Drawbridge Operation Regulations: Passaic River, NJ

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