Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Housatonic River, CT, 72967-72969 [05-23752]

Agencies

• Coast Guard
• DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 235 (Thursday, December 8, 2005)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 72967-72969]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-23752]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[CGD01-05-102]
RIN 1625-AA09


Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Housatonic River, CT

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to temporarily change the drawbridge 
operating regulations governing the operation of the U.S. 1 Bridge, 
mile 3.5, across the Housatonic River at Stratford, Connecticut. This 
notice of proposed rulemaking would allow the bridge owner to open only 
one of the two moveable spans for bridge openings at various times from 
January 2, 2006 through September 1, 2006, to facilitate bridge 
rehabilitation. Full bridge openings would be available at various 
times during the above time period after a seven-day notice is given by 
calling the number posted at the bridge.

DATES: Comments must reach the Coast Guard on or before December 23, 
2005.

ADDRESSES: You may mail comments to Commander (obr), 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, 7 a.m. to 3 
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Judy Leung-Yee, Project Officer, 
First Coast Guard District, (212) 668-7195.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulatory Information

    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause 
exists for publishing an NPRM with a shortened comment period of 15 
days and under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard also finds that good 
cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after 
publication in the Federal Register.
    The shortened comment period and making this rule effective in less 
than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register will allow this 
rule to become effective in time for the January 2, 2006, project start 
date. This action is necessary because the bridge owner did not become 
fully aware of the contractor's need to temporarily change the bridge 
regulations to perform the work until recently.
    The Coast Guard believes a shortened comment period is reasonable 
because the bridge rehabilitation construction scheduled to begin on 
January 2, 2006, is necessary, vital, work that must to be performed as 
soon as possible in order to assure the safe continued reliable 
operation of the U.S. 1 Bridge.
    Any delay in making this rule effective would not be in the best 
interest of public safety and the marine interests that use the 
Housatonic River because failure to start the rehabilitation repairs on 
time could result in an unscheduled bridge operation failure.
    There is only one commercial facility operator that normally 
requires the bridge to open; however, that facility will not be in 
service during the time period this rule will be in effect. The 
recreational vessels that normally use this waterway are small enough 
in size that they can either pass under the spans without a bridge 
opening or safely pass through the bridge with a single span opening.

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 (CGD01-05-
102), 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.

[[Page 72968]]

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 U.S. 1 Bridge, at mile 3.5, across the Housatonic River has a 
vertical clearance of 32 feet at mean high water and 37 feet at mean 
low water in the closed position. The existing operating regulations 
are listed at 33 CFR Sec.  17.207(a).
    The owner of the bridge, Connecticut Department of Transportation, 
requested a temporary change to the drawbridge operation regulations 
for the U.S. 1 Bridge to allow single span openings during the 
prosecution of major rehabilitation bridge repairs.
    This proposed change would allow the U.S. 1 bridge to open only one 
of the two moveable spans for bridge openings.
    The Coast Guard believes this rule is reasonable because the single 
span bridge openings should not preclude any vessel traffic from 
passing through the bridge.
    Only one commercial facility operator is located upstream from the 
U.S. 1 Bridge. That facility will not be operating during the time 
period this temporary rule will be in effect.
    The recreational vessels that normally transit through the U.S. 1 
Bridge are small enough in size that they can either pass under the 
spans without a bridge opening or transit safely with a single span 
opening.

Discussion of Proposed Rule

    This proposed change would amend 33 CFR 117.207 by suspending 
paragraph (a), which lists the U.S. 1 Bridge and adding a temporary 
paragraph (c) listing the temporary drawbridge operation schedule in 
effect from January 2, 2006, through September 1, 2006.
    Under this temporary regulation the U.S. 1 Bridge shall continue to 
open on signal, except that, from 7 a.m. to 9 a.m., Monday through 
Friday, and 4 p.m. to 5:45 p.m., daily, the draw need not open for the 
passage of vessel traffic.
    From January 2, 2006, through February 9, 2006, only one of the two 
moveable spans need open for the passage of vessel traffic. Two span 
bridge openings shall be provided after at least a seven-day advance 
notice is given by calling the number posted at the bridge.
    From February 10, 2006, through April 1, 2006, only one of the two 
moveable spans need open for the passage of vessel traffic. No two span 
openings will be available.
    From April 2, 2006, through April 16, 2006, the bridge shall open 
both moveable spans for the passage of vessel traffic.
    From April 17, 2006, through May 26, 2006, only one of the two 
moveable spans need open for the passage of vessel traffic. No two span 
openings will be available.
    From May 27, 2006, through May 29, 2006, the bridge shall open both 
moveable spans for the passage of vessel traffic.
    From May 30, 2006, through June 30, 2006, only one of the two 
moveable spans need open for the passage of vessel traffic. Two span 
openings shall be provided after a seven-day advance notice is given by 
calling the number posted at the bridge.
    From July 1, 2006, through July 4, 2006, the bridge shall open both 
moveable spans for the passage of vessel traffic.
    From July 5, 2006, through September 1, 2006, only one of the two 
moveable spans need open for the passage of vessel traffic. Two span 
openings shall be provided after a seven-day advance notice is given by 
calling the number posted at the bridge.

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 Homeland 
Security (DHS).
    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 the bridge will continue 
to open for vessel traffic with a single moveable span which is 
sufficient for the present needs of navigation.

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 bridge will continue 
to open for vessel traffic with a single span which is sufficient for 
the present needs of navigation.
    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 (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 us in writing at, Commander 
(obr), 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.).

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.

[[Page 72969]]

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 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.

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. 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.

Technical Standards

    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.

Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Commandant Instruction 
M16475.1D, which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National 
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and 
have concluded 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, this rule is categorically excluded, under 
figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e), of the Instruction, from further 
environment documentation because it has been determined that the 
promulgation of operating regulations or procedures for drawbridges are 
categorically excluded.

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; 33 CFR 1.05-1(g); Department of 
Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1; section 117.255 also issued 
under the authority of Pub. L. 102-587, 106 Stat. 5039.
    2. From January 2, 2006 through September 1, 2006, section 117.207 
is amended by suspending paragraph (a) and adding a temporary paragraph 
(c) to read as follows:


 Sec.  117.207  Housatonic River.

* * * * *
    (c) The draw of the U.S. 1 Bridge, mile 3.5, at Stratford, shall 
operate as follows:
    (1) The draw shall open on signal, except that, from 7 a.m. to 9 
a.m., Monday through Friday, and 4 p.m. through 5:45 p.m., daily, the 
draw need not open for the passage of vessel traffic.
    (2) From January 2, 2006 through March 31, 2006, from 8 p.m. to 4 
a.m., the draw shall open on signal if at least a six-hour notice is 
given by calling the number posted at the bridge.
    (3) From January 2, 2006 through February 9, 2006, May 30, 2006 
through June 30, 2006, and July 5, 2006 through September 1, 2006, only 
one of the two moveable spans need open for the passage of vessel 
traffic. Two span bridge openings shall be provided if at least a 
seven-day notice is given by calling the number posted at the bridge, 
except as provided in (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this section.
    (4) From February 10, 2006 through April 1, 2006, and April 17, 
2006 through May 26, 2006, only one of the two moveable spans need open 
for the passage of vessel traffic, except as provided in (c)(1) and 
(c)(2) of this section. No two span openings need be provided.
    (5) From April 2, 2006 through April 16, 2006, May 27, 2006 through 
May 29, 2006, and July 1, 2006 through July 4, 2006, both moveable 
spans shall open for the passage of vessel traffic, except as provided 
in (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this section.
* * * * *

    Dated: November 29, 2005.
David P. Pekoske,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, First Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 05-23752 Filed 12-7-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P