Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 170 / Friday, September 2, 2005 / Proposed Rules 52343 

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. 

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117 

Bridges. 

Regulations 

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. § 117.465(a) is revised to read as 

follows: 

§ 117.465 Lafourche Bayou. 

(a) The draws of the following bridges 

shall open on signal; except that, from 

August 15 through May 31, the draw 

need not open for the passage of vessels 

Monday through Friday, except Federal 

holidays, from 7 a.m. to 8 a.m.; from 2 

p.m. to 4 p.m.; and from 4:30 p.m. to 

5:30 p.m.: 

(1) SR 308 (Golden Meadow) Bridge, 

mile 23.9, at Golden Meadow. 

(2) Galliano Pontoon Bridge, mile 

27.8, at Galliano. 

(3) SR 308 (South Lafourche (Tarpon)) 

Bridge, mile 30.6, at Galliano. 

(4) Cote Blanche Pontoon Bridge, mile 

33.9, at Cutoff. 

(5) Cutoff Vertical Lift Bridge, mile 

36.3, at Cutoff. 

(6) SR 310 (Larose Pontoon) Bridge, 

mile 39.1, at Larose. 

* * * * * 

Dated: August 26, 2005. 

Kevin L. Marshall, 

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting 

Commander, 8th Coast Guard Dist. 

[FR Doc. 05–17509 Filed 9–1–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–15–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 117 

[CGD08–05–046] 

RIN 1625–AA09 

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Gulf 

Intracoastal Waterway, West Larose, 

LA 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to 

change the regulation governing the 

operation of the SR 1 (West Larose) 

vertical lift bridge across the Gulf 

Intracoastal Waterway, mile 35.6 west of 

Harvey Lock, at Larose, Louisiana. The 

Lafourche Parish Council has requested 

that the bridge remain closed to 

navigation at various times on weekdays 

during the school year. These closures 

will facilitate the safe, efficient 

movement of staff, students and other 

residents within the parish. 

DATES: Comments and related material 

must reach the Coast Guard on or before 

November 1, 2005. 

ADDRESSES: You may mail comments 

and related material to Commander 

(obc), Eighth Coast Guard District, 500 

Poydras Street, New Orleans, Louisiana 

70130–3310. The Commander, Eighth 

Coast Guard District, Bridge 

Administration 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 the Bridge 

Administration office between 7 a.m. 

and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

David Frank, Bridge Administration 

Branch, telephone 504–589–2965. 

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 (CGD08–05–046), 

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. You may submit a request for 

a meeting by writing to Commander, 

Eighth Coast Guard District, Bridge 

Administration 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 U. S. Coast Guard, at the request 

of the Lafourche Parish Council, 

proposes to modify the existing 

operating schedule of the SR 1 (West 

Larose) vertical lift bridge across the 

Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, mile 35.6 

west of Harvey Lock, at Larose, 

Louisiana. The modification of the 

existing regulations will allow the 

bridge to remain closed to navigation 

from 7 a.m. to 8 a.m.; from 2 p.m. to 4 

p.m.; and from 4:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m., 

Monday through Friday during the 

school year. Currently, the bridge opens 

on signal pursuant to 33 CFR 117.5. 

Approximately 11,600 vehicles cross 

the bridge daily, 25% of which cross the 

bridge during the requested closure 

times. The bridge averages 976 openings 

a month. Approximately 25% of the 

bridge openings occur during the 

requested closure times. The average 

length of a bridge opening is 

approximately 10 to 12 minutes. 

Navigation at the site of the bridge 

consists primarily of tugboats with 

barges. Alternate routes east and west 

through the bridge are not readily 

accessible; however, the bridge, in the 

closed-to-navigation position provides a 

vertical clearance of 35 feet above high 

water. 

It should be noted that there have 

been two previous requests by the 

Lafourche Parish to establish special 

operating regulations for this bridge. On 

December 7, 1994, the Coast Guard 

published a notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NPRM) in the Federal 

Register (59 FR 63068). The proposed 

change to the regulation would have 

required that from 7 a.m. to 8:30 a.m. 

and from 4:30 p.m. to 6 p.m. Monday 

through Friday, except Federal holidays, 

the draw of the bridge would remain 

closed to navigation for passage of 

vehicular traffic during peak traffic 

periods. At all other times the draw 

52344 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 170 / Friday, September 2, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

would open on signal for passage of 

vessels. 

The Coast Guard received 10 letters in 

response to the NPRM objecting to the 

proposed rule. Many of the objectors, 

who were associated with a local 

school, stated that the bridge would 

reopen after an extended closure 30 

minutes before the start of school 

possibly affecting the ability of students 

to arrive at school on time. The 

applicant was given an opportunity to 

address the objections. The applicant 

modified their proposal and resubmitted 

a new request for a proposed rule. 

A second NPRM was published in the 

Federal Register (60 FR 40139) on 

August 7, 1995, instead of a 

Supplementary Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking (SNPRM). 

The second NPRM proposed to 

change the regulation to require that 

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

to 6 p.m. Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays, the draw of the 

bridge would remain closed to 

navigation for passage of vehicular 

traffic during peak traffic periods. At all 

other times the draw would open on 

signal for the passage of vessels. 

Two letters of objection were received 

in response to the second NPRM. These 

objections were from waterway interests 

stating that the closure would increase 

the risk of accidents by vessels having 

to wait for bridge openings, while 

vehicles have an alternate route across 

the waterway. These concerns were 

forwarded to the applicant to attempt to 

reach an acceptable solution. The 

applicant did not address the concerns 

of these objectors or offer an alternative 

proposal. 

The Coast Guard, therefore, withdrew 

the notices of proposed rulemaking and 

terminated further rulemaking on the 

proposals. 

The Lafourche Parish Council 

submitted another request in 1998. 

When the Coast Guard requested 

additional information regarding the 

closure, no further information was 

submitted and the request was 

suspended. 

It has been approximately seven years 

since the last formal request. The Coast 

Guard is interested in obtaining 

comments in response to this current 

request from all interested parties with 

regard to how the proposed changes to 

the regulations will affect them. 

Discussion of Proposed Rule 

The proposed rule would modify the 

existing regulation in 33 CFR 117.5 to 

facilitate the movement of high volumes 

of vehicular traffic across the bridge 

during periods of increased transit 

during the school year. These closures 

would allow for vehicles and school 

busses to transit across the bridge 

unimpeded both before and after school 

hours. The change would allow the SR 

1 (West Larose) vertical lift bridge across 

the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, mile 

35.6 west of Harvey Lock, at Larose, to 

remain closed to navigation from 7 a.m. 

to 8 a.m.; from 2 p.m. to 4 p.m.; and 

from 4:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. Monday 

through Friday from August 15 to May 

31. At all other times, the bridge would 

open on signal for the passage of 

vessels. 

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 

regulatory policies and procedures of 

DHS is unnecessary. 

This proposed rule would allow 

vessels to transit this waterway with 

proper notification before and after the 

peak vehicular traffic periods. 

According to the information provided 

by the applicant, the public at large is 

better served by the closure times. 

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: the owners and 

operators of vessels needing to transit 

the bridge during the requested closure 

periods. 

If you think that your business, 

organization, or governmental 

jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity 

and that this proposed 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 proposed 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 Eighth 

Coast Guard District Bridge 

Administration Branch at the address 

above. 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 proposed 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. 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 170 / Friday, September 2, 2005 / Proposed Rules 52345 

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 proposed 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 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. 

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117 

Bridges. 

Regulations 

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 § 117.451, paragraphs (c), (d), 

and (e) are redesignated paragraphs (d), 

(e), and (f) and a new paragraph (c) is 

added to read as follows: 

§ 117.451 Gulf Intracoastal Waterway. 

* * * * * 

(c) The draw of the SR 1 (West Larose) 

Bridge, mile 35.6 west of Harvey Lock, 

at Larose, shall open on signal; except 

that, from August 15 through May 31, 

the draw need not open for the passage 

of vessels Monday through Friday 

except Federal holidays from 7 a.m. to 

8 a.m.; from 2 p.m. to 4 p.m.; and from 

4:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. 

* * * * * 

Dated: August 26, 2005. 

Kevin L. Marshall, 

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting 

Commander, 8th Coast Guard Dist. 

[FR Doc. 05–17510 Filed 9–1–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–15–P 

FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION 

46 CFR Part 531 

[Docket No. 05–06] 

Non-Vessel-Operating Common Carrier 

Service Arrangements 

AGENCY: Federal Maritime Commission. 

ACTION: Notice of inquiry. 

SUMMARY: The Federal Maritime 

Commission is requesting comments on 

possible changes to its exemption for 

non-vessel-operating common carriers 

(NVOCCs) from certain tariff publication 

requirements of the Shipping Act of 

1984. 

DATES: Submit original and 15 copies of 

comments (paper), or e-mail comments 

as an attachment in WordPerfect 10, 

Microsoft Word 2003, or earlier versions 

of these applications, no later than 

October 6, 2005. 

ADDRESSES: Address all comments to: 

Bryant L. VanBrakle, Secretary, Federal 

Maritime Commission, 800 North 

Capitol Street, NW., Room 1046, 

Washington, DC 20573–0001. 

Secretary@fmc.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Amy W. Larson, General Counsel, 

Federal Maritime Commission, 800 N. 

Capitol St., NW., Washington, DC 

20573–0001. (202) 523–5740. 

generalcounsel@fmc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On 

January 19, 2005, a final rule of the 

Federal Maritime Commission (‘‘FMC’’

or ‘‘Commission’’) exempting nonvessel-operating common carriers 

(‘‘NVOCCs’’) from certain tariff 

publication requirements of the 

Shipping Act of 1984 (‘‘Shipping Act’’) 

became effective. 69 FR 75850 

(December 20, 2004). The rule was 

issued pursuant to the Commission’s 

authority under section 16 of the 

Shipping Act, 46 U.S.C. app. 1715. The 

exemption enables individual NVOCCs 

to offer NVOCC Service Arrangements 

(‘‘NSAs’’) to NSA shippers, provided 

that such NSAs are filed with the 

Commission and their essential terms 

are published in the NVOCC’s tariff. The 

rule defines an NSA as ‘‘a written 

contract, other than a bill of lading or 

receipt, between one or more NSA 

shippers and an individual NVOCC in 

which the NSA shipper makes a 

commitment to provide a certain 

minimum quantity or portion of its 

cargo or freight revenue over a fixed 

time period, and the NVOCC commits to 

a certain rate or rate schedule and a 

defined service level.’’ 46 CFR 531.3(p). 

Since the publication of the proposal 

that led to the final NSA rule, the