Coast Guard, DOT.
Temporary final rule; extension of effective date period.
The Coast Guard is extending a temporary final rule published March 23, 2001, governing the operation of the Pulaski Bridge, at mile 0.6, across the Newtown Creek between Brooklyn and Queens, New York. This extension will continue to allow the bridge owner to open only one bascule span for the passage of vessel traffic through September 30, 2001. This action is necessary to facilitate the completion of scheduled maintenance at the bridge.
Section 117.801 (a)(3) and (h) added at 66 FR 16129 effective April 23, 2001 through August 31, 2001 are extended in effect through September 30, 2001.
The public docket and all documents referred to in this notice are available for inspection or copying at the First Coast Guard District, Bridge Branch Office, 408 Atlantic Avenue, Boston, Massachusetts 02110, 7 a.m. to 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.Start Further Info
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mr. Joseph Schmied, Project Officer, First Coast Guard District, (212) 668-7165.End Further Info End Preamble Start Supplemental Information
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553, a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) was not published for this regulation. Good cause exists for not publishing a NPRM.
This temporary final rule will extend the effective period previously published in the Federal Register on March 23, 2001 (66 FR 16128), as Drawbridge Operation Regulations Newtown Creek, Dutch Kills, English Kills, and their tributaries, New York. That temporary rule allowed a single span operation at the bridge from April 23, 2001 through August 31, 2001, to facilitate cleaning and painting the bridge.
The bridge owner subsequently advised the Coast Guard that the cleaning and painting operations would not be completed by August 31, 2001, due to lost work time as a result of inclement weather conditions. The bridge owner requested a second temporary final rule to extend the single span operation at the bridge an additional month from September 1, 2001 through September 30, 2001, to complete the maintenance at the bridge.
Accordingly, an NPRM was deemed unnecessary because no known waterway users have objected to the single span operation of the bridge and none have objected to extending it an additional 30 days. The additional 30 days of single span operation will further the public interest by permitting the uninterrupted completion of the necessary maintenance at the bridge.
The Pulaski Bridge, at mile 0.6, across Newtown Creek between Brooklyn and Queens has a vertical clearance of 39 feet at mean high water and 43 feet at mean low water. The existing regulations require the draw to open on signal at all times.
The bridge owner, New York City Department of Transportation, requested a single bascule span operation in order to facilitate sandblasting and painting at the bridge.
The Coast Guard contacted all known users advising of the extension of the Start Printed Page 37140single span operation until September 30, 2001. No objections were received.
This rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. 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 Transportation (DOT) (44 FR 11040; February 26, 1979). This conclusion is based on the fact that the bridge will continue to open at all times for navigation.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612) we considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. “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 less than 50,000.
The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This conclusion is based on the fact that the bridge will continue to open on signal at all times for navigation.
Collection of Information
This rule calls for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13132 and have determined that this rule does not have implications for federalism under that Order.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) governs the issuance of Federal regulations that require unfunded mandates. An unfunded mandate is a regulation that requires a State, local, or tribal government or the private sector to incur direct costs without the Federal Government's having first provided the funds to pay those unfunded mandate costs. This rule will not impose an unfunded mandate.
Taking of Private Property
This rule will 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 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 rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and does not concern an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may disproportionately affect children.
The Coast Guard considered the environmental impact of this rule and concluded that under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e) of Commandant Instruction M16475.1C, this rule is categorically excluded from further environmental documentation because promulgation of changes to drawbridge regulations have been found to not have a significant effect on the environment. A written “Categorical Exclusion Determination” is not required for this rule.
Indian Tribal Governments
This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have 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.
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. It has not been designated by the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211.Start Signature
Dated: June 25, 2001.
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard Commander, First Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 01-17392 Filed 7-16-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-U