Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 12 / Thursday, January 19, 1995 / Proposed Rules 3791

size when determining sample

adequacy; (10) sampling techniques for

measuring woody plant density; (11) the

use of representative strips to measure

soil productivity on prime farmlands;

(12) inter-seeding as a normal

husbandry practice; (13) random

sampling of clipped forage samples; and

(14) t-test statistical calculations.

OSM notified North Dakota of the

concerns by letter dated September 9,

1994 (administrative record No. ND–U–

10). North Dakota responded in a letter

dated December 21, 1994, by submitting

a revised amendment and additional

explanatory information (administrative

record No. ND–U–14) that addressed the

concerns identified by OSM.

Specifically, North Dakota (1)

Proposes a requirement for vegetative

ground cover sufficient to control

erosion for recreation, residential, or

industrial and commercial postmining

land uses; (2) provides Natural

Resources Conservation Service

(formerly the Soil Conservation Service)

concurrence with the sampling

techniques used to demonstrate

revegetation success on reclaimed prime

farmlands; (3) proposes to indicate that

the use of any alternative sampling

techniques must be approved by OSM

as well as by North Dakota; (4) provides

additional explanatory information

concerning the demonstration of

productivity on tame pastureland; (5)

provides additional explanatory

information concerning consultation

and approval from the State Game and

Fish Department and State Forester for

woodland and shelterbelt stocking and

planting arrangements; (6) proposes to

delete the revegetation success

standards for non-replacement

shelterbelts; (7) proposes to clarify the

requirements for a premining land use

assessment when an area is primarily

used by wildlife; (8) proposes to require

(a) that the fourth-stage bond release

standard for annual grain crops must be

met for the last two consecutive years of

the liability period and (b) the approved

standard for wetlands must be met at

the time of final bond release; (9)

provides additional explanatory

information concerning the

establishment of a maximum sample

size; (10) proposes to require that woody

plant density must be determined using

methods that are statistically valid with

a 90 percent confidence level; (11)

provides additional explanatory

information concerning the use of

representative strips to measure soil

productivity on prime farmlands; (12)

provides additional explanatory

information concerning the use of interseeding as a normal husbandry practice;

(13) proposes to disallow the use of

random samples to determine moisture

content of all samples; (14) proposes an

additional statistical formula for use in

t-tests; and (15) proposes correction of

typographical errors.

III. Public Comment Procedures

OSM is reopening the comment

period on the proposed North Dakota

program amendment to provide the

public an opportunity to reconsider the

adequacy of the proposed amendment

in light of the additional materials

submitted. In accordance with the

provisions of 30 CFR 732.17(h), OSM is

seeking comments on whether the

proposed amendment satisfies the

applicable program approval criteria of

30 CFR 732.15. If the amendment is

deemed adequate, it will become part of

the North Dakota program.

Written comments should be specific,

pertain only to the issues proposed in

this rulemaking, and include

explanations in support of the

commenter’s recommendations.

Comments received after the time

indicated under DATES or at locations

other than the Casper Field Office will

not necessarily be considered in the

final rulemaking or included in the

administrative record.

IV. Procedural Determinations

I. Executive Order 12866

This rule is exempted from review by

the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) under Executive Order 12866

(Regulatory Planning and Review).

2. Executive Order 12778

The Department of the Interior has

conducted the reviews required by

section 2 of Executive Order 12778

(Civil Justice Reform) and has

determined that this rule meets the

applicable standards of subsections (a)

and (b) of that section. However, these

standards are not applicable to the

actual language of State regulatory

programs and program amendments

since each such program is drafted and

promulgated by a specific State, not by

OSM. Under sections 503 and 505 of

SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1253 and 12550) and

the Federal regulations at 30 CFR

730.11, 732.15, and 732.17(h)(10),

decisions on proposed State regulatory

programs and program amendments

submitted by the States must be based

solely on a determination of whether the

submittal is consistent with SMCRA and

its implementing Federal regulations

and whether other requirements of 30

CFR Parts 730, 731, and 732 have been

met.

3. National Environmental Policy Act

No environmental impact statement is

required for this rule since section

702(d) of SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1292(d))

provides that agency decisions on

proposed State regulatory program

provisions do not constitute major

Federal actions within the meaning of

section 102(2)(C) of the National

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42

U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)).

4. Paperwork Reduction Act

This rule does not contain

information collection requirements that

require approval by OMB under the

Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.

3507 et seq.).

5. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Department of the Interior has

determined that this rule will not have

a significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5

U.S.C. 601 et seq.). The State submittal

that is the subject of this rule is based

upon counterpart Federal regulations for

which an economic analysis was

prepared and certification made that

such regulations would not have a

significant economic effect upon a

substantial number of small entities.

Accordingly, this rule will ensure that

existing requirements previously

promulgated by OSM will be

implemented by the State. In making the

determination as to whether this rule

would have a significant economic

impact, the Department relied upon the

data and assumptions for the

counterpart Federal regulations.

V. List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 934

Intergovernmental relations, Surface

mining, Underground mining.

Dated: January 10, 1995.

Charles E. Sandberg,

Acting Assistant Director, Western Support

Center.

[FR Doc. 95–1221 Filed 1–18–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–05–M

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[CGD01–94–150]

RIN 2115–AE47

Drawbridge Operation Regulations;

Saugus River, MA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
3792 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 12 / Thursday, January 19, 1995 / Proposed Rules

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is proposing

a change to the regulations governing

the Fox Hill SR107 Bridge at mile 2.5

over the Saugus River, between Saugus

and Lynn, Massachusetts. This

proposed change will permit the bridge

owner, the Massachusetts Highway

Department (MHD), to reduce the

number of hours in a day that the bridge

will be manned by drawtenders and

opened on signal. The proposed change

also provides that at all other times

drawtenders would be on call for one

hour advance notice openings. This

action is being considered in light of the

historically few requests for bridge

openings during the time periods that

are proposed for one hour advance

notice service.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before March 20, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be

mailed to Commander (obr), First Coast

Guard District, Captain John Foster

Williams Federal Building, 408 Atlantic

Ave., Boston, Massachusetts 02110–

3350. Comments may also be handdelivered to room 628 at the same

address between 6:30 a.m. and 3 p.m.,

Monday through Friday, except federal

holidays. The telephone number is (617)

223–8364. Comments will become part

of this docket and will be available for

inspection or copying at the above

address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

John W. McDonald, Project Manager,

Bridge Branch, (617) 223–8364.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Request for Comments

Interested persons are invited to

participate in this rulemaking by

submitting written views, comments,

data, or arguments. Persons submitting

comments should include their names

and addresses, identify this rulemaking

(CGD01–94–150), the specific section of

this proposal to which each comment

applies, and give reasons for each

comment. The Coast Guard requests that

all comments and attachments be

submitted in an 81⁄2′′ x 11′′ unbound

format suitable for copying and

electronic filing. If that is not practical,

a second copy of any bound material is

requested. Persons desiring

acknowledgment that their comments

have been received should enclose a

stamped, self-addressed post card or

envelope.

The Coast Guard will consider all

comments received during the comment

period, and may change this proposal in

light of comments received. The Coast

Guard plans no public hearing. Persons

may request a public hearing by writing

to Commander (obr), First Coast Guard

District at the address listed under

‘‘ADDRESSES.’’ The request should

include reasons why a hearing would be

beneficial. If it determines that the

opportunity for oral presentations will

aid this rulemaking, the Coast Guard

will hold a public hearing at a time and

place announced by a later notice in the

Federal Register.

Drafting Information

The drafters of this notice are Mr.

John W. McDonald, Project Manager,

Bridge Branch and Lieutenant

Commander Samuel R. Watkins, Project

Counsel, District Legal Office.

Background and Purpose

The Fox Hill SR107 Bridge at mile 2.5

between Saugus and Lynn,

Massachusetts, has a vertical clearance

of 6′ above mean high water (MHW) and

16′ above mean low water (MLW). The

existing regulations for the Fox Hill

SR107 Bridge require it to open on

signal at all times.

The MHD has requested authority to

reduce the times when the bridge is

manned by drawtenders and to provide

for one hour advance notice openings

when the bridge is not manned. This

request by the MHD seeks relief from

the unnecessary burden of manning the

bridge during times of infrequent

requests for bridge openings.

Discussion of Proposed Amendments

The proposed regulations for the Fox

Hill SR107 Bridge will require the draw

to open on signal, except that from

October 1 through May 31, 7 p.m. to 5

a.m., and all day on December 25 and

January 1, the draw shall open as soon

as possible, but not more than one hour,

after notice is given to the drawtenders

either at the bridge during the time the

drawtenders are on duty or by calling

the number posted at the bridge.

Regulatory Evaluation

This proposal is not a significant

regulatory action under section 3(f) of

Executive Order 12866, and does not

require an assessment of potential costs

and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that

order. It has been exempted from review

by the Office of Management and

Budget under that order. It is not

significant under the regulatory policies

and procedures of the Department of

Transportation (DOT) (44 FR 11040;

February 26, 1970) The Coast Guard

expects the economic impact to be so

minimal that a full Regulatory

Evaluation, under paragraph 10e of the

regulatory policies and procedures of

DOT, is unnecessary. This conclusion is

based on the fact that the regulation will

not prevent mariners from transiting the

Fox Hill SR107 Bridge. Rather, it will

only require that mariners plan their

transits and provide advance notice.

Small Entities

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

(5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), the Coast Guard

must consider whether this action will

have a significant economic impact on

a substantial number of small entities.

‘‘Small entities’’ include independently

owned and operated small businesses

that are not dominant in their field and

that otherwise qualify as ‘‘small

business concerns’’ under section 3 of

the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 632).

Because of the reasons discussed in the

Regulatory Evaluation above, the Coast

Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b)

that this action, if adopted, will not

have a significant economic impact on

a substantial number of small entities.

Collection of Information

This rule contains no collection of

information requirements under the

Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.

3501 et seq.).

Federalism

The Coast Guard has analyzed this

proposal in accordance with the

principles and criteria contained in

Executive Order 12612, and it has

determined that this proposed

regulation does not have sufficient

federalism implications to warrant

preparation of a Federalism Assessment.

Environment

The Coast Guard considered the

environmental impact of this proposal

and concluded that, under section

2.B.2.e.(32)(e) of Commandant

Instruction M16475.1B, this proposal is

categorically excluded from further

environmental documentation. 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.

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);

section 117.255 also issues under the

authority of Pub. L. 102–587, 106 Stat. 5039.

2. Section 117.618 is amended by

adding paragraph (c) to read as follows:
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 12 / Thursday, January 19, 1995 / Proposed Rules 3793

§ 117.618 Saugus River.

* * * * *

(c) The Fox Hill SR107 Bridge at mile 2.5

shall open on signal, except that from

October 1 through May 31, 7 p.m. to 5 a.m.

daily, and all day on December 25 and

January 1, the draw shall open as soon as

possible, but not more than one hour, after

notice is given to drawtenders either at the

bridge during the time the drawtenders are

on duty or by calling the number posted at

the bridge.

Dated: January 3, 1995.

J.L. Linnon,

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

First Coast Guard District.

[FR Doc. 95–1294 Filed 1–18–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–14–M

33 CFR Part 117

[CGD01–94–149]

RIN 2115–AE47

Drawbridge Operation Regulations;

Danvers Rivers, MA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is proposing

a change to the regulations governing

the operation of the Beverly-Salem

SR1A bridge at mile 0.0 between Salem

and Beverly, Massachusetts, and the

Essex County Kernwood Bridge at mile

1.0 between Peabody and Beverly,

Massachusetts. Both bridges span the

Danvers River. These proposed changes

will allow the bridges’ owner, the

Massachusetts Highway Department

(MHD), to reduce the number of hours

in a day that the bridges will be manned

by drawtenders. The changes will

permit a corresponding increase in the

number of hours in a day that the

bridges will be unmanned and opened

only upon one hour advance notice.

This action is being proposed in light of

the historically few requests for bridge

openings during the time periods that

are proposed for expanded one hour

advance notice service.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before March 20, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be

mailed to Commander (obr), First Coast

Guard District, Captain John Foster

Wiliams Federal Building, 408 Atlantic

Ave., Boston, Massachusetts 02110–

3350. Comments may also be handdelivered to room 628 at the same

address between 6:30 a.m. and 3 p.m.,

Monday through Friday, except federal

holidays. The telephone number is (617)

223–8364. Comments will become part

of this docket and will be available for

inspection or copying at the above

address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John

W. McDonald, Project Manager, Bridge

Branch, (617) 223–8364.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Request for Comments

Interested persons are invited to

participate in this rulemaking by

submitting written views, comments

data, or arguments. Persons submitting

comments should include their names

and addresses, identify this rulemaking

(CGD01–94–149), the specific section of

the proposal to which each comment

applies, and give reasons for each

comment. The Coast Guard requests that

all comments and attachments be

submitted in an 81⁄2 x 11 unbound

format suitable for copying and

electronic filing. If that is not practical,

a second copy of any bound material is

requested. Persons desiring

acknowledgment that their comments

have been received should enclose a

stamped, self-addressed post card or

envelope.

The Coast Guard will consider all

comments received during the comment

period, and may change this proposal in

light of comments received. The Coast

Guard plans no public hearing. Persons

may request a public hearing by writing

to Commander (obr), First Coast Guard

District at the address listed under

ADDRESSES. The request should include

reasons why a hearing would be

beneficial. If it determines that the

opportunity for oral presentations will

aid this rulemaking, the Coast Guard

will hold a public hearing at a time and

place announced by a later notice in the

Federal Register.

Drafting Information

The drafters of this notice are Mr.

John W. McDonald, Project Manager,

Bridge Branch, and Lieutenant

Commander Samuel R. Watkins, Project

Counsel, District Legal Office.

Background and Purpose

The Beverly-Salem SR1A Bridge at

mile 0.0 between Salem and Beverly,

Massachusetts, has a vertical clearance

of 10′ above mean high water (MHW)

and 19′ above mean low water (MLW).

The Essex County Kernwood Bridge at

mile 1.0 between Peabody and Beverly,

Massachusetts, has a vertical clearance

of 8′ above MHW and 17′ above MLW.

The MHD has requested authority to

reduce the times when the bridges are

manned by drawtenders and to increase

the times when the bridges are on a 1

hour advance notice for openings. This

request by the MHD seeks relief from

the unnecessary burden of manning the

bridges during times of infrequent

requests for bridge openings.

Discussion of Proposed Amendments

Under the proposed regulations for

the Beverly-Salem SR1A Bridge, from

October 1 through April 30, the daily

period slated for 1 hour advance notice

openings would be expanded by 4

hours, from 8 p.m. until 5 a.m.

Similarly, under the proposed

regulations for the Essex County

Kernwood Bridge, from October 1

through April 30, the daily period slated

for 1 hour advance notice openings

would be expanded by 5 hours, from 7

p.m. until 5 a.m.

These proposed changes would

relieve the MHD of the burden of

manning the bridges with drawtenders

during times of infrequent requests for

bridge openings. The operating

regulations for the MBTA/AMTRAK

Bridge at mile 0.05 would remain

unchanged.

Regulatory Evaluation

This proposal is not a significant

regulatory action under section 3(f) of

Executive Order 12866, and does not

require an assessment of potential costs

and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that

order. It has been exempted from review

by the Office of Management and

Budget under that order. It is not

significant under the regulatory policies

and procedures of the Department of

Transportation (DOT) (44 FR 11040;

February 26, 1979). The Coast Guard

expects the economic impact to be so

minimal that a full Regulatory

Evaluation, under paragraph 10e of the

regulatory policies and procedures of

DOT, is unnecessary. This conclusion is

based on the fact that the regulation will

not prevent mariners from transiting the

Beverly-Salem and Essex County

Kernwood Bridges. Rather, it will only

require mariners to plan their transits

and provide advance notice.

Small Entities

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

(5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), the Coast Guard

must consider whether this action will

have a significant economic impact on

a substantial number of small entities.

‘‘Small entities’’ include independently

owned and operated small businesses

that are not dominant in their field and

that otherwise qualify as ‘‘small

business concerns’’ under section 3 of

the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 632).

Because of the reasons discussed in the

Regulatory Evaluation above, the Coast

Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b)

that this action, if adopted, will not

have a significant economic impact on

a substantial number of small entities.