Proposed Rules. Withdrawal of proposed rule

4,616 words·~21 min read·/register/2006/03/06/06-2105

A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.

BILLING CODE 3410-XV-M NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 10 CFR Part 50 RIN 3150 AH54 Fire Protection Program—Post-Fire Operator Manual Actions AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Withdrawal of proposed rule. SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission

(NRC)is withdrawing its proposed amendment to the Commission's fire protection regulations for nuclear power facilities operating prior to January 1, 1979. The proposed amendment pertained to the use of manual actions by plant operators coincident with fire detectors and an installed automatic fire suppression system in the fire area as an alternative method to achieve hot shutdown conditions in the event of fires in certain plant areas. Based on stakeholder comments, the Commission believes that the proposed rule would not achieve intended objectives of effectiveness and efficiency. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Diec,

(301)415-2834, e-mail *dtd@nrc.gov* or Alexander Klein,

(301)415-3477, e-mail *ark1@nrc.gov* of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION I. Purpose II. Background III. Proposed Rulemaking IV. Withdrawal of Rulemaking V. Operator Manual Actions Closure Plan A. Ensuring Compliance B. Regulatory Issue Summary C. Staff Regulatory Review Guidelines D. Enforcement Action I. Purpose For the reasons discussed in this document, the Commission is withdrawing a proposed rulemaking that was recommended as the appropriate regulatory tool to resolve a compliance issue associated with the use of operator manual actions for post-fire safe shutdown of nuclear power plants. The Commission is initiating a closure plan to ensure continuing compliance with the fire protection regulations. II. Background Section 50.48(b) of the *Code of Federal Regulations* (10 CFR 50.48(b)) backfits the requirements of paragraphs III.G, III.J, and III.O of Appendix R, “Fire Protection Program for Nuclear Power Facilities Operating Prior to January 1, 1979,” to 10 CFR part 50, “Domestic Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities,” to plants licensed to operate before January 1, 1979 (pre-1979). The NRC incorporated similar guidance and criteria into Branch Technical Position CMEB 9.5-1, “Guidelines for Fire Protection for Nuclear Power Plants,” and section 9.5.1, “Fire Protection Program,” of NUREG-0800, “Standard Review Plan for the Review of Safety Analysis Reports for Nuclear Power Plants” (also referred to as the Standard Review Plan

(SRP)for plants licensed after January 1, 1979 (post-1979). Post-1979 licensees incorporated their fire protection program implementation requirements into their operating licenses as license conditions. Paragraph III.G.2 of Appendix R to 10 CFR part 50 requires that, where cables or equipment of redundant trains of systems necessary to achieve and maintain hot shutdown conditions are located in the same fire area, one of the following means of ensuring that one of the redundant trains is free of fire damage shall be provided: a. Separation of cables and equipment by a fire barrier having a 3-hour rating. b. Separation of cables and equipment by a horizontal distance of more than 20 feet with no intervening combustibles or fire hazards and with fire detectors and an automatic fire suppression system in the fire area. c. Enclosure of cables and equipment in a fire barrier having a 1-hour rating and with fire detectors and an automatic fire suppression system in the fire area. Paragraph III.G.2 of Appendix R to 10 CFR part 50 cannot be reasonably interpreted to permit reliance upon operator manual actions in lieu of the specific methods provided in subparagraphs (a), (b), and/or

(c)to ensure that one of the redundant safe shutdown trains in the same fire area is free of fire damage. Therefore, any pre-1979 licensee that is using operator manual actions instead of the specific methods in subparagraphs (a), (b), and/or

(c)without an NRC-approved exemption is not in compliance with the regulations. The staff became aware that some licensees were using operator manual actions in lieu of the requirements in Paragraph III.G.2 in Appendix R to 10 CFR part 50 and initiated this rulemaking as a means to bring plants into compliance. 10 CFR 50.12, “Specific Exemptions,” provides the basis for the NRC to consider exemptions from requirements in 10 CFR part 50, including the requirements in 10 CFR part 50, Appendix R. In the past, the staff reviewed and approved a number of exemption requests for the use of operator manual actions when licensees could not meet the requirements for either separation distance, a fire barrier, or a fire suppression system as detailed under paragraphs III.G.2(a), (b), or

(c)of Appendix R to 10 CFR Part 50. The staff's rationale for approving these exemptions was predicated on the type and amount of combustibles, the need for automatic fire suppression and detection capability, the effectiveness of the applicant's manual firefighting capability, and the time assumed available for plant operators to take such manual actions. The regulations also allow licensees to use a risk-informed, performance-based approach under 10 CFR 50.48(c). This approach would allow licensees to use the National Fire Protection Association

(NFPA)Standard 805, “Performance-Based Standard for Fire Protection for Light Water Reactor Electric Generating Plants, 2001 Edition,” in lieu of seeking an exemption or license amendment or meeting the requirements of Appendix R. III. Proposed Rulemaking In SECY-03-0100, “Rulemaking Plan on Post-Fire Operator Manual Actions,” dated June 17, 2003, the NRC staff recommended a revision to the reactor fire protection regulation contained in Appendix R to 10 CFR part 50 and associated guidance to resolve a regulatory compliance issue. The proposed rule on post-fire operator manual actions was published in the **Federal Register** on March 7, 2005 (70 FR 10901), with a 75-day comment period that ended on May 23, 2005. The proposed rule would have revised paragraph III.G.2 of Appendix R to allow licensees to implement acceptable operator manual actions combined with fire detectors and automatic fire suppression capability as an acceptable method for ensuring the capability of a licensee to bring a reactor to, and maintain it in, a hot shutdown condition. Fire detectors and automatic fire suppression requirements were included with the criteria for feasible and reliable operator manual actions to maintain fire protection defense-in-depth. The anticipated outcome of this proposed rule was to reduce unnecessary regulatory burden and maintain NRC effectiveness and efficiency by reducing the need for licensees to prepare exemption requests, and the need for NRC to review and approve these requests. The NRC received about 80 comments from 14 individuals and organizations on the proposed rule. Industry stakeholders and the Nuclear Energy Institute

(NEI)commented that the proposed rule requirement for an automatic fire suppression system is not necessary and installation of such systems would be costly without a clear safety enhancement. Industry stakeholders and NEI stated that this requirement would likely not reduce or eliminate the number of exemption requests, and thus, would not meet one of the primary purposes of the rulemaking. Industry stakeholders further objected to the proposed rule requirement for a time margin and stated that thermal hydraulic calculations and other analyses have inherent conservatism that accounts for time margin. Industry stakeholders also objected to the time margin factor of two, stating that it is arbitrary, unprecedented, and inconsistent with requirements for other plant programs, such as emergency operating procedures. Some industry stakeholders claim that the proposed rule is a backfit and that NRC guidance has allowed the use of operator manual actions to protect redundant safe shutdown trains. Comments received from public interest groups and individuals generally stressed the need for the NRC to maintain the current regulations on fire protection of nuclear power plant safe shutdown capability. The Union of Concerned Scientists and the Nuclear Information and Resource Service stated that they agree with the staff's recommendation to withdraw the proposed rule. The NRC's evaluation of the stakeholder comments is provided in the document titled “Response to Public Comments on the Proposed Operator Manual Actions Rule.” This document is available in ADAMS under ADAMS Accession No. ML053350235. ADAMS may be accessed via the NRC's Public Web site at *http://www.nrc.gov/NRC/ADAMS/index.html.* The NRC has engaged stakeholders throughout the rulemaking process. On April 27, 2005, the NRC held a Category 3 public meeting at NRC Headquarters in Rockville, Maryland, to obtain stakeholder feedback on the proposed rule. Representatives from the industry, the Nuclear Energy Institute, industry consultants, and a public interest group attended the meeting. The feedback provided by stakeholders during the public meeting was similar in nature and consistent with those provided in written comments at the close of the 75-day public comment period. On September 30, 2005, the NRC held a Category 2 public meeting at NRC Headquarters to discuss both the planned withdrawal of the proposed rule on post-fire operator manual actions and NRC's closure plan following withdrawal of the rule. During this meeting, the NRC received public comments on the closure plan from industry, the NEI, the Nuclear Information and Resource Service, and an industry consultant. IV. Withdrawal of Rulemaking Industry stakeholders and NEI stated that the proposed rule, if implemented, would require numerous exemption requests for conditions that do not satisfy the automatic fire suppression requirement, specific acceptance criteria for operator manual actions, or a combination thereof. This outcome would not be consistent with the primary purpose of the rulemaking which was to enhance effectiveness and efficiency by reducing or eliminating exemption requests. Therefore, the NRC is withdrawing the proposed rulemaking. V. Operator Manual Actions Closure Plan A. Ensuring Compliance The NRC will continue to verify compliance with its regulations through scheduled inspections. The NRC expects noncompliances identified by NRC inspectors or licensees to be addressed by licensees through plant corrective actions. The withdrawal of the operator manual actions rulemaking may require some licensees to take corrective actions that may be different from those described in the proposed rule. As such, the NRC's closure plan to deal with the rule withdrawal includes issuing a new regulatory issue summary and developing internal staff regulatory review guidelines for post-fire operator manual actions. B. Regulatory Issue Summary The NRC intends to issue a regulatory issue summary

(RIS)to reiterate the 10 CFR part 50, Appendix R Paragraph III.G.2 compliance expectations with respect to the use of operator manual actions, discuss the means to achieve compliance, advise licensees of the date the NRC will terminate the enforcement discretion guidance in Enforcement Guide Memorandum

(EGM)98-02, “Enforcement Guidance Memorandum—Disposition of Violations Of Appendix R, Sections III.G and III.L Regarding Circuit Failures,” Revision 2 issued in February 2000 (incorporated into Enforcement Manual section 8.1.7.1), and discuss potential exemption requests, compensatory measures and corrective actions pertaining to operator manual actions. C. Staff Regulatory Review Guidelines The NRC developed acceptance criteria as part of the proposed rule for operator manual actions and also for DG-1136, “Demonstrating the Feasibility and Reliability of Operator Manual Actions in Response to Fire,” dated February 2005, that provided an acceptable method for complying with the proposed rule. The acceptance criteria and DG-1136 were published in 70 FR 10901. The NRC plans to update section 9.5.1, “Fire Protection Program,” of NUREG-0800, “Standard Review Plan for the Review of Safety Analysis Reports for Nuclear Power Plants” [also referred to as the Standard Review Plan (SRP)] to address post-fire operator manual actions acceptance guidance. This update to the SRP will include the knowledge gained during the proposed rule development and will enhance the NRC regulatory review process for future licensing actions, such as exemption requests. D. Enforcement Action In March 1998, the NRC staff issued EGM 98-02, which provides enforcement discretion guidance for issues related to fire-induced circuit failures. The most recent revision of EGM 98-02 was issued in February 2000 and can be accessed in ADAMS under ADAMS Accession Number ML003710123. This EGM, which remains in effect, discusses fire-induced circuit failure requirements and encompasses the vast majority of manual actions since manual actions are used as compensatory measures to satisfy the regulatory requirements related to fire-induced circuit failures. The EGM provides guidance for disposition of noncompliances involving fire-induced circuit failures, which could prevent operation or cause maloperation of equipment needed to achieve and maintain post-fire safe shutdown. The EGM includes guidance to provide discretion for cases where licensees do not dispute that a violation of regulatory requirements has occurred with respect to a nonconformance, take prompt compensatory actions, and take corrective actions within a reasonable time. The expectations of this EGM have been incorporated into the current NRC Enforcement Manual. The Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation issued a revised Inspection Procedure

(IP)71111.05T, “Fire Protection (Triennial),” in March 2003 providing inspection criteria for operator manual actions. The inspection criteria are used as guidance by NRC inspectors to determine if operator manual actions can be used as a compensatory measure while corrective actions are taken by the licensee. The NRC plans to terminate the enforcement discretion guidance in EGM 98-02 6 months after the publication date of this **Federal Register** notice. During this 6-month period, the application of the enforcement guidance in EGM 98-02 in combination with the criteria in IP 71111.05T will ensure the adequacy and appropriateness of compensatory measures in the form of operator manual actions implemented in accordance with the licensee's fire protection program. Manual actions that fail to meet the criteria in the inspection procedure are not considered to be feasible or adequate compensatory measures. The continuation of enforcement discretion guidance for six months is intended to provide a reasonable amount of time for licensees that have implemented feasible and reliable operator manual actions as compensatory measures to initiate corrective actions. The corrective actions could involve compliance with III.G.2 or III.G.3; adoption of NFPA 805 through 10 CFR 50.48(c); or submission of exemption requests or license amendments. Licensees that have initiated corrective actions within the 6-month period, for noncompliances involving operator manual actions used to address fire-induced circuit failures, will receive enforcement discretion for those noncompliances provided licensees complete the corrective actions in a timely manner. The NRC expects timely completion of the corrective actions consistent with RIS 2005-20, “Revision to Guidance Formerly Contained in NRC Generic Letter 91-18,” dated September 26, 2005 (ADAMS Accession No. ML052020424) not to exceed 3 years from the date of this **Federal Register** notice, or consistent with the licensee's NFPA 805 transition schedule. The Commission believes that the proposed rule would not achieve its objective. Therefore, the Commission has decided to withdraw the proposed rule. Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 28th day of February, 2006. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Annette Vietti-Cook, Secretary of the Commission. [FR Doc. E6-3128 Filed 3-3-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 117 [CGD01-06-004] RIN 1625-AA09 Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Connecticut River, East Haddam, CT 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 Route 82 Bridge, mile 16.8, across the Connecticut River at East Haddam, Connecticut. This proposed rule would allow the Route 82 Bridge to operate on a fixed opening schedule from April 1, 2006 through June 30, 2006. The bridge would open at all times for commercial vessels after at least a 24-hour advance notice and a 2-hour confirmation is given by calling the number posted at the bridge. This rule is necessary to facilitate rehabilitation construction at the bridge. DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or before March 27, 2006. ADDRESSES: You may mail comments and related material to Commander (dpb), First Coast Guard District Bridge Branch, One South Street, Battery Park Building, New York, New York, 10004, 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

(212)668-7165. 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: Ms. Judy Leung-Yee, Project Officer, First Coast Guard District,

(212)668-7195. 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 (CGD01-06-004), 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 8 1/2 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. Regulatory Information We anticipate making this temporary rule effective in less than 30 days after publication in the **Federal Register** . Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective in less than 30 days after publication in the **Federal Register** as the Route 82 Bridge repairs currently scheduled to begin on April 1, 2006, are vital necessary repairs that must be performed with all due speed to assure the continued safe and reliable operation of the bridge. Any delay in making this rule effective as soon as possible would not be in the best interest of public safety and the marine interests that use the Connecticut River. Failure to start the rehabilitation repairs on time could result in an unscheduled bridge operation failure. However, the Coast Guard desires to allow as much time as possible for public participation and comment during this rulemaking process. Thus, we are allowing the comment period to run into the 30 day time period normally included between publication and the effective date. Public Meeting We do not now plan to hold a public meeting; however, 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** . Background and Purpose The Route 82 Bridge has a vertical clearance of 22 feet at mean high water, and 25 feet at mean low water in the closed position. The existing drawbridge operating regulations listed at 33 CFR 117.205(c), require the bridge to open on signal at all times; except that, from May 15 to October 31, 9 a.m. to 9 p.m., the bridge is required to open for recreational vessels on the hour and half hour only. The bridge is required to open on signal at all times for commercial vessels. The bridge owner, Connecticut Department of Transportation, has requested a temporary rule to facilitate electrical and mechanical rehabilitation at the Route 82 Bridge. Under this temporary rule the Route 82 Bridge would open from April 1, 2006, through June 30, 2006, on signal at 5:30 a.m., 1:30 p.m., and 8 p.m., daily. The bridge would open for commercial vessels at any time after a 24-hour notice with a 2-hour confirmation is given by calling the number posted at the bridge. Discussion of Proposed Rule This proposed change would amend 33 CFR 117.205 by suspending paragraph

(c)and adding a new temporary paragraph

(d)that would list the temporary bridge opening schedule for the Route 82 Bridge. This temporary rule is necessary to facilitate the rehabilitation construction at the Route 82 Bridge in order to maintain the bridge in good operable condition. This proposed change would allow the Route 82 Bridge to open from April 1, 2006, through June 30, 2006, at 5:30 a.m., 1:30 p.m., and 8 p.m., daily. The bridge would open at any time for commercial vessels after a 24-hour notice, with a 2-hour confirmation, is given by calling the number posted at 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 vessel traffic will still be able to transit through the Route 82 Bridge under a fixed opening schedule that is expected to meet the present and anticipated needs of navigation. 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 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 vessel traffic will still be able to transit through the Route 82 Bridge under a fixed opening schedule that is expected to meet the present and anticipated needs of navigation. 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 us in writing at, Commander (dpb), First Coast Guard District, Bridge Branch, One South Street, New York, NY 10004. The telephone number is

(212)668-7165. 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 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 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 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 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, this proposed rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e) of the Instruction, from further environment documentation because this action relates to the promulgation of operating regulations or procedures for drawbridges. Under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e) of the instruction, an “Environmental Analysis Checklist” is not required for this rule. Comments on this section will be considered before we make the final decision on whether to categorically exclude this rule from further environmental review. List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117 Bridges. Regulations 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. From April 1, 2006 through June 30, 2006, § 117.205 is amended by suspending paragraph

(c)and adding a temporary paragraph

(d)to read as follows: § 117.205 Connecticut River.

(d)The draw of the Route 82 Bridge, mile 16.8, at East Haddam, shall open on signal at 5:30 a.m., 1:30 p.m., and 8 p.m., daily. The draw shall open on signal for commercial vessels at any time after at least a 24-hour advance notice and a 2-hour confirmation is given by calling the number posted at the bridge. Dated: February 24, 2006. David P. Pekoske, Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, First Coast Guard District. [FR Doc. 06-2105 Filed 3-3-06; 8:45 am]

Connectionstraces to 13

Traces to 13 documents

CFR

U.S. Code