Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Hackensack River, Jersey City, NJ, 73667-73669 [2020-25396]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 224 / Thursday, November 19, 2020 / Proposed Rules
General Requirements (Group I), dated
March 26, 2019;
(ii) ANSI/UL 60079–1 Ed. 7, Standard
for Explosive Atmospheres—Part 1:
Equipment Protection by Flameproof
Enclosures ‘‘d’’ (Group I, Level of
Protection ‘da’), dated September 18,
2015;
(iii) ANSI/UL 60079–11 Ed. 6,
Standard for Explosive Atmospheres—
Part 11: Equipment Protection by
Intrinsic Safety ‘‘i’’ (Group I, Level of
Protection ‘ia’), dated February 15, 2013;
(iv) ANSI/UL 60079–18, Ed. 4,
Standard for Explosive Atmospheres—
Part 18: Equipment Protection by
Encapsulation ‘‘m’’ (Group I, Level of
Protection ‘ma’), dated December 14,
2015;
(v) ANSI/UL 60079–25 Ed. 2,
Standard for Explosive Atmospheres—
Part 25: Intrinsically Safe Electrical
Systems (Group I, Level of Protection
‘ia’), dated December 2, 2011; and
(vi) ANSI/UL 60079–28 Ed. 2,
Standard for Explosive Atmospheres—
Part 28: Protection of Equipment and
Transmission Systems Using Optical
Radiation (Group I, Equipment
Protection Level ‘Ma’), dated September
15, 2017.
(4) The voluntary consensus
standards listed in this paragraph (b)
may also be obtained from the American
National Standards Institute, 1899 L
Street NW, 11th Floor, Washington, DC
20036, Tel: (202) 293–8020 (https://
www.ansi.org).
§ 18.103 Review and update of applicable
voluntary consensus standards.
(a) MSHA will review more recent
editions of voluntary consensus
standards listed in § 18.102 to determine
whether they can be used in their
entirety and without modification to
replace the requirements in subparts B
through E of this part.
(b) MSHA may review voluntary
consensus standards not listed in
§ 18.102 to determine whether such
standards are suitable for gassy mining
environments and whether they provide
protection against fire or explosion, if
substituted in their entirety and without
modification to replace the
requirements in subparts B through E of
this part.
(c) Following such review and
determination, MSHA will use the
appropriate rulemaking process to
publish a list of voluntary consensus
standards that it accepts in lieu of the
requirements in subparts B through E of
this part.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:55 Nov 18, 2020
Jkt 253001
I. Table of Abbreviations
PART 74—COAL MINE DUST
SAMPLING DEVICES
6. The authority citation for part 74
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 30 U.S.C. 957.
§§ 74.5 and 74.11
73667
[Amended]
7. In §§ 74.5(b) and 74.11(d), remove
‘‘30 CFR 18.68’’ and add in its place the
term ‘‘30 CFR part 18.’’
■
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
NJDOT New Jersey Department of
Transportation
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
OMB Office of Management and Budget
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(Advance, Supplemental)
§ Section
U.S.C. United States Code
The Coast Guard is proposing
to modify the operating schedules that
govern the new Route 7 Bridge, mile 3.1,
crossing the Hackensack River, at Jersey
City, NJ. The bridge owner, the New
Jersey Department of Transportation
(NJDOT), submitted a request to allow
the bridge to require four hours advance
notice for bridge openings. It is expected
that this change to the regulations will
create efficiency in drawbridge
operations and better serve the needs of
the community while continuing to
meet the reasonable needs of navigation.
DATES: Comments and related material
must reach the Coast Guard on or before
January 19, 2021.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
identified by docket number USCG–
2020–0603 using the Federal
eRulemaking Portal at https://
www.regulations.gov.
See the ‘‘Public Participation and
Request for Comments’’ portion of the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section
below for instructions on submitting
comments.
II. Background, Purpose and Legal
Basis
The new Route 7 Bridge at mile 3.1
over the Hackensack River at Jersey
City, New Jersey, is currently under
construction and will have a vertical
clearance of 70 feet at mean high water
in the closed position and 135 feet at
mean high water in the open position.
Horizontal clearance is approximately
158 feet. The existing Route 7 Bridge
over the Hackensack River has a vertical
clearance of 35 feet at mean high water
in the closed position and 135 feet at
mean high water in the open position.
Horizontal clearance is approximately
158 feet.
The waterway users include
recreational and commercial vessels
including tugboat/barge combinations.
The existing regulation, 33 CFR
117.723(k) published under Federal
Register 85 FR 8747, effective April 19,
2020, requires the existing bridge open
on signal; except that, from 11 p.m. to
7 a.m., the draw shall open on signal if
at least two hours advance notice is
given by calling the number posted at
the bridge.
In August of 2020, the owner of the
bridge, NJDOT, requested a change to
the drawbridge operation regulations to
the new bridge anticipating lower
volume of bridge openings given that
the new bridge vertical clearance in the
closed position will be double the
clearance of the existing bridge.
Under this proposed rule the new
draw would open on signal if at least
four hours advance notice is given by
calling the number posted at the bridge.
This rule change will allow for more
efficient and economic operation of the
bridge while meeting the reasonable
needs of navigation. The Coast Guard is
proposing this rulemaking under
authority in 33 U.S.C. 499.
NJDOT reached out to the maritime
stakeholders with the requested change
proposed and received no objections.
If
you have questions on this proposed
rule, call or email Judy Leung-Yee,
Project Officer, First Coast Guard
District; telephone 212–514–4336, email
Judy.K.Leung-Yee@uscg.mil.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
III. Discussion of Proposed Rule
The bridge logs show that the Route
7 Bridge had 16 openings in 2018, 10
openings in 2019, and 6 openings in
2020 (through 6/19/2020). The Coast
Guard proposes to permanently modify
the operating regulation.
David G. Zatezalo,
Assistant Secretary of Labor for Mine Safety
and Health.
[FR Doc. 2020–22589 Filed 11–18–20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4520–43–P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 117
[Docket No. USCG–2020–0603]
RIN 1625–AA09
Drawbridge Operation Regulation;
Hackensack River, Jersey City, NJ
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
SUMMARY:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\19NOP1.SGM
19NOP1
73668
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 224 / Thursday, November 19, 2020 / Proposed Rules
The proposed rule would allow that
the new Route 7 Bridge shall open on
signal if at least four hours advance
notice is given by calling the number
posted at the bridge. Both new and
current bridges will operate under the
existing operating schedule until the
original bridge is demolished/removed
at which point this proposed rule will
take effect.
It is the Coast Guard’s opinion that
the proposed rule meets reasonable
needs of marine traffic.
IV. Regulatory Analyses
We developed this proposed rule after
considering numerous statutes and
Executive Orders related to rulemaking.
Below we summarize our analyses
based on these statutes and Executive
Orders and we discuss First
Amendment rights of protestors.
A. Regulatory Planning and Review
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
direct agencies to assess the costs and
benefits of available regulatory
alternatives and, if regulation is
necessary, to select regulatory
approaches that maximize net benefits.
Executive Order 13771 directs agencies
to control regulatory costs through a
budgeting process. This NPRM has not
been designated a ‘‘significant
regulatory action,’’ under Executive
Order 12866. Accordingly, the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) has not
reviewed the NPRM and pursuant to
OMB guidance, it is exempt from the
requirements of Executive Order 13771.
The Coast Guard believes this rule is
not a significant regulatory action. The
bridge will still open for all vessel traffic
after a four-hour advance notice is
given. The vertical clearance under the
bridge in the closed position is
relatively high enough to accommodate
most vessel traffic. We believe that this
proposed change to the drawbridge
operation regulations at 33 CFR 117.723
will meet the reasonable needs of
navigation.
B. Impact on Small Entities
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980
(RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601–612, as amended,
requires federal agencies to consider the
potential impact of regulations on small
entities during rulemaking. 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.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:55 Nov 18, 2020
Jkt 253001
The new Route 7 Bridge provides 70
feet of vertical clearance at mean high
water that should accommodate most of
the present vessel traffic except deep
draft vessels. The new bridge will open
on signal for any vessel when a four
hour advance notice is given. While
some owners or operators of vessels
intending to transit the bridge may be
small entities, for the reasons stated in
section IV.A, above, this proposed rule
would not have a significant economic
impact on any vessel owner or operator.
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.
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. 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 the person
listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT, section. 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.
C. 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.).
D. Federalism and Indian Tribal
Government
A rule has implications for federalism
under Executive Order 13132,
(Federalism), if it has a substantial
direct effect on the States, on the
relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government. We have analyzed
this proposed rule under that Order and
have determined that it is consistent
with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements
described in Executive Order 13132.
Also, 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
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of
power and responsibilities between the
Federal Government and Indian tribes.
If you believe this proposed rule has
implications for federalism or Indian
tribes, please contact the person listed
in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section.
E. 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 (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 proposed rule elsewhere in this
preamble.
F. Environment
We have analyzed this proposed rule
under Department of Homeland
Security Management Directive 023–01,
Rev.1, associated implementing
instructions, and Environmental
Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series),
which guides the Coast Guard in
complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f). The
Coast Guard has determined that this
action is one of a category of actions that
do not individually or cumulatively
have a significant effect on the human
environment. This proposed rule
promulgates the operating regulations or
procedures for drawbridges. Normally,
such actions are categorically excluded
from further review, under paragraph
L49, of Chapter 3, Table 3–1 of the U.S.
Coast Guard Environmental Planning
Implementation Procedures.
Neither a Record of Environmental
Consideration nor a Memorandum for
the Record are required for this rule. We
seek any comments or information that
may lead to the discovery of a
significant environmental impact from
this proposed rule.
G. Protest Activities
The Coast Guard respects the First
Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to contact the
person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to
coordinate protest activities so that your
message can be received without
jeopardizing the safety or security of
people, places or vessels.
E:\FR\FM\19NOP1.SGM
19NOP1
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 224 / Thursday, November 19, 2020 / Proposed Rules
V. Public Participation and Request for
Comments
We view public participation as
essential to effective rulemaking, and
will consider all comments and material
received during the comment period.
Your comment can help shape the
outcome of this rulemaking. If you
submit a comment, please include the
docket number for this rulemaking,
indicate the specific section of this
document to which each comment
applies, and provide a reason for each
suggestion or recommendation.
We encourage you to submit
comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at https://
www.regulations.gov. If your material
cannot be submitted using https://
www.regulations.gov, contact the person
in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section of this document for
alternate instructions.
We accept anonymous comments. All
comments received will be posted
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:55 Nov 18, 2020
Jkt 253001
without change to https://
www.regulations.gov and will include
any personal information you have
provided. For more about privacy and
submissions in response to this
document, see DHS’s eRulemaking
System of Records notice (85 FR 14226,
March 11, 2020).
Documents mentioned in this NPRM
as being available in this docket and all
public comments, will be in our online
docket at https://www.regulations.gov
and can be viewed by following that
website’s instructions. Additionally, if
you go to the online docket and sign up
for email alerts, you will be notified
when comments are posted or a final
rule is published.
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:
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 9990
73669
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;
and Department of Homeland Security
Delegation No. 0170.1.
2. Revise § 117.723, paragraph (k) to
read as follows:
■
§ 117.723
Hackensack River.
*
*
*
*
*
(k) The draw of the Route 7 Bridge,
mile 3.1, at Jersey City, shall open on
signal if at least four hours advance
notice is given by calling the number
posted at the bridge.
Dated: November 12, 2020.
T.G. Allan, Jr.,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander,
First Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2020–25396 Filed 11–18–20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110–04–P
E:\FR\FM\19NOP1.SGM
19NOP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 224 (Thursday, November 19, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 73667-73669]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-25396]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 117
[Docket No. USCG-2020-0603]
RIN 1625-AA09
Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Hackensack River, Jersey City,
NJ
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is proposing to modify the operating schedules
that govern the new Route 7 Bridge, mile 3.1, crossing the Hackensack
River, at Jersey City, NJ. The bridge owner, the New Jersey Department
of Transportation (NJDOT), submitted a request to allow the bridge to
require four hours advance notice for bridge openings. It is expected
that this change to the regulations will create efficiency in
drawbridge operations and better serve the needs of the community while
continuing to meet the reasonable needs of navigation.
DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or
before January 19, 2021.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2020-0603 using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at https://www.regulations.gov.
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 or email Judy Leung-Yee, Project Officer, First Coast Guard
District; telephone 212-514-4336, email [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Table of Abbreviations
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
NJDOT New Jersey Department of Transportation
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
OMB Office of Management and Budget
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Advance, Supplemental)
Sec. Section
U.S.C. United States Code
II. Background, Purpose and Legal Basis
The new Route 7 Bridge at mile 3.1 over the Hackensack River at
Jersey City, New Jersey, is currently under construction and will have
a vertical clearance of 70 feet at mean high water in the closed
position and 135 feet at mean high water in the open position.
Horizontal clearance is approximately 158 feet. The existing Route 7
Bridge over the Hackensack River has a vertical clearance of 35 feet at
mean high water in the closed position and 135 feet at mean high water
in the open position. Horizontal clearance is approximately 158 feet.
The waterway users include recreational and commercial vessels
including tugboat/barge combinations.
The existing regulation, 33 CFR 117.723(k) published under Federal
Register 85 FR 8747, effective April 19, 2020, requires the existing
bridge open on signal; except that, from 11 p.m. to 7 a.m., the draw
shall open on signal if at least two hours advance notice is given by
calling the number posted at the bridge.
In August of 2020, the owner of the bridge, NJDOT, requested a
change to the drawbridge operation regulations to the new bridge
anticipating lower volume of bridge openings given that the new bridge
vertical clearance in the closed position will be double the clearance
of the existing bridge.
Under this proposed rule the new draw would open on signal if at
least four hours advance notice is given by calling the number posted
at the bridge. This rule change will allow for more efficient and
economic operation of the bridge while meeting the reasonable needs of
navigation. The Coast Guard is proposing this rulemaking under
authority in 33 U.S.C. 499.
NJDOT reached out to the maritime stakeholders with the requested
change proposed and received no objections.
III. Discussion of Proposed Rule
The bridge logs show that the Route 7 Bridge had 16 openings in
2018, 10 openings in 2019, and 6 openings in 2020 (through 6/19/2020).
The Coast Guard proposes to permanently modify the operating
regulation.
[[Page 73668]]
The proposed rule would allow that the new Route 7 Bridge shall
open on signal if at least four hours advance notice is given by
calling the number posted at the bridge. Both new and current bridges
will operate under the existing operating schedule until the original
bridge is demolished/removed at which point this proposed rule will
take effect.
It is the Coast Guard's opinion that the proposed rule meets
reasonable needs of marine traffic.
IV. Regulatory Analyses
We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes
and Executive Orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our
analyses based on these statutes and Executive Orders and we discuss
First Amendment rights of protestors.
A. Regulatory Planning and Review
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control
regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This NPRM has not been
designated a ``significant regulatory action,'' under Executive Order
12866. Accordingly, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has not
reviewed the NPRM and pursuant to OMB guidance, it is exempt from the
requirements of Executive Order 13771.
The Coast Guard believes this rule is not a significant regulatory
action. The bridge will still open for all vessel traffic after a four-
hour advance notice is given. The vertical clearance under the bridge
in the closed position is relatively high enough to accommodate most
vessel traffic. We believe that this proposed change to the drawbridge
operation regulations at 33 CFR 117.723 will meet the reasonable needs
of navigation.
B. Impact on Small Entities
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. 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.
The new Route 7 Bridge provides 70 feet of vertical clearance at
mean high water that should accommodate most of the present vessel
traffic except deep draft vessels. The new bridge will open on signal
for any vessel when a four hour advance notice is given. While some
owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the bridge may be
small entities, for the reasons stated in section IV.A, above, this
proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on any
vessel owner or operator.
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.
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. 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 the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT, section. 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.
C. 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.).
D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Government
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
(Federalism), if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on
the relationship between the national government and the States, or on
the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels
of government. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and
have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order
13132.
Also, 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. If
you believe this proposed rule has implications for federalism or
Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section.
E. 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 (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
proposed rule elsewhere in this preamble.
F. Environment
We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland
Security Management Directive 023-01, Rev.1, associated implementing
instructions, and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series),
which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f). The
Coast Guard has determined that this action is one of a category of
actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant
effect on the human environment. This proposed rule promulgates the
operating regulations or procedures for drawbridges. Normally, such
actions are categorically excluded from further review, under paragraph
L49, of Chapter 3, Table 3-1 of the U.S. Coast Guard Environmental
Planning Implementation Procedures.
Neither a Record of Environmental Consideration nor a Memorandum
for the Record are required for this rule. We seek any comments or
information that may lead to the discovery of a significant
environmental impact from this proposed rule.
G. Protest Activities
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that
your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or
security of people, places or vessels.
[[Page 73669]]
V. Public Participation and Request for Comments
We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking,
and will consider all comments and material received during the comment
period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If
you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which
each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or
recommendation.
We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal e-
Rulemaking Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. If your material
cannot be submitted using https://www.regulations.gov, contact the
person in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document
for alternate instructions.
We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted
without change to https://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and
submissions in response to this document, see DHS's eRulemaking System
of Records notice (85 FR 14226, March 11, 2020).
Documents mentioned in this NPRM as being available in this docket
and all public comments, will be in our online docket at https://www.regulations.gov and can be viewed by following that website's
instructions. Additionally, if you go to the online docket and sign up
for email alerts, you will be notified when comments are posted or a
final rule is published.
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
0
1. The authority citation for part 117 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 499; 33 CFR 1.05-1; and Department of
Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
0
2. Revise Sec. 117.723, paragraph (k) to read as follows:
Sec. 117.723 Hackensack River.
* * * * *
(k) The draw of the Route 7 Bridge, mile 3.1, at Jersey City, shall
open on signal if at least four hours advance notice is given by
calling the number posted at the bridge.
Dated: November 12, 2020.
T.G. Allan, Jr.,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, First Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2020-25396 Filed 11-18-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P