hand Delivery or Courier: Deliver 

your comments to: Michael Jay, 

Environmental Protection Agency, Air 

Planning and Development Branch, 901 

North 5th Street, Kansas City, Kansas 

66101. Such deliveries are only 

accepted during the Regional Office’s 

normal hours of operation. The Regional 

Office’s official hours of business are 

Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 4:30 

p.m., excluding Federal holidays. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R07–OAR–2007–

0347. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit through http:// 

www.regulations.gov or e-mail, 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC62 with PROPOSALS