[Federal Register: September 29, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 188)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 56878-56880]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr29se05-22]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
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.
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.
[[Page 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 Sec. 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
[[Page 56880]]
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, Sec. 117.618(b)
is suspended and a new paragraph (d) is added to read as follows:
Sec. 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