4852 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 19 / Monday, January 30, 2006 / Proposed Rules 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 117 

[CGD01–06–006] 

RIN 1625–AA09 

Drawbridge Operation Regulations; 

Jamaica Bay and Connecting 

Waterways, NY 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to 

temporarily change the drawbridge 

operating regulations governing the 

operation of the New York City 

Highway Bridge (Belt Parkway), at mile 

0.8, across Mill Basin. This notice of 

proposed rulemaking would allow the 

bridge owner to open only one of the 

two moveable spans for the passage of 

vessel traffic from March 1, 2006 

through September 7, 2006. This 

proposed rule is necessary to facilitate 

bridge deck replacement. 

DATES: Comments must reach the Coast 

Guard on or before March 1, 2006. 

ADDRESSES: You may mail comments to 

Commander (dpb), First Coast Guard 

District Bridge Branch, One South 

Street, Battery Park Building, New York, 

New York 10004, or deliver them to the 

same address between 7 a.m. and 3 

p.m., Monday through Friday, except, 

Federal holidays. The telephone number 

is (212) 668–7165. The First Coast 

Guard District, Bridge Branch, 

maintains the public docket for this 

rulemaking. Comments and material 

received from the public, as well as 

documents indicated in this preamble as 

being available in the docket, will 

become part of this docket and will be 

available for inspection or copying at 

the First Coast Guard District, Bridge 

Branch, 7 a.m. to 3 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, except Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

July Leung-Yee, Project Officer, First 

Coast Guard District, (212) 668–7195. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Request for Comments 

We encourage you to participate in 

this rulemaking by submitting 

comments or related material. If you do 

so, please include your name and 

address, identify the docket number for 

this rulemaking (CGD01–06–006), 

indicate the specific section of this 

document to which each comment 

applies, and give the reason for each 

comment. Please submit all comments 

and related material in an unbound 

format, no larger than 81⁄2 by 11 inches, 

suitable for copying. If you would like 

to know if they reached, us please 

enclose a stamped, self-addressed 

postcard or envelope. We will consider 

all comments and material received 

during the comment period. We may 

change this proposed rule in view of 

them. 

We anticipate making this rule 

effective in less than 30 days after 

publication in the Federal Register to 

allow for the rehabilitation work to 

commence in time for the March 1, 

2006, deck replacement construction 

start date. The deck replacement for the 

New York City Highway (Belt Parkway) 

Bridge is vital, necessary work that must 

be performed without delay as a result 

of deterioration of the existing bridge 

deck which could fail if not replaced 

with all due speed. In order to assure 

the continued safe and reliable 

operation of the bridge construction 

work should begin as scheduled on 

March 1, 2006. However, the Coast 

Guard desires to allow as much time as 

possible for public participation in the 

rulemaking process. Thus, we are 

allowing the comment period to run 

into the 30-day time period normally 

included between publication and the 

effective date. 

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 First 

Coast Guard District, Bridge Branch, at 

the address under ADDRESSES explaining 

why one would be beneficial. If we 

determine that one would aid this 

rulemaking, we will hold one at a time 

and place announced by a later notice 

in the Federal Register. 

Background and Purpose 

The New York City Highway Bridge 

(Belt Parkway) has a vertical clearance 

of 34 feet at mean high water and 39 feet 

at mean low water in the closed 

position. The existing operating 

regulations are listed at 33 CFR 

117.795(b). 

The owner of the bridge, New York 

City Department of Transportation 

(NYCDOT), requested a temporary 

change to the drawbridge operation 

regulations to facilitate the replacement 

of the bridge roadway deck. 

This rulemaking is necessary because 

during the prosecution of this 

rehabilitation construction, the opening 

span that is undergoing deck 

replacement cannot open for vessel 

traffic. As a result, the bridge owner 

requested that only one of the two 

opening spans need open for the 

passage of vessel traffic from March 1, 

2006 through September 7, 2006. 

Discussion of Proposed Rule 

This proposed change would amend 

33 CFR 117.795 by suspending 

paragraph (b), which lists the New York 

City Highway Bridge (Belt Parkway), 

and add a temporary paragraph (d) to 

allow single span bridge openings from 

March 1, 2006 through September 7, 

2006. 

The horizontal clearance at the bridge 

is 135 feet with both spans opened and 

67.5 feet with a single span open. 

The Coast Guard believes this 

proposed rule is reasonable because the 

recreational vessel traffic that normally 

transits this bridge can safely pass 

through the bridge with a single span 

opening of 67.5 feet of horizontal 

clearance. 

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 

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 polices and procedures of 

DHS is unnecessary. 

This conclusion is based on the fact 

that the vessel traffic that normally 

transits this bridge should not be 

precluded from transiting due to single 

span bridge openings. 

Small Entities 

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(5 U.S.C. 601–612), we considered 

whether this proposed rule would have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

The term ‘‘small entities’’ comprises 

small businesses, not-for-profit 

organizations that are independently 

owned and operated and are not 

dominant in their fields, and 

governmental jurisdictions with 

populations of less than 50,000. 

The Coast Guard certifies under 

section 5 U.S.C. 605(b), that this 

proposed rule would not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

This notice of proposed rulemaking 

would not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 19 / Monday, January 30, 2006 / Proposed Rules 4853 

entities for the following reason: Mill 

Basin is navigated predominantly by 

recreational vessels. 

The single span bridge openings 

should not preclude vessel traffic from 

transiting the bridge because the 

recreational vessels that normally use 

this waterway should be able to transit 

through the bridge with the reduced 

horizontal clearance of 67.5 feet due to 

their relative small size. 

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 us in writing 

at, Commander (dpb), First Coast Guard 

District, Bridge Branch, One South 

Street, New York, NY 10004. The 

telephone number is (212) 668–7165. 

The Coast Guard will not retaliate 

against small entities that question or 

complain about this rule or any policy 

or action of the Coast Guard. 

Collection of Information 

This proposed rule would call for no 

new collection of information under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

U.S.C. 3501–3520.). 

Federalism 

A rule has implications for federalism 

under Executive Order 13132, 

Federalism, if it has a substantial direct 

effect on State or local governments and 

would either preempt State law or 

impose a substantial direct cost of 

compliance on them. We have analyzed 

this proposed rule under that Order and 

have determined that it does not have 

implications for federalism. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) requires 

Federal agencies to assess the effects of 

their discretionary regulatory actions. In 

particular, the Act addresses actions 

that may result in the expenditure by a 

State, local, or tribal government, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector of 

$100,000,000 or more in any one year. 

Though this proposed rule would not 

result in such an expenditure, we do 

discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere 

in this preamble. 

Taking of Private Property 

This proposed rule would not effect a 

taking of private property or otherwise 

have taking implications under E.O. 

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 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 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 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 

environment documentation because 

this action relates to the promulgation of 

operating regulations or procedures for 

drawbridges. 

Under figure 2–1, paragraph (32)(e) of 

the instruction, an ‘‘Environmental 

Analysis Checklist’’ is not required for 

this rule. Comments on this section will 

be considered before we make the final 

decision on whether to categorically 

exclude this rule from further 

environmental review. 

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117 

Bridges. 

Regulations 

For the reasons set out 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. 0170.1; section 117.255 also issued under 

the authority of Pub. L. 102–587, 106 Stat. 

5039. 

2. From March 1, 2006 through 

September 7, 2006, § 117.795 is 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS
4854 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 19 / Monday, January 30, 2006 / Proposed Rules 

amended by suspending paragraph (b) 

and adding a temporary paragraph (d) to 

read as follows: 

§ 117.795 Jamaica Bay and Connecting 

Waterways. 

* * * * * 

(d) The New York City Highway 

Bridge (Belt Parkway), mile 0.8, across 

Mill Basin, need only open one 

moveable span for the passage of vessel 

traffic from March 1, 2006 through 

September 7, 2006. The draw need not 

be opened for the passage of vessel 

traffic from 12 p.m. to 9 p.m. on 

Sundays from May 15 through 

September 30, and on Memorial Day, 

Independence Day, and Labor Day. 

However, on these days the draw shall 

open on signal from the time two hours 

before to one hour after the predicted 

high tide(s). For the purpose of this 

section, predicted high tide(s) occur 15 

minutes later than that predicted for 

Sandy Hook, as documented in the tidal 

current data, which is updated, 

generated and published by the National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration/National Ocean Service. 

Dated: January 22, 2006. 

David P. Pekoske, 

Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, 

First Coast Guard District. 

[FR Doc. 06–855 Filed 1–25–06; 4:03 pm] 

BILLING CODE 4910–15–M 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

GENERAL SERVICES 

ADMINISTRATION 

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND 

SPACE ADMINISTRATION 

48 CFR Parts 16 and 39 

[FAR Case 2003–008] 

RIN 9000–AJ74; Docket 2006–0015 

Federal Acquisition Regulation; FAR 

Case 2003–008, Share-In-Savings 

Contracting 

AGENCIES: Department of Defense (DoD), 

General Services Administration (GSA), 

and National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration (NASA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule; withdrawal. 

SUMMARY: The Civilian Agency 

Acquisition Council and the Defense 

Acquisition Regulations Council 

(Councils) have agreed to withdraw the 

proposed rule, FAR case 2003–008, 

Share-in-Savings Contracting, which 

was published in the Federal Register 

on July 2, 2004. The rule proposed 

amending the Federal Acquisition 

Regulation (FAR) as it pertains to types 

of contracts and acquisition of 

information technology to address the 

inclusion of Share-in-Savings (SIS) 

contracting. However, the SIS concept 

was not reauthorized by Congress. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

clarification of content, contact Mr. 

Kenneth Buck at (202) 219–0311. Please 

cite FAR case 2003–008. For 

information pertaining to status or 

publication schedules, contact the FAR 

Secretariat, Room 4035, GS Building, 

Washington, DC 20405, (202) 501–4755. 

Dated: January 24, 2006. 

Gerald Zaffos, 

Director, Contract Policy Division. 

[FR Doc. 06–816 Filed 1–27–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6820–EP–S 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

49 CFR Part 575 

[Docket No. NHTSA–2005–23216] 

RIN 2127–AJ76 

New Car Assessment Program (NCAP); 

Safety Labeling 

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA), 

Department of Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: One of the provisions of the 

recently enacted Safe, Accountable, 

Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity 

Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA–LU) 

requires new passenger vehicles to be 

labeled with safety rating information 

published by the National Highway 

Traffic Safety Administration’s New Car 

Assessment Program. This document 

proposes a regulation to implement that 

new labeling requirement beginning 

September 1, 2007. 

DATES: You should submit your 

comments early enough to ensure that 

Docket Management receives them not 

later than March 31, 2006. 

ADDRESSES: Comments should refer to 

the docket number and be submitted by 

any of the following methods: 

• Federal Rulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Web Site: http://dms.dot.gov. 

Follow the instructions for submitting 

comments on the DOT electronic docket 

site. Please note, if you are submitting 

petitions electronically as a PDF 

(Adobe) file, we ask that the documents 

submitted be scanned using an Optical 

Character Recognition (OCR) process, 

thus allowing the agency to search and 

copy certain portions of your 

submissions. 

• Fax: 1–202–493–2251. 

• Mail: Docket Management Facility; 

U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 

Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, 

Room PL–401, Washington, DC 20590. 

• Hand Delivery: Room PL–401 on 

the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 

400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, 

DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, except Federal 

Holidays. 

Instructions: All submissions must 

include the agency name and docket 

number. For detailed instructions on 

submitting comments and additional 

information on the rulemaking process, 

see the Public Comment heading of the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

this document. Note that all comments 

received will be posted without change 

to http://dms.dot.gov, including any 

personal information provided. 

Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search 

the electronic form of all petitions 

received into any of our dockets by the 

name of the individual submitting the 

petition (or signing the petition, if 

submitted on behalf of an association, 

business, labor union, etc.). You may 

review DOT’s complete Privacy Act 

Statement in the Federal Register 

published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 

65, Number 70; Pages 19477–78) or you 

may visit http://dms.dot.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

technical issues regarding the 

information in this document, please 

contact Mr. Nathaniel Beuse at (202) 

366–1740. For legal issues, please 

contact Ms. Dorothy Nakama (202) 366–

2992. Both of these individuals may be 

reached by mail at the National 

Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 

400 Seventh St. SW., Washington, DC 

20590. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Overview 

Section 10307 of the recently enacted 

Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient 

Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for 

Users (SAFETEA–LU), Pub. L. 109–59 

(August 10, 2005; 119 Stat. 1144), 

requires new passenger vehicles to be 

labeled with the National Highway 

Traffic Safety Administration’s 

(NHTSA) New Car Assessment Program 

(NCAP) ratings. The Act specifies a 

number of detailed requirements for the 

label, including content, format, and 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS