[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