Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Illinois Waterway, Illinois, 66713-66715 [E6-19310]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 221 / Thursday, November 16, 2006 / Proposed Rules
No. 0170.1; section 117.255 also issued under
the authority of Pub. L. 102–587, 106 Stat.
5039.
2. From 12:01 a.m., December 15,
2006 until 8 a.m., March 15, 2007 in
§ 117.671 add new paragraph (c) to read
as follows:
§ 117.671
Upper Mississippi River.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) The Illinois Central Railroad
Drawbridge, Mile 579.9, Upper
Mississippi River at Dubuque, Iowa
shall open on signal if at least 24 hours
notice is given.
Dated: October 18, 2006.
J.R. Whitehead,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander,
Eighth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. E6–19311 Filed 11–15–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–15–P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 117
[CGD08–06–013]
RIN 1625–AA09
Drawbridge Operation Regulation;
Illinois Waterway, Illinois
Coast Guard, DHS.
Supplemental notice of
proposed rulemaking.
AGENCY:
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
ACTION:
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard has revised
its proposal to change the operation of
the Pekin Railroad Drawbridge, Mile
151.2, at Pekin, Illinois and the Chessie
Railroad Drawbridge, Mile 254.1 at
Seneca, Illinois across Illinois
Waterway. The present regulation
requires revision to reflect the actual
procedures that have always been
followed. The current regulation was
intended to be temporary, for test
purposes only, and was inadvertently
permanently included. The revision
would eliminate the ‘‘Specific
Requirements’’ for remote operation and
the bridge would continue to operate, as
required by the Coast Guard, under the
‘‘General Requirements’’. In addition the
Coast Guard proposes to change the
regulation governing the operation of
the Chessie Railroad Drawbridge across
the Illinois Waterway, Mile 254.1, at
Seneca, Illinois. The existing regulation
requires the drawspan to open on signal.
This change is necessary to reflect a
change in operating procedure.
DATES: Comments and related material
must reach the Coast Guard on or before
January 16, 2007.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
20:07 Nov 15, 2006
Jkt 211001
You may mail comments
and related material to Commander,
Eighth Coast Guard District, Bridge
Branch, 1222 Spruce Street, St. Louis,
MO 63103–2832. Commander (dwb)
maintains the public docket for this
rulemaking. Comments and material
received from the public, as well as
documents indicated in this preamble as
being available in the docket, will
become part of this docket and will be
available for inspection or copying at
room 2.107f in the Robert A. Young
Federal Building, Eighth Coast Guard
District, between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.
Roger K. Wiebusch, Bridge
Administrator, (314) 269–2378.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
ADDRESSES:
Request for Comments
We encourage you to participate in
this rulemaking by submitting
comments and related material. If you
do so, please include your name and
address, identify the docket number for
this rulemaking [CGD08–06–013],
indicate the specific section of this
document to which each comment
applies, and give the reason for each
comment. Please submit all comments
and related material in an unbound
format, no larger than 81/2 by 11 inches,
suitable for copying. If you would like
to know they reached us, please enclose
a stamped, self-addressed postcard or
envelope. We will consider all
comments and material received during
the comment period. We may change
this proposed rule in view of them.
66713
proposed by the bridge owner and
determined that remote operation was
not feasible. The bridge owner withdrew
the proposal and the Coast Guard
required the continued on-site operation
of the bridge. The bridge is not remotely
operated. The bridge owner has always
maintained an on-site bridge operator
for the bridge. However, the temporary
regulation allowing the test period was
inadvertently published in 33 CFR 117,
Subpart B.
This proposed rulemaking will correct
the drawbridge operating regulations to
reflect Coast Guard approved operating
conditions presently adhered to by the
bridge owner and waterway users.
33 CFR requires the Chessie Railroad
Drawbridge, mile 254.1, Illinois
Waterway at Seneca, Illinois to open on
signal for the passage of vessels. Due to
reduced train use, the bridge owner
removed the bridgetender, maintains the
draw span in the fully open position
and allows train operators to close the
bridge. This action was taken without
proper Coast Guard notification or
approval. The proposed rule would
improve the navigation safety of bridge
operations by establishing a method of
operation and communication between
vessels and bridge closure personnel.
Regulatory History
On June 26, 2006, we published a
notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
titled Drawbridge Operation Regulation;
Illinois Waterway, IL in the Federal
Register (71 FR 36295). We received no
comments on the proposed rule. No
public hearing was requested, and none
was held.
Discussion of Proposed Rule
The rule proposed by this SNPRM
includes two separate changes to
existing regulation § 117.393. The first
change would delete § 117.393(b),
which requires remote operation of the
Pekin Railroad Drawbridge. If the
remote operation requirement is
deleted, it will have no impact on river
or rail traffic because the bridge will
continue to be operated on-site and
open on demand for passage of river
traffic. Removing the regulation for
remote operation will allow the bridge
owner to not install additional
equipment and to not operate the bridge
from a remote location to meet the
regulation.
The second change to § 117.393
would add a new paragraph (b) to
§ 117.393. The Chessie Railroad
Drawbridge is currently maintained in
the fully open position and train
operators close the draw span to allow
trains to pass. This proposed rule would
improve the navigation safety of bridge
operations by establishing a method of
operation and communication between
vessels and bridge closure personnel.
This proposed rule will accurately
depict how the bridge is operated.
Background and Purpose
A test period to remotely operate the
Pekin Railroad Drawbridge, Mile 151.2,
across the Illinois Waterway was
Regulatory Evaluation
This proposed rule is not a
‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under
section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866,
Public Meeting
We do not now plan to hold a public
meeting. But you may submit a request
for a meeting by writing to the Eighth
Coast Guard District, Bridge Branch, at
the address under ADDRESSES explaining
why one would be beneficial. If we
determine that a meeting would aid this
rulemaking, we will hold one at a time
and place announced by a later notice
in the Federal Register.
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\16NOP1.SGM
16NOP1
66714
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 221 / Thursday, November 16, 2006 / Proposed Rules
Regulatory Planning and Review, and
does not require an assessment of
potential costs and benefits under
section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office
of Management and Budget has not
reviewed it under that Order. It is not
‘‘significant’’ under the regulatory
policies and procedures of the
Department of Homeland Security.
The Coast Guard expects that these
changes will have no economic impact
on commercial traffic operating on the
Illinois Waterway.
The proposed regulation changes will
not affect the present safe operation of
the bridges.
Small Entities
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
(5 U.S.C. 601–612), we have considered
whether this proposed rule would have
a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
The term ‘‘small entities’’ comprises
small businesses, not-for-profit
organizations that are independently
owned and operated and are not
dominant in their fields, and
governmental jurisdictions with
populations of less than 50,000.
The Coast Guard certifies under 5
U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule would not
have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities.
If you think that your business,
organization, or governmental
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity
and that this rule would have a
significant economic impact on it,
please submit a comment (see
ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it
qualifies and how and to what degree
this rule would economically affect it.
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Assistance for Small Entities
Under section 213(a) of the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L 104–121),
we want to assist small entities in
understanding this proposed rule so that
they could better evaluate its effects on
them and participate in the rulemaking.
If the rule would affect your small
business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction and you have questions
concerning its provisions or options for
compliance, please contact Mr. Roger K.
Wiebusch, Bridge Administrator, Eighth
Coast Guard District, Bridge Branch, at
(314) 269–2378.
Collection of Information
This proposed rule would call for no
new collection of information under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3501–3520).
VerDate Aug<31>2005
20:07 Nov 15, 2006
Jkt 211001
Federalism
Energy Effects
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.
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.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) requires
Federal agencies to assess the effects of
their discretionary regulatory actions. In
particular, the Act addresses actions
that may result in the expenditure by a
State, local, or tribal government, in the
aggregate, or by the private sector of
$100,000,000 or more in any one year.
Though this proposed rule will not
result in such an expenditure, we do
discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere
in this preamble.
Taking of Private Property
This proposed rule would not affect a
taking of private property or otherwise
have taking implications under
Executive Order 12630, Governmental
Actions and Interference with
Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights.
Civil Justice Reform
This proposed rule meets applicable
standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of
Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice
Reform, to minimize litigation,
eliminate ambiguity, and reduce
burden.
Protection of Children
We have analyzed this proposed rule
under Executive Order 13045,
Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks. This rule is not an economically
significant rule and would not create an
environmental risk to health or risk to
safety that may disproportionately affect
children.
Indian Tribal Governments
This proposed rule does not have
tribal implications under Executive
Order 13175, Consultation and
Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it would not have
a substantial direct effect on one or
more Indian tribes, on the relationship
between the Federal Government and
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of
power and responsibilities between the
Federal Government and Indian tribes.
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Technical Standards
The National Technology Transfer
and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15
U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use
voluntary consensus standards in their
regulatory activities unless the agency
provides Congress, through the Office of
Management and Budget, with an
explanation of why using these
standards would be inconsistent with
applicable law or otherwise impractical.
Voluntary consensus standards are
technical standards (e.g., specifications
of materials, performance, design, or
operation; test methods; sampling
procedures; and related management
systems practices) that are developed or
adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies.
This proposed rule does not use
technical standards. Therefore, we did
not consider the use of voluntary
consensus standards.
Environment
We have analyzed this rule under
Commandant Instruction M16475.1D,
which guides the Coast Guard in
complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and
have concluded that there are no factors
in this case that would limit the use of
a categorical exclusion under section
2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore this
rule is categorically excluded under
figure 2–1, paragraph 32(e) of the
Instruction from further environmental
documentation. Paragraph 32(e)
excludes the promulgation of operating
regulations or procedures for
drawbridges from the environmental
documentation requirements of NEPA.
Since this proposed regulation would
alter the normal operating conditions of
the drawbridge, it falls within this
exclusion. A ‘‘Categorical Exclusion
Determination’’ is available in the
E:\FR\FM\16NOP1.SGM
16NOP1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 221 / Thursday, November 16, 2006 / Proposed Rules
docket for inspection or copying where
indicated under ADDRESSES.
List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117
Bridges.
Regulations
For the reasons discussed in the
preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to
amend 33 CFR part 117 as follows:
PART 117—DRAWBRIDGE
OPERATION REGULATIONS
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 499; 33 CFR 1.05–1(g);
Department of Homeland Security Delegation
No. 017.1; section 117.255 also issued under
the authority of Pub. L. 102–587, 106 Stat.
5039.
2. Revise § 117.393(b) to read as
follows:
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Forest Service
36 CFR Parts 241, 251, 261
RIN 0596–AC33
Piscicide Applications on National
Forest System Lands
Forest Service, USDA.
Proposed rule; request for
public comments.
AGENCY:
Illinois Waterway.
*
*
*
*
(b) The draw of the Chessie Railroad
Bridge, mile 254.1, at Seneca, Illinois,
operates as follows:
(1) The draw is normally maintained
in the fully open position, displaying
green mid-channel lights to indicate the
span is fully open.
(2) When a train approaches the
bridge and the draw is in the open
position, the train will stop, train
operator shall walk out on the bridge
and scan the river for approaching
vessels.
(3) If a vessel is approaching the
bridge, the draw will remain open. The
vessel shall contact the train operator on
VHF–FM channel 16 and the train
operator shall keep the draw in the fully
open position until the vessel has
cleared the bridge.
(4) If no vessels are observed, the train
operator initiates a five minute warning
period on VHF–FM radio channel 16
before closing the bridge. The train
operator will broadcast the following
message: ‘‘The Chessie Railroad Bridge
at Mile 254.1, Illinois River, will close
to navigation in five minutes.’’ The
announcement is repeated every minute
counting down the time remaining until
closure.
(5) At the end of the five minute
warning period, and if no vessels are
approaching the bridge, the train
operator shall sound the siren for 10
seconds, activate the alternate flashing
red lights on top of the draw, then lower
and lock the draw in place. Red lights
shall continue to flash to indicate the
draw is closed to navigation.
(6) After the train has cleared the
bridge, the draw shall be raised to its
full height and locked in place, the red
20:07 Nov 15, 2006
BILLING CODE 4910–15–P
ACTION:
*
VerDate Aug<31>2005
Dated: October 19, 2006.
Ronald W. Branch,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, 8th
Coast Guard Dist. Acting.
[FR Doc. E6–19310 Filed 11–15–06; 8:45 am]
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
1. The authority citation for part 117
continues to read as follows:
§ 117.393
flashing lights stopped, and the draw
lights changed from red to green.
*
*
*
*
*
Jkt 211001
SUMMARY: The Forest Service proposes
to amend Title 36 Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) parts 241, 251 and
261. Relevant sections of the Forest
Service Manual (FSM) 2151, 2152, 2153,
2610, 2651 and 2719; and Forest Service
Handbook (FSH) 2109.14, would also be
revised to reflect the changes in the
regulations. Title 36 CFR part 241
addresses the cooperation between the
agency and State fish and game
management agencies and governs the
agency’s responsibility in these
partnerships. Part 251 sets out
requirements governing special uses on
National Forest System lands and
identifies the categories of uses for
which a special use authorization is
required. Part 261, subpart A sets out
the general prohibitions of activities on
National Forest System lands, while
subpart B provides for prohibition of
activities on National Forest System
lands by closure orders.
The proposed amendment to the rule
would result in three changes. The
principle change, in part 241, would
establish criteria for State piscicide use
on National Forest System lands,
outside designated Wild and Scenic
Rivers or Congressionally designated
Wilderness and Wilderness Study
Areas. A provision that State piscicide
applications outside designated
Wilderness and Wilderness Study Areas
are not ‘‘special uses’’ requiring special
use authorization would be added to 36
CFR 251.50. A paragraph would be
inserted into 36 CFR 261.50 to
specifically provide for closure of an
area, under specific circumstances, to
prohibit piscicide application. In
addition, the ambiguous phrase ‘‘other
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
66715
minor uses,’’ which refers to pesticide
uses, would be eliminated in 36 CFR
261.9(f). The proposed rule changes
would provide an efficient and
standardized national approach for the
application of piscicides by State
agencies on National Forest System
lands while retaining the Forest
Service’s authority over such use. Public
comment is invited and will be
considered in development of the final
rule.
DATES: Comments must be received, in
writing, January 16, 2007.
ADDRESSES: Written comments
concerning this notice should be
addressed to Dr. Jesus A. Cota at Forest
Health Protection Staff, 1601 N. Kent
St., RPC, 7th Floor (FHP), Arlington, VA
22209. Comments for Dr. Jesus A. Cota
may be sent via e-mail to
pesticiderule@fs.fed.us or via facsimile
to (703) 605–5353.
All comments, including names and
addresses when provided, are placed in
the record and are available for public
inspection and copying. The public may
inspect comments received at the Forest
Service office of the Forest Health
Protection staff, 1601 N. Kent St., RPC,
7th Floor (FHP), Arlington, VA 22209.
Due to security requirements, visitors
are encouraged to call ahead to (703)
605–5352 to facilitate entry to the
building.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr.
Jesus A. Cota at Forest Health Protection
Staff, at (703) 605–5344 (e-mail:
jcota@fs.fed.us) or Ronald Dunlap at
Watershed, Fish, Wildlife, Air and Rare
Plants Staff, at (202) 205–1790 (e-mail:
rldunlap@fs.fed.us).
Individuals who use
telecommunication devices for the deaf
(TDD) may call the Federal Information
Relay Service (FIRS) at 1–800–877–8339
between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., eastern
standard time, Monday through Friday.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: State
agencies and the Forest Service share
responsibility for the protection and
management of fish and wildlife
populations on National Forest System
(NFS) lands. A number of Federal land
management statutes acknowledge the
States’ traditional role in managing fish
and wildlife populations by affirming
that the statutes do not affect the
jurisdiction or responsibilities of the
States with respect to wildlife and fish
on the National Forests; see the Organic
Administration Act at 16 U.S.C. 480; the
Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act at 16
U.S.C. 528; the Sikes Act at 16 U.S.C.
670h; the Federal Land Policy and
Management Act at 43 U.S.C. 1732; and
the Wilderness Act at 16 U.S.C. 1131–
1136. In acknowledging State
E:\FR\FM\16NOP1.SGM
16NOP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 221 (Thursday, November 16, 2006)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 66713-66715]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-19310]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 117
[CGD08-06-013]
RIN 1625-AA09
Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Illinois Waterway, Illinois
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.
ACTION: Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard has revised its proposal to change the
operation of the Pekin Railroad Drawbridge, Mile 151.2, at Pekin,
Illinois and the Chessie Railroad Drawbridge, Mile 254.1 at Seneca,
Illinois across Illinois Waterway. The present regulation requires
revision to reflect the actual procedures that have always been
followed. The current regulation was intended to be temporary, for test
purposes only, and was inadvertently permanently included. The revision
would eliminate the ``Specific Requirements'' for remote operation and
the bridge would continue to operate, as required by the Coast Guard,
under the ``General Requirements''. In addition the Coast Guard
proposes to change the regulation governing the operation of the
Chessie Railroad Drawbridge across the Illinois Waterway, Mile 254.1,
at Seneca, Illinois. The existing regulation requires the drawspan to
open on signal. This change is necessary to reflect a change in
operating procedure.
DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or
before January 16, 2007.
ADDRESSES: You may mail comments and related material to Commander,
Eighth Coast Guard District, Bridge Branch, 1222 Spruce Street, St.
Louis, MO 63103-2832. Commander (dwb) maintains the public docket for
this rulemaking. Comments and material received from the public, as
well as documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the
docket, will become part of this docket and will be available for
inspection or copying at room 2.107f in the Robert A. Young Federal
Building, Eighth Coast Guard District, between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Roger K. Wiebusch, Bridge
Administrator, (314) 269-2378.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Request for Comments
We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting
comments and related material. If you do so, please include your name
and address, identify the docket number for this rulemaking [CGD08-06-
013], indicate the specific section of this document to which each
comment applies, and give the reason for each comment. Please submit
all comments and related material in an unbound format, no larger than
81/2 by 11 inches, suitable for copying. If you would like to know they
reached us, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or
envelope. We will consider all comments and material received during
the comment period. We may change this proposed rule in view of them.
Public Meeting
We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a
request for a meeting by writing to the Eighth Coast Guard District,
Bridge Branch, at the address under ADDRESSES explaining why one would
be beneficial. If we determine that a meeting would aid this
rulemaking, we will hold one at a time and place announced by a later
notice in the Federal Register.
Regulatory History
On June 26, 2006, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM) titled Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Illinois Waterway, IL in
the Federal Register (71 FR 36295). We received no comments on the
proposed rule. No public hearing was requested, and none was held.
Background and Purpose
A test period to remotely operate the Pekin Railroad Drawbridge,
Mile 151.2, across the Illinois Waterway was proposed by the bridge
owner and determined that remote operation was not feasible. The bridge
owner withdrew the proposal and the Coast Guard required the continued
on-site operation of the bridge. The bridge is not remotely operated.
The bridge owner has always maintained an on-site bridge operator for
the bridge. However, the temporary regulation allowing the test period
was inadvertently published in 33 CFR 117, Subpart B.
This proposed rulemaking will correct the drawbridge operating
regulations to reflect Coast Guard approved operating conditions
presently adhered to by the bridge owner and waterway users.
33 CFR requires the Chessie Railroad Drawbridge, mile 254.1,
Illinois Waterway at Seneca, Illinois to open on signal for the passage
of vessels. Due to reduced train use, the bridge owner removed the
bridgetender, maintains the draw span in the fully open position and
allows train operators to close the bridge. This action was taken
without proper Coast Guard notification or approval. The proposed rule
would improve the navigation safety of bridge operations by
establishing a method of operation and communication between vessels
and bridge closure personnel.
Discussion of Proposed Rule
The rule proposed by this SNPRM includes two separate changes to
existing regulation Sec. 117.393. The first change would delete Sec.
117.393(b), which requires remote operation of the Pekin Railroad
Drawbridge. If the remote operation requirement is deleted, it will
have no impact on river or rail traffic because the bridge will
continue to be operated on-site and open on demand for passage of river
traffic. Removing the regulation for remote operation will allow the
bridge owner to not install additional equipment and to not operate the
bridge from a remote location to meet the regulation.
The second change to Sec. 117.393 would add a new paragraph (b) to
Sec. 117.393. The Chessie Railroad Drawbridge is currently maintained
in the fully open position and train operators close the draw span to
allow trains to pass. This proposed rule would improve the navigation
safety of bridge operations by establishing a method of operation and
communication between vessels and bridge closure personnel. This
proposed rule will accurately depict how the bridge is operated.
Regulatory Evaluation
This proposed rule is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866,
[[Page 66714]]
Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not require an assessment of
potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The
Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order.
It is not ``significant'' under the regulatory policies and procedures
of the Department of Homeland Security.
The Coast Guard expects that these changes will have no economic
impact on commercial traffic operating on the Illinois Waterway.
The proposed regulation changes will not affect the present safe
operation of the bridges.
Small Entities
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered whether this proposed rule would have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000.
The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule
would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.
If you think that your business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have
a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what
degree this rule would economically affect it.
Assistance for Small Entities
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L 104-121), we want to assist small entities
in understanding this proposed rule so that they could better evaluate
its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the rule
would affect your small business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or
options for compliance, please contact Mr. Roger K. Wiebusch, Bridge
Administrator, Eighth Coast Guard District, Bridge Branch, at (314)
269-2378.
Collection of Information
This proposed rule would call for no new collection of information
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
Federalism
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local
governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial
direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this proposed rule
under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications
for federalism.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any
one year. Though this proposed rule will not result in such an
expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this
preamble.
Taking of Private Property
This proposed rule would not affect a taking of private property or
otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630,
Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected
Property Rights.
Civil Justice Reform
This proposed rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and
3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize
litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.
Protection of Children
We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13045,
Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and would not
create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may
disproportionately affect children.
Indian Tribal Governments
This proposed rule does not have tribal implications under
Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
Energy Effects
We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13211,
Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a ``significant
energy action'' under that order because it is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy
action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects
under Executive Order 13211.
Technical Standards
The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15
U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards
in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress,
through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why
using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or
operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management
systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies.
This proposed rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we
did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.
Environment
We have analyzed this rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.1D,
which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and
have concluded that there are no factors in this case that would limit
the use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the
Instruction. Therefore this rule is categorically excluded under figure
2-1, paragraph 32(e) of the Instruction from further environmental
documentation. Paragraph 32(e) excludes the promulgation of operating
regulations or procedures for drawbridges from the environmental
documentation requirements of NEPA. Since this proposed regulation
would alter the normal operating conditions of the drawbridge, it falls
within this exclusion. A ``Categorical Exclusion Determination'' is
available in the
[[Page 66715]]
docket for inspection or copying where indicated under ADDRESSES.
List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117
Bridges.
Regulations
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes
to amend 33 CFR part 117 as follows:
PART 117--DRAWBRIDGE OPERATION REGULATIONS
1. The authority citation for part 117 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 499; 33 CFR 1.05-1(g); Department of
Homeland Security Delegation No. 017.1; section 117.255 also issued
under the authority of Pub. L. 102-587, 106 Stat. 5039.
2. Revise Sec. 117.393(b) to read as follows:
Sec. 117.393 Illinois Waterway.
* * * * *
(b) The draw of the Chessie Railroad Bridge, mile 254.1, at Seneca,
Illinois, operates as follows:
(1) The draw is normally maintained in the fully open position,
displaying green mid-channel lights to indicate the span is fully open.
(2) When a train approaches the bridge and the draw is in the open
position, the train will stop, train operator shall walk out on the
bridge and scan the river for approaching vessels.
(3) If a vessel is approaching the bridge, the draw will remain
open. The vessel shall contact the train operator on VHF-FM channel 16
and the train operator shall keep the draw in the fully open position
until the vessel has cleared the bridge.
(4) If no vessels are observed, the train operator initiates a five
minute warning period on VHF-FM radio channel 16 before closing the
bridge. The train operator will broadcast the following message: ``The
Chessie Railroad Bridge at Mile 254.1, Illinois River, will close to
navigation in five minutes.'' The announcement is repeated every minute
counting down the time remaining until closure.
(5) At the end of the five minute warning period, and if no vessels
are approaching the bridge, the train operator shall sound the siren
for 10 seconds, activate the alternate flashing red lights on top of
the draw, then lower and lock the draw in place. Red lights shall
continue to flash to indicate the draw is closed to navigation.
(6) After the train has cleared the bridge, the draw shall be
raised to its full height and locked in place, the red flashing lights
stopped, and the draw lights changed from red to green.
* * * * *
Dated: October 19, 2006.
Ronald W. Branch,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, 8th Coast Guard Dist. Acting.
[FR Doc. E6-19310 Filed 11-15-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P
