Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Dorchester Bay, MA, 20489-20490 [05-7893]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 75 / Wednesday, April 20, 2005 / Proposed Rules the allowance for loan and lease losses account. [FR Doc. 05–7835 Filed 4–19–05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7535–01–P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 117 [CGD01–05–020] RIN 1625–AA09 Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Dorchester Bay, MA Coast Guard, DHS. Notice of proposed rulemaking. AGENCY: ACTION: The Coast Guard proposes to temporarily change the drawbridge operating regulations governing the operation of the William T. Morrisey Boulevard Bridge, at mile 0.0, across Dorchester Bay at Boston, Massachusetts. This change to the drawbridge operation regulations would allow the bridge to remain in the closed position from November 1, 2005 through May 10, 2006. This action is necessary to facilitate necessary maintenance at the bridge. DATES: Comments must reach the Coast Guard on or before June 20, 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: SUMMARY: 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 VerDate jul<14>2003 14:52 Apr 19, 2005 Jkt 205001 this rulemaking (CGD01–05–020), 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. Background and Purpose The William T. Morrisey Boulevard Bridge, at mile 0.0 across Dorchester Bay, has a vertical clearance of 12 feet at mean high water and 22 feet at mean low water. The existing regulations at 33 CFR 117.597 require the draw to open on signal from April 16 through October 14, except that the draw need not open for vessel traffic from 7:30 a.m. to 9 a.m. and from 4:30 p.m. to 6 p.m. except on Saturdays, Sundays, or holidays observed in the locality. From October 15 through April 15, the draw shall open on signal if at least twenty-four hours notice is given. 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 May 10, 2006, to facilitate electrical rehabilitation construction at the bridge. Discussion of Proposed Rule This proposed change would suspend the existing drawbridge operation regulations, listed at 33 CFR 117.597, and add a temporary regulation that allows the bridge to remain in the closed position from November 1, 2005 through May 10, 2006, to facilitate electrical rehabilitation construction at the bridge. Regulatory Evaluation This proposed rule is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 20489 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 only known users of the waterway, the Dorchester Yacht Club, will not be affected by this rule during the time the bridge is closed. 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 the only known users of the waterway, the Dorchester Yacht Club, will not be affected by this rule during the time the bridge is closed. 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 (obr), First Coast Guard District, Bridge Branch, 408 Atlantic E:\FR\FM\20APP1.SGM 20APP1 20490 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 75 / Wednesday, April 20, 2005 / Proposed Rules 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 VerDate jul<14>2003 14:52 Apr 19, 2005 Jkt 205001 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 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 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 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. § 117.597 [Suspended] 2. From November 1, 2005 through May 10, 2006, § 117.597 is suspended. 3. From November 1, 2005 through May 10, 2006, § 117.T602 is temporarily added to read as follows: § 117.T602 Dorchester Bay. The draw of the William T. Morrisey Boulevard Bridge, mile 0.0, at Boston, need not open for the passage of vessel traffic from November 1, 2005 through May 10, 2006. Dated: April 11, 2005. David P. Peskoske, Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, First Coast Guard District. [FR Doc. 05–7893 Filed 4–19–05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910–15–P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 117 [CGD01–05–034] RIN 1625–AA09 Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Kennebec River, ME Coast Guard, DHS. Notice of proposed rulemaking. AGENCY: ACTION: SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to temporarily change the drawbridge operating regulations governing the operation of the Carlton Bridge, mile 14.0, across the Kennebec River between Bath and Woolwich, Maine. This proposed rule would allow the bridge to open on signal every three hours at 6 a.m., 9 a.m., 12 p.m., 3 p.m., and 6 p.m., Monday through Saturday, from July 5 through December 17, 2005, and again E:\FR\FM\20APP1.SGM 20APP1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 75 (Wednesday, April 20, 2005)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 20489-20490]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-7893]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[CGD01-05-020]
RIN 1625-AA09


Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Dorchester Bay, 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 William T. 
Morrisey Boulevard Bridge, at mile 0.0, across Dorchester Bay at 
Boston, Massachusetts. This change to the drawbridge operation 
regulations would allow the bridge to remain in the closed position 
from November 1, 2005 through May 10, 2006. This action is necessary to 
facilitate necessary maintenance at the bridge.

DATES: Comments must reach the Coast Guard on or before June 20, 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:

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-
020), 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.

Background and Purpose

    The William T. Morrisey Boulevard Bridge, at mile 0.0 across 
Dorchester Bay, has a vertical clearance of 12 feet at mean high water 
and 22 feet at mean low water. The existing regulations at 33 CFR 
117.597 require the draw to open on signal from April 16 through 
October 14, except that the draw need not open for vessel traffic from 
7:30 a.m. to 9 a.m. and from 4:30 p.m. to 6 p.m. except on Saturdays, 
Sundays, or holidays observed in the locality. From October 15 through 
April 15, the draw shall open on signal if at least twenty-four hours 
notice is given.
    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 May 10, 2006, to facilitate 
electrical rehabilitation construction at the bridge.

Discussion of Proposed Rule

    This proposed change would suspend the existing drawbridge 
operation regulations, listed at 33 CFR 117.597, and add a temporary 
regulation that allows the bridge to remain in the closed position from 
November 1, 2005 through May 10, 2006, to facilitate electrical 
rehabilitation construction 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 the only known users of 
the waterway, the Dorchester Yacht Club, will not be affected by this 
rule during the time the bridge is closed.

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 the only known users of 
the waterway, the Dorchester Yacht Club, will not be affected by this 
rule during the time the bridge is closed.
    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 
(obr), First Coast Guard District, Bridge Branch, 408 Atlantic

[[Page 20490]]

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 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.


Sec.  117.597  [Suspended]

    2. From November 1, 2005 through May 10, 2006, Sec.  117.597 is 
suspended.
    3. From November 1, 2005 through May 10, 2006, Sec.  117.T602 is 
temporarily added to read as follows:


Sec.  117.T602  Dorchester Bay.

    The draw of the William T. Morrisey Boulevard Bridge, mile 0.0, at 
Boston, need not open for the passage of vessel traffic from November 
1, 2005 through May 10, 2006.

    Dated: April 11, 2005.
David P. Peskoske,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, First Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 05-7893 Filed 4-19-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P