[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 105 (Thursday, June 2, 2005)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 32278-32279]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-10901]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[CGD01-05-029]
RIN 1625-AA09


Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Passaic River, NJ

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to temporarily change the drawbridge 
operating regulations governing the operation of the Route 280 Bridge, 
mile 5.8, across the Passaic River, at Harrison, New Jersey. Under this 
temporary rule the Route 280 Bridge may remain in the closed-to-
navigation position from March 1, 2006 through November 30, 2007. This 
temporary rulemaking is necessary to facilitate rehabilitation repairs 
at the bridge

DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or 
before August 1, 2005.

ADDRESSES: You may mail comments and related material to Commander 
(obr), First Coast Guard District Bridge Branch, 408 Atlantic Avenue, 
Boston, Massachusetts, 02110, or deliver them to the same address 
between 6:30 a.m. and 3 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 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: Joe Arca, Project Officer, First Coast 
Guard District, (212) 668-7069.

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 (CGD01-05-
029), 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

    The Route 280 Bridge has a vertical clearance in the closed 
position of 35 feet at mean high water and 40 feet at mean low water. 
The existing drawbridge operation regulations are listed at 33 CFR 
Sec.  117.739(h). Under the existing operation regulations a 24-hour 
advance notice is required for bridge openings at all times.
    The owner of the bridge, the New Jersey Department of 
Transportation, requested a temporary change to the drawbridge 
operation regulations to facilitate rehabilitation maintenance at the 
bridge.
    Under this temporary rule the bridge would remain in the closed-to-
navigation position from March 1, 2006 through November 30, 2007.
    The Route 280 Bridge has not received any requests to open during 
the past ten years.

Discussion of Proposal

    This proposed change would suspend Sec.  117.207(h) and temporarily 
add a new paragraph (u).
    Under this temporary rule the Route 280 Bridge would remain in the 
closed position for the passage of vessel traffic from March 1, 2006 
through November 30, 2007.

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 has not 
received a request to open during the past ten years.

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.

[[Page 32279]]

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 significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities.
    This conclusion is based on the fact that the bridge has not 
received a request to open during the past ten years.
    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.

Technical Standards

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 
U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards 
in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, 
through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why 
using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or 
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical 
standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or 
operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management 
systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus 
standards bodies. This proposed rule does not use technical standards. 
Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus 
standards.

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 March 1, 2006 through November 30, 2007, paragraph (h) in 
section 117.739 is suspended and a new paragraph (u) is added to read 
as follows:


Sec.  117.739   Passaic River.

* * * * *
    (u) From March 1, 2006 through November 30, 2007, the Route 280 
Bridge, mile 5.8, may remain in the closed-to-navigation position.

    Dated: May 23, 2005.
David P. Pekoske,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, First Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 05-10901 Filed 6-1-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P