Coast Guard, DHS.
The Coast Guard is removing the drawbridge operation regulations for the US1 (Point Street) Bridge, mile 7.5, across the Providence River at Providence, Rhode Island. The US1 (Point Street) Bridge has been rebuilt as a fixed bridge and its drawbridge operation regulations are no longer necessary. Notice and public procedure have been omitted from this action because the bridge the regulations Start Printed Page 8816formerly governed is fixed and no longer opens for navigation.
This final rule is effective February 26, 2004.
Comments and materials received from the public, as well as documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket, are part of docket (CGD01-04-005) and are available for inspection or copying at the First Coast Guard District Office, 408 Atlantic Avenue, Boston, Massachusetts, 02110, 7 a.m. to 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone number is (617) 223-8364.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
We did not publish a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for this regulation. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing an NPRM. Notice and comment are unnecessary because this action is the removal of drawbridge operation regulations for a bridge that is now a fixed bridge that can not open.
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard also finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register for the same reason stated above.
Background and Purpose
The US1 (Point Street) Bridge has been rebuilt as fixed bridge and no longer opens for the passage of vessel traffic. The drawbridge operation regulations for the US1 (Point Street) Bridge; therefore, are unnecessary, and will be removed by this action.
This 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 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 Homeland Security (DHS).
This conclusion is based on the fact that the bridge no longer opens for vessel traffic; therefore, the drawbridge operation regulations are no longer necessary.
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. 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 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 bridge no longer opens for vessel traffic; therefore, the drawbridge operation regulations are no longer necessary.
Assistance for Small Entities
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we offered to assist small entities in understanding the rule so that they could better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process.
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247).
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).
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 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 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 rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
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.
Indian Tribal Governments
This final 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.
We have analyzed this final rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Start Printed Page 8817Environmental 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 environmental documentation. It has been determined that this final rule does not significantly impact the environment.Start List of Subjects
List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117End List of Subjects
RegulationsStart Amendment Part
UnderEnd Amendment Part Start Part
PART 117—DRAWBRIDGE OPERATION REGULATIONSEnd Part Start Amendment Part
1. The authority citation for part 117 continues to read as follows:End Amendment Part
2. Remove § 117.907.End Amendment Part Start Signature
Dated: February 13, 2004.
Captain, Coast Guard, Acting Commander, First Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 04-4279 Filed 2-25-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P