Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Jamaica Bay and Connecting Waterways, NY, 29869-29871 [E6-7861]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 100 / Wednesday, May 24, 2006 / Proposed Rules regulation of surface coal mining and reclamation operations. One of the purposes of SMCRA is to ‘‘establish a nationwide program to protect society and the environment from the adverse effects of surface coal mining operations.’’ Section 503(a)(1) of SMCRA requires that State laws regulating surface coal mining and reclamation operations be ‘‘in accordance with’’ the requirements of SMCRA, and section 503(a)(7) requires that State programs contain rules and regulations ‘‘consistent with’’ regulations issued by the Secretary pursuant to SMCRA. Executive Order 13175—Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments In accordance with Executive Order 13175, we have evaluated the potential effects of this rule on Federallyrecognized Indian tribes and have determined that the rule does not have substantial direct effects 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. This determination is based on the fact that the Mississippi program does not regulate coal exploration and surface coal mining and reclamation operations on Indian lands. Therefore, the Mississippi program has no effect on Federally-recognized Indian tribes. Executive Order 13211—Regulations That Significantly Affect The Supply, Distribution, or Use of Energy On May 18, 2001, the President issued Executive Order 13211 which requires agencies to prepare a Statement of Energy Effects for a rule that is (1) considered significant under Executive Order 12866, and (2) likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. Because this rule is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866 and is not expected to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy, a Statement of Energy Effects is not required. sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS National Environmental Policy Act This rule does not require an environmental impact statement because section 702(d) of SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1292(d)) provides that agency decisions on proposed State regulatory program provisions do not constitute major Federal actions within the meaning of section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)). VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:03 May 23, 2006 Jkt 208001 Paperwork Reduction Act This rule does not contain information collection requirements that require approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3507 et seq.). Regulatory Flexibility Act 29869 List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 924 Intergovernmental relations, Surface mining, Underground mining. Dated: April 20, 2006. Ervin J. Barchenger, Acting Regional Director, Mid-Continent Region. [FR Doc. E6–7917 Filed 5–23–06; 8:45 am] The Department of the Interior certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). The State submittal, which is the subject of this rule, is based upon counterpart Federal regulations for which an economic analysis was prepared and certification made that such regulations would not have a significant economic effect upon a substantial number of small entities. In making the determination as to whether this rule would have a significant economic impact, the Department relied upon the data and assumptions for the counterpart Federal regulations. BILLING CODE 4310–05–P Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to change the drawbridge operation regulations governing the operation of the Beach Channel railroad bridge across Jamaica Bay, at mile 6.7, New York. This proposed rule would allow the Beach Channel Bridge to remain in the closed position during the morning and afternoon commuter rush hours from 6:45 a.m. to 8:20 a.m. and 5 p.m. to 6:45 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. This rule is expected to help facilitate commuter rail traffic while continuing to meet the present and anticipated needs of navigation. DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or before July 24, 2006. ADDRESSES: You may mail comments and related material to Commander (dpb), First Coast Guard District Bridge Branch, One South Street, Battery Park Building, New York, New York, 10004, or deliver them to the same address between 7 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except, Federal holidays. The telephone number is (212) 668–7165. The First Coast Guard District, Bridge Branch, maintains the public docket for this rulemaking. Comments and material received from the public, as well as documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket, will become part of this docket and will be available for inspection or copying at the First Coast Guard District, Bridge Branch, between 7 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. This rule: (a) Does not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million; (b) Will not cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies, or geographic regions; and (c) Does not have significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises. This determination is based upon the fact that the State submittal, which is the subject of this rule, is based upon counterpart Federal regulations for which an analysis was prepared and a determination made that the Federal regulation was not considered a major rule. Unfunded Mandates This rule will not impose an unfunded mandate on State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector of $100 million or more in any given year. This determination is based upon the fact that the State submittal, which is the subject of this rule, is based upon counterpart Federal regulations for which an analysis was prepared and a determination made that the Federal regulation did not impose an unfunded mandate. PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 117 [CGD01–06–033] RIN 1625–AA09 Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Jamaica Bay and Connecting Waterways, NY Coast Guard, DHS. Notice of proposed rulemaking. AGENCY: ACTION: E:\FR\FM\24MYP1.SGM 24MYP1 29870 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 100 / Wednesday, May 24, 2006 / Proposed Rules Ms. Judy Leung-Yee, Project Officer, First Coast Guard District, (212) 668–7195. 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 (CGD01–06–033), 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. sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS 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 Beach Channel railroad bridge across Jamaica Bay at mile 6.7, has a vertical clearance of 26 feet at mean high water, and 31 feet at mean low water in the closed position. The existing drawbridge operating regulations listed at 33 CFR 117.5, require the bridge to open on signal at all times. Jamaica Bay facilitates both commercial and recreational vessel traffic. The owner of the bridge, New York City Transit, requested a change to the drawbridge operation regulations to help reduce commuter rail traffic delays during the morning and afternoon commuter hours. Under this proposed rule the Beach Channel railroad bridge would not open for the passage of vessel traffic from 6:45 a.m. to 8:20 a.m. and from 5 p.m. to 6:45 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. On November 2, 2005, the Coast Guard implemented a 90-day temporary deviation with request for public comment (70 FR 66260), to test the above proposed rule change. The VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:03 May 23, 2006 Jkt 208001 temporary test deviation was in effect from December 1, 2005 through February 28, 2006. No comments or complaints were received in response to the temporary test deviation. Discussion of Proposed Rule This proposed rule would allow the Beach Channel railroad bridge to remain closed for the passage of vessel traffic from 6:45 a.m. to 8:20 a.m. and from 5 p.m. to 6:45 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Coast Guard reviewed the bridge opening logs for the Beach Channel railroad bridge from June 2002 through May 2004. The logs indicated that there were normally between 5 and 24 bridge opening requests received Monday through Friday each month between 6:45 a.m. and 8:20 a.m. and between 3 and 12 opening requests received from 5 p.m. and 6:45 p.m. During the temporary test deviation in effect from December 1, 2005 through February 28, 2006, the Coast Guard received no complaints or comments in response to the temporary test deviation which temporarily changed the bridge operating schedule. The Coast Guard believes this proposed rule, if adopted, would help facilitate commuter rail traffic while continuing to meet the present and anticipated needs of navigation. 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 section 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. 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 vessel traffic would not be precluded from transiting through the Beach Channel railroad bridge each day, except for two closures of short duration, one in the morning, and one in the afternoon. Mariners would simply need to plan their daily transits in accordance with drawbridge operation schedule in order to help balance the needs of both rail and marine traffic. Small Entities Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601–612), we have considered PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 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 vessel traffic would not be precluded from transiting through the Beach Channel railroad bridge each day, except for two closures of short duration, one in the morning, and one in the afternoon. Mariners would simply need to plan their daily transits in accordance with the drawbridge operation schedule in order to help balance the needs of both rail and marine traffic. 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 (Public Law 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, 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 E:\FR\FM\24MYP1.SGM 24MYP1 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 100 / Wednesday, May 24, 2006 / Proposed Rules 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. 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 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. 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. Protection of Children Environment 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. We have analyzed this proposed rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that there are no factors in this case that would limit the use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, we believe that this rule should be categorically excluded, under figure 2–1, paragraph (32)(e) of the Instruction, from further environment documentation because this action relates to the promulgation of operating regulations or procedures for drawbridges. Under figure 2–1, paragraph (32)(e) of the Instruction, an ‘‘Environmental Analysis Checklist’’ is not required for this rule. Comments on this section will be considered before we make the final decision on whether to categorically exclude this rule from further environmental review. 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 sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Energy Effects We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have 17:03 May 23, 2006 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); section 117.255 also issued under the authority of Pub. L. 102–587, 106 Stat. 5039. 2. In § 117.795, redesignate suspended paragraph (b), and paragraphs (c) and (d) as paragraphs (c), (d) and (e) respectively, suspend newly designated paragraph (c), and add a new paragraph (b) to read as follows: § 117.795 Jamaica Bay and Connecting Waterways. * * * * * (b) The draw of the Beach Channel railroad bridge shall open on signal; except that, the draw need not open for the passage of vessel traffic, 6:45 a.m. to 8:20 a.m. and 5 p.m. to 6:45 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. * * * * * Dated: May 4, 2006 David P. Pekoske, Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, First Coast Guard District. [FR Doc. E6–7861 Filed 5–23–06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910–15–P Indian Tribal Governments VerDate Aug<31>2005 29871 Jkt 208001 List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117 Bridges. PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 117 [CGD13–06–015] RIN 1625–AA09 Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Duwamish Waterway, Seattle, WA Coast Guard, DHS. Notice of proposed rulemaking. AGENCY: ACTION: SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to temporarily change the operating regulations for the First Avenue South dual drawbridges across the Duwamish Waterway, mile 2.5, at Seattle, Washington. The proposed change would enable the bridge owner to keep the bridges closed during night hours for a period longer than 60 days. This would facilitate painting the structure while properly containing debris and paint. E:\FR\FM\24MYP1.SGM 24MYP1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 100 (Wednesday, May 24, 2006)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 29869-29871]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-7861]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[CGD01-06-033]
RIN 1625-AA09


Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Jamaica Bay and Connecting 
Waterways, NY

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to change the drawbridge operation 
regulations governing the operation of the Beach Channel railroad 
bridge across Jamaica Bay, at mile 6.7, New York. This proposed rule 
would allow the Beach Channel Bridge to remain in the closed position 
during the morning and afternoon commuter rush hours from 6:45 a.m. to 
8:20 a.m. and 5 p.m. to 6:45 p.m., Monday through Friday, except 
Federal holidays. This rule is expected to help facilitate commuter 
rail traffic while continuing to meet the present and anticipated needs 
of navigation.

DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or 
before July 24, 2006.

ADDRESSES: You may mail comments and related material to Commander 
(dpb), First Coast Guard District Bridge Branch, One South Street, 
Battery Park Building, New York, New York, 10004, or deliver them to 
the same address between 7 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, 
except, Federal holidays. The telephone number is (212) 668-7165. The 
First Coast Guard District, Bridge Branch, maintains the public docket 
for this rulemaking. Comments and material received from the public, as 
well as documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the 
docket, will become part of this docket and will be available for 
inspection or copying at the First Coast Guard District, Bridge Branch, 
between 7 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal 
holidays.

[[Page 29870]]


FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Judy Leung-Yee, Project Officer, 
First Coast Guard District, (212) 668-7195.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Request for Comments

    We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting 
comments and related material. If you do so, please include your name 
and address, identify the docket number for this rulemaking (CGD01-06-
033), 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 Beach Channel railroad bridge across Jamaica Bay at mile 6.7, 
has a vertical clearance of 26 feet at mean high water, and 31 feet at 
mean low water in the closed position. The existing drawbridge 
operating regulations listed at 33 CFR 117.5, require the bridge to 
open on signal at all times.
    Jamaica Bay facilitates both commercial and recreational vessel 
traffic.
    The owner of the bridge, New York City Transit, requested a change 
to the drawbridge operation regulations to help reduce commuter rail 
traffic delays during the morning and afternoon commuter hours.
    Under this proposed rule the Beach Channel railroad bridge would 
not open for the passage of vessel traffic from 6:45 a.m. to 8:20 a.m. 
and from 5 p.m. to 6:45 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal 
holidays.
    On November 2, 2005, the Coast Guard implemented a 90-day temporary 
deviation with request for public comment (70 FR 66260), to test the 
above proposed rule change. The temporary test deviation was in effect 
from December 1, 2005 through February 28, 2006. No comments or 
complaints were received in response to the temporary test deviation.

Discussion of Proposed Rule

    This proposed rule would allow the Beach Channel railroad bridge to 
remain closed for the passage of vessel traffic from 6:45 a.m. to 8:20 
a.m. and from 5 p.m. to 6:45 p.m., Monday through Friday, except 
Federal holidays.
    The Coast Guard reviewed the bridge opening logs for the Beach 
Channel railroad bridge from June 2002 through May 2004. The logs 
indicated that there were normally between 5 and 24 bridge opening 
requests received Monday through Friday each month between 6:45 a.m. 
and 8:20 a.m. and between 3 and 12 opening requests received from 5 
p.m. and 6:45 p.m.
    During the temporary test deviation in effect from December 1, 2005 
through February 28, 2006, the Coast Guard received no complaints or 
comments in response to the temporary test deviation which temporarily 
changed the bridge operating schedule.
    The Coast Guard believes this proposed rule, if adopted, would help 
facilitate commuter rail traffic while continuing to meet the present 
and anticipated needs of navigation.

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 section 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.
    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 vessel traffic would not 
be precluded from transiting through the Beach Channel railroad bridge 
each day, except for two closures of short duration, one in the 
morning, and one in the afternoon. Mariners would simply need to plan 
their daily transits in accordance with drawbridge operation schedule 
in order to help balance the needs of both rail and marine traffic.

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 vessel traffic would not 
be precluded from transiting through the Beach Channel railroad bridge 
each day, except for two closures of short duration, one in the 
morning, and one in the afternoon. Mariners would simply need to plan 
their daily transits in accordance with the drawbridge operation 
schedule in order to help balance the needs of both rail and marine 
traffic.
    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 (Public Law 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, 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

[[Page 29871]]

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 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, we believe that this rule should 
be categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e) of the 
Instruction, from further environment documentation because this action 
relates to the promulgation of operating regulations or procedures for 
drawbridges. Under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e) of the Instruction, an 
``Environmental Analysis Checklist'' is not required for this rule. 
Comments on this section will be considered before we make the final 
decision on whether to categorically exclude this rule from further 
environmental review.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117

    Bridges.

Regulations

    For the reasons 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); section 117.255 also issued 
under the authority of Pub. L. 102-587, 106 Stat. 5039.

    2. In Sec.  117.795, redesignate suspended paragraph (b), and 
paragraphs (c) and (d) as paragraphs (c), (d) and (e) respectively, 
suspend newly designated paragraph (c), and add a new paragraph (b) to 
read as follows:

Sec.  117.795  Jamaica Bay and Connecting Waterways.

* * * * *
    (b) The draw of the Beach Channel railroad bridge shall open on 
signal; except that, the draw need not open for the passage of vessel 
traffic, 6:45 a.m. to 8:20 a.m. and 5 p.m. to 6:45 p.m., Monday through 
Friday, except Federal holidays.
* * * * *

    Dated: May 4, 2006
David P. Pekoske,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, First Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. E6-7861 Filed 5-23-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P