Skip to Content

Rule

Drawbridge Operation Regulations: Passaic River, NJ

Document Details

Information about this document as published in the Federal Register.

Published Document

This document has been published in the Federal Register. Use the PDF linked in the document sidebar for the official electronic format.

Start Preamble

AGENCY:

Coast Guard, DOT.

ACTION:

Temporary final rule.

SUMMARY:

The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary final rule governing the operation of the Route 7 Start Printed 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.

DATES:

This temporary final rule is effective from September 13, 2002 through October 15, 2002.

ADDRESSES:

Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket are part of docket (CGD01-02-108) and are available for inspection or copying at the First Coast Guard District, Bridge Branch Office, 408 Atlantic Avenue, Boston, Massachusetts, 02110, 6:30 a.m. to 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

Start Further Info

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mr. Joe Arca, Project Officer, First Coast Guard District, (212) 668-7165.

End Further Info End Preamble Start Supplemental Information

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulatory Information

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.

Background

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.

Regulatory Evaluation

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.

Small Entities

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), 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, 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.

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.

Collection of Information

This rule calls 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 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 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.

Civil Justice Reform

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.

Protection of Children

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.

Indian Tribal Governments

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. Start Printed Page 58331

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.

Environment

We have considered the environmental impact of this rule and concluded that under figure 2-1, 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.

Start List of Subjects

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117

End List of Subjects

Regulations

Start Amendment Part

For the reasons set out in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends

End Amendment Part Start Part

PART 117—DRAWBRIDGE OPERATION REGULATIONS

End Part Start Amendment Part

1. The authority citation for part 117 continues to read as follows:

End Amendment Part Start Authority

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 499; 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.

End Authority Start Amendment Part

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:

End Amendment Part
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.

Start Signature

Dated: September 9, 2002.

V.S. Crea,

Rear Admiral, Coast Guard, Commander, First Coast Guard District.

End Signature End Supplemental Information

[FR Doc. 02-23479 Filed 9-13-02; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-15-P