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