[Federal Register: July 21, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 139)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 42017-42019]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr21jy05-26]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 117
[CGD05-05-079]
RIN 1625-AA09
Drawbridge Operation Regulations; New Jersey Intracoastal
Waterway, Manasquan River
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to temporarily change the regulations
that govern the operation of the Route 35 Bridge, at New Jersey
Intracoastal Waterway (NJICW) mile 1.1, across Manasquan River, at
Brielle, New Jersey. The bridge will be closed to navigation on three
four-month closure periods beginning from 8 a.m. November 1, 2006 until
5 p.m. March 1, 2007; from 8 a.m. on November 1, 2007 until 5 p.m.
March 1, 2008; and from 8 a.m. on November 1, 2008 until 5 p.m. March
1, 2009. The extensive structural, mechanical, and electrical repairs
and improvements necessitate these closures.
DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or
before September 6, 2005.
ADDRESSES: You may mail comments and related material to Commander
(obr), Fifth Coast Guard District, Federal Building, 1st Floor, 431
Crawford Street, Portsmouth, VA 23704-5004. The Fifth Coast Guard
District 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
Commander (obr), Fifth Coast Guard District between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gary Heyer, Bridge Management
Specialist, Fifth Coast Guard District, at (757) 398-6629.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
[[Page 42018]]
Request for Comments
We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting
comments and related material. If you do so, please include your name
and address, identify the docket number for this rulemaking CGD05-05-
079, 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 a return
receipt, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope.
We will consider all submittals 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 Commander (obr), Fifth Coast Guard
District 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 Jersey Department of Transportation (NJDOT) owns and
operates the Route 35 Bridge, at NJICW mile 1.1, across Manasquan
River, at Brielle, New Jersey. The current operating regulations set
out in 33 CFR 117.733(b) requires the drawbridge to open on signal
except as follows: from May 15 through September 30, on Saturdays,
Sundays and Federal holidays, from 8 a.m. to 10 p.m. the draw need only
open 15 minutes before the hour and 15 minutes after the hour; on
Mondays to Thursdays from 4 p.m. to 7 p.m., and on Fridays, except
Federal holidays from 12 p.m. to 7 p.m. the draw need only open 15
minutes before the hour and 15 minutes after the hour; and year-round
from 11 p.m. to 8 a.m., the draw need only open if at least four hours
notice is given.
Parsons Brinkerhoff, a design consultant, on behalf of NJDOT
requested a temporary change to the existing regulations for the Route
35 Bridge to facilitate necessary repairs. The repairs consist of
extensive structural rehabilitation, mechanical, electrical repairs and
improvements to necessitate this closure. To facilitate repairs, the
bascule span must be closed to vessel traffic on three four-month
closure periods beginning 8 a.m. on November 1, 2006 until 5 p.m. March
1, 2007; from 8 a.m. on November 1, 2007 until 5 p.m. March 1, 2008;
and from 8 a.m. on November 1, 2008 until 5 p.m. March 1, 2009.
The Coast Guard has reviewed the bridge data provided by NJDOT. The
data, from years 2003 to 2005, shows a substantial decrease in the
number of bridge openings and vessel traffic transiting the area
between November and March. Based on the data provided, the proposed
closure dates will have minimal impact on vessel traffic.
Discussion of Proposed Rule
The Coast Guard proposes to amend the regulations governing the
Route 35 Bridge over the Manasquan River, at NJICW mile 1.1, at
Brielle, New Jersey, set out in 33 CFR 117.733(b). The Coast Guard
proposes to temporarily suspend 33 CFR 117.733(b) and insert this new
specific regulation at 33 CFR 117.733(l).
Paragraph (l) would allow the draw to be closed to vessel traffic
during the rehabilitation project on three four-month closure periods
beginning 8 a.m. on November 1, 2006 until 5 p.m. March 1, 2007; from 8
a.m. on November 1, 2007 until 5 p.m. March 1, 2008; and from 8 a.m. on
November 1, 2008 until 5 p.m. March 1, 2009.
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 section 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. We reached this conclusion based
on the historical data, and on the fact that the proposed closure
periods support minimal impact due to the reduced number of vessels
requiring transit through the bridge.
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. The off-season closure dates proposed for the
bridge are designed to minimize the number of small entities affected.
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
[[Page 42019]]
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 affect 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 Commandant Instruction
M16475.lD, which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and
have 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 proposed rule is categorically excluded,
under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e) of the Instruction, from further
environmental documentation because it has been determined that the
promulgation of operating regulations for drawbridges are categorically
excluded.
List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117
Bridges.
Regulations
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; Department of Homeland Security
Delegation No. 0170.1; 33 CFR 1.05-1(g); section 117.255 also issued
under the authority of Pub. L. 102-587, 106 Stat. 5039.
2. From 8 a.m. on November 1, 2006 until 5 p.m. March 1, 2007; from
8 a.m. on November 1, 2007 until 5 p.m. March 1, 2008; and from 8 a.m.
on November 1, 2008 until 5 p.m. March 1, 2009, in Sec. 117.733,
suspend paragraph (b) and add a new paragraph (l) to read as follows:
Sec. 117.733 New Jersey Intracoastal Waterway.
* * * * *
(l) From 8 a.m. on November 1, 2006 until 5 p.m. March 1, 2007;
from 8 a.m. on November 1, 2007 until 5 p.m. March 1, 2008; and from 8
a.m. on November 1, 2008 until 5 p.m. March 1, 2009, the Route 35
Bridge, mile 1.1, at Brielle may remain closed to navigation.
Dated: July 11, 2005.
Larry L. Hereth,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Fifth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 05-14322 Filed 7-20-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P