Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Saugus River, MA, 56878-56880 [05-19583]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
56878
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 188 / Thursday, September 29, 2005 / Proposed Rules
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington,
DC. Send submissions to:
CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG–133578–05), room
5203, Internal Revenue Service, POB
7604, Ben Franklin Station, and
Washington, DC 20044. Submissions
may be hand delivered between the
hours of 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. to
CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG–133578–05),
Courier’s Desk, Internal Revenue
Service, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW.,
Washington, DC. Alternatively,
taxpayers may submit electronic
outlines of oral comments directly to the
IRS Internet site at https://www.irs.gov/
regs.
Concerning
the regulations, John T. Ricotta (202)
622–6060; concerning submissions,
Robin Jones (202) 622–7109 (not tollfree numbers).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION:
The
subject of the public hearing is the
notice of proposed rulemaking (REG–
133578–05) that was published in the
Federal Register on August 25, 2005 (70
FR 49897).
The rules of 26 CFR 601.601(a)(3)
apply to the hearing.
Persons who wish to present oral
comments at the hearing that submitted
written or electronic comments, must
submit an outline of the topics to be
discussed and the amount of time to be
devoted to each topic (signed original
and eight (8) copies).
A period of 10 minutes is allotted to
each person for presenting oral
comments.
After the deadline for receiving
outlines has passed, the IRS will
prepare an agenda containing the
schedule of speakers. Copies of the
agenda will be made available, free of
charge, at the hearing.
Because of access restrictions, the IRS
will not admit visitors beyond the
immediate entrance area more than 30
minutes before the hearing starts. For
information about having your name
placed on the building access list to
attend the hearing, see the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this
document.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Cynthia E. Grigsby,
Acting Chief, Publications and Regulations
Branch, Legal Processing Division, Associate
Chief Counsel, (Procedure and
Administration).
[FR Doc. 05–19390 Filed 9–28–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830–01–P
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:11 Sep 28, 2005
Jkt 205001
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 117
[CGD01–05–074]
RIN 1625–AA09
Drawbridge Operation Regulations;
Saugus River, MA
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to
temporarily change the drawbridge
operating regulations governing the
operation of the General Edwards SR1A
Bridge, at mile 1.7, across the Saugus
River between Lynn and Revere,
Massachusetts. This change to the
drawbridge operation regulations would
allow the bridge to remain in the closed
position from November 1, 2005
through April 30, 2006. This action is
necessary to facilitate structural
maintenance at the bridge.
DATES: Comments must reach the Coast
Guard on or before October 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 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: Mr.
John McDonald, Project Officer, First
Coast Guard District, (617) 223–8364.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Regulatory Information
The Coast Guard is requesting that
interested parties provide comments
within shortened comment period of 15
days instead of standard 30 days for this
notice of proposed rulemaking. In
addition, the Coast Guard plans on
making this rule effective less than 30
days after publication in the Federal
Register.
The Coast Guard believes a shortened
comment period is necessary and
reasonable because the bridge
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
rehabilitation construction scheduled to
begin on November 1, 2005, is
necessary, vital, work that must be
performed as soon as possible in order
to assure continuous safe and reliable
operation of the SR1A Bridge.
Any delay in making this final rule
effective by allowing comments for
more than 15 days would not be in the
best interest of public safety and the
marine interests that use the Saugus
River because delaying the effective date
of this rulemaking would also require
the rehabilitation construction work to
continue beyond the proposed April 30,
2005, end date. This would result in the
bridge closure continuing into May
when recreational vessel traffic
increases.
There were 7 bridge openings in
November 2004, and no openings
December through March. The few
bridge openings that were requested in
November were for recreational vessels
that most likely could have passed
under the draw at low tide without
requiring a bridge opening.
As a result of the above information
the Coast Guard believes that the best
time period to perform this vital work
and minimize the impacts on marine
users is November through April.
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 (CGD01–05–074),
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.
E:\FR\FM\29SEP1.SGM
29SEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 188 / Thursday, September 29, 2005 / Proposed Rules
Background and Purpose
The General Edwards SR1A Bridge at
mile 1.7, across the Saugus River, has a
vertical clearance of 27 feet at mean
high water and 36 feet at mean low
water. The existing regulations at 33
CFR 117.618 require the draw to open
on signal, except that, from April 1
through November 30, midnight to 8
a.m. an eight-hour notice is required.
From December 1 through March 31, an
eight-hour notice is required at all times
for bridge openings.
The bridge owner, the Department of
Conservation and Recreation (DCR),
asked the Coast Guard to temporarily
change the drawbridge operation
regulations to allow the bridge to remain
in the closed position from November 1,
2005 through April 30, 2006, to
facilitate structural rehabilitation
construction at the bridge.
Discussion of Proposed Rule
This proposed change would suspend
the existing drawbridge operation
regulations, listed at 33 CFR
§ 117.618(b), and add a new temporary
paragraph (d) to allow the bridge to
remain in the closed position from
November 1, 2005 through April 30,
2006.
The Coast Guard believes this
proposed rule is reasonable because
bridge openings are rarely requested
during the time period the SR1A Bridge
will be closed for these repairs and the
fact that this work is vital, necessary,
and must be performed in order to
assure the continued safe and reliable
operation of the bridge.
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 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 conclusion is based on the fact
that the bridge rarely opens during the
November through April time period.
Small Entities
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
(5 U.S.C. 601–612), we considered
whether this proposed rule would have
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:11 Sep 28, 2005
Jkt 205001
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 bridge openings are rarely
requested during the November through
April time period.
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 us in writing
at, Commander (obr), First Coast Guard
District, Bridge Branch, 408 Atlantic
Avenue, Boston, MA. 02110–3350. The
telephone number is (617) 223–8364.
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.
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
56879
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.
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 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 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
E:\FR\FM\29SEP1.SGM
29SEP1
56880
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 188 / Thursday, September 29, 2005 / Proposed Rules
§ 117.618
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.
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
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. From November 1, 2005 through
April 30, 2006, § 117.618(b) is
suspended and a new paragraph (d) is
added to read as follows:
15:11 Sep 28, 2005
Jkt 205001
All comments should be
addressed to: Joydeb Majumder, EPA
Region 4, Air Toxics and Monitoring
Branch, Sam Nunn Atlanta Federal
Center, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta,
Georgia 30303–8960. Please follow the
detailed instructions described in the
direct final rule, ADDRESSES section
which is published in the Rules section
of this Federal Register.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Joydeb Majumder at (404) 562–9121.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For
additional information see the direct
final rule which is published in the
Final Rules section of this Federal
Register.
ADDRESSES:
*
*
*
*
(d) The draw of the General Edwards
SR1A Bridge at mile 1.7, need not open
for the passage of vessel traffic from
November 1, 2005 through April 30,
2006.
Dated: September 18, 2005.
David P. Pekoske,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander,
First Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 05–19583 Filed 9–27–05; 12:13 pm]
BILLING CODE 4910–15–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 62
[RO4–OAR–2005–NC–0003–200532(b);
FRL–7976–6]
Approval and Promulgation of State
Plan for Designated Facilities and
Pollutants; North Carolina
Dated: September 19, 2005.
A. Stanley Meiburg,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 05–19351 Filed 9–28–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
Fish and Wildlife Service
SUMMARY: EPA proposes to approve the
Clean Air Act (CAA) section 111(d)/129
State Plan submitted by the North
Carolina Department of Environment
and Natural Resources (North Carolina
DENR) for the State of North Carolina on
August 7, 2002, and subsequently
revised on December 14, 2004, for
implementing and enforcing the
Emissions Guidelines applicable to
existing Commercial and Industrial
Solid Waste Incinerators. The State Plan
was submitted by North Carolina DENR
to satisfy CAA requirements. In the final
rules section of this Federal Register,
EPA is approving the North Carolina
State Plan as a direct final rule without
prior proposal because the Agency
views this as a noncontroversial plan
and anticipates no adverse comments. A
detailed rationale for the approval is set
forth in the direct final rule. If no
adverse comments are received in
response to the direct final rule, no
further activity is contemplated in
relation to this proposed rule. 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. The EPA
will not institute a second comment
period on this rule. Any parties
interested in commenting on this rule
should do so at this time.
DATES: Comments must be received in
writing by October 31, 2005.
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants; Revised 12-Month Finding
for the Southern Rocky Mountain
Distinct Population Segment of the
Boreal Toad (Bufo boreas boreas)
AGENCY:
Environment
VerDate Aug<31>2005
Saugus River.
*
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
50 CFR Part 17
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Notice of revised 12-month
finding for the Southern Rocky
Mountain Distinct Population Segment
of the Boreal Toad.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: We, the Fish and Wildlife
Service (Service), announce our revised
12-month finding for a petition to list
the Southern Rocky Mountain
population (SRMP) of the boreal toad
(Bufo boreas boreas) as endangered
under the Endangered Species Act
(ESA). After a review of the best
available scientific and commercial
information, we find that listing is not
warranted at this time because the
SRMP of the boreal toad does not
constitute a species, subspecies, or
distinct population segment (DPS)
under the ESA. Therefore, we withdraw
the SRMP from the candidate list. The
Service will continue to seek new
information on the taxonomy, biology,
and ecology of these toads, as well as
potential threats to their continued
existence.
DATES: This finding was made on
September 20, 2005. Although no
further action will result from this
finding, we request that you submit new
E:\FR\FM\29SEP1.SGM
29SEP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 188 (Thursday, September 29, 2005)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 56878-56880]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-19583]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 117
[CGD01-05-074]
RIN 1625-AA09
Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Saugus River, MA
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to temporarily change the drawbridge
operating regulations governing the operation of the General Edwards
SR1A Bridge, at mile 1.7, across the Saugus River between Lynn and
Revere, Massachusetts. This change to the drawbridge operation
regulations would allow the bridge to remain in the closed position
from November 1, 2005 through April 30, 2006. This action is necessary
to facilitate structural maintenance at the bridge.
DATES: Comments must reach the Coast Guard on or before October 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 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: Mr. John McDonald, Project Officer,
First Coast Guard District, (617) 223-8364.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Regulatory Information
The Coast Guard is requesting that interested parties provide
comments within shortened comment period of 15 days instead of standard
30 days for this notice of proposed rulemaking. In addition, the Coast
Guard plans on making this rule effective less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register.
The Coast Guard believes a shortened comment period is necessary
and reasonable because the bridge rehabilitation construction scheduled
to begin on November 1, 2005, is necessary, vital, work that must be
performed as soon as possible in order to assure continuous safe and
reliable operation of the SR1A Bridge.
Any delay in making this final rule effective by allowing comments
for more than 15 days would not be in the best interest of public
safety and the marine interests that use the Saugus River because
delaying the effective date of this rulemaking would also require the
rehabilitation construction work to continue beyond the proposed April
30, 2005, end date. This would result in the bridge closure continuing
into May when recreational vessel traffic increases.
There were 7 bridge openings in November 2004, and no openings
December through March. The few bridge openings that were requested in
November were for recreational vessels that most likely could have
passed under the draw at low tide without requiring a bridge opening.
As a result of the above information the Coast Guard believes that
the best time period to perform this vital work and minimize the
impacts on marine users is November through April.
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 (CGD01-05-
074), 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
8\1/2\ 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.
[[Page 56879]]
Background and Purpose
The General Edwards SR1A Bridge at mile 1.7, across the Saugus
River, has a vertical clearance of 27 feet at mean high water and 36
feet at mean low water. The existing regulations at 33 CFR 117.618
require the draw to open on signal, except that, from April 1 through
November 30, midnight to 8 a.m. an eight-hour notice is required. From
December 1 through March 31, an eight-hour notice is required at all
times for bridge openings.
The bridge owner, the Department of Conservation and Recreation
(DCR), asked the Coast Guard to temporarily change the drawbridge
operation regulations to allow the bridge to remain in the closed
position from November 1, 2005 through April 30, 2006, to facilitate
structural rehabilitation construction at the bridge.
Discussion of Proposed Rule
This proposed change would suspend the existing drawbridge
operation regulations, listed at 33 CFR Sec. 117.618(b), and add a new
temporary paragraph (d) to allow the bridge to remain in the closed
position from November 1, 2005 through April 30, 2006.
The Coast Guard believes this proposed rule is reasonable because
bridge openings are rarely requested during the time period the SR1A
Bridge will be closed for these repairs and the fact that this work is
vital, necessary, and must be performed in order to assure the
continued safe and reliable operation of the bridge.
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 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 conclusion is based on the fact that the bridge rarely opens
during the November through April time period.
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 bridge openings are
rarely requested during the November through April time period.
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 us in writing at, Commander
(obr), First Coast Guard District, Bridge Branch, 408 Atlantic Avenue,
Boston, MA. 02110-3350. The telephone number is (617) 223-8364. 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 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.
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 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 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
[[Page 56880]]
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 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. From November 1, 2005 through April 30, 2006, Sec. 117.618(b)
is suspended and a new paragraph (d) is added to read as follows:
Sec. 117.618 Saugus River.
* * * * *
(d) The draw of the General Edwards SR1A Bridge at mile 1.7, need
not open for the passage of vessel traffic from November 1, 2005
through April 30, 2006.
Dated: September 18, 2005.
David P. Pekoske,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, First Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 05-19583 Filed 9-27-05; 12:13 pm]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P
