[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 132 (Tuesday, July 11, 2006)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 39028-39030]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-10760]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[CGD01-06-051]
RIN 1625-AA09


Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Saugus River, Lynn and Revere, 
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 General Edwards 
SR1A Bridge, at mile 1.7, across the Saugus River between Lynn and 
Revere, Massachusetts. This change to the drawbridge operation 
regulations would allow the bridge to remain in the closed position 
from November 1, 2006 through April 30, 2007. This action is necessary 
to facilitate structural maintenance at the bridge.

DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or 
before August 10, 2006.

ADDRESSES: You may mail comments and related material to Commander 
(dpb), 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, between 7 
a.m. and 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 or Comments

    We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting 
comments and related material. If you do so, please include your name 
and address, identify the docket number for this rulemaking (CGD01-06-
051), 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; however, 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

[[Page 39029]]

one at a time and place announced by a later notice in the Federal 
Register.

Background and Purpose

    The General Edwards SR1A Bridge at mile 1.7, across the Saugus 
River, has a vertical clearance of 27 feet at mean high water and 36 
feet at mean low water. The existing regulations at 33 CFR 117.618(b) 
require the draw to open on signal, except that, from April 1 through 
November 30, midnight to 8 a.m. an eight-hour notice is required. From 
December 1 through March 31, an eight-hour notice is required at all 
times for bridge openings.
    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, 2006 through April 30, 2007, to complete 
structural rehabilitation construction at the bridge. The bridge was 
closed during the same time period from November 2005 through April 
2006, to perform the first phase of this rehabilitation work. Work 
could not be completed during the closure period in 2005-2006, 
necessitating a second closure period in 2006-2007.

Discussion of Proposed Rule

    This proposed change would suspend the existing drawbridge 
operation regulations, listed at 33 CFR 117.618(b), and add a new 
temporary paragraph (d) to allow the bridge to remain in the closed 
position from November 1, 2006 through April 30, 2007.
    The Coast Guard believes this proposed rule is reasonable because 
bridge openings are rarely requested during the time period the SR1A 
Bridge will be closed for these repairs November through April.
    In fact, there were only seven requests to open the bridge in 
November of 2004, and no requests to open the bridge between December 
2004 and March of 2005. The bridge was closed for repairs from November 
2005 through April of 2006. The Coast Guard received no comments or 
complaints during the closure period.
    In addition, this work is vital, necessary, and must be performed 
in order to assure the continued safe and reliable operation of 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 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.
    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 bridge rarely opens 
during the November through April time period.

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have 
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 bridge rarely opens 
during the November through April time period.
    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, Commander (dpb), First Coast 
Guard District, Bridge Branch, One South Street, New York, NY, 10004. 
The telephone number is (212) 668-7165. 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 affect 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 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 might 
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

[[Page 39030]]

responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

Energy Effects

    We have analyzed this proposed 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, and Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 
5100.1, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National 
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and 
have made a preliminary determination 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, we believe that this rule should 
be categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e) of the 
Instruction, from further environmental documentation as this action 
relates to the promulgation of operating regulations or procedures for 
drawbridges. Under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e) of the Instruction, an 
``Environmental Analysis Checklist'' is not required for this rule. 
Comments on this section will be considered before we make the final 
decision on whether to categorically exclude this rule from further 
environmental review.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117

    Bridges.

Regulations

    For the reasons discussed 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.

    2. From, November 1, 2006 through April 30, 2007, Sec.  117.618(b) 
is suspended and a new paragraph (d) is added to read as follows:


Sec.  117.618  Saugus River.

* * * * *
    (d) The draw of the General Edwards SR1A Bridge at mile 1.7, need 
not open for the passage of vessel traffic from November 1, 2006 
through April 30, 2007.

    Dated: June 16, 2006.
Mark J. Campbell,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting Commander, First Coast Guard 
District.
 [FR Doc. E6-10760 Filed 7-10-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P