Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 244 / Wednesday, December 20, 1995 / Proposed Rules 65613

Persons in the audience who have not

been scheduled to comment and who

wish to do so will be heard following

those scheduled. The hearing will end

after all persons who desire to comment

have been heard.

Public Meeting

If only one person requests an

opportunity to comment at a hearing, a

public meeting, rather than a public

hearing, may be held. Persons wishing

to meet with OSM representatives to

discuss the proposed amendment may

request a meeting at the Indianapolis

Field Office by contacting the person

listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT. All such meetings will be

open to the public and, if possible,

notices of meetings will be posted in

advance at the locations listed above

under ADDRESSES. A summary of the

meeting will be included in the

Administrative Record.

Executive Order 12866

This proposed rule is exempted from

review by the Office of Management and

Budget under Executive Order 12866.

Executive Order 12778

The Department of the Interior has

conducted the reviews required by

section 2 of Executive Order 12778 and

has determined that, to the extent

allowed by law, 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 1255) and

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 the

other requirements of 30 CFR Parts 730,

731, and 732 have been met.

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, 42 U.S.C.

4332(2)(C).

Paperwork Reduction Act

This rule does not contain

information collection requirements that

require approval by the Office of

Management and Budget under the

Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C.

3507 et seq.

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

which 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.

Hence, 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.

List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 914

Intergovernmental relations, Surface

mining, Underground mining.

Dated: December 12, 1995.

Allen D. Klein,

Regional Director, Appalachian Regional

Coordinating Center.

[FR Doc. 95–30948 Filed 12–19–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–05–M

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[CGD05–95–065]

Drawbridge Operation Regulations;

Nacote Creek, New Jersey

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY: At the request of the New

Jersey Department of Transportation

(NJDOT), the Coast Guard is proposing

to change the regulations governing

operation of the Route 9 Bridge across

Nacote Creek, mile 1.5, in Smithville,

Atlantic County, New Jersey. This

proposal would require the Route 9

Bridge to open on signal except during

the period from 11 p.m. to 7 a.m., when

a two-hour advance notice for openings

would be required. This change should

help relieve the bridge owner of the

burden of having a bridgetender

constantly available at times when there

are few or no quests for openings, while

still proving for the needs of navigation.

DATE: Comments must be received on or

before February 20, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to

Commander, Fifth Coast Guard District,

c/o Commander (obr), First Coast Guard

District, Bldg. 135A, Governors Island,

New York 10004–5073, or may be handdelivered to the same address between

8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through

Friday, except Federal holidays. The

telephone number is (212) 668–7170.

Comments will become part of this

docket and will be available for

inspection and copying at the above

address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gary

Kassof, Bridge Administrator-NY, Fifth

Coast Guard District, (212) 668–6969.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Request for Comments

The Coast Guard encourages

interested persons 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 (CGD05–95–065), the

specific section of this rule to which

each comment applies, and give reasons

for each comment. The Coast Guard

requests that all comments and

attachments be submitted in an

unbound format suitable for copying

and electronic filing. If that is not

practical, a second copy of any bound

material is requested. Persons wanting

acknowledgment of receipt of comments

should enclose a stamped, selfaddressed postcard or envelope.

The Coast Guard will consider all

comments received during the comment

period. It may change this rule in view

of the comments.

The Coast Guard plans no public

hearing. Persons may request a public

hearing by writing to the Commander,

Fifth Coast Guard District, c/o

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 principal persons involved in

drafting this document are Mr. J. Arca,

Fifth Coast Guard District, Bridge
65614 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 244 / Wednesday, December 20, 1995 / Proposed Rules

Branch-NY, Project Officer, and CAPT

R.A. Knee, Fifth Coast Guard District

Legal Office, Project Counsel.

Background and Purpose

The Route 9 Bridge across Nacote

Creek, mile 1.5, at Smithville, Atlantic

County, NJ, has a vertical clearance of

5′ above mean high water (MHW) and 8′

above mean low water (MLW) in the

closed position. The current regulations

require the bridge to open on signal at

all times.

Review of the bridge logs provided by

NJDOT reveals that from 11 p.m. to 7

a.m., there were no requests for bridge

openings in 1992 and 1993, and only 13

requests for openings in 1994 during

these hours. NJDOT is seeking relief

from the requirement that a

bridgetender be present during the

hours of 11 p.m. to 7 a.m. when there

are minimal requests for openings.

The New Jersey Department of

Transportation requested that the Coast

Guard make a permanent change to the

regulations governing operation of the

Route 9 Bridge to require the draw to

open on signal except from 11 p.m. to

7 a.m., which would require a two-hour

advance notice. At all other times, the

bridge would open on signal. The

bridgetenders would be on call to open

the draw when the advance notice is

given. A 24-hour special telephone

number would be posted on the bridge

and maintained by the NJDOT.

Accordingly, a new provision

allowing the draw of the Route 9 bridge,

at mile 1.5, to remain closed during late

night and early morning hours unless

two hours advance notice is given will

be designated as paragraph (a). The

current provision allowing the draw of

the Atlantic County (Rte. 575) bridge, at

mile 3.5, to remain closed unless eight

hours advance notice is given will be

designated as paragraph (b). A general

provision requiring the passage of

Federal, State, and local government

vessels used for public safety through

all drawbridges in published at 33 CFR

117.31, and is no longer required to be

published for each waterway. Therefore,

this proposal would remove a provision

requiring passage of public vessels from

section 117.732.

Regulatory Evaluation

The proposed action 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 of this rule 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 rule will not prevent mariners from

transiting the bridge. It will only require

mariners to plan their transits.

Small Entities

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

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

must consider whether this proposal, if

adopted, 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 it

expects the impact of this proposal to be

minimal, the Coast Guard certifies

under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposal

will not have a significant economic

impact on a substantial number of small

entities.

Collection of Information

This proposal 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

rule under the principles and criteria

contained in Executive Order 12612 and

it has been determined that this

proposal will 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 (as amended, 59

FR 38654, July 29, 1994), this proposal

is categorically excluded from further

environmental documentation. A

Categorical Exclusion Determination

statement has been prepared and placed

in the rulemaking docket.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117

Bridges.

In consideration of the foregoing, the

Coast Guard proposes to amend part 117

of Title 33, Code of Federal Regulations,

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; 49 CFR 1.46; 33

CFR 1.05–1(g); section 117.255 also issued

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

Stat. 5039.

2. Section 117.732 is revised to read

as follows:

§ 117.732 Nacote Creek.

(a) The Route 9 bridge, mile 1.5, shall

open on signal except that from 11 p.m.

to 7 a.m., the draw shall open if at least

two hours advance notice is given.

(b) The draw of the Atlantic County

(Rte. 575) bridge, mile 3.5, at Port

Republic, shall open on signal if at least

eight hours advance notice is given.

Dated: November 22, 1995.

W.J. Ecker,

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

Fifth Coast Guard District.

[FR Doc. 95–30967 Filed 12–19–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–14–M

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 131

[FRL–5399–8]

Proposed Removal of Federal Water

Quality Standards for Surface Waters

of the Sacramento River, San Joaquin

River, and San Francisco Bay and

Delta of the State of California

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: In December 1994, under the

authority of the Clean Water Act (CWA),

the Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA) promulgated a rule establishing

four sets of water quality criteria to

protect the designated uses for the

surface waters of the Sacramento River,

San Joaquin River, and San Francisco

Bay and Delta of the State of California

(Bay/Delta). Subsequent to this

promulgation, the State of California

adopted water quality standards for the

Bay/Delta and submitted them to EPA

for approval. On September 26, 1995,

the Regional Administrator for EPA

Region IX approved the state water

quality standards as protective of the

designated uses for the relevant

waterbodies. Currently, the State of

California is in the process of

implementing these state-adopted and

EPA-approved water quality standards

through a state water rights hearing