Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Saugus River, Lynn and Revere, MA, 39028-39030 [E6-10760]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
39028
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 132 / Tuesday, July 11, 2006 / Proposed Rules
through 3.F. of the Accomplishment
Instructions of RR SB No. RB.211–72–E148,
dated March 13, 2003, and RR SB No.
RB.211–72–E150, Revision 1, dated June 4,
2003.
(2) For RB211–524G2, RB211–524G2–T,
RB211–524G3, RB211–524G3–T, RB211–
524H, and RB211–524H–T series engines, use
paragraphs 3.A. through 3.M. of the
Accomplishment Instructions of RR SB No.
RB.211–72–E171, Revision 1, dated February
8, 2005.
(3) If the disk passes the ECI and you find
no cracks, you may extend the cycle life as
specified in paragraph (m) of this AD.
inspection of a tail engine installation on a
Lockheed L–1011 airplane).
Definition of Shop Visit
(m) Disks that pass an optional inspection
may remain in service after that inspection
for the additional cycles listed in the
following Table 5, until the next inspection,
until the cyclic life limit published in the RR
Time Limits Manual, 05–10–01, is reached,
or December 1, 2008, whichever occurs first.
(l) The manufacturer defines a shop visit as
the separation of an engine major case flange.
This definition excludes shop visits when
only field maintenance type activities are
performed in lieu of performing them onwing (such as to perform an on-wing
Cyclic Life Extension
TABLE 5.—CYCLIC LIFE EXTENSION
Engine models
–524G2, G2–
T, G3, G3–T,
H2, H2–T, H–
36, H–T–36
Type of extension
Extension After Passing MPI ...........................................................................
Extension After Passing In-Shop ECI .............................................................
Extension After Passing On-Wing ECI ............................................................
–524D4, D4–
B, D4–B–39,
D4X, D4X–B,
D4–39
1,600 cycles
3,800 cycles
1,000 cycles
2,000 cycles
4,500 cycles
1,200 cycles
Disks That Have Been Intermixed Between
Engine Models
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
(n) The RR Time Limits Manual, 05–00–01,
contains information on intermixing disks
between engine models.
Coast Guard
Alternative Methods of Compliance
33 CFR Part 117
(o) The Manager, Engine Certification
Office, has the authority to approve
alternative methods of compliance for this
AD if requested using the procedures found
in 14 CFR 39.19.
[CGD01–06–051]
Credit for Previous Inspections
(p) Inspections done using RR SB No.
RB.211–72–E150, dated April 17, 2003, SB
No. RB.211–72–E171, dated December 14,
2004, SB No. RB.211–72–D428, Revision 3,
dated June 30, 2003, and ASB No. RB.211–
72–AD428, Revision 4, dated March 7, 2005,
meet the requirements of this AD.
Reporting Requirement
(q) Report findings of all inspections of the
IPC stage 5 disk using paragraph 3.B.(2) of
the Accomplishment Instructions of RR No.
ASB RB.211–72–AD428, Revision 5, dated
March 18, 2005. The Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) has approved the
reporting requirements specified in
Paragraph 3.B. of the Accomplishment
Instructions of RR No. ASB RB.211–72–
AD428, Revision 5, dated March 18, 2005,
and assigned OMB control number 2120–
0056.
Related Information
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL
(r) CAA airworthiness directive G–2005–
0008, dated March 8, 2005, also addresses the
subject of this AD.
Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on
June 30, 2006.
Thomas A. Boudreau,
Acting Manager, Engine and Propeller
Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. E6–10771 Filed 7–10–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:39 Jul 10, 2006
Jkt 208001
RIN 1625–AA09
Drawbridge Operation Regulations;
Saugus River, Lynn and Revere, MA
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
The Coast Guard proposes to
temporarily change the drawbridge
operating regulations governing the
operation of the General Edwards SR1A
Bridge, at mile 1.7, across the Saugus
River between Lynn and Revere,
Massachusetts. This change to the
drawbridge operation regulations would
allow the bridge to remain in the closed
position from November 1, 2006
through April 30, 2007. This action is
necessary to facilitate structural
maintenance at the bridge.
DATES: Comments and related material
must reach the Coast Guard on or before
August 10, 2006.
ADDRESSES: You may mail comments
and related material to Commander
(dpb), First Coast Guard District Bridge
Branch, 408 Atlantic Avenue, Boston,
Massachusetts 02110, or deliver them to
the same address between 7 a.m. and 3
p.m., Monday through Friday, except,
Federal holidays. The telephone number
is (617) 223–8364. The First Coast
Guard District, Bridge Branch,
maintains the public docket for this
rulemaking. Comments and material
received from the public, as well as
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
–524B2, B2–
B, C2, C2–B
2,000 cycles
4,500 cycles
1,200 cycles
–524B–02, B–
B–02, B3–02,
B4–02, B4–D–
02
2,000 cycles
4,500 cycles
1,200 cycles
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.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.
John McDonald, Project Officer, First
Coast Guard District, (617) 223–8364.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Request or 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 (CGD01–06–051),
indicate the specific section of this
document to which each comment
applies, and give the reason for each
comment. Please submit all comments
and related material in an unbound
format, no larger than 81⁄2 by 11 inches,
suitable for copying. If you would like
to know if they reached us, please
enclose a stamped, self-addressed
postcard or envelope. We will consider
all comments and material received
during the comment period. We may
change this proposed rule in view of
them.
Public Meeting
We do not now plan to hold a public
meeting; however, you may submit a
request for a meeting by writing to the
First Coast Guard District, Bridge
Branch, at the address under ADDRESSES
explaining why one would be
beneficial. If we determine that one
would aid this rulemaking, we will hold
E:\FR\FM\11JYP1.SGM
11JYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 132 / Tuesday, July 11, 2006 / Proposed Rules
one at a time and place announced by
a later notice in the Federal Register.
Background and Purpose
The General Edwards SR1A Bridge at
mile 1.7, across the Saugus River, has a
vertical clearance of 27 feet at mean
high water and 36 feet at mean low
water. The existing regulations at 33
CFR 117.618(b) require the draw to open
on signal, except that, from April 1
through November 30, midnight to 8
a.m. an eight-hour notice is required.
From December 1 through March 31, an
eight-hour notice is required at all times
for bridge openings.
The bridge owner, the Department of
Conservation and Recreation (DCR),
asked the Coast Guard to temporarily
change the drawbridge operation
regulations to allow the bridge to remain
in the closed position from November 1,
2006 through April 30, 2007, to
complete structural rehabilitation
construction at the bridge. The bridge
was closed during the same time period
from November 2005 through April
2006, to perform the first phase of this
rehabilitation work. Work could not be
completed during the closure period in
2005–2006, necessitating a second
closure period in 2006–2007.
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL
Discussion of Proposed Rule
This proposed change would suspend
the existing drawbridge operation
regulations, listed at 33 CFR 117.618(b),
and add a new temporary paragraph (d)
to allow the bridge to remain in the
closed position from November 1, 2006
through April 30, 2007.
The Coast Guard believes this
proposed rule is reasonable because
bridge openings are rarely requested
during the time period the SR1A Bridge
will be closed for these repairs
November through April.
In fact, there were only seven requests
to open the bridge in November of 2004,
and no requests to open the bridge
between December 2004 and March of
2005. The bridge was closed for repairs
from November 2005 through April of
2006. The Coast Guard received no
comments or complaints during the
closure period.
In addition, this work is vital,
necessary, and must be performed in
order to assure the continued safe and
reliable operation of the bridge.
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
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:39 Jul 10, 2006
Jkt 208001
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 the bridge rarely opens during the
November through April time period.
Small Entities
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
(5 U.S.C. 601–612), we have considered
whether this proposed rule would have
a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
The term ‘‘small entities’’ comprises
small businesses, not-for-profit
organizations that are independently
owned and operated and are not
dominant in their fields, and
governmental jurisdictions with
populations of less than 50,000.
The Coast Guard certifies under
section 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this
proposed rule would not have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
This conclusion is based on the fact
that the bridge rarely opens during the
November through April time period.
If you think that your business,
organization, or governmental
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity
and that this rule would have a
significant economic impact on it,
please submit a comment (see
ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it
qualifies and how and to what degree
this rule would economically affect it.
Assistance for Small Entities
Under section 213(a) of the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104–121),
we want to assist small entities in
understanding this proposed rule so that
they can better evaluate its effects on
them and participate in the rulemaking.
If the rule would affect your small
business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction and you have questions
concerning its provisions or options for
compliance, please contact, 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
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
39029
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3501–3520.).
Federalism
A rule has implications for federalism
under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct
effect on State or local governments and
would either preempt State law or
impose a substantial direct cost of
compliance on them. We have analyzed
this proposed rule under that Order and
have determined that it does not have
implications for federalism.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) requires
Federal agencies to assess the effects of
their discretionary regulatory actions. In
particular, the Act addresses actions
that may result in the expenditure by a
State, local, or tribal government, in the
aggregate, or by the private sector of
$100,000,000 or more in any one year.
Though this proposed rule would not
result in such an expenditure, we do
discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere
in this preamble.
Taking of Private Property
This proposed rule would not affect a
taking of private property or otherwise
have taking implications under
Executive Order 12630, Governmental
Actions and Interference with
Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights.
Civil Justice Reform
This proposed rule meets applicable
standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of
Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice
Reform, to minimize litigation,
eliminate ambiguity, and reduce
burden.
Protection of Children
We have analyzed this proposed rule
under Executive Order 13045,
Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks. This rule is not an economically
significant rule and would not create an
environmental risk to health or risk to
safety that might disproportionately
affect children.
Indian Tribal Governments
This 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
E:\FR\FM\11JYP1.SGM
11JYP1
39030
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 132 / Tuesday, July 11, 2006 / Proposed Rules
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.
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL
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, and Department of
Homeland Security Management
Directive 5100.1, which guide 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
environmental documentation as 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
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:39 Jul 10, 2006
Jkt 208001
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. From, November 1, 2006 through
April 30, 2007, § 117.618(b) is
suspended and a new paragraph (d) is
added to read as follows:
§ 117.618
Saugus River.
*
*
*
*
*
(d) The draw of the General Edwards
SR1A Bridge at mile 1.7, need not open
for the passage of vessel traffic from
November 1, 2006 through April 30,
2007.
Dated: June 16, 2006.
Mark J. Campbell,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting
Commander, First Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. E6–10760 Filed 7–10–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–15–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R03–OAR–2006–0059; FRL–8192–8]
Approval and Promulgation of Air
Quality Implementation Plans; Virginia;
State Implementation Plan Revision for
Burlington Industries, Clarksville, VA
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve
a State Implementation Plan (SIP)
revision submitted by the
Commonwealth of Virginia. This
revision pertains to the removal of a
Consent Agreement from the Virginia
SIP. The Consent Agreement was
written for the control of emissions of
sulfur dioxide from the Burlington
Industries facility located in Clarksville,
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Mecklenburg County, Virginia. This
Agreement has been superseded by a
federally enforceable state operating
permit dated May 17, 2004, which
imposes operating restrictions on the
facility’s boilers and the subsequent
shutdown of the remainder of the
facility. This action is being taken under
the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act).
DATES: Written comments must be
received on or before August 10, 2006.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID Number EPA–
R03–OAR–2006–0059 by one of the
following methods:
A. https://www.regulations.gov. Follow
the on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
B. E-mail: campbell.david@epa.gov
C. Mail: EPA–R03–OAR–2006–0059,
David J. Campbell, Chief, Permits and
Technical Assistance Branch, Mailcode
3AP11, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.
D. Hand Delivery: At the previouslylisted EPA Region III address. Such
deliveries are only accepted during the
Docket’s normal hours of operation, and
special arrangements should be made
for deliveries of boxed information.
Instructions: Direct your comments to
Docket ID No. EPA–R03–OAR–2006–
0059. EPA’s policy is that all comments
received will be included in the public
docket without change, and may be
made available online at
www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided, unless
the comment includes information
claimed to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise
protected through www.regulations.gov
or e-mail. The www.regulations.gov Web
site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system,
which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless
you provide it in the body of your
comment. If you send an e-mail
comment directly to EPA without going
through www.regulations.gov, your email address will be automatically
captured and included as part of the
comment that is placed in the public
docket and made available on the
Internet. If you submit an electronic
comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name and other contact
information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD–ROM
you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties
and cannot contact you for clarification,
EPA may not be able to consider your
comment. Electronic files should avoid
E:\FR\FM\11JYP1.SGM
11JYP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 132 (Tuesday, July 11, 2006)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 39028-39030]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-10760]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 117
[CGD01-06-051]
RIN 1625-AA09
Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Saugus River, Lynn and Revere,
MA
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to temporarily change the drawbridge
operating regulations governing the operation of the General Edwards
SR1A Bridge, at mile 1.7, across the Saugus River between Lynn and
Revere, Massachusetts. This change to the drawbridge operation
regulations would allow the bridge to remain in the closed position
from November 1, 2006 through April 30, 2007. This action is necessary
to facilitate structural maintenance at the bridge.
DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or
before August 10, 2006.
ADDRESSES: You may mail comments and related material to Commander
(dpb), First Coast Guard District Bridge Branch, 408 Atlantic Avenue,
Boston, Massachusetts 02110, or deliver them to the same address
between 7 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except, Federal
holidays. The telephone number is (617) 223-8364. The First Coast Guard
District, Bridge Branch, maintains the public docket for this
rulemaking. Comments and material received from the public, as well as
documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket,
will become part of this docket and will be available for inspection or
copying at the First Coast Guard District, Bridge Branch, between 7
a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. John McDonald, Project Officer,
First Coast Guard District, (617) 223-8364.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Request or 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-
051), 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
[[Page 39029]]
one at a time and place announced by a later notice in the Federal
Register.
Background and Purpose
The General Edwards SR1A Bridge at mile 1.7, across the Saugus
River, has a vertical clearance of 27 feet at mean high water and 36
feet at mean low water. The existing regulations at 33 CFR 117.618(b)
require the draw to open on signal, except that, from April 1 through
November 30, midnight to 8 a.m. an eight-hour notice is required. From
December 1 through March 31, an eight-hour notice is required at all
times for bridge openings.
The bridge owner, the Department of Conservation and Recreation
(DCR), asked the Coast Guard to temporarily change the drawbridge
operation regulations to allow the bridge to remain in the closed
position from November 1, 2006 through April 30, 2007, to complete
structural rehabilitation construction at the bridge. The bridge was
closed during the same time period from November 2005 through April
2006, to perform the first phase of this rehabilitation work. Work
could not be completed during the closure period in 2005-2006,
necessitating a second closure period in 2006-2007.
Discussion of Proposed Rule
This proposed change would suspend the existing drawbridge
operation regulations, listed at 33 CFR 117.618(b), and add a new
temporary paragraph (d) to allow the bridge to remain in the closed
position from November 1, 2006 through April 30, 2007.
The Coast Guard believes this proposed rule is reasonable because
bridge openings are rarely requested during the time period the SR1A
Bridge will be closed for these repairs November through April.
In fact, there were only seven requests to open the bridge in
November of 2004, and no requests to open the bridge between December
2004 and March of 2005. The bridge was closed for repairs from November
2005 through April of 2006. The Coast Guard received no comments or
complaints during the closure period.
In addition, this work is vital, necessary, and must be performed
in order to assure the continued safe and reliable operation of the
bridge.
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 the bridge rarely opens
during the November through April time period.
Small Entities
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered whether this proposed rule would have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000.
The Coast Guard certifies under section 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this
proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
This conclusion is based on the fact that the bridge rarely opens
during the November through April time period.
If you think that your business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have
a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what
degree this rule would economically affect it.
Assistance for Small Entities
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this proposed rule so that they can better
evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the
rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or
options for compliance, please contact, Commander (dpb), First Coast
Guard District, Bridge Branch, One South Street, New York, NY, 10004.
The telephone number is (212) 668-7165. The Coast Guard will not
retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this
rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
Collection of Information
This proposed rule would call for no new collection of information
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.).
Federalism
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local
governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial
direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this proposed rule
under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications
for federalism.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any
one year. Though this proposed rule would not result in such an
expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this
preamble.
Taking of Private Property
This proposed rule would not affect a taking of private property or
otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630,
Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected
Property Rights.
Civil Justice Reform
This proposed rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and
3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize
litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.
Protection of Children
We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13045,
Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and would not
create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might
disproportionately affect children.
Indian Tribal Governments
This 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
[[Page 39030]]
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, and Department of Homeland Security Management Directive
5100.1, which guide 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 environmental documentation as 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. From, November 1, 2006 through April 30, 2007, Sec. 117.618(b)
is suspended and a new paragraph (d) is added to read as follows:
Sec. 117.618 Saugus River.
* * * * *
(d) The draw of the General Edwards SR1A Bridge at mile 1.7, need
not open for the passage of vessel traffic from November 1, 2006
through April 30, 2007.
Dated: June 16, 2006.
Mark J. Campbell,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting Commander, First Coast Guard
District.
[FR Doc. E6-10760 Filed 7-10-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P
