Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Arkansas Waterway, Little Rock, AR, 1565-1568 [E8-160]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 6 / Wednesday, January 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 2. Revise § 210.2(d) to read as follows: § 210.2 Definitions. * * * * * (d) Applicable ACH Rules means the ACH Rules with an effective date on or before September 21, 2007, as published in Parts II, III and VI of the ‘‘2007 ACH Rules: A Complete Guide to Rules & Regulations Governing the ACH Network’’ except: (1) ACH Rule 1.1 (limiting the applicability of the ACH Rules to members of an ACH association); (2) ACH Rule 1.2.2 (governing claims for compensation); (3) ACH Rules 1.2.4 and 2.2.1.12; Appendix Eight; and Appendix Eleven (governing the enforcement of the ACH Rules, including self-audit requirements); (4) ACH Rules 2.2.1.10; 2.6; and 4.8 (governing the reclamation of benefit payments); (5) ACH Rule 9.3 and Appendix Two (requiring that a credit entry be originated no more than two banking days before the settlement date of the entry—see definition ‘‘Effective Entry Date’’ in Appendix Two); (6) ACH Rule 2.11.2.3 (requiring that originating depository financial institutions (ODFIs) establish exposure limits for Originators of Internetinitiated debit entries); and (7) ACH Rule 2.13.3 (requiring reporting regarding unauthorized Telephone-initiated entries). * * * * * 3. Revise § 210.3(b) to read as follows: § 210.3 Governing law. rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS-1 * * * * * (b) Incorporation by reference— applicable ACH Rules. (1) This part incorporates by reference the applicable ACH Rules, including rule changes with an effective date on or before September 21, 2007, as published in parts II, III, and VI of the ‘‘2007 ACH Rules: A Complete Guide to Rules & Regulations Governing the ACH Network.’’ The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Copies of the ‘‘2007 ACH Rules’’ are available from NACHA—The Electronic Payments Association, 13450 Sunrise Valley Drive, Suite 100, Herndon, Virginia 20171. Copies also are available for public inspection at the Office of the Federal Register, 800 North Capital Street, NW., Suite 700, Washington, DC 20002; and the Financial Management Service, 401 14th Street, SW., Room 400A, Washington, DC 20227. (2) Any amendment to the applicable ACH Rules that is approved by VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:20 Jan 08, 2008 Jkt 214001 1565 NACHA—The Electronic Payments Association after January 1, 2007 shall not apply to Government entries unless the Service expressly accepts such amendment by publishing notice of acceptance of the amendment to this part in the Federal Register. An amendment to the ACH Rules that is accepted by the Service shall apply to Government entries on the effective date of the rulemaking specified by the Service in the Federal Register notice expressly accepting such amendment. * * * * * 4. Redesignate paragraph § 210.5(b)(3) as § 210.5(b)(5) and add new paragraphs (b)(3) and (b)(4) to read as follows: a one-time service fee in connection with an ARC, POP or BOC entry that is returned due to insufficient funds. An entry originated pursuant to this paragraph shall meet the requirements of ACH Rules 2.1.2 and 3.5 if the agency includes the following statement in the required notice(s) to the Receiver: ‘‘If the electronic fund transfer cannot be completed because there are insufficient funds in your account, we may impose a one-time fee of $[llll] against your account, which we will also collect by electronic fund transfer.’’ § 210.5 Account requirements for Federal payments. Dated: December 27, 2007. Kenneth R. Papaj, Commissioner. [FR Doc. 08–22 Filed 1–8–08; 8:45 am] * * * * * (b) * * * (3) Where an agency is issuing part or all of an employee’s travel reimbursement payment to the official travel card issuing bank, as authorized or required by Office of Management and Budget guidance or the Federal Travel Regulation, the ACH credit entry representing the payment may be deposited to the account of the travel card issuing bank for credit to the employee’s travel card account at the bank. (4) Where a Federal payment is to be disbursed through a debit card, stored value card, prepaid card or similar payment card program established by the Service, the Federal payment may be deposited to an account at a financial institution designated by the Service as a financial or fiscal agent. The account title, access terms and other account provisions may be specified by the Service. 6. In § 210.6, revise paragraphs (g) and (h) to read as follows, and remove paragraph (i): § 210.6 Agencies. * * * * * (g) Point-of-purchase debit entries. An agency may originate a Point-ofPurchase (POP) entry using a check drawn on a consumer or business account and presented at a point-ofpurchase unless the Receiver opts out in accordance with the ACH Rules. The requirements of ACH Rules 2.1.2 and 3.12 shall be met for such an entry if the Receiver presents the check at a location where the agency has posted the notice required by the ACH Rules and has provided the Receiver with a copy of the notice. (h) Returned item service fee. An agency that has authority to collect returned item service fees may do so by originating an ACH debit entry to collect PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 Appendices A, B and C [Removed] 7. Remove Appendices A, B and C from this part. BILLING CODE 4810–35–M DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 117 [USCG–2007–0043] RIN 1625–AA09 Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Arkansas Waterway, Little Rock, AR Coast Guard, DHS. Notice of proposed rulemaking. AGENCY: ACTION: SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes an amendment to the regulation for the operation of the Baring Cross Railroad Drawbridge across the Arkansas Waterway at Mile 119.6 at Little Rock, Arkansas. The revised regulation would accurately depict where the drawbridge operator is located and that the bridge, which is remotely operated, is equipped with a Photoelectric Boat Detection System. Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or before March 10, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket number USCG–2007–0043 to the Docket Management Facility at the U.S. Department of Transportation. To avoid duplication, please use only one of the following methods: (1) Online: http:// www.regulations.gov. (2) Mail: Docket Management Facility (M–30), U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey DATES: E:\FR\FM\09JAP1.SGM 09JAP1 1566 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 6 / Wednesday, January 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590– 0001. (3) Hand delivery: Room W12–140 on the Ground Floor of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone number is 202–366–9329. (4) Fax: 202–493–2251. If you have questions on this proposed rule, call Mr. Roger K. Wiebusch, Bridge Administrator, (314) 269–2378. If you have questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 202–366–9826. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Public Participation and Request for Comments We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting comments and related materials. All comments received will be posted, without change, to http:// www.regulations.gov and will include any personal information you have provided. We have an agreement with the Department of Transportation (DOT) to use the Docket Management Facility. Please see DOT’s ‘‘Privacy Act’’ paragraph below. rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS-1 Submitting Comments If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking (USCG–2007–0043), indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and give the reason for each comment. We recommend that you include your name and a mailing address, an e-mail address, or a phone number in the body of your document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your submission. You may submit your comments and material by electronic means, mail, fax, or delivery to the Docket Management Facility at the address under ADDRESSES; but please submit your comments and material by only one means. If you submit them by mail or delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 81⁄2 by 11 inches, suitable for copying and electronic filing. If you submit them by mail and would like to know that they reached the Facility, 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. VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:20 Jan 08, 2008 Jkt 214001 Viewing Comments and Documents To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov at any time, click on ‘‘Search for Dockets,’’ and enter the docket number for this rulemaking (USCG–2007–0043) in the Docket ID box, and click enter. You may also visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12–140 on the ground floor of the DOT West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. will be added to 33 CFR 117.123(b)(1) to clarify this issue. Privacy Act Anyone can search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review the Department of Transportation’s Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477), or you may visit http:// DocketsInfo.dot.gov. Regulatory Evaluation This 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 on commercial traffic operating on the Arkansas Waterway to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation is unnecessary. The operating procedures are already in place at the Baring Cross Railroad Drawbridge, Mile 119.6, and the proposed changes to the CFR documents the procedures. Public Meeting We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a request for one to the Docket Management Facility 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 Arkansas Waterway is a part of the McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River Navigation System. The System rises in the vicinity of Catoosa, Oklahoma, and embraces improved natural waterways and a canal to empty into the Mississippi River in southeast Arkansas. The Arkansas Waterway drawbridge operation regulation contained in 33 CFR 117.123(b)(1) states that any vessel requiring an opening of the draw of the Baring Cross Railroad Drawbridge, Mile 119.6, shall contact the remote drawbridge operator in North Little Rock, Arkansas. The Coast Guard has determined that the remote operation is, in fact, conducted from Union Pacific’s Harriman Dispatch Center in Omaha, Nebraska and a regulation change is needed to accurately reflect the location. In addition, as indicated in the Coast Guard bridge permit, the bridge is required to have audio and visual aids to permit remote operation. A sentence stating that the bridge is equipped with a Photoelectric Boat Detection System PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 Discussion of Proposed Rule The proposed changes to 33 CFR 117.123(b)(1) will correct inaccuracies and will more properly reflect how the Baring Cross Railroad Drawbridge, Mile 119.6, on the Arkansas Waterway is operated as follows: (a) Indicate Omaha, Nebraska, as the actual location of the remote drawbridge operator; and (b) Indicate that the bridge is equipped with a Photoelectric Boat Detection System, a requirement of the Coast Guard bridge permit. 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 is neutral to all business entities since it only clarifies how the bridge is operated and the bridge is still required to open on demand for vessels. 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. E:\FR\FM\09JAP1.SGM 09JAP1 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 6 / Wednesday, January 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 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 Mr. Roger K. Wiebusch, Bridge Administrator, Eighth Coast Guard District, Bridge Branch, at (314) 269–2378. 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. rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS-1 Taking of Private Property This proposed rule would not effect 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. VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:20 Jan 08, 2008 Jkt 214001 1567 Protection of Children Environment 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. We have analyzed this proposed 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 made a preliminary determination that this action is not likely to have a significant effect on the human environment. There are no factors in this case that would limit the use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the Instruction. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this proposed rule. 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. PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117 Bridges. Words of Issuance and Proposed Regulatory Text 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; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. 2. Revise § 117.123(b)(1) to read as follows: § 117.123 Arkansas Waterway * * * * * (b) * * * (1) Normal flow procedures. Any vessel which requires an opening of the draw of this bridge shall establish contact by radiotelephone with the remote drawbridge operator on VHF– FM Channel 13 in Omaha, Nebraska. The remote drawbridge operator will advise the vessel whether the requested span can be immediately opened and maintain constant contact with the vessel until the requested span has opened and the vessel passage has been completed. The bridge is equipped with a Photoelectric Boat Detection System to prevent the span from lowering if there is an obstruction under the span. If the drawbridge cannot be opened immediately, the remote drawbridge operator will notify the calling vessel and provide an estimated time for a drawbridge opening. * * * * * E:\FR\FM\09JAP1.SGM 09JAP1 1568 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 6 / Wednesday, January 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules Dated: December 19, 2007. J.R. Whitehead, Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Eighth Coast Guard District. [FR Doc. E8–160 Filed 1–8–08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910–15–P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY an area was attaining the NAAQS. The EPA is proposing to correct this error. The proposed correction involves the replacement of the currently used statistical formula and instructions with a simpler look-up table approach which is easier for readers to understand and which retains the originally intended numerical consistency with EPA’s historical practice. Written comments must be received by February 8, 2008. DATES: 40 CFR Part 50 [EPA–HQ–OAR–2001–0017; FRL–8502–4] Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– OAR–2001–0017, by mail to: Review of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for Particulate Matter (PM), Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460. Please include a total of two copies. Comments may also be submitted electronically or through hand delivery/courier by following the detailed instructions in the ADDRESSES section of the direct final rule located in the ‘‘Rules and Regulations’’ section of this Federal Register. ADDRESSES: RIN 2060–AO59 Interpretation of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for PM2.5— Correcting and Simplifying Amendment Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. AGENCY: SUMMARY: The EPA recently finalized changes to the data handling conventions and computations necessary for determining when the annual and 24-hour national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for fine particles (generally referring to particles less than or equal to 2.5 micrometers (µm) in diameter, PM2.5) are met. These changes were made in support of revisions to the NAAQS for particulate matter (PM) that were finalized in the same rulemaking. Following the publication of this rule, an omission was discovered in the rule text explaining the procedures for calculating the key statistic (98th percentile) involved with determining compliance with the 24-hour PM2.5 standard in locations where extra samples of PM2.5 in ambient air were taken above the intended sampling frequency. If the error in the regulatory text is left unchanged, the resulting statistic for calculating compliance with the 24-hour PM2.5 standard would be biased low at some samplers, leading to potentially incorrect determinations that For general questions, please contact Mr. Lewis Weinstock, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Air Quality Assessment Division, Ambient Air Monitoring Group (C304–06), Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number: (919) 541–3661; fax number: (919) 541–1903; e-mail address: weinstock.lewis@epa.gov. For technical questions, please contact Mr. Mark Schmidt, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Air Quality Assessment Division, Air Quality Analysis Group (C304–04), Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number: (919) 541–2416; fax number: (919) 541–1903; e-mail address: schmidt.mark@epa.gov. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NAICS code 1 Category 924110 State/territorial/local/tribal government ........................................... rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS-1 Federal government ....................................................................... 924110 1 North I. Why Is EPA Issuing This Proposed Rule? This document proposes to take corrective action on 40 CFR part 50, Appendix N, Interpretation of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for PM2.5. We have published a direct final rule identical to this proposal in the ‘‘Rules and Regulations’’ section of this Federal Register. This direct final rule will correct and simplify parts of a recent final rule published on October 17, 2006 that finalized changes to the data handling conventions and computations necessary for determining when the annual and 24-hour national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for fine particles (generally referring to particles less than or equal to 2.5 micrometers (µm) in diameter, PM2.5), are met. We view this as a noncontroversial action and anticipate no adverse comment. We have explained our reasons for this action in the preamble to the direct final rule. If we receive no adverse comment, we will not take further action on this proposed rule. If EPA receives relevant adverse comment on the amendments included in this proposal, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register. We will address these public comments in a subsequent final rule based on this proposal. We will not institute a second comment period on this action. Any persons interested in commenting must do so at this time. The regulatory text for the proposal is identical to that for the direct final rule published in the ‘‘Rules and Regulations’’ section of this Federal Register. For further supplementary information, the detailed rationale for the proposal and the regulatory revisions, see the direct final rule published in a separate part of this Federal Register. II. Does This Action Apply to Me? Categories and entities potentially regulated by this action include: Examples of regulated entities Federal agencies that conduct ambient air monitoring similar to that conducted by States under 40 CFR part 58 and that wish EPA to use their monitoring data in the same manner as State data. State, territorial, and local, air quality management programs that are responsible for ambient air monitoring under 40 CFR part 58. The proposal also may affect Tribes that conduct ambient air monitoring similar to that conducted by States and that wish EPA to use their monitoring data in the same manner as State monitoring data. American Industry Classification System. VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:20 Jan 08, 2008 Jkt 214001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\09JAP1.SGM 09JAP1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 6 (Wednesday, January 9, 2008)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 1565-1568]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-160]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[USCG-2007-0043]
RIN 1625-AA09


Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Arkansas Waterway, Little Rock, 
AR

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes an amendment to the regulation for 
the operation of the Baring Cross Railroad Drawbridge across the 
Arkansas Waterway at Mile 119.6 at Little Rock, Arkansas. The revised 
regulation would accurately depict where the drawbridge operator is 
located and that the bridge, which is remotely operated, is equipped 
with a Photoelectric Boat Detection System.

DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or 
before March 10, 2008.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket 
number USCG-2007-0043 to the Docket Management Facility at the U.S. 
Department of Transportation. To avoid duplication, please use only one 
of the following methods:
    (1) Online: http://www.regulations.gov.
    (2) Mail: Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of 
Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New 
Jersey

[[Page 1566]]

Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
    (3) Hand delivery: Room W12-140 on the Ground Floor of the West 
Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The 
telephone number is 202-366-9329.
    (4) Fax: 202-493-2251.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this proposed 
rule, call Mr. Roger K. Wiebusch, Bridge Administrator, (314) 269-2378. 
If you have questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket, 
call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 
202-366-9826.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting 
comments and related materials. All comments received will be posted, 
without change, to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any 
personal information you have provided. We have an agreement with the 
Department of Transportation (DOT) to use the Docket Management 
Facility. Please see DOT's ``Privacy Act'' paragraph below.

Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this 
rulemaking (USCG-2007-0043), indicate the specific section of this 
document to which each comment applies, and give the reason for each 
comment. We recommend that you include your name and a mailing address, 
an e-mail address, or a phone number in the body of your document so 
that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your submission. 
You may submit your comments and material by electronic means, mail, 
fax, or delivery to the Docket Management Facility at the address under 
ADDRESSES; but please submit your comments and material by only one 
means. If you submit them by mail or delivery, submit them in an 
unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for 
copying and electronic filing. If you submit them by mail and would 
like to know that they reached the Facility, 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.

Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble 
as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov at 
any time, click on ``Search for Dockets,'' and enter the docket number 
for this rulemaking (USCG-2007-0043) in the Docket ID box, and click 
enter. You may also visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-
140 on the ground floor of the DOT West Building, 1200 New Jersey 
Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday 
through Friday, except Federal holidays.

Privacy Act

    Anyone can search the electronic form of all comments received into 
any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment 
(or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, 
business, labor union, etc.). You may review the Department of 
Transportation's Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register 
published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477), or you may visit http://
DocketsInfo.dot.gov.

Public Meeting

    We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a 
request for one to the Docket Management Facility 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 Arkansas Waterway is a part of the McClellan-Kerr Arkansas 
River Navigation System. The System rises in the vicinity of Catoosa, 
Oklahoma, and embraces improved natural waterways and a canal to empty 
into the Mississippi River in southeast Arkansas. The Arkansas Waterway 
drawbridge operation regulation contained in 33 CFR 117.123(b)(1) 
states that any vessel requiring an opening of the draw of the Baring 
Cross Railroad Drawbridge, Mile 119.6, shall contact the remote 
drawbridge operator in North Little Rock, Arkansas. The Coast Guard has 
determined that the remote operation is, in fact, conducted from Union 
Pacific's Harriman Dispatch Center in Omaha, Nebraska and a regulation 
change is needed to accurately reflect the location. In addition, as 
indicated in the Coast Guard bridge permit, the bridge is required to 
have audio and visual aids to permit remote operation. A sentence 
stating that the bridge is equipped with a Photoelectric Boat Detection 
System will be added to 33 CFR 117.123(b)(1) to clarify this issue.

Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The proposed changes to 33 CFR 117.123(b)(1) will correct 
inaccuracies and will more properly reflect how the Baring Cross 
Railroad Drawbridge, Mile 119.6, on the Arkansas Waterway is operated 
as follows: (a) Indicate Omaha, Nebraska, as the actual location of the 
remote drawbridge operator; and (b) Indicate that the bridge is 
equipped with a Photoelectric Boat Detection System, a requirement of 
the Coast Guard bridge permit.

Regulatory Evaluation

    This 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 on commercial 
traffic operating on the Arkansas Waterway to be so minimal that a full 
Regulatory Evaluation is unnecessary. The operating procedures are 
already in place at the Baring Cross Railroad Drawbridge, Mile 119.6, 
and the proposed changes to the CFR documents the procedures.

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 is neutral to all business 
entities since it only clarifies how the bridge is operated and the 
bridge is still required to open on demand for vessels.
    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.

[[Page 1567]]

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 Mr. Roger K. Wiebusch, Bridge 
Administrator, Eighth Coast Guard District, Bridge Branch, at (314) 
269-2378. 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 effect 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 proposed 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 made a preliminary determination that this action is not likely to 
have a significant effect on the human environment. There are no 
factors in this case that would limit the use of a categorical 
exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the Instruction. We seek any comments 
or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant 
environmental impact from this proposed rule.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117

    Bridges.

Words of Issuance and Proposed Regulatory Text

    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; Department of Homeland 
Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

    2. Revise Sec.  117.123(b)(1) to read as follows:


Sec.  117.123  Arkansas Waterway

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (1) Normal flow procedures. Any vessel which requires an opening of 
the draw of this bridge shall establish contact by radiotelephone with 
the remote drawbridge operator on VHF-FM Channel 13 in Omaha, Nebraska. 
The remote drawbridge operator will advise the vessel whether the 
requested span can be immediately opened and maintain constant contact 
with the vessel until the requested span has opened and the vessel 
passage has been completed. The bridge is equipped with a Photoelectric 
Boat Detection System to prevent the span from lowering if there is an 
obstruction under the span. If the drawbridge cannot be opened 
immediately, the remote drawbridge operator will notify the calling 
vessel and provide an estimated time for a drawbridge opening.
* * * * *


[[Page 1568]]


    Dated: December 19, 2007.
J.R. Whitehead,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Eighth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. E8-160 Filed 1-8-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P