Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Mantua Creek, Paulsboro, NJ, 18665-18667 [E9-9447]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 78 / Friday, April 24, 2009 / Proposed Rules
comments and related materials. All
comments received will be posted,
without change, to https://
www.regulations.gov and will include
any personal information you have
provided.
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 117
[Docket No. USCG–2009–0204]
RIN 1625–AA09
Drawbridge Operation Regulation;
Mantua Creek, Paulsboro, NJ
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
tjames on PRODPC75 with PROPOSALS
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to
change the drawbridge operation
regulations of the S.R. 44 Bridge, at mile
1.7, across Mantua Creek at Paulsboro,
NJ. This proposal would allow the
drawbridge to operate on an advance
notice basis year-round. The proposed
change would result in more efficient
use of the bridge.
DATES: Comments and related material
must be received by the Coast Guard on
or before June 8, 2009.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
identified by Coast Guard docket
number USCG–2009–0204 using any
one of the following methods:
(1) Federal eRulemaking Portal:
https://www.regulations.gov.
(2) Fax: 202–493–2251.
(3) Mail: Docket Management Facility
(M–30), U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building Ground
Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590–
0001.
(4) Hand delivery: Same as mail
address above, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays. The telephone number
is 202–366–9329.
To avoid duplication, please use only
one of these methods. See the ‘Public
Participation and Request for
Comments’ portion of the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section
below for instructions on submitting
comments.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If
you have questions on this proposed
rule, call Gary S. Heyer, Bridge
Management Specialist, Fifth Coast
Guard District, at (757) 398–6629. If you
have questions on viewing or submitting
material to the docket, call Renee V.
Wright, Program Manager, Docket
Operations, telephone 202–366–9826.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Public Participation and Request for
Comments
We encourage you to participate in
this rulemaking by submitting
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:02 Apr 23, 2009
Jkt 217001
Submitting Comments
If you submit a comment, please
include the docket number for this
rulemaking (USCG–2009–0204),
indicate the specific section of this
document to which each comment
applies, and provide a reason for each
suggestion or recommendation. You
may submit you comments and material
Online (https://www.regulations.gov), or
by fax, mail or hand delivery, but please
use only one of these means. If you
submit a comment Online via https://
www.regulations.gov, it will be
considered received by the Coast Guard
when you successfully transmit the
comment. If you fax, hand deliver, or
mail your comment, it will be
considered has having been received by
the Coast Guard when it is received at
the Docket Management Facility.
To submit your comment Online, go
to https://www.regulations.gov, select the
Advanced Docket Search option on the
right side of the screen, insert ‘‘USCG–
2009–0204’’ in the Docket ID box, press
Enter, and then click on the balloon
shape in the Actions column. If you
submit your comments by mail or hand
delivery, submit them in an unbound
format, no larger than 81⁄2 by 11 inches,
suitable for copying and electronic
filing. If you submit them by mail and
would like to know that they reached
the Facility, please enclose a stamped,
self-addressed postcard or envelope. We
will consider all comments and material
received during the comment period
and may change this proposed rule in
view of them.
Viewing Comments and Documents
To view comments, as well as
documents mentioned in this preamble
as being available in the docket, go to
https://www.regulations.gov, select the
Advanced Docket Search option on the
right side of the screen, insert USCG–
2009–0204 in the Docket ID box, press
Enter, and then click on the item in the
Docket ID column. You may also visit
either the Docket Management Facility
in Room W12–140 on the ground floor
of the DOT West Building, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC
20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays or at Commander (dpb), Fifth
Coast Guard District, Federal Building,
1st Floor, 431 Crawford Street,
Portsmouth, VA 23704–5004 between
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
18665
8 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.
Privacy Act
Anyone can search the electronic
form of all 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
Federal Register (73 FR 3316).
Public Meeting
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 ADDRESSES. Please
explain 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 Jersey Department of
Transportation (NJDOT) is responsible
for the operation of the S.R. 44 Bridge,
at mile 1.7, across Mantua Creek at
Paulsboro, NJ. Due to the decrease in
vessel opening requests of the
drawbridge in recent years, NJDOT
requested to change the current
operating regulations by requiring that
the draw need open only if at least four
hours advanced notice is given year
round.
The S.R. 44 Bridge has a vertical
clearance of five feet above mean high
water in the closed-to-navigation
position. The existing operating
regulation is set out in 33 CFR
117.729(b), which requires the draw to
open on signal from March 1 through
November 30 from 7 a.m. to 11 p.m.,
and shall open on signal at all times
upon four hours notice.
From the 1920s to the 1960s, Mantua
Creek was the waterway route for
commercial vessel traffic servicing
refineries and factories along the
waterfront in Paulsboro, NJ. There are
no longer any commercial navigational
interests requiring daily access
upstream of the Route 44 Bridge.
Bridge opening data, supplied by
NJDOT, revealed a significant decrease
in yearly openings. For the years from
2003 to 2007, inclusive, from March 1
through November 30 between 7 a.m. to
11 p.m., the bridge opened for vessels
204, 206, 83, 120 and 113 times,
respectively. (See Table A)
E:\FR\FM\24APP1.SGM
24APP1
18666
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 78 / Friday, April 24, 2009 / Proposed Rules
TABLE A
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
NOV
36
12
5
35
15
11
0
0
0
14
6
4
26
0
0
BRIDGE OPENINGS FOR 2003
7
1
10
31
38
64
BRIDGE OPENINGS FOR 2004
0
2
28
30
42
43
BRIDGE OPENINGS FOR 2005
0
1
19
27
29
7
BRIDGE OPENINGS FOR 2006
0
0
14
14
38
30
BRIDGE OPENINGS FOR 2007
4
4
13
30
Discussion of Proposed Rule
The Coast Guard proposes to amend
33 CFR 117.729(b), by revising the
paragraph to read that the draw of the
S.R. 44 Bridge, mile 1.7 at Paulsboro,
need open only if at least four hours
notice is given. The proposed change
would result in more efficient use of the
bridge.
Regulatory Analyses
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.
tjames on PRODPC75 with PROPOSALS
Regulatory Planning and Review
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 is
unnecessary. We reached this
conclusion based on the fact that the
proposed changes have only a minimal
impact on maritime traffic transiting the
bridge. Mariners can plan their trips in
accordance with the proposed
scheduled bridge openings, to minimize
delays.
Small Entities
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.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:02 Apr 23, 2009
Jkt 217001
17
19
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 from March 1 through
November 30 from 7 a.m. to 11 p.m.
This proposed rule would not have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
because the rule only adds minimal
restrictions to the movement of
navigation, and mariners who plan their
transits in accordance with the
proposed scheduled bridge openings
can minimize delay.
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
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction and you have questions
concerning its provisions or options for
compliance, please contact Waverly W.
Gregory, Jr., Bridge Administrator, Fifth
Coast Guard District, 757–398–6222.
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.
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 will not
result in such an expenditure, we do
discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere
in this preamble.
E:\FR\FM\24APP1.SGM
24APP1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 78 / Friday, April 24, 2009 / Proposed Rules
Taking of Private Property
This proposed rule would 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 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 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.
tjames on PRODPC75 with PROPOSALS
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. 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
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:02 Apr 23, 2009
Jkt 217001
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 Department of Homeland
Security Management Directive 0023.1,
and Commandant Instruction M16475.D
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.
List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117
Bridges.
For the reasons discussed 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;
Department of Homeland Security Delegation
No. 0170.1.
2. Revise § 117.729(b) to read as
follows:
§ 117.729
Mantua Creek
*
*
*
*
*
(b) The draw of the S.R. Bridge, mile
1.7, at Paulsboro, need open only if at
least four hours notice is given.
Dated: April 6, 2009.
Fred M. Rosa, Jr.,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard Commander,
Fifth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. E9–9447 Filed 4–23–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–15–P
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
18667
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R05–OAR–2008–0239; FRL–8896–4]
Approval and Promulgation of Air
Quality Implementation Plans;
Minnesota
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve
site-specific revisions to the Minnesota
sulfur dioxide (SO2) State
Implementation Plan (SIP) for the
Federal Cartridge Company and
Hoffman Enclosures, located in the city
of Anoka, Anoka County, Minnesota. On
March 3, 2008, the Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency (MPCA) requested that
EPA approve certain portions of joint
Title I/Title V documents into the
Minnesota SO2 SIP for Federal Cartridge
Company and Hoffman Enclosures. The
State is also requesting in this submittal
that EPA rescind the Administrative
Order issued to Federal Hoffman, Inc.
which is currently included in
Minnesota’s SIP for SO2. The emissions
units previously owned by Federal
Hoffman, Inc., are now owned by
Federal Cartridge Company and
Hoffman Enclosures. Because the sulfur
dioxide emission limits are being
reduced, the air quality of Anoka
County will be protected.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before May 26, 2009.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05–
OAR–2008–0239, by one of the
following methods:
1. https://www.regulations.gov: Follow
the on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
2. E-mail: mooney.john@epa.gov.
3. Fax: (312) 692–2551.
4. Mail: John M. Mooney, Chief,
Criteria Pollutant Section, Air Programs
Branch (AR–18J), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
5. Hand Delivery: John M. Mooney,
Chief, Criteria Pollutant Section, Air
Programs Branch (AR–18J), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 77
West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago,
Illinois 60604. Such deliveries are only
accepted during the Regional Office
normal hours of operation, and special
arrangements should be made for
deliveries of boxed information. The
Regional Office official hours of
business are Monday through Friday,
8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding
Federal holidays.
E:\FR\FM\24APP1.SGM
24APP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 78 (Friday, April 24, 2009)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 18665-18667]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-9447]
[[Page 18665]]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 117
[Docket No. USCG-2009-0204]
RIN 1625-AA09
Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Mantua Creek, Paulsboro, NJ
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to change the drawbridge operation
regulations of the S.R. 44 Bridge, at mile 1.7, across Mantua Creek at
Paulsboro, NJ. This proposal would allow the drawbridge to operate on
an advance notice basis year-round. The proposed change would result in
more efficient use of the bridge.
DATES: Comments and related material must be received by the Coast
Guard on or before June 8, 2009.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket
number USCG-2009-0204 using any one of the following methods:
(1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
(2) Fax: 202-493-2251.
(3) Mail: Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
(4) Hand delivery: Same as mail address above, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone
number is 202-366-9329.
To avoid duplication, please use only one of these methods. See the
`Public Participation and Request for Comments' portion of the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below for instructions on submitting
comments.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this proposed
rule, call Gary S. Heyer, Bridge Management Specialist, Fifth Coast
Guard District, at (757) 398-6629. If you have questions on viewing or
submitting material to the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program
Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 202-366-9826.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Public Participation and Request for Comments
We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting
comments and related materials. All comments received will be posted,
without change, to https://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided.
Submitting Comments
If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking (USCG-2009-0204), indicate the specific section of this
document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each
suggestion or recommendation. You may submit you comments and material
Online (https://www.regulations.gov), or by fax, mail or hand delivery,
but please use only one of these means. If you submit a comment Online
via https://www.regulations.gov, it will be considered received by the
Coast Guard when you successfully transmit the comment. If you fax,
hand deliver, or mail your comment, it will be considered has having
been received by the Coast Guard when it is received at the Docket
Management Facility.
To submit your comment Online, go to https://www.regulations.gov,
select the Advanced Docket Search option on the right side of the
screen, insert ``USCG-2009-0204'' in the Docket ID box, press Enter,
and then click on the balloon shape in the Actions column. If you
submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an
unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for
copying and electronic filing. If you submit them by mail and would
like to know that they reached the Facility, please enclose a stamped,
self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all comments and
material received during the comment period and may change this
proposed rule in view of them.
Viewing Comments and Documents
To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble
as being available in the docket, go to https://www.regulations.gov,
select the Advanced Docket Search option on the right side of the
screen, insert USCG-2009-0204 in the Docket ID box, press Enter, and
then click on the item in the Docket ID column. You may also visit
either the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground
floor of the DOT West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays or at Commander (dpb), Fifth Coast Guard
District, Federal Building, 1st Floor, 431 Crawford Street, Portsmouth,
VA 23704-5004 between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays.
Privacy Act
Anyone can search the electronic form of all 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
Federal Register (73 FR 3316).
Public Meeting
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
ADDRESSES. Please explain 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 Jersey Department of Transportation (NJDOT) is responsible
for the operation of the S.R. 44 Bridge, at mile 1.7, across Mantua
Creek at Paulsboro, NJ. Due to the decrease in vessel opening requests
of the drawbridge in recent years, NJDOT requested to change the
current operating regulations by requiring that the draw need open only
if at least four hours advanced notice is given year round.
The S.R. 44 Bridge has a vertical clearance of five feet above mean
high water in the closed-to-navigation position. The existing operating
regulation is set out in 33 CFR 117.729(b), which requires the draw to
open on signal from March 1 through November 30 from 7 a.m. to 11 p.m.,
and shall open on signal at all times upon four hours notice.
From the 1920s to the 1960s, Mantua Creek was the waterway route
for commercial vessel traffic servicing refineries and factories along
the waterfront in Paulsboro, NJ. There are no longer any commercial
navigational interests requiring daily access upstream of the Route 44
Bridge.
Bridge opening data, supplied by NJDOT, revealed a significant
decrease in yearly openings. For the years from 2003 to 2007,
inclusive, from March 1 through November 30 between 7 a.m. to 11 p.m.,
the bridge opened for vessels 204, 206, 83, 120 and 113 times,
respectively. (See Table A)
[[Page 18666]]
Table A
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BRIDGE OPENINGS FOR 2003
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7 1 10 31 38 64 36 12 5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BRIDGE OPENINGS FOR 2004
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0 2 28 30 42 43 35 15 11
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BRIDGE OPENINGS FOR 2005
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0 1 19 27 29 7 0 0 0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BRIDGE OPENINGS FOR 2006
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0 0 14 14 38 30 14 6 4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BRIDGE OPENINGS FOR 2007
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4 4 13 30 17 19 26 0 0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discussion of Proposed Rule
The Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR 117.729(b), by revising
the paragraph to read that the draw of the S.R. 44 Bridge, mile 1.7 at
Paulsboro, need open only if at least four hours notice is given. The
proposed change would result in more efficient use of the bridge.
Regulatory Analyses
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.
Regulatory Planning and Review
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 is unnecessary. We reached
this conclusion based on the fact that the proposed changes have only a
minimal impact on maritime traffic transiting the bridge. Mariners can
plan their trips in accordance with the proposed scheduled bridge
openings, to minimize delays.
Small Entities
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 from March 1 through November 30 from 7
a.m. to 11 p.m.
This proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities because the rule only adds
minimal restrictions to the movement of navigation, and mariners who
plan their transits in accordance with the proposed scheduled bridge
openings can minimize delay.
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 Waverly W. Gregory, Jr., Bridge
Administrator, Fifth Coast Guard District, 757-398-6222. 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.
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 will not result in such an
expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this
preamble.
[[Page 18667]]
Taking of Private Property
This proposed rule would 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 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 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.
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. 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 Department of Homeland
Security Management Directive 0023.1, and Commandant Instruction
M16475.D 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.
List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117
Bridges.
For the reasons discussed 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; Department of Homeland
Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
2. Revise Sec. 117.729(b) to read as follows:
Sec. 117.729 Mantua Creek
* * * * *
(b) The draw of the S.R. Bridge, mile 1.7, at Paulsboro, need open
only if at least four hours notice is given.
Dated: April 6, 2009.
Fred M. Rosa, Jr.,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard Commander, Fifth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. E9-9447 Filed 4-23-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P
