Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 44 / Tuesday, March 6, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 13433

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.

Environment

We prepared an ‘‘Environmental

Assessment’’ in accordance with

Commandant Instruction M16475.1C

and determined that this rule will not

significantly affect the quality of the

human environment. The

‘‘Environmental Assessment’’ and

‘‘Finding of No Significant Impact’’ is

available in the docket where indicated

under ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 100

Marine safety, Navigation (water),

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Waterways.

For the reasons discussed in the

preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33

CFR Part 100 as follows:

PART 100—MARINE EVENTS

1. The authority citation for Part 100

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1233 through 1236; 49

CFR 1.46; 33 CFR 100.35.

2. A temporary section, § 100.35–T05–

003 is added to read as follows:

§ 100.35–T05–003 Western Branch,

Elizabeth River, Portsmouth, Virginia.

(a) Regulated Area. The waters of the

Western Branch, Elizabeth River

bounded by a line connecting the

following points:

Latitude Longitude

36°50′18′′ North 076°23′06′′ West, to

36°50′18′′ North 076°21′42′′ West, to

36°50′12′′ North 076°21′42′′ West, to

36°50′12′′ North 076°23′06′′ West, to

36°50′18′′ North 076°23′06′′ West

All coordinates reference Datum NAD

1983.

(b) Coast Guard Patrol Commander.

The Coast Guard Patrol Commander is

a commissioned, warrant, or petty

officer of the Coast Guard who has been

designated by the Commander, Coast

Guard Group Hampton Roads.

(c) Special Local Regulations:

(1) Except for persons or vessels

authorized by the Coast Guard Patrol

Commander, no person or vessel may

enter or remain in the regulated area.

(2) The operator of any vessel in the

regulated area shall:

(i) Stop the vessel immediately when

directed to do so by any official patrol,

including any commissioned, warrant,

or petty officer on board a vessel

displaying a Coast Guard ensign.

(ii) Proceed as directed by any official

patrol, including any commissioned,

warrant, or petty officer on board a

vessel displaying a Coast Guard ensign.

(d) Effective Dates. This section is

effective from 11 a.m. on March 23,

2001 to 6 p.m. on March 24, 2001.

(e) Enforcement Times. This section

will be enforced from 11 a.m. to 6 p.m.

on March 23, 2001 and from 6:30 a.m.

to 6 p.m. on March 24, 2001.

Dated: February 22, 2001.

T. C. Paar,

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting

Commander, Fifth Coast Guard District.

[FR Doc. 01–5441 Filed 3–5–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–15–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[CGD09–01–001]

RIN–2115–AE47

Drawbridge Operation Regulations;

Manitowoc River, Wisconsin

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.

ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: By this direct final rule, the

Coast Guard is revising the operating

regulations governing the Eighth Street

bridge (mile 0.29), Tenth Street bridge

(mile 0.43), and Wisconsin Central

Railroad (formerly Soo Line) bridge

(mile 0.91), all over the Manitowoc

River in Manitowoc, Wisconsin. This

rule would re-establish the operating

schedules published in 1983, and

erroneously removed by another rule in

1984.

DATES: This rule is effective on June 4,

2001, unless a written adverse

comment, or written notice of intent to

submit adverse comment, reaches

Commander, Ninth Coast Guard District,

on or before May 7, 2001. If an adverse

comment, or notice of intent to submit

an adverse comment, is received, the

Coast Guard will withdraw this direct

final rule and publish a timely notice of

withdrawal in the Federal Register.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed

or delivered to: Commander (obr), Ninth

Coast Guard District, 1240 East Ninth

Street, Room 2019, Cleveland, OH

44199–2060 between 6:30 a.m. and 3

p.m., Monday through Friday, except

federal holidays. The telephone number

is (216) 902–6084.

The District Commander maintains

the public docket for this rulemaking.

Comments will become part of this

docket and will be available for

inspection or copying at the address

above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

Scot M. Striffler, Project Manager, at

(216) 902–6084.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Request for Comments

The Coast Guard encourages

interested persons to participate in this

rulemaking by submitting data, views or

arguments for or against this rule.

Persons submitting comments should

include their name, address, identify

this rulemaking (CGD09–01–001), the

specific section of this rule to which

each comment applies, and the reason(s)

for each comment. The Coast Guard

requests that all comments and

attachments be submitted in an 81⁄2′′ ×

11′′ unbound format suitable for copying

and electronic filing. If that is not

practical, a second copy of any bound

material is requested. Persons wanting

acknowledgment of receipt of comments

should enclose a stamped, selfaddressed postcard or envelope.

Regulatory Information

The Coast Guard is publishing a direct

final rule, the procedures of which are

outlined in 33 CFR 1.05–55, because no

adverse comments are anticipated. If no

adverse comments or any written notice

of intent to submit adverse comment are

received within the specified comment

period, this rule will become effective as

stated in the DATES section. In that case,

approximately 30 days prior to the

effective date, the Coast Guard will

publish a notice in the Federal Register

stating that no adverse comment was

received and announcing confirmation

that this rule will become effective as

scheduled. However, if the Coast Guard

receives written adverse comment or

written notice of intent to submit

adverse comment, the Coast Guard will

publish a notice in the final rule section

of the Federal Register to announce

withdrawal of all or part of this direct

final rule. If adverse comments apply to

only part of this rule, and it is possible

to remove that part without defeating

the purpose of this rule, the Coast Guard

may adopt as final those parts of this

rule on which no adverse comments

were received. The part of this rule that

was the subject of adverse comments

will be withdrawn. If the Coast Guard

decides to proceed with a rulemaking, a

13434 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 44 / Tuesday, March 6, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

separate Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

(NPRM) will be published and a new

opportunity for comment provided.

A comment is considered ‘‘adverse’’ if

the comment explains why this rule

would be inappropriate, including a

challenge to the rule’s underlying

premise or approach, or would be

ineffective or unacceptable without a

change.

Background and Purpose

The Coast Guard published a final

rule on September 22, 1983 (48 FR

43173), which completed a rulemaking

to revise the bridge operating

regulations for drawbridges on

Manitowoc River, Wisconsin. The

revised regulation was not included in

the re-codified numbering of bridge

regulations that occurred on April 24,

1984 (49 FR 17452). Commander, Ninth

Coast Guard District, has reviewed the

operating schedule adopted in 1983 and

evaluated the present conditions of

marine traffic and bridge operations in

Manitowoc Harbor, WI, and determined

that the adopted schedule adequately

provides for the reasonable needs of

navigation in the harbor. The adopted

schedule has been enforced in

Manitowoc for the past 17 years without

any reported complaints or difficulties.

The Coast Guard has identified a

minor change to the final rule of 1983;

the Soo Line bridge at mile 0.9 is now

owned by the Wisconsin Central

railroad company. The bridge is

correctly named in this direct final rule.

Regulatory Evaluation

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). The

Coast Guard expects 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 determination is based on the

Coast Guard review of impacts on

commerce and marine activities in

Manitowoc during the 17 years since the

original final rule was published. There

have been no reported problems or

complaints with the bridge operating

schedule.

Small Entities

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

(5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), the Coast Guard

must consider the economic impact on

small entities of a rule for which a

general notice of proposed rulemaking

is required. ‘‘Small entities’’ may

include (1) small businesses and not-forprofit organizations that are

independently owned and operated and

are not dominant in their fields and (2)

governmental jurisdictions with

populations of less than 50,000.

The revised bridge regulations have

been employed for approximately

seventeen years with no complaints or

problems for known small entities.

Therefore, 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.

If you think that your business,

organization, or governmental

jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity

and 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 rule contains no collection-ofinformation requirements under the

Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.

3501 et seq.).

Federalism

The Coast Guard has analyzed this

rule under the principles and criteria

contained in Executive Order 13132,

and determined that this rule does not

have federalism implications 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 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.

Environment

The Coast Guard considered the

environmental impact of this rule and

concluded that, under figure 2–1,

paragraph 34(g) of Commandant

Instruction M16475.lC, this rule is

categorically excluded from further

environmental documentation. This rule

changes a drawbridge regulation which

has been found not to have a significant

effect on the environment. A

‘‘Categorical Exclusion Determination’’

is not required.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117

Bridges.

Regulations

For reasons set out in the preamble,

33 CFR part 117 is revised 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; 49 CFR 1.46; 33

CFR 1.05–1(g); § 117.255 also issued under

the authority of Pub. L. 102–587, 106 Stat.

5039.

2. Revise § 117.1089 to read as

follows:

§ 117.1089 Manitowoc River.

(a) The draws of the Eighth Street

bridge, mile 0.29, and Tenth Street

bridge, mile o.43, both at Manitowoc,

shall open on signal except that:

(1) From April 1 through October 31,

Monday through Friday, the bridges

need not open from 6:50 a.m. to 7 a.m.,

7:50 a.m. to 8 a.m., 11:55 a.m. to 12:10

p.m., and 12:45 p.m. to 1 p.m., except

federal holidays. From 10:30 p.m. to

4:30 a.m. the draws shall open on signal

if at least a 6 hour advance notice is

given.

(2) From November 1 through March

31 the draws shall open on signal if at

least a 12 hour advance notice is given.

(3) The opening signals for these

bridges are:

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 44 / Tuesday, March 6, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 13435

(i) Eighth Street—one prolonged blast

followed by one short blast.

(ii) Tenth Street—two short blasts

followed by one prolonged blast.

(4) When signal is given by car ferry

or other large vessel to pass either of the

two bridges, the remaining bridge shall

open promptly so that such vessels shall

not be held between the two bridges.

(b) The draw of the Wisconsin Central

railroad bridge, mile 0.91 at Manitowoc,

shall open on signal except that:

(1) From April 1 through October 31

between the hours of 10:30 p.m. and

4:30 a.m., the draws shall open on

signal if at least a 6 hour advance notice

is given.

(2) From November 1 through March

31 the draw shall open on signal if at

least a 12 hour advance notice is given.

(3) Opening signal for this bridge is

two short blasts followed by one

prolonged blast.

Dated: February 20, 2001.

James D. Hull,

Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander,

Ninth Coast Guard District.

[FR Doc. 01–5443 Filed 3–5–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–15–P

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS

AFFAIRS

38 CFR Part 3

RIN 2900–AJ51

Revised Criteria for Monetary

Allowance for an Individual Born With

Spina Bifida Whose Biological Father

or Mother Is a Vietnam Veteran

AGENCY: Department of Veterans Affairs.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This document amends the

evaluation criteria that the Department

of Veterans Affairs (VA) uses to

determine the amount of the monthly

monetary allowance that it pays to an

individual born with spina bifida whose

biological father or mother is a Vietnam

veteran. The intended effect of this

amendment is to clarify the criteria to

ensure that they are applied consistently

and to add a provision allowing the

Director of the Compensation and

Pension Service to adjust the payment

level for individuals with disabling

impairments due to spina bifida that are

not addressed in the evaluation criteria.

DATES: Effective Date: This amendment

is effective April 5, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Caroll McBrine, M.D., Consultant,

Policy and Regulations Staff (211A),

Compensation and Pension Service,

Veterans Benefits Administration,

Department of Veterans Affairs, 810

Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC

20420, (202) 273–7230.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the

Federal Register of March 13, 2000 (65

FR 13254), we published a proposal to

revise the criteria for determining the

level of payment for an individual born

with spina bifida whose biological

father or mother is a Vietnam veteran.

The proposed revisions were developed

based on VA’s review of a sample of

adjudicated spina bifida claims to

determine the effectiveness of the

evaluation criteria and how they were

applied, a further review of the medical

literature, and suggestions from several

veterans service organizations. The

proposed evaluation criteria were based

on certain medical impairments due to

spina bifida and on the disabling effects

of those impairments on ordinary dayto-day activities. We also proposed to

allow the Director of the Compensation

and Pension Service to increase the

payment level for an individual with

spina bifida who has such impairments

as blindness, uncontrolled seizures, or

renal failure.

In addition, we proposed to change

the references to ‘‘child’’ and ‘‘children’’

to ‘‘individual’’ and ‘‘individuals’’

throughout 38 CFR 3.814 and to define

the word ‘‘individual’’ to make it clear

that the regulation applies to eligible

individuals regardless of age.

We received one comment, which was

from the Veterans of Foreign Wars.

Under VA’s initial evaluation criteria

for individuals with disabilities due to

spina bifida, the effects of bowel and

bladder impairment were evaluated as

follows: Level I if ‘‘continent of urine

and feces’’; Level II if ‘‘requires drugs or

intermittent catheterization or other

mechanical means to maintain proper

urinary bladder function, or

mechanisms for proper bowel function’’;

and Level III if ‘‘has complete urinary or

fecal incontinence.’’ We proposed that

the effects of bowel and bladder

impairment be evaluated as follows:

Level I if ‘‘continent of urine and feces

without the use of medication or other

means to control incontinence’’; Level II

if ‘‘requires medication or other means

to control the effects of urinary bladder

impairment and is unable no more than

two times per week to remain dry for at

least three hours at a time during

waking hours; or, requires bowel

management techniques or other

treatment to control the effects of bowel

impairment but does not have fecal

leakage severe or frequent enough to

require daily wearing of absorbent

materials’’; and Level III if ‘‘despite the

use of medication or other means to

control the effects of urinary bladder

impairment, at least three times per

week is unable to remain dry for three

hours at a time during waking hours; or,

despite bowel management techniques

or other treatment to control the effects

of bowel impairment, has fecal leakage

severe or frequent enough to require

daily wearing of absorbent materials; or,

regularly requires manual evacuation or

digital stimulation to empty the bowel.’’

The commenter suggested that we

change the Level III requirement for

‘‘daily wearing of absorbent materials’’

to ‘‘wearing of absorbent materials on

most days’’ because a requirement for

daily wearing of absorbent materials is

too stringent, considering that

constipation may occur intermittently

and absorbent materials not be

necessary for a day or two.

On further consideration, we agree

that the commenter’s suggested change

would be an improvement, in view of

the fact that when constipation is

present, the individual might feel

comfortable not wearing absorbent

materials for a day or so, although they

would ordinarily wear them on most

days and be incontinent a substantial

part of the time. We have therefore

revised the criteria for Level III by

changing ‘‘daily wearing of absorbent

materials’’ to ‘‘wearing of absorbent

materials at least four days a week’’ and

revised the Level II criteria accordingly.

The commenter also felt that Level III

should be assigned for those who

undergo a surgical procedure that

permanently alters the structure and/or

function of the bowel or bladder, for

example, a colostomy, because these

surgical alterations and appliances

disrupt day-to-day activities as much as

the frequent need to wear absorbent

materials.

We agree in part with the commenter.

There are a number of surgical

procedures and appliances that may be

used to improve bowel and bladder

function. At times they make an

individual continent or at least decrease

the extent or frequency of incontinence;

however, they are not always successful.

For example, an artificial bladder

sphincter that is implanted for urinary

incontinence might result in improved

bladder function with diminished

incontinence or no incontinence at all,

but it might also fail to improve bladder

function significantly. When an

individual must use appliances or

undergo surgical procedures, at least a

Level II assignment would be warranted

because such use or procedure is akin

to the use of medication or other means

to control the effects of urinary bladder

impairment. If the device or surgery

does not restore continence sufficiently,