Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Wicomico River (North Prong), Salisbury MD, 16752-16754 [E7-6303]

Download as PDF 16752 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 65 / Thursday, April 5, 2007 / Proposed Rules flight cycles; or 100 flight cycles following certain ECAM cautions and CFDS messages, as specified in paragraph (i)(1) of this AD. (k) For airplanes not specified in paragraph (g) of this AD that are equipped with EMM BSCU standard L4.8 or a non-EMM BSCU: Repeat the inspection specified in paragraph (i) of this AD thereafter at intervals not to exceed the earliest of 20 months; 6,000 flight hours; 4,500 flight cycles; or 100 flight cycles following certain ECAM cautions and CFDS messages, as specified in paragraph (i)(1) of this AD. Note 2: For the purposes of this AD, a special detailed inspection is: ‘‘An intensive examination of a specific item, installation, or assembly to detect damage, failure, or irregularity. The examination is likely to make extensive use of specialized inspection techniques and/or equipment. Intricate cleaning and substantial access or disassembly procedure may be required.’’ Optional Terminating Action (l) For airplanes that are not specified in paragraph (g) of this AD: Installation of an NLG with new upper support anti-rotation lugs and new cylinder lugs, or installation of an NLG that was never driven by EMM BSCU standard L4.1 and L4.5; combined with installation of an EMM BSCU standard L4.8 or a non-EMM BSCU; constitutes terminating action for the requirements of this AD. Do the installations in accordance with a method approved by either the Manager, International Branch, ANM–116; or the EASA (or its delegated agent). Chapter 32 of the Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 Aircraft Maintenance Manual (AMM) is one approved method for doing the installations. No Report Required (m) Although Airbus Service Bulletin A320–32–1310, dated February 8, 2006, specifies sending certain inspection results to Airbus, this AD does not include that requirement. ycherry on PROD1PC64 with PROPOSALS Credit Paragraph (n) Inspections done before the effective date of this AD in accordance with Chapter 12, Subject 12–14–32 of the Airbus A318/ A319/A320/A321 AMM, as revised by Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 AMM Temporary Revision 12–001, dated November 13, 2005, are acceptable for compliance with the requirements of paragraph (i) of this AD. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (o)(1) The Manager, International Branch, ANM–116, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in accordance with the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. (2) Before using any AMOC approved in accordance with § 39.19 on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify the appropriate principal inspector in the FAA Flight Standards Certificate Holding District Office. Related Information (p) EASA airworthiness directive 2006– 0174, dated June 21, 2006, also addresses the subject of this AD. VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:32 Apr 04, 2007 Jkt 211001 Issued in Renton, Washington, on March 26, 2007. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E7–6343 Filed 4–4–07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910–13–P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 117 [CGD05–07–025] RIN 1625–AA09 Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Wicomico River (North Prong), Salisbury MD Coast Guard, DHS. Notice of proposed rulemaking. AGENCY: ACTION: SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to change the drawbridge operation regulations of two Maryland Department of Transportation (MDOT) bridges: The Main Street and U.S. 50 Bridges, at mile 22.4, across Wicomico River (North Prong) in Salisbury, MD. This proposal would allow the bridges to open on signal if four hours advance notice is given and eliminate the continual attendance of draw tender services while still providing the reasonable needs of navigation. DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or before May 21, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may mail comments and related material to Commander (dpb), Fifth Coast Guard District, Federal Building, 1st Floor, 431 Crawford Street, Portsmouth, VA 23704–5004. The Fifth Coast Guard District 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 Commander (dpb), Fifth Coast Guard District between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Waverly W. Gregory, Jr., Bridge Administrator, Fifth Coast Guard District, at (757) 398–6222. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Request for Comments We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 comments and related material. If you do so, please include your name and address, identify the docket number for this rulemaking CGD05–07–025, 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 a return receipt, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all submittals 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 Commander (dpb), Fifth Coast Guard District 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 State Highway Administration (SHA), a division under MDOT, is responsible for the operation of both the Main Street and US 50 Bridges, at mile 22.4, across Wicomico River in Salisbury. SHA requested advance notification for vessel openings and a reduction in draw tender services due to the infrequency of requests for vessel openings of the drawbridges. The Main Street and US 50 Bridges have vertical clearances of four feet, above mean high water, in the closedto-navigation position. The existing operating regulations for these drawbridges are set out in 33 CFR § 117.579, which requires the draws to open on signal, except from 7 a.m. to 9 a.m., from 12 noon to 1 p.m. and from 4 p.m. to 6 p.m., the draw need not be opened for the passage of vessels, except for tugs with tows, if at least three hours of advance notice is given, and the reason for passage through the bridges during a closure period is due to delay caused by inclement weather or other emergency or unforeseen circumstances. Bridge opening data supplied by SHA revealed a significant decrease in yearly openings. In the past three years from 2004 to 2006, the bridges opened for vessels 522, 282 and 157 times, respectively. Due to the infrequency of requests for vessel openings of the drawbridges, SHA requested to change the current operating regulations by requiring the draw spans to open on signal if at least four hours notice is E:\FR\FM\05APP1.SGM 05APP1 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 65 / Thursday, April 5, 2007 / Proposed Rules given year-round by calling the contact telephone number at (410) 430–7561. Discussion of Proposed Rule The Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR 117.579, which governs the Main Street and US 50 Bridges, by revising the paragraph to read that the draws shall open on signal if at least four hours notice is given by calling the telephone contact number at (410) 430– 7461. Under this revision, there will no longer be closure periods. All vessels will be required to provide at least four hours notice. ycherry on PROD1PC64 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. It is not ‘‘significant’’ under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). We expect the economic impact of this proposed rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation under the regulatory policies and procedures of DHS is unnecessary. We reached this conclusion based on the fact that the proposed changes have only a minimal impact on maritime traffic transiting the bridge. Mariners will no longer have to wait for closure periods to end, which will allow them to plan their trips without requiring a stop, so long as the four hour notice is provided. 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 proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because the rule relieves restrictions to the movement of navigation, as mariners will no longer have to wait for closure periods to end, which will allow them VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:32 Apr 04, 2007 Jkt 211001 to plan their trips without requiring a stop, so long as the four hour notice is provided. 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 Waverly W. Gregory, Jr., Bridge Administrator, Fifth Coast Guard District, and (757) 398– 6222. 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 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 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 16753 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 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 E:\FR\FM\05APP1.SGM 05APP1 16754 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 65 / Thursday, April 5, 2007 / Proposed Rules 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.lD, and Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 5100.1, which guides 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. Under figure 2–1, paragraph (32)(e), of the Instruction, an ‘‘Environmental Analysis Check List’’ and a ‘‘Categorical Exclusion Determination’’ are not required for this rule. 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. Revise § 117.579 to read as follows: § 117.579 Wicomico River (North Prong). ycherry on PROD1PC64 with PROPOSALS The draws of the Main Street and U.S. 50 bridges, mile 22.4, Salisbury, Maryland shall open on signal if at least four hours notice is given by calling the telephone contact number at (410) 430– 7461. Dated: March 29, 2007. L. L. Hereth, Rear Admiral, U. S. Coast Guard Commander, Fifth Coast Guard District. [FR Doc. E7–6303 Filed 4–4–07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910–15–P VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:04 Apr 04, 2007 Jkt 211001 DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [CGD08–07–007] RIN 1625–AA11 Regulated Navigation Area; Mississippi River, Eighty-One Mile Point Coast Guard, DHS. Notice of proposed rulemaking. AGENCY: ACTION: SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to revise the existing regulated navigation area (RNA) for the Lower Mississippi River (LMR) mile marker (MM) 233.9 through South and South West Passes by establishing mandatory check-in procedures for vessels transiting on the waters of the Mississippi River between (MM) 167.5 LMR and 187.9 LMR. This proposed rule is needed to minimize the risk of collisions, allisions, and groundings occurring as a result of vessels meeting unanticipated traffic in the vicinity of 81 Mile Point, MM 178 LMR. This proposed rule would require vessels, subject to the Bridge to Bridge Radiotelephone Act (33 United States Code 26) to notify Vessel Traffic Center Lower Mississippi River, New Orleans (VTC New Orleans) prior to entering or getting underway in this section of the RNA. DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or before June 4, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may mail comments and related material to Marine Safety Unit Baton Rouge, 6041 Crestmount Drive, Baton Rouge, LA 70809. Marine Safety Unit Baton Rouge 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 Marine Safety Unit Baton Rouge between 7:30 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lieutenant Todd Peterson, Marine Safety Unit Baton Rouge, at (225) 298– 5400. 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 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 this rulemaking [CGD08–07–007], 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 that your submission reached us, please enclose a stamped, selfaddressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. We may change this 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 Marine Safety Unit Baton Rouge 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 separate notice in the Federal Register. Background and Purpose From 1999 to 2006 there have been 64 reported collisions, allisions, or groundings on the Lower Mississippi River between MM 167.5 and 187.9. There have been 21 allisions, 2 barge breakaways, 13 collisions and 28 groundings. Of these 64 casualties, 3 were categorized by 46 CFR 4 as serious marine incidents and 5 as major marine casualties. These casualties have involved all sectors of the maritime industry including deep draft shipping, towing vessels, and barge fleets and have occurred at high, normal and low water conditions. A waterways user group subcommittee of the Lower Mississippi River Waterway Safety Advisory Committee (LMRWSAC) examined marine casualties on the LMR in the vicinity of 81 Mile Point. This subcommittee consisted of members of the pilots association, towing vessel industry, barge fleets and the Coast Guard. This subcommittee reviewed the location and marine investigation associated with each casualty and subjectively examined river conditions within this RNA. This committee determined that existing waterways management tools may not be sufficient to safely navigate in the vicinity of 81 Mile Point. Providing position reports to VTC New Orleans would allow the Coast Guard to track vessels in this proposed RNA and provide advice to mariners about upcoming traffic in an effort to eliminate meeting and overtaking scenarios at Eighty-One Mile Point. E:\FR\FM\05APP1.SGM 05APP1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 65 (Thursday, April 5, 2007)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 16752-16754]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-6303]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[CGD05-07-025]
RIN 1625-AA09


Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Wicomico River (North Prong), 
Salisbury MD

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to change the drawbridge operation 
regulations of two Maryland Department of Transportation (MDOT) 
bridges: The Main Street and U.S. 50 Bridges, at mile 22.4, across 
Wicomico River (North Prong) in Salisbury, MD. This proposal would 
allow the bridges to open on signal if four hours advance notice is 
given and eliminate the continual attendance of draw tender services 
while still providing the reasonable needs of navigation.

DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or 
before May 21, 2007.

ADDRESSES: You may mail comments and related material to Commander 
(dpb), Fifth Coast Guard District, Federal Building, 1st Floor, 431 
Crawford Street, Portsmouth, VA 23704-5004. The Fifth Coast Guard 
District 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 
Commander (dpb), Fifth Coast Guard District between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., 
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Waverly W. Gregory, Jr., Bridge 
Administrator, Fifth Coast Guard District, at (757) 398-6222.

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 CGD05-07-
025, 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 a return 
receipt, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. 
We will consider all submittals 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 Commander (dpb), Fifth Coast Guard 
District 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 State Highway Administration (SHA), a division under MDOT, is 
responsible for the operation of both the Main Street and US 50 
Bridges, at mile 22.4, across Wicomico River in Salisbury. SHA 
requested advance notification for vessel openings and a reduction in 
draw tender services due to the infrequency of requests for vessel 
openings of the drawbridges.
    The Main Street and US 50 Bridges have vertical clearances of four 
feet, above mean high water, in the closed-to-navigation position. The 
existing operating regulations for these drawbridges are set out in 33 
CFR Sec.  117.579, which requires the draws to open on signal, except 
from 7 a.m. to 9 a.m., from 12 noon to 1 p.m. and from 4 p.m. to 6 
p.m., the draw need not be opened for the passage of vessels, except 
for tugs with tows, if at least three hours of advance notice is given, 
and the reason for passage through the bridges during a closure period 
is due to delay caused by inclement weather or other emergency or 
unforeseen circumstances.
    Bridge opening data supplied by SHA revealed a significant decrease 
in yearly openings. In the past three years from 2004 to 2006, the 
bridges opened for vessels 522, 282 and 157 times, respectively. Due to 
the infrequency of requests for vessel openings of the drawbridges, SHA 
requested to change the current operating regulations by requiring the 
draw spans to open on signal if at least four hours notice is

[[Page 16753]]

given year-round by calling the contact telephone number at (410) 430-
7561.

Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR 117.579, which governs the 
Main Street and US 50 Bridges, by revising the paragraph to read that 
the draws shall open on signal if at least four hours notice is given 
by calling the telephone contact number at (410) 430-7461. Under this 
revision, there will no longer be closure periods. All vessels will be 
required to provide at least four hours notice.

Regulatory Evaluation

    This proposed rule is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under 
section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning, and Review, 
and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits 
under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and 
Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. It is not ``significant'' 
under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of 
Homeland Security (DHS).
    We expect the economic impact of this proposed rule to be so 
minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation under the regulatory policies 
and procedures of DHS is unnecessary. We reached this conclusion based 
on the fact that the proposed changes have only a minimal impact on 
maritime traffic transiting the bridge. Mariners will no longer have to 
wait for closure periods to end, which will allow them to plan their 
trips without requiring a stop, so long as the four hour notice is 
provided.

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 proposed 
rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities.
    This proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on 
a substantial number of small entities because the rule relieves 
restrictions to the movement of navigation, as mariners will no longer 
have to wait for closure periods to end, which will allow them to plan 
their trips without requiring a stop, so long as the four hour notice 
is provided.
    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 Waverly W. Gregory, Jr., Bridge 
Administrator, Fifth Coast Guard District, and (757) 398-6222. 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 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 might 
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

[[Page 16754]]

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.lD, and Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 
5100.1, which guides 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. Under figure 2-
1, paragraph (32)(e), of the Instruction, an ``Environmental Analysis 
Check List'' and a ``Categorical Exclusion Determination'' are not 
required for this rule.

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. Revise Sec.  117.579 to read as follows:


Sec.  117.579  Wicomico River (North Prong).

    The draws of the Main Street and U.S. 50 bridges, mile 22.4, 
Salisbury, Maryland shall open on signal if at least four hours notice 
is given by calling the telephone contact number at (410) 430-7461.

    Dated: March 29, 2007.
L. L. Hereth,
Rear Admiral, U. S. Coast Guard Commander, Fifth Coast Guard District.
 [FR Doc. E7-6303 Filed 4-4-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P