Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Coast Guard proposes to temporarily change the drawbridge operating regulations governing the operation of the Ferry Street Bridge, across the Quinnipiac River, mile 0.7, at New Haven, Connecticut. This notice of proposed rulemaking allows the bridge owner to keep one of the two moveable bascule spans in the closed position at all times from September 28, 2007 through April 30, 2008. This temporary rule is necessary to facilitate scheduled bridge maintenance.
Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or before September 20, 2007.
You may mail comments and related material to Commander (dpb), First Coast Guard 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, between 7 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.Start Further Info
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Ms. Judy Leung-Yee, Project Officer, First Coast Guard District, (212) 668-7195.End Further Info End Preamble Start Supplemental 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 (CGD01-07-091), 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 81/2 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.
We do not now plan to hold a public meeting; however, 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 Ferry Street Bridge, across the Quinnipiac River, mile 0.7, at New Haven, Connecticut, has a vertical clearance in the closed position of 25 feet at mean high water and 31 feet at mean low water. The existing regulations are listed at 33 CFR 117.213.
In early 2007, the Connecticut Department of Transportation requested a temporary deviation to facilitate scheduled structural repairs and bridge painting at the Ferry Street Bridge at New Haven, Connecticut. In order to perform the structural repairs, one bascule bridge span had to remain in the closed position while the other span could remain in the full open position at all times for the passage of vessel traffic.
As a result of the above request, the Coast Guard published a temporary deviation from the drawbridge operation regulations in the Federal Register (72 FR 18884), on April 16, 2007, in effect from April 16, 2007 through September 27, 2007.
On June 22, 2007, the Coast Guard was notified that the scheduled repairs authorized under the temporary deviation listed above would not be completed by the end of the effective period, scheduled to end on September 27, 2007. Start Printed Page 46587
As a result of the above information, Connecticut Department of Transportation requested a temporary regulation to allow the repair work to continue at the bridge through April 30, 2008, in order to complete the remaining work.
Under this notice of proposed rulemaking, from September 28, 2007 through April 30, 2008, the Ferry Street Bridge across the Quinnipiac River, mile 0.7, at New Haven, Connecticut, would keep one of the two bascule bridge spans in the closed position at all times while keeping the second bascule span in the fully open position for the passage of vessel traffic at all times.
Note that due to the need to have a temporary final rule in place when the current deviation expires on September 27, 2007, we plan on issuing a temporary final rule with an effective date less than 30 days from the date of publication in the Federal Register. We ask specifically for comments on this planned course of action.
Discussion of Proposed Rule
This proposed change would amend 33 CFR 117.213 by suspending paragraph (a) and adding a new temporary paragraph (g) that would list the temporary bridge opening schedule for the Ferry Street Bridge, as well as restating the existing operating schedules for the remaining bridges listed in paragraph (a).
This temporary rule is necessary to facilitate the rehabilitation construction at the bridge.
This proposed change would allow the Ferry Street Bridge to keep one of the two bascule spans in the open position at all times while keeping the second span in the closed position at all times from September 28, 2007 through April 30, 2008.
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.
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 existing vessel traffic will be able to transit through the single open span at the bridge at all times.
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 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 existing vessel traffic will be able to transit through an open bridge span at all times.
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 (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, Commander (dpb), First Coast Guard District, Bridge Branch, One South Street, New York, NY 10004. The telephone number is (212) 668-7165. 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.).
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 affect 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 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 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.
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 Start Printed Page 46588likely 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.
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.
We have analyzed this proposed rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, and Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 5100.1, which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary determination 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, we believe that this rule should be categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e) of the Instruction, from further environmental documentation as this action relates to the promulgation of operating regulations or procedures for drawbridges. Under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e) of the Instruction, an “Environmental Analysis Checklist” is not required for this rule. Comments on this section will be considered before we make the final decision on whether to categorically exclude this rule from further environmental review.Start List of Subjects
List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117End List of Subjects
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR part 117 as follows:Start Part
PART 117—DRAWBRIDGE OPERATION REGULATIONS
1. The authority citation for part 117 continues to read as follows:
2. From September 28, 2007 through April 30, 2008, § 117.213 is amended by suspending paragraph (a) and adding a temporary paragraph (g) to read as follows:
(g) The draws shall open on signal; except as follows:
(1) From 7:30 a.m. to 8:30 a.m., noon to 12:15 p.m., 12:45 p.m. to 1 p.m., and 4:45 p.m. to 5:45 p.m., the draws need not be opened.
(2) The draw of the Ferry Street Bridge, mile 0.7, at New Haven, shall maintain one of the two moveable bascule bridge spans in the full open position at all times for the passage of vessel traffic. The second moveable bascule bridge span may remain in the closed position at all times.
(3) From 11 p.m. to 7 a.m., the draw of the Grand Avenue bridge, Quinnipiac River, shall open on signal if at least one hour notice is given to the drawtender at the Ferry Street bridge. In the event that the drawtender is at the Chapel Street bridge, a delay of up to an additional hour may be expected.
(4) From 9 p.m. to 5 a.m., the draw of the Chapel Street bridge, Mill River, shall open on signal if at least one hour notice is given to the drawtender at Ferry Street bridge. In the event that the drawtender is at the Grand Avenue bridge, a delay of up to an additional hour may be expected.
Dated: August 10, 2007.
Timothy V. Skuby,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting Commander, First Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. E7-16399 Filed 8-20-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P