62058 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 204 / Monday, October 23, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

the Department generally must prepare 

a written statement, including a cost/ 

benefit analysis, for proposed and final 

rules with ‘‘Federal mandates’’ that may 

result in expenditures to State, local, or 

tribal governments in the aggregate, or 

to the private sector, of $100 million or 

more in any one year. When such a 

statement is needed for a rule, section 

205 of the UMRA generally requires the 

Department to identify and consider a 

reasonable number of regulatory 

alternatives and adopt the least costly, 

more cost-effective or least burdensome 

alternative that achieves the objectives 

of the rule. 

This rule contains no Federal 

mandates (under the regulatory 

provisions of Title II of the UMRA) that 

impose costs on State, local, or tribal 

governments or to the private sector of 

$100 million or more in any one year. 

This rule is, therefore, not subject to the 

requirements of sections 202 and 205 of 

the UMRA. 

Executive Order 12372 

The Child and Adult Care Food 

Program is listed in the Catalog of 

Federal Domestic Assistance under No. 

10.558. For the reasons set forth in the 

final rule in 7 CFR part 3015, Subpart 

V and related Notice published at 48 FR 

29114, June 24, 1983, this program is 

included in the scope of Executive 

Order 12372, which requires 

intergovernmental consultation with 

State and local officials. 

Executive Order 13132 

Executive Order 13132 requires 

Federal agencies to consider the impact 

of their regulatory actions on State and 

local governments. Where such actions 

have federalism implications, agencies 

are directed to provide a statement for 

inclusion in the preamble to the 

regulation describing the agency’s 

considerations in terms of three 

categories called for under section 

(6)(b)(2)(B) of Executive Order 13132. 

FNS has considered the impact of this 

rule on State and local governments and 

has determined that this rule does not 

have federalism implications. This final 

rule does not impose substantial or 

direct compliance costs on State and 

local governments. Therefore, under 

Section 6(b) of the Executive Order, a 

federalism summary impact statement is 

not required. 

Executive Order 12988 

The rule has been reviewed under 

Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice 

Reform. This rule is intended to have 

preemptive effect with respect to any 

State or local laws, regulations, or 

policies which conflict with its 

provisions or which would otherwise 

impede its full implementation. This 

rule is not intended to have retroactive 

effect unless so specified in the Dates 

paragraph of the rule. Prior to any 

judicial challenge to the provisions of 

this rule or the application of its 

provisions, all applicable administrative 

procedures must be exhausted. In the 

Child and Adult Food Care Program, the 

administrative procedures are set forth 

at 7 CFR 226.6(k), which establishes 

appeal procedures and 7 CFR 226.22 

and 7 CFR parts 3016 and 3019, which 

address administrative appeal 

procedures for disputes involving 

procurement by State agencies and 

institutions. 

Civil Rights Impact Analysis 

FNS has reviewed this final rule in 

accordance with the Department 

Regulation 4300–4, ‘‘Civil Rights Impact 

Analysis,’’ to identify and address any 

major civil rights impacts the rule might 

have on minorities, women, and persons 

with disabilities. After a careful review 

of the rule’s intent and provisions, FNS 

has determined that there is no negative 

effect on these groups. All data available 

to FNS indicate that protected 

individuals have the same opportunity 

to participate in the CACFP as nonprotected individuals. Regulations at 7 

CFR 226.6(f)(1) require that CACFP 

institutions agree to operate the Program 

in compliance with applicable Federal 

civil rights laws, including title VI of the 

Civil Rights Act of 1964, title IX of the 

Education amendments of 1972, Section 

504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 

the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, and 

the Department’s regulations concerning 

nondiscrimination (7 CFR Part 15, 15a, 

and 15b). At 7 CFR 226.6(m)(1), State 

agencies are required to monitor CACFP 

institution compliance with these laws 

and regulations. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(44 U.S.C. Chap. 35; see 5 CFR 1320) 

requires that the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) approve all 

collections of information by a Federal 

agency from the public before they can 

be implemented. Respondents are not 

required to respond to any collections of 

information unless it displays a current 

valid OMB control number. The rule 

does not contain any information 

collection requirements subject to 

approval by OMB under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995. 

E-Government Act Compliance 

FNS is committed to complying with 

the E-Government Act, to promote the 

use of the Internet and other 

information technologies to provide 

increased opportunities for citizen 

access to Government information and 

services, and for other purposes. 

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 226 

Accounting, Aged, Day care, Food 

assistance programs, Grant programs, 

Grant programs—health, American 

Indians, Individuals with disabilities, 

Infants and children, Intergovernmental 

relations, Loan programs, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Surplus 

agricultural commodities. 

PART 226—CHILD AND ADULT CARE 

FOOD PROGRAM 

Accordingly, the interim rule 

amending 7 CFR part 226, which was 

published at 70 FR 43259 on July 27, 

2005, is adopted as a final rule without 

change. 

Dated: October 13, 2006. 

Roberto Salazar, 

Administrator, Food and Nutrition Service. 

[FR Doc. E6–17640 Filed 10–20–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–30–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 117 

[CGD01–06–051] 

RIN 1625–AA09 

Drawbridge Operation Regulations; 

Saugus River, Lynn and Revere, MA 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Temporary final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard has 

temporarily changed the drawbridge 

operation regulations that govern the 

operation of the General Edwards SR1A 

Bridge, mile 1.7, across the Saugus 

River, between Lynn and Revere, 

Massachusetts. This temporary final 

rule allows the bridge to remain in the 

closed position from November 1, 2006 

through April 30, 2007. This action is 

necessary to facilitate structural 

maintenance at the bridge. 

DATES: This rule is effective from 

November 1, 2006 through April 30, 

2007. 

ADDRESSES: Comments and material 

received from the public, as well as 

documents indicated in this preamble as 

being available in the docket, are part of 

docket (CGD01–06–051) and are 

available for inspection or copying at 

the First Coast Guard District, Bridge 

Branch Office, 408 Atlantic Avenue, 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 204 / Monday, October 23, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 62059 

Boston, Massachusetts, 02110, between 

7 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, except Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

John McDonald, Project Officer, First 

Coast Guard District, (617) 223–8364. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Regulatory Information 

Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast 

Guard finds that good cause exists for 

making this rule effective less than 30 

days after publication in the Federal 

Register. This shortened notification 

period is reasonable because the bridge 

repairs facilitated by this temporary 

final rule are vital, necessary repairs 

that must be performed in order to 

assure the continued safe and reliable 

operation of the bridge. 

The time period selected to make the 

necessary repairs, November 1, 2006 

through April 30, 2007, is the earliest 

time period that the work can be 

performed without disrupting the 

marine transportation system. 

On July 11, 2006, we published a 

notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) 

entitled ‘‘Drawbridge Operation 

Regulations’’; Saugus River, Lynn and 

Revere, Massachusetts, in the Federal 

Register (71 FR 39028). We received no 

comments in response to the notice of 

proposed rulemaking. No public hearing 

was requested and none was held. 

Background and Purpose 

The General Edwards SR1A Bridge at 

mile 1.7, across the Saugus River, has a 

vertical clearance of 27 feet at mean 

high water and 36 feet at mean low 

water. The existing regulations at 33 

CFR 117.618(b) required the draw to 

open on signal, except that, from April 

1 through November 30, midnight to 8 

a.m. an eight-hour notice is required. 

From December 1 through March 31, an 

eight-hour notice is required at all times 

for bridge openings. 

The bridge owner, the Department of 

Conservation and Recreation (DCR), 

asked the Coast Guard to temporarily 

change the drawbridge operation 

regulations to allow the bridge to remain 

in the closed position from November 1, 

2006, through April 30, 2007, to 

complete structural rehabilitation 

construction at the bridge. The bridge 

was closed during the same time period 

from November 2005 through April 

2006, to perform the first phase of this 

rehabilitation work. Work could not be 

completed during the closure period in 

2005–2006, necessitating a second 

closure period in 2006–2007. 

Discussion of Comments and Changes 

The Coast Guard received no 

comments in response to the notice of 

proposed rulemaking and as a result, no 

changes have been mace to this 

temporary final rule. 

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. 

This conclusion is based on the fact 

that the bridge rarely opens during the 

November through April time period. 

Small Entities 

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(5 U.S.C. 601–612), we considered 

whether this 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 less than 50,000. 

The Coast Guard certifies under 5 

U.S.C. 605(b), that this rule will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

This conclusion is based on the fact 

that the bridge rarely opens during the 

November through April time period. 

Assistance for Small Entities 

Under section 213(a) of the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104–121), 

we offered to assist small entities in 

understanding the rule so that they 

could better evaluate its effects on them 

and participate in the rulemaking 

process. 

No small entities requested Coast 

Guard assistance and none was given. 

Small businesses may send comments 

on the actions of Federal employees 

who enforce, or otherwise determine 

compliance with, Federal regulations to 

the Small Business and Agriculture 

Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman 

and the Regional Small Business 

Regulatory Fairness Boards. The 

Ombudsman evaluates these actions 

annually and rates each agency’s 

responsiveness to small business. If you 

wish to comment on actions by 

employees of the Coast Guard, call 1–

888–REG–FAIR (1–888–734–3247). 

Collection of Information 

This rule calls for now 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 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 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 rule will 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 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 rule under 

Executive Order 13045, Protection of 

Children from Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not 

an economically significant rule and 

does not concern an environmental risk 

to health or risk to safety that may 

disproportionately affect children. 

Indian Tribal Governments 

This final rule does not have tribal 

implications under Executive Order 

13175, Consultation and Coordination 

with Indian Tribal Governments, 

because it does not have 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. 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with RULES
62060 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 204 / Monday, October 23, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

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 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 

and Department of Homeland Security 

Management Directive 5100.1, which 

guide 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 

considering that it relates to the 

promulgation of operating regulations or 

procedures for drawbridges. 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 set out in the 

preamble, the Coast Guard amends 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 November 1, 2006 through 

April 30, 2007, § 117.618(b) is 

suspended and a new paragraph (d) is 

added to read as follows: 

§ 117.618 Saugus River. 

* * * * * 

(d) The draw of the General Edwards 

SR1A Bridge at mile 1.7, need not open 

for the passage of vessel traffic from 

November 1, 2006 through April 30, 

2007. 

Dated: October 13, 2006. 

Timothy S. Sullivan, 

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

First Coast Guard District. 

[FR Doc. 06–8823 Filed 10–20–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–15–M 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with RULES