Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Cheesequake Creek, Morgan, NJ, 61924-61926 [E6-17578]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
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: https://
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 https://
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
