Coast Guard, DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Coast Guard proposes to temporarily change the drawbridge Start Printed Page 47122operating regulations governing the operation of the Maine Department of Transportation (MDOT) highway bridge, at mile 4.6, between Hodgdon and Barter's Island at Boothbay, Maine. This proposed temporary change to the drawbridge operation regulations would allow the bridge to remain in the closed position from December 15, 2001 through April 15, 2002. This action is necessary to facilitate structural repairs at the bridge.
Comments must reach the Coast Guard on or before November 13, 2001.
You may mail comments to Commander (obr), First Coast Guard District, Bridge Branch, at 408 Atlantic Avenue, Boston, MA. 02110-3350, 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.Start Further Info
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
John W. McDonald, Project Officer, First Coast Guard District, (617) 223-8364.End Further Info End Preamble Start Supplemental 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 (CGD01-01-144), 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.
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.
The MDOT, highway bridge, at mile 4.6, across the Back River has a vertical clearance of 6 feet at mean high water and 15 feet at mean low water. The existing regulations are listed at 33 CFR 117.523.
The bridge owner, MDOT, asked the Coast Guard to temporarily change the drawbridge operation regulations to facilitate structural repairs at the bridge. This proposed temporary rule would allow the bridge owner to keep the bridge in the closed position from December 15, 2001 through April 15, 2002. The bridge operates on a twenty-four hours advance notice from November 1 through May 31, normally. The local fishermen haul out their equipment during the month of November, after which, the bridge historically receives few requests to open.
Discussion of Proposal
This proposed temporary change to the drawbridge operation regulations would allow the bridge owner to keep the bridge in the closed position from December 15, 2001 through April 15, 2002, while structural repairs are underway at the bridge.
The number of bridge openings from December through April in past years have been relatively low. The bridge opening log data for December through April for the past three years is as follows:
The Coast Guard believes this rulemaking is reasonable based upon the relatively low number of bridge opening requests during past years December through April and the fact that this work is necessary maintenance required to assure continued uninterrupted operation of the bridge.
This proposed 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 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, Feb. 26, 1979).
We expect the economic impact of this proposed rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation, under paragraph 10e of the regulatory policies and procedures of DOT, is unnecessary. This conclusion is based on the fact that the there have been few requests to open the bridge historically, during the time period that the bridge would be closed.
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 upon the fact that there have been few requests historically, to open the bridge during the time period the bridge would be 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.
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.).
We have analyzed this proposed rule under E.O. 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 Start Printed Page 47123funds to pay those costs. This proposed rule would not impose an unfunded mandate.
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 E.O. 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.
Protection of Children
We have analyzed this proposed rule under E.O. 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.
We considered the environmental impact of this proposed rule and concluded that, under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e), of Commandant Instruction M16475.1C, this proposed rule is categorically excluded from further environmental documentation because promulgation of drawbridge regulations have been found not to 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 List of Subjects
List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117End List of Subjects
For the reasons set out in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR part 117 as follows:Start Part
PART 117—DRAWBRIDGE OPERATION REGULATIONS
1. The authority citation for part 117 continues to read as follows:
2. From December 15, 2001, through April 15, 2002, § 117.523 is suspended.
3. From December 15, 2001 through April 15, 2002, § 117.T524 is temporarily added to read as follows:
The Maine Department of transportation highway bridge, mile 4.6, between Hodgdon and Barter's Island at Boothbay, need not open for the passage of vessel traffic.
Dated: August 28, 2001.
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, First Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 01-22777 Filed 9-10-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-U