Daily Rules, Proposed Rules, and Notices of the Federal Government
To avoid duplication, please use only one of these methods. See the "Public Participation and Request for Comments" portion of the
We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting comments and related materials. All comments received will be posted, without change to
If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking (USCG-2011-0268), indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material online (
To submit your comment online, go to
To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
Anyone can search the electronic form of comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review a Privacy Act notice regarding our public dockets in the January 17, 2008, issue of the
We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a request for one using one of the four methods specified under
The Amtrak Dock Bridge, mile 5.0, across the Passaic River, at Harrison, New Jersey, has a vertical clearance in the closed position of 24 feet at mean high water and 29 feet at mean low water. The drawbridge operation regulations are listed at 33 CFR 117.739(e).
The existing drawbridge operation regulations require the draw to open on signal; except that, from 7:20 a.m. to 9:20 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. to 6:50 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays, the draw need not be opened. At all other times, an opening may be delayed no more than ten minutes, unless the draw tender and the vessel operator, communicating by radio-telephone, agree to a longer delay.
The bridge has received only eight requests to open during the past three years.
The Coast Guard received a request from the owner of the bridge, National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak), for relief from crewing the bridge at all times. Amtrak requested that a twenty-four hour advance notice be required for all bridge openings, except during the existing morning and afternoon closed periods.
As a result of the fact that the bridge has received only eight requests to open during the past three years, the Coast Guard believes it is reasonable for the bridge owner to require a twenty-four hour advance notice for bridge openings and that doing so would continue to meet the reasonable needs of navigation.
The Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR 117.739 by changing the current requirement from the bridge opening on signal to the bridge opening after a required twenty-four hour advance notice is provided. The closed periods, 7:20 a.m. to 9:20 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. to 6:50 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays, would remain in the revised regulation.
We will eliminate the reference to communicating by radio telephone from the regulations since that is no longer the only method of communicating with the bridge.
We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on 13 of these statutes or executive orders.
This proposed rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders.
We expect the economic impact of this proposed rule to be minimal. Although this regulation may have some impact on the public, the potential impact will be minimized for the following reasons:
The bridge has only received eight requests to open during the past three years. The bridge openings can still be obtained at any time, except the morning and afternoon closed periods, by providing at least a twenty-four hour advance notice.
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 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 proposed rule would affect the following entities, some of which might be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels needing to transit the bridge.
This proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons:
The bridge only received eight requests to open during the past three years. The bridge openings can still be obtained at any time, except during the Monday through Friday closed periods, by providing a twenty-four hour advance notice.
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
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 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 Mr. John W. McDonald, Project Officer, First Coast Guard District Bridge Program, telephone 617-223-8364 or e-mail
The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this proposed rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
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.
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 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
This proposed rule would not cause a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.
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.
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.
This proposed 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 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.
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 (
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 Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01, and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD 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 this action is one of a category of actions which do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment because it simply promulgates the operating regulations or procedures for drawbridges. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this proposed rule.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR part 117 as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 117 continues to read as follows:
33 U.S.C. 499; 33 CFR 1.05-1; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
2. Revise § 33 CFR 117.739 paragraph (e) to read as follows:
(e) The draw of the Amtrak Dock Bridge, mile 5.0, at Harrison, shall open on signal after at least a twenty four hour advance notice is given by calling the number posted at the bridge; except that, from 7:20 a.m. to 9:20 a.m. and from 4:30 p.m. to 6:50 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays, the draw need not be opened for the passage of vessel traffic. At all other times, a bridge opening may be delayed no more than ten minutes for the passage of rail traffic, unless the draw tender and the vessel operator agree to a longer delay.