Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Cheesequake Creek, Morgan, NJ, 61924-61926 [E6-17578]

Download as PDF 61924 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 203 / Friday, October 20, 2006 / Proposed Rules terrain vehicles (‘‘ATVs’’). Seven manufacturers and distributors of ATVs requested a 60-day extension of the comment period. The Commission has decided to grant their request. DATES: The Office of the Secretary should receive comments on the NPR by December 26, 2006. ADDRESSES: Comments should be filed by e-mail to cpsc-os@cpsc.gov. Comments also may be filed by telefacsimile to (301) 504–0127 or they may be mailed or delivered, preferably in five copies, to the Office of the Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, Maryland 20814– 4408; telephone (301) 504–7923. Comments should be captioned ‘‘ATV NPR.’’ FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elizabeth Leland, Project Manager, ATV Safety Review, Directorate for Economic Analysis, Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, Maryland 20814–4408; telephone (301) 504–7706 or e-mail: eleland@cpsc.gov. On August 10, 2006, the Commission published an NPR in the Federal Register proposing standards that would apply to adult single-rider and tandem ATVs and to youth ATVs. The Commission also proposed a rule to ban three-wheeled ATVs. 71 FR 45904. The proposed rules were issued under the authority of both the Consumer Product Safety Act (‘‘CPSA’’) and the Federal Hazardous Substances Act (‘‘FHSA’’). The NPR provided for a 75-day comment period to end October 24, 2006. Seven companies that manufacture and/or distribute ATVs in the United States (American Honda Motor Co., Inc., Arctic Cat, Inc., Bombardier Motor Corporation of America, Kawasaki Motors Corp., U.S.A., Polaris Industries Inc., American Suzuki Motor Corporation, and Yamaha Motor Corporation, U.S.A.) have requested that the Commission extend the comment period for 60 days. The companies stated that they intend to submit comments that include information and analyses that will not be complete in time to meet the comment deadline. The Commission has decided to extend the comment period the requested 60 days to December 26, 2006. The Commission notes that, given the time necessary for receiving and reviewing comments, it will not be possible to meet the CPSA’s requirement that the Commission publish a final rule within 60 days after publishing the proposed rule. See 15 mstockstill on PROD1PC61 with PROPOSALS SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:09 Oct 19, 2006 Jkt 211001 U.S.C. 2058(d)(1). Thus, in accordance with the statutory provision allowing the Commission to extend this 60-day period for good cause shown, id., the Commission extends the period of time for publication of a final rule. Dated: October 13, 2006. Todd Stevenson, Secretary. [FR Doc. E6–17520 Filed 10–19–06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6355–01–P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 117 [CGD01–06–109] RIN 1625–AA09 Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Cheesequake Creek, Morgan, NJ Coast Guard, DHS. Notice of proposed rulemaking. AGENCY: ACTION: SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to temporarily change the drawbridge operating regulations governing the operation of the New Jersey Transit Rail Operations (NJTRO) railroad bridge, mile 0.2, at Morgan, New Jersey. This proposed rule would allow the NJTRO railroad bridge to remain in the closed position from January 1, 2007 through March 31, 2007. This rule is necessary to facilitate structural bridge rehabilitation. DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or before November 20, 2006. ADDRESSES: You may mail comments and related material to Commander (dpb), First Coast Guard District Bridge Branch, One South Street, Battery Park Building, New York, New York, 10004, or deliver them to the same address between 7 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except, Federal holidays. The telephone number is (212) 668–7165. The First Coast Guard District, Bridge Branch, maintains the public docket for this rulemaking. Comments and material received from the public, as well as documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket, will become part of this docket and will be available for inspection or copying at the First Coast Guard District, Bridge Branch, between 7 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Joe Arca, Project Officer, First Coast Guard District, (212) 668–7165. PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Request for Comments We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting comments and related material. If you do so, please include your name and address, identify the docket number for this rulemaking CGD01–06–109, indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and give the reason for each comment. Please submit all comments and related material in an unbound format, no larger than 81⁄2 by 11 inches, suitable for copying. If you would like to know if they reached us, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. We may change this proposed rule in view of them. Public Meeting We do not now plan to hold a public meeting; however, you may submit a request for a meeting by writing to the First Coast Guard District, Bridge Branch, at the address under ADDRESSES explaining why one would be beneficial. If we determine that one would aid this rulemaking, we will hold one at a time and place announced by a later notice in the Federal Register. Background and Purpose The NJTRO railroad bridge has a vertical clearance of 3 feet at mean high water, and 8 feet at mean low water in the closed position. The existing drawbridge operating regulations, listed at 33 CFR 117.709(b), require the bridge to open on signal; except that, at least a four-hour notice for bridge openings is required from January 1 through March 31 from 6 p.m. to 6 a.m. The bridge owner, New Jersey Transit Rail Operations (NJTRO), requested a temporary rule to facilitate structural and mechanical rehabilitation at the NJTRO railroad bridge. Under this temporary rule, the NJTRO railroad bridge may remain closed to navigation from January 1, 2007 through March 31, 2007. Vessels that can pass under the bridge without an opening may do so at all times. A small number of fishing boats are docked upstream from the NJTRO railroad bridge; however, Cheesequake Creek is predominantly a recreational waterway. From January through March, the recreational vessels are in winter storage and the waterway is normally not transited. The Coast Guard met with the mariners in June and July 2006, to discuss this bridge project and related closure. The mariners agreed with the E:\FR\FM\20OCP1.SGM 20OCP1 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 203 / Friday, October 20, 2006 / Proposed Rules closure dates since that is the time period the bridge seldom opens and the waterway is frozen. Discussion of Proposed Rule This proposed change would amend 33 CFR 117.709(b) by suspending paragraph (b) and adding a new temporary paragraph (c) that would list the temporary bridge opening schedule for the NJTRO railroad bridge. This temporary rule is necessary to facilitate the structural rehabilitation construction at the bridge, since the bridge will not be able to open for vessel traffic during the prosecution of these repairs. This proposed change would allow the NJTRO railroad bridge to remain in the closed position from January 1, 2007 through March 31, 2007. mstockstill on PROD1PC61 with PROPOSALS 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. We expect the economic impact of this proposed rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation is unnecessary. This conclusion is based on the fact that the bridge seldom opens January through March since the recreational vessels that use this waterway are in winter storage during that 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. The proposed rule would affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: recreational vessels not in winter storage and fishing vessels that make infrequent transits of the bridge in the winter months. This conclusion is based on the fact that the recreational vessels that predominantly use this waterway are in VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:09 Oct 19, 2006 Jkt 211001 winter storage January through March and the few fishing boat operators that may use the bridge at that time of the year have agreed to the closure dates. 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. PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 61925 Taking of Private Property This proposed rule would not affect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights. Civil Justice Reform This proposed rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden. Protection of Children We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and would not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might disproportionately affect children. Indian Tribal Governments This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Energy Effects We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a ‘‘significant energy action’’ under that order because it is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211. Technical Standards The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why using these E:\FR\FM\20OCP1.SGM 20OCP1 61926 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 203 / Friday, October 20, 2006 / Proposed Rules 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. 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: mstockstill on PROD1PC61 with PROPOSALS 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 January 1, 2007 through March 31, 2007, § 117.709 is amended by suspending paragraph (b) and adding a temporary paragraph (c) to read as follows: § 117.709 Cheesequake Creek. * * * VerDate Aug<31>2005 * * 15:09 Oct 19, 2006 Jkt 211001 (c) The draw of the New Jersey Transit Rail Operations railroad bridge at mile 0.2, need not open for the passage of vessel traffic from January 1, 2007 through March 31, 2007. Dated: October 3, 2006. Timothy S. Sullivan, Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, First Coast Guard District. [FR Doc. E6–17578 Filed 10–19–06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910–15–P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 799 [EPA–HQ–OPPT–2002–0073; FRL–8081–3] RIN 2070–AB79 Proposed Test Rule for Certain Chemicals on the ATSDR/EPA CERCLA Priority List of Hazardous Substances Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. AGENCY: SUMMARY: In this action, EPA is proposing to require testing for certain chemicals on the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR)/EPA Priority List of Hazardous Substances which is compiled under the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), and is soliciting proposals for enforceable consent agreements (ECAs). EPA is proposing a test rule under section 4(a) of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) that would require manufacturers (including importers) and processors of four chemical substances (chloroethane, hydrogen cyanide, methylene chloride, and sodium cyanide) to conduct testing for certain health effects relating to the manufacture, distribution in commerce, processing, use, or disposal of these substances. The data that would be obtained under the testing program will be used to address health effects data needs identified by ATSDR and EPA for these substances, which are among the hazardous substances most commonly found at sites listed on the CERCLA National Priorities List (NPL) and which are also hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) under section 112 of the Clean Air Act (CAA). EPA is soliciting proposals for ECAs involving the conduct of physiologically based pharmacokinetics (PBPK) studies as an alternative to the testing proposed in this rule, as appropriate. Alternatively, if ECA proposals involving the conduct of PBPK studies are not received, or if PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 received, are not considered by the Agency to be adequate, EPA may consider ECA proposals which cover some or all of the testing identified for a given chemical in this proposed rule. DATES: Comments must be received on or before December 19, 2006. Your request to present oral comments must be in writing and must be received by EPA on or before December 19, 2006. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket (ID) number EPA– HQ–OPPT–2002–0073, by one of the following methods: • Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. • Mail: Document Control Office (7407M), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460– 0001. • Hand Delivery: OPPT Document Control Office (DCO), EPA East, Rm. 6428, 1201 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. Attention: Docket ID Number EPA–HQ–OPPT–2002–0073. The DCO is open from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the DCO is (202) 564–8930. Such deliveries are only accepted during the DCO’s normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. Instructions: Direct your comments to docket ID number EPA–HQ–OPPT– 2002–0073. EPA’s policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available on-line at http:// 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 regulations.gov or email. The regulations.gov website 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 regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the 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 E:\FR\FM\20OCP1.SGM 20OCP1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 203 (Friday, October 20, 2006)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 61924-61926]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-17578]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[CGD01-06-109]
RIN 1625-AA09


Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Cheesequake Creek, Morgan, NJ

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 New Jersey Transit 
Rail Operations (NJTRO) railroad bridge, mile 0.2, at Morgan, New 
Jersey. This proposed rule would allow the NJTRO railroad bridge to 
remain in the closed position from January 1, 2007 through March 31, 
2007. This rule is necessary to facilitate structural bridge 
rehabilitation.

DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or 
before November 20, 2006.

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Joe Arca, Project Officer, First 
Coast Guard District, (212) 668-7165.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Request for Comments

    We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting 
comments and related material. If you do so, please include your name 
and address, identify the docket number for this rulemaking CGD01-06-
109, indicate the specific section of this document to which each 
comment applies, and give the reason for each comment. Please submit 
all comments and related material in an unbound format, no larger than 
8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for copying. If you would like to know if 
they reached us, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or 
envelope. We will consider all comments and material received during 
the comment period. We may change this proposed rule in view of them.

Public Meeting

    We do not now plan to hold a public meeting; however, you may 
submit a request for a meeting by writing to the First Coast Guard 
District, Bridge Branch, at the address under ADDRESSES explaining why 
one would be beneficial. If we determine that one would aid this 
rulemaking, we will hold one at a time and place announced by a later 
notice in the Federal Register.

Background and Purpose

    The NJTRO railroad bridge has a vertical clearance of 3 feet at 
mean high water, and 8 feet at mean low water in the closed position. 
The existing drawbridge operating regulations, listed at 33 CFR 
117.709(b), require the bridge to open on signal; except that, at least 
a four-hour notice for bridge openings is required from January 1 
through March 31 from 6 p.m. to 6 a.m.
    The bridge owner, New Jersey Transit Rail Operations (NJTRO), 
requested a temporary rule to facilitate structural and mechanical 
rehabilitation at the NJTRO railroad bridge.
    Under this temporary rule, the NJTRO railroad bridge may remain 
closed to navigation from January 1, 2007 through March 31, 2007. 
Vessels that can pass under the bridge without an opening may do so at 
all times.
    A small number of fishing boats are docked upstream from the NJTRO 
railroad bridge; however, Cheesequake Creek is predominantly a 
recreational waterway. From January through March, the recreational 
vessels are in winter storage and the waterway is normally not 
transited. The Coast Guard met with the mariners in June and July 2006, 
to discuss this bridge project and related closure. The mariners agreed 
with the

[[Page 61925]]

closure dates since that is the time period the bridge seldom opens and 
the waterway is frozen.

Discussion of Proposed Rule

    This proposed change would amend 33 CFR 117.709(b) by suspending 
paragraph (b) and adding a new temporary paragraph (c) that would list 
the temporary bridge opening schedule for the NJTRO railroad bridge.
    This temporary rule is necessary to facilitate the structural 
rehabilitation construction at the bridge, since the bridge will not be 
able to open for vessel traffic during the prosecution of these 
repairs.
    This proposed change would allow the NJTRO railroad bridge to 
remain in the closed position from January 1, 2007 through March 31, 
2007.

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.
    We expect the economic impact of this proposed rule to be so 
minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation is unnecessary.
    This conclusion is based on the fact that the bridge seldom opens 
January through March since the recreational vessels that use this 
waterway are in winter storage during that 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.
    The proposed rule would affect the following entities, some of 
which may be small entities: recreational vessels not in winter storage 
and fishing vessels that make infrequent transits of the bridge in the 
winter months.
    This conclusion is based on the fact that the recreational vessels 
that predominantly use this waterway are in winter storage January 
through March and the few fishing boat operators that may use the 
bridge at that time of the year have agreed to the closure dates.
    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 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

[[Page 61926]]

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.

    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 January 1, 2007 through March 31, 2007, Sec.  117.709 is 
amended by suspending paragraph (b) and adding a temporary paragraph 
(c) to read as follows:


Sec.  117.709  Cheesequake Creek.

* * * * *
    (c) The draw of the New Jersey Transit Rail Operations railroad 
bridge at mile 0.2, need not open for the passage of vessel traffic 
from January 1, 2007 through March 31, 2007.

    Dated: October 3, 2006.
Timothy S. Sullivan,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, First Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. E6-17578 Filed 10-19-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P