[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 177 (Thursday, September 12, 2002)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 57773-57775]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-23115]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[CGD05-02-054]
RIN 2115-AE47


Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Manasquan River, NJ

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to change the regulations that govern 
the operation of the Route 70 Bridge across the Manasquan River. The 
proposed rule would limit the required openings of the draw year-round 
from 7 a.m. to

[[Page 57774]]

11 p.m. to once an hour with no openings required from 4 p.m. to 7 p.m. 
on Fridays. This change would reduce traffic delays while still 
providing for the reasonable needs of navigation.

DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or 
before November 12, 2002.

ADDRESSES: You may mail comments and related material to Commander 
(Aowb), Fifth Coast Guard District, Federal Building, 4th Floor, 431 
Crawford Street, Portsmouth, Virginia 23704-5004, or they may be hand 
delivered to the same address between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through 
Friday, except Federal Holidays. The telephone number is (757) 398-
6222. Commander (Aowb), 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 the above address between 8 a.m. 
and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ann B. Deaton, Bridge Administrator, 
Fifth Coast Guard District, at (757) 398-6222.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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 (CGD05-02-
054), 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 
they reached us, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or 
envelope. We will consider all comments and material received during 
the comment period. We may change this proposed rule in view of them.

Public Meeting

    We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a 
request for a meeting by writing to the Commander, 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 S70 Bridge is a movable bridge (single-leaf bascule) owned and 
operated by the New Jersey Department of Transportation (NJDOT) 
connecting the Borough of Point Pleasant and Brick Township in Ocean 
County with Brielle Borough and Wall Township in Monmouth County. 
Currently, 33 CFR 117.727 requires the draw of the S70 bridge, mile 3.4 
at Riviera Beach, to open on signal from 7 a.m. to 11 p.m. The draw 
need not be opened from 11 p.m. to 7 a.m. In the closed position to 
vessels, the bridge has a vertical navigation clearance of 15 feet at 
mean high water.
    On behalf of residents and business owners in the area, NJDOT has 
requested to change the existing regulations for the S70 Bridge in an 
effort to balance the needs of mariners and vehicle drivers transiting 
in and around this seaside resort area. Route 70 is a principal 
arterial highway that serves as a major evacuation route in the event 
of tidal emergencies. Bridge openings at peak traffic hours during the 
tourist season often cause considerable vehicular traffic congestion 
while accommodating relatively few vessels. To ease traffic congestion, 
NJDOT has requested that the bridge operating schedule be changed. A 
review of NJDOT yearly drawbridge logs for 1999, 2000, and 2001, show 
that the bridge opened for vessels 1028, 1026, and 1020 times, 
respectively. However, during the peak boating season from May through 
September, the logs reveal from 1999 to 2001, the bridge opened 750, 
792 and 794 times, respectively. With an average of only five openings 
per day during the peak boating season, NJDOT contends that the effect 
of the proposed change on vessel traffic through the bridge would be. 
Also, NJDOT officials, residents and business owners point out that 
from 4 p.m. to 7 p.m. on Fridays, vehicular traffic congestion is at 
its peak. During the peak boating season from May through September, 
the logs reveal from 1999 to 2001, the bridge opened from 4 p.m. to 7 
p.m. on Fridays 36, 35, and 26 times, respectively. Limiting the 
openings of the draw year-round from 7 a.m. to 11 p.m. to once an hour 
and no openings required from 4 p.m. to 7 p.m. on Fridays would enhance 
vehicular traffic without significantly affecting vessel traffic.

Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The Coast Guard proposes to amend Sec.  117.727, which governs the 
S70 Bridge. The draw currently opens on signal from 7 a.m. to 11 p.m. 
and need not be opened from 11 p.m. to 7 a.m.
    The current regulation would be changed to state that the draw of 
Route 70 Bridge, mile 3.4 at Riviera Beach, need open on signal only on 
the hour; except that from 11 p.m. to 7 a.m. and on Fridays from 4 p.m. 
to 7 p.m., the draw need not be opened.
    The proposed rule would also change the name of the bridge from 
``S70'' to ``Route 70.'' The name change will accurately reflect the 
name of this 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 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 
Transportation (DOT) (44 FR 11040; February 26, 1979).
    We expect the economic impact of this proposed rule to be so 
minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation under paragraph 10e of the 
regulatory policies and procedures of DOT is unnecessary.
    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 transits in accordance with the 
scheduled bridge openings, to further minimize delay.

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 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 scheduled bridge openings can minimize 
delay.
    If you think that your business, organization, or governmental

[[Page 57775]]

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 (Public Law 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 Ann B. Deaton, Bridge 
Administrator, Fifth Coast Guard District, (757) 398-6222.

Collection of Information

    This proposed rule would call for no new collection of information 
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, 
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local 
governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial 
direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this proposed rule 
under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications 
for federalism.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) 
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary 
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may 
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in 
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any 
one year. Though this proposed rule would not result in such an 
expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this 
preamble.

Taking of Private Property

    This proposed rule would not 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.
    To help the Coast Guard establish regular and meaningful 
consultation and collaboration with Indian and Alaskan Native tribes, 
we published a notice in the Federal Register (66 FR 36361, July 11, 
2001) requesting comments on how to best carry out the Order. We invite 
your comments on how this proposed rule might impact tribal 
governments, even if that impact may not constitute a ``tribal 
implication'' under the Order.

Energy Effects

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13211, 
Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 
Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a ``significant 
energy action'' under that order because it is not a ``significant 
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to 
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use 
of energy. It has not been designated by the Administrator of the 
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs as a significant energy 
action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects 
under Executive Order 13211.

Environment

    We have considered the environmental impact of this proposed rule 
and concluded that, under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e), of Commandant 
Instruction M16475.lD, this rule is categorically excluded from further 
environmental documentation. A ``Categorical Exclusion Determination'' 
is available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES.

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; 49 CFR 1.46; 33 CFR 1.05-1(g); Section 
117.255 also issued under authority of Pub.L. 102-587, 106 Stat. 
5039.

    2. Section 117.727 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  117.727  Manasquan River.

    The draw of the Route 70 Bridge, mile 3.4, at Riviera Beach, shall 
open on signal on the hour; except that from 4 p.m. to 7 p.m. on 
Fridays and from 11 p.m. to 7 a.m. daily, the draw need not be opened.

    Dated: August 26, 2002.
Arthur E. Brooks,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting Commander, Fifth Coast Guard 
District.
[FR Doc. 02-23115 Filed 9-11-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P