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