Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Jamaica Bay and Connecting Waterways, NY, 4852-4854 [06-855]
Download as PDF
4852
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 19 / Monday, January 30, 2006 / Proposed Rules
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 117
[CGD01–06–006]
RIN 1625–AA09
Drawbridge Operation Regulations;
Jamaica Bay and Connecting
Waterways, NY
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to
temporarily change the drawbridge
operating regulations governing the
operation of the New York City
Highway Bridge (Belt Parkway), at mile
0.8, across Mill Basin. This notice of
proposed rulemaking would allow the
bridge owner to open only one of the
two moveable spans for the passage of
vessel traffic from March 1, 2006
through September 7, 2006. This
proposed rule is necessary to facilitate
bridge deck replacement.
DATES: Comments must reach the Coast
Guard on or before March 1, 2006.
ADDRESSES: You may mail comments to
Commander (dpb), First Coast Guard
District Bridge Branch, One South
Street, Battery Park Building, New York,
New York 10004, 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 (212) 668–7165. 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: Ms.
July Leung-Yee, Project Officer, First
Coast Guard District, (212) 668–7195.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Request for Comments
We encourage you to participate in
this rulemaking by submitting
comments or related material. If you do
so, please include your name and
address, identify the docket number for
this rulemaking (CGD01–06–006),
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
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:05 Jan 27, 2006
Jkt 208001
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.
We anticipate making this rule
effective in less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register to
allow for the rehabilitation work to
commence in time for the March 1,
2006, deck replacement construction
start date. The deck replacement for the
New York City Highway (Belt Parkway)
Bridge is vital, necessary work that must
be performed without delay as a result
of deterioration of the existing bridge
deck which could fail if not replaced
with all due speed. In order to assure
the continued safe and reliable
operation of the bridge construction
work should begin as scheduled on
March 1, 2006. However, the Coast
Guard desires to allow as much time as
possible for public participation in the
rulemaking process. Thus, we are
allowing the comment period to run
into the 30-day time period normally
included between publication and the
effective date.
passage of vessel traffic from March 1,
2006 through September 7, 2006.
Discussion of Proposed Rule
This proposed change would amend
33 CFR 117.795 by suspending
paragraph (b), which lists the New York
City Highway Bridge (Belt Parkway),
and add a temporary paragraph (d) to
allow single span bridge openings from
March 1, 2006 through September 7,
2006.
The horizontal clearance at the bridge
is 135 feet with both spans opened and
67.5 feet with a single span open.
The Coast Guard believes this
proposed rule is reasonable because the
recreational vessel traffic that normally
transits this bridge can safely pass
through the bridge with a single span
opening of 67.5 feet of horizontal
clearance.
Background and Purpose
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 polices and procedures of
DHS is unnecessary.
This conclusion is based on the fact
that the vessel traffic that normally
transits this bridge should not be
precluded from transiting due to single
span bridge openings.
The New York City Highway Bridge
(Belt Parkway) has a vertical clearance
of 34 feet at mean high water and 39 feet
at mean low water in the closed
position. The existing operating
regulations are listed at 33 CFR
117.795(b).
The owner of the bridge, New York
City Department of Transportation
(NYCDOT), requested a temporary
change to the drawbridge operation
regulations to facilitate the replacement
of the bridge roadway deck.
This rulemaking is necessary because
during the prosecution of this
rehabilitation construction, the opening
span that is undergoing deck
replacement cannot open for vessel
traffic. As a result, the bridge owner
requested that only one of the two
opening spans need open for the
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 notice of proposed rulemaking
would not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
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.
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\30JAP1.SGM
30JAP1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 19 / Monday, January 30, 2006 / Proposed Rules
entities for the following reason: Mill
Basin is navigated predominantly by
recreational vessels.
The single span bridge openings
should not preclude vessel traffic from
transiting the bridge because the
recreational vessels that normally use
this waterway should be able to transit
through the bridge with the reduced
horizontal clearance of 67.5 feet due to
their relative small size.
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 us in writing
at, Commander (dpb), First Coast Guard
District, Bridge Branch, One South
Street, New York, NY 10004. The
telephone number is (212) 668–7165.
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.).
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS
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
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:05 Jan 27, 2006
Jkt 208001
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
has not designated it as a significant
energy action. Therefore, it does not
require a Statement of Energy Effects
under Executive Order 13211.
4853
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 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
environment documentation because
this action relates to the promulgation of
operating regulations or procedures for
drawbridges.
Under figure 2–1, paragraph (32)(e) of
the instruction, an ‘‘Environmental
Analysis Checklist’’ is not required for
this rule. Comments on this section will
be considered before we make the final
decision on whether to categorically
exclude this rule from further
environmental review.
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:
Technical Standards
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 499; 33 CFR 1.05–1(g);
Department of Homeland Security Delegation
No. 0170.1; section 117.255 also issued under
the authority of Pub. L. 102–587, 106 Stat.
5039.
The National Technology Transfer
and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15
2. From March 1, 2006 through
September 7, 2006, § 117.795 is
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\30JAP1.SGM
30JAP1
4854
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 19 / Monday, January 30, 2006 / Proposed Rules
amended by suspending paragraph (b)
and adding a temporary paragraph (d) to
read as follows:
§ 117.795 Jamaica Bay and Connecting
Waterways.
*
*
*
*
*
(d) The New York City Highway
Bridge (Belt Parkway), mile 0.8, across
Mill Basin, need only open one
moveable span for the passage of vessel
traffic from March 1, 2006 through
September 7, 2006. The draw need not
be opened for the passage of vessel
traffic from 12 p.m. to 9 p.m. on
Sundays from May 15 through
September 30, and on Memorial Day,
Independence Day, and Labor Day.
However, on these days the draw shall
open on signal from the time two hours
before to one hour after the predicted
high tide(s). For the purpose of this
section, predicted high tide(s) occur 15
minutes later than that predicted for
Sandy Hook, as documented in the tidal
current data, which is updated,
generated and published by the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration/National Ocean Service.
Dated: January 22, 2006.
David P. Pekoske,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander,
First Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 06–855 Filed 1–25–06; 4:03 pm]
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
GENERAL SERVICES
ADMINISTRATION
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND
SPACE ADMINISTRATION
48 CFR Parts 16 and 39
[FAR Case 2003–008]
RIN 9000–AJ74; Docket 2006–0015
Federal Acquisition Regulation; FAR
Case 2003–008, Share-In-Savings
Contracting
Department of Defense (DoD),
General Services Administration (GSA),
and National Aeronautics and Space
Administration (NASA).
ACTION: Proposed rule; withdrawal.
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS
AGENCIES:
SUMMARY: The Civilian Agency
Acquisition Council and the Defense
Acquisition Regulations Council
(Councils) have agreed to withdraw the
proposed rule, FAR case 2003–008,
Share-in-Savings Contracting, which
was published in the Federal Register
on July 2, 2004. The rule proposed
amending the Federal Acquisition
14:05 Jan 27, 2006
Dated: January 24, 2006.
Gerald Zaffos,
Director, Contract Policy Division.
[FR Doc. 06–816 Filed 1–27–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6820–EP–S
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration
49 CFR Part 575
[Docket No. NHTSA–2005–23216]
RIN 2127–AJ76
New Car Assessment Program (NCAP);
Safety Labeling
National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM).
AGENCY:
BILLING CODE 4910–15–M
VerDate Aug<31>2005
Regulation (FAR) as it pertains to types
of contracts and acquisition of
information technology to address the
inclusion of Share-in-Savings (SIS)
contracting. However, the SIS concept
was not reauthorized by Congress.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
clarification of content, contact Mr.
Kenneth Buck at (202) 219–0311. Please
cite FAR case 2003–008. For
information pertaining to status or
publication schedules, contact the FAR
Secretariat, Room 4035, GS Building,
Washington, DC 20405, (202) 501–4755.
Jkt 208001
SUMMARY: One of the provisions of the
recently enacted Safe, Accountable,
Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity
Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA–LU)
requires new passenger vehicles to be
labeled with safety rating information
published by the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration’s New Car
Assessment Program. This document
proposes a regulation to implement that
new labeling requirement beginning
September 1, 2007.
DATES: You should submit your
comments early enough to ensure that
Docket Management receives them not
later than March 31, 2006.
ADDRESSES: Comments should refer to
the docket number and be submitted by
any of the following methods:
• Federal Rulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
• Web Site: https://dms.dot.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting
comments on the DOT electronic docket
site. Please note, if you are submitting
petitions electronically as a PDF
(Adobe) file, we ask that the documents
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
submitted be scanned using an Optical
Character Recognition (OCR) process,
thus allowing the agency to search and
copy certain portions of your
submissions.
• Fax: 1–202–493–2251.
• Mail: Docket Management Facility;
U.S. Department of Transportation, 400
Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building,
Room PL–401, Washington, DC 20590.
• Hand Delivery: Room PL–401 on
the plaza level of the Nassif Building,
400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington,
DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal
Holidays.
Instructions: All submissions must
include the agency name and docket
number. For detailed instructions on
submitting comments and additional
information on the rulemaking process,
see the Public Comment heading of the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of
this document. Note that all comments
received will be posted without change
to https://dms.dot.gov, including any
personal information provided.
Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search
the electronic form of all petitions
received into any of our dockets by the
name of the individual submitting the
petition (or signing the petition, if
submitted on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). You may
review DOT’s complete Privacy Act
Statement in the Federal Register
published on April 11, 2000 (Volume
65, Number 70; Pages 19477–78) or you
may visit https://dms.dot.gov.
For
technical issues regarding the
information in this document, please
contact Mr. Nathaniel Beuse at (202)
366–1740. For legal issues, please
contact Ms. Dorothy Nakama (202) 366–
2992. Both of these individuals may be
reached by mail at the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration,
400 Seventh St. SW., Washington, DC
20590.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Overview
Section 10307 of the recently enacted
Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient
Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for
Users (SAFETEA–LU), Pub. L. 109–59
(August 10, 2005; 119 Stat. 1144),
requires new passenger vehicles to be
labeled with the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration’s
(NHTSA) New Car Assessment Program
(NCAP) ratings. The Act specifies a
number of detailed requirements for the
label, including content, format, and
E:\FR\FM\30JAP1.SGM
30JAP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 19 (Monday, January 30, 2006)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 4852-4854]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-855]
[[Page 4852]]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 117
[CGD01-06-006]
RIN 1625-AA09
Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Jamaica Bay and Connecting
Waterways, NY
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 New York City
Highway Bridge (Belt Parkway), at mile 0.8, across Mill Basin. This
notice of proposed rulemaking would allow the bridge owner to open only
one of the two moveable spans for the passage of vessel traffic from
March 1, 2006 through September 7, 2006. This proposed rule is
necessary to facilitate bridge deck replacement.
DATES: Comments must reach the Coast Guard on or before March 1, 2006.
ADDRESSES: You may mail comments to Commander (dpb), First Coast Guard
District Bridge Branch, One South Street, Battery Park Building, New
York, New York 10004, 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 (212) 668-7165. 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: Ms. July Leung-Yee, Project Officer,
First Coast Guard District, (212) 668-7195.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Request for Comments
We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting
comments or related material. If you do so, please include your name
and address, identify the docket number for this rulemaking (CGD01-06-
006), 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.
We anticipate making this rule effective in less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register to allow for the rehabilitation
work to commence in time for the March 1, 2006, deck replacement
construction start date. The deck replacement for the New York City
Highway (Belt Parkway) Bridge is vital, necessary work that must be
performed without delay as a result of deterioration of the existing
bridge deck which could fail if not replaced with all due speed. In
order to assure the continued safe and reliable operation of the bridge
construction work should begin as scheduled on March 1, 2006. However,
the Coast Guard desires to allow as much time as possible for public
participation in the rulemaking process. Thus, we are allowing the
comment period to run into the 30-day time period normally included
between publication and the effective date.
Public Meeting
We do not now plan to hold a public meeting but you may submit a
request for a meeting by writing to the First Coast Guard District,
Bridge Branch, at the address under ADDRESSES explaining why one would
be beneficial. If we determine that one would aid this rulemaking, we
will hold one at a time and place announced by a later notice in the
Federal Register.
Background and Purpose
The New York City Highway Bridge (Belt Parkway) has a vertical
clearance of 34 feet at mean high water and 39 feet at mean low water
in the closed position. The existing operating regulations are listed
at 33 CFR 117.795(b).
The owner of the bridge, New York City Department of Transportation
(NYCDOT), requested a temporary change to the drawbridge operation
regulations to facilitate the replacement of the bridge roadway deck.
This rulemaking is necessary because during the prosecution of this
rehabilitation construction, the opening span that is undergoing deck
replacement cannot open for vessel traffic. As a result, the bridge
owner requested that only one of the two opening spans need open for
the passage of vessel traffic from March 1, 2006 through September 7,
2006.
Discussion of Proposed Rule
This proposed change would amend 33 CFR 117.795 by suspending
paragraph (b), which lists the New York City Highway Bridge (Belt
Parkway), and add a temporary paragraph (d) to allow single span bridge
openings from March 1, 2006 through September 7, 2006.
The horizontal clearance at the bridge is 135 feet with both spans
opened and 67.5 feet with a single span open.
The Coast Guard believes this proposed rule is reasonable because
the recreational vessel traffic that normally transits this bridge can
safely pass through the bridge with a single span opening of 67.5 feet
of horizontal clearance.
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 polices
and procedures of DHS is unnecessary.
This conclusion is based on the fact that the vessel traffic that
normally transits this bridge should not be precluded from transiting
due to single span bridge openings.
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 notice of proposed rulemaking would not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small
[[Page 4853]]
entities for the following reason: Mill Basin is navigated
predominantly by recreational vessels.
The single span bridge openings should not preclude vessel traffic
from transiting the bridge because the recreational vessels that
normally use this waterway should be able to transit through the bridge
with the reduced horizontal clearance of 67.5 feet due to their
relative small size.
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 us in writing at, Commander
(dpb), First Coast Guard District, Bridge Branch, One South Street, New
York, NY 10004. The telephone number is (212) 668-7165. 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 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 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 environment documentation because this action
relates to the promulgation of operating regulations or procedures for
drawbridges.
Under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e) of the instruction, an
``Environmental Analysis Checklist'' is not required for this rule.
Comments on this section will be considered before we make the final
decision on whether to categorically exclude this rule from further
environmental review.
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; 33 CFR 1.05-1(g); Department of
Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1; section 117.255 also issued
under the authority of Pub. L. 102-587, 106 Stat. 5039.
2. From March 1, 2006 through September 7, 2006, Sec. 117.795 is
[[Page 4854]]
amended by suspending paragraph (b) and adding a temporary paragraph
(d) to read as follows:
Sec. 117.795 Jamaica Bay and Connecting Waterways.
* * * * *
(d) The New York City Highway Bridge (Belt Parkway), mile 0.8,
across Mill Basin, need only open one moveable span for the passage of
vessel traffic from March 1, 2006 through September 7, 2006. The draw
need not be opened for the passage of vessel traffic from 12 p.m. to 9
p.m. on Sundays from May 15 through September 30, and on Memorial Day,
Independence Day, and Labor Day. However, on these days the draw shall
open on signal from the time two hours before to one hour after the
predicted high tide(s). For the purpose of this section, predicted high
tide(s) occur 15 minutes later than that predicted for Sandy Hook, as
documented in the tidal current data, which is updated, generated and
published by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration/
National Ocean Service.
Dated: January 22, 2006.
David P. Pekoske,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, First Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 06-855 Filed 1-25-06; 4:03 pm]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-M