Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Illinois Waterway, IL, 36295-36297 [E6-10043]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
wwhite on PROD1PC61 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 122 / Monday, June 26, 2006 / Proposed Rules
effective law enforcement because they
could prevent the successful completion
of the investigation; endanger the
physical safety of witnesses or
informants; or lead to the improper
influencing of witnesses, the destruction
of evidence, or the fabrication of
testimony.
(4) From subsection (e)(1) because it
is not always possible to know in
advance what information is relevant
and necessary to complete an identity
comparison between the individual
being screened and a known or
suspected criminal or terrorist. Also, it
may not always be known what
information will be relevant to law
enforcement for the purpose of
conducting an operational response or
on-going investigation.
(5) From subsection (e)(2) because
application of this provision could
present a serious impediment to law
enforcement and counter-drug efforts in
that it would put the subject of an
investigation, study or analysis on
notice of that fact, thereby permitting
the subject to engage in conduct
designed to frustrate or impede that
activity. The nature of counter-drug
investigations is such that vital
information about an individual
frequently can be obtained only from
other persons who are familiar with
such individual and his/her activities.
In such investigations it is not feasible
to rely upon information furnished by
the individual concerning his own
activities.
(6) From subsection (e)(3), to the
extent that this subsection is interpreted
to require EPIC to provide notice to an
individual if EPIC receives information
about that individual from a third party.
Should the subsection be so interpreted,
exemption from this provision is
necessary to avoid impeding counterdrug efforts by putting the subject of an
investigation, study or analysis on
notice of that fact, thereby permitting
the subject to engage in conduct
intended to frustrate or impede that
activity.
(7) From subsection (e)(5) because
many of the records in this system are
derived from other domestic record
systems and therefore it is not possible
for the DEA and EPIC to vouch for their
compliance with this provision;
however, EPIC has implemented
internal quality assurance procedures to
ensure that ESS data is as thorough,
accurate, and current as possible. In
addition, EPIC supports but does not
conduct investigations; therefore, it
must be able to collect information
related to illegal drug and other criminal
activities and encounters for
distribution to law enforcement and
VerDate Aug<31>2005
21:18 Jun 23, 2006
Jkt 208001
intelligence agencies that do conduct
counter-drug investigations. In the
collection of information for law
enforcement and counter-drug purposes,
it is impossible to determine in advance
what information is accurate, relevant,
timely, and complete. With the passage
of time, seemingly irrelevant or
untimely information may acquire new
significance as further investigation
brings new details to light. The
restrictions imposed by (e)(5) would
limit the ability of those agencies’
trained investigators and intelligence
analysts to exercise their judgment in
conducting investigations and impede
the development of intelligence
necessary for effective law enforcement
and counterterrorism efforts. EPIC has,
however, implemented internal quality
assurance procedures to ensure that ESS
data is as thorough, accurate, and
current as possible. ESS is also exempt
from the requirements of subsection
(e)(5) in order to prevent the use of a
challenge under subsection (e)(5) as a
collateral means to obtain access to
records in the ESS. ESS records are
exempt from the access and amendment
requirements of subsection (d) of the
Privacy Act in order to protect the
integrity of investigations. Exempting
ESS from subsection (e)(5) serves to
prevent the assertion of challenges to a
record’s accuracy, timeliness,
completeness, and/or relevance under
subsection (e)(5) to circumvent the
exemption claimed from subsection (d).
(8) From subsection (e)(8) because to
require individual notice of disclosure
of information due to compulsory legal
process would pose an impossible
administrative burden on the DEA and
EPIC and could alert the subjects of
counter-drug, counterterrorism, law
enforcement, or intelligence
investigations to the fact of those
investigations when not previously
known. Additionally, compliance could
present a serious impediment to law
enforcement as this could interfere with
the ability to issue warrants or
subpoenas and could reveal
investigative techniques, procedures, or
evidence.
(9) From subsection (g) to the extent
that the system is exempt from other
specific subsections of the Privacy Act.
Dated: June 19, 2006.
Lee J. Lofthus,
Acting Assistant Attorney General for
Administration.
[FR Doc. E6–9976 Filed 6–23–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410–09–P
PO 00000
Frm 00075
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
36295
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 117
[CGD08–06–013]
RIN 1625–AA09
Drawbridge Operation Regulation;
Illinois Waterway, IL
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes
that the procedures found in § 117.393
for operation of the Pekin Railroad
Drawbridge, Mile 151.2, across the
Illinois Waterway at Pekin, Illinois, be
revised to reflect the actual procedures
that have always been followed. The
present regulation in § 117.393 was
intended to be temporary, for test
purposes only, and was inadvertently
permanently included. The revision
would eliminate the ‘‘Specific
Requirements’’ for remote operation and
the bridge would continue to operate, as
required by the Coast Guard, under the
‘‘General Requirements’’.
DATES: Comments and related material
must reach the Coast Guard on or before
August 25, 2006.
ADDRESSES: You may mail comments
and related material to Commander,
Eighth Coast Guard District, Bridge
Branch, 1222 Spruce Street, St. Louis,
MO 63103–2832. Commander (dwb)
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
room 2.107f in the Robert A. Young
Federal Building, Eighth Coast Guard
District, between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.
Roger K. Wiebusch, Bridge
Administrator, (314) 269–2378.
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 [CGD08–06–013],
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
E:\FR\FM\26JNP1.SGM
26JNP1
36296
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 122 / Monday, June 26, 2006 / Proposed Rules
format, no larger than 81⁄2 by 11 inches,
suitable for copying. If you would like
to know 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. But you may submit a request
for a meeting by writing to the Eighth
Coast Guard District, Bridge Branch, at
the address under ADDRESSES explaining
why one would be beneficial. If we
determine that a meeting 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
A test period to remotely operate the
Pekin Railroad Drawbridge, Mile 151.2,
across the Illinois Waterway was
proposed by the bridge owner and
determined that remote operation was
not feasible. The bridge owner withdrew
the proposal and the Coast Guard
required the continued on-site operation
of the bridge. The bridge is not remotely
operated. The bridge owner has always
maintained an on-site bridge operator
for the bridge. However, the temporary
regulation allowing the test period was
inadvertently published in 33 CFR Part
117, Subpart B.
This proposed rulemaking will correct
the drawbridge operating regulations to
reflect Coast Guard approved operating
conditions presently adhered to by the
bridge owner and waterway users.
wwhite on PROD1PC61 with PROPOSALS
Discussion of Proposed Rule
The proposal is to delete the
regulation § 117.393(b) that requires
remote operation of the bridge. If the
remote operation requirement is
deleted, it will have no impact on river
or rail traffic because the bridge will
continue to be operated on-site and
open on demand for passage of river
traffic. Removing the regulation for
remote operation will allow the bridge
owner to not install additional
equipment and to not operate the bridge
from a remote location to meet the
regulation.
Regulatory Evaluation
This rule is not a ‘‘significant
regulatory action’’ under section 3(f) of
Executive Order 12866, Regulatory
Planning and Review, and does not
require an assessment of potential costs
and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that
Order. The Office of Management and
Budget has not reviewed it under that
Order. It is not ‘‘significant’’ under the
VerDate Aug<31>2005
21:18 Jun 23, 2006
Jkt 208001
regulatory policies and procedures of
the Department of Homeland Security.
The Coast Guard expects that this
change will have no economic impact
on commercial traffic operating on the
Illinois Waterway.
The proposed regulation change will
not affect the present safe operation of
the bridge.
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 5
U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule would not
have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities.
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 could 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 Mr. Roger K.
Wiebusch, Bridge Administrator, Eighth
Coast Guard District, Bridge Branch, at
(314) 269–2378.
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
PO 00000
Frm 00076
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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 will 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 may 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
E:\FR\FM\26JNP1.SGM
26JNP1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 122 / Monday, June 26, 2006 / Proposed Rules
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 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 concluded 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
rule is categorically excluded under
figure 2–1, paragraph 32(e) of the
Instruction from further environmental
documentation. Paragraph 32(e)
excludes the promulgation of operating
regulations or procedures for
drawbridges from the environmental
documentation requirements of NEPA.
Since this proposed regulation would
alter the normal operating conditions of
the drawbridge, it falls within this
exclusion. A ‘‘Categorical Exclusion
Determination’’ is available in the
docket for inspection or copying where
indicated under ADDRESSES.
wwhite on PROD1PC61 with PROPOSALS
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:
VerDate Aug<31>2005
21:18 Jun 23, 2006
Jkt 208001
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. 017.1; 33
CFR 1.05–1(g); section 117.255 also issued
under the authority of Pub. L. 102–587, 106
Stat. 5039.
§ 117.393
[Amended]
2. In § 117.393, remove paragraph (b)
and redesignate paragraphs (c) through
(d) as paragraphs (b) through (c)
respectively.
Dated: June 12, 2006.
R.F. Duncan,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard Commander,
Eighth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. E6–10043 Filed 6–23–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–15–P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 117
[CGD05–06–002]
Drawbridge Operation Regulations;
Chincoteague Channel, Chincoteague,
VA
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice; request for comments,
and notice of public meeting.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
SUMMARY: On March 31, 2006, the Coast
Guard published a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM) in the Federal
Register (71 FR 19150). That document
contains a detailed history of the Coast
Guard’s previous regulatory efforts
regarding the SR 175 Bridge. The Coast
Guard is reopening the period for public
comment concerning the drawbridge
operation regulations that govern the SR
175 Bridge, mile 3.5, across
Chincoteague Channel at Chincoteague,
Virginia, because an Accomack County
official communicated to the Coast
Guard those residents of Chincoteague
have additional comments concerning
the operating regulations of the
drawbridge.
Comments must be received by
on or before July 21, 2006.
ADDRESSES: Comments and material
received from the public as well as
documents indicated in this preamble as
being available in the docket, are part of
docket [CGD05–06–002]. To make sure
they do not enter the docket more than
once, please submit them by only one of
the following means:
DATES:
PO 00000
Frm 00077
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
36297
(1) By mail to Commander (dpb), Fifth
Coast Guard District, 431 Crawford
Street, Portsmouth, VA 23704.
(2) By hand delivery to Commander
(dpb), Fifth Coast Guard District, 431
Crawford Street, Portsmouth, VA 23704,
between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
The telephone number is (757) 398–
6629.
(3) By fax to the Bridge
Administration office at (757) 398–6334.
Commander, Fifth Coast Guard
District (dpb) maintains the public
docket for this rulemaking. Comments
and material received from the public,
as well as documents indicated in this
preamble, will become part of this
docket and will be available for
inspection or copying at the address
listed above between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
questions on this notice, contact Gary S.
Heyer, Commander (dpb) Fifth Coast
Guard District, by telephone at (757)
398–6629, or by e-mail at
gary.s.heyer@uscg.mil. For questions on
viewing or submitting material to the
docket, also contact Mr. Gary S. Heyer.
Request for Comments
We encourage you to participate in
this rulemaking by submitting your
comments to Commander (dpb), Fifth
Coast Guard District as specified in
ADDRESSES. We will consider comments
received during this additional
comment period and may change the
rule in response to the comments.
Public Meeting and Procedure
The Coast Guard will also hold a
public meeting to provide a forum for
citizens to provide oral comments
relating to the drawbridge operation
regulations for the SR 175 Bridge, mile
3.5, across Chincoteague Channel at
Chincoteague, Virginia. The meeting
will be open to the public and it will be
held from 7:30 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. on July
18, 2006, at the Chincoteague
Community Center, 6155 Community
Drive, Chincoteague, VA 23336. The
meeting may close early if all business
is finished. Written material and
advance notice requests to make oral
comments should reach the Coast Guard
on or before July 17, 2006.
Members of the public are invited to
make comments and those who wish to
provide oral comment will be
recognized by the meeting moderator.
Each person will be limited to no more
than 5 minutes of oral comments. The
moderator will first call off names of
individuals who have notified the
meeting moderator in advance that they
E:\FR\FM\26JNP1.SGM
26JNP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 122 (Monday, June 26, 2006)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 36295-36297]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-10043]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 117
[CGD08-06-013]
RIN 1625-AA09
Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Illinois Waterway, IL
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes that the procedures found in Sec.
117.393 for operation of the Pekin Railroad Drawbridge, Mile 151.2,
across the Illinois Waterway at Pekin, Illinois, be revised to reflect
the actual procedures that have always been followed. The present
regulation in Sec. 117.393 was intended to be temporary, for test
purposes only, and was inadvertently permanently included. The revision
would eliminate the ``Specific Requirements'' for remote operation and
the bridge would continue to operate, as required by the Coast Guard,
under the ``General Requirements''.
DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or
before August 25, 2006.
ADDRESSES: You may mail comments and related material to Commander,
Eighth Coast Guard District, Bridge Branch, 1222 Spruce Street, St.
Louis, MO 63103-2832. Commander (dwb) 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 room 2.107f in the Robert A. Young Federal
Building, Eighth Coast Guard District, between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Roger K. Wiebusch, Bridge
Administrator, (314) 269-2378.
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 [CGD08-06-
013], 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
[[Page 36296]]
format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for copying. If
you would like to know 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. But you may submit a
request for a meeting by writing to the Eighth Coast Guard District,
Bridge Branch, at the address under ADDRESSES explaining why one would
be beneficial. If we determine that a meeting 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
A test period to remotely operate the Pekin Railroad Drawbridge,
Mile 151.2, across the Illinois Waterway was proposed by the bridge
owner and determined that remote operation was not feasible. The bridge
owner withdrew the proposal and the Coast Guard required the continued
on-site operation of the bridge. The bridge is not remotely operated.
The bridge owner has always maintained an on-site bridge operator for
the bridge. However, the temporary regulation allowing the test period
was inadvertently published in 33 CFR Part 117, Subpart B.
This proposed rulemaking will correct the drawbridge operating
regulations to reflect Coast Guard approved operating conditions
presently adhered to by the bridge owner and waterway users.
Discussion of Proposed Rule
The proposal is to delete the regulation Sec. 117.393(b) that
requires remote operation of the bridge. If the remote operation
requirement is deleted, it will have no impact on river or rail traffic
because the bridge will continue to be operated on-site and open on
demand for passage of river traffic. Removing the regulation for remote
operation will allow the bridge owner to not install additional
equipment and to not operate the bridge from a remote location to meet
the regulation.
Regulatory Evaluation
This rule is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under section
3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does
not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section
6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not
reviewed it under that Order. It is not ``significant'' under the
regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Homeland
Security.
The Coast Guard expects that this change will have no economic
impact on commercial traffic operating on the Illinois Waterway.
The proposed regulation change will not affect the present safe
operation of the bridge.
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 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule
would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.
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 could 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 Mr. Roger K. Wiebusch, Bridge
Administrator, Eighth Coast Guard District, Bridge Branch, at (314)
269-2378.
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 will 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 may
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
[[Page 36297]]
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 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 concluded 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 rule is categorically excluded under figure
2-1, paragraph 32(e) of the Instruction from further environmental
documentation. Paragraph 32(e) excludes the promulgation of operating
regulations or procedures for drawbridges from the environmental
documentation requirements of NEPA. Since this proposed regulation
would alter the normal operating conditions of the drawbridge, it falls
within this exclusion. A ``Categorical Exclusion Determination'' is
available in the docket for inspection or copying where indicated under
ADDRESSES.
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. 017.1; 33 CFR 1.05-1(g); section 117.255 also issued
under the authority of Pub. L. 102-587, 106 Stat. 5039.
Sec. 117.393 [Amended]
2. In Sec. 117.393, remove paragraph (b) and redesignate
paragraphs (c) through (d) as paragraphs (b) through (c) respectively.
Dated: June 12, 2006.
R.F. Duncan,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard Commander, Eighth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. E6-10043 Filed 6-23-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P
