Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Chelsea River, Chelsea, MA, 17397-17399 [E6-4900]

Download as PDF 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 (http:// 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: http://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