[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 209 (Thursday, October 29, 1998)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 57963-57964]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-29046]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 117
[CGD01-97-134]
RIN 2115-AE47
Drawbridge Operation Regulations: Passaic River, NJ
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.
ACTION: Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to change the operating rules for the
I-280 Bridge (Stickel Memorial), mile 5.8, over the Passaic River at
Harrison, New Jersey, to permit the draw to open on signal after a
twenty four hour advance notice is given due to the infrequency of
requests to open the draw by vessels. It is expected that this proposal
will relieve the bridge owner of the requirement to have a drawtender
present and still provide for the needs of navigation.
DATES: Comments must be received by the Coast Guard on or before
December 28, 1998.
ADDRESSES: You may mail comments to Commander (obr), First Coast Guard
District, 408 Atlantic Avenue, Boston, MA 02110-3350, or deliver them
to the same address between 7 a.m. and 4 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 documents as indicated in this
preamble will become part of this docket and will be available for
inspection or copying at the above address 7 a.m. to 3 p.m. Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
John W. McDonald, Project Officer, First Coast Guard District, (617)
223-8364.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Request for Comments
The Coast Guard encourages interested persons to participate in
this matter by submitting written data, views, or arguments. Persons
submitting comments should include their names and addresses, identify
this rulemaking (CGD01-97-134) and specific section of this proposal to
which their comments apply, and give reasons for each comment. Please
submit two copies of all comments and attachments in an unbound format,
no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for copying and electronic
filing. Persons wanting acknowledgment of receipt of comments should
enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope.
The Coast Guard will consider all comments received during the
comment period. It may change this proposal in response to comments
received. The Coast Guard does not plan to hold a public hearing;
however, persons may request a public hearing by writing to the Coast
Guard at the address listed under ADDRESSES. The request should include
the reasons why a hearing would be beneficial. If it is determined that
the opportunity for oral presentations will aid this rulemaking, the
Coast Guard will hold a public hearing at a time and place announced by
a subsequent notice published in the Federal Register.
Regulatory History
On May 18, 1998, the Coast Guard published a notice of proposed
rulemaking entitled Drawbridge Operation Regulations Passaic River, New
Jersey, in the Federal Register (63 FR 27240). The Coast Guard did not
receive any comments in response to the notice of proposed rulemaking.
No public hearing was requested and none was held.
Background
The Route 280 Bridge, mile 5.8, at Harrison, New Jersey, has a
vertical clearance of 35 feet at mean high water and 40 feet at mean
low water.
The current operating regulations in Sec. 117.739(h) require the
bridge to open on signal if at least eight (8) hours advance notice is
given. There have been only 8 requests to open this bridge since 1987.
The bridge owner, the New Jersey Department of Transportation (NJDOT),
has requested relief from being required to crew the bridge because
there have been so few requests to open the bridge.
The Coast Guard published a notice of proposed rulemaking on May
18, 1998, which allowed that the bridge need not open for vessels based
upon the infrequency of requests to open the draw in past years. The
District Commander has subsequently decided that all bridges within the
First Coast Guard District, permitted as moveable bridges and required
to be maintained in good operable condition by the general requirements
for bridges, should continue to open for vessel traffic on an advance
notice basis regardless of the frequency of the requests to open the
bridge. The need to open bridges based upon the historical frequency of
opening requests can be helpful in determining a reasonable time period
for advance notice to be given to bridge owners for bridge openings.
Discussion of Revised Proposal
The Coast Guard proposes to amend the operating regulations to
allow the draw to open on signal after a twenty four hour advance
notice for openings is given, relieving the bridge owner of the
requirement and expense to crew the bridge. The fact that there have
been only 8 requests to open the bridge since 1987 indicates that there
is insufficient need to require the bridge owner to crew the bridge on
a regular basis. Since the bridge is still a moveable bridge, required
to be maintained in good operable condition, the Coast Guard believes
that the bridge should still be required to open for vessel traffic.
Bridges placed on a need not open status should be bridges that,
because of special circumstances, should never need to open for vessel
traffic. The fact that there have been some requests to open the I-280
Bridge indicates that there is still a need to have the bridge
operational. Based upon the number of openings since 1987, the Coast
Guard believes that a twenty four hour advance notice is a reasonable
period of advance notice for mariners in need of openings as well as
sufficient time for the bridge owner to have a crew at the bridge to
provide openings.
The Coast Guard is also correcting an error in the published mile
point of the Route 7 Bridge which is currently listed at 6.9 and should
be 8.9. The Route 7 Bridge regulations would then be placed after the
regulations for the NJTRO Bridge in Sec. 117.739 to maintain the
ascending order of mile points in the regulation text.
[[Page 57964]]
Regulatory Evaluation
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 section 6(a)(3) of
that Order. It has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and
Budget 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). 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 conclusion is based on the fact
that there have been only 8 requests to open this bridge in the last
ten years. The Coast Guard believes this proposed rule achieves the
requirement of balancing both the needs of navigation and the bridge
owners responsibility to crew the bridge.
Small Entities
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), the
Coast Guard considers whether this proposed rule, if adopted, will have
a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. ``Small entities'' include 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. Therefore, for the reasons discussed in
the Regulatory Evaluation section above, the Coast Guard certifies
under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act that this
proposed rule, if adopted, will not have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities. If, however, you think that
your business or organization qualifies as a small entity and that this
rule will have a significant economic impact on your business or
organization, please submit a comment (see ADDRESSES) explaining why
you think it qualifies and in what way and to what degree this rule
will economically affect it.
Collection of Information
This rule does not provide for a collection of information under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
Federalism
The Coast Guard has analyzed this proposed rule in accordance with
the principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 12612 and has
determined that this proposed rule does not have sufficient
implications for federalism to warrant the preparation of a Federalism
Assessment.
Unfunded Mandates
Under the Unfunded mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4), the
Coast Guard must consider whether this rule will result in an annual
expenditure by state, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate
of $100 million (adjusted annually for inflation). If so, the Act
requires that a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives be
considered, and that from those alternatives, the least costly, most
cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative that achieves the
objective of the rule be selected. NJDOT will be effected by this rule
in so far as they will continue to be required to maintain the
operating machinery of the bridge. The continued maintenance of the
operating machinery of the bridge will not result in a new expenditure
of public funds but will merely be a continuation of their requirement
to maintain the bridge in good operable condition. This rule will not
result in annual or aggregate costs of $100 million or more. Therefore,
the Coast Guard is exempt from any further regulatory requirements
under the Unfunded Mandates Act.
Environment
The Coast Guard 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 changes to drawbridge regulations have been found not to have a
significant effect on the environment. A written ``Categorical
Exclusion Determination'' is not required for this proposed rule.
List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117
Bridges.
Regulations
For the reasons set out 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. 449; 49 CFR 1.46; 33 CFR 1.05-1(g); section
117.255 also issued under the authority of Pub. L. 102-587, 106
Stat. 5039.
2. In Sec. 117.739, redesignate paragraphs (j) and (k) as
paragraphs (k) and (j); amend newly redesignated paragraph (k) by
removing the number ``6.9'' and adding, in its place, the number
``8.9''; and revise paragraph (h) to read as follows:
Sec. 117.739 Passaic River
* * * * *
(h) The Route 280 Bridge, mile 5.8, at Harrison, New Jersey, shall
open on signal after a twenty four hour advance notice is given by
calling the number posted at the bridge.
* * * * *
Dated: October 19, 1998.
R.M. Larrabee,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, First Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 98-29046 Filed 10-28-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-M
