[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 95 (Monday, May 18, 1998)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 27240-27241]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-13088]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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: 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 allow the bridge to remain closed to
navigation. The District Commander, upon six months notice, may require
that the bridge be restored to full operational status.
The bridge owner, the New Jersey Department of Transportation
(NJDOT), has requested that the Coast Guard consider a change to the
operating regulations for the Route 280 Bridge. There have been only 8
requests to open the Route 280 Bridge since 1987; therefore, the Coast
Guard proposed to change the operating regulations for this bridge
under Sec. 117.39, which allows closure of a drawbridge due to
infrequent use.
Additionally, as part of this proposal, the Coast Guard is
correcting an error in this regulation regarding the mile point of the
Route 7 (Rutgers Street) Bridge. The Route 7 Bridge Listed at mile 6.9
in the existing regulation should be listed at mile 8.9.
This proposed rule, if adopted, is expected to relieve NJDOT of the
requirement to crew the Route 280 Bridge and correct an error in this
regulation.
DATES: Comments must be received by the Coast Guard on or before July
17, 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) 233-8364. 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.
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 Cost 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.
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.
[[Page 27241]]
The Route 280 Bridge is presently required under Sec. 117.739(h) 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 has requested relief from being required to crew the
bridge since there have been so few requests to open the bridge.
Discussion of Proposal
The Coast Guard is considering amending the regulations to require
that the bridge need not open for navigation, relieving the bridge
owner of the requirement and expense to crew the bridge. Section 117.39
contains the authority for the Coast Guard to issue such regulations
and authorizes the Coast Guard to place certain restrictions on the
bridge closure. The fact that there have been only 8 requests to open
the bridge since 1987 indicates that there is good cause to no longer
require the bridge owner to crew the bridge on a regular basis. The
Coast Guard, as a part of this proposal, would require that the bridge
be maintained in good operable condition in the event there is a need
to open the bridge, since the bridge is still a moveable bridge.
The Coast Guard is also correcting an error in this regulation by
changing the mile point of the Route 7 Bridge which is listed at 6.9
and correctly should be 8.9. This correction will require that two
paragraphs be changed in the order they appear in this regulation as a
result of the corrected ascending order of mile points in the
regulation text. The Route 7 Bridge will be changed from paragraph (j)
to paragraph (k) and the NJTRO Bridge will be changed from (k) to (j).
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 vehicular
traffic.
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
proposed 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 proposed
rule will economically affect it.
Collection of Information
This proposed 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.
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 ``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. 499; 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) and revise paragraph (h) and newly redesignated (k) to read
as follows:
Sec. 117.739 Passaic River.
* * * * *
(h) The Route 280 Bridge, mile 5.8, at Harrison, New Jersey, need
not open for the passage of vessels. The operating machinery of the
draw shall be maintained in serviceable condition and the draw operated
at sufficient intervals to assure satisfactory operation. The bridge
shall be restored to full operational status upon six months notice
from the District Commander should the needs of navigation change to
require the bridge to open for the passage of vessels.
* * * * *
(k) The draw of the Route 7 (Rutgers Street) Bridge, mile 8.9, at
Belleville, shall open on signal if at least four hours notice is
given.
* * * * *
Dated: April 18, 1998.
R.M. Larrabee,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard Commander, First Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 98-13088 Filed 5-15-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-M
