Safety Zone; Cuyahoga River, Cleveland, OH, 6976-6978 [06-1254]

Download as PDF 6976 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 28 / Friday, February 10, 2006 / Rules and Regulations prevent an unscheduled closure due to component failure. As a result, the bridge owner has requested that mariners provide an advance notice for bridge openings to allow maintenance personnel sufficient time to manually open the bridge. Under this temporary deviation, in effect from February 3, 2006 through April 3, 2006, the Amtrak Bridge at mile 0.0, across the Niantic River, Connecticut, shall open on signal from 5 a.m. to 10 p.m. after a one-hour notice is given and from 10 p.m. to 5 a.m., after a two-hour notice is given by calling the number posted at the bridge. In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(b), this work will be performed with all due speed in order to return the bridge to normal operation as soon as possible. This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35. Dated: February 2, 2006. Gary Kassof, Bridge Program Manager, First Coast Guard District. [FR Doc. 06–1252 Filed 2–9–06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910–15–P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 117 [CGD01–06–005] Drawbridge Operation Regulations: Connecticut River, Old Lyme, CT Coast Guard, DHS. Notice of temporary deviation from regulations. AGENCY: hsrobinson on PROD1PC70 with RULES ACTION: SUMMARY: The Commander, First Coast Guard District, has issued a temporary deviation from the drawbridge operation regulations governing the operation of the AMTRAK Old Saybrook-Old Lyme Bridge, across the Connecticut River at mile 3.4, at Old Lyme, Connecticut. This deviation from the regulations allows the bridge to operate on a fixed schedule for bridge openings from February 4, 2006 through March 6, 2006, and also authorizes one 12-hour and two 72-hour bridge closures. This deviation is necessary in order to facilitate scheduled bridge maintenance. DATES: This deviation is effective from February 4, 2006 through March 6, 2006. Materials referred to in this document are available for inspection or copying at the First Coast Guard District, Bridge Branch Office, 408 ADDRESSES: VerDate Aug<31>2005 13:30 Feb 09, 2006 Jkt 208001 Atlantic Avenue, Boston, Massachusetts, 02110, 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 Office maintains the public docket for this temporary deviation. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Judy Leung-Yee, Project Officer, First Coast Guard District, at (212) 668–7195. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The AMTRAK Old Saybrook-Old Lyme Bridge, at mile 3.4, across the Connecticut River has a vertical clearance in the closed position of 19 feet at mean high water and 22 feet at mean low water. The existing drawbridge operation regulations are listed at 33 CFR 117.205(b). The owner of the bridge, National Railroad Passenger Corporation (AMTRAK), requested a temporary deviation from the drawbridge operating regulations to facilitate scheduled electrical and mechanical bridge repairs. In order to prosecute the above repairs the bridge must open on a fixed bridge opening schedule. This deviation from the operating regulations allows the AMTRAK Old Saybrook-Old Lyme Bridge to operate from February 4, 2006 through March 6, 2006, as follows: From Monday through Friday, the bridge shall open on signal at 8:15 a.m., 12:15 p.m., and 2:15 p.m. On Saturday and Sunday the bridge shall open on signal at 8 a.m., 10 a.m., 1 p.m., and 4 p.m. The bridge shall open on signal for all vessel traffic from 4 p.m. through 8 a.m. after a four-hour advance notice is given by calling the number posted at the bridge. The bridge shall open on signal for commercial vessels at any time after a four-hour advance notice is given by calling the number posted at the bridge. In addition, the bridge may remain in the closed position for all vessels from 7 a.m. through 7 p.m. on February 6, 2006 from 12:01 a.m. February 11, through 11:59 p.m. February 13, 2006 and 12:01 a.m. February 18 through 11:59 p.m. February 20, 2006. This temporary deviation does not affect the operation of the CONRAIL Middletown-Portland Bridge, mile 32.0, across the Connecticut River, which is also listed under 33 CFR § 117.205(b). In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(c), this work will be performed with all due speed in order to return the bridge to normal operation as soon as possible. This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35. PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 Dated: February 3, 2006. Gary Kassof, Bridge Program Manager, First Coast Guard District. [FR Doc. 06–1253 Filed 2–9–06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910–15–P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [CGD09–06–002] RIN 1625–AA00 Safety Zone; Cuyahoga River, Cleveland, OH Coast Guard, DHS. Temporary final rule. AGENCY: ACTION: SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for installing the West Third Street Bridge on the Cuyahoga River. The safety zone is limited to the area surrounding the bridge span during the installment process. The safety zone is necessary to ensure the safety of those working on the bridge. All other portions of the Cuyahoga River are unaffected. If the installment process is completed ahead of schedule this safety zone will be canceled immediately and notices made to the public by means of Local Notice to Mariners Broadcasts. DATES: This rule is effective from 7 a.m. (local) Wednesday, February 1, 2006 through 1 p.m. (local) on Tuesday, February 28, 2006. ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket, are parts of docket [CGD09–06– 002] and are available for inspection or copying at the U.S. Coast Guard Marine Safety Unit Cleveland, 1055 East Ninth Street, Cleveland, Ohio 44114, between the hours of 7:30 a.m. and 3:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: LT Nichol Starr, U.S. Coast Guard Marine Safety Unit Cleveland, at (216) 937– 0128. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Regulatory Information We did not publish a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for this regulation. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing an NPRM. The timing of this construction evolution did not allow sufficient time for the publication of an NPRM followed by an effective E:\FR\FM\10FER1.SGM 10FER1 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 28 / Friday, February 10, 2006 / Rules and Regulations date before the event. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register. Delaying this rule would be contrary to the public interest of ensuring the safety of work crews, vessels and the general public during this event, and immediate action is necessary to prevent possible loss of life or property. Background and Purpose This safety zone is necessary and intended to manage vessel traffic in order to provide for the safety of life and property on the Cuyahoga River during the West Third Street Bridge Replacement process. The Captain of the Port has determined that this evolution poses a threat to vessel operators due to the navigational risks associated with the replacement process. The Captain of the Port has determined that vessels operating in close proximity to the tug and barge replacing the bridge span pose a risk to safety and property. Regulatory Evaluation This 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 this rule 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 rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation under paragraph 10(e) of the regulatory policies and procedures of DHS is unnecessary. This determination is based on the time that the safety zone will be in effect, schedules from the Great Lakes Commercial Shipping Agents, and that advance notice will be made to the maritime community via Local Notice to Mariners and marine safety information broadcasts. This regulation is tailored to impose a minimal impact on maritime interests without compromising safety. hsrobinson on PROD1PC70 with RULES Small Entities Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601–612), we have considered whether this rule would have a significant 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 VerDate Aug<31>2005 13:30 Feb 09, 2006 Jkt 208001 fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule would affect the following entities, some of which might be small entities: The owners or operators of commercial vessels intending to transit a portion of the activated safety zone. This safety zone would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: The U.S. Coast Guard has made agreements between the Lake Carriers Association, Canadian Steamship Association and the local businesses so as not to interrupt commerce. All parties mentioned agree that this safety zone will not impede commerce. Businesses affected are not planning on receiving any goods during this period from commercial vessels. All navigable waters above and below the safety zone are open to navigation. Before the activation of the safety zone, the Coast Guard will issue maritime advisories available to users who may be impacted through Local Notice to Mariners, facsimile, and marine safety information broadcasts. Additionally, the Coast Guard has not received any reports from small entities that will be negatively affected. 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 offered to assist small entities in understanding this rule so that they can better evaluate its effects and participate in the rulemaking process. 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 Marine Safety Office Cleveland (see ADDRESSES). Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 6977 annually and rates each agency’s responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1– 888–REG–FAIR (1–888–734–3247). Collection of Information This 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 cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this 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 expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble. Taking of Private Property This rule would not affect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights. Civil Justice Reform This 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 The Coast Guard has analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and does not concern 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 E:\FR\FM\10FER1.SGM 10FER1 6978 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 28 / Friday, February 10, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 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. A preliminary ‘‘Environmental Analysis Check List’’ is available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. Comments on this section will be considered before we make the final decision on whether the rule should be categorically excluded from further review. Energy Effects The Coast Guard has 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. List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165 hsrobinson on PROD1PC70 with RULES 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 procedure; and related management system practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards. Environment We have analyzed this 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 (34)(g) of the Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, from further environmental documentation. VerDate Aug<31>2005 13:30 Feb 09, 2006 Jkt 208001 Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Waterways. For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows: I PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows: I Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05–1(g), 6.04–1, 6.04–6, and 160.5; Pub. L. 107–295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. I 2. Add § 165.T09–002 to read as follows: § 165.T09–002 Safety Zone; West Third Street Bridge replacement project, Cuyahoga River, Cleveland, OH. (a) Location. The following area is a safety zone: All waters of the Cuyahoga River from Mile 3.59 to Mile 3.79. (b) Effective Period. This rule is effective from 7 a.m. (local) Wednesday, February 1, 2006 through 1 p.m. (local) on Tuesday, February 28, 2006. (c) Regulations. Entry into, transit through or anchoring within this safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his designated on-scene representative. The Coast Guard may be contacted via VHF Channel 16. Dated: February 1, 2006. S.J. Ferguson, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Buffalo. [FR Doc. 06–1254 Filed 2–9–06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910–15–P PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Parts 122 and 412 [EPA–HQ–OW–2005–0036; FRL–8031–3] RIN 2040–AE80 Revised Compliance Dates for National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit Regulation and Effluent Limitation Guidelines for Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Final rule. AGENCY: SUMMARY: Today’s rule extends certain compliance dates in the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitting requirements and Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards (ELGs) for concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) in conjunction with EPA’s efforts to respond to the order issued by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in Waterkeeper Alliance et al. v. EPA, 399 F.3d 486 (2nd Cir. 2005). The purpose of today’s rule is to address timing issues associated with the Agency’s response to the Waterkeeper decision. This final rule revises dates established in the 2003 CAFO rule, issued on February 12, 2003, by which facilities newly defined as CAFOs were required to seek permit coverage and by which all CAFOs were required to have nutrient management plans (NMPs) developed and implemented. EPA is extending the date by which operations defined as CAFOs as of April 14, 2003, who were not defined as CAFOs prior to that date, must seek NPDES permit coverage, from February 13, 2006, to July 31, 2007. EPA is also amending the date by which operations that become defined as CAFOs after April 14, 2003, due to operational changes that would not have made them a CAFO prior to April 14, 2003, and that are not new sources, must seek NPDES permit coverage, from April 13, 2006, to July 31, 2007. Finally, EPA is extending the deadline by which CAFOs are required to develop and implement NMPs, from December 31, 2006, to July 31, 2007. This rule revises all references to the date by which NMPs must be developed and implemented currently in the 2003 CAFO rule. DATES: This rule is effective as of February 10, 2006. ADDRESSES: EPA established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA–OW–2005–0036. This is where you can obtain a copy of all materials related to this rulemaking, including the E:\FR\FM\10FER1.SGM 10FER1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 28 (Friday, February 10, 2006)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 6976-6978]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-1254]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[CGD09-06-002]
RIN 1625-AA00


Safety Zone; Cuyahoga River, Cleveland, OH

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for 
installing the West Third Street Bridge on the Cuyahoga River. The 
safety zone is limited to the area surrounding the bridge span during 
the installment process. The safety zone is necessary to ensure the 
safety of those working on the bridge. All other portions of the 
Cuyahoga River are unaffected. If the installment process is completed 
ahead of schedule this safety zone will be canceled immediately and 
notices made to the public by means of Local Notice to Mariners 
Broadcasts.

DATES: This rule is effective from 7 a.m. (local) Wednesday, February 
1, 2006 through 1 p.m. (local) on Tuesday, February 28, 2006.

ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in 
the docket, are parts of docket [CGD09-06-002] and are available for 
inspection or copying at the U.S. Coast Guard Marine Safety Unit 
Cleveland, 1055 East Ninth Street, Cleveland, Ohio 44114, between the 
hours of 7:30 a.m. and 3:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal 
Holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: LT Nichol Starr, U.S. Coast Guard 
Marine Safety Unit Cleveland, at (216) 937-0128.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulatory Information

    We did not publish a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for this 
regulation. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good 
cause exists for not publishing an NPRM. The timing of this 
construction evolution did not allow sufficient time for the 
publication of an NPRM followed by an effective

[[Page 6977]]

date before the event. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds 
that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days 
after publication in the Federal Register. Delaying this rule would be 
contrary to the public interest of ensuring the safety of work crews, 
vessels and the general public during this event, and immediate action 
is necessary to prevent possible loss of life or property.

Background and Purpose

    This safety zone is necessary and intended to manage vessel traffic 
in order to provide for the safety of life and property on the Cuyahoga 
River during the West Third Street Bridge Replacement process. The 
Captain of the Port has determined that this evolution poses a threat 
to vessel operators due to the navigational risks associated with the 
replacement process. The Captain of the Port has determined that 
vessels operating in close proximity to the tug and barge replacing the 
bridge span pose a risk to safety and property.

Regulatory Evaluation

    This 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 this rule 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 rule to be so minimal that a 
full Regulatory Evaluation under paragraph 10(e) of the regulatory 
policies and procedures of DHS is unnecessary.
    This determination is based on the time that the safety zone will 
be in effect, schedules from the Great Lakes Commercial Shipping 
Agents, and that advance notice will be made to the maritime community 
via Local Notice to Mariners and marine safety information broadcasts. 
This regulation is tailored to impose a minimal impact on maritime 
interests without compromising safety.

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have 
considered whether this rule would have a significant 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 rule 
would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of 
small entities.
    This rule would affect the following entities, some of which might 
be small entities: The owners or operators of commercial vessels 
intending to transit a portion of the activated safety zone.
    This safety zone would not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: The 
U.S. Coast Guard has made agreements between the Lake Carriers 
Association, Canadian Steamship Association and the local businesses so 
as not to interrupt commerce. All parties mentioned agree that this 
safety zone will not impede commerce. Businesses affected are not 
planning on receiving any goods during this period from commercial 
vessels. All navigable waters above and below the safety zone are open 
to navigation. Before the activation of the safety zone, the Coast 
Guard will issue maritime advisories available to users who may be 
impacted through Local Notice to Mariners, facsimile, and marine safety 
information broadcasts. Additionally, the Coast Guard has not received 
any reports from small entities that will be negatively affected.
    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 offered to assist small 
entities in understanding this rule so that they can better evaluate 
its effects and participate in the rulemaking process. 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 Marine Safety Office Cleveland 
(see ADDRESSES).
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal 
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal 
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory 
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory 
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and 
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to 
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR 
(1-888-734-3247).

Collection of Information

    This 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 
cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this 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 
expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this 
preamble.

Taking of Private Property

    This rule would not affect a taking of private property or 
otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, 
Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected 
Property Rights.

Civil Justice Reform

    This 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

    The Coast Guard has analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, 
Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety 
Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and does not 
concern 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

[[Page 6978]]

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

    The Coast Guard has 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 procedure; and related management 
system practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus 
standards bodies.
    This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not 
consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

Environment

    We have analyzed this 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 (34)(g) of the 
Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, from further environmental 
documentation.
    A preliminary ``Environmental Analysis Check List'' is available in 
the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. Comments on this section 
will be considered before we make the final decision on whether the 
rule should be categorically excluded from further review.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, Waterways.


0
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to 
amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

0
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701; 50 
U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1(g), 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Pub. 
L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security 
Delegation No. 0170.1.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T09-002 to read as follows:


Sec.  165.T09-002  Safety Zone; West Third Street Bridge replacement 
project, Cuyahoga River, Cleveland, OH.

    (a) Location. The following area is a safety zone: All waters of 
the Cuyahoga River from Mile 3.59 to Mile 3.79.
    (b) Effective Period. This rule is effective from 7 a.m. (local) 
Wednesday, February 1, 2006 through 1 p.m. (local) on Tuesday, February 
28, 2006.
    (c) Regulations. Entry into, transit through or anchoring within 
this safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the 
Port Buffalo or his designated on-scene representative. The Coast Guard 
may be contacted via VHF Channel 16.

    Dated: February 1, 2006.
S.J. Ferguson,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Buffalo.
[FR Doc. 06-1254 Filed 2-9-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.