Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Chelsea River, Chelsea, MA, 17397-17399 [E6-4900]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 66 / Thursday, April 6, 2006 / Proposed Rules
opening swing movement, the channel
traffic lights will flash red until the
bridge returns to the fully open position.
In the full open position to vessels, the
bridge channel lights will flash green.
Dated: March 23, 2006.
L.L. Hereth,
Rear Admiral, United States Coast Guard,
Commander, Fifth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. E6–4899 Filed 4–5–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–15–P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 117
[CGD01–06–024]
RIN 1625–AA09
Drawbridge Operation Regulations;
Chelsea River, Chelsea, MA
Coast Guard, DHS.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
cchase on PROD1PC60 with PROPOSALS
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to
temporarily change the drawbridge
operation regulations governing the
operation of the P.J. McArdle Bridge,
across the Chelsea River at mile 0.3,
between East Boston and Chelsea,
Massachusetts. This proposed rule
would allow the bridge to remain closed
from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. on June 17, 2006,
to facilitate the Third Annual Chelsea
River Revel Festival and the running of
the Chelsea River Revel 5K Road Race.
Vessels that can pass under the bridge
without a bridge opening may do so at
all times.
DATES: Comments and related material
must reach the Coast Guard on or before
May 8, 2006.
ADDRESSES: You may mail comments
and related material to Commander
(dpb), First Coast Guard District Bridge
Branch, 408 Atlantic Avenue, Boston,
Massachusetts, 02110, or deliver them
to the same address between 7 a.m. and
3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except,
Federal holidays. The telephone number
is (617) 223–8364. The First Coast
Guard District, Bridge Branch,
maintains the public docket for this
rulemaking. Comments and material
received from the public, as well as
documents indicated in this preamble as
being available in the docket, will
become part of this docket and will be
available for inspection or copying at
the First Coast Guard District, Bridge
Branch, 7 a.m. to 3 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:19 Apr 05, 2006
Jkt 208001
Mr.
John McDonald, Project Officer, First
Coast Guard District, (617) 223–8364.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Request for Comments
We encourage you to participate in
this rulemaking by submitting
comments and related material. If you
do so, please include your name and
address, identify the docket number for
this rulemaking (CGD01–06–024),
indicate the specific section of this
document to which each comment
applies, and give the reason for each
comment. Please submit all comments
and related material in an unbound
format, no larger than 81⁄2 by 11 inches,
suitable for copying. If you would like
to know if they reached us, please
enclose a stamped, self-addressed
postcard or envelope. We will consider
all comments and material received
during the comment period. We may
change this proposed rule in view of
them.
Public Meeting
We do not now plan to hold a public
meeting; however, 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 P.J. McArdle Bridge across the
Chelsea River at mile 0.3, has a vertical
clearance of 21 feet at mean high water
and 30 feet at mean low water in the
closed position. The existing
drawbridge operation regulations listed
at 33 CFR 117.593 require the bridge to
open on signal at all times.
On March 6, 2006, the Chelsea Creek
Action Group (CCAG) requested a
temporary change to the regulation that
governs the operation of the P.J.
McArdle Bridge. The temporary
regulation would allow the bridge to
remain closed to vessel traffic from 9
a.m. to 5 p.m. on Saturday, June 17,
2006, in the interest of public safety
during the Third Annual Chelsea River
Revel Festival and 5K Road Race.
Vessels that can pass under the bridge
without a bridge opening may do so at
all times.
Discussion of Proposed Rule
This proposed change would suspend
§ 117.593 and temporarily add a new
§ 117.T594.
The P.J. McArdle Bridge would
remain in the closed position from 9
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
17397
a.m. to 5 p.m. in the interest of public
safety during the Third Annual Chelsea
River Revel Festival and the running of
the Chelsea River Revel 5K Road Race.
The 5K Road Race does not actually
cross over the bridge; however, the
Chelsea River passes through the middle
of the festival which takes place on both
sides of the Chelsea River in East Boston
and Chelsea.
A large volume of pedestrian traffic is
anticipated to cross over the bridge
during the festival.
It would not be in the best interest of
public safety and the coordination of
this public event to have the bridge
open during the time period this event
is in progress.
The Chelsea River is predominantly
transited by commercial tugs, barges, oil
tankers. The Coast Guard coordinates
this closure annually with the oil
facilities and the one recreational
marina which are upstream from the
bridge.
This temporary rule is expected to
meet the present and anticipated needs
of navigation.
Under this proposed temporary rule,
all drawbridges across the Chelsea River
would open on signal; except that the
P.J. McArdle Bridge, at mile 0.3, would
need not open for the passage of vessel
traffic from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. on June 17,
2006.
The opening signal for each
drawbridge would remain two
prolonged blasts followed by two short
blasts and one prolonged blast. The
acknowledging signal would remain
three prolonged blasts when the draw
can be opened immediately and two
prolonged blasts when the draw cannot
be opened or is open and must be
closed.
Regulatory Evaluation
This proposed rule is not a
‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under
section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866,
Regulatory Planning and Review, and
does not require an assessment of
potential costs and benefits under
6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of
Management and Budget has not
reviewed it under that Order. It is not
‘‘significant’’ under the regulatory
policies and procedures of the
Department of Homeland Security
(DHS).
We expect the economic impact of
this proposed rule to be so minimal that
a full Regulatory Evaluation, under the
regulatory policies and procedures of
DHS is unnecessary.
This conclusion is based on the fact
that the bridge will only be closed for
8 hours in the interest of public safety
during the running of the 5K Road Race
E:\FR\FM\06APP1.SGM
06APP1
17398
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 66 / Thursday, April 6, 2006 / Proposed Rules
on June 17, 2006. Vessels that can pass
under the draw without a bridge
opening may do so at all times during
the time the bridge is closed.
Small Entities
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
(5 U.S.C. 601–612), we have considered
whether this proposed rule would have
a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
The term ‘‘small entities’’ comprises
small businesses, not-for-profit
organizations that are independently
owned and operated and are not
dominant in their fields, and
governmental jurisdictions with
populations of less than 50,000.
The Coast Guard certifies under
section 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this
proposed rule would not have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
This conclusion is based on the fact
that the bridge will only be closed for
8 hours in the interest of public safety
during the running of the 5K Road Race
on June 17, 2006. Vessels that can pass
under the draw without a bridge
opening may do so at all times during
the time the bridge is closed.
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.
cchase on PROD1PC60 with PROPOSALS
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).
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:19 Apr 05, 2006
Jkt 208001
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 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 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 might disproportionately
affect children.
Indian Tribal Governments
This proposed rule does not have
tribal implications under Executive
Order 13175, Consultation and
Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it would not have
a substantial direct effect on one or
more Indian tribes, on the relationship
between the Federal Government and
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of
power and responsibilities between the
Federal Government and Indian tribes.
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Energy Effects
We have analyzed this proposed rule
under Executive Order 13211, Actions
Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use. We have
determined that it is not a ‘‘significant
energy action’’ under that order because
it is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’
under Executive Order 12866 and is not
likely to have a significant adverse effect
on the supply, distribution, or use of
energy. The Administrator of the Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs
has not designated it as a significant
energy action. Therefore, it does not
require a Statement of Energy Effects
under Executive Order 13211.
Technical Standards
The National Technology Transfer
and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15
U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use
voluntary consensus standards in their
regulatory activities unless the agency
provides Congress, through the Office of
Management and Budget, with an
explanation of why using these
standards would be inconsistent with
applicable law or otherwise impractical.
Voluntary consensus standards are
technical standards (e.g., specifications
of materials, performance, design, or
operation; test methods; sampling
procedures; and related management
systems practices) that are developed or
adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies.
This proposed rule does not use
technical standards. Therefore, we did
not consider the use of voluntary
consensus standards.
Environment
We have analyzed this proposed rule
under Commandant Instruction
M16475.1D, which guides the Coast
Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and
have 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, this proposed
rule is categorically excluded, under
figure 2–1, paragraph (32)(e) of the
Instruction, from further environment
documentation. 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.
E:\FR\FM\06APP1.SGM
06APP1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 66 / Thursday, April 6, 2006 / Proposed Rules
Regulations
For the reasons discussed in the
preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to
amend 33 CFR part 117 as follows:
PART 117—DRAWBRIDGE
OPERATION REGULATIONS
1. The authority citation for part 117
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 499; Department of
Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1; 33
CFR 1.05–1(g); § 117.255 also issued under
the authority of Pub. L. 102–587, 106 Stat.
5039.
2. On June 17, 2006, from 9 a.m. to
5 p.m., § 117.593 is suspended and a
new § 117.T594 is added to read as
follows:
§ 117.T594
Chelsea River.
(a) All drawbridges across the Chelsea
River shall open on signal; except that
the P.J. McArdle Bridge, mile 0.3, need
not open for the passage of vessel traffic
from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. on June 17, 2006.
(b) The opening signal for each
drawbridge is two prolonged blasts
followed by two short blasts and one
prolonged blast. The acknowledging
signal is three prolonged blasts when
the draw can be opened immediately
and two prolonged blasts when the
draw cannot be opened or is open and
must be closed.
Dated: March 21, 2006.
David P. Pekoske,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander,
First Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. E6–4900 Filed 4–5–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–15–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark
Office
37 CFR Part 1
[Docket No.: PTO–P–2006–0005]
RIN 0651–AC01
Changes to Eliminate the Disclosure
Document Program
United States Patent and
Trademark Office, Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rule making.
cchase on PROD1PC60 with PROPOSALS
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: The United States Patent and
Trademark Office (Office) implemented
the Disclosure Document Program in
1969 in order to provide an alternative
form of evidence of conception of an
invention to, for example, a ‘‘selfaddressed envelope’’ containing a
disclosure of an invention. It appears,
however, that few, if any, inventors
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:19 Apr 05, 2006
Jkt 208001
obtain any actual benefit from a
disclosure document, and some
inventors who use the Disclosure
Document Program believe that they are
actually filing an application for a
patent. In addition, a provisional
application for patent affords better
benefits and protection to inventors
than a disclosure document. Therefore,
the Office is proposing to eliminate the
Disclosure Document Program.
Comment Deadline Date: To be
ensured of consideration, written
comments must be received on or before
May 8, 2006. No public hearing will be
held.
ADDRESSES: Comments should be sent
by electronic mail message over the
Internet addressed to
ddp.comments@uspto.gov. Comments
may also be submitted by mail
addressed to: Mail Stop Comments—
Patents, Commissioner for Patents, P.O.
Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313–1450,
or by facsimile to (571) 273–7735,
marked to the attention of Catherine M.
Kirik. Although comments may be
submitted by mail or facsimile, the
Office prefers to receive comments via
the Internet. If comments are submitted
by mail, the Office prefers that the
comments be submitted on a DOS
formatted 31⁄2 inch disk accompanied by
a paper copy.
Comments may also be sent by
electronic mail message over the
Internet via the Federal eRulemaking
Portal. See the Federal eRulemaking
Portal Web site (https://
www.regulations.gov) for additional
instructions on providing comments via
the Federal eRulemaking Portal.
The comments will be available for
public inspection at the Office of the
Commissioner for Patents, located in
Madison East, Tenth Floor, 600 Dulany
Street, Alexandria, Virginia, and will be
available via the Office Internet Web site
(address: https://www.uspto.gov).
Because comments will be made
available for public inspection,
information that is not desired to be
made public, such as an address or
phone number, should not be included
in the comments.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Catherine M. Kirik, Office of the
Commissioner for Patents, by telephone
at (571) 272–8040, by mail addressed to:
Mail Stop Comments—Patents,
Commissioner for Patents, P.O. Box
1450, Alexandria, VA 22313–1450, or by
facsimile to (571) 273–0170, marked to
the attention of Catherine M. Kirik.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: An
inventor may file a disclosure document
with the Office which includes a written
description and drawings of his or her
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
17399
invention in sufficient detail to enable
a person of ordinary skill in the art to
make and use the invention to establish
a date of conception of an invention in
the United States under 35 U.S.C. 104
prior to the application filing date. The
inventor must sign the disclosure
document and include a separate signed
cover letter identifying the papers as a
disclosure document. A disclosure
document does not require either a
claim in compliance with 35 U.S.C. 112,
¶2, or an inventor’s oath (or declaration)
under 35 U.S.C. 115, and is not
accorded a patent application filing
date. A disclosure document is to be
destroyed by the Office after two years
unless it is referred to in a separate
letter in a related provisional or
nonprovisional application filed within
those two years. The filing fee for a
disclosure document is $10. See 37 CFR
1.21(c).
The Office published a notice in
September of 1998 seeking input from
the general public on whether the Office
should eliminate the Disclosure
Document Program. See Changes to
Implement the Patent Business Goals,
63 FR 53498, 53527–28 (Oct. 5, 1998),
1215 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 87 (Oct. 27,
1998) (advance proposed rule). The
Office received a number of comments
supporting the elimination of the
Disclosure Document Program, but did
not receive any input from the
independent inventor community and,
therefore, decided to delay eliminating
the Disclosure Document Program. See
Changes to Implement the Patent
Business Goals, 64 FR 53772, 53776–77
(Oct. 4, 1998), 1215 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office
87 (Oct. 27, 1998) (proposed rule). The
Office has determined that it is now
appropriate to propose elimination of
the Disclosure Document Program
because, inter alia, independent
inventors have become more familiar
with and are using provisional
applications more often than they were
in 1998, and provisional applications
provide more protections for
independent inventors than disclosure
documents.
The Office implemented the
Disclosure Document Program in 1969
in order to provide an alternative form
of evidence of conception of an
invention to forms such as a ‘‘selfaddressed envelope’’ form of evidence.
See Disclosure Document Program, 34
FR 6003 (Apr. 2, 1969), 861 Off. Gaz.
Pat. Office 1 (May 6, 1969). Since June
of 1995, however, applicants have been
able to file a provisional application for
patent, which provides better benefits
and protection to inventors than a
disclosure document. A provisional
application must contain a specification
E:\FR\FM\06APP1.SGM
06APP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 66 (Thursday, April 6, 2006)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 17397-17399]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-4900]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 117
[CGD01-06-024]
RIN 1625-AA09
Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Chelsea River, Chelsea, MA
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to temporarily change the drawbridge
operation regulations governing the operation of the P.J. McArdle
Bridge, across the Chelsea River at mile 0.3, between East Boston and
Chelsea, Massachusetts. This proposed rule would allow the bridge to
remain closed from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. on June 17, 2006, to facilitate the
Third Annual Chelsea River Revel Festival and the running of the
Chelsea River Revel 5K Road Race. Vessels that can pass under the
bridge without a bridge opening may do so at all times.
DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or
before May 8, 2006.
ADDRESSES: You may mail comments and related material to Commander
(dpb), First Coast Guard District Bridge Branch, 408 Atlantic Avenue,
Boston, Massachusetts, 02110, or deliver them to the same address
between 7 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except, Federal
holidays. The telephone number is (617) 223-8364. The First Coast Guard
District, Bridge Branch, maintains the public docket for this
rulemaking. Comments and material received from the public, as well as
documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket,
will become part of this docket and will be available for inspection or
copying at the First Coast Guard District, Bridge Branch, 7 a.m. to 3
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. John McDonald, Project Officer,
First Coast Guard District, (617) 223-8364.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Request for Comments
We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting
comments and related material. If you do so, please include your name
and address, identify the docket number for this rulemaking (CGD01-06-
024), indicate the specific section of this document to which each
comment applies, and give the reason for each comment. Please submit
all comments and related material in an unbound format, no larger than
8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for copying. If you would like to know if
they reached us, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or
envelope. We will consider all comments and material received during
the comment period. We may change this proposed rule in view of them.
Public Meeting
We do not now plan to hold a public meeting; however, 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 P.J. McArdle Bridge across the Chelsea River at mile 0.3, has a
vertical clearance of 21 feet at mean high water and 30 feet at mean
low water in the closed position. The existing drawbridge operation
regulations listed at 33 CFR 117.593 require the bridge to open on
signal at all times.
On March 6, 2006, the Chelsea Creek Action Group (CCAG) requested a
temporary change to the regulation that governs the operation of the
P.J. McArdle Bridge. The temporary regulation would allow the bridge to
remain closed to vessel traffic from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. on Saturday, June
17, 2006, in the interest of public safety during the Third Annual
Chelsea River Revel Festival and 5K Road Race.
Vessels that can pass under the bridge without a bridge opening may
do so at all times.
Discussion of Proposed Rule
This proposed change would suspend Sec. 117.593 and temporarily
add a new Sec. 117.T594.
The P.J. McArdle Bridge would remain in the closed position from 9
a.m. to 5 p.m. in the interest of public safety during the Third Annual
Chelsea River Revel Festival and the running of the Chelsea River Revel
5K Road Race.
The 5K Road Race does not actually cross over the bridge; however,
the Chelsea River passes through the middle of the festival which takes
place on both sides of the Chelsea River in East Boston and Chelsea.
A large volume of pedestrian traffic is anticipated to cross over
the bridge during the festival.
It would not be in the best interest of public safety and the
coordination of this public event to have the bridge open during the
time period this event is in progress.
The Chelsea River is predominantly transited by commercial tugs,
barges, oil tankers. The Coast Guard coordinates this closure annually
with the oil facilities and the one recreational marina which are
upstream from the bridge.
This temporary rule is expected to meet the present and anticipated
needs of navigation.
Under this proposed temporary rule, all drawbridges across the
Chelsea River would open on signal; except that the P.J. McArdle
Bridge, at mile 0.3, would need not open for the passage of vessel
traffic from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. on June 17, 2006.
The opening signal for each drawbridge would remain two prolonged
blasts followed by two short blasts and one prolonged blast. The
acknowledging signal would remain three prolonged blasts when the draw
can be opened immediately and two prolonged blasts when the draw cannot
be opened or is open and must be closed.
Regulatory Evaluation
This proposed rule is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review,
and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits
under 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has
not reviewed it under that Order. It is not ``significant'' under the
regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Homeland
Security (DHS).
We expect the economic impact of this proposed rule to be so
minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation, under the regulatory
policies and procedures of DHS is unnecessary.
This conclusion is based on the fact that the bridge will only be
closed for 8 hours in the interest of public safety during the running
of the 5K Road Race
[[Page 17398]]
on June 17, 2006. Vessels that can pass under the draw without a bridge
opening may do so at all times during the time the bridge is closed.
Small Entities
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered whether this proposed rule would have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000.
The Coast Guard certifies under section 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this
proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
This conclusion is based on the fact that the bridge will only be
closed for 8 hours in the interest of public safety during the running
of the 5K Road Race on June 17, 2006. Vessels that can pass under the
draw without a bridge opening may do so at all times during the time
the bridge is closed.
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 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 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 might
disproportionately affect children.
Indian Tribal Governments
This proposed rule does not have tribal implications under
Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
Energy Effects
We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13211,
Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a ``significant
energy action'' under that order because it is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy
action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects
under Executive Order 13211.
Technical Standards
The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15
U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards
in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress,
through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why
using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or
operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management
systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies.
This proposed rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we
did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.
Environment
We have analyzed this proposed rule under Commandant Instruction
M16475.1D, which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and
have 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, this proposed rule is
categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e) of the
Instruction, from further environment documentation. 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.
[[Page 17399]]
Regulations
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes
to amend 33 CFR part 117 as follows:
PART 117--DRAWBRIDGE OPERATION REGULATIONS
1. The authority citation for part 117 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 499; Department of Homeland Security
Delegation No. 0170.1; 33 CFR 1.05-1(g); Sec. 117.255 also issued
under the authority of Pub. L. 102-587, 106 Stat. 5039.
2. On June 17, 2006, from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Sec. 117.593 is
suspended and a new Sec. 117.T594 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 117.T594 Chelsea River.
(a) All drawbridges across the Chelsea River shall open on signal;
except that the P.J. McArdle Bridge, mile 0.3, need not open for the
passage of vessel traffic from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. on June 17, 2006.
(b) The opening signal for each drawbridge is two prolonged blasts
followed by two short blasts and one prolonged blast. The acknowledging
signal is three prolonged blasts when the draw can be opened
immediately and two prolonged blasts when the draw cannot be opened or
is open and must be closed.
Dated: March 21, 2006.
David P. Pekoske,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, First Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. E6-4900 Filed 4-5-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P
