[Federal Register: June 26, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 122)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 36295-36297]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr26jn06-27]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 117
[CGD08-06-013]
RIN 1625-AA09
Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Illinois Waterway, IL
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes that the procedures found in Sec.
117.393 for operation of the Pekin Railroad Drawbridge, Mile 151.2,
across the Illinois Waterway at Pekin, Illinois, be revised to reflect
the actual procedures that have always been followed. The present
regulation in Sec. 117.393 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''.
DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or
before August 25, 2006.
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
[[Page 36296]]
format, no larger than 8\1/2\ 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.
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 Part 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.
Discussion of Proposed Rule
The proposal is to delete the regulation Sec. 117.393(b) that
requires remote operation of the bridge. 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.
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. It is not ``significant'' under the
regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Homeland
Security.
The Coast Guard expects that this change will have no economic
impact on commercial traffic operating on the Illinois Waterway.
The proposed regulation change will not affect the present safe
operation of the bridge.
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
[[Page 36297]]
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 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; Department of Homeland Security
Delegation No. 017.1; 33 CFR 1.05-1(g); section 117.255 also issued
under the authority of Pub. L. 102-587, 106 Stat. 5039.
Sec. 117.393 [Amended]
2. In Sec. 117.393, remove paragraph (b) and redesignate
paragraphs (c) through (d) as paragraphs (b) through (c) respectively.
Dated: June 12, 2006.
R.F. Duncan,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard Commander, Eighth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. E6-10043 Filed 6-23-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P