Drawbridge Operation Regulations: Chelsea River, MA
The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary final rule governing the operation of the P.J. McArdle Bridge, mile 0.3, across the Chelsea River between East Boston and Chelsea, Massachusetts. This final rule will allow the bridge to remain in the closed position from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. on June 5, 2004, to facilitate the First Annual Chelsea River Revel 5K Road Race. Vessels that can pass under the bridge without a bridge opening may do so at all times.
Table of Contents
- Regulatory Information
- Background and Purpose
- Discussion of Comments and Changes
- Regulatory Evaluation
- Small Entities
- Assistance for Small Entities
- Collection of Information
- Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
- Taking of Private Property
- Civil Justice Reform
- Protection of Children
- Indian Tribal Governments
- Technical Standards
- Energy Effects
Comments and material received from the public, as well as documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket, are part of docket [CGD01-04-027] and are available for inspection or copying at the First Coast Guard District, Bridge Branch Office, One South Street, New York, New York, 10004, between 7 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone number is (212) 668-7165. The First Coast Guard District, Bridge Branch, maintains the public docket for this rulemaking.
For further information contact: ↑
Mr. Joe Arca, Project Officer, First Coast Guard District, (212) 668-7069.
Supplementary information: ↑
Regulatory Information ↑
On April 27, 2004, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) entitled Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Chelsea River, Massachusetts, in the Federal Register(69 FR 22749). We received no comment letters in response to the notice of proposed rulemaking. No public hearing was requested and none was held.
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective in less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register.
The Coast Guard did not receive the bridge owner's request to close the bridge until March 16, 2004; therefore, taking into consideration the time for the NPRM, it is necessary to make this rule effective in less than 30 days in order to allow the event to take place as scheduled on June 5, 2004. The Coast Guard believes this is reasonable because the bridge must remain closed during the running of the First Annual Chelsea River Revel 5K Road Race in the interest of public safety.
Background and Purpose ↑
The P.J. McArdle Bridge has a vertical clearance of 21 feet at mean high water and 30 feet at mean low water in the closed position. The existing drawbridge operation regulations listed at 33 CFR § 117.593 require the bridge to open on signal at all times.
The owner of the bridge, the City of Boston, requested a temporary change to the drawbridge operation regulations to allow the bridge to remain in the closed position from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. on June 5, 2004, to facilitate the running of the First Annual Chelsea River Revel 5K Road Race. Vessels that can pass under the bridge without a bridge opening may do so at all times.
The Chelsea River is predominantly transited by commercial tugs, barges, and oil tankers. The Coast Guard coordinated this closure with the mariners that normally use this waterway and no objections were received.
The Coast Guard did not receive the request to keep the bridge closed to facilitate the scheduled road race until March 16, 2004. A shortened comment period was necessary, due the short notice given to the Coast Guard, to allow this final rule to become effective in time for the start of First Annual Chelsea River Revel 5K Road Race on June 5, 2004.
The Coast Guard believes this final rule is needed in order to provide for public safety and the safety of the race participants.
Discussion of Comments and Changes ↑
The Coast Guard received no comments in response to our notice of proposed rulemaking. No changes have been made to this final rule.
Regulatory Evaluation ↑
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 proceduresof the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
This conclusion is based on the fact that the bridge closure is only 7 hours in duration.
Small Entities ↑
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have 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 fact that the bridge closure is only 7 hours in duration.
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.
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 rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.
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 designated it 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 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 environmental documentation. It has been determined that this final rule does not significantly impact the environment.
List of subjects in 33 cfr part 117 ↑
Regulations ↑For the reasons set out in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 117 as follows:
Part 117—drawbridge operation regulations ↑1. The authority citation for part 117 continues to read as follows:
Authority: ↑2. On June 5, 2004 only, § 117.593 is suspended and a new § 117.T594 is added to read as follows: § 117.T594
(a) All drawbridges across the Chelsea River shall open on signal; except that, the P.J. McArdle Bridge, mile 0.3, neednot open for the passage of vessel traffic from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. on June 5, 2004.
(b) The opening signal for each drawbridge is two prolonged blasts followed by two short blasts and one prolonged blast. The acknowledging signal is three prolonged blasts when the draw can be opened immediately and two prolonged blasts when the draw cannot be opened or is open and must be closed.Dated: May, 25, 2004. John L. Grenier, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting Commander, First Coast Guard District.