10692 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 47 / Thursday, March 12, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

is necessary to accommodate aircraft 

utilizing the Kona International Airport 

at Keahole when the Air Traffic Control 

Tower is non-operational. This airspace 

is effective during the specific dates and 

times established in advance by a Notice 

to Airmen. This action would enhance 

the safety and management of aircraft 

operations at Kona International Airport 

at Keahole, Kona, HI. 

Class E airspace designations are 

published in paragraph 6005 of FAA 

Order 7400.9S, signed October 3, 2008, 

and effective October 31, 2008, which is 

incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 

71.1. The Class E airspace designation 

listed in this document will be 

published subsequently in this Order. 

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 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, would not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the criteria of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act. 

The FAA’s authority to issue rules 

regarding aviation safety is found in 

Title 49 of the U.S. Code. Subtitle 1, 

Section 106, describes the authority for 

the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, 

Aviation Programs, describes in more 

detail the scope of the agency’s 

authority. This rulemaking is 

promulgated under the authority 

described in Subtitle VII, Part A, 

Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that 

section, the FAA is charged with 

prescribing regulations to assign the use 

of that airspace necessary to ensure the 

safety of aircraft and the efficient use of 

airspace. This regulation is within the 

scope of that authority as it establishes 

additional controlled airspace at Kona 

International Airport at Keahole, Kona, 

HI. 

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71 

Airspace, Incorporation by reference, 

Navigation (air). 

The Proposed Amendment 

Accordingly, pursuant to the 

authority delegated to me, 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 14 CFR 

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 the FAA Order 7400.9S, 

Airspace Designations and Reporting 

Points, signed October 3, 2008, and 

effective October 31, 2008 is amended 

as follows: 

Paragraph 6002 Class E airspace designated 

as surface areas. 

* * * * * 

AWP HI E2 Kailua-Kona, HI [New] 

Kona International Airport at Keahole, HI 

(Lat. 19°44′20′′ N., long. 156°02′44′′ W.) 

That airspace extending upward from the 

surface to and including 2,500 feet MSL 

within a 4.3-mile radius of Kona 

International Airport at Keahole. This Class 

E airspace area is effective during the specific 

dates and times established in advance by a 

Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time 

will thereafter be continuously published in 

the Airport/Facility Directory, Pacific Chart 

supplement. 

* * * * * 

Issued in Seattle, Washington, on February 

17, 2009. 

H. Steve Karnes, 

Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, 

Western Service Center. 

[FR Doc. E9–5280 Filed 3–11–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 117 

[Docket No. USCG–2008–1175] 

RIN 1625–AA09 

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; 

Pamunkey River, West Point, VA 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to 

change the drawbridge operation 

regulations of the Eltham Bridge (SR33/ 

30), at mile 1.0, across Pamunkey River 

at West Point, Virginia. This proposal 

would allow the bridge to open on 

signal if at least four hours notice is 

given. This proposal would provide for 

the reasonable needs of navigation, due 

to the anticipated infrequency of 

requests for vessel openings of the 

drawbridge. 

DATES: Comments and related material 

must reach the Coast Guard on or before 

April 27, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

identified by Coast Guard docket 

number USCG–2008–1175 to the Docket 

Management Facility at the U.S. 

Department of Transportation. To avoid 

duplication, please use only one of the 

following methods: 

(1) Online: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. 

(2) Mail: Docket Management Facility 

(M–30), U.S. Department of 

Transportation, West Building Ground 

Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590– 

0001. 

(3) Hand delivery: Room W12–140 on 

the Ground Floor of the West Building, 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., 

Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. 

and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays. The telephone 

number is 202–366–9329. 

(4) Fax: 202–493–2251. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you have questions on this proposed 

rule, call Sandra S. Elliott, Bridge 

Management Specialist, Fifth Coast 

Guard District, at (757) 398–6557. If you 

have questions on viewing or submitting 

material to the docket, call Renee V. 

Wright, Program Manager, Docket 

Operations, telephone 202–366–9826. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Public Participation and Request for 

Comments 

We encourage you to participate in 

this rulemaking by submitting 

comments and related materials. All 

comments received will be posted, 

without change, to http:// 

www.regulations.gov and will include 

any personal information you have 

provided. We have an agreement with 

the Department of Transportation (DOT) 

to use the Docket Management Facility. 

Please see DOT’s ‘‘Privacy Act’’ 

paragraph below. 

Submitting Comments 

If you submit a comment, please 

include the docket number for this 

rulemaking (USCG–2008–1175), 

indicate the specific section of this 

document to which each comment 

applies, and give the reason for each 

comment. We recommend that you 

include your name and a mailing 

address, an e-mail address, or a phone 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 47 / Thursday, March 12, 2009 / Proposed Rules 10693 

number in the body of your document 

so that we can contact you if we have 

questions regarding your submission. 

You may submit your comments and 

material by electronic means, mail, fax, 

or delivery to the Docket Management 

Facility at the address under ADDRESSES; 

but please submit your comments and 

material by only one means. If you 

submit them by mail or delivery, submit 

them in an unbound format, no larger 

than 81⁄2 by 11 inches, suitable for 

copying and electronic filing. If you 

submit them by mail and would like to 

know that they reached the Facility, 

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. 

Viewing Comments and Documents 

To view comments, as well as 

documents mentioned in this preamble 

as being available in the docket, go to 

http://www.regulations.gov at any time. 

Enter the docket number for this 

rulemaking (USCG–2008–1175) in the 

Search box, and click ‘‘Go>>.’’ You may 

also visit either the Docket Management 

Facility in Room W12–140 on the 

ground floor of the DOT West Building, 

1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., 

Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. 

and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays or at 

Commander (dpb), Fifth Coast Guard 

District, Federal Building, 1st Floor, 431 

Crawford Street, Portsmouth, VA 

233704–5004 between 8 a.m. and 4 

p.m., Monday through Friday, except 

Federal holidays. 

Privacy Act 

Anyone can search the electronic 

form of all comments received into any 

of our dockets by the name of the 

individual submitting the comment (or 

signing the comment, if submitted on 

behalf of an association, business, labor 

union, etc.). You may review the 

Department of Transportation’s Privacy 

Act Statement in the Federal Register 

published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 

19477), or you may visit http:// 

DocketsInfo.dot.gov. 

Public Meeting 

We do not now plan to hold a public 

meeting. But you may submit a request 

for one to the Docket Management 

Facility 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 Virginia Department of 

Transportation (VDOT) is responsible 

for the operation of the Eltham Bridge 

(SR33/30), at mile 1.0, across Pamunkey 

River at West Point, VA. VDOT 

requested advance notification for 

vessel openings due to the infrequency 

of requests for vessel openings of the 

drawbridge. 

The new Eltham bascule bridge has 

recently been completed and is located 

immediately adjacent and downstream 

from the former structure. The new 

bridge provides an additional 45 feet of 

vertical clearance over the navigable 

channel. The increase in vertical 

clearance has eliminated the need to 

open on demand for all existing 

commercial traffic and it is anticipated 

that there will be very few requests 

other than for scheduled monthly 

maintenance openings. 

The existing operating regulation is 

set out in 33 CFR 117.1023, which 

requires the draw to open on signal, 

except that the bridge need not open for 

commercial crabbing and fishing vessels 

and recreational vessels on Mondays 

through Fridays, except Federal 

holidays, from 7 a.m. to 9 a.m., 12 noon 

to 1 p.m. and 4 p.m. to 6 p.m., at all 

other times, the bridge will open for 

these vessels only on the hour, Monday 

through Friday, except Federal holidays; 

and Public vessels of the United States 

must pass at anytime. 

Bridge opening data, supplied by 

VDOT, revealed a significant decrease in 

yearly openings. In the past three years 

from 2005 to 2007, the bridge opened 

for vessels 593, 415 and 187 times, 

respectively. Due to the anticipated 

infrequency of requests for vessel 

openings of the drawbridge, VDOT 

requested to change the current 

operating regulation by requiring the 

draw of the bridge to open on signal if 

at least four hours notice is given yearround. 

Discussion of Proposed Rule 

The Coast Guard proposes to amend 

33 CFR 117.1023, by revising the 

paragraph to read that the draw of the 

Eltham Bridge (SR33/30) mile 1.0 

located in West Point, VA, shall open on 

signal if at least four hours notice is 

given at all times. 

The surplus language currently stated 

in 33 CFR 117.1023(b) would be 

removed to be consistent with the 

general operating regulations under 33 

CFR 117.31. The Coast Guard intends to 

delete the phrase ‘‘Public vessels of the 

United States must pass at anytime’’. 

This requirement is currently published 

in 33 CFR 117.31(b) and is no longer 

required to be published in each 

specific bridge regulation. 

These changes are proposed due to 

the anticipated infrequency of requests 

for vessel openings of the drawbridge. 

Regulatory Analyses 

We developed this proposed rule after 

considering numerous statutes and 

executive orders related to rulemaking. 

Below we summarize our analyses 

based on 13 of these statutes or 

executive orders. 

Regulatory Planning and Review 

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. 

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 proposed 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 affect the 

following entities, some of which might 

be small entities: The owners and 

operators of vessels needing to transit 

the bridge who can not clear the bridge 

at its closed position. 

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 

proposed scheduled bridge openings 

can minimize delay. 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS
10694 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 47 / Thursday, March 12, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

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 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 

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. 

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 Department of Homeland 

Security Management Directive 0023.1 

and 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 made a preliminary determination 

that this is one of a category of actions 

which do not individually or 

cumulatively have a significant effect 

action is not likely to have a significant 

effect on the human environment. 

Therefore, this rule is categorically 

excluded, under section 2.B.2. Figure 

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

because it simply promulgates the 

operating regulations or procedures for 

drawbridges. We seek any comments or 

information that may lead to the 

discovery of a significant environmental 

impact from 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; 

Department of Homeland Security Delegation 

No. 0170.1. 

2. Revise § 117.1023 to read as 

follows: 

§ 117.1023 Pamunkey River. 

The draw of the Eltham Bridge (SR33/ 

30) mile 1.0, located in West Point, 

Virginia shall open on signal if at least 

four hours notice is given at all times. 

Dated: February 19, 2009. 

Fred M. Rosa, Jr., 

Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard Commander, 

Fifth Coast Guard District. 

[FR Doc. E9–5405 Filed 3–11–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–15–P 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS