Browse: Departments Dates Agencies
RIN ID: RIN 2115-AE47
CGD ID: [CGD01-02-108]
SUBJECT CATEGORY: Drawbridge Operation Regulations: Passaic River, NJ
DOCUMENT SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary final rule governing the operation of the Route 7
[[Page 58330]]
(Rutgers Street) Bridge, at mile 8.9, across the Passaic River at
Belleville, New Jersey. This rule allows the bridge to remain in the
closed position from September 13, 2002 through October 15, 2002. This
action is necessary to facilitate structural work at the bridge.
SUMMARY: New Jersey,
We did not publish a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for this regulation. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing an NPRM and under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register.
The Coast Guard believes notice and comment are unnecessary because the only vessel operator upstream from the bridge can pass under the bridge without a bridge opening. In view of the historic absence of bridge opening requests and the demonstrated need to complete structural work at the bridge, any delay encountered in this regulation's effective date would be unnecessary and contrary to the public interest.
The Route 7 Bridge has been replaced with a new Route 7 Bridge. The final phase of the new bridge construction involves the installation of the roadway deck, during which, the bridge will not be able to open for vessel traffic.
The bridge owner, New Jersey Department of Transportation, requested a change to the temporary regulation to facilitate the remaining construction. On June 26, 2002, we published a temporary final rule (67 FR 42997) for the Route 7 (Rutgers Street) Bridge. That temporary final rule allowed the bridge to remain in the closed position from June 15, 2002 through September 3, 2002, to facilitate the installation of the roadway deck.
Subsequent to publication of the above temporary final rule, the Coast Guard was notified by the owner of the bridge that the June 15, 2002, start date for the repair work and bridge closure would be postponed because of a delay in the delivery of materials required for the project.
The commencement of repair work and the bridge closure did not actually begin until July 24, 2002. As a result of the above delay in the commencement of the bridge construction, the end date for the temporary final rule must be extended.
The Coast Guard believes this temporary final rule is reasonable because no vessel traffic will be precluded from transiting this bridge as a result of the bridge closure. Presently there is only one vessel operator upstream from the bridge and that vessel can pass under the bridge without a bridge opening.
This 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 Transportation (DOT) (44 FR 11040; February 26, 1979).
This conclusion is based on the fact that no known vessel traffic will be prevented from transiting the bridge as a result of this closure.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601612), we considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term ``small entities'' comprises small businesses, notforprofit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations less than 50,000.
The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b), that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
This conclusion is based on the fact that no known vessels will be prevented from transiting the bridge as a result of this bridge closure.
This rule calls for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 35013520).
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 rule under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for federalism.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 15311538) 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 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 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 rule will not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.
This 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.
We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection
of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule
is not an economically significant rule and does not concern an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may
disproportionately affect children.
This final rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have 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. [[Page 58331]]
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.
We have considered the environmental impact of this rule and
concluded that under figure 21, paragraph (32)(e), of Commandant
Instruction M16475.1d, this rule is categorically excluded from further
environmental documentation because promulgation of changes to
drawbridge regulations have been found to not have a significant effect
on the environment. A ``Categorical Exclusion Determination'' is
available in the docket for inspection or copying where indicated under ADDRESSES.
List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117
Bridges.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 117 as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 117 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 499; 49 CFR 1.46; 33 CFR 1.051(g); section 117.255 also issued under the authority of Pub. L. 102587, 106 Stat. 5039.
2. From September 13, 2002 through October 15, 2002, section
117.739 is temporarily amended by suspending paragraph (k) and adding a new paragraph (q) to read as follows:
Sec. 117.739 Passaic River.
* * * * *
(q) The draw of the Route 7 (Rutgers Street) Bridge, mile 8.9, need
not open for the passage of vessel traffic from September 13, 2002 through October 15, 2002.
Dated: September 9, 2002.
V.S. Crea,
Rear Admiral, Coast Guard, Commander, First Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 0223479 Filed 91302; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 491015P
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT Mr. Joe Arca, Project Officer, First Coast Guard District, (212) 6687165.
14 CFR Part 39 40 CFR Part 52 14 CFR Part 71 33 CFR Part 165 50 CFR Part 679 26 CFR Part 1 40 CFR Part 180 47 CFR Part 73 33 CFR Part 117 50 CFR Part 17 44 CFR Part 67 50 CFR Part 648 14 CFR Part 97 33 CFR Part 100 40 CFR Part 63 50 CFR Part 622 26 CFR Part 301 50 CFR Part 660 39 CFR Part 111 40 CFR Part 300 44 CFR Part 65 40 CFR Part 271 40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 47 CFR Part 64 50 CFR Part 665 49 CFR Part 571 44 CFR Part 64 21 CFR Part 522 50 CFR Part 229 14 CFR Part 23