[Federal Register: July 29, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 145)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 43812-43814]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr29jy05-32]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 117
[CGD01-05-061]
RIN 1625-AA09
Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Hackensack River, NJ
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 Willis Amtrak Portal Bridge,
mile 5.0, across the Hackensack River at Little Snake Hill, New Jersey.
This notice of proposed rulemaking would allow the bridge owner to
expand the two time periods in the morning and in the afternoon, Monday
through Friday, when the bridge may remain closed to vessel traffic.
DATES: Comments must reach the Coast Guard on or before August 29,
2005.
ADDRESSES: You may mail comments to Commander (obr), First Coast Guard
[[Page 43813]]
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: Mr. Joe Arca, Project Officer, First
Coast Guard District, (212) 668-7165.
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-
061), 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 Amtrak Portal Bridge has a vertical clearance of 23 feet at
mean high water and 28 feet at mean low water in the closed position.
The existing operating regulations are listed at 33 CFR 117.723(c).
The owner of the bridge, National Railroad Passenger Corporation
(AMTRAK), requested a change to the drawbridge operation regulations
that would expand the two time periods in the morning and afternoon,
Monday through Friday, when the bridge may remain closed to vessel
traffic.
Rail traffic during the morning and afternoon commuter periods has
increased. Bridge openings during the two commuter time periods have
caused delays to rail traffic prompting the bridge owner to request the
expansion of the bridge closure periods Monday through Friday.
The Coast Guard decided to conduct a test to help determine if the
proposed drawbridge operation schedule changes would not cause undue
delays to vessel traffic.
On February 26, 2004, the Coast Guard published a temporary 90-day
deviation, with request for comment, (69 FR 8817) to test changes to
the drawbridge operation regulations for the Amtrak Portal Bridge
identical to those proposed in this notice of proposed rulemaking. That
temporary deviation was in effect from March 1, 2004, through May 29,
2004. We received nine comment letters in response to the temporary
deviation and request for comment. All the comment letters were in
favor of making the tested drawbridge operation schedule a permanent
rule change.
On November 23, 2004, we published a second 90-day deviation (69 FR
68079) to test the same drawbridge operation schedule as above during
the winter months of the year. The second test deviation was in effect
from December 13, 2004 through March 12, 2005. We received eight
comment letters in response to our second test deviation. All eight
letters were in favor of the proposed rule change.
The existing drawbridge operation regulations allow the bridge to
remain closed to vessel traffic, Monday through Friday, from 7:20 a.m.
to 9:20 a.m. and from 4:30 p.m. to 6:50 p.m., daily. Under this
proposed rule the Amtrak Portal Bridge would not open for vessel
traffic, Monday through Friday, from 6 a.m. to 10 a.m. and from 4 p.m.
to 8 p.m., daily. Additional bridge openings would be provided for
commercial vessels from 6 a.m. to 7:20 a.m., from 9:20 a.m. to 10 a.m.,
from 4 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. and from 6:50 p.m. to 8 p.m., if at least a
one-hour advance notice is given by calling the number posted at the
bridge.
Discussion of Proposed Rule
This proposed rule would amend 33 CFR 117.723 by revising paragraph
(c), which details the Amtrak Portal Bridge operation schedule. Under
this proposed rule the Amtrak Portal Bridge may remain closed for
vessel traffic, Monday through Friday, from 6 a.m. to 10 a.m. and from
4 p.m. to 8 p.m.
Additional bridge openings would be provided for commercial vessels
from 6 a.m. to 7:20 a.m., 9:20 a.m. to 10 a.m., 4 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. and
from 6:50 p.m. to 8 p.m., provided at least a one-hour advance notice
is given by calling the number posted at the bridge.
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 expansion of the
existing bridge closures were previously tested successfully with no
objections from the marine facilities or operators that use this
waterway.
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 significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
This conclusion is based on the fact that the expansion of the
existing bridge closures were previously tested successfully with no
objections from the marine facilities or operators that use this
waterway.
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.
[[Page 43814]]
Assistance for Small Entities
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Public Law 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 us in writing at, Commander
(obr), First Coast Guard District, Bridge Branch, 408 Atlantic Avenue,
Boston, MA 02110-3350. The telephone number is (617) 223-8364. 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 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. 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
M16475.1D, 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. Section 117.723 is amended by revising paragraph (c) to read as
follows:
Sec. 117.723 Hackensack River.
* * * * *
(c) Except as provided in paragraph (a)(1) of this section, the
draw of the Amtrak Portal Bridge, mile 5.0, at Little Snake Hill, need
not open for the passage of vessel traffic Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays, from 6 a.m. to 10 a.m. and from 4 p.m. to 8
p.m. Additional bridge openings shall be provided for commercial
vessels from 6 a.m. to 7:20 a.m.; 9:20 a.m. to 10 a.m.; 4 p.m. to 4:30
p.m. and from 6:50 p.m. to 8 p.m., if at least a one-hour advance
notice is given by calling the number posted at the bridge.
* * * * *
Dated: July 12, 2005.
David P. Pekoske,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, First Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 05-15065 Filed 7-28-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P