[Federal Register: October 12, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 196)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 60595-60597]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr12oc04-22]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 117
[CGD05-04-179]
RIN 1625-AA09
Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Mantua Creek, Paulsboro, NJ
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to temporarily change the regulations
that govern the operation of the S.R. 44 bridge over Mantua Creek, at
mile 1.7, in Paulsboro, New Jersey. The bridge will be closed to
navigation from 8 a.m. on September 12, 2005, through 6 p.m. on
December 9, 2005. The extensive structural, mechanical, and electrical
repairs and improvements necessitate this closure.
DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or
before November 26, 2004.
ADDRESSES: You may mail comments and related material to Commander
(obr), Fifth Coast Guard District, Federal Building, 4th Floor, 431
Crawford Street, Portsmouth, VA 23704-5004. The Fifth Coast Guard
District 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
Commander (obr), Fifth Coast Guard District between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Anton Allen, Bridge Management
Specialist, Fifth Coast Guard District, at (757) 398-6227.
[[Page 60596]]
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Request for Comments
We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting
comments and related material. If you do so, please include your name
and address, identify the docket number for this rulemaking CGD05-04-
179 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
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 Commander (obr), Fifth Coast Guard
District 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 New Jersey Department of Transportation (NJDOT) owns and
operates the S.R. 44 Bridge over Mantua Creek in Paulsboro, NJ. The
current regulations set out in 33 CFR 117.729 require the draw to open
on signal from March 1 through November 30 from 7 a.m. to 11 p.m., and
to open on signal at all other times upon four hours notice.
Parsons Brinckerhoff, a design consultant, on behalf of NJDOT
requested a temporary change to the existing regulations for the S.R.
44 Bridge over Mantua Creek to facilitate necessary repairs. The
repairs consist of structural rehabilitation and various mechanical,
electrical repairs and improvements. To facilitate repairs, the
vertical lift span must be closed to vessel traffic from 8 a.m. on
September 12, 2005, through 6 p.m. on December 9, 2005.
The Coast Guard has reviewed bridge opening data provided by the
New Jersey Department of Transportation. The data, from years 2000 to
2002, shows a substantial decrease in the numbers of bridge openings
and vessel traffic transiting the area after the Labor Day weekend.
Based on the data provided, the proposed closure dates will have
minimal impact on vessel traffic.
Discussion of Proposed Rule
The Coast Guard proposes to amend the regulations governing the
S.R. 44 Bridge over Mantua Creek, mile 1.7, which currently opens on
signal from March 1 through November 30 from 7 a.m. to 11 p.m., and
open on demand at all other times upon four hours notice. The Coast
Guard proposes to suspend 33 CFR Sec. 117.729(b) and insert this new
specific regulation at 33 CFR Sec. 117.729(c).
Paragraph (c) would allow the draw to be closed to vessel traffic
during the rehabilitation project from 8 a.m. on September 12, 2005,
through 6 p.m. on December 9, 2005.
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 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
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. We established this conclusion
based on historical data, and on the fact that the proposed closure
dates support minimal impact due to the reduced number of vessels
requiring transit through the bridge.
Small Entities
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
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 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed
rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. The off-season closure dates proposed for the
bridge are designed to minimize the number of small entities affected.
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.
Assistance for Small Entities
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this proposed rule so that they can better
evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the
rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or
options for compliance, please contact Waverly W. Gregory, Jr., Bridge
Administrator, Fifth Coast Guard District, (757) 398-6222. The Coast
Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or
complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
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 will 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 affect a taking of private property or
otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630,
Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected
Property Rights.
[[Page 60597]]
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 might
disproportionately affect children.
Indian Tribal Governments
This proposed 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 proposed 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. The Administrator of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs has not designated it 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.lD, 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 proposed rule is categorically excluded,
under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e) of the Instruction, from further
environmental documentation.
List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117
Bridges.
Regulations
For the reasons discussed 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 8 a.m. on September 12, 2005 until 6 p.m. on December 9,
2005, in Sec. 117.729, suspend paragraph (b) and add a new paragraph
(c) to read as follows:
Sec. 117.729 Mantua Creek.
* * * * *
(c) From 8 a.m. on September 12, 2005, through 6 p.m. on December
9, 2005, the S.R. 44 Bridge, mile 1.7, at Paulsboro, may remain closed
to navigation.
Dated: September 22, 2004.
Sally Brice-O'Hara,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Fifth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 04-22848 Filed 10-8-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P