56878 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 188 / Thursday, September 29, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, 

DC. Send submissions to: 

CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG–133578–05), room 

5203, Internal Revenue Service, POB 

7604, Ben Franklin Station, and 

Washington, DC 20044. Submissions 

may be hand delivered between the 

hours of 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. to 

CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG–133578–05), 

Courier’s Desk, Internal Revenue 

Service, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., 

Washington, DC. Alternatively, 

taxpayers may submit electronic 

outlines of oral comments directly to the 

IRS Internet site at http://www.irs.gov/ 

regs. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION: Concerning 

the regulations, John T. Ricotta (202) 

622–6060; concerning submissions, 

Robin Jones (202) 622–7109 (not tollfree numbers). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

subject of the public hearing is the 

notice of proposed rulemaking (REG–

133578–05) that was published in the 

Federal Register on August 25, 2005 (70 

FR 49897). 

The rules of 26 CFR 601.601(a)(3) 

apply to the hearing. 

Persons who wish to present oral 

comments at the hearing that submitted 

written or electronic comments, must 

submit an outline of the topics to be 

discussed and the amount of time to be 

devoted to each topic (signed original 

and eight (8) copies). 

A period of 10 minutes is allotted to 

each person for presenting oral 

comments. 

After the deadline for receiving 

outlines has passed, the IRS will 

prepare an agenda containing the 

schedule of speakers. Copies of the 

agenda will be made available, free of 

charge, at the hearing. 

Because of access restrictions, the IRS 

will not admit visitors beyond the 

immediate entrance area more than 30 

minutes before the hearing starts. For 

information about having your name 

placed on the building access list to 

attend the hearing, see the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section of this 

document. 

Cynthia E. Grigsby, 

Acting Chief, Publications and Regulations 

Branch, Legal Processing Division, Associate 

Chief Counsel, (Procedure and 

Administration). 

[FR Doc. 05–19390 Filed 9–28–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4830–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 117 

[CGD01–05–074] 

RIN 1625–AA09 

Drawbridge Operation Regulations; 

Saugus River, MA 

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 General Edwards SR1A 

Bridge, at mile 1.7, across the Saugus 

River between Lynn and Revere, 

Massachusetts. This change to the 

drawbridge operation regulations would 

allow the bridge to remain in the closed 

position from November 1, 2005 

through April 30, 2006. This action is 

necessary to facilitate structural 

maintenance at the bridge. 

DATES: Comments must reach the Coast 

Guard on or before October 14, 2005. 

ADDRESSES: You may mail comments to 

Commander (obr), First Coast Guard 

District Bridge Branch, 408 Atlantic 

Avenue, Boston, Massachusetts, 02110, 

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 (617) 223–

8364. 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: Mr. 

John McDonald, Project Officer, First 

Coast Guard District, (617) 223–8364. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Regulatory Information 

The Coast Guard is requesting that 

interested parties provide comments 

within shortened comment period of 15 

days instead of standard 30 days for this 

notice of proposed rulemaking. In 

addition, the Coast Guard plans on 

making this rule effective less than 30 

days after publication in the Federal 

Register. 

The Coast Guard believes a shortened 

comment period is necessary and 

reasonable because the bridge 

rehabilitation construction scheduled to 

begin on November 1, 2005, is 

necessary, vital, work that must be 

performed as soon as possible in order 

to assure continuous safe and reliable 

operation of the SR1A Bridge. 

Any delay in making this final rule 

effective by allowing comments for 

more than 15 days would not be in the 

best interest of public safety and the 

marine interests that use the Saugus 

River because delaying the effective date 

of this rulemaking would also require 

the rehabilitation construction work to 

continue beyond the proposed April 30, 

2005, end date. This would result in the 

bridge closure continuing into May 

when recreational vessel traffic 

increases. 

There were 7 bridge openings in 

November 2004, and no openings 

December through March. The few 

bridge openings that were requested in 

November were for recreational vessels 

that most likely could have passed 

under the draw at low tide without 

requiring a bridge opening. 

As a result of the above information 

the Coast Guard believes that the best 

time period to perform this vital work 

and minimize the impacts on marine 

users is November through April. 

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 (CGD01–05–074), 

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. 

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. 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 188 / Thursday, September 29, 2005 / Proposed Rules 56879 

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 require 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, 

2005 through April 30, 2006, to 

facilitate structural rehabilitation 

construction at the bridge. 

Discussion of Proposed Rule 

This proposed change would suspend 

the existing drawbridge operation 

regulations, listed at 33 CFR 

§ 117.618(b), and add a new temporary 

paragraph (d) to allow the bridge to 

remain in the closed position from 

November 1, 2005 through April 30, 

2006. 

The Coast Guard believes this 

proposed rule is reasonable because 

bridge openings are rarely requested 

during the time period the SR1A Bridge 

will be closed for these repairs and the 

fact that this work is vital, necessary, 

and must be performed in order to 

assure the continued safe and reliable 

operation of the bridge. 

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 policies and procedures of 

DHS is unnecessary. 

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 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 conclusion is based on the fact 

that bridge openings are rarely 

requested during the November through 

April time period. 

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 (Public Law 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 (obr), First Coast Guard 

District, Bridge Branch, 408 Atlantic 

Avenue, Boston, MA. 02110–3350. The 

telephone number is (617) 223–8364. 

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 

56880 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 188 / Thursday, September 29, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

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 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 environment 

documentation because it has been 

determined that the promulgation of 

operating regulations or procedures for 

drawbridges are categorically excluded. 

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; 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. From November 1, 2005 through 

April 30, 2006, § 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, 2005 through April 30, 

2006. 

Dated: September 18, 2005. 

David P. Pekoske, 

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

First Coast Guard District. 

[FR Doc. 05–19583 Filed 9–27–05; 12:13 pm] 

BILLING CODE 4910–15–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 62 

[RO4–OAR–2005–NC–0003–200532(b); 

FRL–7976–6] 

Approval and Promulgation of State 

Plan for Designated Facilities and 

Pollutants; North Carolina 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA proposes to approve the 

Clean Air Act (CAA) section 111(d)/129 

State Plan submitted by the North 

Carolina Department of Environment 

and Natural Resources (North Carolina 

DENR) for the State of North Carolina on 

August 7, 2002, and subsequently 

revised on December 14, 2004, for 

implementing and enforcing the 

Emissions Guidelines applicable to 

existing Commercial and Industrial 

Solid Waste Incinerators. The State Plan 

was submitted by North Carolina DENR 

to satisfy CAA requirements. In the final 

rules section of this Federal Register, 

EPA is approving the North Carolina 

State Plan as a direct final rule without 

prior proposal because the Agency 

views this as a noncontroversial plan 

and anticipates no adverse comments. A 

detailed rationale for the approval is set 

forth in the direct final rule. If no 

adverse comments are received in 

response to the direct final rule, no 

further activity is contemplated in 

relation to this proposed rule. If EPA 

receives adverse comments, the direct 

final rule will be withdrawn and all 

public comments received will be 

addressed in a subsequent final rule 

based on this proposed rule. The EPA 

will not institute a second comment 

period on this rule. Any parties 

interested in commenting on this rule 

should do so at this time. 

DATES: Comments must be received in 

writing by October 31, 2005. 

ADDRESSES: All comments should be 

addressed to: Joydeb Majumder, EPA 

Region 4, Air Toxics and Monitoring 

Branch, Sam Nunn Atlanta Federal 

Center, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, 

Georgia 30303–8960. Please follow the 

detailed instructions described in the 

direct final rule, ADDRESSES section 

which is published in the Rules section 

of this Federal Register. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Joydeb Majumder at (404) 562–9121. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For 

additional information see the direct 

final rule which is published in the 

Final Rules section of this Federal 

Register. 

Dated: September 19, 2005. 

A. Stanley Meiburg, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

[FR Doc. 05–19351 Filed 9–28–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Revised 12-Month Finding 

for the Southern Rocky Mountain 

Distinct Population Segment of the 

Boreal Toad (Bufo boreas boreas) 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of revised 12-month 

finding for the Southern Rocky 

Mountain Distinct Population Segment 

of the Boreal Toad. 

SUMMARY: We, the Fish and Wildlife 

Service (Service), announce our revised 

12-month finding for a petition to list 

the Southern Rocky Mountain 

population (SRMP) of the boreal toad 

(Bufo boreas boreas) as endangered 

under the Endangered Species Act 

(ESA). After a review of the best 

available scientific and commercial 

information, we find that listing is not 

warranted at this time because the 

SRMP of the boreal toad does not 

constitute a species, subspecies, or 

distinct population segment (DPS) 

under the ESA. Therefore, we withdraw 

the SRMP from the candidate list. The 

Service will continue to seek new 

information on the taxonomy, biology, 

and ecology of these toads, as well as 

potential threats to their continued 

existence. 

DATES: This finding was made on 

September 20, 2005. Although no 

further action will result from this 

finding, we request that you submit new