[Federal Register: December 27, 2002 (Volume 67, Number 249)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 79012-79014]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr27de02-33]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 117
[CGD01-02-143]
RIN 2115-AE47
Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Jamaica Bay and Connecting
Waterways, NY
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to temporarily change the drawbridge
operating regulations governing the operation of the New York City
highway bridge, at mile 0.8, across Mill Basin on Belt Parkway at New
York City, New York. This temporary rule would allow the bridge to
remain closed to vessel traffic from 7 a.m. on February 24, 2003
through 5 p.m. on April 14, 2003. This action is necessary to
facilitate the installation of median safety barriers at the bridge.
DATES: Comments must reach the Coast Guard on or before January 27,
2003.
ADDRESSES: You may mail comments to Commander (obr), First Coast Guard
District Bridge Branch, at 408 Atlantic Avenue, Boston, MA. 02110-3350,
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 (617)
223-8364. 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: Joseph Schmied, Project Officer, First
Coast Guard District, (212) 668-7165.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Regulatory Information
The Coast Guard has determined that good cause exists under the
Administrative Procedure Act 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) for a shortened comment
period of thirty days and for making this rule effective less than
thirty days after publication in the Federal Register. The Coast Guard
believes this is reasonable because the work scheduled at the bridge
should be conducted between February and April to take advantage of the
time period when the bridge has the fewest number of opening requests.
The Coast Guard believes that any delay encountered in this
regulation's effective date would be unnecessary and contrary to the
public interest because the work to be performed under this temporary
rule is necessary safety modifications that are scheduled to be
performed when the bridge receives the fewest number of opening
requests.
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 (CGD01-02-
143), 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 New York City highway bridge has a vertical clearance of 34
feet at mean high water, and 39 feet at mean low water in the closed
position. The existing drawbridge operating regulations are listed at
33 CFR Sec. 117.795(b).
The bridge owner, New York City Department of Transportation,
requested a temporary bridge closure to install median safety barriers
between the vehicular travel lanes at the bridge.
The bridge presently has no median safety barriers between the
vehicular travel lanes that pass over the moveable lift spans at the
bridge. There have been many serious head on automobile accidents at
this bridge as a result of the absence of median safety barriers.
The average traffic count is 140,000 vehicles a day. There have
been seven (7) head-on travel lane crossover accidents over the past
several years, four (4) resulting in fatalities. These accidents
resulted from the absence of a median safety barrier separating the
opposite vehicular travel lanes.
The installation of the median safety barriers is considered
necessary safety repairs that should be performed without delay.
In order to facilitate this structural work the bridge must remain
in the closed position for the passage of vessel traffic from 7 a.m. on
February 24, 2003 through 5 p.m. on April 14, 2003.
The time frame requested to perform this necessary safety work,
February 24, 2003 through April 14, 2003, is the best time to perform
this work because the bridge has historically had very few requests to
open during that time period. In 2001 only one commercial vessel
transit required a bridge opening and in 2002 only three commercial
vessel transits required bridge openings between February 24 and April
14.
During the last ten days of the above closure the bridge will be
balanced and tested. A limited number of bridge openings would be
available for the passage of vessel traffic during the time period the
bridge will be balanced and tested.
The Coast Guard believes this proposed closure is reasonable
because this work is essential for public safety and will be performed
when the bridge has the fewest number of requests to open.
Discussion of Proposed Rule
Under this temporary rule in Sec. 117.795, paragraph (b) will be
temporarily suspended and a new temporary paragraph (d) will be added
to allow the New York City highway
[[Page 79013]]
bridge, mile 0.8, across Mill Basin, to remain closed to vessel traffic
from 7 a.m. on February 24, 2003 through 5 p.m. on April 14, 2003.
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 Transportation
(DOT) (44 FR 11040, Feb. 26, 1979).
We expect the economic impact of this proposed rule to be so
minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation, under paragraph 10e of the
regulatory policies and procedures of DOT, is unnecessary.
This conclusion is based on the fact that the waterway users who
normally navigate Mill Basin are predominantly recreational vessels.
There are four commercial facilities, two recreational vessel marinas,
and two recreational/commercial vessel repair yards upstream from the
bridge.
The proposed time period is historically the time period during
which the fewest requests are made to open the bridge. Between February
24 and April 14, 2001, only one commercial vessel transit required the
bridge to open. Only three commercial vessel transits required bridge
openings during the same period in 2002.
Vessels that can pass under the bridge without a bridge opening may
do so at all times.
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 waterway users who
normally navigate Mill Basin are predominantly recreational vessels.
There are four commercial facilities, two recreational vessel marinas,
and two recreational/commercial vessel repair yards upstream from the
bridge.
The proposed time period is historically the time period during
which the fewest requests are made to open the bridge. Between February
24 and April 14, 2001, only one commercial vessel transit required the
bridge to open. Only three commercial vessel transits required bridge
openings during the same period in 2002.
Vessels that can pass under the bridge without a bridge opening may
do so 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.
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 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.
To help the Coast Guard establish regular and meaningful
consultation and collaboration with Indian and Alaskan Native tribes,
we published a notice in the Federal Register (66 FR 36361, July 11,
2001) requesting comments on how to best carry out the Order. We invite
your comments on how this proposed rule might impact tribal
governments, even if that impact may not constitute a ``tribal
implication'' under the Order.
Energy Effects
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. 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 considered the environmental impact of this proposed rule and
concluded that, under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e), of Commandant
Instruction M16475.1d, this proposed rule is categorically excluded
from further environmental documentation because promulgation of
drawbridge regulations have been found not to have
[[Page 79014]]
a significant effect on the environment. A written ``Categorical
Exclusion Determination'' is not required for this rule.
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; 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.
2. From February 24, 2003 through April 14, 2003, in Sec. 117.795,
paragraph (b) is temporarily suspended, and a new temporary paragraph
(d) is added, to read as follows:
Sec. 117.795 Jamaica Bay and Connecting Waterways.
* * * * *
(d) The draw of the New York City highway bridge, mile 0.8, across
Mill Basin on Belt Parkway, need not open for the passage of vessel
traffic from 7 a.m. on February 24, 2003 through 5 p.m. on April 14,
2003.
Dated: December 18, 2002.
J.L. Grenier,
Captain, Coast Guard, Acting Commander, First Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 02-32688 Filed 12-23-02; 2:42 pm]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P