[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 86 (Tuesday, May 4, 2004)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 24548-24549]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-10114]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[CGD01-04-033]
RIN 1625-AA09


Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Hutchinson River, NY

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to change the drawbridge operating 
regulations governing the operation of the Pelham Parkway Bridge, mile 
0.4, across the Hutchinson River, New York. This change would allow the 
bridge owner to require a thirty-minute advance notice for bridge 
openings between 6 a.m. and 7 p.m. from July 1, 2004 through May 1, 
2005. This action is necessary to facilitate bridge painting 
operations.

DATES: Comments must reach the Coast Guard on or before June 3, 2004.

ADDRESSES: You may mail comments to Commander (obr), First Coast Guard 
District Bridge Branch, One South Street, Battery Park Building, New 
York, New York, 10004, or deliver them to the same address between 7 
a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The 
telephone number is (212) 668-7165. The First Coast Guard District, 
Bridge Branch, maintains the public docket for this rulemaking. 
Comments and material received from the public, as well as documents 
indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket, will 
become part of this docket and will be available for inspection or 
copying at the First Coast Guard District, Bridge Branch, 7 a.m. to 3 
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Judy Leung-Yee, Project Officer, First 
Coast Guard District, (212) 668-7195.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Request for Comments

    We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting 
comments or related material. If you do so, please include your name 
and address, identify the docket number for this rulemaking (CGD01-04-
033), indicate the specific section of this document to which each 
comment applies, and give the reason for each comment. Please submit 
all comments and related material in an unbound format, no larger than 
8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for copying. If you would like to know if 
they reached us, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or 
envelope. We will consider all comments and material received during 
the comment period. We may change this proposed rule in view of them.

Public Meeting

    We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a 
request for a meeting by writing to the First Coast Guard District, 
Bridge Branch, at the address under ADDRESSES explaining why one would 
be beneficial. If we determine that one would aid this rulemaking, we 
will hold one at a time and place announced by a later notice in the 
Federal Register.

Background and Purpose

    The Pelham Parkway Bridge has a vertical clearance of 13 feet at 
mean high water and 20 feet at mean low water in the closed position. 
The existing operating regulations listed at 33 CFR 117.793(a), require 
the draw to open on signal at all times.
    The owner of the bridge, New York City Department of 
Transportation, requested a thirty-minute advance notice for bridge 
openings at the Pelham Parkway Bridge between 6 a.m. and 7 p.m. from 
July 1, 2004 through May 1, 2005, to facilitate bridge painting 
operations at the bridge.
    This rulemaking is necessary to facilitate the safe removal of 
construction personnel and equipment from the bridge after a request to 
open the bridge is received.

Discussion of Proposal

    This proposed change would allow the owner of the Pelham Parkway 
Bridge to require a thirty-minute advance notice for bridge openings 
between 6 a.m. and 7 p.m. from July 1, 2004 through May 1, 2005, to 
facilitate the safe evacuation of construction personnel and equipment 
from the draw after a bridge opening request is received.
    The Coast Guard believes this rule is reasonable in order to 
provide for the safety of the construction personnel working on the 
bridge, and because the Hutchinson River is navigated predominantly by 
commercial vessels that already provide advance notice for their bridge 
openings.
    The bridge painting work is best accomplished during the warmer 
weather conditions. As a result, we have implemented a shortened 30-day 
comment period for this proposed rule to insure this rulemaking becomes 
effective by the requested start date to take advantage of the better 
weather conditions for bridge painting.

Regulatory Evaluation

    This proposed 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 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 Homeland 
Security.
    We expect the economic impact of this proposed rule to be so 
minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation, under the regulatory 
policies and procedures of DHS, is unnecessary.
    This conclusion is based on the fact that the bridge will continue 
to open on signal for vessel traffic provided the thirty-minute notice 
is given.

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we 
considered whether this proposed 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 of less than 
50,000.
    The Coast Guard certifies under section 5 U.S.C. 605(b), that this 
proposed rule would not have a

[[Page 24549]]

significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    This conclusion is based on the fact that the bridge will continue 
to open on signal for vessel traffic provided the thirty-minute notice 
is given.
    If you think that your business, organization, or governmental 
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that 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 proposed rule would call 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 proposed 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 a 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 proposed rule would not result in such an 
expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this 
preamble.

Taking of Private Property

    This proposed rule would not effect a taking of private property or 
otherwise have taking implications under E.O. 12630, Governmental 
Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property 
Rights.

Civil Justice Reform

    This proposed 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 proposed rule under Executive Order 13045, 
Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety 
Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and would not 
create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may 
disproportionately affect children.

Indian Tribal Governments

    This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 
13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, 
because it would not have a 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.

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 analyzed this proposed rule under Commandant Instruction 
M16475.1D, which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National 
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and 
have concluded that there are no factors in this case that would limit 
the use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the 
Instruction. Therefore, this rule is categorically excluded, under 
figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e), of the Instruction, from further 
environment documentation because it has been determined that the 
promulgation of operating regulations or procedures for drawbridges are 
categorically excluded.

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; Department of Homeland Security 
Delegation No. 0170.1; 33 CFR 1.05-1(g); section 117.255 also issued 
under the authority of Pub. L. 102-587, 106 Stat. 5039.

    2. From July 1, 2004 through May 1, 2005, Sec.  117.793 is 
temporarily amended by adding a new paragraph (d) to read as follows:


Sec.  117.793  Hutchinson River (Eastchester Creek).

* * * * *
    (d) The draw of the of the Pelham Parkway (Shore Road) Bridge, at 
mile 0.4, shall open on signal; except that from July 1, 2004 through 
May 1, 2005, between 6 a.m. to 7 p.m. each day, the draw shall open 
after at least a thirty-minute advance notice is given by calling the 
New York City Highway Radio (Hotline) Room.

    Dated: April 22, 2004.
John L. Grenier,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting Commander, First Coast Guard 
District.
[FR Doc. 04-10114 Filed 5-3-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P