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. 

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. 

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 

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 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 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 65 / Thursday, April 5, 2007 / Proposed Rules 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 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with PROPOSALS
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). 

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 

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 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

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 

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. 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with PROPOSALS