Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Illinois Waterway, IL, 36295-36297 [E6-10043]

Download as PDF 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