[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 179 (Monday, September 16, 2002)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 58329-58331]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-23479]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[CGD01-02-108]
RIN 2115-AE47


Drawbridge Operation Regulations: Passaic River, NJ

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary final rule 
governing the operation of the Route 7

[[Page 58330]]

(Rutgers Street) Bridge, at mile 8.9, across the Passaic River at 
Belleville, New Jersey. This rule allows the bridge to remain in the 
closed position from September 13, 2002 through October 15, 2002. This 
action is necessary to facilitate structural work at the bridge.

DATES: This temporary final rule is effective from September 13, 2002 
through October 15, 2002.

ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in 
the docket are part of docket (CGD01-02-108) and are available for 
inspection or copying at the First Coast Guard District, Bridge Branch 
Office, 408 Atlantic Avenue, Boston, Massachusetts, 02110, 6:30 a.m. to 
3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Joe Arca, Project Officer, First 
Coast Guard District, (212) 668-7165.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulatory Information

    We did not publish a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for this 
regulation. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good 
cause exists for not publishing an NPRM and under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), 
the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule 
effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register.
    The Coast Guard believes notice and comment are unnecessary because 
the only vessel operator upstream from the bridge can pass under the 
bridge without a bridge opening. In view of the historic absence of 
bridge opening requests and the demonstrated need to complete 
structural work at the bridge, any delay encountered in this 
regulation's effective date would be unnecessary and contrary to the 
public interest.

Background

    The Route 7 Bridge has been replaced with a new Route 7 Bridge. The 
final phase of the new bridge construction involves the installation of 
the roadway deck, during which, the bridge will not be able to open for 
vessel traffic.
    The bridge owner, New Jersey Department of Transportation, 
requested a change to the temporary regulation to facilitate the 
remaining construction. On June 26, 2002, we published a temporary 
final rule (67 FR 42997) for the Route 7 (Rutgers Street) Bridge. That 
temporary final rule allowed the bridge to remain in the closed 
position from June 15, 2002 through September 3, 2002, to facilitate 
the installation of the roadway deck.
    Subsequent to publication of the above temporary final rule, the 
Coast Guard was notified by the owner of the bridge that the June 15, 
2002, start date for the repair work and bridge closure would be 
postponed because of a delay in the delivery of materials required for 
the project.
    The commencement of repair work and the bridge closure did not 
actually begin until July 24, 2002. As a result of the above delay in 
the commencement of the bridge construction, the end date for the 
temporary final rule must be extended.
    The Coast Guard believes this temporary final rule is reasonable 
because no vessel traffic will be precluded from transiting this bridge 
as a result of the bridge closure. Presently there is only one vessel 
operator upstream from the bridge and that vessel can pass under the 
bridge without a bridge opening.

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 procedures of the Department of Transportation 
(DOT) (44 FR 11040; February 26, 1979).
    This conclusion is based on the fact that no known vessel traffic 
will be prevented from transiting the bridge as a result of this 
closure.

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we 
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 no known vessels will be 
prevented from transiting the bridge as a result of this bridge 
closure.

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).

Federalism

    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.

[[Page 58331]]

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. It has not been designated by the Administrator of the 
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs as a significant energy 
action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects 
under Executive Order 13211.

Environment

    We have considered the environmental impact of this rule and 
concluded that under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e), of Commandant 
Instruction M16475.1d, this rule is categorically excluded from further 
environmental documentation because promulgation of changes to 
drawbridge regulations have been found to not have a significant effect 
on the environment. A ``Categorical Exclusion Determination'' is 
available in the docket for inspection or copying where indicated under 
ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117

    Bridges.

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: 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. From September 13, 2002 through October 15, 2002, section 
117.739 is temporarily amended by suspending paragraph (k) and adding a 
new paragraph (q) to read as follows:


Sec.  117.739  Passaic River.

* * * * *
    (q) The draw of the Route 7 (Rutgers Street) Bridge, mile 8.9, need 
not open for the passage of vessel traffic from September 13, 2002 
through October 15, 2002.

    Dated: September 9, 2002.
V.S. Crea,
Rear Admiral, Coast Guard, Commander, First Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 02-23479 Filed 9-13-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P